What is a natural weapon [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-12, 09:25 AM

What is the most RAW legal definition of a natural weapon?

I started a Warshaper thread that descended into quite the debate of what is and isn't a natural weapon.

Is it anything in the attack line that isn't manufactured because you don't get very far into the monster manual before you start having issues with that.

Is the Aranea's web a natural weapon, what about the Arrowhawks electricity ray? Not because its supernatural ability? what about the Lantern Archons light rays? They are extraordinary.

This seems to be quite the can of worms.

Morphic Weapons is one of the worst edited abilities that we have in 3.5...

By RAW:

The "Attack:"-line is defined as either manufactured weapon or natural weapon. Since manufactured weapons are easily to distinguish, anything left has to be a natural weapon. (unless a specific exception is called out, but I'm not aware of any...)

Note that IIRC, we lack any statement about whether or not natural weapons are "Natural Abilities" (or EX, SLA, SU, whatsoever).

Thus Morphic Weapon doesn't care if a natural weapon is a natural ability or not. Nowhere does the ability limit itself sole to "Natural Abilities". It sole cares for "natural weapons" and not if something is a Natural/Special Ability.

Just because both have "natural" as part of their name doesn't change anything here. Natural Weapons doesn't equal to Natural Ability. People tend to imply things due to the similarity of the words, but there is no connection (as far as I know).

Some natural weapon types come in pairs or even more (e.g. Claws, Tentacles..). Again, Morphic Weapons doesn't set any specific exception and thus should follow those general rules.

Further, since 3.5 lives and dies with exception rules, any specific natural weapon may have specific exceptions to the norm (e.g. ranged & cause AoO, rider effects like poison/magic....). Again Morphic Weapon doesn't set any limitation here.

Note that reusing the ability while a previous instance is active will result into changing the active instance. The ability only allows for changing Morphic Weapons, not to stack em.

__________

That being said about RAW, note that this sets the PRC into game-breaking lvls. For most tables this will be overkill in terms of combat power. It all depends on the system mastery your DM has, when it comes to dealing with things like this. So pls check with your DM and maybe even the entire table at which optimization lvl you wanna play.

A good DM should have no problem even with the most generous interpretation of the abilities. This is due to dmg/combat optimization being the weakest form of optimization. At the higher lvls a full caster can solve/skip most fight if he wants with spells (with the right spell choice). Note that solving/skipping combat (by ability use) still gives full XP by RAW. If you understand this, than any kind of dmg/combat optimization becomes more acceptable compared to a good played full caster.

On the other hand, a Warshaper will overshadow many other mundane builds. So really check what your other teammates are doing ;)

Malphegor

2021-11-12, 12:34 PM

Tbh the easiest way to nerf it to reasonable levels is simply to have the ability only grant you one of any one ability it has at a time, with further uses replacing the previous effect.

It also doesn’t give you Required Secondary Superpowers probably: for example in the previous thread having the ability of the darkblot thing where you have disintegrating touch you might want an ability to fly because you’re gonna just plummet into the ground while that’s active. Minor, but it’s an important consideration.

Noxangelo

2021-11-12, 05:06 PM

The conversation seems to be drifting of topic and into the vast swamp that is the warshaper.

H_H_F_F

2021-11-12, 06:13 PM

The conversation seems to be drifting of topic and into the vast swamp that is the warshaper.

Well, I doubt you'll get a more precise answer than what the SRD has to offer, and it's honestly not a bad definition. Do you see any obvious issues with it?

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-12, 08:59 PM

K, lets try this again if the OP ain't satisfied yet..^^
Since your question is tied to the warshaper, I start with a general explanation and will add notes regarding the warshaper at the end.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons

Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature (1). A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity (2). Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach (2). Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus (3) when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack(3)—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions (4).

Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20 (5).

When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary (6).

The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry (6), and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a -5 penalty on the attack roll, (6) no matter how many there are. (Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity.

Natural weapons have types (7) just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.

Bite
The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage.

Claw or Talon
The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing piercing and slashing damage.

Gore
The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or similar appendage, dealing piercing damage.

Slap or Slam
The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.

Sting
The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage. Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to hit point damage. (8)

Tentacle
The creature flails at opponents with a powerful tentacle, dealing bludgeoning (and sometimes slashing) damage.
Note: I did bold the important parts and added numers in "(*)" for a better visualization. Finally, keep in mind that these general rules may be trumped by more specific rules (e.g. from a specific natural weapon).
Natural Weapons (NW):

1. NW are generally a physical part of the creature.

2. Attacking with a melee natural weapon is considered armed and doesn't provoke AoO. It threatens in its reach.

3. Nummer of Attacks depends on the NW type(s) used.

4. A friendly reminder that specific NW may set exceptions in their description

5. NW can crit on a natural 20.

6. Explains how the Primary Weapon is determined and how BAB affects Primary and Secondary Weapons.

7. A list of the most common NW types. Which means, there are more NWs that aren't listed here.

8. Explains that some NW like Stings may add poison damage to their hitpoint damage.

As I already said, NWs may have rider effects like poison (8) and they are part of the NW. The NWs don't care if that is a Special Ability or not. It is part of the natural weapon. With that in mind, you should now easily see how OP the Morphic Weapon ability is by RAW. All ambiguous points should have been addressed now (at least I hope so..^^). If question should still remain, feel free to ask further. ;)

daremetoidareyo

2021-11-12, 09:15 PM

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-13, 12:15 AM

Just want to point out how well designed this comment is

And I was thinking it looks to messy..^^
But thanks for the flowers. :)

Noxangelo

2021-11-13, 09:09 AM

K, lets try this again if the OP ain't satisfied yet..^^
Since your question is tied to the warshaper, I start with a general explanation and will add notes regarding the warshaper at the end.

Its not specifically a warshaper question, otherwise I would have put it on the warshaper thread rather than start a new one.

This is to try and clear up for me how some of the more fringe cases interact with the natural weapons rules.

Things like claws and bites are pretty well explained and even unusual ones like foreclaws and such can be reasonably dealt with, but what about fringe cases, spiders web abilities, lantern archons light rays and beholder eye rays as examples.

How do they interact with the rules, not just warshaper, but also things like feats and magic items.
Does the beholders amulet of natural attacks affect his eye rays?
Can I make a Lantern Archon familiar a necklace of natural attacks for its light rays?
And so on . . .

Darg

2021-11-13, 09:20 AM

The "Attack:"-line is defined as either manufactured weapon or natural weapon. Since manufactured weapons are easily to distinguish, anything left has to be a natural weapon. (unless a specific exception is called out, but I'm not aware of any...)

This is the only reason there is any debate at all as many people simply do not agree. Natural Weapons are not Ex, Sp, or SU as abilities do no have a "type." While unarmed strikes do not follow all the rules for natural weapons, they are treated as a natural weapon by classification. They are also never given in the attack line whether normal attack or touch if an ability would modify the attack.

As I already said, NWs may have rider effects like poison (8) and they are part of the NW. The NWs don't care if that is a Special Ability or not. It is part of the natural weapon.

This is false. The entry says that they "usually" do poison damage. "usually" does not mean "always."

To the OP, Natural weapons have a type and are not themselves the abilities a creature has. The attack lines makes the creature easier to read for play by including type qualities and special attacks that a creature relies on to attack.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-13, 09:49 AM

Its not specifically a warshaper question, otherwise I would have put it on the warshaper thread rather than start a new one.

This is to try and clear up for me how some of the more fringe cases interact with the natural weapons rules.

Things like claws and bites are pretty well explained and even unusual ones like foreclaws and such can be reasonably dealt with, but what about fringe cases, spiders web abilities, lantern archons light rays and beholder eye rays as examples.

How do they interact with the rules, not just warshaper, but also things like feats and magic items.
Does the beholders amulet of natural attacks affect his eye rays?
Can I make a Lantern Archon familiar a necklace of natural attacks for its light rays?
And so on . . .

