D&D 5E Natural Attacks

[DND_Reborn]

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".

In what way would this be a "major power boost"? We have been playing ignoring the "weapon" part of melee attacks for a long time and I haven't seen anything game breaking, so what is your concern?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In what way would this be a "major power boost"? We have been playing ignoring the "weapon" part of melee attacks for a long time and I haven't seen anything game breaking, so what is your concern?

If haven't played it the other way you wouldn't be aware of how much weaker moon druids, beastmaster companions, and warlock familiars are if you didn't allow spells like Magic Weapon to be cast on them.

As for me it's simply a matter of gameworld logic. A spell needs to be cast on a suitable receptacle. You can't cast Cure Wounds to fix a broken sword after all!

 

[DND_Reborn]

If haven't played it the other way you wouldn't be aware of how much weaker moon druids, beastmaster companions, and warlock familiars are if you didn't allow spells like Magic Weapon to be cast on them.

As for me it's simply a matter of gameworld logic. A spell needs to be cast on a suitable receptacle. You can't cast Cure Wounds to fix a broken sword after all!

If I was aware, I wouldn't have asked. So... how are they weaker then? Compare how you play without the benefits to how much more you would get if you use them.

While I can understand the need for logic (gameworld or otherwise), casting Magic Weapon on a wolf's teeth is close enough to a "dagger or knife" for instance, a person's fist and arm is basically a "club", etc. In a world of magic, seeing a "power of the glow" for such spells and effects is fine by me. YMMV of course.

 

[Todd Roybark]

As a mater of textual review, the fact that 5e does not have a Magic Fang spell leads me to believe that a Magic Weapon spell will work, as written, on any “non magical weapon”, be it natural or otherwise. If the authors intention was to limit the spell to manufactured weapons only, then that should have been stated explicitly, as had been done in the past.

The change of verbiage for Magic Weapon in 5e should be viewed in light of the above as intentional, and I see no evident evidentiary reason why the spell should not be given broad powers, as befits the sole, intentional qualifier of “nonmagical weapon”.

As for balance, only Paladins, Wizards and Artificers have the spell as a base class spell, and the spell requires Concentration. There are a lot more scary Concentrations options one can posit than giving the Fighter a Magic Fist that does 1+1+Str Mod damage. Same for the Magic Steed, Magic Wildshape Druid animal, Magic summoned critter, or Magic Walking Rations a Ranger gets...aka...animal companion.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As a mater of textual review, the fact that 5e does not have a Magic Fang spell leads me to believe that a Magic Weapon spell will work, as written, on any “non magical weapon”, be it natural or otherwise. If the authors intention was to limit the spell to manufactured weapons only, then that should have been stated explicitly, as had been done in the past.

The change of verbiage for Magic Weapon in 5e should be viewed in light of the above as intentional, and I see no evident evidentiary reason why the spell should not be given broad powers, as befits the sole, intentional qualifier of “nonmagical weapon”.

As for balance, only Paladins, Wizards and Artificers have the spell as a base class spell, and the spell requires Concentration. There are a lot more scary Concentrations options one can posit than giving the Fighter a Magic Fist that does 1+1+Str Mod damage. Same for the Magic Steed, Magic Wildshape Druid animal, Magic summoned critter, or Magic Walking Rations a Ranger gets...aka...animal companion.

The person who wrote the rules says it doesn't. That seems like direct evidence to me. If you don't agree, that's one thing. But again, we know what the official rule is, and we have evidence of said rules. I also think it's fundamentally flawed to assume if a rule was worded one way in a previous edition, it means it's interpreted a different way in another. That's pure speculation. And they are different independent editions where how they were worded or written prior has zero bearing on how rules are to be used now.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Legislators write laws, with an intent in mind, and courts adjudicate the text based off history, precedent, and other aspects of judicial history and thought.

Legislative intent is important, but Legislative Execution is more important.

The D&D team failed to execute their intent, in the rules.

There is a long, hoary methodical approach to textual analysis, that apparently the D&D design team is unaware of.

Typing on Twitter your design notes is too late, put those in your book!

Regardless, the words on the page state “nonmagical weapon”, which a natural weapon qualifies as.
This might not have been the intent, but it is the system as written, and it is stable.

Stable is good.

 

[Todd Roybark]

I also think it's fundamentally flawed to assume if a rule was worded one way in a previous edition, it means it's interpreted a different way in another.

No disrespect intended, but this is the basis for rational textual analysis and truth tables.
One checks the data for the perspective on the now and future.

As for the “Jeremy Crawford says he meant X”, how difficult is it to put a “manufactured weapon” qualifier in the spell description? Why should I trust the opinion of “the person that wrote the rules”, but did so poorly.

Are you denying that a natural weapon can qualify, categorically, as a non-magical weapon.

 

[Iry]

"Manufactured" weapon isn't even a useful category. Warforged, Golems, Simulacrum, Homunculus, any prosthetic limb, etc could easily be considered to be manufactured. A step further and people are literally manufactured in wombs, and wield their body parts through connections of flesh, muscle, and bone. Just imagine people carrying around strips of flesh and throwing them over enemy weapons. "Hah, you cannot target your spells on that now!"

Nothing wrong with spells that target specific materials though, like wood or metal.

 

[Sacrosanct]

.

Are you denying that a natural weapon can qualify, categorically, as a non-magical weapon.

Yes, because that's what the rule is. Unarmed attacks and natural attacks do not count as weapons as far as the rules go.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Iry, so by taking your argument to the outer limits of the absurd, we arrive to were we currently are....Magic Weapon effects any “nonmagical weapons”.

Sacrosanct, in my opinion, the suspension of disbelief required for a game like D&D, this hybrid of community theatre meets forensic accounting, requires the participants to have a faith in the rules, in order to accept them.

The official, in my view, tortured explanation of unarmed and natural attacks not counting as weapons strains that faith.

I can accept the reality, the ontic facts on the ground facts, that aspects of existence...like quantum effects seem to violate the Aristotelian notion of non-contradiction. A wholly artificial rule set, like D&D does not have to be created with such paradoxes.

I play with savage, a$$¥oles, (I say this with love), that would guffaw if I laid out the ruling.

More importantly such an official ruling is easily subverted because nearly anything can be an Improvised Weapon.

Cast Magic Weapon on mailed gloves for armored Cestus. Cast the spell on a shield for magical wack a mole. Train your wardog how to joust with a spear tied to it’s back, cast spell on spear. I know my group would happily try to prove this wrong in game, for the sheer fun of it.
(Before the 1st sixer was done and the whisky comes out, no less)

Respectfully, no thank you...on this official Tweet ruling.