I just became aware of the interpretation that spell DC and attack bonus may change during wild shape due to a change in PB. I suspect highly that the author of the wild shape description assumed everything listed in the class features table, including PB, would carry over to the beast form and therefore did not call it out. The reference to keeping proficiencies in skills and saving throws was important to call out since these can come from sources other than one's class. That they would allow the moon druid to cast certain spells in wild shape (or all druids eventually) but add a stealth nerf such that PB is never more than 50% of character PB doesn't make an awful lot of sense. On the same lines, there are issues about the material and somatic components for Circle of the Moon spells that need to be addressed since the vast majority of beast forms would never be able to perform somatic gestures.
I just became aware of the interpretation that spell DC and attack bonus may change during wild shape due to a change in PB. I suspect highly that the author of the wild shape description assumed everything listed in the class features table, including PB, would carry over to the beast form and therefore did not call it out. The reference to keeping proficiencies in skills and saving throws was important to call out since these can come from sources other than one's class. That they would allow the moon druid to cast certain spells in wild shape (or all druids eventually) but add a stealth nerf such that PB is never more than 50% of character PB doesn't make an awful lot of sense. On the same lines, there are issues about the material and somatic components for Circle of the Moon spells that need to be addressed since the vast majority of beast forms would never be able to perform somatic gestures.
Personally, I feel like the Circle Spells feature specifying that Wild Shapes can cast those specific spells over rules the need for somatic or material components, but I also know that that is a fairly lax reading of the rules in that instance.
Really sounds like we need a Sage Advice on druid Spell DC in Wild Shape...
How I understand it, however, is that Specific Rules supersede General Rules only in their specific instance. For example, the Darkness spell blocks Dark Vision in that specific instance. It does not broadly apply to all magical darkness, just to the Darkness spell.
I see that a lot of people like to quote the Proficiency Bonus text by way of 'proving' that PB is not a class feature.
Your Proficiency Bonus is based on your total character level, not your level in a particular class, as shown in the Character Advancement table. For example, if you are a level 3 Fighter / level 2 Rogue, you have the Proficiency Bonus of a level 5 character, which is +3.
However, that is a specific rule found under the Multiclassing header. In other words, it's a specific override to help you understand how to calculate the PB when you're multiclassed. By the same token, your spell casting level progression calculation changes when you're multiclassed. That does not mean it isn't a class feature, it simply re-defines the calculation when multiclassed. Both of these are clearly defined on and included in the Druid Class Features table.
PB is a class feature as a general rule.
PB calculations change under the specific case of Multiclassing.
Specific Rules apply only to their specific scenario.
So, just like the specific rule in Darkness (blocks Dark Vision) doesn't broadly apply to every other type of magical darkness, by the same logic, the Proficiency Bonus re specification found under Multiclassing does not broadly apply to every other situation.
If you can agree to that, then the Spell DC of the Wild Shaped Druid is very cut and dry; It's on the class features table and Wild Shape specifically states you retain all class features.
As others have stated, the specific verbiage relating to skills and saving throw proficiencies needs to be there because they can come from non-class sources, such as your species. It isn't exclusionary language. It's there to ensure that non class-features are retained.
Really sounds like we need a Sage Advice on druid Spell DC in Wild Shape...
How I understand it, however, is that Specific Rules supersede General Rules only in their specific instance. For example, the Darkness spell blocks Dark Vision in that specific instance. It does not broadly apply to all magical darkness, just to the Darkness spell.
I see that a lot of people like to quote the Proficiency Bonus text by way of 'proving' that PB is not a class feature.
Your Proficiency Bonus is based on your total character level, not your level in a particular class, as shown in the Character Advancement table. For example, if you are a level 3 Fighter / level 2 Rogue, you have the Proficiency Bonus of a level 5 character, which is +3.
However, that is a specific rule found under the Multiclassing header. In other words, it's a specific override to help you understand how to calculate the PB when you're multiclassed. By the same token, your spell casting level progression calculation changes when you're multiclassed. That does not mean it isn't a class feature, it simply re-defines the calculation when multiclassed. Both of these are clearly defined on and included in the Druid Class Features table.
PB is a class feature as a general rule.
PB calculations change under the specific case of Multiclassing.
Specific Rules apply only to their specific scenario.
So, just like the specific rule in Darkness (blocks Dark Vision) doesn't broadly apply to every other type of magical darkness, by the same logic, the Proficiency Bonus re specification found under Multiclassing does not broadly apply to every other situation.
If you can agree to that, then the Spell DC of the Wild Shaped Druid is very cut and dry; It's on the class features table and Wild Shape specifically states you retain all class features.
