Monk/Druid question

[bloodshed343]

Does the monk's Unarmored Defense work when wild-shaped, since you aren't wearing armor?

Can you make bonus action unarmed attacks while wild shaped?

Does martial arts increase the damage of your beast form's natural weapons?

Is druid/monk the perfect tank?

[SharkForce]

1) almost definitely yes. note that it won't stack with natural armour; if an animal has 12 AC and only 13 dex, and you wild shape into it with a 16 wis, your AC will be 14, not 15. unarmed defense *replaces* the AC formula, and does not add to it.

2) strictly speaking no. natural weapons are not monk weapons. that said, it would be pretty difficult to argue that an animal could not use an unarmed strike if it wanted to.

3) no, see above. they're not monk weapons.

4) they can be very good at it, but i'm not convinced they're the absolute best. consider, for example, a barbarian; 22 AC with a shield is possible, 24 at level 20, and can easily be totem warrior for damage resistance to almost everything. in contrast, the monk/druid combination caps out at 20 AC, and that's assuming you can even *find* a suitable form with 20 dexterity (good luck with that - practically speaking, 18 AC is about as high as you're going to get in animal form). even a standard fighter can easily rock 20 AC, and can spend a feat to shave 3 points of damage off of regular attacks, and can benefit from both magical shields and magical armour. they can even hit 21 with a combat style pretty easily (and while it's not as high as the barbarian's theoretical max, i doubt there's a huge number of barbarians with 20 dex *and* 20 con running around).

in any event, i'm not certain it's possible to point to any one build and say it's the best tank. different classes tank different ways; moon druids use wild shape HP to tank. fighters use high AC, plus a bit of natural healing. paladins use that same high AC plus more natural healing and superior saves, and sometimes a bit of resistance. barbarians use a combination of AC and damage resistance. monks use a combination of AC and dodging. clerics can use a combination of AC and healing. various casters can use summons for tanking. which one is best? well, it depends on what you need at any given time.

[RedMage125]

4) they can be very good at it, but i'm not convinced they're the absolute best. consider, for example, a barbarian; 22 AC with a shield is possible, 24 at level 20, and can easily be totem warrior for damage resistance to almost everything. in contrast, the monk/druid combination caps out at 20 AC, and that's assuming you can even *find* a suitable form with 20 dexterity (good luck with that - practically speaking, 18 AC is about as high as you're going to get in animal form). even a standard fighter can easily rock 20 AC, and can spend a feat to shave 3 points of damage off of regular attacks, and can benefit from both magical shields and magical armour. they can even hit 21 with a combat style pretty easily (and while it's not as high as the barbarian's theoretical max, i doubt there's a huge number of barbarians with 20 dex *and* 20 con running around).

Don't forget adding one level of Dragon Sorcerer, which could improve a Barbarian's AC by another 3

[FadeAssassin]

Don't forget adding one level of Dragon Sorcerer, which could improve a Barbarian's AC by another 3

They don't stack. The Formulas are changed in both cases, so it's either 10+DEX+CON OR 13+DEX, not 13+DEX+CON.

[SharkForce]

They don't stack. The Formulas are changed in both cases, so it's either 10+DEX+CON OR 13+DEX, not 13+DEX+CON.

exactly this. the formula changes. only a few things actually add to AC (shields, the shield of faith spell, the shield spell, the duelist feat, the defense combat style... can't think of any others offhand)

most things just change the formula. in at least one case (barkskin) the only thing that changes is the minimum value.

[XmonkTad]

To the last point, I'm not sure that hybrid monk/druid is a better tank than either of those single classed. Onion druid is pretty solid in terms of just getting more HP but for that you need the capstone.

[SharkForce]

might not be better than pure monk (that's debatable), but it's very likely better than pure druid. it is very likely to be worth +4 to +5 AC to the druid's wild shape form for 19 levels, vs getting ridiculous HP from a bonus action when the moon druid gets the capstone.

superior tanking for 18-19 levels sounds good to me :P

(that said, the single-classed druid can theoretically compensate with barding, assuming you actually have the appropriate barding in advance and don't need to swap it out in the middle of a fight).

[Eslin]

Ask your DM if multiattack can be used with extra attack.

[Giant2005]

natural weapons are not monk weapons.

