New Power Attack and Monk's Unarmed Strike


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Snowlilly wrote:
I've posted the RAW stating this at least that many times.

You posted irrelevant RAW that has zero to do with the issue at hand and doesn't help your case one bit.


yup, monks IUS aren't natural weapons. They can be treated as such when stuff targets natural weapons. They aren't natural weapons and as such aren't primary or secondary because they aren't natural weapons.


Magic Weapon:
Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon's +1 bonus on attack rolls.

You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

I'm not sure what to make of this. I would still say that RAW a monks' UAS is not a natural weapon, and a non-monks' would be a secondary, but either way it'd be great to probably have a dev clear this up.


Snowlilly wrote:
[Power Attact] must be resolved as either a primary natural weapon or a secondary when modifying natural weapons.

Where does it say that? All I see in the Power Attack description is that the damage gets modifies for (some) primary or secondary NAs. The classification is done by the general rules for natural attacks, and as I've already shown, those don't affect unarmed strikes.

Snowlilly wrote:
RAW states all natural weapons are one or the other. There is no "unclassified " option in RAW.

True but irrelevant, because UAS is no natural attack, even if it counts as one for a few things. And Power Attack very much does have an unclassified option, i.e. the default damage.

Snowlilly wrote:
I am quoting the RAW that monk's unarmed strikes count as natural weapons.

No, you don't, because such rules don't exist. Your entire argument rests on ignoring the "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve (...) natural weapons" part of the Monk's UAS description.

In my last post I belive to have proven that a Monk's UAS can not possibly count as a natural attack for general rules. Instead of multiple posts where you incorrectly claim that you had quoted the relevant rules, how about proving my argument wrong? Or are you not able to do that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Actual natural weapons must be primary or secondary. You can't quote a rule saying Unarmed are natural except for effects, and since it doesn't say primary or secondary it's neither.

And you cannot have a natural weapon that is neither.

If you have Raw that supports your position for an unclassified natural weapon post it.

You've seen the RAW stating all natural weapons must be either primary or secondary a dozen times.

I've posted the RAW stating this at least that many times.

That's fine, because the monk does not have a natural weapon. He has an unarmed strike.

Does the monk have a natural weapon? No.
Does the monk have an unarmed strike? Yes.
Does the unarmed strike count as a natural weapon for effects or spells that benefit? Yes.
Does it say that it counts as a primary or secondary natural weapon for effects or spells that benefit? No.
Therefore, the monk has an unarmed strike, and effects for natural weapons can count it as one. It does not count as primary or secondary and does not need to because it actually is not a natural weapon, it just counts as one for spells and effects which benefit them.


Snowlilly wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Actual natural weapons must be primary or secondary. You can't quote a rule saying Unarmed are natural except for effects, and since it doesn't say primary or secondary it's neither.

And you cannot have a natural weapon that is neither.

If you have Raw that supports your position for an unclassified natural weapon post it.

You've seen the RAW stating all natural weapons must be either primary or secondary a dozen times.

I've posted the RAW stating this at least that many times.

"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 Combat)."

An Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Weapon. The Monk's ability: "
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Still doesn't make an Unarmed Strike a Natural Weapon. It's not Primary or Secondary because it's not a Natural Weapon.

That's it. Until you can refute that base fact, which you haven't yet, your wrong.


Mantipper wrote:

For Monks it's still a light weapon that happens to be treated as both a natural weapon and manufactured for the explicit purpose of spells and effects that enhance and improve them.

Power Attack is an effect that enhances/improves.

For the purpose of resolving Power Attack, the monk's UAS counts as a natural weapon when beneficial to the monk.

All natural weapons must, by RAW, be classified as either primary or secondary. This becomes relevant when using both Power Attack and Dragon Ferocity.


Snowlilly wrote:
Mantipper wrote:

For Monks it's still a light weapon that happens to be treated as both a natural weapon and manufactured for the explicit purpose of spells and effects that enhance and improve them.

