Good morning, everyone. I have a question about the Tavern Brawler talent with Wild Shape. I'd like to know if the talent works on the Druid's attacks in Wild Shape form.
Thank you.
Game Statistics. Your game statistics are replaced by the Beast’s stat block, but you retain your creature type; Hit Points; Hit Point Dice; Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores; class features; languages; and feats. You also retain your skill and saving throw proficiencies and use your Proficiency Bonus for them, in addition to gaining the proficiencies of the creature. If a skill or saving throw modifier in the Beast’s stat block is higher than yours, use the one in the stat block.
Feats are retained when you use Wildshape in 5.5e (though not 5e). The real question is, do a monster's attacks, such as a Bite or Claw attack from a Brown Bear, count as Unarmed Strikes? I would say that they do not RAW, but ultimately that is up to your DM to decide.
You can still make Unarmed Strikes in Wildshape, using the Beast’s Strength modifier, and they’d benefit from Tavern Brawler. The attacks on the Beast’s statblock, however, as Sequilonis says, are not Unarmed Strikes, RAW.
Note that the attacks on a Beast’s statblock are presented as different actions (such as “Bite”, “Claws” or “Multiattack”), so they don’t use the Attack action.
Note that the attacks on a Beast’s statblock are presented as different actions (such as “Bite”, “Claws” or “Multiattack”), so they don’t use the Attack action.
The description of how a stat block is structured in Monster Manual, as well as this Sage Advice entry, make it pretty clear the designers do consider monsters to be taking the Attack action when they make attacks listed in their stat block.
Note that the attacks on a Beast’s statblock are presented as different actions (such as “Bite”, “Claws” or “Multiattack”), so they don’t use the Attack action.
The description of how a stat block is structured in Monster Manual, as well as this Sage Advice entry, make it pretty clear the designers do consider monsters to be taking the Attack action when they make attacks listed in their stat block.
Thanks. The mention of using Multiattack as a creature’s Attack action does support that as a reasonable inference, though it’s not spelt out explicitly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good morning, everyone. I have a question about the Tavern Brawler talent with Wild Shape. I'd like to know if the talent works on the Druid's attacks in Wild Shape form. Thank you.Looks like you do retain your feats:
Game Statistics. Your game statistics are replaced by the Beast’s stat block, but you retain your creature type; Hit Points; Hit Point Dice; Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores; class features; languages; and feats. You also retain your skill and saving throw proficiencies and use your Proficiency Bonus for them, in addition to gaining the proficiencies of the creature. If a skill or saving throw modifier in the Beast’s stat block is higher than yours, use the one in the stat block.
Feats are retained when you use Wildshape in 5.5e (though not 5e). The real question is, do a monster's attacks, such as a Bite or Claw attack from a Brown Bear, count as Unarmed Strikes? I would say that they do not RAW, but ultimately that is up to your DM to decide.
You can still make Unarmed Strikes in Wildshape, using the Beast’s Strength modifier, and they’d benefit from Tavern Brawler. The attacks on the Beast’s statblock, however, as Sequilonis says, are not Unarmed Strikes, RAW.
Note that the attacks on a Beast’s statblock are presented as different actions (such as “Bite”, “Claws” or “Multiattack”), so they don’t use the Attack action.
The description of how a stat block is structured in Monster Manual, as well as this Sage Advice entry, make it pretty clear the designers do consider monsters to be taking the Attack action when they make attacks listed in their stat block.
pronouns: he/she/they
Thanks.
The mention of using Multiattack as a creature’s Attack action does support that as a reasonable inference, though it’s not spelt out explicitly.