As others have stated, the specific verbiage relating to skills and saving throw proficiencies needs to be there because they can come from non-class sources, such as your species. It isn't exclusionary language. It's there to ensure that non class-features are retained.
You've certainly made a leap of logic here. Just because one proof may not be applicable, that does not mean the apposing view is correct. Indeed this table proves you wrong. Also, if everything in the table is considered to be a class feature, why does it need a special column for class features?
MuteTiefling raises an interesting point. In the absence of multiclassing, class level and character level are one in the same.
Regardless, I do not believe there is a definitive means to answer the question without a SA and/or erratum given that PB is listed as a class feature. I would also like a developer to acknowledge that octopi, horses, bats, birds, etc. cannot accommodate somatic components for circle spells and provide the necessary advice or text changes to resolve the matter.
MuteTiefling raises an interesting point. In the absence of multiclassing, class level and character level are one in the same.
Regardless, I do not believe there is a definitive means to answer the question without a SA and/or erratum given that PB is listed as a class feature. I would also like a developer to acknowledge that octopi, horses, bats, birds, etc. cannot accommodate somatic components for circle spells and provide the necessary advice or text changes to resolve the matter.
The text of the Wild Shape feature says that the Wild Shape can cast the circle spells, that overrides the need for somatic and material components in my opinion. The Wild Shape can cast the spell thanks to the feature specifically allowing it.
Something that I think needs to be addressed (in addition to if Druid's keep their PB while Wild Shaped for attack rolls) is, are beast attacks made with claws/bite/etc classified as Unarmed Strikes now? The MM says that monsters take the Attack action to do one of the actions in their stat block. The PHB says that ALL attacks are either Weapon, Unarmed or Spell and defines Unarmed Strikes as any attack made with a body part, it even says that some beasts will attack with body parts but stops just short of calling these attacks Unarmed Strikes. The Natural Weapon tag is no longer present in the 2024 rules, meaning that these attacks are technically not Weapon attacks and using natural language they would have to be considered Unarmed Strikes, but people still have the 2014 rules in mind and want to make them Weapon attacks.
Really sounds like we need a Sage Advice on druid Spell DC in Wild Shape...
How I understand it, however, is that Specific Rules supersede General Rules only in their specific instance. For example, the Darkness spell blocks Dark Vision in that specific instance. It does not broadly apply to all magical darkness, just to the Darkness spell.
I see that a lot of people like to quote the Proficiency Bonus text by way of 'proving' that PB is not a class feature.
Your Proficiency Bonus is based on your total character level, not your level in a particular class, as shown in the Character Advancement table. For example, if you are a level 3 Fighter / level 2 Rogue, you have the Proficiency Bonus of a level 5 character, which is +3.
However, that is a specific rule found under the Multiclassing header. In other words, it's a specific override to help you understand how to calculate the PB when you're multiclassed. By the same token, your spell casting level progression calculation changes when you're multiclassed. That does not mean it isn't a class feature, it simply re-defines the calculation when multiclassed. Both of these are clearly defined on and included in the Druid Class Features table.
PB is a class feature as a general rule.
PB calculations change under the specific case of Multiclassing.
Specific Rules apply only to their specific scenario.
So, just like the specific rule in Darkness (blocks Dark Vision) doesn't broadly apply to every other type of magical darkness, by the same logic, the Proficiency Bonus re specification found under Multiclassing does not broadly apply to every other situation.
If you can agree to that, then the Spell DC of the Wild Shaped Druid is very cut and dry; It's on the class features table and Wild Shape specifically states you retain all class features.
As others have stated, the specific verbiage relating to skills and saving throw proficiencies needs to be there because they can come from non-class sources, such as your species. It isn't exclusionary language. It's there to ensure that non class-features are retained.
That's actually a very reasonable way to look at it that I hadn't considered before
You've certainly made a leap of logic here. Just because one proof may not be applicable, that does not mean the apposing view is correct. Indeed this table proves you wrong. Also, if everything in the table is considered to be a class feature, why does it need a special column for class features?
Directly under the table you linked to:
Adjust Proficiency Bonus. A character’s Proficiency Bonus increases at certain levels, as shown in the Character Advancement tableand your class features table in “Character Classes”. When your Proficiency Bonus increases, increase all the numbers on your character sheet that include your Proficiency Bonus.
They aren't mutually exclusive. You're just referring to the step-by-step guide on character creation. It's not more or less specific than the class features table. It's just breaking things up so it can walk you through the step by step process of character creation. Generally, PB is on the class features table. It's a class feature.
You've certainly made a leap of logic here. Just because one proof may not be applicable, that does not mean the apposing view is correct. Indeed this table proves you wrong. Also, if everything in the table is considered to be a class feature, why does it need a special column for class features?