As said, if something stands in the "Attack"-line and is not a manufactured weapon, it has to be a Natural Weapon. It doesn't care if said natural weapon comes with Special Abilities or not.

Thus, a beholders eye rays can profit from a necklace of natural attacks. Keep in mind that only those things apply, that have a legal target to apply to. As always in 3.5, partial effects without a legal target to apply doesn't stop other partial effects (of the same overall effect) with a legal target to apply.
As example, a simple +5 enhancement would help the beholders eye rays with his attack roll, but only increase the damage of those rays that do damage. On the same base "melee weapon/attack" enhancing special enhancements wouldn't work either (since the rays are ranged attacks). Most things should be obvious if they can apply or not.
The same goes for Lantern Archon familiar with a necklace for its light rays. As long as the given bonus/enhancement is legal, it will work as expected.

Feats work the same.
E.g. the Improved Natural Attack feat may be taken legally for the Beholder's Eye Rays (since they are NW), but it wouldn't do anything. Because the Eye Rays don't scale with size.

I hope that you now have a feeling how things should interact with each other. If you should still have questions, I'll try to address em too.

___________
edit:

This is the only reason there is any debate at all as many people simply do not agree. Natural Weapons are not Ex, Sp, or SU as abilities do no have a "type." While unarmed strikes do not follow all the rules for natural weapons, they are treated as a natural weapon by classification. They are also never given in the attack line whether normal attack or touch if an ability would modify the attack.
I have shown multiple times how the "Attack:"line is defined. If you want to contest this, then pls present the rules to confirm your assumption (Note: the thread is marked as RAW and not RAI!).
As far as I am aware, we don't have any statements that Natural Attacks have to be Natural Abilities and may not be EX, SLA, SU. Unless you can present any rule text for this, there is no reason to follow your assumption here.

This is false. The entry says that they "usually" do poison damage. "usually" does not mean "always."
I said "may have", which should indicate that this is optional. But those cases are still Natural Weapons. So what is your point here, I don't get it? (sorry)

To the OP, Natural weapons have a type and are not themselves the abilities a creature has. The attack lines makes the creature easier to read for play by including type qualities and special attacks that a creature relies on to attack.
Sorry but the definition of the "Attack:"-line differs from your interpretation:

Have a look at "Reading the Monster Entries (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#)":

This line shows the single attack the creature makes with an attack action. In most cases, this is also the attack the creature uses when making an attack of opportunity as well. The attack line provides the weapon used (natural or manufactured), attack bonus, and form of attack (melee or ranged). The attack bonus given includes modifications for size and Strength (for melee attacks) or Dexterity (for ranged attacks). A creature with the Weapon Finesse feat can use its Dexterity modifier on melee attacks. If the creature uses natural attacks, the natural weapon given here is the creature’s primary natural weapon. If the creature has several different weapons at its disposal, the alternatives are shown, with each different attack separated by the word "or." A creature can use one of its secondary natural weapons when making an attack action, but if it does it takes an attack penalty, as noted in the Full Attack section below. The damage that each attack deals is noted parenthetically. Damage from an attack is always at least 1 point, even if a subtraction from a die roll reduces the result to 0 or lower.
There is no third option for the "Attack:"-line. If it's not a manufactured weapon, it has to be Natural Weapon. There is no EX/SLA/SU attack option for that line, and the line never cares if the attack is a natural attack, an EX attack or whatsoever.
You are mixing Natural Weapons and Natural Abilities together without any evidence presented by RAW yet.

Darg

2021-11-13, 11:01 AM

As said, if something stands in the "Attack"-line and is not a manufactured weapon, it has to be a Natural Weapon. It doesn't care if said natural weapon comes with Special Abilities or not.

Thus, a beholders eye rays can profit from a necklace of natural attacks. Keep in mind that only those things apply, that have a legal target to apply to. As always in 3.5, partial effects without a legal target to apply doesn't stop other partial effects (of the same overall effect) with a legal target to apply.
As example, a simple +5 enhancement would help the beholders eye rays with his attack roll, but only increase the damage of those rays that do damage. On the same base "melee weapon/attack" enhancing special enhancements wouldn't work either (since the rays are ranged attacks). Most things should be obvious if they can apply or not.
The same goes for Lantern Archon familiar with a necklace for its light rays. As long as the given bonus/enhancement is legal, it will work as expected.

Feats work the same.
E.g. the Improved Natural Attack feat may be taken legally for the Beholder's Eye Rays (since they are NW), but it wouldn't do anything. Because the Eye Rays don't scale with size.

I hope that you now have a feeling how things should interact with each other. If you should still have questions, I'll try to address em too.

See, you are making contradictions to fit special abilities as natural weapons. You say necklace of natural attacks works and even say it improves damage and yet INA doesn't work? If as you say that special abilities are weapons, then they should increase in size and not be arbitrarily left out.

Your understanding stims from the misunderstanding that special attacks and type can't provide exceptions to a general rule. An incorporeal creature that loses it's incorporeality (ghost trap) loses the incorporeal quality of their "incorporeal touch" attack making it just "touch." A spell like Spurn the Supernatural or an AMF would remove many so called "natural weapons" as well even though if they were truly part of the creature's body it would have no effect or make the entire creature blink out of existence. This is especially prevalent with beholders who disable their own eye rays. Special attacks can also "arm" unarmed attacks. Because of this they are treated as weapons.

A creature's special abilities may be qualities of the body (poison production), but they aren't part of the body (detachable, kept separate in venom sacs, etc.). Natural weapons require mutilation to be removed from the body as they are part of it. Special attacks do not (many of them are even designed to be separated from the body without mutilation.)

I have shown multiple times how the "Attack:"line is defined. If you want to contest this, then pls present the rules to confirm your assumption (Note: the thread is marked as RAW and not RAI!).
As far as I am aware, we don't have any statements that Natural Attacks have to be Natural Abilities and may not be EX, SLA, SU. Unless you can present any rule text for this, there is no reason to follow your assumption here.

I said "may have", which should indicate that this is optional. But those cases are still Natural Weapons. So what is your point here, I don't get it? (sorry)

Sorry but the definition of the "Attack:"-line differs from your interpretation:

Have a look at "Reading the Monster Entries (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#)":

There is no third option for the "Attack:"-line. If it's not a manufactured weapon, it has to be Natural Weapon. There is no EX/SLA/SU attack option for that line, and the line never cares if the attack is a natural attack, an EX attack or whatsoever.
You are mixing Natural Weapons and Natural Abilities together without any evidence presented by RAW yet.

Read the glossary of the MM. Natural weapons do not have a designation of Ex, Sp, or Su unlike other abilities. This means that they are not Ex, Sp, or Su no matter what you say.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-13, 09:11 PM

See, you are making contradictions to fit special abilities as natural weapons. You say necklace of natural attacks works and even say it improves damage and yet INA doesn't work? If as you say that special abilities are weapons, then they should increase in size and not be arbitrarily left out.
Contradiction? Where? Reread Improved Natural Attack. There is no visual size increase:

The damage for one of the creature's natural attack forms increases by one step, as if the creature's size had increased by one category
Now tell me how that is gonna affect the Eye Rays? While you may legally take the feat, it doesn't do anything for the Eye Rays (as I already said in my original statement). Since their possible spell damage doesn't scale with size. When was the last time you have adjusted spell/SLA damage to size? Does any of the mentioned SLA spells scale with size? No. As I said, you can take the feat legally, but it doesn't do anything for Eye Rays.

