Ok, I know this is very specific but it's a character that I'm planning to make and I can't figure out the ruling by myself.
The character is a tabaxi barbarian 3 (path of the beast) and monk 1. Here are the important features for my question:
Tabaxi
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.
Barbarian path of the beast (form of the beast)
Starting when you choose this path at 3rd level, 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.
You choose the weapon’s form each time you rage: (just showing the claws here, the others don't matter now)
Claws. Each of your hands transforms into a claw, which you can use as a weapon if it’s empty. It deals 1d6 slashing damage on a hit. Once on each of your turns when you attack with a claw using the Attack action, you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.
Monk (martial arts)
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don't have the two-handed or heavy property.
When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn.
Ok, now the question: After using the attack action to attack twice with the beast form claws, what would be the damage of the bonus action attack? 1d4 from the tabaxi claws or 1d6 from the form of the beast claws? I know the difference between 1d4 and 1d6 is almost irrelevant, but what I'm really interested here is if this character now can use its form of the beast claws to make unarmed strikes.
It's trickier than it seems because the claws from the form of the beast normally can't be used for unarmed attacks, while the ones from the tabaxi can. So RAW suggests that I need to use my tabaxi claws (1d4) for the third attack. But then, if that's the case, it means that not only my character has 2 sets of claws - one from the beast form and another from the tabaxi - but it also needs to switch from one claw set to another for the third attack. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Another interpretation is that a claw is a claw, so both abilities apply to the same claw. This means this character has a natural weapon that can be used for unarmed strikes, dealing 1d6 damage, and also benefits from all the features from the path of the beast (while in rage). This is great and it would have other implications later on like allowing this character to grapple as a bonus action with the tavern brawler feature after its 2 claws attack, just as one example.
One last interpretation is that the claws from the form of the beast replace the tabaxi ones while they're active. However, I couldn't find any ruling to support that.
Anyway, the unarmed attacks / natural weapons / weapons attacks rules were always confusing for me, as they always tend to lead to stuff like this if you poke them hard enough.
The Beast Barbarian's claws can be used to make unarmed attacks.
With Tabaxi claws and the Beast Barbarian's claws, you can choose either's damage die, so you'd go with the larger one (1d6 + Str). With Monk levels, you'll eventually get a damage die higher than 1d6+Str, so you'll switch to that for your unarmed strikes when you reach that level.
(WotC's rule wordings about what is or isn't a weapon or an unarmed attack are pretty garbage, so there's absolutely no judgement on being confused, and these forums have many arguments about it.).
The Beast Barbarian's claws can be used to make unarmed attacks.
By itself I don't think it can. It doesn't say that in the feature description. In fact, I think it's the only natural weapon feature that doesn't explicit say it can be used to make unarmed strikes, which makes me believe it's intentional.
With Tabaxi claws and the Beast Barbarian's claws, you can choose either's damage die, so you'd go with the larger one (1d6 + Str). With Monk levels, you'll eventually get a damage die higher than 1d6+Str, so you'll switch to that for your unarmed strikes when you reach that level.
But the problem here is that the extra attack you get from the form of the beast claws only work with those claws (I think). I'm trying to get to a scenario where I can get both the extra attack from the form of the beast claws and the bonus action attack from the monk martial arts. Otherwise this build is won't really work.
(WotC's rule wordings about what is or isn't a weapon or an unarmed attack are pretty garbage, so there's absolutely no judgement on being confused, and these forums have many arguments about it.).
Thanks, it's not just me then. I can't tell you how many times I finished planning a build just to realized unarmed strike doesn't work with this and that... so annoying.
By the nature of being "Natural Weapons" they can be used to make unarmed attacks. Attacks made with Natural Weapons are considered "weapon attacks", but not "attacks made with weapons" (this is an example of WotC's terrible rules writing). You can make your attacks with the Beast Barbarian's claws, including the additional attack, and then you can use your Bonus Action to attack with the Monk's Martial Arts feature. Being a Tabaxi isn't actually needed.
A way you could get four attacks by Level 5 without multiclassing would be to be a Thrikreen Beast Barbarian. You can make 2 attacks with your attack action, one with your claw, and one with a handaxe in a secondary arm, then you can make the additional attack with a claw for being a Beast Barbarian, then you can use your Bonus Action to make an off-hand attack with a second handaxe you're holding in your other secondary arm. That leaves your other primary arm to hold a shield to buff your AC.
RAW, I think the martial arts unarmed strike would be a d4+ (str or dex). Keep in mind that it doesn't need to use the claws at all. Unarmed strikes by a monk can include elbow/knee/kick and for a 1st level monk would still be a d4.
The monk bonus action attack is allowed since the beast barbarian claws are considered a simple weapon and monk weapons are considered to be any simple weapon which then allows the character to use the monk unarmed strike ability.
