Another consequence of this is that an improvised weapon isn't valid to be used as an opportunity attack either, since it isn't an object in the Simple or Martial weapon categories.
I have a different interpretation of the rules, to me you make the Opportunity Attacks by taking a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike, which may include makeshift weapon when object is used as Improvised Weapons.
Same for when taking the Attack action. If not, when can you use such makeshift weapon?
Attack Action: When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Nice to know monks punch for 1 damage when they make an attack of opportunity. Or perhaps you are reading this wrong. And all attacks using your body are unarmed strikes per the rule, and under normal circumstances unless you have some ability to change it the damage is 1+str mod.
This is a nonsequitor. Monks attack with unarmed strikes for more than 1+str mod because their class feature specifically modifies how their unarmed attacks function. Monster entries do no such thing.
Also, the part I made red. What rule? Please quote it. If there is such a rule in the book it would solve this whole question nicely.
It is not a nonsequitor. Either unarmed strikes just do 1 damage and a monks unarmed strikes aren't really unarmed strikes or they can be something else and the 1 damage thing is for people and creatures without special abelites or claws. As for the rule its the one we have quoted at you 1000 time now. "In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you." They are literally saying this is not fluff text, this is a rule, its an attack that uses your body that's the rule, not fluff text. They are being incredibly explicit by saying IN GAME TERMS.
A Reaction is a special action taken in response to a trigger defined in the Reaction’s description. You can take a Reaction on another creature’s turn, and if you take it on your turn, you can do so even if you also take an action, a Bonus Action, or both. Once you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn. The Opportunity Attack is a Reaction available to all creatures.See also “Opportunity Attacks” and chapter 1 (“Actions”).
You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Emphasis added for effect.
The simplest way to read all of this is any creature with a "Melee Attack Roll" in its stat block can use that for an Opportunity Attack. This really isn't a question for things like a Bite or Claw because they're, say it with me, the creature using their body to damage, grapple, or shove the target. And with basically everything else, they're attacking with a weapon of some kind. It might have something extra, like the Druid's Vine Staff, or be made of something intangible; like a Balor harnessing raw elemental power for their Flame Whip and Lightning Blade. Even something with a name completely devoid of any identifying markers, such as a Vampire Umbral Lord's Grave Strike, can be whatever the DM says. That particular action deals Slashing damage, so whether the undeader is attacking with something reminiscent of a claw or a blade doesn't ultimately matter because it fits the criteria either way.
A Reaction is a special action taken in response to a trigger defined in the Reaction’s description. You can take a Reaction on another creature’s turn, and if you take it on your turn, you can do so even if you also take an action, a Bonus Action, or both. Once you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn. The Opportunity Attack is a Reaction available to all creatures.See also “Opportunity Attacks” and chapter 1 (“Actions”).
You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Emphasis added for effect.
The simplest way to read all of this is any creature with a "Melee Attack Roll" in its stat block can use that for an Opportunity Attack. This really isn't a question for things like a Bite or Claw because they're, say it with me, the creature using their body to damage, grapple, or shove the target. And with basically everything else, they're attacking with a weapon of some kind. It might have something extra, like the Druid's Vine Staff, or be made of something intangible; like a Balor harnessing raw elemental power for their Flame Whip and Lightning Blade. Even something with a name completely devoid of any identifying markers, such as a Vampire Umbral Lord's Grave Strike, can be whatever the DM says. That particular action deals Slashing damage, so whether the undeader is attacking with something reminiscent of a claw or a blade doesn't ultimately matter because it fits the criteria either way.
Thank you for showing how simple this is. I wanted to intervene but wasn't sure what exactly to say. Summed it up perfectly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
What used to be Natural Weapons now being labeled as Unarmed Strikes makes the most sense to me. Not only does a bite or claw attack easily slot into the given definition of an Unarmed Strike, the alternative is to have those sorts of attacks fall into an unnamed category that doesn't interact with any other rules in the game. That is a fairly big annoyance for the monsters themselves as it creates the Attack of Opportunity wonkiness discussed in this thread. It also means there's no way to build around Wildshape or Polymorph the way you can for weapon users and punchmasters because feats and magic items almost all interact with either Weapon Attacks or Unarmed Strikes. Probably because the rules intended that all melee attacks fall under one of those two main categories.
Yeah it'd be great if the rules made the distinction and classified claw, bite, slam, etc as unarmed attacks. And that similar to monks, they simply have a feature that let's them use unarmed attacks in a new or special way.
But unfortunately for everyone, they didn't write the rules like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yeah it'd be great if the rules made the distinction and classified claw, bite, slam, etc as unarmed attacks. And that similar to monks, they simply have a feature that let's them use unarmed attacks in a new or special way.
But unfortunately for everyone, they didn't write the rules like that.
Rule clarity would be nice in any system. There are countless parts in 2014 and 2024 where they dropped the ball in how they worded things. But they did classify claws, bites, slams etc as unarmed attacks. "In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you." Again they tell you this is in game terms, it is not a fluff sentence, its a rule. That being said it obviously would be clearer if slams etc said something like slam(unarmed strike) or heck just say it once at the beginning of the monster manual when they are breaking down stat blocks.
A Reaction is a special action taken in response to a trigger defined in the Reaction’s description. You can take a Reaction on another creature’s turn, and if you take it on your turn, you can do so even if you also take an action, a Bonus Action, or both. Once you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn. The Opportunity Attack is a Reaction available to all creatures.See also “Opportunity Attacks” and chapter 1 (“Actions”).
You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Emphasis added for effect.
The simplest way to read all of this is any creature with a "Melee Attack Roll" in its stat block can use that for an Opportunity Attack. This really isn't a question for things like a Bite or Claw because they're, say it with me, the creature using their body to damage, grapple, or shove the target. And with basically everything else, they're attacking with a weapon of some kind. It might have something extra, like the Druid's Vine Staff, or be made of something intangible; like a Balor harnessing raw elemental power for their Flame Whip and Lightning Blade. Even something with a name completely devoid of any identifying markers, such as a Vampire Umbral Lord's Grave Strike, can be whatever the DM says. That particular action deals Slashing damage, so whether the undeader is attacking with something reminiscent of a claw or a blade doesn't ultimately matter because it fits the criteria either way.
Because you deliberately left out the part of the definition of "Unarmed Strike" that contradicts what you're trying to claim.
Here is the full definition with important text bolded:
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect.
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you.
An Unarmed Strike is one of the three options listed there. If an attack does anything except what is listed there, unless you have a rule that specifically affects Unarmed Strikes, then it is not an Unarmed Strike.
If a wolf uses its teeth to deal 3 bludgeoning damage, that is an Unarmed Strike. If a wolf uses its teeth to deal 1d6+2 piercing damage and auto-prone your 24-Strength raging Barbarian, that is NOT an Unarmed Strike.
The rules are written as they are. The 2014 rules were written perfectly fine and did not create this confusion. The 2024 rules have this issue because of poor editing, and no amount of circular logic or just lies by omission changes that fact. There is no reason to be so personally invested in denying that there are objective mistakes and flaws in the revised rules.
I didn't include the rest because it wasn't relevant. We don't need definitions of what Damage, Grapple, and Shove options are. We are talking about the creature using its body to do those things.
What you've cited is a general rule in the Player's Handbook. The rules of the game are also exception-based. Meaning, a general rule only applies so long as nothing more specific contradicts it. The Tavern Brawler feat grants an exception which allows an Unarmed Strike to also, once per turn, Push a target. That doesn't mean an Unarmed Strike stops being an Unarmed Strike because it can check off two bullets. If you were to order mashed potatoes with gravy as a side dish at a restaurant, you'd still be eating mashed potatoes. The gravy wouldn't transubstantiate the side into something else.
Every creature making a Melee Attack Roll is either using something it's wielding, like a weapon, or part of its body to make that Opportunity Attack. It simply doesn't matter if there's another sentence with an addendum; whether that creature is a Tough Boss or Wolf. Just as an attack with a weapon can have an unspecified Trait or Weapon Mastery applied, an Unarmed Strike can have a rider effect and still be an Unarmed Strike.
While you can make a technical argument about this, I feel like the hair is being split so thin on this one that I question whether they will even bother making an errata entry about it.
