What exactly qualifies as a weapon? Are there weaponlike supernatural abilities?

[danzibr]

I feel stupid for asking such a basic question. Anyway...

What exactly qualifies as a weapon? Surely it's not as simple as saying, "If you make an attack roll, then it's a weapon." For example, Weapon Focus says, "You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat," which to me says they are not truly weapons. RC helps out and says, "Any spell that requires an attack roll is weaponlike," then goes on and gives a (presumably) comprehensive list of feats which, "can be chosen to enhance the performance of weaponlike spells in combat." What's interesting is it says you can take Weapon Focus for ranged weaponlike spells or touch weaponlike spells, but not all ranged weaponlike spells are rays.

Long story short... I totally haven't answered my own question. Take for example our friend the Manticore. Under its Spikes (Ex) ability it says, "With a snap of its tail, a manticore can loose a volley of six spikes as a standard action (make an attack roll for each spike). This attack has a range of 180 feet with no range increment." For other reasons I believe the spikes to be natural weapons (the spikes are physically a part of the Manticore), but how about creatures which have extraordinary or supernatural abilities which require attacks rolls for something which isn't a part of their body? Would those be weaponlike extraordinary abilities or weaponlike supernatural abilities? Is there such a thing?

On the flip side, are there any weapons which don't require an attack roll to... use? Like a breath weapon or something. Is a breath weapon technically a weapon?

EDIT: I really meant, "what is a weapon?"

[Alabenson]

What exactly qualifies as a weapon? Surely it's not as simple as saying, "If you make an attack roll, then it's a weapon."

Actually, essentially it is that simple. Weapons may be subdivided into Manufactured Weapons, Natural Weapons, and Weapon-like Spells, but the primary requirement to be considered a weapon and/or weapon-like is the requirement to make an attack roll.

[danzibr]

Actually, essentially it is that simple. Weapons may be subdivided into Manufactured Weapons, Natural Weapons, and Weapon-like Spells, but the primary requirement to be considered a weapon and/or weapon-like is the requirement to make an attack roll.
Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source for this? I want it to be true, but I am quite a doubter.

Also, are there such things as weaponlike things other than spells? In particular I'm interested in whether or not weaponlike supernatural abilities or weaponlike extraordinary abilities exist.

[Curmudgeon]

An unarmed strike may qualify as a weapon, but there are no actual weapons involved.
unarmed strike

A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. That's why a Monk's kicks can't be made of masterwork quality.

[Morgarion]

It's hard to give you a good answer without knowing the purpose for which something should be considered a weapon or not. As you have phrased your questions, it doesn't really matter whether things are weapons or not, because given the scope (or lack thereof) of your inquiry, there is no cogent category of 'weapon' that has any significance in terms of rules. SLAs, natural attacks, improvised attacks, breath weapons, melee weapons, ranged weapons, etc. all have rules that cover their uses and limitations.

If you wanted to know, for example, whether breath weapons receive any benefit from two-weapon fighting feats, then the definition of 'weapon' becomes pertinent.

[Captnq]

I feel stupid for asking such a basic question. Anyway...
What exactly qualifies as a weapon?


You aren't stupid, just try a little more google-fu before asking a question like this.

Go HERE (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9053.msg183871#msg183871).
Download complete list of every possible weapon in 3.0 and 3.5.
You are welcome.



On the flip side, are there any weapons which don't require an attack roll to... use? Like a breath weapon or something. Is a breath weapon technically a weapon?

One. The Sprayer. It creates a 10'x5' line.

Also the Caber is the only other Area Effect Weapon, but it still requires an attack roll.

Don't know what a caber is? Check out my entry from the Weapon Handbook.



CABER
- MASTERS OF THE WILD (3.0)
Exotic Thrown Weapon
Cost: 10 gp
Damage: See Below
Critical: x2
Range: 10 ft
Weight: 100 lb
Type: B
A caber is a heavy pole that you can throw at one or more targets grouped closely together. To throw a caber, you must target a 10-toot-square area and hit AC 15. Success means that everyone in the target area must make a Reflex save (DC = your attack roll) or move 5 feet backward. If a creature or object in the target area is incapable of movement, it takes 2d6 points of damage. The caber is normally used for breaking up military formations.
Editor: This is a 3.0 weapon, so your DM may not allow it’s use. "What rolls downstairs, along or in pairs, and rolls over your neighbor’s dog? What's great for a snack, and fits on your back..." Ren and Stimpy references aside, what you have here is the only area of effect weapon. Unfortunately, the weight of this thing is off the charts. I would suggest using a Glove of storing to keep it in reserve. It’s a Log. It’s a frickin’ Log. Not just a fireplace log. No. A log that weighs ONE HUNDRED POUNDS. Seriously? This has got my vote for most bizarre weapon.
Editor (General WSAs): Since the weapon does no damage, you have to use only WSAs where you hit the target, but don’t need to do damage. The upside is, you hit everyone if you hit AC 15, so it always goes off. Ranged jumps right out at me, because it’s only effective out to 50 feet. Aquatic (2,000 gp) might be nice. Imagine throwing a log 50 feet down to bash a bunch of sea creatures, then watching the log float back up to you. If I saw someone throw a log 50 feet through water, I’d be frickin terrified. Clouting is +3, but it will knock your targets back another 10 feet. Diseased (+1) will do con and Dex damage once. But how often are you going to throw this thing? Dislocator (+1) teleports the targets 10 feet. Explosive will cause it to do damage to everyone in the area, regardless if they make the reflex save. Rusting would be just rude. Shrinking would make transporting so much easier. Torturous might stun someone. And wounding (+2) will drop all targets one point of con.
Editor (Exit Wound): A +2 bonus. Wow. How to handle this one. I mean, technically it works. However, you are aiming for an area, not a person. But an area is a target, so… That would mean the first 10 square you hit is at AC 15, the next 10 square is at AC 19, then AC 23, AC 27, and finally AC 31. You have to roll to hit each square, or it stops in the last square you hit. It does 1d6 extra damage to every target in the square that fails a reflex save. Basically you roll the log for 50 feet and crush a whole bunch of people. Definitely buy it with ranged and teleporting. Roll your log a 100 feet, then have it reappear in your hand next round to do it again. Bonus points if you dress up as Donkey Kong.
Editor (Hating Invisibility): Revealing causes everyone who you hit to gain faerie fire for one round. Upgrade to sparkling for several rounds. Think you have an invisible intruder, throw a log at an area and see if anyone in it glows. Technically, it works if the enemy is hit, not damaged, so everyone in the area starts glowing, no saving throw allowed.


It's a bunch of stuff like that. However, if you STILL got questions that the Weapon Handbook does not explain, PLEASE post your question in the discussion thread. I'm taking a break, but eventually I will update it to include all comments and concerns.

[Menzath]

I know that for weapon-like spells it mentions it in the pre-feat section of Complete Arcane, because that book has the feats weapon focus (Touch spells) and weapon focus (Ranged spells) or something like that.

[danzibr]

I'll have to look through the aforementioned material in greater detail, but let me first remove the ambiguity.

Rather than saying, "what qualifies as a weapon" I should've asked, "what is is a weapon?"

In other words, take an object (even abstractly, like a spell or whatever). Is it a weapon, yes or no?

[Morgarion]

In the simplest, most unambiguous terms in D&D, a weapon is any item off of this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponDescriptions) table, plus any object you pick up off the ground to bonk someone with (improvised weapon).

Spells are not weapons, they are spells. Spell-like abilities are not weapons. Unarmed strikes are not weapons.

Occasionally, you can treat other things as if they are weapons for the purpose of certain feats, abilities and rules. A good example is Weapon Focus.

[danzibr]

In the simplest, most unambiguous terms in D&D, a weapon is any item off of this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponDescriptions) table, plus any object you pick up off the ground to bonk someone with (improvised weapon).

Spells are not weapons, they are spells. Spell-like abilities are not weapons. Unarmed strikes are not weapons.

Occasionally, you can treat other things as if they are weapons for the purpose of certain feats, abilities and rules. A good example is Weapon Focus.
My problem with that is the linked page is far from comprehensive. Other than lacking all the splat book stuff of course, there are no natural weapons on there. And again I wonder about the Manticore (I should probably find another example). Are his spikes weapons?

[Morgarion]

My problem with that is the linked page is far from comprehensive. Other than lacking all the splat book stuff of course, there are no natural weapons on there. And again I wonder about the Manticore (I should probably find another example). Are his spikes weapons?

If I could, I'd revise my earlier statement and just say that only the things on the list of weapons are weapons. I don't have any splatbooks and I can't really speak to what's in them, but if they have charts or lists that specifically designate things to be weapons, then I would include them, yes.

Natural weapons are not on the list of weapons, therefore they are not weapons. And I would say that since an Improvised Weapon is explicitly an 'object not designed to be used as a weapon', that it isn't a weapon. Also, they don't appear in the list of weapons.

Regarding your hypothetical question about the manticore (and in turn the rest of your questions), I want to ask you: why does it matter? What is so important whether any given object is or is not a weapon?

The fact is that the rules have so many specific distinctions for objects and abilities that would supersede the categorization of 'weapon' versus 'not-weapon' as to make it essentially meaningless.

If, however, you could provide us with a specific situation where you believe the language has meaningful ramifications on how to interpret the rules, that would be really helpful.

[danzibr]

First of all, I appreciate the response.

As for natural weapons not being weapons... that's a first. I've never heard this. Where are you getting this from?

As for why I want to know, there's not really a specific ruling. I was wondering what exactly is a weapon in D&D, then I got to looking, perusing the SRD and RC, and I found out that I couldn't find out :/. The lack of precision is really irritating. I maintain that they need to publish a dictionary for D&D, preferably with exhaustive lists. That way we wouldn't have problems like this or what exactly a true dragon is. In short, I want to know because I want to know.

[unseenmage]

Spellfire from Magic of Faerun is a Su ability that makes attack rolls.

Edit: And i can relate to wanting to know just because. The weirdness of this game inspires my curiosity often.

[Morgarion]

I think the weapon's list from the PHB is going to be the closest you'll come to a definitive answer. I suppose that Wizards just thought it would be self-evident and that even if the term 'weapon' goes unspecified, at least it doesn't make a difference to the body of rules at large.

And again, for the natural weapons, it follows from them not appearing on any 'weapons' lists (to my knowledge, at least). You could also argue that the specifics provided in the descriptions of the spells Magic Weapon and Magic Fang support this. Of course, Magic Weapon doesn't work on unarmed strikes but their appearance on the weapons list could supersede this. Natural attacks also fail to qualify for use in Two Weapon Fighting.

Then again, the SRD also calls natural weapons 'weapons are physically part of a creature'. So, this might be a case of homophony, where two different terms have the same outward appearance but different semantic values (or that could be wrong, depending on how you understand semantics). Or, it might be an issue with the term 'weapon' not being meaningful with regards to the rules.

And really, it might be best not to make 'weapon' into a meaningful term. When it shows up in spells and feats, it tends to tell you what counts as a weapon for the purposes of that specific rule. To come up with a general overarching definition might produce needless confusion.

[Curmudgeon]

Natural weapons are not on the list of weapons, therefore they are not weapons.
That would only be a true statement if the rulebook said that the list was complete and exclusive of additions — which of course is not what it says. Instead, we have the Glossary entry for natural weapon (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_naturalweapon&alpha=N) which contradicts your claim:
natural weapon

Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature.

[Morgarion]

I pointed that out myself, along with a whole bunch of other stuff.

[Grinner]

If I may complicate the matter, what differentiates an unarmed strike from a natural weapon?

[Morgarion]

A big one is that natural attacks don't provoke attacks of opportunity.

[TuggyNE]

If I may complicate the matter, what differentiates an unarmed strike from a natural weapon?

A number of things. For one, unarmed strikes do non-lethal by default; for another, they get iteratives. AoO provocation is another thing as mentioned. I think there might be some others, but those are off the top of my head.

Oh yeah, unarmed strikes are not made with any specific body part, unlike essentially every other natural weapon.

[danzibr]

If I may complicate the matter, what differentiates an unarmed strike from a natural weapon?
What's interesting is by the definition Curmudgeon quoted it seems unarmed strikes should be natural weapons. Well... sort of. I guess unarmed strike is an attack and a natural weapon is a weapon. So rather, it seems an unarmed strike should be a natural attack (though this isn't the case).

I guess the natural weapon would be... your entire body???

[TuggyNE]

What's interesting is by the definition Curmudgeon quoted it seems unarmed strikes should be natural weapons.

They are.

They're just, uh, special. In a whole lot of ways.

[danzibr]

They are.

They're just, uh, special. In a whole lot of ways.
Is Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a) wrong, then?

[unseenmage]

Is Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a) wrong, then?

Often, yes.