I have a legitimate question about natural weapons. Do they count as both armed and unarmed strikes?
When facing enemies it sometimes pops up that natural weapons are considered unarmed strikes such as a minotaur's horns. But, when we look at the natural weapons for Path of the Beast Barbarians it states that they are considered simple melee weapons.
Here is a scenario, you have a level 5 Path of the Beast Barbarian and have the Dual Wielder feat. Now because your natural weapons had no properties and the feat removed the "Light" property from Two-Weapon fighting, you can use your bonus action for an extra claw attack giving you 5 claw attacks per round assuming no opportunity attacks. You also get to use your claws as a kind of shield granting +1 AC to your PC.
What if you pick up some levels of monk? Do your claw attacks also get considered as unarmed attacks? Can I use my ki point for additional 2 attacks with claws on my bonus action with flurry of blows?
As a 5 barbarian/2 monk, do I get to have 6 claw attacks in a single round of combat with all of them benefiting from my strength and rage modifiers?
Only things that say they're unarmed strikes are unarmed strikes. So that's a no to flurry of blows with the Beast barbarian claws. Though it's not the core question of your post, you also can't use the claws with two-weapon fighting regardless of the Dual Wielder feat, because two-weapon fighting requires that you be holding the weapons in your hands.
I have a legitimate question about natural weapons. Do they count as both armed and unarmed strikes?
Some do and some don't, you need to read the feature that gives you your natural weapons to know. All natural weapons count as Weapons but only some will allow you to make unarmed strikes with them.
Path of the Beast does not allow you to use them to do unarmed attacks (nor does a Dhampir's bite attack).
The legacy version of Tabaxi, Minotaur and the others that had natural weapons allowed them to be used for unarmed strikes but the updated (MotM) versions of them doesn't count as natural weapons at all, they just allows to be used instead of their normal unarmed attacks.
Here is a scenario, you have a level 5 Path of the Beast Barbarian and have the Dual Wielder feat. Now because your natural weapons had no properties and the feat removed the "Light" property from Two-Weapon fighting, you can use your bonus action for an extra claw attack giving you 5 claw attacks per round assuming no opportunity attacks. You also get to use your claws as a kind of shield granting +1 AC to your PC.
How do you get to five? I only make it four. One normal attack, one more from Extra Attack, one additional attack from the Form of the Beast and then one TWF attack with your bonus action.
Only things that say they're unarmed strikes are unarmed strikes. So that's a no to flurry of blows with the Beast barbarian claws. Though it's not the core question of your post, you also can't use the claws with two-weapon fighting regardless of the Dual Wielder feat, because two-weapon fighting requires that you be holding the weapons in your hands.
That seems like a really stingy reading of the rules tbh.
Only things that say they're unarmed strikes are unarmed strikes. So that's a no to flurry of blows with the Beast barbarian claws. Though it's not the core question of your post, you also can't use the claws with two-weapon fighting regardless of the Dual Wielder feat, because two-weapon fighting requires that you be holding the weapons in your hands.
That seems like a really stingy reading of the rules tbh.
The rules are absolutely littered with interactions that are very unambiguously "illegal" but would break absolutely nothing for a GM to allow. This is just another one. It's not "stingy" to point out what the rules very clearly say in the Rules & Mechanics forum, where the most relevant thing is what the rules are.
So that means that they don't count as held weapons, but are still weapons and therefore not unarmed strikes.
No that's not an either/or distinction that the rules make. There used to be natural weapons that could do unarmed strikes (still might be some left), each feature will specify if it is a weapon or not and if they can do unarmed strikes or not.
Only things that say they're unarmed strikes are unarmed strikes. So that's a no to flurry of blows with the Beast barbarian claws. Though it's not the core question of your post, you also can't use the claws with two-weapon fighting regardless of the Dual Wielder feat, because two-weapon fighting requires that you be holding the weapons in your hands.
That seems like a really stingy reading of the rules tbh.
The rules are absolutely littered with interactions that are very unambiguously "illegal" but would break absolutely nothing for a GM to allow. This is just another one. It's not "stingy" to point out what the rules very clearly say in the Rules & Mechanics forum, where the most relevant thing is what the rules are.
It's how Extra Attack is worded and how many claw attacks are allowed in an attack action. You get two claw attacks per attack action. With extra attack it makes sense to allow two additional claw attacks for the same reason. If a DM rules that you can use TWF, you get to use your off-hand weapon to attack and that is specified in TWF. So 2 for the attack action, 2 for extra attack and 1 for BA for a total of 5. It all depends on how extra attack is defined by the DM, if it is an extra attack roll or an additional attack action (the rules don't say).
"
Extra Attack. Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Claws. Each of your hands transforms into a claw, which you can use as a weapon if it’s empty. It deals 1d6 slashing damage on a hit. Once on each of your turns when you attack with a claw using the Attack action, you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.
The rules are absolutely littered with interactions that are very unambiguously "illegal" but would break absolutely nothing for a GM to allow. This is just another one. It's not "stingy" to point out what the rules very clearly say in the Rules & Mechanics forum, where the most relevant thing is what the rules are.
Sure pointing out that the weapon needs to be held is fine if we're talking about the weapon not being present during the first attack but here we are talking about a distinction between the hand holding a weapon and the hand being a weapon, it still seems a bit strict to me. The dual wielder feat calls it "wielding" instead which I'd say that the claws qualify for.
But yes, technically you are correct, of course I'd say that technically you could fold your thumb into your closed fist and then you would have at least one claw that would be held and thus qualify for TWF.
I am not sure where you get six attacks from, PotB claws free attack only applies to the Attack Action and can only be triggered once on your turn.
As others have said PotB natural weapons cannot be used to make Unarmed Strikes. However they do count as Monk weapons as they are Simple Weapons without the Two-Handed or Heavy properties. So while you can't actually use the PotB natural weapons during your Flurry of Blows attacks they are as compatible with Monk features as any Quarterstaff would be.
I have a legitimate question about natural weapons. Do they count as both armed and unarmed strikes? [...]
If the following example is useful for you, your question is similar to a situation involving a Druid/Monk. Imagine the Druid has wildshaped into a Brown Bear. The Brown Bear has claws, which are natural weapons like the ones in the Form of the Beast (Path of the Beast). Because the claws are natural weapons and not unarmed strikes, you cannot use Flurry of Blows with them.
We have also this tweet from the Dev (not official ruling; link here):
@T_H_E_WHAN Ok, Kung-fu panda idea. Moon Druid 2/monk 1. Does a beast's natural 'melee weapon attacks' count as 'unarmed strikes'? @JeremyECrawford A natural weapon (a claw, horn, bite, etc.) is not an unarmed strike.
As others have said PotB natural weapons cannot be used to make Unarmed Strikes. However they do count as Monk weapons as they are Simple Weapons without the Two-Handed or Heavy properties. So while you can't actually use the PotB natural weapons during your Flurry of Blows attacks they are as compatible with Monk features as any Quarterstaff would be.
As others have said PotB natural weapons cannot be used to make Unarmed Strikes. However they do count as Monk weapons as they are Simple Weapons without the Two-Handed or Heavy properties. So while you can't actually use the PotB natural weapons during your Flurry of Blows attacks they are as compatible with Monk features as any Quarterstaff would be.
Natural weapons are not Simple Weapons.
While this is true for Natural Weapons in general this is incorrect in the specific case I was referring to. Here is the relevant text of the Path of the Beast's Form of the Beast feature:
"Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you, and you add your Strength modifier to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with it, as normal." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/tcoe/barbarian#FormoftheBeast (emphasis added)
It's how Extra Attack is worded and how many claw attacks are allowed in an attack action. You get two claw attacks per attack action. With extra attack it makes sense to allow two additional claw attacks for the same reason. If a DM rules that you can use TWF, you get to use your off-hand weapon to attack and that is specified in TWF. So 2 for the attack action, 2 for extra attack and 1 for BA for a total of 5. It all depends on how extra attack is defined by the DM, if it is an extra attack roll or an additional attack action (the rules don't say).
"
Extra Attack. Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Claws. Each of your hands transforms into a claw, which you can use as a weapon if it’s empty. It deals 1d6 slashing damage on a hit. Once on each of your turns when you attack with a claw using the Attack action, you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.
Nah it specifically doesn't work like that. There is a restriction on the claws to once per turn, look at the part I highlighted.
It is possible that the Barbarian option is stated that way so that you get all benefits of proficiency and class features allowed to having an actual weapon. You might not get some bonuses if it is considered an unarmed strike.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
As others have said PotB natural weapons cannot be used to make Unarmed Strikes. However they do count as Monk weapons as they are Simple Weapons without the Two-Handed or Heavy properties. So while you can't actually use the PotB natural weapons during your Flurry of Blows attacks they are as compatible with Monk features as any Quarterstaff would be.
Natural weapons are not Simple Weapons.
While this is true for Natural Weapons in general this is incorrect in the specific case I was referring to. Here is the relevant text of the Path of the Beast's Form of the Beast feature:
"Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you, and you add your Strength modifier to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with it, as normal." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/tcoe/barbarian#FormoftheBeast (emphasis added)
Oh, sorry, I didn't parse your text correctly :( Thank you for correcting me!
Only things that say they're unarmed strikes are unarmed strikes. So that's a no to flurry of blows with the Beast barbarian claws. Though it's not the core question of your post, you also can't use the claws with two-weapon fighting regardless of the Dual Wielder feat, because two-weapon fighting requires that you be holding the weapons in your hands.
That seems like a really stingy reading of the rules tbh.
The rules are absolutely littered with interactions that are very unambiguously "illegal" but would break absolutely nothing for a GM to allow. This is just another one. It's not "stingy" to point out what the rules very clearly say in the Rules & Mechanics forum, where the most relevant thing is what the rules are.
Honest question about this discussion.
I agree that two-weapon fighting requires you to be holding/wielding the weapon, and natural weapon are parts of your body. You don't wield your claws, for example.
However, I think there is another reason to reach the same conclusion about that interaction, and here is my doubt: are natural weapons light? That property doesn't apply to natural weapons, right?, so they shouldn't qualify for TWF due to that. Am I OK?
Only things that say they're unarmed strikes are unarmed strikes. So that's a no to flurry of blows with the Beast barbarian claws. Though it's not the core question of your post, you also can't use the claws with two-weapon fighting regardless of the Dual Wielder feat, because two-weapon fighting requires that you be holding the weapons in your hands.
That seems like a really stingy reading of the rules tbh.
The rules are absolutely littered with interactions that are very unambiguously "illegal" but would break absolutely nothing for a GM to allow. This is just another one. It's not "stingy" to point out what the rules very clearly say in the Rules & Mechanics forum, where the most relevant thing is what the rules are.
Honest question about this discussion.
I agree that two-weapon fighting requires you to be holding/wielding the weapon, and natural weapon are parts of your body. You don't wield your claws, for example.
However, I think there is another reason to reach the same conclusion about that interaction, and here is my doubt: are natural weapons light? That property doesn't apply to natural weapons, right?, so they shouldn't qualify for TWF due to that. Am I OK?
You are right, but OP was discussing the Dual Wielder feat, which removes the Light requirement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a legitimate question about natural weapons. Do they count as both armed and unarmed strikes?
When facing enemies it sometimes pops up that natural weapons are considered unarmed strikes such as a minotaur's horns. But, when we look at the natural weapons for Path of the Beast Barbarians it states that they are considered simple melee weapons.
Here is a scenario, you have a level 5 Path of the Beast Barbarian and have the Dual Wielder feat. Now because your natural weapons had no properties and the feat removed the "Light" property from Two-Weapon fighting, you can use your bonus action for an extra claw attack giving you 5 claw attacks per round assuming no opportunity attacks. You also get to use your claws as a kind of shield granting +1 AC to your PC.
What if you pick up some levels of monk? Do your claw attacks also get considered as unarmed attacks? Can I use my ki point for additional 2 attacks with claws on my bonus action with flurry of blows?
As a 5 barbarian/2 monk, do I get to have 6 claw attacks in a single round of combat with all of them benefiting from my strength and rage modifiers?
Only things that say they're unarmed strikes are unarmed strikes. So that's a no to flurry of blows with the Beast barbarian claws. Though it's not the core question of your post, you also can't use the claws with two-weapon fighting regardless of the Dual Wielder feat, because two-weapon fighting requires that you be holding the weapons in your hands.
So that means that they don't count as held weapons, but are still weapons and therefore not unarmed strikes.
Some do and some don't, you need to read the feature that gives you your natural weapons to know. All natural weapons count as Weapons but only some will allow you to make unarmed strikes with them.
Path of the Beast does not allow you to use them to do unarmed attacks (nor does a Dhampir's bite attack).
The legacy version of Tabaxi, Minotaur and the others that had natural weapons allowed them to be used for unarmed strikes but the updated (MotM) versions of them doesn't count as natural weapons at all, they just allows to be used instead of their normal unarmed attacks.
How do you get to five? I only make it four. One normal attack, one more from Extra Attack, one additional attack from the Form of the Beast and then one TWF attack with your bonus action.
That seems like a really stingy reading of the rules tbh.
The rules are absolutely littered with interactions that are very unambiguously "illegal" but would break absolutely nothing for a GM to allow. This is just another one. It's not "stingy" to point out what the rules very clearly say in the Rules & Mechanics forum, where the most relevant thing is what the rules are.
No that's not an either/or distinction that the rules make. There used to be natural weapons that could do unarmed strikes (still might be some left), each feature will specify if it is a weapon or not and if they can do unarmed strikes or not.
.
It's how Extra Attack is worded and how many claw attacks are allowed in an attack action. You get two claw attacks per attack action. With extra attack it makes sense to allow two additional claw attacks for the same reason. If a DM rules that you can use TWF, you get to use your off-hand weapon to attack and that is specified in TWF. So 2 for the attack action, 2 for extra attack and 1 for BA for a total of 5. It all depends on how extra attack is defined by the DM, if it is an extra attack roll or an additional attack action (the rules don't say).
"
Extra Attack. Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Claws. Each of your hands transforms into a claw, which you can use as a weapon if it’s empty. It deals 1d6 slashing damage on a hit. Once on each of your turns when you attack with a claw using the Attack action, you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.
Sure pointing out that the weapon needs to be held is fine if we're talking about the weapon not being present during the first attack but here we are talking about a distinction between the hand holding a weapon and the hand being a weapon, it still seems a bit strict to me. The dual wielder feat calls it "wielding" instead which I'd say that the claws qualify for.
But yes, technically you are correct, of course I'd say that technically you could fold your thumb into your closed fist and then you would have at least one claw that would be held and thus qualify for TWF.
Action: Attack Action
- regular attack (claw)
- extra attack (any weapon attack)
- free claw attack (claw)
Bonus Action: Flurry of Blows
- Unarmed Strike
- Unarmed Strike
I am not sure where you get six attacks from, PotB claws free attack only applies to the Attack Action and can only be triggered once on your turn.
As others have said PotB natural weapons cannot be used to make Unarmed Strikes. However they do count as Monk weapons as they are Simple Weapons without the Two-Handed or Heavy properties. So while you can't actually use the PotB natural weapons during your Flurry of Blows attacks they are as compatible with Monk features as any Quarterstaff would be.
If the following example is useful for you, your question is similar to a situation involving a Druid/Monk. Imagine the Druid has wildshaped into a Brown Bear. The Brown Bear has claws, which are natural weapons like the ones in the Form of the Beast (Path of the Beast). Because the claws are natural weapons and not unarmed strikes, you cannot use Flurry of Blows with them.
We have also this tweet from the Dev (not official ruling; link here):
Natural weapons are not Simple Weapons.
While this is true for Natural Weapons in general this is incorrect in the specific case I was referring to. Here is the relevant text of the Path of the Beast's Form of the Beast feature:
"Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you, and you add your Strength modifier to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with it, as normal." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/tcoe/barbarian#FormoftheBeast (emphasis added)
Nah it specifically doesn't work like that. There is a restriction on the claws to once per turn, look at the part I highlighted.
It is possible that the Barbarian option is stated that way so that you get all benefits of proficiency and class features allowed to having an actual weapon. You might not get some bonuses if it is considered an unarmed strike.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Oh, sorry, I didn't parse your text correctly :( Thank you for correcting me!
Honest question about this discussion.
I agree that two-weapon fighting requires you to be holding/wielding the weapon, and natural weapon are parts of your body. You don't wield your claws, for example.
However, I think there is another reason to reach the same conclusion about that interaction, and here is my doubt: are natural weapons light? That property doesn't apply to natural weapons, right?, so they shouldn't qualify for TWF due to that. Am I OK?
You are right, but OP was discussing the Dual Wielder feat, which removes the Light requirement.