Will Owlbears be Beasts? When will Owlbears Be Beasts?

[Nagog]

Something I've noticed in a lot of non-TTRPG D&D media lately is that everywhere seems to be treating Owlbears as if they were Beasts, specifically Owlbear Wildshape in the D&D Movie and Speak with Animals working on Owlbears in Baldur's Gate 3.

Do you think this means they will be considered Beasts going forward? Would this require a nerf to the Owlbear statblock for WildShape? What about for Ranger's Animal Companion, or does that not even matter now that we have Tasha's Beast stat blocks?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Something I've noticed in a lot of non-TTRPG D&D media lately is that everywhere seems to be treating Owlbears as if they were Beasts, specifically Owlbear Wildshape in the D&D Movie and Speak with Animals working on Owlbears in Baldur's Gate 3.

Do you think this means they will be considered Beasts going forward? Would this require a nerf to the Owlbear statblock for WildShape? What about for Ranger's Animal Companion, or does that not even matter now that we have Tasha's Beast stat blocks?

Meh. The Owlbear isn't that potent of a CR 3 stat block anyway, and doesn't have any particular special abilities. It's fine as a beast IMO.

[Psyren]

BG3 also has Owlbear Wildshape.

Given the rejection of templated wildshape in the playtest, this is the next best solution. I especially like that it opens the door to meaning that 5e's "Beast" category doesn't have to be limited to "real-world animal" and can include more of the options that would have been considered "magical beasts" in 3.5. And they can still leave stuff like Unicorns and Griffons as being other types if they're too powerful for wildshape or taming.

[thoroughlyS]

I have been of the opinion that owlbears should be beasts since v3.5. Owlbears are basically just bears. They don't have any special traits or innate magic that tells me they should be anything other than animals. I've never liked that "the results of magical experimentation gone awry" got lumped into the monstrosity type in 5e.


I especially like that it opens the door to meaning that 5e's "Beast" category doesn't have to be limited to "real-world animal" and can include more of the options that would have been considered "magical beasts" in 3.5.
Technically that door has been open since the Monster Manual, which included flying snakes (the kind with wings, as seen in the art for the thug), giant fire beetles, and stirges as beasts. (Not to mention all the giant animals.)

[Psyren]

I think Giant/Dire animals have always been taken as red. But Owlbears and other hybrids, given their "a wizard did it" backstory, were likely seen as a bit more difficult to square, at least in the past.

With so many prominent examples of owlbear druids though, I think the easiest thing WotC can do would be to change their type in the new MM.

[Damon_Tor]

I would like to see owlbears and some other critters in similar conditions to become beasts, perhaps with a "magical" or "magetouched" or "mutant" subtype.

Full disclosure, I'm not an impartial party here. My three-year-old daughter is crazy for owlbears. I want her growing up in a world where talking to owlbears is a thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Being able to turn into a Winter Wolf is likewise a great idea, right? If you are gonna give them owl bears, then give them
Winter Wolves
Death Dogs
Displacer Beasts

I mean, where do you think the line ought to be drawn and still be a Druid whose core value is the natural order? A grizzly bear would have worked just as well in that movie as an owlbear.

Wizard's tampering with mother nature to create monstrosities is not quite 'the natural order' and is as bad as the stinking coal fired furnaces of steel works and forges. :smalltongue:

Maybe, let's get back to what a druid is, conceptually.
FWIW, here is one line of approach that I think they've got about right in terms of spells for D&Done.

Primal: druids
Divine: clerics
Arcane: sorcerers/wizards.

To do it right, they''ll need to unscrew a lot of 5e's spells and schools.
And that takes work.
Work I have no faith in them undertaking.
Their excuse will be "backwards compatible" which is a pipe dream if they are going to change the core structure of the game without retooling over 50 subclass/class packages already in place.
Which I doubt they have the intent or energy to do.

[Goobahfish]

I actually spent a lot of time thinking about this issue when designing my own RPG.

We ended up trying to boil it down to a few conceptual questions.

"What was the origin of the creature?"
Was it the result of 'mad experiments', 'wild-shaping gone wrong', 'a god made it this way'?

"Is there a viable breeding population?"
Like... if gryphons mate and have offspring, but otherwise are just some eagle/lion hybrid thing... why is that not a beast?

"Do they have some intrinsically magical ability?"
Can it breathe fire? Can it levitate? Can it... teleport?

"Is this creature too intelligent?"
Good old talking bears... are they really bears? Talking monkeys aren't called monkeys...

I think Owlbear falls on the right side of all of these questions. It's not like every owlbear is the result of a 'mad experiment' (unless there is some canonical owlbear factory I am unaware of). I believe they is an owl-bear breeding population (I could be mistaken here). They aren't intrinsically magical (glorified 'beaked bear'). They aren't intelligent.

If every Owlbear came out of Dr Unkind's magical Owlbear vat, you could happily call it an unnatural beast (monstrosity). If they could teleport (magical beast). Intelligent (who knows what this category is called).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think Owlbear falls on the right side of all of these questions. It's not like every owlbear is the result of a 'mad experiment' (unless there is some canonical owlbear factory I am unaware of). I believe they is an owl-bear breeding population (I could be mistaken here). They aren't intrinsically magical (glorified 'beaked bear'). They aren't intelligent.

If every Owlbear came out of Dr Unkind's magical Owlbear vat, you could happily call it an unnatural beast (monstrosity). If they could teleport (magical beast). Intelligent (who knows what this category is called).

Yeah. I agree with these criteria. Their ultimate origin may have been unnatural, but they're normal enough now. If they had magical powers or talked, maybe that'd be different.

[Theodoxus]

I think the criteria for beast should be 'does the creature have any innate abilities that can't be replicated with genetic manipulation?

There aren't any known creatures that can breathe a cone of cold. Sorry Winter Wolf

There are few known creatures that can live with two heads. Typically they're reptiles or reptile adjacent. Death Dogs probably wouldn't make it past a few hours/days after birth, but they don't have any other innately 'not possible' abilities, so I'd put a soft no on them (and as a wildshape, I'd put a hard no - or at least make the Druid roll on the insanity tables for splitting their consciousness between two heads.)

There aren't any known creatures that create illusions of where they might be. Sorry Displacer Beast.

If owlbears were called 'owl-faced' bears, I doubt anyone would bat an eye if they were beasts. That's basically all they are. Heck, they can't even fly...

[MonochromeTiger]

Being able to turn into a Winter Wolf is likewise a great idea, right? If you are gonna give them owl bears, then give them
Winter Wolves
Death Dogs
Displacer Beasts

Sure. I know you're being sarcastic but still sure.


I mean, where do you think the line ought to be drawn and still be a Druid whose core value is the natural order? A grizzly bear would have worked just as well in that movie as an owlbear.

Certainly not where they had it before. D&D has a very limiting view of "the natural order" that, when taken to its logical conclusion, really should be making Druids much more antagonistic to everyone else than they're portrayed in game.


Wizard's tampering with mother nature to create monstrosities is not quite 'the natural order' and is as bad as the stinking coal fired furnaces of steel works and forges. :smalltongue:

Going to simplify slightly on this little tangent but (Owl)bear with me a moment. Some of the conclusions that limit the class can be tied into the idea of the natural order that WotC (and their competitors) usually push and can be summarized with a simple issue. Metal armor.

According to TSR's and later WotC's Druid wearing metal armor in some way breaks their bond with nature. Metal weapons? Perfectly fine, so somehow it's not worked metal in general that's a problem or they wouldn't be able to wield anything that wasn't made of wood and mean thoughts. So maybe it's in how worked metal is covering their body instead of slight contact to their hands or in whatever method they're using to hold and carry it between battles.

Alright so maybe it's because it's an unnatural material covering them? Wait, no, metal may not be alive but it's part of the natural world and you don't run into this issue with stone which would logically be a direct parallel, Circle of the Moon Druids can even turn into earth elementals. So maybe it's because a natural material was altered into clothing? But wait no then every Druid would have to be a nudist because everything from cloth to leather to even shaped wooden clothing is altered to be wearable. Maybe they need it to be from a once living thing so it melds with them if they Wild Shape? But no, again, they can use metal weapons still and, wouldn't you know it, they still meld the metal parts of those.

Well all that's shot. Must be innate to all Druids in general. But wait, there are Deities in some editions of D&D that Druids can worship to wear metal without penalties! Nature Deities that acknowledge metal is part of nature! But that would mean it should be part of nature even without those Deities needing to tell their worshipers it is. It's almost like all the restrictions are based on an inconsistent and reductive idea of what nature actually is being thrown around by random writers without a concrete plan and what that Druid in particular feels like thinking that day! Who knew that in a fictional fantasy setting the very nature of nature itself was so mutable and dependent on editorial fiat?

And end tangent. In conclusion, give Druid Owlbears. It's not really that big of a change, they aren't some earth shattering imbalance, and the internal logic behind Druid as a class has been screwed up from the start so it's not like this of all things will kill it.

[diplomancer]

While I have no problem at all with Owlbears being beasts, the main reason they appear in both BG3 and the D&D movies is probably for marketing purposes. Isn't it one of the trademarked creatures of D&D that can't, legally, be in other media (yes, like mind flayers)?

[Psyren]

Rather than come up with some objective criteria, I think it'd be easier for WotC to just go through the Monstrosity list at low CR and identify stuff that they'd be okay with Druids turning into, and making those beasts . Kruthiks? Ankhegs? Giant Ticks? Yeti? We don't need a whole slew of extra options, just Owlbear and a few others.

[MonochromeTiger]

While I have no problem at all with Owlbears being beasts, the main reason they appear in both BG3 and the D&D movies is probably for marketing purposes. Isn't it one of the trademarked creatures of D&D that can't, legally, be in other media (yes, like mind flayers)?

Not really. Mind Flayers are, Beholders are, and Displacer Beasts are despite just being a renamed and slightly altered version of a Coeurl from an old Science Fiction story.

Owlbears aren't actually held by WotC and have appeared in other systems not affiliated with them.

[Damon_Tor]

...and Displacer Beasts are despite just being a renamed and slightly altered version of a Coeurl from an old Science Fiction story.

It's funny how much of early D&D was just ripped off from other sources and survives in the game to this day.

Interestingly, Githyanki (at least their name and vague identity as a slave-race to an ineffable alien hivemind) were invented by none other than George R R Martin as part of the backstory for his "Thousand Worlds" sci-fi setting. Neither Martin nor D&D were big marketable brands at the time, so nobody noticed or cared when the former ripped off the latter in the original monster manual, but it's interesting looking back on it now.

[Blatant Beast]

It's funny how much of early D&D was just ripped off from other sources and survives in the game to this day.

Interestingly, Githyanki (at least their name and vague identity as a slave-race to an ineffable alien hivemind) were invented by none other than George R R Martin as part of the backstory for his "Thousand Worlds" sci-fi setting. Neither Martin nor D&D were big marketable brands at the time, so nobody noticed or cared when the former ripped off the latter in the original monster manual, but it's interesting looking back on it now.

Githyanki we’re released in the Fiend Folio, not the 1e Monster Manual, I am afraid.

Also, the name Githyanki, I believe, only appears in Martin’s first novel, Dying of the Light.

Githyanki, in the novel are thought of as a long dead race. I remember nothing being stated about Githyanki having been the subjects of a Hivemind…but it has been quite some time since I read the book.

In the book, the theory was the Githyanki were shapechangers. D&D Githyanki share the name only, most other details are very different.

[da newt]

In my head cannon animals with magical powers aren't beasts (aberrations or monstrosities), animals without magical powers are beasts, and things w/ language - tool use - INT aren't animals).

Ankheg, Bullette, Carrion Crawler, Griffon, Hippogriff, Owlbear, Roc, Death Dog, etc - I have no issue with these guys being 'beasts' for polymoph and wild shape etc.

Giant Ape - maybe too smart (INT 7), Giant Elk and Eagle and Owl- (language and INT) - these are the guys I have trouble calling 'beasts' - they are far too smart / civilized.

[JonBeowulf]

In my head cannon animals with magical powers aren't beasts (aberrations or monstrosities), animals without magical powers are beasts, and things w/ language - tool use - INT aren't animals).

Ankheg, Bullette, Carrion Crawler, Griffon, Hippogriff, Owlbear, Roc, Death Dog, etc - I have no issue with these guys being 'beasts' for polymoph and wild shape etc.

Giant Ape - maybe too smart (INT 7), Giant Elk and Eagle and Owl- (language and INT) - these are the guys I have trouble calling 'beasts' - they are far too smart / civilized.

All of this. In my worlds, animals with a really low int and/or no special abilities or attributes gets classified as a beast.

Except dinosaurs because I think they don't belong in a magical fantasy world. Isle of Dread is a fine adventure but the dinos need to stay on their island.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure. I know you're being sarcastic but still sure. Not really. But I had a druid turn into a winter wolf during a game (the DM was being flexible and included some monstrosities) and the delta in power was non trivial, in a tactical sense. The AoE breath weapon isn't something a cave bear can keep up with. Granted, I think that Giant Scorpion can be a more lethal foe, but a Moon Druid can't get that until level 9.

really should be making Druids much more antagonistic to everyone else than they're portrayed in game.
No they shouldn't. See, I can make an unsupported assertion as well as you can.

Metal armor.
No. That's too reductionist to fairly embarce what a Druid is supposed to represent, and it appears to be a pet peeve of optimizerminmaxers who also play D&D

According to TSR's and later WotC's Druid wearing metal armor in some way breaks their bond with nature.
Also restricted from this were Magic Users. How about taking off the blinders a bit?

Metal weapons? Perfectly fine
No.
Their metal weapons proficiencies were always limited, because the used SICKLES to cut mistletoe. (And that reference goes back to Pliny, IIRC, in the records Romans kept about the druids. Suggested reading for you is here. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/70528/22566))
Per EGG, That's where the scimitar came from. Dagger and spear are also simple weapons, and slings, that go back to the early versions of Druid. (I played an Eldritch Wizardry version Druid back in the auld days before the AD&D PHB came out ...

So maybe it's in how worked metal is covering their body instead of slight contact to their hands or in whatever method they're using to hold and carry it between battles. Yes, like Armor For Magic Users was a problem.

Alright so maybe it's because it's an unnatural material covering them?
No, your digression into the absurd is no longer entertaining.


In conclusion, give Druid Owlbears.
Not consistent with the game's basics.
In D&D 5e, it's higher than CR 1, which is the wild shape limit for all druids other than moon.
So 1, druid other than Moon can get it and (2) tell me again what an owlbear's CR is? Now check the PHB, and see which level that might arrive.

While I mostly agree with da newt, I strongly object to exclusion of Giant Ape (Polymorph, not wild shape) Objection based on personal fun and aesthetic reasons, but the "INT" criterion has some holes.
At level 8 for any druid, to be able to Wild Shape in to Giant Eagle is a good thing. Let's not pointlessly nerf the druid.

[Amnestic]

Their metal weapons proficiencies were always limited, because the used SICKLES to cut mistletoe. (And that reference goes back to Pliny, IIRC, in the records Romans kept about the druids

So they could use metal weapons then, and didn't have any restriction on using different weapons if they acquired the proficiency from elsewhere?

It sounds like metal weapons were indeed "fine" then.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except dinosaurs because I think they don't belong in a magical fantasy world. Isle of Dread is a fine adventure but the dinos need to stay on their island. Edgar Rice Burroughs called, and he'd like a word. (I seem to recall dinosaurs in Pelucidar and At the Earth's core.

And let's do a reality check here: you are good with dragons but not dinosaurs? :smallconfused:

So they could use metal weapons then, and didn't have any restriction on using different weapons if they acquired the proficiency from elsewhere? Nope. You are wrong for a wide variety of reasons. One is that MC wasn't originally a thing unless you were an elf. Likewise, your presumption of importing proficiency is wrong and very WotC-centric ... so again no.
That the MC rules in 5e are sloppy (for example the idiotic 1 level dip in fighter gives a wizard heavy armor proficiency) is a part of the problem here.
But mostly, it's the minmaxeroptimizercheese attitude.

ALso, the "so" nonsense indicates lack of engagement in good faith.

[JonBeowulf]

Edgar Rice Burroughs called, and he'd like a word. (I seem to recall dinosaurs in Pelucidar and At the Earth's core.

And let's do a reality check here: you are good with dragons but not dinosaurs? :smallconfused:
<snip>

I like ERB, but he's not writing my worlds. :smallwink: Also, no magic in At the Earth's Core.

Dragons v Dinos - Dragons have only existed in fantasy writings and are therefore perfectly acceptable whereas Dinos did exist and have no fantasy elements beyond Lost World adventures. They fill a specific story niche and provide the DM with "large wall of hp with good damage" options. I don't like them and I don't need them. Everyone is free to do their thing.

[Amnestic]

Likewise, your presumption of importing proficiency is wrong and very WotC-centric ... so again no.

And yet they are the rules, and have existed for many, many years. The restrictions for metal armour existed beyond just their initial incarnation, but they saw no such restrictions on metal weapons regardless of source.

The person you quoted even referred to it existing under WotC, so I'm unclear why it'd matter if my thoughts were "WotC-centric". A great deal of people started with 3.5 (which had these restrictions, along with ease of getting other weapon profs) and many more with 5e.

What was stopping my 3.5 era druid from lugging a Guts-sized greatsword around? Not much. A feat and some stats, mostly, but even carrying a metal shield was enough to turn off their druid spells for 24 hours. It's not hard to see why people raised questions about it or find it incongruous.



ALso, the "so" nonsense indicates lack of engagement in good faith.

Calling the way I write "nonsense" doesn't do much to engender a good faith reading.

[KorvinStarmast]

Calling the way I write "nonsense" doesn't do much to engender a good faith reading. as does your moving the goal posts. We are at this point wasting each others time. As soon as you write "so" and then try to put words into someone else's mouth, failure of good faith has already happened.

I like ERB, but he's not writing my worlds. :smallwink: Also, no magic in At the Earth's Core. Both fair points. :smallsmile:

Dragons v Dinos - Dragons have only existed in fantasy writings
... as far as we know ... (won't nitpick about komodo dragons, as they are more or less giant lizards within a D&D context).

and are therefore perfectly acceptable whereas Dinos did exist and have no fantasy elements beyond Lost World adventures.
True enough, but then why are wolves and bears in Fantasy stories? They exist. :smallconfused:

They fill a specific story niche and provide the DM with "large wall of hp with good damage" options. I don't like them and I don't need them. Everyone is free to do their thing. Very much agree with the niche. Also agree on "matters of taste" so a DM is certainly able to opt out of dinosaurs from a world building aspect. (MM is a DM facing volume, as I see it).
Insert appropriate Mel Books quote here.

[Jophiel]

Also restricted from this were Magic Users. How about taking off the blinders a bit?
[...]
Yes, like Armor For Magic Users was a problem.
Magic Users made more sense though, in my opinion. Going off the 1e PHB which happens to be at hand, the reason why MUs couldn't use armor was because they were such big nerds that they had no idea how to wear/operate in it (or, as EGG put it, "martial combat is so foreign to them..."). But, if you multiclassed or dual-classed, you could wear armor as a MU since now you had the training. Pretty reasonable. As memory serves, casting had an increasing failure rate based on the armor type but I think that's from either the DMG or UA and those books are all the way over... there... somewhere.

