We have people arguing here that a Bite, Claw, and Tail aren't an Unarmed Strike, despite meeting all the requirements, for still unspecified reasons.
Because an unarmed strike has specific mechanics, and bite/claw/tail do not obey those mechanics. In 2014 they were specifically not unarmed strikes, but it could be the intent in 2024 is to override normal unarmed strike mechanics -- they just don't tell us that it does so.
Multiattack still requires taking the Attack action, and the aboleth makes two Tentacle attacks as part of its. Is there a single use of Multiattack in the Monster Manual which doesn't include an attack? Is there even a single creature that doesn't have a melee attack roll?
Yes. Beholder has no attacks in its multiattack (it does have a melee attack... but it's not a part of its multiattack).
We have people arguing here that a Bite, Claw, and Tail aren't an Unarmed Strike, despite meeting all the requirements, for still unspecified reasons.
Because an unarmed strike has specific mechanics, and bite/claw/tail do not obey those mechanics. In 2014 they were specifically not unarmed strikes, but it could be the intent in 2024 is to override normal unarmed strike mechanics -- they just don't tell us that it does so.
When there are two natural language interpretations of a phrase and one is functional and the other is not and is not consistent with all available sources of RAW, the resolution is clear.
There aren't two natural language interpretations. The arguments for why it's fine don't rely on natural language, they rely on logic errors.
Partly correct there is one natural language interpretation. The one that says a creatures strikes are unarmed strikes because they use parts of their body. That relies entirely on natural language, the arguments against it rely on it being logic errors.
Fixed.
It is a categorical error. I've already pointed that out a couple times now.
All dogs are mammals. But that doesn't mean all mammals are dogs.
All unarmed strikes(dogs) are made with body parts(mammals). But that doesn't mean all body parts(mammals) used to attack result in unarmed attacks(dogs).
Your entire argument relies on faulty logic.
Actually I don't agree with this. Logic says that an unarmed strike is defined as a forceful blow with the body as a melee attack. You are differentiating body parts but that is not part of the definition. If a monster makes a bite attack they are 1. making a forceful blow, 2. melee attack, 3. using their body. Therefore it is an unarmed attack. Furthermore, why would a human fist be an unarmed strike but an Ape fist not be? This is illogical.
This doesn't only apply to monsters. Moon Druids and anyone who uses Polymorph or Shapechange will fall under these rules. It is important because if a monster attack like a Moon Druids is defined as Unarmed Strike than they will scale with gear like all the other classes. Otherwise they are punished for their subclass choice.
The biggest problem with these rules is that they can lead to table variation. This is less of a concern when you can and should talk to your DM ahead of time about any questions such as these. I have run into these issues however at conventions when you don't have the same level of communication with your DM
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.
Changed my mind to some extent after reading the comments about monster attack actions/multi-attack and how monster attacks are described in the MM.
I still think that the rules in the MM should clarify that monster melee attacks listed in their stat block can be explicitly used for opportunity attacks since many of them are not obviously either weapons or unarmed strikes of any kind. However, the general description of the Attack action specifies an attack made with a weapon or unarmed strike and the MM does clarify that the monsters ARE taking the Attack action when making their attacks which would imply that all monster attacks should be considered as either weapon or Unarmed Strikes even if not explicitly fitting the definition of either.
There is a list of 3 options for what you can do with an unarmed strike, none of which correspond to what monsters actually do. Now, there could easily be an override that says "by the way, this monster can do X with an unarmed strike", or they could just change the definition of unarmed strike to have something like
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. A creature with a melee attack in its stat block that does not use a weapon or spell may use that ability instead.
If every creature is assumed to take the Attack to use its attack rolls, and Multiattack certainly states this is the case, the action itself requires attacks to be made with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. This means every attack roll in a creature's stat block must be one of these two things.
There are two errors with that logic:
There is no evidence that creatures are assumed to take the attack action to use attack rolls. In fact, actions in the stat block are specifically described as "A monster can take the actions in this section ortake one of the actions available to all creatures" (emphasis mine) -- indicating that the actions in the stat block, unless specifically noted otherwise, are not among the set of actions available to all creatures.
Even if that's true, the action only requires attacks to be made with a weapon or unarmed strike if not overridden by other text -- such as an action in its stat block.
There are two errors with that logic:
Despite its placement within the NPC stat block, the description for Multiattack pointedly states that monsters take the Attack action to use their attack roll(s).
The rules for the Attack action are unambiguous: When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Can an aboleth make an opportunity attack with Tentacle? That's a body part, not a weapon, but it clearly doesn't obey the rules for an unarmed strike.
Can an air elemental make an opportunity attack with Thunderous Slam? That's not even an identifiable body part, it's just the name of an action.
Can an ankheg make an opportunity attack with Bite? That's a verb, not a noun -- the body part would be something like Teeth.
Can a pixie make an opportunity attack with Faerie Dust? That resembles an object... but an object that would not normally be considered a weapon. Also, it appear to be Charisma-based attack, so it might be a Magic action.
Can a mage make an opportunity attack with Arcane Burst? That doesn't seem to be an object, and it seems to be an Int-based attack, so again, might be Magic.
They all count because the rules state they must be eligible. A creature that takes the Attack to use the melee attack roll(s) in its stat block is also capable of using the same rolls(s) for an Opportunity Attack, so long as they're limited to a single roll, because the only way to take the Attack action is to use a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
You're arguing backwards.
Just because they needs to be an Unarmed Strike or a weapon to use the default attack action... doesn't mean that they are.
I need to use a Magic Action to attack with my sword. (When casting true strike) but that doesn't force attacks with my sword to then necessarily be usable with magic actions just generally. That'd be the same kind of backwards logic.
The fact that attack actions are by default done with weapons or unarmed attacks doesn't then force all attacks in the game to be weapon or unarmed attacks. It just doesn't follow.
It also wouldn't answer which these attacks are, even if they must be one of the two... which of the two are they?
Is a Mage's arcane burst... a weapon, or an unarmed strike?
Obviously it is neither. But you get the point. Without the game rules telling us what they are... they're just only what they say they are.
If anything, this only highlights that some stat blocks are broken in a more severe way than just opportunity attacks. And some of their multiattack functions might not work right by raw, too.
I'm not working backwards. I'm using the Rules Glossary and Monster Manual to lay the path in front of me. The attack rolls in a monster's stat block don't say what kind of attack they are, beyond melee or ranged, just that they're attack rolls. A player might attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or make a spell attack; only we aren't talking about players. We're talking about monsters.
Multiattack specifically states it modifies the Attack action, allowing the monster to perform multiple attacks as prescribed. The Attack action specifies an attack must be made with a weapon or Unarmed Strike. This is unambiguous.
Right. But THEN it says that they ALSO have the actions listed in their statblocks IN ADDITION to the normal options.
You keep ignoring that part.
I'm not ignoring anything. Those other actions only matter if we're discussing those other actions, and we aren't. The rules are telling us that certain attacks are to be used as part of the Attack. Multiattack explicitly modified that action, so a Mage, for example, must take the Attack to use its Arcane Burst. That means, for all intents and purposes, Arcane Bust must be either a weapon attack or Unarmed Strike. There's nothing telling us to treat it differently, so we shouldn't.
You're literally arguing against the text of both the Player's Handbook (2024) the Monster Manual (2025).
Ergo, if an attack roll in a monster's stat block is included in its Multiattack, then it must be compatible with the Attack action. And since an attack made as an Opportunity Attack has the same critera as a melee attack made with the Attack, we know all melee attack rolls in a monster's stat block can be used for an Opportunity Attack.
It doesn't matter if we imagine it differently; because of a name, ability modifier, or whatever. The rules tell us how to treat them.
Nope.
I really don't like repeating myself, so I'm throwing down the gauntlet. I've been providing citations. You haven't.
It's past time you put up or stepped out.
