Are Natural Weapon considered Melee Weapons?

[werescythe]

This was a question that occurred to me while I was working on another thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?621482-Beast-Barb-Tailmaw-concept), are a character's Natural Weapons considered Melee Weapons?

[JNAProductions]

This was a question that occurred to me while I was working on another thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?621482-Beast-Barb-Tailmaw-concept), are a character's Natural Weapons considered Melee Weapons?

Any currently available natural weapons to a PC from race have wording that says...


...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.

Meaning they're unarmed strikes. Which are melee weapons.

You could, in theory, have a natural weapon that was ranged (say, launching spines from your back or something) but for PCs, they're as much a melee weapon as unarmed strikes are.

Which is... A very weird space in 5E. What exactly are you trying to accomplish that you need a melee weapon for? Because, while I'm not super clear on the RAW of this, I could definitely let you know how I would rule as a DM.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Any currently available natural weapons to a PC from race have wording that says...



Meaning they're unarmed strikes. Which are melee weapons.

You could, in theory, have a natural weapon that was ranged (say, launching spines from your back or something) but for PCs, they're as much a melee weapon as unarmed strikes are.

Which is... A very weird space in 5E. What exactly are you trying to accomplish that you need a melee weapon for? Because, while I'm not super clear on the RAW of this, I could definitely let you know how I would rule as a DM.

Yeah. One wrinkle is that all of those available ones make melee weapon attacks, but they don't make melee attacks with a weapon. So things like Improved Divine Smite don't work with them (as I read it anyway).

[JNAProductions]

Yeah. One wrinkle is that all of those available ones make melee weapon attacks, but they don't make melee attacks with a weapon. So things like Improved Divine Smite don't work with them (as I read it anyway).

That's probably RAW, but honestly, it ain't gonna break the game to let a Paladin smite with their fists, so I'd definitely allow it.

[Lavaeolus]

An interesting note. Centaur hooves and minotaur horns, unlike other races with natural weapons, are explicitly called out as "natural melee weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes". Similar wording used in the Beast UA (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/UA2020-Subclasses01.pdf), though I don't know if it made it into the final cut:

Until your rage ends, you manifest a natural melee weapon...

Whether this is a meaningful distinction compared to other races' natural weapons, who are only implicitly melee, I don't know.

In regards to Sage Advice (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) and this question, the closest thing to cover it is this:

Are natural weapons considered weapons? Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body.

In regards to the Beast Barbarian, I would rule that -- since there's no mention about them being 'unarmed strikes' at all -- Beast Barb attacks are indeed attacks with weapons. And by extension if the rules continue to list them as 'a natural melee weapon', I'd count them as an attack with a melee weapon.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's probably RAW, but honestly, it ain't gonna break the game to let a Paladin smite with their fists, so I'd definitely allow it.

Yeah. I'd likely not care. Same with the melee weapon cantrips. Can't be bothered to care about the difference.

[Zhorn]

I highly doubt the intent was for minotaurs and centaurs to have a special natural weapons for rules interactions, but up until there's an errata to bring the wording in line with the other races and their natural weapons, I'm not going to argue down anyone leaning on that wording. But then I'm lenient on this and as a house rule let players smite with unarmed attacks.

[Lavaeolus]

Looking through the linked thread, two things to remember:

* Melee attacks with weapons are usually melee weapon attacks.
* But unarmed strikes are also melee weapon attacks, as a special exception. That also makes them weapon attacks, by extension.

That means a tabaxi's claws, a centaur's hooves, a human's punch -- they would all work with Restraining Strike (as written in the UA). That goes for most Battle Master maneuvers, Barbarian's Reckless Attack, etc. And yes, it means a "melee weapon attack" is technically a distinct concept from "an attack with a melee weapon" and "a melee attack with a weapon", which is a little unintuitive.

But, on the flipside, nothing in the UA says a Beast Barb's attack is an unarmed strike. Unless they change that, that means it's not one. It'd still be a melee weapon attack, note, but it wouldn't work with Tavern Brawler which wants specifically an unarmed strike. At least, in my interpretation of the rules-as-written. If you were a tabaxi and hit them with your claw, though, it would trigger Tavern Brawler.

[werescythe]

Looking through the linked thread, two things to remember:

* Melee attacks with weapons are usually melee weapon attacks.
* But unarmed strikes are also melee weapon attacks, as a special exception. That also makes them weapon attacks, by extension.

That means a tabaxi's claws, a centaur's hooves, a human's punch -- they would all work with Restraining Strike (as written in the UA). That goes for most Battle Master maneuvers, Barbarian's Reckless Attack, etc. And yes, it means a "melee weapon attack" is technically a distinct concept from "an attack with a melee weapon" and "a melee attack with a weapon", which is a little unintuitive.

But, on the flipside, nothing in the UA says a Beast Barb's attack is an unarmed strike. Unless they change that, that means it's not one. It'd still be a melee weapon attack, note, but it wouldn't work with Tavern Brawler which wants specifically an unarmed strike. At least, in my interpretation of the rules-as-written. If you were a tabaxi and hit them with your claw, though, it would trigger Tavern Brawler.

Admittedly I was mostly trying to see if it would work with Battle Master Maneuvers and thus hopefully making Martial Adapt with Restraining Strike (hopefully) a means to work with grapple since I kind of figured that Tavern Brawler wouldn't work.

Though it should be noted that Beast Barbarian isn't out yet, so who knows, maybe the version we get will have them be considered unarmed strikes. However I always try to assume that most of the time the classes in the UA won't be changed too drastically, do we'll wait and see.

[JackPhoenix]

Meaning they're unarmed strikes. Which are melee weapons.

Unarmed strike is very explicitly not a weapon.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Unarmed strike is very explicitly not a weapon.

This is technically correct. They make weapon attacks (not spell attacks), but they are not weapons for things that care. But honestly, I don't particularly care, so...

[Neorealist]

Are natural weapons considered weapons? Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body.

according to the above, yes, natural weapons are weapons.

And yes, this does mean (for example) that lizardmen paladins can holy smite with their bite attack, or aarakocra can cast magic weapon on their talons.

[Mr Adventurer]

according to the above, yes, natural weapons are weapons.

And yes, this does mean (for example) that lizardmen paladins can holy smite with their bite attack, or aarakocra can cast magic weapon on their talons.

Now THAT has interesting implications for Monks, doesn't it? If you can cast weapon-enhancing spells on your natural weapons, and then use them as your unarmed strikes for Martial Arts.

[Neorealist]

Now THAT has interesting implications for Monks, doesn't it? If you can cast weapon-enhancing spells on your natural weapons, and then use them as your unarmed strikes for Martial Arts.

Sure though in practice your multi-class arcane caster/monk is probably behind a bit the curve anyway, may as well do neat stuff.

[Telwar]

according to the above, yes, natural weapons are weapons.

And yes, this does mean (for example) that lizardmen paladins can holy smite with their bite attack, or aarakocra can cast magic weapon on their talons.

That idea of a lizardman paladin amuses me to no end. Hungry Jaws lets you smite as a bonus action as well.

[Mr Adventurer]

Sure though in practice your multi-class arcane caster/monk is probably behind a bit the curve anyway, may as well do neat stuff.

I was thinking of the rest of the party.

[greenstone]

I used to think the rules on this were clear. Badly phrased ("melee weapon attack" vs "attack with a melee weapon" sheesh), but clear. Then more books got printed, and confusing tweets and sage advices were posted, and now I'm confused.

In my game, I've tried to make it simple: If you can be disarmed of it, then it is a weapon. If not, its not.