Before stating the question, I'd like to lay out the relevant information for consideration:
Wild Shape
While you are transformed, the following rules apply:
Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores.You also retain all of your skill and saving throw proficiencies, in addition to gaining those of the creature. If the creature has the same proficiency as you and the bonus in its stat block is higher than yours, use the creature's bonus instead of yours. If the creature has any legendary or lair actions, you can't use them.
You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so. However, you can't use any of your special senses, such as darkvision, unless your new form also has that sense.
(The Proficiency Bonus being listed in each Class' table of what they get at each level)
Given that you expressly gain the benefits of class features you can use in your new form while wildshaped, and your Proficiency Bonus is listed on the Class Table for each class of what features they gain as they level up, shouldn't a Monk/Druid multiclass be able to use Monk's calculations for attack bonuses when they surpass the beast they wildshaped into?
Ex: a Brown Bear has a +6 to Attack, but its attacks are unarmed attacks, and a Monk is proficient in Unarmed Strikes, so at L5, using the Bear's Strength of +4, and the character's Proficiency Bonus of +3, the bear's attack bonus would increase to +7.
Is there an official ruling on this? I've seen this pop up on a few forums over the past few years, but they didn't address the Wildshaped character using class features, and the Proficiency Bonus being listed alongside the class features on the table for each class.
I think you have a few misunderstandings, for example, a bear can make unarmed strikes, but it's claw attack is a natural weapon. Also, proficiency is always total level (or CR, for monster) based, per the multiclassing rules which a multiclass druid/monk must use.
Also, you also highlighted a line that does not tell you that you retain your proficiency bonus. Assuming that you only retain what it says, then it would be a tough sell to imply proficiency bonus is retained, or that you retain any proficiency other than skills and saving throws (again, the rule tells you that you keep those but mentions no others).
There doesn't need to be an official ruling on this, because the official rule tells you what to do.
I think you have a few misunderstandings, for example, a bear can make unarmed strikes, but it's claw attack is a natural weapon.
Also, you also highlighted a line that does not tell you that you retain your proficiency bonus. Assuming that you only retain what it says, then it would be a tough sell to imply proficiency bonus is retained, or that you retain any proficiency other than skills and saving throws (again, the rule tells you that you keep those but mentions no others).
There doesn't need to be an official ruling on this, because the official rule tells you what to do.
Can you provide the reference for an official source that specifies "natural weapons" aren't "unarmed attacks"?
The most recent releases have changed the terminology of natural weapons to be unarmed attacks, without changing how they work, which suggests to me that they are synonymous, and that the terminology is just being cleaned up.
And like the other forums I've checked, you didn't acknowledge the other line I highlighted, where it expressly says, "You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so." And I presented that Proficiency Bonuses were listed in the tables for the features each class gains at each level. As I see it, Proficiency bonuses are a class feature in this context.
The actions section of the MM. Can you provide any evidence that natural weapons are unarmed strikes?
Proficiency is not tied to class level, and the multiclass rules tell you that much. That makes them not a class feature. In fact, they're treated absolutely separately from class features in the multiclass rules.
The actions section of the MM. Can you provide any evidence that natural weapons are unarmed strikes?
Proficiency is not tied to class level, and the multiclass rules tell you that much. That makes them not a class feature. In fact, they're treated absolutely separately from class features in the multiclass rules.
Tabaxi Claws are Natural Weapons in Volo's Guide to Monsters, and it expressly states, "your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes." (pg115). Natural Weapons are absolutely Unarmed Strikes as I've shown. You haven't provided a quotation or source saying otherwise.
Your Proficiency Bonus is tied to your Character Level, and your Character Level is the sum of all of your class levels. There are no class levels that don't contribute to your character level, and there are no Character Levels that aren't class Levels. Your Proficiency Bonus is a special Class Feature that progresses with your total number of levels rather than just your levels in a particular class, the same way Cantrips advance with your total number of levels, and not just the ones in particular classes.
Also you're still ignoring an important part of that quotation. "You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so."
I asked for specifics with citations, and you haven't provided anything but your interpretations.
The actions section of the MM. Can you provide any evidence that natural weapons are unarmed strikes?
Proficiency is not tied to class level, and the multiclass rules tell you that much. That makes them not a class feature. In fact, they're treated absolutely separately from class features in the multiclass rules.
Tabaxi Claws are Natural Weapons in Volo's Guide to Monsters, and it expressly states, "your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes." (pg115). Natural Weapons are absolutely Unarmed Strikes as I've shown. You haven't provided a quotation or source saying otherwise.
I did. Didn't you look at it? The introduction of the MM says that monsters can take the actions available to players; that includes unarmed strikes. The introduction goes on to describe what monster's actions are, and describes natural weapons there. If they were the same, they would appear so there. The thing that you quote is a specific rule saying that in this case you can use one thing as another, not that it is the general rule. In the new material, those things are only unarmed strikes.
Your Proficiency Bonus is tied to your Character Level, and your Character Level is the sum of all of your class levels. There are no class levels that don't contribute to your character level, and there are no Character Levels that aren't class Levels. Your Proficiency Bonus is a special Class Feature that progresses with your total number of levels rather than just your levels in a particular class, the same way Cantrips advance with your total number of levels, and not just the ones in particular classes.
And since you're asking for particular wording doesn't exist, you'll always be right. But again, nothing says that proficiency bonus is a class feature. In chapter 1 of the PHB, and in the muticlassing rules, it is clear that proficiency is not tied to class, and class features are. Nothing calls proficiency a class feature, and you haven't provided anything except your interpretation otherwise either. It just happens that my interpretation is at least consistent with the rules.
I asked for specifics with citations, and you haven't provided anything but your interpretations.
I have provided citations for both; though this time I added links. You just didn't like them. Your argumentative attitude and unwillingness to try to interpret what I have tried to point out is, frankly, frustrating.
If anyone else has any feedback, I'm interested in any printed rules relating to player-characters.
The Monster Manual is one book I don't have, so vague references to it without quotations aren't useful to me. I suspect that if there was a quotation in it that disproved what I've said, WolfOfTheBees would have quoted it. But if there is something there, let me know and I'll borrow a book and check it out.
I showed with the Tabaxi's statblock that Natural Weapons are merely unarmed attacks that have a damage die, and that the Proficiency Bonus is a Feature, and even if you don't consider it a "Class Feature" due to it progressing with your total Character Level, it's still covered under the "or other source" in the Wildshape entry for the Druid. (On page 67 of the 5th Edition D&D Player's Handbook)
If anyone has a relevant source that they can quote and provide a page reference for, I'll take that into consideration, but otherwise, I think I answered my own question.
Certainly, there aren’t going to be citations that tell you what thing’s aren’t. That isn’t how this game is written. The rules tell you what they do. If you need the basic rules link to the rules on monster actions, I can provide it. Since you’re asking about monster actions via Wild Shape, those rules are in fact relevant. I’ll even quote the relevant section.
Actions
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.
Melee and Ranged Attacks
The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike.
So, the action that everyone can do is the unarmed strike. The actions most monsters take most of the time including the ones in their stat blocks are natural weapons. It is the fact itself that they are not described as being the same that makes them not the same.
Tabaxi have a special rule that gives them a natural weapon and lets them use that natural weapon as an unarmed strike.
The onus isn't on the rules or us to tell you what things aren't, the rules only tell you what they are.
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). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
But it turns out that in this case, the rules for unarmed strike tell you that they're not made using a weapon. Natural weapons, as shown above, don't fit into this description at all.
All of the evidence in the game, including specific exceptions like the one for the tabaxi, points to one single conclusion: natural weapons are not in fact unarmed strikes. But the OP has sent me a DM mentioning that they ignored me (probably because I didn't like their tone and didn't provide the nonexistent text they expected to disprove their biases). I guess they'll never see this, it's a shame, because I think this is as close to a rules-correct answer as there is.
I'll start by saying that this is a lot more muddy and unclear than it should be, mainly due to some poor design decisions, IMO.
The part Wolfe quoted from the MM about monster attacks is far from being as clear as it could be, especially when the individual monster stat blocks usually doesn't specify if the attack is a "natural weapon" or not. The Brown Bear for example only says that they are "melee weapon attacks".
This then ties into the issues with "unarmed strikes" counting as "melee weapon attacks" but not counting as being made with a weapon.
However there are some things that I can clear up at least.
Ex: a Brown Bear has a +6 to Attack, but its attacks are unarmed attacks, and a Monk is proficient in Unarmed Strikes, so at L5, using the Bear's Strength of +4, and the character's Proficiency Bonus of +3, the bear's attack bonus would increase to +7.
Everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes so no need to separate out the Monk part from the Druid part. You are however unlikely to have the Monk's "Martial Art's" feature apply to the bears attacks as "natural weapons" isn't an option specified in the feature.
Natural Weapons are something a creature can attack with that doesn't involve a manufactured weapon. Unarmed Strikes are the attacks you make when not holding a manufactured weapon. The claim that Beasts' natural weapon attacks aren't unarmed attacks is not supported in anything that has been quoted thus-far.
Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body.
Tabaxi Claws are Natural Weapons in Volo's Guide to Monsters, and it expressly states, "your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes." (pg115). Natural Weapons are absolutely Unarmed Strikes as I've shown. You haven't provided a quotation or source saying otherwise.
Well you haven't actually showed that. Firstly you have only showed one specific instance, not a general rule and secondly it is an outdated source. The Tabaxi race was somewhat changed in the new Monsters of the Multiverse book so that feature now says;
Cat’s Claws. You can use your claws to make unarmed strikes. When you hit with them, the strike deals 1d6 + your Strength modifier slashing damage, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.
As you can see it no longer mentions "natural weapons", it's likely this change is due to the issues discussed here.
I'll start by saying that this is a lot more muddy and unclear than it should be, mainly due to some poor design decisions, IMO.
The part Wolfe quoted from the MM about monster attacks is far from being as clear as it could be, especially when the individual monster stat blocks usually doesn't specify if the attack is a "natural weapon" or not. The Brown Bear for example only says that they are "melee weapon attacks".
This then ties into the issues with "unarmed strikes" counting as "melee weapon attacks" but not counting as being made with a weapon.
However there are some things that I can clear up at least.
Natural Weapons are something a creature can attack with that doesn't involve a manufactured weapon. Unarmed Strikes are the attacks you make when not holding a manufactured weapon. The claim that Beasts' natural weapon attacks aren't unarmed attacks is not supported in anything that has been quoted thus-far.
Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body.
This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. Thank you for being precise and finding the source that actually answers the question.
It seems that "Natural Weapons" count the same as manufactured weapons, rather than as unarmed strikes.
Do Natural Weapons count as being held in your hands? Some class features specify a weapon you are holding in your hands.
Are Natural Weapons Simple Weapons?
Could Proficiency with them be gained through the Eladrin, Shadar Kai, Sea Elf, or Astral Elf's ability to gain proficiency in a weapon after a long rest?
Simple or martial weapons are the things in the respective tables and any other items that declare themselves simple or martial weapons. There is no text stating that natural weapons are simple weapons.
So coming at this question from a direction of finding a rule answer, you might be more interested in asking “does any rule tell us that natural weapons are simple weapons?” No, not that I know of.
Do Natural Weapons count as being held in your hands? Some class features specify a weapon you are holding in your hands.
No. Natural weapons may be considered to be wielded (a DM claiming they aren't is using a very odd definition of "wield"), but they're never considered held.
Are Natural Weapons Simple Weapons?
Not by default. A special rule may be present turning a natural weapon into a simple weapon, but you'll never find such a rule in a monster statblock - that's reserved for PC rules.
In terms of monks, bear in mind that Dedicated Weapon's restriction to Simple and Martial only means it doesn't work on Improvised weapons, for example - these distinctions are generally considered intentional by WOTC.
Could Proficiency with them be gained through the Eladrin, Shadar Kai, Sea Elf, or Astral Elf's ability to gain proficiency in a weapon after a long rest?
I think these all have the same wording, but I picked Shadar-Kai. Their Trance weapon proficiency only works on weapons from the PHB specifically, so no.
Do Natural Weapons count as being held in your hands? Some class features specify a weapon you are holding in your hands.
Are Natural Weapons Simple Weapons?
Could Proficiency with them be gained through the Eladrin, Shadar Kai, Sea Elf, or Astral Elf's ability to gain proficiency in a weapon after a long rest?
First off lets address the racial traits you asked about as that is the most straight forward. Quindraco is correct for the most recent version of these races published in Monsters of the Multiverse, they all require that the weapon chosen must come from the Player's Handbook. If you want direct quotations for all of these races I can provide them but for brevities sake I have omitted them.
As for your question about if Natural Weapons are also Simple Weapons, no they are only Natural Weapons. As far as I am aware there are four categories of weapons: Martial Weapons, Simple Weapons, Improvised Weapons, and Natural Weapons. I do not have a direct source explicitly stating that in general Natural Weapons are not also Simple Weapons. However, I do have indirect evidence of this fact. The Barbarian's Path of the Beast subclass has the feature Form of the Beast which allows the barbarian to choose a Natural Weapon from a list when they activate their Rage ability. Here is the exact text from the feature:
"When you enter your rage, you can transform, revealing the bestial power within you. Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you, and you add your Strength modifier to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with it, as normal."
If all Natural Weapons were also Simple Weapons there would be no need to carve out this specific exception for this class feature. Also note that unlike the Tabaxi Claws you referenced previously, the Path of the Beast Natural Weapons cannot be used to make Unarmed Strikes as they lack that exception the Tabaxi Claws racial trait has that permits it.
As for your question about if Natural Weapons count as being held, like Quindraco said earlier they do not count as being held. If they did then races like the Tabaxi wouldn't be able to pick up or manipulate objects because their hands would always be occupied holding their claws. As for if they count as being wielded I would again agree with Quindraco but this is not necessarily something that is universally agreed upon.
Finally I just want to say that if you have a character concept you want to play you should talk to your DM openly and honestly about what your goals are with your character. Whether or not something is supported by the text of the rulebooks is ultimately irrelevant as it is the DM that decides how the game works at their table.
Your argument about the proficiency bonus seems to ignore the basic rules of wild shape:
"Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. You also retain all of your skill and saving throw proficiencies, in addition to gaining those of the creature. If the creature has the same proficiency as you and the bonus in its stat block is higher than yours, use the creature’s bonus instead of yours. If the creature has any legendary or lair actions, you can’t use them."
This lists everything that you retain. Your statistics are replaced by that of the beast - including its proficiency bonus.
"You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so. However, you can’t use any of your special senses, such as darkvision, unless your new form also has that sense."
However, you do get to retain class features that are NOT already replaced by the statistics of the beast. If you were to retain proficiency bonus and all other class features then the first bullet of wild shape would have said that.
"At low levels, your class gives you only two or three features, but as you advance in level you gain more and your existing features often improve. Each class entry in this chapter includes a table summarizing the benefits you gain at every level, and a detailed explanation of each one."
Furthermore, the Class features section of the multiclassing rules states
"Class Features
When you gain a new level in a class, you get its features for that level. You don’t, however, receive the class’s starting equipment, and a few features have additional rules when you’re multiclassing: Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, Unarmored Defense, and Spellcasting."
Proficiency is not listed as a class feature here. It is listed separately with the following information.
"Proficiency Bonus
Your proficiency bonus is always based on your total character level, Character Advancement table in chapter 1, not your level in a particular class. For example, if you are a fighter 3/rogue 2, you have the proficiency bonus of a 5th-level character, which is +3"
Proficiency bonus is based on total character level. It is not a feature of one or the other of the two classes. A level 3 rogue and level 3 fighter both give a proficiency of +2. If it was a class feature then a level 3 rogue/ level 3 fighter could choose the +2 from either rogue or fighter. However, that is not the way the rules work in 5e. The proficiency bonus is based on total character level and is not a feature of the class.
You are welcome to try to convince a DM otherwise but it wouldn't work in a game I was running.
----
In terms of natural weapons vs unarmed strikes. The following is from the Sage Advice Compendium which is consider official clarification but folks are allowed to ignore it.
"Are natural weapons considered weapons?
Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body."
Natural weapons are considered weapons and not unarmed strikes unless specific rules text says otherwise.
Here are the rules for Tabaxi from MotM
"Cat’s Claws
You can use your claws to make unarmed strikes. When you hit with them, the strike deals 1d6 + your Strength modifier slashing damage, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."
In this case, the Tabaxi claws are not even considered weapons. They can only be used for unarmed strikes which means that a Tabaxi paladin would not be able to smite with their claws for example since smite requires an attack with a melee weapon. This is a special rule for Tabaxi where specific beats general.
Most attacks using claws or teeth by player character races are deemed to be unarmed strikes based on the specific text for each race. However, all the monster/beast stat blocks specifically call out the creature attacks as melee weapon attacks.
Melee weapon attacks with natural weapons are not the same as unarmed strikes for beasts or other creatures. For player characters, these features are not even considered weapons. This is another example where player characters are treated differently from creatures or NPCs. It is not a justification for saying that all natural weapon attacks that are explicitly listed as melee weapon attacks.
From the brown bear stat block:
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack:+6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 8 (1d8 + 4) piercing damage.
Claws. Melee Weapon Attack:+6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 11 (2d6 + 4) slashing damage.
These are explicitly called out as Melee Weapon Attacks. A monk/druid wildshaped into a brown bear can not use these weapon attacks as unarmed strikes.
However, a monk/druid CAN make an unarmed strike in most wildshapes since all that is required is the ability to execute a forceful blow. But to make a bonus action unarmed strike, the druid would have to make either an unarmed strike or an attack with a monk weapon as part of the attack action. The natural weapon attacks of beast forms are neither of these.
An unarmed strike as a brown bear would use the brown bear's proficiency (+2) and its strength +4 for +6 to hit and for a level 1 monk the attack would do d4+4 damage. A 1 monk/X moon druid could make an unarmed strike as an attack action and a second unarmed strike as a bonus action or they could take the multiattack action and make two attacks using the beast weapon options.
If you want this combination to work closer to what you are looking for you could ask the DM to house rule that the natural weapons of the beast shape can count as monk weapons for you. This would allow you to take the monk bonus action unarmed strike after attacking with the bear form attacks (though you might also need to work around the issue of multiattack vs the attack action).
You can use your claws to make unarmed strikes. When you hit with them, the strike deals 1d6 + your Strength modifier slashing damage, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."
In this case, the Tabaxi claws are not even considered weapons. They can only be used for unarmed strikes which means that a Tabaxi paladin would not be able to smite with their claws for example since smite requires an attack with a melee weapon. This is a special rule for Tabaxi where specific beats general.
This is correct, however the reason why Unarmed Strikes do not work with Divine Smite is not quite correct. First of all it is important to understand that Unarmed Strikes are a subset of Melee Weapon Attacks, specifically the subset of Melee Weapon Attacks made without using a Weapon:
This is important to understand because while Unarmed Strikes do not work with Divine Smite, the Paladin class feature, it does work with spells like Wrathful Smite. Wrathful Smite requires a Melee Weapon Attack, which an Unarmed Strike is, and it increases the attack's damage. So why doesn't Divine Smite work then? It also requires a Melee Weapon Attack, however instead of increasing the attack's damage, it increases the weapon's damage. This nuance is explained in the SAC here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA253.
The fact that Wrathful Smite works with Unarmed Strikes is likely unintended. Literally every other smite spell makes at least some reference to effecting a weapon specifically, though they all say they increase the attack's damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Before stating the question, I'd like to lay out the relevant information for consideration:
(The Proficiency Bonus being listed in each Class' table of what they get at each level)
Given that you expressly gain the benefits of class features you can use in your new form while wildshaped, and your Proficiency Bonus is listed on the Class Table for each class of what features they gain as they level up, shouldn't a Monk/Druid multiclass be able to use Monk's calculations for attack bonuses when they surpass the beast they wildshaped into?
Ex: a Brown Bear has a +6 to Attack, but its attacks are unarmed attacks, and a Monk is proficient in Unarmed Strikes, so at L5, using the Bear's Strength of +4, and the character's Proficiency Bonus of +3, the bear's attack bonus would increase to +7.
Is there an official ruling on this? I've seen this pop up on a few forums over the past few years, but they didn't address the Wildshaped character using class features, and the Proficiency Bonus being listed alongside the class features on the table for each class.
I think you have a few misunderstandings, for example, a bear can make unarmed strikes, but it's claw attack is a natural weapon. Also, proficiency is always total level (or CR, for monster) based, per the multiclassing rules which a multiclass druid/monk must use.
Also, you also highlighted a line that does not tell you that you retain your proficiency bonus. Assuming that you only retain what it says, then it would be a tough sell to imply proficiency bonus is retained, or that you retain any proficiency other than skills and saving throws (again, the rule tells you that you keep those but mentions no others).
There doesn't need to be an official ruling on this, because the official rule tells you what to do.
Can you provide the reference for an official source that specifies "natural weapons" aren't "unarmed attacks"?
The most recent releases have changed the terminology of natural weapons to be unarmed attacks, without changing how they work, which suggests to me that they are synonymous, and that the terminology is just being cleaned up.
And like the other forums I've checked, you didn't acknowledge the other line I highlighted, where it expressly says, "You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so." And I presented that Proficiency Bonuses were listed in the tables for the features each class gains at each level. As I see it, Proficiency bonuses are a class feature in this context.
The actions section of the MM. Can you provide any evidence that natural weapons are unarmed strikes?
