[3.5] What Is And Isn't A Natural Attack

[Thurbane]

So, just curious.

Following the latest VC round, I have become aware that there seems to be some division as to what is, and is not, considered a natural weapon.

Things like claws, bites, tentacles etc. all seem very clear cut.

But how about things like the shock of the Will-O-Wisp, incorporeal touch of a Wraith, or the cold touch of the Yuki-On-Na?

Are they natural attacks? Are they valid for things like the Improved Natural Attack feat, or entry into the Soul Eater class?

Here's a snippet of what I posted as a protest in the recent VC round:

OK, looks like the judges have a very firm mindset on what is and is not natural weapon. I continue to disagree, so here's my final case, and after that I will let it be.

The glossary and Rules compendium say this (bolding mine):

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 bolded section would indicate to me that this is not an exhaustive list of what can be called a natural weapon.

FWIW, here is at least two forum threads where multiple posters seem to agree that things like the Will-O-Wisps shock attacks are natural weapons:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...atural-Weapons
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...20-Zappin-foes

The RC definition of Touch Attacks says:

Touch attacks come in two types - melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. When an attack is a touch attack, your target’s AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus, including enhancement bonuses to these factors. All other modifiers apply normally. To hit your target, you make a touch attack roll - ranged or melee - and all other rules that affect attack rolls still apply.

And the glossary says this:

touch attack
An attack in which the attacker must connect with an opponent but does not need to penetrate armor. Touch attacks may be either melee or ranged. The target's armor bonus, shield bonus, and natural armor bonus (including any enhancement bonuses to those values) do not apply to AC against a touch attack.

There is nothing there saying a touch attack is not a weapon. There's plenty of feats, skill tricks and class features that allow touch attacks to be made with weapons: does that mean they cease to be weapons for that attack?

I know stat blocks are not the greatest source of RAW, but have a look at these examples (Improved Natural Attack feat can only be applied to a natural weapon). At least some devs seem to agree with my reading:
Eyes of the Lich Queen p.12 - Evolved Dread Wraith with Improved Natural Attack (incorporeal touch) as a feat
Iggwilv's Legacy - The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth p.91 - Dread Wraith with Improved Natural Attack (incorporeal touch) as a feat

Finally, I would ask if the cold touch of a Yuki-On-Na is not a natural attack, then what exactly is it? Is it a Supernatural or SLA, which would mean it stops working in an AMF? Is it an Ex ability, which is somehow not a manufactured or natural weapon? Does it threaten if someone provokes an AoO? If things like the Yuki-On-Na and Will-O-Wisp's innate attacks are classified as not being natural weapons, it seems to open up a lot more questions than it answers.

Anyhow, I rest my case. I don't think I'll be changing any minds, but I feel better having put across my side of things.

Now I'm not posting this out of some petty sense being wronged or anything like that. I'm genuinely interested to hear the communities opinions on this, for my own information and future use of monsters.

At my own table as DM, I would (and have) always allow monsters to treat things like this as natural weapons. I've thrown advanced Will-O-Wisps against the party, with the Improved Natural Attack feat for their shock attack.

All feedback welcome.

Cheers - T

[Biggus]

The argument you make seems pretty strong. What's the counter-argument? Do you have a link? I feel like I can't really offer feedback until I've heard both sides.

[Anthrowhale]

Graft weapon suggests that a natural weapon is a weapon which is integral to a creature. Graft weapon [Poison Ring] would create a touch attack which is explicitly a natural attack.

[redking]

Will-O-Wisp yes because it's part of their normal attack. Whether this is a NATURAL attack, uncertain.

[Telonius]

Yeah, Will-o-Wisp is tricky. It's not listed under the monster entry as a "special attack," so it's either natural or manufactured. Pretty clearly not manufactured, so I'd call it a natural attack; the energy's being produced by its own body. (Are there any stats for an electric eel in 3.5 to compare this to?)

[Gruftzwerg]

Have a look at reading the monster entry:

Attack

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.

