D&D 5E Would you allow this if you were the DM

[abelmort]

The type of attack is listed in the description of the creature in question. You'll see for most beasts it is listed as a "melee weapon attack". An unarmed strike is also a "melee weapon attack".

 

[Dausuul]

One point that just occurred to me: The monk ability to get the bonus-action unarmed attack only happens when you take the Attack action on your turn. The bear's claw/bite routine is a special ability, Multiattack; not the same thing as taking the Attack action. So you can use the monk ability to get two claw attacks, or you can use Multiattack to get a claw/bite, but you can't stack them to get claw/claw/bite.

I am sorry for starting to kung fu panda thing in my own thread. Lesson learned. Let's move on

Now I think about it, that's a great way to balance the combo. Yes, you can play it, it works, no restrictions. But you have to live with everyone making kung fu panda jokes. Every. Single. Session.

 

[Paraxis]

The type of attack is listed in the description of the creature in question. You'll see for most beasts it is listed as a "melee weapon attack". An unarmed strike is also a "melee weapon attack".

Yes but it is not an unarmed strike or a monk weapon.

 

[Kikuras]

I do like the pre-req restriction. I think I'd feel like the DM is giving away the farm if it wasn't the case.

 

[Sunseeker]

One point that just occurred to me: The monk ability to get the bonus-action unarmed attack only happens when you take the Attack action on your turn. The bear's claw/bite routine is a special ability, Multiattack; not the same thing as taking the Attack action. So you can use the monk ability to get two claw attacks, or you can use Multiattack to get a claw/bite, but you can't stack them to get claw/claw/bite.

I believe this is correct. "special attacks" that cause you to make unarmed strikes are not the same as making unarmed strikes as part of an action.

 

[Kikuras]

One point that just occurred to me: The monk ability to get the bonus-action unarmed attack only happens when you take the Attack action on your turn. The bear's claw/bite routine is a special ability, Multiattack; not the same thing as taking the Attack action. So you can use the monk ability to get two claw attacks, or you can use Multiattack to get a claw/bite, but you can't stack them to get claw/claw/bite.

Excellent catch. I missed it. I think I can say that my RAW hole has been filled to my satisfaction.

 

[Riley37]

A martial arts bear. Seriously?

Seriously. As in, perhaps before you shoot down an proposal in D&D as implausible, you should first check whether it's *already an established thing in the real world* - with, say, a keyword search.

http://www.shengchikungfu.com/bear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri9D7tYNpi8

 

[Riley37]

D&D is not a universal fantasy kitchen sink.

Have you seen the Monster Manual?

Can you count all the other games, the mythologies, the novels and the short stories, which inspired its monsters, on the fingers of one hand?

If so, could you please post a picture of that hand?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd probably allow it, especially if I started the campaign at level 5 or so (since I have little interest in playing the earliest levels where there's so little to do unless you're a "full" caster). Moon Druid is powerful early on, but mellows out. That said, though, if I did allow it, I'd probably look for little ways to give the other characters their own cool schtick that starts off powerful but levels off. Maybe the Fighter inherited her grandfather's cavalry saber (+1 weapon, minor glamor enchantment). Maybe the Paladin got a holy libram with some rituals in it as a parting gift from his monastery. Maybe the Bard has a special instrument that does...something or other, I dunno, my brain is fried from the Latin midterm I had this morning. Heck, maybe the Druid/Monk (Drunk? hah!) has a special staff that enables the whole "martial arts while shape shifted" thing.

Point is, I'm flexible enough to allow even the cheesy bits...but I'll try to nudge up the people who don't with fun, thematic benefits too. If a rules-as-written option, which doesn't seem to be a huge stretch of the imagination, gets a player fired up and excited to play? I'll probably go along with it. If I know, or have a good idea, that it's really just about being a number-crunched nightmare that "wins" the game all by itself, that's a different story, and I'll talk to the player about that. I'm perfectly fine with doing some charop work to make sure your concept is sound, useful, even powerful; I'm not fine with optimization done to hog the spotlight or to "beat" the system or the like.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Now I think about it, that's a great way to balance the combo. Yes, you can play it, it works, no restrictions. But you have to live with everyone making kung fu panda jokes. Every. Single. Session.

That would seem to be a bare necessity. A simple bare necessity.