I have a questions about the War Domain Cleric ability Avatar of Battle that I cannot find an official ruling on.
The ability states: "Avatar of Battle At 17th level, you gain resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons."
In the Monster Manual under Actions, it states, "Melee and Ranged Attacks:" The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike."
My questions is does Avatar of Battle include just actual weapons (sword, arrow, mace, etc,) or also monster natural weapons (Dragon claws, tail, etc,)?
I have a questions about the War Domain Cleric ability Avatar of Battle that I cannot find an official ruling on.
The ability states: "Avatar of Battle At 17th level, you gain resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons."
In the Monster Manual under Actions, it states, "Melee and Ranged Attacks:" The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike."
My questions is does Avatar of Battle include just actual weapons (sword, arrow, mace, etc,) or also monster natural weapons (Dragon claws, tail, etc,)?
That's... actually a really good question... If we're going off of straight RAW Natural Weapons do not count as weapons, and the feature isn't for resistance to damage "from nonmagical weaponattacks"... soo it would appear that AoB doesn't do anything to damage that isn't directly from a weapon. That's terrible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Not in 5e. Yes, it is incredibly stupid, but 5e strictly regards only objects that appear on the table of weapons (leaving room for homebrew gear) as an actual "weapon" for these kinds of purposes. :/
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Talon.Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 4 (1d4 + 2) slashing damage.
Actions of creatures say what type of attack they are. Even natural weapons (above is from the aarakocra stat block) mostly count as melee weapon attacks. I would say that the Cleric feature would work on anything from a stat block that calls itself a weapon attack and is non-magical, whether or not that thing uses something called a weapon in the equipment section of the PHB. The rules seem to use words in different senses in different places: a "weapon" sometimes seems to mean something that you have used to make a weapon attack with, and sometimes (at least, I think) to mean a thing listed on the table of weapons in the PHB.
Except unarmed strikes for Monks also count as melee weapon attacks - despite very much not being weapons. So just because it says "melee weapon attack" does not necessarily mean it's a weapon. From Sage Advice:
Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons? Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks, and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack. The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.
Yeah. Definitely the rules use "weapons" to mean "things that made/make a weapon attack" often. I'm not convinced that is always what they mean though.
I think the only real repercussions of letting “weapon” include unarmed strikes would be letting unarmed monks benefit from Dueling, Defensive Duelist, and Hex/Bladelock, Magic Weapon spell, this cleric feature... which they can mostly already do by holding a dagger or a chunk of wood. so it certainly falls under “probably not quite right but streamlined the rules so why not” for me.
"Weapon Attack" is not the same as "attack made with a weapon". A melee/ranged Weapon Attack can be made by things that are not weapons such as unarmed strikes & lots of spells/features, but a weapon is a distinct object. Natural Weapons can't be used for SCAG cantrips, and are invalid targets of enhancement spells like Magic Weapon. They aren't weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
There has been a few sage advice on this. Not on the cleric feature itself but there are 4 'types' of attack:
Melee weapon attacks, Ranged weapon attacks. Melee Spell attacks and Ranged spell attacks. Unless there is a specific exception, EVERY attack is of one of those 4. Even unarmed and natural attacks, at least regarding the 'type' of attack.
I think you can follow a pedantic interpretation of this feature or you can choose to make it make sense. I would choose to make it make sense: treat it as if it said "nonmagical attacks," instead of "nonmagical weapons" just like the monster feature that it attempts to emulate. That is a ruling rather than a rule, but it doesn't rely on taking a strict definition of "weapon" that the rules can't even seem to stick to.
It isn't that the rules are being inconsistent about what a "weapon" is so much, it's rather that "melee weapon attack" just means "melee attack that isn't a spell attack," not "melee attack made with a weapon," so the rules have introduced ambiguity by reusing vocabulary for distinct rule concepts. As usual, 5E would benefit from more granular language.
I don't think that Natural Weapons and Improvised Weapons are weapons because they are used to make Melee Weapon Attacks.... I think that they are weapons because their name says that they are weapons, and because Improvised Weapons appear under the Weapons heading in the PHB, and because the Monster Manual introduction explicitly says that Natural Weapons are "weapons", and because logically it just makes sense, and because treating things used as weapons as weapon is RAI and RAF to boot.
