Are natural weapons... weapons?

[Lavaeolus]

Sometimes you write out a question that sounds obvious -- blindingly, stupidly obvious. And then you sit down, think about all the implications, and you're frozen in confusion and fear.

Natural weapons are used by some monsters, transformed Druids, and at least four potential player races: Tortles, Lizardfolk, Minotaurs and Tabaxi. It's the last lot I'm concerned with. I'm quoting the Tortle here, but the wording's pretty similar between them all:

Your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Upon deeper looking around, it's clear that natural weapons are not, as far as I can tell, inherently unarmed strikes. And there's at least one race, the arakocra, who have altered unarmed but as-written no natural weapons. Somewhere on Twitter, Crawford describes natural weapons as one of three weapon categories, and elsewhere seems to imply that Paladins are allowed to Smite with natural weapons despite usually arguing against weaponless Smites:

Dan Dillon: Gotcha. So paladins can smite with whatever natural weapons by intent, and magic weapon at DM's discretion?
Jeremy Crawford: That's right!

Sorry for the lack of proper links, but relatively new poster.

...but wait a minute. Slow down a second. Hold on a mo'. If we said that natural weapons are weapons, and I use them to make an unarmed strike... am I making a unarmed strike with a weapon? Am I, by extension, making a melee weapon attack with a weapon?

With the recent UA, this is maybe a less completely-silly question to ask. An Unarmed Fighting character who doesn't take Monk 6 doesn't have a way of attacking creatures with magical immunities, beyond 'switch to a weapon'. Most DMs would probably just give you magical gloves or something, but imagine if you could use spells that target weapons, or make use of certain features -- and hello, I've lit my claws on fire and for the next hour they're magical. (Elemental Weapon.)

My gut instinct is that, RAI, this shouldn't be allowed. So I kind of expected to be shut-down pretty quickly, but actually getting an firm, clear answer to the question 'Are natural weapons weapons?' proved kind of hard. Note that I am, out of curiosity, looking for clarification mainly from a RAW perspective. If you can get me a firmly unambiguous yes or no from somewhere, I'd love you.

From my perspective as far as actually running the game goes, I generally don't think there's really a balance issue allowing fists to count as weapons, unless you go out of your way to regularly disarm characters in your campaigns. So if you turned up to my table, I'd probably just be willing to rule that, hey, if you want to roll up a primarily-unarmed Paladin, natural weapon or no: sure, we can make Smites work for them. But I'm still curious in the answer outside of just running the game myself. Did I miss something obvious?

Also note that this is a separate question from, say, 'Do they make weapon attacks?' They do indeed, and making a weapon attack is distinct from making an attack with a weapon; but that's not the only rule at play here.

[CheddarChampion]

I think you gotta divide weapons into two categories - melee and ranged - and not make further distinctions if you can. It is a headache if you go further, as you say.

When it comes to spells like "Magic Weapon," I differentiate between 'parts of the body that can be used as weapons' and 'manufactured weapons'.

When it comes to spells like Hunter's Mark, I let the extra damage count with a hit from a claw or unarmed strike. I also let them count for Haste (...one weapon attack only...).

As for RAW, I don't think anyone can come to a definitive answer without knowing each and every mention of unarmed strikes, natural weapons, and weapon weapons in all the published books.

Then again, the sacred infallible texts have never had typos or errors before, so I'm sure we can definitely find a hard answer if we look long enough.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, while technical RAW readings may or may not allow for you to cast Magic Weapon or similar on punches or claws, it's something I figure most DMs would be cool with letting happen to let a player realize their concept.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, while technical RAW readings may or may not allow for you to cast Magic Weapon or similar on punches or claws, it's something I figure most DMs would be cool with letting happen to let a player realize their concept.

I'm about 80% sure I'd even be cool with letting a character with magic heavy armor make magical "unarmed" attacks, since they'd be elbow-striking/punching/kneeing/etc. with a magical object (gauntlets, etc.), and AFAICT all you need to bypass weapon resistance in 5E is that the object you're striking with has magic invested in it.

