D&D 5E Natural Attacks

[GlassJaw]

Sorry for the necro. Posted in the wrong thread.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In terms of 5th Edition rules, what do natural attacks count as?

I've seen some comments in threads here and elsewhere which clarify that they cannot be used as "unarmed attacks" in the context of a monk.

Do they count as weapon attacks? For example, could a druid/paladin smite via crocodile bite?

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

1. Attacks used by the Attack action are grouped into 2 categories: Ranged and Melee.
2. Each category has a sub-group for spells: Ranged Spell and Melee Spell.

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.

Basically, any place the designers felt it necessary to add a word (weapon, or whatever) except for "spell" to melee attack or ranged attack--ignore it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sorry for the necro. Posted in the wrong thread.

LOL, I didn't even realize it! Here I was fooled by a zombie thread into thinking it was a live one. Silly me!

 

[Charlaquin]

LOL, I didn't even realize it! Here I was fooled by a zombie thread into thinking it was a live one. Silly me!

I always check the date of the OP on threads that are nothing but simple rules questions, cause there's a good chance such threads are from early in the edition's lifespan when most folks were still figuring these things out. Especially if the RAW answer or a reference to Sage Advice doesn't appear in the first couple posts.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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

1. Attacks used by the Attack action are grouped into 2 categories: Ranged and Melee.
2. Each category has a sub-group for spells: Ranged Spell and Melee Spell.

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.

Basically, any place the designers felt it necessary to add a word (weapon, or whatever) except for "spell" to melee attack or ranged attack--ignore it.

If you want to play that way, sure. But it’s not what the rules say, and has been clarified by Crawford on multiple occasions. Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, but they are not weapons themselves. Since divine smite and magic weapon both require actual weapons, they can’t be used with unarmed attacks. Per Crawford.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Which is where some of my own confusion comes in because the rules clarifications often vary greatly.

My understanding thus far:

-natural attacks cannot be used as Unarmed Strikes
-natural attacks can be used to make weapon attacks, but are not always considered weapons
-natural attacks are not considered weapons for a druid being able to cast magic weapon on an animal (kinda odd)
-natural attacks are (maybe?) considered weapons for a paladin/druid being able to smite
-natural attacks do benefit from feats depending upon the wording of the feat
-natural attacks can make melee weapon attacks, but they are not always melee weapons in the context of the rules

I've tried to fall back on what makes sense to me, but what makes sense to me doesn't always match what makes sense in the context of D&D.

Stuff like Smite doesn’t care if it’s a weapon. It requires that you make a “melee weapon attack”, which is just any physical melee attack.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Stuff like Smite doesn’t care if it’s a weapon. It requires that you make a “melee weapon attack”, which is just any physical melee attack.

Perhaps you should look at the post directly above yours.

 

[Todd Roybark]

I’m with @dnd4vr on this. WOTC should not have their PR rep tell USA Today that reducing barrier to entry rules was their mantra, when a dagger and a dart have identical stats but the Sharpshooter feat will never apply to a thrown dagger, but the extra damage from the Dueling Fighting Style would apply to thrown daggers, as long as you only have one weapon in hand at the time of throwing.

The 5e rules meander between natural language and category specific language so often, that rule parsing is made more difficult, than in more rule heavy editions like 3e and 4e.

How about Sharpshooter applies to ranged attacks, period? You find a way to toss the dwarf in your party and you have Sharpshooter, go ahead and apply the feat!

All rules eventually become ridiculous when trying to model ‘reality’, so might as well make the rules simple, clear, and ridiculously cool.

Why can’t a Pally Smite with a unarmed punch attack? It does not throw off balance, just delays the game with pointless arguments and rule lookups/ Twitter debates.

 

[Iry]

Unarmed Attacks are their own thing and do not count as a weapon.
Natural Weapons are entirely up to the DM if they count as weapons or not.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I’m with @dnd4vr on this. WOTC should not have their PR rep tell USA Today that reducing barrier to entry rules was their mantra, when a dagger and a dart have identical stats but the Sharpshooter feat will never apply to a thrown dagger, but the extra damage from the Dueling Fighting Style would apply to thrown daggers, as long as you only have one weapon in hand at the time of throwing.

The 5e rules meander between natural language and category specific language so often, that rule parsing is made more difficult, than in more rule heavy editions like 3e and 4e.

How about Sharpshooter applies to ranged attacks, period? You find a way to toss the dwarf in your party and you have Sharpshooter, go ahead and apply the feat! ✌

All rules eventually become ridiculous when trying to model ‘reality’, so might as well make the rules simple, clear, and ridiculously cool.

Why can’t a Pally Smite with a unarmed punch attack? It does not throw off balance, just delays the game with pointless arguments and rule lookups/ Twitter debates.

Well, the reason Jeremy gave for the smite rule is because the the one who is supposed to be best with unarmed attacks is the monk. Not the paladin. That's why. And in the smite description, it says the damage is added to the weapons damage. So there isn't any real language inconsistency there except by people who want it to apply since unarmed attacks have never been weapons. They are catigorized as melee weapon attacks, but that's not the same thing.