D&D 5E Natural Attacks

[DND_Reborn]

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.

In 1E it was the 4th-level Magic-User spell Enchanted Weapon. But, of course then, the distinction between pummeling and grappling and melee attacks were more precisely worded.

As I said about "the glow", I don't mind if Magic Weapon doesn't apply to natural weapons and unarmed strikes, I just wish it was better worded (not the spell itself, mind, but the whole thing in general).

Finally, in this edition, it is because JC says so. He had the power to make things simpler, clearer, and such, allowing for greater freedom in the game, and choose not to do so.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Finally, in this edition, it is because JC says so. He had the power to make things simpler, clearer,

Earlier editions where perfectly clear: "You cannot cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike."


You play the game your way, fine, but don't try to impose your preferences on other players.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Earlier editions where perfectly clear: "You cannot cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike."

You play the game your way, fine, but don't try to impose your preferences on other players.

And where is that quote from? It isn't in my PHB, is it in yours?

LOL I am not imposing my preferences, I am calling out the 5E designers to do a better job. If your intent is one thing, write the game that way.

You're focuses on Magic Weapon, fine, but there are SO many other place and features where this is a problem and new players continue to not get the preferences of the designers with the way they wrote it.

If you don't like my posts, you have no obligation to continue to respond.

 

[Hriston]

Relevant quote from the 5E PHB vis-à-vis weapons and unarmed strikes (because I assume that’s what’s being asked for):

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons).​

 

[Sacrosanct]

Unarmed Attacks are not weapons. Fists can definitely be weapons, which we can see from the improvised weapon rule.
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.
Sure. But fists can be improvised weapons.
Simple. Update the errata.

I’m sorry, but you’re objectively wrong here. This isn’t a matter of opinion. I’m reminded of that Issac Asimov quote about the problem being people want their opinions counted as equally as fact.

the book doesn’t refer to unarmed attacks or natural attacks as “weapons everywhere it mentions weapons”. It literally says unarmed attacks aren’t weapons. It has “weapon” in quotes when talking about natural attacks, which if you knowhow quotes are used, tells you they aren’t really considered a weapon how the game describes that.

there are only four types of attacks: melee weapon, ranged weapon, melee spell, and ranged spell. Unarmed attacks and natural attacks have to fall under one of those four. Which category would you choose? That doesn’t mean they are defined as weapons because that’s a different thing. We know this not just because Jeremey has repeatedly said so, but because the book literally tells you unarmed attacks are not weapons

If you’re arguing that unarmed attacks aren’t weapons but a fist is, I think you need to step back and look at how your argument has progressed. Read what you wrote again. Even if you ignore the ridiculousness of that, the book gives examples of what unarmed attacks are, which include using fists. But that shouldn’t even be needed, because no reasonable person would say I’ve suddenly become armed with a weapon every time I made a fist, and unarmed every time I opened my hand.

So when the book says, “unarmed attacks are not weapons”, that’s not something vague you can disagree with. It’s a clear stated fact. Tell me what other way you can interpret that sentence?

 

[Seramus]

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.

I see the quotes as an acknowledgement that some items in the list might not be considered weapons by some, but are considered weapons by the system. I've got nothing against your interpretation, and definitely see how you could arrive at it, but I don't consider it to be the most likely one.

I’m sorry, but you’re objectively wrong here. This isn’t a matter of opinion. I’m reminded of that Issac Asimov quote about the problem being people want their opinions counted as equally as fact.

I'm reminded of the crusades. Massive ecclesiastic schisms have come about because two different people can read the same text and arrive at different conclusions, but then one party says "There is only one true way!" and suddenly there's armies and murder.

there are only four types of attacks: melee weapon, ranged weapon, melee spell, and ranged spell. Unarmed attacks and natural attacks have to fall under one of those four. Which category would you choose? That doesn’t mean they are defined as weapons because that’s a different thing. We know this not just because Jeremey has repeatedly said so, but because the book literally tells you unarmed attacks are not weapons.

