Ki Empowered Strikes as a Beast

[elyktsorb]

So does key empowered strikes work in wildshape?

[Zhorn]

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.

Ki-Empowered Strike is a class feature.
As long as the Wild Shape form is making unarmed strikes, then by RAW the answer is yes

[JackPhoenix]

Ki-Empowered Strike is a class feature.
As long as the Wild Shape form is making unarmed strikes, then by RAW the answer is yes

That is the key, though: Natural weapons aren't unarmed strikes, unless the description specifically says so.

[Zhorn]

That is the key, though: Natural weapons aren't unarmed strikes, unless the description specifically says so.

Maybe. You raise an interesting point, but at the same time trying to enforce such a distinction can come across as being unnecessarily overly specific.

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).

Striking an opponent with a body part sounds enough like a qualifier for "similar forceful blow"

As far as the "natural weapons aren't unarmed strikes" can you direct me to the official ruling on this? I'm not finding such a statement in the PHB, DMG, nor SAC.

As far as player classes with natural weapons, they all seem to indicate that such body parts qualify for unarmed strikes
Aarakocra's talons: "You are proficient with your unarmed strikes"
Tortle's claws: "Your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes"
Tabaxi's claws: "your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes."
Lizardfolk's bite: "Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes."
Minotaur's horns: "Your horns are natural melee weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes."
Simic Hybrid's grappling appendages: "Each one is also a natural weapon, which you can use to make an unarmed strike."
Loxodon's trunk: "make an unarmed strike."

[sithlordnergal]

As far as the "natural weapons aren't unarmed strikes" can you direct me to the official ruling on this? I'm not finding such a statement in the PHB, DMG, nor SAC.

As far as player classes with natural weapons, they all seem to indicate that such body parts qualify for unarmed strikes
Aarakocra's talons: "You are proficient with your unarmed strikes"
Tortle's claws: "Your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes"
Tabaxi's claws: "your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes."
Lizardfolk's bite: "Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes."
Minotaur's horns: "Your horns are natural melee weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes."
Simic Hybrid's grappling appendages: "Each one is also a natural weapon, which you can use to make an unarmed strike."
Loxodon's trunk: "make an unarmed strike."

So, according to Sage Advice, Natural Weapons are a form of Weapon that you need to be proficient in. Its why you can't use a level 20 Moon Druid's +6 proficiency mod on, say, a Fire Elemental's natural attack. You aren't proficient with it, and you can't gain proficiency with it. That's why all those natural attacks have the "which you can use to make an unarmed strike" clause at the end of them. If they didn't have that little bit, you wouldn't be able to use those weapons for the Monk's unarmed strike, and they wouldn't scale with the Monk's damage buff.

[Zhorn]

So, according to Sage Advice, Natural Weapons are a form of Weapon that you need to be proficient in. Its why you can't use a level 20 Moon Druid's +6 proficiency mod on, say, a Fire Elemental's natural attack. You aren't proficient with it, and you can't gain proficiency with it. That's why all those natural attacks have the "which you can use to make an unarmed strike" clause at the end of them. If they didn't have that little bit, you wouldn't be able to use those weapons for the Monk's unarmed strike, and they wouldn't scale with the Monk's damage buff.

Where in the SAC does it say this? Page?

Also all the elemental stuff sounds unrelated and not accurately explaining what's happening.
For starter's you wouldn't get your PC's proficiency bonus in wild shape for attack rolls anyway as that isn't one of the listed stats you carry over

Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. You also retain all of your skill and saving throw proficiencies, in addition to gaining those of the creature. If the creature has the same proficiency as you and the bonus in its stat block is higher than yours, use the creatureÂ’s bonus instead of yours. If the creature has any legendary or lair actions, you can't use them.

Attacks are made as per the statblock, using the elemental's proficiency bonus (+3) already baked into the attack.

Next this is about Ki-Empowered Strikes, not Martial Art's damage die (which you wouldn't want to swap out anyway on an elemental as that's going down from a multi dice attack to a single martial arts die).

[sithlordnergal]

Where in the SAC does it say this? Page?

