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.
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.
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)
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?
Uh, yes. Making something up whole cloth and pretending the rules says it, is indeed a bridge too far.
Neither of those work like the unarmed attack mechanics work as described by the actual rules. So they're not unarmed attacks.
Is someone seriously trying to suggest something can't be an Unarmed Strike if it does A+B?
-Monsters have actions player characters can't take, per the Monster Manual
-Monster attacks aren't even bound by the same damage dice as player characters when using weapons that are defined as able to be picked up, per the Monster Manual
-Every creature is explicitly stated to be able to make Opportunity Attacks, per the PHB
It would make absolutely no sense to state that monsters can't use their standard attacks as Opportunity Attacks. Anyone genuinely arguing for that stance doesn't know what they're talking about, and anyone arguing for it but actually using those as Opportunity Attacks anyway is just arguing to argue.
The easy, clean answer: Even if it isn't a weapon like players can equip, the attacks count as weapons or unarmed strikes. The riders show up differently because that's how monsters are designed, plain and simple.
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?
If you're asking my opinion, then no. I don't think they will. And I also don't think it's needed. Rules don't need to be logically unassailable from every conceivable angle. They just need to say what they do. And there's value in being concise, just like there is value in being comprehensive.
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?
You wind up with oddities with whether creatures are supposed to be able to make opportunity attacks (can a mage use arcane burst for an opportunity attack?), but I expect most people will just ignore RAW. However, "everyone has to house rule this because RAW is insane" is not good design.
Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body.
For the purpose of discussions in the Rules & Game Mechanics forum, SAC is considered RAW. That has been true since it was published, and the clarification I have received is that is still considered RAW for 2024 rules discussions.
Therefore, RAW, Monsters can make Attacks of Opportunity as long as their profile includes natural weapons, manufactured weapons, or unarmed strikes.
Edit: Additionally, to make an attack with its natural weapons, the monster must take the Attack which only allows attacks with weapons and unarmed strikes.
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?
You wind up with oddities with whether creatures are supposed to be able to make opportunity attacks (can a mage use arcane burst for an opportunity attack?), but I expect most people will just ignore RAW. However, "everyone has to house rule this because RAW is insane" is not good design.
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)
At worst, that makes it a rule that has not been replaced.
Monsters attack with the Attack which only allows weapon and unarmed strikes.
The Sage Advice Compendium ruling still stands as there is no contradiction with the 2024/2025 rules.
It's a rule that's been removed, not a rule that's been replaced.
Monsters attack with the actions in their stat block. There is an implication that multiattack is the attack action, but even if so, multiattack specifically permits using every ability in the multiattack, and that overrides the normal restrictions of the attack action.
No contradiction does not mean relevant. If SAC refers to a rule that doesn't exist in 2024, that particular components of SAC no longer has meaning.
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?
Uh, yes. Making something up whole cloth and pretending the rules says it, is indeed a bridge too far.
Neither of those work like the unarmed attack mechanics work as described by the actual rules. So they're not unarmed attacks.
Is someone seriously trying to suggest something can't be an Unarmed Strike if it does A+B?
Come on, folks.
A. It isn't called an unarmed strike.
B. It doesn't work like unarmed strike.
So yeah, A + B means it ain't an unarmed attack.
Explain, because I think the entire class would love to know how a bite isn't attacking with part of your body.
Monsters attack with the actions in their stat block. There is an implication that multiattack is the attack action, but even if so, multiattack specifically permits using every ability in the multiattack, and that overrides the normal restrictions of the attack action.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with opportunity attacks, which explicitly state that they consist of one (1) melee attack made as a Reaction
To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack
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)
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with opportunity attacks, which explicitly state that they consist of one (1) melee attack made as a Reaction
Um... that's not what opportunity attacks actually says (and if it did say that, you could use shocking grasp to make opportunity attacks without a feat).
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with opportunity attacks, which explicitly state that they consist of one (1) melee attack made as a Reaction
Um... that's not what opportunity attacks actually says (and if it did say that, you could use shocking grasp to make opportunity attacks without a feat).
You're the one dragging multiattack into this for no reason
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)
At worst, that makes it a rule that has not been replaced.
Monsters attack with the Attack which only allows weapon and unarmed strikes.
The Sage Advice Compendium ruling still stands as there is no contradiction with the 2024/2025 rules.
It's a rule that's been removed, not a rule that's been replaced.
Monsters attack with the actions in their stat block. There is an implication that multiattack is the attack action, but even if so, multiattack specifically permits using every ability in the multiattack, and that overrides the normal restrictions of the attack action.
No contradiction does not mean relevant. If SAC refers to a rule that doesn't exist in 2024, that particular components of SAC no longer has meaning.
The 2014 rules were explicit on what a natural weapon is. No longer being explicit is not the same as removing or replacing the rule.
Some creatures can make more than one attack when they take the Attack action. Such creatures have the Multiattack entry in the “Actions” section of their stat block. This entry details the attacks a creature can make, as well as any additional abilities it can use, as part of the Attack action.
You have to take the attack action for Multiattack to do anything.
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.
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.
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)
Uh, yes. Making something up whole cloth and pretending the rules says it, is indeed a bridge too far.
Neither of those work like the unarmed attack mechanics work as described by the actual rules. So they're not unarmed attacks.
A. It isn't called an unarmed strike.
B. It doesn't work like unarmed strike.
So yeah, A + B means it ain't an unarmed attack.
I'm probably laughing.
Why are y'all still on this?
-Monsters have actions player characters can't take, per the Monster Manual
-Monster attacks aren't even bound by the same damage dice as player characters when using weapons that are defined as able to be picked up, per the Monster Manual
-Every creature is explicitly stated to be able to make Opportunity Attacks, per the PHB
It would make absolutely no sense to state that monsters can't use their standard attacks as Opportunity Attacks. Anyone genuinely arguing for that stance doesn't know what they're talking about, and anyone arguing for it but actually using those as Opportunity Attacks anyway is just arguing to argue.
The easy, clean answer: Even if it isn't a weapon like players can equip, the attacks count as weapons or unarmed strikes. The riders show up differently because that's how monsters are designed, plain and simple.
If you're asking my opinion, then no. I don't think they will. And I also don't think it's needed. Rules don't need to be logically unassailable from every conceivable angle. They just need to say what they do. And there's value in being concise, just like there is value in being comprehensive.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You wind up with oddities with whether creatures are supposed to be able to make opportunity attacks (can a mage use arcane burst for an opportunity attack?), but I expect most people will just ignore RAW. However, "everyone has to house rule this because RAW is insane" is not good design.
Natural Weapons are Weapons and not Unarmed Strikes.
Sage Advice Compendium: Are natural weapons considered weapons?
Related: The SAC is still RAW for the 2024 rules.
Therefore, RAW, Monsters can make Attacks of Opportunity as long as their profile includes natural weapons, manufactured weapons, or unarmed strikes.
Edit: Additionally, to make an attack with its natural weapons, the monster must take the Attack which only allows attacks with weapons and unarmed strikes.
How to add Tooltips.
Which is irrelevant in 2024 since 'weapon attack' (natural or otherwise) is missing from creature stat blocks.
How to add Tooltips.
Yes, they can, and no, that's not "odd"
Would you prefer they use cone of cold?
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)
Explain, because I think the entire class would love to know how a bite isn't attacking with part of your body.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with opportunity attacks, which explicitly state that they consist of one (1) melee attack made as a Reaction
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)
Um... that's not what opportunity attacks actually says (and if it did say that, you could use shocking grasp to make opportunity attacks without a feat).
You're the one dragging multiattack into this for no reason
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)
I was addressing the assertion that monsters use the attack action.
The 2014 rules were explicit on what a natural weapon is. No longer being explicit is not the same as removing or replacing the rule.
Multiattack modifies the Attack action.
Multiattack
You have to take the attack action for Multiattack to do anything.
How to add Tooltips.