D&D 5E Moon Druid in Lost Mines of Phandelver

[77IM]

How do you determine what animals a Druid has seen prior to the start of his adventuring career?

With an ability check.

Player: I definitely saw a giant octopus one time when I went to the beach!
DM: Maybe you did and maybe you didn't. Giant animals are pretty rare, and it says here that you grew up in the woods. Show me a Wisdom (Survival) check, DC 15, and we'll say that you were just at the right beach at the right time...

In general I find ability checks, with reasonable DCs, are a great and rapid solution to this sort of DM-player dispute. "Can cast the spell just right so it doesn't hit my allies?" "Do I know anybody in this town?" "If I cut up the carcass for parts, are they worth anything?" ...Make an ability check!

 

[iserith]

With an ability check.

Player: I definitely saw a giant octopus one time when I went to the beach!
DM: Maybe you did and maybe you didn't. Giant animals are pretty rare, and it says here that you grew up in the woods. Show me a Wisdom (Survival) check, DC 15, and we'll say that you were just at the right beach at the right time...

In general I find ability checks, with reasonable DCs, are a great and rapid solution to this sort of DM-player dispute. "Can cast the spell just right so it doesn't hit my allies?" "Do I know anybody in this town?" "If I cut up the carcass for parts, are they worth anything?" ...Make an ability check!

So the OP has another idea, I'll post what I do:

Player: I definitely saw a giant octopus one time when I went to the beach!
DM: That's awesome. Giant octopuses are known to swarm around a underwater shrines to the Sea God, built by a lost civilization and rumored to contain great riches. What were the circumstances around you seeing this giant octopus and what terrible secret is preventing you from going there to uncover this treasure trove?
Player: Hmm. A childhood friend and I were playing on the beach when he was grabbed and dragged into the water. I had my knife - I could have done something - but I got scared and ran. I never saw Pug again. I blame myself to this day.
DM: How sad. Okay, as you shift into a giant octopus, memories of your lost friend flood into your mind. What do you do?

No dispute necessary. I accept the idea that the character has seen a giant octopus as established, I take the opportunity to create a hook for future adventure, and we flesh out the character by way of a quick flashback. That's a win all around in my book.

 

[Sacrosanct]

With an ability check.

Player: I definitely saw a giant octopus one time when I went to the beach!
DM: Maybe you did and maybe you didn't. Giant animals are pretty rare, and it says here that you grew up in the woods. Show me a Wisdom (Survival) check, DC 15, and we'll say that you were just at the right beach at the right time...

In general I find ability checks, with reasonable DCs, are a great and rapid solution to this sort of DM-player dispute. "Can cast the spell just right so it doesn't hit my allies?" "Do I know anybody in this town?" "If I cut up the carcass for parts, are they worth anything?" ...Make an ability check!

Not to get pedantic, but there's no way I'd set a DC to medium in order to see a giant octopus from the beach. That's just average. How often does one see a regular octopus at the beach, let alone a giant one?

But really, if it works for your table, that's fine. And that's really what's important. Please don't take this as me trying to poo poo your idea. I guess where I'm coming from, is that that particular rule (what you've seen) is meant to help mitigate all these "moon druids are too OP!" complaints, and if you used that rule in realistic manner, it would be a successful mitigation.

I mean, here you have a class that is pretty much "live out in the wilds away from civilization in a specific region that you're maintaining balance in", and I see all these people say things like, "Well, my druid was a world traveler who visited all the major cities and saw tons of animals in the zoo." That background gets real old real fast just as an excuse to have access to multiple shapes you wouldn't normally get, especially when it doesn't really fit the druid class. IMO, that rule was there for druids to see new forms as they encounter them in the adventure, not have a pre-established poke-ball database they choose from when they hit the required level.

 

[Saeviomagy]

IMO, that rule was there for druids to see new forms as they encounter them in the adventure, not have a pre-established poke-ball database they choose from when they hit the required level.

It's an awful rule. It means the power of the druid ranges from "I have never seen any animal that qualifies as something I can shift into" to "the DM made up this OP beasty that we fought and now I can be it".

Personally I would rather see the wildshape (and polymorph) spells entirely divorced from the concept of replicating things out of the MM and instead be "choose something from this list", be that full fledged animals or more abstract ability combinations.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's an awful rule. It means the power of the druid ranges from "I have never seen any animal that qualifies as something I can shift into" to "the DM made up this OP beasty that we fought and now I can be it".
.

Having a rule that puts the game in the hands of the group playing it to make a decision they enjoy is never, ever, an awful rule.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Having a rule that puts the game in the hands of the group playing it to make a decision they enjoy is never, ever, an awful rule.

That's completely false. In the general case tacking an explicit "or do whatever you find fun" onto the end of an awful rule doesn't make it any better. In the even more general case, if the group could always magically come up with rules that make for the best play experience, then no one would ever pay money for RPGs.

In this specific case the awfulness comes from linking "what the druid can do" with the totally different quality "what animals have the party met". It means that the DM either has to pay very close attention to the creature type of every monster he introduces and it's relative power AND specifically introduce beasts to fuel the druid's class power OR the druid's power level will be completely random. It's vastly inferior to a rule which simply says "The druid's training includes a specific list of beasts, discuss with your DM what beasts your training included. At the DMs option, new creatures may be periodically added to this list", which does exactly what you want while not suffering from the drawbacks of the original rule, and in my opinion is still inferior to the same rule, but with an example list of beasts by level appended.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's completely false. In the general case tacking an explicit "or do whatever you find fun" onto the end of an awful rule doesn't make it any better. In the even more general case, if the group could always magically come up with rules that make for the best play experience, then no one would ever pay money for RPGs.
.

No, I'm afraid it's not false. Giving the individual game tables leeway to adjust rules to fit their personal preference has been tremendously successful. The fact that the popularity of AD&D and skyrocking sales figures in the 80s directly contradicts your claim.

I also strongly disagree with your claim that I quoted earlier that it's either one of those two things. Because it's not. Not even close.

 

[Blackbrrd]

No, I'm afraid it's not false. Giving the individual game tables leeway to adjust rules to fit their personal preference has been tremendously successful. The fact that the popularity of AD&D and skyrocking sales figures in the 80s directly contradicts your claim.

I also strongly disagree with your claim that I quoted earlier that it's either one of those two things. Because it's not. Not even close.

Writing rules with the intention of making them "water tight" and not abusable instead of saying here are the rules, we did the best we can and if there is something that's ambigious where one interpretation ruins your game, interpret it differently is prone to failure.

4e went the errata-way and it created a shitload of errata. Not due to any error on the developers side, but as a effect of being a really complex game. Just look at how often World of Warcraft has had balance patches. It's not something I think they should repeat for 5e.

 

[Saeviomagy]

No, I'm afraid it's not false. Giving the individual game tables leeway to adjust rules to fit their personal preference has been tremendously successful. The fact that the popularity of AD&D and skyrocking sales figures in the 80s directly contradicts your claim.

I seriously doubt that you can make any rule in the HYBRID rpg anything other than awful by adding "or do whatever" to it. You certainly improve the rule, but it's still awful.

I also strongly disagree with your claim that I quoted earlier that it's either one of those two things. Because it's not. Not even close.

And I also disagree with your claim that was quoted in my quote of your quote earlier because purple money dishwasher.

But seriously: flexible rules are good, but flexible rules that are well written are better.