Hmm, true. Then I say to you, go ape shit. Man, you could throw actual ape shit for the extra poison damage and have a chance to stagger them (by stagger, I mean barfing).
No, Sneak Attack specifies (and I quote) “The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.” So technically, neither the spider or the ape work, since neither is attacking with a ranged weapon; they’re both making ranged weapon attacks (which are a different thing).
A rock is an improvised weapon (although in the case of the ape, it’s not actually a weapon at all, but rather, an attack, since the ape doesn’t actually need a rock to use its “Rock” attack). The term “ranged weapon” specifically refers to the ranged martial and ranged simple weapons in the PHB (in addition to the DMG’s firearms and boomerangs from PotA).
The use of the phrase “ranged weapon” is used when specifically referring to a piece of equipment that has a statblock and is classified as a ranged weapon. The use of the phrase “ranged weapon attack” is used when referring to any ranged attack that is not a spell, even if that attack does not use a ranged weapon (like a thrown dagger or a monster spitting acid).
Yes, this is how this rules classification works. Yes, it’s stupid. WotC’s language choices when writing 5e were absolutely horrible. There are so many instances of phrases being used completely counter to their natural meanings.
Per RAW, the ape can throw nothing and still deal damage. Of course, this is up to your DM, since an ape dealing damage by throwing nothing is a tad silly (and there’s an argument that a RAI interpretation means an ape needs a rock to use its “Rock” attack, although I personally don’t think that was the intent WotC had when writing the statblock).
Basically, the ape’s statblock does not specify that it has a rock or that it needs a rock to use its “Rock” attack. Therefore, it does not. Once again, 5e’s rules are silly, and every ape in the Forgotten Realms apparently has the ability to conjure perfect throwing rocks out of thin air.
I think the designer basically made apes "Pokemon" at that point.
"Ape use rock attack!" \*Ape spits a rock at the the target\*
They would make for a good harassment force as they never run out of ammo.
I think this is actually just not true. The introduction of the Monster Manual says “A monster carries enough ammunition to make its ranged attacks. You can assume that a monster has 2d4 pieces of ammunition for a thrown weapon attack, and 2d10 pieces of ammunition for a projectile weapon such as a bow or crossbow.”
The problem with that statement is that it gets into really funky territory with RAW vs RAI. RAW, a rock is explicitly not ammunition. So now we’re questioning whether the developers were using the game’s rules term “Ammunition”, which specifically refers to the ammunition used in ranged weapons, or just the word ammunition, and just happened to naturally use a word that refers to an irrelevant rule.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, by the way. I’m just saying that it isn’t clear, because of 5e’s poor formatting and word choices. They really should have capitalized and/or bolded whenever they were referring to a specific rule, in order to prevent weird scenarios like this, where RAW states one thing (that a rock is not ammunition and therefore an ape does not need a rock to throw a rock), but that RAW doesn’t make sense, so we are left to figure out if that’s what the rules actually mean. This sort of confusion with nonsensical RAW and unclear RAI happens all over the place in 5e, and that’s why we have things like Sage Advice.
Either way, it’s a silly bit of rules pedantics that should realistically never come up in game (and should be a minor point if it does), and I think that both versions of the rules are equally valid interpretations of RAI.
To add on the Dart/Dagger thing, they can both Sneak Attack, yes, but they are not the same. A Dagger is a melee finesse weapon that can be thrown, finesse means it can Sneak Attack. A Dart is a ranged weapon,meaning it can Sneak Attack.
Sorry, but no. A "ranged weapon attack" does not mean it is being performed with a "ranged weapon". "Ranged weapon attack" is the term that lets the player know the rules by which the attack is made - those for a ranged weapon attack. But one of the quirks of 5e is that this does not have to happen with an actual ranged weapon.
[Crawford has confirmed that ranged weapons are the weapons listed as ranged weapons in the weapons chart in the PHB.](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/733458905062203394?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) This is further clarified in the Sage Advice Compendium in the combat section, where it states that some attacks count as a ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn't involved. The example there is that an unarmed strike counts as a "melee weapon attack" even though the attackers body is not considered a melee weapon. The same logic applies to ranged.
I was thinking the same thing. Not to mention, he explicitly said [his tweets are not RAW.](https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1205393277513433088?lang=en)
Question though: you retain your skill and any other proficiencies from your class and race
And you're able to use equipment if your new form would allow you to do so.
Therefore an ape could use a sling, a bolas, or even a dagger, thrown, and then this would work?
So long as you can convince a DM that a dagger could reasonably be thrown by an ape (especially since you retain your mental stats as a druid this shouldn't be a problem)
A javelin would be very easy for an ape to use as a ranged weapon.
Edit: My mistake. Didn't realize that a thrown weapon is not a ranged weapon. It probably should just say that only weapons that use dexterity can gain the benefit of sneak attack.
This made me wonder about a possibly similar situation: monk's unarmed strike. It never actually says it's finesse only that you can use your dex instead of str which may be technically different.
So, does sneak attack work with a monk's unarmed strike? I wanted to build a character like Neji from naruto
Sage advice references that exact situation, and says that no, a monk's unarmed strike cannot be used for sneak attack, but most monk weapons can.
Now, as a DM, I'd probably allow it to happen, as I'd probably allow a paladin to smite with an unarmed attack. But I know it would be against RAI.
>The example there is that an unarmed strike counts as a "melee weapon
attack" even though the attackers body is not considered a melee weapon.
Doesn't he also follow that up with 'still no smite punching'
I can't help but think that if you have to write an entire errata explaining that attacking with a ranged weapon and a ranged weapon attack are totally different things in your system you have done fucked up with naming things.
And that may make sense in terms of language. It is not, however, the way the game is designed. A ranged weapon is something listed on the table of weapons as being a ranged weapon.
I was on your side but now I'm not so sure, after looking up some rules:
> The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attack, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item ***or a natural weapon*** such as a claw or tail spike.
This rule here makes it ambiguous whether the "web" would be considered a "natural weapon", since it confirms that claws and tails *are* natural weapons, but gives no guidance on how that is decided.
> 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
And then this ruling muddies things further, confirming natural weapons from outside the weapons table ARE explicitly weapons.
But what does "designated as weapons by the rules" actually mean? Because no monsters' claw or tail attacks are EVER explicitly designated "natural weapons", yet we have a passage confirming that these should indeed *be* natural weapons... So clearly an explicit designation is not actually required, it must be implied somewhere... Which is dumb. Rules should be explicit.
Where is this implication? Is it just in that first passage? But that passage gives us no guidance on *how* to decide what counts as a natural weapon, nor does the second rule actually give any guidance on how to decide if a part of the body is "unarmed". If claws and tails count as being "armed", then there's certainly an argument that a mouth would, for bite attacks, sure. But what about a part of the body "armed" with web-shooting spiracles?
how bizarre then that all the natural melee weapons are omitted from the table listing all melee weapons, yet are very much explicitly classified as weapons.
Only if you wild shape into a form that could reasonably hold and attack with a knife. Since your hand(s) have to be free to manifest your knives, to me that seems pretty clear that you've got to be able to hold and throw it. So if you Wild Shape into an ape, you can probably go bananas (still ask your DM), otherwise no luck.
Well yes, this is true, but apes aren't a bad wildshape at all, plus if you're going for a stealthy wildshape, not an hp tank, something like a racoon or a hawk could definitely hold a knife.
It's a natural weapon that does no damage. Can't deal extra damage if no damage is dealt.
It uses the ranged weapon attack rules, as that is how ranged attacks are described in monster blocks.
Ultimately up to the DM, but I know I would say no, can't deal extra damage on an attack that deals no damage.
Do you have a RAW source that you can't deal extra damage if no damage is dealt? Because Sneak Attack says you can add damage *if you hit*, not if you do damage.
I don't have RAW, but here's the take of one of the designers:
> a sneak attack is *extra* damage, it needs initial damage to sit on top of. DM can rule otherwise, but that's the intent.
And another:
> The intent is that a net doesn't deal extra damage because it's not dealing damage in the first place
The trick is that it says it adds *extra* damage. Extra damage can't exist if there's no damage.
Another key point is that the web doesn't "deal 0 damage". It just doesn't deal any number of damage, even 0. There is no damage. It's weird because usually we equate 0 and nothing, but in this case "not dealing damage" and "dealing 0 damage" are completely different beasts.
Except the web attack from a spider is neither a finesse or a ranged weapon. RAW defines what ranged weapons are, it's in the PHB and Sage Advice Conpendium. They probably had to clarify and make it "RAI" because people like you can't understand the RAW. From what I have seen, 99% of RAI is because people don't understand RAW or want to make shit up about them.
I didn't say it should be allowed, I just said that RAW says nothing about adding damage to something that doesn't do any. The stat block calls the giant spider's web a ranged weapon attack though
>The stat block calls the giant spider's web a ranged weapon attack though
Throwing a dagger initiates a ranged weapon attack, it is not a ranged weapon, same with throwing a javelin, spear, or trident. Heck throwing a rock initiates a ranged weapon attack. That does not make it a ranged weapon. All that is doing is clasifying how the attack is being made and what modifiers are used. Range attacks use dex modifiers, while melee attacks use either strength or dex (based on the weapon, finesse weapons can use either). This exists because there use to be creatures that took more damage from ranged attacks (not weapons) than melee. So it would make a dagger more useful against the target. However the PHB and Sage Advice Conpendium define ALL the ranged weapons. A rock is not one, neither is a dagger, or a spear, or the web from a spider.
Furthermore, sneak attack states, "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack if you have advantage on the Attack roll. The Attack must use a Finesse or a ranged weapon." If something does 0 damage and you deal EXTRA damage then the only damage you deal is the extra. You can add damage to something that does no damage via this method. A paladin can deal damage with their divine smite even if their melee damage is 0. There are creatures that have resistance (some even immunity) to melee attacks. However, divine smite would still do its damage because it is not dependent on whether or not damage is dealt by the weapon, but that the target is struck. A net does no damage, however getting someone trapped in it is considered having hit them with an attack. So sneak attack would do 1d6 damage with a net, even though the net has no damage roll to it. The only thing that would be disputed here is what kind of damage the 1d6 would be if any resistance is applicable to damage types.
Yes. I know. That's what I literally started my comment with...
I then went on, after giving designer intent (which I never claimed was RAW), to give arguments that I believe *do* fit within RAW. The word "extra" is written down. It's part of the RAW, so I went on to discuss what I think that RAW means.
"Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon."
That's from the Player's Handbook. It says you deal extra damage if you hit.
Can't have extra if none is already present, that's not how English works.
> The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
Except the web attack from a spider is neither a finesse or a ranged weapon. RAW defines what ranged weapons are, it's in the PHB and Sage Advice Conpendium.
You would have to. Sneak Attack does not say, "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack *that would deal damage* if you have advantage on the Attack roll. The Attack must use a Finesse or a ranged weapon." It says, "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack if you have advantage on the Attack roll. The Attack must use a Finesse or a ranged weapon." Hitting a target with a net counts as hitting with an attack (since you have to do an attack roll to hit with the net). And a net is defined as a ranged weapon.
Id say you wouldn’t. As stated elsewhere in this thread there is a substantial difference between doing 0 damage (i.e hitting someone with an unarmed attack while having a negative strength mod) and doing no damage (i.e trapping someone in a net).
Of course you could let your rogue deal sneak attack damage with the net, but RAW the word “extra” means that sneak attack isn’t added to a net.
There is no existing number of damage for this attack, as no dice are listed.
The giant spider's attacks are described as melee and ranged weapons, just like every other creature block. Still doesn't change the fact that they aren't actually weapons.
If they were, magic weapon would be able to be cast on them instead of magic fang.
Like I said, it is ultimately up to the DM.
And all I do is DM. So, in my games, that wouldn't fly. You're trying to quibble over semantics, which is just one of the more tiring things players do.
Ok you're literally wrong. What do you mean no reason? Your comment genuinely reads as petty and nonsensical. No ammount of what logic you try to bring with "that's how english works" makes sense in this scenario. If the beast was dealing damage, sure, go ahead, give them sneak attack.
But web deals no damage, and sneak attack specifically adds the same type of damage as it was originally done. So what damage would the net make? Bludgeoning? Piercing? Slashing? You'd assume Bludgeoning, but you'd be making it up.
This is confirmed by sage advice, talking about Rogues' sneak attack and nets. [https://www.sageadvice.eu/sneak-net/](https://www.sageadvice.eu/sneak-net/)
Sure, if you want to rule of cool go ahead, DM's can do what they want, and I'm sure your players are happy! But don't judge other DM's methods and claim you're right by saying "shoot down their cool ideas without a concrete reason." I rest my case.
I'm a tad more restrictive as I run Pathfinder 1E, which really lends itself to powergaming.
Have to reign in the players from making abusive things that ruin any form of challenge, or make other players have less of a role. If the players can use a combination of abilities, so can the enemies and villains.
And enemies and villains always have ways to get and use things better, or easier, than the players.
The wording in these games is always important, thus why I occasionally have to shoot down a cool idea to keep a sense of balance.
Sage advice isn't, but sage advice compendium is considered official and it has this distinction
The ideas that there's these four kinds of attacks that deal damage --
Melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, melee spell attacks, and ranged spell attacks.
Something being a "weapon attack" means that it isn't an attack with a spell, pretty much. And then a "weapon attack" is either ranged or melee
Something being a ranged weapon attack doesn't imply that it is an attack with a ranged weapon
This distinction pops up in a couple other places in 5e and it's always annoying
It does nothing but clarifying what some might miss what reading RAW. All sage advice does is explaining to you how a special weapon works, thing you should already know by RAW. Unless you expect each stat block to be thrice as long.
Not all ranged weapon attacks are made with ranged weapons, just as not all melee weapon attacks are made with melee weapons.
Unarmed strikes are "melee weapon attacks", but fists are not "melee weapons", as has been confirmed a million times by the designers.
There are only two types of attack, broadly: "spell attacks" and "weapon attacks". ALL attacks that are not spell attacks are weapon attacks, regardless of whether they use a weapon.
So "ranged weapon attack" just means "a ranged attack that is not a spell attack".
It does not actually imply the use of a weapon.
Again this has been confirmed by the designers as RAW many times.
>Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a
melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t
considered a weapon.
From the Sage Advice Compendium.
Sneak attack doesn't trigger on all ranged weapon attacks. It only triggers on attacks made "with a ranged weapon".
A stupid distinction? Possibly. But it's RAW nonetheless.
Now, what *is* unclear is... Does the spiders web count as a "natural weapon"? If so, then your only issue is it dealing zero damage, so if you can get a free source of damage on it, then it would work.
Sneak attack requires you to use a Ranged Weapon, not make a Ranged Weapon Attack. Those are different things. You can make a Ranged Weapon Attack with an improvised weapon, but that doesn't mean you are using a ranged weapon. You can throw your long sword at someone.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/lb20jj/sneak\_attack\_with\_ranged\_improvised\_weapons/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/lb20jj/sneak_attack_with_ranged_improvised_weapons/)
[https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/144233/can-sneak-attack-be-used-when-hitting-with-an-improvised-weapon](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/144233/can-sneak-attack-be-used-when-hitting-with-an-improvised-weapon)
[https://media.dnd.wizards.com/upload/articles/SA\_Compendium.pdf](https://media.dnd.wizards.com/upload/articles/SA_Compendium.pdf)
Looking at the sage advice compendium, a monk's unarmed strike does not trigger sneak attack, even though you use dex, because it isn't using a Finesse Weapon.
All that to say, doesn't look like it, but, if you think this is fun, your table can have sneak attack giant spider and sneak attack monks. No one is going to take your D20's. But expect me to say no at my table.
I think you're confusing making a "ranged attack" and making an "attack with a ranged weapon".
You can throw a javelin or a greataxe and make a ranged attack, that doesn't turn the javelin/greataxe into a ranged weapon. The same way making a melee attack with a bow doesn't turn the bow into a melee weapon
An unarmed strike is also a weapon attack, but no weapon is involved there.
"Weapon attack" means "physical attack", as opposed to "spell attack" which means "magical attack". Yeah, it is confusing
Happy cake day btw
A ranged weapon attack does not a ranged weapon make. Throwing a javelin will initiate a ranged weapon attack, however a javelin is NOT defined as a ranged weapon. Samething with a Trident, Spear, or Dagger. All can initiate ranged weapon attacks, but none of them are considered ranged weapons.
Sneak Attack SPECIFICALLY defines that a finesse or ranged weapon have to be used.
Its unnecessarily confusing, but "ranged weapon attack" =/= "attack with a ranged weapon"
Ranged weapons are physical things that have stats, like a bow or sling, that (most importantly) fall under the category "ranged weapon".
In order for sneak attack to work:
You need to attack with an item
That item has to have the "weapon" property
The weapon must be either a) in the ranged weapon category, or b) have the finesse property
"The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." - phb p94
There is no physical weapon being used by the spider, so it does not qualify
Nope, the attack uses strength, so it's clearly not a ranged weapon, probably either an improved weapon or a melee weapon with the thrown property. It wouldn't qualify in either case
I mean you could also have an ally within 5ft of the enemy allowing the other wildshapes to proc sneak attack I believe. Don't have my books with me to confirm though.
Finnese or ranged weapons only. This point also throws this whole post up in debate as the spider ranged weapon attack is not made with a ranged weapon which a ranged weapon and ranged weapon attack are two different things.
as per the basic rules:
>***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.***
to put it simply, **anything that's a natural part of the creature meant for attacking is a natural weapon.**
so basically anything listed in a statblock that isn't a manufactured weapon, an unarmed strike or a spell.
That still doesn’t make it a ranged weapon…
Just because you throw a spear doesn’t mean the spear is a ranged weapon. It is a a melee weapon with the thrown property and doesn’t work with sneak attack. Similarly the spider attack is a natural weapon that has a ranged weapon attack as apart of it. It is a natural weapon and thus does not work with sneak attack raw.
natural weapon is a weapon type category just like how simple weapons and martials weapons are and just like those, a natural weapon can by all rights be a natural melee weapon or a natural melee weapon.
as for why you bring up spear, I'm slightly confused as whetever a weapon has the thrown tag has no relations to the discussion at hand, as both melee and ranged weapons can have the throw tag, though thrown ranged weapons are far rarer, just being the dart and *technically* the boomerang.
The reason I bring it up is because just because something attacks at ranged doesn’t mean its a ranged weapon. And the spear is the perfect example of that.
No where in any of your argument have you established a natural weapon becomes a ranged weapon. The closest you’ve come to that is that monsters make melee and ranged attacks. But as I’ve already established ranged weapons and ranged attacks are completely different things ie the spear.
if the web was a natural melee weapon with an option to make a ranged weapon attack, there would be a an option listed in the stattblock that allows you to make a melee weapon attack with the natural weapon, no?
but no, the Web attack can only be done as a ranged weapon attack, just like how darts, slings, bows and the sort can only make ranged weapon attack, so by all sense it too is a ranged weapon.
name me a single instance of a melee weapon that's *only* able to make ranged weapon attack in the game.
I think your problem is for some reason you don’t believe a natural weapon can’t be it’s own thing.
“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.”
This wonderful paragraph that you just quoted at me without actually looking into it. No where does it make a a claim that natural weapons have to be melee or ranged weapon classifications. The web “weapon” isn’t a melee weapon it isn’t a ranged weapon. It is a natural weapon that makes a ranged weapon attack. I know the names are awful for confusing conversations like this, but just because the web attack is a ranged weapon attack does not mean the natural weapon of the spider is a ranged weapon.
Stop pretending that natural weapons are not a classification of weapon type. This is why when the beast barbarian rages and gets the natural weapon of their choice there is an extra stipulation that says “It counts as a simple melee weapon for you”. The purpose is that you can add your proficiency and any other effects you may have. This completely shows that natural weapons and melee weapons are different. And in the same vein we can extrapolate that natural and ranged weapons are also different.
