I get the argument, but I don't see how someone could accidentally find what they believe to be a loophole. No offense, but you would have to SEARCH for stuff like this.
Yes. To find sage advice rulings, you have to search sage advice. A daunting task, taking on the order of minutes to complete.
Not what I meant, I was talking about how one could could even imagine this loophole. Who wakes up one day and remembers the exact wording of opportunity attacks, along with the specific wording of multiple monster stat blocks? Although I would like it if we stopped and just agreed to disagree. I HOPE YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY!
I get the argument, but I don't see how someone could accidentally find what they believe to be a loophole. No offense, but you would have to SEARCH for stuff like this.
Yes. To find sage advice rulings, you have to search sage advice. A daunting task, taking on the order of minutes to complete.
Not what I meant, I was talking about how one could could even imagine this loophole. Who wakes up one day and remembers the exact wording of opportunity attacks, along with the specific wording of multiple monster stat blocks? Although I would like it if we stopped and just agreed to disagree. I HOPE YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY!
I find loopholes all the time while just reading the rules normally while remembering all the stuff I've already read at the same time. No searching required.
What actions can monsters use to make opportunity attacks? Are Multiattack and breath weapon actions allowed?
A monster follows the normal opportunity attack rules, which specify that an attack of opportunity is one melee attack. That means a monster must choose a single melee attack to make, either an attack in its stat block or a generic attack, like an unarmed strike. Multiattack doesn’t qualify, not only because it’s more than one attack, but also because the rule on Multiattack (MM , "Multiattack") states that this action can’t be used for opportunity attacks. An action, such as a breath weapon, that doesn’t include an attack roll is also not eligible.
That means bites, claws, tail swipes, ETC ARE included as unarmed attacks. Period. That is RAW. As long as it is a Melee range attack. There is nothing from 2014 to the 2024 edition that would make this change either.
This is a bit of a non sequitor from the Quote you provided. It doesn't say anything of the sort. It even defines an unarmed attack as a generic attack. So, yeah, a lion or whatever, could make an opportunity attack, but it would be a generic unarmed attack because it lacks a weapon to attack with. That Quote says nothing to the contrary, if anything it supports the idea.
I'm not sure how the Player's Handbook definition of unarmed is excluding bites or claws, it seems a pretty broad description to be open to more:
Unarmed Strike
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.
Bold underline above mine. Claw, bite, tail, would fall under that.
And again it goes back to "or a generic attack" from Sage if they don't have a stat block ability.
I see where you're getting mixed up. See, you can make an unarmed attack(the type of attack) with your teeth. But that doesn't transform your unarmed attack into a bite attack. You could make an unarmed attack with your tail, but it doesn't transform it into a tail attack. You can make an unarmed attack with your horns but it doesn't turn it into a gore attack. Etc.
Ravnodaus was right, the question is what attacks can a monster or in addition a polymorphed or wild shaped character make as an AoO. Not whether they can.
I fall into the natural attacks are Unarmed Strikes crowd and hoped for more clarity in the MM24 bit didn't find it.
I was also hoping there was different wording so a monster can make an AoO using its natural weapons but the bonus action attack from monk would be the base unarmed strikes only, but the language seems the same.
I am hoping for more clarity in the future. Including natural attacks as unarmed strikes seems RAW and let's the moon druid scale with gear via the wraps rather than having no source of magic bonuses.
What actions can monsters use to make opportunity attacks? Are Multiattack and breath weapon actions allowed?
A monster follows the normal opportunity attack rules, which specify that an attack of opportunity is one melee attack. That means a monster must choose a single melee attack to make, either an attack in its stat block or a generic attack, like an unarmed strike. Multiattack doesn’t qualify, not only because it’s more than one attack, but also because the rule on Multiattack (MM , "Multiattack") states that this action can’t be used for opportunity attacks. An action, such as a breath weapon, that doesn’t include an attack roll is also not eligible.
That means bites, claws, tail swipes, ETC ARE included as unarmed attacks. Period. That is RAW. As long as it is a Melee range attack. There is nothing from 2014 to the 2024 edition that would make this change either.
This is a bit of a non sequitor from the Quote you provided. It doesn't say anything of the sort. It even defines an unarmed attack as a generic attack. So, yeah, a lion or whatever, could make an opportunity attack, but it would be a generic unarmed attack because it lacks a weapon to attack with. That Quote says nothing to the contrary, if anything it supports the idea.
I'm not sure how the Player's Handbook definition of unarmed is excluding bites or claws, it seems a pretty broad description to be open to more:
Unarmed Strike
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.
Bold underline above mine. Claw, bite, tail, would fall under that.
And again it goes back to "or a generic attack" from Sage if they don't have a stat block ability.
I see where you're getting mixed up. See, you can make an unarmed attack(the type of attack) with your teeth. But that doesn't transform your unarmed attack into a bite attack. You could make an unarmed attack with your tail, but it doesn't transform it into a tail attack. You can make an unarmed attack with your horns but it doesn't turn it into a gore attack. Etc.
"either an attack in its stat block or a generic attack" which would be their defined, bite, claw, tail, etc... excluding specifically the multi-attack. If none of those would be included there is no need to specifically exclude their multi-attacks. Seems you are the only one getting mixed up.
The Sage question was literally directed at what types and defines it. So if a monster has a Claw attack in its stat block, or a bite, etc, that are melee range, they can use one of those for the opportunity attack. That is the RAW.
Ravnodaus was right, the question is what attacks can a monster or in addition a polymorphed or wild shaped character make as an AoO. Not whether they can.
I fall into the natural attacks are Unarmed Strikes crowd and hoped for more clarity in the MM24 bit didn't find it.
I was also hoping there was different wording so a monster can make an AoO using its natural weapons but the bonus action attack from monk would be the base unarmed strikes only, but the language seems the same.
I am hoping for more clarity in the future. Including natural attacks as unarmed strikes seems RAW and let's the moon druid scale with gear via the wraps rather than having no source of magic bonuses.
The terms natural weapon or natural attack are not defined in the 2024 core rulebooks.
The only reference to "Natural Weapon" I found is in Alter Self, where Unarmed Strikes are again mentioned in relation to monster body parts (emphasis mine):
Natural Weapons. You grow claws (Slashing), fangs (Piercing), horns (Piercing), or hooves (Bludgeoning). When you use your Unarmed Strike to deal damage with that new growth, it deals 1d6 damage of the type in parentheses instead of dealing the normal damage for your Unarmed Strike, and you use your spellcasting ability modifier for the attack and damage rolls rather than using Strength.
A melee attack allows you to attack a target within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon or an Unarmed Strike. Many monstersmake melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts. A few spells also involve melee attacks.
What actions can monsters use to make opportunity attacks? Are Multiattack and breath weapon actions allowed?
A monster follows the normal opportunity attack rules, which specify that an attack of opportunity is one melee attack. That means a monster must choose a single melee attack to make, either an attack in its stat block or a generic attack, like an unarmed strike. Multiattack doesn’t qualify, not only because it’s more than one attack, but also because the rule on Multiattack (MM , "Multiattack") states that this action can’t be used for opportunity attacks. An action, such as a breath weapon, that doesn’t include an attack roll is also not eligible.
That means bites, claws, tail swipes, ETC ARE included as unarmed attacks. Period. That is RAW. As long as it is a Melee range attack. There is nothing from 2014 to the 2024 edition that would make this change either.
This is a bit of a non sequitor from the Quote you provided. It doesn't say anything of the sort. It even defines an unarmed attack as a generic attack. So, yeah, a lion or whatever, could make an opportunity attack, but it would be a generic unarmed attack because it lacks a weapon to attack with. That Quote says nothing to the contrary, if anything it supports the idea.
I'm not sure how the Player's Handbook definition of unarmed is excluding bites or claws, it seems a pretty broad description to be open to more:
Unarmed Strike
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.
Bold underline above mine. Claw, bite, tail, would fall under that.
And again it goes back to "or a generic attack" from Sage if they don't have a stat block ability.
I see where you're getting mixed up. See, you can make an unarmed attack(the type of attack) with your teeth. But that doesn't transform your unarmed attack into a bite attack. You could make an unarmed attack with your tail, but it doesn't transform it into a tail attack. You can make an unarmed attack with your horns but it doesn't turn it into a gore attack. Etc.
"either an attack in its stat block or a generic attack" which would be their defined, bite, claw, tail, etc... excluding specifically the multi-attack.
It would be those if they were a weapon attack. Sure.
You know some monsters have weapons, right? Those that do can use them for opportunity attacks without any issue whatsoever.
The rule just requires it to be a weapon attack or an unarmed attack to be used for opportunity attacks.
