Natural weapons are not weapons for the purposes of rules/text, but natural weapon damage is weapon damage, right?

— TormentedByChristmas (@TrmntdByGnomes) October 27, 2018

There are weapon attacks, and there are spell attacks.

There are also damage types: bludgeoning, piercing, lightning, and so forth.

Weapon damage is not a damage type in D&D. #DnD https://t.co/hYrS2H5oux

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 27, 2018

@JeremyECrawford
Does the Lucky feat allows the character to see the number on the enemy's die attack roll (made against him) BEFORE spending a Luck Point?

— Draconis (@DerynDraconis) October 29, 2018

The Lucky feat allows you to spend a luck point to replace an attack roll made against you. That roll must occur for you to be able to replace it. The DM decides whether you see the number on the die. Typically, a DM tells you the total of an attack roll. #DnD https://t.co/yeXXJRU4jc

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 5, 2018

Would a monk's unarmed strikes count for Hunter's mark then? I thought they replaced weapon strikes but weren't actually melee weapons?

— Darkest (@AeonNightmare) October 27, 2018

Every attack in D&D is either a weapon attack or a spell attack.

If an attack isn't one of those types, it's the other.

An unarmed strike isn't a spell attack. It is therefore a weapon attack. #DnD https://t.co/aktyYdQI2o

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 27, 2018

I understand what you are saying here for game purposes, but I think that the guiding principle is confusing. Couldn't you just as easily say, "An unarmed strike isn't a weapon attack. It is therefore a spell attack"?

— Jonathan Chown (@ChownJonathan) October 27, 2018

An unarmed strike is a weapon attack because the rule on unarmed strikes says they're weapon attacks. #DnD https://t.co/07BmPRNCcy

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 27, 2018

D&D is a game of exceptions; an attack can be special and not fall into either category: weapon or spell.

The rules tell you if an exception is happening. For example, the grapple described on p. 195 of the PH is called a special melee attack, not a weapon/spell attack. #DnD

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 29, 2018

"Just be happy your spellcaster is doing well!"
"Have you thought of playing a spellcaster?"
"Have your spellcaster waste action economy buffing you instead of doing what they want! [Fireballing]"
"I mean, come on, every dnd campaign shooould have magic items at some point!" 1/2 https://t.co/akuNzIRuyh

— Connor Zielke (@connor_zielke) November 7, 2018

None of these answer the actual issue. In a vacuum, fighter needs magic items to stay on par with magic users. That is antithetical to bounded accuracy and 5e design philosophy. You can have 3 bards buff any class and make it good. The issue still needs addressing. On par with a magic user in which context? D&D isn’t played in a vacuum. Context is everything (environment, specific monsters, party composition, and more).

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 7, 2018

I can kind of see his point, so my question is why don’t fighters and barbarians gain the abillity for their attacks to count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance when both monks and circle of the moon druids get this benefit at level 6? Fighters and barbarians deal more damage on average than monks and druids do. An added bonus is that magic weapons are usually available, either in treasure or as a result of spells.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 7, 2018

On par in terms of usefulness in a late game encounter. Usefulness being the ability to efficiently contribute to combat. DND isn’t played in a vacuum, but it is designed in one, hopefully. Nothing would get done otherwise since every design choice can be refuted by some scenario Which sort of late-game encounter?

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 7, 2018

One magic user and one fighter fighting the same creature with mundane resistances is completely skewed. The magic user can cast spells to deal with it. The fighter would NEED an item or to rely on a spellcaster. And the spellcaster doesn’t nearly rely on the fighter as much Resistances are meant to push a team to be resourceful and to rely on teamwork. That's the design intent.

D&D is a co-op game. It's all about interdependence.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 7, 2018

I like it it gives monsters flavour, but why remove it when the players get magic items, whats the design intent behind that? The game presents challenges, and it also presents ways to overcome those challenges.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 8, 2018

@JeremyECrawford A question about natural weapons that I don’t think has been answered: are they considered simple weapons, or are they completely separate from every weapon category?

— Marquinn DeVelaine (@M_DeVelaine) November 6, 2018

Natural weapons aren't considered simple or martial weapons. #DnD https://t.co/zDB3q9rGLV

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 8, 2018

So a Monk with natural weapons has issues?

— Zaney the Gamemaster (@Fluffdragonz) November 8, 2018

You can make unarmed strikes with your forehead, chin, elbows, knees, fists, shoulders, feet, butt, and more. That fact isn't changed by the simple, martial, or natural weapons you are or are not using. #DnD https://t.co/76SXHHSuYk

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 8, 2018

What I’m getting from this is that an attack with my monk’s butt is JUST AS DANGEROUS as one with my fists. The Way of Steel Buns is born! 😁 Never underestimate the steel buns!

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 8, 2018

@JeremyECrawford we know that Disintegrate will kill a Half-Orc if it reduces them to 0, but what about massive damage? My reading is that the Half-Orc may use their Relentless Endurance trait to stay at 1 hit point instead, my friend says they die immediately. Who's correct?

— Jeremy Graten (@DockOfManyBards) October 11, 2018

Massive damage kills you outright, which is another way of saying instantly (see "Player's Handbook," p. 197).

The half-orc's Relentless Endurance trait says it doesn't work if you're killed outright. #DnD https://t.co/NL9nNZY5c7

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 11, 2018

Thank you for the swift reply. The Half-Orc’s Relentless Endurance trait won’t save them, but would a Shadow Magic Sorcerer’s Strength of the Grave feature as that does not say “die outright” ? That's correct.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 11, 2018

@JeremyECrawford Is it your intent that when using Mantle of Majesty (Glamour Bard 6th level feature), you are technically casting a bonus action spell (command), and so may not use your action to cast spells other than cantrips?

— Transcendental (@IdoZemach97) October 18, 2018

If you cast a spell as a bonus action, you are indeed in the domain of the rule on casting a spell as a bonus action. #DnD https://t.co/OsfQTpB6Sq

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 18, 2018

That doesn’t answer the question, do class features count as spells?

— 🎃Spooky Bradford🎃 (@Bradford_Am) October 18, 2018

If a class feature says you're casting a spell, you're casting a spell.

If a class feature says nothing about casting a spell, you're not casting a spell when you use the feature. #DnD https://t.co/kfOAkS8yN4

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 19, 2018

Same applies for legendary actions, yes?

— StoryGirl (Jemma) – Looking for media/IT work (@BlueJayGliding) October 19, 2018

If anything in D&D says you're casting a spell, you're casting a spell. #DnD https://t.co/866j16EKVF

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 20, 2018

@JeremyECrawford when using Hide in Plain Sight, does the Ranger have to hide immediately after creating their camouflage?

— Armando Doval (@armando_doval) October 11, 2018

When you use the ranger's Hide in Plain Sight feature, you spend 1 minute camouflaging yourself and then immediately hide. #DnD https://t.co/ZLx0FfOZVV

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 12, 2018