Anything presented in the "Attack:"-line has to be either a manufacture or natural weapon.
Since it is easy to point out manufactured weapons, anything remaining is a natural weapon.

Natural Weapons thus can also include EX, SLA and SU Attacks. Touch attacks are also a possibility.

If you are looking for a list of natural weapons, follow the link.

[loky1109]

Anything presented in the "Attack:"-line has to be either a manufacture or natural weapon.
Since it is easy to point out manufactured weapons, anything remaining is a natural weapon.

Is giant's rock manufactured or natural?

[Pezzo]

Is giant's rock manufactured or natural?

I believe they would be improvised weapons, but being in the monster entry, giants are proficient with them.

[Gruftzwerg]

Is giant's rock manufactured or natural?

I guess you are referring to the rock throwing ability of many giants.

In this chase we have to assume that they are indeed manufactured. And I know what you are thinking now, but may I point you to Sling rules as comparison? The sling is a manufactured weapon that can also use stones as ammunition.
These (sling and the rock throwing ability) are specific cases of "manufactured weapons/ammunition". Specific trumps general. I don't see any dysfunction here. Do you?

[loky1109]

I guess you are referring to the rock throwing ability of many giants.

I see your point.
Well, let's look at MMV, p. 116. Scyther of Thoon has ranged searing light in attack line. Is it manufactured or natural?
Or p. 172. Tirbana Eyewing's disorienting touch. What is it?
Or Aramea's (MMI, p. 15) web?
Retriever's (MMI, p. 46) eye rays?
Gibbering mouther's (p. 126) spittle?
Kolyarut's (159) vampiric touch and enervation ray?
Lamia's (165) touch?
Lich's (166) touch? Hmm, let's stop here.
"A lich fighting without weapons uses either its touch attack or its natural weapons."
Hmmm...
Do you need more proofs?

[Buufreak]

A thought occurred, just this moment actually, that I think would solve the problem entirely, at least as far as can it or can it not benefit from weapon focus. Complete Arcane lists weapon-like spells and effects, and specifies you can take things like weapon focus for them, such as weapon focus (ray). With that reading, I believe I owe an apology.

[Gruftzwerg]

I see your point.
Well, let's look at MMV, p. 116. Scyther of Thoon has ranged searing light in attack line. Is it manufactured or natural?
Or p. 172. Tirbana Eyewing's disorienting touch. What is it?
Or Aramea's (MMI, p. 15) web?
Retriever's (MMI, p. 46) eye rays?
Gibbering mouther's (p. 126) spittle?
Kolyarut's (159) vampiric touch and enervation ray?
Lamia's (165) touch?
Lich's (166) touch? Hmm, let's stop here.
"A lich fighting without weapons uses either its touch attack or its natural weapons."
Hmmm...
Do you need more proofs?

Proof that they are Natural Weapons? No I don't need any further proof, but it seems like you do.

Natural Weapons != Natural Abilities

Imho just because of the word "natural" many have the false impression that natural weapons have to be natural abilities. But that is no such rule. Unless you can provide any evidence, this is just a mind trick our brain is playing here. There is no rule connection as I am aware. If you know any, point me to it pls.

And regarding the Lich's "Attack" line info:
Does the PSR give the Lichs attack line any permission to make "global changes" (not talking about specific trumps general here. I'm asking for global "Natural Weapon"rule changes)?

No. And the wording of the text doesn't say to treat the "touch attack" not as "natural weapon". Reffering/quoting the rules wrong, doesn't create new global rules.

You could argue that the Natural Weapons you mentioned are not general but specific Natural Weapons. But (imho) you can't argue that they are not Natural Weapons (as per definition of the "Attack" line).

[loky1109]

Proof that they are Natural Weapons? No I don't need any further proof, but it seems like you do.

Not proof, your opinion. I see it. You think all it is Natural Weapons.

Vampiric touch, searing light, different webs (but only for some monsters), you think are Natural Weapons. Okay. How do them work with Improved Natural Attack feat?

