[FAQ Request] Can a fox-form kitsune unarmed strike attack with claws?

[nennafir]

This was motivated by some recent discussion in the "Songbird of Doom" thread.

Fox-form kitsune has a natural attack with their bite, but not any other limb.

Can they use claws (i.e., one of their front legs, which are not natural attacks) as an unarmed strike?

[Java Man]

Unarmed strikes can be made with any body part. If a human can kick, elbow or headbutt, a fox should have no problem pawing for it.

[SlimGauge]

Just to be clear, we're talking about the standard Kitsune fox form (anthropomorphic fox), not the form granted by Fox Shape, correct ?

[Alexander Augunas]

From the PRD:

Quote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

In reading the Core Rulebook, there is no question that all characters (which is synonomous with creature as per the rules) can make unarmed strikes, and that they can use punches, kicks, and headbutts to do so. As for other body parts? That wasn't made clear until this FAQ rolled out:

Core Rulebook FAQ wrote:

Unarmed Strike: For the purpose of magic fang and other spells, is an unarmed strike your whole body, or is it a part of your body (such as a fist or kick)?

As written, the text isn't as clear as it could be. Because magic fang requires the caster to select a specific natural attack to affect, you could interpret that to mean you have to do the same thing for each body part you want to enhance with the spell (fist, elbow, kick, knee, headbutt, and so on).
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike (other than if the monk is holding an object with his hands, he probably can't use that hand to make an unarmed strike), so a monk could just pick a body part to enhance with the spell and always use that body part, especially as the 12/4/2012 revised ruling for flurry of blows allows a monk to flurry with the same weapon (in this case, an unarmed strike) for all flurry attacks.
This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike. Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.
The text of magic fang will be updated slightly in the next Core Rulebook update to take this ruling into account.

posted March 2013

Note how it saws, "each part of body you want to enhance with the spell," and then it rattles off another list.

From this, we can infer that an unarmed strike is simply an attack made with your body that isn't a natural attack, which would mean that, yes, you could make unarmed attacks as a fox with any part of your body. Honestly, even if you had "claws" you could still attack with "claws" as an unarmed strike as long as you took none of the benefits of doing so (aka the damage is just bludgeoning, not slashing and bludgeoning, and you don't use the natural attack's superior multiple attack rolls or damage dice).

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Michelle A.J. wrote:

Aside from my own common sense, I cannot find any rule that explicitly prohibits an animal from making an unarmed strike.

Lack of reason to do so is a biggie. What animal would trade functional natural attack damage for a form which would 1. Do less damage and 2. Prvoke an AOO as animals DO NOT have Improved Unarmed Strike.

[Saethori]

This doesn't need a FAQ, because the rules are clear. ALL creatures get unarmed strikes, even tiny sized foxes.

You can't "claw" for it, but you can use your paw as a weapon, such as swatting at your targets.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Saethori wrote:

This doesn't need a FAQ, because the rules are clear. ALL creatures get unarmed strikes, even tiny sized foxes.

You can't "claw" for it, but you can use your paw as a weapon, such as swatting at your targets.

All creatures may get unarmed strikes, but not IMPROVED unarmed strike, a cat may yes swat with her paw, but is far more likely to strike with her claws or bite. Natural attacks are NOT unarmed attacks, they are natural weapon attacks, an important distinction as any commoner who decides to box a tiger will find out..... painfully.

[Java Man]

Absolutely, but the OP question concerns a PC in an animal shape, said character's feats, class features, and tactical choices will likely have very little in common with a natural animal.

[Grandlounge]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Saethori wrote:

This doesn't need a FAQ, because the rules are clear. ALL creatures get unarmed strikes, even tiny sized foxes.

You can't "claw" for it, but you can use your paw as a weapon, such as swatting at your targets.

All creatures may get unarmed strikes, but not IMPROVED unarmed strike, a cat may yes swat with her paw, but is far more likely to strike with her claws or bite. Natural attacks are NOT unarmed attacks, they are natural weapon attacks, an important distinction as any commoner who decides to box a tiger will find out..... painfully.

Counter point goats kick. Goats don't have hoof attacks in pathfinderland so I would rule these in armed strikes.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Grandlounge wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Saethori wrote:

This doesn't need a FAQ, because the rules are clear. ALL creatures get unarmed strikes, even tiny sized foxes.

You can't "claw" for it, but you can use your paw as a weapon, such as swatting at your targets.

All creatures may get unarmed strikes, but not IMPROVED unarmed strike, a cat may yes swat with her paw, but is far more likely to strike with her claws or bite. Natural attacks are NOT unarmed attacks, they are natural weapon attacks, an important distinction as any commoner who decides to box a tiger will find out..... painfully.

Counter point goats kick. Goats don't have hoof attacks in pathfinderland so I would rule these in armed strikes.

I generally try to have my players battle more interesting foes than farm animals, sheep, or cattle.

[KC Wahl]

nennafir wrote:

This was motivated by some recent discussion in the "Songbird of Doom" thread.

Fox-form kitsune has a natural attack with their bite, but not any other limb.

Can they use claws (i.e., one of their front legs, which are not natural attacks) as an unarmed strike?

Yes, anyone can make an unarmed strike, it would do damage as appropriate for it's size and unless the Kitsune in question has Imp. Unarmed Strike it would provoke AoO. Also if you try to combine the unarmed strike with their natural bite attack the bite would become a secondary attack and suffer a -5 penalty the same way it would if you tried to bite after attacking with a sword.

[Firebug]

I know my fox shape kitsune uses snake style refluffed as "porpoise nose punch","hippo hip check", and "Tasmanian tail slam" while hissing at them. Just unarmed strikes.

[nennafir]

For clarity:

Can anyone provide an actual rules-as-written quote that a tiny fox shape kitsune can use unarmed strikes?

From the "Songbird of Doom" thread, I suspect that you can't. Nevertheless, I would welcome such a quote.

[swoosh]

There isn't one, but there doesn't need to be one. There's the generic rules for how unarmed strikes work and nothing about being a tiny fox contradicts that, so why would there be a specific quote to say as much?

[Byakko]

Any creature can make unarmed attacks, no FAQ required.

It's on the list of available standard actions in combat and there are rules on how to combine them with a monster's natural attacks.

While generic monsters will likely stick to the tactics and attacks listed in their bestiary entry, players are free to do whatever they like with their actions.

[Malkin the Magician]

I have went through core and bestiary 1 trying to find the most relevant passages about unarmed strikes as fairly as I could. These are the ones I have found and how I read them. I'm make my best attempt to read them fairly and put minimal commentary in my post. Apologies for not grabbing page numbers I hope this helps the conversation.

Quote:

All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race.

Quote:

Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points

of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small
character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk
or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat
can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes,
at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is
considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that
give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply
your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier
to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes
do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8)

Improved unarmed strike has not prerequisite. How do you improve something you don't have. Any character can take it.

Quote:

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or

creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A
monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat,
a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature
with natural physical weapons all count as being armed
(see natural attacks)

Natural attacks according to the core rule book are a sub set or special type of unarmed attack. All characters have unarmed attacks some have better unarmed attacks.

Quote:

You can make attacks with natural weapons in

combination with attacks made with a melee weapon
and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used
for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw
attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a
longsword.

Unarmed attacks can be used together with natural weapons so one does not preclude the other.

Bestiary one reference in full that has caused some confusion.

Quote:

Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table 3–1 for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size. Format: bite +5 (1d6+1), 2 claws +5 (1d4+2), 4 tentacles +0 (1d4+1); Location: Melee and Ranged.

In context the above passage says if you don't have natural weapons you can still attack. But says nothing of the contrary if you have natural weapons or are of some other race you cannot. Johnny, Susie and Jack don't live near a grocery store. They can however get their milk at the convenience store near by. This does not mean that no other people can buy milk at a convenience store. I know analogous sentences are lame but they help me sort out the intent of the sentence.

[CBDunkerson]

The 'all creatures can make unarmed strikes' argument gets weird at the extremes;

Earthworms can make unarmed strikes?
Snakes?
Jellyfish?
Mollusks?
Trees?
Dandelions?

The rules on familiars and animal companions state that there are things they are not physically capable of doing. That's simply reality shaping the game rules. If we allow that kind of thing to continue then we'd not allow trees to make unarmed strikes any more than they can perform acrobatics.

Now, obviously foxes are not as extreme a case, but some GMs are still going to rule that they are physically incapable of performing humanoid combat movements and don't automatically get to apply the benefits of training with those to motions that foxes CAN make. Sure... a fox can make some kind of unarmed strike. However, that doesn't mean it can perform a flying kick.

[James Risner]

nennafir wrote:

For clarity:

Can anyone provide an actual rules-as-written quote that a tiny fox shape kitsune can use unarmed strikes?

From the "Songbird of Doom" thread, I suspect that you can't. Nevertheless, I would welcome such a quote.

You need to turn that around. No one can show a rule prohibiting anything from taking an Unarmed Strike attack. It wouldn't use claws, bites, talons, or any other natural weapon and it would provoke unless the character had Improved Unarmed Strike.

[BigNorseWolf]

If you can make an unarmed strike (i believe that you can) it would not be with a claw. weapon focus claw would not apply, something that only works with claws would not apply etc.

[Chess Pwn]

CBDunkerson wrote:

The 'all creatures can make unarmed strikes' argument gets weird at the extremes;

Earthworms can make unarmed strikes?
Snakes?
Jellyfish?
Mollusks?
Trees?
Dandelions?

Earthworms can make unarmed strikes?if you have stats for them then yes

Snakes?if you have stats for them then yes
Jellyfish?if you have stats for them then yes
Mollusks?if you have stats for them then yes
Trees? not a creature, but if animated and you have stats for them then yes
Dandelions? not a creature, but if animated and you have stats for them then yes

for lots of these, assuming str 1 and 0 bab they'd provoke and be -5 for 1d1-5 damage. Snakes are the only ones on that list that naturally would have a higher str score.

[BigNorseWolf]

Snake can hit you with their mouth closed, pretty hard on some of the bigger ones.

Swans and geese can clock you with their wings. (which i know from more experience than i'd like: swans HURT. )

[Grandlounge]

Had to move a water snake. Grab it behind the neck, made my CMD check. Got whipped by the tail and bled.

[Java Man]

For anyone who still has questions, notice that the faq count is at one. One person thinks it is uncertain enough to want an official response.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Java Man wrote:

For anyone who still has questions, notice that the faq count is at one. One person thinks it is uncertain enough to want an official response.

Except that the answer is plain. If you're using a natural weapon, the strike is no more unarmed than it would be if you were using a sword.

[Java Man]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Java Man wrote:

For anyone who still has questions, notice that the faq count is at one. One person thinks it is uncertain enough to want an official response.

Except that the answer is plain. If you're using a natural weapon, the strike is no more unarmed than it would be if you were using a sword.

Yes. Has there been a claim contrary to this? I thought the initial question was whether a critter with a bite attack could use its paws for unarmed attacks, the paws which have no natural attack connected to them. And the consensus to that appears to be yes.

[Chess Pwn]

a tengu with claws can use it's "claws" to make US with. He would then have used the limb to be unable to make an actual claw attack with that claw. But he's able to make the US just fine.