If you’re arguing that unarmed attacks aren’t weapons but a fist is, I think you need to step back and look at how your argument has progressed. Read what you wrote again. Even if you ignore the ridiculousness of that, the book gives examples of what unarmed attacks are, which include using fists. But that shouldn’t even be needed, because no reasonable person would say I’ve suddenly become armed with a weapon every time I made a fist, and unarmed every time I opened my hand.

I'm not arguing about unarmed strikes, and I don't know why you keep bringing it up in a conversation with me. You're having that argument with other people, not me. The multitude of posters arguing against you are not a monolithic entity either. We each have slightly different positions.

But that shouldn’t even be needed, because no reasonable person would say I’ve suddenly become armed with a weapon every time I made a fist, and unarmed every time I opened my hand.

The improvised weapon rules say it counts as a weapon when you make an attack with it, and then not as a weapon as soon as you finish the attack. And then you get into the Rip Off Your Arm/Picked Up By A Giant trap other posters have mentioned.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Earlier editions where perfectly clear: "You cannot cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike."

If I am not mistaken you are quoting the 3e version of the spell. 3e also had Magic Fang which worked on natural weapons.

1e’s Enchanted Weapon spell did indeed only work on weapons, it was also Reversible and a 4th level spell. Frankly, in 1e I saw it used as Disenchant Weapon more than as Enchanted Weapon, as magic weapons in general were more common and required. 1e monks could also technically by RAW stun and kill creatures they hit, but did no damage to, e.g. hitting a demon with an unarmed strike and rolling well.

2e I believe was similar, except of course no Monks as a PC class, and Druids were an example of Specialty Priests.

Also I think if fair to state, 1e and 2e were not balanced systems.

As I have stated, the rules being discussed, are in 5e almost identical to the 3e rules, except for the removal of Magic Fang as a separate spell, and a change to the verbiage of 2nd level Magic Weapon, away from the clear verbiage that Paul F quoted to the more broad “non magical weapon” language currently employed today.

The clear impact engendered by this change is the 5e Magic Weapon spell, wether by intent or accident, can in one handy dandy package handle the duties of both 3e spells Magic Fang and Magic Weapon.

As for the claims by Sanc and Paul F regarding people “telling them how to play”, myself and others have only detailed how we hold the testimony of Crawford’s Tweets as having less evidentiary value than yourselves. I wish this was less threatening for you.

That said, I have still not seen a convincing argument for why Magic Weapon would be unbalancing if applied to natural weapons in 5e.

History Synopsis:

1e: Wildly different rules ecosystem to 5e( like comparing the Tropical Antarctica of the past to the Antarctica of today), Enchant Weapon 4th level spell
2e: as 1e only No Monk class, Druids are one of many Specialty Priest classes...rarely used imho.
3e...see post above
4e...wildly different rule ecosystem, power verbiage is specific to class/power in most cases.

 

[Seramus]

Yeah. I want to be clear that I like and respect Crawford. Balancing game mechanics is incredibly hard and he deserves credit for getting most of it right. But digging through Sage Advice, and I do mean DIGGING, should never be a requirement to play D&D.

Give me the book. Give me the errata document. Done.
And some tables don't even do the second part.

 

[Coroc]

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.

Is there some 3e magic fang spell (druid) in 5e? Do not have books at hand atm. Was magic fang already in 2e also?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Is there some 3e magic fang spell (druid) in 5e? Do not have books at hand atm. Was magic fang already in 2e also?

5e doesn't have "Magic Fang", it replaces it with "natural weapons count as magical" class abilities for moon druids, monks etc.

I don't think Magic Fang was in 2nd edition, but I never owned all the books. In 1st edition there was a rule that natural weapons for creatures over certain hit dice counted as magical.

The role of pets was rather expanded in 3rd edition, in comparison to both 2nd and 5th, so it was necessary to give them some way of hitting mundane-weapon immune monsters. It was already well established that Magic Weapon (and similar spells like Bless Weapon) did not work on natural weapons.

Technically "Magic Fang" didn't work on natural weapons either - it targets the creature, not it's claws/teeth directly.