If none of those would be included there is no need to specifically exclude their multi-attacks. Seems you are the only one getting mixed up.
Multiattack is the subject of that sage advice. Why would the specific subject of the question norlt be addressed in the sage advice???
Anyway. Like I said, some creatures have weapons. I think you just forgot about those.
The Sage question was literally directed at what types and defines it. So if a monster has a Claw attack in its stat block, or a bite, etc, that are melee range, they can use one of those for the opportunity attack. That is the RAW.
Nope. The sage advice at no point defines a claw attack as a weapon attack. That's just false. Sorry.
Ravnodaus was right, the question is what attacks can a monster or in addition a polymorphed or wild shaped character make as an AoO. Not whether they can.
I fall into the natural attacks are Unarmed Strikes crowd and hoped for more clarity in the MM24 bit didn't find it.
I was also hoping there was different wording so a monster can make an AoO using its natural weapons but the bonus action attack from monk would be the base unarmed strikes only, but the language seems the same.
I am hoping for more clarity in the future. Including natural attacks as unarmed strikes seems RAW and let's the moon druid scale with gear via the wraps rather than having no source of magic bonuses.
The terms natural weapon or natural attack are not defined in the 2024 core rulebooks.
The only reference to "Natural Weapon" I found is in Alter Self, where Unarmed Strikes are again mentioned in relation to monster body parts (emphasis mine):
Natural Weapons. You grow claws (Slashing), fangs (Piercing), horns (Piercing), or hooves (Bludgeoning). When you use your Unarmed Strike to deal damage with that new growth, it deals 1d6 damage of the type in parentheses instead of dealing the normal damage for your Unarmed Strike, and you use your spellcasting ability modifier for the attack and damage rolls rather than using Strength.
A melee attack allows you to attack a target within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon or an Unarmed Strike. Many monstersmake melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts. A few spells also involve melee attacks.
I mean, that's their point. 2024 rules seem to have forgotten to classify what those monster attacks classify as. They should just classify them as weapon attacks or as unarmed attacks in a black and white rules Blurb somewhere. Or even defines them as natural weapons with its own set of rules.
But it seems they forgot to any of the above. So thus the RAW gets wonky.
What actions can monsters use to make opportunity attacks? Are Multiattack and breath weapon actions allowed?
A monster follows the normal opportunity attack rules, which specify that an attack of opportunity is one melee attack. That means a monster must choose a single melee attack to make, either an attack in its stat block or a generic attack, like an unarmed strike. Multiattack doesn’t qualify, not only because it’s more than one attack, but also because the rule on Multiattack (MM , "Multiattack") states that this action can’t be used for opportunity attacks. An action, such as a breath weapon, that doesn’t include an attack roll is also not eligible.
That means bites, claws, tail swipes, ETC ARE included as unarmed attacks. Period. That is RAW. As long as it is a Melee range attack. There is nothing from 2014 to the 2024 edition that would make this change either.
This is a bit of a non sequitor from the Quote you provided. It doesn't say anything of the sort. It even defines an unarmed attack as a generic attack. So, yeah, a lion or whatever, could make an opportunity attack, but it would be a generic unarmed attack because it lacks a weapon to attack with. That Quote says nothing to the contrary, if anything it supports the idea.
I'm not sure how the Player's Handbook definition of unarmed is excluding bites or claws, it seems a pretty broad description to be open to more:
Unarmed Strike
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.
Bold underline above mine. Claw, bite, tail, would fall under that.
And again it goes back to "or a generic attack" from Sage if they don't have a stat block ability.
I see where you're getting mixed up. See, you can make an unarmed attack(the type of attack) with your teeth. But that doesn't transform your unarmed attack into a bite attack. You could make an unarmed attack with your tail, but it doesn't transform it into a tail attack. You can make an unarmed attack with your horns but it doesn't turn it into a gore attack. Etc.
"either an attack in its stat block or a generic attack" which would be their defined, bite, claw, tail, etc... excluding specifically the multi-attack.
It would be those if they were a weapon attack. Sure.
You know some monsters have weapons, right? Those that do can use them for opportunity attacks without any issue whatsoever.
The rule just requires it to be a weapon attack or an unarmed attack to be used for opportunity attacks.
If none of those would be included there is no need to specifically exclude their multi-attacks. Seems you are the only one getting mixed up.
Multiattack is the subject of that sage advice. Why would the specific subject of the question norlt be addressed in the sage advice???
Anyway. Like I said, some creatures have weapons. I think you just forgot about those.
The Sage question was literally directed at what types and defines it. So if a monster has a Claw attack in its stat block, or a bite, etc, that are melee range, they can use one of those for the opportunity attack. That is the RAW.
Nope. The sage advice at no point defines a claw attack as a weapon attack. That's just false. Sorry.
You do realize the stat blocks say Claw: Melee Weapon Attack. You don't know WTF you are talking about. It is literally in the stat blocks.
in 2014, in 2024 they dropped the weapon part. But it is definitionally a unarmed strike in 2024 which is defined as a attack using part of your body.
Its the exact same intent. They literally wrote in the stat blocks that they were weapon attacks in the 2014, does anyone seriously think that one word drop was intended as a rule change. No one serious should.
Its the exact same intent. They literally wrote in the stat blocks that they were weapon attacks in the 2014, does anyone seriously think that one word drop was intended as a rule change. No one serious should.
I don't think anyone does, people just like to argue RAW for the sake of arguing RAW.
I think it's important in this topic in particular to remind people that 5e is designed to be easy to play and somewhat intuitive. To that end, the game design is pretty clear. Monsters are supposed to be able to make opportunity attacks with the natural weapons they have, since there's no meaningful distinction between natural weapons and unarmed strikes on monster blocks.
Trying to say that "natural weapons aren't phrased exactly as unarmed strike" to justify saying no monsters can make an opportunity attack more than 1+Str in power is in bad faith, period.
I think it's important in this topic in particular to remind people that 5e is designed to be easy to play and somewhat intuitive. To that end, the game design is pretty clear. Monsters are supposed to be able to make opportunity attacks with the natural weapons they have, since there's no meaningful distinction between natural weapons and unarmed strikes on monster blocks.
Trying to say that "natural weapons aren't phrased exactly as unarmed strike" to justify saying no monsters can make an opportunity attack more than 1+Str in power is in bad faith, period.
5e was designed to be intuitive, yes—2014 5e.
You're citing a concept, "natural weapons", that doesn't even exist in 2024 5e. 2024 5e is the version of the game that took rules and wording from the original version of the game and changed them in a way that led to RAW issues like this. You can't claim "bad faith!" when people raise a perfectly valid issue with how the revised rules are written.
I think it's important in this topic in particular to remind people that 5e is designed to be easy to play and somewhat intuitive. To that end, the game design is pretty clear. Monsters are supposed to be able to make opportunity attacks with the natural weapons they have, since there's no meaningful distinction between natural weapons and unarmed strikes on monster blocks.
Trying to say that "natural weapons aren't phrased exactly as unarmed strike" to justify saying no monsters can make an opportunity attack more than 1+Str in power is in bad faith, period.
5e was designed to be intuitive, yes—2014 5e.
You're citing a concept, "natural weapons", that doesn't even exist in 2024 5e. 2024 5e is the version of the game that took rules and wording from the original version of the game and changed them in a way that led to RAW issues like this. You can't claim "bad faith!" when people raise a perfectly valid issue with how the revised rules are written.
Sure I can. The PHB has an entire paragraph dedicated to avoiding opportunity attacks. If monsters couldn't make them, that wouldn't be a thing. That's really all that's needed to point out that, yes, monsters absolutely can make opportunity attacks.
The concept of "natural weapons" not existing as a game term (which I wasn't using it as, but thanks for helping my argument here) only supports that such attacks count as unarmed strikes.
Sure I can. The PHB has an entire paragraph dedicated to avoiding opportunity attacks. If monsters couldn't make them, that wouldn't be a thing. That's really all that's needed to point out that, yes, monsters absolutely can make opportunity attacks.
The concept of "natural weapons" not existing as a game term (which I wasn't using it as, but thanks for helping my argument here) only supports that such attacks count as unarmed strikes.
Monsters can make opportunity attacks, sure. The problem is that 2024 5e changed the rule from "one melee attack" to "one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike", and then gave specific definitions to "weapon" and "Unarmed Strike".
Let's take a wolf, for instance. Is its Bite a weapon? No, because it is not an object in the Simple or Marital weapon categories. Is it an Unarmed Strike? As per the definition given by the Rules Glossary—you insisting a Bite constitutes an "Unarmed Strike" doesn't mean anything at all, what is written in the actual rules does—there are three types of Unarmed Strikes. It is not a "Damage" because it is not an attack roll that deals 1+STR damage. It is not a "Grapple" because it does not force a saving throw to avoid being grappled. It is also not a "Shove" for largely the same reason.
Therefore, a Bite is neither of the valid options for an opportunity attack. A wolf can paw at someone for 3 damage or try to push them over, but RAW they can't Bite as an opportunity attack. And RAW, 99% of monster actions aren't valid as an opportunity attack either for the same reasons as above. Natural weapon, or even just a weapon that isn't explicitly one a player themselves can use? RAW, it can't be used as an opportunity attack.
And this is almost certainly unintentional. The issue is that the designers changed the wording around attacks (abandoning the term "melee weapon attack" for "melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike", removing "natural weapons" as a concept) and didn't think through how this affected other rules. It's a clear and obvious flaw with the revision, and trying to blame customers for noticing the issue is simply defending a poor job in the designers' part.
First off, I don't think anyone including myself is posting in bad faith or being a troll. We are discussing the ramifications of a rule change in the new version.
Second, This is a new game with different rules. Old interpretations and advice don't apply. We need to look at the new rules, see how they changed and go from there.
So what do we know.
Natural attacks are not weapons.
Opportunity Attacks require a weapon or unarmed strike.
Unarmed strikes are defined as attacking with a body part.
Does this mean natural attacks = unarmed strikes?
Evidence against: Not specifically stated. Different from previous edition rules.
Evidence for: Questions Opportunity attack rules, Alter Self spell.
In my opinion I think natural attacks are Unarmed Strikes.
This allows rules consistency and characters that polymorph wild shape to scale with other classes by allowing the potential use of Wraps of Unarmed Power. Also allows potential builds using monk to work.
First off, I don't think anyone including myself is posting in bad faith or being a troll. We are discussing the ramifications of a rule change in the new version.
Second, This is a new game with different rules. Old interpretations and advice don't apply. We need to look at the new rules, see how they changed and go from there.
So what do we know.
Natural attacks are not weapons.
Opportunity Attacks require a weapon or unarmed strike.
Unarmed strikes are defined as attacking with a body part.
Does this mean natural attacks = unarmed strikes?
Evidence against: Not specifically stated. Different from previous edition rules.
Evidence for: Questions Opportunity attack rules, Alter Self spell.
In my opinion I think natural attacks are Unarmed Strikes.
This allows rules consistency and characters that polymorph wild shape to scale with other classes by allowing the potential use of Wraps of Unarmed Power. Also allows potential builds using monk to work.
Thx, and sorry for post #21. I realize now it was unnecessary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
First off, I don't think anyone including myself is posting in bad faith or being a troll. We are discussing the ramifications of a rule change in the new version.
Second, This is a new game with different rules. Old interpretations and advice don't apply. We need to look at the new rules, see how they changed and go from there.
So what do we know.
Natural attacks are not weapons.
Opportunity Attacks require a weapon or unarmed strike.
Unarmed strikes are defined as attacking with a body part.
Does this mean natural attacks = unarmed strikes?
Evidence against: Not specifically stated. Different from previous edition rules.
Evidence for: Questions Opportunity attack rules, Alter Self spell.
In my opinion I think natural attacks are Unarmed Strikes.
This allows rules consistency and characters that polymorph wild shape to scale with other classes by allowing the potential use of Wraps of Unarmed Power. Also allows potential builds using monk to work.
Good summary. And I'd run my games this way for sure. But the RAW is lacking to say natural weapons qualify as unarmed attacks.
What people are doing here is a categorical error. Eg. All brown dogs are dogs, but not all dogs are brown. So, yes, all unarmed attacks are made with the body, but not all attacks made with the body are unarmed.
Sure I can. The PHB has an entire paragraph dedicated to avoiding opportunity attacks. If monsters couldn't make them, that wouldn't be a thing. That's really all that's needed to point out that, yes, monsters absolutely can make opportunity attacks.
The concept of "natural weapons" not existing as a game term (which I wasn't using it as, but thanks for helping my argument here) only supports that such attacks count as unarmed strikes.
Monsters can make opportunity attacks, sure. The problem is that 2024 5e changed the rule from "one melee attack" to "one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike", and then gave specific definitions to "weapon" and "Unarmed Strike".
Let's take a wolf, for instance. Is its Bite a weapon? No, because it is not an object in the Simple or Marital weapon categories. Is it an Unarmed Strike? As per the definition given by the Rules Glossary—you insisting a Bite constitutes an "Unarmed Strike" doesn't mean anything at all, what is written in the actual rules does—there are three types of Unarmed Strikes. It is not a "Damage" because it is not an attack roll that deals 1+STR damage. It is not a "Grapple" because it does not force a saving throw to avoid being grappled. It is also not a "Shove" for largely the same reason.
Therefore, a Bite is neither of the valid options for an opportunity attack. A wolf can paw at someone for 3 damage or try to push them over, but RAW they can't Bite as an opportunity attack. And RAW, 99% of monster actions aren't valid as an opportunity attack either for the same reasons as above. Natural weapon, or even just a weapon that isn't explicitly one a player themselves can use? RAW, it can't be used as an opportunity attack.
And this is almost certainly unintentional. The issue is that the designers changed the wording around attacks (abandoning the term "melee weapon attack" for "melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike", removing "natural weapons" as a concept) and didn't think through how this affected other rules. It's a clear and obvious flaw with the revision, and trying to blame customers for noticing the issue is simply defending a poor job in the designers' part.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not what I meant, I was talking about how one could could even imagine this loophole. Who wakes up one day and remembers the exact wording of opportunity attacks, along with the specific wording of multiple monster stat blocks? Although I would like it if we stopped and just agreed to disagree. I HOPE YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY!
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
Click here!
Please tell me what you think!
I find loopholes all the time while just reading the rules normally while remembering all the stuff I've already read at the same time. No searching required.
I got quotes!
This is a bit of a non sequitor from the Quote you provided. It doesn't say anything of the sort. It even defines an unarmed attack as a generic attack. So, yeah, a lion or whatever, could make an opportunity attack, but it would be a generic unarmed attack because it lacks a weapon to attack with. That Quote says nothing to the contrary, if anything it supports the idea.
I see where you're getting mixed up. See, you can make an unarmed attack(the type of attack) with your teeth. But that doesn't transform your unarmed attack into a bite attack. You could make an unarmed attack with your tail, but it doesn't transform it into a tail attack. You can make an unarmed attack with your horns but it doesn't turn it into a gore attack. Etc.
I got quotes!
Thanks for all the replies and great discussion.
Ravnodaus was right, the question is what attacks can a monster or in addition a polymorphed or wild shaped character make as an AoO. Not whether they can.
I fall into the natural attacks are Unarmed Strikes crowd and hoped for more clarity in the MM24 bit didn't find it.
I was also hoping there was different wording so a monster can make an AoO using its natural weapons but the bonus action attack from monk would be the base unarmed strikes only, but the language seems the same.
I am hoping for more clarity in the future. Including natural attacks as unarmed strikes seems RAW and let's the moon druid scale with gear via the wraps rather than having no source of magic bonuses.
"either an attack in its stat block or a generic attack" which would be their defined, bite, claw, tail, etc... excluding specifically the multi-attack. If none of those would be included there is no need to specifically exclude their multi-attacks. Seems you are the only one getting mixed up.
The Sage question was literally directed at what types and defines it. So if a monster has a Claw attack in its stat block, or a bite, etc, that are melee range, they can use one of those for the opportunity attack. That is the RAW.
The terms natural weapon or natural attack are not defined in the 2024 core rulebooks.
The only reference to "Natural Weapon" I found is in Alter Self, where Unarmed Strikes are again mentioned in relation to monster body parts (emphasis mine):
---
Melee Attacks (emphasis mine):
It would be those if they were a weapon attack. Sure.
You know some monsters have weapons, right? Those that do can use them for opportunity attacks without any issue whatsoever.
The rule just requires it to be a weapon attack or an unarmed attack to be used for opportunity attacks.
Multiattack is the subject of that sage advice. Why would the specific subject of the question norlt be addressed in the sage advice???
Anyway. Like I said, some creatures have weapons. I think you just forgot about those.
Nope. The sage advice at no point defines a claw attack as a weapon attack. That's just false. Sorry.
I got quotes!
I mean, that's their point. 2024 rules seem to have forgotten to classify what those monster attacks classify as. They should just classify them as weapon attacks or as unarmed attacks in a black and white rules Blurb somewhere. Or even defines them as natural weapons with its own set of rules.
