[RPG] Does having natural weapons prevent a multiclassed druid/monk from using Martial Arts while in Wild Shape

dnd-5edruidmonknatural-weaponwild-shape

The monk's Martial Arts feature's benefits all require a monk to be "unarmed or only wielding monk weapons". Even if you're a Way of the Kensei monk, that only lets you add a couple of new simple or martial weapons to your monk weapon list.

The druid's Wild Shape forms all come wielding natural weapon attacks. Natural weapon attacks are not unarmed attacks, nor are they monk weapons, nor are they simple or martial weapons that can possibly be chosen by a kensei.

Therefore, it seems that a beast is never "unarmed", and thus can never use a druid/monk's martial arts benefits even if it wanted to choose to use unarmed strikes instead of its natural attacks.

Is this interpretation accurate? Or can a beast choose not to "wield" its teeth and claws?

If my reading of the rules is accurate, such a blanket prohibition on Martial Arts when one has natural weapons seems overly-restrictive; it would mean, for example, that a Minotaur can never be a monk, since they are "never unarmed."

I am explicitly not addressing the (already answered and very obvious) question of whether animals can make unarmed attacks. I am asking whether they can ever choose not to "wield" their own natural weapons, so as to be able to use martial arts in the first place.

Best Answer

You most likely will not be able to use Martial Arts as an animal, but not for the reason you brought up.

There are two factors to consider: the limitations of the Martial Arts feature, and those of the Wild Shape feature.

Part of the description of the monk's Martial Arts feature reads (PHB, p. 78):

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

Armor and shield are obvious, most animals will not use them and natural armor is not "worn". So can you not wield your natural weapons? In an unofficial tweet in December 2016, rules designer Jeremy Crawford said that:

No general rule gives "hold" or "wield" meaning beyond the English (the words and their meaning in a particular context).

The OED's definition of "wield" states:

Hold and use (a weapon or tool)

So if you simply do not use something, you are no longer wielding it. You can certainly do that.

The description of the druid's Wild Shape feature says, in part (PHB, p. 67; emphasis mine):

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.

Can a bear perform martial arts maneuvers you have learned as a human? Can a crocodile? This will be up to a DM ruling, but the answer will most likely be no. The only case where I personally would rule yes is if you take the shape of an ape or monkey.

Related Topic