But (imho) you can't argue that they are not Natural Weapons (as per definition of the "Attack" line).

I argue that your point "There are only manufacture or natural weapons in Attack line" is wrong. Lich's touch attack isn't natural weapon, but it is in Attack line.
You can't interpret quote "either its touch attack or its natural weapons" in the way Lich's touch attack is natural weapon.
We can see here the exception from you think strict rule. If there is at least one exception from the rule this rule isn't strict.

And regarding the Lich's "Attack" line info:
Does the PSR give the Lichs attack line any permission to make "global changes" (not talking about specific trumps general here. I'm asking for global "Natural Weapon"rule changes)?

No. And the wording of the text doesn't say to treat the "touch attack" not as "natural weapon". Reffering/quoting the rules wrong, doesn't create new global rules.

Well, if you can't agree with explicitly states point I can't convince you.
Wording of the text clearly say that Lich's touch attack isn't natural weapon, but you don’t want to agree. Your choice.

UPD: Do you need more? I have more.

Full Attack: +3 longsword +22/+17/+12/+7 melee (1d8+4) or ray +22 ranged touch (as spell)

with your logic this unspecified ray is natural weapon.

[Biggus]

Looking at the definition of natural weapons in the MM glossary, as far as I can see the difficulty is in the interpretation of this line:

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

It would seem to, RAW, exclude incorporeal touch attacks, based on the definition of incorporeal in the PHB glossary:

Having no physical body

Likewise it's highly dubious whether an electric or cold attack can be called "physically a part of a creature".

The main argument against this as far as I can see is: if they're not natural attacks, what are they? How do we treat them in the rules?

Personally, if it requires an attack roll and does HP damage, and doesn't involve any kind of external weapon, I'd treat it as a natural weapon.

[Alabenson]

Regarding incorporeal touch attacks, I would probably say the attack itself is to the extent that it does physical damage, but that any ability damage or drain counted as a separate special attack.

[Darg]

3.0 defined them as thus:

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.

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

Personally, I think 3.5 uses the 3.0 definitions even if they aren't incorporated into the 3.5 glossary.

[Gruftzwerg]

Not proof, your opinion. I see it. You think all it is Natural Weapons.

Vampiric touch, searing light, different webs (but only for some monsters), you think are Natural Weapons. Okay. How do them work with Improved Natural Attack feat?


I argue that your point "There are only manufacture or natural weapons in Attack line" is wrong. Lich's touch attack isn't natural weapon, but it is in Attack line.
You can't interpret quote "either its touch attack or its natural weapons" in the way Lich's touch attack is natural weapon.
We can see here the exception from you think strict rule. If there is at least one exception from the rule this rule isn't strict.


Well, if you can't agree with explicitly states point I can't convince you.
Wording of the text clearly say that Lich's touch attack isn't natural weapon, but you don’t want to agree. Your choice.

UPD: Do you need more? I have more.

with your logic this unspecified ray is natural weapon.

Opinion? It stands there black on white, "either manufactured or a natural weapon". I provided you rule text as proof.

While you have still the opinion that "Natural Weapons have to be Natural Abilities" without showing any proof. You are applying restrictions to Natural Weapons that are not there.

@Vampiric Touch + searing light, different webs (but only for some monsters) & Improved Natural Attack:
As long as those abilities are in the "Attack" line they are Natural Weapons.
But just because they qualify for the feat doesn't mean that the Natural Weapon can profit from the beneficial effect.
Those "specific" Natural Weapons don't scale with size and thus can't profit from INA.
To give you another example for this: Eldritch Claws gives you "claws" (a natural weapon != natural ability). But these claws only scale partially with size. Sole the Unarmed Strike part is effected by any size changes (from INA), while the Eldritch Blast damage portion doesn't scale with size. These kind of (non-)interactions are normal and don't disproof anything.

Have a look at the Lich's Full Attack line:

Full Attack

A lich fighting without weapons uses either its touch attack (see above) or its natural weapons (if it has any). If armed with a weapon, it usually uses the weapon as its primary attack along with a touch as a natural secondary attack, provided it has a way to make that attack (either a free hand or a natural weapon that it can use as a secondary attack).

