Level Up (A5E) Rule Clarification

[Huntedown]

Morning everyone.

My DM and I went over some theory craft on A5E

If I end up making a multi-class Adept/Druid.

​

• What does unarmed strike mean?
• My answer: Any attack without a weapon or Adept weapon?
• If that character would wild shape into a black bear and have level into adept, would the claw/bite attack consider unarmed strike?
• Possible answer: MM pg 439, say that the black bear and claw are weapon, so no!
• Possible answer: If unarmed strike mean: An attack without a weapon (I would exclude natural weapon as weapon) or with an adept weapon, then yes!
• If the previous answer would be yes.
• Could it use his bonus action to make an additional unarmed strike

Thank you

​

-

 

[Faolyn]

Dragonborn can make unarmed strikes with their claws, so I would imagine that yes, a bear would also be making unarmed strikes with their claws as well.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Possible answer: MM pg 439, say that the black bear and claw are weapon, so no!

the ascetic grandmaster (pg 465) lists its unarmed strike as a "melee weapon attack", so i'm going to say that no, an attack being listed as a "melee weapon attack" does not necessarily making the attacking instrument a weapon (paradoxically enough).

i'd rule a black bear's claw and similar natural weapons as unarmed strikes. makes sense to me.

 

[Anselm]

Beasts and characters in beast shapes have "natural weapon" attacks. They are referenced separately. See invigorated strike spell:

"Invigorated Strikes (tra): Increase the damage dealt by a creature’s unarmed strikes and natural weapons."

and weapon attacks:

"All creatures are proficient with their natural weapons and unarmed strikes. Unless otherwise noted, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + Strength modifier. Attacks made with natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered to be melee weapon attacks, and a thrown weapon is considered to be a ranged weapon attack."

However, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Surprisingly, I don't think A5E defines or gives examples of an unarmed strike. O5E does:

"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)"

Obviously we can ignore the spots where they directly contradict each other but I think the idea is generally the same. Honestly it's very unclear where a line would be. Is a punch the same thing as a swipe with claws? There's for sure a difference in damage dice but unarmed strikes themselves can have different damage dice. There for sure no formal weapon in play for either. Natural weapons are similarly undefined.

Honestly I'd say yes to a point. Any natural weapons count as unarmed strikes if they're a part of the creatures body when the attack is made and they're not being used separately from the creatures body. Spines being shot at someone at range or a broken claw used like a dagger, for example, would be weapons and not unarmed strikes.

I'd also be clear with the player that things might be out of balance because there's some gray area. "Subject to future rebalance if so."

 

[Morrus]

The sidebar on page 309 defines weapon attacks, including natural weapons and unarmed strikes.

 

[jphinney]

I'd be ok with my group, if we are saying that when you change into bear shape you can still perform like your adept would. So, you are standing on back legs and attacking like a martial artist, not like a bear. If you are more like the bear, I'd say you are not getting the adept bonus to your natural weapons, as you are swiping with your claws not making a martial attack. I see the Dragonborn example different as they are humanoid and attacking as such.

 

[Anselm]

The sidebar on page 309 defines weapon attacks, including natural weapons and unarmed strikes.

It says that they're both weapon attacks and the damage that can be assumed by them but doesn't define what an unarmed strike is in game and assumes the readers knows what an unarmed strike entails for their character. I'm not saying this is bad just that it doesn't help answer what the difference between a natural weapons and unarmed strike is.

Purely by the wording, they are exactly the same thing. A fist is a natural weapon if used to hit someone and it's also not itself on the weapon table. a tail or head is the same thing. A claw on a bear or tiger is the same thing. Ultimately without saying what distinguishes them, the reader has to make some assumptions about why they are called out separately.

 

[Morrus]

Purely by the wording, they are exactly the same thing.

Well, if the rules say they're the same thing, and you've observed that, I'm not sure what the question is? I think I may be misunderstanding something?

 

[Anselm]

Well, if the rules say they're the same thing, and you've observed that, I'm not sure what the question is? I think I may be misunderstanding something?

The original question is "can natural weapons be used in the places that call out unarmed strikes?" and I think the answer is "sometimes" but it's unclear because they're never fully defined by the ruleset.

Ie: they're distinguished from each other but when one stops being the other is unclear.

 

[xiphumor]

It actually seems as though they’re not the same, but are related. The dragonborn can use natural weapons to make unarmed strikes.