If a Druid of the moon 2/Monk 1 is in an animal form and make's a melee attack, does that count for the Monk's Martial arts unarmed strike, enabling him to take a free bonus attack action? [PH p.78]
Trying to find an official WotC ruling...
Bite, Claw, ect... are not unarmed attacks, nor are they monk weapons.
That said, you could reasonably claim that a panther is "unarmed" since it's not carrying a weapon of any kind.
And thus, you should be able to make an unarmed attack for 1d4+dex damage.
When you are unarmed, you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike, as show n in the weapon table in chapter 5.
Of course...
your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form.
So you could also reasonably claim that unarmed strike requires a free hand, which you don't have.
From a balance perspective. 1d4+Dex is likely lower then any claw/bite attack, so i don't see an issue allowing it.
Markus.l wrote:
Diceman65 wrote:
mellored wrote:
[quote="Diceman65"]
mellored wrote:
[quote="mellored"]
Diceman65 wrote:
I actually just tweeted this question at the Mearls. But I think rules as written, what you are missing is whether using "Claw" or "Bite" or "Multiattack" counts as taking the attack action. If it does, then its pretty clear to me that you get the bonus attack(s), but that they are "monk unarmed strikes" from the monk table, not additional claws and bites.
Yes clearly you cant get an extra swipe/bite from the monk bonus attack (at least imo). I do think its possible to say that a bite from a tiger is an unarmed attack just like a bite from a human would be (even though they do diffrent amounts of damage). The tricker one is something like a claw attack, is that claw a weapon (which isnt a monk weapon) being used or is it unarmed because it doesnt use any object other then the persons body as a weapon? It does describe it as "Melee weapon attack" but so does bite and even unarmed attacks by humans use that, overall I think it probably comes down to a claw attack is too similar to a bite to make a diffrence. In the end there are probably 2 reasonable DM interpratioins 1) Sure you can do unarmed attacks as an aminal, but they must be 1d4+mod attacks like any unarmed monk attacks (bites or claws not allowed to trigger monk bonus attack). This interpration is probably more balanced and RAI. 2) Bite and claw are unarmed attacks which trigger the monk bonus attack at 1d4+mod. This one is probably more RAW and textually correct.
The clearest I can find on RAW rules was by indexing "unarmed" where I was referred to pg 195 - "When you are unarmed you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike, as shown in the weapon table in chapter 5."
The weapon table lists "Unarmed Strike" as a simple weapon with no properties dealing 1 bludgeoning damage.
All of the Monk's martial arts abilities are keyed to "unarmed strike" or monk weapons so even though I disagree with it - it appears that RAW none of the powers from the monk class feature "Martial Arts" would work with the natural attacks of the beasts you may assume the form of through wildshape....right?
It seems pretty obvious to me that a claw attack is a simple 1 handed weapon attack (and thus a monk weapon).
JohnnyBlaise wrote:
I'd say look at all of the weapon categories: Simple Melee, Simple Ranged, Martial Melee, Martial Ranged.
Okay. Now, for creatures we add two additional categories: Natural Melee (Claw) and Natural Ranged (Tail Spike) Weapons.
Since, Unarmed is only listed under the Simple Melee category, would it not be reasonable to assume that a claw attack wouldn't count as an unarmed strike for purposes of gaining the benefits of the monk's class features?
Natural weapons are weapons, and are not, therefore, considered unarmed attacks.
They are not considered simple weapons, because they're not on the simple weapon list. They do not have finesse.
Therefore, they are not monk weapons, and do not work with the feature.
DracoSuave wrote:
Just to add, from the Alter Self spell;
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.
GentlemanLoser wrote:
I'm also playing a Druid 2/Monk 1 right now, and here's how I'd rule it:
Unarmed Strike is a very specific thing in the rules, as are monk weapons. Claw, Bite, etc. are not Unarmed Strike; they are claw and bite. They also don't show up on the monk weapon list. So the answer is no--you cannot make a bonus action attack.
That said, I see nothing wrong with allowing a Druid 2/Monk 1 to use Unarmed Strike in beast form. It would do the normal monk damage (1d4+STR/DEX) and grant you your bonus action attack. That would be RP'd as the beast simply attacking with an unusual part of its anatomy.
GentlemanLoser wrote:
mellored wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Yeah, Id say we table this discussion for further publication. The PHB is clear that weapons only fall into two categories (it says this explicitly) - simple or martial. Its a DM call as to which of those categories a "claw" fits. But the MM or DMG may be more specific.
Okay this is a great question and there are solid arguments on both sides. The way I see it, it actually breaks down into three subquestions:
1) Can an animal actually make use of the "martial arts" monk feature?
2) If so, does the animal's claw (or bite?) attack count as an unarmed strike and actually trigger the monk's martial arts ability?
3) If so, can the additional attack be another claw or bite or does it have to be a "monk" unarmed attack (1d4)?
1) From the PHB:
"You retain the benifit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so."
So, ladies and gentlemen, is an animal physically capable of practicing some form of Kung Fu, Karate, Krav Maga, Judo, Jiujitsu, or whatever other martial art your monk does? This is a very subjective question... while some say that a monk's martial arts training is strongly linked to his human body and cannot apply in animal form, others might argue that if the monk actually trains as an animal on a daily basis, he could, through dedication, gain the ability to fight using some form of martial arts in the body of that animal.
My original thought on this was "No, of course a bear cannot do Kung Fu, that's ridiculous." But after some thought I would have to say that I actually agree with the second group. Just my opinion of course, but I think a highly intelligent and dedicated creature in the form of an animal could devellop some sort of fighting technique that is close enough to martial arts for the ability to apply. I would say a bear is physically capable of some sort of martial art, but that we never see it happen because bears don't have the dedication or intelligence or will to do so.
Here's a video in support of that idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghgg_fukbvU
2) Does the animal's natural attack count as an unarmed strike?
Here again, highly debatable:
Some would argue that, no, attacking with a natural attack does not count as unarmed strike and cite the monster manual:
"The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or natural weapon such as a claw or a tail spike".
Others like to say that as long as you're not weilding a manufactured weapon, your attacks count as unarmed. This is supported by the wording of the spell "Alter self" in the PH:
"You grow fangs, claws, horns or a different natural weapon of your choice. Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 budgeoning, piercing,or slashing damage".
This is just plain ambiguous. On one hand it seems like the information in the MM, written explicitly for the creatures in the MM, would be more applicable to those creatures than information from a spell in the PH... On the other hand the wording in the MM paragraph is somewhat unclear whereas the spell very explicitly states that natrual weapons can count as unarmed strikes. I would say that RAW there is no answer to this.
3)
Some people like to rule that, okay, you get another attack from martial arts, but it has to be a monk unarmed strike for 1d4 damage at level 1, not another bear claw for 2d6... While this appeals to me from a power balance point of view, I don't think it makes sense from a rules standpoint.
From the PH:
"When you use an attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action"
If you rule that the bear's claw triggers this ability because it counts as an unarmed strike, then it is very clearly an unarmed stike for the purposes of the bonus action. Unless the phrase unarmed strike magiaclly changed meaning between the beginning and the end of the cited sentence.
Another alternative would be to say: Yes your bear can learn Kung Fu but no, it's attacks are not unarmed stikes, so if you want you can kick/head butt/punch or whatever for 1d4 and get another attack for another 1d4 just like a monk would except you're a bear. That basically renders the whole thing useless from an optimization perspective since it's better to use the bear's multiattack, but at least makes sense rules-wise.
All in all, as a DM I would rule that you can't have a level three character that does 1d8+4 followed by 2d6+4 twice, all with a +5 to hit because I think it's too powerful. Luckily I don't have to because my players are not into power-gaming 
. If you really want a Kung-Fu Panda because it corresponds to your character's concept we can work out a house rule think to make it balanced!
Moving on, can an animal do martial arts? Depends. Most oriental martial arts are based on the way animals move (or at least one is), so naturally those animals can. Others? YMMV.
Mycah wrote:
I'd say let the bear punch for 1d4 unarmed instead of using his 2d6+1d8 multiattack if he's so adamant about it. Heck, I'd even let the d4 do slashing or blunt, his choice.
I don't really see a reason to let a level 3 Karate Ursine get away with 4 attacks a round on top of his animal form extra hitpoints, increased movement and reach profile. When he can shapeshift into a gorilla, that's a different matter altogether!
Now if we could put some barding on him and let the fighter ride him while dual wield lances...
The Barbarian's Rage is even more restrictive in terms of maintaining spells, and can end early if you don't mind your action economy.
Omnilicious wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Let's put it this way: (dis)proof by contradiction. Find me the contradiction in the idea that "natural weapons" are unarmed strikes.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Vulf wrote:
Omnilicious wrote:
Here's an argument for you. Let's think about a real bear, that isn't a shapeshifted druid/monk. Does it have an unarmed strike? The only way I know to answer that is to look at the unarmed strike rules
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.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Coredump00 wrote: