insignia of claws, too powerful on a level 3 moon druid? to nerf or not to nerf...

[dehro]

In the party I am running, I have level 3 circle of the moon druid who, when I asked which magic items he'd like me to weave into the story for him to find, asked me to consider the insignia of claws.
I am running a campaign for 6 players. He's one of the frontliners in the party and would probably want to wear this in wild shape.
given that he is circle of the moon, he already has access to higher than average beast forms, this would make their attacks hit even harder, unless I rule that he can't wear it in his animal forms and therefore it becomes absorbed and deactivated when he is in wild shape... which however would render the item completely useless because that's the only time he's ever going to fight barehanded.

I have to refluff/homebrew the item anyway because of settings reason (we're not in faerun) and because I don't own it on dndbeyond... so.. do I take the chance to nerf it a little (if so, how?), or is it actually not inappropriately potent, as items go? is leveling up to fourth level an appropriate time for me to give it to him? can anyone who has played the raise of tiamat module tell me roughly at what level the players encounter it?

[JNAProductions]

Insignia of Claws is, if I recall correctly, just a +1 for your natural/unarmed attacks and count them as magical.

So, if you're up against an AC 20 enemy, a Brown Bear goes from doing 6.025 damage per action, to 8.1 damage. That's a nice boost! More than a third.

But, that's also a real high AC for your level. A more reasonable AC, like say 15, would have the damage jump from 11.3 to 13.475, or a little less than a 20% boost.

The main thing is if you're up against foes that resist non-magical damage, it does the above AND doubles it (since you ignore resistance), but they get to count as magical at level 6 anyway, so...

I don't think it's a big deal.

[Melphizard]

The insignia of claws is not just good for druids but also for monks! It's a way of allowing them to do their punches and bear bites without giving them the penalty of not being able to enhance them as a fighter with a flametongue or +1 longsword would.

For either class an insignia of claws is akin to a +1 weapon for their punches and bear bites, which I think is just fine and as balanced as it goes. Moon druids don't have a lot of options when it comes to improving their wildshape capabilities past getting better forms, so even getting them +1 to hit and attack with likely last them as long as they may ever need. There exists no improvement to the insignia of claws aside from maybe the Eldritch Claw tattoo which amounts to:
https://i.imgflip.com/60ft1l.jpg

It does the same thing as the Insignia of Claws but gets the bonuses of
1. Looking dope. Bear with glowing runic tattoos is sick! Snake with glowing tattoos is the guardian of nature!
2. Has a bonus action "extendo reach" ability that lasts for 1 minute and makes it so the bear can bite somebody from up to 15 ft. away and the bear adds 1d6 force damage to their bites and claws. Once per day ofc.

So yeah when looking at the insignia of claws and the Eldritch tattoo, both are the best items a moon druid could and pretty much will ever have since there's nothing past a +1. Balance wise one is much stronger then the other; however, since you're looking at the lesser of the two I think it'll work out fine if the rest of the party is around +1 weapon range too.

[SharkForce]

the tl;dr version of my answer: the class design is more of a problem, it should more or less resolve itself by level 5, and you can probably give the item any time after that without worries.


---------------------------------

the full version:



insignia of claws is not particularly a problem.

moon druid at level 3 is a problem. from level 2 to 4 (in a game with feats where martial characters take advantage of those feats), moon druids are notoriously strong. at level 5, fighters and such get their second attack, and catch up a lot as well (or, if they use the aforementioned feats as well as getting extra attack, usually jump ahead).

you won't be experiencing the same problem even when the moon druid gets new forms at 6 and 9, because CR 2 and 3 forms are not nearly as out of line with level 6 and 9 warriors. level 10 there'll be a bit of a spike, but not nearly as bad. in the meanwhile, druid spells start to really kick off, but wild shape forms tend to be very easy to hit and require the moon druid to be on the front line, which means concentration can really become a major challenge.

the "proper" solution (although it's a bit late for that) is probably to slow down the moon druid's combat wild shape progression a little bit. you're almost to level 4, and nerfing things in the middle of a campaign is not always a desirable thing, so I'll let you decide what you want to do with that.

the other thing to watch out for is polymorph, but the insignia of claws shouldn't change that any, and in any event it is usually not a great idea to have the person using polymorph also be the one taking the hits. just remember that polymorph is not wildshape; the target won't keep proficiencies, they only get what their new stat block says.

[sithlordnergal]

SharkForce is correct. The Insignia of Claws isn't really a major issue, not for a Moon Druid at the very least. Think of it like giving a PAM build that uses Shield/Quarterstaff a +1 Quarterstaff. Yeah its gonna make the character a little bit better, but the power is more due to the strength of a Shield/Quarterstaff combo with PAM then the +1 Quarterstaff itself. In this case, Wild Shape is just incredibly powerful in Tier 1, to the point where your Druid could solo some encounters while taking either no damage, or minimal damage, depending on what animals they've seen.

And just like SharkForce noted, this power curve will flatten out at level 5. Or rather, everyone else will reach the same level of power that the Druid currently has. The Druid is still going to be a pretty dangerous force to be reckoned with since they have Wild Shape and they're a full caster, but Wild Shape is pretty easy to reign in. Just be careful of what Beasts you throw at the party. Make sure you give your Druid one or two CR 2 and 3 Beasts, that way they can use the better Wild Shape, but you can hand pick ones that will be balanced with the party.

tl;dr: No, Insignia of Claws aren't op on a Moon Druid at level 3. The Druid would be just as powerful with or without them, and at level 6 the Insignia of Claws won't actually matter since they do magical damage.

[Hytheter]

It does the same thing as the Insignia of Claws but gets the bonuses of
1. Looking dope. Bear with glowing runic tattoos is sick! Snake with glowing tattoos is the guardian of nature!
2. Has a bonus action "extendo reach" ability that lasts for 1 minute and makes it so the bear can bite somebody from up to 15 ft. away and the bear adds 1d6 force damage to their bites and claws. Once per day ofc.

So yeah when looking at the insignia of claws and the Eldritch tattoo, both are the best items a moon druid could and pretty much will ever have since there's nothing past a +1. Balance wise one is much stronger then the other; however, since you're looking at the lesser of the two I think it'll work out fine if the rest of the party is around +1 weapon range too.

The +1 from Eldritch Claw tattoo only applies to unarmed strikes, NOT natural weapons. It's great for monks, less so for druids - though Eldritch Maul (the 1/day reach and damage bonus) applies to any melee attack, making it pretty good for anyone who likes to be up in the enemy's face.

Eldritch Claw also has the limitation of being attunement.

[Zhorn]

Insignia of Claws is only an issues if you are treating other +1 magic weapons as an issue.
If other +1 magic weapons are not being treated as an issue, then neither should Insignia of Claws.

Personally I take the stance +1 weapons should be held off till a group is getting into tier 2, but that's more about generally pacing out the character's power growth, and not racing towards 20 stat + magic weapons by level 4.
In isolation though, getting the Insignia of Claws isn't going to be breaking anything for the moon druid to have as is.

[Khrysaes]

Another good item for the moon druid is the Barrier Tattoo, particularly the Very Rare one, but that is probably way to powerful for a level 3.

Essentially it's a tattoo that takes the place of armor, and can work in animal forms. and in particular, none of them are metal.

[Melphizard]

The +1 from Eldritch Claw tattoo only applies to unarmed strikes, NOT natural weapons.


I disagree on this one personally. When a bear hits somebody with their claw or a giant ape hits you with a fist I'd say that's pretty unarmed. A bit more to that is the Lizardfolk race which has this ability:

Bite. Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with it, you deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Essentially what I'm getting at is that if the Lizardfolk's bite can be called a natural weapon and still make unarmed strikes, so could a druid wildshaped as a bear or snake or cow.

[JNAProductions]

I disagree on this one personally. When a bear hits somebody with their claw or a giant ape hits you with a fist I'd say that's pretty unarmed. A bit more to that is the Lizardfolk race which has this ability:

Bite. Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with it, you deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Essentially what I'm getting at is that if the Lizardfolk's bite can be called a natural weapon and still make unarmed strikes, so could a druid wildshaped as a bear or snake or cow.