Your understanding stims from the misunderstanding that special attacks and type can't provide exceptions to a general rule. An incorporeal creature that loses it's incorporeality (ghost trap) loses the incorporeal quality of their "incorporeal touch" attack making it just "touch." A spell like Spurn the Supernatural or an AMF would remove many so called "natural weapons" as well even though if they were truly part of the creature's body it would have no effect or make the entire creature blink out of existence. This is especially prevalent with beholders who disable their own eye rays. Special attacks can also "arm" unarmed attacks. Because of this they are treated as weapons.
Excuse me. You are mixing up the "Special Attacks:"-line with the "Attack:"-line. Pls reread their descriptions and try to see the difference between them. Than we can talk. The definition of the "Attack:"line backs me up that it s a Natural Weapon (unless it is a manufactured one). It even gives an example that such an attack (some stings) may deliver even poisons which. A clear indicator that it part of the Natural Weapon, right in the description of Natural Weapons (also in the glossary definition you mentioned..).
If you grow an "incorporeal touch", then that is what you get. An incorporeal touch. While the natural weapon has that quality, it doesn't extend to the rest of your body. Everything works as expected imho. No problem here.

A creature's special abilities may be qualities of the body (poison production), but they aren't part of the body (detachable, kept separate in venom sacs, etc.). Natural weapons require mutilation to be removed from the body as they are part of it. Special attacks do not (many of them are even designed to be separated from the body without mutilation.)If you grow a NW on your body, you can bet that the changes aren't sole limited to surface changes on you skin. How is your skin gonna provide stability for a horn? How are you gonna use tentacles if they aren't attached to your internal system? The ability is silent regarding the internal changes (as most form changing abilities are btw..) but you can assume that anything required will be changed (muscles, bone structure, additional organs like a poison sack... It says what it does and does not explain how it work in your metabolism. As such, you have to assume that a legal target Morphic Weapon will also grow anything internally needed to provide a full copy of that Natural Weapon attack.
If you grow a poisonous sting, you can assume that it grow anything needed for that. The ability doesn't have the limitation that you are implying here. If the sting would gets decapitated somehow (decapitation doesn't exist generally and sole in specific chases in 3.5), you wouldn't have any "Attack:" to apply the poison anymore. I don't get the problem you are seeing here.
And again, you are mixing up the "Special Attacks:" line with the "Attack:" line..

Read the glossary of the MM. Natural weapons do not have a designation of Ex, Sp, or Su unlike other abilities. This means that they are not Ex, Sp, or Su no matter what you say.
I already did read it and even quoted it here, since it's the same text that stands in the SRD definition of Natural Weapons.
You are having a hard time to apply the Primary Source Rule here.
The primary source for Natural Abilities and Special Abilities is the "Special Abilities (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#)" section and not the Natural Weapons section. The "Special Abilities" section defines each one of em and how they are categorized.
Since the Natural Weapon definition doesn't create any specific exceptions it has to behave regular under the rules presented in the "Special Abilities" (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#)definition.
Each ability has to be designated into one of that 4 categories. If an ability doesn't have a friendly reminder or creates a specific exception for itself, the DM has to follow the general rules for designating em into one of the 4 categories.
All of this has nothing to do with determining what is and what is not a Natural Weapon. For that, sole the "Attack:"-line of the monster-stat-block is enough.
Stop confusing Natural Weapons, with Special Attacks. And realize that Natural Weapons may have Special Abilities if they are part of the "Attack:" line.

All of this is sole for a RAW interpretation. If you wanna argue about RAI, you assumptions would be interesting to debate. But that is not the chase here, since the OP asks for a sole RAW interpretation.

Wildstag

2021-11-15, 02:32 PM

Warshapers can manifest Bone Spurs (Su) from the Osteomancer PrC, because the last line of the ability specifically calls them "natural weapons", if we go with the assumption that there's no restriction on Su, Ex, or Sp abilities.

liquidformat

2021-11-15, 04:40 PM

K, lets try this again if the OP ain't satisfied yet..^^
Since your question is tied to the warshaper, I start with a general explanation and will add notes regarding the warshaper at the end.
.
.
.

Based on everything you have presented I think there is a strong argument to be made that natural weapons are all 'melee weapons' therefore things like eye rays and so forth aren't natural weapons...

hamishspence

2021-11-15, 04:54 PM

A manticore's tail spikes seem like a classic "ranged natural weapon" - especially since it gets the Weapon Focus feat for them.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/manticore.htm

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-15, 06:05 PM

Based on everything you have presented I think there is a strong argument to be made that natural weapons are all 'melee weapons' therefore things like eye rays and so forth aren't natural weapons...
"Generally" speaking yes. But as always in 3.5, "specific trumps general". Which means specific chases like the beholder's Eye Rays or as hamishspence mentioned the manticore's tail skipes may exist. Same goes to the Disintegrating Touch of the Umbral Blot (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/umbralBlot.htm). These specific chase defy some of the general rules, but are still Natural Weapons since they are categorized as such (due to the "Attack:"-line's definition or by being specifically called out as with the Bone Spurs of the Osteumancer). Thus, they are specific chases of Natural Weapons.

A manticore's tail spikes seem like a classic "ranged natural weapon" - especially since it gets the Weapon Focus feat for them.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/manticore.htm
nice <3
I was looking for these as example but couldn't remember which creature it was. TY

_____________________

I have the impression (! no real evidence so far) that any "Special Attack" that has an attack roll, be it melee or ranged, seems to be an "Attack:" and thus has the potential to be a Natural Weapon (if it ain't obviously with a manufactured weapon).

Q: Does anyone know a "Special Attack:" with an attack roll that is not an "Attack:" at the same time?

Imho it would be nice if we could confirm or deny it somehow.

Darg

2021-11-16, 01:38 AM

"Generally" speaking yes. But as always in 3.5, "specific trumps general". Which means specific chases like the beholder's Eye Rays or as hamishspence mentioned the manticore's tail skipes may exist. Same goes to the Disintegrating Touch of the Umbral Blot (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/umbralBlot.htm). These specific chase defy some of the general rules, but are still Natural Weapons since they are categorized as such (due to the "Attack:"-line's definition or by being specifically called out as with the Bone Spurs of the Osteumancer). Thus, they are specific chases of Natural Weapons.

This is a clear case of switching general and specific. The general rule is that the attack line are manufactured or natural weapons. A specific rule is that abilities can arm your unarmed attacks. Beholder's eye stalks cannot make AoO's, nor do they threaten the space around the beholder, and some even provoke for making a ranged attack. This wholly contradicts your list and doesn't provide a specific exception to your list.

I have the impression (! no real evidence so far) that any "Special Attack" that has an attack roll, be it melee or ranged, seems to be an "Attack:" and thus has the potential to be a Natural Weapon (if it ain't obviously with a manufactured weapon).

Q: Does anyone know a "Special Attack:" with an attack roll that is not an "Attack:" at the same time?

Imho it would be nice if we could confirm or deny it somehow.

Spells, SLAs, and Su's with default standard actions aren't in the attack line, most of the time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I also want to point out that the manticore cannot take an attack action or full attack action to use their spikes and yet it is still in the attack lines. This means that abilities are exceptions to the manufactured/natural weapon rule or the manticore's entry has erred. If the latter, we cannot actually know if the spikes are actually natural weapons as the entry is faulty. One thing we do know is that the text trumps table.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-16, 03:22 AM

This is a clear case of switching general and specific. The general rule is that the attack line are manufactured or natural weapons. A specific rule is that abilities can arm your unarmed attacks. Beholder's eye stalks cannot make AoO's, nor do they threaten the space around the beholder, and some even provoke for making a ranged attack. This wholly contradicts your list and doesn't provide a specific exception to your list.
It's a clear "Specific Trumps General".
1. We have general rules for Natural Weapons & what counts as being armed/threatening squares.
2. The "Attack:"-line helps to identify manufactured and natural weapons (and common sense helps to differentiate between those two)
3. A specific natural weapon may call out specific exceptions that differ from the norm

Further note that everything can be specific or general depending on what you are comparing to each other.
If you want to know if a Natural Weapon counts as armed/threatening squares, you first look at the general rules presented (being armed/threatening squares) and then see if the Natural Weapon does call out any exceptions.

In the chase of the Eye Rays, they don't call out any exceptions (regarding being armed/threatening squares). Thus they behave accordingly to the general rules about being armed/threatening squares. Which means, causing AoO when used in melee range & you can't use em for AoO (like any other ranged weapon according to the general rule).

Spells, SLAs, and Su's with default standard actions aren't in the attack line, most of the time.
I was asking specifically for Special Attacks that require an Attack Roll. Is there any one of those abilities requiring an attack roll but that ain't an "Attack:" at the same time? Can anyone name an example for this? Does such a chase exist? I'm just curious here.

I also want to point out that the manticore cannot take an attack action or full attack action to use their spikes and yet it is still in the attack lines. This means that abilities are exceptions to the manufactured/natural weapon rule or the manticore's entry has erred. If the latter, we cannot actually know if the spikes are actually natural weapons as the entry is faulty. One thing we do know is that the text trumps table.
Why it shouldn't be able to?
The spikes specifically call out that they use the standard action (despite making multiple attacks with em - a specific exception). A standard action attack with a weapon is required for the Attack Action. The spikes qualify for that.
And his full attack options further reflect this, since it can't use other attacks together with its standard action spikes. Due to this it would be a waste (of the movement action) to use a Full Attack for the spikes.

Darg

2021-11-16, 10:51 AM

Why it shouldn't be able to?
The spikes specifically call out that they use the standard action (despite making multiple attacks with em - a specific exception). A standard action attack with a weapon is required for the Attack Action. The spikes qualify for that.
And his full attack options further reflect this, since it can't use other attacks together with its standard action spikes. Due to this it would be a waste (of the movement action) to use a Full Attack for the spikes.

Except it conflicts with the general rule for abilities. The ability itself specifically tells you that you use a standard action to use the ability. It's not a case of standard action or attack action. Neither is it a case of standard action or full attack action. It can only be used as a standard action. The reading the entry entry does not give itself license to override the action cost of an ability.

The only other option would be that any and every standard action in which you make an attack is actually an attack action and a single attack in a full attack is actually a separate instance of an attack action. This would mean that it would be usable with shot on the run. Dual strike is usable with spring attack or with each attack in a full attack. Order of the bow initiate could make full attacks with its precise shot. This is silly (although the last two deserve to work like that).

The logical conclusions are that the box has an error, that special attacks can override the general rule for reading the attack line, or the reading the entry rules aren't actually rules and are instead guidelines for actually reading the entries with references in parenthesis for general cases. Your only evidence for abilities being natural weapons is a parenthetical which by nature does not preclude exceptions. Abilities by their "nature" (hehe punny) are exceptions to the general case.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for finding special attacks that do no show up in the attack line, you likely won't other than spells, psionics, or SLAs, but these are clusters of attack options. You have special attacks which have their own attack roll or require a touch attack in the attack line for easy reference. Special attacks delivered through a weapon or require saves instead of an attack roll aren't included in the attack line (except for the damage or effect in parenthesis).

Interestingly, a werebear's hybrid form has a greataxe as a natural attack.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-16, 02:35 PM

Except it conflicts with the general rule for abilities. The ability itself specifically tells you that you use a standard action to use the ability. It's not a case of standard action or attack action. Neither is it a case of standard action or full attack action. It can only be used as a standard action. The reading the entry entry does not give itself license to override the action cost of an ability.
...

Let me try to clear up your confusion here:

1. We have general rules for attack and full attack
2. A Manticore's spike ability calls itself out as specific exception, that an attack with it requires a standard action (for 6 spikes at once) and not the regular attack action (for an individual spike).
3. The "Full-Attack:"-line of the Manticore calls out an exception (to the ability) that you can use the spikes also as Full-Attack. Note that this option is most of the time useless, since you basically give up your movement action without getting any benefits. But it is possible, if something else should occur when you Full-Attack (e.g. Haste would give you an extra attack combined with the spikes as full attack). Here the ability is "general" and gets trumped by the more "specific" Full-Attack-line. (When you use the ability as Full-Attack, a specific situation is described. Which then allows specific exceptions).

This is what I mean when I say that you need to be careful what general and specific is. It totally depends on the situation at hand. The manticore's spike ability is specific when competing with the general full-/attack rules. But it becomes general itself when competing with the manticore's own "Full Attack:"-line.
I know that it is not easy to get a feeling for the Primary Source Rule, but once you get the concept, so many things become so much clearer. It always boils down to what is general/primary and what is specific or not specific for each individual comprehension.
And this can even switch within a single situation/scenario as seen at this example above. And I have to admit that this can be very confusing. I needed years to understand this part of the Primary Source Rule by trying to dissect all the FAQ answers that are seen as controversial by many. Sorry for drifting off the topic a lil here..

As for finding special attacks that do no show up in the attack line, you likely won't other than spells, psionics, or SLAs, but these are clusters of attack options. You have special attacks which have their own attack roll or require a touch attack in the attack line for easy reference. Special attacks delivered through a weapon or require saves instead of an attack roll aren't included in the attack line (except for the damage or effect in parenthesis).

As said, I have the impression that all Special Attacks with an Attack Roll that come to mind seem to be in the "Attack:"-line, thus being Natural Weapons. At least generally speaking. But it would be nice to know if there are any exceptions to this?

Interestingly, a werebear's hybrid form has a greataxe as a natural attack.
? Sorry I don't get it. Am I missing something? I don't see why this should be the chase. Could you please explain? (genuinely asking)

Darg

2021-11-16, 11:17 PM

? Sorry I don't get it. Am I missing something? I don't see why this should be the chase. Could you please explain? (genuinely asking)

Werebear's greataxe (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm#werebear) follows the rules for being used as a natural secondary weapon as laid out in the reading the entries rules for reading the entry in the full attack line. This makes it a natural weapon by RAW and leaving common sense to the wayside.

hamishspence

2021-11-17, 12:12 AM

Yes - a more accurate version would have used it as the primary weapon rather than the "off-hand-attack" - natural weapons don't interfere with primary weapons.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#manufacturedWeapons

Manufactured Weapons
Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat— in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.

Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.

Since it's a Large creature using a Medium greataxe as a one-handed weapon, it still needs to take the "Inappropriately sized weapons" penalty though.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-17, 07:42 AM

Werebear's greataxe (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm#werebear) follows the rules for being used as a natural secondary weapon as laid out in the reading the entries rules for reading the entry in the full attack line. This makes it a natural weapon by RAW and leaving common sense to the wayside.

Nice catch, but imho that statline is a total mess...
Lets try to dissect it

Claw +13 melee (1d6+9) and greataxe +9 melee (1d12+4/×3) and bite +11 melee (1d8+4)

1. Claw + Greataxe (a 2h weapon) at the same time doesn't work. (Unless the wearbear is somehow allowed to use it feet claws?).

2. From the -4 for the Greataxe attack, I assume the intention was to use the offhand rule for a light weapon claw with a 1h mainhand weapon. But even that would have enforced the -4 on all attacks and not sole the offhand attack.

3. I don't see the greataxe used as Natural Weapon, since that would have cause the attack to only face a -2 penalty due to multiattack.

As far as I see it, the Full-Attack-line tries to make changes without any exception created (by text). Nor do we have any text to back up the changes made. Thus, "text (the general rules for attacking with manufactured weapons + natural weapons) trumps table". The line lacks the permission to make those changes.

hamishspence

2021-11-17, 10:42 AM

1. Claw + Greataxe (a 2h weapon) at the same time doesn't work. (Unless the wearbear is somehow allowed to use it feet claws?).

Given that d12 damage is standard for a Medium greataxe, and that the hybrid is Large, it seemed to me like the idea was "a Medium Two-handed weapon wielded by a Large creature is a one-handed weapon, with the usual Wrong Sized Weapon penalty"

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize

The bonus damage modifier is half of the Str bonus modifier : a Str 29 creature normally gets +9 to damage. This greataxe is getting +4. So it's "being wielded off-hand" though it would have worked better as "main-hand" - since the rules make it much easier to fight "weapon in main hand, as Primary, natural attacks as Secondary".