Power Attack is an effect that enhances/improves.

For the purpose of resolving Power Attack, the monk's UAS counts as a natural weapon when beneficial to the monk.

All natural weapons must, by RAW, be classified as either primary or secondary. This becomes relevant when using both Power Attack and Dragon Ferocity.

The monk does not have a natural weapon so it is not classified.

The monk has an unarmed strike, which can count as a natural weapon for effects and spells, but does not specifically state primary or secondary, so it is not.

Therefore, you don't get the improved effect from power attack because it is not defined as a primary natural weapon.


Snowlilly wrote:
All natural weapons must, by RAW, be classified as either primary or secondary. This becomes relevant when using both Power Attack and Dragon Ferocity.

Wrong.

Unarmed Strike isn't a Natural Weapon, so it's never a Primary or Secondary.

Show me in the rules where it says Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon that is Primary or Secondary. (Hint you can't.)


The trouble is that even if we take the assumption that unarmed strikes are natural attacks, they aren't ever defined as primary in the first place.

So any attempt to then classify them as primary natural attacks is at best a guess and at worst just a houserule.


power attack is and effect to the person. NOT to their weapons. Thus it never touches the Monk's IUS clause.


Tarantula wrote:

The monk does not have a natural weapon so it is not classified.

The monk has an unarmed strike, which can count as a natural weapon for effects and spells, but does not specifically state primary or secondary, so it is not.

Therefore, you don't get the improved effect from power attack because it is not defined as a primary natural weapon.

The monk does have a natural weapon for the purpose of resolving beneficial effects.

Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects

You are attempting to generalize a very specific set of circumstances and then apply the general rule.

The general rule is irrelevant. There are specific rules that apply in the case of Power Attack + Dragon Style.

  • Does a monk's UAS count as a natural weapon: Yes
  • Does the natural weapon deal x1.5 damage: Yes

If both conditions are yes, Power Attack deals x1.5 damage.


Snowlilly wrote:
  • Does a monk's UAS count as a natural weapon: Yes
  • Does the natural weapon deal x1.5 damage: Yes

If both conditions are yes, Power Attack deals x1.5 damage.

Except an unarmed strike is not a two handed weapon, a one handed weapon used in two hands, nor a primary natural attack. You forgot that condition.

So it does not.


Snowlilly wrote:
Tarantula wrote:

The monk does not have a natural weapon so it is not classified.

The monk has an unarmed strike, which can count as a natural weapon for effects and spells, but does not specifically state primary or secondary, so it is not.

Therefore, you don't get the improved effect from power attack because it is not defined as a primary natural weapon.

The monk does have a natural weapon for the purpose of resolving beneficial effects.

Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects

You are attempting to generalize a very specific set of circumstances and then apply the general rule.

The general rule is irrelevant. There are specific rules that apply in the case of Power Attack + Dragon Style.

  • Does a monk's UAS count as a natural weapon: Yes
  • Does the natural weapon deal x1.5 damage: Yes

If both conditions are yes, Power Attack deals x1.5 damage.

Wrong. Again.

Power Attack is looking for a Primary Natural Attack that deal 1.5 STR.

Unarmed Strike isn't a Primary Natural Attack even with the Monk's ability.


swoosh wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
  • Does a monk's UAS count as a natural weapon: Yes
  • Does the natural weapon deal x1.5 damage: Yes

If both conditions are yes, Power Attack deals x1.5 damage.

Except an unarmed strike is not a two handed weapon, a one handed weapon used in two hands, nor a primary natural attack. You forgot that condition.

So it does not.

For the purpose of resolving effects it is a natural weapon.

UAS wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects

All natural weapons are either primary or secondary. There is no third option.

Quote:
These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks

For the monks effect resolution this is a primary weapon.

Quote:
Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls.

If you have RAW backing your position please post it.

