Can creatures with Natural Attacks make Unarmed Strikes?

[Ardantis]

This is an offshoot of a thread about Monks that was starting to derail.

Just like it says on the tin: Can creatures with Natural Attacks in their stat blocks choose to make unarmed strikes?

The Monster Manual states that creatures may, in addition to their listed abilities, take any action which any creature may take. Does this include unarmed strikes?

The ramifications are significant, because if bears can hip-check instead of bite or claw, then Druids in Wild Shape may benefit from the Martial Arts feature of a one-level Monk dip. It basically gives improved dual-wielding to Moon Druids.

Please cite RAW, this is not a common sense issue.

[CNagy]

I cited the relevant passages in the other thread.


MM, page 10: "When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options of 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."

PHB, page 192: "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."

The Attack option is listed, and says see "Making an Attack." Under that heading is listed the errata for Unarmed Strike. A creature that does not use its attack option from its stat block, instead choosing to take the Attack action (under which Unarmed Strike is allowed) can use an unarmed strike for 1 + Str modifier damage (unless they have something modifying their unarmed strike, like martial arts.)

The errata for unarmed strike says: "instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, headbutt, or similar forceful blow..." (emphasis mine.) Unarmed strike is listed under Melee Attacks, Melee Attacks are listed under Making an Attack, Making an Attack refers to the Attack Action, and the Attack Action is listed in the actions that are "available to all creatures," with the examples of Dash and Hide pointing us precisely to aforementioned list. Seems like a direct line of reference.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Sure, but that doesn't mean they'll be using the damage of their claws or bites, it means they'll be using the unarmed strike damage which is 1 + Strength modifier. Given that all beast forms are not humanoid, you could not use monk attacks either since, "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." Anyone who says that monk unarmed attacks are the same as beast unarmed attacks is trying to get away with breaking the system for their own benefit.

[Ardantis]

So you're saying that unarmed attacks while in Wild Shape deal 1 damage because the animal form is physically unable to use the Monk feature of increased damage. But isn't "physically unable" meant to apply to things like bears not using swords because they have no thumbs? Presumably they have the requisite parts to make unarmed attacks.

And even if they only deal 1 damage, can the animal form physically make Martial Arts attacks as a bonus action?

And why is this broken?

[MeeposFire]

Sure, but that doesn't mean they'll be using the damage of their claws or bites, it means they'll be using the unarmed strike damage which is 1 + Strength modifier. Given that all beast forms are not humanoid, you could not use monk attacks either since, "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." Anyone who says that monk unarmed attacks are the same as beast unarmed attacks is trying to get away with breaking the system for their own benefit.

Since you highlight "physically unable to do so" then I think you need to prove that a bear cannot do a martial arts. I do not see any reason why a bear could not choose to do a headbutt for example or punch out with a paw instead of using a claw.

Granted it would be dumb for any wild shaped druid to do so unless he had an ability that made it better than using a claw such as a part time monk potentially.

I also do not see a particular reason to go nuts against this either balancewise. You still do your normal monk damage it does not change the basic stats of your unarmed strike for a monk of its level and that should be less than a full time monk would do.

[dropbear8mybaby]

So you're saying that unarmed attacks while in Wild Shape deal 1 damage because the animal form is physically unable to use the Monk feature of increased damage.
So you're saying that you should be able to move like a humanoid while you're a bear? Punch and kick like a humanoid would? You know, given that all the monk's training is as a humanoid, using humanoid features. Are you saying that a humanoid's fist is the same as a bear's paw?


And why is this broken?
Just asking that question means you won't accept or even be willing to accept the answer so I'm not sure why I would bother trying to explain it. Honestly, it should be obvious anyway. This isn't a matter of coming up with something creative and trying to roleplay a concept, it's a matter of trying to get away with something that is mechanically superior and breaks the system and that is against the rules of the system no matter how you try to justify it.


Since you highlight "physically unable to do so" then I think you need to prove that a bear cannot do a martial arts.
Oh boy. Yeah, I'm done with this thread.

[b4ndito]

This isn't really a RAW thing this is a "Would your DM actually allow this" thing, and any sensible DM would say no.

[Xetheral]

CNagy quoted the relevant passages. By RAW, *anyone* can make unarmed attacks. I see no reason to assume this isn't RAI as well.

