Self-explanatory question.
No. Most creatures have natural attacks, which is different.
|
No, Unless it states a feat in the creatures entry then it does not have it (Save weapon proficiencies from classes) As you stated creatures I assume you mean those with clews, bites, or tails. If so then you are talking about natural attacks which are different from an unarmed strike. A creature is always proficient with its natural attacks. An unarmed strike deals a set amount of damage per size category unless it is a monk or has a similar ability. (1D3 for medium, 1D4 for large, 1D3 for small.
EXAMPLE: if a large bear for some reason wanted to punch you rather than claw you to death it would deal 1D4 +STR non lethal damage, while provoking an Attack of Opportunity, if it gained the feat after being awakened then it would deal 1D4 +STR lethal or non lethal damage and not provoke.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Small, Medium or Large character can make an unarmed strike. For most purposes "character" and "creature" are interchangeable. There's no visible reason why this set of sizes should be a restriction.
An unarmed strike is a simple weapon. Creatures not proficient with simple weapons take a -4 penalty on an unarmed strike. Some GMs may exclude humanoid commoners, druids, monks and wizards from this penalty.
An animal won't make an unarmed strike unless it is pushed to do so using Handle Animal or has the Simple Weapon Proficiency or Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
All creatures have an unarmed attack. Now some creatures aren't proficient with it or have better weapons they can use but they have them. Also, creatures smaller than tiny don't do any damage with it normally (though they could if something increased their size or the size of their attacks).
No.
The universal monster rules (under natural attacks) states: "Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do."
Since creatuers without natural attacks specifically is allowed to make unarmed strikes, it logically follows that creatures with natural attacks cannot.
That doesn't follow. Some creatures don't have weapons so the can use unarmed is a reminder that they can still attack and not a limit.
My question to you is this. Can an awakened bear become a monk? The answer is YES and how can they do that if they don't have an unarmed attack? Also if what you say is true, then any PC that gains a natural attack loses the ability to unarmed attack? My 1/2orc takes toothy and now he can't punch?
That doesn't follow. Some creatures don't have weapons so the can use unarmed is a reminder that they can still attack and not a limit.
My question to you is this. Can an awakened bear become a monk? The answer is YES and how can they do that if they don't have an unarmed attack? Also if what you say is true, then any PC that gains a natural attack loses the ability to unarmed attack? My 1/2orc takes toothy and now he can't punch?
You can't mix these things together.
1) The universal monster rules doesn't tell us how to affect PCs (although some abilities are derived from it). As such, you shouldn't look to them to determine your toothy half orc.
2) I haven't suggested you loose an ability you already have.
3) For your awakened bear, you are far into GM territory already. Making a magical beast monk-bear, is no different from a animal monk-bear, concerning its limbs.
3b) But yes, the bear can become a monk, unarmed strikes aren't required. Getting class levels in itself doesn't grant the ability to use your form differently. An bear-wizard, can't use its paws to make somatic components due to being awakened. The monk however may differ, since it grant the ability to make unarmed strikes with other parts of the body.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been headbutted by a horse, so yes.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All creatures with a physical body can make an unarmed strike.
This was true in 3.0, 3.5, and is so in Pathfinder.
None need any levels in Monk, or the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
There is no "Law of the Pathfinder Universe" that makes it impossible for a creature to hit another creature with a part of it's body.
To even suggest otherwise is absurd.
All creatures with a physical body can make an unarmed strike.
This was true in 3.0, 3.5, and is so in Pathfinder.
None need any levels in Monk, or the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
There is no "Law of the Pathfinder Universe" that makes it impossible for a creature to hit another creature with a part of it's body.
To even suggest otherwise is absurd.
Agree 100% bbt. The real issue is not if they can but if they would. It's a rare occurance that a tiger or wolf would choose to do so instead of attack with natural weapons but if the situation called for it they can headbutt ask any Boston Terrier.
|
|
Indeed.
Many low intelligence creatures with natural attacks would choose not to attack with an unarmed strike.
They can, but just would be unwilling to do so.
Now, to suggest that natural attacks somehow makes a creature incapable of making unarmed strikes, is not only absurd, but unsupported by anything within the rules.
While all creatures COULD make an unarmed strike, most creatures DON'T.
Even if the animal is physically capable of using a tool, it might still prefer its own natural body to manufactured items, especially when it comes to weapons. An intelligent gorilla could hold or wield a sword, but its inclination is to make slam attacks. No amount of training (including weapon proficiency feats) is going to make it fully comfortable attacking in any other way.
