Ah, I don’t think I’m going to get into this argument. I feel that you should probably be able to use extra attack with claw attacks from a beast while you’re in wild shape. I just don’t know what the rules justification for that is. I think the only reasonable way to justify it is to say that all actions that label themselves as melee or ranged weapon attacks can be treated for all intents and purposes as taking the attack action. But I think you really have to allow all of them, and there isn’t explicit text that says you should treat those stat block actions that way.
I think that's why there's discussions about this. Creatures CANNOT be monks, but a druid can multiclass into it. And the Wild Shape RAW say that any abilities carry over if the animal form could reasonably be able to do it.
A bear could reasonably be able to bite you and swipe you with its claws within 6 seconds. There's even language in the monk description that states that other things not listed can be considered monk weapons.
I think it's nuanced enough to be up to the DM. I'd rule its doable so long as they use the monk die for the extra unarmed attack damage instead of something from the creature's stat block.
I think that's why there's discussions about this. Creatures CANNOT be monks, but a druid can multiclass into it. And the Wild Shape RAW say that any abilities carry over if the animal form could reasonably be able to do it.
A bear could reasonably be able to bite you and swipe you with its claws within 6 seconds. There's even language in the monk description that states that other things not listed can be considered monk weapons.
I think it's nuanced enough to be up to the DM. I'd rule its doable so long as they use the monk die for the extra unarmed attack damage instead of something from the creature's stat block.
There is a clear statement that other things that are specifically classified as simple weapons can be monk Weapons. What little potential for anything else to be a monk weapon is left open purely to DM caveat based upon particular monk styles/traditions that exist in their game that you might speak to the DM about.
That is very different from "this thing is a monk weapon just because i want it to be" not even the Optional rules for potential use by monks in Tasha's are that open.
According to JC a creature's natural weapons are not "unarmed strikes" but any creature can make an unarmed strike. This would mean that, as an example, a druid wild shaped into a bear could make an unarmed strike but would not be able to use claws or bite as the method of delivery. So you could make a "boxing bear" druid but when you make your Flurry of Blows attacks you don't make them using the damage of the claws (2d6+4) but as unarmed strikes ([monk die] + 4).
This also means you wouldn't be able to Claw/Bite then FoB because neither of them are considered "unarmed strikes" towards the requirements of FoB.
Tabaxi and Leonin are special as they are specifically allowed to use their claws as part of their unarmed strikes.
Ah, I don’t think I’m going to get into this argument. I feel that you should probably be able to use extra attack with claw attacks from a beast while you’re in wild shape. I just don’t know what the rules justification for that is. I think the only reasonable way to justify it is to say that all actions that label themselves as melee or ranged weapon attacks can be treated for all intents and purposes as taking the attack action. But I think you really have to allow all of them, and there isn’t explicit text that says you should treat those stat block actions that way.
I think that's why there's discussions about this. Creatures CANNOT be monks, but a druid can multiclass into it. And the Wild Shape RAW say that any abilities carry over if the animal form could reasonably be able to do it.
A bear could reasonably be able to bite you and swipe you with its claws within 6 seconds. There's even language in the monk description that states that other things not listed can be considered monk weapons.
I think it's nuanced enough to be up to the DM. I'd rule its doable so long as they use the monk die for the extra unarmed attack damage instead of something from the creature's stat block.
There is a clear statement that other things that are specifically classified as simple weapons can be monk Weapons. What little potential for anything else to be a monk weapon is left open purely to DM caveat based upon particular monk styles/traditions that exist in their game that you might speak to the DM about.
That is very different from "this thing is a monk weapon just because i want it to be" not even the Optional rules for potential use by monks in Tasha's are that open.
Huh? Making 2 attacks at 1d4+4 with your action and bonus action is OP compared to making 2 attakcks at 1d8+4 and 2d6+4 only using an action?
You can’t just exclaim that it is OP wihout proof.
Remember the takeaway from this thread: unarmed strikes are a specific type of attack in the rules and not whatever you want them to be.
How do Wild Shape attacks interact with unarmed strikes? | Sage Advice D&D
According to JC a creature's natural weapons are not "unarmed strikes" but any creature can make an unarmed strike. This would mean that, as an example, a druid wild shaped into a bear could make an unarmed strike but would not be able to use claws or bite as the method of delivery. So you could make a "boxing bear" druid but when you make your Flurry of Blows attacks you don't make them using the damage of the claws (2d6+4) but as unarmed strikes ([monk die] + 4).
This also means you wouldn't be able to Claw/Bite then FoB because neither of them are considered "unarmed strikes" towards the requirements of FoB.
Tabaxi and Leonin are special as they are specifically allowed to use their claws as part of their unarmed strikes.
hate to necropost. but didnt wotc release an addendum that said natural weapons can be applied for monk class features?
No, the best I can find is that this is still true: https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/951997185977040896?lang=en