A question with BITE.

[Dudewithknives]

Ok, so this question started too much trouble on the RAW thread so I am making a thread just for it.

Not to give any spoilers for any campaigns...

1. I am playing in a certain module as a Half-Orc barbarian who specializes in grappling. At a certain point in the module my character has gone insane and now he kind of wants to eat people.
So if I am grappling someone and attempt to bite them, is it an unarmed strike?

2. This led to multiple people, or possibly one person with multiple accounts saying that it is an improvised weapon and it would not be fair to let someone bite with an unarmed strike when a druid can't do it.

3. This led to some issues

3.A. Nowhere in any form has it ever been stated that an attack that comes from the body of a creature is considered an improvised weapon. Further, ever instance where an improved is mentioned comply compares them to normal weapons or whether they are one handed or 2 handed.

3.B. As stated by Jeremy Crawford on July 21 of last year, "A natural weapon (a claw, horn, bite, etc.) is not an unarmed strike."
In response to a user asking if a beast's natural weapons count as unarmed strikes. Mainly for the use of Monk + Druid wild shape.

Many people took this to mean that you can not make unarmed strikes in wild shape forms, or polymorph, or shape change forms.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/17/does-a-beasts-natural-melee-weapon-attacks-count-as-unarmed-strikes/

HOWEVER, he clarified the next day when asked how it interacts with the alter form spell. and how monks of races that have natural weapons interact he stated, "You can make unarmed strikes in whatever form you are in"

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/07/30/why-alter-form-gives-you-natural-weapons-that-alter-unarmed-strikes/

So a druid can make unarmed strikes while in wild shape, just not with their natural weapons. Ex. A bear can use a bite attack, or they can use unarmed strike but the unarmed strike can not be the bite.

3.C This also transitioned into someone who asked if races with natural weapons can make unarmed strikes with them, which was answered incorrectly when someone stated that "the Lizardfolk bite is natural; but, the Tabaxi and Aarakocra's claws are considered unarmed." Which is incorrect, it states on both Lizardfolk and Tabaxi race entries in the VOLO's Guide that they have "natural weapons that can be used to make unarmed strikes"

4. This went on to another argument on where one user claimed that all bites, claws, and horn attacks are natural weapons so they can't be used.

This I disagreed with because if a creature has a natural attack, it will be listed as one such as a rhino with a horn or a tiger with a claw. Just because a creature has teeth does not mean they have a natural weapon.
A human bite is not a natural weapon, because it is not listed as a natural weapon on the racial entry.

So if a creature with no natural weapons like an elf, human, half-orc ect. try to bite someone what happens?

1. Unarmed strike
2. Improvised weapon
3. Just plain can't do it
4. Some option I have not even thought of

Anyone feel like weighing in?

[Mortis_Elrod]

Be a Lizardfolk. They have a bite natural weapon which they can use to make unarmed strikes.

Solves all issues. Also i would say that it is an unarmed strike to bite someone. I mean, the character you are talking about is a barbarian, it won't change the damage if he has tavern brawler and its easier to deal with then to say its something completely different.

Unarmed strike unless it is a natural weapon (would be listed) so in this case half orc is doing 1+str piercing damage (with optional rage bonus) on a bite.

I can see why there was confusion last year but it seems clear to me.

[Sirithhyando]

I have not much to bring on the table for this debate (nothing to back me up I mean), but i'd say it would count as improvise weapon.

I'm not sure the unarmed strike is meant to be used the way you said with the bite.

Though I agree that at first glance it seems to make sense to be an unarmed strike but you're using a part of your body as a tool to strike thus the improvise weapon.

I'd say you could add your proficiency bonus only if you had the tavern brawler feat or if you have other way to being proficient with improvised weapon.

As long as this issue is still unclear, that's how i'd go about it.

[Aett_Thorn]

I can see why there was confusion last ear but it seems clear to me.

Nice typo. Channeling your inner Tyson? :smallsmile:

[Sigreid]

I believe a bite from a half orc would count as unarmed.