Using the rules in a more optimal fashion,

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#manufacturedWeapons

Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.

would have produced:

Greataxe +11 melee (1d12+9/×3) and Claw +11 melee (1d6+9) and bite +11 melee (1d8+4).

Since the rulebook doesn't state that when a primary natural attack becomes secondary (the claw in this case), that it also automatically drops from Full Str to Half Str Bonus to Damage.

Gruftzwerg

2021-11-17, 11:15 AM

Given that d12 damage is standard for a Medium greataxe, and that the hybrid is Large, it seemed to me like the idea was "a Medium Two-handed weapon wielded by a Large creature is a one-handed weapon, with the usual Wrong Sized Weapon penalty"

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize

The bonus damage modifier is half of the Str bonus modifier : a Str 29 creature normally gets +9 to damage. This greataxe is getting +4. So it's "being wielded off-hand" though it would have worked better as "main-hand" - since the rules make it much easier to fight "weapon in main hand, as Primary, natural attacks as Secondary".

Using the rules in a more optimal fashion,

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#manufacturedWeapons

Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.

would have produced:

Greataxe +11 melee (1d12+9/×3) and Claw +11 melee (1d6+9) and bite +11 melee (1d8+4).

Since the rulebook doesn't state that when a primary natural attack becomes secondary (the claw in this case), that it also automatically drops from Full Str to Half Str Bonus to Damage.

Ah, ok I did miss the weapon size. Really irritating. But shouldn't the TWF penalties still apply to all attacks? At least when the greataxe is used as offhand weapon.

liquidformat

2021-11-17, 12:03 PM

Ah, ok I did miss the weapon size. Really irritating. But shouldn't the TWF penalties still apply to all attacks? At least when the greataxe is used as offhand weapon.

I don't think so, you aren't two weapon fighting you are using a manufactured weapon as an offhanded weapon in conjunction with natural weapons. Those aren't the same thing.

hamishspence

2021-11-17, 12:08 PM

It's not very clear what happens when offhand weapons and Natural Weapons are mixed. As mentioned, using manufactured weapons as a "primary attack" and natural weapons as "secondary natural weapons" allows the user to have no penalty on their manufactured weapon's attacks at all.

Two Weapon Fighting penalties are not intended to be used with Natural Weapons - instead, the "secondary natural weapons" rule applies.

Darg

2021-12-07, 01:44 AM

An interesting tidbit for thought, the 3.0 PHB glossary actually possessed a definition for natural weapons:

natural weapon: A creature's body part that deals normal damage in combat. Natural weapons include teeth claws, horns, tails, and other appendages

In 3.0 the appendage itself was the weapon. Further, natural attacks were a different concept from the weapons themselves:

natural attack routine: One or more attacks employing a creature's natural weapons. Examples of natural attack routines include claw/claw/bite, swoop and rake, and constriction. Attacks that duplicate magical effects, such as petrification, breath weapons, energy drain, and energy effects, are not considered natural.

When the MM is saying that natural weapons have types, it's referring to the type of attack that the creature makes with the weapon: teeth|bite, claws|claw, stinger|sting, etc. Or another way to put it the attack is the type of the weapon used similarly how different designs of daggers would still be considered a dagger. How horns and antlers (the weapon) are gore attacks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

If we keep the above in mind when we read this:

Attack

This line shows the single attack the creature makes with an attack action.

natural weapon

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

manufactured weapons

Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes "found items," such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat -- in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.

Notice how manufactured weapons is not actually defined? However, notice how it is a category of weapon? The thing is, "weapon" itself is never defined. Next I want to bring up later MMs that do not contain the parenthetical containing "natural or manufactured":

Melee/Ranged: Typically, these entries give all the physical attacks the creature can make when taking a full attack action. The first attack described is the creature’s preferred form of attack, usually a melee attack of some sort but possibly (as in the example below) a ranged attack. If the creature can make only a single attack (for instance, when it is taking an attack action), use the first indicated attack bonus. Occasionally, a creature has separate options indicated for single attacks and for full attacks. For example, a Small creature with the Manyshot and Rapid Shot feats might have the following entries:

Melee masterwork longsword +8/+3 (1d6/19–20)
Ranged +1 longbow +8 (2d6+2/×3) with Manyshot or
Ranged +1 longbow +10/+10/+5 (1d6+1/×3) with Rapid Shot

Each set of attack routines is prefaced by a boldface word indicating whether the attacks are melee or ranged. Next comes the weapon used for the attack, the modified attack bonus, the amount of damage the attack deals, and information about critical hits. If the weapon has the “default” critical hit characteristics (threat on a 20 and ×2 damage), this portion of the entry is omitted.

I also want to put forth:

Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most
common are summarized below.

Bite: The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage.
Claw or Talon: The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing piercing and slashing damage.
Gore: The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or similar appendage, dealing piercing damage.
Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.
Sting: The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage. Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to hit point damage.
Tentacle: The creature flails at opponents with a powerful tentacle, dealing bludgeoning (and sometimes slashing) damage.

The specific weapon is the specific appendage while the weapon type is the weapon represented mechanically (i.e. different kinds of daggers represented mechanically as "dagger").

Morphic Weapons (Su): As a move action, a warshaper can grow natural weapons such as claws or fangs, allowing a natural attack that deals the appropriate amount of damage according to the size of the new form (see Table 5—1 on page 296 of the Monster Manual). These morphic weapons need not be natural weapons that the creature already possesses. For example, a warshaper polymorphed into an ettin (Large giant) could grow a claw that deals 1d6 points of damage, or horns for a gore attack that deals 1d8 points of damage.

If the warshaper's form already has a natural weapon of that type, the weapon deals damage as if it were one category larger. For example, a warshaper who used wild shape to become a dire wolf (Large animal) could grow its jaw and snout, enabling a bite attack that deals 2d6 points of damage (as a for Huge animal), not the normal 1d8.

A warshaper can change morphic weapons as often as it likes, even if it is using a shapechanging technique such as the polymorph spell or the wild shape class feature that doesn't allow subsequent changes after the initial transformation.

Fangs are the weapon, bite is the type and the attack.
Claws are the weapon, claw is the type and the attack.
A claw is the weapon, claw is the type and the attack.
Horns are the weapon, gore is the type and the attack.

When you make an attack, you make it with a weapon: spear attack, gore attack, shortsword attack, bite attack, etc.

Considering the fact that "manufactured" and "weapon" are not defined game terms, "natural" refers to an unmodified die roll, and the parenthetical is removed from future printings of MMs, the following statement could be read without the strike through:

The attack line provides the weapon used (natural or manufactured), attack bonus, and form of attack (melee or ranged).

"Weapon" is used in the broad sense and an "or" statement does not have to include all possibilities (do you want milk or sugar in your coffee? Neither.)

If we take the actual dictionary definition of weapon then special qualities designed to inflict harm and require an attack roll fit both requirements of being in the attack line: being an attack and a weapon type. A shadow's Strength Damage (Su) ability "arms" the attack, "incorporeal touch" is the type of weapon and the attack made with the weapon. An Umbral Blot's Disintegrating Touch (Ex) ability "arms" the attack, disintegrating touch is the type and the attack made with the weapon. Touch attacks naturally do not have iteratives which have nothing to do with simply being "natural weapons" as exemplified in the new style stat blocks of the newer monster manuals. The Remmanon (MMV) only has one touch attack despite not being a natural weapon, despite having +18 BAB. Mechanically, this is because touch attacks are a standard action. Of course, they could still make normal unarmed strikes, but they wouldn't benefit from the classification of being touch attacks.

I'm not looking to argue further, I just wanted to put together something that pertains to how I see it in a more clarifying light that fits in with the structure of how or why a beholder's eye rays are not natural weapons, but could still be considered weapons, just not natural or manufactured.

