Natural Weapons; What's Your Take?

Li Shenron · Mar 11, 2019

Yunru said:
But an unarmed strike is any melee weapon attack where you're not using a weapon?

I don't think so, there are many cases of melee weapon attacks:

- melee weapon
- unarmed strikes
- objects as improvised weapons
- specific spells

The "melee attacks" section of the PHB combat chapter doesn't call them "natural attacks" but mentions monsters using claws etc separately from weapons, so it could be read either way as an important or unimportant distinction. But certainly not everything which is not a weapon in chapter 5 is automatically an unarmed strike.

There is too little about "natural weapons" in the books to be sure they are their own thing to be added to the list above, but they are however mentioned explicitly so neither it's sure they aren't.

Li Shenron · Mar 11, 2019

Azzy said:
Since a Tabaxi's cat claws are treated as unarmed strikes (as per their description), they would naturally be able to use them with the Monk's martial arts ability. Whether other creatures can do so with their natural weapon (withou a full description) is really up to the DM. I would say they could, using the Tabaxi as a precedent.

Uhm... it rather sounds to me that the Tabaxi creates a precedent that it must be specified for a natural weapon to be usable as unarmed strikes.

MerricB · Mar 11, 2019

Two types of weaponry produce "Melee Weapon Attacks".

* Manufactured weapons. e.g longsword, dagger,
* Natural weapons. e.g. claws, bite, unarmed strike

It is *possible* there is a third type, called an "Unarmed Strike". Urgh.

I classify unarmed strike as a natural weapon. (You can see the definition of manufactured vs. natural weapons in the Monster Manual introduction, under Actions). However, it's its own specific attack type. Either you attack with Unarmed Strike or you attack with Claw. The two are separate - you go by the title of the attack.

The trouble derives from 5E having two definitions for weapon. One is for type of attack - spell vs weapon. The other is for the item you use - whether a manufactured or natural weapon.

With the tabaxi, you have claws which grant you the ability to make an Unarmed Strike (a natural weapon) for 1d4 + Str modifier slashing damage. You still have your regular Unarmed Strikes (1 + Str modifier bludgeoning damage). The monk allows you to replace the damage die of either form or Unarmed Strike with a 1d4 or higher, depending on level, and the monk can do the bonus attack with claws or regular unarmed strikes.

Note that the tabaxi doesn't give you the ability to make a "Claw" attack, but rather an "Unarmed Strike".

The feat Savage Attacker, even post-errata, is badly worded.

Cheers!

Azzy · Mar 11, 2019

Li Shenron said:
Uhm... it rather sounds to me that the Tabaxi creates a precedent that it must be specified for a natural weapon to be usable as unarmed strikes.

You can indeed see it that way, or that, since no other creature that has natural weapons has descriptive text that describes what natural weapons are or how they interact with other rules, that the Tabaxi's description is how natural attacks work and interact is the assumed norm rather than a special one-off as it is not contradicting any existing description or rule.

MerricB · Mar 11, 2019

Replace "melee weapon attack" with "melee physical attack" (so physical vs spell) in Monster Manual entries, then you can make "melee physical attacks" with Unarmed Strikes, and see if the problems go away...

S'mon · Mar 11, 2019

5e reminds me of 1e in that it's easy to see what the intent is in any particular case, but difficult to impossible to tease out any general rule!

Paul Farquhar · Mar 11, 2019

Yunru said:
Where's this "attack routine" thing coming from?

1st edition.

Li Shenron · Mar 11, 2019

Meh... I have trouble understanding both the RAW and the RAI to be honest.

Of course, we can always resort to the RAF and allow a Warlock to summon her pact natural weapon... the claw!

[video=youtube;3Jrxyt4gzyQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jrxyt4gzyQ[/video]

GothicEmperor · Mar 11, 2019

Seems pretty clear for things like a Tabaxi's Cat's Claws and a Lizardfolk's Bite. They allow for special unarmed strikes, Martial Arts modifies unarmed strikes, they don't conflict directly, so they can both work at the same time. Trying to group things into categories like Natural Weapons makes things more complicated than it should, as for player-side material the game quite consistently uses 'unarmed strikes' (even Alter Self works by modifying unarmed strikes).

I guess there could be some player hijinks with Polymorphing or Wild Shaping, but I'll deal with that when it comes to it. Considering I could conceivably DM for an entire decade without this coming up, I can live with that pretty easily.

Tallifer · Mar 11, 2019

bedir than said:
For races that have d6 natural weapons you think that their monks would be less effective with those than a rando on the streets?

Well, a Monk is less effective at d4 than other players with a simple weapon. His effectiveness coems from the Flurry and the scaling damage. I guess.