Further, I would house rule (apparently) that a species with natural weapons who is a monk would be able to do their martial arts damage with their natural weapons.

[Potato_Priest]

whenever anyone who doesn't have a specific attack for said body part in their statblock uses a part of their body to attack, it's an unarmed strike.

I don't really see how this could be a balance issue, since there are plenty of other ways you could unarmed strike someone without using your hands. Headbutting is literally an example unarmed strike in the book.

[smcmike]

There is no clear rule on this that I can see in the PHB, so it is entirely up to DM discretion. I think it's obvious that some parts of the body can be used for attacking, while other parts cannot, but this line is not drawn in the rules.

As a DM, I would call a bite an improvised weapon by default. You don't train to bite people, and it just is not a natural attack unless you are in a grapple. If a player was really adamant about wanting to do it, though, I'd probably allow biting as an unarmed strike.

[Dudewithknives]

whenever anyone who doesn't have a specific attack for said body part in their statblock uses a part of their body to attack, it's an unarmed strike.

I don't really see how this could be a balance issue, since there are plenty of other ways you could unarmed strike someone without using your hands. Headbutting is literally an example unarmed strike in the book.

I think people are just mad that they can not do higher damage from monk unarmed damage bonus with the possibly more number of attacks from a wild shape, form.

It was all I could come up with, it honestly made no sense to me.

[Millstone85]

Unarmed strikes deal bludgeoning damage, while a bite would be slashing or piercing.

This is perhaps a technicality, but it makes me think a bite can't be an unarmed strike.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Nice typo. Channeling your inner Tyson? :smallsmile:

XD i have fixed it.


I don't see how it is an improvised weapon, those are dealing with something akin to a chair or a rock. Unarmed strikes are clearly meant as the 'using the body as a weapon' solution. That's why its only 1 damage (plus str). Its not very good. a Rock is a better weapon than a human's bite, which is why its shown that way when you compare improvised weapon (1d4) to unarmed strike (1). And it makes sense that you are proficient in your unarmed strike because its still your body, and you would need the feat (tavern brawler) to gain proficiency in something weird and not usually used as a weapon say a random chair.

When using you body to deal damage, the base assumption is unarmed strike, now matter what you are using. I don't think it changes to improvised weapon ever.

[KorvinStarmast]

With respect to what is or isn't an unarmed strike:
From the rules (based on the most recent errata, however this was in the first official errata)


Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on unarmed strikes should read as follows:
“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). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.” While my first instinct is to say that a bite attack is more piercing than bludgeoning, I can also see ruling it as similar enough to any of the above since your teeth aren't as sharp as (for example) a dagger ... bludgeoning is close enough for me.

Not sure how your DM will handle it.

[Sigreid]

I think people are just mad that they can not do higher damage from monk unarmed damage bonus with the possibly more number of attacks from a wild shape, form.

It was all I could come up with, it honestly made no sense to me.

In this case I think the OP is trying to figure out if he can get his proficiency bonus to hit an opponent he has grappled.

[Dudewithknives]

With respect to what is or isn't an unarmed strike:
From the rules (based on the most recent errata, however this was in the first official errata)
While my first instinct is to say that a bite attack is more piercing than bludgeoning, I can also see ruling it as similar enough to any of the above since your teeth aren't as sharp as (for example) a dagger ... bludgeoning is close enough for me.

Not sure how your DM will handle it.

It came up in the last 10 mins of our last session so he said, "Umm, see what the message boards and Sage Advice have to say about it".

I was not planning to bite people but it seems now I am corrupted and insane and have a NEED to eat the flesh of sentient creatures.

I am a grapple specialist Half-Orc (technically a 3/4 orc but whatever) so seems pretty natural to start biting people when i have them locked up.

[Dudewithknives]

In this case I think the OP is trying to figure out if he can get his proficiency bonus to hit an opponent he has grappled.

I have tavern brawler anyway so that is not the problem, I was just wondering if I could even make an attack with a bite at all.

[Sigreid]

I have tavern brawler anyway so that is not the problem, I was just wondering if I could even make an attack with a bite at all.

