Druid/Monk - Large Animal and Unarmed Strikes, does it scale up?....

[Nefariis]

Interesting thing came up the other day in my game.

I have no issue with Monk's using unarmed strikes while Wild Shaped.

After reading the official ruling (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf) as well as a few threads (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53188/can-a-druid-monk-make-unarmed-strikes-while-wild-shaped), it clearly states that people can punch, kick, elbow at any given time.

One of the players brought up the fact that after turning into a large creature (a brown bear for example), shouldn't the Monk's d4 unarmed strike get an enlarged dice? He is after all, considered a large creature as it relates to both space occupied as well as grappling rules.

The player has essentially turned himself into a 9ft tall, 1800lb, enlarged monk and thus shouldn't the unarmed strike damage increase normally per PHB rules?

I thought this seemed fair because -
1. He essentially cast an enlarge spell on himself
2. We've already deemed you can use an unarmored strike as an animal
3. +1-2 damage isn't going to break the game
4. And he clearly isnt playing a monk/druid to min/max

I was reading around trying to find a rule on this and I could only find one reference on ENWorld with mixed reviews.

In my opinion, I think that a more balanced solution would be to give his punches a d6 (it's currently a d4) instead of an giving him an extra +d4 (2d4 total).

Either way I don't necessarily see anything wrong with it, a bear's punch with 1800 lbs behind would hurt slightly more than than a human punch (This thing for example (http://huntdrop.com/uploads/hunts/big-brown-bear.jpg)).

So, how would you guys rule it? and does it seem game breaking?

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Little halfling monk fists don't do any less damage. No, I personally don't think the martial arts damage of a monk should be changed, the damage modifier coming from strength or dex in the wildshape form is what you use to add on to it (and is thus why a bear hits harder than a human).

As written, the wild shape form keeps the features of your class, i.e. something like martial arts damage. It should not change, rather it is preserved exactly as you had it in your normal form.

So no, I don't think you should change the martial arts damage of a monk/druid in wild shape form. Certainly, you use the different strength and dex modifiers of the form, as is written in the rules concerning wild shape.

[Aaron Underhand]

Interesting thing came up the other day in my game.

I have no issue with Monk's using unarmed strikes while Wild Shaped.

After reading the official ruling (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf) as well as a few threads (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53188/can-a-druid-monk-make-unarmed-strikes-while-wild-shaped), it clearly states that people can punch, kick, elbow at any given time.

One of the players brought up the fact that after turning into a large creature (a brown bear for example), shouldn't the Monk's d4 unarmed strike get an enlarged dice? He is after all, considered a large creature as it relates to both space occupied as well as grappling rules.

The player has essentially turned himself into a 9ft tall, 1800lb, enlarged monk and thus shouldn't the unarmed strike damage increase normally per PHB rules?

I thought this seemed fair because -
1. He essentially cast an enlarge spell on himself
2. We've already deemed you can use an unarmored strike as an animal
3. +1-2 damage isn't going to break the game
4. And he clearly isnt playing a monk/druid to min/max

I was reading around trying to find a rule on this and I could only find one reference on ENWorld with mixed reviews.

In my opinion, I think that a more balanced solution would be to give his punches a d6 (it's currently a d4) instead of an giving him an extra +d4 (2d4 total).

Either way I don't necessarily see anything wrong with it, a bear's punch with 1800 lbs behind would hurt slightly more than than a human punch (This thing for example (http://huntdrop.com/uploads/hunts/big-brown-bear.jpg)).

So, how would you guys rule it? and does it seem game breaking?

Came up in our game as well - not sure the DM ruling yet, as the Druid /Monk has no large shapes....

the comment was worth recording though; "oh no... you're making kung fu panda..."

[Nefariis]

As a side question - If a caster used an Enlarge/Reduce spell on a monk, would you allow the addition damage?

Since I've asked the first question, I have also not been able to find an answer for this anywhere.

Im actually surprised for how long 5e has been out - these questions havent really been asked/answered thoroughly.

Thanks again guys

[GlenSmash!]

As a side question - If a caster used an Enlarge/Reduce spell on a monk, would you allow the addition damage?

Since I've asked the first question, I have also not been able to find an answer for this anywhere.

Im actually surprised for how long 5e has been out - these questions havent really been asked/answered thoroughly.

Thanks again guys

Enlarge does not increase the number of damage die per size. I believe it adds a straight 1d4 too weapon damage (including unarmed).

[AmbientRaven]

Little halfling monk fists don't do any less damage. No, I personally don't think the martial arts damage of a monk should be changed, the damage modifier coming from strength or dex in the wildshape form is what you use to add on to it (and is thus why a bear hits harder than a human).

As written, the wild shape form keeps the features of your class, i.e. something like martial arts damage. It should not change, rather it is preserved exactly as you had it in your normal form.

