D&D 5E Would you allow this if you were the DM
- Thread starter Black_Staff
- Start date
Apologies all...I should read the entire thread before posting I guess.*
I was ninja'd (hehe kung fu'd?) by [MENTION=6791331]Black_Staff[/MENTION].
* I hate reading the entire thread before posting, then I have to go back and find the spot where it occurred to me to quote somebody.../sigh. I will admit...I should have in this case. le sigh.
I was ninja'd (hehe kung fu'd?) by [MENTION=6791331]Black_Staff[/MENTION].
* I hate reading the entire thread before posting, then I have to go back and find the spot where it occurred to me to quote somebody.../sigh. I will admit...I should have in this case. le sigh.
Warmaster Horus
Explorer
The bear is AC 11 (natural armor), per PHB p.304. That is with a Dex mod of +0, so its' "wearing" 1 point of natural armor. As a DM I wouldn't allow the Monk's Unarmored Defense ability as it is meant to be used while not wearing armor. :>
The Crimson Binome
Hero
By that metric, I could shapeshift into a fox, and still fire a bow.
D&D is not a universal fantasy kitchen sink. There are things which exist within the setting being described, and things which do not exist. The martial arts abilities of a monk are meant to represent the advanced techniques used by humans (or humanoids). It doesn't apply to the form of a non-anthropomorphic animal.
Natural armor is not wearing armor, it is natural.
But the formula for calculating unarmed defense for monk doesn't take natural armor into account so you wouldn't use it.
AC would be 10+(bear dex mod)+wis mod, you don't add 1 for the natural armor it just becomes pointless.
No problem. This also gives us a delightful new monster - a monk who died and was reincarnated as a bear. A monkbear
You mean, he'd be a...yogi?
I would say, you can play it on probation. I reserve the right to nerf this combo at any time--and I mean any time, now or a month from now or a year from now, whenever it becomes a problem.
Good night, druid. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely nerf you in the morning.
If I decide a nerf is required, I will discuss it with you, but the final ruling is mine. If you're not okay with that level of uncertainty, then don't make a kung fu panda druid.
Good night, druid. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely nerf you in the morning.
If I decide a nerf is required, I will discuss it with you, but the final ruling is mine. If you're not okay with that level of uncertainty, then don't make a kung fu panda druid.
Last edited:
Black_Staff
First Post
I am sorry for starting to kung fu panda thing in my own thread. Lesson learned. Let's move on
FormerlyHemlock
Adventurer
I had something similar occur in my game: 7th level monk wants to know what happens if he gets polymorphed into a Giant Ape. Does he still get to use Flurry of Blows and Extra Attack? After checking the wording of the rules, I tentatively said yes. So far he hadn't actually ever done it though.
Black_Staff
First Post
I do agree that druid multiclasses make great fodder for npc tribes if you limit the forms they can use. For instance, druid barbarian might be referred to as a Bear Sark. This would be an interesting way to play it. But I feel you would have to have a story that justifies it.
Sure it is, just not in your campaign, which is cool.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Certainly, there's always room to add more to your game world. I know that 3E had rules for playing anthropomorphic animals, and it wouldn't be too hard to convert those for 5E.
Of course, an anthropomorphic bear is still not a bear. It has hands, and true bipedalism, among other things. An anthro-bear could become a monk, even if a bear-shaped bear could not. (Nor could a druid/monk turn into an anthro-bear, since it's a humanoid rather than an animal.) It just comes down to what you're trying to model.
Edit: One of the huge selling points for any edition is that it resets the content in the world back to a manageable level. The world of D&D 5E isn't assumed to contain anthro-bears, Goliaths, or even Genasi! At least, not just yet. Since there are only the core books, the world is a much more core-oriented one. It's a refreshing change of pace.
Last edited:
Black_Staff
First Post
In dnd terms, you are referring to a werebear. There is a lot of info in the DMG and the MM on this subject. I would not be opposed to working that scenario into my campaign if a player expressed an interest in becoming a werecreature.
Duskdreamer
First Post
I'd totally allow a kung fu panda! It would create a lot of funny moments.
BoldItalic
First Post
Kikuras
First Post
As for the rules, a natural weapon is something that doesn't quite have any rules to it. What we have is:
Non-Improvised
-Melee Weapons
--Simple
--Martial
-Ranged Weapons
--Simple
--Martial
Improvised Weapon
-Melee
-Ranged
The MM only says that a natural weapon is a weapon, and refers the reader back to the PHB. So the question is, does a natural weapon fall within the classification system I outlined, or do we create a new classification that segregates the natural weapon out? I agree that basing the concept off of the wording of Alter Self is not a great place to start, but at the same time, is there enough text elsewhere in the books to say that a natural weapon isn't classified as a non-improvised simple weapon, be it melee or ranged?
The other question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not we would be having the same discussion if Multiattack were not involved.
I've seen a lot of "it doesn't make sense" arguments, and some "it's not balanced" comments, which are all valid... but there is still a RAW hole that I'd like to see filled. And no, I didn't mean for that to be gross.
Non-Improvised
-Melee Weapons
--Simple
--Martial
-Ranged Weapons
--Simple
--Martial
Improvised Weapon
-Melee
-Ranged
The MM only says that a natural weapon is a weapon, and refers the reader back to the PHB. So the question is, does a natural weapon fall within the classification system I outlined, or do we create a new classification that segregates the natural weapon out? I agree that basing the concept off of the wording of Alter Self is not a great place to start, but at the same time, is there enough text elsewhere in the books to say that a natural weapon isn't classified as a non-improvised simple weapon, be it melee or ranged?
The other question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not we would be having the same discussion if Multiattack were not involved.
I've seen a lot of "it doesn't make sense" arguments, and some "it's not balanced" comments, which are all valid... but there is still a RAW hole that I'd like to see filled. And no, I didn't mean for that to be gross.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Unfortunately, I can't seem to come up with a good reason not to allow this. I do agree with an earlier post however, that when shapeshifted, your stats must stay high enough that you remain eligible per the base multiclass requirement, if they dip below that, you lose access to any features from that class. So if you're dipping Monk, that's Dex 13 AND Wis 13, depending on if the player's intent was to break the game or just make an interesting combo, i might tack on for the former that if your wis drops below 13, per the druid requirements, you lose access to those features as well, essentially becoming a level 3 bear.