In that case I wouldn't see why not. People bite in fights all the time. It's usually considered dirty fighting but when you're trying to kill someone anyway...

[Mortis_Elrod]

Unarmed strikes deal bludgeoning damage, while a bite would be slashing or piercing.

This is perhaps a technicality, but it makes me think a bite can't be an unarmed strike.

lizardfolk bite is piercing and can be used as unarmed strike. The tabaxi claws and and bird people talons are unarmed strikes that don't do bludgeoning. I don't see why this would be a limit to what's considered an unarmed strike. Having a bite be an improvised weapon would in my opinion make it better than an unarmed strike. Now its a weapon. Does that mean i can use elemental weapon on it?

Unarmed strike. Why would it ever be improvised?

[Foxhound438]

Unarmed strikes deal bludgeoning damage, while a bite would be slashing or piercing.

This is perhaps a technicality, but it makes me think a bite can't be an unarmed strike.

not necessarily? a crab's claw attack is functionally the same thing (clamping down with a hard surface) and that does bludgeoning damage too.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Horse and camel bites are bludgeoning too, so it clearly depends on the shape of your teeth.

For the record, I'd allow it as an unarmed strike. It's not a balance issue until you get into wildshape cheese, and it doesn't 'feel' like an improvised weapon to me.

[Sirithhyando]

I don't see how it is an improvised weapon, those are dealing with something akin to a chair or a rock. Unarmed strikes are clearly meant as the 'using the body as a weapon' solution. That's why its only 1 damage (plus str). Its not very good. a Rock is a better weapon than a human's bite, which is why its shown that way when you compare improvised weapon (1d4) to unarmed strike (1). And it makes sense that you are proficient in your unarmed strike because its still your body, and you would need the feat (tavern brawler) to gain proficiency in something weird and not usually used as a weapon say a random chair.

When using you body to deal damage, the base assumption is unarmed strike, now matter what you are using. I don't think it changes to improvised weapon ever.

I agree with what you're saying until the bite is used by a monk. If the bite is an unarmed strike, wouldn't it scale as the monk table? If so, a bite from a human would end up doing a lot of damage. That's where i'm unsure and a reason why i said I thought the bite attack would be an improvised weapon.

[Millstone85]

lizardfolk bite is piercing and can be used as unarmed strike. The tabaxi claws and and bird people talons are unarmed strikes that don't do bludgeoning. I don't see why this would be a limit to what's considered an unarmed strike.Specific beats general, and so the specific isn't relevant to the general. That lizardfolk, tabaxi and aarokra have special unarmed strikes doesn't change what unarmed strikes are for a member of another race, such as a half-orc. An unarmed strike is defined as dealing 1 + Str mod bludgeoning damage.


Having a bite be an improvised weapon would in my opinion make it better than an unarmed strike. Now its a weapon. Does that mean i can use elemental weapon on it?Granted, I shouldn't have given my opinion only on the unarmed strike side of the argument. Yeah, treating it as an improvised weapon seems worse.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I agree with what you're saying until the bite is used by a monk. If the bite is an unarmed strike, wouldn't it scale as the monk table? If so, a bite from a human would end up doing a lot of damage. That's where i'm unsure and a reason why i said I thought the bite attack would be an improvised weapon.

Only if said human is a monk. And if so does it matter what type of unarmed strike he is using? it doesn't change the mechanics at all, all of his unarmed strikes are doing the same thing anyway. It changes nothing. unarmed strike is unarmed strike. If you're worried about mechanics nothing changes from a monk biting someone and a monk kneeing someone or jabbing them with elbows, it all ends as the same thing.

[rbstr]

I think this is a failure-zone for the explicit 5e rules. Like it's simply outside of the concepts they originally designed for.
Going by PhB I wouldn't consider a human/orc/halfling bite an unarmed strike. It doesn't fit the PhB definition for "Unarmed Strike" or a the commonly dictionary definition of what "striking" someone is. You don't strike someone with a bite, you...well, you bite them. :/

Functionally, however, I think it's no different from headbutting someone so sure, it can be an "unarmed strike" in this case.