I could see it ruled either way. RAW isn't perfectly clear, but I do think it errs on the side of "Natural weapons aren't the same as unarmed strikes."

I'd allow it, for sure, but a DM could choose otherwise and they'd not be in the wrong.

[Hytheter]

I disagree on this one personally. When a bear hits somebody with their claw or a giant ape hits you with a fist I'd say that's pretty unarmed. A bit more to that is the Lizardfolk race which has this ability:

Bite. Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with it, you deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Essentially what I'm getting at is that if the Lizardfolk's bite can be called a natural weapon and still make unarmed strikes, so could a druid wildshaped as a bear or snake or cow.

The lizardfolk's counts as unarmed strikes because the ability says it does, not because it's a universal fact about natural weapons - in the latter case it wouldn't need to be stated. Likewise, the insignia of claws wouldn't need to specify natural weapons if they were automatically included under unarmed strikes.

What about the dhampir's bite? "Vampiric Bite. Your fanged bite is a natural weapon, which counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient." Are you to argue that this is an unarmed strike as well, despite explicitly being called out as a simple weapon instead?

[Melphizard]

What about the dhampir's bite? "Vampiric Bite. Your fanged bite is a natural weapon, which counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient." Are you to argue that this is an unarmed strike as well, despite explicitly being called out as a simple weapon instead?

Tabaxi - Cat's Claws: Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Aarakocra - Talons: You are proficient with your unarmed strikes, which deal 1d4 slashing damage on a hit.

Minotaur (Ravnica) - Horns: Your horns are natural melee weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal piercing damage equal to ld6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Centaur (Ravnica) - Hooves: Your hooves are natural melee weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Shifter (Longtooth) - Shifting Feature: While shifted, you can use your elongated fangs to make an unarmed strike as a bonus action. If you hit with your fangs, you can deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Leonin (Theros) - Claws: Your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you can deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier.


Looking at every other non-Dhamphir or Lizardfolk race we see 6 examples of race's claws or hooves being considered natural weapons with which you make unarmed strikes. So yeah I'd say the Dhampir is quite evidently the odd-one-out when it comes to races getting build in attacks. Why they're specifically the ones who have it that way I cannot say. It's also confusing how you technically could say a Dhampir's fangs are a monk weapon.

tl;dr Dhampir is weird but the other races all show their claws are natural weapons with which they make unarmed attacks. Thus, bears with claws should have them count as unarmed attacks.

[Hytheter]

I see six examples where the fact that the natural weapons can be used as unarmed strikes has to be explicitly stated rather than being assumed as a general rule. Because no such general rule exists.

[Khrysaes]

I see six examples where the fact that the natural weapons can be used as unarmed strikes has to be explicitly stated rather than being assumed as a general rule. Because no such general rule exists.

By that logic. The general rule is to “ask the dm”.

[Dork_Forge]

Looking at every other non-Dhamphir or Lizardfolk race we see 6 examples of race's claws or hooves being considered natural weapons with which you make unarmed strikes. So yeah I'd say the Dhampir is quite evidently the odd-one-out when it comes to races getting build in attacks. Why they're specifically the ones who have it that way I cannot say. It's also confusing how you technically could say a Dhampir's fangs are a monk weapon.

tl;dr Dhampir is weird but the other races all show their claws are natural weapons with which they make unarmed attacks. Thus, bears with claws should have them count as unarmed attacks.

The Dhampir's bite has an implicit benefit of having advantage when you're under half health. If it was an unarmed strike you'd be able to make 4 attacks at advantage as a Monk just because you're injured. The increased number of attacks also makes it easier to get the empowerments off.

It's clearly better than every other natural weapon for a Monk, that's probably why they can't use it, it's just straight-up power creep.

On the topic in general, it's pretty clear cut that a natural weapon can only be used for an unarmed strike if it says it can, arguing that because the bite or claw of a PC race includes that text means nothing for a Wildshape form, because it doesn't include it.

[Melphizard]

On the topic in general, it's pretty clear cut that a natural weapon can only be used for an unarmed strike if it says it can, arguing that because the bite or claw of a PC race includes that text means nothing for a Wildshape form, because it doesn't include it.

While I agree that not all natural weapons can be used for unarmed strikes, I feel that the examples should mean something for wildshape. These are animal-like races with their respective animal-theme's bite or claw ability in nature. If a Centaur's hooves get counted as natural weapons being used for unarmed strikes, shouldn't a horse's hooves? While it does not explicitly say by RAW that a bear's bite or claw is a natural weapon that can be used for an unarmed strike, I think RAI it should. A bear is unarmed and attacks with its strike of his claw.

[Dork_Forge]

While I agree that not all natural weapons can be used for unarmed strikes, I feel that the examples should mean something for wildshape. These are animal-like races with their respective animal-theme's bite or claw ability in nature. If a Centaur's hooves get counted as natural weapons being used for unarmed strikes, shouldn't a horse's hooves? While it does not explicitly say by RAW that a bear's bite or claw is a natural weapon that can be used for an unarmed strike, I think RAI it should. A bear is unarmed and attacks with its strike of his claw.

No, the bear and other examples are armed with natural weapons.

I also don't think this is RAI either, the moment you consider that how things work the moment every Moon Druid starts eying up a level or two of Monk.

[Melphizard]

No, the bear and other examples are armed with natural weapons.

I also don't think this is RAI either, the moment you consider that how things work the moment every Moon Druid starts eying up a level or two of Monk.


Natural weapons are "claws, fangs, spines, horns, or others" such as when made by the spell Alter Self. The spell then states that "Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, as appropriate to the natural weapon you chose." While that obviously is magic causing these natural weapons to be so powerful, it's another example of natural weapons being used for unarmed strikes. With all these examples of natural weapons being used for unarmed strikes I think that most DMs wouldn't be against letting you use the Eldritch Claw Tattoo when wildshaping.

As for going Monk that's admittedly a contradiction in my argument; however, flurry of blows and martial arts say "your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons." I don't think a snake can Judo but a bear doing kung-fu has been shown as possible in the media.

Thus, I think it's best to consider this an agree to disagree scenario that's DM dependent. Saying a Minotaur's hooves can be an unarmed strike while a horse's hooves can't, despite biologically being the same, seems unfair.

[dehro]

Interesting debate. Meanwhile I have decided to grant the item (or rather the refluffed version of it) to my player. He's still new to the game and any advantage he'll temporarily get from the item will be offset by the experience some of the other players bring to the game... And will level out when the party levels up again

[JackPhoenix]

Looking at every other non-Dhamphir or Lizardfolk race we see 6 examples of race's claws or hooves being considered natural weapons with which you make unarmed strikes. So yeah I'd say the Dhampir is quite evidently the odd-one-out when it comes to races getting build in attacks. Why they're specifically the ones who have it that way I cannot say. It's also confusing how you technically could say a Dhampir's fangs are a monk weapon.

I can prove you wrong by quoting your own post at you:


Aarakocra - Talons: You are proficient with your unarmed strikes, which deal 1d4 slashing damage on a hit.

Shifter (Longtooth) - Shifting Feature: While shifted, you can use your elongated fangs to make an unarmed strike as a bonus action. If you hit with your fangs, you can deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Aarakocra's talons or Shifter's fangs are not natural weapons.


Thus, I think it's best to consider this an agree to disagree scenario that's DM dependent. Saying a Minotaur's hooves can be an unarmed strike while a horse's hooves can't, despite biologically being the same, seems unfair.

Well then, good thing they are not biologically the same, right?

[BerzerkerUnit]

Did not follow the thread in its entirety because I know this is a charged issue for many.. The short version is: No it's not too powerful and it does not need a nerf.

Low level Moon Wildshape is understood to be "too good," (I disagree) however, by level 6 this has begun to taper off (coincidentally when they acquire a feature that accomplishes the primary benefit of the magic item).


So either you have a problem with moon druid and have likely taken other steps to rein it in, or you don't have a problem with moon druid in which case the amulet is the equivalent of a magic sword for a fighter or a superior focus for a caster. If you think those things would break a fighter or wizard, then you already have the same argument ready to go for the amulet.

[Angelalex242]

...it's a +1 weapon. It is no different than a +1 longsword, except it's for druids and monks.