D&D 5E Druid's Wild Shape House Rules!

Rocker26a

Explorer
For the monstrosity thing, I actually homebrewed a feat for my game...

Monstrous Wildshape: You can use Wildshape to assume a number of Monstrosity forms equal to your proficiency modifier. The forms cannot be humanoid in shape (not an ettercap or yeti), cannot have a human face (not a centaur or manticore), cannot be a swarm, and should feel “bestial” in nature (not a mimic). Examples of suitable forms include cave fisher, crag cat, displacer beast, hippogriff, owlbear, peryton, phase spider, rust monster, winter wolf, or worg.

...not that you need to make it a feat, more that you could borrow the language/logic I used.

I would personally say that's a somewhat slim benefit for a feat, and also it's system of definitions is a bit complex for the actual language the game runs off of. Like, I get the idea of course, but if you're having to assess which creatures are suitable anyway, I feel like just going case-by-case and then listing them might be easier than explaining why.

(Also it's a minor point, but; You've listed some sapient/intelligent creatures in there! Winter Wolves and Worgs are not basic creatures, heck, they both have their own languages as well as being able to speak Giant and Goblin respectively, and both can speak common! I feel like this is could be considered more contradictory to the spirit of Wild Shape than the other things.)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Quickleaf

Legend
I would personally say that's a somewhat slim benefit for a feat, and also it's system of definitions is a bit complex for the actual language the game runs off of. Like, I get the idea of course, but if you're having to assess which creatures are suitable anyway, I feel like just going case-by-case and then listing them might be easier than explaining why.

(Also it's a minor point, but; You've listed some sapient/intelligent creatures in there! Winter Wolves and Worgs are not basic creatures, heck, they both have their own languages as well as being able to speak Giant and Goblin respectively, and both can speak common! I feel like this is could be considered more contradictory to the spirit of Wild Shape than the other things.)
Sure, yeah, do whatever works. I know I'm hacking my 5e game to pieces, and I love that you're hacking the druid's wildshape in your game. For example, the feat idea is actually going to be a bonus feat the druid can gain (for free) as a story reward, so I didn't feel the need to exhaustively balance/design it as I normally would with a feat.

I'll just mention that in my example... I did not mention "basic" or "sentient" anywhere, those were your words/interpretations... but not part of the language I used.
 

Rocker26a

Explorer
I'll just mention that in my example... I did not mention "basic" or "sentient" anywhere, those were your words/interpretations... but not part of the language I used.

Well, they're my words to describe Beasts and the Monstrosities that feasibly pass as them, yeah! Only flagging it up in case you didn't know, since it seems strange to be allowed to Wild Shape into a sapient creature, is all.

Also even more minor point, but; sapient, not sentient! All these creatures are sentient, only some are sapient!
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top