One Grapple per Hand. A creature must have a hand free to grapple another creature. Some stat blocks and game effects allow a creature to grapple using a tentacle, a maw, or another body part. Whatever part a grappler uses, it can grapple only one creature at a time with that part, and the grappler can’t use that part to target another creature unless it ends the grapple.
unarmed strike is following
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
so my question is can i grapple in any form as my beast natural weapons is an unarmed strike that involves part of my body and then i can add the grapple effect or should i look at the grappling rules at the top that says i need a free hand and therefor my sabertooth tiger can not grapple
Unarmed Strike isn't any attack made with a punch, kick, head-butt, etc, rather it is a specific action. While wild shaped you are not performing Unarmed Strike, you are performing the attacks listed under the beast's actions block.
Some creatures, like the Giant Constrictor Snake, have their own methods to grapple a target, and this is ultimately why I would stick to RAW to not allow any wild shape form to grapple with their attacks.
Unarmed Strike isn't any attack made with a punch, kick, head-butt, etc, rather it is a specific action. While wild shaped you are not performing Unarmed Strike, you are performing the attacks listed under the beast's actions block. [...]
I'm still wondering if monsters using melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts are equivalent to Unarmed Strikes:
A melee attack allows you to attack a target within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon or an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters make melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts. A few spells also involve melee attacks.
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage [...]
If so, a Druid/Monk could benefit from it (e.g. Martial Arts, Stunning Strike, Hand of [X]) unlike the interaction discussed in the old posts about the 2014 rules: Wild shape question or Natural Weapon Discussion.
Unarmed Strike isn't any attack made with a punch, kick, head-butt, etc, rather it is a specific action. While wild shaped you are not performing Unarmed Strike, you are performing the attacks listed under the beast's actions block. [...]
I'm still wondering if monsters using melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts are equivalent to Unarmed Strikes:
A melee attack allows you to attack a target within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon or an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters make melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts. A few spells also involve melee attacks.
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage [...]
If so, a Druid/Monk could benefit from it (e.g. Martial Arts, Stunning Strike, Hand of [X]) unlike the interaction discussed in the old posts about the 2014 rules: Wild shape question or Natural Weapon Disucssion.
Attack: Attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
A Claw attack and an Unarmed Strike may both be melee attacks, but that doesn't mean a Claw attack is an Unarmed Strike
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Attack: Attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
A Claw attack and an Unarmed Strike may both be melee attacks, but that doesn't mean a Claw attack is an Unarmed Strike
I stand to be correct, however this would only apply to a small number of transformations, as the grapple option of unarmed strike still requires a free hand, so perhaps an ape could benefit from this but a bear which has feet/claws, doesn't have any hands to begin with.
Attack: Attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
A Claw attack and an Unarmed Strike may both be melee attacks, but that doesn't mean a Claw attack is an Unarmed Strike
I stand to be correct, however this would only apply to a small number of transformations, as the grapple option of unarmed strike still requires a free hand, so perhaps an ape could benefit from this but a bear which has feet/claws, doesn't have any hands to begin with.
I guess it depends on what you think of as a grapple. Bears may not have opposable thumbs, but a "bear hug" is a thing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Attack: Attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
A Claw attack and an Unarmed Strike may both be melee attacks, but that doesn't mean a Claw attack is an Unarmed Strike
I stand to be correct, however this would only apply to a small number of transformations, as the grapple option of unarmed strike still requires a free hand, so perhaps an ape could benefit from this but a bear which has feet/claws, doesn't have any hands to begin with.
I guess it depends on what you think of as a grapple. Bears may not have opposable thumbs, but a "bear hug" is a thing
I am aware, I was just going by RAW but I think by this point we can say it's down to the DM to determine, similar to the object section of Wild Shape.
Unarmed Strike isn't any attack made with a punch, kick, head-butt, etc, rather it is a specific action. While wild shaped you are not performing Unarmed Strike, you are performing the attacks listed under the beast's actions block. [...]
I'm still wondering if monsters using melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts are equivalent to Unarmed Strikes:
A melee attack allows you to attack a target within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon or an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters make melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts. A few spells also involve melee attacks.
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage [...]
If so, a Druid/Monk could benefit from it (e.g. Martial Arts, Stunning Strike, Hand of [X]) unlike the interaction discussed in the old posts about the 2014 rules: Wild shape question or Natural Weapon Disucssion.
The grappling rule was written for a grappler with at least one hand, but a DM can easily adapt the rule for a handless creature that has a bite or an appendage, such as a tentacle, that could reasonably seize someone. A wolf, for example, could plausibly try to seize a person with its bite, and the animal wouldn’t be able to use its bite attack as long as it held onto the person.
Keep in mind that the grappling rule in the Player’s Handbook requires the Attack action, so a creature must take that action—rather than Multiattack or another action in the creature’s stat block—when it uses that rule. A monster, such as a roper, that has a special grappling attack doesn’t follow that rule when using its special attack
I'd say a Saber-Toothed Tiger can take the Attack action to make an Unarmed Strike and Grapple with one of it's claw or mouth for example.
Grappling: Whatever part a grappler uses, it can grapple only one creature at a time with that part, and the grappler can’t use that part to target another creature unless it ends the grapple.
I'd say a Saber-Toothed Tiger can take the Attack action to make an Unarmed Strike and Grapple with one of it's claw or mouth for example.
Grappling: Whatever part a grappler uses, it can grapple only one creature at a time with that part, and the grappler can’t use that part to target another creature unless it ends the grapple.
As noted above, this is only half of the rule. The RAW answer is that a free hand is required unless the stat block for the monster explicitly includes a method of grappling with another body part:
A creature can grapple another creature. Characters typically grapple by using an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters have special attacks that allow them to quickly grapple prey. However a grapple is initiated, it follows these rules.
. . .
One Grapple per Hand. A creature must have a hand free to grapple another creature. Some stat blocks and game effects allow a creature to grapple using a tentacle, a maw, or another body part. Whatever part a grappler uses, it can grapple only one creature at a time with that part, and the grappler can’t use that part to target another creature unless it ends the grapple.
As such, a Black Bear does not actually have the ability to "bear hug" an enemy, for example.
I would say that a Saber-Toothed Tiger is unable to grapple a target based on the information in its stat block. But a monster such as an Ankheg might be able to since its stat block includes a "Bite" attack with the following wording:
Bite.Melee Attack Roll: +5 (with Advantage if the target is Grappled by the ankheg), reach 5 ft. Hit: 10 (2d6 + 3) Slashing damage plus 3 (1d6) Acid damage. If the target is a Large or smaller creature, it has the Grappled condition (escape DC 13).
As such, a Black Bear does not actually have the ability to "bear hug" an enemy, for example.
I would say that a Saber-Toothed Tiger is unable to grapple a target based on the information in its stat block.
Sage Advice Compendium say the grappling rule was written for a grappler with at least one hand, but a DM can easily adapt the rule for a handless creature that has a bite or an appendage, such as a tentacle, that could reasonably seize someone. A wolf, for example, could plausibly try to seize a person with its bite, and the animal wouldn’t be able to use its bite attack as long as it held onto the person.
So i'd rely on such official ruling to adapt grappling for handless creature as needed.
I would say that a Saber-Toothed Tiger is unable to grapple a target based on the information in its stat block.
All creatures can make Unarmed Strikes, it doesn't need to be listed in their stat block, just like how all creatures can Dash, Disengage, or Hide even if it isn't listed in their stat blocks. These are basic universal actions. So everything listed under Unarmed Strike can be done by other monsters, including Shove and Grapple. All that matters is whether a creature is physically capable of holding the creature as if it had a hand, and that's a subjective DM call since monsters come in all kinds of shapes and sizes.
I would add that unless a creatures statblock allows it a creature cannot use unarmed strike as part of multiattack this means a wolf or tiger can grapple but it means using their attack action to make the one unarmed strike. They can also use their opportunity attack to make an Unarmed Strike according to SAC.
I would say that a Saber-Toothed Tiger is unable to grapple a target based on the information in its stat block.
All creatures can make Unarmed Strikes, it doesn't need to be listed in their stat block, just like how all creatures can Dash, Disengage, or Hide even if it isn't listed in their stat blocks. These are basic universal actions. So everything listed under Unarmed Strike can be done by other monsters, including Shove and Grapple. All that matters is whether a creature is physically capable of holding the creature as if it had a hand, and that's a subjective DM call since monsters come in all kinds of shapes and sizes.
This interpretation is not actually supported by the rules. Sure, a DM can make whatever exceptions he wants but for our purposes here we are discussing what is written.
Yes, all creatures can make an Unarmed Strike when they take the Attack action, but that does not automatically mean that the Grapple option is available to that creature at that time. Nor is the Shove option for that matter. For those two options, prerequisites must be met. Even a PC might not be able to Grapple a creature if his hands happen to be full at that time, for example. For the Grapple option, the rule is this:
This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it.
Exceptions to this rule must be explicit. As already posted earlier, the rules which govern these exceptions are:
Many monsters have special attacks that allow them to quickly grapple prey.
. . .
Some stat blocks and game effects allow a creature to grapple using a tentacle, a maw, or another body part.
Define hand I guess, I'd say a animals claws are its hands. I do not think it is defined in the books, so i'd default to the dictionary.
The terminal part of the human arm located below the forearm, used for grasping and holding and consisting of the wrist, palm, four fingers, and an opposable thumb.
A homologous or similar part in other animals, as the terminal part of the forelimb in certain vertebrates.
So yeah I think agileminds post is supported by the rules.
This interpretation is not actually supported by the rules. Sure, a DM can make whatever exceptions he wants but for our purposes here we are discussing what is written.
This doesn't mean your interpretation of RAW is wrong but clearly there was an intention that it wouldn't need to necessarily be specified for other non-humanoid creatures.
As such,
RAW it is not possible
RAI it is possible.
As we have had clear explicit confirmation on this RAI, I would say we should lean in favour of RAI.
I read that particular Sage Advice entry a bit differently. I don't really think that they are describing an RAI for the rule in that case. They are just stating what the rule actually is and then they are suggesting that a DM could "adapt" the rule if they so choose. Which is sort of what the books say that a DM can always do when it comes to the rules as written. The books sort of encourage house-ruling things in the name of having fun, and this is sort of pointing out another example of a potential house-rule.
I do agree that running it that way is totally fine and not particularly game-breaking or anything. If it's fun and everyone in the group is on board then go for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One Grapple per Hand. A creature must have a hand free to grapple another creature. Some stat blocks and game effects allow a creature to grapple using a tentacle, a maw, or another body part. Whatever part a grappler uses, it can grapple only one creature at a time with that part, and the grappler can’t use that part to target another creature unless it ends the grapple.
unarmed strike is following
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
so my question is can i grapple in any form as my beast natural weapons is an unarmed strike that involves part of my body and then i can add the grapple effect or should i look at the grappling rules at the top that says i need a free hand and therefor my sabertooth tiger can not grapple
Unarmed Strike isn't any attack made with a punch, kick, head-butt, etc, rather it is a specific action. While wild shaped you are not performing Unarmed Strike, you are performing the attacks listed under the beast's actions block.
Some creatures, like the Giant Constrictor Snake, have their own methods to grapple a target, and this is ultimately why I would stick to RAW to not allow any wild shape form to grapple with their attacks.
This said, you can always talk to your DM about it, I can understand why people might want to grapple in wildshape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_MlRYtetV8
I'm still wondering if monsters using melee attacks with claws, teeth, or other body parts are equivalent to Unarmed Strikes:
Unarmed Strike:
If so, a Druid/Monk could benefit from it (e.g. Martial Arts, Stunning Strike, Hand of [X]) unlike the interaction discussed in the old posts about the 2014 rules: Wild shape question or Natural Weapon Discussion.
Related:
Saw an optimizer not one of the well known one explore the idea that example a sabertooth tiger could also grapple but i think its on the edge
And were having and still have doubt about wether i will benefit from the grappler feat
An Unarmed Strike is a separate type of attack from anything listed in a monster stat block
Per the MM:
That list, of course, includes
A Claw attack and an Unarmed Strike may both be melee attacks, but that doesn't mean a Claw attack is an Unarmed Strike
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I stand to be correct, however this would only apply to a small number of transformations, as the grapple option of unarmed strike still requires a free hand, so perhaps an ape could benefit from this but a bear which has feet/claws, doesn't have any hands to begin with.
I guess it depends on what you think of as a grapple. Bears may not have opposable thumbs, but a "bear hug" is a thing
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I am aware, I was just going by RAW but I think by this point we can say it's down to the DM to determine, similar to the object section of Wild Shape.
My general take would be, that in addition to natural attacks, each monster can also perform an unarmed strike and thus could attempt a grapple.
However, the monster needs any type of appendage that qualifies for the "can grap on to something with it" aka free hand.
Frankly, I think this way of reading the rules is a clean one.
Ruling this way, if you wild shape as a Druid/Monk, I suppose the result is there is no difference with the 2014 rules for the interactions.
BTW, for the OP, regarding monsters and grappling, we had this in the SAC:
(in 2024, grappling is a Saving Throw)
I'd say a Saber-Toothed Tiger can take the Attack action to make an Unarmed Strike and Grapple with one of it's claw or mouth for example.
As noted above, this is only half of the rule. The RAW answer is that a free hand is required unless the stat block for the monster explicitly includes a method of grappling with another body part:
As such, a Black Bear does not actually have the ability to "bear hug" an enemy, for example.
I would say that a Saber-Toothed Tiger is unable to grapple a target based on the information in its stat block. But a monster such as an Ankheg might be able to since its stat block includes a "Bite" attack with the following wording:
Sage Advice Compendium say the grappling rule was written for a grappler with at least one hand, but a DM can easily adapt the rule for a handless creature that has a bite or an appendage, such as a tentacle, that could reasonably seize someone. A wolf, for example, could plausibly try to seize a person with its bite, and the animal wouldn’t be able to use its bite attack as long as it held onto the person.
So i'd rely on such official ruling to adapt grappling for handless creature as needed.
All creatures can make Unarmed Strikes, it doesn't need to be listed in their stat block, just like how all creatures can Dash, Disengage, or Hide even if it isn't listed in their stat blocks. These are basic universal actions. So everything listed under Unarmed Strike can be done by other monsters, including Shove and Grapple. All that matters is whether a creature is physically capable of holding the creature as if it had a hand, and that's a subjective DM call since monsters come in all kinds of shapes and sizes.
I would add that unless a creatures statblock allows it a creature cannot use unarmed strike as part of multiattack this means a wolf or tiger can grapple but it means using their attack action to make the one unarmed strike. They can also use their opportunity attack to make an Unarmed Strike according to SAC.
This interpretation is not actually supported by the rules. Sure, a DM can make whatever exceptions he wants but for our purposes here we are discussing what is written.
Yes, all creatures can make an Unarmed Strike when they take the Attack action, but that does not automatically mean that the Grapple option is available to that creature at that time. Nor is the Shove option for that matter. For those two options, prerequisites must be met. Even a PC might not be able to Grapple a creature if his hands happen to be full at that time, for example. For the Grapple option, the rule is this:
Exceptions to this rule must be explicit. As already posted earlier, the rules which govern these exceptions are:
Define hand I guess, I'd say a animals claws are its hands. I do not think it is defined in the books, so i'd default to the dictionary.
So yeah I think agileminds post is supported by the rules.
There is RAW and then there is RAI, Sage Advice exists to clarify what the RAI were and we have already had the Sage Advice Compendium linked in here a few times: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA137
This doesn't mean your interpretation of RAW is wrong but clearly there was an intention that it wouldn't need to necessarily be specified for other non-humanoid creatures.
As such,
RAW it is not possible
RAI it is possible.
As we have had clear explicit confirmation on this RAI, I would say we should lean in favour of RAI.
I read that particular Sage Advice entry a bit differently. I don't really think that they are describing an RAI for the rule in that case. They are just stating what the rule actually is and then they are suggesting that a DM could "adapt" the rule if they so choose. Which is sort of what the books say that a DM can always do when it comes to the rules as written. The books sort of encourage house-ruling things in the name of having fun, and this is sort of pointing out another example of a potential house-rule.
I do agree that running it that way is totally fine and not particularly game-breaking or anything. If it's fun and everyone in the group is on board then go for it.