Druidic metal aversion was never quite so well defined. They were a subclass of clerics so "Doesn't know how armor works" doesn't make sense and they can use metal in other functions. There's some handwavey "Spoils their powers" comment made but that doesn't amount to much: Is my deity mad? Can my deity just not be mad and let me do druid stuff in their name even when wearing studded leather? Can they not hear me because I'm wearing ring mail like a Faraday cage? Why can I carry a dagger or scimitar in one hand but not a metal shield in the other? Ultimately it's just for flavor much like their parent class having to use maces and hammers because they "don't shed blood" (tell that to someone beaten to death with a hammer). It's a quirk and I'm not even against it since it's flavorful.

Anyway, per the OP, I wouldn't have an issue with a druid becoming an owlbear because (as others noted), it's just a bear with an owl face. It doesn't DO anything you couldn't get out of a standard bear. If someone wanted to shift into a non-beast creature that's basically just a reskinned normal creature, more power to them. I'm having trouble thinking of many examples because few non-beasts are as generically "beastie" as the owlbear.

[Nagog]

Going to simplify slightly on this little tangent but (Owl)bear with me a moment. Some of the conclusions that limit the class can be tied into the idea of the natural order that WotC (and their competitors) usually push and can be summarized with a simple issue. Metal armor.

According to TSR's and later WotC's Druid wearing metal armor in some way breaks their bond with nature. Metal weapons? Perfectly fine, so somehow it's not worked metal in general that's a problem or they wouldn't be able to wield anything that wasn't made of wood and mean thoughts. So maybe it's in how worked metal is covering their body instead of slight contact to their hands or in whatever method they're using to hold and carry it between battles.

Alright so maybe it's because it's an unnatural material covering them? Wait, no, metal may not be alive but it's part of the natural world and you don't run into this issue with stone which would logically be a direct parallel, Circle of the Moon Druids can even turn into earth elementals. So maybe it's because a natural material was altered into clothing? But wait no then every Druid would have to be a nudist because everything from cloth to leather to even shaped wooden clothing is altered to be wearable. Maybe they need it to be from a once living thing so it melds with them if they Wild Shape? But no, again, they can use metal weapons still and, wouldn't you know it, they still meld the metal parts of those.

Well all that's shot. Must be innate to all Druids in general. But wait, there are Deities in some editions of D&D that Druids can worship to wear metal without penalties! Nature Deities that acknowledge metal is part of nature! But that would mean it should be part of nature even without those Deities needing to tell their worshipers it is. It's almost like all the restrictions are based on an inconsistent and reductive idea of what nature actually is being thrown around by random writers without a concrete plan and what that Druid in particular feels like thinking that day! Who knew that in a fictional fantasy setting the very nature of nature itself was so mutable and dependent on editorial fiat?

And end tangent. In conclusion, give Druid Owlbears. It's not really that big of a change, they aren't some earth shattering imbalance, and the internal logic behind Druid as a class has been screwed up from the start so it's not like this of all things will kill it.

PREACH. Honestly, the proficiencies are perhaps the most egregious of the flavor enforcement issues that the Druid suffers from: Being proficient in medium armor, but not metal armor, means there is only one medium armor that RAW doesn't have metal in it, and that's Hide Armor. Which is separate and distinct (and also mechanically worse) than Leather Armor, even though leather is a hide. So why does Hide Armor exist? So Druids can be proficient in it. Why are druids proficient in medium armor? So they can wear Hide armor. Because Druids need to wear Hide Armor to fit some kind of vague yet highly specific mental image somebody somewhere thought up for them. The Scimitar is in the same boat: It's literally just a Shortsword that deals Slashing instead of Piercing, but it's considered a Martial Weapon. Once again, Druids are proficient in simple weapons and... Scimitars. Because this ambiguously specific mental image of a Druid that some designer decided was what they all needed to look like wore Hide Armor and weilded a Scimitar.


Githyanki we’re released in the Fiend Folio, not the 1e Monster Manual, I am afraid.

Also, the name Githyanki, I believe, only appears in Martin’s first novel, Dying of the Light.

Githyanki, in the novel are thought of as a long dead race. I remember nothing being stated about Githyanki having been the subjects of a Hivemind…but it has been quite some time since I read the book.

In the book, the theory was the Githyanki were shapechangers. D&D Githyanki share the name only, most other details are very different.

Haven't read that (not a huge GRRM fan personally), but it almost sounds like Githyanki as he imagined them were just a ripoff of Lovecraft's Shoggoths. Shapeshifting slave race to a bunch of psychic tentacled space monsters.



No they shouldn't. See, I can make an unsupported assertion as well as you can.


It's not an unsupported assertation: It's an extrapolation of the position taken by the preceding argument (That Druids being supporters of the Natural Order would mean they have no connection to unnaturally created creatures/things, wherein the "unnaturally created" clause implies anything created by thinking, sentient creatures, whether or not those creatures are native to that space).



No. That's too reductionist to fairly embarce what a Druid is supposed to represent, and it appears to be a pet peeve of optimizerminmaxers who also play D&D


Therein lies the rub: What exactly is a Druid supposed to represent? "The Natural Order" is an amorphous term, and the definition of it not only changes from generation to generation, but also from one culture to the next. A Duregar Slaver may believe the Natural Order means all other races are subservient to them. A Gnome Industrialist may believe it is the Natural Order for natural resources to be mined and used, oil to be burned, etc. The Metal Armor restriction implies that metal armor (but not metal weapons) is somehow against the Natural Order, does that mean that others who do wear metal armor are evil and perversions of that Order? Who knows! Certainly not WoTC.



Also restricted from this were Magic Users. How about taking off the blinders a bit?


Lacking proficiencies and having your proficiencies restricted due to arbitrary markers are two very different things. I know some systems had stuff that would give your magic a chance to fail when wearing armors (Pathfinder 1e), but the explanations they had for that were very different than "Natural Order", and are noticeably absent in 5e.



No.
Their metal weapons proficiencies were always limited, because the used SICKLES to cut mistletoe. (And that reference goes back to Pliny, IIRC, in the records Romans kept about the druids. Suggested reading for you is here. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/70528/22566))
Per EGG, That's where the scimitar came from. Dagger and spear are also simple weapons, and slings, that go back to the early versions of Druid. (I played an Eldritch Wizardry version Druid back in the auld days before the AD&D PHB came out ...


And Wizards were known to harvest arcane crystals with their light crossbows. Point being, that may have been the original interpretation, but not only has the concept evolved way beyond ancient aboriginals who lived in the woods (I'm fairly certain the OG Druids didn't actually have magic or shapeshifting for example), sticking to source material vs. enhancing gameplay is a poor choice for game design, and the Druid class is the only one I've seen that actively does that.



Not consistent with the game's basics.
In D&D 5e, it's higher than CR 1, which is the wild shape limit for all druids other than moon.
So 1, druid other than Moon can get it and (2) tell me again what an owlbear's CR is? Now check the PHB, and see which level that might arrive.


How is it not consistent with the game's basics? Who cares if only Moon druids get it, that's true for a huge margin of beasts, not to mention elemental forms. Beyond that, Owlbears being Beasts also allows for it to interact with a whole lot more than Wild Shape, including Animal Friendship and Polymorph off the top of my head.

[Dr.Samurai]

I tend to agree that, because of their origins as the creations of a mad scientist, Owlbears aren't appropriate as a wildshape form for druids in general.

That said... I wouldn't be opposed to a Circle of druids that embrace these creatures as they are released into the wild and become part of the surrounding ecology. But it would be a perspective in addition to the more traditional/natural/purist version, as opposed to a modern reinterpretation of "what is natural?" because we want all things to be available to everyone at all times.

In 3.5, there was a prestige class in Dungeonscape that expanded the options for a wild companion (called a Beast companion, IIRC). I always liked the prestige class, and it inspired a character that was a Vadalis researcher with an Otyugh companion. And he accompanied a rough and tumble group of workers led by a Tharashk scion that would travel through Khyber following purple worm tunnels, and going through their excrement to find pulverized Khyber shard dust. He would be on the look out for strange and interesting fauna and flora, and his Otyugh would help track down the worm waste. It was kind of like Darwin traveling with the crew from Deadliest Catch, but in the Underdark lol.

All to say I'm open to expanding more options for players, but not really reimagining what is broadly "natural".

However, in truth, owlbears, griffins, hippogriffs and other creatures like them should probably just be "beasts" in D&D and lose any "mad wizard" origin stories they have and just be made a part of the natural world.

[JonBeowulf]

... as far as we know ... (won't nitpick about komodo dragons, as they are more or less giant lizards within a D&D context).

True enough, but then why are wolves and bears in Fantasy stories? They exist. :smallconfused:


Oh, you magnificent pedantic bastard. :smallbiggrin: How about we go with "exceptions that prove the rule" and both walk away with a win?

[Nagog]

I tend to agree that, because of their origins as the creations of a mad scientist, Owlbears aren't appropriate as a wildshape form for druids in general.

That said... I wouldn't be opposed to a Circle of druids that embrace these creatures as they are released into the wild and become part of the surrounding ecology. But it would be a perspective in addition to the more traditional/natural/purist version, as opposed to a modern reinterpretation of "what is natural?" because we want all things to be available to everyone at all times.


It's less about availability and more about in-universe definitions. If the Wizard was a humanoid native to the material plane, how is it unnatural? It's unconventional evolution at best. In the D&D universe, magic is a natural part of existence (hence Primal magic), and species evolve due to the introduction/actions/migrations of other species all the time.

IRL, the term "unnatural" is arbitrary and massively abused, because in real life there isn't much the human race has interacted with that isn't a product of things that naturally occur here, unless of course you hold the position that humans and the actions of humans are unnatural, which creates the distinction between a human home and a beaver dam.

However, in D&D there are plenty of forces from beyond the material plane that can be considered "unnatural": Fey, Fiends, Celestials, illithids, and the like, so the definition of "natural" is far more clearly defined. Owlbears are native to the Material plane, have no widespread extraplanar influence, and are combinations of two creatures that are similarly native and untouched.



However, in truth, owlbears, griffins, hippogriffs and other creatures like them should probably just be "beasts" in D&D and lose any "mad wizard" origin stories they have and just be made a part of the natural world.

Agreed: in terms of statblocks they're basically beasts as well. I'd draw the line at Chimeras and Manticores though, as those are far from natural or non-magical

[MonochromeTiger]

No they shouldn't. See, I can make an unsupported assertion as well as you can.

The narrow interpretation of Druids in specific and nature in general that WotC has, in which just about anything manufactured or "civilized" is practically anathema to them and their abilities, points toward a nature vs civilization mindset. The endpoint of that mindset is, as the vs part implies, conflict. They decided to pull back on that to make them more acceptable in a party that goes into cities, saves the princess, helps the kingdom, all that stuff, but it doesn't remove the internal issues of the logic behind them.


No. That's too reductionist to fairly embarce what a Druid is supposed to represent, and it appears to be a pet peeve of optimizerminmaxers who also play D&D

It's really not. It's a long unexplained, and flimsy, attempt at saying "well they can never get around this lack of proficiency because their powers will stop working." Why? There's no actual logical reason behind it, it's just a hanging "because we said so."

The fact that you bring up optimizers actually makes it even more jarring to me. Their presence arguing for it being bad is somehow a justification against it being bad? They can have flawed motives and still reach a correct conclusion.


Also restricted from this were Magic Users. How about taking off the blinders a bit?

And yet magic users generally didn't have all their powers shut off if they put a bit of work into gaining the right proficiencies.


No.
Their metal weapons proficiencies were always limited, because the used SICKLES to cut mistletoe. (And that reference goes back to Pliny, IIRC, in the records Romans kept about the druids. Suggested reading for you is here. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/70528/22566))

I'm aware of that, it doesn't remove the entire point that it is still metal and thus makes the no metal armor part internally inconsistent.


Per EGG, That's where the scimitar came from. Dagger and spear are also simple weapons, and slings, that go back to the early versions of Druid. (I played an Eldritch Wizardry version Druid back in the auld days before the AD&D PHB came out ...

You realize that Gygax saying he allowed one then made a stylistic choice to allow a few other metal weapons doesn't actually do anything to the point that it makes metal a viable part of a Druid's arsenal and makes the metal restriction not make sense? That the entire point of that little tangent is because the Druid restrictions have nothing to do with it being about "nature" or lining up with historical or mythological Druids, in fact later in your own link it's outright stated their creative appeal is because so little was known about the religion and culture that they could throw in almost anything.

They just happened to throw in things that create glaring inconsistencies.


Yes, like Armor For Magic Users was a problem.

You're beating this drum and as others have pointed out its origin isn't really much more than "well magic users aren't trained for it." Druids aren't in the same boat here. They don't just get "well you're not trained for it", they get "for reasons we don't adequately explain this one specific act makes you useless for a day, don't worry you can worship this one Elf Deity that says metal is cool and they'll let you wear chainmail or something, but aside from that get over it."


No, your digression into the absurd is no longer entertaining.

Luckily I'm not here to entertain you, wasn't even trying for it actually. And you disagreeing doesn't remove my point, nor does it make it absurd. The basis under which the restrictions were made is flawed and entirely rooted in an internally inconsistent reasoning. Appealing to "the natural order" accomplishes nothing when "the natural order" as dictated by WotC doesn't actually make sense.


Not consistent with the game's basics.
In D&D 5e, it's higher than CR 1, which is the wild shape limit for all druids other than moon.

And Circle of the Moon still gets it. Amazing, the Wildshape subclass gets to Wildshape into something special. It's like that's the entire point of the subclass or something.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's less about availability and more about in-universe definitions. If the Wizard was a humanoid native to the material plane, how is it unnatural?
Because it would never occur naturally.

By your definition, everything in the real world is "natural" because it's all made up of natural things and constructed by natural beings. The term loses any meaning.

But that's not how we understand the word to be used. "Chemicals" are natural, but we talk about them as if they aren't because generally, in nature, you wouldn't be exposed to the vast majority of "chemicals" that modern people are exposed to daily.

Agreed: in terms of statblocks they're basically beasts as well. I'd draw the line at Chimeras and Manticores though, as those are far from natural or non-magical
Agreed as well.

[NontheistCleric]

By your definition, everything in the real world is "natural" because it's all made up of natural things and constructed by natural beings. The term loses any meaning.

Technically, not any meaning... it would just mean 'part of the totality of existence', in a similar sense to the one Spinoza used in his statement that God is equivalent to nature.

That's a philosophical statement, not a religious one, by the way.

[Nagog]

Because it would never occur naturally.

By your definition, everything in the real world is "natural" because it's all made up of natural things and constructed by natural beings. The term loses any meaning.

But that's not how we understand the word to be used. "Chemicals" are natural, but we talk about them as if they aren't because generally, in nature, you wouldn't be exposed to the vast majority of "chemicals" that modern people are exposed to daily.


Is an anthill natural? Those kinds of tunnels don't occur naturally, unless of course you include Ants as being natural, which they are.

Why are humans different? Because we have more complex patterns? We originated on Earth just the same as every other species here. What is the determining factor that makes a chimpanzee's actions and the results thereof a part of nature, but a human's actions and the results thereof unnatural?

You're right that "Natural" looses all meaning if that perspective is taken, but it still begs the question: What is the deciding factor on what is or isn't Natural? In D&D, there are planar forces that provide a clear definition. In real life we have no such deciding factor.

[Theodoxus]

True enough, but then why are wolves and bears in Fantasy stories? They exist. :smallconfused:

Primarily, because outside of some fascinating (in the Spock sense of the word) flat earth style folks purview, humans and dinos never existed together - in fact, tens of millions of years separate us from what most consider dinosaurs (let's not get into the weeds on dino evolution and modern dinos, or even dino adjacent subjects like crocodylidae). Unlike wolves and bears, which do coincide with us - at least for now... this mass extinction event may prove otherwise.


Is an anthill natural? Those kinds of tunnels don't occur naturally, unless of course you include Ants as being natural, which they are.

Why are humans different? Because we have more complex patterns? We originated on Earth just the same as every other species here. What is the determining factor that makes a chimpanzee's actions and the results thereof a part of nature, but a human's actions and the results thereof unnatural?

You're right that "Natural" looses all meaning if that perspective is taken, but it still begs the question: What is the deciding factor on what is or isn't Natural? In D&D, there are planar forces that provide a clear definition. In real life we have no such deciding factor.

All things are natural, until they aren't. Star Trek is natural, if fantastical, as outside of some alien species like Q, everything has a plausible, foundation in quasi-science if not modern science. Star Wars is unnatural, as things like the Force and other Force adjacent magic is just that - magic. It might not be spells in the D&D sense, but the people in that universe can do things we'll never be able to do, regardless of how 'advanced' our science and technology become.

Magic, be it spells in D&D or Force powers in Star Wars, or simply Wishes like in Star Trek is, quite simply, unnatural. And beings or critters that utilize said magic are likewise unnatural. I don't think real life humans are unnatural (nor do I think we're particularly special, unique, or in need of being deemed holy (in the original sense of the word, meaning 'set apart').) But that's like, my opinion, man. YMMV.

[Jophiel]

While "Everything is natural if you think about it" is a valid enough position in our world, games like 5e tend to make it easier by including creation stories with legitimate nature deities bestowing the world with trees and bunnies and, conversely, other distinct powers that plunked the 'human' races down wholesale as opposed to us just being really cool apes.

A better argument is that said nature deities didn't create owlbears per the standard lore. I just lump things like them in with "nature" because I prefer a world with owlbears due to it being a whimsical fantasy place with some unique animals than just a history of "lol cocaine wizards, man". There's still plenty of room in the milieu for wacky magical creations out of some arcane basement.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While "Everything is natural if you think about it" is a valid enough position in our world, games like 5e tend to make it easier by including creation stories with legitimate nature deities bestowing the world with trees and bunnies and, conversely, other distinct powers that plunked the 'human' races down wholesale as opposed to us just being really cool apes.

A better argument is that said nature deities didn't create owlbears per the standard lore. I just lump things like them in with "nature" because I prefer a world with owlbears due to it being a whimsical fantasy place with some unique animals than a history of "lol cocaine wizards, man"

If you exclude anything with unnatural origin from druidic stuff...then Warforged shouldn't be able to be druids. And a bunch of other issues.

[Jophiel]

If you exclude anything with unnatural origin from druidic stuff...then Warforged shouldn't be able to be druids. And a bunch of other issues.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or counterpointing me :smallbiggrin:

Arguably, even humans aren't "natural" in a world with a deity that controls nature (and usually doesn't include humans under their portfolio) so it's easier to go the other way and assume that said natural world is happy for the respect and assistance from whoever wants to be a druid. To go to extremes, some sort of sentient iron golem wanting to be a druid might be kind of interesting.

[KorvinStarmast]

Primarily, because outside of some fascinating (in the Spock sense of the word) flat earth style folks purview, humans and dinos never existed together - in fact, tens of millions of years separate us from what most consider dinosaurs (let's not get into the weeds on dino evolution and modern dinos, or even dino adjacent subjects like crocodylidae). Unlike wolves and bears, which do coincide with us - at least for now... this mass extinction event may prove otherwise. Fair enough.
I'll have you know that the humming birds in our back yard fight like psychotic miniature flying dinosaurs when it comes to who gets to sip off of the feeder first!


