D&D 5E Natural Attacks

[Iry]

It's under the combat section:

I'm not talking about unarmed strikes.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not talking about unarmed strikes.

The person you quoted was (along with others). If you're going to quote someone talking about X and Y, and you only are referencing Y, then it helps if you clarify that rather than make a blanket comment. Otherwise people will infer your'e talking about the whole sentence you're quoting. And you said there was no other definition of what a weapon is, which there is, as i pointed out.

 

[Iry]

The person you quoted was (along with others). If you're going to quote someone talking about X and Y, and you only are referencing Y, then it helps if you clarify that rather than make a blanket comment. Otherwise people will infer your'e talking about the whole sentence you're quoting. And you said there was no other definition of what a weapon is, which there is, as i pointed out.

I didn't feel the need since I made my position clear in Post #29. I can see someone getting confused if they only read one of my posts but not the post before that, but that's hardly my fault.

As for the weapon thing, your quote doesn't define what a weapon is. Just that Unarmed Strikes are not weapons, which is something I absolutely agree with. For example, one reasonable ruling is that "Fist" is a simple weapon and thus qualifies as a monk weapon that benefits from the Martial Arts die. But since Unarmed Strikes are their own thing, a Monk would have to chose between "Fist" and Unarmed Strike when making their bonus action attack, could ONLY use Unarmed Strike (and not "Fist") when making a Flurry of Blows, and "Fist" would not benefit from Ki-Empowered Strikes.

A different DM might rule that "Fist" is not a simple weapon. And there's nothing wrong with that either. It usually comes down to how someone wants to take the wording. Aka, Unarmed Strike [does not count as a weapon] vs. Punch, kick, head-butt [does not count as a weapon].

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah, you've made it clear how you feel. But guess what? Jeremy wrote the rules. So his opinion carries a bit more weight on how those rules should work than your opinion or my opinion. Do what you want at your own table, as always. But you are factually wrong when you say the rules don't work the way they do.

There shouldn't be a debate on this. We know how the rules work. The only debate is people saying they don't like it, and that's expressing opinion, not debating, since you really can't debate opinions (at least not get anywhere by doing so). I'm not going to argue with someone based on their opinion, because it would be like arguing why someone doesn't like ice cream. What's the point in arguing that?

Divine Smite and magic weapon do not, RAW, work with unarmed attacks. End of story.

LOL, when, WHEN? did I ever say what I was saying was NOT my opinion? If you felt it was essential to point out my posts was not in accordance to JC and his silly rulings, congrats--you've accomplished your goal.

And JC is just another person. Sure, he is one of the designers, but so am I, so is everyone who plays and makes the game their own. D&D doesn't belong to JC anymore than it belongs to you or me.

End of story.

 

[Sacrosanct]

LOL, when, WHEN? did I ever say what I was saying was NOT my opinion?

Here:

Does it matter if you can use magic weapon on natural attacks? Nope. Not a lick.
What about using a Paladin's Sacred Weapon channel divinity on an unarmed strike? Sure! Sounds great.

Because it does matter. It's against the RAW. And that's important because:

And JC is just another person. Sure, he is one of the designers, but so am I, so is everyone who plays and makes the game their own. D&D doesn't belong to JC anymore than it belongs to you or me.

End of story.

Wrong. He's the official designer. So while you can do what you want at your table, his rules matter in AL and neither yours nor mine do. That's not an insignificant difference. It's like you're acting like AL doesn't exist or something.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Here:

Because it does matter. It's against the RAW. And that's important because:

Wrong. He's the official designer. So while you can do what you want at your table, his rules matter in AL and neither yours nor mine do. That's not an insignificant difference. It's like you're acting like AL doesn't exist or something.

You seem to be not quoting the very first sentence I wrote in this thread:

"The best thing you can do is get rid of all the nonsense imposed by the 5E designers."

Sorry if I didn't include IMO with every thing I wrote thereafter.

And for me, AL doesn't exist, I've never seen it, never even heard of anyone playing it anywhere near where I live, so I don't give a fig about it.

The OP asked for clarity, and my answer was to ignore the silly restrictions placed by the designers on the game and just have fun with it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You seem to be not quoting the very first sentence I wrote in this thread:

"The best thing you can do is get rid of all the nonsense imposed by the 5E designers."

