the spell primal savagery says you cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen and that on a hit, the target takes 1d10 acid damage. for lizardfolk and a few other playable races, claws and teeth can be used as weapons. does the extra unarmed strike damage from the racial trait add to the damage for the spell, or is it more of a choosing between the two?
Primal Savagery doesn't interact with Unarmed Strikes or Natural Weapons. You make a Melee Spell Attack as part of the spell, not an Unarmed Strike or a Melee Weapon Attack, and the wording of the spell explicitly states what the damage is, and does not include the default 1 + StrMod from an Unarmed Strike, or any other source.
Primal Savagery doesn't give you natural weapon to use with unarmed strike. It's a melee spell attack and unarmed strike a melee weapon attack so no interaction whatsoever.
Does it work with the slasher feat or piercer feat? The damage is acid, and not slashing or piercing but you are using sharpened fingernails. Need some clarification. Additionally, if you use this spell to make a melee attack and you have an ability to change it to necrotic damage does it still fall under the classification where the feats would not have an effect on the attack?
Does it work with the slasher feat or piercer feat? The damage is acid, and not slashing or piercing but you are using sharpened fingernails. Need some clarification. Additionally, if you use this spell to make a melee attack and you have an ability to change it to necrotic damage does it still fall under the classification where the feats would not have an effect on the attack?
Weird question. Obviously acid damage does not trigger effects for piercing or slashing damage.
And if you change the acid to necrotic, it is still not piercing or slashing...
Yeah that was how I was reading it, but the portion of the line in the spell that you cause your teeth and fingernails to sharpen does indicate a potential for slash or pierce damage though it just deal acid damage. Wonder if they considered it too powerful if it dealt like an extra d4 of slash or pierce depending on whether you used your teeth or fingernails due to martial feats and there being an extra die roll.
Yeah that was how I was reading it, but the portion of the line in the spell that you cause your teeth and fingernails to sharpen does indicate a potential for slash or pierce damage though it just deal acid damage. Wonder if they considered it too powerful if it dealt like an extra d4 of slash or pierce depending on whether you used your teeth or fingernails due to martial feats and there being an extra die roll.
It could also be the opposite. Cause now it's a melee spell attack so it uses a spellcasting modifier. So it's meant for casters to get physical with a single stat. 😄 If it gave their melee attacks a bonus dmg instead, then it would require a high dex/str. Booming blade and GFB work like this, but they require a weapon with at least a theoretical cost of a few pennies. But Crawford gave the green light for Shadow Blade so I don't see why I couldn't allow a player to Booming Blade with their natural weapon. Could be cool actually.
And if a player wanted to, I'd probably allow them to reskin Booming blade into poison claws and the poison activated if the target moves. Or Green Flame Blade being claws that spill acid to a nearby second target too.
Yeah that was how I was reading it, but the portion of the line in the spell that you cause your teeth and fingernails to sharpen does indicate a potential for slash or pierce damage though it just deal acid damage. Wonder if they considered it too powerful if it dealt like an extra d4 of slash or pierce depending on whether you used your teeth or fingernails due to martial feats and there being an extra die roll.
With these feats, the dmg and attack type is what counts instead of the flavor text. It could be saying that your nails turn into a literal longsword, but if the attack is a melee spell attack and the damage type is spell damage, then it doesn't count as a melee attack or melee damage.
Unlike Booming blade, which you make a melee attack with and deals the weapon's normal dmg/effect and additional thunder.
Yeah that was how I was reading it, but the portion of the line in the spell that you cause your teeth and fingernails to sharpen does indicate a potential for slash or pierce damage though it just deal acid damage. Wonder if they considered it too powerful if it dealt like an extra d4 of slash or pierce depending on whether you used your teeth or fingernails due to martial feats and there being an extra die roll.
With these feats, the dmg and attack type is what counts instead of the flavor text. It could be saying that your nails turn into a literal longsword, but if the attack is a melee spell attack and the damage type is spell damage, then it doesn't count as a melee attack or melee damage.
