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

[Crimson Longinus]

It's another option that other druids don't get (assuming moon Druids only get it).

Like noted, it isn't really any more powerful than stuff they already have. It's just a nice little flavour thing. And it would be moon only because others can't access that CR.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It’s a Druid Owlbear that shape changes into a tiefling.

The Circles of Hell Druid build was highly disappointing, as your early options were just lemure, imp and teifling.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Owlbears have always been beasts in any campaign world I have a say in, because that is simply what they should be.

I feel like anyone who actually wants to include owlbears in their game wants them because they are the weird, uniquely D&D creature that is just a dumb animal with no special abilities, and having an extraordinary "ordinary" woodland beast, particular to this game, is fun and emphasizes the D&Dness of the setting. It was a mistake of the designers to designate them as anything else but beasts. As a "monstrosity" they are underwhelming; as a "beast" they are fun and make the game world more fun.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Allowed change to snowy owlbears when I ran ROTFM

How about cute little pixie-sized screech owl bears?

 

[Yaarel]

Not really, since nothing from its origins suggests as such.

Creation of mad wizard person: monstrosity
Creature of the Feywild: fey

But, hey, you do you.

Wait. You left out one of the three official possibilities.

It is an official possibility that the elves have already known about the owlbear existing in the material plane for thousands of years. In other words, one of the three official possibilities is, it is a natural Beast.

 

[Yaarel]

The 5e lore is officially uncertain. The three official rumors imply:

• Creation of a demented Wizard: Monstrosity
• Native of the material plane: Beast
• Creature of the Feywild: Fey

Obviously, the D&D movie went with rumor 2. The owlbear is a Beast. The Druid can wildshape into it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Owlbears have always been beasts in any campaign world I have a say in, because that is simply what they should be.

I feel like anyone who actually wants to include owlbears in their game wants them because they are the weird, uniquely D&D creature that is just a dumb animal with no special abilities, and having an extraordinary "ordinary" woodland beast, particular to this game, is fun and emphasizes the D&Dness of the setting. It was a mistake of the designers to designate them as anything else but beasts. As a "monstrosity" they are underwhelming; as a "beast" they are fun and make the game world more fun.

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?

And what about the purple wyrmling (INT 1)? Just a worm, really, huh? So, it has a poisoned stinger, but so do scorpions--so nothing new there. Sort of underwhelming also.

I, personally, include such monsters because they ARE weird creatures, not natural by any means... so, like the designers I deem them as such, monstrosities, not beasts. They are also not common in my worlds, either.

Wait. You left out one of the three official possibilities.

It is an official possibility that the elves have already known about the owlbear existing in the material plane for thousands of years. In other words, one of the three official possibilities is, it is a natural Beast.

It is part of the second possibility, that "some fey" (those elves) insist they have always existed in the feywild...

Even if you don't want to go that route, it could be covered under the first possibility: the demented wizard created them thousands of years ago...

Either way, as I said, you do you.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Obviously, the D&D movie went with option 3. The owlbear is a Beast. A Druid can wildshape into it.

Nah, they just took license with it because of the Rule of Cool and they are trying to make a movie that highlights all the "cool" of D&D.

The 5e lore is officially uncertain.

No, it is pretty certain:

also:

as opposed to:

 

[Yaarel]

Nah, they just took license with it because of the Rule of Cool and they are trying to make a movie that highlights all the "cool" of D&D.


No, it is pretty certain:

View attachment 254876

It is true the movie went with the rule of cool.

But it did so, with close consultation with the 5e designers.

Likely, it is the rule of enforcing reallife trademark protection.

The owlbear is one of the WotC intellectual properties, like mindflayer and beholder.

Making use of the owlbear in a fun appealing "cool" way is good for WotC business.

One way or an other, expect the 50th anniversary edition to grant the Druid the ability to become an owlbear.

To clarify that the owlbear was a Beast all along, is the simplest way to accomplish this inevitability.

 

[DND_Reborn]

One way or an other, expect the 50th anniversary edition to grant the Druid the ability to become an owlbear.

Maybe, maybe not. Wouldn't surprise me either way.

To clarify that the owlbear was a Beast all along, is the simplest way to accomplish this inevitability.

Also against all the prior establishments of the monster.

A new druid circle would be more likely and also allow for more adaptation to the wild shape to other monstrosities.

Anyway, that's enough of that. As I said in the beginning, I won't allow it in my games as it stands, as a new subclass in the future--maybe?

But, you (and others) do you.