Also all the elemental stuff sounds unrelated and not accurately explaining what's happening.
For starter's you wouldn't get your PC's proficiency bonus in wild shape for attack rolls anyway as that isn't one of the listed stats you carry over

Attacks are made as per the statblock, using the elemental's proficiency bonus (+3) already baked into the attack.

Next this is about Ki-Empowered Strikes, not Martial Art's damage die (which you wouldn't want to swap out anyway on an elemental as that's going down from a multi dice attack to a single martial arts die).

So, I will admit its not a specific page in the Sage Advice Compendium. Rather its a series of Tweets from Jeremy Crawford where he's surprisingly consistent for once. To quote 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." He hasn't actually changed that ruling, and been pretty darn concise with it. When asked if a Natural Weapon is an Unarmed Strike, his answer is no.

But we can also go to the Monster Manuel and PHB for more information. If you look at any creature with a Natural Weapon attack, you'll notice that they all have the same descriptor in them. They are making Melee Weapon attacks. A Giant Spider's Bite? Melee Weapon Attack. Giant Spider's Web? Ranged Weapon Attack.

Meanwhile, on page 195 of the PHB, under Melee Attacks, it specifically states, and I quote, "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)". The PHb makes it clear that there is a difference between an Unarmed Strike and a melee weapon attack. And all natural weapons are considered Melee Weapon Attacks.


As for the Fire Elemental, I brought it up because it actually is related. While its true that you gain the statistics of the beast, there's also the line that says "If the creature has the same proficiency as you and the bonus in its stat block is higher than yours, use the creature’s bonus instead of yours". This is important, because it means if you and a creature have Proficiency in the same thing, then you use whatever gives you a higher bonus.

For example, lets say you're a Moon Druid with Proficiency in Stealth and you turn into a Giant Spider. Giant Spiders have Proficiency in Stealth as well, given that they have a +7 to Stealth. As long as your Proficiency Bonus and their +3 to Dex checks are less than +7, you can use the Giant Spider's Stealth Bonus. But once you have a +5 Proficiency Bonus, you can use your own Proficiency Bonus to get +8 on Stealth Checks instead of the Spider's +7 because now your check is higher.

That line doesn't have any restrictions either. It just says "If the creature has the same proficiency as you", meaning if there was a way to gain Proficiency in Natural Weapons, a Druid could use their own Proficiency Bonus with the Creature's Strength or Dexterity to give themselves a higher attack bonus.

[Zhorn]

So, I will admit its not a specific page in the Sage Advice Compendium. Rather its a series of Tweets from Jeremy Crawford...

ie: not in the books = not a RAW ruling (they can say the same thing, but one should not be mistaken for the other)
Tweets from the devs are good for discussing RAI and getting quick answers, but there's a big reason the Sage Advice Compendium calls out that public comments (example: from twitter) are not official rulings.

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1105277917582389248?lang=en
As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls.

They work as previews, but are gone through with a more fine tooth comb before making the cut. The twitter responses are off-the-cuff answers, and as you admit to, have been known to either flip-flop or hold inconsistencies, and as such are not iron clad.
Those particular comments on natural weapon not being unarmed strikes for example have not made the cut for the SAC.
My guess? probably because the tweet isn't based on a rule in the official books and was just an off the cuff call.
If there's a rule in the official 5e books or SAC than can correct me on this I'm all for it, but again: twitter=/=RAW.

But we can also go to the Monster Manuel and PHB for more information. If you look at any creature with a Natural Weapon attack, you'll notice that they all have the same descriptor in them. They are making Melee Weapon attacks. A Giant Spider's Bite? Melee Weapon Attack. Giant Spider's Web? Ranged Weapon Attack.

That's just the standard format of stat blocks for melee attacks

Hobgoblin Iron Shadow
Unarmed Strike. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d4 + 3) bludgeoning damage

What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon? It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon.
Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” (with a hyphen) if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.

Meanwhile, on page 195 of the PHB, under Melee Attacks, it specifically states, and I quote, "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)". The PHb makes it clear that there is a difference between an Unarmed Strike and a melee weapon attack. And all natural weapons are considered Melee Weapon Attacks.

What it says is all melee attacks are melee weapon attacks. The distinction between unarmed strikes and natural weapons is not made and is an inference you making based on external assumptions.

As for the Fire Elemental, I brought it up because it actually is related. While its true that you gain the statistics of the beast, there's also the line that says "If the creature has the same proficiency as you and the bonus in its stat block is higher than yours, use the creature’s bonus instead of yours". This is important, because it means if you and a creature have Proficiency in the same thing, then you use whatever gives you a higher bonus.

It is to do with proficiency for skills you have in common with the Wild Shape form, not to the attacks and other features which you don't have in common, not relevant to the topic.


I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, but as far as I can tell is there is nothing in the actual books saying natural weapons are not unarmed strikes, and each instance I can find of natural weapons mentioned they are usable as unarmed strikes.

[Quietus]

I just want to chime in and say, thank you, sithlordnergal - I find your argument here compelling, at least through the lens of "this is what the book, strictly read, appears to convey".

That said, if you get 7 levels of Monk and want to have some Druid multiclass in there, I see no issues with conveying your magic fists over to magic bites and claws. After all, you could have just gone Moon Druid 7 and had the same thing, but better, with bigger forms and with spellcasting.

[x3n0n]

FWIW, the text of the Insignia of Claws magic item does suggest that natural weapons and unarmed strikes are not the same thing: "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."

I think RAW is ambiguous, RAI based on Twitter and text inference is "if an attack is not named 'unarmed strike' and does not mention 'unarmed strike' in its description, it's not an unarmed strike", and RAF is table-dependent, leaning toward liberal (I don't think Monk/Druid multiclass needs a nerf).

I was considering a Druid dip on top of a tier 3 Monk, and based on research at the time, I decided that there was RAW support for doing the following in Wild Shape:
* Unarmored Defense: AC is the better of stat block AC or 10 + beast Dex modifier + character Wis modifier
* Extra Attack: any two individual actions from the beast stat block including "Attack" in the italic tag, or replace either one or both with an Unarmed Strike ("Multiattack" is not an attack: it replaces the whole "Attack" action)
* Martial Arts: any Unarmed Strike can use the character Martial Arts die, the better between beast Str or Dex mod, and character (or beast?) proficiency bonus on to-hit; if the Attack action included at least one Unarmed Strike, the bonus Unarmed Strike is available.
* Flurry of Blows: available after Attack action
* Stunning Strike: available on any melee attack

RAF should clearly allow Flurry after Multiattack.

Back on the original question, RAF also suggests that natural weapons should benefit from Ki-Empowered Strikes, but RAW is ambiguous, with my interpretation leaning toward "no" per sithlordnergal's arguments above.

[NaughtyTiger]

ie: not in the books = not a RAW ruling (they can say the same thing, but one should not be mistaken for the other)

I agree. None of the general rules that you cited state that natural weapons as unarmed strikes.

The distinction between unarmed strikes and natural weapons is not made and is an inference you making based on external assumptions.

There are several specific cases where there is a distinction between unarmed strikes and natural weapons.
As pointed out above, Insignia of claws is one.
As you point out, there are 7 specific cases where natural weapons count as unarmed strikes.

the PC tabaxi states "Your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes".

The brown bear has 2 "melee weapon attacks" named Bite and Claw. It does not state 2 unarmed attacks, nor that those attacks are used to make unarmed strikes.

[Zhorn]

It seems rather arbitrary to rule they are not unarmed strikes when they are made with a body part and not an independent object (sword, mace, etc), and there are cases of the same type of attack counting as unarmed strikes.
What is the actual difference between being bitten by a hyena vs being bitten by a lizardfolk?
Being slashed with claws from a bear versus the claws of a tabaxi or tortle?
Being kicked with the hooves of a horse compared tot he hooves of a centaur?
Being gored by the horns of a cow compared to being gored by the horns of a minotaur?
Is there a functional difference between the talons ripping in the flesh be it from a predatory bird or an aarakocra?
Being punched with a fist from an ape compared to being punched with a fist from any humanoid?
Sure size and strength modifiers will shift, but they are still functionally the same thing.
A body part (unarmed) is being used to attack (strike) an opponent.

Why this big push for a nonsensical and inconsistent interpretation of the rules?

As you point out, there are 7 specific cases where natural weapons count as unarmed strikes.

And those were just the ones I bothered to write down for that post at the time, there is still more.

Literally any feature you make using Alter Self as a natural weapon counts for unarmed strikes

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.

The only reason I didn't bring this up before was this was about Ki-Empowered Strikes granting the as magic weapons effect, and Alter self was already doing that.

[elyktsorb]

For the record I was already aware you can't use ki empowered strikes with Natural Weapons. But there's nothing stating I have to use natural weapon attacks, I can just make an unarmed attack as a bear.

[NaughtyTiger]

For the record I was already aware you can't use ki empowered strikes with Natural Weapons. But there's nothing stating I have to use natural weapon attacks, I can just make an unarmed attack as a bear.

Giant constrictor snake + 4 elements monk = fire snake!!

What is the actual difference between bitten by a hyena vs being bitten by a lizardfolk?
Being slashed with claws from a bear versus the claws of a tabaxi or tortle?
Being kicked with the hooves of a horse compared tot he hooves of a centaur?
Is there a functional difference between the talons ripping in the flesh be it from a predatory bird or an aarakocra?
Being punched with a fist from an ape compared to being punched with a fist from any humanoid?

lizardfolk, tabaxi, tortle, centaur, aarakocra, humanoid - sentient, trained
bear, hyena, ape, horse, eagle - instinct, untrained

Why this big push for a nonsensical and inconsistent interpretation of the rules?

No one is pushing for that.
Most folks agree that RAW is nonsensical and inconsistent, and unplayable.
Folks are challenging the claim that natural weapons are unarmed strikes by RAW.

[Zhorn]

lizardfolk, tabaxi, tortle, centaur, aarakocra, humanoid - sentient, trained
bear, hyena, ape, horse, eagle - instinct, untrained

And in Wild Shape you retain your mental stats. Again, arbitrary reasoning.

Folks are challenging the claim that natural weapons are unarmed strikes by RAW.

I suppose there are some different readings of people's stances based on the writings that change the perception of the discussion

(1) The definition of unarmed strikes (PHB p195) broadly includes what would constitute as an attack made with natural weapons.

and

(2) The statement that 'natural weapons are not unarmed strikes except where that are stated to be' is only from twitter and is not stated anywhere in the RAW of the books

These are my stances.

[JackPhoenix]

I suppose there are some different readings of people's stances based on the writings that change the perception of the discussion

(1) The definition of unarmed strikes (PHB p195) broadly includes what would constitute as an attack made with natural weapons.

and

(2) The statement that 'natural weapons are not unarmed strikes except where that are stated to be' is only from twitter and is not stated anywhere in the RAW of the books

These are my stances.

Natural weapons are weapons. It's in the name.
Unarmed strikes aren't weapons. It's explicitly stated in the description of unarmed strikes.

Unless a feature says unarmed strike counts as a weapon, or a natural weapon says it can be used to make unarmed strikes, they are mutually exclusive.

[Monster Manuel]

...I can just make an unarmed attack as a bear.

It seems like kind of tortuous logic, but yes. A bear has claws that, depending on your reading of various rules and guidelines, may or may not be considered weapons. But the bear could backhand someone without the claws, or headbutt them, or, I don't know, sit on them? These would all count as unarmed attacks for the bear, and therefore a Monk wildshaped into a bear would be able to use their Monk attacks that key off of an unarmed strike. Would a "real" bear ever hit someone with the back of their paw? No, of course not. But a Monk/Bear could, and therefore would be eligible. Since Monk's unarmed strikes are, RAW, ambiguous (can be a punch or kick or elbow or knee or whatever), it works even though it takes a certain degree of suspension of disbelief to imagine how a bear hits a dude without using its' claws.