Unlike Booming blade, which you make a melee attack with and deals the weapon's normal dmg/effect and additional thunder.
I honestly don't know why primal savagery describes attacking with claws, but makes the damage type acid... But acid is acid and not piercing nor slashing.
A melee spell attack is a melee attack. The reason these feats don't work is only because of damage type.
Melee spell attacks and melee attacks are different mechanics.
1. The melee spell attack uses your spellcasting modifier for Hit instead of Str/Dex and you don't add your Ability Modifier to the damage it deals by default.
2. Melee spell attacks follow spellcasting rules instead of melee rules. For example you cannot use the Extra Attack feature with melee spell attacks.
Inflict wounds is a simple melee spell attack. Primal Savagery's flavor text is kinda confusing, I agree. 😅 Another homebrew cantrip could be like shillelagh but for claws. Maybe bump your claw damage to d8 and allow you to use wis as your abi modifier instead of str.
Melee spell attacks and melee attacks are different mechanics.
1. The melee spell attack uses your spellcasting modifier for Hit instead of Str/Dex and you don't add your Ability Modifier to the damage it deals by default.
2. Melee spell attacks follow spellcasting rules instead of melee rules. For example you cannot use the Extra Attack feature with melee spell attacks.
Melee spell attacks use a spellcasting ability and melee weapon attacks use strength (technically, using DEX is an exception to this general rule). Both are are melee attacks.
No, spells follow spellcasting rules. (Afaik) all melee spell attacks available to players are either a spell or specify being a special action. But there are monsters that have melee spell attacks without such limitation. If a bladesinger or eldritch knight with a scroll casts shapechange to become such a creature, they can use their extra attack to make multiple melee spell attacks with a single attack action.
Ah, you're right. It's true that in this sense melee spell attacks are technically melee attacks too. Like for example if you have a channel divinity option that allows you to deal extra dmg on a melee attack, then a melee spell attack is eligible for this. 😄 I forgot this.
IMO it's reasonable to separate them for PC purposes, but you are absolutely right that they are indeed both melee attacks in their core. 😄 Thanks for the reminder.
Quote from DxJxC>> If a bladesinger or eldritch knight with a scroll casts shapechange to become such a creature, they can use their extra attack to make multiple melee spell attacks with a single attack action.
Both of those are very specific niche cases with class features that specifically allow them to cast a spell and make an attack once they reach the specified level. They are not the norm, and this is not the standard. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best. To be honest I don’t even think they can do this anyway.
Eldritch knight says;
Improved War Magic
Starting at 18th level, when you use your action to cast a spell, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.
So you are taking the cast a spell action which allows you a bonus action attack - a completely different thing to extra attack, and using a scroll is a use an object action which is not the same as cast a spell action even though the end result is effectively the same thing. It states a single weapon attack as well which means No multi attack.
Bladesinger says;
Extra Attack
6th-level Bladesinging feature
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
This is extra attack clearly, but it specifically calls out making the attack action and then using one of those attacks to cast a cantrip. It say’s absolutely nothing about getting an object interaction to cast a levelled spell through a scroll. Again this would not convert the second attack into multiple attacks if a creature you polymorphed into had that feature. It is very specific.
Not to mention, shapechange is a 9th level spell. Which would be a legendary item, an eldritch knight would need to make a dc 19 check using likely their tertiary stat just to cast it. They won’t be casting it regularly enough for it to ever matter. The bladesinger would need to be level 17 to cast it (or make the ability check) and at that point wouldn’t need to use the scroll - assuming the game actually went that far as most don’t or that the dm gives out Legendary magic items routinely enough to make this an actual tactic. Even with an incredibly permissive dm that allowed it to work, and gave out legendary scrolls, the likelihood of this ever coming up in a game is so low that it is moot.
No, spells follow spellcasting rules. (Afaik) all melee spell attacks available to players are either a spell or specify being a special action. But there are monsters that have melee spell attacks without such limitation. If a bladesinger or eldritch knight with a scroll casts shapechange to become such a creature, they can use their extra attack to make multiple melee spell attacks with a single attack action.
Both of those are very specific niche cases with class features that specifically allow them to cast a spell and make an attack once they reach the specified level. They are not the norm, and this is not the standard. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best.
You completely misunderstood what I'm talking about. The entire point is that the melee spell attack in the monster stat block isn't a spell. I only chose those classes because they have extra attack and access to shapechange, everything else isn't relevant. First they cast shapechange to become a apprentice wizard for example, then on the next turn they use extra attack to make multiple melee spell attacks (arcane burst in this example).
Yes it is niche, the only point was to give an example to show how non-spell melee spell attacks work.
That makes even less sense, when you use shapechange you don’t get the spell casting trait of the creature you turn into, so in your apprentice wizard example the person wouldn’t get arcane burst as it is a spell attack. (Nor any of its other spells). I mean the give away is in the name - melee SPELL attack. If it wasn’t based on magic it would just say melee attack.
That makes even less sense, when you use shapechange you don’t get the spell casting trait of the creature you turn into, so in your apprentice wizard example the person wouldn’t get arcane burst as it is a spell attack. (Nor any of its other spells). I mean the give away is in the name - melee SPELL attack. If it wasn’t based on magic it would just say melee attack.
Those spell attacks are not spells and do not rely on the creature’s spellcasting feature. You can tell because “arcane burst” isn’t described anywhere in the spellcasting feature’s description.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
the spell primal savagery says you cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen and that on a hit, the target takes 1d10 acid damage. for lizardfolk and a few other playable races, claws and teeth can be used as weapons. does the extra unarmed strike damage from the racial trait add to the damage for the spell, or is it more of a choosing between the two?
Primal Savagery doesn't interact with Unarmed Strikes or Natural Weapons. You make a Melee Spell Attack as part of the spell, not an Unarmed Strike or a Melee Weapon Attack, and the wording of the spell explicitly states what the damage is, and does not include the default 1 + StrMod from an Unarmed Strike, or any other source.
Not by rules as written (or intended).
Are you sure that's what it is? Because it doesn't seem to be
Doesn't seem to be that casting a spell and unarmed strikes with attack action don't overlap?
I'm fairly certain they don't.
Primal Savagery doesn't give you natural weapon to use with unarmed strike. It's a melee spell attack and unarmed strike a melee weapon attack so no interaction whatsoever.
Does it work with the slasher feat or piercer feat? The damage is acid, and not slashing or piercing but you are using sharpened fingernails. Need some clarification. Additionally, if you use this spell to make a melee attack and you have an ability to change it to necrotic damage does it still fall under the classification where the feats would not have an effect on the attack?
Weird question. Obviously acid damage does not trigger effects for piercing or slashing damage.
And if you change the acid to necrotic, it is still not piercing or slashing...
Smites work with your claws if they are natural weapons. Just a side note if you want to further utilize them. 😄
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Yeah that was how I was reading it, but the portion of the line in the spell that you cause your teeth and fingernails to sharpen does indicate a potential for slash or pierce damage though it just deal acid damage. Wonder if they considered it too powerful if it dealt like an extra d4 of slash or pierce depending on whether you used your teeth or fingernails due to martial feats and there being an extra die roll.
It could also be the opposite. Cause now it's a melee spell attack so it uses a spellcasting modifier. So it's meant for casters to get physical with a single stat. 😄 If it gave their melee attacks a bonus dmg instead, then it would require a high dex/str. Booming blade and GFB work like this, but they require a weapon with at least a theoretical cost of a few pennies. But Crawford gave the green light for Shadow Blade so I don't see why I couldn't allow a player to Booming Blade with their natural weapon. Could be cool actually.
And if a player wanted to, I'd probably allow them to reskin Booming blade into poison claws and the poison activated if the target moves. Or Green Flame Blade being claws that spill acid to a nearby second target too.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
With these feats, the dmg and attack type is what counts instead of the flavor text. It could be saying that your nails turn into a literal longsword, but if the attack is a melee spell attack and the damage type is spell damage, then it doesn't count as a melee attack or melee damage.
Unlike Booming blade, which you make a melee attack with and deals the weapon's normal dmg/effect and additional thunder.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
I honestly don't know why primal savagery describes attacking with claws, but makes the damage type acid... But acid is acid and not piercing nor slashing.
A melee spell attack is a melee attack. The reason these feats don't work is only because of damage type.
Melee spell attacks and melee attacks are different mechanics.
1. The melee spell attack uses your spellcasting modifier for Hit instead of Str/Dex and you don't add your Ability Modifier to the damage it deals by default.
2. Melee spell attacks follow spellcasting rules instead of melee rules. For example you cannot use the Extra Attack feature with melee spell attacks.
Inflict wounds is a simple melee spell attack. Primal Savagery's flavor text is kinda confusing, I agree. 😅 Another homebrew cantrip could be like shillelagh but for claws. Maybe bump your claw damage to d8 and allow you to use wis as your abi modifier instead of str.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Ah, you're right. It's true that in this sense melee spell attacks are technically melee attacks too. Like for example if you have a channel divinity option that allows you to deal extra dmg on a melee attack, then a melee spell attack is eligible for this. 😄 I forgot this.
IMO it's reasonable to separate them for PC purposes, but you are absolutely right that they are indeed both melee attacks in their core. 😄 Thanks for the reminder.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Both of those are very specific niche cases with class features that specifically allow them to cast a spell and make an attack once they reach the specified level. They are not the norm, and this is not the standard. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best. To be honest I don’t even think they can do this anyway.
Eldritch knight says;
Improved War Magic
Starting at 18th level, when you use your action to cast a spell, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.
So you are taking the cast a spell action which allows you a bonus action attack - a completely different thing to extra attack, and using a scroll is a use an object action which is not the same as cast a spell action even though the end result is effectively the same thing. It states a single weapon attack as well which means No multi attack.
Bladesinger says;
Extra Attack
6th-level Bladesinging feature
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
This is extra attack clearly, but it specifically calls out making the attack action and then using one of those attacks to cast a cantrip. It say’s absolutely nothing about getting an object interaction to cast a levelled spell through a scroll. Again this would not convert the second attack into multiple attacks if a creature you polymorphed into had that feature. It is very specific.
Not to mention, shapechange is a 9th level spell. Which would be a legendary item, an eldritch knight would need to make a dc 19 check using likely their tertiary stat just to cast it. They won’t be casting it regularly enough for it to ever matter. The bladesinger would need to be level 17 to cast it (or make the ability check) and at that point wouldn’t need to use the scroll - assuming the game actually went that far as most don’t or that the dm gives out Legendary magic items routinely enough to make this an actual tactic. Even with an incredibly permissive dm that allowed it to work, and gave out legendary scrolls, the likelihood of this ever coming up in a game is so low that it is moot.
You completely misunderstood what I'm talking about. The entire point is that the melee spell attack in the monster stat block isn't a spell. I only chose those classes because they have extra attack and access to shapechange, everything else isn't relevant. First they cast shapechange to become a apprentice wizard for example, then on the next turn they use extra attack to make multiple melee spell attacks (arcane burst in this example).
Yes it is niche, the only point was to give an example to show how non-spell melee spell attacks work.
That makes even less sense, when you use shapechange you don’t get the spell casting trait of the creature you turn into, so in your apprentice wizard example the person wouldn’t get arcane burst as it is a spell attack. (Nor any of its other spells). I mean the give away is in the name - melee SPELL attack. If it wasn’t based on magic it would just say melee attack.
Those spell attacks are not spells and do not rely on the creature’s spellcasting feature. You can tell because “arcane burst” isn’t described anywhere in the spellcasting feature’s description.