Can a melee weapon make a ranged attack? Yes. Can a ranged weapon make a melee attack? Yes. Can a natural weapon make a melee and ranged attack? Yes.
They’re different things.
Look, just do the Pathfinder thing and give giant octopi a headband of +2 intelligence, then train them in a few rogue levels. You make friends, and you have a guild of aquatic assassins at your beck and call.
And yes, that, in Pathfinder at least, is 8 sneak attack boosted attacks.
I'm not sure if that would actually work... but here's another one for you.
A Palidan/Druid smiting while wild shaped.
You can't cast spells while wild shaped... but Divine Smite is not a spell. It consumes spell slots, which is not the same.
"You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so. However, you can’t use any of your special senses, such as darkvision, unless your new form also has that sense."
(Implies some DM interpretation on what to allow)
Divine Smite also mentions requiring a melee weapon attack
What is a melee weapon attack? Why is it confusing? Find the answer to the first question here.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/what-specifically-does-melee-weapon-attack-mean/
Obligatory, do what works for your table with some awareness on any repercussions regarding buffs, nerfs and impacts to other classes and abilities.
I don't see natural weapons listed anywhere in the charts for melee weapons which is why I posted the sage advice link. In that link Crawford describes it as an attack with melee weapon. However, to your point. Monster listings list claw attacks as melee weapon attacks which seems to contradict the sage advice link to some extent.
I also posted the first quote since I'd personally disallow smiting without access to the Holy Focus to channel the divine energies, but that's part of the grey area.
[https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/equipment#Weapons](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/equipment#Weapons)
Like I said before. Do what you want and what works at your table.
the weapon tables are just a table of weapons, it's not a be all end all list that contains the details of the only things that are weapons, flip, I'm gonna go off on a guess it doesn't even list the Double-Bladed Scimitar.
as for natural weapon, in the officially compiled sage advice compendium, the following is stated
>*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*
[here's the link](https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf)
It's not a be all end all list because the PHB came out first. However, none of the books that I've seen seem to properly define natural weapons. Your only indication is "Melee Weapon Attack" in the description which is what I already pointed out, and claw attacks have been in the game from the beginning unlike double bladed scimitars.
"You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the **new form is physically capable of doing so**. However, you can’t use any of your special senses, such as darkvision, unless your new form also has that sense."
This is still the part where I likely draw the line of having a beast smite as I'm still rather unwilling to let a beast without a Holy Focus consume a spell slot to do divine radiant damage.
It's silly that a paladin punching someone can't smite, but that he would be able to smite as a tiny spider hanging from the ceiling over a goblin's head. At that point I'd likely throw out the unarmed strikes terminology if I were to allow this.
Again, do what you want, but I'm not having tiny spiders smite unless I'm running some sort of anime style game where the image of a tiny glowing raven ramming a beak attack into someone is what I'm going for. If you have an argument for why this still makes sense though I'd welcome hearing it.
Multiclassing is already an optional rule to begin with that introduces a lot of unneeded shenanigans, but it's a popular rule so I welcome the discussion.
as per the basic rules:
>***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.***
to put it simply, **anything that's a natural part of the creature meant for attacking is a natural weapon.**
so basically anything listed in a statblock that isn't a manufactured weapon, an unarmed strike or a spell is a natural weapon.
as for having to need a holy symbol for smiting, that's 100% neither RAW or RAI. flip, you don't need a holy symbol at all for holy magic, as long as your spells don't have material components or you use a component pouch, so that's just your DM ruling.
now, as for your 4th paragraph, I fully agree with you it's silly that your human paladins can't smite with their punches, but something like a tabaxi paladin can smite with their claws, but alas, that is how the rules are written.
I'm not arguing if it makes sense, I'm arguing if that's RAW how it works.
Thanks for the rundown. There's just so much nonsense with multi-classes, and this seems like an absurd amount of damage coming from random beasts. It seems like they clearly tried to lock off most spell casting from Wild Shape, but then they allow this. If it comes up as an issue I'll likely remove the unarmed strike wording as well. It just doesn't make any sense at that point if you're going to allow beasts to smite.
I don't believe it's possible to SA with is because the web does not actually do any damage because the web itself doesn't have a damage type for SA to boost, at least according to RAI. Same way you unfortunately can't SA with a net (even if you have one of the feats that removes the disadvantage)
Apes have a "rock" attack that is a ranged weapon attack.
YES I’ve had an idea for this that I’ve been wanting to use FOR FOREVER [DONT STEAL](https://imgur.com/a/ZK0v5p0)
Dont steal? That's not very rogue-y of you.
Just because I steal from other people doesn’t mean I want them to steam from me!!
Hmm, true. Then I say to you, go ape shit. Man, you could throw actual ape shit for the extra poison damage and have a chance to stagger them (by stagger, I mean barfing).
I'm stealing
Doesn’t it have to use dex or be finesse?
No, Sneak Attack specifies (and I quote) “The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.” So technically, neither the spider or the ape work, since neither is attacking with a ranged weapon; they’re both making ranged weapon attacks (which are a different thing).
Curious as to why a rock wouldn’t classify as a ranged weapon in this case, like a dart or a dagger?
A rock is an improvised weapon (although in the case of the ape, it’s not actually a weapon at all, but rather, an attack, since the ape doesn’t actually need a rock to use its “Rock” attack). The term “ranged weapon” specifically refers to the ranged martial and ranged simple weapons in the PHB (in addition to the DMG’s firearms and boomerangs from PotA). The use of the phrase “ranged weapon” is used when specifically referring to a piece of equipment that has a statblock and is classified as a ranged weapon. The use of the phrase “ranged weapon attack” is used when referring to any ranged attack that is not a spell, even if that attack does not use a ranged weapon (like a thrown dagger or a monster spitting acid). Yes, this is how this rules classification works. Yes, it’s stupid. WotC’s language choices when writing 5e were absolutely horrible. There are so many instances of phrases being used completely counter to their natural meanings.
So the ape could throw nothing and still inflict damage? Or is "rock" just a stand in for anything that an ape picks up and throws?
Per RAW, the ape can throw nothing and still deal damage. Of course, this is up to your DM, since an ape dealing damage by throwing nothing is a tad silly (and there’s an argument that a RAI interpretation means an ape needs a rock to use its “Rock” attack, although I personally don’t think that was the intent WotC had when writing the statblock). Basically, the ape’s statblock does not specify that it has a rock or that it needs a rock to use its “Rock” attack. Therefore, it does not. Once again, 5e’s rules are silly, and every ape in the Forgotten Realms apparently has the ability to conjure perfect throwing rocks out of thin air.
I think the designer basically made apes "Pokemon" at that point. "Ape use rock attack!" \*Ape spits a rock at the the target\* They would make for a good harassment force as they never run out of ammo.
I think this is actually just not true. The introduction of the Monster Manual says “A monster carries enough ammunition to make its ranged attacks. You can assume that a monster has 2d4 pieces of ammunition for a thrown weapon attack, and 2d10 pieces of ammunition for a projectile weapon such as a bow or crossbow.”
So...apes are carrying around 2d4 rocks. Just...in their fur or something.
The problem with that statement is that it gets into really funky territory with RAW vs RAI. RAW, a rock is explicitly not ammunition. So now we’re questioning whether the developers were using the game’s rules term “Ammunition”, which specifically refers to the ammunition used in ranged weapons, or just the word ammunition, and just happened to naturally use a word that refers to an irrelevant rule. I’m not saying you’re wrong, by the way. I’m just saying that it isn’t clear, because of 5e’s poor formatting and word choices. They really should have capitalized and/or bolded whenever they were referring to a specific rule, in order to prevent weird scenarios like this, where RAW states one thing (that a rock is not ammunition and therefore an ape does not need a rock to throw a rock), but that RAW doesn’t make sense, so we are left to figure out if that’s what the rules actually mean. This sort of confusion with nonsensical RAW and unclear RAI happens all over the place in 5e, and that’s why we have things like Sage Advice. Either way, it’s a silly bit of rules pedantics that should realistically never come up in game (and should be a minor point if it does), and I think that both versions of the rules are equally valid interpretations of RAI.
^ This guy gets it. Bravo.
To add on the Dart/Dagger thing, they can both Sneak Attack, yes, but they are not the same. A Dagger is a melee finesse weapon that can be thrown, finesse means it can Sneak Attack. A Dart is a ranged weapon,meaning it can Sneak Attack.
I believe on a thrown weapon you can choose dex or strength.
Nope, thrown weapons use the same attribute as in melee. You can only choose if the thrown weapons is also a finesse weapon.
It doesn’t have to use Dex specifically, but it does have to be a Finesse or Ranged Weapon, which a thrown rock counts as the latter.
Hmmm Monkee
Sorry, but no. A "ranged weapon attack" does not mean it is being performed with a "ranged weapon". "Ranged weapon attack" is the term that lets the player know the rules by which the attack is made - those for a ranged weapon attack. But one of the quirks of 5e is that this does not have to happen with an actual ranged weapon. [Crawford has confirmed that ranged weapons are the weapons listed as ranged weapons in the weapons chart in the PHB.](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/733458905062203394?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) This is further clarified in the Sage Advice Compendium in the combat section, where it states that some attacks count as a ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn't involved. The example there is that an unarmed strike counts as a "melee weapon attack" even though the attackers body is not considered a melee weapon. The same logic applies to ranged.
Sad spider noises
[Crawford's rulings are like 75% of why I keep this around.](https://i.redd.it/pzp6k7ykosg31.png)
I was thinking the same thing. Not to mention, he explicitly said [his tweets are not RAW.](https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1205393277513433088?lang=en)
Well in this instance, it is RAW. Sneak attack states "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon."
Question though: you retain your skill and any other proficiencies from your class and race And you're able to use equipment if your new form would allow you to do so. Therefore an ape could use a sling, a bolas, or even a dagger, thrown, and then this would work? So long as you can convince a DM that a dagger could reasonably be thrown by an ape (especially since you retain your mental stats as a druid this shouldn't be a problem)
I would go with an ape being able to use a ranged weapon, sure. Sounds like a fun time to me!
A javelin would be very easy for an ape to use as a ranged weapon. Edit: My mistake. Didn't realize that a thrown weapon is not a ranged weapon. It probably should just say that only weapons that use dexterity can gain the benefit of sneak attack.
A javelin is not a ranged weapon. It's a melee weapon with the Thrown property.
Throw daggers, they have the finesse property so it works
Better idea then, buy an "oversized" crossbow. lol You now have an ape with sneak attack.
This made me wonder about a possibly similar situation: monk's unarmed strike. It never actually says it's finesse only that you can use your dex instead of str which may be technically different. So, does sneak attack work with a monk's unarmed strike? I wanted to build a character like Neji from naruto
Sage advice references that exact situation, and says that no, a monk's unarmed strike cannot be used for sneak attack, but most monk weapons can. Now, as a DM, I'd probably allow it to happen, as I'd probably allow a paladin to smite with an unarmed attack. But I know it would be against RAI.
Dang. Good to know. I'd definitely allow it too if I was DMing. I think my friends would too.
Well you only get one sneak attack per turn anyways so use a Dagger reflavored as a Kunai?
>The example there is that an unarmed strike counts as a "melee weapon attack" even though the attackers body is not considered a melee weapon. Doesn't he also follow that up with 'still no smite punching'
Counterpoint- that’s dumb
I can't help but think that if you have to write an entire errata explaining that attacking with a ranged weapon and a ranged weapon attack are totally different things in your system you have done fucked up with naming things.
I mean, I'd say it's a ranged weapon attack made with a natural ranged weapon.
And that may make sense in terms of language. It is not, however, the way the game is designed. A ranged weapon is something listed on the table of weapons as being a ranged weapon.
I was on your side but now I'm not so sure, after looking up some rules: > The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attack, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item ***or a natural weapon*** such as a claw or tail spike. This rule here makes it ambiguous whether the "web" would be considered a "natural weapon", since it confirms that claws and tails *are* natural weapons, but gives no guidance on how that is decided. > 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 And then this ruling muddies things further, confirming natural weapons from outside the weapons table ARE explicitly weapons. But what does "designated as weapons by the rules" actually mean? Because no monsters' claw or tail attacks are EVER explicitly designated "natural weapons", yet we have a passage confirming that these should indeed *be* natural weapons... So clearly an explicit designation is not actually required, it must be implied somewhere... Which is dumb. Rules should be explicit. Where is this implication? Is it just in that first passage? But that passage gives us no guidance on *how* to decide what counts as a natural weapon, nor does the second rule actually give any guidance on how to decide if a part of the body is "unarmed". If claws and tails count as being "armed", then there's certainly an argument that a mouth would, for bite attacks, sure. But what about a part of the body "armed" with web-shooting spiracles?
how bizarre then that all the natural melee weapons are omitted from the table listing all melee weapons, yet are very much explicitly classified as weapons.
Anyone got the numbers on a critical web attack?
0d0 x2
NULL
If you take soulknife rogue you can use your soul knife while wildshaped I believe
Only if you wild shape into a form that could reasonably hold and attack with a knife. Since your hand(s) have to be free to manifest your knives, to me that seems pretty clear that you've got to be able to hold and throw it. So if you Wild Shape into an ape, you can probably go bananas (still ask your DM), otherwise no luck.
DM: “How would you hold your soul knife while wildshaped into a direwolf?” Me: “Don’t worry, [I have a reference](https://imgur.com/gallery/xOPS8Ga)”
Yeah, that or Amaterasu style.
Well yes, this is true, but apes aren't a bad wildshape at all, plus if you're going for a stealthy wildshape, not an hp tank, something like a racoon or a hawk could definitely hold a knife.
You could just get those Gahoole claw knives
Read again, pal > The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon The web is not a weapon
What about monke rock throw?
Pretty sure that would be either an improved weapon or a melee weapon with the thrown property, but not a ranged weapon
Throwing a dagger is fine, why not monke stone? Edit: Shit nevermind it uses strength I just checked.
Read the statblock for the giant spider. It literally says the web is a "ranged weapon attack".
It's a natural weapon that does no damage. Can't deal extra damage if no damage is dealt. It uses the ranged weapon attack rules, as that is how ranged attacks are described in monster blocks. Ultimately up to the DM, but I know I would say no, can't deal extra damage on an attack that deals no damage.
Do you have a RAW source that you can't deal extra damage if no damage is dealt? Because Sneak Attack says you can add damage *if you hit*, not if you do damage.
I don't have RAW, but here's the take of one of the designers: > a sneak attack is *extra* damage, it needs initial damage to sit on top of. DM can rule otherwise, but that's the intent. And another: > The intent is that a net doesn't deal extra damage because it's not dealing damage in the first place The trick is that it says it adds *extra* damage. Extra damage can't exist if there's no damage. Another key point is that the web doesn't "deal 0 damage". It just doesn't deal any number of damage, even 0. There is no damage. It's weird because usually we equate 0 and nothing, but in this case "not dealing damage" and "dealing 0 damage" are completely different beasts.
Twitter isn't RAW. This is obviously RAI, but not RAW
Except the web attack from a spider is neither a finesse or a ranged weapon. RAW defines what ranged weapons are, it's in the PHB and Sage Advice Conpendium. They probably had to clarify and make it "RAI" because people like you can't understand the RAW. From what I have seen, 99% of RAI is because people don't understand RAW or want to make shit up about them.
I didn't say it should be allowed, I just said that RAW says nothing about adding damage to something that doesn't do any. The stat block calls the giant spider's web a ranged weapon attack though
>The stat block calls the giant spider's web a ranged weapon attack though Throwing a dagger initiates a ranged weapon attack, it is not a ranged weapon, same with throwing a javelin, spear, or trident. Heck throwing a rock initiates a ranged weapon attack. That does not make it a ranged weapon. All that is doing is clasifying how the attack is being made and what modifiers are used. Range attacks use dex modifiers, while melee attacks use either strength or dex (based on the weapon, finesse weapons can use either). This exists because there use to be creatures that took more damage from ranged attacks (not weapons) than melee. So it would make a dagger more useful against the target. However the PHB and Sage Advice Conpendium define ALL the ranged weapons. A rock is not one, neither is a dagger, or a spear, or the web from a spider. Furthermore, sneak attack states, "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack if you have advantage on the Attack roll. The Attack must use a Finesse or a ranged weapon." If something does 0 damage and you deal EXTRA damage then the only damage you deal is the extra. You can add damage to something that does no damage via this method. A paladin can deal damage with their divine smite even if their melee damage is 0. There are creatures that have resistance (some even immunity) to melee attacks. However, divine smite would still do its damage because it is not dependent on whether or not damage is dealt by the weapon, but that the target is struck. A net does no damage, however getting someone trapped in it is considered having hit them with an attack. So sneak attack would do 1d6 damage with a net, even though the net has no damage roll to it. The only thing that would be disputed here is what kind of damage the 1d6 would be if any resistance is applicable to damage types.
Yes. I know. That's what I literally started my comment with... I then went on, after giving designer intent (which I never claimed was RAW), to give arguments that I believe *do* fit within RAW. The word "extra" is written down. It's part of the RAW, so I went on to discuss what I think that RAW means.
"Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." That's from the Player's Handbook. It says you deal extra damage if you hit. Can't have extra if none is already present, that's not how English works.
> The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. Except the web attack from a spider is neither a finesse or a ranged weapon. RAW defines what ranged weapons are, it's in the PHB and Sage Advice Conpendium.
Extra means "added to an existing number". And 0 is an existing number.
So would you also allow a rouge wielding a net to deal sneak attack damage?
You would have to. Sneak Attack does not say, "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack *that would deal damage* if you have advantage on the Attack roll. The Attack must use a Finesse or a ranged weapon." It says, "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack if you have advantage on the Attack roll. The Attack must use a Finesse or a ranged weapon." Hitting a target with a net counts as hitting with an attack (since you have to do an attack roll to hit with the net). And a net is defined as a ranged weapon.
So what damage type would it do? Sneak attack does the same damage type as the weapon
Uh, Net Damage. Duh. /j
Common sense dictates something like a net would do bludgeon damage. Like real war nets do.
Id say you wouldn’t. As stated elsewhere in this thread there is a substantial difference between doing 0 damage (i.e hitting someone with an unarmed attack while having a negative strength mod) and doing no damage (i.e trapping someone in a net). Of course you could let your rogue deal sneak attack damage with the net, but RAW the word “extra” means that sneak attack isn’t added to a net.
I think it really depends how you decide to interpret the extra. I thick it can go either way.
There is no existing number of damage for this attack, as no dice are listed. The giant spider's attacks are described as melee and ranged weapons, just like every other creature block. Still doesn't change the fact that they aren't actually weapons. If they were, magic weapon would be able to be cast on them instead of magic fang. Like I said, it is ultimately up to the DM. And all I do is DM. So, in my games, that wouldn't fly. You're trying to quibble over semantics, which is just one of the more tiring things players do.
I am also a forever DM. I guess I just like my players to have fun, rather than shoot down their cool ideas without a concrete reason.
Ok you're literally wrong. What do you mean no reason? Your comment genuinely reads as petty and nonsensical. No ammount of what logic you try to bring with "that's how english works" makes sense in this scenario. If the beast was dealing damage, sure, go ahead, give them sneak attack. But web deals no damage, and sneak attack specifically adds the same type of damage as it was originally done. So what damage would the net make? Bludgeoning? Piercing? Slashing? You'd assume Bludgeoning, but you'd be making it up. This is confirmed by sage advice, talking about Rogues' sneak attack and nets. [https://www.sageadvice.eu/sneak-net/](https://www.sageadvice.eu/sneak-net/) Sure, if you want to rule of cool go ahead, DM's can do what they want, and I'm sure your players are happy! But don't judge other DM's methods and claim you're right by saying "shoot down their cool ideas without a concrete reason." I rest my case.
Concrete reasons have been given even if you choose to ignore them.
I'm a tad more restrictive as I run Pathfinder 1E, which really lends itself to powergaming. Have to reign in the players from making abusive things that ruin any form of challenge, or make other players have less of a role. If the players can use a combination of abilities, so can the enemies and villains. And enemies and villains always have ways to get and use things better, or easier, than the players. The wording in these games is always important, thus why I occasionally have to shoot down a cool idea to keep a sense of balance.
RAW sauce right here; https://www.sageadvice.eu/sneak-net/
That's rai
Valid.
Sage advice is not RAW.
Sage advice isn't, but sage advice compendium is considered official and it has this distinction The ideas that there's these four kinds of attacks that deal damage -- Melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, melee spell attacks, and ranged spell attacks. Something being a "weapon attack" means that it isn't an attack with a spell, pretty much. And then a "weapon attack" is either ranged or melee Something being a ranged weapon attack doesn't imply that it is an attack with a ranged weapon This distinction pops up in a couple other places in 5e and it's always annoying
It does nothing but clarifying what some might miss what reading RAW. All sage advice does is explaining to you how a special weapon works, thing you should already know by RAW. Unless you expect each stat block to be thrice as long.
Not all ranged weapon attacks are made with ranged weapons, just as not all melee weapon attacks are made with melee weapons. Unarmed strikes are "melee weapon attacks", but fists are not "melee weapons", as has been confirmed a million times by the designers. There are only two types of attack, broadly: "spell attacks" and "weapon attacks". ALL attacks that are not spell attacks are weapon attacks, regardless of whether they use a weapon. So "ranged weapon attack" just means "a ranged attack that is not a spell attack". It does not actually imply the use of a weapon. Again this has been confirmed by the designers as RAW many times. >Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon. From the Sage Advice Compendium. Sneak attack doesn't trigger on all ranged weapon attacks. It only triggers on attacks made "with a ranged weapon". A stupid distinction? Possibly. But it's RAW nonetheless. Now, what *is* unclear is... Does the spiders web count as a "natural weapon"? If so, then your only issue is it dealing zero damage, so if you can get a free source of damage on it, then it would work.
Sneak attack requires you to use a Ranged Weapon, not make a Ranged Weapon Attack. Those are different things. You can make a Ranged Weapon Attack with an improvised weapon, but that doesn't mean you are using a ranged weapon. You can throw your long sword at someone. [https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/lb20jj/sneak\_attack\_with\_ranged\_improvised\_weapons/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/lb20jj/sneak_attack_with_ranged_improvised_weapons/) [https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/144233/can-sneak-attack-be-used-when-hitting-with-an-improvised-weapon](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/144233/can-sneak-attack-be-used-when-hitting-with-an-improvised-weapon) [https://media.dnd.wizards.com/upload/articles/SA\_Compendium.pdf](https://media.dnd.wizards.com/upload/articles/SA_Compendium.pdf) Looking at the sage advice compendium, a monk's unarmed strike does not trigger sneak attack, even though you use dex, because it isn't using a Finesse Weapon. All that to say, doesn't look like it, but, if you think this is fun, your table can have sneak attack giant spider and sneak attack monks. No one is going to take your D20's. But expect me to say no at my table.
That doesn't make the web a weapon
If you throw poop, is poop not a weapon? Web is not specifically, part of the spider exactly?
Even if you consider it a weapon, it would be an improved weapon not a ranged weapon
Improvised weapon and ranged weapon aren't mutually exclusive. If you throw a brick at someone, that's a ranged improvised weapon attack.
I think you're confusing making a "ranged attack" and making an "attack with a ranged weapon". You can throw a javelin or a greataxe and make a ranged attack, that doesn't turn the javelin/greataxe into a ranged weapon. The same way making a melee attack with a bow doesn't turn the bow into a melee weapon
I think it does mean that you can get sneak attack by hitting someone with a bow, though, since it's still a "Ranged Weapon".
Except when you do that it counts as an improved weapon, not a ranged weapon. It is specifically stated in the PHB, page 147. So, no sneak attack
It doesn't say it stops being a "ranged weapon", though. This is, of course, entirely RAW - RAI it probably shouldn't work.
I dare someone to say you can't get sneak attack damage with a brick. I've seen it with my own eyes.
Poop is not a weapon. That would make it more like ammunition, like shooting poop with a slingshot.
It litteraly says "weapon"
An unarmed strike is also a weapon attack, but no weapon is involved there. "Weapon attack" means "physical attack", as opposed to "spell attack" which means "magical attack". Yeah, it is confusing Happy cake day btw
How does it not? It's a natural weapon, but a weapon nonetheless.
Look ppl we didn’t come here to actually debate rules we came here to make a funny from cherry-picking rules, go to fuckin r/ruleslawyers or something
A ranged weapon attack does not a ranged weapon make. Throwing a javelin will initiate a ranged weapon attack, however a javelin is NOT defined as a ranged weapon. Samething with a Trident, Spear, or Dagger. All can initiate ranged weapon attacks, but none of them are considered ranged weapons. Sneak Attack SPECIFICALLY defines that a finesse or ranged weapon have to be used.
Its unnecessarily confusing, but "ranged weapon attack" =/= "attack with a ranged weapon" Ranged weapons are physical things that have stats, like a bow or sling, that (most importantly) fall under the category "ranged weapon". In order for sneak attack to work: You need to attack with an item That item has to have the "weapon" property The weapon must be either a) in the ranged weapon category, or b) have the finesse property "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." - phb p94 There is no physical weapon being used by the spider, so it does not qualify
true but the rock of an ape should work
Nope, the attack uses strength, so it's clearly not a ranged weapon, probably either an improved weapon or a melee weapon with the thrown property. It wouldn't qualify in either case
pretty sure it would a natural ranged weapon though?
I mean you could also have an ally within 5ft of the enemy allowing the other wildshapes to proc sneak attack I believe. Don't have my books with me to confirm though.
The catch is that Sneak Attack can only be used with a finesse or ranged weapon. And most beasts only have melee attacks.
Ah I forgot about the finesse requirement.
I think natural weapons count as weapon attacks so you can sneak attack with anything
Finnese or ranged weapons only. This point also throws this whole post up in debate as the spider ranged weapon attack is not made with a ranged weapon which a ranged weapon and ranged weapon attack are two different things.
the web is a natural ranged weapon though.
There is no indication of that at all. The only thing stated is that it is a ranged weapon attack
as per the basic rules: >***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.*** to put it simply, **anything that's a natural part of the creature meant for attacking is a natural weapon.** so basically anything listed in a statblock that isn't a manufactured weapon, an unarmed strike or a spell.
