The thing is, do you mean weapons as a game term? Because that's a specifically defined thing. And an unarmed strike, even with claws, isn't considered a weapon attack.
Technically the only one with a built in “weapon” is the Dhampir:
Vampiric Bite
Your fanged bite is a natural weapon, which counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient. You add your Constitution modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with this bite. It deals 1d4 piercing damage on a hit. While you are missing half or more of your hit points, you have advantage on attack rolls you make with this bite.
When you attack with this bite and hit a creature that isn’t a Construct or an Undead, you can empower yourself in one of the following ways of your choice:
You regain hit points equal to the piercing damage dealt by the bite.
You gain a bonus to the next ability check or attack roll you make; the bonus equals the piercing damage dealt by the bite.
You can empower yourself with this bite a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
The thing is, do you mean weapons as a game term? Because that's a specifically defined thing. And an unarmed strike, even with claws, isn't considered a weapon attack.
That is incorrect, all unarmed strikes count as “melee weapon attacks,” they just don’t count as “attacks made with/using a weapon.” There’s a difference.
Technically the only one with a built in “weapon” is the Dhampir:
Vampiric Bite
Your fanged bite is a natural weapon, which counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient. You add your Constitution modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with this bite. It deals 1d4 piercing damage on a hit. While you are missing half or more of your hit points, you have advantage on attack rolls you make with this bite.
When you attack with this bite and hit a creature that isn’t a Construct or an Undead, you can empower yourself in one of the following ways of your choice:
You regain hit points equal to the piercing damage dealt by the bite.
You gain a bonus to the next ability check or attack roll you make; the bonus equals the piercing damage dealt by the bite.
You can empower yourself with this bite a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
Well, that's kind of true now, I guess. Most of these races were reprinted in Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse with updates to their "Natural Weapons" which just changed the nomenclature to "Unarmed Strikes". So, most of them did used to say "Natural Weapon" in these features, but that has since been revised to "Unarmed Strikes". The mechanics haven't changed much and the abilities did overall get a slight boost in damage most of the time, too.
Technically the only one with a built in “weapon” is the Dhampir:
Vampiric Bite
Your fanged bite is a natural weapon, which counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient. You add your Constitution modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with this bite. It deals 1d4 piercing damage on a hit. While you are missing half or more of your hit points, you have advantage on attack rolls you make with this bite.
When you attack with this bite and hit a creature that isn’t a Construct or an Undead, you can empower yourself in one of the following ways of your choice:
You regain hit points equal to the piercing damage dealt by the bite.
You gain a bonus to the next ability check or attack roll you make; the bonus equals the piercing damage dealt by the bite.
You can empower yourself with this bite a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
The thing is, do you mean weapons as a game term? Because that's a specifically defined thing. And an unarmed strike, even with claws, isn't considered a weapon attack.
That is incorrect, all unarmed strikes count as “melee weapon attacks,” they just don’t count as “attacks made with/using a weapon.” There’s a difference.
You are right. And part of me knows there’s a difference, but most of me finds it too exhausting.
You are right. And part of me knows there’s a difference, but most of me finds it too exhausting.
Any type of melee attack that isn't a spell is a melee weapon attack. That includes unarmed strikes. There are certain features and spells, like elemental weapon, the Radiant Weapon Infusion, and the Gift of the Chromatic Dragon that require you to tough a simple or martial weapon in order to cause them to deal more damage (or some other effect, but it's normally just more damage).
So, in this case, the Dhampir's Bite Attack would be a valid option for all of those things I described above, but normal Unarmed Strikes and the new version of the Tabaxi Claws, Satyr Horns, and Lizardfolk Bite would not be able to be used because they're technically just "Unarmed Strikes" and not any type of weapon.
It's a bit confusing and weird and definitely isn't a balance issue, but it's just a weird quirk of the system. I hope 5.5e manages to fix this, because it's unnecessary and confusing.
You are right. And part of me knows there’s a difference, but most of me finds it too exhausting.
Any type of melee attack that isn't a spell is a melee weapon attack. That includes unarmed strikes. There are certain features and spells, like elemental weapon, the Radiant Weapon Infusion, and the Gift of the Chromatic Dragon that require you to tough a simple or martial weapon in order to cause them to deal more damage (or some other effect, but it's normally just more damage).
So, in this case, the Dhampir's Bite Attack would be a valid option for all of those things I described above, but normal Unarmed Strikes and the new version of the Tabaxi Claws, Satyr Horns, and Lizardfolk Bite would not be able to be used because they're technically just "Unarmed Strikes" and not any type of weapon.
It's a bit confusing and weird and definitely isn't a balance issue, but it's just a weird quirk of the system. I hope 5.5e manages to fix this, because it's unnecessary and confusing.
Like I said. Exhausting.
I agree I hope they fix it. Its actually near the top of my list for 5.5 fixes, a player shouldn't have to parse word order that closely.
The problem is the use of the terms "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon" in 5e. In English, we'd normally say that those are the same thing, just using a different voice, as it were. Unfortunately, the language in D&D (or at least 5e) can be, and in this case is, quite esoteric - those aren't the same thing. As a result, my brain just confuddles them up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
What all races have their own unarmed weapons?
I'm aware of Aarakokra, Lizardfolk, and Tabaxi. Are there others?
Well probably none of them are weapons.
Even humans get unarmed attacks.
Specifically asking about races with their own built in weapons. Aarakokra have talons, Lizardfolk bite, Tabaxi have claws.
The thing is, do you mean weapons as a game term? Because that's a specifically defined thing. And an unarmed strike, even with claws, isn't considered a weapon attack.
Edit: see below for clarification
No one's answered the question yet? Okay, I guess I'll do it.
All of the currently official races in D&D 5e that have built-in "Natural Weapons" (Claws, Bite, Talons, etc) are as follows:
Aarakocra, Centaur, Dhampir, Leonin, Lizardfolk, Longtooth Shifters, Minotaur, Satyr, Simic Hybrids with Grappling Appendages, Tabaxi, and Tortles.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Thank you!
Technically the only one with a built in “weapon” is the Dhampir:
That is incorrect, all unarmed strikes count as “melee weapon attacks,” they just don’t count as “attacks made with/using a weapon.” There’s a difference.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, that's kind of true now, I guess. Most of these races were reprinted in Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse with updates to their "Natural Weapons" which just changed the nomenclature to "Unarmed Strikes". So, most of them did used to say "Natural Weapon" in these features, but that has since been revised to "Unarmed Strikes". The mechanics haven't changed much and the abilities did overall get a slight boost in damage most of the time, too.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You are right. And part of me knows there’s a difference, but most of me finds it too exhausting.
Any type of melee attack that isn't a spell is a melee weapon attack. That includes unarmed strikes. There are certain features and spells, like elemental weapon, the Radiant Weapon Infusion, and the Gift of the Chromatic Dragon that require you to tough a simple or martial weapon in order to cause them to deal more damage (or some other effect, but it's normally just more damage).
So, in this case, the Dhampir's Bite Attack would be a valid option for all of those things I described above, but normal Unarmed Strikes and the new version of the Tabaxi Claws, Satyr Horns, and Lizardfolk Bite would not be able to be used because they're technically just "Unarmed Strikes" and not any type of weapon.
It's a bit confusing and weird and definitely isn't a balance issue, but it's just a weird quirk of the system. I hope 5.5e manages to fix this, because it's unnecessary and confusing.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Like I said. Exhausting.
I agree I hope they fix it. Its actually near the top of my list for 5.5 fixes, a player shouldn't have to parse word order that closely.
The problem is the use of the terms "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon" in 5e. In English, we'd normally say that those are the same thing, just using a different voice, as it were. Unfortunately, the language in D&D (or at least 5e) can be, and in this case is, quite esoteric - those aren't the same thing. As a result, my brain just confuddles them up.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
There are also the Grung. While they do not have claws or fangs, their touch and skin is poisonous. They can also add poison to weapons.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale