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.
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.
I don't understand, should we just beg for a SA every time we don't understand a rule rather than at least trying to answer it?
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.
I don't understand, should we just beg for a SA every time we don't understand a rule rather than at least trying to answer it?
We've essentially both answered it, just from different perspectives. That fact alone shows that there's not a clear answer.
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.
Is that relevant somehow?
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.
Believe it or not, I found that quote in the first chapter of the dndbeyond 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."
My second quote also came from the first chapter, which discusses playing the game, not creating a character. It does show your proficiency bonus on the features table, but that is merely redundancy to make it easier for players to find.
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.
That quote is the last line of the paragraph that the other two were extracted from. (I find control f to be very useful when finding quotes people post)
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.
I'm very confused by this reply, as half of my post was explaining why I believe that the druid uses their normal PB for their spellcasting.
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.
Does this "gap in the rules" matter?
Monsters all take the Attack action. We know this because Multiattack it isn't its own action. Rather, it modifies the Attack action. What's more, that action specifically requires attacks to be made with either a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike. There isn't a third option, so it must be one of those two.
Whatever ambiguity exists only matters insofar as possible interactions from other features or traits. And, to be clear, if it isn't a weapon (which is equipment), then it must be an unarmed strike. It's the process of elimination at work.
To get back to OP's assertion that the new druid is a failure it most definitely is not a failure. The 2024 druid has some of the best control spell in the game, especially in the late game. Grasping vine and conjure Fey are so good in that they do damage and force debilitating effects on creatures without triggering legendary resistance. They don't have as much blasting potential, but they have better control, sustained damage, and resource efficiency than other casters.
There is still plenty of creativity even with the limit on forms. As evidence I present something every 2024 druid can perform, the pseudo substitution jutsu. Yamato ain't got nothing the 2024 druid. This is done on one turn by summoning a larger familiar like a deer or hyena using wild companion, wild shaping into something tiny, and scurrying away. No one suspects the spider scurrying away when a hyena suddenly appears and begins cackling or when a 12 point buck suddenly blocks you vision with its antlers. This automatically makes them not a failure in my opinion.
I'm very confused by this reply, as half of my post was explaining why I believe that the druid uses their normal PB for their spellcasting.
That's been my premise this entire time. You keep trying to pick apart my support as wrong somehow, however. And when I asked you to supply your logic for the opposite you posted what seemed like a statement of support but rules quotes against :D
My entire argument is that PB is on the class features table and Wild Shape explicitly retains class features rather than replacing them with the stat block. So PB for spellcasting should be the Druid's not, the animal's.
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.
Does this "gap in the rules" matter?
Monsters all take the Attack action. We know this because Multiattack it isn't its own action. Rather, it modifies the Attack action. What's more, that action specifically requires attacks to be made with either a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike. There isn't a third option, so it must be one of those two.
Whatever ambiguity exists only matters insofar as possible interactions from other features or traits. And, to be clear, if it isn't a weapon (which is equipment), then it must be an unarmed strike. It's the process of elimination at work.
This I agree with 100%, but rules lawyers (especially those coming from 2014 where beast attacks were Natural Weapons) always want to argue it. They're the ones that need clarification.
I'm very confused by this reply, as half of my post was explaining why I believe that the druid uses their normal PB for their spellcasting.
That's been my premise this entire time. You keep trying to pick apart my support as wrong somehow, however. And when I asked you to supply your logic for the opposite you posted what seemed like a statement of support but rules quotes against :D
My entire argument is that PB is on the class features table and Wild Shape explicitly retains class features rather than replacing them with the stat block. So PB for spellcasting should be the Druid's not, the animal's.
If you knew that I was not saying that, why accuse me of doing so?
If you look closely at my post, I posit that the spellcasting attack/save DC are not changed because they are part of your class feature and are retained (not abolished or altered). I do not believe the notion that your proficiency bonus is a class feature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
100% agreed
I don't understand, should we just beg for a SA every time we don't understand a rule rather than at least trying to answer it?
We've essentially both answered it, just from different perspectives. That fact alone shows that there's not a clear answer.
Is that relevant somehow?
Believe it or not, I found that quote in the first chapter of the dndbeyond rules.
My second quote also came from the first chapter, which discusses playing the game, not creating a character. It does show your proficiency bonus on the features table, but that is merely redundancy to make it easier for players to find.
That quote is the last line of the paragraph that the other two were extracted from. (I find control f to be very useful when finding quotes people post)
I'm very confused by this reply, as half of my post was explaining why I believe that the druid uses their normal PB for their spellcasting.
Does this "gap in the rules" matter?
Monsters all take the Attack action. We know this because Multiattack it isn't its own action. Rather, it modifies the Attack action. What's more, that action specifically requires attacks to be made with either a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike. There isn't a third option, so it must be one of those two.
Whatever ambiguity exists only matters insofar as possible interactions from other features or traits. And, to be clear, if it isn't a weapon (which is equipment), then it must be an unarmed strike. It's the process of elimination at work.
To get back to OP's assertion that the new druid is a failure it most definitely is not a failure. The 2024 druid has some of the best control spell in the game, especially in the late game. Grasping vine and conjure Fey are so good in that they do damage and force debilitating effects on creatures without triggering legendary resistance. They don't have as much blasting potential, but they have better control, sustained damage, and resource efficiency than other casters.
There is still plenty of creativity even with the limit on forms. As evidence I present something every 2024 druid can perform, the pseudo substitution jutsu. Yamato ain't got nothing the 2024 druid. This is done on one turn by summoning a larger familiar like a deer or hyena using wild companion, wild shaping into something tiny, and scurrying away. No one suspects the spider scurrying away when a hyena suddenly appears and begins cackling or when a 12 point buck suddenly blocks you vision with its antlers. This automatically makes them not a failure in my opinion.
That's been my premise this entire time. You keep trying to pick apart my support as wrong somehow, however. And when I asked you to supply your logic for the opposite you posted what seemed like a statement of support but rules quotes against :D
My entire argument is that PB is on the class features table and Wild Shape explicitly retains class features rather than replacing them with the stat block. So PB for spellcasting should be the Druid's not, the animal's.
This I agree with 100%, but rules lawyers (especially those coming from 2014 where beast attacks were Natural Weapons) always want to argue it. They're the ones that need clarification.