The "Attack" part sole speaks of "other natural weapons". But the Full Attack line is a proof that the touch attack is a (secondary) Natural Weapons.
Rays can be "Natural Weapons" too. You are under the impression that "Natural Weapons" have limitation that they don't have. And even if "general Natural Weapon rules would suggest such a thing", "Specific Trumps General" would still allow those monster entries to trump those supposed general rules (which I still haven't seen any evidence so far).

Looking at the definition of natural weapons in the MM glossary, as far as I can see the difficulty is in the interpretation of this line:



It would seem to, RAW, exclude incorporeal touch attacks, based on the definition of incorporeal in the PHB glossary:



Likewise it's highly dubious whether an electric or cold attack can be called "physically a part of a creature".

The main argument against this as far as I can see is: if they're not natural attacks, what are they? How do we treat them in the rules?

Personally, if it requires an attack roll and does HP damage, and doesn't involve any kind of external weapon, I'd treat it as a natural weapon.

I agree, if they are not Natural Weapons, what else should they be? We have rules (Attack Line) calling em out as Natural Weapons (since we can safely exclude em as manufactured weapons), so imho anything that doesn't fit the general description (of Natural Weapons) is just a "specific exception".

Important Note here:
Just because those specific instances of Touch Attacks are considered "Natural Weapons" doesn't mean that all Touch Attacks are Natural Weapons. A wizards touch spells are not Natural Weapons. Those specific cases (of monster abilities) are exceptions and don't create a general rule. So don't get confused here pls.

[loky1109]

I can't discuss with Gruftzwerg, I'm out.

[Biggus]

Regarding incorporeal touch attacks, I would probably say the attack itself is to the extent that it does physical damage, but that any ability damage or drain counted as a separate special attack.

Agreed on this point. For ability damage/drain there's a separate feat to improve it (Empowered Ability Damage, Libris Mortis p.26) which suggests it's not eligible for Improved Natural Attack.

[Darg]

Have a look at the Lich's Full Attack line:

The "Attack" part sole speaks of "other natural weapons". But the Full Attack line is a proof that the touch attack is a (secondary) Natural Weapons.
Rays can be "Natural Weapons" too. You are under the impression that "Natural Weapons" have limitation that they don't have. And even if "general Natural Weapon rules would suggest such a thing", "Specific Trumps General" would still allow those monster entries to trump those supposed general rules (which I still haven't seen any evidence so far).

The lich quote is not in your favor. When doing the full attack it tells you that you make a touch attack or attack with natural weapons. The line about making the touch as a secondary attack is referring to the line under damage about making the touch with it's natural weapon without holding a charge:

"A lich with natural weapons can use its touch attack or its natural weaponry, as it prefers. If it chooses the latter, it deals 1d8+5 points of extra damage on one natural weapon attack."

The lich cannot make a touch attack as part of its attack routine, but it can attack with a natural weapon empowered with paralyzing touch as you touch the target when you hit them with the natural weapon.

I agree, if they are not Natural Weapons, what else should they be? We have rules (Attack Line) calling em out as Natural Weapons (since we can safely exclude em as manufactured weapons), so imho anything that doesn't fit the general description (of Natural Weapons) is just a "specific exception".

Important Note here:
Just because those specific instances of Touch Attacks are considered "Natural Weapons" doesn't mean that all Touch Attacks are Natural Weapons. A wizards touch spells are not Natural Weapons. Those specific cases (of monster abilities) are exceptions and don't create a general rule. So don't get confused here pls.

If there is a special ability entry, they are special abilities. They can't be special abilities and a natural weapon unless the ability specifically creates a natural weapon to be used as such (an example of one created to be used as a manufactured weapon would be the skarn spines; a natural weapon that doesn't participate in the natural attack routine.) Remember, you can touch with natural weapons as normal attacks, not just touch attacks.

Edit: The definition of natural attack routine perfectly highlights the distinction between what is natural and what is not:

"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."

