D&D 5E Would you allow this if you were the DM

[Black_Staff]

Revisiting an old chestnut, the Druid with a dip in Monk. However, it looks like it may be quite a bit more viable in 5e.

1. Druid 1: Druidic, Spellcasting
2. Druid 2: Wild Shape, Druidic Circle (Moon)
3. Monk 1: Martial Arts, Unarmored Defense

Now, this build is predicated on a couple of understandings:

1. Using a natural weapon constitutes an unarmed strike. This is supported by the text of Alter Self, which affirms that when you use the spell to give yourself natural weapons, the attacks you make with those weapons count as unarmed strikes.
2. Martial arts says that you CAN roll a d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon; it doesn't say you must. Obviously, most low-level monks will prefer to roll the die for their weapon, if using a monk weapon.



Given these understandings, the build's straightforward:

1. Wild Shape into brown bear
2. Attack with the brown bear's claw-bite combo.
3. Since you're attacking unarmed, make an additional attack with the claws. (Choosing to employ their damage rather than your d4.)

All in all, it's a hard-hitting package for level 3. Unarmored Defense isn't going to give you a spectacular armor class, but it'll at least be an improvement over the 11 that the bear normally has. Once you hit 20 Wisdom, you'll have a 16 without needing to use spell slots on Barkskin.

from a post on minmaxboards.Com

One of my players sent me a link to this character build post. I wanted to know if you would allow this in your game if you were the DM. I have my thoughts, but I want to see what you folks think before I post my own thoughts.

 

[Manchu]

I have no problem with power gaming in the context of roleplay. If someone wants to play a druid who trains to do martial arts in form of a bear, I am cool with that. If someone wants to play at my table to break 5E, I am not cool with it.

 

[phantomK9]

I would have no problem allowing this.
In my opinion is a player wants to multi-class in order to take advantage of some quirk or synergy, then they are deliberately giving up other options that advancing in one class would give. When this character hits forth level he will miss out on the ability bonus (or feat). To do this, the player is giving up more powerful monk abilities and druid abilities.
I would totally allow this at my table. What's more I've been thinking of different druid factions to allow players an in character reason why this choice isn't all that weird.

 

[Paraxis]

I would not allow it.

The reasoning behind calling natural attacks, unarmed strikes is false in my opinion. The spell alter self transforms your hands to have claws on them, you are still humanoid. No other place in any of the books does it even come close to calling natural attacks of beasts unarmed strikes.

Has nothing to do with the intent, everything to do with the rules. I am pro cheesy exploits and optimization, just seems to be stretching things way to thin and trying to use wording in a spell not even being used to make a justification to base a build on.

 

[Kikuras]

I tend to be more forgiving, and not out to crusade against build options. It's a temporary power play, but like the barbarian class, it tends to lose effectiveness compared to other classes when put to the endurance test, in that the druid's shape-changing is restricted. What this means is that the DM has to either load the adventure with extra encounters, or reduce encounters so as to not ride within the druid's power-use sweet zone.

 

[iserith]

The alter self reference seems like a stretch, but otherwise I'm fine with any rule-legal and ruling-reasonable character build so long as the player uses it well to contribute to achieving the goals of play.

 

[Jack99]

No. Multi-class synergies have to make at least a little sense at my table, not just be the product of some weird interpretation of the rules as written. A martial arts bear. Seriously?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I would not allow it. The Martial Arts and Unarmored Defense abilities exist to model a martial artist performing specific styles of martial arts, which are optimized for the humanoid physique. Bears just aren't built to practice kung fu.

 

[Black_Staff]

Ok, here were my thoughts, and what I ultimately told my player.

1. RAW were not intended to be used to justify stretching unrelated rules. So you cannot use the wording of alter self to do things outside of that spell.

2. If you want to do it, I will let you under one condition. If you want to use cross class abilities in animal form, then you must maintain the prerequisite ability scores from that class while in your altered state. In the case of a monk, you would need to choose an animal form with a dex of at least 13.

I feel that these two responses are fair and either one could be used by a DM to maintain game balance. As a DM, I know I am well within my rights to make up the rules as I go, but sticking close to the book helps prevent unfairness in my decisions.
Does this sound fair and reasonable?

 

[Black_Staff]

I would not allow it. The Martial Arts and Unarmored Defense abilities exist to model a martial artist performing specific styles of martial arts, which are optimized for the humanoid physique. Bears just aren't built to practice kung fu.

Kung Fu panda...