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

[Olgar Shiverstone]

As a few others have posted, I'd allow it by just using bear stats.

For fun ... 'cause I just watched the Disney movie Red ... a druid with a magical curse/disease/lineage who can only become an owlbear, and does it anytime they become stressed and fail a Will save. Comedy ensues.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

By that logic do you also include hippogriffs as beasts? They are even more stupid that owlbears (INT 3 vs INT 2), are just a mixture of two beasts: eagle and horse (similar to the mixture of owl and bear). Pretty underwhelming as a monstrosity, right?

I think the fact that it would be by far the largest flying creature on earth makes the hippogriff a touch different than a creature which, functionally is just a bear.

I have no idea what INT scores have to do with anything here, though I am reminded by that tangent that this edition did allow in bizarrely intelligent flying cats in as "beasts". An owlbear certainly feels more mundane than a tressym.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think the fact that it would be by far the largest flying creature on earth makes the hippogriff a touch different than a creature which, functionally is just a bear.

I have no idea what INT scores have to do with anything here, though I am reminded by that tangent that this edition did allow in bizarrely intelligent flying cats in as "beasts". An owlbear certainly feels more mundane than a tressym.

In the past int3 was the divider between beast & other stuff iirc. I forget the specifics

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think the fact that it would be by far the largest flying creature on earth makes the hippogriff a touch different than a creature which, functionally is just a bear.

So, in a world of magic size is the limiting factor? And, this isn't "earth", is it?

Owlbear = owl + bear
Hippogriff = eagle + horse

Functionally, the hippogriff is just a giant eagle, but weaker in many ways, despite the same CR.

The hippogriff is:

• Less dexterous
• Less intelligent
• Less wise
• Less charismatic
• Lower AC
• Less HP
• Slower flight
• Doesn't understand any languages

While better at:

• Slightly stronger (same modifier, though)
• Walking speed
• Perception (hippogriff has expertise, apparently)
• Better peak damage

Yet the giant eagle is a beast which a druid can wild shape into, nearly better than the hippogriff in all ways, but you don't want to allow hippogriffs? Interesting.

I have no idea what INT scores have to do with anything here, though I am reminded by that tangent that this edition did allow in bizarrely intelligent flying cats in as "beasts". An owlbear certainly feels more mundane than a tressym.

that is just a dumb animal with no special abilities

I brought up INT scores because as a qualifier you said the owl bear as just a dumb animal. The monstrosities I cited are even less intelligent so would seem to meet that qualifier, certainly.

 

[Maxperson]

"Corn" was any grain. Maize (what we generally call corn today) hadn't been discovered yet.

A Martian was any being from another planet.

 

[Undrave]

Owlbears are animals.

Stop making non-superpowered fantastic animals not animals.

This! It's just a bear but it has a beak, how is it more dangerous or more special than a grizzly?

 

[Maxperson]

Remember wen 3x make dinosaurs Beasts just to hose druids?

No. They are animals in 3e. I remember when 3e gave me a druid prestige class to allow me to turn into giants, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, fey, vermin, aberrations, plants, oozes, elementals and dragons. Pretty sure Owlbear was covered in there somewhere.

 

[Leatherhead]

The downside to changing Owlbears into beast is that it takes something special away from the Owlbear.

The upside to giving druids a Circle of Monsters is that they can also change into the new Cranium Rat, or Displacer Beasts.


But the real answer is they are highly likely to just use Generic Stat Blocks (à la Tasha's Pets) for the Druid Wildshape going forward. In which case, the Owlbear is merely an aesthetic choice. Which is fine, because honestly aesthetics are the main draw of the Owlbear to begin with. It's not like they can fly or get special powers like echolocation.

 

[Mistwell]

I'd let them play an owlbear with the stats of a polar bear. Which...is pretty close to an owl bears stats.

 

[Stormonu]

I'd change Circle of the Moon to allow Monstrosities, but I'd have a curated list. I wish 5E hadn't dropped Magical Beast and Monstrous Humanoid, it'd make things easier in that regard.

 

[Minigiant]

Composite animls are beasts unless their nature is held together by magic.

Owlbears and pegasi are beasts.

Chimera and catdogs re monstrosities.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The downside to changing Owlbears into beast is that it takes something special away from the Owlbear.

Accessing possible replies:

1) "Not the good kind of 'special'."

2) "The special thing is how goofy it is, which has nothing to do with its type."

 

[Maxperson]

What the heck are you talking about???

I think he's confusing "something cool" with "the rule of cool." It's cool to kill something on a huge crit. The rule of cool is allowing something cool to happen even if it goes against the rules, because it's cool. Different things.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There was no confusion. Cool has no meaning if you're not willing to mock whatever rules there are for it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would allow Moon Druids to do it (frankly, I'm a bit surprised they can't.) If the character isn't Moon, but wants to become an owlbear anyway,* I would work with them to figure out something special to their character. Because the existing owlbear is probably a bit too powerful for non-Moon Druids, but I could see a specialized owlbear variant working that enhances the stuff the character does do. (E.g. I could see a fiery "embear" version as an alternative to summoning your fire spirit for Wildfire, or an "astral owlbear" as an augmentation of or alternative choice within the Starry Form option for Stars.) This would, naturally (heh), be something the character must build up toward, or else pay for by giving up something else in its stead.

*As noted by at least one and probably several prior posters, that's a thing WoW Druids could do, "moonkin" form is the caster specialty for their Druids. "Moonkin" is the Blizzard-proprietary name for owlbears in their universe. So there's literally millions of people out there who are used to associating owlbears with druid transformations.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Composite animls are beasts unless their nature is held together by magic.

Owlbears and pegasi are beasts.

Chimera and catdogs re monstrosities.

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Functionally, the hippogriff is just a giant eagle, but weaker in many ways, despite the same CR.

That's an interesting point. The Giant Eagle (clearly based on Tolkien) is far more intelligent than "a normal animal". If anything should be not-a-beast it's that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's an interesting point. The Giant Eagle (clearly based on Tolkien) is far more intelligent than "a normal animal". If anything should be not-a-beast it's that.

Yeah, but it is a viable option for Wild Shape. The only reason it made it in is because it is a "giant animal" according to the beast type.

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.

Also, an owlbear is not just a reskinned bear. Owlbears are much more powerful in many ways than even the strongest bears:

While the differences might not seem huge, they are there (and understandable going from CR 2 to CR 3)

• Better AC (+1) due to Better DEX (+2)
• More HP (+17 or 40% more!)
• Keen Sight as well as Keen Smell
• Better damage dice (d8s instead of d6s for claws and d10 instead of d8 for bite)

RAW, only Moon Druids can reach CR 3 (at 9th level), and while I understand a CR 3 in an encounter for 9th level PCs wouldn't break anything at all, for me it just goes against the current lore for owlbears and my concept of Druids and "nature" vs. "natural".

 

[The Glen]

Play an owlbear. Take levels in druid. Owlbear druid.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

Play an owlbear. Take levels in druid. Owlbear druid.

I kinda want to play an owlbear warlock now