[Elves]

Personally, I think 3.5 uses the 3.0 definitions even if they aren't incorporated into the 3.5 glossary.

How is something being removed a sign that it's still true?

That definition isn't in 3.5 and the definitions we do have give a plausible case for Thurbane's point.
I think the question is, can a special ability be a natural weapon?


Re: the yuki ona, it's a moot case though. Her cold touch isn't a special ability, it's a normal natural attack. The judges in that contest were wrong

[Gruftzwerg]

The lich quote is not in your favor. When doing the full attack it tells you that you make a touch attack or attack with natural weapons. The line about making the touch as a secondary attack is referring to the line under damage about making the touch with it's natural weapon without holding a charge:

"A lich with natural weapons can use its touch attack or its natural weaponry, as it prefers. If it chooses the latter, it deals 1d8+5 points of extra damage on one natural weapon attack."

The lich cannot make a touch attack as part of its attack routine, but it can attack with a natural weapon empowered with paralyzing touch as you touch the target when you hit them with the natural weapon.

We are talking about an "always on" ability that compared to a buff spell doesn't need any preparation action.
Further, normally you refer to stuff that was already presented. If you refer to what is to come, you normally have indicators like "this is for situation X". In the case of using the touch attack as secondary weapon I don't see any indicators for that, nor for a limitation of what is presented.

Note that the Lich's attack quote you posted is referring to "natural weaponary" (a non keyword) and not to the defined keyword "Natural Weapons". If we are talking about RAW, you may not read keywords into non keywords. You have to take the full extend of the common meaning of "natural weaponary" (in the 3.5 context) and may not limit it to the defined key word "Natural Weapons", because that would be leaving a RAW approach in favor of RAI. If you wanna argue that your interpretation in this case is RAI fine, but not RAW.

Just because it has the option to use it touch attack along with a Natural Weapon attack, doesn't take away the permissions given already. The rules for "Attack" and "Full Attack" are general to the more specific "Paralyzing Touch" ability. As such the "Paralyzing Touch" ability would need to make explicit call outs to be able to trump those more general rules. I don't see any indicators that would proof this claim.

If there is a special ability entry, they are special abilities. They can't be special abilities and a natural weapon unless the ability specifically creates a natural weapon to be used as such (an example of one created to be used as a manufactured weapon would be the skarn spines; a natural weapon that doesn't participate in the natural attack routine.) Remember, you can touch with natural weapons as normal attacks, not just touch attacks.

Edit: The definition of natural attack routine perfectly highlights the distinction between what is natural and what is not:

"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."

If you can find any 3.5 update of that rule we can talk further. Otherwise you are tying to use an outdated rule for your argument that ain't been included into 3.5

I don't see any 3.5 rule making similar claims as those you presented in the 3.0 rules. And no, you can't convert rules to 3.5 by RAW. By RAW you sole have permission to use 3.0 content (content != general rules; e.g. you may use feats, classes, items and stuff, but not rules for feats, classes, items and bla)

As far as a I am aware, 3.5 doesn't have any rules that restrict "Natural Weapons" to "Natural Abilities". So far it seems to be one of the things that have changed with 3.5
If anyone can present this rule in 3.5 that would be something else, but I don't think that it made it into the update.

[Darg]

How is something being removed a sign that it's still true?

That definition isn't in 3.5 and the definitions we do have give a plausible case for Thurbane's point.
I think the question is, can a special ability be a natural weapon?

For one, it's not a sign. It's just how the game is pretty blatantly set up. The line in the MM3 where all the confusion comes from was removed in MM4. The only 3.5 MM that has the line is MM3 which is pretty blatantly a rip off of text from 3.0. Therefore, out of 5 MMs, only 1 of them has any claim that all listed non-manufactured weapons are natural weapons (and even that is pretty sketchy reading, but I guess it's pretty standard on these boards to think parentheticals are only ever inclusive [they aren't].) That claim was updated to not be the case with MM4.