Directly under the table you linked to:
Adjust Proficiency Bonus. A character’s Proficiency Bonus increases at certain levels, as shown in the Character Advancement tableand your class features table in “Character Classes”. When your Proficiency Bonus increases, increase all the numbers on your character sheet that include your Proficiency Bonus.
They aren't mutually exclusive. You're just referring to the step-by-step guide on character creation. It's not more or less specific than the class features table. It's just breaking things up so it can walk you through the step by step process of character creation. Generally, PB is on the class features table. It's a class feature.
The thing I don't understand is that you disprove* a point, and go on to make an unfounded claim. If a thing does not prove that x is true, that is not (necessarily) a proof that y is true.
*something being on that table does not make it a class feature, and in this case it is merely for quick reference. Note how it says "as shown in" rather than something like "according to".
Walk me through your logic. Why exactly do you feel PB is not a class feature, and by extension why a druid's spell DC should change when they wild shape?
Spell it all out from start to finish. Feel free to quote whatever you need to from the PHB.
Here's what I said on the previous page: "Your only somewhat valid point of contention is that spellcasting should use the new form's PB if the rules exist. This is somewhat vague, but I believe that spell attack rolls and save DCs are part of the spellcasting feature and should be unaffected."
("you retain your [...] class features": retain has many definitions, one I found is "not abolish or alter; maintain.")
Various supporting quotes:
"All creatures have a Proficiency Bonus, which reflects the impact that training has on the creature’s capabilities." Not all creatures have a class (or a CR).
"A character’s Proficiency Bonus increases as the character gains levels (described in “Creating a Character”)." Levels, not class levels.
"The Proficiency Bonus table shows how the bonus is determined." What the table shows is that PB is based on level/cr, not class level with multiclassing exceptions.
Here's what I said on the previous page: "Your only somewhat valid point of contention is that spellcasting should use the new form's PB if the rules exist. This is somewhat vague, but I believe that spell attack rolls and save DCs are part of the spellcasting feature and should be unaffected."
("you retain your [...] class features": retain has many definitions, one I found is "not abolish or alter; maintain.")
Various supporting quotes:
"All creatures have a Proficiency Bonus, which reflects the impact that training has on the creature’s capabilities." Not all creatures have a class (or a CR).
"A character’s Proficiency Bonus increases as the character gains levels (described in “Creating a Character”)." Levels, not class levels.
"The Proficiency Bonus table shows how the bonus is determined." What the table shows is that PB is based on level/cr, not class level with multiclassing exceptions.
Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light.
Outlining these principles can help hold players’ exploits at bay. If a player persistently tries to twist the rules of the game, have a conversation with that player outside the game and ask them to stop.
PCs and NPCs follow different rules. Designing an NPC does not use PC rules; creatures do not have class levels. There's nothing preventing you from making a creature with full spell casting, 5 attacks per round, +20 to hit, and at will Wish. When working with PCs we need to remain within the bounds of PC rules.
A section regarding character creation and how to level up is, of course, talking about class levels. It doesn't need to state class levels, it's already assumed to be talking about them. The section you're quoting has more to say on the subject and needs to be considered as a whole. The end is just as important as the beginning. "Adjust Proficiency Bonus. A character’s Proficiency Bonus increases at certain levels, as shown in the Character Advancement tableand your class features table in “Character Classes”. When your Proficiency Bonus increases, increase all the numbers on your character sheet that include your Proficiency Bonus."
Would you mind linking where this comes from? I don't find that exact quote anywhere in the 2024 PHB. If it's in reference to the multi-classing section, however, I feel I've already gone over that in my original premise; you can't take a rule that applies to one situation and broadly apply it elsewhere. When multiclassing, in order to maintain balance, your PB is determined from your total level rather than individual class levels. This doesn't mean it's not a class feature. It simply means that you determine it differently in that specific scenario. It is still on the class features table, after all.
Anyhow, at this point I doubt anything short of an Errata or Sage Advice will convince you. That's fine. If it's more fun for you to play with your druid's nerfed into oblivion then do feel free to continue to play that way. But as far as I'm concerned, RAW, RAI, and RAF all point to the same thing: use your PB for spell DCs, not the wild shape's.
So I realized today one can add wild shape forms to the D&D Beyond "extras" tab, and the stats of these forms (e.g., AC, skill bonuses) are adjusted depending on whether one is using 2014 or 2024 rules. This clearly answers the question about which PB is used when making melee attacks in beast form, i.e., the beast's PB. However, there is nothing linking spellcasting to the beast form (at least as far as I can see). Accordingly, if one believes that the beast's PB should be used when making spell attack rolls or to define spell DC, then one needs to calculate these manually. Using the default character sheet options, the druid's PB is applied when casting spells.
So I realized today one can add wild shape forms to the D&D Beyond "extras" tab, and the stats of these forms (e.g., AC, skill bonuses) are adjusted depending on whether one is using 2014 or 2024 rules. This clearly answers the question about which PB is used when making melee attacks in beast form, i.e., the beast's PB. However, there is nothing linking spellcasting to the beast form (at least as far as I can see). Accordingly, if one believes that the beast's PB should be used when making spell attack rolls or to define spell DC, then one needs to calculate these manually. Using the default character sheet options, the druid's PB is applied when casting spells.
dndbeyond implementation should never be taken a proof for RAW. (eg: you can't use cantrips other than eldritch blast with agonizing blast in the character creator, but you very explicitly can in the 2024 rules)
So I realized today one can add wild shape forms to the D&D Beyond "extras" tab, and the stats of these forms (e.g., AC, skill bonuses) are adjusted depending on whether one is using 2014 or 2024 rules. This clearly answers the question about which PB is used when making melee attacks in beast form, i.e., the beast's PB. However, there is nothing linking spellcasting to the beast form (at least as far as I can see). Accordingly, if one believes that the beast's PB should be used when making spell attack rolls or to define spell DC, then one needs to calculate these manually. Using the default character sheet options, the druid's PB is applied when casting spells.
dndbeyond implementation should never be taken a proof for RAW. (eg: you can't use cantrips other than eldritch blast with agonizing blast in the character creator, but you very explicitly can in the 2024 rules)
That being said, it would have been easy for them to apply the druid's PB to attacks as they do for skills and saving throws. They didn't. I suppose the team that coded wild shape in D&D Beyond simply went by what they interpreted from the text, which is the same as the majority interpretation here on the forums.
For most people the implementation in D&D Beyond will not reflect their belief re: how PB should be handled in wild shape. Most will ascribe to the beast form PB being used for both melee and spells, while others will ascribe to using the druid's PB unilaterally. Members of either camp will find it cumbersome to make rolls in D&D Beyond.
Some guidance from the developers, particularly on the PB applied for spellcasting, would be greatly appreciated.
Are Bite/Claw/etc now considered Unarmed Strikes (from a technical POV). The MM states that beasts/monsters use the Attack action to perform one of the attacks on their turn. The PHB defines the Attack action as a Weapon Attack, Spell Attack or Unarmed Strike. Unarmed Strikes are defined as any attack made with a body part (it's even called out that many monsters make attacks with a body part). The Natural Weapon tag for beast attacks is no longer present in the 2024 stat blocks. Specific also overrides general, so the specific mechanics of a beasts Unarmed Strikes (bite, claw, etc) would override the general rules for Unarmed Strikes (1+STR).
The reason for this question is that gear (where appropriate) can be worn and utilized by a Wild Shape form. The Wraps of Unarmed Power (from the DMG) can add +1, +2 or +3 to attack and damage rolls from Unarmed Strikes. If beast attacks are indeed Unarmed Strikes then this would be 1 way to increase their attack rolls.
So I realized today one can add wild shape forms to the D&D Beyond "extras" tab, and the stats of these forms (e.g., AC, skill bonuses) are adjusted depending on whether one is using 2014 or 2024 rules. This clearly answers the question about which PB is used when making melee attacks in beast form, i.e., the beast's PB. However, there is nothing linking spellcasting to the beast form (at least as far as I can see). Accordingly, if one believes that the beast's PB should be used when making spell attack rolls or to define spell DC, then one needs to calculate these manually. Using the default character sheet options, the druid's PB is applied when casting spells.
dndbeyond implementation should never be taken a proof for RAW. (eg: you can't use cantrips other than eldritch blast with agonizing blast in the character creator, but you very explicitly can in the 2024 rules)
That being said, it would have been easy for them to apply the druid's PB to attacks as they do for skills and saving throws. They didn't. I suppose the team that coded wild shape in D&D Beyond simply went by what they interpreted from the text, which is the same as the majority interpretation here on the forums.
For most people the implementation in D&D Beyond will not reflect their belief re: how PB should be handled in wild shape. Most will ascribe to the beast form PB being used for both melee and spells, while others will ascribe to using the druid's PB unilaterally. Members of either camp will find it cumbersome to make rolls in D&D Beyond.
Some guidance from the developers, particularly on the PB applied for spellcasting, would be greatly appreciated.
Wouldn't the spell DC be a Class Feature since spellcasting is a Class Feature?
Are Bite/Claw/etc now considered Unarmed Strikes (from a technical POV). The MM states that beasts/monsters use the Attack action to perform one of the attacks on their turn. The PHB defines the Attack action as a Weapon Attack, Spell Attack or Unarmed Strike. Unarmed Strikes are defined as any attack made with a body part (it's even called out that many monsters make attacks with a body part). The Natural Weapon tag for beast attacks is no longer present in the 2024 stat blocks. Specific also overrides general, so the specific mechanics of a beasts Unarmed Strikes (bite, claw, etc) would override the general rules for Unarmed Strikes (1+STR).
