Druid/Monk AL legal stuff (Pulling out of a different thread)

[Inconnunom]

That reference is significant, though, because it occurs in the Vampire entry, where the Vampire is explicitly given an Unarmed Strike attack.

Yes the vampire has an unarmed strike that does 1d8+4 damage.

If a monster does not have such an attack, then it is not making an unarmed strike; it is making an attack with a natural weapon, as noted in the Monster Manual and in the SRD.

Why would a vampire doing 1d8+4 damage prevent a giant elk hurting someone if it kneels on them. An unarmed strike does not specifically refer to claws. It can be anything as per crawford tweet.

It should also be noted that the Martial Arts ability is prefaced on the monk either being unarmed or wielding only monk weapons -- the ability explicitly says that the benefits are only available in those cases. So a monk wielding a non-monk weapon might still be able to make an unarmed strike (as noted in the SRD on p.95), but it would not be a Martial Arts unarmed strike, because the monk doesn't qualify to use the benefits from Martial Arts while armed with a non-monk weapon. It would be a 'regular' unarmed strike, based on Str and doing 1+Str damage as noted in the SRD.

Half correct. It does not mention being unarmed. It only mentions unarmed strike. There is no such thing as "Monk unarmed strike"/"Regular unarmed strike", only damage that is dealt.

If we are going to say that DMs can't house-rule other areas where the rules are explicit but not very user-friendly (such as the druid rule that they "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"), we should be consistent and say that here, too.


--
Pauper

There is no "house-rule" when there isn't a rule. The DM's are empowered to interpret gray areas. That hasn't changed. The difference is whether you believe this is gray or not. As always, expect table variation.

 

[kalani]

Before I begin, I must retract a previous comment. After re-reading the PHB errata, my stance on whether this is a "Grey area" has changed. No DM interpretation is required.
All creatures (with the exception of those that lack a physical body) can make an unarmed strike, as all such creatures are capable of making at least one kind of blunt-force attack using their bodies (usually a head-butt or body slam). The PHB errata clarifies the ambiguities surrounding unarmed strikes (and their lack of definition) replacing the entry in the PHB completely.

Going by the entry in the PHB, this was previously an issue subject to DM interpretation, as "unarmed strike" was a poorly defined term, leaving DMs to interpret whether any given creature was capable of making an unarmed strike. This is no longer the case.

• PHB (v1.0) entry (Melee Attacks, p195): When you are unarmed, you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike, as shown in the weapon table in chapter 5.
• PHB Errata: Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on unarmed strikes should read as follows: “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"

ACTIONS (Monster Manual p10)
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, as described in the Player's Handbook.


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. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player's Handbook.

This changes the whole meaning of the Monks Martial Arts ability. No longer does an unarmed strike require a creature to be unarmed.

It is an option that can always be taken instead of making an attack with a weapon (or natural weapon).
Since all creatures (with the possible exception of some incorporeal creatures) are capable of making unarmed strikes, a Monk/Druid can make unarmed strikes while wildshaped.

They cannot however:

• Use flurry of blows in combination with a multiattack, as FoB requires the Attack action, not the Multiattack action.
• Benefit from Martial Arts when making claw/bite attacks.

They can however, benefit from FoB when making the Attack action with a claw/bite, but do not benefit from Martial Arts. As such, their FoB attacks would be STR-based attacks and deal 1+STR damage (or 1d4+STR damage if the character has the tavern brawler feat) when combined with a claw/bite.
​
They can also use Extra Attacks (if they have it) when taking the Attack action with their claws and/or bite. I myself have a druid/barbarian who uses a Dire Wolf form with Extra Attacks for two bite attacks.

 

[Pauper]

Thanks for making this a separate thread -- if someone tries to continue the rules discussion in the other thread from here on out, I'll redirect them to this thread.

Why would a vampire doing 1d8+4 damage prevent a giant elk hurting someone if it kneels on them. An unarmed strike does not specifically refer to claws. It can be anything as per crawford tweet.

Crawfords tweets are not official, but you are right that a monster can choose not to use one of its listed actions and can instead use an action defined in the Player's Handbook as being usable by anyone. The problem here is that Martial Arts isn't an ability usable by anyone -- only monks, and even then only in certain circumstances.

Half correct. It does not mention being unarmed. It only mentions unarmed strike. There is no such thing as "Monk unarmed strike"/"Regular unarmed strike", only damage that is dealt.

Re-read the Martial Arts ability: "You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table." (SRD 5.0, p.26)

There is only one unarmed strike ability, but if you have Martial Arts, you can use Dex instead of Str for the attack and damage rolls, as well as rolling different damage for the damage roll. You only gain those benefits "while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons..." (ibid, emphasis mine) That is why being armed with a non-monk weapon is significant to this discussion.

There is no "house-rule" when there isn't a rule. The DM's are empowered to interpret gray areas. That hasn't changed. The difference is whether you believe this is gray or not. As always, expect table variation.

I've said myself that typically it falls to the DM to decide what a grey area actually is; others have accused me of saying that a DM could make a longsword do damage other than that listed in the PH if the DM decided a given situation was enough of a 'grey area' for her purpose. In response, Kalani and others have forcefully stated that, for the purpose of DMing an AL game, if something is written in the Player's Handbook, a DM must house-rule to provide a different ruling, and house-ruling isn't allowed in Adventurers League.

To my mind, the only 'grey area' here is whether a natural weapon can be treated as a simple weapon for the purpose of the Martial Arts rule. A DM who wants to say that it isn't can point to the weapon list and note that 'natural weapon' is not listed there under simple weapons, thus refuse to allow natural weapons to be treated as monk weapons. And as soon as a character is wielding *any* non-monk weapon, they lose the ability to use the benefits of Martial Arts. That interpretation would not be a house-rule and would thus be allowed in AL.

I'd say it's the recommended ruling as well, if I were still in the business of providing such things.

--
Pauper

 

[Pauper]

This changes the whole meaning of the Monks Martial Arts ability. No longer does an unarmed strike require a creature to be unarmed.

This statement confused me, because it implies that a beast Monk can in fact use Martial Arts unarmed strikes despite being armed with non-monk weapons. But your explanation of how this plays out between various monk and monster attack rules is in perfect agreement with my interpretation of the Martial Arts rule: any unarmed strike made by a creature with a natural weapon does not benefit from Martial Arts, and deals damage based on the non-Martial Arts version of unarmed strike the character has rules access to (either the core rule or the one from Tavern Brawler, as noted).

In that sense, I am retracting something I noted in the other thread; that monsters without an Unarmed Strike entry in their monster description (such as the Vampire) are the only monsters that can make unarmed strikes. It is clear that the rules do allow any creature to make an unarmed strike; the question is, if the creature has the Martial Arts ability, does its weaponry allow it or prevent it from gaining the benefit of Martial Arts? In most cases (including, ironically, the Vampire, as it has a Bite attack as well), this answer is going to be 'no'.

This, however, exposes a new grey area: does a monster with a Slam attack (defined as a melee weapon attack) who does not also have another natural weapon attack cause that monster to be unable to use Martial Arts with its unarmed strikes? (Examples from the SRD: animated armor, doppelganger, elemental, clay golem, flesh golem, stone golem, invisible stalker, shambling mound) As far as I can tell, none of these are legal for druids to wild shape into, but a spellcaster with at least one monk level and the ability to cast Shapechange could trigger a ruling on this question by changing into some of the listed example forms.

--
Pauper

 

[Inconnunom]

"You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield"

Ahh, I believe I understand what you are getting at now. "Would having natural weapons prevent you from being considered unarmed for the purpose of the martial arts rule."

To which, I would say first, "grey area, DM's should be empowered to interpret.'
Followed immediately by, "You would be considered unarmed for the purposes of martial arts, otherwise there will never be Minotaur Monks" (referring to the UA article and recognizing that there is no AL legal minotaur race).

 

[kalani]

Natural weapons are not weapons - therefore they are not simple weapons.

As far as the Martial Arts entry goes
It was written using the old rules for unarmed strikes, which required a creature to be unarmed to qualify for making unarmed strikes. The new rules for unarmed strike no longer require a creature to be unarmed. As such, there is justification that the text in the Martial Arts entry is an artifact of the errata process, and that it too should be updated to the new unarmed strike rules.

The v2 printing of the Players Handbook includes all errata changes. As such, the only way we are going to be able to answer this conclusively, is if someone quotes the exact text from the v2 PHB, as the PHB errata document does not list every instance of a rules change (only the main ones).

IOWs - only the entry for unarmed strikes on p195 was changed. Does this mean that monks still require to be unarmed to make unarmed strikes? Unknown.

Specific does trump general however, so there is also justification to say that while all creatures can make unarmed strikes, monks must always be unarmed (or wielding a monk weapon) to benefit from Martial Arts.

I can personally see it being ruled both ways, as while the errata clarifies some ambiguity, it does create additional ambiguity as to whether a wildshaped monk can still use Martial Arts.

Perhaps the simplest solution is to ask JC in Sage Advice
If he rules that a wildshaped monk can use Martial Arts when making an unarmed strike in bear-form, AL DMs are allowed to use that ruling (but are not required to). If he rules that wildshaped monks are unable to benefit from MA (as they are never unarmed), then his ruling backs up the wording in the PHB and clarifies the ambiguity surrounding the errata

 

[kalani]

This post will be updated as more entries are added in the discussion.

Points for allowing wildshaped monks to benefit from Martial Arts

• All creatures can make unarmed strikes
• Minotaur Monks would never benefit from Martial Arts (as they have a martial weapon). This is an oddly exclusive racial restriction, esp. given how many minotaur monks exist in the lore (while not an AL-legal reference, it does add a point in favor of the discussion).
• Unarmed strike was removed from the weapon table. You no longer "wield" an unarmed strike, therefore the text in the MA entry is weird.
• Creatures no longer need to be unarmed in order to make unarmed strikes.
• Natural weapons are not weapons, and are never wielded. They are melee weapon attacks that do not count as a weapon. This makes them a grey area open for interpretation.
• Ambiguity surrounding the Martial Arts entry, and whether it was overlooked in errata, esp. considering the fact that outside of this one specific example (a wildshaped monk), the wording in the Martial Arts ability is not contradicted by the errata for unarmed strike.
• You retain all benefits of your class, race, etc while in wildshape - including "Martial Arts"

Points Against

• Specific trumps general: The Martial Arts ability is more specific than the Unarmed Strike entry.
• The Martial Arts entry specifically requires the character to be unarmed or wielding only a monk weapon. Ambiguity exists as to whether this entry should have been updated with the errata (even if it wasn't).

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

Another point for allowing is the part of the Wildshape entry that states "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."

 

[Pauper]

To which, I would say first, "grey area, DM's should be empowered to interpret.'
Followed immediately by, "You would be considered unarmed for the purposes of martial arts, otherwise there will never be Minotaur Monks" (referring to the UA article and recognizing that there is no AL legal minotaur race).

To which I would respond, "Not as grey an area as you think," as the minotaur's horns are defined as a melee weapon, not as a natural weapon (though not as either a simple or martial melee weapon) in the UA article. If an update were to define the horns as a simple melee weapon, they would be considered a monk weapon, as the horns are not two-handed or heavy (unless that gets added in as well).

Secondly, the original PC minotaurs from Dragonlance (and the ones specifically being referenced in that Unearthed Arcana article) weren't allowed to become monks (http://www.dlnexus.com/fan/rules/17885.aspx), so there's precedent in not letting them be monks now, especially when doing so supports other rules.

--
Pauper

 

[kalani]

That is not true at all Pauper. There are several Minotaur monks in DL novels, in fact there was an entire order of them dedicated to Kiri-Jolith, and several dedicated to Majere. They are obscure however, so it is understandable you were not aware of this fact (but as a major DL fan who has read over half of all DL novels written, of which there are at least 160; and as someone who owns or has owned every DL rules source ever written, I tend to know that setting as well as some of the hardcore FR fans know Faerun).

I don't even know who this Michael Falconer is... Certainly not an authority on Dragonlance. This is a fan creation only. In official DL lore, Minotaur monks exist but are extremely rare (even on Kothas and Mithas).