I'd even let you beat a werewolf to death with a Decanter of Endless Water (using it as a magic, improvised club), although it might be hard on the Decanter (I'd roll some dice to see if it was cracked afterwards).

[RingoBongo]

My interest in reading this post comes from the tavern brawler feat... Last bullet point:

• When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike or an improvised weapon on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target.

I keep coming back to making a rogue grappler / damage dealing build and/or want to also maybe shore up a good bonus action use (+1 to str or con is nice too)...

The distinction is disheartening but maybe with "natural weapons" as a main source of damage... Either way, none of these natural weapons could be classified as also finesse and able to trigger sneak attack.

[Warlush]

I mean natural weapons/unarmed strikes do less damage than many simple weapons and dare I say most martial weapons. They don't have any accuracy enhancing fighting styles like Archery. They have no damage boosting feats like GWM or SS. They have no reach beyond 5ft. Unless you're a Bugbear. They do not have the finesse property.

So i don't see any reason, like any freaking reason why a DM wouldn't let you treat them as a Weapon for the sake of smites, SCAG cantrips, TWF, etcetera.

[Lunali]

They are not a weapon. If a spell or ability requires that you attack with a weapon, they do not qualify.

They do, however, qualify for things that require you to make a melee weapon attack. This is because there are only four categories of attacks. An attack is either melee or ranged and it is either weapon or spell.

[JackPhoenix]

AFAICT all you need to bypass weapon resistance in 5E is that the object you're striking with has magic invested in it.

You need actual magic weapon (or one of the multiple ways to have something count as magic weapon even if it's not). Magic weapon is "magic item in the weapon category", it's not any random magical item you use as improvised weapon.

[Yunru]

There has yet to be a case of a natural weapon (that has been clarified, monster stats don't count) that doesn't alter unarmed strike.

So I'd say while there is no rule, we can extrapolate that natural weapons are just features that alter unarmed strikes.

It's a topic I've hotly debated, I made a Monk/Druid multiclass guide after all :P

(If you want the earliest we had precedent set, the Player's Handbook has had Alter Self work this way since it's first printing. Almost without exception every player option for natural weapons has followed this, except for some UA stuff.)

[firelistener]

Natural weapons are weapons. You can cast Magical Weapon on natural weapons (such as claws). Fists are not stated to be natural weapons. They were also explicitly removed from the weapons table for this reason. You can make unarmed strikes with fists and Tabaxi claws, but you can only treat the claws as a "weapon".

Look at p.195 in the PHB and you'll see it says "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon strike, you can use an unarmed strike... (none of which count as weapons)." This is why an exception is explicitly made for those races' claws to count as natural weapons.

[Yunru]

Natural weapons are weapons. You can cast Magical Weapon on natural weapons (such as claws). Fists are not stated to be natural weapons. They were also explicitly removed from the weapons table for this reason. You can make unarmed strikes with fists and Tabaxi claws, but you can only treat the claws as a "weapon".

Look at p.195 in the PHB and you'll see it says "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon strike, you can use an unarmed strike... (none of which count as weapons)." This is why an exception is explicitly made for those races' claws to count as natural weapons.I see. I would love to play at your table, Battlemaster Hex blade that can disarm creatures of their teeth and claws and weilds a 6d8 natural weapon as a Pact Weapon.

[Lavaeolus]

I would love to play at your table, Battlemaster Hex blade that can disarm creatures of their teeth and claws and weilds a 6d8 natural weapon as a Pact Weapon.

In fairness, so would I. But let's roll with the natural-weapons-as-weapons. I think there might be some added complications with the Pact Weapon feature:

You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see the Weapons section for weapon options).

[...] You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon. You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest.

