So according to this, natural weapons are weapons.
So a monster Minotaur (NPC) has the gore attack. Which uses their natural weapon of their horns.
But if we look at the Minotaur race from GGtR their racial traits say:
Horns. Your horns are natural melee weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.
Goring Rush. Immediately after you use the Dash action on your turn and move at least 20 feet, you can make one melee attack with your horns as a bonus action.
So I can assume by this that a NPC gore attack is a weapon attack (as in its a weapon unlike an unarmed strike) but a PC gore attack is not a weapon attack because it's an unarmed strike.
But there is also this tweet about what an Unarmed strike is:
Which is using any part of the body to strike something.
So we now in a limbo between a NPC using a natural weapon as a weapon, but the PC using a natural weapon is an unmarked strike by the above logic (and wording of "natural weapons" PC racism trait grant).
And if I remember correctly about druid/monk multiclassing is that there was a ruling that you can't use the Monk's martial arts die for the wild shape monster's natural attacks per RAW (but up for interpretation by the DM).
My interpretation is the same as for Tabaxi Cat's Claws - it's an unarmed strike (using a particular part of the body rather than a weapon) but that because that part of the body is a natural weapon it deals different damage to normal.
The reason that this looks different for NPC's (like Minotaurs) is that they don't normally show their unarmed strikes as an option (because as DM I would expect to know the Unarmed Strike mechanic) but the specific damage for the NPC is not necessarily expected knowledge so it's in the statblock of the NPC.
Also, there isn't a need to balance NPC's against each other but there is for playable races, not only are PC Minotaurs Medium size (NPC are Large) but also their base strength needs to balance with other playable races.
Monsters are monsters and have different rules even if a pc can be a monster. So run rules from the PHB if a player is monster with pc classes. In other words, trying to mesh the wording of the monster manual against the PHB is going to be a headache.
What then is the difference between a NPC and a PC got the same respective attack. (Because some NPCs have classes and their features)
The difference is one's an adventurer and the other is a monster controlled by the DM. Adventurers are exceptional people, and there's significant gameplay differences between players and the DM that pretty much necessitates different rules. One side wants to have a ton of cool tricks at their disposal and the other is juggling half a dozen monsters while keeping tabs on what the players are doing and the state of the dungeon.
So :) ... if tabaxi claws are natural weapons ... and natural weapons are considered weapons ... then can a tabaxi paladin smite when using their claws for an unarmed strike because they are considered weapons while other types of unarmed strikes are not?
Sage Advice Compendium
"[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike?
No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice."
Unarmed strike
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons)."
The quote refers to unarmed strikes specifically as punches, kicks, head-butts or similar forceful blows However, unarmed strikes with natural weapons DO count as weapons.
So does this mean that PC paladins equipped with natural weapons can use them to smite?
So :) ... if tabaxi claws are natural weapons ... and natural weapons are considered weapons ... then can a tabaxi paladin smite when using their claws for an unarmed strike because they are considered weapons while other types of unarmed strikes are not?
The quote refers to unarmed strikes specifically as punches, kicks, head-butts or similar forceful blows However, unarmed strikes with natural weapons DO count as weapons.
So does this mean that PC paladins equipped with natural weapons can use them to smite?
With regards to this: the phrasing "Your horns are natural melee weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes." (This is the same phrasing regardless of the form of the natural weapon) while a Smite requires "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack" which explicitly isn't an unarmed strike, no matter how potent your natural weapons are.
So :) ... if tabaxi claws are natural weapons ... and natural weapons are considered weapons ... then can a tabaxi paladin smite when using their claws for an unarmed strike because they are considered weapons while other types of unarmed strikes are not?
Yes. It's likely not what the game's designers had in mind, but a natural weapon is a weapon and Divine Smite doesn't say it has to be a simple or martial weapon.
The quote refers to unarmed strikes specifically as punches, kicks, head-butts or similar forceful blows However, unarmed strikes with natural weapons DO count as weapons.
To be clear, an unarmed strike can't "count as" a weapon. That's like saying a stab counts as a weapon. What you mean is that a dagger counts as a weapon. Stabbing is just what you do with it.
An unarmed strike is something you do. You normally have to do that without a weapon. Some characters get an exception that lets them do that with specific natural weapons.
With regards to this: the phrasing "Your horns are natural melee weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes." (This is the same phrasing regardless of the form of the natural weapon) while a Smite requires "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack" which explicitly isn't an unarmed strike, no matter how potent your natural weapons are.
Incorrect. Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. The other requirement for Divine Smite is making that melee weapon attack with a weapon, which a natural melee weapon is.
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes."
My understanding, per RAW and the resources shared here so far:
Unarmed Strikes (for any non-animalistic race with additional unarmed strike features): not a weapon, but makes melee weapon attacks. Therefore cannot be used with certain features/spells that require a weapon specifically (or, for Divine Smite, a weapon's damage).
Claws, Horns, and other natural weapons: natural weapons, make melee weapon attacks, and also count as unarmed strikes. Therefore they can be used with just about everything as they count as weapons and unarmed strikes ... so they would work with both Divine Smite AND as the bonus attack for Martial Arts for the monk.
Seems to me that RAI would mean that natural weapons should not be considered weapons for features/spells that require a weapon. The distinction, I think, is to explain why a PC couldn't cut off a Minotaur's horn and immediately stab with it; it is specifically a weapon that they are not proficient in. They cannot be proficient with it (unless they are also a Minotaur), not even by claiming it is an improvised weapon similar to a dagger.
(As an aside, it also explains why classes such as the Fighter gain proficiency in "simple weapons, martial weapons" instead of the more logical "all weapons".)
The issue with my preceding comment is also within the SA Compendium, in the monk section: "...unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons." Claws are specifically natural weapons, and can specifically make unarmed strikes. So the rules (and SA) specifically contradict one another here.
ETA: This tweet seems to clarify it all: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/996549348140826624 ... long story short, RAW, yes, natural weapons when used as unarmed strikes are still weapons. RAI, "weapons" should be limited to what is on the weapons table.
This is also an issue for eldritch claw tattoo; how does it interact with natural weapons (this is particularly relevant to Wild Shape -- there is no particular reason why a wild shape can't 'wear' a tattoo so there's no need to merge it).
My understanding, per RAW and the resources shared here so far:
Unarmed Strikes (for any non-animalistic race with additional unarmed strike features): not a weapon, but makes melee weapon attacks. Therefore cannot be used with certain features/spells that require a weapon specifically (or, for Divine Smite, a weapon's damage).
Claws, Horns, and other natural weapons: natural weapons, make melee weapon attacks, and also count as unarmed strikes. Therefore they can be used with just about everything as they count as weapons and unarmed strikes ... so they would work with both Divine Smite AND as the bonus attack for Martial Arts for the monk.
Seems to me that RAI would mean that natural weapons should not be considered weapons for features/spells that require a weapon. The distinction, I think, is to explain why a PC couldn't cut off a Minotaur's horn and immediately stab with it; it is specifically a weapon that they are not proficient in. They cannot be proficient with it (unless they are also a Minotaur), not even by claiming it is an improvised weapon similar to a dagger.
(As an aside, it also explains why classes such as the Fighter gain proficiency in "simple weapons, martial weapons" instead of the more logical "all weapons".)
First paragraph, yes. Second paragraph, natural weapons can only be used for unarmed strikes if they say they can (as with playable races) not by default.
Third paragraph, they have said that the RAI is for only manufactured weapons to count as weapons, but acknowledged that the RAW does not reflect this. Also third, you can easily argue that a natural weapon is only such as long as it is part of the creature's body, once removed it is just a body part object.
The issue with my preceding comment is also within the SA Compendium, in the monk section: "...unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons." Claws are specifically natural weapons, and can specifically make unarmed strikes. So the rules (and SA) specifically contradict one another here.
This still makes sense without contradicting because one is a general rule about unarmed strikes and another is a specific rule about a (natural) weapon being usable as an unarmed strike. Specific overruled general.
This is also an issue for eldritch claw tattoo; how does it interact with natural weapons (this is particularly relevant to Wild Shape -- there is no particular reason why a wild shape can't 'wear' a tattoo so there's no need to merge it).
Not sure what the issue is. The magical strikes property does not work on natural weapons (because they are not unarmed strikes). The eldritch maul property does work on natural weapons (because they are weapons).
Natural weapons (on creatures): YES // YES // NO**
~~~
* As an aside, satyrs (ram) and longtooth shifters (shifting feature) have bonuses to their unarmed strikes but neither are specifically referred to as natural weapons. Aarakocra, centaur, leonin, lizardfolk, minotaur, simic hybrids, tabaxi, and tortles all, on the other hand, have references to body parts being considered natural weapons.