The relevant text is exactly where I told you to read. The Monster Manual. Right in the beginning. To not know means you for sure haven't read the book. Which, explains some things.
This tells us that the actions it has listed are IN ADDITION to the normal options. So when it lists Arcane Burst as an Attack action in the stat block. That is IN ADDITION to the option all characters have of attacking with a weapon or an Unarmed strike.
'But Rav how can you be sure it means that?'
Idk, why not keep reading in this section how it explains this more?
> "This entry details the attacks a creature can make, as well as any additional abilities it can use, as part of the Attack action."
Really take a moment and read that for me. Read it.
It tells you in no uncertain terms that it is saying the creature CAN use it as part of the Attack action.
This is permission-granting language. It tells use they CAN do so.
So they can. Because it says they can. That's the reason they can. Because the INTRO to the monster manual takes time to explain how the monster stats work. If you read it.
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.
When there are two natural language interpretations of a phrase and one is functional and the other is not and is not consistent with all available sources of RAW, the resolution is clear.
There aren't two natural language interpretations. The arguments for why it's fine don't rely on natural language, they rely on logic errors.
Partly correct there is one natural language interpretation. The one that says a creatures strikes are unarmed strikes because they use parts of their body. That relies entirely on natural language, the arguments against it rely on it being logic errors.
Fixed.
It is a categorical error. I've already pointed that out a couple times now.
All dogs are mammals. But that doesn't mean all mammals are dogs.
All unarmed strikes(dogs) are made with body parts(mammals). But that doesn't mean all body parts(mammals) used to attack result in unarmed attacks(dogs).
Your entire argument relies on faulty logic.
Actually I don't agree with this. Logic says that an unarmed strike is defined as a forceful blow with the body as a melee attack. You are differentiating body parts but that is not part of the definition. If a monster makes a bite attack they are 1. making a forceful blow, 2. melee attack, 3. using their body. Therefore it is an unarmed attack. Furthermore, why would a human fist be an unarmed strike but an Ape fist not be? This is illogical.
This doesn't only apply to monsters. Moon Druids and anyone who uses Polymorph or Shapechange will fall under these rules. It is important because if a monster attack like a Moon Druids is defined as Unarmed Strike than they will scale with gear like all the other classes. Otherwise they are punished for their subclass choice.
The biggest problem with these rules is that they can lead to table variation. This is less of a concern when you can and should talk to your DM ahead of time about any questions such as these. I have run into these issues however at conventions when you don't have the same level of communication with your DM
Which body part is an Arcane Burst made with?
I kid. Obviously it's made with the 3rd eye.
But no, seriously. You're literally making the categorical error I just described. Just because the description of an unarmed attack is that it is a forceful attack with the body doesn't then mean all other attacks with a body part MUST be unarmed attacks. Re: dogs are mammals. Again.
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.
There is a list of 3 options for what you can do with an unarmed strike, none of which correspond to what monsters actually do. Now, there could easily be an override that says "by the way, this monster can do X with an unarmed strike", or they could just change the definition of unarmed strike to have something like
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. A creature with a melee attack in its stat block that does not use a weapon or spell may use that ability instead.
but they didn't.
That's the general rule governing players; for which there are exceptions. A "natural weapon" (to use 2014 parlance) is still a forceful blow made with a part of the body. It doesn't need to follow the same formula, and it's asinine that anyone would think so. The rules don't distinguish the sources of the attacks. Arcane Burst might be a "Melee or Ranged Spell Attack" in Mordenkainen Presents Monster's of the Multiverse, but it's simply a "Melee or Ranged Attack Roll" in the Monster Manual (2025). What we know is they work with Multiattack, which requires the Attack action. If we hold true to the Rules Glossary, then any attack roll as part of the Attack action should be assumed to be made with either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike unless otherwise explicitly stated. It doesn't matter if you think it should be something else. That's how the rules are telling us how to treat it.
We shouldn't ignore the other entries in the Rules Glossary simply because we think they're inconvenient, so why are you?