Gruftzwerg

2021-12-07, 02:40 AM

I don't have the 3.0 books available atm, but what I do know (at least from 3.5) is that weapons and most of it subcategories are defined. Sole manufactured weapon is not defined, but the general English definition is enough here imho:

In 3.5 the PHB has a weapons list. (Note that the PSR says that all rules to play the game are in PHB. Weapons (in general) therefore fall into the territory of the PHB).

This table (SRD Link) (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons) defines the general stuff that is considered a "weapon".

Note that unarmed strike falls into this list, while Natural Weapons (NW) are excluded.
This is because NW have their own definition (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons), that defines em as (subcategory of) weapons. A specific exception is created with its own specific rules.

Fangs:
"Spider, Harpoon" from MM III has a Bite and a Fang attack. So you can't assume that a fang is automatically a bite attack. (I'm not arguing against your argument, since it is correct for most monsters, but as we can see here not always)

Category/Weapon
I agree for the most part here, except the example given with the fangs. NW are not really always consistent sadly.

Manufactured Weapons:
If you ask in 3.5 what a manufactured weapon is, you realize that neither "manufactured" or "manufactured weapon" are defined, but "weapon(s)" is. Thus, you take the general English definition of "manufactured" and compare it with the "weapon" list given. This easily excludes "unarmed strike" and leaves the rest. Since natural weapons are not part of the list, they are already excluded.

________

@Darg I appreciate the spirit you are showing toward rule-discussion <3 . It's sometimes really hard to gather all the rules together if they are scattered all over the place like in 3.5...^^
Keep up the spirit.

loky1109

2021-12-07, 02:52 AM

but the general English definition is enough here imho

For game purpose - of course yes, for rules debate purpose - no.
Club or staff can be just stick from forest. Sling can shot literally stones. No any manufacturing needed.

Gruftzwerg

2021-12-07, 03:23 AM

For game purpose - of course yes, for rules debate purpose - no.
Club or staff can be just stick from forest. Sling can shot literally stones. No any manufacturing needed.

What I meant by that is, that due to absence of a specific 3.5 definition of "manufactured" we have to fall back to general English definition. And that covers the situation perfectly. Falling back to English definition if we don't have 3.5 specific definition is RAW.

If you have a problem with using the default English definition of words that aren't defined in 3.5, you will have a hard time reading any rule.
I, you, she, if , but, get, increase,... all words that are not defined in 3.5. Do you want to argue how these words should be defined in 3.5, because you aren't happy what the general English definition would mean? I guess not.

If you wanna imply that "manufactured" has a deeper specific (RAW) meaning in 3.5, then it's up to you to provide rule text to confirm your assumption. Otherwise it is just your opinion how it should be (RAI).

So, we fall back to the general English definition of "manufactured". With that, you can check the general weapon list and exclude the "unarmed strike" as said.

loky1109

2021-12-07, 05:15 AM

What I meant by that is, that due to absence of a specific 3.5 definition of "manufactured" we have to fall back to general English definition. And that covers the situation perfectly.

It, alas, doesn't.

If you have a problem with using the default English definition of words that aren't defined in 3.5, you will have a hard time reading any rule.
I, you, she, if , but, get, increase,... all words that are not defined in 3.5.
Problem is not with definition of words, but with definition of terms! Manufactured weapon is term and it is obscure. We can't rely on default definition of words when we're dealing with special terms. For example: Sun is black body if we talk about physics. And Sun certainly isn't "black" in default definition of this word. It is the opposite to black.

So, we fall back to the general English definition of "manufactured". With that, you can check the general weapon list and exclude the "unarmed strike" as said.
And club, and staff.

hamishspence

2021-12-07, 07:44 AM

The MM definition of "manufactured weapon" as contrasted with "natural weapon" is "weapon not intrinsic to the creature":

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#manufacturedWeapons

Manufactured Weapons
Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat— in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.

Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.

Even an unmodified log or rock, is a "manufactured weapon" in this context.

Darg

2021-12-07, 02:32 PM

The problem with the manufactured weapons entry is that the "in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature" part applies only to the "found" items part. Not being intrinsic to the creature can simply mean that they aren't a possession of the creature. Then again, it could be read that it applies to the whole category, but then we would then be free to apply this frame of thought to everything by including non-body parts as natural weapons and growing whole bodies with the use of morphic weapons.

So, we fall back to the general English definition of "manufactured". With that, you can check the general weapon list and exclude the "unarmed strike" as said.

A fist is the weapon, while unarmed strike is the weapon type.

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

The natural weapons entry tells us that the part is the weapon and the rulebooks constantly refer to the weapon types as weapons themselves. A horn as a weapon is part of the weapon type "gore." If the reading the entries section is to be believed then the weapon type "gore" is called the weapon like a dagger or longsword. Longswords and daggers come in all shapes and sizes but they all still fall under their weapon type with the mechanics that entails.

While this does nothing directly dispel the the belief that some people have that the "weapon" in the stat block can only be natural or manufactured, it at least attests to unarmed strike being a weapon type that can only ever be increased in size with morphic weapons as every creature possesses an unarmed strike.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fangs:
"Spider, Harpoon" from MM III has a Bite and a Fang attack. So you can't assume that a fang is automatically a bite attack. (I'm not arguing against your argument, since it is correct for most monsters, but as we can see here not always)

Category/Weapon
I agree for the most part here, except the example given with the fangs. NW are not really always consistent sadly.

I have to disagree here. The spider being a spider bites with it's fangs. The Natural weapon type is "bite." It's easy to to see that "fang" and "fangs" are the special attacks made when Harpooning (Ex). Another excerpt from the 3.0 PHB:

natural ability: A nonmagical capability that a creature has by virtue of its species. Natural abilities include natural armor, natural attack routines, and similar gross physical qualities, such as low-light vision. Likewise the mundane movement capabilities, such as walking, swimming (for aquatic creatures), and flight (for winged creatures) are natural, but magically enabled movements, such as blink, dimension door, plane shift, teleport, etc., are not.

Natural attacks are made with natural weapons. Natural weapons are body parts that deal normal damage in combat.

Reading the entries tells you it shows the attack and this happens to correlate to the type of weapon it uses. "bite" attack and "fang" attack. Using the extrapolation that weapon type is referred to as "weapon" when reading the entries and the attack itself bears the name of the weapon like how a minotaur has a greataxe attack and a gore attack. The minotaur uses a type of greataxe weapon to make a greataxe attack. The minotaur uses a type of gore weapon to make a gore attack. The extraordinary attack "fang" is just that, an extraordinary attack created by using it's ability. The harpoon spider uses it's fang as a type of weapon to make a fang attack. A natural attack is made by a natural weapon created by the ability as a natural ability. An extraordinary attack is made by a extraordinary weapon created by the ability as an extraordinary ability. It makes a lot more logical sense if you read the lines as attacks rather than simply the weapons.

Natural weapons attacks are natural abilities. I see no reason that extraordinary abilities can't make attacks of their own using a "weapon". The same for Sp and Su abilities also. Then again. 3.5 never clarifies what a natural ability actually is other than a birds ability to fly. Instead we are forced to extrapolate physical nature = physical qualities and take examples from the Alter Self spell because it sounds right due to the similarity to the definition in 3.0. Ironically it's the same thing people disparage when people bring up magic fang as proof of unarmed strike being a natural weapon.

Gruftzwerg

2021-12-07, 08:41 PM

liquidformat

2021-12-08, 04:48 PM

I don't have the 3.0 books available atm, but what I do know (at least from 3.5) is that weapons and most of it subcategories are defined. Sole manufactured weapon is not defined, but the general English definition is enough here imho:

In 3.5 the PHB has a weapons list. (Note that the PSR says that all rules to play the game are in PHB. Weapons (in general) therefore fall into the territory of the PHB).

This table (SRD Link) (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons) defines the general stuff that is considered a "weapon".
...

