Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 6676786" data-attributes="member: 1879">There are basically three approaches to this question. The first is gamist which phrases the question as &quot;Is this balanced, or will it disrupt my game?&quot; The correct answer involves math, which I am not going to do. However since the Barbarian and Monk Unarmoured Defense features are nearly identical there is no reason to prefer one over the other, neither or both should be allowed. The second approach is simulationist and phrases the question as &quot;Does this make sense within my world?&quot; My answer there would be that a barbarians abilities are mystical (linked to the spirt which is unchanged by the shape shift) or anger based, and animals can get angry. So barbarian/druid passes the sniff test. Although for a totem barbarian it would be perfectly fair to my mind to rule that the abilities only function if you are shifted into the totems form. So no bear totem abilities while shaped as a dire wombat. A monks abilities are largely physical, and based on years of training. Shifting to an entirely new form with different balance, strengths and joints will completely negate all of that muscle memory, so to my mind the monk/druid cannot employ martial arts in a novel form. Which is not to say I would not allow a Monk/Druid to spend years developing an animal form based martial art. Indeed you could found an order on the principles of animal style (no really) kung fu. But unless you put in the effort, or talk me into introducing such an order into my world, it's not happening.The third approach is narrative and asks &quot;Is this a story I want to tell in my world?&quot; Obviously each GM will rule differently, but this also depends heavily on the extent to which tone has been set and world building has been completed. These approaches are not exclusive, btw. For example I would say that SteelDragons reply was a mix of the second and third approaches, as I read it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andor, post: 6676786, member: 1879"] There are basically three approaches to this question. The first is gamist which phrases the question as "Is this balanced, or will it disrupt my game?" The correct answer involves math, which I am not going to do. However since the Barbarian and Monk Unarmoured Defense features are nearly identical there is no reason to prefer one over the other, neither or both should be allowed. The second approach is simulationist and phrases the question as "Does this make sense within my world?" My answer there would be that a barbarians abilities are mystical (linked to the spirt which is unchanged by the shape shift) or anger based, and animals can get angry. So barbarian/druid passes the sniff test. Although for a totem barbarian it would be perfectly fair to my mind to rule that the abilities only function if you are shifted into the totems form. So no bear totem abilities while shaped as a dire wombat. A monks abilities are largely physical, and based on years of training. Shifting to an entirely new form with different balance, strengths and joints will completely negate all of that muscle memory, so to my mind the monk/druid cannot employ martial arts in a novel form. Which is not to say I would not allow a Monk/Druid to spend years developing an animal form based martial art. Indeed you could found an order on the principles of animal style (no really) kung fu. But unless you put in the effort, or talk me into introducing such an order into my world, it's not happening. The third approach is narrative and asks "Is this a story I want to tell in my world?" Obviously each GM will rule differently, but this also depends heavily on the extent to which tone has been set and world building has been completed. These approaches are not exclusive, btw. For example I would say that SteelDragons reply was a mix of the second and third approaches, as I read it. [/QUOTE]

Verification