D&D 5E Natural Attacks

[Seramus]

You said it was still vague, citing older text in the MM. So is it your position that every errata and update is vague, because the original material is always still out there?

My position is that Jeremy Crawford is obscure, D&D should not require sifting through Sage Advice to play, and if there is going to be an official redaction of the Monster Manual then it should be in the Monster Manual errata.

Then no offense, but your AL is in violation of the AL rules. As an AL DM myself previously, that would surprise me that an AL DM would say that. The cardinal rule is that we have to follow the PHB and no other unofficial supplement or house rule.

That's okay. Remember, AL is not a monolithic entity run entirely by rules lawyers. It's run by people who might be well versed on the rules (at best) but usually fall somewhere in the middle and make rulings based on their interpretations of the rules in the heat of the moment. Also, I asked him about casting magic weapon on your fists, not about Unarmed Strikes being weapons.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And magic weapon required a weapon. And fists (unarmed attacks) aren't weapons, as the part of the PHB I quoted states. Therefore, your DM is not adhering to the PHB in which is a requirement for all AL DMs.

Also, you seem to be acting like no one would know what the actual rule is without Jeremy's Twitter. Which is false, because again reference the aforementioned PHB. Even if there are these large swaths of gamers who never saw Twitter, or know of sage advice, or don't know how to use Google, I don't think it's a far grasp to assume they would have seen a PHB for the game they are playing over the past few years.

Jeremy didn't change the rule. He only reiterated what was already there (as examples in the PHB quote from above). Unarmed attacks aren't weapons.

Also, you never answered my question. If Jeremy's "unarmed attacks are not weapons" is vague because an older MM reference stated natural attacks were weapons, then it seems to infer that no errata can ever be anything other than vague, since the original ambiguous material is still out there,because thats the reason you have for it not being a settled issue

 

[Seramus]

And magic weapon required a weapon. And fists (unarmed attacks) aren't weapons, as the part of the PHB I quoted states. Therefore, your DM is not adhering to the PHB in which is a requirement for all AL DMs.

Unarmed Attacks are not weapons. Fists can definitely be weapons, which we can see from the improvised weapon rule.

Also, you seem to be acting like no one would know what the actual rule is without Jeremy's Twitter. Which is false, because again reference the aforementioned PHB. Even if there are these large swaths of gamers who never saw Twitter, or know of sage advice, or don't know how to use Google, I don't think it's a far grasp to assume they would have seen a PHB for the game they are playing over the past few years.

The PHB doesn't say what you think it says. At least, that's my opinion. You believe the opposite. The fact that we disagree = vagueness. Even disagreeing that it's vague = vagueness.

Jeremy didn't change the rule. He only reiterated what was already there (as examples in the PHB quote from above). Unarmed attacks aren't weapons.

Sure. But fists can be improvised weapons.

Also, you never answered my question. If Jeremy's "unarmed attacks are not weapons" is vague because an older MM reference stated natural attacks were weapons, then it seems to infer that no errata can ever be anything other than vague, since the original ambiguous material is still out there,because thats the reason you have for it not being a settled issue

Simple. Update the errata.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Something like Magic Weapon can be used the same way on whatever is the weapon in the attack. Restricting it to "weapons which are weapons" or something just limits the game needlessly, and it is solely because the almighty "JC" says so.

Just a correction here, the Magic Weapon spell has been in the game since at least 2nd edition (possibly 1st), and it has never worked on body parts (well, I can't speak for 4e), long before JC had any say so.

 

[FarBeyondC]

The part where it specifically says natural weapons count as weapons in the monster manual.

Which part is that? Because I couldn't find it in my monster manual.

I mean, on page 10~11 I see this:

The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike.

 

[Seramus]

I mean, on page 10~11 I see this:

That's the one.

 

[FarBeyondC]

That's the one.

That's technically expanding/explaining what all falls under weapon attacks (as opposed to spell attacks), not saying that natural weapons (or manufactured items that aren't actually weapons) count as weapons everywhere the game refers to a weapon.

 

[Hriston]

Of course words have meaning separate from author's intent. Linguistics has advanced in the last 100 years mate.

If I type a bunch of words that are frankly abusive and rude about you, but inform you that they are intended as love and cuddles, my intention doesn't remove the existence of abusive words and make them love and cuddles. Only if every reader agrees with the intention over the plain text does the fact they are, in plain text, "abusive words" not matter at all.

Words are tools. Words that don't say what they intend to are poor tools. Educating every single player what the words really mean based off the intention of the original authors is a waste of resources here.

Game rules are tools. Game rules that don't say, in plain text, what they are supposed to say are poor tools. When the game you get from reading the plain text has issues, going to intention is a great plan! When the game you get from reading the plain text works just fine, ignoring the plain text because the author didn't intend to say that is a waste. Especially in a social game, where the rules are a common touchstone.

Use intention as a guide when rules have problems. Use updated versions if available. But it is madness to not read the words as written when the intention was different than what they wrote, when reading the words as written doesn't cause a problem.

I cannot identify a problem with treating weapons as weapons that matters much.

You seem to have missed my point, which, given the subject, seems kind of ironic.

I agree that a text can have a meaning other than the one the author intended. I didn’t say it couldn’t.

What I did say is that for any meaning to exist at all, whether it’s the meaning the author intended or some other meaning, someone has to read the text and interpret it that way.

I think the text expresses the intended meaning just fine. I’m not advocating for not reading the text. I’m advocating being receptive to an interpretation that aligns with the author’s intent. You seem to think no other interpretation of the text is possible besides one that doesn’t express the intended meaning, and that’s really on you.

 

[Seramus]

That's technically expanding/explaining what all falls under weapon attacks (as opposed to spell attacks), not saying that natural weapons (or manufactured items that aren't actually weapons) count as weapons everywhere the game refers to a weapon.

To me, it's an extremely clear example that "manufactured items" and "a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike" count as weapons everywhere the game refers to a weapon. But we're free to disagree. And that's why I think the wording is vague. Not because I personally find vagueness there, but because I know other people arrive at different conclusions from reading the same text.

 

[Hriston]

To me, it's an extremely clear example that "manufactured items" and "a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike" count as weapons everywhere the game refers to a weapon. But we're free to disagree. And that's why I think the wording is vague. Not because I personally find vagueness there, but because I know other people arrive at different conclusions from reading the same text.

I used to interpret that passage the same way you do. In fact, I think I referenced it up thread three years ago in support of natural weapons being actual weapons. When it was pointed out to me that wasn’t the case, I realized the scare quotes around the word weapon, which admittedly I had been ignoring, actually support the opposite reading, that natural weapons (as opposed to items manufactured as weapons) are not actual weapons.