Natural and Unarmed Resistance

[Loremaster]

...is it the same or are it some different things? Sometimes things grant only "Unarmed Resistance", sometimes things grant "Natural and Unarmed Resistance".

First I thought it were different things and I already wondered, because I think Unarmed attacks are quite Natural attacks - very much the same. Yesterday I stumbled over a paragraph with said "All Natural attacks are standard Unarmed attacks."

So...is there any need to make a difference concerncing Damage Resistances granted?

[Wolverine]

Check the first paragraph on Natural Attacks on pg. 235. It states that they "are Standard Unarmed Attacks except where noted" (emphasis mine).

So Natural Attacks are Unarmed Attacks, except when they're not.

[Loremaster]

...i didn' find any other. Are there any?

Are Unarmed attacks = Natural attacks? Example: Does the Monster Slayers "Natural Attack Resistance" protect vs. Unarmed attacks?

This is actually where my questions was yielding at...there are Unarmed and Natural attack resistance...I am not sure if they are the same thing or not or should be...

[spinningdice]

My interpretation is that Natural Attacks are Unarmed Attacks but Unarmed Attacks are not Natural Attacks (or not always).
Vs. Claws both Unarmed and Natural Attack resistance applies.
Vs. Fists Unarmed resistance applies but not Natural Attack resistance.

[spinningdice]

Note: p235 specifically says that Natural Attacks are Unarmed attacks.
As far as I'm aware, all Natural Attacks fall into one of the 7 catagories on p236 (which unarmed strikes are not part of)

Finally, slightly unrelated but also bear in mind that Extraordinary attacks (such as Drake's breath weapon) are not considered natural or unarmed attacks.

[Crafty_Pat]

My interpretation is that Natural Attacks are Unarmed Attacks but Unarmed Attacks are not Natural Attacks (or not always).
Vs. Claws both Unarmed and Natural Attack resistance applies.
Vs. Fists Unarmed resistance applies but not Natural Attack resistance.

Correct.

[Loremaster]

That unarmed strikes are unarmed attacks but not natural attacks is something i didn't get into my head so easy. Its difficult to explain to players if even the GM doesn't fully understand it.

So, summary?!:

1) Unarmed strikes are (not always?) considered Natural Attack. What means "not always"? Any example?
1) Natural Resistance protects only vs. the Natural Attacks on pg 236 (Bite, Claw). As U-Strikes are usually not natural, it doesn't protect vs. them.
3) Unarmed Resistance protects only vs. Unarmed Strikes and Claws(? why vs. Claws only when all Natural attacks listed on pg 236 are consindered Unarmed attacks)? It doesn't protect vs. Kick, Gore, Bite...

b)Should we think of "Unarmed Resistance" as some kind of "Unarmed strike Resistance".

Any Explanation why its made so difficult on this? Balancing?

Everything is clear on EX attacks, they have their own Resistance (of which are far too much in the game, sorry. It is one of the few design fumbles I stumbled over, the Resistance stuff doesn't seem to follow any structure. However, no discussion on this, it is just my opionion. For the ease of playing they should've been reduced).

[spinningdice]

err, not quite. I just used claws as an example.
As far as I can see, all natural attacks are unarmed attacks, but unarmed strikes are not natural attacks. I can't think of any exceptions in the rules but that's not say some won't creep up later.

So having Natural Attack Resistance will reduce damage from all the natural attacks listed on p235, but not unarmed attacks.
Unarmed resistance reduces damage from all natural attacks on p235, and unarmed attacks.

As to why the difference is made, it's one of those oddities. The only thing that has 'natural attack' resistance as far as I can recall is the Monster Slayer, so it makes perfect sense that he's learned to fight creatures with claws, teeth, tailslams and the like, but is no more resistant to a punch round the face.
Also throughout the d20 system the distinguishing on natural attacks and unarmed attacks is made, primarily as natural attacks bear some resemblance to weapons and typically do more damage than an unarmed fist.

[Khaalis]

Not sure if this helps, but here is how I basically explain it.

Natural Attacks = You have a "natural weapon" on your body that is specifically designed to deal damage such as large row of canine teeth (bite), claws (which are not just long fingernails), hardened or oversized/weighted limbs (slam/kick), horns (gore), etc.

Unarmed Attacks = You have no "natural weapon" so you make soft attacks from the body (fists, knees, etc.).

Natural attacks are still made "unarmed" as you aren't holding a weapon, but they do different damage because of a "natural weapon" you posses. Thus an unarmed attack is not a natural attack because you don't have a "natural weapon" to use in the attack.

That help any?

[Crafty_Pat]

Spinningdice and Khaalis have it right, Loremaster. Do their descriptions help?

[Loremaster]

Almost :-) Of course I understand the differences of natural attack and unarmed attacks, however the Resistances are strange. Try to explain it again:

So, according to the descriptions above "Unarmed attacks" are some kind of "weaker" natural attacks because the creature lacks a real "natural weapon". The fact that usually (without feats) Unarmed attack does only subdual damage matches the explanation.

However..."Unarmed Resistance" is more powerful. It protects vs. Unarmed strikes AND vs. all (currently available) Natural attacks. Fine. That is a bit strange, but...ok.
Natural Resistance is the same, but does not protect vs. Unarmed strikes? Why the hell does such a Resistance exists, Natural attacks are the more "dangerous".  It would understand when there was a "Unarmed and Natural attack Resistance" and a "Unarmed strikes Resistance". Ok, forget about it. It is my personal thinking again. I don't like it.