Melee and Ranged Attacks
The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the “weapon” might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player’s Handbook.
There are simply features that are written implying that "weapon" means a thing on the weapon tables (as Sigred points out, and I agree that his understanding works better in those places) and features that take the meaning that Chicken_Champ uses (and I agree that his meaning fits some features better). I think arguing that the same "weapon" rule applies to this feature as to others makes no sense other than from a pedantic point of view. I think you really do have to read the feature and decide for yourself whether "weapon" in each instance means "source of a weapon attack" or "thing on the weapon tables." Otherwise, if you want to stick to one of those two definitions for every rule, you're going to find some rules stop making sense, no matter which of the two definitions your sinking ship clings to.
I think you can follow a pedantic interpretation of this feature or you can choose to make it make sense. I would choose to make it make sense: treat it as if it said "nonmagical attacks," instead of "nonmagical weapons" just like the monster feature that it attempts to emulate. That is a ruling rather than a rule, but it doesn't rely on taking a strict definition of "weapon" that the rules can't even seem to stick to.
That's how I'd choose to run it as well. The issue is less about how wonky 5e is when it comes to being hyper-specific/generic with terminology (which is a huge issue, don't get me wrong) than it is with how features that rely on said terminology are handled. Are Natural Weapons not counting as weapons (object) an issue? No, not really. There are more overall valid reasons to keep the distinction than reasons not to. Is having a capstone feature being less effective than a level 1 Barbarian's Rage an issue? Hell yes, it is! Is having resistance to certain damage types also being broken down into damage only from certain sources of damage an issue? Hell yes, it is! If a creature is supposed to be less susceptible to certain damage types, the method in which that damage is delivered ought not matter.
"Resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from non-magical attacks", or even just "resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage" just makes far more sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Thanks for replies. My DM has ruled that this ability only implies to actual weapons, like a sword. What a weak capstone. Also Forge cleric resistance is similar but says "While wearing heavy armor, you have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical attacks."
I wish the developers were consistant with their terminology.
Thanks for replies. My DM has ruled that this ability only implies to actual weapons, like a sword. What a weak capstone. Also Forge cleric resistance is similar but says "While wearing heavy armor, you have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical attacks."
I wish the developers were consistant with their terminology.
We all wish the developers were better at writing rules.
Thanks for replies. My DM has ruled that this ability only implies to actual weapons, like a sword. What a weak capstone. Also Forge cleric resistance is similar but says "While wearing heavy armor, you have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical attacks."
I wish the developers were consistant with their terminology.
We all wish the developers were better at writing rules.
Same
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I have a questions about the War Domain Cleric ability Avatar of Battle that I cannot find an official ruling on.
The ability states: "Avatar of Battle At 17th level, you gain resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons."
In the Monster Manual under Actions, it states, "Melee and Ranged Attacks:" The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike."
My questions is does Avatar of Battle include just actual weapons (sword, arrow, mace, etc,) or also monster natural weapons (Dragon claws, tail, etc,)?
That's... actually a really good question... If we're going off of straight RAW Natural Weapons do not count as weapons, and the feature isn't for resistance to damage "from nonmagical weapon attacks"... soo it would appear that AoB doesn't do anything to damage that isn't directly from a weapon. That's terrible.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Natural weapons aren't weapons?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Not in 5e. Yes, it is incredibly stupid, but 5e strictly regards only objects that appear on the table of weapons (leaving room for homebrew gear) as an actual "weapon" for these kinds of purposes. :/
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Natural Weapons are weapons (as are Improvised Weapons). Unarmed Strikes, however, are not.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I have to agree with Chicken_Champ on this one.
Actions of creatures say what type of attack they are. Even natural weapons (above is from the aarakocra stat block) mostly count as melee weapon attacks. I would say that the Cleric feature would work on anything from a stat block that calls itself a weapon attack and is non-magical, whether or not that thing uses something called a weapon in the equipment section of the PHB. The rules seem to use words in different senses in different places: a "weapon" sometimes seems to mean something that you have used to make a weapon attack with, and sometimes (at least, I think) to mean a thing listed on the table of weapons in the PHB.