So it doesn't sound like you can summon a natural weapon... or if you could summon up some claws, they'd just arrive in your open palm. (Or you could argue 'in your empty hand' is more open; next time you're mad at the Warlock, feel free to make their sword materialise piercing through their dominant hand.) I'd argue there's a difference between summoning a weapon and fixing it to your body, even if said weapon is only really a weapon when attached.

Meanwhile, you probably can't transform your natural weapon into a pact weapon, because all PC natural weapons are nonmagical. Ah, but what if you used Magic Weapon or some other spell? To my knowledge, Magic Weapon, Arcane Weapon and Elemental Weapon only last an hour, in my opinion meaning you'd always just run out of time. You can't 'refresh' the ability either, since those spells only work on nonmagical weapons. I don't know if I'm missing some obvious way of enchanting a weapon, though.

It also says that you should look to the Weapons section for options, though er, I guess it doesn't quite explicitly specify that they must come from there. 'What are people going to do?', the designers laughed to themselves, 'Try and summon a bunch of Wolverine claws into their hands? Ha ha ha.' But it does pretty heavily imply it.

And as for Disarming Strike...

When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to disarm the target, forcing it to drop one item of your choice that it’s holding. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and the target must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, it drops the object you choose. The object lands at its feet.

Ahah! It doesn't specify a weapon! It all makes sense! ...Wait a minute. Wasn't there a more general disarm optional rule in the DM's Manual?

A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target's grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.

...hm.

[JNAProductions]

Sorcerer's Extend Metamagic can solve the timing issue.

[Lavaeolus]

Oh, nice catch. Ignoring the main question here, that does make me wonder if you can usually enchant a weapon, then just make it a Pact Weapon before the spell ends? That doesn't seem like it'd be something intended, but it seems like it'd work RAW.

[micahaphone]

I think you gotta divide weapons into two categories - melee and ranged - and not make further distinctions if you can. It is a headache if you go further, as you say.

When it comes to spells like "Magic Weapon," I differentiate between 'parts of the body that can be used as weapons' and 'manufactured weapons'.

When it comes to spells like Hunter's Mark, I let the extra damage count with a hit from a claw or unarmed strike. I also let them count for Haste (...one weapon attack only...).

As for RAW, I don't think anyone can come to a definitive answer without knowing each and every mention of unarmed strikes, natural weapons, and weapon weapons in all the published books.

Then again, the sacred infallible texts have never had typos or errors before, so I'm sure we can definitely find a hard answer if we look long enough.

I agree with CheddarChampion, it's too complicated to suss out all the nuances and there's very little to gain from it.

Like if a cleric player wants to cast Holy Weapon on their monk ally, should I saw they're not allowed to, unless the monk equips brass knuckles? Either way they're punching, but RAW you should only be able to empower the brass knuckles.

[firelistener]

In fairness, so would I. But let's roll with the natural-weapons-as-weapons. I think there might be some added complications with the Pact Weapon feature:


So it doesn't sound like you can summon a natural weapon... or if you could summon up some claws, they'd just arrive in your open palm. (Or you could argue 'in your empty hand' is more open; next time you're mad at the Warlock, feel free to make their sword materialise piercing through their dominant hand.) I'd argue there's a difference between summoning a weapon and fixing it to your body, even if said weapon is only really a weapon when attached.

Meanwhile, you probably can't transform your natural weapon into a pact weapon, because all PC natural weapons are nonmagical. Ah, but what if you used Magic Weapon or some other spell? To my knowledge, Magic Weapon, Arcane Weapon and Elemental Weapon only last an hour, in my opinion meaning you'd always just run out of time. You can't 'refresh' the ability either, since those spells only work on nonmagical weapons. I don't know if I'm missing some obvious way of enchanting a weapon, though.

It also says that you should look to the Weapons section for options, though er, I guess it doesn't quite explicitly specify that they must come from there. 'What are people going to do?', the designers laughed to themselves, 'Try and summon a bunch of Wolverine claws into their hands? Ha ha ha.' But it does pretty heavily imply it.

And as for Disarming Strike...