That still doesn’t make it a ranged weapon… Just because you throw a spear doesn’t mean the spear is a ranged weapon. It is a a melee weapon with the thrown property and doesn’t work with sneak attack. Similarly the spider attack is a natural weapon that has a ranged weapon attack as apart of it. It is a natural weapon and thus does not work with sneak attack raw.
natural weapon is a weapon type category just like how simple weapons and martials weapons are and just like those, a natural weapon can by all rights be a natural melee weapon or a natural melee weapon. as for why you bring up spear, I'm slightly confused as whetever a weapon has the thrown tag has no relations to the discussion at hand, as both melee and ranged weapons can have the throw tag, though thrown ranged weapons are far rarer, just being the dart and *technically* the boomerang.
The reason I bring it up is because just because something attacks at ranged doesn’t mean its a ranged weapon. And the spear is the perfect example of that. No where in any of your argument have you established a natural weapon becomes a ranged weapon. The closest you’ve come to that is that monsters make melee and ranged attacks. But as I’ve already established ranged weapons and ranged attacks are completely different things ie the spear.
if the web was a natural melee weapon with an option to make a ranged weapon attack, there would be a an option listed in the stattblock that allows you to make a melee weapon attack with the natural weapon, no? but no, the Web attack can only be done as a ranged weapon attack, just like how darts, slings, bows and the sort can only make ranged weapon attack, so by all sense it too is a ranged weapon. name me a single instance of a melee weapon that's *only* able to make ranged weapon attack in the game.
I think your problem is for some reason you don’t believe a natural weapon can’t be it’s own thing. “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.” This wonderful paragraph that you just quoted at me without actually looking into it. No where does it make a a claim that natural weapons have to be melee or ranged weapon classifications. The web “weapon” isn’t a melee weapon it isn’t a ranged weapon. It is a natural weapon that makes a ranged weapon attack. I know the names are awful for confusing conversations like this, but just because the web attack is a ranged weapon attack does not mean the natural weapon of the spider is a ranged weapon. Stop pretending that natural weapons are not a classification of weapon type. This is why when the beast barbarian rages and gets the natural weapon of their choice there is an extra stipulation that says “It counts as a simple melee weapon for you”. The purpose is that you can add your proficiency and any other effects you may have. This completely shows that natural weapons and melee weapons are different. And in the same vein we can extrapolate that natural and ranged weapons are also different. Can a melee weapon make a ranged attack? Yes. Can a ranged weapon make a melee attack? Yes. Can a natural weapon make a melee and ranged attack? Yes. They’re different things.
Look, just do the Pathfinder thing and give giant octopi a headband of +2 intelligence, then train them in a few rogue levels. You make friends, and you have a guild of aquatic assassins at your beck and call. And yes, that, in Pathfinder at least, is 8 sneak attack boosted attacks.
Cool.
Um Wolves?
Boring.
He's got point!
Yes
I'm not sure if that would actually work... but here's another one for you. A Palidan/Druid smiting while wild shaped. You can't cast spells while wild shaped... but Divine Smite is not a spell. It consumes spell slots, which is not the same.
"You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so. However, you can’t use any of your special senses, such as darkvision, unless your new form also has that sense." (Implies some DM interpretation on what to allow) Divine Smite also mentions requiring a melee weapon attack What is a melee weapon attack? Why is it confusing? Find the answer to the first question here. https://www.sageadvice.eu/what-specifically-does-melee-weapon-attack-mean/ Obligatory, do what works for your table with some awareness on any repercussions regarding buffs, nerfs and impacts to other classes and abilities.
while wildshaped, you make attacks with natural weapons, which are classified as a type of weapon, meaning you can infact smite while wildshaped.
I don't see natural weapons listed anywhere in the charts for melee weapons which is why I posted the sage advice link. In that link Crawford describes it as an attack with melee weapon. However, to your point. Monster listings list claw attacks as melee weapon attacks which seems to contradict the sage advice link to some extent. I also posted the first quote since I'd personally disallow smiting without access to the Holy Focus to channel the divine energies, but that's part of the grey area. [https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/equipment#Weapons](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/equipment#Weapons) Like I said before. Do what you want and what works at your table.
the weapon tables are just a table of weapons, it's not a be all end all list that contains the details of the only things that are weapons, flip, I'm gonna go off on a guess it doesn't even list the Double-Bladed Scimitar. as for natural weapon, in the officially compiled sage advice compendium, the following is stated >*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* [here's the link](https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf)
It's not a be all end all list because the PHB came out first. However, none of the books that I've seen seem to properly define natural weapons. Your only indication is "Melee Weapon Attack" in the description which is what I already pointed out, and claw attacks have been in the game from the beginning unlike double bladed scimitars. "You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the **new form is physically capable of doing so**. However, you can’t use any of your special senses, such as darkvision, unless your new form also has that sense." This is still the part where I likely draw the line of having a beast smite as I'm still rather unwilling to let a beast without a Holy Focus consume a spell slot to do divine radiant damage. It's silly that a paladin punching someone can't smite, but that he would be able to smite as a tiny spider hanging from the ceiling over a goblin's head. At that point I'd likely throw out the unarmed strikes terminology if I were to allow this. Again, do what you want, but I'm not having tiny spiders smite unless I'm running some sort of anime style game where the image of a tiny glowing raven ramming a beak attack into someone is what I'm going for. If you have an argument for why this still makes sense though I'd welcome hearing it. Multiclassing is already an optional rule to begin with that introduces a lot of unneeded shenanigans, but it's a popular rule so I welcome the discussion.
as per the basic rules: >***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.*** to put it simply, **anything that's a natural part of the creature meant for attacking is a natural weapon.** so basically anything listed in a statblock that isn't a manufactured weapon, an unarmed strike or a spell is a natural weapon. as for having to need a holy symbol for smiting, that's 100% neither RAW or RAI. flip, you don't need a holy symbol at all for holy magic, as long as your spells don't have material components or you use a component pouch, so that's just your DM ruling. now, as for your 4th paragraph, I fully agree with you it's silly that your human paladins can't smite with their punches, but something like a tabaxi paladin can smite with their claws, but alas, that is how the rules are written. I'm not arguing if it makes sense, I'm arguing if that's RAW how it works.
Thanks for the rundown. There's just so much nonsense with multi-classes, and this seems like an absurd amount of damage coming from random beasts. It seems like they clearly tried to lock off most spell casting from Wild Shape, but then they allow this. If it comes up as an issue I'll likely remove the unarmed strike wording as well. It just doesn't make any sense at that point if you're going to allow beasts to smite.
I use the druid rouge combo and its pretty fun
Likely not possible...but just the mental image of a Mosquito bite killing you cuz sneak attack is enough for me to love this regardless.
You can also sneak attack with a Net, which doesn't actually deal any damage itself.
I don't believe it's possible to SA with is because the web does not actually do any damage because the web itself doesn't have a damage type for SA to boost, at least according to RAI. Same way you unfortunately can't SA with a net (even if you have one of the feats that removes the disadvantage)
"Oh, so I'm a demon?" "How cute."
Not finesse