Is that actually in the rules anywhere? I can't imagine why a Beast's natural weapons would be treated any differently to a human's natural weapons.

[Flashy]

Is that actually in the rules anywhere? I can't imagine why a Beast's natural weapons would be treated any differently to a human's natural weapons.

At least from the point of fluff I'd probably argue that claws/fangs/whatever aren't the same as monk natural weapons because they almost certainly aren't a part of the martial arts discipline that the monk has spent their entire life learning. Not a lot of martial arts involve bite attacks, for example.

That being said this is definitely up to the interpretation of the particular DM.

[bloodshed343]

I would imagine natural weapons count as simple weapons, making them monk weapons.

[archaeo]

That being said this is definitely up to the interpretation of the particular DM.

Yeah, this is the key point here.

I also think Monk/Druid is going to end up being worse than either of those classes alone for vast stretches of the game, and then also end up being worse at level 20, when the Monk is ridiculously fast and powerful and the Druid has all the HP, forever.

(As an aside, suggested Archdruid nerf: every two transformations after the first, the Druid suffers a level of exhaustion.)

Maybe I'm not thinking it through? If you had a permissive DM willing to let a PC use all the Monk bonuses in beast form, it might be as good as the higher CR beasts you're giving up by losing all those extra Druid levels. Otherwise it sounds like a suboptimal combo that seems best suited for starting arguments. 1/10 would not play.

[bloodshed343]

Yeah, this is the key point here.

I also think Monk/Druid is going to end up being worse than either of those classes alone for vast stretches of the game, and then also end up being worse at level 20, when the Monk is ridiculously fast and powerful and the Druid has all the HP, forever.

(As an aside, suggested Archdruid nerf: every two transformations after the first, the Druid suffers a level of exhaustion.)

Maybe I'm not thinking it through? If you had a permissive DM willing to let a PC use all the Monk bonuses in beast form, it might be as good as the higher CR beasts you're giving up by losing all those extra Druid levels. Otherwise it sounds like a suboptimal combo that seems best suited for starting arguments. 1/10 would not play.

For the record, I'm talking about a monk 2/druid 18, or a similarly small dip, just for Unarmored Defense and flurry of blows/patient defense. The only thing the druid loses out on is the objectively ridiculous capstone. Otherwise, despite the fact that it comes online 2 levels later than a single class druid, it's better for most of the game, especially if you convince your DM to let you use clubs/Unarmed Strike in giant ape form.

[archaeo]

For the record, I'm talking about a monk 2/druid 18, or a similarly small dip, just for Unarmored Defense and flurry of blows/patient defense. The only thing the druid loses out on is the objectively ridiculous capstone. Otherwise, despite the fact that it comes online 2 levels later than a single class druid, it's better for most of the game, especially if you convince your DM to let you use clubs/Unarmed Strike in giant ape form.

Well, first, let's note the wording of Wild Shape:


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

Italics mine. Why should a beast be capable of performing martial arts at all?

But if the DM allows it, I still think that sounds like a lame build. You get a 2 Ki points, hardly enough to do anything with even if they recharge on a short rest, and you get a small bonus to AC, since


Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use.

which really is not that impressive, since Druids have big HP pools and can transform into higher AC whenever necessary anyway.

I'm with Eslin on this; if you're going to do multiclassing with a permissive DM and a Druid, pick Fighter or whatever and go for an extra attack instead. Extra attack stacked on top of multiattacking beasts will be much more effective than throwing out piddly d4 bonus strikes 2/day. Alternately, Cunning Action via Rogue 2 might even be a more effective dip to go more defensive, though, eh.

[odigity]

I'm with Eslin on this; if you're going to do multiclassing with a permissive DM and a Druid, pick Fighter or whatever and go for an extra attack instead. Extra attack stacked on top of multiattacking beasts will be much more effective than throwing out piddly d4 bonus strikes 2/day. Alternately, Cunning Action via Rogue 2 might even be a more effective dip to go more defensive, though, eh.

What, what? Why is this coming up? The Monk/Druid stuff is worth discussing, but there is *no* ambiguity about Extra Attack/Multiattack. Extra Attack specifically adds an additional attack to the Attack action, which is a completely distinct action from a Multiattack action. These will never, ever stack.

[bloodshed343]

I would definitely rule in favor of Kung Fu apes, provided they transformed by moonlight and had tales in human form.

