So can a monk use their dedicated weapon feature to empower their natural weapons?
Only if the natural weapon is simple or martial (not all are). For example, a Leonin's claws aren't simple or martial, but a dhampir's bite counts as a simple melee weapon
If you're talking about the Dhampir on this 5th edition wiki, then the answer is clearly "yes." Monk weapons include any simple melee weapons that don't have the "two-handed" or "heavy" properties, and that Dhampir description stipulates that the natural weapon "counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient." It does not state that the fangs have the "two-handed" or "heavy" properties, so you're golden.
In general, natural weapons are technically counted as weapon attacks and not unarmed strikes, and they're a weapon type other than simple, so the general rule is that natural weapons are not monk weapons. However, for playable races in official content, the description of any natural weapons stipulates that you may use them for unarmed attacks in every description I just referenced. So, this is a case where the exception dominates the rule: you'd have to really work to create a character with natural weapons that couldn't be used as monk weapons.
@JeremyECrawford A natural weapon (a claw, horn, bite, etc.) is not an unarmed strike.
@JeremyECrawford Rules on unarmed strikes have no bearing on natural weapons. Some exceptional things in the game count as both unarmed strikes and natural weapons. For example, a tabaxi's claws are natural weapons that can make unarmed strikes.
It's convoluted as usual with WOTC, DM interpretation is my recommendation. I'd allow it as Green flame blade and thunderous strike now have a minimum weapon value and smite does not. The main take from this is to take the Tavern brawler feat so you can smite with everything not nailed down while simultaneously heating up your tea pot with green flame blade to the face and you'll make them wish they let you use your hands. The DM will be begging you to stop after every fight leaves the area looking like a tornado through a trailer park. Just remember the cantrips can't be cast while wild shaped and the item about to be broken must have a minimum value of 1 silver piece for the cantrips so I recommend the merchant background to help identify what's worth breaking.
with Tavern Brawler feat wear gloves, shoes and a headband as they are now weapons as per rule and
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
with Tavern Brawler feat wear gloves, shoes and a headband as they are now weapons as per rule and
This is not a consequence of the Tavern Brawler feat, but a DM's application of the Improvised Weapon rules. All Tavern Brawler does with respect to Improvised Weapons is guarantee that you are considered proficient with any Improvised Weapon.
Also ruling that striking with a clothed part of your body is considered an attack with an Improvised Weapon, instead of an Unarmed Strike, would have significant implications for any Monk at the table.
As for using Green-Flame Blade with a tea pot, or other random objects, it doesn't quit work. The material component of Green-Flame Blade must be a Melee Weapon worth at least 1sp. The Improvised Weapon rules allow you to attack with any random object. But they do not become Melee or Ranged weapons while being used in such a manor.
Like Fangeye is saying, there seems to be a common misconception that any object can be used as an improvised weapon. In fact, the rule says that qualifying objects include those which can be wielded with one or two hands. A DM uses this guideline to determine which objects qualify.
I know the players handbooks one mention of unarmed attacks not being a melee weapon in quotation marks which I will bold for you but show me how it's more broken allowing them to count than hexblade warlock as a one level dip for any CHA caster who wants to be melee or silvery barbs as a lvl1 spell.
I love that beating someone to death with a dead goblin counts as a melee weapon but not a monks fist that can deal more damage than a trained warrior with a great sword? Arguing realism in fantasy games is like fighting for peace or $%&@ing for virginity.
MELEE ATTACKS Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack. Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions. 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.
I think it's more related to game mechanics rather than narrative or realism.
If you considered unarmed strikes as weapons, next thing you ask is: are they light weapons? Some would say they are (understandably so), but this implies problems now with the Two Weapon fighting rules.
Also considering that your whole body can be used as an unarmed strike, if they were weapons, now all your body is a valid target for any feature that needs a weapon.
As to how broken allowing this is compared to a Hexblade dip or Silvery Barbs as a level 1 spell? Not much, really, but that one is due to WotC bias against martials; the more things a caster can have that increase their power or allow them to perform better than martials at being in melee, the better. I for one think that some "spells" (namely Steel Wind Strike and Blade of Disaster, or even the blade cantrips) should be martial features, not spells, but that's just me.
Show me in the rules where a Item isn't a weapon if you use it as one. I'd love to see the source?
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).
This is the only thing saying anything about melee attacks that aren't spells or melee weapons for combat
Nothing about any rule I have seen or can find says that improvised weapons don't do weapon damage.
Please prove me wrong.
Rules as intended may be otherwise however WOTC Clarification will probably never happen.
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
Improvised Weapons do "weapon" damage, but note the description above is something you wield. So you can't don a helmet, steel boots and gauntlets to announce your unarmed attacks are now considered "weapon" attacks unless they are special items that have such an ability in their description. The item must also be wielded in one or both hands. Note it's not simply "held" but wielded, so you must be able to handle it effectively as per the description of wielding. The decision on what can be wielded will come down to the DM.
Note also on Natural Weapons, that many of the races/species that had them are legacy and the trait has been reworded in "Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse". Tabaxi, for instance, changed: LEGACY: "your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike." UPDATE: "You can use your claws to make unarmed strikes. When you hit with them, the strike deals 1d6 + your Strength modifier slashing damage, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."
As a result, unless a DM is running a race/species by their legacy rules, their trait strikes are no longer noted as "Natural Weapons".
Nothing about any rule I have seen or can find says that improvised weapons don't do weapon damage.
Perhaps I am mistaken but I don't believe anyone in this thread since you restarted it has claimed that Improvised Weapons don't do Weapon Damage. I had pointed out that objects used as an Improvised Weapons are not necessarily Melee (or Ranged) Weapons, but that is not the same thing as claiming they don't do Weapon Damage.
I understand your frustration, the 5e rules around weapons, attacks, and damage are a mess of similar names referring to very different concepts that are rarely explicitly defined.
Do Improvised Weapons do Weapon Damage? I would assume so, however WotC have answered a similar question for Unarmed Strikes in the Sage Advice Compendium explaining that Unarmed Strikes don't do weapon damage (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA253). I don't think that holds true for Improvised Weapons though for two reasons:
It is in the name, they are Improvised Weapons.
They use the Damage Roll rules for determining damage. Unarmed Strikes have their own rule for determining damage.
If you really want to see what a mess these rules are look at the Attack Rolls and Damage section for Strength and Dexterity in Chapter 7 of the PHB. Then compare them to the Modifier to the Rolls section in Attack Rolls rules in Chapter 9. Now consider this question: What modifier do you use when throwing a Longsword to make a Ranged Weapon Attack as allowed by the Improvised Weapon rules?
Alright I take it back. You win but seems dumb that you can beat someone with a piece of spiked armor and it's a weapon but the moment you put it on it's no longer a weapon.
Fail
If you are a druid and beat someone with a dead goblin it's a weapon but if you tranform into a bear and swing with your mouth it's not a weapon...
So you can't don a helmet, steel boots and gauntlets to announce your unarmed attacks are now considered "weapon" attacks unless they are special items that have such an ability in their description.
I just want to point out that when you use an Unarmed Strike you are explicitly making a Melee Weapon Attack. In fact that is the definition of what an Unarmed Strike is, it is a Melee Weapon Attack made without using a Weapon.
Alright I take it back. You win but seems dumb that you can beat someone with a piece of spiked armor and it's a weapon but the moment you put it on it's no longer a weapon.
Fail
If you are a druid and beat someone with a dead goblin it's a weapon but if you tranform into a bear and swing with your mouth it's not a weapon...
There is the Dwarven Battlerager Barbarianswith their Spiked Armor. Probably some magic items as well but certainly nothing stopping a DM from regarding them as improvised weapons or adding in custom equipment or magic items and giving them some custom rules.