However, the beast barbarian claws ARE considered a weapon attack (not an unarmed strike), they are a natural weapon but they are considered a simple weapon for the Barbarian while Tabaxi claws on the other hand are natural weapons permitted to make unarmed strikes but do not apparently count as simple weapons.
As a result, I'd say the character could make attacks during the attack action using the beast barbarian claws (the way a character could use any weapon) but that the beast barbarian claws could not be used for the unarmed strike bonus action feature of the monk (unless there is another rule out that is missing from the discussion).
By the nature of being "Natural Weapons" they can be used to make unarmed attacks. Attacks made with Natural Weapons are considered "weapon attacks", but not "attacks made with weapons" (this is an example of WotC's terrible rules writing). You can make your attacks with the Beast Barbarian's claws, including the additional attack, and then you can use your Bonus Action to attack with the Monk's Martial Arts feature. Being a Tabaxi isn't actually needed.
I'm not sure this is true, although in this particular case, it doesn't make a difference. Druid/Monk multiclasses cannot make attacks with natural weapons and benefit from from Monk martial arts features while in Wild Shape because making an attack with a natural weapon is neither an unarmed strike nor an attack with a simple weapon. They could, however, forgo the attack with the natural weapon and rely solely on making an unarmed attacks using the martial arts die for damage.
In this particular case it doesn't matter, since Tabaxi claw attacks count as unarmed strikes and Beast Barbarian natural weapon attacks count as simple weapon attacks, both of which work with martial arts. The open questions are what damage die to use, and whether the unarmed strikes would do slashing or bludgeoning damage. Were I the DM, I would allow the character to choose whether to use the claw die or martial arts die, and do slashing, since the difference is very small and reasonable given the investment of the multi class.
Yeah, I agree with most people here, meaning that RAW I could use my bonus action to attack but only with a normal unarmed attack - punching, kicking, etc - or using tabaxi's claws (because they count as unarmed strikes).
It's just hard for me to imagine how my character can possibly attack twice with one set of claws and then switch claws to attack again. This seems to be what RAW says but roleplay-wise it doesn't make much sense.
There should be a rule saying that if multiple benefits rely on the same natural weapons, you would get all of them on that natural weapon. Kind of like enchanting a weapon multiple times with different spells.
Attacks made with Natural Weapons are considered "weapon attacks", but not "attacks made with weapons" (this is an example of WotC's terrible rules writing).
No, this is explicitly not true. Natural Weapons are weapons and thus qualify as being "attacks made with weapons" (something Unarmed Strikes doesn't do even though they are "melee weapon attacks"). The SAC is quite clear on this.
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.
Which makes the text from the Beast Barbarian that says it counts as both a natural weapon and a simple melee weapon kind of stupid. There is no need to be both,
You can make your attacks with the Beast Barbarian's claws, including the additional attack, and then you can use your Bonus Action to attack with the Monk's Martial Arts feature. Being a Tabaxi isn't actually needed.
This I agree with. There is no need to be both a Tabaxi and a Beast Barbarian, either one is enough to qualify the Monk to use his martial arts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok, I know this is very specific but it's a character that I'm planning to make and I can't figure out the ruling by myself.
The character is a tabaxi barbarian 3 (path of the beast) and monk 1. Here are the important features for my question:
Tabaxi
Barbarian path of the beast (form of the beast)
Monk (martial arts)
Ok, now the question:
After using the attack action to attack twice with the beast form claws, what would be the damage of the bonus action attack? 1d4 from the tabaxi claws or 1d6 from the form of the beast claws? I know the difference between 1d4 and 1d6 is almost irrelevant, but what I'm really interested here is if this character now can use its form of the beast claws to make unarmed strikes.
It's trickier than it seems because the claws from the form of the beast normally can't be used for unarmed attacks, while the ones from the tabaxi can. So RAW suggests that I need to use my tabaxi claws (1d4) for the third attack. But then, if that's the case, it means that not only my character has 2 sets of claws - one from the beast form and another from the tabaxi - but it also needs to switch from one claw set to another for the third attack. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Another interpretation is that a claw is a claw, so both abilities apply to the same claw. This means this character has a natural weapon that can be used for unarmed strikes, dealing 1d6 damage, and also benefits from all the features from the path of the beast (while in rage). This is great and it would have other implications later on like allowing this character to grapple as a bonus action with the tavern brawler feature after its 2 claws attack, just as one example.
One last interpretation is that the claws from the form of the beast replace the tabaxi ones while they're active. However, I couldn't find any ruling to support that.
Anyway, the unarmed attacks / natural weapons / weapons attacks rules were always confusing for me, as they always tend to lead to stuff like this if you poke them hard enough.
