You retain the use of features your wild shape form is physiologically capable of executing, so I would say you can still use Flurry of Blows, yeah. It’ll be the DM’s discretion though. A different DM might have a different idea in mind for what Flurry requires, and beasts may not make meet their requirement.
The better you describe what you want to do, the more lenient your DM will probably be because it will paint a picture in everyone's mind on what you want to do and how you think it can work. Like a wolf using their tail for the extra hit or an ape using his legs etc. More description equals better results most of the time.
Be careful. I haven't read monk carefully, but any features that key off of unarmed strikes do not key off of bite, claw, and other natural weapon attacks of wildshape forms. Also, I'm not sure how those types of actions work with "attack action" class features. Bite is a different action from the attack action, I'm not sure whether it is intended to be separate, but RAW it seems to be.
Bite is a different action from the Attack action yeah, but natural weapons are available for use with the Attack action. You can bite when you take the Attack action, but if some other feature allows you to make “a bite attack,” that doesn’t trigger anything that requires you to take the Attack action.
But you’re also right to point out that natural weapons aren’t unarmed striker or monk weapons. But you can probably (barring some specific DM idea) still make normal unarmed strikes with normal monk unarmed damage while wild shaped.
The Reality is that unless your DM makes allowances. The Monk and the wild shaped druid are highly incompatible because of the way their abilities are written and their attacks are classified.
Beasts for example don't use unarmed attacks. They use what are classified as Natural weapons and some of them make multi-attacks rather than use the attack action. So your hard pressed to fit in the necessary requirements of unarmed or monk weapon attacks to trigger something like Flurry of Blows.
There is also an issue that it's not hard for your dex and wis in human form to be better than what you end up having in beast form. meaning that while unarmored defense sounds good in theory it's often a bit sub par in practice.
And if you get up to the levels where you get them. Deflect missiles doesn't work with a beast form that doesn't have hands unless your DM makes special allowances for your form to work which may or may not happen. And extra attack doesn't stack into multi-attack actions that forms start getting because it's technically a different action from the attack action.
So would a Tabaxi monk not be able to use their claws as natural weapons? Or an Aarakocra? Those are natural weapons that are used in unarmed strikes.
Why would a tiger's claws be different than a Tabaxi's? I think as long as you don't multiattack, it would work just fine.
Why would a feature that says it works a particular way work differently than a feature that doesn't say it can be used that way? Is that what you are asking?
How do you know that a tabaxi can use their claw attack as an unarmed strike? Is it because the feature tells you so? Do beast attacks (or the general rules/monster rules) tell you that you can use arbitrary actions from monster stat blocks as unarmed attacks? That should tell you all you need to know on that point.
The game is filled with exceptions, pointing to one and saying "I don't see why it should work differently other times" completely misses the mark on that design.
Edit: I think this is where I have a question for Saga: how do you know that a natural weapon (or really any stat block action) can be used to make the attack action? Is there some place where it is stated which actions are allowed for that and which are not? Can you use the attack action with any weapon attack action in a monster statblock? Is that based on assumption or a statement somewhere that I've missed?
I guess I just don't see how Tabaxi claws would be any different.
The difference is between PCs vs Monsters/NPCs. If you look at the Tabaxi entry for the Race as a PC option it specifically states that their natural weapons can be used as unarmed strikes. (All PC races with natural weapons state that, like the Minotaur race for example. But if you look at the Monster statblocks for those same creatures they state no such thing.
How do you know that a tabaxi can use their claw attack as an unarmed strike? Is it because the feature tells you so? Do beast attacks (or the general rules/monster rules) tell you that you can use arbitrary actions from monster stat blocks as unarmed attacks? That should tell you all you need to know on that point.
The game is filled with exceptions, pointing to one and saying "I don't see why it should work differently other times" completely misses the mark on that design.
Edit: I think this is where I have a question for Saga: how do you know that a natural weapon (or really any stat block action) can be used to make the attack action? Is there some place where it is stated which actions are allowed for that and which are not? Can you use the attack action with any weapon attack action in a monster statblock? Is that based on assumption or a statement somewhere that I've missed?
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.
How do you know that a tabaxi can use their claw attack as an unarmed strike? Is it because the feature tells you so? Do beast attacks (or the general rules/monster rules) tell you that you can use arbitrary actions from monster stat blocks as unarmed attacks? That should tell you all you need to know on that point.
The game is filled with exceptions, pointing to one and saying "I don't see why it should work differently other times" completely misses the mark on that design.
Edit: I think this is where I have a question for Saga: how do you know that a natural weapon (or really any stat block action) can be used to make the attack action? Is there some place where it is stated which actions are allowed for that and which are not? Can you use the attack action with any weapon attack action in a monster statblock? Is that based on assumption or a statement somewhere that I've missed?
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.
I hope that helps.
Yea, I have read that. It says that monsters can take the attack action that is available to all creatures... but it doesn’t explain how you can tell what weapons they can use for that attack action.
It also doesn’t explain why longsword is presented to be its own action in a monster’s stat block if that action is indistinguishable from the creature taking the attack action with its longsword.
How do you know that a tabaxi can use their claw attack as an unarmed strike? Is it because the feature tells you so? Do beast attacks (or the general rules/monster rules) tell you that you can use arbitrary actions from monster stat blocks as unarmed attacks? That should tell you all you need to know on that point.
The game is filled with exceptions, pointing to one and saying "I don't see why it should work differently other times" completely misses the mark on that design.
Edit: I think this is where I have a question for Saga: how do you know that a natural weapon (or really any stat block action) can be used to make the attack action? Is there some place where it is stated which actions are allowed for that and which are not? Can you use the attack action with any weapon attack action in a monster statblock? Is that based on assumption or a statement somewhere that I've missed?
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.
I hope that helps.
Yea, I have read that. It says that monsters can take the attack action that is available to all creatures... but it doesn’t explain how you can tell what weapons they can use for that attack action.
It also doesn’t explain why longsword is presented to be its own action in a monster’s stat block if that action is indistinguishable from the creature taking the attack action with its longsword.
I've made this argument repeatedly in various threads myself. Because it's very true. Usually what I've gotten back is "show me where they can't use it." Which is a little frustrating to get into for me at this point.
Edit: I think this is where I have a question for Saga: how do you know that a natural weapon (or really any stat block action) can be used to make the attack action? Is there some place where it is stated which actions are allowed for that and which are not? Can you use the attack action with any weapon attack action in a monster statblock? Is that based on assumption or a statement somewhere that I've missed?
So, I made my original comment almost a year ago, hahaha. But the answer is "it is an assumption." Unfortunately, so is the idea that a player character can make an attack with a weapon from the PHB's weapon table. The combat rules say nothing about selecting weapons with which you take the Attack action. A lot of it is just common sense. Natural weapons are weapons, so we must assume that they work as any other weapon does. And we must also assume that weapons work the way we always say they do, because the rules aren't explicit.
I want to clarify that I'm not necessarily saying that "any weapon attack action in a monster statblock" can be used with the Attack action; rather, I'm saying that most weapon attack actions in monster statblocks define weapons, and those can be used with the Attack action. Again "any weapon can be used in the Attack action" is itself an assumption, but it's one we have to make for combat to function.
The Attack is “one of the actions available to all creatures.” They would not use any weapons other than the ones listed as actions in their statblocks (and why bother), or whatever they might pick up during an encounter. Monsters use the Attack action is to allow Monsters to Grapple Creatures, Escape Grapples, Shove, and to potentially make Unarmed Strikes at the standard Str+1 damage that all creatures get.
A party of PCs could take years to reach 20th-level, will face a variety of challenges to overcome. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of Players will only be running one PC at a time, most of the time. That means:
All of that “stuff” will likely be useful at some point.
It can all be on the character sheets without becoming unmanageable.
Players get to really know their characters’ capabilities.