But it seems they forgot to any of the above. So thus the RAW gets wonky.
I got quotes!
@Ravnodaus I won't deny that an errata or updated rules/SAC would be very welcome.
in 2014, in 2024 they dropped the weapon part. But it is definitionally a unarmed strike in 2024 which is defined as a attack using part of your body.
Its the exact same intent. They literally wrote in the stat blocks that they were weapon attacks in the 2014, does anyone seriously think that one word drop was intended as a rule change. No one serious should.
I don't think anyone does, people just like to argue RAW for the sake of arguing RAW.
I think it's important in this topic in particular to remind people that 5e is designed to be easy to play and somewhat intuitive. To that end, the game design is pretty clear. Monsters are supposed to be able to make opportunity attacks with the natural weapons they have, since there's no meaningful distinction between natural weapons and unarmed strikes on monster blocks.
Trying to say that "natural weapons aren't phrased exactly as unarmed strike" to justify saying no monsters can make an opportunity attack more than 1+Str in power is in bad faith, period.
5e was designed to be intuitive, yes—2014 5e.
You're citing a concept, "natural weapons", that doesn't even exist in 2024 5e. 2024 5e is the version of the game that took rules and wording from the original version of the game and changed them in a way that led to RAW issues like this. You can't claim "bad faith!" when people raise a perfectly valid issue with how the revised rules are written.
Sure I can. The PHB has an entire paragraph dedicated to avoiding opportunity attacks. If monsters couldn't make them, that wouldn't be a thing. That's really all that's needed to point out that, yes, monsters absolutely can make opportunity attacks.
The concept of "natural weapons" not existing as a game term (which I wasn't using it as, but thanks for helping my argument here) only supports that such attacks count as unarmed strikes.
Monsters can make opportunity attacks, sure. The problem is that 2024 5e changed the rule from "one melee attack" to "one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike", and then gave specific definitions to "weapon" and "Unarmed Strike".
Let's take a wolf, for instance. Is its Bite a weapon? No, because it is not an object in the Simple or Marital weapon categories. Is it an Unarmed Strike? As per the definition given by the Rules Glossary—you insisting a Bite constitutes an "Unarmed Strike" doesn't mean anything at all, what is written in the actual rules does—there are three types of Unarmed Strikes. It is not a "Damage" because it is not an attack roll that deals 1+STR damage. It is not a "Grapple" because it does not force a saving throw to avoid being grappled. It is also not a "Shove" for largely the same reason.
Therefore, a Bite is neither of the valid options for an opportunity attack. A wolf can paw at someone for 3 damage or try to push them over, but RAW they can't Bite as an opportunity attack. And RAW, 99% of monster actions aren't valid as an opportunity attack either for the same reasons as above. Natural weapon, or even just a weapon that isn't explicitly one a player themselves can use? RAW, it can't be used as an opportunity attack.
And this is almost certainly unintentional. The issue is that the designers changed the wording around attacks (abandoning the term "melee weapon attack" for "melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike", removing "natural weapons" as a concept) and didn't think through how this affected other rules. It's a clear and obvious flaw with the revision, and trying to blame customers for noticing the issue is simply defending a poor job in the designers' part.
First off, I don't think anyone including myself is posting in bad faith or being a troll. We are discussing the ramifications of a rule change in the new version.
Second, This is a new game with different rules. Old interpretations and advice don't apply. We need to look at the new rules, see how they changed and go from there.
So what do we know.
Natural attacks are not weapons.
Opportunity Attacks require a weapon or unarmed strike.
Unarmed strikes are defined as attacking with a body part.
Does this mean natural attacks = unarmed strikes?
Evidence against: Not specifically stated. Different from previous edition rules.
Evidence for: Questions Opportunity attack rules, Alter Self spell.
In my opinion I think natural attacks are Unarmed Strikes.
This allows rules consistency and characters that polymorph wild shape to scale with other classes by allowing the potential use of Wraps of Unarmed Power. Also allows potential builds using monk to work.
Thx, and sorry for post #21. I realize now it was unnecessary.
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
Click here!
Please tell me what you think!
Good summary. And I'd run my games this way for sure. But the RAW is lacking to say natural weapons qualify as unarmed attacks.
What people are doing here is a categorical error. Eg. All brown dogs are dogs, but not all dogs are brown. So, yes, all unarmed attacks are made with the body, but not all attacks made with the body are unarmed.
I got quotes!
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.