Magic, be it spells in D&D or Force powers in Star Wars, or simply Wishes like in Star Trek is, quite simply, unnatural.
And beings or critters that utilize said magic are likewise unnatural.
I don't think real life humans are unnatural (nor do I think we're particularly special, unique, or in need of being deemed holy (in the original sense of the word, meaning 'set apart').)
But that's like, my opinion, man. YMMV. We certainly are natural as "part of nature" so druids would not be anti human. It's particular aspects of how human civilization interacts with the rest of the natural world that sometimes makes fantasy world druids grumpy.
(I still have some serious world building objections with that Gultheas tree from Sunless Citadel ... but that's a separate topic)
The core D&D conceit is the juxtaposition of Civilization/Order versus Chaos. The druids, being people, tend balance between those two extremes, and thus got tagged as "neutral" ...


Oh, you magnificent pedantic bastard. :smallbiggrin: How about we go with "exceptions that prove the rule" and both walk away with a win? Next time we meet IRL, first pint's on me. :smallcool: You can ask Kurt Kurageous: I have been know to buy people beer. :smallbiggrin:

[Dr.Samurai]

Technically, not any meaning... it would just mean 'part of the totality of existence', in a similar sense to the one Spinoza used in his statement that God is equivalent to nature.
Agreed.

Is an anthill natural? Those kinds of tunnels don't occur naturally, unless of course you include Ants as being natural, which they are.

Why are humans different? Because we have more complex patterns? We originated on Earth just the same as every other species here. What is the determining factor that makes a chimpanzee's actions and the results thereof a part of nature, but a human's actions and the results thereof unnatural?

You're right that "Natural" looses all meaning if that perspective is taken, but it still begs the question: What is the deciding factor on what is or isn't Natural? In D&D, there are planar forces that provide a clear definition. In real life we have no such deciding factor.
I don't think most people use the term "natural" to mean "from Earth", so I don't think your definition is helpful at all.

I think it probably has more to do with escaping the natural cycles and checks and balances, and constructing things that facilitate that. And that at some point, intelligence and creativity reach a point that transcend what we consider "natural". To some degree you have to abandon the "logic" of this and immerse yourself in the fiction and draw a line somewhere. I don't need it to make total sense, and it doesn't have to jive with "the real world".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or counterpointing me :smallbiggrin:


Yes.

More just bouncing off of it and showing why "natural" is a squiffy word when talking about this whole mess...

[Theodoxus]

Agreed.

I don't think most people use the term "natural" to mean "from Earth", so I don't think your definition is helpful at all.

I think it probably has more to do with escaping the natural cycles and checks and balances, and constructing things that facilitate that. And that at some point, intelligence and creativity reach a point that transcend what we consider "natural". To some degree you have to abandon the "logic" of this and immerse yourself in the fiction and draw a line somewhere. I don't need it to make total sense, and it doesn't have to jive with "the real world".


More just bouncing off of it and showing why "natural" is a squiffy word when talking about this whole mess...

As we're talking about a game, D&D to be specific, it should be the game itself that is deterministic about what is natural or not. Currently, in 5E, owlbears are called monstrosities which appears to be a catchall for beast adjacent magic-ish critters. Since the fantastical verisimilitude of the typical D&D campaign world is steeped in magic, magic itself should be considered 'natural'. Or at the very least, of the natural world, if not natural in and of itself. In that sense, even in 5E, where resting for 8 hours completely heals one from all the travails of the previous day, the monstrous and the magical should be considered natural.

As such, I would have no qualm in an otherwise standard 5E game to allow polymorph and wildshape to assume forms that are beast-adjacent should a player make the argument.

It would be nice if WotC actually defined natural in a world sense, not just plain English so that, hopefully, it encompasses the very magical essence of the worlds we play in. Doing so would naturally (pun intended, I guess) move the owlbear (et al) into the portfolio of choices.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As we're talking about a game, D&D to be specific, it should be the game itself that is deterministic about what is natural or not. Currently, in 5E, owlbears are called monstrosities which appears to be a catchall for beast adjacent magic-ish critters. Since the fantastical verisimilitude of the typical D&D campaign world is steeped in magic, magic itself should be considered 'natural'. Or at the very least, of the natural world, if not natural in and of itself. In that sense, even in 5E, where resting for 8 hours completely heals one from all the travails of the previous day, the monstrous and the magical should be considered natural.

As such, I would have no qualm in an otherwise standard 5E game to allow polymorph and wildshape to assume forms that are beast-adjacent should a player make the argument.

It would be nice if WotC actually defined natural in a world sense, not just plain English so that, hopefully, it encompasses the very magical essence of the worlds we play in. Doing so would naturally (pun intended, I guess) move the owlbear (et al) into the portfolio of choices.

Yeah, that's my position.

[Dr.Samurai]

As we're talking about a game, D&D to be specific, it should be the game itself that is deterministic about what is natural or not. Currently, in 5E, owlbears are called monstrosities which appears to be a catchall for beast adjacent magic-ish critters. Since the fantastical verisimilitude of the typical D&D campaign world is steeped in magic, magic itself should be considered 'natural'. Or at the very least, of the natural world, if not natural in and of itself. In that sense, even in 5E, where resting for 8 hours completely heals one from all the travails of the previous day, the monstrous and the magical should be considered natural.

As such, I would have no qualm in an otherwise standard 5E game to allow polymorph and wildshape to assume forms that are beast-adjacent should a player make the argument.

It would be nice if WotC actually defined natural in a world sense, not just plain English so that, hopefully, it encompasses the very magical essence of the worlds we play in. Doing so would naturally (pun intended, I guess) move the owlbear (et al) into the portfolio of choices.
The issue with this is that magic also gives us aberrations and liches and all that good stuff.

It's just too open a definition for my tastes.

And that also brings me to my previous point about just letting go to the fiction and the story. When characters are fighting certain monsters and turning them or destroying them or banishing them, they might refer to them as "unnatural" or "abominations" etc. and I think that all makes sense and is normal and we should just go with it.

But as I said before, Owlbears and the others are so close to being just normal animals that the transition to Beast should be easy enough.

[Chronos]

With owlbears, you can at least say that the species originated from wizardly experimentation. They're probably now true-breeding, and have established a niche for themselves in the wilderness, but there's still something of the unnatural about them.

But why can't druids turn into ankhegs? So far as I know, in every edition of D&D, ankhegs have been something that's just out there in the world, like wolves, bears, or trees. There's never really said to be anything "unnatural" about them. So why aren't they wildshapeable?

And while we're at it, they really blew it with the general description of the "monstrosity" type: By D&D creature standards, monstrosities aren't even remotely close to being the "weirdest of the weird". They might have a few magical abilities, and they might be a crossbreed of two different classes of animal, but they generally still have articulated skeletons, and muscles attached to that skeleton to move them, and internal organs including heart, lungs, stomach, etc. or close analogues to them, and so on. At their core, they're basically normal, and that's not true of a lot of other D&D monsters (which might be composed entirely of brain tissue, or be incorporeal spirits, or be composed entirely of inorganic materials, or whatever).

[JackPhoenix]

However, in truth, owlbears, griffins, hippogriffs and other creatures like them should probably just be "beasts" in D&D and lose any "mad wizard" origin stories they have and just be made a part of the natural world.

Avatar the last Airbender comes to mind, pretty much every animal there was a hybrid, to the point that "just a bear" was unique curiosity whose existence was met with disbelief.

[Theodoxus]

I get where you're coming from Dr. Samurai. As such, a gradient sliding scale for DMs to use wouldn't be remiss. "All magic is unnatural, so all things touched by magic are unnatural" at one end (though that does come with some odd interactions, since wildshape would thus be considered unnatural, and then you're back to prescribed lists of what is allowed and what isn't, and anything not on the list ends up being DM fiat - for weal or woe.) "Magic is as ingrained and natural as all the other laws of the universe" at the other end. (Which of course ends up having the exact same problem for the opposite reason - everything is natural, so everything should be allowed, thus the necessity of lists, again.)

It's the middle of these two extremes where 1) I think D&D actually lies, and 2) where the interesting interactions actually happen.

Becoming a lich wouldn't be considered a natural phenomenon. At the very least it requires esoteric knowledge, years of research, trial and error, beseeching powers that should not be beseeched, etc. On a typical D&D world, no one is waking up one day as a lich because of some natural process. But maybe on my world, it's almost that easy. Maybe it requires drinking a specific concoction and you do literally wake up the next morning a lich. On your world, it might require an elf's lifetime of study, so a human would need to find the means of extending their life (philosopher stone, timeless demiplane, etc.).

On my world, maybe magic is hidden away, and requires coaxing and study just to call forth a simple firebolt or prestidigitation. On yours, every Tom, Rick, and Harry is touched with magic and can work wonders as easily as breathing air. The DMG barely touches on this (and mostly as a genre paradigm, not as worldbuilding. But if nothing else, providing a framework like that would open up a lot of DM and potential DMs eyes to the very possibility that such a sliding scale could even exist. Then, tying things like rest periods, healing times, resource regeneration, etc. to similar scales would allow a specific DM to tailor their specific world to a specific reality, and then present it to their players who would immediately know the ramifications and how life would have played out in their characters' backstory. A cleric living in a very magical world would play quite differently than one who's from world akin to Athas... for example.

[JNAProductions]

Metal Armor
No. That's too reductionist to fairly embarce what a Druid is supposed to represent, and it appears to be a pet peeve of optimizerminmaxers who also play D&D

I'm usually DMing. If I do play a Druid, I don't need an extra point or two of AC.

I despise that "rule," because it isn't one. There's no mechanical weight to it-and if there was, it'd be out of place in D&D 5E.

Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)

If it said "Druids cannot cast spells in metal armor," I'd still dislike it, but not as much.
If it said, with Wildshape, "Metal armor cannot meld with the forms taken," I'd still dislike it, but not nearly as much.

It is, to my knowledge, the only roleplaying "rule" in the game-or at least the only one that's treated as such. There's plenty of recommendations, plenty of advice, plenty of inspiration... And then there's that.