I think you actually skipped the important entry inside of 'Weapons' and instead should be looking at the second topic of Weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#simpleMartialandExoticWeapons) which splits weapons into three categories: Simple, Martial, and Exotic; then we later add a fourth category Natural Weapons, and a fifth Rays which are their own stand alone category available to 'spellcasters'.

I believe we need to have and keep ray as a weapon category since otherwise we must default things like eldritch blast into natural weapons, since the 'RAW' justification you seem to be using is 'all weapons must fall into one of the four weapon categories'.

Honestly, for me something about making a touch attack qualify as a natural weapon rubs me the wrong way and I have never been in a game where the DM would go along with me gaining something like Disintegrating Touch as a 'natural weapon' from the warshaper class feature. Another question is are riders intrinsically part of a natural weapon and therefore can I get say poison because I can gain a sting attack from warshaper? I would say no they are separate even though I can somewhat see the 'RAW' argument for it I think it is made in bad faith.

Gruftzwerg

2021-12-08, 07:10 PM

I think you actually skipped the important entry inside of 'Weapons' and instead should be looking at the second topic of Weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#simpleMartialandExoticWeapons) which splits weapons into three categories: Simple, Martial, and Exotic; then we later add a fourth category Natural Weapons, and a fifth Rays which are their own stand alone category available to 'spellcasters'.

I believe we need to have and keep ray as a weapon category since otherwise we must default things like eldritch blast into natural weapons, since the 'RAW' justification you seem to be using is 'all weapons must fall into one of the four weapon categories'.

Honestly, for me something about making a touch attack qualify as a natural weapon rubs me the wrong way and I have never been in a game where the DM would go along with me gaining something like Disintegrating Touch as a 'natural weapon' from the warshaper class feature. Another question is are riders intrinsically part of a natural weapon and therefore can I get say poison because I can gain a sting attack from warshaper? I would say no they are separate even though I can somewhat see the 'RAW' argument for it I think it is made in bad faith.

yeah "Weapons" split in simple, martial and exotic. But that doesn't change anything regarding my argument.

Natural Weapons, already create exceptions to the norm and are their own (sub-weapon)niche.

Spells (touch/ray) are not weapons! They are weapon-like! And they are given a specific permission to be used with certain feats. But that still doesn't turn em into weapons. Touch and ray spells can be used here and there as weapon category for feats. again, that still doesn't turn em into real weapons by the rules (nor natural weapons).

I don't see how you are drawing a connection between spells and natural weapons, sorry.

It, alas, doesn't.

Problem is not with definition of words, but with definition of terms! Manufactured weapon is term and it is obscure. We can't rely on default definition of words when we're dealing with special terms. For example: Sun is black body if we talk about physics. And Sun certainly isn't "black" in default definition of this word. It is the opposite to black.

And club, and staff.
Terms can also be defined in 3.5. But "manufactured weapon" still remains undefined. So, we fall back to general English definition..

loky1109

2021-12-08, 07:45 PM

Terms can also be defined in 3.5. But "manufactured weapon" still remains undefined. So, we fall back to general English definition..
We can't. If we do this, we do mistake. I showed you, that general English definition doesn't work. Club, stuff, rock.
We should admit this obscurity. Fact that "manufactured weapon" is undefined doesn't permit to use obviously wrong definition. This just is unsolvable problem. Any solvations aren't RAW.

Gruftzwerg

2021-12-09, 10:17 AM

We can't. If we do this, we do mistake. I showed you, that general English definition doesn't work. Club, stuff, rock.
We should admit this obscurity. Fact that "manufactured weapon" is undefined doesn't permit to use obviously wrong definition. This just is unsolvable problem. Any solvations aren't RAW.

I don't see any problems with clubs and staffs. Both can be manufactured.
You can't just pick any stick and pretend that it is a manufactured club/staff. We have improvised weapon rules for that:
...
To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, the DM should compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. For instance, a table leg is similar to a club, while a broken bottle is similar to a dagger. ...
There is a difference between manufactured clubs and staffs and those that are improvised. Just because bothdon't have a price doesn't mean that you can't have a manufactured club/staff.

And rocks are not manufactured weapons. Nor are they weapons. You can abuse em as Improvised Weapon to throw em.
And if you use a Sling, those have a special exception that you may use rocks as ammunition (with a penalty to their dmg). But that doesn't turn rocks into weapons, nor ammunition (for e.g. magical weapon enchantments).

liquidformat

2021-12-09, 10:26 AM

I don't see any problems with clubs and staffs. Both can be manufactured.
You can't just pick any stick and pretend that it is a manufactured club/staff. We have improvised weapon rules for that:...

On this one I have to put my foot down, you are completely wrong, while you have to be a bit picky making sure you get the right stick (right length and weight) any stick that meets the right weight and length requirements are valid choices for club and quarterstaff. They have no price in PHB therefore as long as your stick meets the mass (technically only the mass) and length requirements it is a club or a quarter staff...

Gruftzwerg

2021-12-09, 10:49 AM

On this one I have to put my foot down, you are completely wrong, while you have to be a bit picky making sure you get the right stick (right length and weight) any stick that meets the right weight and length requirements are valid choices for club and quarterstaff. They have no price in PHB therefore as long as your stick meets the mass (technically only the mass) and length requirements it is a club or a quarter staff...

You are implying that the absence of a price has to mean that it is an improvised and not a manufactured weapon.
Can you provide rules for your argument?

I can provide the rules as shown in the quote of my last post. If you find something that fits to be club or a staff, it is an Improvised Weapon.

I don't see the description of a Club claiming that a club that you find is not an improvised weapon (nor for Quarterstaff). The general rules for improvised weapons is the primary source for what counts as an improvised weapon. And if you find something that works good as a Club, it is still an Improvised Club and not a Manufactured Club.

liquidformat

2021-12-09, 11:31 AM

You are implying that the absence of a price has to mean that it is an improvised and not a manufactured weapon.
Can you provide rules for your argument?

I can provide the rules as shown in the quote of my last post. If you find something that fits to be club or a staff, it is an Improvised Weapon.

I don't see the description of a Club claiming that a club that you find is not an improvised weapon (nor for Quarterstaff). The general rules for improvised weapons is the primary source for what counts as an improvised weapon. And if you find something that works good as a Club, it is still an Improvised Club and not a Manufactured Club.

Yes refer to the craft rules. Seriously it has no price therefore you breaking a branch off a tree or picking it up off the ground is enough to 'make a club/quarterstaff'.

Gruftzwerg

2021-12-09, 11:44 AM

Yes refer to the craft rules. Seriously it has no price therefore you breaking a branch off a tree or picking it up off the ground is enough to 'make a club/quarterstaff'.

Imho if you don't prepare it (e.g. with a knife), it is an improvised weapon. If you spend enough time to search for a good wood piece and cut off it edges with a knife, it might be enough to count as manufactured weapon. But just breaking a branch of a tree is imho at best an improvised weapon.

As far as I see it, the improvised weapon rules demand that you need to work on the weapon in some kind to let it count as manufactured and not improvised.

loky1109

2021-12-09, 12:31 PM

I don't see any problems with clubs and staffs. Both can be manufactured.

You literally can't manufacturing them, they have no price.
Yes, not every stick can be club, but every club is only stick.

Can you provide rules for your argument?
Craft rules. You can't craft something without price.

Look at comment #36.

Manufactured Weapons
Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat— in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.
So there aren't contradiction between improvised and manufactured weapon.

liquidformat

2021-12-09, 12:31 PM

Imho if you don't prepare it (e.g. with a knife), it is an improvised weapon. If you spend enough time to search for a good wood piece and cut off it edges with a knife, it might be enough to count as manufactured weapon. But just breaking a branch of a tree is imho at best an improvised weapon.

