moon druid + a level of monk?

[NaughtyTiger]

I have a level 12 moon druid. i tend to go into air elemental for the mobility and armor.

i am strongly considering 1 level of monk for the unarmored defense. most DMs i have talked to are good with it applying in wildshape.

it would make sense rp wise either way..

the question:
is the + 5 AC (wisdom 20) worth trading the capstone and delaying casting spells while wildshaped for a level?

[rahimka]

If you are going to lvl20, then losing the Druid capstone will be a big hit when you get there. ESPECIALLY as a Moon Druid who would otherwise be able to get A LOT of out it. Delaying Beast Spells by 1lvl is also a hit, but much less IMO.

Of course, if you don't reach the levels where you would get those features in the first place, it's all pretty moot right? For me, that would really be the deciding factor: whether I expect the campaign to actually reach the point where the big trade-offs for the dip become an issue

[Yunru]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?657153-The-Karate-Kid-A-Guide-to-Monk-Druid-Multiclassing

[Rukelnikov]

I have a level 12 moon druid. i tend to go into air elemental for the mobility and armor.

i am strongly considering 1 level of monk for the unarmored defense. most DMs i have talked to are good with it applying in wildshape.

it would make sense rp wise either way..

the question:
is the + 5 AC (wisdom 20) worth trading the capstone and delaying casting spells while wildshaped for a level?

If you've got someone in the party with Mage Armor, just ask them to cast in on you, it won't be +5, but it will be +3, so, is it worth it delaying spells, forms, and potentially losing capstone for 2 AC? Your call.

[NaughtyTiger]

If you are going to lvl20, then losing the Druid capstone will be a big hit when you get there. ESPECIALLY as a Moon Druid who would otherwise be able to get A LOT of out it. Delaying Beast Spells by 1lvl is also a hit, but much less IMO.

Of course, if you don't reach the levels where you would get those features in the first place, it's all pretty moot right? For me, that would really be the deciding factor: whether I expect the campaign to actually reach the point where the big trade-offs for the dip become an issue.

I doubt he will make it to 20 before he dies. (especially with low AC)


If you've got someone in the party with Mage Armor, just ask them to cast in on you, it won't be +5, but it will be +3, so, is it worth it delaying spells, forms, and potentially losing capstone for 2 AC?

good point.
he usually gets played at AL drop in tables, where teamwork is not encouraged...
i forget that asking is an option.

[Citan]

Hi ;)

I'll fully support other people's suggestions/opinions.
If Mage Armor is not available or enough for you (you could also get it yourself with Magic Initiate in worst case), AND you consider you'll never reach 20, THEN you can consider it.

Otherwise, don't bother and instead grit your teeth, knowing that patience and tenacity will be more than rewarded in the end. :=)

[Quoz]

Other useful small dips for a moon druid:

Barbarian also gives unarmored AC plus Rage, which while not compatable with your concentration spells offers huge durability increases.

Paladin 2 gives divine smite, an excellent use of the spell slots you can't cast in wild shape.

[Man_Over_Game]

Other useful small dips for a moon druid:

Barbarian also gives unarmored AC plus Rage, which while not compatable with your concentration spells offers huge durability increases.

Paladin 2 gives divine smite, an excellent use of the spell slots you can't cast in wild shape.

Can definitely confirm that Rage will make a Moon Druid an unstoppable powerhouse, to the point where it's just downright unbalanced.

Going Monk, consider talking to your DMs about how your Unarmed Strike works. Officially, it doesn't work with Moon Druid animal attacks, due to the fact that animal attacks are considered "Natural Weapons" and don't count as Unarmed Attacks for the sake of the Monk's Martial Arts.

However, considering Barbarian Rage is an option (and is generally strictly better, even with the Monk getting the Unarmed Attack in Wild Shape), I'd still let it fly.

[Yunru]

Going Monk, consider talking to your DMs about how your Unarmed Strike works. Officially, it doesn't work with Moon Druid animal attacks, due to the fact that animal attacks are considered "Natural Weapons" and don't count as Unarmed Attacks for the sake of the Monk's Martial Arts.Not according to anything official, nor any of the other examples of how players use natural weapons.

[Corpsecandle717]

Not according to anything official, nor any of the other examples of how players use natural weapons.

Can you clarify what you mean? There's a great deal of material indicating that Martial Arts and say a Dire Wolf's bite attack are not compatible and that while a Monk/Druid can in fact use Martial Arts in wild shape, it does not modify any of the natural attacks listed in the statistics block.

[Man_Over_Game]

Not according to anything official, nor any of the other examples of how players use natural weapons.

Sage Advice on this topic: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/17/does-a-beasts-natural-melee-weapon-attacks-count-as-unarmed-strikes/

Monk's Martial Arts feature requires either a Monk Weapon (simple weapons) or an Unarmed Strike. If Sage Advice clarifies that a natural weapon isn't an Unarmed Strike, then Wild Shape attacks aren't eligible for Martial Arts.

Now, a Bear can still make an Unarmed Strike (as can anyone), but it would obey the standard/class rules for Unarmed Strike's damage and attack, ignoring any attacks on the Bear's statblock.

[Yunru]

Can you clarify what you mean? There's a great deal of material indicating that Martial Arts and say a Dire Wolf's bite attack are not compatible and that while a Monk/Druid can in fact use Martial Arts in wild shape, it does not modify any of the natural attacks listed in the statistics block.
Sure, I'll provide a list of some references that define how Natural Weapons work (plus, as opposed to one tweet that's 3 years old, is official):
Aarakocra: "Talons. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes, which deal 1d4 slashing damage on a hit."
Alter Self: "Natural Weapons. You grow claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon of your choice. Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, as appropriate to the natural weapon you chose, and you are proficient with your unarmed strikes. Finally, the natural weapon is magic and you have a +1 bonus to the attack and damage rolls you make using it."
Tabaxi: "Cat's Claws. Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."
Lizardfolk: "Bite. Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with it, you deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."Notice that in every instance of natural weapons being defined, they are used to make unarmed strikes.

Although you have my curiosity about this "great deal" of material. I can only find old stuff (that even then, contradicted the two cases of when players have natural weapons).


Sage Advice on this topic: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/17/does-a-beasts-natural-melee-weapon-attacks-count-as-unarmed-strikes/Again, not official.

[Corpsecandle717]

Sure, I'll provide a list of some references that define how Natural Weapons work (plus, as opposed to one tweet that's 3 years old, is official):
Aarakocra: "Talons. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes, which deal 1d4 slashing damage on a hit."
Alter Self: "Natural Weapons. You grow claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon of your choice. Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, as appropriate to the natural weapon you chose, and you are proficient with your unarmed strikes. Finally, the natural weapon is magic and you have a +1 bonus to the attack and damage rolls you make using it."
Tabaxi: "Cat's Claws. Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."
Lizardfolk: "Bite. Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with it, you deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."Notice that in every instance of natural weapons being defined, they are used to make unarmed strikes.

Although you have my curiosity about this "great deal" of material. I can only find old stuff (that even then, contradicted the two cases of when players have natural weapons).

Again, not official.

SA is official, it's just not final. They've asked to take tweets as advice, but it still comes from an official source. Also there's some as recent as October last year https://www.sageadvice.eu/?s=monk+druid

That said, all the examples you've given are specific examples of unarmed strike being modified, not that all natural attacks can be considered unarmed strikes. It's the good 'ole specific over general rule again. These are very specific, that these races can make unarmed attacks with their natural weapons (it's a perk for those races) but the general rule remains. Natrual Weapon Attacks are Weapon Attacks and therefore Martial arts do not apply.

[Yunru]

SA is official, it's just not final.In accordance with the Sage Advice Compendium, only three sources are official: The Compendium, the Errata, and the books.


That said, all the examples you've given are specific examples of unarmed strike being modified, not that all natural attacks can be considered unarmed strikes. It's the good 'ole specific over general rule again. These are very specific, that these races can make unarmed attacks with their natural weapons (it's a perk for those races) but the general rule remains. Natrual Weapon Attacks are Weapon Attacks and therefore Martial arts do not apply.Exceeeeept, we never see this "general" rule of yours. In absence of a rule either way, we can only look at the cases where their uses are defined. Especially handy as we have the Aarakocra race, so we can see how it looks on both sides of the divide.


Natrual Weapon Attacks are Weapon Attacks and therefore Martial arts do not apply.You might want to double check yourself there. Unarmed strikes are also Weapon Attacks. Just like when you make an unarmed strike with a natural weapon.

[GlenSmash!]

I've never actually heard of survivability being a problem for moon druids, Barkskin and shift is a great low level combo.

At 10+ plus Earth elemental is a monster. Laying down some crowd control spells, then Earth Gliding under them is pretty wicked.

[Corpsecandle717]

In accordance with the Sage Advice Compendium, only three sources are official: The Compendium, the Errata, and the books.

From the SA compendium: The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice.

So while not official 'rulings' they are from an official source and can be considered advice.



Exceeeeept, we never see this "general" rule of yours. In absence of a rule either way, we can only look at the cases where their uses are defined. Especially handy as we have the Aarakocra race, so we can see how it looks on both sides of the divide. Except there are rules about it, but just like a whole bunch of other rules they're all scattered all over the place and it's up to the reader to cobble them together and the glue often turns out to be that 'Specific Beats General' line. Also, if I have learned one thing about this version is that inference is going to bring you pain.



You might want to double check yourself there. Unarmed strikes are also Weapon Attacks. Just like when you make an unarmed strike with a natural weapon.


First line of Martial Arts.
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property. You are correct, I miss-spoke and the restriction for martial arts is that it must be an 'Unarmed Strike' or a 'monk weapon'. So the question is if a animal's attack can be considered an 'Unarmed Strike' in addition to being a Weapon Attack.


Base Unarmed Strike Rule: Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.


SA compendium: [NEW] Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons? Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks, and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack. The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.
This supports your last statement, but notice how they emphasized this is an exception to the general rule? Also Unarmed Strikes can be Weapon Attacks, but it doesn't say anything about the opposite being true.



From the Stat Block of a Dire Wolf:
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (2d6 + 3) piercing damage. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 13 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.


Also from the MM
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.

All your examples from previously are specific exceptions to the general rules that Unarmed Strikes are no Weapon Attacks. Unless you can find something I've overlooked, I don't see how your argument can stand.

[Yunru]

All your examples from previously are specific exceptions to the general rules that Unarmed Strikes are no Weapon Attacks. Unless you can find something I've overlooked, I don't see how your argument can stand.Uh huh. Yeah sure, you don't see how my argument can stand because of your claim that every single time we've gotten details on how natural weapons works is an exception to a rule that isn't present in the books?
Yes, I think you've overlooked quite a few things. Chiefly just how many assumptions you're making.

Let's remove those assumptions. What are we left with:
- All unarmed strikes are weapon attacks
- Where explained, all natjral weapons modify unarmed strikes (and thus are weapon attacks)

[djreynolds]

If you've got someone in the party with Mage Armor, just ask them to cast in on you, it won't be +5, but it will be +3, so, is it worth it delaying spells, forms, and potentially losing capstone for 2 AC? Your call.


If you are going to lvl20, then losing the Druid capstone will be a big hit when you get there. ESPECIALLY as a Moon Druid who would otherwise be able to get A LOT of out it. Delaying Beast Spells by 1lvl is also a hit, but much less IMO.

Of course, if you don't reach the levels where you would get those features in the first place, it's all pretty moot right? For me, that would really be the deciding factor: whether I expect the campaign to actually reach the point where the big trade-offs for the dip become an issue


Hi ;)

I'll fully support other people's suggestions/opinions.
If Mage Armor is not available or enough for you (you could also get it yourself with Magic Initiate in worst case), AND you consider you'll never reach 20, THEN you can consider it.

Otherwise, don't bother and instead grit your teeth, knowing that patience and tenacity will be more than rewarded in the end. :=)

You are half way there, don't bother

The forum folks are correct

[Corpsecandle717]

Uh huh. Yeah sure, you don't see how my argument can stand because of your claim that every single time we've gotten details on how natural weapons works is an exception to a rule that isn't present in the books?
Yes, I think you've overlooked quite a few things. Chiefly just how many assumptions you're making.

Let's remove those assumptions. What are we left with:
- All unarmed strikes are weapon attacks
- Where explained, all natjral weapons modify unarmed strikes (and thus are weapon attacks)

Can you clarify what it is I'm assuming? The only evidence you've presented against my conclusion is the few cases where the Specific beats General catch-all is applied.

[sambojin]

Cleric (especially Life or Arcana) is also a great 1lvl dip for druids. It's 6 extra spells prepared at 20Wis, a lot of those spells are great/direct replacements for lvl1 druid spells, so you can "up-slot" a lot of your prepared basic spells to increase the versatility of your casting toolkit. Even Healing Word/Bless is good enough, but you'll often find that it can clear 3-4 prepared slots for you, giving you a heap more choice in your lvl3-6 spells as a druid.

Kind of a sidegrade and an upgrade, and you don't really lose a lot for doing it (makes you a better caster, and you're already a good caster at lvl12 anyway). Arcana's nice for some wizard'y cantrips, life's good for super-heals. There's actually quite a lot of semi-useful stuff for druiding available in a cleric dip, and more of your good magic is great.

[Chijinda]

Let's remove those assumptions. What are we left with:
- All unarmed strikes are weapon attacks
- Where explained, all natjral weapons modify unarmed strikes (and thus are weapon attacks)

The Aaracokra, Tabaxi and Lizardfolk bite are explicitly qualified as unarmed attack equivalents.

A bear's claw attack or a Dire Wolf's bite attack do not have those qualifiers.

So the former would benefit from a Monk's martial arts, but since the beast's attacks do not have that important qualifier that specifies their bite or claw attacks are not unarmed attacks, they don't count as unarmed strikes.

[Yunru]

Can you clarify what it is I'm assuming? The only evidence you've presented against my conclusion is the few cases where the Specific beats General catch-all is applied.

Okay, then quote the general.
"Specific beats general" [i]only applies when there are two rules that contradict each other.

[Yunru]

The Aaracokra, Tabaxi and Lizardfolk bite are explicitly qualified as unarmed attack equivalents.

A bear's claw attack or a Dire Wolf's bite attack do not have those qualifiers.

So the former would benefit from a Monk's martial arts, but since the beast's attacks do not have that important qualifier that specifies their bite or claw attacks are not unarmed attacks, they don't count as unarmed strikes.

And your proof is?
The Aarakocra, Tabaxi and Lizardfolk are also explicitly natural weapons, you can't pick and choose.

I don't know why I bother, you have no proof, because there is none. The only rules we have for natural weapons all say they modify unarmed strikes, there are no other rules for them. That's it.

[NaughtyTiger]

And your proof is?
The Aarakocra, Tabaxi and Lizardfolk are also explicitly natural weapons, you can't pick and choose.

I don't know why I bother, you have no proof, because there is none. The only rules we have for natural weapons all say they modify unarmed strikes, there are no other rules for them. That's it.

Are there any rules defining natural weapons?

One player interpreted natural weapons to be weapons made of wood, like a quarterstaff.
I couldn't find RAW proving he was wrong. (but we all know he was wrong)

Yunru, if you can point to a definition of natural weapon, that would help this discussion.
Lacking a RAW definition of natural weapon, then we have to lean on RAI.
Devs have clearly stated that natural weapons are not intended to act as unarmed strikes (unless explicitly stated).

Why would they explicitly state it for some cases, but not all
wildshape should explicitly state beast attacks are unarmed attacks.
consider the magical item Insignia of Claws.

While wearing the insignia you gain a +1 bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls you make with unarmed strikes and natural weapons. Such attacks are considered to be magical.
it mentions both unarmed strikes and natural weapons as distinct and separate. If they are the same thing then the "and" is incorrect (incorrect, not just superfluous)

[Yunru]

Are there any rules defining natural weapons? There are things defined as natural weapons, that's about as close as we can get.


One player interpreted natural weapons to be weapons made of wood, like a quarterstaff.
I couldn't find RAW proving he was wrong. (but we all know he was wrong)Sure, but that's because he's adding something that's not there.


Yunru, if you can point to a definition of natural weapon, that would help this discussion.A natural weapon is a thing you can have. We know something is a natural weapon, because it says it's a natural weapon. We also know that creatures can have natural weapons. We also know players with natural weapons have their unarmed strike changed.


Devs have clearly stated that natural weapons are not intended to act as unarmed strikes (unless explicitly stated).Yes, but not with enough confidence to every actually authenticate it as RAW.


Why would they explicitly state it for some cases, but not allIn every case where the player is given natural weapons, it is explicitly stated. The monster manual is much more condensed, and omits a lot of stuff (like whether the attacks are even Str or Dex based).


wildshape should explicitly state beast attacks are unarmed attacks.Probably, either that or state that they aren't.


consider the magical item Insignia of Claws.
it mentions both unarmed strikes and natural weapons as distinct and separate. If they are the same thing then the "and" is incorrect (incorrect, not just superfluous)It could very easily just be redundant (it wouldn't be incorrect, just superfluous), to reinforce that it works for those without natural weapons as well as with.


A final point, consider the absurdity:
For some reason (be it DM fiat or magic item) you can change into Humanoids with your Wildshape.
You are an Aarakocra. You are also a Monk. You can use your talons to make unarmed strikes that work with your martial arts.
You transform into a NPC Aarakocra. Suddenly your talons work different because... reasons.

[samcifer]

If you've got someone in the party with Mage Armor, just ask them to cast in on you, it won't be +5, but it will be +3, so, is it worth it delaying spells, forms, and potentially losing capstone for 2 AC? Your call.

Or simply take the feat Magic Initiate and choose wizard or sorcerer and take Mage Armor as the Lv. 1 Spell choice.

[NaughtyTiger]

In every case where the player is given natural weapons, it is explicitly stated.
If every case where the player is given natural weapons that act provide unarmed attacks, it is explicitly stated.
Consider UA for Centaur and Minotaur, they specify natural weapons for PCs but do not specify unarmed attacks.

I know I ain't gonna convince you, but I just wanted to point out that subtle difference.


A final point, consider the absurdity:
For some reason (be it DM fiat or magic item) you can change into Humanoids with your Wildshape.


Wildshape explicitly states that you transform into a beast.
Are you referring to homebrew?
At that point any discussion of RAW is done...

[Yunru]

In every case where the player is given natural weapons, it is explicitly stated.
If every case where the player is given natural weapons that act provide unarmed attacks, it is explicitly stated.
Consider UA for Centaur and Minotaur, they specify natural weapons for PCs but do not specify unarmed attacks. Okay, consider every case that made it to print.


Are you referring to homebrew?
Because wildshape explicitly states that you transform into a beast.Ahem: "(be it DM fiat or magic item)"


At that point any discussion of RAW is done...Not at all. The RAW would be just the same. You turn into something from the monster manual with natural weapons. The monster manual entry doesn't specify that they alter your unarmed strike. But it's the same race that you were before, when it did.
Why are you claiming that these two things work separately?

It's not one contradicting the other, it's one defined effect, and one undefined effect.

[NaughtyTiger]

Ahem: "(be it DM fiat or magic item)"

Bringing a knife Homebrew to a gun RAW fight...


Anyway,
Thank ya'll for feedback on my druid.
I think I will stay pure druid, and beg random strangers for Mage Armor

[Yunru]

Bringing a knife Homebrew to a gun RAW fight...
Right, because expanding the list that Wildshape can turn into and nothing else apparently massively changes the RAW?

[NaughtyTiger]

One player interpreted natural weapons to be weapons made of wood, like a quarterstaff.
I couldn't find RAW proving he was wrong. (but we all know he was wrong)
Sure, but that's because he's adding something that's not there.

adding something like Wildshaped natural weapons are unarmed attacks? (i missed this nugget of irony earlier)


Right, because expanding the list that Wildshape can turn into and nothing else apparently massively changes the RAW?

I am confused as to what you are arguing.

You posit: all natural weapons are unarmed attacks, because player races that have natural weapons specify that they can be used for unarmed attacks.
Rest of thread posits: only natural weapons that are specified as usable for unarmed attacks can be used for unarmed attacks, backed up by Developers statements to that fact.
Since neither case is specified in text, RAW doesn't support either position.
EDIT: as CorpseCandle points out, RAW states a general rule that body parts for unarmed strikes are not weapons. So without a specific rule allowing, natural weapons cannot be used for unarmed strikes

Then you introduce a homebrew that lets you wildshape into a Aarokora monk with natural weapons. I do not understand how this strengthens your case for natural weapons are unarmed attacks.

[Yunru]

Then you introduce a homebrew that lets you wildshape into a Aarokora monk with natural weapons. I do not understand how this strengthens your case for natural weapons are unarmed attacks.Okay, I'll put it simpler.
Why does an Aarakocra's natural weapons work with martial arts, but an Aarakocra's natural weapons don't?

[GlenSmash!]

Okay, I'll put it simpler.
Why does an Aarakocra's natural weapons work with martial arts, but an Aarakocra's natural weapons don't?

Maybe because the Aarakocra's ability specifically mentions it modifies Unarmed strike damage and never actually mentions natural weapons?


Talons. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes,
which deal 1d4 slashing damage on a hit

[Yunru]

Maybe because the Aarakocra's ability specifically mentions it modifies Unarmed strike damage and never actually mentions natural weapons?

Okay, then that further raises the question of "if "Talon" isn't a natural weapon, why are people assuming "bite" or "claw" is?"
However you cut it, they're all using the same thing, so they should act the same. And since there is no rules conflict, assuming specific vs general is a fool's game.

[GlenSmash!]

Okay, then that further raises the question of "if "Talon" isn't a natural weapon, why are people assuming "bite" or "claw" is?"
However you cut it, they're all using the same thing, so they should act the same. And since there is no rules conflict, assuming specific vs general is a fool's game.

Maybe, but animal statblocks, unlike Aarakocra's Talons ability specifically lack language that specify it is an unarmed strike.

As a DM I could rule that they are but I think it's well within interpretation and maybe even "RAW" to say they aren't.

[Yunru]

Maybe, but animal statblocks, unlike Aarakocra's Talons ability specifically lack language that specify it is an unarmed strike.

As a DM I could rule that they are but I think it's well within interpretation and maybe even "RAW" to say they aren't.

But that's why I choose Aarakocra; it has both a player race and a statblock.

[GlenSmash!]

But that's why I choose Aarakocra; it has both a player race and a statblock.

I view PCs and NPCs as profoundly different.

[Corpsecandle717]

Okay, then quote the general.
"Specific beats general" [i]only applies when there are two rules that contradict each other.

So last attempt on my part:

Here is the general rule for unarmed strike:

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes. So in general Unarmed Strikes do not count as weapons.

The specific rule that applies to Tabaxi:

Tabaxi: "Cat's Claws. Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike." This specific rule overrides the general rule for unarmed strikes when a Tabaxi uses it's claws as an Unarmed Strike.

These two rules directly contradict one another, however the specific Tabaxi rule overrides the general Unarmed Strike rule. There is no specific rule that says that ALL Natural Weapons can be used for unarmed strikes. The general rule describing unarmed strikes is a blanket rule with a few exceptions.

Here's another that caught me out just the other day.

General Rule about Scrolls:

Any creature that can understand a written language can read the arcane script on a scroll and attempt to activate it.

Specific rule about Spell Scrolls

If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible.

The game is full of these sorts of sorts if inferred rule sets. It's reason they haven't actually added the Natural Weapons/Unarmed Strike stuff to Errata or the SA compendium despite getting asked the question every few months. It's in the books.

[NaughtyTiger]

So last attempt on my part:

Here is the general rule for unarmed strike:
So in general Unarmed Strikes do not count as weapons.

The specific rule that applies to Tabaxi:
This specific rule overrides the general rule for unarmed strikes when a Tabaxi uses it's claws as an Unarmed Strike.

These two rules directly contradict one another, however the specific Tabaxi rule overrides the general Unarmed Strike rule. There is no specific rule that says that ALL Natural Weapons can be used for unarmed strikes. The general rule describing unarmed strikes is a blanket rule with a few exceptions.

Good job finding the specific text.

[Yunru]

So last attempt on my part:

Here is the general rule for unarmed strike:
So in general Unarmed Strikes do not count as weapons.

The specific rule that applies to Tabaxi:
This specific rule overrides the general rule for unarmed strikes when a Tabaxi uses it's claws as an Unarmed Strike.

These two rules directly contradict one another, however the specific Tabaxi rule overrides the general Unarmed Strike rule. There is no specific rule that says that ALL Natural Weapons can be used for unarmed strikes. The general rule describing unarmed strikes is a blanket rule with a few exceptions.

Here's another that caught me out just the other day.

General Rule about Scrolls:


Specific rule about Spell Scrolls


The game is full of these sorts of sorts if inferred rule sets. It's reason they haven't actually added the Natural Weapons/Unarmed Strike stuff to Errata or the SA compendium despite getting asked the question every few months. It's in the books.
No, they don't. Because for all we know, modifying unarmed strikes is the general rule for natural weapons.


I view PCs and NPCs as profoundly different.

So why would you use an (assumed) rule for NPCs when you know how it's treated by PCs?

[ThePolarBear]

No, they don't. Because for all we know, modifying unarmed strikes is the general rule for natural weapons.

No. All the weapon attacks that are not manufactured weapons of everything in the MM is a natural weapon and strictly is not an unarmed strike. So we know that this is not the case.

Anticipating your reply: If those were to be unarmed strike, the damage would need to be 1+str OR a line like "the unarmed strikes of this creature deal X", "this replaces any creature unarmed strikes" or something like that. Unarmed strikes for monsters still follow the general rule in the PHB without a specific change (that is nowhere to be found).


So why would you use an (assumed) rule for NPCs when you know how it's treated by PCs?

Because PCs do not have an exception, unless they have. Also, it still isn't true for PCs too. If a PC were to gain a natural weapon, the rules for that natural weapon would need to include that that natural weapon modifies their unarmed strike or can be used for unarmed strikes, otherwise the unarmed strike would remain absolutely untouched.

[insert Aarakocra wildshape impossibility here]

First: Aarakocra race trait is not a natural weapon. Second, Aarakocra pc wildshaping in Aarakocra would still be able to use the Talon trait ANYWAY:

Either the racial trait is a natural weapon or it isn't, and it is either based on the anatomy or it isn't.

It is and it's based on anatomy: PC can still use it anyway, since Npcs still have talons and thus are physiologycally allowed to do so.
It is not and based: See above
It is and not based: PC can use it anyway, since it retains race features.
It is not and not based: See above.

To a non-wildshaped pc it makes no difference. To a Wildshaped PC it makes no difference. I see no "impossibility" in the example, only the refusal to understand that PC and NPC are built differently because they are meant to have a different role in the game.

During the wildshape the MonkDruid would gain an attack option, that is not an unarmed strike, that allows them to do 1d4+str damage. Just like any other wildshape works.

[Yunru]

No. All the weapon attacks that are not manufactured weapons of everything in the MM is a natural weapon and strictly is not an unarmed strike. So we know that this is not the case.Or an unarmed strike that does modified damage, because stat blocks only show the final result.


a line like "the unarmed strikes of this creature deal X"No they don't, because we only see the end product. All things like that are cut out.


The rest... I'm going to dismiss as conjecture, because I'm tired, grouchy and full of head cold, sorry.

[GlenSmash!]

So why would you use an (assumed) rule for NPCs when you know how it's treated by PCs?

How PCs treat it has no bearing on NPCs as they each use fundamentally different rules.

Death saves for example. I can as the DM have an NPC use death saves, but it's not assumed that they all do so, even though I don't think it's explicit that they don't. Though I may be wrong on that count.

[Yunru]

How PCs treat it has no bearing on NPCs as they each use fundamentally different rules.Except the Druid crosses those lines, so it does have a bearing.

[GlenSmash!]

Except the Druid crosses those lines, so it does have a bearing.

The druid does cross those lines, and explicitly calls out what carries over in Wildshape otherwise it's treated like the Monster statblock no?

So if it's not called out in the Wildshape ability and not explicit by the Monster/NPC rules the DM makes a ruling. The DM may take into account a specific Player race if they want, but they aren't obligated to. They may take into account Sage advice, though again they are not obligated to.

[djreynolds]

Am I right that attacks with natural weapons are still considered unarmed strikes rather than attacks with a weapon? E.g. for greenflame blade, silvered fists and similar.

Mr. Crawford
An attack with a natural weapon is not an unarmed strike. An unarmed strike follows the unarmed strike rules in the Player's Handbook, no matter what type of creature is attacking. Some exceptional natural weapons, such as tabaxi claws, can be used for unarmed strikes.

I hope this helps out, I know its confusing for me as well

Think of it this way, a natural weapon is something you are born with (or transformed into), while is an unarmed strike is something you train at. A monk more specifically trains her/his whole life

[Man_Over_Game]

Am I right that attacks with natural weapons are still considered unarmed strikes rather than attacks with a weapon? E.g. for greenflame blade, silvered fists and similar.

Mr. Crawford
An attack with a natural weapon is not an unarmed strike. An unarmed strike follows the unarmed strike rules in the Player's Handbook, no matter what type of creature is attacking. Some exceptional natural weapons, such as tabaxi claws, can be used for unarmed strikes.

I hope this helps out, I know its confusing for me as well

Think of it this way, a natural weapon is something you are born with (or transformed into), while is an unarmed strike is something you train at. A monk more specifically trains her/his whole life

I posted the same thing earlier in the thread. Considering the fact that it's not on the Sage Advice Compendium/Errata, and they've recently modified some of the rulings to imply that JC's Twitter rulings are not official until they're in the Compendium, people are saying that his ruling is hogwash until further notice.

[Yunru]

they've recently modified some of the rulings to imply that JC's Twitter rulings are not officialImply my ass, it's right out stated.

[djreynolds]

I posted the same thing earlier in the thread. Considering the fact that it's not on the Sage Advice Compendium/Errata, and they've recently modified some of the rulings to imply that JC's Twitter rulings are not official until they're in the Compendium, people are saying that his ruling is hogwash until further notice.

Well what do you think?

For me an unarmed strike requires a distinct training, where as a natural weapon is that... a weapon

Anyone can punch someone, but it doesn't mean its a weapon and doesn't mean they've been trained

I guess there is 5 or so categories

1. Anybody can throw a kick or punch without training... its 1 damage + strength

2. Some PCs have natural attacks, such as a claw and it 1d4+ strength

3. A monk is trained and does at first 1d4 + strength or dex

4. A tabaxi monk can choose to make their unarmed strikes slashing or bludgeoning

5. A bear's claw is a bear's claw, it is a weapon, could be a druid, real bear, or polymorphed dude

[Yunru]

5. A bear's claw is a bear's claw, it is a weapon, could be a druid, real bear, or polymorphed dude

So a Hexblade can make attacks with it using Charisma?
Make it their pact weapon?
Make their pact weapon it?

[Man_Over_Game]

Imply my ass, it's right out stated.

You have a valid point for your side, but do you have to sound like a jerk about everything?

[Yunru]

You have a valid point for your side, but do you have to sound like a jerk about everything?

Yes! I'm grouchy, full of cold and can't sleep. It's bleeding through.
Sorry.

[djreynolds]

So a Hexblade can make attacks with it using Charisma?
Make it their pact weapon?
Make their pact weapon it?

I think they could, but it would be size appropriate. They wouldn't be a 500lb black bear or a huge elephant with tusks and tons of mass

[Yunru]

I think they could, but it would be size appropriate. They wouldn't be a 500lb black bear or a huge elephant with tusks and tons of mass
But a pact weapon can be any weapon, why can't it be a mammoth's tusk if that's a weapon?
...
Now I'm reminded of Red Alert, sad.

[Corpsecandle717]

No, they don't. Because for all we know, modifying unarmed strikes is the general rule for natural weapons.

...What?
So you're saying that the guys on SA, the guys who helped create this version of the game, and who've held the same stance on this particular subject for at least 3 years; actually had a completely different mechanic in mind when they created these books and then decided against adding that little tidbit to any official resources, and somehow expected us to come to the same conclusion you did and then play our games in the way opposite to what they've been tweeting?

That's a pretty significant conspiracy and if it's true, holy crap Crawford and Mearls managed to pull off an EPIC Troll.

[GlenSmash!]

Yes! I'm grouchy, full of cold and can't sleep. It's bleeding through.
Sorry.

I recommend a Hot Toddy. Did wonders for my cold. And even if it didn't I still felt great because Alcohol.

[ThePolarBear]

Or an unarmed strike that does modified damage, because stat blocks only show the final result.

Again, against missing specific, the general applies. If there is no specific, the general applies.
For example, when an attack is magical, it is listed as such.
This is, very much, irrelevant for pretty much 99% of the situations. Since Wildshape is more common than non-magic weapon resistance, then it should follow that a "more" important or frequent rule should appear, too.

This is not true.

"Fireball heals" is not a good argument.


No they don't, because we only see the end product. All things like that are cut out.

Except we know that this is not the case, because we know the intent behind the rules AND we know that for a specific to beat the general, there has to be a specific.
It's a possible interpretation, it's just not a supported one, nor a reasonable one. In face of given intent, we also know that it's also not the intended one.
It is not reasonable to support such a view other that "it exists and is factually unimportant".


The rest... I'm going to dismiss as conjecture, because I'm tired, grouchy and full of head cold, sorry.

Convenient. I'm open to wait for a "better shaped Yunru" to come over and continue the discussion, however.

[Yunru]

Convenient. I'm open to wait for a "better shaped Yunru" to come over and continue the discussion, however.

Give me a short rest and I can wildshape into one.

[ThePolarBear]

Give me a short rest and I can wildshape into one.

Well, didn't know you were a beast. Or prehaps do you have a magic item? :D

[djreynolds]

But a pact weapon can be any weapon, why can't it be a mammoth's tusk if that's a weapon?
...
Now I'm reminded of Red Alert, sad.

It could be a mammoths tusk, but it will not be the same damage but physically the warlock lacks the mass of an elephant.

Its similar to a goliath being able to carry more weight or a Halfling not being able to use heavy weapons (even if a warlock)

So a warlock can use a smaller mammoth tusk but could not use a full size mammoth or elephant tusk simply because they lack the physical size

A warlocks weapon still obeys the law of physics

[Yunru]

First: Aarakocra race trait is not a natural weapon. Second, Aarakocra pc wildshaping in Aarakocra would still be able to use the Talon trait ANYWAY:

Either the racial trait is a natural weapon or it isn't, and it is either based on the anatomy or it isn't.

It is and it's based on anatomy: PC can still use it anyway, since Npcs still have talons and thus are physiologycally allowed to do so.
It is not and based: See above
It is and not based: PC can use it anyway, since it retains race features.
It is not and not based: See above.If it's based on anatomy and isn't a natural weapon, PCs can't use it, because NPCs have talons that don't alter your unarmed strike (apparently, since it's not written either way), they have natural weapons. Only PC Aarakocra have talons that alter your unarmed strike (apparently).

The only way there's no disconnect, if it's based on anatomy, is if both sides of the divide have the same trait.
As for whether it's dependent on anatomy, it has to be, at least partially, otherwise it wouldn't let you do slashing damage.


So a warlock can use a smaller mammoth tusk but could not use a full size mammoth or elephant tusk simply because they lack the physical sizeI think I get what you're saying. The character still has to be able to use the weapon, even if they are proficient. So no oversized weapons.

But if natural weapons are indeed weapons, then surely the Warlock can choose to have their pact weapon be in the form of the Basilisk's Bite which does 2d6+Str piercing damage and 2d6 poison damage, for example?


A warlocks weapon still obeys the law of physicsThis made me laugh. The magical weapon created by magic... obeys the laws of physics. I mean, in that sentence alone it blew up conservation of mass :P

[ThePolarBear]

If it's based on anatomy and isn't a natural weapon, PCs can't use it, because NPCs have talons that don't alter your unarmed strike (apparently, since it's not written either way), they have natural weapons. Only PC Aarakocra have talons that alter your unarmed strike (apparently).

"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."

If you need talons, and you have talons, you can use it. It doesn't matter if the Aarakocra npc has the feature. Your character has it, so it can be used.

And just to put an end on this: can you explain why the MM has monsters that both have things like "bite" and "unarmed strike" in the same statblock, if "bite" is in fact an "unarmed strike"?

[Yunru]

If you need talons, and you have talons, you can use it. It doesn't matter if the Aarakocra npc has the feature. Your character has it, so it can be used.So what's the difference between talons and claws? Can an Aarakocra use martial arts with all the various talons and claws that creatures have?


And just to put an end on this: can you explain why the MM has monsters that both have things like "bite" and "unarmed strike" in the same statblock, if "bite" is in fact an "unarmed strike"?For the same reason that they can have "dagger" and "shortbow", because both do different things. Heck, the Aarakocra can do an "unarmed strike" or use their "Talon" feature to have it do slashing.

[ThePolarBear]

So what's the difference between talons and claws? Can an Aarakocra use martial arts with all the various talons and claws that creatures have?

Because "talons", the feature, does not require you to use your talons - appendage. It modifies your unarmed strikes.
Claw, the action, does not modify your unarmed strike, as such if you want to use your unarmed strike you need to use the general rule.


For the same reason that they can have "dagger" and "shortbow", because both do different things.

Exactly. Unarmed strike is an unarmed strike, Bite isn't. Otherwise, it would have been described differently.


Heck, the Aarakocra can do an "unarmed strike" or use their "Talon" feature to have it do slashing.

The Aarakocra can because of a specific rule overriding the general. There is no general or specific rule saying that bite, is in fact, an unarmed strike. If you want to use "bite", you use "bite", but cannot apply martial arts to it since it only applies to unarmed strikes.

A strawberry is red. A strawberry is a fruit. It doesn't follow that all fruits are red.

[Yunru]

[snip]
Yes, because we never get the breakdown of monster stats. Not that there are none.
Almost everything in the monster manual has to be reverse engineered, and natural weapons are no exception.
But we can extrapolate from what we have. Are bite attacks unarmed strikes? Well, let's look at where we have defined bite attacks:
"Bite. Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with it, you deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike." (Lizardfolk)
Are claws unarmed strikes? Well, let's look at where we have defined claw attacks:
"In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes." (Tabaxi)
"You grow claws [...]. Your unarmed strikes deal [...] damage, as appropriate to the natural weapon [...], and you are proficient with your unarmed strikes." (Alter Self)


Of course, if they are weapons, see the nonsense with the Warlock that causes.

[ThePolarBear]

Yes, because we never get the breakdown of monster stats. Not that there are none.
Almost everything in the monster manual has to be reverse engineered, and natural weapons are no exception.

This is not true. Again, there is the general. You simply do not want to recognize it.
Furthermore, important informations are granted: unarmed strikes are specifically called as unarmed strikes in the monster manual.
So, even if there are missing informations, you STILL need to provide that "unarmed strike" IS a missing information, and you can't since we DO have this information where it is relevant.

So this point is moot.


But we can extrapolate from what we have. Are bite attacks unarmed strikes? Well, let's look at where we have defined bite attacks:
"Bite. Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with it, you deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike." (Lizardfolk)

YOU CANNOT EXTRAPOLATE FROM THE SPECIFIC TO THE GENERAL AND EXPECT A VALID CONCLUSION.

Even is a strawberry is red, not all fruits are red! The only thing you can say is that a lizardfolk bite is a natural weapon, and tha a lizardfolk bite is an unarmed attack. AND THAT IS IT.

Edit: Also, consider that strawberries are not fruits. So... put tomatoes there.

[Yunru]

This is not true. Again, there is the general. You simply do not want to recognize it.
Furthermore, important informations are granted: unarmed strikes are specifically called as unarmed strikes in the monster manual.
So, even if there are missing informations, you STILL need to provide that "unarmed strike" IS a missing information, and you can't since we DO have this information where it is relevant.

So this point is moot.Sure, because you dismissed my point that an unarmed strike with a natural weapon is different to an unarmed strike without one.




YOU CANNOT EXTRAPOLATE FROM THE SPECIFIC TO THE GENERAL AND EXPECT A VALID CONCLUSION.YES YOU CAN. You can even do it with degrees of accuracy.
In every case of natural weapons having a defined effect, they modify unarmed strikes. That's a general rule we can extrapolate from. And it will hold true until we find a case of a natural weapon with a defined effect that doesn't modify unarmed strikes.

[Citan]

Guys, this is an interesting discussion but what started as a detail grew up to a full-fledged discussion...

Which is completely, by far, off OP's topic. And you obviously are not finished discussing it.
Not only do this derail current thread, it also prevent other people who may be interested in this RAW discussion to weigh in.

Why not just start a dedicated thread? :):smallwink:

[Yunru]

Guys, this is an interesting discussion but what started as a detail grew up to a full-fledged discussion...

Which is completely, by far, off OP's topic. And you obviously are not finished discussing it.
Not only do this derail current thread, it also prevent other people who may be interested in this RAW discussion to weigh in.

Why not just start a dedicated thread? :):smallwink:

I mean, it's still relevant to a level of monk for a moon druid, and whether it's worth losing the capstone.

[ThePolarBear]

Sure, because you dismissed my point that an unarmed strike with a natural weapon is different to an unarmed strike without one.

Problem is, you need to demonstrate that a natural weapon can be used to make an unarmed strike in general in the first place and provide the rules support that. And you did not. You provided rules that support that CERTAIN natural weapons can be used to make an unarmed strike, then inferred that since a tomato is a fruit, and a tomato is red, then all fruits are red. It doesn't work that way. It is not valid reasoning.


YES YOU CAN. You can even do it with degrees of accuracy.

If you have "degrees of accuracy", you are at most at a point where you can say that since some natural weapons are unarmed strikes, then some creatures can use their natural weapons to make unarmed strikes. What you are saying however is not that. "Some" is not "all".

You can "maybe" it. Provide a possible circumstance. But if you cannot support it, it ends up unsupported.

In a system where unless there is support, the general applies, you need to find a general. And the general is that a "weapon" cannot be used to make unarmed strikes.


In every case of natural weapons having a defined effect, they modify unarmed strikes. That's a general rule we can extrapolate from.

If EVERY case of natural weapon was as you say, EVERY instance of natural weapon in the MM would have a defined effect. They do not.
Furthermore, this is emphasised by the presence of actual unarmed strikes in the MM, which DO modify normal unarmed strike rules.


And it will hold true until we find a case of a natural weapon with a defined effect that doesn't modify unarmed strikes.

IF it held true, then you would be right. But you make a statement, which is a prerequisite for the reasoning, which is PROVEN as false.
Not every case of natural weapon has a defined effect of modifying an unarmed strike. And that's it.

That's all for me folks.

[Yunru]

Problem is, you need to demonstrate that a natural weapon can be used to make an unarmed strike in general in the first place and provide the rules support that. And you did not.Except I did. I demonstrated that not just "a" but several natural weapons work that way. Coincidentally, every natural weapon that has a listed effect.


If EVERY case of natural weapon was as you say, EVERY instance of natural weapon in the MM would have a defined effect. They do not.
Furthermore, this is emphasised by the presence of actual unarmed strikes in the MM, which DO modify normal unarmed strike rules.Ah right yes the statblock,s that are so condensed they don't even mention which stat you are using, don't mention what natural weapons do, therefore they aren't what every defined natural weapon does.


IF it held true, then you would be right. But you make a statement, which is a prerequisite for the reasoning, which is PROVEN as false.
Not every case of natural weapon has a defined effect of modifying an unarmed strike. And that's it.Here you make a statement, which is a prerequisite for your reasoning, which is PROVEN as false. Every released case of a defined natural weapon has an effect of modifying an unarmed strike. And that's it.

[NaughtyTiger]

I mean, it's still relevant to a level of monk for a moon druid, and whether it's worth losing the capstone.

Actually, no it isn't.

Relevant to the capstone is: IF your DM allows natural weapons from your wildshaped beast to function with Monk's martial arts, is it worth giving up the capstone.

Not relevant to capstone: Whether Yunru (and only Yunru in this thread) thinks all natural weapons are implicitly unarmed attacks. This stance does not affect whether a DM will allow it.

This argument reached a stalemate on page 1.

[Yunru]

Actually, no it isn't.

Relevant to the capstone is: IF your DM allows natural weapons from your wildshaped beast to function with Monk's martial arts, is it worth giving up the capstone.

Not relevant to capstone: Whether Yunru (and only Yunru in this thread) thinks all natural weapons are implicitly unarmed attacks. This stance does not affect whether a DM will allow it.

This argument reached a stalemate on page 1.Who are you, the OP? Oh... :P

Seriously though:
If you think it'll go to 20, stay Druid.
If you don't and your DM thinks that natural weapons are weapons, go Hexblade.
If you don't and your DM thinks that natural weapons aren't weapons, go Monk.
In the above two, you'll want Extra Attack over some of the higher CR forms.

[Corpsecandle717]

Who are you, the OP? Oh... :P

Seriously though:
If you think it'll go to 20, stay Druid.
If you don't and your DM thinks that natural weapons are weapons, go Hexblade.
If you don't and your DM thinks that natural weapons aren't weapons, go Monk.
In the above two, you'll want Extra Attack over some of the higher CR forms.

Not baiting or anything, but the hexblade stuff is intriguing. The curse of the hexblade would be nice, and assuming your DM lets you get around the proficiency stuff beast attacks etc (remember a druid only gets proficiency with beast attacks via wild shape so they normally wouldn't be eligible for pact blade etc...), but would it be worth trading the level of Druid for it? I don't see many moon druids having a high enough Charisma to often exceed the STR or DEX of a beast shape.

How would you imagine, say a 10th level build with standard point buy?

[Citan]

Not baiting or anything, but the hexblade stuff is intriguing. The curse of the hexblade would be nice, and assuming your DM lets you get around the proficiency stuff beast attacks etc (remember a druid only gets proficiency with beast attacks via wild shape so they normally wouldn't be eligible for pact blade etc...), but would it be worth trading the level of Druid for it? I don't see many moon druids having a high enough Charisma to often exceed the STR or DEX of a beast shape.

How would you imagine, say a 10th level build with standard point buy?
I'll jump in to propose a build because I already had this kind of ideas of original dual-class. :)

NOTE THOUGH that the build hereunder is based on the 100% houserule suggested by Yunru that beast form's natural weapon attacks would benefit from Hex Warrior feature (which is clearly incompatible by RAI and hard to justify as RAW) (since it has been clarified by devs for a long time that "weapon" and "weapon attack" are linked, but nevertheless independent game concepts).

Balanced array for balanced level 12 char: 8 STR, 12 DEX, 15 CON, 8 INT, 15 WIS, 17 CHA as a Half-Elf (+1 CON, +1 WIS, +2 CHA).
Pick Elven Accuracy at level 4, pick Resilient: Constitution or Observant at level 8, pick the one left at level 12 Druid, max WIS around char level 14-16.

Just pick one level of Warlock if you'd like just proficiencies, Hex feature and Shield for "humanoid" Druid.
Pick 3 levels instead so you can sustain gems like Pass Without Trace or Healing Spirit, along with grabbing Repelling Blast to keep pesky enemies away from you in human form, the "Free False Life" (guaranteed 8THP every start of encounter) or Disguise Self Invocation for further shenanigans. With either...
- Chain pact for tag-team with a familiar (roleplay a "true" Druid that just wanted to be an actual animal and have a relationship with your familiar, or roleplay the sadistic "animals are tools" one and lure enemies into attacking your familiar while thinking they attack you after you started concentrating on a powerful concentration spell).
- Tome pact for loads, sorry, FRIGGING LOADS of extra spells available (since you can simply prepare all your Druid rituals just for the time required to copy them into the ritual book, then have them at the ready every day as such so you can fill your "prepared spells" allocation with non-ritual spells).

You could even go with level 5 Warlock, in which case it may become interesting to get Blade instead for "smiting beast", or simply become a true beastmaster that keep a flock of animals at the ready (nearly) every hour of every day (Like turning into a Direwolf and leading your herd).

Lots, lots of interesting things to do (actually even without that houserule I think I gave a quick view of how powerful and fun Druid/Warlock can be, the main difference would be that I may instead stick with WIS as main stat). ^^

[Yunru]

NOTE THOUGH that the build hereunder is based on the 100% houserule suggested by Yunru that beast form's natural weapon attacks would benefit from Hex Warrior feature (which is clearly incompatible by RAI and hard to justify as RAW) (since it has been clarified by devs for a long time that "weapon" and "weapon attack" are linked, but nevertheless independent game concepts).I'd like to point out before I address Corpse that that is not my houserule, but merely a consequence of ruling that natural weapons are weapons rather than unarmed strikes.


Not baiting or anything, but the hexblade stuff is intriguing. The curse of the hexblade would be nice, and assuming your DM lets you get around the proficiency stuff beast attacks etc (remember a druid only gets proficiency with beast attacks via wild shape so they normally wouldn't be eligible for pact blade etc...), but would it be worth trading the level of Druid for it? I don't see many moon druids having a high enough Charisma to often exceed the STR or DEX of a beast shape.

How would you imagine, say a 10th level build with standard point buy?Right, first up: Proficiency. You are always proficient with your Pact Weapon, but you also don't choose a Pact until your 3rd level of Warlock so... debatable benefit. For the rest of this I'll be assuming that past level 3 you manifest your Pact Weapon to match the biggest natural weapon attack your wildform has.

Whether you have the Charisma really depends on how much time you plan to spend in Beast form. You could very well get away with 14 Wisdom and Charisma as a primary stat. The CR 1 and 2 beasts have really good primary stats, but once you get to CR 3 they suddenly drop. They go back up again after though, so...

Maybe not Hexblade, except if you're going to be at a point where you wouldn't get CR 4+ forms, but have CR 3's. The Fiend seems a better choice, as it increases your ability to take a hit with Dark One's Blessing.

Pact of the Blade features, assuming you make your Pact Weapon match your natural weapon, that you'd want are probably Improved Pact Weapon and... Thirsting Blade? The extra attack one. Outside of that you could also pick up at-will Mage Armour, and Darkvision+/Truesight-.

For a 10th level build, assuming it starts at 10th level, I'd go for a Fiend Warlock 1/Moon Druid 9 (not sure which to start).
Probably a half-elf, with:


STR
DEX
CON
INT
WIS
CHA


8
12
12
14 (13+1)
14 (13+1)
20 (15+2+2+1)



Pick up Elven Accuracy at level 4, and +2 Cha at level 8.

Going forward, advance in Warlock. At level 3, take Pact of the Blade and pick up Improved Pact Weapon. At level 5, take the extra attack invocation.

[NaughtyTiger]

For a 10th level build, assuming it starts at 10th level, I'd go for a Fiend Warlock 1/Moon Druid 9 (not sure which to start).

Fiend? didn't see that coming.

to be fair, i don't think Pact of the Blade applies in wildshape. but since hexwarrior/curse might, i assumed that's where you would go..

[Yunru]

Fiend? didn't see that coming.
Honestly, I didn't either. Then I realised that it's a one level dip for 4-6 temporary hit points per enemy you fell, which far outstrips the ~+14 HP from going up a CR.

[GlenSmash!]

Honestly, I didn't either. Then I realised that it's a one level dip for 4-6 temporary hit points per enemy you fell, which far outstrips the ~+14 HP from going up a CR.

I've always found fiend underrated. Fiend temp HP is even great on GWM Barbarian.

[NaughtyTiger]

I've always found fiend underrated. Fiend temp HP is even great on GWM Barbarian.

Prior to hexblade, fiend was the goto warlock.

[GlenSmash!]

Prior to hexblade, fiend was the goto warlock.

Excellent point.