Natural weapons are not unarmed strikes unless a specific feature the character has states otherwise.
There's also an entry about it in the Sage Advice Compendium:
Are natural weapons considered weapons? 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.
It's clear under the 2014 rules, but there is some uncertainty under the 2024 rules because an Unarmed Strike is defined as follows (emphasis mine):
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 [...]
From here, it could be inferred that monster attacks made with their "body parts" (their natural weapons?) now count as Unarmed Strikes.
EDIT: a reference to monsters' attacks can now be found in the Melee Attacks paragraph (emphasis mine):
A melee attack allows you to attack a target within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon or an Unarmed Strike. Many monstersmake melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts. A few spells also involve melee attacks.
That reference doesn't really clear things up. It says monsters make melee attacks with claws, teeth, and other body parts, but it also says that both handheld weapon attacks and Unarmed Strikes are melee attacks.
The only real thing that can be concluded from that reference is that a monster attacking with claws, teeth, and other body parts is either considered to either be attacking with a handheld weapon or considered to be making an Unarmed Attack, but I think we all would already agree to that.
That reference doesn't really clear things up. [...]
Unfortunately, without a definition of "Natural Weapon" in the Rules Glossary (maybe it will be included in the 2024 MM), there’s not much else to go on.
Personally, I think the 2014 "Natural Weapon" is now part of Unarmed Strikes. But I could be wrong, sure.
The only real thing that can be concluded from that reference is that a monster attacking with claws, teeth, and other body parts is either considered to either be attacking with a handheld weapon or considered to be making an Unarmed Attack, but I think we all would already agree to that.
Not exactly. We have two sentences:
A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Many monstersmake melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts.
And body parts (EDIT: e.g. punch, kick, head-butt) are mentioned in the definition of Unarmed Strike:
Unarmed Strike
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Unfortunately, without a definition of "Natural Weapon" in the Rules Glossary (maybe it will be included in the 2024 MM), there’s not much else to go on.
Personally, I think the 2014 "Natural Weapon" is now part of Unarmed Strikes. But I could be wrong, sure.
This seems to be the design choice going forward. Just looking at how the races/species that got re-written for the MotM book was changed. Tabaxi, Minotaur and Aarakocra for example all had a "natural weapon" attack in earlier prints but those got changed into "unarmed strikes" with a specified damage die and damage type to use (instead of the default Str+1 Bludgeoning).
Unfortunately, without a definition of "Natural Weapon" in the Rules Glossary (maybe it will be included in the 2024 MM), there’s not much else to go on.
Personally, I think the 2014 "Natural Weapon" is now part of Unarmed Strikes. But I could be wrong, sure.
This seems to be the design choice going forward. Just looking at how the races/species that got re-written for the MotM book was changed. Tabaxi, Minotaur and Aarakocra for example all had a "natural weapon" attack in earlier prints but those got changed into "unarmed strikes" with a specified damage die and damage type to use (instead of the default Str+1 Bludgeoning).
Wow. Interesting. I don't have that book, so I really appreciate the info!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Only if the natural weapon is simple or martial (not all are). For example, a Leonin's claws aren't simple or martial, but a dhampir's bite counts as a simple melee weapon
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
If you're talking about the Dhampir on this 5th edition wiki, then the answer is clearly "yes." Monk weapons include any simple melee weapons that don't have the "two-handed" or "heavy" properties, and that Dhampir description stipulates that the natural weapon "counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient." It does not state that the fangs have the "two-handed" or "heavy" properties, so you're golden.
In general, natural weapons are technically counted as weapon attacks and not unarmed strikes, and they're a weapon type other than simple, so the general rule is that natural weapons are not monk weapons. However, for playable races in official content, the description of any natural weapons stipulates that you may use them for unarmed attacks in every description I just referenced. So, this is a case where the exception dominates the rule: you'd have to really work to create a character with natural weapons that couldn't be used as monk weapons.
