Natural Weapons; What's Your Take?

Sorcerers Apprentice · Mar 10, 2019

77IM said:
OTOH, we could lean on "natural language" to rule that the bear is unarmed (we just established that he didn't have a weapon) and he's striking with his claws, therefore, by definition, he is making an unarmed strike. I think that's a valid interpretation, and it would allow the bear (or someone Wild Shaped into a bear) to use Martial Arts with the Claws attack.

You cannot legally rule that a bear is unarmed, since that would violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

Greenstone.Walker · Mar 11, 2019

Yunru said:
It can be boiled down to two possibilities

Three possibilities, including my vote: they are a different thing called natural weapons.

An attack with a natural weapon is a melee weapon attack, but is not an attack with a melee weapon or an unarmed attack.

bedir than · Mar 11, 2019

Tallifer said:
I suppose a monk could use Natural Weapons such as his claws, but the damage and number of attacks would revert to whatever his Class Feature prescribes at that level.

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

Yunru · Mar 11, 2019

Li Shenron said:
I don't think that Alter Self creates a general rule for the game.

The game is exception-based so if only Alter Self says that your unarmed strikes damage increase, it means it's a specific benefit of Alter Self.

Of course it doesn't, but then again, each race's Darkvision is different and specific to them, but they all match the basic mechanics of the general rule (with only the tint being different).
Is it unreasonable to expect that whatever the general rule is for natural weapons (since it's never specified) to do likewise, given that every instance of them having a specific ruling all alter Unarmed Strikes?

Li Shenron said:
(at least there are monsters who do e.g. bites and unarmed attacks separately)

Sure, but there are also monsters who do bites and claws separately, or Tabaxi players under the effect of Alter Self who could do the same. Or Tabaxi players who decide they're going to headbutt someone instead of using their claws.

Greenstone.Walker said:
Three possibilities, including my vote: they are a different thing called natural weapons.

An attack with a natural weapon is a melee weapon attack, but is not an attack with a melee weapon or an unarmed attack.

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

GlassJaw · Mar 11, 2019

Your poll needs a "both" option.

I am so tired of the weapon/natural weapon/unarmed strike debate. 3ed had a massive problem with this and it's been unclear ever since. I've tried to follow the errata, Sage advice, etc. and it becomes mind-numbing. I really wished they cleared up the wording in 5E. One of 5E's big missteps.

I'm at the point where I don't care. You want to cast Magic Weapon on your fists or your claws? Awesome. Let's play and roll dice.

Azzy · Mar 11, 2019

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.

jmartkdr · Mar 11, 2019

RAW, neither.

At my table:

it, both. Either, if you can make that relevant.

jmartkdr · Mar 11, 2019

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

You can have weapon attacks without using weapon. For example. an monk's unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks.

Shiroiken · Mar 11, 2019

It is clearly a DM's call if they are unarmed attacks or not, since the books are unclear. The only example of a PC having natural weapons without a transmutation (that seem to have listed rules) that I've seen in a non-3PP is the Tabaxi. The Tabaxi cat claws ability clearly calls out that they can be used as an unarmed attack. A DM could believe that this sets precedent, meaning that all natural weapons are unarmed attacks, or believe that this is a case of the specific overruling the general.

It should be VERY clear that they are not weapons, since they are a part of the creature. You cannot logically disarm a natural weapon, for instance.

My personal belief is that it should be neither. When they changed Unarmed Attacks to no longer be on the weapon table, they indicated that all creatures can make Unarmed Attacks, being redundant for creatures with natural weapons (which is most of them). YMMV