Can you rage in beast form? A bearbarian druid might be good.

[archaeo]

First, an aside: Mearls has weighed in on monk/druid (https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/monk-druid/) before, suggesting that "unarmed strike" is a specific thing that has nothing to do with the claws and beaks and junk that dumb animals have. On the other hand, there's another wild shape question where Mearls and Crawford both answer with completely opposite answers, so, who knows, whatever, to wit:


What, what? Why is this coming up? The Monk/Druid stuff is worth discussing, but there is *no* ambiguity about Extra Attack/Multiattack. Extra Attack specifically adds an additional attack to the Attack action, which is a completely distinct action from a Multiattack action. These will never, ever stack.

Can you point out where it says this in the rules? Because, to me, it all comes back to "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." That's a big open loophole in Wild Shape that basically makes as much sense as you want it to make. Does it make sense that, because I'm so good at hitting dudes with my fist or sword, that skill is going to carry over when I'm transformed into a mammoth and hitting dudes with my tusks? Should I be able to focus Ki when I am literally a creature made out of elemental fire?

Right now, the rules just say, "You retain [all your junk]...if the new form is physically capable of doing so." What is a bear capable of doing, physically? Extra Attack and Multiattack stacking is no more improbable or silly than Monk/Druid, Rogue/Druid, or any ridiculous Druid multiclassing build based around stacking junk up with beast forms to become an overpowered bear warrior. I haven't seen anything in the rules specifically barring Fighter 6/Druid 14, though if the DM allows Extra Attack to stack with Multiattack, you're better off going full cheese and hunting down a Werebear to bite you as you go the full Fighter 20, maybe Paladin 20.

I suspect the balanced option is to tell players that animals aren't physically capable of using Extra Attack, Cunning Action, Flurry of Blows, or any other goofy thing they want to do, and to maybe think about just playing the already nuttily powerful plain jane Druid.

[SharkForce]

his position seemed pretty clear. multiattack is not the attack action. extra attack modifies the attack action. if you use multiattack, you cannot use extra attack.

you could, however, use the attack action while in animal form (which would not allow you to gain the benefits of multiattack), and *then* use the extra attack ability (having said that, you could get your extra attack ability from monk levels if you're really fixated on that).

as to wildshaping to a form with better AC than the monk splash will give... yeah... good luck with that. a high amount of natural AC for a beast is 1 extra point. most don't even have that. most of the forms that do have that have absolute crap for dex as well.

so no, the single-classed druid won't have superior AC in animal form. unless you happen to have dragonscale plate barding for each form or something like that.

also, while monks do get flurry of blows, and that's great... they can also make a bonus attack without flurrying as well.

(oh, and as to the question of why natural attacks are not monk weapons... the list of monk weapons is simple. unarmed strikes - not bites, or claws, or tentacles, but unarmed strikes - short swords, and simple melee weapons that are neither two-handed nor heavy. if it's not on that list, it's not a monk weapon).

[Person_Man]

Its also worth mentioning that there are usually multiple of ways to get to AC 18 or higher for pretty much every class, and many multiclass combos suck. So its rarely worth multi-classing just to improve your AC.

[SharkForce]

how many of those single-class options get your AC to 18 or better for a druid that's constantly changing shape?

i agree that for most classes, multiclassing for AC isn't a great option. even for a druid, it's a tradeoff.

but no, you aren't getting AC 18 in wild-shaped form easily.

[Human Paragon 3]

Barbarian/druid does sound pretty good. Getting the bonus to damage from attacks is nice, and the resistance will mean even more tanky goodness.

I kind of like the flavor of a monk that turns into different martial arts themed animals to fight in different styles (monkey, snake, crane, crab, scorpion... etc), but I don't think it's that strong of a choice mechanically.

[archaeo]

his position seemed pretty clear. multiattack is not the attack action. extra attack modifies the attack action. if you use multiattack, you cannot use extra attack.

Right, I get the reading, it's totally reasonable. It just doesn't really say that anywhere, and I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that, when you "attack" with a monster that has "multiattack," each attack action is comprised of all those actions.


as to wildshaping to a form with better AC than the monk splash will give... yeah... good luck with that. a high amount of natural AC for a beast is 1 extra point. most don't even have that. most of the forms that do have that have absolute crap for dex as well.