** Basically, every NPC attack is done with a weapon, even attacks done with part of the body. It gets muddy because of Wild Shape because a player is controlling an otherwise non-player statblock.
To be clear, this isn't universally true, just a common pattern. The natural weapons from the Barbarian's Path of the Beast don't make unarmed strikes, for instance.
Remember, even an unarmed strike is a “melee weapon attack,” it just doesn’t use any weapon. So for the Minotaur’s Horns, if they want them the be an “unarmed strike” they can be, but they don’t have to be “unarmed strikes.” And even when they choose to use them as unarmed strikes (like if they’re a Monk), then they still count as “unarmed strikes made using natural weapons,” so a Monk/Paladin could use the horned and take full advantage of the Martial Arts feature, and simultaneously make use of the Divine Smite/Improved Divine Smite features with that same attack as well.
I'll start of with this tweet from JC:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1031663351309299712?s=20
In it he says there are 3 types of weapons:
Simple
Martial
Natural
So according to this, natural weapons are weapons.
So a monster Minotaur (NPC) has the gore attack. Which uses their natural weapon of their horns.
But if we look at the Minotaur race from GGtR their racial traits say:
Horns. Your horns are natural melee weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.
Goring Rush. Immediately after you use the Dash action on your turn and move at least 20 feet, you can make one melee attack with your horns as a bonus action.
So I can assume by this that a NPC gore attack is a weapon attack (as in its a weapon unlike an unarmed strike) but a PC gore attack is not a weapon attack because it's an unarmed strike.
But there is also this tweet about what an Unarmed strike is:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1060574186815524867?s=20
Which is using any part of the body to strike something.
So we now in a limbo between a NPC using a natural weapon as a weapon, but the PC using a natural weapon is an unmarked strike by the above logic (and wording of "natural weapons" PC racism trait grant).
And if I remember correctly about druid/monk multiclassing is that there was a ruling that you can't use the Monk's martial arts die for the wild shape monster's natural attacks per RAW (but up for interpretation by the DM).
What's the question?
My interpretation is the same as for Tabaxi Cat's Claws - it's an unarmed strike (using a particular part of the body rather than a weapon) but that because that part of the body is a natural weapon it deals different damage to normal.
The reason that this looks different for NPC's (like Minotaurs) is that they don't normally show their unarmed strikes as an option (because as DM I would expect to know the Unarmed Strike mechanic) but the specific damage for the NPC is not necessarily expected knowledge so it's in the statblock of the NPC.
Also, there isn't a need to balance NPC's against each other but there is for playable races, not only are PC Minotaurs Medium size (NPC are Large) but also their base strength needs to balance with other playable races.
I think they are technically both. The description says they are natural weapons and that you can make unarmed strikes with them.
Granted for the Minotaur, so let's is the Tabaxi, Lizzardmen, or other PC races that are monsters with natural weapons.
What then is the difference between a NPC and a PC got the same respective attack. (Because some NPCs have classes and their features)
Monsters are monsters and have different rules even if a pc can be a monster. So run rules from the PHB if a player is monster with pc classes. In other words, trying to mesh the wording of the monster manual against the PHB is going to be a headache.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
This.
The difference is one's an adventurer and the other is a monster controlled by the DM. Adventurers are exceptional people, and there's significant gameplay differences between players and the DM that pretty much necessitates different rules. One side wants to have a ton of cool tricks at their disposal and the other is juggling half a dozen monsters while keeping tabs on what the players are doing and the state of the dungeon.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
So :) ... if tabaxi claws are natural weapons ... and natural weapons are considered weapons ... then can a tabaxi paladin smite when using their claws for an unarmed strike because they are considered weapons while other types of unarmed strikes are not?
Sage Advice Compendium
"[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike?
No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice."
Unarmed strike
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons)."
The quote refers to unarmed strikes specifically as punches, kicks, head-butts or similar forceful blows However, unarmed strikes with natural weapons DO count as weapons.
So does this mean that PC paladins equipped with natural weapons can use them to smite?
With regards to this: the phrasing "Your horns are natural melee weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes." (This is the same phrasing regardless of the form of the natural weapon) while a Smite requires "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack" which explicitly isn't an unarmed strike, no matter how potent your natural weapons are.
Yes. It's likely not what the game's designers had in mind, but a natural weapon is a weapon and Divine Smite doesn't say it has to be a simple or martial weapon.
To be clear, an unarmed strike can't "count as" a weapon. That's like saying a stab counts as a weapon. What you mean is that a dagger counts as a weapon. Stabbing is just what you do with it.