Sorry if I didn't include IMO with every thing I wrote thereafter.

And for me, AL doesn't exist, I've never seen it, never even heard of anyone playing it anywhere near where I live, so I don't give a fig about it.

The OP asked for clarity, and my answer was to ignore the silly restrictions placed by the designers on the game and just have fun with it.

Well, that's fine you've never heard of AL, but lots of players do play in it. Additionally, it's not just AL. The rules are the default assumption how people play. Any variance is a house rule, and house rules aren't applied to every non-official campaign; it's table specific. So it's important to know what the default rules are, because it's not just AL that follows that rule, it might be the group you just joined that does as well.

Therefore, you can't just tell players it's perfectly OK to always ignore the rules because that only applies in exceptions, not the default mode of play, and they can run into problems if they join an AL game or someone else's game. "But dnd4r told me on a forum I can totally do this!"

Unless explicitly pointed out otherwise in that particular group, people should assume game tables follow the RAW.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, that's fine you've never heard of AL, but lots of players do play in it. Additionally, it's not just AL. The rules are the default assumption how people play. Any variance is a house rule, and house rules aren't applied to every non-official campaign; it's table specific. So it's important to know what the default rules are, because it's not just AL that follows that rule, it might be the group you just joined that does as well.

Therefore, you can't just tell players it's perfectly OK to always ignore the rules because that only applies in exceptions, not the default mode of play, and they can run into problems if they join an AL game or someone else's game. "But dnd4r told me on a forum I can totally do this!"

Unless explicitly pointed out otherwise in that particular group, people should assume game tables follow the RAW.

Well, actually I said I never heard of anyone playing it here, not that I've never heard of AL. These forums were the only place however, and if no one had ever mentioned them, I wouldn't even know about AL at all.

I can tell ever player I meet it IS perfectly ok to ignore any rule they want to and their table plays that way. You play how it makes sense to your group, right? What they run into elsewhere can ALWAYS change! I've never played at two tables that play exactly the same. One of the first things I ask when possibly joining a new group is what house-rules/rulings do you use? Many people ignore the SA and even some errata.

If a player says my advice makes sense to them, but the rest of the table says "we play a different way", the player can choose to accept the change or leave. If a player has issue with that, odds are they will never find a group to play with IMO.

Finally, 5E was supposed to be about simplicity and natural language, etc. but it is astounding how complex they made it, how much errata and SA is needed to clarify things, etc. My post eliminates much of the confusion around when certain features, etc. can be applied to an attack via a weapon or not and such.

 

[NotAYakk]

"melee weapon attack" should be called a "basic melee attack" or "mundane melee attack" or "simple melee attack", which you can make with a weapon, natural weapon or unarmed. This is opposed to a melee spell attack.

Then we wouldn't have the problem of natural weapons which are not melee weapons making a melee weapon attack. Instead we'd have:

You can make a simple melee attack using an unarmed attack, a melee weapon, or with natural weapons.

Paladins can smite on a simple melee attack. But not on a melee spell attack.

The Attack action lets you make a simple melee or a simple ranged attack. But not a melee spell attack.

Extra attack grants an additional simple melee attack.

Greenflame Blade lets you make a simple melee attack as part of casting the spell.

Enchant weapon applies to melee or ranged weapons, or can be used on ammunition.

Shillelagh lets you use your spellcasting ability modifier on simple melee attacks with that club or quarterstaff.

An opportunty attack is a simple melee attack. Warcaster lets you cast a spell (with limits) instead.

Confusion just evaporates.

 

[Iry]

Confusion just evaporates.

That would be very nice. It would also help to streamline the difference between Weapons, Natural Weapons, and Improvised Weapons since... the differences are almost completely imaginary. Right now Jane could rip her own arm off and use it as an improvised weapon, which counts as a weapon when attacking with it, but only sometimes counts as a natural weapon, and may or may not count as a weapon when it's still attached to her body depending on how your DM is feeling that day.

And don't get me started on prosthetic limbs, bone clubs, wooden clubs, warforged, etc.

Easiest answer (IMAO) is that Natural Weapons are just a simple weapon with the Special property, and we can keep Unarmed Strikes their own unique thing (more like a method/style of attacking).