As far as I see it, the improvised weapon rules demand that you need to work on the weapon in some kind to let it count as manufactured and not improvised.

according to the craft rules you can instantaneously make a club out of nothing since it has a cost of 0 and a time to make of 0 so I see no reason you can't go "oh there's a stick this will be my club."
The fact is the craft rules fall apart when you have a cost of - so the only difference between a club and a stick is you claiming it to be a club...

Gruftzwerg

2021-12-09, 11:39 PM

You literally can't manufacturing them, they have no price.
Yes, not every stick can be club, but every club is only stick.

Craft rules. You can't craft something without price.

Look at comment #36.

So there aren't contradiction between improvised and manufactured weapon.
Just because it as no price attached to it, doesn't stop you from crafting it. These are "specific exceptions" where the effort is so minimal that it doesn't cost you anything. Nowhere does it prevent you from manufacturing em.

regarding comment #36: Manufactured Weapons
The text is obviously referring to the monster stat block and thus ain't of the general rules for manufactured weapons.It doesn't create any new global rules, not even for its niche. Thus it follows still the rules for improvised weapons.

according to the craft rules you can instantaneously make a club out of nothing since it has a cost of 0 and a time to make of 0 so I see no reason you can't go "oh there's a stick this will be my club."
The fact is the craft rules fall apart when you have a cost of - so the only difference between a club and a stick is you claiming it to be a club...

Because the DM determines if there is the right stick available and if you have the right tools (e.g a knife) at hand to prepare it. You can't demand to find one anytime and anywhere just because it has no price and the description says it is easy to find one. And maybe if you are really really lucky, you'll find a stick that already has what it needs to count as a manufacture club, but those should be really rare.
Just think about the same situation in real life. Can you pick a random stick and hope that it is as good as a weapon as a baseball bat (a manufactured club)? If you search long enough and put some minimal work into the right stick, it maybe as good as the baseball bat in combat and didn't cost you anything. But that doesn't mean that any stick you find can be turned into a "manufactured" club. Most sticks you find will still be improvised weapons at best and have not the potential to be turned into a manufactured weapon.

loky1109

2021-12-10, 04:27 AM

Just because it as no price attached to it, doesn't stop you from crafting it. These are "specific exceptions" where the effort is so minimal that it doesn't cost you anything. Nowhere does it prevent you from manufacturing em.

How can I craft it? RAW, please.

Just think about the same situation in real life. Can you pick a random stick and hope that it is as good as a weapon as a baseball bat (a manufactured club)?
Baseball bat is masterwork club. Masterwork club can be crafted, it has price.

And answering your question - yes, I can. And I did. I say it again, not every stick will be good club, but I can find good club between sticks.

Gruftzwerg

2021-12-10, 10:33 AM

How can I craft it? RAW, please.

Baseball bat is masterwork club. Masterwork club can be crafted, it has price.

And answering your question - yes, I can. And I did. I say it again, not every stick will be good club, but I can find good club between sticks.

Have a look a the craft skill. It has a weapon-smith roll for simple weapon. Th DC is 15. So if you have enough of the right materials and tools at hand, you could even craft em untrained just by taking 20.

Baseball Bats are not masterwork by default. A normal bat is not expensive enough to qualify as masterwork, nor has is special materials. If you buy a professional Baseball Bat, worth several hundreds of dollar, then you have a masterwork Baseball Bat.

Just because the Club description says that you can find one doesn't mean you find one that qualifies a manufactured club. The description doesn't contradict the Improvised Weapon rules, thus they are still full intact.

As I said, if you are really lucky and the your DM is nice, you may find something that may qualify as manufactured if your DM agrees. But you have no right to demand that you can find one. The DM can always say that the wood sticks you find only qualify as improvised weapon, because it hasn't been worked on (craft), or just because the wood is of bad quality in the area.

Darg

2021-12-10, 11:00 AM

Have a look a the craft skill. It has a weapon-smith roll for simple weapon. Th DC is 15. So if you have enough of the right materials and tools at hand, you could even craft em untrained just by taking 20.

Baseball Bats are not masterwork by default. A normal bat is not expensive enough to qualify as masterwork, nor has is special materials. If you buy a professional Baseball Bat, worth several hundreds of dollar, then you have a masterwork Baseball Bat.

Just because the Club description says that you can find one doesn't mean you find one that qualifies a manufactured club. The description doesn't contradict the Improvised Weapon rules, thus they are still full intact.

As I said, if you are really lucky and the your DM is nice, you may find something that may qualify as manufactured if your DM agrees. But you have no right to demand that you can find one. The DM can always say that the wood sticks you find only qualify as improvised weapon, because it hasn't been worked on (craft), or just because the wood is of bad quality in the area.

You can't take 20 on a craft check because it takes longer than a round to do (implies 19 failures before getting it right)

Gruftzwerg

2021-12-11, 04:35 AM

You can't take 20 on a craft check because it takes longer than a round to do (implies 19 failures before getting it right)

Due to having no price and the crafting time being dependent on the price, they (club/staff) should technically qualify for taking not more than a single round.

And if you (the DM) have a problem with that, then I would just do manually what taking 20 implies. Trying until you succeed the check. Hopefully we have enough raw material to work with. But it would be the same for taking 20 (includes fails).

liquidformat

2021-12-13, 10:29 AM

Just think about the same situation in real life. Can you pick a random stick and hope that it is as good as a weapon as a baseball bat (a manufactured club)? If you search long enough and put some minimal work into the right stick, it maybe as good as the baseball bat in combat and didn't cost you anything. But that doesn't mean that any stick you find can be turned into a "manufactured" club. Most sticks you find will still be improvised weapons at best and have not the potential to be turned into a manufactured weapon.
...
A club is not a baseball bat though, the amount of crafting done to a standard wood baseball bat puts it into masterwork territory. You are taking a larger piece of would and turning it down into a bat; that type of effort is way and far beyond - gp.

A Shillelagh is a bit better representation of a club but again the amount of effort put into a typical Shillelagh is masterwork; spending a few months to a year of brining, smoke hardening, or 'dunging' to harden/cure a stick then polishing it is far and away above the effort of a -gp product. Not to mention that they are typically specially chosen blackthorn roots.

Have a look a the craft skill. It has a weapon-smith roll for simple weapon. Th DC is 15. So if you have enough of the right materials and tools at hand, you could even craft em untrained just by taking 20.
...
You really need to choose one line of logic and run with it, right now you are trying to cherry pick some weird mix of RAIs that requires complex crafting but allows silly abuse.

The DC is 12 not 15 as both club and quarterstaff are simple weapons. The basics of crafting are as follows:

Find the item’s price. Put the price in silver pieces (1 gp = 10 sp).
Find the DC from the table below.
Pay one-third of the item’s price for the cost of raw materials.
Make an appropriate Craft check representing one week’s work. If the check succeeds, multiply your check result by the DC. If the result × the DC equals the price of the item in sp, then you have completed the item. (If the result × the DC equals double or triple the price of the item in silver pieces, then you’ve completed the task in one-half or one-third of the time. Other multiples of the DC reduce the time in the same manner.) If the result × the DC doesn’t equal the price, then it represents the progress you’ve made this week. Record the result and make a new Craft check for the next week. Each week, you make more progress until your total reaches the price of the item in silver pieces.

So we have to hit a DC 12, min result we get is 12*12 (144) which means we can make a club in 1/144th of a week. If we turn a week into hours we have 168hrs in a week. We can make a club/quarterstaff in maximum of 1.166 hr or 70min. You can't take 20 on this check without having epic level skill mod as you have to get your check to result in it taking less than a round to make a club to be able to take 20.

But again the fact that the price for these items are - makes the math a bit ambiguous and meaningless since technically 1/144th of 0 is still 0. So we are left with two options one as I have previously said we can instantaneously make clubs out of nowhere since it takes 0 time to make them therefore you can take 20 on the check. Otherwise it takes 70 min or less to make if we pretend 0=1 for the purpose of step 4 in which case you can't take 20.