Monster Slayer gets EXTRAORDINARY Resistance and NATURAL Resistance, correct. The source of my question is: PATH OF STRENGTH IV which grants NATURAL Resistance 4 AND UNARMED Resistance 4. According to the current information, this is a redundant Resistance. Unarmed already protects vs everything Natural does. This is what i didn't understand.

[Khaalis]

Ok, I think I see what Loremaster is saying.  This is how I read it. I may be wrong and I'm curious to see the official response as well if I'm wrong.

1) Natural Attacks deal Lethal damage by default.

2) Unarmed Attacks deal Subdual damage, UNLESS you have the Unarmed proficiency in which case it makes it Lethal damage. In effect, the way I read it is that Unarmed proficiency gives you "Natural Attack (Slam)".


Now the way I read the issue of resistances, is that in the case of something like Path of Strength IV, you gain:
* Unarmed Resistance 4 vs. Unarmed Subdual damage
* Natural Resistance 4 vs. Unarmed Lethal damage. Note that this also includes special natural attacks like Squeeze, Swallow, etc.

In the case of the Monster Slayer, you also gain:
* Extraordinary Attack Resistance 2 which means you gain resistance 2 against any Damage Attack or Save Attack classified as "Extraordinary" (as per Table 6.5 p238).


Now, this is where the clarification gets a little tricky. 

The ONLY ways to gain (as far as I can tell) Natural Attack Resistance is via Path of Strength IV and from the Monster Slayer's Clawbane class ability.

When looking at Path of Strength IV you have to realize it also grants both Unarmed & Natural Resistance, so you are equally as resistance to both Subdual and Lethal damage unarmed attacks. Logically, this makes perfect sense. Your body has gained resistance to both via the magic of the path.

In the case of the Monster Slayer's Clawbane, you have JUST Natural Attack Resistance (and not Unarmed Resistance), which means you are basically resistant to Lethal attacks, but NOT Subdual based unarmed attacks. As an example, you'd be resistant to the claws of a dragon but not from being punched in the face in a bar brawl.

In a global view, this seems illogical, but you have to read the subtle mechanic of the ability. You have to keep in mind that you do NOT simply gain Extraordinary & Natural Resistance at all times like you gain the Resistances from Path of Strength.  You only gain these resistances when you are armed with a SHIELD. This makes all the difference in the world.

Basically what the ability is saying is that you have trained to use your shield to block the physical and extraordinary attacks of the creatures you have spent so much time studying. You haven't gained the ability for your body to be resistant, you've only trained in a better way to use your shield. Think of it more as bonus resistance from armor.

Now on the rare chance that I had a Monster Slayer at my table who got into a bar brawl while they still had their shield armed, I'd grant the resistance against a standard subdual damage unarmed attack as well. However, the chances of this scenario happening are slim.

Does that help at all?

[Crafty_Pat]

Alright, first please go read this because that's really what all this boils down to. Resistances are and must be open to interpretation in Mastercraft. Hammering them down is effectively impossible without hard-coding each and every possible source and type of damage under the sun in some comprehensive list (or worse, some "easy-to-use" list that everyone argues about in application).

So... With GMs having to determine which Resistances apply on a case-by-case basis (not on a Resistance-by-Resistance basis because that only leads to tears - see above), the reality - and in fact the desire - is that they won't apply the same way at every table, even in identical circumstances. When Path of Strength IV was written, the author believed that there are enough circumstances where you'd use each that they wouldn't be redundant. Would they both apply in some cases? Yes. Should a GM let them apply in every case? Come on, we all know that's ridiculous.

Path of Strength IV is intended to cover actual unarmed attack resistance (against fists and other attacks that don't involve natural weapons as defined on Table 6.4), and natural attack resistance (against those that do involve natural weapons as defined on Table 6.4). After some consideration, this is how I'd apply that Step, and the rules being what they are (i.e. interpretive), that's plenty.

Anyone who can't wrap their heads around this overlap should probably consider dropping one of the two Resistances granted by that Step - because universal Resistance 8 vs. natural attacks for that Step is just not functional.

[Morgenstern]

Gah. I just read the ability in question. People blast the book for not including redundant text, and when it does, their heads explode. Can't win for losing . This problem borders on being a typo, not a game breaking juggernaut.

It's granting (Unarmed and Natural Attack Resistance) 4. Joined phrase.

Not (Unarmed Resistance) 4 and (Natural Attack Resistance) 4.

To correct this typo and convey the intent properly it should probably have read~

Strength IV: You gain Unarmed Attack Resistance 4 (this includes Natural Attacks).

Chalk this up as a win for Pat's general policy that rules text should not attempt to discuss the implications of said rules except in seperate, clearly identified example text.

So with that in mind what it really should say is~

Strength IV: You gain Unarmed Attack Resistance 4.

Which -automatically- addresses natural attacks. The End.

[Loremaster]

No head explodes, surely no major issue and of course no game breaking juggernaut - I never said something the like. It is at best a bit "unlucky" wording what might've cause my questions. However, I am sure if you would've made a poll how this ruling should work according to the rules you would not have gotten a clear result. Still I don't like it, because I personally think that either "natural" or "unarmed attack resistance" would have been enough ( the thing that unarmed strike isn't treated as natural attack even if its very similar to the Slam thing). However, ignore my opinion...i just wanted to get clarity on how the rules were supposed to work. Everything else will be houseruled if I ever feel the need...

Please, don't take it personally if I am asking for such small small details...it is not critism, it is just perplexity...