A special ability that is an attack is called a special attack. It cannot be a natural weapon, nor can it make a natural attack as that would preclude it from being a special attack.

If we want to get into the details, let's entertain the will-o'-wisp. It has a shock attack. Which is a touch attack. By the structuring of the PHB, it does not use an unarmed attack action as a natural weapon does. Therefore it cannot be a natural weapon. Now for wraiths. Incorporeal creatures have no physical body, therefore their weapon is not physically a part of them. By definition this disqualifies them from being natural weapons. The Yuki-on-na suffers the same disqualification of the will-o'-wisp.

We are talking about an "always on" ability that compared to a buff spell doesn't need any preparation action.
Further, normally you refer to stuff that was already presented. If you refer to what is to come, you normally have indicators like "this is for situation X". In the case of using the touch attack as secondary weapon I don't see any indicators for that, nor for a limitation of what is presented.

Note that the Lich's attack quote you posted is referring to "natural weaponary" (a non keyword) and not to the defined keyword "Natural Weapons". If we are talking about RAW, you may not read keywords into non keywords. You have to take the full extend of the common meaning of "natural weaponary" (in the 3.5 context) and may not limit it to the defined key word "Natural Weapons", because that would be leaving a RAW approach in favor of RAI. If you wanna argue that your interpretation in this case is RAI fine, but not RAW.

Just because it has the option to use it touch attack along with a Natural Weapon attack, doesn't take away the permissions given already. The rules for "Attack" and "Full Attack" are general to the more specific "Paralyzing Touch" ability. As such the "Paralyzing Touch" ability would need to make explicit call outs to be able to trump those more general rules. I don't see any indicators that would proof this claim.




If you can find any 3.5 update of that rule we can talk further. Otherwise you are tying to use an outdated rule for your argument that ain't been included into 3.5

I don't see any 3.5 rule making similar claims as those you presented in the 3.0 rules. And no, you can't convert rules to 3.5 by RAW. By RAW you sole have permission to use 3.0 content (content != general rules; e.g. you may use feats, classes, items and stuff, but not rules for feats, classes, items and bla)

As far as a I am aware, 3.5 doesn't have any rules that restrict "Natural Weapons" to "Natural Abilities". So far it seems to be one of the things that have changed with 3.5
If anyone can present this rule in 3.5 that would be something else, but I don't think that it made it into the update.

The lich entry explicitly separates the touch attack from natural weapons: "A lich fighting without weapons uses either its touch attack (see above) or its natural weapons (if it has any). A little further, it requires a way to deliver that attack through a medium, or weapon if you prefer the technical term, "provided it has a way to make that attack (either a free hand or a natural weapon that it can use as a secondary attack)." A hand is a weapon. "touch attack" is not a weapon, it is an attack.

Whether you believe it or not, much of the 3.0 glossary is carried over into 3.5 by inheritance and common understanding. While you might not like it, the MM3 is outdated, even using text from 3.0, and is superseded by MM4 and MM5 which remove the line your understanding heavily relies on.

[Gruftzwerg]

The lich entry explicitly separates the touch attack from natural weapons: "A lich fighting without weapons uses either its touch attack (see above) or its natural weapons (if it has any). A little further, it requires a way to deliver that attack through a medium, or weapon if you prefer the technical term, "provided it has a way to make that attack (either a free hand or a natural weapon that it can use as a secondary attack)." A hand is a weapon. "touch attack" is not a weapon, it is an attack.

Whether you believe it or not, much of the 3.0 glossary is carried over into 3.5 by inheritance and common understanding. While you might not like it, the MM3 is outdated, even using text from 3.0, and is superseded by MM4 and MM5 which remove the line your understanding heavily relies on.