Yeah, at what point? Maybe a Monk/Druid would have good reasons to pump Dex, but then you're screwing yourself on Con, and concentration is still important to Druids. It seems like you could probably keep your unarmored defense AC pumped up, but you might be neglecting your concentration stat in exchange. It's a trade-off, which, in addition to slowed down beast forms and cruddier Con, doesn't seem all that advantageous given that you already have a big pile of HP.


also, while monks do get flurry of blows, and that's great... they can also make a bonus attack without flurrying as well.

Right. But does that bonus attack come in the form of a substantial bear claw swipe, or an "unarmed strike" that gives you all of 1d4 damage? Does the bear's swipe even trigger the bonus attack, which requires an unarmed strike or monk weapon attack? How "unarmed" are we talking here? Mearls seems to think it means hitting somebody with your normal body's fists and not your beak or whatever goofy appendage you're using to fight.

I mean, honestly, the "You retain" bullet point of wild shape: why did they include it? It even complicates single-classed Druids! If it's only there for multiclassing, it would be better to cover it in that section. If it's mostly to allow Druids to use class features while in beast form, why not just specifically discuss those features (especially Wild Shape itself!) or whatever subset thereof deemed necessary?

Without further clarification and what I imagine are inevitable errata, you pretty much have to figure this crap out on your own, deciding on whatever makes sense for your table. Fortunately, it's only necessary when somebody wants to do a Druid multiclass. Unfortunately, that bullet point sticks out like a sore thumb and makes these multiclass builds so obvious that someone will inevitably come up with Kung Fu Panda, and then you're stuck, trying to decide if a duck's beak is an "unarmed strike" that lets them do a 1d4 duck punch.

Hopefully, in play, these combos absolutely blow compared to vanilla Druid, and no one will want to play one, and we can pretend none of this ever happened.

[odigity]

Right, I get the reading, it's totally reasonable. It just doesn't really say that anywhere, and I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that, when you "attack" with a monster that has "multiattack," each attack action is comprised of all those actions.

I don't understand what you don't understand about our explanation. They are different actions. It's right in the rules. There is no ambiguity here. Extra Attack modifies the Attack action, which is a different action than Multiattack. It's that simple. End of story. No one else is even considering questioning this. There is no room for questioning on this.

[Giant2005]

I don't understand what you don't understand about our explanation. They are different actions. It's right in the rules. There is no ambiguity here. Extra Attack modifies the Attack action, which is a different action than Multiattack. It's that simple. End of story. No one else is even considering questioning this. There is no room for questioning on this.

We don't know that.
A Bear for example has 3 actions listed under the heading "Actions".
Multiattack, Claw and Bite.
All three options are treated equally but none of them are listed as the "Attack" action. Either the entire thing is listed erroneously and the heading shouldn't be "Actions" but rather "Attack Action Options" or none of the Actions could be used with the Attack action and for a Bear to use the Attack action at all, he would need to be carrying a sword or something.

[archaeo]

I don't understand what you don't understand about our explanation. They are different actions. It's right in the rules. There is no ambiguity here. Extra Attack modifies the Attack action, which is a different action than Multiattack. It's that simple. End of story. No one else is even considering questioning this. There is no room for questioning on this.

Yeah, sorry, page and verse? I don't see it. I'd really like to agree with you! But from what I can tell, there isn't any place in the PHB, MM, or DMG that tells me that "the Attack action...is a different action than Multiattack." It might be the superior reading of the rules! But the idea that it's crystal clear that that's how Extra Attack works in beast form?

It might be easier to understand your explanation, in other words, if you actually explained how you're finding it in the rules, instead of interpreting it in the rules. It's okay! We're all just interpreting Wild Shape, because it's written in a way that suggests that every editor missed all these obnoxious corner cases in order to keep the "retain all benefits" clause which still makes no sense to me as a design decision.

Because I don't want extra attacks to stack with multiattack, Druids do not need the help, but I'm pretty sure the alternate reading of the rules is not a difficult one to arrive at.

[SharkForce]

unless you have terrible wisdom for some unfathomable reason, the monk splash starts paying off as early as level 3 (2 druid/1 monk) in terms of AC.

you turn into an animal. the better ones generally have 14-16 dex. you retain your actual wisdom score.

the animal most likely has 12-13 AC by default. maybe, in rare circumstances, 14. with your monk ability, you will have 15-16 AC.

this is, by most peoples' reckoning, superior AC. as you gain in CR of creatures available to you, the HP of the forms tends to increase. but not AC. in general, even as you get to the more powerful and useful animal forms, your AC *still* generally stays in the 10-13 range. assuming the druid is continuing to invest in wisdom, you can expect to have up to 18 AC in animal form eventually with the monk level, vs 13 without. again, this is what i for one, and i suspect most other people as well, would consider an improvement.

you can argue that it hinders you in other ways, but unless you're doing something really weird like buying half a dozen sets of barding every few levels (one for each new and useful form) that you haul along behind you in a wagon and have your party strap onto you after changing form, hoping that you never have to change forms again in a hurry, it is extremely likely that the monk level will continue to provide an improvement to your AC well into the later levels.

perhaps eventually some supplement will include a suit of armour that wild shapes with you into appropriate barding. until then, when it comes to tanking, a moon druid with a monk level is going to be a better tank than a pure druid when in animal form, with the notable exception of level 20 when the moon druid can basically get 100 or more HP with a bonus action every round.

[odigity]

Yeah, sorry, page and verse? I don't see it. I'd really like to agree with you! But from what I can tell, there isn't any place in the PHB, MM, or DMG that tells me that "the Attack action...is a different action than Multiattack." It might be the superior reading of the rules! But the idea that it's crystal clear that that's how Extra Attack works in beast form?


(PBH189)

Your Turn

On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action.


(PHB192)

Actions in Combat

When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.

...

Attack

The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks.

Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.


(MM10)

Actions

When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player's Handbook.

Melee and Ranged Atacks

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. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player's Handbook.
...

Multiattack

A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability. A creature can't use Multiattack when making an opportunity attack, which must be a single melee attack.

Is quoting all relevant sections sufficient, or do I need to provide additional commentary?

[archaeo]

Is quoting all relevant sections sufficient, or do I need to provide additional commentary?

No, I think that sums up your position pretty well, thank you. It's a solid ruling, sorry for being dense.

It still requires cross-referencing two books and making inferences about "actions" and "attacks" and whatnot. It spells it out, but only if you do the work. I don't know, now I feel like I'm complaining about nothing, but it still seems like Wild Shape could be a whole lot clearer, or at least include a paragraph in Multiclassing to discuss what's kosher. It's just a complicated, overwritten rule that only further muddies the issue until you flip back and forth through the book.

[odigity]

It still requires cross-referencing two books and making inferences about "actions" and "attacks" and whatnot. It spells it out, but only if you do the work. I don't know, now I feel like I'm complaining about nothing, but it still seems like Wild Shape could be a whole lot clearer, or at least include a paragraph in Multiclassing to discuss what's kosher. It's just a complicated, overwritten rule that only further muddies the issue until you flip back and forth through the book.

I agree. There's a lot of that in 5e (though perhaps not more than in 3.5e, I can't recall now).

[metaridley18]

I agree. There's a lot of that in 5e (though perhaps not more than in 3.5e, I can't recall now).

3.5 started with a lot of complications and book cross-referencing and only got worse. Heck, there were feats in the monster manual, for crying out loud! And obviously wild shape was much, much worse, both in terms of power and ambiguity.

Regarding martial arts, I doubt anything would break beyond compare if you allowed it, but I'd lean on the side of having it do the monk's unarmed strike damage at the very least, rather than the animal's natural weapon. After all, that's the class feature that you arguably retain. Most players would see the sense in that.

[Rummy]

That is how I would rule too. I want to play a Melee focused moon druid who mostly only uses spells to heal or conjure buddies. As far as I can tell, starting as a monk and then multiclassing into druid is the most efficient way to make this concept work. Going straight Druid would require me to forgo all concentration spells to keep Barkskin up, which is boring and means no conjuring. In my experience, meleeing with less than 16 AC is not a viable idea, even with tons of HP. I think MCing one level of monk is worth it for AC, but it would be nice to be able to tack on an unarmed 1d4+Str attack as a bonus action. At level three, I might be OP in bear form, but I think I would fall behind other Melee types pretty quickly one they get extra attacks and magical weapons.