D&D 5E Monk and Druid "reviews"

[Sacrosanct]

Maybe in your games. The PCs in our game started out with Dex 12, 14, 14, 14, 16, and 16. Dex just helps out with too many things to not be taken at all (Stealth, AC, Init, and Dex saves).

Maybe it is just in my games. Then again, in my games, my fellow players assign stats based on an archetype (strong fighter who can take a ton of damage with an iron will, booksmart wizard who's also extremely handsome and good with words, butt-ugly rogue who is a bruiser) rather than metagaming

 

[KarinsDad]

Maybe it is just in my games. Then again, in my games, my fellow players assign stats based on an archetype (strong fighter who can take a ton of damage with an iron will, booksmart wizard who's also extremely handsome and good with words, butt-ugly rogue who is a bruiser) rather than metagaming

Yeah because anyone who sets out a good set of stats is metagaming.

Each player created their PC without other players around. Each player wanted to be at least a little stealthy, even those in heavier armor.

I suspect that a lot of player put a decent stat in Con as well at many tables, but I guess those people are metagaming too.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah because anyone who sets out a good set of stats is metagaming.

Each player created their PC without other players around. Each player wanted to be at least a little stealthy, even those in heavier armor.

I suspect that a lot of player put a decent stat in Con as well at many tables, but I guess those people are metagaming too.

If you're putting a good value in a particular stat not based on anything to do with the character theme, but because it offers the most bonuses, that's metagaming. Pretty simple. And that's what it sounded like you did with the reasoning you gave. If that's how you play, more power to you. But don't try to say you're not metagaming when you're clearly doing so.

 

[Antz7766]

I think the point Lancelot is trying to make regarding Barkskin is that the spell states the affected creature gains the AC bonus due to its skin becoming hardened like a bark. However, when a druid turns into a bear, its hardened skin is now replaced by the skin of a brown bear, therefore making the spell ineffective while in bear form. However, being able to hold concentration means that if the druid was to loses its bear form for any reason and revert back to itself, the Barkskin spell is still in effect and the AC bonus still applies in the normal form.

This would be same as saying the druid casted Alter Self on himself to grow horns to attack with, but then shape shift into a bear, and still expects to be able to attack with the horn.

I as the DM would probably ruled the same way Lancelot ruled, but like everyone keep reiterating, it's entirely up to the DM. There's no right or wrong answer, just a difference in opinion of the DM. Happy gaming!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If you're putting a good value in a particular stat not based on anything to do with the character theme, but because it offers the most bonuses, that's metagaming. Pretty simple. And that's what it sounded like you did with the reasoning you gave. If that's how you play, more power to you. But don't try to say you're not metagaming when you're clearly doing so.

Just to step in here, he may have explained the mechanical advantages as well, but he clearly pointed out that the characters wanted to be stealthy, which is more a story-thing. If you think about it, most adventurers ought to have high dexterity, constitution, and charisma - just based on the fact that you wouldn't be a terribly good ADVENTURER otherwise (not naturally good at any rate.) Why? Because the job comes with a need to get around, survive, and socialize. Anyone not good at these things would probably get themselves killed, which would thin out adventurers who aren't good at those things, and discourage others from taking up the job unless they were good at it.

Sure, you could have other members of your team pick up your slack, for the most part, but unless you were fabulously useful in another area they'd probably grow pretty sick of it.

I'd pretty much always put at least a 12-14 in Dex (and Con). Not because it's the uber-stat that it is, but because I don't think my characters would go adventuring without it. They'd stay on the farm, or whatever.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you're putting a good value in a particular stat not based on anything to do with the character theme, but because it offers the most bonuses, that's metagaming. Pretty simple. And that's what it sounded like you did with the reasoning you gave. If that's how you play, more power to you. But don't try to say you're not metagaming when you're clearly doing so.

I think that this is easy to say, but hard to avoid in practice. And, it should not necessarily be avoided.

How do players pick spells? They pick ones which seem like they would be fun to play, or effective, or useful. If they read a spell and it seems like it would suck, many players will not take it. Not even for "character theme" reasons.

I suspect that except for an occasional decision to purposely avoid good character design for a specific reason (e.g. creating a low charisma PC for roleplaying purposes as one example), many if not most players do not make most of their PC design decisions solely for character theme reasons. At least not IME. One can take the roleplaying moral high ground and claim that people who make effective decisions are metagaming, but I opine that the people who say these things metagame when designing their PCs to some extent as well.


It's a game. People play it to have fun. Making effective PC design decisions is a way many players like to do. That does not mean that they necessarily metagame significantly more then most anyone else. They just are making good decisions based on their understanding of the game.

 

[rjfTrebor]

As I'm running a campaign with a moon druid, I can assure you that this is absolutely not the case. I'm not going to get into the whole "20th-level issue," but we're at 8th, and I've seen no sign of the druid overshadowing anyone else except maybe in out-of-combat versatility. And even that's borderline.

it's worse at early levels, especially if you regularly slog your parties through long adventuring days. the moon druid has the full casting of a wizard, the utility of cherry picking from CR1 monsters, and the staying power of being able to do it twice between long rests.

the whole party gets wore out before the druid has even dipped into their hit dice. the other week, i had a level 3 druid in brown bear form go toe-to-toe with a cyclops for more than five rounds before he eventually killed it. the minotaur barbarian and the fighter were both downed and out of HD.

 

[Sacrosanct]

it's worse at early levels, especially if you regularly slog your parties through long adventuring days. the moon druid has the full casting of a wizard, the utility of cherry picking from CR1 monsters, and the staying power of being able to do it twice between long rests.

the whole party gets wore out before the druid has even dipped into their hit dice. the other week, i had a level 3 druid in brown bear form go toe-to-toe with a cyclops for more than five rounds before he eventually killed it. the minotaur barbarian and the fighter were both downed and out of HD.

I gotta call shenanigans on this. If this did happen, the odd are astronomical. A level 3 druid is going to have roughly 20 hp. And you do know that damage that drops your form to zero carries over, right? A cyclops has 138hp, a +9 to hit, and averages about 20 points per hit (2 per round, 40 per round total). Even if you had barkskin up, he's hitting you 2/3 of the time (more than you're hitting him), and his 138hp are much more than your 80ish you'd have for 2 forms and main hp. Hits more often, does much more damage per hit, and has more HP. So yeah, I have a hard time believing that.

 

[rjfTrebor]

I gotta call shenanigans on this. If this did happen, the odd are astronomical. A level 3 druid is going to have roughly 20 hp. And you do know that damage that drops your form to zero carries over, right? A cyclops has 138hp, a +9 to hit, and averages about 20 points per hit (2 per round, 40 per round total). Even if you had barkskin up, he's hitting you 2/3 of the time (more than you're hitting him), and his 138hp are much more than your 80ish you'd have for 2 forms and main hp. Hits more often, does much more damage per hit, and has more HP. So yeah, I have a hard time believing that.

did you not read the part where two other melee types were also downed in the fighting? the truth is that the ease of which a druid can assume forms throws their survivability way out of sync with other party members, even ones focused purely on HP. why should the druid get to steal the barb's thunder like that? even restricting the two forms to a minute between would do a lot to help.

 

[Lancelot]

Regardless of quibbles over stat allocations or playstyle or the pro's and con's of barkskin, I think the main point I originally wanted to make is that I think the moon druid is fine - as along as it isn't taking away from other players' enjoyment of the game. If I had the same experience as rjfTrebor (3rd level druid faces down a cyclops, overshadowing the pure melee builds), I'd be a lot more concerned.

But at my table, that druid would have 11 AC (no barkskin), and the cyclops is hitting him on a 2. His wildshape is gone in 1 round, probably with some roll-over damage on his main character. See my anecdote about the owlbear, which was only CR 3. That druid only lasted a few rounds. I think this is where it's important that the DM adjusts according to the specific circumstance. If the druid's in wildshape form, he should be the priority target for the cyclops if you think the party is having a hard time of it (you can still dish out massive damage on the party, without arbitrarily killing the other PCs). If, on the other hand, they're having it too easy... smack out one of the other melee types to make them sweat, then switch to the druid. Even if they handle the cyclops easily, thanks to the druid burning 2 wildshapes to soak damage... good luck with the next 2-3 encounters before you allow a rest. Or 4 encounters. Or however many you choose to push their way until their eyes begin to twitch.

If the other players are grateful that the druid is soaking the cyclops' beats each round (rather than killing their own characters), then it's not a problem. If the druid is also doing the majority of the damage, then I'd question the barbarian or fighter build. A frenzying 3rd level berserker should be attacking twice per round for higher attack and more damage than the bear, with resistance to physical damage and higher HP. A 3rd level fighter should have much higher AC and attack bonuses, slightly inferior damage, but with nifty tricks using their superiority dice. So, the druid has more hp? So what. He's getting attacked more by the cyclops. Damage soak has nothing to do with coolness and player empowerment. It's about the amount of Awesome they're dishing out on their own turn. Both the fighter and the barbarian should be beating out a boring ol' bear, even at 3rd level.

As usual, I think it's just another point towards the increased role of the DM in 5e. However, bounded accuracy and the more brief/lethal nature of 5e fights makes OP builds less of a problem than recent editions, I think. In 3e, you could get some really broken builds that had numbers that just couldn't be matched. Huge spell DCs, unhittable AC, massive damage combos, Christmas Tree magic item sets. In 4e, you had sort of a different problem: the builds weren't as broken, but you also didn't have as many tools to challenge the PCs. No save-or-die, and monsters outside the +/- 5 CR range were basically pointless due to the way the math worked. In 5e, there's almost always a solution to make the player sweat.

Usually, it's an intellect devourer. Intellect devourers solve nearly anything.