The reason for this question is that gear (where appropriate) can be worn and utilized by a Wild Shape form. The Wraps of Unarmed Power (from the DMG) can add +1, +2 or +3 to attack and damage rolls from Unarmed Strikes. If beast attacks are indeed Unarmed Strikes then this would be 1 way to increase their attack rolls.
I believe that is the cause of a massive debate, but I think the SA makes it clear.
When making an Opportunity Attack, a monster can make any single melee attack listed in its stat block. A monster also has the option to make an Unarmed Strike as an Opportunity Attack, following the normal rules of an Unarmed Strike.
This SA clearly lists unarmed strikes separately from its normal attacks, and says that they use the normal rules for unarmed strikes.
Are Bite/Claw/etc now considered Unarmed Strikes (from a technical POV). The MM states that beasts/monsters use the Attack action to perform one of the attacks on their turn. The PHB defines the Attack action as a Weapon Attack, Spell Attack or Unarmed Strike. Unarmed Strikes are defined as any attack made with a body part (it's even called out that many monsters make attacks with a body part). The Natural Weapon tag for beast attacks is no longer present in the 2024 stat blocks. Specific also overrides general, so the specific mechanics of a beasts Unarmed Strikes (bite, claw, etc) would override the general rules for Unarmed Strikes (1+STR).
The reason for this question is that gear (where appropriate) can be worn and utilized by a Wild Shape form. The Wraps of Unarmed Power (from the DMG) can add +1, +2 or +3 to attack and damage rolls from Unarmed Strikes. If beast attacks are indeed Unarmed Strikes then this would be 1 way to increase their attack rolls.
I believe that is the cause of a massive debate, but I think the SA makes it clear.
When making an Opportunity Attack, a monster can make any single melee attack listed in its stat block. A monster also has the option to make an Unarmed Strike as an Opportunity Attack, following the normal rules of an Unarmed Strike.
This SA clearly lists unarmed strikes separately from its normal attacks, and says that they use the normal rules for unarmed strikes.
Personally, I wouldn't consider that very clear considering the Attack action only lists Weapon, Spell and Unarmed Strikes as options. 5e (both 2014 and 2024) use natural language and saying an Unarmed Strike is an attack made with a body part, while also removing the Natural Weapons tag, gives the implication that all attacks made with a body part can be qualified as an Unarmed Strike. Some monsters have weapons, some monsters attack with both weapons and their body. It's not really a clear cut thing and in my opinion it's a gap in the rules, even with SA
Are Bite/Claw/etc now considered Unarmed Strikes (from a technical POV). The MM states that beasts/monsters use the Attack action to perform one of the attacks on their turn. The PHB defines the Attack action as a Weapon Attack, Spell Attack or Unarmed Strike. Unarmed Strikes are defined as any attack made with a body part (it's even called out that many monsters make attacks with a body part). The Natural Weapon tag for beast attacks is no longer present in the 2024 stat blocks. Specific also overrides general, so the specific mechanics of a beasts Unarmed Strikes (bite, claw, etc) would override the general rules for Unarmed Strikes (1+STR).
The reason for this question is that gear (where appropriate) can be worn and utilized by a Wild Shape form. The Wraps of Unarmed Power (from the DMG) can add +1, +2 or +3 to attack and damage rolls from Unarmed Strikes. If beast attacks are indeed Unarmed Strikes then this would be 1 way to increase their attack rolls.
I believe that is the cause of a massive debate, but I think the SA makes it clear.
When making an Opportunity Attack, a monster can make any single melee attack listed in its stat block. A monster also has the option to make an Unarmed Strike as an Opportunity Attack, following the normal rules of an Unarmed Strike.
This SA clearly lists unarmed strikes separately from its normal attacks, and says that they use the normal rules for unarmed strikes.
Personally, I wouldn't consider that very clear considering the Attack action only lists Weapon, Spell and Unarmed Strikes as options. 5e (both 2014 and 2024) use natural language and saying an Unarmed Strike is an attack made with a body part, while also removing the Natural Weapons tag, gives the implication that all attacks made with a body part can be qualified as an Unarmed Strike. Some monsters have weapons, some monsters attack with both weapons and their body. It's not really a clear cut thing and in my opinion it's a gap in the rules, even with SA
It isn't even implied. The entry in the Rules Glossary is pretty clear.
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, headbutt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
The only hiccups are that some people want to lawyer this. "Bite" is a verb, not a body part. If a "Claw" both damages and grapples, it shouldn't count as an Unarmed Strike (and must now be some unspecified thing). Personally, I think these takes are insane.
Are Bite/Claw/etc now considered Unarmed Strikes (from a technical POV). The MM states that beasts/monsters use the Attack action to perform one of the attacks on their turn. The PHB defines the Attack action as a Weapon Attack, Spell Attack or Unarmed Strike. Unarmed Strikes are defined as any attack made with a body part (it's even called out that many monsters make attacks with a body part). The Natural Weapon tag for beast attacks is no longer present in the 2024 stat blocks. Specific also overrides general, so the specific mechanics of a beasts Unarmed Strikes (bite, claw, etc) would override the general rules for Unarmed Strikes (1+STR).
The reason for this question is that gear (where appropriate) can be worn and utilized by a Wild Shape form. The Wraps of Unarmed Power (from the DMG) can add +1, +2 or +3 to attack and damage rolls from Unarmed Strikes. If beast attacks are indeed Unarmed Strikes then this would be 1 way to increase their attack rolls.
I believe that is the cause of a massive debate, but I think the SA makes it clear.
When making an Opportunity Attack, a monster can make any single melee attack listed in its stat block. A monster also has the option to make an Unarmed Strike as an Opportunity Attack, following the normal rules of an Unarmed Strike.
This SA clearly lists unarmed strikes separately from its normal attacks, and says that they use the normal rules for unarmed strikes.
Personally, I wouldn't consider that very clear considering the Attack action only lists Weapon, Spell and Unarmed Strikes as options. 5e (both 2014 and 2024) use natural language and saying an Unarmed Strike is an attack made with a body part, while also removing the Natural Weapons tag, gives the implication that all attacks made with a body part can be qualified as an Unarmed Strike. Some monsters have weapons, some monsters attack with both weapons and their body. It's not really a clear cut thing and in my opinion it's a gap in the rules, even with SA
It isn't even implied. The entry in the Rules Glossary is pretty clear.
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, headbutt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
The only hiccups are that some people want to lawyer this. "Bite" is a verb, not a body part. If a "Claw" both damages and grapples, it shouldn't count as an Unarmed Strike (and must now be some unspecified thing). Personally, I think these takes are insane.
That entry also says:
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect.
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you.
Monsters' attacks do not follow this. You could say it's an exception, but there is no explicit rule saying the attacks are unarmed strikes.
Are Bite/Claw/etc now considered Unarmed Strikes (from a technical POV). The MM states that beasts/monsters use the Attack action to perform one of the attacks on their turn. The PHB defines the Attack action as a Weapon Attack, Spell Attack or Unarmed Strike. Unarmed Strikes are defined as any attack made with a body part (it's even called out that many monsters make attacks with a body part). The Natural Weapon tag for beast attacks is no longer present in the 2024 stat blocks. Specific also overrides general, so the specific mechanics of a beasts Unarmed Strikes (bite, claw, etc) would override the general rules for Unarmed Strikes (1+STR).
The reason for this question is that gear (where appropriate) can be worn and utilized by a Wild Shape form. The Wraps of Unarmed Power (from the DMG) can add +1, +2 or +3 to attack and damage rolls from Unarmed Strikes. If beast attacks are indeed Unarmed Strikes then this would be 1 way to increase their attack rolls.
I believe that is the cause of a massive debate, but I think the SA makes it clear.
When making an Opportunity Attack, a monster can make any single melee attack listed in its stat block. A monster also has the option to make an Unarmed Strike as an Opportunity Attack, following the normal rules of an Unarmed Strike.
This SA clearly lists unarmed strikes separately from its normal attacks, and says that they use the normal rules for unarmed strikes.
Personally, I wouldn't consider that very clear considering the Attack action only lists Weapon, Spell and Unarmed Strikes as options. 5e (both 2014 and 2024) use natural language and saying an Unarmed Strike is an attack made with a body part, while also removing the Natural Weapons tag, gives the implication that all attacks made with a body part can be qualified as an Unarmed Strike. Some monsters have weapons, some monsters attack with both weapons and their body. It's not really a clear cut thing and in my opinion it's a gap in the rules, even with SA
It isn't even implied. The entry in the Rules Glossary is pretty clear.
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, headbutt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
The only hiccups are that some people want to lawyer this. "Bite" is a verb, not a body part. If a "Claw" both damages and grapples, it shouldn't count as an Unarmed Strike (and must now be some unspecified thing). Personally, I think these takes are insane.
That entry also says:
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect.
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you.
Monsters' attacks do not follow this. You could say it's an exception, but there is no explicit rule saying the attacks are unarmed strikes.