But it can't be broadly applied to all creatures since it leads to things that are a bit out of balance. A Bear's bite/claw shouldn't be an unarmed strike. A monk/druid's Brown Bear form getting bite for d8, claw for 2d6 and then extra unarmed strike or flurry (at character level 3!?)? Eh....no thanks.
PC-race natural weapons are (maybe) designed around that while monsters ect. are not.

[Sigreid]

I agree with what you're saying until the bite is used by a monk. If the bite is an unarmed strike, wouldn't it scale as the monk table? If so, a bite from a human would end up doing a lot of damage. That's where i'm unsure and a reason why i said I thought the bite attack would be an improvised weapon.

And is there really something wrong with a monk knowing biting style kung-fu? It's not like it gives them an extra attack or power up.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Horse and camel bites are bludgeoning too, so it clearly depends on the shape of your teeth.

For the record, I'd allow it as an unarmed strike. It's not a balance issue until you get into wildshape cheese, and it doesn't 'feel' like an improvised weapon to me.

well i'd allow for unarmed strike UNLESS it is listed as a natural weapon that can't be used to make unarmed strikes , like most wild-shapes. This is RAW and prevents the cheese.


Specific beats general, and so the specific isn't relevant to the general. That lizardfolk, tabaxi and aarokra have special unarmed strikes doesn't change what unarmed strikes are for a member of another race, such as a half-orc. An unarmed strike is defined as dealing 1 + Str mod bludgeoning damage.


True, but a bite is more similar to "a punch, kick, head-butt", than say "any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin"

[Sirithhyando]

Only if said human is a monk. And if so does it matter what type of unarmed strike he is using? it doesn't change the mechanics at all, all of his unarmed strikes are doing the same thing anyway. It changes nothing. unarmed strike is unarmed strike. If you're worried about mechanics nothing changes from a monk biting someone and a monk kneeing someone or jabbing them with elbows, it all ends as the same thing.

I see what you're saying. I just have a tough time believing a human bite could do as much damage as being kneed, jabbed or elbowed by the same human. Yes, the bite will do damage for sure (see Mike Tyson :smalltongue:), but being treated as the same as a good elbow/fist/kick? That's why i think they cannot be treated as the same.
I think it just goes outside of what the rules intended... they just didn't think of that possibility when the rules were written.

[Sigreid]

I see what you're saying. I just have a tough time believing a human bite could do as much damage as being kneed, jabbed or elbowed by the same human. Yes, the bite will do damage for sure (see Mike Tyson :smalltongue:), but being treated as the same as a good elbow/fist/kick? That's why i think they cannot be treated as the same.
I think it just goes outside of what the rules intended... they just didn't think of that possibility when the rules were written.

Well, the whole game is largely about enjoying not being confined to the limitations of reality.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I see what you're saying. I just have a tough time believing a human bite could do as much damage as being kneed, jabbed or elbowed by the same human. Yes, the bite will do damage for sure (see Mike Tyson :smalltongue:), but being treated as the same as a good elbow/fist/kick? That's why i think they cannot be treated as the same.
I think it just goes outside of what the rules intended... they just didn't think of that possibility when the rules were written.

I have a hard time believing in wizards and displacer beasts. and a punch that does as much damage as a longsword.

Biting can only fall into one category is what I'm saying, whether or not its believable is up to an individual.

[Maxilian]

I agree with what you're saying until the bite is used by a monk. If the bite is an unarmed strike, wouldn't it scale as the monk table? If so, a bite from a human would end up doing a lot of damage. That's where i'm unsure and a reason why i said I thought the bite attack would be an improvised weapon.

Why its a problem when its used with a Monk? just like a Monk can use his elbow or feets to make US, so can the monk use his bite (in the end, it just a change of fluff)

[Maxilian]

I see what you're saying. I just have a tough time believing a human bite could do as much damage as being kneed, jabbed or elbowed by the same human. Yes, the bite will do damage for sure (see Mike Tyson :smalltongue:), but being treated as the same as a good elbow/fist/kick? That's why i think they cannot be treated as the same.
I think it just goes outside of what the rules intended... they just didn't think of that possibility when the rules were written.