Korvin, what happens if, to make transport easier and stop them from casting, a Druid is forced into Full Plate? That's a perfectly valid thing to do within the rules-you can't cast and have disadvantage on physical checks, so you're much less dangerous than if you were unarmored, plus if they want you alive (for whatever reason) your AC is 18, so you're somewhat protected.

[Theodoxus]

...what happens if, to make transport easier and stop them from casting, a Druid is forced into Full Plate? That's a perfectly valid thing to do within the rules-you can't cast and have disadvantage on physical checks, so you're much less dangerous than if you were unarmored, plus if they want you alive (for whatever reason) your AC is 18, so you're somewhat protected.

But WS isn't a spell... there's nothing (outside of being out uses until a SR) keeping said Druid from turning into a squirrel or cat or something and running away...

[JNAProductions]

But WS isn't a spell... there's nothing (outside of being out uses until a SR) keeping said Druid from turning into a squirrel or cat or something and running away...

Fair point. I was trying to have an example other than just "What if a Druid puts on metal armor?" because that's always responded to with "They wouldn't."

[NontheistCleric]

The way I like to think of it is that druids will not wear metal armor–but that doesn't mean they can't change their minds. After all, a fighter has a certain amount of HP, but those HP can be changed if the fighter gets stabbed. It's the same with the druid's class-mandated opinion.

[JNAProductions]

I'd be fine if the class blurb included "Druidic Circles shun the use of metal armor," and I'd be fine with a Druid being proficient in only Light Armor, Hide Armor, and Shields.

But the way it's handled currently is just aggravating.

[Theodoxus]

Fair point. I was trying to have an example other than just "What if a Druid puts on metal armor?" because that's always responded to with "They wouldn't."


I'd be fine if the class blurb included "Druidic Circles shun the use of metal armor," and I'd be fine with a Druid being proficient in only Light Armor, Hide Armor, and Shields.

But the way it's handled currently is just aggravating.

Oh agreed. In my homeworld, the Druid god is basically a reskinned Mielikki (primarily because it was a PC Druid who worshipped Mielikki in the FR that became a god with the rest of the PCs in my homebrew once the original campaign ended) so I just handwaved that sentence in the Druid description because I've always had the same aggravation when I first read it in early 2015.

To me, I see it the same way I'm sure the folks who ended up getting Ki changed. As a person of Celtic and Pictish decent, having Druids be mud grubbing tree hugging luddites who eschew metal wrought items because... idk, Roman historical records, drives me nuts. If we're going to try to be culturally neutral for one set of people, we should be culturally neutral for all. If Monk is controversial, Druid is no less - at least in my circles.

Rename Monk "Pugilist" and be done with it. Fold Wildshape into the Nature Cleric and be done with it.

[Psyren]

I'd be fine if the class blurb included "Druidic Circles shun the use of metal armor," and I'd be fine with a Druid being proficient in only Light Armor, Hide Armor, and Shields.

But the way it's handled currently is just aggravating.

Whatever your stance is on the metal armor thing, it's pretty clear that between BG3 and 1DnD that they see no further value in that "rule" and are kicking it to the curb. Silvanus almighty, we're free at last!


The issue with this is that magic also gives us aberrations and liches and all that good stuff.

It's just too open a definition for my tastes.

And that also brings me to my previous point about just letting go to the fiction and the story. When characters are fighting certain monsters and turning them or destroying them or banishing them, they might refer to them as "unnatural" or "abominations" etc. and I think that all makes sense and is normal and we should just go with it.

But as I said before, Owlbears and the others are so close to being just normal animals that the transition to Beast should be easy enough.

Right - and hell, I'd be fine with adding others like Hippogriff to the Beast list. We don't need a set of exhaustive criteria.

[KorvinStarmast]

Korvin, what happens if, to make transport easier and stop them from casting, a Druid is forced into Full Plate? That's a perfectly valid thing to do within the rules-you can't cast and have disadvantage on physical checks, so you're much less dangerous than if you were unarmored, plus if they want you alive (for whatever reason) your AC is 18, so you're somewhat protected.
It's one of the few ways to handle a captive spell caster. (And it needs to work on Wizards as well). The other way is to knock them out, and as soon as they wake up you knock them out again. (Using the knock out rules form Chapter 9). And then the spell caster is put into concussion protocol ... :smallyuk:

An in play experience: the PCs captured an evil half orc druid (Salt Marsh campaign, the adventure with the ship about to be eaten by an immense / gargantuan old octopus) and they decided that they needd to keep him captive (since he had some info they needed and there may have been a connection to the Elves up in the silver forest up near Burle)
His ability to wild shape (there's a lizardman druid in the party) was resolved by knocking him out, and by keeping watch on him 24/7 so that as soon as he wasn't unconscious, whomever was on watch would knock him out again. The other choice was to kill him, and for their own reasons the party didn't want to do that. (Party was about level 5 at the time).

To me, I see it the same way I'm sure the folks who ended up getting Ki changed. As a person of Celtic and Pictish decent, having Druids be mud grubbing tree hugging luddites who eschew metal wrought items because... idk, Roman historical records, drives me nuts. If we're going to try to be culturally neutral for one set of people, we should be culturally neutral for all. If Monk is controversial, Druid is no less - at least in my circles. A fair complaint, I guess, but we are about to hit the edge of forum rules so I'll stop there.


Rename Monk "Pugilist" and be done with it. Fold Wildshape into the Nature Cleric and be done with it. I don't find that to be a good idea. Name monk "Ascetic" and maybe we are on to something.

[Psyren]

Oh agreed. In my homeworld, the Druid god is basically a reskinned Mielikki (primarily because it was a PC Druid who worshipped Mielikki in the FR that became a god with the rest of the PCs in my homebrew once the original campaign ended) so I just handwaved that sentence in the Druid description because I've always had the same aggravation when I first read it in early 2015.

To me, I see it the same way I'm sure the folks who ended up getting Ki changed. As a person of Celtic and Pictish decent, having Druids be mud grubbing tree hugging luddites who eschew metal wrought items because... idk, Roman historical records, drives me nuts. If we're going to try to be culturally neutral for one set of people, we should be culturally neutral for all. If Monk is controversial, Druid is no less - at least in my circles.

Rename Monk "Pugilist" and be done with it. Fold Wildshape into the Nature Cleric and be done with it.

To be fair, the metal thing might have had as much to do with fables as history, given that druids have fey connections too. Again though, it's a moot point, the metal restriction is unlikely to survive past next year.



I don't find that to be a good idea. Name monk "Ascetic" and maybe we are on to something.

+100. If they were going to rename Monk this would be the ideal replacement. Ascetics exist in many, many cultures.

[Damon_Tor]

I'd like to see metal objects as a restriction on wildshape. Metal objects (including weapons and armor) cannot be absorbed into a wildshape form and must be either dropped or worn by the new form, but in most cases neither would be possible for armor.

[Psyren]

I'd like to see metal objects as a restriction on wildshape. Metal objects (including weapons and armor) cannot be absorbed into a wildshape form and must be either dropped or worn by the new form, but in most cases neither would be possible for armor.

This is just banning metal from druids passive-aggressively though, at least for those druids who want to use wildshape. The time/action cost of donning and doffing most metal armor is nontrivial, to say nothing of the risks of fighting with a valuable piece of your gear lying on the floor.

[Damon_Tor]

This is just banning metal from druids passive-aggressively though, at least for those druids who want to use wildshape. The time/action cost of donning and doffing most metal armor is nontrivial, to say nothing of the risks of fighting with a valuable piece of your gear lying on the floor.

Barbarians and monks are limited in their armor selection via class feature incompatibility as well, I don't really see the difference.

[Theodoxus]

Barbarians and monks are limited in their armor selection via class feature incompatibility as well, I don't really see the difference.

Sure, if you're wanting to see Druid/Monk or less common Druid/Barbarian multiclassing in all Moon Druid builds... it's fine.

[Psyren]

Barbarians and monks are limited in their armor selection via class feature incompatibility as well, I don't really see the difference.

The difference is that both have the option to just not wear their prohibited armors at all (Heavy for Barbarian, or Any for monk.) For them, there is no need to worry about changing to a limited duration form that causes their protection outside that form to fall off. For a Druid, this would either be a clear Grod's Law violation or else push them to non-metal (light) armor to avoid dealing with it.

[Tawmis]

Something I've noticed in a lot of non-TTRPG D&D media lately is that everywhere seems to be treating Owlbears as if they were Beasts, specifically Owlbear Wildshape in the D&D Movie and Speak with Animals working on Owlbears in Baldur's Gate 3.
Do you think this means they will be considered Beasts going forward? Would this require a nerf to the Owlbear statblock for WildShape? What about for Ranger's Animal Companion, or does that not even matter now that we have Tasha's Beast stat blocks?

It's definitely headed into the "Beast" area. They've done too much between one of the campaigns finding an Owlbear cub, the D&D movie and Baldur's Gate III... Definitely feel like they're going to shift it away from "Monstrosity."

And the Druids will rejoice.

[Batcathat]

The difference is that both have the option to just not wear their prohibited armors at all (Heavy for Barbarian, or Any for monk.) For them, there is no need to worry about changing to a limited duration form that causes their protection outside that form to fall off. For a Druid, this would either be a clear Grod's Law violation or else push them to non-metal (light) armor to avoid dealing with it.

So... being completely barred from using it is preferable to potentially being inconvenienced if choosing to use it?

Personally, I think it sounds like a decent option. It seems more narratively cohesive that all metal objects work the same way and comes with actual choice ("Is it worth using this item if I risk having to drop it?") instead of just stopping the character from using certain items.

(Now, whether it would be more or less balanced, I have no idea).

[Psyren]

So... being completely barred from using it is preferable to potentially being inconvenienced if choosing to use it?

...No? Who told you I was against WotC deciding to remove the metal armor restriction?

As I pointed out previously, Baldurs Gate 3 threw it in the trash completely, and the sky hasn't fallen.

[JNAProductions]

So... being completely barred from using it is preferable to potentially being inconvenienced if choosing to use it?

Personally, I think it sounds like a decent option. It seems more narratively cohesive that all metal objects work the same way and comes with actual choice ("Is it worth using this item if I risk having to drop it?") instead of just stopping the character from using certain items.

(Now, whether it would be more or less balanced, I have no idea).

Yeah. I'd rather not have the restriction at all, but that'd be a fine way to implement it. Much better than the current mess.

[Batcathat]

...No? Who told you I was against WotC deciding to remove the metal armor restriction?

Right, but your comment about barbarians and monks made it sound like a situation where the "option to just not wear their prohibited armors at all" is preferable to being able to wear their prohibited armor, but being inconvenienced by it in some situations, but perhaps I misunderstood you.

[Psyren]

Right, but your comment about barbarians and monks made it sound like a situation where the "option to just not wear their prohibited armors at all" is preferable to being able to wear their prohibited armor, but being inconvenienced by it in some situations, but perhaps I misunderstood you.

I have two preferences/options:


1) Remove the restriction entirely, but druids start with Light Armor and need build resources (e.g. Primal Order, feats, multiclassing) to get back to Medium.

2) Keep the restriction, start Druids with Medium Armor, and put actual rules for mundane non-metal medium armors (e.g. dinosaur scales) in the game.

Neither of those indicates a preference for armor falling off during wildshape, or the 2014 approach.

[pothocboots]

1) Remove the restriction entirely, but druids start with Light Armor and need build resources (e.g. Primal Order, feats, multiclassing) to get back to Medium.

Trimming to the relevant preference.

Psyren, in this case, would you also prefer that the various armor restrictions of the Monk and Barbarian are also removed?

To my knowledge the restrictions only occur with armor which they do not get as part of their starting proficiencies.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have two preferences/options:


1) Remove the restriction entirely, but druids start with Light Armor and need build resources (e.g. Primal Order, feats, multiclassing) to get back to Medium.

2) Keep the restriction, start Druids with Medium Armor, and put actual rules for mundane non-metal medium armors (e.g. dinosaur scales) in the game.

Neither of those indicates a preference for armor falling off during wildshape, or the 2014 approach.
No, let's instead go with option 3. The play's the thing. Character building is a mini game parasitic to the play of the game. (Yes, it's a fun mini game that a lot of us enjoy). It Isn't The Game.

The druid can wear medium armor made from "not metal" - yep. In the process of play one can come across things like an umber hulk's chitin, giant scorpion carpace, a flail snail's shell, or things like dragonscales to make armor, and there's even dragonscale armor (scale mail) in the DMG.

All of these arise from play, and need not arise from from "buy it at the store" or 'buy it at the magic mart'.

The play's the thing.
The DMG even has crafting rules/guidance to help put this together when it comes to making things.

As but one example: our Salt Marsh campaign included battles with an umber hulk or two.
The artificer player, and the druid player, both showed an interest in making some armor from the chitin to make some medium armor. (Me = DM).
Brilliant idea, thinks I.

Dig out DMG and Xanathars, we arrive at an estimated cost and time (in Salt marsh there are dwarves running a gold mine concession, and their building is also a smithy) and a bit later the druid has

Medium armor (breast plate IIRC, since he didn't want the stealth penalty from half plate) made from Umber Hulk chitin.
Note that this player isn't some whining {censored} who gets panties in a bunch over medium armor/metal on a druid.
He took 'druids don't wear metal armor' as give but can wear medium armor, embraced it, and came up with a path forward as a result of play.
A bit of creativity shown there, which was cool.

The Play's The Thing.

[JNAProductions]

No, let's instead go with option 3. The play's the thing. Character building is a mini game parasitic to the play of the game.
The druid can wear medium armor made from "not metal" and in the process of play can come across things like an umber hulk's chitin, a flail snail's shell, or things like dragonscale armor.

All of these arise from play an not from "buy it at the store" or 'buy it at the magic mart'.

The play's the thing. And FWIW, the DMG even has crafting rules/guidance to help put this together.

As but one example: our Salt Marsh campaign included battles with an umber hulk or two. The artificer player and the druid player showed an interest in making some armor from the chitin to make some medium armor. (Me = DM).
Brilliant idea, thinks I.

Dig out DMG and Xanathars, we arrive at an estimated cost and time (in Salt marsh there are dwarves running a gold mine concession, and their building is also a smithy) and a bit later the druid has

Medium armor (breast plate IIRC) made from Umber Hulk chitin.
Note that this player isn't some whining {censored} who gets panties in a bunch over medium armor/metal on a druid.
He took 'druids don't wear metal armor' but can wear medium armor, embraced it, and came up with a path forward as a result of play.
A bit of creativity shown there, which was pretty cool.

The Play's The Thing.

So what happens if a Druid puts on metal armor?

[KorvinStarmast]

So what happens if a Druid puts on metal armor? They don't. Read the PHB. I am not going any further down that rat hole again.
I have been in something like four different threads on this topic over the years (I think two or three of them eventually got closed by the mods) two of which got me infractions and hate mail from the mods.
You are invited to waste someone else's time on this, but you won't get mine.

[JNAProductions]

They don't. Read the PHB. I am not going any further down that rat hole again.
I have been in something like four different threads on this topic over the years (I think two or three of them eventually got closed by the mods) two of which got me infractions and hate mail from the mods.
You are invited to waste someone else's time on this, but you won't get mine.

Why is that "rule" immutable?
If a DM said that two people, blinded by fog and darkness, are attacking each other with disadvantage, would you agree with that? Because that's not RAW. Yet it's a pretty sensible ruling.
So why is one, throwaway line in the proficiencies section of the Druid class, so damn important?

Again-if the class description said "Druid Circles shun the use of metal armor," that'd be fine. A DM could use that to have roleplaying consequences for a Druid player who wears metal armor-they are shunned or even hunted by other Druids.
But no Druid EVER will wear metal armor?

A Dwarven Druid, who believes metalcrafting is the purest form of refinement in nature?
A trickster, who conned their way into the trust of a Circle and learned some magic, won't ever wear metal armor?

And if that's the case, why don't Ancients Paladins, Fey Warlocks, or Nature Clerics have that restriction?

[MonochromeTiger]

So what happens if a Druid puts on metal armor?

Given they've chosen to actively compare "doesn't think Druids being unable to wear metal armor makes sense" and, and this is directly quoting, "some whining {censored} who gets panties in a bunch over medium armor/metal on a druid"?


They don't. Read the PHB. I am not going any further down that rat hole again.
I have been in something like four different threads on this topic over the years (I think two or three of them eventually got closed by the mods) two of which got me infractions and hate mail from the mods.
You are invited to waste someone else's time on this, but you won't get mine.

We get it, you don't like the idea. Thing is you chose to engage. You chose to take a hostile view the moment I brought it up. You chose to dismiss the obvious connection to the overall point that "the balance of nature" has less to do with making sense than it does with being an excuse for the writers to say "you can't do this because we said so" that got grandfathered in by Gygax. You even chose to respond to JNAProductions with the exact same "they don't" that one of their earlier posts predicted as a default answer.

You're free to not like the idea. You're free to not agree. But you could've easily just said "this is a pet peeve topic of mine and I don't want to engage with it" and focused on the rest of the topic at any point before now instead of phrasing things in a hostile and dismissive manner.

Never mind the fact that those dismissals really never did anything to the overall point that the criteria for something actually making sense with "isn't part of nature" is so nebulous and subjective that the usual answer it comes down to is just "does WotC want to allow it."

[PhoenixPhyre]

New forum "law" (in the "observation of immutable, universal fact" sense like physical law, not the "legal maxim" sense):


All internet discussions that touch druids will eventually devolve into a heated argument over druids and metal armor.

[Theodoxus]

All internet discussions that touch druids will eventually devolve into a heated argument over druids and metal armor.

Maybe we should change the name of heat metal to heated metal argument. It is a Druid spell, after all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

All internet discussions that touch druids will eventually devolve into a heated argument over druids and metal armor.

Maybe we should change the name of heat metal to heated metal argument. It is a Druid spell, after all.

I had a party call it "heat war crime" for reasons I never quite put my finger on...

[JackPhoenix]

All internet discussions that touch druids will eventually devolve into a heated argument over druids and metal armor.

Maybe we should change the name of heat metal to heated metal argument. It is a Druid spell, after all.

And here's the reason why druids don't wear metal armor. You can drop a scimitar if you have to, but if you're wearing a chain shirt, you're going to cook.

[Psyren]

New forum "law" (in the "observation of immutable, universal fact" sense like physical law, not the "legal maxim" sense):


All internet discussions that touch druids will eventually devolve into a heated argument over druids and metal armor.

Maybe we should change the name of heat metal to heated metal argument. It is a Druid spell, after all.

Only one more year and we can all be free. (Except the folks who cling to the 2014 rules I guess, but that's their choice.)


Trimming to the relevant preference.

Psyren, in this case, would you also prefer that the various armor restrictions of the Monk and Barbarian are also removed?

To my knowledge the restrictions only occur with armor which they do not get as part of their starting proficiencies.

Why? Barbarians' only "restriction" is not being able to wear Heavy Armor, but that's not an issue - Medium Armor (+Shields) is perfectly acceptable for a frontline class. Monks meanwhile won't be fixed simply by letting them wear armor, they need a ground-up redesign.

[JackPhoenix]

Only one more year and we can all be free. (Except the folks who cling to the 2014 rules I guess, but that's their choice.)

Some people already are free of WotC's crap.

[diplomancer]

I never thought too deeply about it... but yes, if Druids are going to be able to wear Metal Armor "because we will not be beholden to the past", then Barbarians Heavy Armor restrictions should definitely go, and for the same reason.

