Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Natural Weapons; What's Your Take?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 7576526" data-attributes="member: 12377"><p>I picked the first option since it's closer to accurate, but the real answer is "neither."</p><p></p><p>First, I don't think "natural weapons" is a term in 5E, so you're kind of asking about the game-mechanical meaning of something with no game-mechanical meaning. That makes it harder to give a clear RAW answer. But, I think everyone here knows exactly what you mean, and as a concept I think "natural weapons" makes sense to most people. It's just that as a category, "natural weapons" covers two distinct things in 5E, not one thing:</p><p></p><p><strong>1.</strong> Natural weapons that say they are unarmed strikes count as unarmed strikes, e.g. the aarakocra, lizardfolk, and tabaxi traits, and the effects of <em>alter self</em>. I mean, they use the words "unarmed strike" right there in the description. So they're usable with Martial Arts.</p><p></p><p><strong>2.</strong> Monster actions that don't say they are unarmed strikes, aren't. So they don't work with Martial Arts. BUT... they're not weapons either, they're <em>weapon attacks</em>. Just like an unarmed strike is a weapon attack that doesn't use a weapon, a brown bear can use its Claws to make a weapon attack without actually using a weapon. So it doesn't work with Pact of the Blade either, nor can you target the bear's claws with <em>magic weapon</em>, etc. I can't find anything in the rules to suggest that the only two possible sources of weapon attacks are weapons and unarmed strikes, so it seems to me that "natural weapons that aren't unarmed strikes but not weapons either" should be a valid category of things that can make weapon attacks.</p><p></p><p>Now, if we want, we could get absurd and say that by this logic, a knight's Greatsword action isn't a weapon either, because it doesn't say it's a weapon. But since the word "greatsword" is literally a type of weapon, I think it's best to assume that the ability name conveys the additional information that, yes, this is a weapon, not just a weapon attack. So you could kill the knight, loot her greatsword, and attack with it. But if you kill a bear and loot his claws, you can't attack with them, except as an improvised weapon, because they're not actually a weapon, they're his fingernails. He can make a Claws weapon attack with them, but you can't.</p><p></p><p>OTOH, we could lean on "natural language" to rule that the bear is <u>unarmed</u> (we just established that he didn't have a weapon) and he's <u>striking</u> with his claws, therefore, by definition, he is making an <u>unarmed strike</u>. I think that's a valid interpretation, and it would allow the bear (or someone Wild Shaped into a bear) to use Martial Arts with the Claws attack. But I don't think that's the intention. Because by that same rationale you could claim that a monk's unarmed strikes were being used as <u>weapons</u> and are therefore usable with Pact of the Blade and other weapon-related spells, which can lead to some weird interactions, like applying alchemical silver to your fists. Which would I think would be a valid interpretation, and lots of fun for certain play-styles. But...</p><p></p><p>If you are looking for the best answer for "baseline, lowest-common-denominator D&D" then it seems to me that monster weapon attacks are neither unarmed strikes nor weapons unless they say so.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="77IM, post: 7576526, member: 12377"] I picked the first option since it's closer to accurate, but the real answer is "neither." First, I don't think "natural weapons" is a term in 5E, so you're kind of asking about the game-mechanical meaning of something with no game-mechanical meaning. That makes it harder to give a clear RAW answer. But, I think everyone here knows exactly what you mean, and as a concept I think "natural weapons" makes sense to most people. It's just that as a category, "natural weapons" covers two distinct things in 5E, not one thing: [B]1.[/B] Natural weapons that say they are unarmed strikes count as unarmed strikes, e.g. the aarakocra, lizardfolk, and tabaxi traits, and the effects of [I]alter self[/I]. I mean, they use the words "unarmed strike" right there in the description. So they're usable with Martial Arts. [B]2.[/B] Monster actions that don't say they are unarmed strikes, aren't. So they don't work with Martial Arts. BUT... they're not weapons either, they're [I]weapon attacks[/I]. Just like an unarmed strike is a weapon attack that doesn't use a weapon, a brown bear can use its Claws to make a weapon attack without actually using a weapon. So it doesn't work with Pact of the Blade either, nor can you target the bear's claws with [I]magic weapon[/I], etc. I can't find anything in the rules to suggest that the only two possible sources of weapon attacks are weapons and unarmed strikes, so it seems to me that "natural weapons that aren't unarmed strikes but not weapons either" should be a valid category of things that can make weapon attacks. Now, if we want, we could get absurd and say that by this logic, a knight's Greatsword action isn't a weapon either, because it doesn't say it's a weapon. But since the word "greatsword" is literally a type of weapon, I think it's best to assume that the ability name conveys the additional information that, yes, this is a weapon, not just a weapon attack. So you could kill the knight, loot her greatsword, and attack with it. But if you kill a bear and loot his claws, you can't attack with them, except as an improvised weapon, because they're not actually a weapon, they're his fingernails. He can make a Claws weapon attack with them, but you can't. OTOH, we could lean on "natural language" to rule that the bear is [U]unarmed[/U] (we just established that he didn't have a weapon) and he's [U]striking[/U] with his claws, therefore, by definition, he is making an [U]unarmed strike[/U]. I think that's a valid interpretation, and it would allow the bear (or someone Wild Shaped into a bear) to use Martial Arts with the Claws attack. But I don't think that's the intention. Because by that same rationale you could claim that a monk's unarmed strikes were being used as [U]weapons[/U] and are therefore usable with Pact of the Blade and other weapon-related spells, which can lead to some weird interactions, like applying alchemical silver to your fists. Which would I think would be a valid interpretation, and lots of fun for certain play-styles. But... If you are looking for the best answer for "baseline, lowest-common-denominator D&D" then it seems to me that monster weapon attacks are neither unarmed strikes nor weapons unless they say so. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Natural Weapons; What's Your Take?
Top