By RAW it makes a wrong reference. It doesn't tell you explicitly "that the touch attack is not a natural weapon". Due to the wording it "shows no intention" to make changes. It sole makes wrong references. This wouldn't be the first time that things like these happen in 3.5
Whereas the Attack line makes an explicit statement that anything in that line has to be either manufactured or a natural weapon.
The text you quoted lacks the precise call out that "they are not natural weapons". Wrong references don't make a rule by RAW.
That belongs into the land of RAI, where you assume that "this" was the designers intention, but he failed to find the right words.


edit: can you point me to the rule in the update booklet (or elsewhere) where it says that the DM should convert the 3.0 Glossary? I'm not aware that such a rule exist. It would be nice to know where it is.

[Darg]

Whereas the Attack line makes an explicit statement that anything in that line has to be either manufactured or a natural weapon.

If the Lich entry, no it doesn't. If you are talking about the MM3, it does not make an explicit statement as parantheticals are not only inclusive and can in fact be exclusive. This is exemplified in the MM4 and MM5 as they remove any mention of creature attacks supposedly only being natural or manufactured.

I don't quite understand the rest of what you said. Language barriers are tough.

edit: can you point me to the rule in the update booklet (or elsewhere) where it says that the DM should convert the 3.0 Glossary? I'm not aware that such a rule exist. It would be nice to know where it is.

Nothing says you should. It's just an observation about how mechanics and definitions interact in 3.5; where they work well without breaking down under a microscope when reinforced using missing definitions. As a game designer, it's just something that happens as a matter of course. An easy example of this is watching someone who never played a video game before and see how they simply don't understand the common understandings underpinning the design of games that we might have by living in gaming culture. Is it natural to look for the sprint key/button? Or is it a learned response conditioned into us? These cultural understandings can blind developers to the steps necessary to guide people to take a first step in the right direction.

An example of this in my experience with 3.5 is that all single target touch spells by RAW can be given to 6 friends as a full-round action after holding the charge. The rules explicitly say that you can touch 6 friends as a full-round action and that multi-target touch spells can't hold the charge and must target everyone in the same round as you cast the spell. That leaves single target as the sole beneficiary. Guess what I find when I enter the TTRPG online forums? Everyone simply ignores the rule because the cultural understanding is that you can only touch one creature per touch spell.

[Bullet06320]

(Are there any stats for an electric eel in 3.5 to compare this to?)

sadly no, only eel and dire eel in stormwrack

1st and 2nd edition had stats, and i checked enworld and tome of horrors, surprisingly it was never updated

but pathfinder has it
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/mo.../eel-electric/

altho there is Electric Eel Elixir in the magic item compendium, which would imply theyre around somewhere

[Gruftzwerg]

If the Lich entry, no it doesn't. If you are talking about the MM3, it does not make an explicit statement as parantheticals are not only inclusive and can in fact be exclusive. This is exemplified in the MM4 and MM5 as they remove any mention of creature attacks supposedly only being natural or manufactured.

Since they have changed the presentation of the statblocks and even what they are, you can't compare em, nor do they overwrite the definitions of the older books, since they are talking about different things:

Atk Options: Special abilities that the creature can employ
to modify its normal attacks appear here. Such abilities might
include feats such as Power Attack or special abilities such
as smite evil.

This is not the same thing as "Attack:" in the older MMs. "Attack:" never included PA and any modifiers besides from the regular STR bonus (to hit & dmg). As such, I don't see it legal to override the rules represented in "Attack:".
"Reading the entries" is book (or SRD) specific and sole some share the same format and thus same rules.

I don't quite understand the rest of what you said. Language barriers are tough.

I'm sorry and I'll give it another try..^^
Let me extrapolate our situation into an theoretical example:

When I give you a (mechanically) wrong quote of the rules, does that wrong quote become true? - No!
As such, when something refers or quotes "other rules" in a wrong way, it won't become true.

Just because the quote refers to the "touch attack" as if it would not be "Natural Weapon" (wrong quote/reference), doesn't make that statement true. The way the text is worded shows no intention to change rules. It sole makes a wrong statement. And a wrong statement/quote ain't a new rule by RAW. You may argue with this as "indicator" for a RAI argument, but not for a RAW argument. If you wanna argue about RAI, I'll give you a point for that argument. But RAW doesn't care here. The text lacks the wording to provide itself with the permission to make any changes.
(If you wanna have another example of this: the PRC rules from Complete Warrior have the same problem. They make wrong statements and show no intention to change rules. Not even for their own niche (the book itself). As such it has no permission to make any changes).