Since an unarmed strike gets iterative attacks, it would generally be safe to classify it somewhere near enough to the realm of 'manufactured weapons' when it comes to the decision of "should I just bite it or do a round house kick?"
That is certainly a decision you can still make if you are a human monk polymorphed into a bear, but it is not something a real bear, awakened or not, will ever likely decide to do on their own.
Also, while my quoted text relates mainly to animals, I would imagine that it applies at least to some degree to various creatures with animal like shapes. I doubt a chimera would be raring to take up kick boxing. I would tend to limit the use of unarmed strikes over natural attacks to creatures that are human like, or at least can use manufactured weapons. Mainly for psychological reasons.
Its a rather relevant question for a Druid/Monk who wants to skip the whole hassle of Feral Combat Training and just punch the stuffing out of things in wild-shape. Personally I wouldn't want to do anything as inane as flurry unarmed strikes as a Tiger. But a humanoid Elemental with 'fists' of fury on the other hand... fun time.
Its a rather relevant question for a Druid/Monk who wants to skip the whole hassle of Feral Combat Training and just punch the stuffing out of things in wild-shape. Personally I wouldn't want to do anything as inane as flurry unarmed strikes as a Tiger. But a humanoid Elemental with 'fists' of fury on the other hand... fun time.
And the elemental thing is totally legitimate, since the elemental subtype includes rules about how having a humanoid-like shape (which is yes, a completely arbitrary distinction otherwise) allows them to use weapons. So if you chose to use the wild shape or elemental body spell, why wouldn't you want to use a human shape?
While all creatures COULD make an unarmed strike, most creatures DON'T.
Even if the animal is physically capable of using a tool, it might still prefer its own natural body to manufactured items, especially when it comes to weapons. An intelligent gorilla could hold or wield a sword, but its inclination is to make slam attacks. No amount of training (including weapon proficiency feats) is going to make it fully comfortable attacking in any other way.Since an unarmed strike gets iterative attacks, it would generally be safe to classify it somewhere near enough to the realm of 'manufactured weapons' when it comes to the decision of "should I just bite it or do a round house kick?"
That is certainly a decision you can still make if you are a human monk polymorphed into a bear, but it is not something a real bear, awakened or not, will ever likely decide to do on their own.
Also, while my quoted text relates mainly to animals, I would imagine that it applies at least to some degree to various creatures with animal like shapes. I doubt a chimera would be raring to take up kick boxing. I would tend to limit the use of unarmed strikes over natural attacks to creatures that are human like, or at least can use manufactured weapons. Mainly for psychological reasons.
I don't know why the book doesn't just say "All creatures can make an unarmed strike with its damage based on its size" instead of using wording that seemingly intentionally muddies the waters. It really makes me wonder if there is a reason and perhaps they actually don't want everyone making unarmed strikes for balance or something. On the other hand, natural attack lists are not exhaustive. If they were, I could suspend disbelief for a lack of unarmed strikes. As it stands, I can't believe that it's impossible for a wolf to claw someone, but it has no claw attacks. So it must have an unarmed strike.
An unarmed strike is simply an attack that is made without a manufactured or natural weapon, so as long as the creature is able to make an attack and has a physical body, it can make an unarmed strike.
The intention of the earlier quote regarding creatures without natural attacks was not to bar creatures with natural attacks from making unarmed strikes; its meant to indicate that a creature who does not have natural attacks always has the option to make an unarmed strike.
An unarmed strike is simply an attack that is made without a manufactured or natural weapon, so as long as the creature is able to make an attack and has a physical body, it can make an unarmed strike.
The intention of the earlier quote regarding creatures without natural attacks was not to bar creatures with natural attacks from making unarmed strikes; its meant to indicate that a creature who does not have natural attacks always has the option to make an unarmed strike.
Just to argue Devil's Advocate, because Ghosts and other similar Ethereal/Incorporeal creatures do not have physical bodies, does this mean they cannot make Unarmed Strikes either?
Just to argue Devil's Advocate, because Ghosts and other similar Ethereal/Incorporeal creatures do not have physical bodies, does this mean they cannot make Unarmed Strikes either?An unarmed strike is simply an attack that is made without a manufactured or natural weapon, so as long as the creature is able to make an attack and has a physical body, it can make an unarmed strike.
The intention of the earlier quote regarding creatures without natural attacks was not to bar creatures with natural attacks from making unarmed strikes; its meant to indicate that a creature who does not have natural attacks always has the option to make an unarmed strike.
Actually I think it does. I would need to double check the bestiary entries, but a ghost doing an unarmed strike wouldn't cause any physical damage. They cannot affect the physical world or move objects unless they have the ghost touch property. Ghosts deal damage by having some sort of supernatural attack that inflicts some sort of "damage".
Actually I think it does. I would need to double check the bestiary entries, but a ghost doing an unarmed strike wouldn't cause any physical damage. They cannot affect the physical world or move objects unless they have the ghost touch property. Ghosts deal damage by having some sort of supernatural attack that inflicts some sort of "damage".Just to argue Devil's Advocate, because Ghosts and other similar Ethereal/Incorporeal creatures do not have physical bodies, does this mean they cannot make Unarmed Strikes either?An unarmed strike is simply an attack that is made without a manufactured or natural weapon, so as long as the creature is able to make an attack and has a physical body, it can make an unarmed strike.
The intention of the earlier quote regarding creatures without natural attacks was not to bar creatures with natural attacks from making unarmed strikes; its meant to indicate that a creature who does not have natural attacks always has the option to make an unarmed strike.
And to play the gremlin throwing monkey wrenches, how would this work out in a ghost face off (possibly starting with both ghosts taking their faces off, like how streetfighters might remove jewelry), or if they were wearing ghost touch gauntlets?
I suppose the gauntlets might only serve as individual light weapons, and you couldn't do an unarmed strike (at least the normal one that a ghost monk might do). But then, if you are playing a MoMS monk that multiclassed and decided to wear full heavy armor, would you have to remove the gauntlets in order to use unarmed strikes? (yes, now I am definitely doing this on purpose.
@Lemeres, allow me to restate my position and clarify a bit.
I think a ghost is capable of making the motion required to perform an unarmed strike, but that under normal conditions such a strike would be completely ineffective against corporeal living things. So they wouldn't do it. However, if you give them a gauntlet they could make the strike. But keep in mind the attack would be affected by the complete lack of strength score. So, you would apply a -5 penalty to the attack roll and damage roll (I think).
An unarmed strike is simply an attack that is made without a manufactured or natural weapon, so as long as the creature is able to make an attack and has a physical body, it can make an unarmed strike.
The intention of the earlier quote regarding creatures without natural attacks was not to bar creatures with natural attacks from making unarmed strikes; its meant to indicate that a creature who does not have natural attacks always has the option to make an unarmed strike.
So if creaturws with natural attacks can make unarmed strikes and creatures without natural attacks can make unarmed strikes, why not just say all creatures can make unarmed strikes? Why is the wording the way it is?
So if creaturws with natural attacks can make unarmed strikes and creatures without natural attacks can make unarmed strikes, why not just say all creatures can make unarmed strikes? Why is the wording the way it is?An unarmed strike is simply an attack that is made without a manufactured or natural weapon, so as long as the creature is able to make an attack and has a physical body, it can make an unarmed strike.
The intention of the earlier quote regarding creatures without natural attacks was not to bar creatures with natural attacks from making unarmed strikes; its meant to indicate that a creature who does not have natural attacks always has the option to make an unarmed strike.
Bad writing / copy pasta'd?
Bad writing / copy pasta'd?So if creaturws with natural attacks can make unarmed strikes and creatures without natural attacks can make unarmed strikes, why not just say all creatures can make unarmed strikes? Why is the wording the way it is?An unarmed strike is simply an attack that is made without a manufactured or natural weapon, so as long as the creature is able to make an attack and has a physical body, it can make an unarmed strike.
The intention of the earlier quote regarding creatures without natural attacks was not to bar creatures with natural attacks from making unarmed strikes; its meant to indicate that a creature who does not have natural attacks always has the option to make an unarmed strike.
Or that not all creatures can make unarmed strikes. Incorporeal creatures can't make unarmed strikes, for example, because they have no physical body.
Or that not all creatures can make unarmed strikes. Incorporeal creatures can't make unarmed strikes, for example, because they have no physical body.Bad writing / copy pasta'd?So if creaturws with natural attacks can make unarmed strikes and creatures without natural attacks can make unarmed strikes, why not just say all creatures can make unarmed strikes? Why is the wording the way it is?An unarmed strike is simply an attack that is made without a manufactured or natural weapon, so as long as the creature is able to make an attack and has a physical body, it can make an unarmed strike.
The intention of the earlier quote regarding creatures without natural attacks was not to bar creatures with natural attacks from making unarmed strikes; its meant to indicate that a creature who does not have natural attacks always has the option to make an unarmed strike.
And how is the distinction made? You're the one saying physical body. Is that what it says in the book?
Or that not all creatures can make unarmed strikes. Incorporeal creatures can't make unarmed strikes, for example, because they have no physical body.And how is the distinction made? You're the one saying physical body. Is that what it says in the book?
Well, first the incorporeal rules state that an "incorporeal creature has no physical body" and "cannot take any physical action that would move or manipulate an opponent or its equipment". Punching someone in the head would be manipulating an opponent. So in that instance, they're specifically barred from it by the ability. As are ethereal creatures, whose description states that they cannot (generally) affect things on the material plane.
Next, the definition of unarmed strike under combat says that you are "striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts..." Those phrases have common definitions - a punch is generally a blow with a hand or fist; a kick is an attack delivered with a foot or leg; a head butt is striking someone else with your head.
Those are all parts of a physical body. If you lack those parts, you could not make that specific 'type' of unarmed strike; a creature with no head could not sensibly be expected to deliver a head butt, although it might still be able to kick something. And following that to its common sense destination, if you have no physical body - i.e., the 'tool' with which you make unarmed strikes - then you couldn't do any of the above.
Now, as to why they phrased it like that? Dunno. Maybe it was bad text. I think there's enough common sense exceptions to "all creatures can make unarmed strikes" that to phrase it that way would be a bad idea.
Bad writing / copy pasta'd?So if creaturws with natural attacks can make unarmed strikes and creatures without natural attacks can make unarmed strikes, why not just say all creatures can make unarmed strikes? Why is the wording the way it is?An unarmed strike is simply an attack that is made without a manufactured or natural weapon, so as long as the creature is able to make an attack and has a physical body, it can make an unarmed strike.
The intention of the earlier quote regarding creatures without natural attacks was not to bar creatures with natural attacks from making unarmed strikes; its meant to indicate that a creature who does not have natural attacks always has the option to make an unarmed strike.
The real problem here is that we are scrounging up the rules for Unarmed Strikes from a line that may well be an afterthought in the rules on natural weapons (which, just so happens, to have little direct relevance to unarmed strikes beyond that one line and maybe some enhancement junk). Too much is left unsaid about the ability.
Just to put this out there: There are numerous player character races that have, or can gain, natural attacks - catfolk, tengu, orcs, etc. There's no insinuation that in doing so they suddenly lose the ability to punch someone.
The designers want the rules read through a filter of common sense; common sense says that just because you have a set of claws doesn't mean you can suddenly kick someone. It also implies that if you lack legs (or a physical body in general) you can't make an attack that by definition requires that physical body part.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The description of unarmed strikes, in the combat section, says "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon..." and then describes how they function in combat.
This is not a definitive list, but merely a number of examples, that the common player would use.
The unarmed strike is the most basic of attacks, available to any creature physically capable of movement, and a physical body.
Even creatures incapable of using tools, or fine manipulation of objects, can make an unarmed strike.
There is no logical, or rules reason, to even think otherwise.
Seems the confusion stems from remembering the difference between:
- Unarmed Strike which every creature possesses: Non-lethal damage (lethal damage with -4 on attack roll), nearly any part of the body can be used, provokes AoOs if used, cannot be used as AoOs, based on creature size + STR).
- IMPROVED Unarmed Strike which is an ability/feat: Lethal damage, normal attacks and treated as "armed" with respect to AoOs, nearly any part of the body can be used, based on creature size + STR, can scale up, distinct from natural attacks.
- Natural Attacks: Lethal Damage, normal attacks, specific body parts (claw/bite/tail/etc.), damage can be much higher than creature base size, does not gain benefits of monk levels or abilities that boost Unarmed Strike attacks.
It's easy to forget that creatures have normal unarmed strike attacks because they are inefficient compared to every other attacks. But inefficient =/= useless.
Just to throw anothe wrench in the works:
Given the definition of Unarmed attacks as presented above, what is the difference between a Slam attack and an unarmed strike? Slam is basically described as a bludgeoning strike with some part of the body (and include things like using hands, whole body, etc).
Slam does lethal damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also doesn't require Improved Unarmed Strike to not provoke an AoO and can be used to perform an AoO itself unlike a normal unarmed strike.
No.
The universal monster rules (under natural attacks) states: "Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do."
Since creatuers without natural attacks specifically is allowed to make unarmed strikes, it logically follows that creatures with natural attacks cannot.
Actually that is not logical at all. Knowing that creatures that don't have natural attacks can make unarmed strikes doesn't tell us anything about what creatures with natural attacks can do.
Now, it is true that relatively frequently a creature with a natural attack might need or want to make one, while it is unlikely a creature with a natural attack would ever desire to attack unarmed, having better options, but that doesn't mean that they can't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to throw anothe wrench in the works:
Given the definition of Unarmed attacks as presented above, what is the difference between a Slam attack and an unarmed strike? Slam is basically described as a bludgeoning strike with some part of the body (and include things like using hands, whole body, etc).
I've always wondered that myself. I've seen statblocks of various humanoid-shaped creatures (some oni, huge elementals, etc) that gave them 2 slam attacks, or maybe even more depending on the number of arms. And sometimes they only get one, despite having 2 arms.
The closest I got to an explanation is that slam attacks focus more on smashing the opponent around, rather than a focused blow. So smash, squish, and fling would be appropriate verbs here. Visually, if I was to compare the two, it would be like comparing Bruce Lee versus the Hulk. Especially the scene from the Avengers movie where he curb stomps Loki. That seems like the purest essence of 'slam' to me.
Now if you excuse me, I have to go write a fanfiction where Bruce Lee fights the Hulk....
Again, all creatures with a physical body, and capable of movement, can make an unarmed strike.
There is no RAW, or logical argument that can be made to even suggest otherwise.
RAW and Logic aren't always in accord.
Also, swarms?
Again, all creatures with a physical body, and capable of movement, can make an unarmed strike.
There is no RAW, or logical argument that can be made to even suggest otherwise.
RAW and Logic aren't always in accord.
Also, swarms?
A 'swarm' doesn't have a physical body. It has thousands of them. Technically a thousand rats could each make one unarmed attack, but for purposes of simplification, the rules offer a way to handle that thousand rats as a single creature.
I detect some moving of the goal posts.
I detect some moving of the goal posts.
Not really. Rats individually have unarmed strikes, they're just massively silly to use. Rat Swarms follow the Swarm rules, which don't allow regular attacks of any kind. So, it should be unsurprising that Swarms don't have Unarmed Strikes - they don't have a physical body and they don't make attacks anyway.
Specific v. General and all that.
I detect some moving of the goal posts.
If you feel that way, let me ask: Does a swarm have a physical body?
In my opinion it doesn't. It has hundreds to thousands of them. Each individual creature within the swarm could make an unarmed strike with its own physical body. That would be ridiculously cumbersome to try and do, and so they simplify the matter by treating the group as a single unit, even though it's multiple creatures.
I detect some moving of the goal posts.If you feel that way, let me ask: Does a swarm have a physical body?
In my opinion it doesn't. It has hundreds to thousands of them. Each individual creature within the swarm could make an unarmed strike with its own physical body. That would be ridiculously cumbersome to try and do, and so they simplify the matter by treating the group as a single unit, even though it's multiple creatures.
Well it's a creature, and it sure ain't incorporeal. If you're redefining "a physical body" to mean more than just corporeal, that's moving the goal posts from what was stated earlier.
What would the damage be if a swarm of 10,000 ants each took an unarmed strike? 1-5 or something? Minimum one would mean you take, 10,000 damage. Even if they only hit on a 20, that's about 500, and 25 would confirm for TWO damage. Still enough to kill anything even with nonlethal. They should do that instead of 2d6.
I prefer the answer that swarms are their own thing, but that means the list of "all creatures" is less inclusive than I was lead to believe.
At the end of the day, what does and doesn't have an unarmed strike is one of those things the developers left up to common sense instead of bothering to put it into the book (even though they had a good opportunity and messed it up). Unfortunately, common sense doesn't exist.
All corporeal creatures can make unarmed strikes*
*There may be some exceptions for how such attacks are handled which deviate from the norm
I am still not sure why using swarms, which have their own rules for attacking and whatnot, are relevant.
Is there a point, besides pointing out that there are a few exceptions to the rule, and specific trumps general?
I think it's because of the presumption that a swarm has a physical body.
It doesn't - nor is it actually a creature; it's described as thousands of individual creatures that (may) share a hive mind, and for simplicity of mechanics it's treated as a singular creature.
So, swarms, are now the basis for arguing against all creatures having an unarmed strike?
Incorporeals can share the same problem, since making unarmed strikes requires a physical body, something they don't possess.
This is really simple. If a creature can reasonably make an unarmed attack, then it should be allowed based on the number of limbs that creature has. This is in accordance with the unarmed rules. Also per the unarmed rules, if your natural attack uses a limb, you cannot use that limb to make an unarmed attack in the same full attack. There is nothing prohibiting a non-humanoid creature from making an unarmed attack.
I would not, for example, allow a wolf to punch someone, because the physical characteristics of a wolf prevent a wolf from being able to do so. I would, however, allow a wolf to headbutt someone.