If you have RAW that allows natural weapons outside the categories of primary or secondary, post it.
If you have RAW that would indicate a monk's UAS is secondary, post it.
If you have RAW that states a monk's UAS does not count as a natural weapon for effects, post it.

I have posted the RAW supporting my position.


A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

This is important.

You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

Note that the feat is not doing ANYTHING to manufactured or natural weapons. Thus it never trigger the Monk's special clause.

The monk's clause isn't, "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons, OR for spells and effects that 'are better' if used with a manufactured or natural weapon."

since NOTHING in power attack is ENHANCING OR IMPROVING a natural weapon, it never interacts with the monk's special clause.


No Snowlilly you haven't posted any rules that support your claim.

All you done is ignore the proof in front of you and claim that a Monk's Unarmed Strike is a Primary Natural Weapon.

Which is false.

Please provide a quote from the rules that says a Unarmed Strike is a Primary Natural Weapon?

No inferring what you think it is. A RAW quite backing your claim.


Chess Pwn wrote:

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

This is important.

You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

Note that the feat is not doing ANYTHING to manufactured or natural weapons. Thus it never trigger the Monk's special clause.

The monk's clause isn't, "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons, OR for spells and effects that 'are better' if used with a manufactured or natural weapon."

since NOTHING in power attack is ENHANCING OR IMPROVING a natural weapon, it never interacts with the monk's special clause.

Power Attack is an effect that enhances natural weapons by improving damage.

How much Power Attack enhances a natural weapon is determined by primary/secondary classification and strength mod applied.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:

For the purpose of resolving effects it is a natural weapon.

All natural weapons are either primary or secondary. There is no third option.

Being treated as a natural weapon for some effects doesn't mean that a monk's IUS are subject to all the rules regarding natural weapons. They aren't actually natural weapons, so they don't need, and don't have a primary/secondary designation.


Brain in a Jar wrote:

No Snowlilly you haven't posted any rules that support your claim.

All you done is ignore the proof in front of you and claim that a Monk's Unarmed Strike is a Primary Natural Weapon.

Which is false.

Please provide a quote from the rules that says a Unarmed Strike is a Primary Natural Weapon?

No inferring what you think it is. A RAW quite backing your claim.

Supply RAW demonstrating your position.

Right now people are doing nothing more than running around saying, "those rules don't count." without supplying anything in RAW that backs their position.


Snowlilly wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

This is important.

You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

Note that the feat is not doing ANYTHING to manufactured or natural weapons. Thus it never trigger the Monk's special clause.

The monk's clause isn't, "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons, OR for spells and effects that 'are better' if used with a manufactured or natural weapon."

since NOTHING in power attack is ENHANCING OR IMPROVING a natural weapon, it never interacts with the monk's special clause.

Power Attack is an effect that enhances natural weapons by improving damage.

How much Power Attack enhances a natural weapon is determined by primary/secondary classification and strength mod applied.

NOPE, man, can you not read?

You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

So you can see, it's YOU and melee damage rolls, NOTHING about a weapon for what it's enhancing.

And as I noted. Since it's not targeting a natural weapon no special clause active. And the special clause doesn't trigger for other things that are different depending on if you used a manufactured or natural weapon.

If you want RAW you need to provide written proof that power attacks is improving your natural attack and NOT improving YOUR damage rolls.


You have not provided RAW. You've made an assumption. Based on how primary natural weapons work you guess that unarmed strikes might possibly count as primary because they have a couple things in common.

But you have provided no actual rules citation that agrees with your assertion. Only guesswork based on interpretation and logical leaps.

You can say "I think this is how it should work and what would make the most sense to me" but insisting this is any flavor of strict RAW is just disingenuous.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Snowlilly wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

No Snowlilly you haven't posted any rules that support your claim.

All you done is ignore the proof in front of you and claim that a Monk's Unarmed Strike is a Primary Natural Weapon.

Which is false.

Please provide a quote from the rules that says a Unarmed Strike is a Primary Natural Weapon?

No inferring what you think it is. A RAW quite backing your claim.

Supply RAW demonstrating your position.

Right now people are doing nothing more than running around saying, "those rules don't count." without supplying anything in RAW that backs their position.

No that would be you. Trying to pass off your faulty logic as RAW.

You want proof? Fine.

Power Attack:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

Power Attack is asking for one of three things to gain the bonus (+50%) to damage rolls.

1. Two-Handed Weapon (A Monk's Unarmed Strike isn't this.)
2. A One-Handed Weapon using two hands (A Monk's Unarmed Strike isn't this.)

and 3.A Primary Natural Weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier. (A Monk's Unarmed Strike isn't this.)

You keep claiming a Monk's Unarmed Strike is a Primary Natural Weapon that adds 1.5 STR when using Dragon Style/Ferocity. (Which is false.)

Unarmed Strike:
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 Combat).

As you can see I've provided a rule that starts off with...Unarmed Strikes do not count as Natural Weapon. So right off the bat they are not classified as Primary or Secondary because they aren't a Natural Weapon.

Oh but you'll say a Monk treats them special.

Monk Unarmed Strike:
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.

Okay. So we know Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons. (Quoted above in the description for Unarmed Strike.)

Nothing in the Monk's ability Unarmed Strike changes that. It only allows them to be TREATED as such. (Hint: That doesn't mean they become Natural Weapons) for certain purposes.

Let's assume you can treat Power Attack as an effect that enhances or improves a Natural Weapon. (It isn't but i don't need this to prove your wrong; so for this I'll assume your right(you're not).)

As we see in Power Attack (Quoted above) it requires a PRIMARY Natural Attack.

An Unarmed Strike isn't a Natural Weapon, hence why it's not a Primary or Secondary Natural Weapon, but sometimes it's treated as a Natural Weapon for certain effects that enhance or improve them.

Not once do any of the rules provided make an Unarmed Strike a Primary Natural Weapon.

Not once. You can't just decide it's a Primary Natural Weapon Snowlilly. Nothing you've posted changes that base simple fact.

Either post a quote from the rules that defines an Unarmed Strike as a Primary Natural Weapon (not why you think it is)or your wrong. Plain and simple.


swoosh wrote:

You have not provided RAW. You've made an assumption. Based on how primary natural weapons work you guess that unarmed strikes might possibly count as primary because they have a couple things in common.

But you have provided no actual rules citation that agrees with your assertion. Only guesswork based on interpretation and logical leaps.

You can say "I think this is how it should work and what would make the most sense to me" but insisting this is any flavor of strict RAW is just disingenuous.

1. I have provided RAW demonstrating hat a classification as either primary or secondary is required.

2. I have provided RAW demonstrating that UAS matches the description of primary and does not match the description of secondary.

Again if you have RAW to the contrary, please provide.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unarmed strike is not a natural weapon, so classification is not required. You have not proven that classification of unarmed strike is required.


Snowlilly wrote:
1. I have provided RAW demonstrating hat a classification as either primary or secondary is required.

Under normal circumstances, yes. But Pathfinder is an exception based rules system and these are not normal circumstances, so this doesn't advance any point particularly well.

Quote:
2. I have provided RAW demonstrating that UAS matches the description of primary and does not match the description of secondary.

You've shown RAW that unarmed strikes have certain things in common with primary natural attacks.

Which means absolutely nothing, so I'm not sure why you're so excited about that.

Quote:
Again if you have RAW to the contrary, please provide.

That's not how RAW works. There's not going to be a rules citation that says unarmed strikes aren't primary natural attacks, because Pathfinder is a system that tells you how things are, not how things aren't.

Surely if you're so convinced you're right it can't be hard to find a rules citation that actually says that unarmed strikes are primary natural attacks, right?

That's literally all you need to find to prove you're right. An actual rules source that actually says what you're claiming to be true. Something more substantial than guesswork and assumption.

Again, it's perfectly valid to say "This is how I want it to work" or "This is how I think it would make the most sense" or "This is a more logical interpretation of how these rules should interact", but playing the RAW card doesn't work here. Primarily because the thing you're arguing isn't actually written anywhere, which is kind of important for 'rules as written' arguments.


IUS, even monk's IUS aren't natural weapons. Thus no classification.
IUS may be treated as natural weapons for X. Aren't ever actual natural weapons and thus no classification.
Power attack isn't an X.


Brain in a Jar wrote:

Okay. So we know Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons. (Quoted above in the description for Unarmed Strike.)

Nothing in the Monk's ability Unarmed Strike changes that. It only allows them to be TREATED as such. (Hint: That doesn't mean they become Natural Weapons) for certain purposes.

Let's assume you can treat Power Attack as an effect that enhances or improves a Natural Weapon. (It isn't but i don't need this to prove your wrong; so for this I'll assume your right(you're not).)

As we see in Power Attack (Quoted above) it requires a PRIMARY Natural Attack.

An Unarmed Strike isn't a Natural Weapon, hence why it's not a Primary or Secondary Natural Weapon, but sometimes it's treated as a Natural Weapon for certain effects that enhance or improve them.

In the general case, UAS is not a natural weapon. In the specific case of effect resolution, UAS is a natural weapon for monks.

Quote:
Not once do any of the rules provided make an Unarmed Strike a Primary Natural Weapon.

Yes, they do: whenever a monks benefits from an beneficial effect that modifies his UAS.

UAS wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Emphasis mine.

Quote:
[Not once. You can't just decide it's a Primary Natural Weapon Snowlilly. Nothing you've posted changes that base simple fact.
UMR wrote:
These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks.

RAW states they must me classified. You position that they are neither primary nor secondary is in direct opposition to RAW.

Quote:
Either post a quote from the rules that defines an Unarmed Strike as a Primary Natural Weapon (not why you think it is)or your wrong. Plain and simple.
The properties of primary and secondary natural weapons well defined in RAW. I have demonstrated the monk's UAS has all the properties of a primary natural attack and none of the properties of a secondary natural attack.
UMR wrote:
Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls.
UMR wrote:
Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls
Monk wrote:
A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.

As RAW requires all natural attacks be classified as either primary or secondary, I would be interested in any RAW you have that would indicate a monk's UAS is a secondary weapon.


Quote:
Natural Attacks Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks.

Unarmed strike is not a natural attack. You can't quote the rules for a natural attack and apply them to an unarmed strike. Unarmed strike can be treated as a natural WEAPON but not a natural ATTACK.

Only natural ATTACKs must be primary or secondary. Natural WEAPONs do not have that requirement. A monks unarmed strike is treated as a natural WEAPON and therefore does not need to be primary or secondary.

Monks do not have any natural ATTACKs.


Snowlilly wrote:
As RAW requires all natural attacks be classified as either primary or secondary, I would be interested in any RAW you have that would indicate a monk's UAS is a secondary weapon.

A Monk's Unarmed Strike isn't Primary or Secondary. Since...

"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 Combat)."

and

"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Doesn't change that.

It's only treated as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects...

The Monk's ability doesn't make an Unarmed Strike a natural weapon.

It doesn't matter how similar you think they are Snowlilly. It doesn't change the fact that a Monk's Unarmed Strike is neither Primary or Secondary...because it's not a Natural Weapon.


There's been many rules and opinions stated on both sides of this argument, and it seems to come down to what does "treated as a ... natural weapon" mean?

I would argue it's that it doesn't change what the weapon is, only that it can be targeted by effects that normally only target natural weapons. And since there are rules explicitly stating that UAS' are not natural weapons, the interactions between monk, dragon style, and power attack do not work.

I'll say this again, since it seems that the major proponent (Snowlilly) for the interactions isn't budging, it'd be great to have a dev chime in or perhaps even have a faq update specifying what exactly a monk UAS is or perhaps what the dragon style does explicitly for a monk.