By contrast, the average life expectancy for a typical monster is approximately 24 seconds (4 rounds), and the DM is responsible for all of them, usually in a continuously rotating mixed bag of them. That means DMs need them to be lean, mean, and streamlined.
Edit: I think this is where I have a question for Saga: how do you know that a natural weapon (or really any stat block action) can be used to make the attack action? Is there some place where it is stated which actions are allowed for that and which are not? Can you use the attack action with any weapon attack action in a monster statblock? Is that based on assumption or a statement somewhere that I've missed?
So, I made my original comment almost a year ago, hahaha. But the answer is "it is an assumption." Unfortunately, so is the idea that a player character can make an attack with a weapon from the PHB's weapon table. The combat rules say nothing about selecting weapons with which you take the Attack action. A lot of it is just common sense. Natural weapons are weapons, so we must assume that they work as any other weapon does. And we must also assume that weapons work the way we always say they do, because the rules aren't explicit.
I want to clarify that I'm not necessarily saying that "any weapon attack action in a monster statblock" can be used with the Attack action; rather, I'm saying that most weapon attack actions in monster statblocks define weapons, and those can be used with the Attack action. Again "any weapon can be used in the Attack action" is itself an assumption, but it's one we have to make for combat to function.
Yeah, I think I understand all of this and find it reasonable. The rules on equipment, at least, do tell you that the equipment can be used to make an attack. It seems obvious that when you make an attack you use a weapon that you have. I also recognize that there are other things that you can do with the attack action, and those are all fair game for monsters.
But, the final part is the bit tricky for me. Is there a functional difference between the attack action and the action in the statblock? I agree that most actions in monster stat blocks are labeled as weapon attacks and that they often describe simply making a weapon attack with that weapon. But if you take the attack action with a githyanki knight's silver greatsword, do you still use the +9 in the statblock? or do you construct it like a normal attack (mod + prof)?
I know this is a little bit different from the original question, and it was something said in passing. But it is really something I don't know much on, and comes up with Wildshape a lot. Say you have to take the attack action in order to benefit from some feature but you are using the claw action from a beast's stat block. Are you taking the attack action when you use the claw action? How do you know? How do we know you can't use multiattack instead?
Edit: I think this is where I have a question for Saga: how do you know that a natural weapon (or really any stat block action) can be used to make the attack action? Is there some place where it is stated which actions are allowed for that and which are not? Can you use the attack action with any weapon attack action in a monster statblock? Is that based on assumption or a statement somewhere that I've missed?
So, I made my original comment almost a year ago, hahaha. But the answer is "it is an assumption." Unfortunately, so is the idea that a player character can make an attack with a weapon from the PHB's weapon table. The combat rules say nothing about selecting weapons with which you take the Attack action. A lot of it is just common sense. Natural weapons are weapons, so we must assume that they work as any other weapon does. And we must also assume that weapons work the way we always say they do, because the rules aren't explicit.
I want to clarify that I'm not necessarily saying that "any weapon attack action in a monster statblock" can be used with the Attack action; rather, I'm saying that most weapon attack actions in monster statblocks define weapons, and those can be used with the Attack action. Again "any weapon can be used in the Attack action" is itself an assumption, but it's one we have to make for combat to function.
Yeah, I think I understand all of this and find it reasonable. The rules on equipment, at least, do tell you that the equipment can be used to make an attack. It seems obvious that when you make an attack you use a weapon that you have. I also recognize that there are other things that you can do with the attack action, and those are all fair game for monsters.
But, the final part is the bit tricky for me. Is there a functional difference between the attack action and the action in the statblock? I agree that most actions in monster stat blocks are labeled as weapon attacks and that they often describe simply making a weapon attack with that weapon. But if you take the attack action with a githyanki knight's silver greatsword, do you still use the +9 in the statblock? or do you construct it like a normal attack (mod + prof)?
I know this is a little bit different from the original question, and it was something said in passing. But it is really something I don't know much on, and comes up with Wildshape a lot. Say you have to take the attack action in order to benefit from some feature but you are using the claw action from a beast's stat block. Are you taking the attack action when you use the claw action? How do you know? How do we know you can't use multiattack instead?
Except here is the problem with that Assumption. Creature Stat-blocks do not actually work the Same as PC character sheets. That's where the inherent difference is. Thruogh various parts of the sheet coming together and various explanations about how things work for PC's is how we get to the point that the weapons in the PHB are directly linked to the Attack Action. Even the attack Action leans into this by the way it speaks of them with things such as weapon and unarmed attacks being mentioned in various ways in various linking pieces.
The Problem is that Creature Stat blocks do not use most of this language that is used for PC's. With a couple of exceptions it speaks of creature stat blocks in the context only of creature statblocks. Proficiencies only being what's marked in them. Attacks only being wht is listed in the Attack Action section of the stat block. And various other things like this when discussing them. So Assuming that just because it works for a PC means that it works for a creature Stat-block is faulty at best. Multiattack is a prime example. This is an action listed in creature statblocks that does not actually appear anywhere at all for PC's and in fact violates rules about multiple attack that do apply to PC's in various ways. One of the biggest ones by the shere fact that it shows up on creatures that are below the thresh-hold where pc's start getting such things. These appear on creatures as low as CR 1 (perhaps lower. I may be forgetting some skeleton or something). Even if you tried to assume that because CR 1 means a moderate threat to 4 level 1 characters and chose to extrapolate that out as being a higher level. The best you would logically get is level 4. PC's don't start getting the ability to attack multiple times until level 5 and even when they do most of them do not get the ability to do so more than twice but there are beasts in the CR 1-3 Range that will attack as many as 3 times.
But there are other reasons to assume that Creatures with stat-blocks don't function like normal PC's in other ways too. Another example is stat-blocks that mimic casters. Many of them have greatly reduced spell lists. They do not function from slots. they work on 1/day principles and the like for the spells that they cast with several of them and most of them do not in any way have abilities that function like the class and subclasses that they are mimic'ing. DM's are actually encouraged that if they want creatures from stat-blocks to work more like PC's and less like creatures from statblocks they either add PC class levels and benefits to them or in some cases actually effectively make PC's of those classes that just aren't controlled by the actual Players so that they can function the same way.
Another is that not all Stat Block Monsters modifiers in their stat blocks actually add up properly. Some of them do but some of them don't. There are things like low strength creatures with no indication that they are doing things by dextrous means that have positive attack modifiers for example. Or creatures that have proficiency added into their attack modifiers but don't actually have proficiency in anything else on their sheets. There are even hitpoint totals that don't quite add up right all of the time though that's perhaps the least common discrepency seen.
When you wild shape and have a few levels in monk, can you use flurry of blows in your wild shape form?
For instance, would a direwolf have one attack and then two from flurry of blows?
You retain the use of features your wild shape form is physiologically capable of executing, so I would say you can still use Flurry of Blows, yeah. It’ll be the DM’s discretion though. A different DM might have a different idea in mind for what Flurry requires, and beasts may not make meet their requirement.
The better you describe what you want to do, the more lenient your DM will probably be because it will paint a picture in everyone's mind on what you want to do and how you think it can work. Like a wolf using their tail for the extra hit or an ape using his legs etc. More description equals better results most of the time.
Be careful. I haven't read monk carefully, but any features that key off of unarmed strikes do not key off of bite, claw, and other natural weapon attacks of wildshape forms. Also, I'm not sure how those types of actions work with "attack action" class features. Bite is a different action from the attack action, I'm not sure whether it is intended to be separate, but RAW it seems to be.
Bite is a different action from the Attack action yeah, but natural weapons are available for use with the Attack action. You can bite when you take the Attack action, but if some other feature allows you to make “a bite attack,” that doesn’t trigger anything that requires you to take the Attack action.
But you’re also right to point out that natural weapons aren’t unarmed striker or monk weapons. But you can probably (barring some specific DM idea) still make normal unarmed strikes with normal monk unarmed damage while wild shaped.
Multiattack is not the attack action either, which is the most common feature that allows you to take the bite attack (for example).
The Reality is that unless your DM makes allowances. The Monk and the wild shaped druid are highly incompatible because of the way their abilities are written and their attacks are classified.
Beasts for example don't use unarmed attacks. They use what are classified as Natural weapons and some of them make multi-attacks rather than use the attack action. So your hard pressed to fit in the necessary requirements of unarmed or monk weapon attacks to trigger something like Flurry of Blows.
There is also an issue that it's not hard for your dex and wis in human form to be better than what you end up having in beast form. meaning that while unarmored defense sounds good in theory it's often a bit sub par in practice.
And if you get up to the levels where you get them. Deflect missiles doesn't work with a beast form that doesn't have hands unless your DM makes special allowances for your form to work which may or may not happen. And extra attack doesn't stack into multi-attack actions that forms start getting because it's technically a different action from the attack action.
So would a Tabaxi monk not be able to use their claws as natural weapons? Or an Aarakocra? Those are natural weapons that are used in unarmed strikes.
Why would a tiger's claws be different than a Tabaxi's? I think as long as you don't multiattack, it would work just fine.
Why would a feature that says it works a particular way work differently than a feature that doesn't say it can be used that way? Is that what you are asking?
I guess I just don't see how Tabaxi claws would be any different.
How do you know that a tabaxi can use their claw attack as an unarmed strike? Is it because the feature tells you so? Do beast attacks (or the general rules/monster rules) tell you that you can use arbitrary actions from monster stat blocks as unarmed attacks? That should tell you all you need to know on that point.
The game is filled with exceptions, pointing to one and saying "I don't see why it should work differently other times" completely misses the mark on that design.
Edit: I think this is where I have a question for Saga: how do you know that a natural weapon (or really any stat block action) can be used to make the attack action? Is there some place where it is stated which actions are allowed for that and which are not? Can you use the attack action with any weapon attack action in a monster statblock? Is that based on assumption or a statement somewhere that I've missed?
The difference is between PCs vs Monsters/NPCs. If you look at the Tabaxi entry for the Race as a PC option it specifically states that their natural weapons can be used as unarmed strikes. (All PC races with natural weapons state that, like the Minotaur race for example. But if you look at the Monster statblocks for those same creatures they state no such thing.
Example Race Entries:
Corresponding Monster Entries:
Part of why D&D works is because the “baddies” have some special abilities that PCs don’t have access to, and vice versa.
Because the DMG says so:
I hope that helps.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
I didn’t realize that was ever in question.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Yea, I have read that. It says that monsters can take the attack action that is available to all creatures... but it doesn’t explain how you can tell what weapons they can use for that attack action.
It also doesn’t explain why longsword is presented to be its own action in a monster’s stat block if that action is indistinguishable from the creature taking the attack action with its longsword.
I've made this argument repeatedly in various threads myself. Because it's very true. Usually what I've gotten back is "show me where they can't use it." Which is a little frustrating to get into for me at this point.
So, I made my original comment almost a year ago, hahaha. But the answer is "it is an assumption." Unfortunately, so is the idea that a player character can make an attack with a weapon from the PHB's weapon table. The combat rules say nothing about selecting weapons with which you take the Attack action. A lot of it is just common sense. Natural weapons are weapons, so we must assume that they work as any other weapon does. And we must also assume that weapons work the way we always say they do, because the rules aren't explicit.
I want to clarify that I'm not necessarily saying that "any weapon attack action in a monster statblock" can be used with the Attack action; rather, I'm saying that most weapon attack actions in monster statblocks define weapons, and those can be used with the Attack action. Again "any weapon can be used in the Attack action" is itself an assumption, but it's one we have to make for combat to function.
The Attack is “one of the actions available to all creatures.” They would not use any weapons other than the ones listed as actions in their statblocks (and why bother), or whatever they might pick up during an encounter. Monsters use the Attack action is to allow Monsters to Grapple Creatures, Escape Grapples, Shove, and to potentially make Unarmed Strikes at the standard Str+1 damage that all creatures get.
A party of PCs could take years to reach 20th-level, will face a variety of challenges to overcome. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of Players will only be running one PC at a time, most of the time. That means:
By contrast, the average life expectancy for a typical monster is approximately 24 seconds (4 rounds), and the DM is responsible for all of them, usually in a continuously rotating mixed bag of them. That means DMs need them to be lean, mean, and streamlined.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Yeah, I think I understand all of this and find it reasonable. The rules on equipment, at least, do tell you that the equipment can be used to make an attack. It seems obvious that when you make an attack you use a weapon that you have. I also recognize that there are other things that you can do with the attack action, and those are all fair game for monsters.
But, the final part is the bit tricky for me. Is there a functional difference between the attack action and the action in the statblock? I agree that most actions in monster stat blocks are labeled as weapon attacks and that they often describe simply making a weapon attack with that weapon. But if you take the attack action with a githyanki knight's silver greatsword, do you still use the +9 in the statblock? or do you construct it like a normal attack (mod + prof)?
I know this is a little bit different from the original question, and it was something said in passing. But it is really something I don't know much on, and comes up with Wildshape a lot. Say you have to take the attack action in order to benefit from some feature but you are using the claw action from a beast's stat block. Are you taking the attack action when you use the claw action? How do you know? How do we know you can't use multiattack instead?
Except here is the problem with that Assumption. Creature Stat-blocks do not actually work the Same as PC character sheets. That's where the inherent difference is. Thruogh various parts of the sheet coming together and various explanations about how things work for PC's is how we get to the point that the weapons in the PHB are directly linked to the Attack Action. Even the attack Action leans into this by the way it speaks of them with things such as weapon and unarmed attacks being mentioned in various ways in various linking pieces.
The Problem is that Creature Stat blocks do not use most of this language that is used for PC's. With a couple of exceptions it speaks of creature stat blocks in the context only of creature statblocks. Proficiencies only being what's marked in them. Attacks only being wht is listed in the Attack Action section of the stat block. And various other things like this when discussing them. So Assuming that just because it works for a PC means that it works for a creature Stat-block is faulty at best. Multiattack is a prime example. This is an action listed in creature statblocks that does not actually appear anywhere at all for PC's and in fact violates rules about multiple attack that do apply to PC's in various ways. One of the biggest ones by the shere fact that it shows up on creatures that are below the thresh-hold where pc's start getting such things. These appear on creatures as low as CR 1 (perhaps lower. I may be forgetting some skeleton or something). Even if you tried to assume that because CR 1 means a moderate threat to 4 level 1 characters and chose to extrapolate that out as being a higher level. The best you would logically get is level 4. PC's don't start getting the ability to attack multiple times until level 5 and even when they do most of them do not get the ability to do so more than twice but there are beasts in the CR 1-3 Range that will attack as many as 3 times.
But there are other reasons to assume that Creatures with stat-blocks don't function like normal PC's in other ways too. Another example is stat-blocks that mimic casters. Many of them have greatly reduced spell lists. They do not function from slots. they work on 1/day principles and the like for the spells that they cast with several of them and most of them do not in any way have abilities that function like the class and subclasses that they are mimic'ing. DM's are actually encouraged that if they want creatures from stat-blocks to work more like PC's and less like creatures from statblocks they either add PC class levels and benefits to them or in some cases actually effectively make PC's of those classes that just aren't controlled by the actual Players so that they can function the same way.
Another is that not all Stat Block Monsters modifiers in their stat blocks actually add up properly. Some of them do but some of them don't. There are things like low strength creatures with no indication that they are doing things by dextrous means that have positive attack modifiers for example. Or creatures that have proficiency added into their attack modifiers but don't actually have proficiency in anything else on their sheets. There are even hitpoint totals that don't quite add up right all of the time though that's perhaps the least common discrepency seen.