The Beast Barbarian's claws can be used to make unarmed attacks.
With Tabaxi claws and the Beast Barbarian's claws, you can choose either's damage die, so you'd go with the larger one (1d6 + Str). With Monk levels, you'll eventually get a damage die higher than 1d6+Str, so you'll switch to that for your unarmed strikes when you reach that level.
(WotC's rule wordings about what is or isn't a weapon or an unarmed attack are pretty garbage, so there's absolutely no judgement on being confused, and these forums have many arguments about it.).
By itself I don't think it can. It doesn't say that in the feature description. In fact, I think it's the only natural weapon feature that doesn't explicit say it can be used to make unarmed strikes, which makes me believe it's intentional.
But the problem here is that the extra attack you get from the form of the beast claws only work with those claws (I think). I'm trying to get to a scenario where I can get both the extra attack from the form of the beast claws and the bonus action attack from the monk martial arts. Otherwise this build is won't really work.
Thanks, it's not just me then. I can't tell you how many times I finished planning a build just to realized unarmed strike doesn't work with this and that... so annoying.
By the nature of being "Natural Weapons" they can be used to make unarmed attacks. Attacks made with Natural Weapons are considered "weapon attacks", but not "attacks made with weapons" (this is an example of WotC's terrible rules writing). You can make your attacks with the Beast Barbarian's claws, including the additional attack, and then you can use your Bonus Action to attack with the Monk's Martial Arts feature. Being a Tabaxi isn't actually needed.
A way you could get four attacks by Level 5 without multiclassing would be to be a Thrikreen Beast Barbarian. You can make 2 attacks with your attack action, one with your claw, and one with a handaxe in a secondary arm, then you can make the additional attack with a claw for being a Beast Barbarian, then you can use your Bonus Action to make an off-hand attack with a second handaxe you're holding in your other secondary arm. That leaves your other primary arm to hold a shield to buff your AC.
RAW, I think the martial arts unarmed strike would be a d4+ (str or dex). Keep in mind that it doesn't need to use the claws at all. Unarmed strikes by a monk can include elbow/knee/kick and for a 1st level monk would still be a d4.
The monk bonus action attack is allowed since the beast barbarian claws are considered a simple weapon and monk weapons are considered to be any simple weapon which then allows the character to use the monk unarmed strike ability.
However, the beast barbarian claws ARE considered a weapon attack (not an unarmed strike), they are a natural weapon but they are considered a simple weapon for the Barbarian while Tabaxi claws on the other hand are natural weapons permitted to make unarmed strikes but do not apparently count as simple weapons.
As a result, I'd say the character could make attacks during the attack action using the beast barbarian claws (the way a character could use any weapon) but that the beast barbarian claws could not be used for the unarmed strike bonus action feature of the monk (unless there is another rule out that is missing from the discussion).
I'm not sure this is true, although in this particular case, it doesn't make a difference. Druid/Monk multiclasses cannot make attacks with natural weapons and benefit from from Monk martial arts features while in Wild Shape because making an attack with a natural weapon is neither an unarmed strike nor an attack with a simple weapon. They could, however, forgo the attack with the natural weapon and rely solely on making an unarmed attacks using the martial arts die for damage.
In this particular case it doesn't matter, since Tabaxi claw attacks count as unarmed strikes and Beast Barbarian natural weapon attacks count as simple weapon attacks, both of which work with martial arts. The open questions are what damage die to use, and whether the unarmed strikes would do slashing or bludgeoning damage. Were I the DM, I would allow the character to choose whether to use the claw die or martial arts die, and do slashing, since the difference is very small and reasonable given the investment of the multi class.
Yeah, I agree with most people here, meaning that RAW I could use my bonus action to attack but only with a normal unarmed attack - punching, kicking, etc - or using tabaxi's claws (because they count as unarmed strikes).
It's just hard for me to imagine how my character can possibly attack twice with one set of claws and then switch claws to attack again. This seems to be what RAW says but roleplay-wise it doesn't make much sense.
There should be a rule saying that if multiple benefits rely on the same natural weapons, you would get all of them on that natural weapon. Kind of like enchanting a weapon multiple times with different spells.
You have anything that backs that up? Because I don't think I've seen anything that does.
No, this is explicitly not true. Natural Weapons are weapons and thus qualify as being "attacks made with weapons" (something Unarmed Strikes doesn't do even though they are "melee weapon attacks").
The SAC is quite clear on this.
Which makes the text from the Beast Barbarian that says it counts as both a natural weapon and a simple melee weapon kind of stupid. There is no need to be both,
This I agree with. There is no need to be both a Tabaxi and a Beast Barbarian, either one is enough to qualify the Monk to use his martial arts.