It does not make sense to me though, that if one considers a non-tabaxi monk, and he uses all his powers of awesome (Martial Arts die) and thwacks an enemy for 1d4, at the same time a tabaxi monk with big nasty claws could get no additional benefit other than the theoretical benefit of bypassing something which is resistant to bludgeoning but not slashing.
That's not really any different from having a 1d6 martial arts die and attacking with a dagger (1d4). Having a weapon doesn't make your attacks any deadlier unless that weapon is already more damaging than your own martial arts, and even then they don't combine in any way, you just pick whichever is strongest. Why would a natural weapon be any different?
And for whatever it's worth, the Tabaxi monk does get a benefit - they normally can't use dexterity with their claws.
That's not really any different from having a 1d6 martial arts die and attacking with a dagger (1d4). Having a weapon doesn't make your attacks any deadlier unless that weapon is already more damaging than your own martial arts,
The difference between a dagger and tabaxi claws is that tabaxi claws are considered unarmed combat
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
Also, I thought of another example to illustrate my point.
Let's stipulate you are a race with 120' Darkvision, that that race was added in a later book, and that no race until that race had 120' Darkvision.
Let's further stipulate there is a class in the PHB that says something like: "Regardless of your race, replace your vision with 90' Darkvision."
Now RAW works great in PHB only... because regardless, every race would get an increase in range, and races without dark vision would gain it.
However RAW with the new source book would actually nerf the 120' Darkvision race. Something I don't believe would have been RAI.
I feel this falls into the same category. A race which loses the benefit of one of their racial abilities I don't believe is intended. One could argue some racial abilities are situational or not particularly helpful to a given class, and you might be right. But other than this I'm unaware of any class that actually renders a racial trait impotent.
(You mention being able to use DEX for claws... it wouldn't matter unless I wanted slashing damage rather than bludgeoning, because I could do the same damage without the claws and still use DEX)
Also... it's an average of +1 damage. NOT world breaking. I kinda think a DM who feels the need to take away a players +1 damage toy could better use his time and let the player feel he's got one of the benefits he signed up for by picking Tabaxi in the first place.
However RAW with the new source book would actually nerf the 120' Darkvision race. Something I don't believe would have been RAI.
Sure, but that's not what's happening here. Being a monk increases the damage of a Tabaxi's claws past level 5, and the rules for Tabaxi were made compatible with unarmed strikes on purpose (a natural weapon isn't an unarmed strike unless the rules make an exception.) The rules writers try to future-proof their designs, there was already a way to change unarmed strike damage in the PH at the time the monk rules were written (Tavern Brawler) and the rules for monks existed when Tabaxi were introduced so I doubt this interaction is unintentional.
But other than this I'm unaware of any class that actually renders a racial trait impotent.
Aasimar Light Cleric. You can't learn Light twice and neither the race nor the domain have a provision for taking a different cantrip if you already know it.
Also... it's an average of +1 damage. NOT world breaking. I kinda think a DM who feels the need to take away a players +1 damage toy could better use his time and let the player feel he's got one of the benefits he signed up for by picking Tabaxi in the first place.
It's not, but I'm not taking anything away if they never had it in the first place. If a player really likes the idea of playing a Tabaxi monk that claws things they're not going to be deterred or persuaded by +/- 1 damage.
House rules have a cost in terms of tracking and applying them (especially if someone plays at more than one table) and I prefer not to add them unless they're high impact (i.e. solve real problems or tie into the adventure's genre in a meaningful way.) The fewer I can get away with, the better. I like that my players can just look at the books and not worry about the dozen little ways I might've changed the rules.
My previous post was purely to clarify that RAW/RAI the Monk martial arts feature can, if you want it to, replace the damage die used for unarmed strikes and monk weapons regardless of what form that unarmed strike or monk weapon takes. It was not really to give my personal opinion on the matter, but since it's gone 5:30 am, I can't sleep, my laptop finally works again and find this intriguing, here are my thoughts on the subject. I get longwinded in these twilight hours, so, sorry in advance.
I think the benefit of Martial Arts Damage Die over normal damage die is enough of a benefit on its own. I also would not underestimate the benefit of damage choice between bludgeoning or slashing since there are monsters which can be resistant/immune to one but not the other or are more vulnerable to one. This ability of choice immediately allows you to remain at maximum efficiency while other members of the party have to swap their weapons out or rely on their nearly useless fists when facing enemies. Although, admittedly, this is rather rare.
One of my characters is a Level 6 Tabaxi Shadow Monk and being able to choose between bludgeoning (fist), slashing (claw) or piercing (shortsword) at any time and still do 1d6+5 no matter what I choose is freeing. I'm having a lot of fun with the character. You can always speak to your DM and make a homebrew rule but personally, I see no need and actually prefer not to. I like RP, I like describing what attacks I am doing and love the freedom to describe my character doing, say, a kick to stomach and using that momentum to follow with a knee strike and turn as I land to spin with a claw to face and with that spin's momentum immediately follow with a stab of my blade. I can describe that without having to care which attack was what type (usually) or what damage each one did - all the same, so much easier. But, of course, you may be different preferring the extra thought and consideration it would take or have little care over RP flavour. To each their own.
I do agree that in the real world application slashing should do more damage than bludgeoning with equal force applied. There's a reason the dangerous predators tend to have sharp claws and teeth or spikes, after all. However, D&D combat system makes no distinction between damage type and damage die used. A rapier, for instance, is technically a longsword that has been thinned in design and more pointed for primarily piercing / stabbing as opposed to longswords which rely on arcing swings for slashing damage - they're otherwise almost the same sword (no counting weapon properties which have no affect on this, the versatility of longsword comes from increased handle not from the blade design and the finesse of a rapier comes from the thinning of overall design, mostly again in the handle, making it lighter). Despite this the damage die remains the same (1d8). In a realistic setting the piercing weapon, rapier (proper rapiers not the thin foil things they use in fencing sports) deal more damage as it is easier to damage vital organs and mess up insides by piercing the body and this gets through the flesh's natural resilience and toughness of muscles and bones. Piercing also makes it easier to slip through armour. Slashing is less damaging overall - mostly you are only going to damage outer skin and maybe some muscle or fat, to be lethal you must hit a precise spot and armours are more effective against slashing. The only reason to choose a longsword over a rapier for combat is, really, because longswords are easier to use and their thicker blades and longer handles let you use more power for some manouvers like parrying, the blade will also wear better and be easier to mend. However, this is far too much to be thinking about for a simple game - the combat system and damage die considerations are streamlined to let you choose the weapons you want more for flavour rather than worrying too much about initial damage type or mathmatical optimisation or precise realism (real sword fights are nothing like you see in movies - in movies they make it more exciting and stuff, about 98% of every sword fight you've seen in a movie is totally and completely without any actual realism) so what would you prefer, basic and boring realism or the fancy footwork flashing blades of swordmasters seen on TV/in movies? Most people choose the latter and so the streamlined combat system is used here for this game (and for many others too).
I prefer to stick with the ease and simplicity of RAW/RAI. Makes it more fun for me. I only homebrew where really necessary and changing the combat system, even if only in part, to accommodate a potential difference of 1 to maximum 2 of HP damage is frankly not worth it.
Increasing claw damage for all possible instances no matter what because "hey, slashing" is a pandora's box because then you have to explain why it works for claws but not for weapons or why does one monster claws do more damage than another despite being nearly identical creatures (I mean, beyond just being CR increase for thematic/non-reality purposes) and so on. This game makes no damage-die distinction between damage types so I see no reason to add one for a tabaxi/tortle "just 'coz".
Just to throw a spanner in the works for this one, I asked the question of JC a while back and this was the response:
Quote from @JermeyECrawford »
A natural weapon (a claw, horn, bite, etc.) is not an unarmed strike.
Only applies to monsters etc. The Tabaxi Claws feature specifically states it is an unarmed strike. Specific rules trump general ones. No spanners here.
Cat’s Claws
Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.
Stunning Strike works with any melee weapon attack.
Just to clarify for @Demonkiller666, unarmed strike counts as an melee weapon attack, just not as a melee weapon.
As per Jeremy Crawford's statements and the errata'd text in the Melee Attacks section of the PHB Combat chapter:
Crawford: Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. PHB: Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons).
The Claws only effect the dmg type for monks. I don't understand why this is upsetting.
Human Fighter unarmed strike = 1 + Strength Mod Tabaxi Fighter unarmed strike = 1d4 + Strength Mod ((if using claws))
Human Monk Unarmed Strike = 1d4 + Strength or Dex Tabaxi Monk Unarmed Strike = 1d4 + Strength or Dex ((slashing if using claws))
Honestly this is like making a mountain over a mole hill. What class besides a monk is making so many unarmed strikes (( baring RP tavern brawl things )) that this is an issue? And if you make it so a tabaxi monk gets a better benefit over a human monk then that's not balanced. The ability to change from bludgeoning to slashing without weapon swapping is pretty cool by itself and not game breaking.
The Claws only effect the dmg type for monks. I don't understand why this is upsetting.
Human Fighter unarmed strike = 1 + Strength Mod Tabaxi Fighter unarmed strike = 1d4 + Strength Mod ((if using claws))
Human Monk Unarmed Strike = 1d4 + Strength or Dex Tabaxi Monk Unarmed Strike = 1d4 + Strength or Dex ((slashing if using claws))
Honestly this is like making a mountain over a mole hill. What class besides a monk is making so many unarmed strikes (( baring RP tavern brawl things )) that this is an issue? And if you make it so a tabaxi monk gets a better benefit over a human monk then that's not balanced. The ability to change from bludgeoning to slashing without weapon swapping is pretty cool by itself and not game breaking.
I think the issue is that it doesn't begin to make sense from a basic logic sense. If I have knife-hands and can hurt you up to four times as much as you can hurt me with a punch (assuming a 0 modifier), and then we both get super martial arts training... but I still have my knife-hands... how would I not do at least slightly more damage than you, with your silly meat-hands?
That's really the crux of the issue I think. At least for me. RAW you may be right, RAI, I'm not sure, but logically? I'd ask for a GM ruling every time. GM may say, "no" and I'm not gonna fight long and hard, it just irritates me, like sand in a wet bathing suit.
Edit: It would probably still be useful if 5e really cared that much about damage types, but it doesn't. For the most case it cares about magic vs non-magic, and then damage type fire vs cold or something else. I don't know the MM very well, but everything I can think of that resists bludgeoning, non-magical weapons, also resists piercing and cutting...
Logically at level 20 a monk with a longsword would do more damage than a monk, trained exactly the same way, would when using a dagger. So if we go by your opinion ((which is yours and I'm not faulting you for having one)) Longswords should always deal more damage than a dagger. Your debate is with the way Martial Arts die affect the damage of everything not just claws vs bare hand.
Logically at level 20 a monk with a longsword would do more damage than a monk, trained exactly the same way, would when using a dagger. So if we go by your opinion ((which is yours and I'm not faulting you for having one)) Longswords should always deal more damage than a dagger. Your debate is with the way Martial Arts die affect the damage of everything not just claws vs bare hand.
Valid point, in fact the most valid point I've heard on this. I think the main difference is that it overrides a pretty "expensive" racial trait rather than being just a choice of flavor weapon. Clearly there are other races with spells or cantrips, but one could argue you could just take different spells. I get the whole "weapons are flavor" thing, IMO the main difference is if I take a human and make him a monk he doesn't "lose" anything. If I take a tabaxi and make her a monk, she "loses" a racial trait. Maybe some GMs shrug and say oh-well. I personally would let them keep an additional 1d4 or a +2 to damage.
Frankly, and only ansillarily (is that a word? :D ) on topic, I think it'd be much more interesting if many creatures were resistant to one type of non-magical damage, then it would make sense to switch from your sword to a club or rapier ... or at least have that be a dynamic someone cared about. It was probably in there to begin with and then yanked for simplicity and game speed reasons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
Logically at level 20 a monk with a longsword would do more damage than a monk, trained exactly the same way, would when using a dagger. So if we go by your opinion ((which is yours and I'm not faulting you for having one)) Longswords should always deal more damage than a dagger. Your debate is with the way Martial Arts die affect the damage of everything not just claws vs bare hand.
Valid point, in fact the most valid point I've heard on this. I think the main difference is that it overrides a pretty "expensive" racial trait rather than being just a choice of flavor weapon. Clearly there are other races with spells or cantrips, but one could argue you could just take different spells. I get the whole "weapons are flavor" thing, IMO the main difference is if I take a human and make him a monk he doesn't "lose" anything. If I take a tabaxi and make her a monk, she "loses" a racial trait. Maybe some GMs shrug and say oh-well. I personally would let them keep an additional 1d4 or a +2 to damage.
I understand where your coming from, but of all the Tabaxi racial feats the claws is the most useless one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's not really any different from having a 1d6 martial arts die and attacking with a dagger (1d4). Having a weapon doesn't make your attacks any deadlier unless that weapon is already more damaging than your own martial arts, and even then they don't combine in any way, you just pick whichever is strongest. Why would a natural weapon be any different?
And for whatever it's worth, the Tabaxi monk does get a benefit - they normally can't use dexterity with their claws.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
I get that, but both can benefit from Martial Arts (and tabaxi claws are natural weapons in addition to counting as unarmed strikes.)
Also, I thought of another example to illustrate my point.
Let's stipulate you are a race with 120' Darkvision, that that race was added in a later book, and that no race until that race had 120' Darkvision.
Let's further stipulate there is a class in the PHB that says something like: "Regardless of your race, replace your vision with 90' Darkvision."
Now RAW works great in PHB only... because regardless, every race would get an increase in range, and races without dark vision would gain it.
However RAW with the new source book would actually nerf the 120' Darkvision race. Something I don't believe would have been RAI.
I feel this falls into the same category. A race which loses the benefit of one of their racial abilities I don't believe is intended. One could argue some racial abilities are situational or not particularly helpful to a given class, and you might be right. But other than this I'm unaware of any class that actually renders a racial trait impotent.
(You mention being able to use DEX for claws... it wouldn't matter unless I wanted slashing damage rather than bludgeoning, because I could do the same damage without the claws and still use DEX)
Also... it's an average of +1 damage. NOT world breaking. I kinda think a DM who feels the need to take away a players +1 damage toy could better use his time and let the player feel he's got one of the benefits he signed up for by picking Tabaxi in the first place.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
Sure, but that's not what's happening here. Being a monk increases the damage of a Tabaxi's claws past level 5, and the rules for Tabaxi were made compatible with unarmed strikes on purpose (a natural weapon isn't an unarmed strike unless the rules make an exception.) The rules writers try to future-proof their designs, there was already a way to change unarmed strike damage in the PH at the time the monk rules were written (Tavern Brawler) and the rules for monks existed when Tabaxi were introduced so I doubt this interaction is unintentional.
Aasimar Light Cleric. You can't learn Light twice and neither the race nor the domain have a provision for taking a different cantrip if you already know it.
Ok, I tried. I tried to bring you into the light, but you insist in living in darkness. :D
Also, every time I get a monster down to 1hp without extra claw damage, imma glare at you. :)
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
My previous post was purely to clarify that RAW/RAI the Monk martial arts feature can, if you want it to, replace the damage die used for unarmed strikes and monk weapons regardless of what form that unarmed strike or monk weapon takes. It was not really to give my personal opinion on the matter, but since it's gone 5:30 am, I can't sleep, my laptop finally works again and find this intriguing, here are my thoughts on the subject. I get longwinded in these twilight hours, so, sorry in advance.
I think the benefit of Martial Arts Damage Die over normal damage die is enough of a benefit on its own. I also would not underestimate the benefit of damage choice between bludgeoning or slashing since there are monsters which can be resistant/immune to one but not the other or are more vulnerable to one. This ability of choice immediately allows you to remain at maximum efficiency while other members of the party have to swap their weapons out or rely on their nearly useless fists when facing enemies. Although, admittedly, this is rather rare.
One of my characters is a Level 6 Tabaxi Shadow Monk and being able to choose between bludgeoning (fist), slashing (claw) or piercing (shortsword) at any time and still do 1d6+5 no matter what I choose is freeing. I'm having a lot of fun with the character. You can always speak to your DM and make a homebrew rule but personally, I see no need and actually prefer not to. I like RP, I like describing what attacks I am doing and love the freedom to describe my character doing, say, a kick to stomach and using that momentum to follow with a knee strike and turn as I land to spin with a claw to face and with that spin's momentum immediately follow with a stab of my blade. I can describe that without having to care which attack was what type (usually) or what damage each one did - all the same, so much easier. But, of course, you may be different preferring the extra thought and consideration it would take or have little care over RP flavour. To each their own.
I do agree that in the real world application slashing should do more damage than bludgeoning with equal force applied. There's a reason the dangerous predators tend to have sharp claws and teeth or spikes, after all. However, D&D combat system makes no distinction between damage type and damage die used. A rapier, for instance, is technically a longsword that has been thinned in design and more pointed for primarily piercing / stabbing as opposed to longswords which rely on arcing swings for slashing damage - they're otherwise almost the same sword (no counting weapon properties which have no affect on this, the versatility of longsword comes from increased handle not from the blade design and the finesse of a rapier comes from the thinning of overall design, mostly again in the handle, making it lighter). Despite this the damage die remains the same (1d8). In a realistic setting the piercing weapon, rapier (proper rapiers not the thin foil things they use in fencing sports) deal more damage as it is easier to damage vital organs and mess up insides by piercing the body and this gets through the flesh's natural resilience and toughness of muscles and bones. Piercing also makes it easier to slip through armour. Slashing is less damaging overall - mostly you are only going to damage outer skin and maybe some muscle or fat, to be lethal you must hit a precise spot and armours are more effective against slashing. The only reason to choose a longsword over a rapier for combat is, really, because longswords are easier to use and their thicker blades and longer handles let you use more power for some manouvers like parrying, the blade will also wear better and be easier to mend. However, this is far too much to be thinking about for a simple game - the combat system and damage die considerations are streamlined to let you choose the weapons you want more for flavour rather than worrying too much about initial damage type or mathmatical optimisation or precise realism (real sword fights are nothing like you see in movies - in movies they make it more exciting and stuff, about 98% of every sword fight you've seen in a movie is totally and completely without any actual realism) so what would you prefer, basic and boring realism or the fancy footwork flashing blades of swordmasters seen on TV/in movies? Most people choose the latter and so the streamlined combat system is used here for this game (and for many others too).
I prefer to stick with the ease and simplicity of RAW/RAI. Makes it more fun for me. I only homebrew where really necessary and changing the combat system, even if only in part, to accommodate a potential difference of 1 to maximum 2 of HP damage is frankly not worth it.
Increasing claw damage for all possible instances no matter what because "hey, slashing" is a pandora's box because then you have to explain why it works for claws but not for weapons or why does one monster claws do more damage than another despite being nearly identical creatures (I mean, beyond just being CR increase for thematic/non-reality purposes) and so on. This game makes no damage-die distinction between damage types so I see no reason to add one for a tabaxi/tortle "just 'coz".
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
Just to throw a spanner in the works for this one, I asked the question of JC a while back and this was the response:
How to add Tooltips
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
So, what if you were to play a lizard monk? Does the bite do 1d6 or 1d4 at first level?
A 1st level lizardfolk monk would do 1d6 with bite, like any 1st monk would deal 1d8 with the quarterstaff.
Does stunning strike work with unarmed strike because stunning strike says mele weapon attack in it's description
Stunning Strike works with any melee weapon attack.
Just to clarify for @Demonkiller666, unarmed strike counts as an melee weapon attack, just not as a melee weapon.
As per Jeremy Crawford's statements and the errata'd text in the Melee Attacks section of the PHB Combat chapter:
The Claws only effect the dmg type for monks. I don't understand why this is upsetting.
Human Fighter unarmed strike = 1 + Strength Mod
Tabaxi Fighter unarmed strike = 1d4 + Strength Mod ((if using claws))
Human Monk Unarmed Strike = 1d4 + Strength or Dex
Tabaxi Monk Unarmed Strike = 1d4 + Strength or Dex ((slashing if using claws))
Honestly this is like making a mountain over a mole hill. What class besides a monk is making so many unarmed strikes (( baring RP tavern brawl things )) that this is an issue? And if you make it so a tabaxi monk gets a better benefit over a human monk then that's not balanced. The ability to change from bludgeoning to slashing without weapon swapping is pretty cool by itself and not game breaking.
I think the issue is that it doesn't begin to make sense from a basic logic sense. If I have knife-hands and can hurt you up to four times as much as you can hurt me with a punch (assuming a 0 modifier), and then we both get super martial arts training... but I still have my knife-hands... how would I not do at least slightly more damage than you, with your silly meat-hands?
That's really the crux of the issue I think. At least for me. RAW you may be right, RAI, I'm not sure, but logically? I'd ask for a GM ruling every time. GM may say, "no" and I'm not gonna fight long and hard, it just irritates me, like sand in a wet bathing suit.
Edit: It would probably still be useful if 5e really cared that much about damage types, but it doesn't. For the most case it cares about magic vs non-magic, and then damage type fire vs cold or something else. I don't know the MM very well, but everything I can think of that resists bludgeoning, non-magical weapons, also resists piercing and cutting...
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
Logically at level 20 a monk with a longsword would do more damage than a monk, trained exactly the same way, would when using a dagger. So if we go by your opinion ((which is yours and I'm not faulting you for having one)) Longswords should always deal more damage than a dagger. Your debate is with the way Martial Arts die affect the damage of everything not just claws vs bare hand.
Valid point, in fact the most valid point I've heard on this. I think the main difference is that it overrides a pretty "expensive" racial trait rather than being just a choice of flavor weapon. Clearly there are other races with spells or cantrips, but one could argue you could just take different spells. I get the whole "weapons are flavor" thing, IMO the main difference is if I take a human and make him a monk he doesn't "lose" anything. If I take a tabaxi and make her a monk, she "loses" a racial trait. Maybe some GMs shrug and say oh-well. I personally would let them keep an additional 1d4 or a +2 to damage.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
Frankly, and only ansillarily (is that a word? :D ) on topic, I think it'd be much more interesting if many creatures were resistant to one type of non-magical damage, then it would make sense to switch from your sword to a club or rapier ... or at least have that be a dynamic someone cared about. It was probably in there to begin with and then yanked for simplicity and game speed reasons.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
I understand where your coming from, but of all the Tabaxi racial feats the claws is the most useless one.