And that's why it's a gap in the rules that should be clarified rather than trying to use SA that doesn't pertain to it to answer it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just became aware of the interpretation that spell DC and attack bonus may change during wild shape due to a change in PB. I suspect highly that the author of the wild shape description assumed everything listed in the class features table, including PB, would carry over to the beast form and therefore did not call it out. The reference to keeping proficiencies in skills and saving throws was important to call out since these can come from sources other than one's class. That they would allow the moon druid to cast certain spells in wild shape (or all druids eventually) but add a stealth nerf such that PB is never more than 50% of character PB doesn't make an awful lot of sense. On the same lines, there are issues about the material and somatic components for Circle of the Moon spells that need to be addressed since the vast majority of beast forms would never be able to perform somatic gestures.
Personally, I feel like the Circle Spells feature specifying that Wild Shapes can cast those specific spells over rules the need for somatic or material components, but I also know that that is a fairly lax reading of the rules in that instance.
Really sounds like we need a Sage Advice on druid Spell DC in Wild Shape...
How I understand it, however, is that Specific Rules supersede General Rules only in their specific instance. For example, the Darkness spell blocks Dark Vision in that specific instance. It does not broadly apply to all magical darkness, just to the Darkness spell.
I see that a lot of people like to quote the Proficiency Bonus text by way of 'proving' that PB is not a class feature.
However, that is a specific rule found under the Multiclassing header. In other words, it's a specific override to help you understand how to calculate the PB when you're multiclassed. By the same token, your spell casting level progression calculation changes when you're multiclassed. That does not mean it isn't a class feature, it simply re-defines the calculation when multiclassed. Both of these are clearly defined on and included in the Druid Class Features table.
So, just like the specific rule in Darkness (blocks Dark Vision) doesn't broadly apply to every other type of magical darkness, by the same logic, the Proficiency Bonus re specification found under Multiclassing does not broadly apply to every other situation.
If you can agree to that, then the Spell DC of the Wild Shaped Druid is very cut and dry; It's on the class features table and Wild Shape specifically states you retain all class features.
As others have stated, the specific verbiage relating to skills and saving throw proficiencies needs to be there because they can come from non-class sources, such as your species. It isn't exclusionary language. It's there to ensure that non class-features are retained.
You've certainly made a leap of logic here. Just because one proof may not be applicable, that does not mean the apposing view is correct. Indeed this table proves you wrong. Also, if everything in the table is considered to be a class feature, why does it need a special column for class features?
MuteTiefling raises an interesting point. In the absence of multiclassing, class level and character level are one in the same.
Regardless, I do not believe there is a definitive means to answer the question without a SA and/or erratum given that PB is listed as a class feature. I would also like a developer to acknowledge that octopi, horses, bats, birds, etc. cannot accommodate somatic components for circle spells and provide the necessary advice or text changes to resolve the matter.
The text of the Wild Shape feature says that the Wild Shape can cast the circle spells, that overrides the need for somatic and material components in my opinion. The Wild Shape can cast the spell thanks to the feature specifically allowing it.
Something that I think needs to be addressed (in addition to if Druid's keep their PB while Wild Shaped for attack rolls) is, are beast attacks made with claws/bite/etc classified as Unarmed Strikes now? The MM says that monsters take the Attack action to do one of the actions in their stat block. The PHB says that ALL attacks are either Weapon, Unarmed or Spell and defines Unarmed Strikes as any attack made with a body part, it even says that some beasts will attack with body parts but stops just short of calling these attacks Unarmed Strikes. The Natural Weapon tag is no longer present in the 2024 rules, meaning that these attacks are technically not Weapon attacks and using natural language they would have to be considered Unarmed Strikes, but people still have the 2014 rules in mind and want to make them Weapon attacks.
That's actually a very reasonable way to look at it that I hadn't considered before
Directly under the table you linked to:
They aren't mutually exclusive. You're just referring to the step-by-step guide on character creation. It's not more or less specific than the class features table. It's just breaking things up so it can walk you through the step by step process of character creation. Generally, PB is on the class features table. It's a class feature.
The thing I don't understand is that you disprove* a point, and go on to make an unfounded claim. If a thing does not prove that x is true, that is not (necessarily) a proof that y is true.
*something being on that table does not make it a class feature, and in this case it is merely for quick reference. Note how it says "as shown in" rather than something like "according to".
Walk me through your logic. Why exactly do you feel PB is not a class feature, and by extension why a druid's spell DC should change when they wild shape?
Spell it all out from start to finish. Feel free to quote whatever you need to from the PHB.
Here's what I said on the previous page: "Your only somewhat valid point of contention is that spellcasting should use the new form's PB if the rules exist. This is somewhat vague, but I believe that spell attack rolls and save DCs are part of the spellcasting feature and should be unaffected."
("you retain your [...] class features": retain has many definitions, one I found is "not abolish or alter; maintain.")
Various supporting quotes:
"All creatures have a Proficiency Bonus, which reflects the impact that training has on the creature’s capabilities." Not all creatures have a class (or a CR).
"A character’s Proficiency Bonus increases as the character gains levels (described in “Creating a Character”)." Levels, not class levels.
"The Proficiency Bonus table shows how the bonus is determined." What the table shows is that PB is based on level/cr, not class level with multiclassing exceptions.
Ok. Keeping this in mind as we go through this:
"Adjust Proficiency Bonus. A character’s Proficiency Bonus increases at certain levels, as shown in the Character Advancement table and your class features table in “Character Classes”. When your Proficiency Bonus increases, increase all the numbers on your character sheet that include your Proficiency Bonus."
Anyhow, at this point I doubt anything short of an Errata or Sage Advice will convince you. That's fine. If it's more fun for you to play with your druid's nerfed into oblivion then do feel free to continue to play that way. But as far as I'm concerned, RAW, RAI, and RAF all point to the same thing: use your PB for spell DCs, not the wild shape's.
So I realized today one can add wild shape forms to the D&D Beyond "extras" tab, and the stats of these forms (e.g., AC, skill bonuses) are adjusted depending on whether one is using 2014 or 2024 rules. This clearly answers the question about which PB is used when making melee attacks in beast form, i.e., the beast's PB. However, there is nothing linking spellcasting to the beast form (at least as far as I can see). Accordingly, if one believes that the beast's PB should be used when making spell attack rolls or to define spell DC, then one needs to calculate these manually. Using the default character sheet options, the druid's PB is applied when casting spells.
dndbeyond implementation should never be taken a proof for RAW. (eg: you can't use cantrips other than eldritch blast with agonizing blast in the character creator, but you very explicitly can in the 2024 rules)
That being said, it would have been easy for them to apply the druid's PB to attacks as they do for skills and saving throws. They didn't. I suppose the team that coded wild shape in D&D Beyond simply went by what they interpreted from the text, which is the same as the majority interpretation here on the forums.
For most people the implementation in D&D Beyond will not reflect their belief re: how PB should be handled in wild shape. Most will ascribe to the beast form PB being used for both melee and spells, while others will ascribe to using the druid's PB unilaterally. Members of either camp will find it cumbersome to make rolls in D&D Beyond.
Some guidance from the developers, particularly on the PB applied for spellcasting, would be greatly appreciated.
Here's a question I'd have.
Are Bite/Claw/etc now considered Unarmed Strikes (from a technical POV). The MM states that beasts/monsters use the Attack action to perform one of the attacks on their turn. The PHB defines the Attack action as a Weapon Attack, Spell Attack or Unarmed Strike. Unarmed Strikes are defined as any attack made with a body part (it's even called out that many monsters make attacks with a body part). The Natural Weapon tag for beast attacks is no longer present in the 2024 stat blocks. Specific also overrides general, so the specific mechanics of a beasts Unarmed Strikes (bite, claw, etc) would override the general rules for Unarmed Strikes (1+STR).
The reason for this question is that gear (where appropriate) can be worn and utilized by a Wild Shape form. The Wraps of Unarmed Power (from the DMG) can add +1, +2 or +3 to attack and damage rolls from Unarmed Strikes. If beast attacks are indeed Unarmed Strikes then this would be 1 way to increase their attack rolls.
Wouldn't the spell DC be a Class Feature since spellcasting is a Class Feature?
I believe that is the cause of a massive debate, but I think the SA makes it clear.
This SA clearly lists unarmed strikes separately from its normal attacks, and says that they use the normal rules for unarmed strikes.
Personally, I wouldn't consider that very clear considering the Attack action only lists Weapon, Spell and Unarmed Strikes as options. 5e (both 2014 and 2024) use natural language and saying an Unarmed Strike is an attack made with a body part, while also removing the Natural Weapons tag, gives the implication that all attacks made with a body part can be qualified as an Unarmed Strike. Some monsters have weapons, some monsters attack with both weapons and their body. It's not really a clear cut thing and in my opinion it's a gap in the rules, even with SA
It isn't even implied. The entry in the Rules Glossary is pretty clear.
The only hiccups are that some people want to lawyer this. "Bite" is a verb, not a body part. If a "Claw" both damages and grapples, it shouldn't count as an Unarmed Strike (and must now be some unspecified thing). Personally, I think these takes are insane.
That entry also says:
Monsters' attacks do not follow this. You could say it's an exception, but there is no explicit rule saying the attacks are unarmed strikes.
And that's why it's a gap in the rules that should be clarified rather than trying to use SA that doesn't pertain to it to answer it.