You run into a judgement call regarding the clause in the wildshape ability about the new form needing to be physically capable of doing the thing. Is a wolf "physically capable" of performing a roundhouse kick? I mean...maybe, kind of? Are they capable of doing a roundhouse kick with the equivalent force of a literal sledgehammer? No, but then, neither is a human, and a monk gets that kind of damage (call it equivalent to a warhammer) at level 11, so "it's just magic" either way.

Ultimately, all the vagaries of the rules lead me to agree with the conclusion "Sure, it works, just don't question it too deeply".

[sithlordnergal]

Unless a feature says unarmed strike counts as a weapon, or a natural weapon says it can be used to make unarmed strikes, they are mutually exclusive.

I will say that I just realized there's a bit of weirdness because Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strikes are mutually exclusive. PC races with a Natural Weapon, like the Tabaxi's Claw or the Lizardfolk's Bite, are only proficient with their Natural Weapons if they use it to make an Unarmed Strike. If they couldn't use their Natural Weapons to make Unarmed Strikes, or if they attacked with their Natural Weapon but specifically stated they weren't using it for an Unarmed Strike, they wouldn't get to add their Proficiency Bonus to the attack.

[elyktsorb]

To be fair the whole argument of natural weapons (of creatures) not working for monk stuff should probably just go out of the window entirely with the concept that you could make attacks without using a beasts natural weapons and have them count as unarmed strikes for monk attacks.

Mainly because there's no 'realistic' reason a druid should be able to attack proficiently as a beast. If the game is going to argue druids keep their own mental capacity, how is it that they can suddenly know how to attack as an animal? You're only reasoning could be is that part of being a druid gives them some sort of magical instinctive ability to do so.

But if that's the case, why would someone who has taken both levels in monk, and druid not know how to best operate in a such a way?

It get's even more hilarious when you consider that Ki Empowered Strikes would enable a Druid, as a Bear, to make an unarmed attack that could bypass standard magical resistances, but the moment the Druid uses their teeth or claws conventionally, they suddenly can't bypass standard magical resistances.

It's a silly ruling by all accounts, and I'm not entirely sure why it's ruled that way since not enabling a monk do do stuff while wildshaped is the only real point of the ruling, and it's not as if that's going to be breaking anything by my knowledge.

[x3n0n]

It's a silly ruling by all accounts, and I'm not entirely sure why it's ruled that way since not enabling a monk do do stuff while wildshaped is the only real point of the ruling, and it's not as if that's going to be breaking anything by my knowledge.

I assume the general idea is "multiclassing is an optional rule so don't blame us because we couldn't test it all" plus "we only like to issue errata for obviously broken things" and "we don't like to mention things in the basic rules that are unlikely to come up".

For example, the easiest fix to the rules seems to be Monk errata to add "and/or natural weapons" to many of the features that single out unarmed strikes, affecting basically just the Druid/Monk multiclass characters or NPCs with natural weapons and Monk levels. A first-time reader of the PHB would be rightfully confused by such a mention, I think.

(Note that this case isn't fixed by making natural weapons into monk weapons, since Ki-Empowered Strikes doesn't even apply to them.)

[sithlordnergal]

It's a silly ruling by all accounts, and I'm not entirely sure why it's ruled that way since not enabling a monk do do stuff while wildshaped is the only real point of the ruling, and it's not as if that's going to be breaking anything by my knowledge.

Ehh, it is a silly ruling, I will agree with you there, but they do have a good reason for it. Imagine a level 15 Moon Druid with 1 level of Monk: At that point, you can turn into a Giant Crocodile, which have Natural Weapons that deal 3d10+5 and 2d8+5 respectively. Monks can make a single Unarmed Strike as a bonus action for free from level 1, so already you'd be able to do 6d10+2d8+15 damage every single round on top of having a higher AC due to the Monk's Unarmored Defense. Once you have enough Ki to Flurry of Blows consistently, you'd be doing 9d10+2d8+20 for 5 rounds, and it all comes back on a Short Rest.

I'm sure people would cry foul at the Moon Druid being even more OP than they already do if this sort of thing was allowed by the rules.