Ahah! It doesn't specify a weapon! It all makes sense! ...Wait a minute. Wasn't there a more general disarm optional rule in the DM's Manual?


...hm.

That's some good research :smile: I was about to respond with almost exactly what you posted. All of those things have rules to specify it's an item or being held, probably for those exact reasons. Didn't think about the timing on the pact weapon ritual, and that's another good point.

I wish my players did such excellent investigation on their own when there's a rules question lol.

Edit:

I see. I would love to play at your table, Battlemaster Hex blade that can disarm creatures of their teeth and claws and weilds a 6d8 natural weapon as a Pact Weapon.

Okay, I tried to figure out where 6d8 was coming from, but I couldn't really figure it out. How were you calculating that?

Another edit: Oh, it's from Eldritch Smite, right? Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with it, balance-wise, but I don't think you can make claws a pact weapon based on the holding and rituals. That being said, I also wouldn't really care if a player wanted to do it either. Sounds fun.

[Hytheter]

Okay, I tried to figure out where 6d8 was coming from, but I couldn't really figure it out. How were you calculating that?

Another edit: Oh, it's from Eldritch Smite, right? Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with it, balance-wise, but I don't think you can make claws a pact weapon based on the holding and rituals. That being said, I also wouldn't really care if a player wanted to do it either. Sounds fun.

I think they meant that if natural weapons count as actual weapons then you could summon your pact weapon in the form of any natural weapon, which includes a lot of high damage monster attacks. I don't know of any that deal 6d8 specifically but I don't doubt that there is one.

[firelistener]

I think they meant that if natural weapons count as actual weapons then you could summon your pact weapon in the form of any natural weapon, which includes a lot of high damage monster attacks. I don't know of any that deal 6d8 specifically but I don't doubt that there is one.

Oh lol :amused::smile: Something like a Death Knight's longsword might make sense, but I'm imaging a warlock summoning a disembodied dragon tail in their hands. I dunno if I'd allow it.

[JackPhoenix]

While answering different thread, I realized: if natural weapons *are* weapons, they break monks, and not in a good way: they are not monk weapons (not simple melee weapon without two-handed or heavy or shortswords), so monk with natural weapons would be unable to use Martial Arts.

[firelistener]

While answering different thread, I realized: if natural weapons *are* weapons, they break monks, and not in a good way: they are not monk weapons (not simple melee weapon without two-handed or heavy or shortswords), so monk with natural weapons would be unable to use Martial Arts.

I think that's exactly right, which is why the text for Tortles and Tabaxi claws explicitly states they can be used to make unarmed strikes. The monk class states that you can use a monk weapon or unarmed strikes for its features, so the claws are still good there.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Another threat to hijack the thread...

Dragon vs Lycanthrope.
Lycanthrope is outright immune to nonmagical weapons. Dragons claws are nonmagical. That's RAW. Doesn't this seem somehow wrong?

[PhantomSoul]

Another threat to hijack the thread...

Dragon vs Lycanthrope.
Lycanthrope is outright immune to nonmagical weapons. Dragons claws are nonmagical. That's RAW. Doesn't this seem somehow wrong?

The benefit of not classifying natural weapons as weapons!

(As long as we ignore the errata)

[Willie the Duck]

I'm about 80% sure I'd even be cool with letting a character with magic heavy armor make magical "unarmed" attacks, since they'd be elbow-striking/punching/kneeing/etc. with a magical object (gauntlets, etc.), and AFAICT all you need to bypass weapon resistance in 5E is that the object you're striking with has magic invested in it.

I'd even let you beat a werewolf to death with a Decanter of Endless Water (using it as a magic, improvised club), although it might be hard on the Decanter (I'd roll some dice to see if it was cracked afterwards).

I am now picturing the bard breaking a (magic) lute over someone's head, cheesy 60s sitcom style.

[Misterwhisper]

I am now picturing the bard breaking a (magic) lute over someone's head, cheesy 60s sitcom style.

I have done that, with my guitar that I used Shillelagh on.

I el cabonged someone.

[stewstew5]

Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, which allows them to be used with spells like green-flame blade and branding smite, but they are not weapons themselves, so spells that target a weapon are a no-go. Natural weapons, however, are weapons and can be targeted as such. You can't make an unarmed strike with natural weapons, you either punch them with the blunt part of your claws for an unarmed strike, or slash them with your claws as your weapon

[Yunru]

Natural weapons, however, are weapons and can be targeted as such. You can't make an unarmed strike with natural weapons, you either punch them with the blunt part of your claws for an unarmed strike, or slash them with your claws as your weapon

Citation needed, as this is in direct contradiction with every instance of a natural weapon being mentioned as a PC feature.

[sithlordnergal]

Another threat to hijack the thread...

Dragon vs Lycanthrope.
Lycanthrope is outright immune to nonmagical weapons. Dragons claws are nonmagical. That's RAW. Doesn't this seem somehow wrong?

That's sort of an issue with Dragons in general. They are one of the few high CR creatures that don't get anything special at high CRs outside of AC, more damage, and higher HP. Outside of that their stat blocks don't change. Not only is an Ancient Red dragon vulnerable to the Poisoned condition but you can make use of the Heavy Armor Mastery feat against them, despite being CR 24...which just feels wrong.

Heck, there is a CR 10 boss in the adventure Forgotten Traditions that could take on any dragon of any CR, and beat them without ever taking a scratch all because that CR 10 is immune to Poison, non-magical Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage, and can gain immunity to Fire, Cold, Lightning, or Acid damage if it is hit by a damage of that type.

[JackPhoenix]

I think that's exactly right, which is why the text for Tortles and Tabaxi claws explicitly states they can be used to make unarmed strikes. The monk class states that you can use a monk weapon or unarmed strikes for its features, so the claws are still good there.

Which is exactly the problem: Monk can't use Martial Arts if he's wielding non-monk weapon. Even if you're using the claws to make unarmed strike, if they count as weapon, you're wielding non-monk weapon at the same time.

[stewstew5]

Citation needed, as this is in direct contradiction with every instance of a natural weapon being mentioned as a PC feature.

Errata 5e, pg. 2-3

“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)"
(note, while it can be read as making an unarmed strike instead of a melee weapon attack, it is sustained throughout errata, the core books and dev commentary that there are only two attack types: weapons and spell (further divided into ranged and melee), ergo, you are making a melee weapon attack with a punch, kick, etc. instead of a weapon (as in the object weapon, not the attack type weapon)

MM pg. 10-11

The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attack, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon such as a claw or tail spike.

as for that last bit, they all say they can be used to perform unarmed strikes, not that they replace your unarmed strikes

[Yunru]

Errata 5e, pg. 2-3

(note, while it can be read as making an unarmed strike instead of a melee weapon attack, it is sustained throughout errata, the core books and dev commentary that there are only two attack types: weapons and spell (further divided into ranged and melee), ergo, you are making a melee weapon attack with a punch, kick, etc. instead of a weapon (as in the object weapon, not the attack type weapon)

MM pg. 10-11


as for that last bit, yes, natural weapons replace unarmed strikes entirely

None of which supports your stance that they are weapons (except the monster manual entry if you squint, but that both doesn't explain itself nor apply to players so...).

[stewstew5]

None of which supports your stance that they are weapons (except the monster manual entry if you squint, but that both doesn't explain itself nor apply to players so...).

it's still got more support than them not being weapons

[Undyne]

Sometimes you write out a question that sounds obvious -- blindingly, stupidly obvious. And then you sit down, think about all the implications, and you're frozen in confusion and fear.