So no, I don't think you should change the martial arts damage of a monk/druid in wild shape form. Certainly, you use the different strength and dex modifiers of the form, as is written in the rules concerning wild shape.

This pretty much sums up my own personal ruling of that as well.

[Flashy]

Damage is entirely unlinked from character size in 5e. A goliath is large and a gnome is small, but both deal 1d8+Str damage when wielding a longsword one handed. There's no reason this should apply to wild shapes when it applies to nothing else.

[HoarsHalberd]

Damage is entirely unlinked from character size in 5e. A goliath is large and a gnome is small, but both deal 1d8+Str damage when wielding a longsword one handed. There's no reason this should apply to wild shapes when it applies to nothing else.

A goliath is medium* And it seems as though damage only increases at larger ranges of height and for monsters only.

[RickAllison]

As a side question - If a caster used an Enlarge/Reduce spell on a monk, would you allow the addition damage?

Since I've asked the first question, I have also not been able to find an answer for this anywhere.

Im actually surprised for how long 5e has been out - these questions havent really been asked/answered thoroughly.

Thanks again guys

Three things to keep in mind:

1) Enlarge has a specific effect. Weapons that scaled with you as part of the spell gain 1d4 damage, you wouldn't consult the appropriate rules for other sizes. Now, you could pick up a Large weapon (or a Huge weapon with disadvantage) and the other rules would apply, but that is another can of worms.

2) Fists are natural weapons. The page with rules about different sizes differentiates between manufactured weapons and natural weapons. For good or ill, DMs can persecute monks on that.

3) If a DM rules that the damage is constant with all forms, turn into a bacterium. Laugh maniacally as your DM has ruled into a corner while your imperceptibly small beast can kill from inside him.

[Flashy]

A goliath is medium* And it seems as though damage only increases at larger ranges of height and for monsters only.

You're totally right, I had confused the Powerful Build feature with an actual size change. Any yeah, there's some stuff in the DMG about varying monster damage based on size at the higher ends but it's all pretty loose and doesn't apply to the PC math anyway.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

The simple truth is you would have a broken multiclass if a monk/druid could exploit the natural attacks of the wild shape as if they were "unarmed strikes". Of course, any animal is "unarmed", and of course any time it bites or claws, that's technically speaking an unarmed attack, but it's not an "unarmed strike" per RAW in the PHB. And thank goodness it isn't! A Moon Druid 15/Monk 5 can wild shape into CR 5 beasts like a Giant Crocodile. Imagine if the bite from that beast at 3d10+5 was considered an "unarmed strike" per monk rules! "Yeah, I'm gonna flurry of blows my crocodile bite and put in a stunning strike on the first one, here comes four attacks of 3d10+5!!!!" Completely broken!

One thing you can do with a druid multiclass is use Extra Attack if you have that as a class feature for say barbarian or something. So you could elect to do two of those giant crocodile bite attacks INSTEAD of the typical Multiattack which is a completely different kind of attack action then Extra Attack. That can be quite useful, as well as having a barbarian be raged while in wild shape and get those damage resistances.

There are cool uses of a druid multiclass by wild shape, unfortunately, and I say this as a huge monk fan, the druid/monk multi as written isn't as viable. You want to do martial arts in your wild shape form? Then you have to use the martial arts damage feature of your class, which is retained in your wild shape. One thing you CAN do via RAW is you can do a stunning strike with a claw or bite from you wild shape because stunning strike can be set off whenever you do a "melee weapon attack" and all of the beast's natural attacks are defined as "melee weapon attacks", so that's kosher. You just can't do flurry of blows with anything other than your monk's martial damage.

Weirdly enough, there is a RAW kind of incongruity with the monk and his bonus attacks. Under "Martial Arts" in the PHB, it states this: "When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action." A wild shape's natural attack doesn't count as a monk weapon or unarmed strike, so you can't do this in wild shape (unless you are willing to just do the monk's unarmed strikes as your attack action). BUT the definition of flurry of blows is this: "Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action." So no qualifier there for your attack action being an unarmed strike or monk weapon, so you could do your attack action with your wild shape natural attack, and follow that up with flurry of blows using your monk's unarmed strike damage. Not a lot of extra damage, but it does work RAW.

[RickAllison]

The simple truth is you would have a broken multiclass if a monk/druid could exploit the natural attacks of the wild shape as if they were "unarmed strikes". Of course, any animal is "unarmed", and of course any time it bites or claws, that's technically speaking an unarmed attack, but it's not an "unarmed strike" per RAW in the PHB. And thank goodness it isn't! A Moon Druid 15/Monk 5 can wild shape into CR 5 beasts like a Giant Crocodile. Imagine if the bite from that beast at 3d10+5 was considered an "unarmed strike" per monk rules! "Yeah, I'm gonna flurry of blows my crocodile bite and put in a stunning strike on the first one, here comes four attacks of 3d10+5!!!!" Completely broken!

One thing you can do with a druid multiclass is use Extra Attack if you have that as a class feature for say barbarian or something. So you could elect to do two of those giant crocodile bite attacks INSTEAD of the typical Multiattack which is a completely different kind of attack action then Extra Attack. That can be quite useful, as well as having a barbarian be raged while in wild shape and get those damage resistances.

There are cool uses of a druid multiclass by wild shape, unfortunately, and I say this as a huge monk fan, the druid/monk multi as written isn't as viable. You want to do martial arts in your wild shape form? Then you have to use the martial arts damage feature of your class, which is retained in your wild shape. One thing you CAN do via RAW is you can do a stunning strike with a claw or bite from you wild shape because stunning strike can be set off whenever you do a "melee weapon attack" and all of the beast's natural attacks are defined as "melee weapon attacks", so that's kosher. You just can't do flurry of blows with anything other than your monk's martial damage.

Weirdly enough, there is a RAW kind of incongruity with the monk and his bonus attacks. Under "Martial Arts" in the PHB, it states this: "When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action." A wild shape's natural attack doesn't count as a monk weapon or unarmed strike, so you can't do this in wild shape (unless you are willing to just do the monk's unarmed strikes as your attack action). BUT the definition of flurry of blows is this: "Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action." So no qualifier there for your attack action being an unarmed strike or monk weapon, so you could do your attack action with your wild shape natural attack, and follow that up with flurry of blows using your monk's unarmed strike damage. Not a lot of extra damage, but it does work RAW.

It's not nearly as broken as you think. Unarmed attacks are different from natural weapons, representing strikes from anywhere or in odd ways (like trying to slash with a crocodile's mouth instead of biting). So in your example, the Giant Crocodile (Druid 15/Monk 5) would be dealing out 3d6 (10.5, 31.5 for three) damage. Meanwhile, a 2-level dip into Warlock gives an extra 1d6 damage. Just the Druid 15 would be doling out 3d10+2d8 (26.5) with great rider effects. So the combination deals a good bit more damage than if it was just the Druid levels. Alternatively, we just use the Extra Attack feature without using the other monk parts for 3d10+3d10 (33 damage). It is more damaging to not fiddle around with the size interaction at all, just using Extra Attack which is clear-as-day viable. Also, he will be getting advantage on those attacks soon thanks to the awesome rider ability. Now, one thing the monk could get is the unarmed attack since natural weapons dont make monk features unusable, getting the extra 3d6+5 damage. Pretty good deal there, but 5 levels is pretty steep and should net you something.

Two beasts that would give a better example of increased capability are the giant constrictor snake and elk, which only need Moon Druid 6, netting you the monk's d8 for increased damage. The GCS has low damage with its natural weapons, but gains a great rider effect. Just due to the way this creature was designed, monk would be a massive boost to it. For the elk, on the other hand, it would be marginal and a Fighter 11 dip (Champion, probably) would increase it more. The monk could dole out 4d6+4d8+3d8 for its rolls, while the fighter could do 4d6+4d8+4d8, while the champion is benefitting from more dice to roll with, the battlemaster has ways to get them prone if the Charge is unavailable, and the Eldritch Knight could just toss in Haste to get another attack in.

So yes, the combination of monk and Druid can be more powerful than the straight Druid, that is the trade-off for giving up such gems as unlimited Wild Shaping. Meanwhile, the Extra Attack feature is available to numerous other people and is the real driving force behind the combo. Frankly, the only advantage monks have could be negated by deciding that wielding includes actively using natural weapons, resulting in monks falling in line with the barbarian and paladin with Druid levels. Flurry of Blows makes this a little better for the monk:

[Fflewddur Fflam]

It's not nearly as broken as you think. Unarmed attacks are different from natural weapons, representing strikes from anywhere or in odd ways (like trying to slash with a crocodile's mouth instead of biting). So in your example, the Giant Crocodile (Druid 15/Monk 5) would be dealing out 3d6 (10.5, 31.5 for three) damage. Meanwhile, a 2-level dip into Warlock gives an extra 1d6 damage. Just the Druid 15 would be doling out 3d10+2d8 (26.5) with great rider effects. So the combination deals a good bit more damage than if it was just the Druid levels. Alternatively, we just use the Extra Attack feature without using the other monk parts for 3d10+3d10 (33 damage). It is more damaging to not fiddle around with the size interaction at all, just using Extra Attack which is clear-as-day viable. Also, he will be getting advantage on those attacks soon thanks to the awesome rider ability. Now, one thing the monk could get is the unarmed attack since natural weapons dont make monk features unusable, getting the extra 3d6+5 damage. Pretty good deal there, but 5 levels is pretty steep and should net you something.

Two beasts that would give a better example of increased capability are the giant constrictor snake and elk, which only need Moon Druid 6, netting you the monk's d8 for increased damage. The GCS has low damage with its natural weapons, but gains a great rider effect. Just due to the way this creature was designed, monk would be a massive boost to it. For the elk, on the other hand, it would be marginal and a Fighter 11 dip (Champion, probably) would increase it more. The monk could dole out 4d6+4d8+3d8 for its rolls, while the fighter could do 4d6+4d8+4d8, while the champion is benefitting from more dice to roll with, the battlemaster has ways to get them prone if the Charge is unavailable, and the Eldritch Knight could just toss in Haste to get another attack in.

So yes, the combination of monk and Druid can be more powerful than the straight Druid, that is the trade-off for giving up such gems as unlimited Wild Shaping. Meanwhile, the Extra Attack feature is available to numerous other people and is the real driving force behind the combo. Frankly, the only advantage monks have could be negated by deciding that wielding includes actively using natural weapons, resulting in monks falling in line with the barbarian and paladin with Druid levels. Flurry of Blows makes this a little better for the monk:

I honestly have no clue how you are producing these numbers. It seems you are assuming a beast's natural attack can be used as a monk's "unarmed strike"? That is not RAW.

[RickAllison]

I honestly have no clue how you are producing these numbers. It seems you are assuming a beast's natural attack can be used as a monk's "unarmed strike"? That is not RAW.

The numbers that aren't from a scaled-up monk die are from the creatures' stat blocks. 3d10 for the giant crocodile bite, 2d6+2d6 for the charge of the giant elk and 4d8 for its hooves.

[Nefariis]

Sorry guys I think there was a general misunderstanding, let me clarify real quick and see if you would rule the same.


You just can't do flurry of blows with anything other than your monk's martial damage.


I would never let him upgrade damage on his animal's natural attack/multi-attack (they are already considered large), nor would I let him use his martial bonus attack after an animal's natural attack.

I was strictly speaking of his martial damage when he was using flurry of blows.

Currently he has 2 levels monk (d4 martial damage). What he suggested is that going into a large creature (a bear) is the same as using the enlarge spell, so this (per the phb) would add an extra d4 to his damage. I said an extra d4 seemed too much and gave him a simple d6 instead. Again, this is only for when he is martial attacking with flurrly of blows (or if he decided to martial attack instead of using the bear's multiattack).

So, considering that this is only for martial attacks in wildshape (sorry I should have been a little more clear), would you consider becoming a large creature the same as using the enlarge spell?

Thanks

[RickAllison]

Sorry guys I think there was a general misunderstanding, let me clarify real quick and see if you would rule the same.



I would never let him upgrade damage on his animal's natural attack/multi-attack (they are already considered large), nor would I let him use his martial bonus attack after an animal's natural attack.

I was strictly speaking of his martial damage when he was using flurry of blows.

Currently he has 2 levels monk (d4 martial damage). What he suggested is that going into a large creature (a bear) is the same as using the enlarge spell, so this (per the phb) would add an extra d4 to his damage. I said an extra d4 seemed too much and gave him a simple d6 instead. Again, this is only for when he is martial attacking with flurrly of blows (or if he decided to martial attack instead of using the bear's multiattack).

So, considering that this is only for martial attacks in wildshape (sorry I should have been a little more clear), would you consider becoming a large creature the same as using the enlarge spell?

Thanks

I would say either he deals 1d4 (no change) or 2d4 per the DMG. Keep things simple for the future.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Sorry guys I think there was a general misunderstanding, let me clarify real quick and see if you would rule the same.



I would never let him upgrade damage on his animal's natural attack/multi-attack (they are already considered large), nor would I let him use his martial bonus attack after an animal's natural attack.

I was strictly speaking of his martial damage when he was using flurry of blows.

Currently he has 2 levels monk (d4 martial damage). What he suggested is that going into a large creature (a bear) is the same as using the enlarge spell, so this (per the phb) would add an extra d4 to his damage. I said an extra d4 seemed too much and gave him a simple d6 instead. Again, this is only for when he is martial attacking with flurrly of blows (or if he decided to martial attack instead of using the bear's multiattack).

So, considering that this is only for martial attacks in wildshape (sorry I should have been a little more clear), would you consider becoming a large creature the same as using the enlarge spell?

Thanks

I get you, it's all up to the DM, but like I and others have said, that's what a creature's strength modifier is for, to add to the damage (and increase the chance to hit). I don't think the Enlarge spell is a useful analog, it's a magical spell, increasing someone's damage and size magically. I don't think you can use it as an analog for damage from something larger or smaller. If this were true, then monk martial arts damage from a halfling or gnome would be less, and it isn't.