Does a monk's unarmed strike count as a natural weapon?

[Brains]

Rules of the Game say that

a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons.

Monks are the exception though, because they have a special Unarmed Strike ability which, among other things, allows them to treat their strike as both manufactured and a natural weapon.

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

But what does this mean they are natural weapons for the purpose of abilities that utilize natural weapons?

For example, does a  monk x/Black Blood Cultist 8 deal Unarmed Strike Damage when she grapples?

[Brains]

EDIT: I'm an idiot. Grappling does unarmed damage to begin with which I had completely forgotten about. So yeah...

But for what it's worth, I've decided that even the monk's Unarmed Strike ability does not count as a Natural Weapon. Feats and spells that effect Natural Weapons work on Unarmed Strike, but that's because Unarmed Strike is an exception, not because it qualifies. It seems pretty clear now that no where is the ability defined as being in the natural weapon category.

[TuggyNE]

Rules of the Game say that

a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons.

As so often, RotG contradicts the actual rules of the game, and is technically wrong.

But for what it's worth, I've decided that even the monk's Unarmed Strike ability does not count as a Natural Weapon. Feats and spells that effect Natural Weapons work on Unarmed Strike, but that's because Unarmed Strike is an exception, not because it qualifies. It seems pretty clear now that no where is the ability defined as being in the natural weapon category.

Sure it is.

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike.

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike.

The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)

[kitep]

But what does this mean they are natural weapons for the purpose of abilities that utilize natural weapons?

The FAQ indicates yes, though I bet you can find things that go both ways

    Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (MM 304)
to improve his unarmed strike?
    Yes. As stated on page 41 of the PH, 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” which includes feats such as Improved Natural
Attack.
    Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this
feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus
prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would
improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase
of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would
deal 4d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike.

[StreamOfTheSky]

But for what it's worth, I've decided that even the monk's Unarmed Strike ability does not count as a Natural Weapon.

You are wrong.  The monk entry outright tells you you're wrong.

[SorO_Lost]

As so often, RotG contradicts the actual rules of the game, and is technically wrong.

No, they are right.

An Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Weapon. Natural Weapons are always considered "Armed" Attacks that do not provoke AoOs and use Primary/Secondary rules for additional attacks. Manufactured weapons and Unarmed Strikes gain iterative attacks from your BAB, Manufactured in turn deal lethal damage and are also "Armed" Attacks whilst Unarmed Strike does neither of these things.

Taking the Improved Unarmed Feat means that creature's Unarmed Strike deals Lethal Damage and you are now considered "Armed", thus Unarmed Strikes no longer provoke AoOs. This is an exception to the Base Rules.

The Monk adds his own additional properties. A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as 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 creates another layer of exceptions. In this one, as the FAQ states, a Monk's Unarmed Strike can benefit from Improved Natural Weapon.

Also;

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.

fify.

[TuggyNE]

As so often, RotG contradicts the actual rules of the game, and is technically wrong.

No, they are right.

An Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Weapon. Natural Weapons are always considered "Armed" Attacks that do not provoke AoOs and use Primary/Secondary rules for additional attacks. Manufactured weapons and Unarmed Strikes gain iterative attacks from your BAB, Manufactured in turn deal lethal damage and are also "Armed" Attacks whilst Unarmed Strike does neither of these things.

Unarmed strikes are natural weapons with a bunch of weird explicit exceptions. None of this indicates that they are not natural weapons.

Taking the Improved Unarmed Feat means that creature's Unarmed Strike deals Lethal Damage and you are now considered "Armed", thus Unarmed Strikes no longer provoke AoOs. This is an exception to the Base Rules.

The Monk adds his own additional properties. A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as 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 creates another layer of exceptions. In this one, as the FAQ states, a Monk's Unarmed Strike can benefit from Improved Natural Weapon.

Also;

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.

fify.

Your own (correct) notes about the additional exceptions that unarmed strikes have explains why this provision is in there, and also why it is entirely irrelevant to my point.

I do trust you have some other reasons to believe unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, because they explicitly are, and you have not produced any contradiction to that.

[SorO_Lost]

because they explicitly are

[Citation Needed]

(click to show/hide)

DAMAGE MODIFIERS
Other factors in the situation might increase or reduce damage. Commonly, damage is modifi ed by a magical effect. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and natural weapons.

Grappling and attacking with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon

A wielder that is wielding a one-handed or two-handed weapon with two hands during a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this attack roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a –4 penalty even if wielding that weapon with two hands. Unarmed strikes and natural weapons are considered light weapons, so you always take a penalty when trying to disarm an opponent while using one of these.

Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, a natural weapon, or a light weapon against a creature you’re grappling.

You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies.

Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.

A creature who strikes the babau with an unarmed attack, unarmed strike, touch spell, or natural weapon takes this damage as well but can negate the damage with a DC 18 Reflex save. The save DCs are Constitution-based.

Does the powerful build racial trait change the damage the character deals with unarmed strikes and natural weapons?
No. The powerful build racial trait allows the character to “use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty” but doesn’t say anything about changing the damage dealt by his unarmed strikes or natural weapons.

You can’t use a dagger with a flurry of blows at all. When you use the flurry ability, you must attack with either unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons. Only six of the latter are included in the PH (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). A natural weapon (any natural weapon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon, so you can’t use it along with a flurry.

Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as a magic weapon?
No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes). The amulet of mighty fists (DMG 246) grants the wearer an enhancement bonus on unarmed and natural weapon attacks, which would include the monk’s unarmed strike.

Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as a magic weapon?
No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes). The amulet of mighty fists (DMG 246) grants the wearer an enhancement bonus on unarmed and natural weapon attacks, which would include the monk’s unarmed strike.

Amulet of Mighty Fists
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

How would a monk’s unarmed damage be modified by natural attacks, or vice versa?
A monk’s natural weapons (claws, bite, and so on) don’t have any effect on the damage dealt by her unarmed strikes, nor does a character’s unarmed strike damage have any effect on her natural weapon attacks. A razorclaw shifter monk could deal either claw damage with a claw attack or unarmed strike damage with an unarmed strike, but couldn’t combine the two.

Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (MM 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the PH, 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” which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.

So the RC, PHB, MM, and FAQ separates Unarmed Strike from Natural Weapons (exception of align weapon), the PHB lists Unarmed Strike as a weapon, the MM doesn't even talk about it, and the FAQ tells you an Unarmed Strike is explicitly not a Natural Weapon, unless you're a Monk.

[linklord231]

Isn't the thread explicitly talking only about monks though?

[nijineko]

perhaps the confusion comes from the class ability which happens to be named "unarmed strike" and the weapon type which shares the same name. it seems very clear that the specific case of the monk class feature unarmed strike stating it counts as a natural weapon overrules the general case of unarmed strikes not being natural weapons.

[SorO_Lost]

I suppose it could be that, I hope it is a least...

[TuggyNE]

because they explicitly are

[Citation Needed]

(click to show/hide)

DAMAGE MODIFIERS
Other factors in the situation might increase or reduce damage. Commonly, damage is modifi ed by a magical effect. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and natural weapons.

Grappling and attacking with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon

A wielder that is wielding a one-handed or two-handed weapon with two hands during a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this attack roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a –4 penalty even if wielding that weapon with two hands. Unarmed strikes and natural weapons are considered light weapons, so you always take a penalty when trying to disarm an opponent while using one of these.

Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, a natural weapon, or a light weapon against a creature you’re grappling.

You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies.

Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.

A creature who strikes the babau with an unarmed attack, unarmed strike, touch spell, or natural weapon takes this damage as well but can negate the damage with a DC 18 Reflex save. The save DCs are Constitution-based.

Does the powerful build racial trait change the damage the character deals with unarmed strikes and natural weapons?
No. The powerful build racial trait allows the character to “use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty” but doesn’t say anything about changing the damage dealt by his unarmed strikes or natural weapons.

You can’t use a dagger with a flurry of blows at all. When you use the flurry ability, you must attack with either unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons. Only six of the latter are included in the PH (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). A natural weapon (any natural weapon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon, so you can’t use it along with a flurry.

Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as a magic weapon?
No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes). The amulet of mighty fists (DMG 246) grants the wearer an enhancement bonus on unarmed and natural weapon attacks, which would include the monk’s unarmed strike.

Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as a magic weapon?
No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes). The amulet of mighty fists (DMG 246) grants the wearer an enhancement bonus on unarmed and natural weapon attacks, which would include the monk’s unarmed strike.

Amulet of Mighty Fists
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

How would a monk’s unarmed damage be modified by natural attacks, or vice versa?
A monk’s natural weapons (claws, bite, and so on) don’t have any effect on the damage dealt by her unarmed strikes, nor does a character’s unarmed strike damage have any effect on her natural weapon attacks. A razorclaw shifter monk could deal either claw damage with a claw attack or unarmed strike damage with an unarmed strike, but couldn’t combine the two.

Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (MM 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the PH, 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” which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.

So the RC, PHB, MM, and FAQ separates Unarmed Strike from Natural Weapons (exception of align weapon), the PHB lists Unarmed Strike as a weapon, the MM doesn't even talk about it, and the FAQ tells you an Unarmed Strike is explicitly not a Natural Weapon, unless you're a Monk.

