Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 SDaken Sep 07, 2015 21:26:36	Hello guys sup. if for example i multiclass barbarian/druid, can i use my feature "extra attack" while on beast form?
#2 Xeviat-DM Sep 08, 2015 2:59:07	I'd assume no. Extra attack isn't "you can attack an extra time whenever you attack", it is (specifically) "you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." It is specifically tied to the attack action. Monsters don't use the Attack action. They use the actions listed in their entry. Beasts have things like claw and bite or multiattack; they don't have the generic Attack action.
#3 Noctaem Sep 08, 2015 5:32:30	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#4 jaelis Sep 08, 2015 6:13:29	If you're in a form that your DM says can use weapons (like an ape,perhaps), then you could use extra attack with your weapon attacks. Some DMs might rule that beasts can use unarmed strikes, and then you could use extra attack as well. But there are probably plenty of DMs who wouldn't allow either of those things, too.   But you can't use it with something like a beast's bite attack, as has been explained.
#5 Yunru Sep 08, 2015 7:09:24	The attack action is used to make a melee or ranged attack. Extra Attack allows you two. Bite/Claw/etc. are melee weapon attacks. Therefore you can use your Attack action to make a Bite/Claw/etc attack. And therefore you can use Extra Attack to make another. PHB, p.192 wrote:
#6 Slagger_the_Chuul Sep 08, 2015 8:17:54	You would have Extra Attack and would be able to use it whenever you use the Attack action, but not if you use the beast's own Multiattack action (for those beasts that have it).  It would be the most useful for beasts that normally have just one decent attack, but keep in mind that having enough levels in barbarian to get Extra Attack means that your access to better beast forms will be well behind a straight druid.   As noted on page 10 of the Monster Manual, monsters can choose from the options in the Actions section of their statistics block, or just use the actions that are available to everyone.  It's not that the beasts in question can't use the Attack action, it's just that they don't usually do so because their own options are better.
#7 jaelis Sep 08, 2015 8:34:43	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #7) Yunru	jaelis wrote:
#9 Nevvur Sep 08, 2015 9:39:08	Extra Attack: Beginning at Xth level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the (capitol A) Attack action on your turn.   p.10 Monster Manual: Actions    When a monster take its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block...   No monster is listed as having the Attack action. A bear's Bite is a Bite action, not the Attack action using a bite. An ogre uses Greatclub action, not the Attack action with a greatclub. It's the same reasoning that prevents you from using Multiattack (p. 11 Monster Manual) or Extra Attack on an opportunity attack -- an opportunity attack is not the Attack action.
(Reply to #9) Xetheral	Nevvur wrote:
#11 Yunru Sep 08, 2015 10:15:01	That and page 9 states they can take the actions listed in the PHB.
#12 Nevvur Sep 08, 2015 10:30:01	If an animal takes the Attack action instead of one of its monster stat block options, it is making an unarmed strike for 1 bludgeoning damage, with no other benefits of the option (e.g. Dire Wolf knocks prone, Giant Spider injects poison).    The options listed in their stat block are how the animal uses its natural weaponry. An animal using the Attack action is like  a horse riding a bear to move around.
(Reply to #12) Yunru	Nevvur wrote:
(Reply to #12) Xetheral	Nevvur wrote:
#15 Varden_Khol Sep 08, 2015 16:17:53	At my table I would allow a Player to use Extra Attack to use Bite (for example) multiple times in one round. They could not, however, use Multiattack multiple times.   With the rules as they are, that would be my ruling. Your table may treat it differently.
#16 Slagger_the_Chuul Sep 08, 2015 21:24:48	Nevvur wrote:
#17 RCanine Sep 08, 2015 19:58:07	This is, of course, up to your DM. However, I've ruled it (as you can see in my guide) as follows:   In monster stat blocks, attacks are anything explicitly labelled as such. When you take the Attack Action on your turn, you can make an attack, such as claw or bite. Abilities not labelled as attacks are not attacks and cannot be used as part of the Attack Action. Some examples of abilities that are not attacks are the brown bear's multiattack and the giant frog's swallow. In the same way that a Ranger cannot use his whirlwind ability as one of his attacks during his Attack Action, a giant frog cannot use the Attack Action to use swallow. It can, of course, use the swallow ability as an action.   Additionally, just like a unarmed strike, your beast form's attacks are weapon attacks, but they are not weapons, so you can't gain the benefit of the fighter's fighting style features. Additionally, beast form's attacks are not unarmed strikes either. I would allow a druid in beast form to use unarmed strike in the same way I would a human character, however. Lastly, and for completeness, when in beast form you are not wearing armor, even if the beast has natural armor (natural armor is not worn). A monk's unarmored defense class feature would apply to a multiclass druid in beast form, but the fighter's defense fighting style would not; natural armor and unarmored defense would not stack (similarly to how a it would not stack with a sorceror's draconic resilience feature).
#18 SDaken Sep 08, 2015 21:18:58	Thanks for all reply guys! my turning point  was how the "bite" and "claw" attacks are described in the monster rulebook.  My hint is that wizards didn't prevent this kind of interaction and the write up could be a lot better. Until any errata of the matter comes up i'll consider animal form attacks as normal weapon attacks (as described in the book) and so all the bonus and Extra attack featture can be applied.  Thx for the help, my player will be satisfied to multiclass as planned now
(Reply to #17) Yunru	RCanine wrote:
(Reply to #12) sim-h	Nevvur wrote:
#21 Nevvur Sep 09, 2015 9:11:14	Thanks for agreeing Sim-H, but I'm retracting my previous remarks!    In light of arguments presented here, I agree it doesn't make sense to regard actions with the weapon attack tag as not being the Attack action, or usable with opportunity attacks for that matter. However, as RCanine pointed out, the issue remains a matter of DM adjudication. Per Wildshape, you retain class features if you are physically capable of doing them. As Sim-H notes, physically capable of making a weapon attack (Bite, Claw, et al) is not necessarily the same as physically capable of attacking in the martial style you practice as a humanoid.    I have no vested interest in how the OP's table runs it, but I have a strong dislike for multiclass cheese at my own. At my AL table, I would allow Extra Attack in beast form because it appears to conform to the letter of the rules. Home game, I would impose my interpretation of martial skill being at least partially linked to your humanoid physiology.
(Reply to #19) MasterNamer	Yunru wrote:
#23 Nevvur Sep 09, 2015 9:44:26	P.276 DMG says, "A monster that doesn't wear armor might have natural armor, in which case it has an AC equal to 10 + its Dexterity modifier + its natural armor bonus."   It's a method of calculating AC just like Unarmored Defense and Mage Armor. RCanine described the pros/cons accurately.
#24 Yunru Sep 09, 2015 9:58:14	Which clearly defines natural armor as a bonus. Therefore it stacks. A monster with Draconic Resilience would have an AC of 13+Dex+Natural Armor.
(Reply to #24) Nevvur	Yunru wrote:
#26 Yunru Sep 09, 2015 10:33:58	So? All that says is "beast's AC calculation or Unarmored Defense AC", both of which can benefit from AC bonuses.
(Reply to #24) AaronOfBarbaria	Yunru wrote:
#28 MasterNamer Sep 09, 2015 11:18:34	If wishes were fishes...but I thought it sounded too good to be true.
(Reply to #27) Yunru	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #29) AaronOfBarbaria	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #30) Yunru	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#32 Nevvur Sep 09, 2015 19:13:59	Lay off the snark Yunru, it doesn't help your case.   However, since you believe that natural armor is a bonus like shields, and not a different way to calculate AC, can you explain Giants in the Monster Manual? Even the (relatively) lowly Hill Giant has natural armor of 13, while the Cloud Giant has 14. It should stand to reason that other giants also have natural armor, should it not? Yet the Fire Giant in plate has 18 AC, and the Storm Giant in scale mail (with 14 dex) has 16 AC.
#33 Slagger_the_Chuul Sep 09, 2015 20:23:47	When page 7 of the Monster Manual describes a monster's AC, it notes that the monster's AC including its Dexterity and natural armour is the alternative to it counting armour, shield, and Dexterity.  I will, however, note that there are examples where monsters do combine natural armour with a shield (in the azer, kuo-toa, and lizardfolk entries), despite this not being specifically noted as possible. Yunru wrote:
#34 RCanine Sep 09, 2015 22:32:00	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#35 Slagger_the_Chuul Sep 09, 2015 23:14:01	RCanine wrote:
(Reply to #35) Nevvur	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#37 Slagger_the_Chuul Sep 10, 2015 4:18:50	Nevvur wrote: