D&D 5E extra attack and wildshape question.

[Sacrosanct]

your example is only good for one or two rounds, before you're out of resources. If you go monk 4 compared to a straight 11th level monk, you only have 4 ki. you also only have wildshape twice. So yeah, you can nova pretty good. But you'll be behind everyone else for most of the combat scenarios. Just like any other class was designed to have really good nova damage.

And then you have the issue of pure ridiculousness. For one, you're ignoring the multiclass rules if you have a Barb 1, Cleric 1, Fighter 6, Monk 1 since you have to meet certain requirements before multiclassing into each class, and odds are you won't have the stats for all of those. And if you did, they wouldn't be anywhere near 18 or 20 since you had to spread them out and thus your bonuses would be less than a straight class. But more importantly, most tables have to have some sort of in game logic to multiclassing. A barbarian/druid is pretty plausible since they could have the same background. A PC with 5 classes? Yeah, that doesn't make any sense.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, this thread is about pure ridiculousness. Then again, we can all rest assured that no one, ever, in the history of D&D has tried to come up with weird combos in order to exploit the rules. (crickets)

FWIW, this thread wasn't about looking for exploits at all. It was to achieve an archetype that inspired the player (bear themed barbarian who could change into a bear, sort of like that guy from the Belagaraith (sp) series). Min/maxing, or exploiting rules was not a factor or driving motivation at all. The conversation also moved from "you technically can't do that as written" (which I don't disagree with) to "that would be way OP" (which I do disagree with for the reasons stated).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

You're probably right. Thoughts of optimizing or exploitation isn't even something that enters my (or my tables) brain. We are driven by inspired archetypes, not mechanics or exploits. So I probably am overlooking where someone could cause havoc if they really wanted to.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

OK, so if I'm understanding correctly, multi-attack is a sub-feature of the attack action. I.e., when you take the attack action, and if you have multi-attack, then that multi-attack falls under that single attack action. Jeremy seems to say that multi-attack is NOT an attack action, which doesn't make any sense to me. So it seems he's ruling that even if you have an extra attack class feature, it really doesn't give you any extra attacks if you happen to be wild shaped.

Don't think of Multiattack as just a "combo" of Attack. Think of Multiattack as Firebreath. Would you let the barbarian get away with "3 Attacks"...of Firebreath? When a bear attacks, it can Attack (re: anything that falls under 'attack action'...like a claw, shove, trip, grapple, or whatever else an 'attack' would be, just like anyone else)...or...the bear can choose to fore go his "Attack" action and in stead make a special "Multiattack" special power/ability/dohicky.

Personally, I'm a LOT more strict with shapechanging. Always have been...except for the actual 9th level magic-user spell of the same name (that I always just let it go as is and opened up the flood gates of power). Anyone who changes form, doesn't get to keep anything he could do in is 'normal form'...they get all the normal stuff they get for their new form. So a barbarian/druid changing into a bear is, basically, "just a bear, with the characters mind in it". The way I see it, the barbarian gets his Extra Attack because he knows his body. He knows what it can do and what it can't. He knows the weight of his weapons and how they can be used best with that knowledge. He knows how to turn this way or that so that attacks against him have a harder time to hit, and if they do, they hit in the locations he wants them to. As soon as he turns into a bear...all that training (knowledge of how to 'do' all that stuff with his normal form) goes out the window. It's like if I (an overweight 5'6" male) was polymorphed into a 6'2", 280 pound muscle-bound sweed. I'd probably have a hard time walking let alone fighting. Make that sweed form a bear and now I'm definitly having difficulty walking...four legs and all that...and fighting? LOL! No toes to keep balance, pivot, etc that I'm used to...no opposable thumbs...and suddenly having to attempt "claw/claw/bite"? No freaking way is that going to work out very well.

That's my stance on it. Shapechanging in my game is for RP effect and "form usefulness". A character shapechanged into a bear isn't doing it for combat...he's doing it so that he can smell stuff better to track the orcs...or he's doing it to carry the half-dead 6'2" sweed back to town...or he's doing it to scare the ever living stuffing out of a trio of highway men intent on robbing "that old farmer guy coming down the road in his wagon" (...I'm not a farmer...Surprise! Muthf'a! RAARRWRRWWRRR! ). In a nutshell...I don't want a "shapechanged 3rd level Barbarian" to be better at fighting than a "5th level Barbarian" (this goes for ANY class, basically....if shapechanging into something else suddenly makes the barbarian a better barbarian, there's something seriously wrong...IMHO, of course).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Saeviomagy]

FWIW, this thread wasn't about looking for exploits at all. It was to achieve an archetype that inspired the player (bear themed barbarian who could change into a bear, sort of like that guy from the Belagaraith (sp) series). Min/maxing, or exploiting rules was not a factor or driving motivation at all. The conversation also moved from "you technically can't do that as written" (which I don't disagree with) to "that would be way OP" (which I do disagree with for the reasons stated).

The bear themed barbarian who turns into a bear works just fine. Once you get druid 2 and barbarian 3, you have 68 extra hitpoints per short rest, and you are effectively doubling a chunk of them. You get your second attack as soon as you hit druid 2. Once you hit barbarian 5, you improve the damage of your second attack from 1d8+4 to 2d6+4. Druid spells add to your out of combat abilities. Bear (pun intended) in mind that a barbarian only gets a handful of rages per day, while the boost from druid is much more consistent.

I think in general the character will be fine. In his nova fight, he'll be in the same ballpark as a straight fighter or barbarian. Outside of that he'll have a ton more utility from spells and animal forms.

Also, have you considered simply letting him flavour his rage as a transformation into a bear and letting him go straight barbarian?

Finally - weirdly transforming into a bear isn't the best combat form for characters with multiple attacks. Probably damage wise your best bet is a form that gets a prone + bonus attack, like warhorse or sabre toothed tiger. And don't forget other special abilities like swallowing a target as a giant toad, or constricting as a giant snake.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If shapechanging into something else suddenly makes the barbarian a better barbarian, there's something seriously wrong...IMHO, of course).

Why? If you were to cast any other buff spell on the barbarian, it would make him better, and if you were to combine any non-spellcaster class with the barbarian, it would make him a better barbarian. I agree that barbarian 3 + druid 2 shouldn't be better than barbarian 5... but saying the two should be totally incompatible seems odd to me.

 

[Sunseeker]

Multiattack is not technically an Attack Action, the Attack Action is an Action, Multiattack is an Action. They are both Actions, but they are not the same.

It's a very obnoxious sort of technicalities they've created with this setup.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Multiattack is not technically an Attack Action, the Attack Action is an Action, Multiattack is an Action. They are both Actions, but they are not the same.

It's a very obnoxious sort of technicalities they've created with this setup.

Obnoxious? For me I see the opposite of that... I see Refreshing. I love the fact that the rules are written in a way that gives everyone a vague idea of what it 'is', but each DM is free to interpret that 'vagueness' down into a more specific thing that fits his/her campaign. This thread is a perfect example.

For me, I wouldn't allow a barbarian to get his extra attack if polymorphed/shapechanged/transformed into a bear, because I interpret "Attack" and "Multiattack" as mutually exlusive; "multiattack" is a special ability, not just 'three attacks in one action' ("The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" I guess is what I'm saying).

For [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION], he sees it a bit differently and is ruling it differently. IMNSHO, this is a VERY GOOD THING! I'd much rather hear about 6 different DM's campaigns that each have their own particular idioms....than hear about 6 different DM's campaigns where I can't tell the difference between them other than what the PC's did.

Viva la spices!

^_^

Paul L. Ming