Can characters who aren't monks or a similar class (like bruisers) make iterative unarmed attacks? Or is treated like a natural weapon where they can only make one (or maybe two, considering they have two hands)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An unarmed strike is treated like a manufactured weapon for the sake of iterative attacks. You don't use the natural weapon rules for unarmed strikes.
That... doesn't make much sense, but thanks for the info.
That... doesn't make much sense, but thanks for the info.
You aren't wrong. Lol.
I have often wondered what the difference between unarmed strikes and natural attacks is from a design perspective.
Like what is possibly more natural than the hands/feet/body you were born with?
Why would they be treated differently?
Because one feat would give you five primary attacks per round (arm, arm, leg, leg, head)? That looks about like every other natural attack build I have seen... and they don't even require a feat.
I guess they had to do something to try make the Monk unique...?
The fact that they are treated differently is a conundrum, a riddle, if you will.
An unarmed strike is treated like a manufactured weapon for the sake of iterative attacks. You don't use the natural weapon rules for unarmed strikes.
This is correct. Additionally, those iterative unarmed attacks don't threaten, provoke AoO and only deal non-lethal damage if they connect. Unless you've used something to augment them such as gauntlets or brass knuckles.
The rules clearly differentiate between unarmed strikes and natural attacks (see CRB pg. 182). The iterative attack rule is not a specific rule for manufactured wepaons, but rather a general rule (pg. 11) that explicitly doesn't apply to natural weapons (pg. 182). Therefore, iterative attacks can be made with unarmed strikes. Q.E.D.
Unarmed strikes also work like manufactured weapons for two-weapon fighting (we know that because the TWF rules mention them), and behave just the same when combining attacks with them with them with natural attacks (the NW rules name both).
Can characters who aren't monks or a similar class (like bruisers) make iterative unarmed attacks?
The idea that a Monk's unarmed strikes are like manufactured weapons is a gross oversimplification. "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." Rules are neither spells or effects, and thus don't apply to unarmed strikes because of this ability, period.
Monk's US behaves just like everyone else's US when it comes to general rules.
Why would they be treated differently?
Because the human body don't have anything that could realistically be described as a weapon. We don't have hooves, claws, or talons, we don't have horns, we don't have any protruding canine teeth or tusks (and no pointy teeth at all). We lost all such during the evolution because when we learned to use tools they turned from an evolutionary advantage to a disadvantage. Unlike animals, we need quite a lot of training to be actually dangerous with our 'unarmed strikes'.
You might argue that either every human should have slam attack(s), or that creatures using slam attacks should use USs instead; that this isn't the case is presumably for the sake of balance.
An unarmed strike would be a bit like a wolf headbutting you. Sure they are using a part of their body to hurt you, but it's not a part of their body that's designed for hurting others. So it's not a "natural" use of the body.
Punching someone in the face is a natural use of one's fists/hands. And kicking someone is a natural use of one's feet.
There is no mechanical difference between a human kicking you with bunny slippers on, and a horse kicking you with horseshoes on. A kick is a kick, and a kick is a natural attack to make with a leg.
A human's bite is more powerful than a pit bull's bite, so there is actually no freaking reason that anything with a mouth cannot make a bite attack.
The more you break it down, the more similar they become... because they are the same. The only difference is the game says that they are different.
There is no mechanical difference between a human kicking you with bunny slippers on, and a horse kicking you with horseshoes on. A kick is a kick, and a kick is a natural attack to make with a leg.
The hoof is unyielding and thus more force is transfered to the target. The game represents that.
A human's bite is more powerful than a pit bull's bite, so there is actually no freaking reason that anything with a mouth cannot make a bite attack.
First, unless you source that (and source it well, as a quick search by me shows the opposite to be true), I'm calling bull s~*% on it. Second, the shape of the teeth makes a difference. The game represents that.
Shape of the teeth does not matter all that much, honestly. A horse can bite your finger off the same as an alligator.
I was wrong about the strength of the human bite compared to the pit bull.
On average the human jaw bites with about 160psi, I had read the upper limit achieved in the study, not the average. The upper limit reached was over 270, and the average pit bull is around 230. This is from Scientific America, Quora, plexidors, national geographic, and Science Focus. I honestly don't give enough of a $#!+ to dig any deeper.
The fact of the matter remains unchanged... unarmed strikes and natural attacks are more similar than they are different. The only difference is the game says that they are different.
It's less about the strength than about how the mouth is shaped for biting. I'm sure a person can bit harder than a rat, but the human mouth isn't shaped for making an attack like that. We have no muzzle.
The human hand is a terrible weapon, it's too full of joints. The foot is similarly terrible. Just because you can hit with a part of your body and do damage to something doesn't mean that it's a suitable weapon.
But a half-rotten mindless zombie's slam attack is a more suitable weapon than the human limbs it had before turning into a zombie?
Ok.
I don't mean to argue, and therefore I am going to see myself out of this discussion. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and I'm probably too stubborn to budge from my point of view on this topic.
Sorry if I derailed the thread.
Punching someone in the face is a natural use of one's fists/hands.
I don't disagree with everything you said, but the human hand was not designed/evolved for punching at all. The phalanges are really small bones, and are meant for small intricate tasks. Punching someone's forhead (quite a large hard bone, who's major purpose is to protect the brain from trauma) often results in a broken hand.
The difference between this and a horse's kick should be fairly obvious.
Even the difference between a living Human and a Zombie (possibly the zame person at different times) can be shown, as the Zombie doesn't give a hoot about a broken hand. Zombies have DR, not because they're harder to bash than a human, but because they're just as useful with a mangled stump at the end of their arm as they are with a perfectly manicured hand.
A human bite may be as powerful as a pit-bull's, but the pit-bull has a low centre of gravity and 4 legs to leverage a tear once they're attached. Crocodiles actually can't chew, and instead they roll in order to tear their food into bite-sized chunks.
It's not just about the weapon, it's the rest of the physiology that goes with it.
I do think there are cases where the game doesn't accurately represent what would or wouldn't count, but also it's a game (and let's be honest, they did a pretty great job or we wouldn't be here).
Also I see that VoodistMonk has now agreed to disagree rather than continuing to derail the thread (that's very mature of you), but I wrote all this and didn't want to just delete it =P so I'll add one more post to the derail.
I guess in closing, it's always more complicated than you think, and at some point a game has to decide between simplicity and realism. Feel free to change it in home games as you wish.
It's not logical, don't try to apply logic to it, the rules simply are what they are.
And in my opinion there's little reason to change them.