Proficiency is not tied to class level, and the multiclass rules tell you that much. That makes them not a class feature. In fact, they're treated absolutely separately from class features in the multiclass rules.
Tabaxi Claws are Natural Weapons in Volo's Guide to Monsters, and it expressly states, "your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes." (pg115). Natural Weapons are absolutely Unarmed Strikes as I've shown. You haven't provided a quotation or source saying otherwise.
Your Proficiency Bonus is tied to your Character Level, and your Character Level is the sum of all of your class levels. There are no class levels that don't contribute to your character level, and there are no Character Levels that aren't class Levels. Your Proficiency Bonus is a special Class Feature that progresses with your total number of levels rather than just your levels in a particular class, the same way Cantrips advance with your total number of levels, and not just the ones in particular classes.
Also you're still ignoring an important part of that quotation. "You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so."
I asked for specifics with citations, and you haven't provided anything but your interpretations.
I did. Didn't you look at it? The introduction of the MM says that monsters can take the actions available to players; that includes unarmed strikes. The introduction goes on to describe what monster's actions are, and describes natural weapons there. If they were the same, they would appear so there. The thing that you quote is a specific rule saying that in this case you can use one thing as another, not that it is the general rule. In the new material, those things are only unarmed strikes.
And since you're asking for particular wording doesn't exist, you'll always be right. But again, nothing says that proficiency bonus is a class feature. In chapter 1 of the PHB, and in the muticlassing rules, it is clear that proficiency is not tied to class, and class features are. Nothing calls proficiency a class feature, and you haven't provided anything except your interpretation otherwise either. It just happens that my interpretation is at least consistent with the rules.
I have provided citations for both; though this time I added links. You just didn't like them. Your argumentative attitude and unwillingness to try to interpret what I have tried to point out is, frankly, frustrating.
If anyone else has any feedback, I'm interested in any printed rules relating to player-characters.
The Monster Manual is one book I don't have, so vague references to it without quotations aren't useful to me. I suspect that if there was a quotation in it that disproved what I've said, WolfOfTheBees would have quoted it. But if there is something there, let me know and I'll borrow a book and check it out.
I showed with the Tabaxi's statblock that Natural Weapons are merely unarmed attacks that have a damage die, and that the Proficiency Bonus is a Feature, and even if you don't consider it a "Class Feature" due to it progressing with your total Character Level, it's still covered under the "or other source" in the Wildshape entry for the Druid. (On page 67 of the 5th Edition D&D Player's Handbook)
If anyone has a relevant source that they can quote and provide a page reference for, I'll take that into consideration, but otherwise, I think I answered my own question.
Certainly, there aren’t going to be citations that tell you what thing’s aren’t. That isn’t how this game is written. The rules tell you what they do. If you need the basic rules link to the rules on monster actions, I can provide it. Since you’re asking about monster actions via Wild Shape, those rules are in fact relevant. I’ll even quote the relevant section.
So, the action that everyone can do is the unarmed strike. The actions most monsters take most of the time including the ones in their stat blocks are natural weapons. It is the fact itself that they are not described as being the same that makes them not the same.
Tabaxi have a special rule that gives them a natural weapon and lets them use that natural weapon as an unarmed strike.
Natural Weapons are something a creature can attack with that doesn't involve a manufactured weapon.
Unarmed Strikes are the attacks you make when not holding a manufactured weapon.
The claim that Beasts' natural weapon attacks aren't unarmed attacks is not supported in anything that has been quoted thus-far.
The onus isn't on the rules or us to tell you what things aren't, the rules only tell you what they are.
But it turns out that in this case, the rules for unarmed strike tell you that they're not made using a weapon. Natural weapons, as shown above, don't fit into this description at all.
All of the evidence in the game, including specific exceptions like the one for the tabaxi, points to one single conclusion: natural weapons are not in fact unarmed strikes. But the OP has sent me a DM mentioning that they ignored me (probably because I didn't like their tone and didn't provide the nonexistent text they expected to disprove their biases). I guess they'll never see this, it's a shame, because I think this is as close to a rules-correct answer as there is.
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/951997185977040896?lang=en
I'll start by saying that this is a lot more muddy and unclear than it should be, mainly due to some poor design decisions, IMO.
The part Wolfe quoted from the MM about monster attacks is far from being as clear as it could be, especially when the individual monster stat blocks usually doesn't specify if the attack is a "natural weapon" or not. The Brown Bear for example only says that they are "melee weapon attacks".
This then ties into the issues with "unarmed strikes" counting as "melee weapon attacks" but not counting as being made with a weapon.
However there are some things that I can clear up at least.
Everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes so no need to separate out the Monk part from the Druid part. You are however unlikely to have the Monk's "Martial Art's" feature apply to the bears attacks as "natural weapons" isn't an option specified in the feature.
This is at least cleared up by a SAC entry.
Well you haven't actually showed that. Firstly you have only showed one specific instance, not a general rule and secondly it is an outdated source. The Tabaxi race was somewhat changed in the new Monsters of the Multiverse book so that feature now says;
As you can see it no longer mentions "natural weapons", it's likely this change is due to the issues discussed here.
This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. Thank you for being precise and finding the source that actually answers the question.
It seems that "Natural Weapons" count the same as manufactured weapons, rather than as unarmed strikes.
Do Natural Weapons count as being held in your hands? Some class features specify a weapon you are holding in your hands.
Are Natural Weapons Simple Weapons?
Could Proficiency with them be gained through the Eladrin, Shadar Kai, Sea Elf, or Astral Elf's ability to gain proficiency in a weapon after a long rest?
Simple or martial weapons are the things in the respective tables and any other items that declare themselves simple or martial weapons. There is no text stating that natural weapons are simple weapons.
So coming at this question from a direction of finding a rule answer, you might be more interested in asking “does any rule tell us that natural weapons are simple weapons?” No, not that I know of.
Not by default. A special rule may be present turning a natural weapon into a simple weapon, but you'll never find such a rule in a monster statblock - that's reserved for PC rules.
In terms of monks, bear in mind that Dedicated Weapon's restriction to Simple and Martial only means it doesn't work on Improvised weapons, for example - these distinctions are generally considered intentional by WOTC.
I think these all have the same wording, but I picked Shadar-Kai. Their Trance weapon proficiency only works on weapons from the PHB specifically, so no.
First off lets address the racial traits you asked about as that is the most straight forward. Quindraco is correct for the most recent version of these races published in Monsters of the Multiverse, they all require that the weapon chosen must come from the Player's Handbook. If you want direct quotations for all of these races I can provide them but for brevities sake I have omitted them.
As for your question about if Natural Weapons are also Simple Weapons, no they are only Natural Weapons. As far as I am aware there are four categories of weapons: Martial Weapons, Simple Weapons, Improvised Weapons, and Natural Weapons. I do not have a direct source explicitly stating that in general Natural Weapons are not also Simple Weapons. However, I do have indirect evidence of this fact. The Barbarian's Path of the Beast subclass has the feature Form of the Beast which allows the barbarian to choose a Natural Weapon from a list when they activate their Rage ability. Here is the exact text from the feature:
"When you enter your rage, you can transform, revealing the bestial power within you. Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you, and you add your Strength modifier to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with it, as normal."
If all Natural Weapons were also Simple Weapons there would be no need to carve out this specific exception for this class feature. Also note that unlike the Tabaxi Claws you referenced previously, the Path of the Beast Natural Weapons cannot be used to make Unarmed Strikes as they lack that exception the Tabaxi Claws racial trait has that permits it.
As for your question about if Natural Weapons count as being held, like Quindraco said earlier they do not count as being held. If they did then races like the Tabaxi wouldn't be able to pick up or manipulate objects because their hands would always be occupied holding their claws. As for if they count as being wielded I would again agree with Quindraco but this is not necessarily something that is universally agreed upon.
Finally I just want to say that if you have a character concept you want to play you should talk to your DM openly and honestly about what your goals are with your character. Whether or not something is supported by the text of the rulebooks is ultimately irrelevant as it is the DM that decides how the game works at their table.
Your argument about the proficiency bonus seems to ignore the basic rules of wild shape:
"Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. You also retain all of your skill and saving throw proficiencies, in addition to gaining those of the creature. If the creature has the same proficiency as you and the bonus in its stat block is higher than yours, use the creature’s bonus instead of yours. If the creature has any legendary or lair actions, you can’t use them."
This lists everything that you retain. Your statistics are replaced by that of the beast - including its proficiency bonus.
"You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so. However, you can’t use any of your special senses, such as darkvision, unless your new form also has that sense."
However, you do get to retain class features that are NOT already replaced by the statistics of the beast. If you were to retain proficiency bonus and all other class features then the first bullet of wild shape would have said that.
"At low levels, your class gives you only two or three features, but as you advance in level you gain more and your existing features often improve. Each class entry in this chapter includes a table summarizing the benefits you gain at every level, and a detailed explanation of each one."
Furthermore, the Class features section of the multiclassing rules states
"Class Features
When you gain a new level in a class, you get its features for that level. You don’t, however, receive the class’s starting equipment, and a few features have additional rules when you’re multiclassing: Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, Unarmored Defense, and Spellcasting."
Proficiency is not listed as a class feature here. It is listed separately with the following information.
"Proficiency Bonus
Your proficiency bonus is always based on your total character level, Character Advancement table in chapter 1, not your level in a particular class. For example, if you are a fighter 3/rogue 2, you have the proficiency bonus of a 5th-level character, which is +3"
Proficiency bonus is based on total character level. It is not a feature of one or the other of the two classes. A level 3 rogue and level 3 fighter both give a proficiency of +2. If it was a class feature then a level 3 rogue/ level 3 fighter could choose the +2 from either rogue or fighter. However, that is not the way the rules work in 5e. The proficiency bonus is based on total character level and is not a feature of the class.
You are welcome to try to convince a DM otherwise but it wouldn't work in a game I was running.
----
In terms of natural weapons vs unarmed strikes. The following is from the Sage Advice Compendium which is consider official clarification but folks are allowed to ignore it.
"Are natural weapons considered weapons?
Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body."
Natural weapons are considered weapons and not unarmed strikes unless specific rules text says otherwise.
Here are the rules for Tabaxi from MotM
"Cat’s Claws
You can use your claws to make unarmed strikes. When you hit with them, the strike deals 1d6 + your Strength modifier slashing damage, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."
In this case, the Tabaxi claws are not even considered weapons. They can only be used for unarmed strikes which means that a Tabaxi paladin would not be able to smite with their claws for example since smite requires an attack with a melee weapon. This is a special rule for Tabaxi where specific beats general.
Most attacks using claws or teeth by player character races are deemed to be unarmed strikes based on the specific text for each race. However, all the monster/beast stat blocks specifically call out the creature attacks as melee weapon attacks.
Melee weapon attacks with natural weapons are not the same as unarmed strikes for beasts or other creatures. For player characters, these features are not even considered weapons. This is another example where player characters are treated differently from creatures or NPCs. It is not a justification for saying that all natural weapon attacks that are explicitly listed as melee weapon attacks.
From the brown bear stat block:
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 8 (1d8 + 4) piercing damage.
Claws. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 11 (2d6 + 4) slashing damage.
These are explicitly called out as Melee Weapon Attacks. A monk/druid wildshaped into a brown bear can not use these weapon attacks as unarmed strikes.
However, a monk/druid CAN make an unarmed strike in most wildshapes since all that is required is the ability to execute a forceful blow. But to make a bonus action unarmed strike, the druid would have to make either an unarmed strike or an attack with a monk weapon as part of the attack action. The natural weapon attacks of beast forms are neither of these.
An unarmed strike as a brown bear would use the brown bear's proficiency (+2) and its strength +4 for +6 to hit and for a level 1 monk the attack would do d4+4 damage. A 1 monk/X moon druid could make an unarmed strike as an attack action and a second unarmed strike as a bonus action or they could take the multiattack action and make two attacks using the beast weapon options.
If you want this combination to work closer to what you are looking for you could ask the DM to house rule that the natural weapons of the beast shape can count as monk weapons for you. This would allow you to take the monk bonus action unarmed strike after attacking with the bear form attacks (though you might also need to work around the issue of multiattack vs the attack action).
This is correct, however the reason why Unarmed Strikes do not work with Divine Smite is not quite correct. First of all it is important to understand that Unarmed Strikes are a subset of Melee Weapon Attacks, specifically the subset of Melee Weapon Attacks made without using a Weapon:
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike" - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#MeleeAttacks
This is important to understand because while Unarmed Strikes do not work with Divine Smite, the Paladin class feature, it does work with spells like Wrathful Smite. Wrathful Smite requires a Melee Weapon Attack, which an Unarmed Strike is, and it increases the attack's damage. So why doesn't Divine Smite work then? It also requires a Melee Weapon Attack, however instead of increasing the attack's damage, it increases the weapon's damage. This nuance is explained in the SAC here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA253.
The fact that Wrathful Smite works with Unarmed Strikes is likely unintended. Literally every other smite spell makes at least some reference to effecting a weapon specifically, though they all say they increase the attack's damage.