D&D 5E Natural Attacks

[Nebulous]

Not really, despite the rules arguments. It isn't going to break the game. You may want to consider whether you'd allow it the next time that question were asked, but I don't see a pressing reason to go back on what you said in this particular case.

I'm just wary of saying yes to something and later regret doing that because of an implication I wasn't aware of. This doesn't seem like a big deal though, but I wanted to make sure.

 

[Fenris-77]

No, melee weapon attacks are, rather confusingly, not always made by actual melee weapons. This kind of tortured verbiage and vaguely ridiculous outcomes are why I generally ignore the whole mess.

 

[Nebulous]

No, melee weapon attacks are, rather confusingly, not always made by actual melee weapons. This kind of tortured verbiage and vaguely ridiculous outcomes are why I generally ignore the whole mess.

That's what it seems like, confusing verbiage that causes problems.

 

[Fenris-77]

It's not as bad as it sounds. If it's not on the list in the PHB, it's not a melee weapon. Neither unarmed strikes nor natural attacks are melee weapons, but can be used to attack in melee (i.e. make a melee weapon attack). It would have been easier if the term 'melee attack' had been used for the general term but c'est la vie.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

You could argue that yes, but there's no to hit or damage bonus from that 6th level ability. And stunning strike says, "When you hit another creature with a melee weapon Attack" which is clearly your fists. So the wording in these abilities is messed up it seems.

5e makes a distinction between a "Melee weapon attack", and an "Attack with a melee weapon".
A monk can make melee weapon attacks with their body, but their body is not considered a melee weapon.

 

[Nebulous]

5e makes a distinction between a "Melee weapon attack", and an "Attack with a melee weapon".
A monk can make melee weapon attacks with their body, but their body is not considered a melee weapon.

so weird

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Nebulous :

As others have said, Magic Weapon cannot be cast on a monk according to RAW.

That said, IGNORE IT!

As you surmise, it is a pretty stupid lingual verbiage IMO. Giving a character a +1 to attack and damage rolls for up to 1 hour at the cost of a spell slot and concentration (enough of a handicap in 5E, also IMO) will not hurt a single thing.

Allowing a paladin to use an unarmed strike and channel his divine strike through it increases the flavor and magical feeling in a game.

Casting other "weapon only" spells on unarmed strikes also doesn't hurt a thing and just makes the game better IMO.

Also, although Unarmed Strike is not currently in the list of weapons in the PHB, it WAS before:

Removing it, and making it a "melee weapon attack" which is not a melee weapon was DUMB and has led to so much confusion and debate it is moronic. The rules worked simply enough before, allowing melee attack features to apply to weapons, unarmed strikes, natural weapons, etc.

Numerous tweets and Sage Advice has come up on this because they made it needlessly confusing.

Although not RAW, my advice to anyone playing D&D is forget JC and the other designers' nonsense. Like many things, the had it right the first time and later changed their minds, adding special this and special that (concerning what is an unarmed strike, etc.) to cover it all.

 

[NotAYakk]

The thing is they think of "melee weapon attack" as a "basic melee attack" ala 4e. They wrote "melee weapon attack", because of anti-4e bias in some of the potential customers to 5e.

I agree they are insane, in that once they decided to call it a "melee weapon attack", things used to make it should qualify as melee weapons. Their failure to do this, or to consider they'd have to do this, is a screwup on their part.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You could argue that yes, but there's no to hit or damage bonus from that 6th level ability. And stunning strike says, "When you hit another creature with a melee weapon Attack" which is clearly your fists. So the wording in these abilities is messed up it seems.

a melee weapon attack is not an attack with a melee weapon. As I said, "weapon" in that context* just means "not a spell". There are only two attack forms in 5e: weapon and spell. Everything has to be classed as either one or the other.

As for balance issues - ignoring it has little effect on monks, who can always use a monk weapon instead, but it would be a major power boost for moon druids and combat companions.

In 3rd edition there was a whole separate set of spells for enhancing natural weapons. You cast "Magic Weapon" on your sword and "Magic Fang" on your animal companion.


*Whereas in the context of Magic Weapon spell it means "an inanimate tool you can attack with".

 

[Seramus]

Body parts are weapons. We can see it in the MM under natural weapons and the goblin arm under improvised weapons.

The real question is whether the body part can have spells cast on it while it is not being used to attack.