Druid/Monk AL legal stuff (Pulling out of a different thread)

[Pauper]

Natural weapons are not weapons - therefore they are not simple weapons.

Where is this stated? The closest I can see is in the SRD (p.262), and that suggests that natural weapons are weapons ("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.") That 'weapon' is put in quotes is not enough evidence for me to conclude that natural weapons aren't weapons, given the context. After all, a manufactured item can count as an improvised weapon, and most players (though not the rules) would not consider an improvised weapon to be equivalent to a 'real' weapon. (See, now I'm doing it!)

Unarmed strikes are not weapons, that much is clear (and the weapon list was specifically changed to remove that confusion). The only other reference I can find is under the spell description of Alter Self, but that explanation doesn't help, because that spell equates natural weapons and unarmed strikes as if they are interchangeable. ("You grow claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon of your choice. Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage as appropriate to the natural weapon you chose..." SRD 5.0, p.115). I suspect the spell's wording is deliberate to allow a monk to cast the spell on herself and continue to use her Martial Arts with her unarmed strikes, though higher level monks would have little reason to cast the spell.

--
Pauper

 

[Pauper]

Ahh, I believe I understand what you are getting at now. "Would having natural weapons prevent you from being considered unarmed for the purpose of the martial arts rule."

Almost there -- the 'only' in the rule also applies, so if natural weapons don't count as monk weapons, but do count as weapons, they also prevent the use of Martial Arts, because they cause the character to be armed with a weapon that is not a monk weapon. (Edit: if natural weapons really aren't weapons, then a character with only natural weapons would be unarmed and thus also qualify for the benefits of Martial Arts, so that much is still true.)

But yes, by the way the rule reads, you can make an unarmed strike as a monk while wielding a greatsword, but you can't use the benefits from Martial Arts while doing so. Changing this is changing the text of the rule, which would be a house-rule as defined by Kalani and not allowed in Adventurers League.

--
Pauper

 

[Pauper]

I don't see this sort of conversation really ending with respect to Adventurers League.

I understand that the designers have a pretty laid-back attitude with respect to the rules specifically so that they don't have to design a system that can survive the level of scrutiny we're putting it under right now, and so when questions like this arise, the designers can just say, "Let the DM decide." From the perspective of the game as a whole, that makes sense. Even from the perspective or Organized Play, stating 'expect table variation' as a primary expectation of players in the campaign is reasonable, because the rules simply aren't as exhaustively defined as they were in previous editions.

However, the 'no house-rules' stance of Organized Play throws a wrench at that idea, because now, instead of closely reading the rules to figure out what the designers' intentions are as we did in previous editions, we're closely reading the rules to figure out if the rules leave something unsaid, and are thus a valid 'grey area' for a DM to make a ruling, or if they do say or imply a specific rule, in which case a DM who is not following that said or implied rule is changing the rule when she isn't supposed to.

At the same time, I also understand that adopting a stance that the Player's Handbook is malleable in the hands of a DM but that the Adventurers League Player's Guide must be followed as written creates something of a disconnect as well -- why are the rules of the game less sacrosanct than the rules of the campaign? And the campaign admins, rightly, don't want to give the idea that DMs can just hand-wave things like handing out XP and treasure or how to create characters -- those things are key to keeping the campaign in balance.

I guess this is just a long-winded way to say that the only solution that seems to have presented itself comes in the form of long-winded forum posts like this one. Apologies if you don't find them interesting, but they have a reason beyond just the egos of the folks in the conversation.

--
Pauper

 

[kalani]

Nods. I did say to expect table variation in respect to druid/monks earlier. The only difference now, is that instead of uncertainty about whether beasts can make unarmed strikes (they can), there is uncertainty about whether martial arts was updated in the errata (only someone with a recent printing of the PHB can confirm this), or if it was overlooked in the errata process (due to the fact that this corner case could easily have been overlooked when considering whether the wording needed to be changed).

The easy solution is to ask JC for Sage Advice. His answer is then an optional (and encouraged) resource that DMs can use (or ignore) as they see fit.

 

[Pauper]

there is uncertainty about whether martial arts was updated in the errata (only someone with a recent printing of the PHB can confirm this).

You could also check the SRD -- it contains the PH errata for other rules, and the base monk abilities are included. If Martial Arts was intended to be errata-ed to fit the changes to unarmed strike, it should already exist in the SRD.

Of course, if the Martial Arts rule is unchanged, that doesn't mean the rule wasn't intended to be changed; the designers might just not have thought of it.

--
Pauper

 

[smbakeresq]

Not in AL but I need an answer to this question and its kind of the same as the discussion here. The Stunning Strike entry under monk says you need a melee weapon attack, which an unarmed strike doesn't seem to be anymore, it appears unarmed strikes wont work. How does everyone else see this?

Thanks in advance for the responses.

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

Not in AL but I need an answer to this question and its kind of the same as the discussion here. The Stunning Strike entry under monk says you need a melee weapon attack, which an unarmed strike doesn't seem to be anymore, it appears unarmed strikes wont work. How does everyone else see this?

Thanks in advance for the responses.

Unarmed strikes are still melee weapon attacks, just not weapons themselves.

 

[kalani]

There is a difference between a melee weapon attack, and a melee weapon

All attacks fall into one of four types (and a few subtypes)

Melee Weapon Attack

• With a Weapon or Improvised Weapon
• with a natural attack (claw, bite, etc)
• with an unarmed strike

Ranged Weapon Attack

• With a weapon or Improvised Weapon

Melee Spell Attack

• With a weapon or improvised weapon (eg. GFB or BB)
• Without a Weapon

Ranged Spell Attack

 

[Pauper]

The Stunning Strike entry under monk says you need a melee weapon attack, which an unarmed strike doesn't seem to be anymore, it appears unarmed strikes wont work.

You can make a Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike:

"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)." (SRD 5.0, p.95, emphasis in original)

It's confusing, but you can make a melee weapon attack without a weapon by making an unarmed strike. You cannot, however, do anything with an unarmed strike that requires the use of a weapon -- for example, you can't coat your body parts with Basic Poison, as the poison is used to coat a slashing or piercing weapon.

--
Pauper

 

[smbakeresq]

Thanks. It always made sense that you should be able to, but it wasn't really clear.