D&D General The Owlbear Druid: How Would You Do It? (A Poll)

The Owlbear Druid: How Would You Do It?

  • I wouldn't. It's against the rules, full stop.

    Votes: 6 4.3%
  • I'd change the druid's Wild Shape ability to allow owlbears.

    Votes: 6 4.3%
  • I'd change the druid's Wild Shape ability to allow all Beasts.

    Votes: 4 2.9%
  • I'd change the druid's Circle of the Moon subclass to allow owlbears.

    Votes: 14 10.1%
  • I'd change the druid's Circle of the Moon subclass to allow all Beasts.

    Votes: 9 6.5%
  • I'd create a whole new druid circle just for owlbears (Circle of the Owlbear)

    Votes: 6 4.3%
  • I'd create a whole new druid circle for all Monstrosities (Circle of Monsters)

    Votes: 21 15.1%
  • I'd change the owlbear's creature type to Beast.

    Votes: 50 36.0%
  • I'd do something else (see my comment)

    Votes: 23 16.5%


log in or register to remove this ad

TwoSix

Uncomfortably diegetic
Perhaps when the next revision/version comes around, they will examine each creature along a more rigid system, and define the lore more clearer in cases like owlbears. Like I wrote above, maybe once owlbears were created by magic, but then were able to breed and continue their species without magic? If that was the established lore, fine.
For owlbears, I definitely think it's a case where the narrative around them in the popular imagination is changing faster than the books are.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
For owlbears, I definitely think it's a case where the narrative around them in the popular imagination is changing faster than the books are.
Very well could be, given this was never even brought up on the forum (to my knowledge) until the movie trailer came out...

Some people say "I've allowed Owlbears" already, but others are now "Oh, yeah, that's cool. Just make them beasts." So, I don't think it has been something that has been changing so the books haven't been able to keep up. I think it is a sudden jump due to the movie trailer.

Now, if someone had previously posted about allowing monstrosities as Wild Shape, I missed it I guess.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I suppose if WotC retooled the ideas to be along these lines, but for me an easy way to judge it is if the creatures reproduce or not? To they have to all be created by magic or do they carry on their own species?

I could easily see owlbears and pegasi carrying on their own, but chimera I would have to imagine are somehow "born" of magic. The others might have been once upon a time but turned out that they could mate and reproduce, no longer needing magic to continue the line.

Anyway, bottom line for me is they aren't beasts, so normally druids can't wild shape into them. Although I think a Circle of Monsters might be cool, to me it would have to be carefully balanced versus Moon Druids, otherwise Moon Druids would likely no longer be used by players.

But hey, that is the trend with new things according to WotC, they don't seem to care if it makes prior things obsolete. 🤷‍♂️
To me, owlbears are beasts because no wizard is creating more owlbears.

Owlbears are not immortal. They grow, mate, reproduce, and die. They lack a magical aura nor supernatural aspects. It's existence is back by deities or godlings.

To me, a monstrosity requires epic high magic, divine magic, a history from a magical creature or a powerful curse to keep the monstrosity together and alive for PCs to encounter it.

Owlbears is "a wizard did it" but it's so different from the fey or divine origins of the other monstrosities. And it lacks the magic of the other arcanely created monstrosity.

Ten Bucks says, owlbears being monstrosities is a druidic conspiracy to hide the actions of a well known druid. They always could turn into owlbears. Druids don't so they can deny that they made owlbears naturally.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
Owlbears is "a wizard did it" but it's so different from the fey or divine origins of the other monstrosities. And it lacks the magic of the other arcanely created monstrosity.
Ok, so I brought up Hippogriffs before. What is your thought on them?

By those statements, I would imagine you would consider Hippogriffs beasts as well?
 

darjr

I crit!
So. I think I remember a cert in Adventurers League that allowed this. So they are playing in an AL game, at a convention!
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
If I had a player saying they wanted to do it, I'd probably just create a lower CR'd owlbear statblock... or heck just use any of the almost 60 "owlbear cub"-like statblocks on D&D Beyond that have a CR of 1/2 or less. Then as the druid levels, just keep leveling the statblock and its CR to match.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Ok, so I brought up Hippogriffs before. What is your thought on them?

By those statements, I would imagine you would consider Hippogriffs beasts as well?
Hippogriffs are related to griffons.

To me, griffons have divine origins and this divine unnatural creation separates them and all other "griffs" from nature.

To me a monstrosity has a not-natural origin, magical powers, or is formed from pieces of an unnatural magical being.


2 or more animals jammed together with no magical powers, no divine/dragon/giant/fey/psionic origin, and beast intelligence is a beast to me.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
To me I think a lot of the monstrosity vs beast thing might be generational.

I grew up on 80s and 90s cartoons and they ran with weird looking things being normal animals.
Fast Forward to a decade back and you have the Avatar series where combo-beasts are norm and normal bears are the confusing thing to inhabitants.

BTW statting badgermoles and swarms of turtleducks
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top