For DMs worried about a flavor incompatibility between monk and druid, I'd suggest adding a monastery to your world that specializes in multiclass monk/druids and teachs unusual combat techniques. Alternatively, a monk may have devised their own style of martial arts for use with animal forms.

[MeeposFire]

So you're saying that you should be able to move like a humanoid while you're a bear? Punch and kick like a humanoid would? You know, given that all the monk's training is as a humanoid, using humanoid features. Are you saying that a humanoid's fist is the same as a bear's paw?


Just asking that question means you won't accept or even be willing to accept the answer so I'm not sure why I would bother trying to explain it. Honestly, it should be obvious anyway. This isn't a matter of coming up with something creative and trying to roleplay a concept, it's a matter of trying to get away with something that is mechanically superior and breaks the system and that is against the rules of the system no matter how you try to justify it.


Oh boy. Yeah, I'm done with this thread.

You have yet to show how it is superior or how this would be physically impossible as a monk/druid. If you are a monk who has also trained as a druid one would think you might take some time to learn how to fight in the animals forms that you emulate in your fighting styles.

It is fine if you don't want to allow it in your games because you don't like it but for the rest of us we see...

1. RAW seems to allow it

2. It does not seem to be much of a stretch if at all on the plausible meter (assuming you believe wild shape as a thing is plausible of course). Seriously we have no problem accepting a man can turn into a bear but a bear kicking somebody with a hind leg THAT is the implausible thing in all of this.

3. You have yet to show how this breaks the game in any way and yet several people seem to want to say that it does without showing any proof.

4. It is also thematic and is a fun staple of various tv shows/movies. If somebody wants to be able to temporarily play as kung fu panda and it has some sort of legal base and it does not hurt the game what is the issue?

[coredump]

So you're saying that you should be able to move like a humanoid while you're a bear? Punch and kick like a humanoid would? You know, given that all the monk's training is as a humanoid, using humanoid features. Are you saying that a humanoid's fist is the same as a bear's paw?
.

*Everything* the monk does he trains as a humanoid. Walking, running, stealth, athletics, acrobatics, attacking, deflect missiles, slow fall, etc etc.

Yet he is assumed to still have those same abilities and proficiencies in whatever WS form he takes. It seem odd to single out Martial Arts as the one thing that is completely impossible to transfer over.

[Malifice]

Ask your DM.

This one says no.

[Inevitability]

I doubt it. Toads, for example, are listed as possessing no attacks. If the rules intended for them to be able to make unarmed strikes, wouldn't they be more than CR 0?

[HoarsHalberd]

RAW: Yes.
RAI: Impossible to know at the moment. Someone with Twitter should ask crawford.

Does it break the game? Highly unlikely.

Any build that focused monk would make it so you're only using low CR forms with low AC and HP for defence and smaller damage die and ki pools than a focused monk.

Any build that focuses druid would lose access to their highest level spells and multiple slots, and seeing as the best cut off point is 15/5 they'd also lose the ability to cast in wildshape.

The only potentially abusive build I can think of using druid wildshape multiclass might be a fighter 11 druid 9 build that allows for 3 attacks with 4d6+4 damage. But seeing as a fighter could have +11 to hit 4 times with 2d6+5 if it single classed, it's not great against anything except swarms of low AC high hp foes.

But what matters is does it mesh with the world. DM fiat rules. So if he doesn't want a ninja bear, he won't allow a ninja bear.

[CNagy]

I doubt it. Toads, for example, are listed as possessing no attacks. If the rules intended for them to be able to make unarmed strikes, wouldn't they be more than CR 0?

Actually, the MM says a frog has no effective attacks. There is no "minimum damage 1" rule in 5e, so frogs have an unarmed attack that deals 1 + -5 damage, for an effective 0 damage attack. Damage of 0-1 per round is still CR0, so even if the minimum 1 damage rule still existed, a frog would still be CR0 if it could do 1 damage per round.

[coredump]

I doubt it. Toads, for example, are listed as possessing no attacks. If the rules intended for them to be able to make unarmed strikes, wouldn't they be more than CR 0?
There is a significant difference between knowing how to do something, and being physically capable of doing something.

We know a bear is physically capable of riding a bicycle.... doesn't mean the woods are full of bicycling bears...

It is quite possible that an animal is physically capable of making unarmed strikes, but doesn't know how. And why would they when most of them have better means of attack.

That said, I would probably rule that a frog was not physically capable of unarmed strikes as we know them.

[Fwiffo86]

RAW: Yes.
Does it break the game? Highly unlikely.


And what about flurry?

[HoarsHalberd]

And what about flurry?

Requires you to use unarmed strike. So say you cut off at 10/10 for elemental forms and maximum ki. You get for air elemental: 2d8+5 with a +8 to hit + 3(1d6+5) at best, as slam is not an unarmed strike. As opposed to 4(1d12+5) for assuming you hit them all a damage difference of 19.5 vs 26.

So damage wise you get no benefit from the crossover (not to mention the gimped ki pool.) Whilst you do get some temp health and a cool flight speed boost, it's hardly worth it for the loss of features.

[ThermalSlapShot]

So you're saying that you should be able to move like a humanoid while you're a bear? Punch and kick like a humanoid would? You know, given that all the monk's training is as a humanoid, using humanoid features. Are you saying that a humanoid's fist is the same as a bear's paw?


For a person playing a fantasy game you really seem to be against the *fantasy* part of the fantasy game.


http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/kungfupanda/images/e/ea/PoKFP2.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/300?cb=20110408191805

[Citan]

Thanks for opening this interesting thread. :)

To answer shortly. Is it RAW? Probably (confer the beginning of the thread with detailed arguments).

Is it RAI? Well, I don't frankly see how it could break the game, and, contrarily to some people that heavily critic the wording of Handbook, I've been under the impression that it was very carefully chosen each time.

RAW/RAI aside, would I allow it as a DM?
Pretty sure. Unless I find an overpowered cheese I didn't anticipate, the only limit I would probably confer would be that Druid/monk can only use Martial Arts with Ape at first (closest to human), then as character becomes more adept at Wild shape and/or Monk I let him use monk abilities with less human-like forms.

As said by others, if anything a player would gimp himself with such a mix, no need to punish him more for trying to get creative.

EDIT: As far as Wild Shape tricks and abuses go, I find Wild Shape smiting far more unbalanced than Martial Art, since only 3 lvl dip Pally is enough to fully profit of most of offensive potency of both classes.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Thanks for opening this interesting thread. :)

To answer shortly. Is it RAW? Probably (confer the beginning of the thread with detailed arguments).

Is it RAI? Well, I don't frankly see how it could break the game, and, contrarily to some people that heavily critic the wording of Handbook, I've been under the impression that it was very carefully chosen each time.

RAW/RAI aside, would I allow it as a DM?
Pretty sure. Unless I find an overpowered cheese I didn't anticipate, the only limit I would probably confer would be that Druid/monk can only use Martial Arts with Ape at first (closest to human), then as character becomes more adept at Wild shape and/or Monk I let him use monk abilities with less human-like forms.

As said by others, if anything a player would gimp himself with such a mix, no need to punish him more for trying to get creative.

EDIT: As far as Wild Shape tricks and abuses go, I find Wild Shape smiting far more unbalanced than Martial Art, since only 3 lvl dip Pally is enough to fully profit of most of offensive potency of both classes.

Do note that the smite still caps at 5d8 or whatever it is. They never fixed the paladin's spell to smite cap so it may just be intentional.

Still a crap ton of smites. Though if you are going 20 levels, a 3 level dio hurts the Druid a lot in the later levels as they can't cast additional Spells in animal form and they can't go onion Druid.

And really smite is just HP damage, meh.

[Citan]

Do note that the smite still caps at 5d8 or whatever it is. They never fixed the paladin's spell to smite cap so it may just be intentional.

Still a crap ton of smites. Though if you are going 20 levels, a 3 level dio hurts the Druid a lot in the later levels as they can't cast additional Spells in animal form and they can't go onion Druid.

And really smite is just HP damage, meh.
True enough, 2-3lvl dip hurts Druid much more than other classes, unless player is satisfied with limited playstyle (beast smiting) or is pretty sure he won't get to >17lvl anyways.

Don't understand your last sentence though, "is just HP damage, meh". What do you compare it too to find it disappointing?