A Dev also confirmed it on twitter;
It's convoluted as usual with WOTC, DM interpretation is my recommendation. I'd allow it as Green flame blade and thunderous strike now have a minimum weapon value and smite does not. The main take from this is to take the Tavern brawler feat so you can smite with everything not nailed down while simultaneously heating up your tea pot with green flame blade to the face and you'll make them wish they let you use your hands. The DM will be begging you to stop after every fight leaves the area looking like a tornado through a trailer park. Just remember the cantrips can't be cast while wild shaped and the item about to be broken must have a minimum value of 1 silver piece for the cantrips so I recommend the merchant background to help identify what's worth breaking.
with Tavern Brawler feat wear gloves, shoes and a headband as they are now weapons as per rule and
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
This is not a consequence of the Tavern Brawler feat, but a DM's application of the Improvised Weapon rules. All Tavern Brawler does with respect to Improvised Weapons is guarantee that you are considered proficient with any Improvised Weapon.
Also ruling that striking with a clothed part of your body is considered an attack with an Improvised Weapon, instead of an Unarmed Strike, would have significant implications for any Monk at the table.
As for using Green-Flame Blade with a tea pot, or other random objects, it doesn't quit work. The material component of Green-Flame Blade must be a Melee Weapon worth at least 1sp. The Improvised Weapon rules allow you to attack with any random object. But they do not become Melee or Ranged weapons while being used in such a manor.
Like Fangeye is saying, there seems to be a common misconception that any object can be used as an improvised weapon. In fact, the rule says that qualifying objects include those which can be wielded with one or two hands. A DM uses this guideline to determine which objects qualify.
I know the players handbooks one mention of unarmed attacks not being a melee weapon in quotation marks which I will bold for you but show me how it's more broken allowing them to count than hexblade warlock as a one level dip for any CHA caster who wants to be melee or silvery barbs as a lvl1 spell.
I love that beating someone to death with a dead goblin counts as a melee weapon but not a monks fist that can deal more damage than a trained warrior with a great sword? Arguing realism in fantasy games is like fighting for peace or $%&@ing for virginity.
MELEE ATTACKS
Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows
you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack
typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword,
a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a
melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth,
tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve
making a melee attack.
Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus
attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a
melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger
than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach
than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
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.
I think it's more related to game mechanics rather than narrative or realism.
If you considered unarmed strikes as weapons, next thing you ask is: are they light weapons? Some would say they are (understandably so), but this implies problems now with the Two Weapon fighting rules.
Also considering that your whole body can be used as an unarmed strike, if they were weapons, now all your body is a valid target for any feature that needs a weapon.
As to how broken allowing this is compared to a Hexblade dip or Silvery Barbs as a level 1 spell? Not much, really, but that one is due to WotC bias against martials; the more things a caster can have that increase their power or allow them to perform better than martials at being in melee, the better. I for one think that some "spells" (namely Steel Wind Strike and Blade of Disaster, or even the blade cantrips) should be martial features, not spells, but that's just me.
Show me in the rules where a Item isn't a weapon if you use it as one. I'd love to see the source?
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).
This is the only thing saying anything about melee attacks that aren't spells or melee weapons for combat
Nothing about any rule I have seen or can find says that improvised weapons don't do weapon damage.
Please prove me wrong.
Rules as intended may be otherwise however WOTC Clarification will probably never happen.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/equipment#ImprovisedWeapons
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
Improvised Weapons do "weapon" damage, but note the description above is something you wield. So you can't don a helmet, steel boots and gauntlets to announce your unarmed attacks are now considered "weapon" attacks unless they are special items that have such an ability in their description. The item must also be wielded in one or both hands. Note it's not simply "held" but wielded, so you must be able to handle it effectively as per the description of wielding. The decision on what can be wielded will come down to the DM.
Note also on Natural Weapons, that many of the races/species that had them are legacy and the trait has been reworded in "Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse". Tabaxi, for instance, changed:
LEGACY: "your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."