All right, let's break it down. There's a fair number of rules that list natural weapons and unarmed strikes separately, without explicitly saying that they are different. There's some FAQ entries that claim that they are distinct, but I discount those because the FAQ is not a reliable rules source, nor yet a rules source at all. And then there's the three citations (not one) I gave earlier which indicate that unarmed strikes are explicitly a type of natural weapon. This explicit listing, I consider, overrides the implicit segregation of the other rules quotes.

[SorO_Lost]

I suppose it could be that, I hope it is a least...

Seriously, you should know better than that.

[snakeman830]

So, the question has been answered.  The Monk's unarmed strike is, indeed, a natural weapon.  Other unarmed strikes are more ambiguous on this front.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I suppose it could be that, I hope it is a least...

Seriously, you should know better than that.

  ... my kitty avatar approves !!

^{and a little concerned, thinking he/it was the only one, but now ...}

[TuggyNE]

So, the question has been answered.  The Monk's unarmed strike is, indeed, a natural weapon.  Other unarmed strikes are more ambiguous on this front.

Even that doesn't seem particularly ambiguous to me, since at least three spells clearly refer to all unarmed strikes as natural weapons, and one explicitly does so while also making a distinction between Monk and non-Monk unarmed strikes*. What more is needed, really?

*Monk unarmed strikes can, of course, count as manufactured weapons just fine as well as natural weapons, so magic weapon works on them as well as magic fang does.

[SorO_Lost]

Wow, maybe you do live in a world of ignorance.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player’s Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC races, and the base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master’s Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player’s Handbook, you should assume the Player’s Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master’s Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

ORDER OF RULES APPLICATION
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).

Your "Align Weapon" point was directly kicked out of this thread ten years ago.

[PixelHead777]

.

[linklord231]

Primary Source rules would of course overrule the text of certain spells... if only there was an explicit quote (not an implicit separation) in the weapon rules, the natural weapon rules, the unarmed strike rules, or really anywhere other than an FAQ of questionable veracity. 

[SorO_Lost]

I would like to note that basic logic states that just because set A is not a subset of set B doesn't mean set B isn't a subset of set A. As well, just because it separates them by name implicitly doesn't mean they are explicitly separate. While I haven't seen conclusive proof that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons, I haven't seen anything I'd treat as conclusive evidence that they aren't since there is evidence they COULD be.

There is no evidence they *could* be.

* US rules are found in Weapons and does not say it's a NW.
Thread over.
* NWs, of course, have their own separate entry and does not contain US.
Thread twice over, suggestions otherwise are already homebrew.
* Combat treats Weapons, US, and NWs separate. However, Weapons and US use the same Attack Arrangement, NWs don't.
Homebrew in this area is not a "fix" of missing terms, but a "clusterfuck". If you treated US as a NW in your game, doesn't that mean I cannot make a second attack, ever? And under your rule set, are treated as primary or secondary weapons? If you ruled I gain additional attacks with my NW for higher BAB, then I could full-attack with a sai and then 'full-attack' with my NWs due to the ability to combine the two as part of a (real) Full-Attack. More and more f'ing houserules have to be added every time your Player wants to use the stupid idea all because you made one hell of a horrible call.
* The FAQ contains several entries stating you cannot use Natural Weapons with Furry of Blows.
Even goes as far as flat out telling you US is not a NW. The FAQ is literately the highest priority of the game, it was a continually updated rules addition that answers extremely specific questions and is based on the interpretation clarification and rules delegation. The FAQ wants to say US isn't a NW it can. And guess what, there isn't even relevant text arguing otherwise.
* Rules of the Game also flat out says US is not a NW.
Skip Williams, Monte Cook, and Jonathan Tweet were the PHB 3.5 design team. Skip Williams in turn has an officially published article on WotC's site under the article line dubbed the f'ing Rules Of The Game that tells you you're wrong and see that combat section as proof otherwise.

Ergo, we've got two official sources telling me you just failed at reading and you need to stop deliberately being thick-headed and argumentative. US/NW is silent on the issue  but the FAQ, RotG, and the PHB/RC combat section all say US is not a NW, the latter technically doesn't outright state such which is why WotC thought they needed to address the issue and that's why the FAQ exists in the first place. ~Silly people like you can read one thing and pretend it's something else entirely. All points have been covered, multiple times, and I refuse to partake in this freak show where you should be how far you can shove your head up your ass. So as you in turn discuss how you don't like D&D's rules and about your house rules are better, you'd better be talking to those voices in your head because I'm sure the hell not listening to it.