Natural weapons are used by some monsters, transformed Druids, and at least four potential player races: Tortles, Lizardfolk, Minotaurs and Tabaxi. It's the last lot I'm concerned with. I'm quoting the Tortle here, but the wording's pretty similar between them all:


Upon deeper looking around, it's clear that natural weapons are not, as far as I can tell, inherently unarmed strikes. And there's at least one race, the arakocra, who have altered unarmed but as-written no natural weapons. Somewhere on Twitter, Crawford describes natural weapons as one of three weapon categories, and elsewhere seems to imply that Paladins are allowed to Smite with natural weapons despite usually arguing against weaponless Smites:


Sorry for the lack of proper links, but relatively new poster.

...but wait a minute. Slow down a second. Hold on a mo'. If we said that natural weapons are weapons, and I use them to make an unarmed strike... am I making a unarmed strike with a weapon? Am I, by extension, making a melee weapon attack with a weapon?

With the recent UA, this is maybe a less completely-silly question to ask. An Unarmed Fighting character who doesn't take Monk 6 doesn't have a way of attacking creatures with magical immunities, beyond 'switch to a weapon'. Most DMs would probably just give you magical gloves or something, but imagine if you could use spells that target weapons, or make use of certain features -- and hello, I've lit my claws on fire and for the next hour they're magical. (Elemental Weapon.)

My gut instinct is that, RAI, this shouldn't be allowed. So I kind of expected to be shut-down pretty quickly, but actually getting an firm, clear answer to the question 'Are natural weapons weapons?' proved kind of hard. Note that I am, out of curiosity, looking for clarification mainly from a RAW perspective. If you can get me a firmly unambiguous yes or no from somewhere, I'd love you.

From my perspective as far as actually running the game goes, I generally don't think there's really a balance issue allowing fists to count as weapons, unless you go out of your way to regularly disarm characters in your campaigns. So if you turned up to my table, I'd probably just be willing to rule that, hey, if you want to roll up a primarily-unarmed Paladin, natural weapon or no: sure, we can make Smites work for them. But I'm still curious in the answer outside of just running the game myself. Did I miss something obvious?

Also note that this is a separate question from, say, 'Do they make weapon attacks?' They do indeed, and making a weapon attack is distinct from making an attack with a weapon; but that's not the only rule at play here.

Unarmed attacks are indeed weapons- It's why Stunning Strike on a monk is so busted, since they can just Flurry Of Blows and stun-lock a whole encounter.

[Misterwhisper]

Unarmed attacks are indeed weapons- It's why Stunning Strike on a monk is so busted, since they can just Flurry Of Blows and stun-lock a whole encounter.

Those 2 things are not related.

Unarmed Strikes are not weapons but you can make melee weapon attacks with them as a special rule.

It has been stated, confirmed, and printed in the SAC.

[Yunru]

it's still got more support than them not being weapons

Ummm... No?
Let's look at Alter Self: Alters your unarmed strike, not a weapon.
Let's look at Aarakocra: Alters your unarmed strike, not a weapon.
Etc.

[stewstew5]

Ummm... No?
Let's look at Alter Self: Alters your unarmed strike, not a weapon.
Let's look at Aarakocra: Alters your unarmed strike, not a weapon.
Etc.

Aarakocra Talons:

You are proficient with your unarmed strikes, which deal 1d4 slashing damage on a hit.
Note it doesn't call them natural weapons

Tortle claws:

Your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.
note that it specifically states that they are natural weapons

Alter Self 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, and you are proficient with your unarmed strikes. Finally, the natural weapon is magic and you have a +1 bonus to the Attack and Damage Rolls you make using it.
once again, it states that these are natural weapons

These things either just alter your unarmed strikes, or specifically turn them into natural weapons that do (1d6..etc.).

[Yunru]

Note it doesn't call them natural weapons Then it doesn't count.


These things either just alter your unarmed strikes, or specifically turn them into natural weapons that do (1d6..etc.).Ummm no, the ones that say natural weapons also only modify your unarmed strikes.

I'll say it again, every instance of the player getting natural weapons only changes your unarmed strike. Natural weapon attacks are unarmed strikes.