UPDATE: "You can use your claws to make unarmed strikes. When you hit with them, the strike deals 1d6 + your Strength modifier slashing damage, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."
As a result, unless a DM is running a race/species by their legacy rules, their trait strikes are no longer noted as "Natural Weapons".
WotC helpfully published several tables containing most of the various weapons in D&D: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#Weapons
Perhaps I am mistaken but I don't believe anyone in this thread since you restarted it has claimed that Improvised Weapons don't do Weapon Damage. I had pointed out that objects used as an Improvised Weapons are not necessarily Melee (or Ranged) Weapons, but that is not the same thing as claiming they don't do Weapon Damage.
I understand your frustration, the 5e rules around weapons, attacks, and damage are a mess of similar names referring to very different concepts that are rarely explicitly defined.
Do Improvised Weapons do Weapon Damage? I would assume so, however WotC have answered a similar question for Unarmed Strikes in the Sage Advice Compendium explaining that Unarmed Strikes don't do weapon damage (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA253). I don't think that holds true for Improvised Weapons though for two reasons:
If you really want to see what a mess these rules are look at the Attack Rolls and Damage section for Strength and Dexterity in Chapter 7 of the PHB. Then compare them to the Modifier to the Rolls section in Attack Rolls rules in Chapter 9. Now consider this question: What modifier do you use when throwing a Longsword to make a Ranged Weapon Attack as allowed by the Improvised Weapon rules?
Alright I take it back. You win but seems dumb that you can beat someone with a piece of spiked armor and it's a weapon but the moment you put it on it's no longer a weapon.
Fail
If you are a druid and beat someone with a dead goblin it's a weapon but if you tranform into a bear and swing with your mouth it's not a weapon...
I just want to point out that when you use an Unarmed Strike you are explicitly making a Melee Weapon Attack. In fact that is the definition of what an Unarmed Strike is, it is a Melee Weapon Attack made without using a Weapon.
There is the Dwarven Battlerager Barbarians with their Spiked Armor. Probably some magic items as well but certainly nothing stopping a DM from regarding them as improvised weapons or adding in custom equipment or magic items and giving them some custom rules.
Not sure how this thread got that far without this tweet.
https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/756202441142444032?t=jdQNJrGPGhJeRjmUlXVAuQ&s=19
Natural weapons are not unarmed strikes unless a specific feature the character has states otherwise.
There's also an entry about it in the Sage Advice Compendium:
It's clear under the 2014 rules, but there is some uncertainty under the 2024 rules because an Unarmed Strike is defined as follows (emphasis mine):
From here, it could be inferred that monster attacks made with their "body parts" (their natural weapons?) now count as Unarmed Strikes.
Related threads:
---
EDIT: a reference to monsters' attacks can now be found in the Melee Attacks paragraph (emphasis mine):
That reference doesn't really clear things up. It says monsters make melee attacks with claws, teeth, and other body parts, but it also says that both handheld weapon attacks and Unarmed Strikes are melee attacks.
The only real thing that can be concluded from that reference is that a monster attacking with claws, teeth, and other body parts is either considered to either be attacking with a handheld weapon or considered to be making an Unarmed Attack, but I think we all would already agree to that.
Unfortunately, without a definition of "Natural Weapon" in the Rules Glossary (maybe it will be included in the 2024 MM), there’s not much else to go on.
Personally, I think the 2014 "Natural Weapon" is now part of Unarmed Strikes. But I could be wrong, sure.
Not exactly. We have two sentences:
And body parts (EDIT: e.g. punch, kick, head-butt) are mentioned in the definition of Unarmed Strike:
This seems to be the design choice going forward. Just looking at how the races/species that got re-written for the MotM book was changed.
Tabaxi, Minotaur and Aarakocra for example all had a "natural weapon" attack in earlier prints but those got changed into "unarmed strikes" with a specified damage die and damage type to use (instead of the default Str+1 Bludgeoning).
Wow. Interesting. I don't have that book, so I really appreciate the info!