Except unarmed strikes for Monks also count as melee weapon attacks - despite very much not being weapons. So just because it says "melee weapon attack" does not necessarily mean it's a weapon. From Sage Advice:
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
haha can you imagine how much it would suck if monks couldn't use stunning strike while striking barehanded?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yeah. Definitely the rules use "weapons" to mean "things that made/make a weapon attack" often. I'm not convinced that is always what they mean though.
I think the only real repercussions of letting “weapon” include unarmed strikes would be letting unarmed monks benefit from Dueling, Defensive Duelist, and Hex/Bladelock, Magic Weapon spell, this cleric feature... which they can mostly already do by holding a dagger or a chunk of wood. so it certainly falls under “probably not quite right but streamlined the rules so why not” for me.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"Weapon Attack" is not the same as "attack made with a weapon". A melee/ranged Weapon Attack can be made by things that are not weapons such as unarmed strikes & lots of spells/features, but a weapon is a distinct object. Natural Weapons can't be used for SCAG cantrips, and are invalid targets of enhancement spells like Magic Weapon. They aren't weapons.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
There has been a few sage advice on this. Not on the cleric feature itself but there are 4 'types' of attack:
Melee weapon attacks, Ranged weapon attacks. Melee Spell attacks and Ranged spell attacks. Unless there is a specific exception, EVERY attack is of one of those 4. Even unarmed and natural attacks, at least regarding the 'type' of attack.
I think you can follow a pedantic interpretation of this feature or you can choose to make it make sense. I would choose to make it make sense: treat it as if it said "nonmagical attacks," instead of "nonmagical weapons" just like the monster feature that it attempts to emulate. That is a ruling rather than a rule, but it doesn't rely on taking a strict definition of "weapon" that the rules can't even seem to stick to.
It isn't that the rules are being inconsistent about what a "weapon" is so much, it's rather that "melee weapon attack" just means "melee attack that isn't a spell attack," not "melee attack made with a weapon," so the rules have introduced ambiguity by reusing vocabulary for distinct rule concepts. As usual, 5E would benefit from more granular language.
I don't think that Natural Weapons and Improvised Weapons are weapons because they are used to make Melee Weapon Attacks.... I think that they are weapons because their name says that they are weapons, and because Improvised Weapons appear under the Weapons heading in the PHB, and because the Monster Manual introduction explicitly says that Natural Weapons are "weapons", and because logically it just makes sense, and because treating things used as weapons as weapon is RAI and RAF to boot.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There are simply features that are written implying that "weapon" means a thing on the weapon tables (as Sigred points out, and I agree that his understanding works better in those places) and features that take the meaning that Chicken_Champ uses (and I agree that his meaning fits some features better). I think arguing that the same "weapon" rule applies to this feature as to others makes no sense other than from a pedantic point of view. I think you really do have to read the feature and decide for yourself whether "weapon" in each instance means "source of a weapon attack" or "thing on the weapon tables." Otherwise, if you want to stick to one of those two definitions for every rule, you're going to find some rules stop making sense, no matter which of the two definitions your sinking ship clings to.
That's how I'd choose to run it as well. The issue is less about how wonky 5e is when it comes to being hyper-specific/generic with terminology (which is a huge issue, don't get me wrong) than it is with how features that rely on said terminology are handled. Are Natural Weapons not counting as weapons (object) an issue? No, not really. There are more overall valid reasons to keep the distinction than reasons not to. Is having a capstone feature being less effective than a level 1 Barbarian's Rage an issue? Hell yes, it is! Is having resistance to certain damage types also being broken down into damage only from certain sources of damage an issue? Hell yes, it is! If a creature is supposed to be less susceptible to certain damage types, the method in which that damage is delivered ought not matter.
"Resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from non-magical attacks", or even just "resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage" just makes far more sense.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Thanks for replies. My DM has ruled that this ability only implies to actual weapons, like a sword. What a weak capstone. Also Forge cleric resistance is similar but says "While wearing heavy armor, you have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical attacks."
I wish the developers were consistant with their terminology.
We all wish the developers were better at writing rules.
Same
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms