D&D 5E Kung Fu Panda: How do wildshape and monk class abilities interact?

[steeldragons]

I see. So it is not because of 5e PHB but because of your homebrew. This was my confussion. Thanks for clearing it up. Minor what if because I am interested in the way your world works.

Ok. Sure. I'm game for a bit of mental experimentation. Let's seeee...

Can someone from the Barbarian tribes not find out what a Druid is while adventuring?

Sure. I mean, they know what a druid is...they just kinda think of them as "wizards". Shamans are the goodly magic-users who deal with the totem spirits. Druids are the wandering wizardly guys who work with nature (which, obviously, the totem spirits are in charge of, so that's cool). Clerics and actual arcane magic-users are probably [since they don't really understand "Divine" or "Arcane" magic] dealing with strange/evil spirits or hateful demons. If someone can prove themselves trustworthy/honorable/good guys, then fine. But that will take some time to prove and within that time pretty much anyting that goes "wrong" is going to be the fault of you and your evil spirits.

For example a Barbarian that wanted to be a Shaman but was not allowed to by his family or tribe and then left the tribe to find his own way and then stumbled upon a Circle of Druids and decided to join?

Hmm. This has a lot of assumptions.
1) The druids would need to prove/believe that the barbarian was sincere and capable. The druids would have to offer him/her a place. The barbarian couldn't just "decide to join." Though the "proving yourself worthy" could be a fun set of tests/side quests.
2) If the barbarian "wanted to be a shaman" then I would probably just say "then why don't you play a shaman?" The shamans are "chosen" by the totem spirits, so the Gorunduun believe. No one is going to stop/argue someone from becoming a shaman (except the totem spirits, themselves). But,at the same time, one cannot be a shaman just because they "want to." NOW, this being a potential PC, I [as DM] would say "Sure. Absolutely, play a shaman." So if that was the actual concept: "My guys wants to be a shaman", then they would have not been a Barbarian [class] in the first place.
3) This also presumes that my world's Barbarian class is what you're looking at in the 5e PHB. It is not. It's...similar. It involves some of the same tricks. But it is not the class in the book.
4) If this is about "but I want a Druid who can Rage" then I would point you to my homebrew's "Berserker" theme...a necessary divorce from the "barbarian" class to allow for a class that is also a culture. Any class can be afflicted with Berserking. It probably doesn't do things exactly the way you want, but it's close.

I am not talking about level dipping but actually making a character that you could role play and be a little different. So my first few levels would be barbarian then I would switch and be a Druid that didn't forget were he came from.

So, being honest here, "not forgetting where I come from" reads to me as "justifying why I get to keep my Barbarian goodies"...a.k.a. why I get to have my cake and eat it too. Thus, I am inclined to say "no."

Now, if this is a "roleplaying character development thing" that's fine...great! Enjoy! You can start as barbarian for however many levels, switch to druid. You don't forget where you come from, but you have been spiritually [and metagame-wise] "reborn" [at 1st level, mind!] as a Druid.

So, no keeping most of the "barbarian goodies." Certain things that really wouldn't make sense to take away, like most of the cultural add-ons: skills, weapon prof's, ability bump, etc... you'd retain. Barbarian Class Features, like Danger Sense [since I just happen to have the PHB here with me at the moment and that's something both the PHB and Orea Barbarian have in common], no dice. You want to be a druid enough to change, that's cool. It's your character's story. Be the druid. There's probably not many, but Gorunduun human druids are certainly plausible.

Again, if this is about "But I want to be a druid who can rage" then it's not about roleplay and character development, it's about powergaming with a thin brightly colored candied coating ["but the 'why' of my background story..."] and no amount of background story is going to make me say "Oh, well in that case, a Druid/Barbarian is just fine then."

If you want "a druid who can rage", just say so. Then I say: 1) be a Druid. 2) take the Berserker theme. Optional 3) be a Gorunduun human if you want your character to be recognized/thought of, in the world, as a "barbarian." 4) Here's how all of that works. 5) Welcome to Orea. Have a ball.

In short [too late, I know], there is no reason you have to change/work outside of ["break"] the system [in this case, my homebrew system/setting and what is permitted there] just to "be a little different."

 

[Lrdroland]

Alrighty. I still don't see why I would start back at level one and lose eveything I have learned previously. You make class abilities sound like super powers. I guess I asked the question having not really read any of your blog and didn't know that you have themes to add. If you were playing 5e rules strictly would you have a problem with the multiclass? There would be no other way to make the character otherwise.

 

[steeldragons]

Alrighty. I still don't see why I would start back at level one and lose eveything I have learned previously. You make class abilities sound like super powers. I guess I asked the question having not really read any of your blog and didn't know that you have themes to add. If you were playing 5e rules strictly would you have a problem with the multiclass? There would be no other way to make the character otherwise.

At the risk of derailing this thread further, and apologies to the OP for it, I'll just say there are two ways to look at this:
1) I would not be playing 5e rules "strictly", as the DM, in the sense you are arguing. That's simply not in the DNA of my DND. So the the question is moot.
2) If I am in a game where the 5e rules are being used strictly, I would not be the one DMing. It's up to that DM if they'd allow it. RAW, for "playing 5e rules strictly", it seems there is little choice but to allow it. But that's the DM's call. I'd think the MC character was an unnecessary powergamey thing. But I'm just there to be playin' my guy. SO, again, the question is moot.

I am happy to continue with any queries and conversation on this (or any Orea-related) topic. Anyone can PM me at any time. But I don't feel we should continue to interrupt this thread with this line of conversation.

 

[evilives]

Assuming you are using the Black Bear stat block as the stock for a kung fu panda, your AC would be the better of these two options:

· Use the black bear’s normal AC, or
· Recalculate your unarmored defense AC using the black bear’s Dex and your Wisdom.

Wild Shape gives you the form’s stat block, but allows you to keep your Int, Wis and Cha scores, so unarmored defense is recalculated. Does natural armor figure into unarmored defense? By RAW, no. The rules explicitly say 10 + Dex mod + Wis mod.

The bear’s attacks are all melee weapon attacks. By RAW you could make the case that the claw and bite attack are simple melee weapons that do not have the two-handed or heavy properties, and thus qualify as monk weapons. However, in panda form you lack the ability to make an unarmed strike, so you would not gain bonus attacks from the martial arts class feature. By the same reading of the rules, while you can trigger flurry of blows by taking the Attack action, you would not gain any bonus attacks because the panda form has no attacks which are unarmed strikes.

 

[brehobit]

Thanks all. I think we all reached more-or-less the conclusions I was expecting. It's just fun to think about. And a level dip into monk might be cool for a druid who rarely casts spells but instead is mostly a warrior.

 

[aramis erak]

At the risk of derailing this thread further, and apologies to the OP for it, I'll just say there are two ways to look at this:
1) I would not be playing 5e rules "strictly", as the DM, in the sense you are arguing. That's simply not in the DNA of my DND. So the the question is moot.
2) If I am in a game where the 5e rules are being used strictly, I would not be the one DMing. It's up to that DM if they'd allow it. RAW, for "playing 5e rules strictly", it seems there is little choice but to allow it. But that's the DM's call. I'd think the MC character was an unnecessary powergamey thing. But I'm just there to be playin' my guy. SO, again, the question is moot.

I am happy to continue with any queries and conversation on this (or any Orea-related) topic. Anyone can PM me at any time. But I don't feel we should continue to interrupt this thread with this line of conversation.

You should reread the chapter title which happens to appear above the Multiclassing rules... "CHAPTER 6: CUSTOMIZATION OPTIONS"
RAW, Strictly, Multiclassing isn't allowed unless the DM allows it. RAW, Strictly, feats aren't allowed, unless the DM allows it.

That chapter starts on PHB 163, and ¶2 states: "This chapter defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats." It also says: "Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign."

Strict RAW, feats and multiclassing are DM controlled options.

 

[Azrothan]

If you want to make Kung fu panda, ask your dm to be a werebear that has fully embraced the curse. I'm sure you could bargain your way into it if it seems too op.

 

[TDarien]

Is natural armor considered "wearing" armor?

It doesn't matter.

The class abilities give you AC 10+dex+wis/con. Not AC 10+dex+wis/con+natural armour.

It does matter, because both of those abilities are called "Unarmored Defense" and require the PC to not be wearing armor. If natural armor is considered wearing armor, the PC couldn't benefit from Unarmored Defense at all, and would retain the beast's AC.

 

[Quartz]

If you want to make Kung fu panda, ask your dm to be a werebear that has fully embraced the curse.

Actually, this is a very sensible suggestion.

 

[Paraxis]

I wouldn't consider natural armor as being "worn".