D&D 5E Claws, Bites, Unarmed Strikes, & Breath Weapons

[Elon Tusk]

[h=4]1. 4/4/17 Dragon TALK
[/h]They discuss Wild Shape and say a monk/druid cannot use a beast's claws in conjunction with an unarmed strike because Claw is different than an Unarmed Strike; you have to choose one or the other.
On the other hand, a tabaxi's claws are written as an unarmed strike (Volo's p. 115) and thus would be able to use a monk's unarmed strike.
It seems like there is a big disconnect there - claws seem to act in 2 different manners.

2. In that Dragon Talk, they mention that a Dragonborn druid can use its Breath Weapon as a Wild Shaped beast. That seems weird.

3. So could a Lizardfolk can use unarmed strike with its Bite (Volo's p. 112) while holding items in both hands such as a great club, short bow, or climbing a ladder?

4. A tabaxi has a +2 Dex bonus (and no Str bonus). However, their claws get a Str modifier. It could use a dagger in each hand to deal 1d4 + Dex and 1d4 with the other hand or 1d4 + Str with a clawed hand (since they don't have the light or finesse properties); thus its claws which it has used all of its life have a basic damage of 1d4 (like a dagger) but do significantly less damage in actual game play.
Again, there seems to be a big disconnect - daggers doing significantly more damage than claws.

 

[thethain]

1. Not a question here sooo.

2. Unless the class or racial feature specifies anatomy you lose while wild shaped you can do it. If the breath weapon said "You summon forth an energy cone from your Draconic Gizzard" then it wouldn't work, since its ambiguous, it works.

3. Yes, you can unarmed strike while your hands are occupied.

4. It was stated that it was intentional to not grant tabaxi finesse with their unarmed attacks. For either balance or simplicity, it was a no go.

You also avoided the much more difficult question: Since both races mention their bite and claws as natural weapons that can be used for unarmed strikes, do they qualify for spells which target weapons (or natural weapons) The general rule is that an unarmed strike is not a weapon and therefore cannot be targeted by say "Magic Weapon" however these two races specifically state they use natural weapons to make the unarmed strike.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

The question you seem to be asking is "Why can't a Monk use his Unarmed strikes when transformed into an animal/monster shape?".

The answer is easy: Because the Monk didn't train as a Lizardfolk, or a Minotaur, or a Stone Giant, or an Owlbear, or, or, or, ...

Have someone tie your hands together, at the wrists, behind your back, and tie your elbows as closely together as well. Now try to brush your hair, turn on the tap, and brush your teeth...with your feet/toes. No? You can't do it? But...why not? I mean, its still your body (arguable a LOT more similar than being turned into an Owlbear, for example)...so why can't you? Oooohhhh....right....because you've never trained yourself to do that with your feet and without your normal balance!

The whole "But RAW is written with this specific wording and these specific words, so 'obviously'..." is cute and all, but the DM should just ask him/her self one simple question: Is the player trying to create an unusual character concept with a unique background? Or is the player trying to 'game the system'? If the answer is yes to the first, and no to the second...game on and enjoy watching that weird Monk/Druid character grow and advance as a memorable character. If the answer is either yes to both, or no to the first and yes to the second...the DM should giggle to themselves at the players obviousness and just say "No".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Capn Charlie]

Is this about the right for monk/druids to fight with bear arms? I remember reading something about this in the news.

 

[Elon Tusk]

Hiya!
The answer is easy: Because the Monk didn't train as a Lizardfolk, or a Minotaur, or a Stone Giant, or an Owlbear, or, or, or, ...
Paul L. Ming

That makes sense to me but is why it would seem like a tabaxi would be better (or at least equally as good) at using its claws compared to a dagger.
I really don't see how finesse claws unbalance* - for flavor it just seems weird that a warlock tabaxi would use a dagger/daggers when it has natural weapons that it would be just as proficient with (and has been using longer).


* Compare this to Lizardfolk bite which does a higher dice damage or Minotaur horns doing 1d10 with a +2 racial Str bonus that can be added to Horn attack (plus Goring Rush or Hammering Horns). I would think a tabaxi unarmed claw strike would necessitate not holding items so no significant advantage there (again, especially compared to a Bite or Horn attack).

 

[User_Undefined]

That makes sense to me but is why it would seem like a tabaxi would be better (or at least equally as good) at using its claws compared to a dagger.
I really don't see how finesse claws unbalance* - for flavor it just seems weird that a warlock tabaxi would use a dagger/daggers when it has natural weapons that it would be just as proficient with (and has been using longer).


* Compare this to Lizardfolk bite which does a higher dice damage or Minotaur horns doing 1d10 with a +2 racial Str bonus that can be added to Horn attack (plus Goring Rush or Hammering Horns). I would think a tabaxi unarmed claw strike would necessitate not holding items so no significant advantage there (again, especially compared to a Bite or Horn attack).

If the claws were given the finesse property, it would mean that tabaxi rogues could sneak attack with them. That said, I don't see a problem saying that their claws can use STR or DEX, but don't have the finesse property. As it is, a tabaxi is more likely to hit with a dagger than with their claws.

 

[Elon Tusk]

If the claws were given the finesse property, it would mean that tabaxi rogues could sneak attack with them. That said, I don't see a problem saying that their claws can use STR or DEX, but don't have the finesse property. As it is, a tabaxi is more likely to hit with a dagger than with their claws.

Maybe I'm missing something.
Why would a clawed sneak attack be unbalancing?

 

[DEFCON 1]

That makes sense to me but is why it would seem like a tabaxi would be better (or at least equally as good) at using its claws compared to a dagger.
I really don't see how finesse claws unbalance* - for flavor it just seems weird that a warlock tabaxi would use a dagger/daggers when it has natural weapons that it would be just as proficient with (and has been using longer).

Nope, it wouldn't be unbalanced if you decided to let the tabaxi's claws work with DEX. But then again... I don't believe WotC gave the tabaxi claws under the idea that they'd actually use them as their primary weapon anyway, so it didn't really matter if they said the claws used STR or DEX. Tabaxi would usually use other weapons regardless (because they do more damage, and weapons can be magical.)

Tabaxi have a minor race feature that basically gives them the Tavern Brawler feat for free (an unarmed attack that does 1d4+STR, rather than the typical 1+STR). But if you want to houserule it to STR or DEX (either or both the Tabaxi claw and the Tavern Brawler feat), it'll be absolutely fine because it'll rarely get used anyway.

 

[User_Undefined]

Maybe I'm missing something.
Why would a clawed sneak attack be unbalancing?

:shrug: It probably wouldn't, but I can see some DMs not liking the fact that the rogue can sneak attack even when all their weapons are taken away.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

They discuss Wild Shape and say a monk/druid cannot use a beast's claws in conjunction with an unarmed strike because Claw is different than an Unarmed Strike; you have to choose one or the other.
On the other hand, a tabaxi's claws are written as an unarmed strike (Volo's p. 115) and thus would be able to use a monk's unarmed strike.
It seems like there is a big disconnect there - claws seem to act in 2 different manners.

Its one of those distinctions, like "melee attack" vs "attack with a melee weapon".
A Tabaxi attacking with its claws is not making a Claw attack; it is making an unarmed strike. A panther attacking with its claws is making a Claw attack. The panther (or a druid shifted into a panther) could make an unarmed strike, dealing 1+Str bonus.

2. In that Dragon Talk, they mention that a Dragonborn druid can use its Breath Weapon as a Wild Shaped beast. That seems weird.

Its a magical property of the race, not based on its physical form I suppose.

3. So could a Lizardfolk can use unarmed strike with its Bite (Volo's p. 112) while holding items in both hands such as a great club, short bow, or climbing a ladder?

Unarmed strike doesn't generally require any particular body part - with the exception of specific forms such as bite. A human doesn't need its hands free to deliver an unarmed strike for example.

4. A tabaxi has a +2 Dex bonus (and no Str bonus). However, their claws get a Str modifier. It could use a dagger in each hand to deal 1d4 + Dex and 1d4 with the other hand or 1d4 + Str with a clawed hand (since they don't have the light or finesse properties); thus its claws which it has used all of its life have a basic damage of 1d4 (like a dagger) but do significantly less damage in actual game play.
Again, there seems to be a big disconnect - daggers doing significantly more damage than claws.

I don't really see a disconnect: as you say, they do the same base damage.
Daggers are finesse weapons, Tabaxi claws are not. That is the reason that they might end up dealing different damage.
Are you saying that you think unarmed strikes/tabaxi claws should be finesse weapons? Why?