Have you ever seen a good bite?

Note: Also you can easily eat someone hand (is extremely easy, so easy that the idea of feral humans become quite terrifying)

[Sigreid]

Have you ever seen a good bite?

Note: Also you can easily eat someone hand (is extremely easy, so easy that the idea of feral humans become quite terrifying)

I feel like there should be a link to a certain Maywether fight in here now. Haha

[smcmike]

I have a hard time believing in wizards and displacer beasts. and a punch that does as much damage as a longsword.

I hate this line of reasoning. The existence of Wizards does not mandate that anything is possible.

Let's say my character attacks people with his earlobes. Not his head, his earlobes. Do you have a hard time believing it? Too bad, because Wizards.



Biting can only fall into one category is what I'm saying, whether or not its believable is up to an individual.

The DM is free to improvise for biting. A non- proficient unarmed attack seems reasonable to me, but your mileage may vary.


Have you ever seen a good bite?

Note: Also you can easily eat someone hand (is extremely easy, so easy that the idea of feral humans become quite terrifying)

No, I have never seen a good bite, because adult humans do not generally bite each other, even while fighting. It might be a useful tactic in the midst of a grapple as a way to inflict pain, but it is not the sort of thing you would lead with, unless you feel like swallowing some teeth.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I hate this line of reasoning. The existence of Wizards does not mandate that anything is possible.

Let's say my character attacks people with his earlobes. Not his head, his earlobes. Do you have a hard time believing it? Too bad, because Wizards.

I will now make an earlobe attacking monk. This sounds awesome.
https://myanimelist.cdn-dena.com/images/characters/9/229653.jpg


The DM is free to improvise for biting. A non- proficient unarmed attack seems reasonable to me, but your mileage may vary.

I hate this line of reasoning. DMs can and will do what they want, the question is about rules, regardless of the individual DM. humans bite things all the time, I'd say I'm pretty proficient with my teeth when it comes to the one thing they are suppose to do, which is bite.



No, I have never seen a good bite, because adult humans do not generally bite each other, even while fighting. It might be a useful tactic in the midst of a grapple as a way to inflict pain, but it is not the sort of thing you would lead with, unless you feel like swallowing some teeth.

The muscles for biting are some of the strongest muscles in the human body. You bite pretty hard all the time. The OP isn't suggesting leading with it, but doing it in addition to grappling as you suggest. People bite each other's ears off, you could bite your thumb off if your brain would let you.

[smcmike]

I will now make an earlobe attacking monk. This sounds awesome.
https://myanimelist.cdn-dena.com/images/characters/9/229653.jpg

Depends on the tone of the campaign, though, right?



I hate this line of reasoning. DMs can and will do what they want, the question is about rules, regardless of the individual DM.

If we are only talking about the rules, it is a short conversation. There is no rule for human biting. I thought the rules were ambiguous on this, but they actually aren't, with the errata. A bite is not a "forceful blow," similar to a "punch, kick, (or) head butt." It is therefore not an unarmed strike by the rules.



humans bite things all the time, I'd say I'm pretty proficient with my teeth when it comes to the one thing they are suppose to do, which is bite.

The muscles for biting are some of the strongest muscles in the human body. You bite pretty hard all the time. The OP isn't suggesting leading with it, but doing it in addition to grappling as you suggest. People bite each other's ears off, you could bite your thumb off if your brain would let you.

I could also do a lot of damage with a paper clip, given the exact right circumstances.

[Mortis_Elrod]

If we are only talking about the rules, it is a short conversation. There is no rule for human biting. I thought the rules were ambiguous on this, but they actually aren't, with the errata. A bite is not a "forceful blow," similar to a "punch, kick, (or) head butt." It is therefore not an unarmed strike by the rules.


I think it is though. Biting is very forceful, and its similar in that its an attack using a persons body. If biting isn't an unarmed strike then is not an available attack at all, since its not an improvised weapon either.

Those are the only two options:
1. Bite is considered a forceful blow.
2. Biting isn't an attack option.

[smcmike]

I think it is though. Biting is very forceful, and its similar in that its an attack using a persons body. If biting isn't an unarmed strike then is not an available attack at all, since its not an improvised weapon either.

Those are the only two options:
1. Bite is considered a forceful blow.
2. Biting isn't an attack option.

Biting may be forceful, but I don't think it's a "blow," something you seem to be purposefully ignoring. Grabbing or shoving are forceful physical actions that aren't unarmed attacks.

And, correct, I do not think that biting is an attack option that is defined by the rules. There are a lot of things that aren't defined by the rules. That's what DMs are for.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Biting may be forceful, but I don't think it's a "blow," something you seem to be purposefully ignoring. Grabbing or shoving are forceful physical actions that aren't unarmed attacks.

And, correct, I do not think that biting is an attack option that is defined by the rules. There are a lot of things that aren't defined by the rules. That's what DMs are for.

Doesn't that depend on the definition of a blow? Say a 'sudden attack or drastic action'? Thats a bite. And grabbing and shoving are already defined in the rules and have nothing to do with this. But back to the OP. If you don't consider a bite a forceful blow then you can't bite at all, and if you do its an unarmed strike, barring specific listings in a stat block or racial feature.

[smcmike]

Doesn't that depend on the definition of a blow? Say a 'sudden attack or drastic action'? Thats a bite. And grabbing and shoving are already defined in the rules and have nothing to do with this.

That does not seem like the right definition.

I'd use this, from Merriam Webster:
"a forcible stroke delivered with a part of the body (such as the fist) or with an instrument." It's pretty clear to me that a "blow" does not normally include biting.

I mention shoving or grabbing only to demonstrate that "blow" is an important part of the rule.



But back to the OP. If you don't consider a bite a forceful blow then you can't bite at all, and if you do its an unarmed strike, barring specific listings in a stat block or racial feature.

This is only true if you believe the only things characters are permitted to do are those things that the rules explicitly define. This goes against the general design philosophy of 5e.

A character clearly can try to bite someone. The mechanical resolution is the only question.

[Mortis_Elrod]

T

This is only true if you believe the only things characters are permitted to do are those things that the rules explicitly define. This goes against the general design philosophy of 5e.

A character clearly can try to bite someone. The mechanical resolution is the only question.

Then its an unarmed strike. there's no other way of doing short of making a special bite attack from scratch.

[smcmike]

Then its an unarmed strike. there's no other way of doing short of making a special bite attack from scratch.

hmmm, you seem to have found a solution

It isn't that hard. I would call it a nonproficient unarmed attack, using strength.

[Sicarius Victis]

To muddle this up further, I'd like to throw in an excerpt from the Alter Self spell (italics mine):
Natural Weapons. You grow claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon of your choice. Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, as appropriate to the natural weapon you chose...

Basically, the Alter Self description refers to natural weapons as if they're nothing more than special unarmed attacks. Make of that what you will.

[imanidiot]

I see what you're saying. I just have a tough time believing a human bite could do as much damage as being kneed, jabbed or elbowed by the same human. Yes, the bite will do damage for sure (see Mike Tyson :smalltongue:), but being treated as the same as a good elbow/fist/kick? That's why i think they cannot be treated as the same.
I think it just goes outside of what the rules intended... they just didn't think of that possibility when the rules were written.

I have a tough time believing that a human punch could deal as much damage as a being hit with a longsword. I've been punched before and it sucks. I've never been hit with a longsword before, I doubt I would survive.

I'd rule that a bite is an unarmed attack and deals whatever damage your unarmed attacks normally do. Yeah, monks deal a lot of damage biting but the advantage it gives them over just using their normal attack is extremely situational.

Unarmed attacks are different from natural weapons. If you have both you can pick one or the other. A dragon can punch you if it wants. And it deals 1+strength mod damage when it does.

If youre a monk/warlock and normally have 1d8 damage on an attack roll and you grow claws with Alter Self, you can either deal 1d8 damage from an unarmed attack or 1d6+1 damage from natural weapons.