I have a character that is a tortle fey wanderer and I was wondering if the dreadful strikes class feature can work with the tortles claws. The claws are described as such
"Your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike"
while the dreadful strikes say, "When you hit a creature with a weapon, you can deal an extra 1d4 psychic damage to the target".
So, after a bit of searching, I found out that yes, natural weapons do count as weapons. The thing I'm confused about is it says, "which you can use to make unarmed strikes". I'm probably wrong but that makes me think you can't make a weapon attack with your claws but instead an unarmed strike with them. The latter I don't think functions with dreadful strikes, but the former does.
When it comes down to RAW, do you think you can use the claws in junction with the dreadful strikes feature?
It's kind of a weird rule, but yeah. Basically the way that it works is that it is a weapon, and when you attack with it you use the unarmed strike rules. This gives it benefits from monk and some feats for example.
So Unarmed Strikes are weird. They are a catch all for attacking with any part of your body. Natural Weapons are, as you noted, Weapons. Some Natural Weapons, typically those granted as a racial trait, can also be used to make Unarmed Strikes. This doesn't make the Natural Weapons suddenly not Weapons, but rather you can use them to make an Unarmed Strike which is not something you can normally do with a Weapon.
Note if your Tortle was holding objects in his hands, like a shield and an arcane focus, he likely wouldn't be able to use his claws to make attacks. He would still be able to make Unarmed Strikes but would have to use the normal rules for damage instead of using his Claw damage.
In summary Unarmed Strikes are better thought of a kind of attack you can make, like a weapon or spell attack. Unarmed Strikes cannot normally be made with a Weapon except when explicitly allowed by the Weapon.
Apparently one of the significant changes being made in the new Monsters Of The Multiverse book is that races with features like this are getting modified. The claws, fangs, etc. will no longer be called Natural Weapons, and the attacks will simply be described as Unarmed Strikes(they're also all getting buffed from d4 to d6 for damage rolls). So going forward, you might not be able to use Dreadful Strikes with a Tortle's claws. That being said, I doubt it would break anything if your DM allowed features like Dreadful Strikes to work with Unarmed Strikes.
I think it's ultimately a good idea to change the language so that claws/horns/whatever aren't considered "weapons", if only to make it easier to adjudicate stuff like, "can I cast Magic Weapon on the Minotaur's Horns?". I mean... I think I still occasionally see people wondering about that with a monk's unarmed strikes, but at least this gives more concrete language.
The old rules do specifically say your claws are natural weapons. This is redundant because the Monster Manuel already defines what constitutes a natural weapon, and claws are among those that qualify.
Even though the new rules in MPMM don't go out of their way to say your claws are natural weapons. They do still say they are claws and as such remain natural weapons due to the rules in the Monster Manual.
That's not exactly right. For monsters, any weapon attack that is not a manufactured weapon is a natural weapon, and claws are an example. Unarmed strike is, by default, explicitly not a weapon.
Players are not usually given a non-unarmed strike weapon attack that does not require a manufactured weapon the way monsters are. That would probably be a natural weapon.
Tldr: Making unarmed strikes with claws does not automatically make it a natural weapon.
Your quote clearly references a monster. As monsters and PCs work differently in many ways, I don't think the default assumption is that something attributed to a monster can also be attributed to a PC.
Claws is claws. Why a monster's claws would be considered a natural weapon and a player's claws not be considered a natural weapon would have to be stated specifically somewhere. And I can't find it, so I would consider claws to be natural weapons.
The point I was trying to make before is that claws are not a natural weapon simply because a monster has them. Claws are a natural weapon first and foremost, then either a monster or player may have them and use them as such.
Logically, you are right, but mechanically the rules you referenced about how a Monster's natural weapons might include claws, does not apply to player characters at all.
Think of it this way, the ape has a "fist" weapon attack. According to the monster manual, this is either a manufactured weapon or a natural weapon. Since there isn't a manufactured weapon called "fist," it must be a natural weapon. Now your argument that all natural weapons are natural weapon even if it is a PC, means that all PCs with fists have a natural weapon. And now the monk's fists can be targeted by magic weapon.
That is why rules about monster statistics don't apply universally to PCs.
As DxJxC said monsters and players do not strictly follow the same rules. In fact in 5e they make it pretty clear that monsters and players do NOT follow the same rules. Just take a look at the Green Hag (Coven Variant) for example. A CR 5 monster having the spellcasting ability of a 12th level caster is odd enough. Having a spell attack bonus of +5 when her proficiency bonus is +3 and her spellcasting attribute modifier is +1 literally doesn't add up.
Also there are Natural Weapons players have access to that do not explicitly state they can be used to make Unarmed Strikes. Take a look at the Barbarian subclass Path of the Beast and its Form of the Beast feature. It allows you use claws, a bite, or a tail as a Natural Weapon when you rage and specifically states that they are Simple Weapons. Can you use the Path of the Beast Natural Weapons to make Unarmed Strikes? This class feature doesn't say you can unlike most other player Natural Weapons.
Also look at the rules that describe what an Unarmed Strike is: "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons)."
Sadly Natural Weapons don't have a clear definition that I can find other than what brian_avery quoted. That quote is describing common actions a monster can take and isn't a definition for what Natural Weapons are for players.
However I consider Natural Weapons to be Weapons for a few reasons. First, it's in the name. It is simple, but it is true. Second, Natural Weapons are specific body parts that are especially effective at dealing damage, more so than an Unarmed Strike. As a specific body part they can be occupied, you can't claw someone if your hands are full. Natural Weapons are not always available in the way Unarmed Strikes are. Finally, there is specific language available for preventing something from working with Natural Weapons, Booming Blade for example.
The way I see it the general rule is that an Unarmed Strike is a kind of Melee Weapon Attack made without using a Weapon, including Natural Weapons. Many Natural Weapons available to players, like the Tortle's claws, have specific language saying they can be used to make Unarmed Strikes. This follows the specific overrides the general design pattern.
I have a character that is a tortle fey wanderer and I was wondering if the dreadful strikes class feature can work with the tortles claws. The claws are described as such
"Your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike"
while the dreadful strikes say, "When you hit a creature with a weapon, you can deal an extra 1d4 psychic damage to the target".
So, after a bit of searching, I found out that yes, natural weapons do count as weapons. The thing I'm confused about is it says, "which you can use to make unarmed strikes". I'm probably wrong but that makes me think you can't make a weapon attack with your claws but instead an unarmed strike with them. The latter I don't think functions with dreadful strikes, but the former does.
When it comes down to RAW, do you think you can use the claws in junction with the dreadful strikes feature?
It's kind of a weird rule, but yeah. Basically the way that it works is that it is a weapon, and when you attack with it you use the unarmed strike rules. This gives it benefits from monk and some feats for example.
So Unarmed Strikes are weird. They are a catch all for attacking with any part of your body. Natural Weapons are, as you noted, Weapons. Some Natural Weapons, typically those granted as a racial trait, can also be used to make Unarmed Strikes. This doesn't make the Natural Weapons suddenly not Weapons, but rather you can use them to make an Unarmed Strike which is not something you can normally do with a Weapon.
Note if your Tortle was holding objects in his hands, like a shield and an arcane focus, he likely wouldn't be able to use his claws to make attacks. He would still be able to make Unarmed Strikes but would have to use the normal rules for damage instead of using his Claw damage.
In summary Unarmed Strikes are better thought of a kind of attack you can make, like a weapon or spell attack. Unarmed Strikes cannot normally be made with a Weapon except when explicitly allowed by the Weapon.
Apparently one of the significant changes being made in the new Monsters Of The Multiverse book is that races with features like this are getting modified. The claws, fangs, etc. will no longer be called Natural Weapons, and the attacks will simply be described as Unarmed Strikes(they're also all getting buffed from d4 to d6 for damage rolls). So going forward, you might not be able to use Dreadful Strikes with a Tortle's claws. That being said, I doubt it would break anything if your DM allowed features like Dreadful Strikes to work with Unarmed Strikes.
I think it's ultimately a good idea to change the language so that claws/horns/whatever aren't considered "weapons", if only to make it easier to adjudicate stuff like, "can I cast Magic Weapon on the Minotaur's Horns?". I mean... I think I still occasionally see people wondering about that with a monk's unarmed strikes, but at least this gives more concrete language.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
That's not exactly right. For monsters, any weapon attack that is not a manufactured weapon is a natural weapon, and claws are an example. Unarmed strike is, by default, explicitly not a weapon.
Players are not usually given a non-unarmed strike weapon attack that does not require a manufactured weapon the way monsters are. That would probably be a natural weapon.
Tldr: Making unarmed strikes with claws does not automatically make it a natural weapon.
Your quote clearly references a monster. As monsters and PCs work differently in many ways, I don't think the default assumption is that something attributed to a monster can also be attributed to a PC.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Logically, you are right, but mechanically the rules you referenced about how a Monster's natural weapons might include claws, does not apply to player characters at all.
Think of it this way, the ape has a "fist" weapon attack. According to the monster manual, this is either a manufactured weapon or a natural weapon. Since there isn't a manufactured weapon called "fist," it must be a natural weapon. Now your argument that all natural weapons are natural weapon even if it is a PC, means that all PCs with fists have a natural weapon. And now the monk's fists can be targeted by magic weapon.
That is why rules about monster statistics don't apply universally to PCs.
As DxJxC said monsters and players do not strictly follow the same rules. In fact in 5e they make it pretty clear that monsters and players do NOT follow the same rules. Just take a look at the Green Hag (Coven Variant) for example. A CR 5 monster having the spellcasting ability of a 12th level caster is odd enough. Having a spell attack bonus of +5 when her proficiency bonus is +3 and her spellcasting attribute modifier is +1 literally doesn't add up.
Also there are Natural Weapons players have access to that do not explicitly state they can be used to make Unarmed Strikes. Take a look at the Barbarian subclass Path of the Beast and its Form of the Beast feature. It allows you use claws, a bite, or a tail as a Natural Weapon when you rage and specifically states that they are Simple Weapons. Can you use the Path of the Beast Natural Weapons to make Unarmed Strikes? This class feature doesn't say you can unlike most other player Natural Weapons.
Also look at the rules that describe what an Unarmed Strike is: "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons)."
Sadly Natural Weapons don't have a clear definition that I can find other than what brian_avery quoted. That quote is describing common actions a monster can take and isn't a definition for what Natural Weapons are for players.
However I consider Natural Weapons to be Weapons for a few reasons. First, it's in the name. It is simple, but it is true. Second, Natural Weapons are specific body parts that are especially effective at dealing damage, more so than an Unarmed Strike. As a specific body part they can be occupied, you can't claw someone if your hands are full. Natural Weapons are not always available in the way Unarmed Strikes are. Finally, there is specific language available for preventing something from working with Natural Weapons, Booming Blade for example.
The way I see it the general rule is that an Unarmed Strike is a kind of Melee Weapon Attack made without using a Weapon, including Natural Weapons. Many Natural Weapons available to players, like the Tortle's claws, have specific language saying they can be used to make Unarmed Strikes. This follows the specific overrides the general design pattern.