I wonder how long threads would be if people simply stated their position once and then didn't repeat themselves...


Knight who says Meh wrote:
I wonder how long threads would be if people simply stated their position once and then didn't repeat themselves...

I wonder how long threads would last if people would just read the rules before arguing that they're correct with no proof to back up there statements?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Snowlilly wrote:
swoosh wrote:

You have not provided RAW. You've made an assumption. Based on how primary natural weapons work you guess that unarmed strikes might possibly count as primary because they have a couple things in common.

But you have provided no actual rules citation that agrees with your assertion. Only guesswork based on interpretation and logical leaps.

You can say "I think this is how it should work and what would make the most sense to me" but insisting this is any flavor of strict RAW is just disingenuous.

1. I have provided RAW demonstrating hat a classification as either primary or secondary is required.

2. I have provided RAW demonstrating that UAS matches the description of primary and does not match the description of secondary.

Again if you have RAW to the contrary, please provide.

You have done neither.


I was looking up the Magic Weapon spell and I came across the following which is rather relevant since one of the main points against Power Attack with Unarmed Strike is that Unarmed Strike is NOT a Natural Attack but is merely treated as such for effects etcetera.

Quote:
You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

This is pretty much saying that an Unarmed Strike is by default a Natural Attack and it's a special Quality of Monk Unarmed Strikes that they are treat as Manufactured Weapons as well.

That means as a Natural Weapon it does have to be either a Primary or a Secondary Weapon since as has been pointed out Natural Attacks are Primary or Secondary (the design team may intend Unarmed Strikes to have a 3rd category but without them saying so it is unreasonable to presume they intend it).

To be honest I had previously considered the weight of evidence leaned strongly in favour of it not been eligible to be treated as a Primary Natural Weapon for the purpose of Power Attack, but with this I'm shirting my view to thinking the weight of evidence leans towards allowing it.
It's not conclusive because it's a secondary source - a Spell decription, but definitely a strong point.


In prior discussions that spell has come up. I don't think anybody puts much stock in it because it's a relic from 3.5 and unquestionably contradictory to the primary UAS entry that states UAS are not natural weapons. There's also the Bestiary entry for creatures without Natural Weapons - they can still make UAS.

The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that UAS are not Natural Weapons.

Side note: Power Attack doesn't effect weapons at all. Just like BAB doesn't effect weapons at all. They effect the person using the weapon, not the weapon itself. Contrast with Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Magic Fang, etc.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
As RAW requires all natural attacks be classified as either primary or secondary, I would be interested in any RAW you have that would indicate a monk's UAS is a secondary weapon.

A Monk's Unarmed Strike isn't Primary or Secondary. Since...

"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 Combat)."

and

"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Doesn't change that.

Emphasis mine. "is treated as a natural weapons."

That is, explicitly, what the rules for monks do. Allow IUS to count as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects. There is no other interpretation for the monk rules you quoted.

The second half of the sentence, "is treated as a manufactured weapon" in no way detracts from the first half. The monk gets the best of both worlds with IUS, using whichever classification is most beneficial for each effect.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I have to ask, since I didn't see it in a brief skim of the thread, but...

...why does it matter if an unarmed strike is a natural weapon or just counts as one?


@TriOmegaZero: Basically, Dragon Ferocity increases your strength bonus on unarmed attacks to 1.5. A monk treats his UAS as a natural weapon and a manufactured weapon for effects that enhance. Power attack gives it's +3 dmg/-1 atk effect for primary natural attacks that deal 1.5 str to damage. So what happens with this combo.

The whole natural weapon and counting as one difference isn't really significant to Lily's argument. She's just trying to show that the combo does work (I think.)

As for the primary argument:

The biggest hang-up I can see is the idea that a natural attack is counted as a Primary natural attack just because the attack has 1.5x str to damage. I don't believe this to be the case personally. If someone could prove that to me, than I think it would settle the matter.

For the record A is B so B is A has been long demonstrated as a fallacy.
Not all fruits are bananas. Not all egg laying animals are birds. Not all natural attacks with 1.5xStr to damage are Primary Natural Attacks, so I need further evidence there.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Anonymous Warrior wrote:
@TriOmegaZero: Basically, Dragon Ferocity increases your strength bonus on unarmed attacks to 1.5.

...that's it? That's all this is about? An increase of .5 Str bonus to damage on one attack.

Well, I suppose I've argued over similarly silly things.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I have to ask, since I didn't see it in a brief skim of the thread, but...

...why does it matter if an unarmed strike is a natural weapon or just counts as one?

People are arguing that IUS does not count as a natural weapon for purposes determining the affect of Power Attack.

And it's not one attack. With Dragon Ferocity the first IUS attack is at x2 strength, all other IUS attacks are at x1.5 strength.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:
And it's not one attack. With Dragon Ferocity the first IUS attack is at x2 strength, all other IUS attacks are at x1.5 strength.

Dragon Ferocity doesn't care if it's a natural weapon or not. It gives the bonus to all unarmed strikes in a round.

Edit: Ah, so it's the difference between getting the increased PA damage to all attacks. Still a pointless argument, like all the others.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
...why does it matter if an unarmed strike is a natural weapon or just counts as one?

If it was a natural attack, the natural attack rules would apply to it (see below).

Snowlilly wrote:
"is treated as a natural weapons."

Stop misquoting the rules to suit your own needs! There is no period at the end of that sentence, because it is followed by a limitation. "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve [natural attacks]" is a vital part.

Snowlilly wrote:
Allow IUS to count as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects. There is no other interpretation for the monk rules you quoted.

Er, no one is doubting that. But in what quality is the mere classification into primary and secondary an effect that enhance or improves natural weapons?

General rules aren't effects. If they were, "If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls." would also apply to unarmed strikes (unless the monk has a bite attack or something). That would man that the "to a total of double your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the other attacks." line in Dragon Ferocity would be false for 99% of all monks. It would also mean that iterative attacks with unarmed strike would be at full BAB. Are you claiming those two things? Because if those two rules don't apply to a monk's unarmed strike, neither does the primary/secondary classification.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Stephen Ede wrote:
This is pretty much saying that an Unarmed Strike is by default a Natural Attack

Only for the purposes of adjudicating that specific spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
As RAW requires all natural attacks be classified as either primary or secondary, I would be interested in any RAW you have that would indicate a monk's UAS is a secondary weapon.

A Monk's Unarmed Strike isn't Primary or Secondary. Since...

"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 Combat)."

and

"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Doesn't change that.

Emphasis mine. "is treated as a natural weapons."

That is, explicitly, what the rules for monks do. Allow IUS to count as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects. There is no other interpretation for the monk rules you quoted.

The second half of the sentence, "is treated as a manufactured weapon" in no way detracts from the first half. The monk gets the best of both worlds with IUS, using whichever classification is most beneficial for each effect.

Please don't misunderstand/misrepresent what I'm saying.

A Monk's Unarmed Strike is clearly treated as a natural attack for certain purposes.

But that doesn't make it a Primary or Secondary Natural Attack. So as far as Power Attack is concerned, even with Dragon Style/Ferocity, a Monk would only get the -1 Attack for +2 Damage progression.

Nothing you have posted proves that a Monk's Unarmed Strike is Primary or Secondary. Since it is only treated as a Natural Attack for certain purposes and isn't actually a Natural Attack with those classifications.


Derklord wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
...why does it matter if an unarmed strike is a natural weapon or just counts as one?

If it was a natural attack, the natural attack rules would apply to it (see below).

Snowlilly wrote:
"is treated as a natural weapons."