A Reaction is a special action taken in response to a trigger defined in the Reaction’s description. You can take a Reaction on another creature’s turn, and if you take it on your turn, you can do so even if you also take an action, a Bonus Action, or both. Once you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn. The Opportunity Attack is a Reaction available to all creatures.See also “Opportunity Attacks” and chapter 1 (“Actions”).
You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Emphasis added for effect.
The simplest way to read all of this is any creature with a "Melee Attack Roll" in its stat block can use that for an Opportunity Attack. This really isn't a question for things like a Bite or Claw because they're, say it with me, the creature using their body to damage, grapple, or shove the target. And with basically everything else, they're attacking with a weapon of some kind. It might have something extra, like the Druid's Vine Staff, or be made of something intangible; like a Balor harnessing raw elemental power for their Flame Whip and Lightning Blade. Even something with a name completely devoid of any identifying markers, such as a Vampire Umbral Lord's Grave Strike, can be whatever the DM says. That particular action deals Slashing damage, so whether the undeader is attacking with something reminiscent of a claw or a blade doesn't ultimately matter because it fits the criteria either way.
Because you deliberately left out the part of the definition of "Unarmed Strike" that contradicts what you're trying to claim.
Here is the full definition with important text bolded:
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect.
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you.
An Unarmed Strike is one of the three options listed there. If an attack does anything except what is listed there, unless you have a rule that specifically affects Unarmed Strikes, then it is not an Unarmed Strike.
If a wolf uses its teeth to deal 3 bludgeoning damage, that is an Unarmed Strike. If a wolf uses its teeth to deal 1d6+2 piercing damage and auto-prone your 24-Strength raging Barbarian, that is NOT an Unarmed Strike.
The rules are written as they are. The 2014 rules were written perfectly fine and did not create this confusion. The 2024 rules have this issue because of poor editing, and no amount of circular logic or just lies by omission changes that fact. There is no reason to be so personally invested in denying that there are objective mistakes and flaws in the revised rules.
I didn't include the rest because it wasn't relevant. We don't need definitions of what Damage, Grapple, and Shove options are. We are talking about the creature using its body to do those things.
What you've cited is a general rule in the Player's Handbook. The rules of the game are also exception-based. Meaning, a general rule only applies so long as nothing more specific contradicts it. The Tavern Brawler feat grants an exception which allows an Unarmed Strike to also, once per turn, Push a target. That doesn't mean an Unarmed Strike stops being an Unarmed Strike because it can check off two bullets. If you were to order mashed potatoes with gravy as a side dish at a restaurant, you'd still be eating mashed potatoes. The gravy wouldn't transubstantiate the side into something else.
Every creature making a Melee Attack Roll is either using something it's wielding, like a weapon, or part of its body to make that Opportunity Attack. It simply doesn't matter if there's another sentence with an addendum; whether that creature is a Tough Boss or Wolf. Just as an attack with a weapon can have an unspecified Trait or Weapon Mastery applied, an Unarmed Strike can have a rider effect and still be an Unarmed Strike.
Heck their argument would indicate that if you had the tavern brawler feat while doing an attack of opportunity you would only do strength mod damage and not 1d4+str mod. As because its not on that list its not a true unarmed strike.
Heck their argument would indicate that if you had the tavern brawler feat while doing an attack of opportunity you would only do strength mod damage and not 1d4+str mod. As because its not on that list its not a true unarmed strike.
Yeah it'd be great if the rules made the distinction and classified claw, bite, slam, etc as unarmed attacks. And that similar to monks, they simply have a feature that let's them use unarmed attacks in a new or special way.
But unfortunately for everyone, they didn't write the rules like that.
Rule clarity would be nice in any system. There are countless parts in 2014 and 2024 where they dropped the ball in how they worded things. But they did classify claws, bites, slams etc as unarmed attacks. "In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you."
You're drawing a conclusion from that text that the text doesn't actually say, unfortunately. This is saying that an unarmed attack can be made with any body parts. NOT that an attack made by a body part is necessarily an unarmed attack.
This is one of those classic all dogs are mammals but not every mammal is a dog, situations.
Being able to make an unarmed attack with whatever descriptive narrative body parts you want doesn't turn Claw attacks into an unarmed attack.
Unarmed attacks have mechanics. And these mechanics differ from just about every single monster statblock's natural weapons type attacks.
And, absent some feature that modifies the default unarmed attacks, it is impossible to say that these attacks are the same as unarmed attacks. Because a cursory glance at them shows that they resolve totally differently to unarmed attacks.
Again they tell you this is in game terms, it is not a fluff sentence, its a rule. That being said it obviously would be clearer if slams etc said something like slam(unarmed strike) or heck just say it once at the beginning of the monster manual when they are breaking down stat blocks.
It would be clearer if the monsters had something like a feature Slam - Your unarmed attacks deal 2d8 damage. And then in their attacks had a Slam attack that was classified as an unarmed strike that dealt 2d8.
But they didn't write the rules like that. So. That's not how the rules work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
RAW, you would be correct. But let's be honest, RAW and RAI almost never align.
Monsters are supposed to be able to make attacks of opprotunity. That's RAI.
But they can't, which is RAW.
They can make opportunity attacks. But only with weapons, or with an unarmed attack. Which would do 1 + str damage. Because they lack features to modify their unarmed attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A Reaction is a special action taken in response to a trigger defined in the Reaction’s description. You can take a Reaction on another creature’s turn, and if you take it on your turn, you can do so even if you also take an action, a Bonus Action, or both. Once you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn. The Opportunity Attack is a Reaction available to all creatures.See also “Opportunity Attacks” and chapter 1 (“Actions”).
You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Emphasis added for effect.
The simplest way to read all of this is any creature with a "Melee Attack Roll" in its stat block can use that for an Opportunity Attack. This really isn't a question for things like a Bite or Claw because they're, say it with me, the creature using their body to damage, grapple, or shove the target. And with basically everything else, they're attacking with a weapon of some kind. It might have something extra, like the Druid's Vine Staff, or be made of something intangible; like a Balor harnessing raw elemental power for their Flame Whip and Lightning Blade. Even something with a name completely devoid of any identifying markers, such as a Vampire Umbral Lord's Grave Strike, can be whatever the DM says. That particular action deals Slashing damage, so whether the undeader is attacking with something reminiscent of a claw or a blade doesn't ultimately matter because it fits the criteria either way.
Because you deliberately left out the part of the definition of "Unarmed Strike" that contradicts what you're trying to claim.
Here is the full definition with important text bolded:
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect.
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you.
An Unarmed Strike is one of the three options listed there. If an attack does anything except what is listed there, unless you have a rule that specifically affects Unarmed Strikes, then it is not an Unarmed Strike.
If a wolf uses its teeth to deal 3 bludgeoning damage, that is an Unarmed Strike. If a wolf uses its teeth to deal 1d6+2 piercing damage and auto-prone your 24-Strength raging Barbarian, that is NOT an Unarmed Strike.
The rules are written as they are. The 2014 rules were written perfectly fine and did not create this confusion. The 2024 rules have this issue because of poor editing, and no amount of circular logic or just lies by omission changes that fact. There is no reason to be so personally invested in denying that there are objective mistakes and flaws in the revised rules.
I didn't include the rest because it wasn't relevant. We don't need definitions of what Damage, Grapple, and Shove options are. We are talking about the creature using its body to do those things.
What you've cited is a general rule in the Player's Handbook. The rules of the game are also exception-based. Meaning, a general rule only applies so long as nothing more specific contradicts it. The Tavern Brawler feat grants an exception which allows an Unarmed Strike to also, once per turn, Push a target. That doesn't mean an Unarmed Strike stops being an Unarmed Strike because it can check off two bullets. If you were to order mashed potatoes with gravy as a side dish at a restaurant, you'd still be eating mashed potatoes. The gravy wouldn't transubstantiate the side into something else.
Every creature making a Melee Attack Roll is either using something it's wielding, like a weapon, or part of its body to make that Opportunity Attack. It simply doesn't matter if there's another sentence with an addendum; whether that creature is a Tough Boss or Wolf. Just as an attack with a weapon can have an unspecified Trait or Weapon Mastery applied, an Unarmed Strike can have a rider effect and still be an Unarmed Strike.
It is entirely relevant, because those rules say specifically what an Unarmed Strike is.
If you have Tavern Brawler, that is a feat that specifically affects your Unarmed Strike. It is not the same thing as claiming an attack that doesn't fall into one of the listed types of Unarmed Strike is in fact an Unarmed Strike, just because you say it is.
You have no understanding of the rules you're trying to defend, from a company that released a half-baked product trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It doesn't make you a stupid person to acknowledge that there is a clear mistake here. It doesn't make you less of a person to admit the error. There is literally no one paying you to rabidly defend WotC in spite of objective reality.
Yeah. Absent a feature, that modifies how unarmed attacks are to work, it cannot be said that creature attacks - which DONT work like unarmed attacks do - can be said to be unarmed attacks with no justification for that declaration.
Some character species options modify unarmed attacks. Some class features do. Some feats do. All sorts of ways to modify the functionality of an unarmed attack to be better than 1 + str.
But the unavoidable fact is creatures lack said features. They're just not in their stat blocks. So their use of unarmed attacks is the default unarmed attack rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I didn't include the rest because it wasn't relevant. We don't need definitions of what Damage, Grapple, and Shove options are. We are talking about the creature using its body to do those things.
What you've cited is a general rule in the Player's Handbook. The rules of the game are also exception-based. Meaning, a general rule only applies so long as nothing more specific contradicts it. The Tavern Brawler feat grants an exception which allows an Unarmed Strike to also, once per turn, Push a target. That doesn't mean an Unarmed Strike stops being an Unarmed Strike because it can check off two bullets. If you were to order mashed potatoes with gravy as a side dish at a restaurant, you'd still be eating mashed potatoes. The gravy wouldn't transubstantiate the side into something else.
Every creature making a Melee Attack Roll is either using something it's wielding, like a weapon, or part of its body to make that Opportunity Attack. It simply doesn't matter if there's another sentence with an addendum; whether that creature is a Tough Boss or Wolf. Just as an attack with a weapon can have an unspecified Trait or Weapon Mastery applied, an Unarmed Strike can have a rider effect and still be an Unarmed Strike.
It is entirely relevant, because those rules say specifically what an Unarmed Strike is.
If you have Tavern Brawler, that is a feat that specifically affects your Unarmed Strike. It is not the same thing as claiming an attack that doesn't fall into one of the listed types of Unarmed Strike is in fact an Unarmed Strike, just because you say it is.
You have no understanding of the rules you're trying to defend, from a company that released a half-baked product trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It doesn't make you a stupid person to acknowledge that there is a clear mistake here. It doesn't make you less of a person to admit the error. There is literally no one paying you to rabidly defend WotC in spite of objective reality.
Tone down the rhetoric, sport. This isn't rocket science. I just think people need to actually read the Rules Glossary before complaining about something that is fairly straightforward.
An Unarmed Strike is, "a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you." It doesn't matter which option they choose, and it doesn't matter if one of those options also includes a secondary effect. Even the names of some of these attacks employ artistic license. The Air Elemental has a Thunderous Slam, and "slam" can be either a noun or verb. We're talking about something made of air, yet is still solid enough that something solid, like a weapon, can harm it. As far as any reasonable person should be concerned, such an attack is a part of the elemental's body.
The only alternative is a mythical third rail that isn't implied anywhere in the rules. You'd literally have to invent that out of whole cloth. It takes effort to be that obtuse.
Yeah. Absent a feature, that modifies how unarmed attacks are to work, it cannot be said that creature attacks - which DONT work like unarmed attacks do - can be said to be unarmed attacks with no justification for that declaration.
Some character species options modify unarmed attacks. Some class features do. Some feats do. All sorts of ways to modify the functionality of an unarmed attack to be better than 1 + str.
But the unavoidable fact is creatures lack said features. They're just not in their stat blocks. So their use of unarmed attacks is the default unarmed attack rules.
This might seem controversial, but an Unarmed Strike doesn't need to be labeled an Unarmed Strike in order to be an Unarmed Strike. The Allosaurus has a Bite attack, as does the Dire Wolf, but only the latter has one with a rider effect.
Is labeling both those an Unarmed Strike honestly a bridge too far?
Is someone seriously trying to suggest something can't be an Unarmed Strike if it does A+B?
This might seem controversial, but an Unarmed Strike doesn't need to be labeled an Unarmed Strike in order to be an Unarmed Strike. The Allosaurus has a Bite attack, as does the Dire Wolf, but only the latter has one with a rider effect.
Is labeling both those an Unarmed Strike honestly a bridge too far?
It's absolutely reasonable... as a house rule. However, unarmed strike has specific defined mechanics, and neither ability matches those mechanics.
While you can make a technical argument about this, I feel like the hair is being split so thin on this one that I question whether they will even bother making an errata entry about it.
They won't, because it doesn't need one
Do you really think any of the people in this thread claiming it's "RAW" that monsters can't make opportunity attacks with their claws or whatever will actually play that way at their tables?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
WoTC has let go of terms natural weapons and melee/ranged weapon attack in favor of melee/ranged attack with a weapon, claw, bite or other body parts.
In game terms, an Unarmed Strike is a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
In game terms, an Unarmed Strike is a melee attack that involves Wolf using Bite to damage.
From there RAW interpretation seems to differ despite practical usage concensus.
I have a different interpretation of the rules, to me you make the Opportunity Attacks by taking a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike, which may include makeshift weapon when object is used as Improvised Weapons.
Same for when taking the Attack action. If not, when can you use such makeshift weapon?
It is not a nonsequitor. Either unarmed strikes just do 1 damage and a monks unarmed strikes aren't really unarmed strikes or they can be something else and the 1 damage thing is for people and creatures without special abelites or claws. As for the rule its the one we have quoted at you 1000 time now. "In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you." They are literally saying this is not fluff text, this is a rule, its an attack that uses your body that's the rule, not fluff text. They are being incredibly explicit by saying IN GAME TERMS.
I don't see why this is so complicated.
Reaction
Opportunity Attacks
Unarmed Strike
Emphasis added for effect.
The simplest way to read all of this is any creature with a "Melee Attack Roll" in its stat block can use that for an Opportunity Attack. This really isn't a question for things like a Bite or Claw because they're, say it with me, the creature using their body to damage, grapple, or shove the target. And with basically everything else, they're attacking with a weapon of some kind. It might have something extra, like the Druid's Vine Staff, or be made of something intangible; like a Balor harnessing raw elemental power for their Flame Whip and Lightning Blade. Even something with a name completely devoid of any identifying markers, such as a Vampire Umbral Lord's Grave Strike, can be whatever the DM says. That particular action deals Slashing damage, so whether the undeader is attacking with something reminiscent of a claw or a blade doesn't ultimately matter because it fits the criteria either way.
Thank you for showing how simple this is. I wanted to intervene but wasn't sure what exactly to say. Summed it up perfectly.
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
Click here!
Please tell me what you think!
It shouldn't be.
Thanks for your explanations. I agree.
What used to be Natural Weapons now being labeled as Unarmed Strikes makes the most sense to me. Not only does a bite or claw attack easily slot into the given definition of an Unarmed Strike, the alternative is to have those sorts of attacks fall into an unnamed category that doesn't interact with any other rules in the game. That is a fairly big annoyance for the monsters themselves as it creates the Attack of Opportunity wonkiness discussed in this thread. It also means there's no way to build around Wildshape or Polymorph the way you can for weapon users and punchmasters because feats and magic items almost all interact with either Weapon Attacks or Unarmed Strikes. Probably because the rules intended that all melee attacks fall under one of those two main categories.
Yeah it'd be great if the rules made the distinction and classified claw, bite, slam, etc as unarmed attacks. And that similar to monks, they simply have a feature that let's them use unarmed attacks in a new or special way.
But unfortunately for everyone, they didn't write the rules like that.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Rule clarity would be nice in any system. There are countless parts in 2014 and 2024 where they dropped the ball in how they worded things. But they did classify claws, bites, slams etc as unarmed attacks. "In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you." Again they tell you this is in game terms, it is not a fluff sentence, its a rule. That being said it obviously would be clearer if slams etc said something like slam(unarmed strike) or heck just say it once at the beginning of the monster manual when they are breaking down stat blocks.
RAW, you would be correct. But let's be honest, RAW and RAI almost never align.
Monsters are supposed to be able to make attacks of opprotunity. That's RAI.
But they can't, which is RAW.
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
Click here!
Please tell me what you think!
I didn't include the rest because it wasn't relevant. We don't need definitions of what Damage, Grapple, and Shove options are. We are talking about the creature using its body to do those things.
What you've cited is a general rule in the Player's Handbook. The rules of the game are also exception-based. Meaning, a general rule only applies so long as nothing more specific contradicts it. The Tavern Brawler feat grants an exception which allows an Unarmed Strike to also, once per turn, Push a target. That doesn't mean an Unarmed Strike stops being an Unarmed Strike because it can check off two bullets. If you were to order mashed potatoes with gravy as a side dish at a restaurant, you'd still be eating mashed potatoes. The gravy wouldn't transubstantiate the side into something else.
Every creature making a Melee Attack Roll is either using something it's wielding, like a weapon, or part of its body to make that Opportunity Attack. It simply doesn't matter if there's another sentence with an addendum; whether that creature is a Tough Boss or Wolf. Just as an attack with a weapon can have an unspecified Trait or Weapon Mastery applied, an Unarmed Strike can have a rider effect and still be an Unarmed Strike.
While you can make a technical argument about this, I feel like the hair is being split so thin on this one that I question whether they will even bother making an errata entry about it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Heck their argument would indicate that if you had the tavern brawler feat while doing an attack of opportunity you would only do strength mod damage and not 1d4+str mod. As because its not on that list its not a true unarmed strike.
I have seen this argument made.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You're drawing a conclusion from that text that the text doesn't actually say, unfortunately. This is saying that an unarmed attack can be made with any body parts. NOT that an attack made by a body part is necessarily an unarmed attack.
This is one of those classic all dogs are mammals but not every mammal is a dog, situations.
Being able to make an unarmed attack with whatever descriptive narrative body parts you want doesn't turn Claw attacks into an unarmed attack.
Unarmed attacks have mechanics. And these mechanics differ from just about every single monster statblock's natural weapons type attacks.
And, absent some feature that modifies the default unarmed attacks, it is impossible to say that these attacks are the same as unarmed attacks. Because a cursory glance at them shows that they resolve totally differently to unarmed attacks.
It would be clearer if the monsters had something like a feature Slam - Your unarmed attacks deal 2d8 damage. And then in their attacks had a Slam attack that was classified as an unarmed strike that dealt 2d8.
But they didn't write the rules like that. So. That's not how the rules work.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
They can make opportunity attacks. But only with weapons, or with an unarmed attack. Which would do 1 + str damage. Because they lack features to modify their unarmed attacks.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yeah. Absent a feature, that modifies how unarmed attacks are to work, it cannot be said that creature attacks - which DONT work like unarmed attacks do - can be said to be unarmed attacks with no justification for that declaration.
Some character species options modify unarmed attacks. Some class features do. Some feats do. All sorts of ways to modify the functionality of an unarmed attack to be better than 1 + str.
But the unavoidable fact is creatures lack said features. They're just not in their stat blocks. So their use of unarmed attacks is the default unarmed attack rules.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Tone down the rhetoric, sport. This isn't rocket science. I just think people need to actually read the Rules Glossary before complaining about something that is fairly straightforward.
An Unarmed Strike is, "a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you." It doesn't matter which option they choose, and it doesn't matter if one of those options also includes a secondary effect. Even the names of some of these attacks employ artistic license. The Air Elemental has a Thunderous Slam, and "slam" can be either a noun or verb. We're talking about something made of air, yet is still solid enough that something solid, like a weapon, can harm it. As far as any reasonable person should be concerned, such an attack is a part of the elemental's body.
The only alternative is a mythical third rail that isn't implied anywhere in the rules. You'd literally have to invent that out of whole cloth. It takes effort to be that obtuse.
This might seem controversial, but an Unarmed Strike doesn't need to be labeled an Unarmed Strike in order to be an Unarmed Strike. The Allosaurus has a Bite attack, as does the Dire Wolf, but only the latter has one with a rider effect.
Is labeling both those an Unarmed Strike honestly a bridge too far?
Is someone seriously trying to suggest something can't be an Unarmed Strike if it does A+B?
Come on, folks.
It's absolutely reasonable... as a house rule. However, unarmed strike has specific defined mechanics, and neither ability matches those mechanics.
They won't, because it doesn't need one
Do you really think any of the people in this thread claiming it's "RAW" that monsters can't make opportunity attacks with their claws or whatever will actually play that way at their tables?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)