Wrong quote/statement != new rule

Nothing says you should. It's just an observation about how mechanics and definitions interact in 3.5; where they work well without breaking down under a microscope when reinforced using missing definitions. As a game designer, it's just something that happens as a matter of course. An easy example of this is watching someone who never played a video game before and see how they simply don't understand the common understandings underpinning the design of games that we might have by living in gaming culture. Is it natural to look for the sprint key/button? Or is it a learned response conditioned into us? These cultural understandings can blind developers to the steps necessary to guide people to take a first step in the right direction.

An example of this in my experience with 3.5 is that all single target touch spells by RAW can be given to 6 friends as a full-round action after holding the charge. The rules explicitly say that you can touch 6 friends as a full-round action and that multi-target touch spells can't hold the charge and must target everyone in the same round as you cast the spell. That leaves single target as the sole beneficiary. Guess what I find when I enter the TTRPG online forums? Everyone simply ignores the rule because the cultural understanding is that you can only touch one creature per touch spell.

While I agree that 3.5 RAW can't live without context and some "good will" interpretation, it should sole be used if all other option fail. And that is imho not the case here.

I still haven't seen any (3.5) RAW indicators that Natural Weapons may sole be Natural Abilities and excludes Special Attacks. In fact imho it is the opposite. We have some Special Abilities/Attacks that are also Natural Attacks according to their presentation in the MM & SRD.

It seems to me that this change from 3.0 was intentional.

Imho you are re-implementing outdated rules for the sake of nerfing some TO cheese (looking at the warshaper 1 dip^^). If you wanna make this balance approach for you table, I see no problems. It's your table and you decide the optimization lvl available for it. But from a RAW point of view I have to disagree here.
And I say this as RAW layer and not as a TO-guy. So don't get my intentions wrong here pls ;)

Note:
I wanted to repeat and make sure that I don't say that "all touch attacks are natural weapons". Sole those touch attacks in the MM "Attack:" line or those who are otherwise called out as such.

[loky1109]

When I give you a (mechanically) wrong quote of the rules, does that wrong quote become true? - No!

It works in both sides. I think wrong quote is your. How do you can refute this?

[Gruftzwerg]

It works in both sides. I think wrong quote is your. How do you can refute this?

Tell where you think that my quotes aren't rules but sole statements/references that are wrong.

Since every language (including English) has keywords that indicate one or the other (rule or statement/reference), it should be easily to proof. Show me the quotes and where the words indicate that they are referencing or just making a statement without creating a new rule. I have given you an example how this might look like in my last post for my argumentation.

It would be nice if you would explain what you mean. I can't read your mind. Which quotes you are referring to.
Or do you just want to rant "and maybe it's not" without providing any evidence? Either way is provocative.
So, pls try to explain what you mean and on what you are basing your argument. Otherwise it doesn't help the discussion and just feel like rant/rage to me. (I'm not trying to be offensive here. I just try to explain how I feel, when I read a response that lacks any explanation what you mean).

[loky1109]

Tell where you think that my quotes aren't rules but sole statements/references that are wrong.

I say you are wrong when saying manufactured and natural weapons is exhaustive list. Quote where you took it is poor and wrong worded.

This.

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

I have proof that "form of attack (melee or ranged)" isn't exhaustive list - swarm attacks. So you can't claim "weapon used (natural or manufactured)" is exhaustive list.

Yes, you can ask: "Then what is it?" I'll answer: "It doesn't matter. Matters it isn't either manufacture nor natural." *micdrop*

Spoiler

Show

(I'm not trying to be offensive here. I just try to explain how I feel, when I read a response that lacks any explanation what you mean).

Sorry, I was on cell and can't wrote it clearly. Your style of arguing is definitely irritating for me, but I didn't want to look offensive.