Stop misquoting the rules to suit your own needs! There is no period at the end of that sentence, because it is followed by a limitation. "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve [natural attacks]" is a vital part.

A part I have been including. Scroll back up and read the hundred other comments I have made.

Power attack is an effect that affects natural weapons.
How Power attack affects the damage of natural weapons depends on if those natural weapons are primary or secondary.

Quote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Allow IUS to count as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects. There is no other interpretation for the monk rules you quoted.

Er, no one is doubting that. But in what quality is the mere classification into primary and secondary an effect that enhance or improves natural weapons?

General rules aren't effects. If they were, "If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls." would also apply to unarmed strikes (unless the monk has a bite attack or something). That would man that the "to a total of double your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the other attacks." line in Dragon Ferocity would be false for 99% of all monks. It would also mean that iterative attacks with unarmed strike would be at full BAB. Are you claiming those two things? Because if those two rules don't apply to a monk's unarmed strike, neither does the primary/secondary classification.

General rules are not effects, but Power Attack is. Power Attack applies it's affects based on the type of weapon used to make the attack.

In the specific circumstance of Power Attack + Dragon Ferocity, it is beneficial to the monk to have his IUS treated as a natural weapon for effect resolution.


Ok, so then let's all settle for one issue at a time then.

  • Is a monk's UAS a Primary Natural Attack. Why or why not?

  • Is a monk's UAS a Primary Natural Attack once it's damage is increased to 1-1/2x Str bonus? Why or why not?

  • Is Power Attack an Effect that it would enhance a Monk's UAS so that it should treat the Monk's UAS as a natural attack if we so choose?

  • If not, is there a way to change this with a feat or ability?

    We can settle this much more quickly (with a lot less violently mauled egos) if everyone who posts either:

  • Replies on each of these bullet points, so we can make the issue less muddy.

  • ...or else explain the reason these points miss the mark, and where the real issue lies.

    And BTW: remember that there is no way that any of this matters for PFS. Seriously, this is so nit-picky that there won't be any consistency unless it gets perma-FAQ'd into rules... and this probably won't even come up for them.


  • Snowlilly, adding the .5 bonus doesn't make it a primary natural weapon. It states the primary. Just because u get the .5 damage additional doesn't make it a primary.
    That's the crux of the matter.
    Notice how magic fang is lacking the primary/secondary so it applies to monks IUS.

    IF power attack was lacking the Primary wording, u would be correct. Since it specifically calls out primary, it's being specific and monks IUS isn't specific so it doesn't work.


    @Snowlilly:

    you quote a lot but fail to read and understand what you quote. I really advise you to leave the discussion for a moment and read the entry on Power Attack again (as a whole, with concentration) and think about it.

    Power attack does not affect a weapon it affects attack and damage rolls. So it does not affect the monk's quasi-natural WEAPON.

    Nowhere does the monk entry state that the monk has primary or secondary ATTACKS - his unarmed strike only counts as a natural WEAPON for spells and effects that improve this "weapon". As Power Attack is by RAW not an effect that improves or enhances weapons but attacks/damage rolls, it is not affected.

    It's that easy, yes.


    Redneckdevil wrote:

    Snowlilly, adding the .5 bonus doesn't make it a primary natural weapon. It states the primary. Just because u get the .5 damage additional doesn't make it a primary.

    That's the crux of the matter.
    Notice how magic fang is lacking the primary/secondary so it applies to monks IUS.

    IF power attack was lacking the Primary wording, u would be correct. Since it specifically calls out primary, it's being specific and monks IUS isn't specific so it doesn't work.

    I agree that increasing the strength modifier from x1 to x1.5 does not make a natural weapon primary.

    My position is, only primary natural weapons have a x1 strength modifier.

    The only other option, secondary weapons, have a x.5 strength modifier and a -5 attack roll penalty. A monks IUS is clearly not treated as secondary.

    101 to 150 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / New Power Attack and Monk's Unarmed Strike All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.