D&D 5E Natural Attacks

[Sacrosanct]

The current state of players has zero bearing on whether a rule exists or not. If you feel ignored, it's probably because you have refused to address the actual point I made. Or you insist on making dishonest statements like this.

 

[Seramus]

In what way is "unarmed attacks and natural attacks do not count as weapons" ambiguous? That seems pretty clear. And it's been repeated many times. So what part of THAT sentence is confusing you, exactly?

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

 

[Sacrosanct]

Let me rephrase it like this. A person asked if they could use magic weapon or divine smite on natural or unarmed attacks. You said the designers are rediculous, so sure! You can do it.

And that's not true. Not completely. It's not the rule, so you can't do it when joining an AL game and you can't do it in any other game unless the DM explicitly permits it as a house rule.

Everything else, how people don't like it, or how many people know how to use the internet (not just Twitter, because anyone can Google the question and find the answer right away), is moot. I don't care if people like it or don't like it, because it's not relevant to there being an actual unambiguous rule out there. Because thats indisputable. Anything else is opinionated chaff I have no interest in.

 

[NotAYakk]

Repeating yourself while ignoring direct questions is a waste of everyone's time.

Have a nice day.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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

If something more recent comes out and clarifies an issue with unambiguous and clear intent, do you normally place more weight on the older phrase before things were clarified? I mean, you do you, but I'd posit most people look at the most recent rulings to know how things should be done, and not old outdated manuals. As a former helicopter mechanic, it would be disasterous if I ignored more recent procedures and continued to use old info

 

[Seramus]

I just checked with a local AL DM.
He says no problem.

 

[Seramus]

If something more recent comes out and clarifies an issue with unambiguous and clear intent, do you normally place more weight on the older phrase before things were clarified? I mean, you do you, but I'd posit most people look at the most recent rulings.

No. Most people do not sift through Sage Advice. They download the errata document at best. There are some people who religiously read Sage Advice and understand each side of the discussion, but those people are quite the minority.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Speaking of ignoring questions, no one has bothered to answer the one I've posed this entire time.

What part of "unarmed attacks are not considered weapons" is vague, or ambiguous. Because every time I say the rule is settled because Jeremy has said that SEVERAL times on various forms of communication, folks keep disagreeing.

So why not answer it ? All you do is complain how you don't agree with it, or how not everyone is on Twitter, which isn't the point I've argued at all. The only thing I've said is that it's a settled rule. Because it is. That is not under dispute, and your inference that it is because some people haven't seen it is fundamentally flawed for reasons I gave above.

So how about answering my question I've been asking for a long time, if you want people to answer questions.

Ah, but you aren't including the entire picture, are you?

Even though unarmed strikes (not "attacks", by the way) are not considered weapons, you can use them to make melee weapon attacks. That is not where the confusion lies IMO once you are presented with the statement.

Your point is well taken. Sooner or later people will be told of the rule as intended. Many people are fine with that, but others are miffed. Why the change? What is wrong with the other way? 5E is about natural language and yet the language is confusing for some players, especially newbies.

To that point, the confusion comes with features where you make a melee weapon attack but cannot use that feature with unarmed strikes.

For example, Divine Smite:

Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum o f 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend.

Now. I want to make an unarmed strike as a melee weapon attack, which is allowed. I want to use my divine smite when I hit. Can I? The text says I deal radiant damage in addition to the weapon's damage. Well, I didn't use a weapon so I gain no damage from that, but I still get the radiant damage. Oh, and since an unarmed strike does 1 + STR, I get that, too.

Others argue since I didn't use a weapon, I can't use Divine Smite. Why not?

How about Horde Breaker:

Once on each o f your turns when you make a weapon attack, you can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet o f the original target and within range of your weapon.

Here, it very specifically states "when you make a weapon attack", so you must have a weapon and be attacking with that weapon. It is clear unarmed strikes do not work with Horde Breaker.

And examples, in both directions, continue. Some clear, some not. People ask why have the distinction? Because JC says so. Uh-huh... great call on his part. It isn't for game balance as I can see it, at least not given any argument anyone has made so far.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No. Most people do not sift through Sage Advice. They download the errata document at best. There are some people who religiously read Sage Advice and understand each side of the discussion, but those people are quite the minority.

I said the rule is settled because Jeremy came out (several times) and explicitly said what it means.

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?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I just checked with a local AL DM.
He says no problem.

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. And the PHB states

Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on unarmed strikes read as follows: “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). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”