An unarmed strike is something you do. You normally have to do that without a weapon. Some characters get an exception that lets them do that with specific natural weapons.
Incorrect. Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. The other requirement for Divine Smite is making that melee weapon attack with a weapon, which a natural melee weapon is.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Actually, Unarned Strike reads:
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes."
Yes, and that text plainly states you can make melee weapon attacks with an unarmed strike.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
My understanding, per RAW and the resources shared here so far:
Unarmed Strikes (for any non-animalistic race with additional unarmed strike features): not a weapon, but makes melee weapon attacks. Therefore cannot be used with certain features/spells that require a weapon specifically (or, for Divine Smite, a weapon's damage).
Claws, Horns, and other natural weapons: natural weapons, make melee weapon attacks, and also count as unarmed strikes. Therefore they can be used with just about everything as they count as weapons and unarmed strikes ... so they would work with both Divine Smite AND as the bonus attack for Martial Arts for the monk.
Seems to me that RAI would mean that natural weapons should not be considered weapons for features/spells that require a weapon. The distinction, I think, is to explain why a PC couldn't cut off a Minotaur's horn and immediately stab with it; it is specifically a weapon that they are not proficient in. They cannot be proficient with it (unless they are also a Minotaur), not even by claiming it is an improvised weapon similar to a dagger.
(As an aside, it also explains why classes such as the Fighter gain proficiency in "simple weapons, martial weapons" instead of the more logical "all weapons".)
The issue with my preceding comment is also within the SA Compendium, in the monk section: "...unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons." Claws are specifically natural weapons, and can specifically make unarmed strikes. So the rules (and SA) specifically contradict one another here.
ETA: This tweet seems to clarify it all: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/996549348140826624 ... long story short, RAW, yes, natural weapons when used as unarmed strikes are still weapons. RAI, "weapons" should be limited to what is on the weapons table.
This is also an issue for eldritch claw tattoo; how does it interact with natural weapons (this is particularly relevant to Wild Shape -- there is no particular reason why a wild shape can't 'wear' a tattoo so there's no need to merge it).
First paragraph, yes. Second paragraph, natural weapons can only be used for unarmed strikes if they say they can (as with playable races) not by default.
Third paragraph, they have said that the RAI is for only manufactured weapons to count as weapons, but acknowledged that the RAW does not reflect this. Also third, you can easily argue that a natural weapon is only such as long as it is part of the creature's body, once removed it is just a body part object.
This still makes sense without contradicting because one is a general rule about unarmed strikes and another is a specific rule about a (natural) weapon being usable as an unarmed strike. Specific overruled general.
Not sure what the issue is. The magical strikes property does not work on natural weapons (because they are not unarmed strikes). The eldritch maul property does work on natural weapons (because they are weapons).
DxJxC has it right. Here's a rundown...
Three questions each: "Is this considered a weapon?" // "Does it make a melee weapon attack?" // "Does it make an unarmed strike?"
Fists, headbutts, kicks: NO // YES // YES
Simple/Martial weapons: YES // YES // NO
Natural weapons--talons/hooves/claws/"fanged maw"/horns/"grappling appendage"* (on PCs): YES // YES // YES
Natural weapons (on creatures): YES // YES // NO**
~~~
* As an aside, satyrs (ram) and longtooth shifters (shifting feature) have bonuses to their unarmed strikes but neither are specifically referred to as natural weapons. Aarakocra, centaur, leonin, lizardfolk, minotaur, simic hybrids, tabaxi, and tortles all, on the other hand, have references to body parts being considered natural weapons.
** Basically, every NPC attack is done with a weapon, even attacks done with part of the body. It gets muddy because of Wild Shape because a player is controlling an otherwise non-player statblock.
To be clear, this isn't universally true, just a common pattern. The natural weapons from the Barbarian's Path of the Beast don't make unarmed strikes, for instance.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Remember, even an unarmed strike is a “melee weapon attack,” it just doesn’t use any weapon. So for the Minotaur’s Horns, if they want them the be an “unarmed strike” they can be, but they don’t have to be “unarmed strikes.” And even when they choose to use them as unarmed strikes (like if they’re a Monk), then they still count as “unarmed strikes made using natural weapons,” so a Monk/Paladin could use the horned and take full advantage of the Martial Arts feature, and simultaneously make use of the Divine Smite/Improved Divine Smite features with that same attack as well.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So can a monk use their dedicated weapon feature to empower their natural weapons?