P.S. We're also told in the Monster Manual that, when looting Gear, we should treat weapons as their equivalent in the PH. Any additional damage or "flouishes" (e.g. the Warhammer of the Tough Boss) don't carry over. A "flourish" on a "natural weapon" should not disqualify it from being an Unarmed Strike.
I really don't like repeating myself, so I'm throwing down the gauntlet. I've been providing citations. You haven't.
It's past time you put up or stepped out.
The relevant text is exactly where I told you to read. The Monster Manual. Right in the beginning. To not know means you for sure haven't read the book. Which, explains some things.
This tells us that the actions it has listed are IN ADDITION to the normal options. So when it lists Arcane Burst as an Attack action in the stat block. That is IN ADDITION to the option all characters have of attacking with a weapon or an Unarmed strike.
'But Rav how can you be sure it means that?'
Idk, why not keep reading in this section how it explains this more?
> "This entry details the attacks a creature can make, as well as any additional abilities it can use, as part of the Attack action."
Really take a moment and read that for me. Read it.
It tells you in no uncertain terms that it is saying the creature CAN use it as part of the Attack action.
This is permission-granting language. It tells use they CAN do so.
So they can. Because it says they can. That's the reason they can. Because the INTRO to the monster manual takes time to explain how the monster stats work. If you read it.
So because something CAN be used as part of the Attack, and attack rolls performed with the Attack action are, by default, performed with a weapon or Unarmed Strike, we should logically treat all attack rolls as if they're either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Because we have nothing telling us to treat them differently.
Thanks for agreeing with me, though I wish you weren't so hostile about it.
Between the two of us, I think which one of us has actually read the rules is pretty clear.
But no, seriously. You're literally making the categorical error I just described. Just because the description of an unarmed attack is that it is a forceful attack with the body doesn't then mean all other attacks with a body part MUST be unarmed attacks. Re: dogs are mammals. Again.
It does, actually. The general rule governing Unarmed Strikes doesn't distinguish body parts. To put it in terms you might understand, not all Unarmed Strikes made by an Aarakocra deal 1d6 + Strength modifier Slashing damage. Just the ones that use its Talons.
Nobody is saying every Unarmed Strike by a monster deals 1 + Strength modifier Bludgeoning damage. We're saying some have Unarmed Strikes which deal damage beyond this base value.
And whether an Arcane Burst is made with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike is up to the DM to sort out. The rules don't say, and I don't think it particularly matters. We know it's usable as part of the Attack action, and...well, you know the rest.
That's the general rule governing players; for which there are exceptions.
The rules glossary is not the players rule glossary. There is no doubt that exceptions can be made. The problem is that we have no evidence that exceptions have been made.
So because something CAN be used as part of the Attack, and attack rolls performed with the Attack action are, by default, performed with a weapon or Unarmed Strike, we should logically treat all attack rolls as if they're either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Why do people have such trouble with the logic error of affirming the consequent? The fact that an ability can be used as part of the attack action tells you that the ability can be used as part of the attack action, nothing more.
That's the general rule governing players; for which there are exceptions.
The rules glossary is not the players rule glossary. There is no doubt that exceptions can be made. The problem is that we have no evidence that exceptions have been made.
So because something CAN be used as part of the Attack, and attack rolls performed with the Attack action are, by default, performed with a weapon or Unarmed Strike, we should logically treat all attack rolls as if they're either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Why do people have such trouble with the logic error of affirming the consequent? The fact that an ability can be used as part of the attack action tells you that the ability can be used as part of the attack action, nothing more.
You're assuming this is one. We aren't talking about a simple if-then. That action has concrete requirements.
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
This is a true statement unless an exception is given. And if we have no evidence that an exception has been made, then we must assume it's true.
An attack roll in a creature's stat block must be, for the purposes of the rules of the game, an attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
This is a true statement unless an exception is given.
There are two problems:
When a creature uses an action in its stat block other than multiattack, there is nothing stating it is using the attack action at all. The existence of the action in its stat block means it can perform the action, no permission is needed from any other rule.
When a creature uses multiattack, the multiattack text is an exception. Again, the existence of the action in the stat block means it can do anything specified in the action, no permission is needed from any other other rule.
Specifically Section 6; Actions is the first instance of the Monster Actions Exception that triggers this debate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
When there are two natural language interpretations of a phrase and one is functional and the other is not and is not consistent with all available sources of RAW, the resolution is clear.
There aren't two natural language interpretations. The arguments for why it's fine don't rely on natural language, they rely on logic errors.
Partly correct there is one natural language interpretation. The one that says a creatures strikes are unarmed strikes because they use parts of their body. That relies entirely on natural language, the arguments against it rely on it being logic errors.
Fixed.
It is a categorical error. I've already pointed that out a couple times now.
All dogs are mammals. But that doesn't mean all mammals are dogs.
All unarmed strikes(dogs) are made with body parts(mammals). But that doesn't mean all body parts(mammals) used to attack result in unarmed attacks(dogs).
Your entire argument relies on faulty logic.
No, I'm sorry yours is the one that relies on faulty logic.
This is a true statement unless an exception is given.
There are two problems:
When a creature uses an action in its stat block other than multiattack, there is nothing stating it is using the attack action at all.
When a creature uses multiattack, the multiattack text is an exception.
Then what the heck do you think this means?
Multiattack
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.
Do you think they just don't take the Attack action; based on the context clues here?
Do you think they just don't take the Attack action; based on the context clues here?
Um.. yes? There's no evidence that they're taking the attack action, and they don't need to.
Fundamentally, the way D&D rules are written is that you can perform an action if at least one rule permits it, and no rule forbids it.
The attack permits performing a melee or unarmed strike. It doesn't forbid other options, it just doesn't permit them either -- thus, to use something other than a weapon or unarmed strike when taking the attack action, something must permit you to do so. Examples of such permissions include dragonborn breath weapon and eldritch knight war magic. This does not make those actions weapon or unarmed strikes, it just means they can be used.
Each action in a monster's stat block is a permission for the monster to perform that action. Thus, a monster can use those actions (either as part of the attack action, or by itself) because it's listed in its stat block -- no other rule is required.
Specifically Section 6; Actions is the first instance of the Monster Actions Exception that triggers this debate.
People have been quoting from that area already. What specifically do you think is relevant to what point?
If I had to guess, that "Actions" is not a collection of actions that can be taken, but rather what options a monster has for its Action. As in Action, Bonus Action, and Reaction.
A dragon's breath weapon is an Action. Something with a melee or ranged attack roll is intended to be used with the Attack action.
We have people arguing here that a Bite, Claw, and Tail aren't an Unarmed Strike, despite meeting all the requirements, for still unspecified reasons.
Because an unarmed strike has specific mechanics, and bite/claw/tail do not obey those mechanics. In 2014 they were specifically not unarmed strikes, but it could be the intent in 2024 is to override normal unarmed strike mechanics -- they just don't tell us that it does so.
What mechanics do you think they don't obey?
This point. In reality 2014 started out with fist/bite/claw/tail/etc as unarmed attacks. Then an errata changed that in 2017, and in 2024-25 they changed it back to fist/bites/claws/tails/ and anything that can generate an Attack Roll( which now covers weapon, unarmed, and SPELL attack rolls), which by “War Caster Feat” can use melee reach spell attacks, defined in a monsters stat block - which are actions specific to the monster- as an action that can be used when making an attack of Opportunity. The entire point of this whole thread. In a nutshell, or straight-jacket, that’s the way it now works. 2024-25 Monster compatibility with 2014 Rules is difficult.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Because an unarmed strike has specific mechanics, and bite/claw/tail do not obey those mechanics. In 2014 they were specifically not unarmed strikes, but it could be the intent in 2024 is to override normal unarmed strike mechanics -- they just don't tell us that it does so.
Yes. Beholder has no attacks in its multiattack (it does have a melee attack... but it's not a part of its multiattack).
What mechanics do you think they don't obey?
Hey OP here,
Actually I don't agree with this. Logic says that an unarmed strike is defined as a forceful blow with the body as a melee attack. You are differentiating body parts but that is not part of the definition. If a monster makes a bite attack they are 1. making a forceful blow, 2. melee attack, 3. using their body. Therefore it is an unarmed attack. Furthermore, why would a human fist be an unarmed strike but an Ape fist not be? This is illogical.
This doesn't only apply to monsters. Moon Druids and anyone who uses Polymorph or Shapechange will fall under these rules. It is important because if a monster attack like a Moon Druids is defined as Unarmed Strike than they will scale with gear like all the other classes. Otherwise they are punished for their subclass choice.
The biggest problem with these rules is that they can lead to table variation. This is less of a concern when you can and should talk to your DM ahead of time about any questions such as these. I have run into these issues however at conventions when you don't have the same level of communication with your DM
Changed my mind to some extent after reading the comments about monster attack actions/multi-attack and how monster attacks are described in the MM.
I still think that the rules in the MM should clarify that monster melee attacks listed in their stat block can be explicitly used for opportunity attacks since many of them are not obviously either weapons or unarmed strikes of any kind. However, the general description of the Attack action specifies an attack made with a weapon or unarmed strike and the MM does clarify that the monsters ARE taking the Attack action when making their attacks which would imply that all monster attacks should be considered as either weapon or Unarmed Strikes even if not explicitly fitting the definition of either.
There is a list of 3 options for what you can do with an unarmed strike, none of which correspond to what monsters actually do. Now, there could easily be an override that says "by the way, this monster can do X with an unarmed strike", or they could just change the definition of unarmed strike to have something like
but they didn't.
The relevant text is exactly where I told you to read. The Monster Manual. Right in the beginning. To not know means you for sure haven't read the book. Which, explains some things.
Excerpt to help you:
> "A monster can take the actions in this section or take one of the actions available to all creatures, as described in the Player’s Handbook."
This tells us that the actions it has listed are IN ADDITION to the normal options. So when it lists Arcane Burst as an Attack action in the stat block. That is IN ADDITION to the option all characters have of attacking with a weapon or an Unarmed strike.
'But Rav how can you be sure it means that?'
Idk, why not keep reading in this section how it explains this more?
> "This entry details the attacks a creature can make, as well as any additional abilities it can use, as part of the Attack action."
Really take a moment and read that for me. Read it.
It tells you in no uncertain terms that it is saying the creature CAN use it as part of the Attack action.
This is permission-granting language. It tells use they CAN do so.
So they can. Because it says they can. That's the reason they can. Because the INTRO to the monster manual takes time to explain how the monster stats work. If you read it.
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.
Which body part is an Arcane Burst made with?
I kid. Obviously it's made with the 3rd eye.
But no, seriously. You're literally making the categorical error I just described. Just because the description of an unarmed attack is that it is a forceful attack with the body doesn't then mean all other attacks with a body part MUST be unarmed attacks. Re: dogs are mammals. Again.
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.
Except that is how unarmed attacks are defined.
That's the general rule governing players; for which there are exceptions. A "natural weapon" (to use 2014 parlance) is still a forceful blow made with a part of the body. It doesn't need to follow the same formula, and it's asinine that anyone would think so. The rules don't distinguish the sources of the attacks. Arcane Burst might be a "Melee or Ranged Spell Attack" in Mordenkainen Presents Monster's of the Multiverse, but it's simply a "Melee or Ranged Attack Roll" in the Monster Manual (2025). What we know is they work with Multiattack, which requires the Attack action. If we hold true to the Rules Glossary, then any attack roll as part of the Attack action should be assumed to be made with either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike unless otherwise explicitly stated. It doesn't matter if you think it should be something else. That's how the rules are telling us how to treat it.
We shouldn't ignore the other entries in the Rules Glossary simply because we think they're inconvenient, so why are you?
P.S.
We're also told in the Monster Manual that, when looting Gear, we should treat weapons as their equivalent in the PH. Any additional damage or "flouishes" (e.g. the Warhammer of the Tough Boss) don't carry over. A "flourish" on a "natural weapon" should not disqualify it from being an Unarmed Strike.
So because something CAN be used as part of the Attack, and attack rolls performed with the Attack action are, by default, performed with a weapon or Unarmed Strike, we should logically treat all attack rolls as if they're either a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Because we have nothing telling us to treat them differently.
Thanks for agreeing with me, though I wish you weren't so hostile about it.
Between the two of us, I think which one of us has actually read the rules is pretty clear.
It does, actually. The general rule governing Unarmed Strikes doesn't distinguish body parts. To put it in terms you might understand, not all Unarmed Strikes made by an Aarakocra deal 1d6 + Strength modifier Slashing damage. Just the ones that use its Talons.
Nobody is saying every Unarmed Strike by a monster deals 1 + Strength modifier Bludgeoning damage. We're saying some have Unarmed Strikes which deal damage beyond this base value.
And whether an Arcane Burst is made with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike is up to the DM to sort out. The rules don't say, and I don't think it particularly matters. We know it's usable as part of the Attack action, and...well, you know the rest.
The rules glossary is not the players rule glossary. There is no doubt that exceptions can be made. The problem is that we have no evidence that exceptions have been made.
Why do people have such trouble with the logic error of affirming the consequent? The fact that an ability can be used as part of the attack action tells you that the ability can be used as part of the attack action, nothing more.
You're assuming this is one. We aren't talking about a simple if-then. That action has concrete requirements.
This is a true statement unless an exception is given. And if we have no evidence that an exception has been made, then we must assume it's true.
An attack roll in a creature's stat block must be, for the purposes of the rules of the game, an attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
There are two problems:
If I can point out Free Rules: sources/dnd/free-rules/how-to-use-a-monster#StatBlockOverview
Specifically Section 6; Actions is the first instance of the Monster Actions Exception that triggers this debate.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
No, I'm sorry yours is the one that relies on faulty logic.
Then what the heck do you think this means?
Do you think they just don't take the Attack action; based on the context clues here?
People have been quoting from that area already. What specifically do you think is relevant to what point?
Um.. yes? There's no evidence that they're taking the attack action, and they don't need to.
Fundamentally, the way D&D rules are written is that you can perform an action if at least one rule permits it, and no rule forbids it.
The attack permits performing a melee or unarmed strike. It doesn't forbid other options, it just doesn't permit them either -- thus, to use something other than a weapon or unarmed strike when taking the attack action, something must permit you to do so. Examples of such permissions include dragonborn breath weapon and eldritch knight war magic. This does not make those actions weapon or unarmed strikes, it just means they can be used.
Each action in a monster's stat block is a permission for the monster to perform that action. Thus, a monster can use those actions (either as part of the attack action, or by itself) because it's listed in its stat block -- no other rule is required.
If I had to guess, that "Actions" is not a collection of actions that can be taken, but rather what options a monster has for its Action. As in Action, Bonus Action, and Reaction.
A dragon's breath weapon is an Action. Something with a melee or ranged attack roll is intended to be used with the Attack action.
This point. In reality 2014 started out with fist/bite/claw/tail/etc as unarmed attacks. Then an errata changed that in 2017, and in 2024-25 they changed it back to fist/bites/claws/tails/ and anything that can generate an Attack Roll( which now covers weapon, unarmed, and SPELL attack rolls), which by “War Caster Feat” can use melee reach spell attacks, defined in a monsters stat block - which are actions specific to the monster- as an action that can be used when making an attack of Opportunity.
The entire point of this whole thread.
In a nutshell, or straight-jacket, that’s the way it now works. 2024-25 Monster compatibility with 2014 Rules is difficult.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
That last sentence, right there. Thank you.
Hey! I make (what I believe to be, could use some feedback) good homebrew!
Click here!
Please tell me what you think!