They could definitely use the buff (right now, they're the only class that has to invest in Str and Dex), and there's no reason or logic why wearing Chain Mail should stop a Rage (but a Half-Plate is totally fine).

[Psyren]

Some people already are free of WotC's crap.

That's the funny part, the only people left arguing about metal armor will be the ones who refuse the upgrade :smallbiggrin:


I never thought too deeply about it... but yes, if Druids are going to be able to wear Metal Armor "because we will not be beholden to the past", then Barbarians Heavy Armor restrictions should definitely go, and for the same reason.

They could definitely use the buff (right now, they're the only class that has to invest in Str and Dex), and there's no reason or logic why wearing Chain Mail should stop a Rage (but a Half-Plate is totally fine).

If they make it so Barbarians can wear Heavy armor it honestly wouldn't bother me that much; I just really don't see a need for it. The difference between Medium and Heavy is far, far less than Light to Medium or None to Light.

[Kane0]

I removed the armor restrictions from barbarians, druids and monks a few years back, hardly saw any appreciable change.

Anyways, there's a ton of 'monsters' that really should be beasts. Owlbears, Steeders, Striders, Ankhegs, Carrion Crawlers, Cave Fishers, Girallon, Bulette, Rocs, etc, etc.

[diplomancer]

If they make it so Barbarians can wear Heavy armor it honestly wouldn't bother me that much; I just really don't see a need for it. The difference between Medium and Heavy is far, far less than Light to Medium or None to Light.

AC-wise, yes, specially for casters that won't invest much in either Str or Dex. But stats-wise, making so many abilities of the Barbarian require Str, but denying them Heavy Armor to force them to invest points in Dex, is unnecessarily punishing.

Now those freed points could be invested in different stats, making Barbarians more flexible and interesting.

Not to mention that the restriction probably comes not because of balance, but because of the perception that Heavy Armor is "civilized", and Barbarians are not. Yikes.

[Psyren]

AC-wise, yes, specially for casters that won't invest much in either Str or Dex. But stats-wise, making so many abilities of the Barbarian require Str, but deny them Heavy Armor to force them to invest points in Dex, is unnecessarily punishing.

I don't see 14 Dex as punishing - it's a small investment, and even if you don't use it for anything else, positive initiative and Dex saves are good by themselves on any martial.

[diplomancer]

I don't see 14 Dex as punishing - it's a small investment, and even if you don't use it for anything else, positive initiative and Dex saves are good by themselves on any martial.

What is punishing is forcing 14 Dex, not having 14 Dex. Giving Barbarians Heavy Armor would free them to be wiser, or more charismatic, or more intelligent, if they wanted to. Or they could still invest those points in Dex for the reasons you've mentioned, but not be pigeon-holed into it.

Heck.... even going purely by tropes: there are no "clumsy Barbarians" in D&D.

[KorvinStarmast]

Only one more year and we can all be free. (Except the folks who cling to the 2014 rules I guess, but that's their choice.) D&Done is doing a lot of "fix what isn't broken" so far. And feat chains are {censored}.

Why? Barbarians' only "restriction" is not being able to wear Heavy Armor, but that's not an issue - Medium Armor (+Shields) is perfectly acceptable for a frontline class. Monks...need a ground-up redesign. No, they don't. All that I think they might need is an ASI at 10, like the Rogue, and a tweak to the four elemental monk that we've all discussed at one point or another.

[Dr.Samurai]

Heck.... even going purely by tropes: there are no "clumsy Barbarians" in D&D.
We are all brawlerinas.

[JackPhoenix]

Heck.... even going purely by tropes: there are no "clumsy Barbarians" in D&D.

Sure. That's how natural selection works, there are no clumsy barbarians, because clumsy barbarians are dead. And Conan was often described as moving with the grace of a panther.

[diplomancer]

Sure. That's how natural selection works, there are no clumsy barbarians, because clumsy barbarians are dead. And Conan was often described as moving with the grace of a panther.

Yeah, but there are clumsy Fighters, Paladins, Clerics, etc, and they have no problem surviving.

And Conan is not the only Barbarian.

[Dr.Samurai]

Also, Conan was everything. Can't model ability scores off him unless we give barbarians great stats all around.

Which, of course, I'm all for :smallcool:

[Psyren]

D&Done is doing a lot of "fix what isn't broken" so far.

Druids imploding-but-not-really-but-also-yes if they wear metal armor was definitely something broken in my mind. Either they should remove the restriction or be clear about what it does and why it's there.



Heck.... even going purely by tropes: there are no "clumsy Barbarians" in D&D.

Because they all have 14+ Dex :smallbiggrin:

I see your point and again, not opposed to heavy armor in principle / wouldn't throw my toys out of the pram if they implemented it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Druids imploding-but-not-really-but-also-yes if they wear metal armor was definitely something broken in my mind. Either they should remove the restriction or be clear about what it does and why it's there. For most people, it isn't a problem.
This small minority {Scrubbed} are not worth changing that for.
With that said, if you feel that better clarity in the PHB is something that is needed, or another scrub, there are a variety of areas that is true - attack and Attack, targeting etc. On that basis there are grounds for improvement on this as well other areas.
Yet with all of the errata, nothing came out to change that class feature from the PHB.
Maybe, just maybe, it isn't a problem in the first place.
And as for various 'fixes' as we look through the abortive attempts at the D&Done "we'll fix wild shape" having any confidence in 'corrections' or "fixes" is not warranted.

Beyond that, while I'd be happy to see druid return to a sub class of cleric (Nature domain, anyone? and FFS lose the Heavy Armor proficiency), that ship sailed a few editions ago and I don't see it coming back to harbor.

[Amnestic]

This small minority {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

You don't know that those who disagree or find it unsatisfying are the "small minority", seems pretty unfounded to assert that they are.

Thankfully druids can still deck themselves out in all sorts of metal rings, amulets, helmets, and other metallic trinkets without apparently infringing on whatever it is that stops them from using them.

[Psyren]

For most people, it isn't a problem.
This small minority {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} are not worth changing that for.

Then why are both WotC and Larian throwing it out? I'd trust their player data over yours any day.


And as for various 'fixes' as we look through the abortive attempts at the D&Done "we'll fix wild shape" having any confidence in 'corrections' or "fixes" is not warranted.

The latest wild shape isn't perfect but it's definitely an improvement over 2014, so I'm pretty confident actually. Even if we don't get my ideal solution, getting something better than 10 years ago is a low bar for them to clear.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah, but there are clumsy Fighters, Paladins, Clerics, etc, and they have no problem surviving.

And Conan is not the only Barbarian.

Nothing stops you from making low-dex barbarian. They don't rely on AC to survive anyway, and they can have AC 17 even with Dex of 10.


Then why are both WotC and Larian throwing it out? I'd trust their player data over yours any day.

WotC, because it's a hint of flavor, and we can't have that. Larian, probably because they didn't think about it or because it's easier to program, there's no indication it's intentional decision. Though, of course, your blind trust in WotC's decisionmaking is unsurprising.

[Psyren]

WotC, because it's a hint of flavor, and we can't have that. Larian, probably because they didn't think about it or because it's easier to program, there's no indication it's intentional decision. Though, of course, your blind trust in WotC's decisionmaking is unsurprising.

I don't see how blind hatred is an improvement.

More importantly, what I'm looking at are the results. What exactly did the metal armor restriction add that can't be accomplished better with a starting proficiency of Light Armor?

[JNAProductions]

I wouldn't mind it nearly so much if it wasn't pretty much the only one of its kind.

In a game with tighter theming and more built-in lore, yeah, it'd be good.
In 5E D&D? Not so much.

[Amnestic]

It was never well justified, even in its original form, and that hasn't been helped by time. If you wanted something like this to be along the lines of

Worked metals are anathema to the primal magics that a druid wields. Should they make use of any metal objects or tools (including but not limited to weapons, armour, jewellery, or currency), a druid will find themself bereft of their natural gifts. For 24 hours, they become unable to use any of the features of their subclass, their Wild Shape feature, or cast any druid spells.

Then at least that kinda has something to it. A clear reason, and a clear line: Worked metal=No.

Probably need to boost their other class features to compensate for suddenly not being able to use money, but I mean that's honestly fine. As the "mundane equipment" thread shows, money ain't all it's cracked up to be anyway!

[Psyren]

I wouldn't mind it nearly so much if it wasn't pretty much the only one of its kind.

In a game with tighter theming and more built-in lore, yeah, it'd be good.
In 5E D&D? Not so much.

Agreed - it would fit better in a game that is linked to one specific setting rather than something that is trying to be multiversal, and where in-universe vocations may not necessarily align with classes.

[KorvinStarmast]

In a game with tighter theming and more built-in lore, yeah, it'd be good.
In 5E D&D? Not so much. Given 5e design objective of a bit more simplicity, there's some merit to this point.

Back when I played Runequest (yeah, it was a while back, but I think we did have electricity :smallyuk: ) there was a feature of iron weapons that harmed elves. (I played an elf. I took damage if I handled iron weapons).
IIRC, D&D 3.5 had something about Cold Iron as a feature.
A few other FPRG's I've played leaned into the version of elves / faeries lore where Iron/Steel is toxic to elves/faeries. (Chivalry and Sorcery did also, if memory serves. I seem to recall Anderson alluding to that in Three Hearts/Three Lions, but it's been a while since I last read that.)
Druids, being (thematically) of the old world like the faeries and elves, would fit into that theme.
They would perhaps wield bronze spears, daggers, sickles (pre iron age), and so on, but eschew steel and iron.
D&D 5e doesn't make distinctions at a granular level like that, and I am not sure it would benefit from so doing.
The game seems to have taken dark ages Europe, up to maybe Crusades-era Europe, and over time gone for something more like Rennaissance Europe as a conceit. (If the FR is any indication. TBH, that transition was already in some evidence in AD&D 1e.

[diplomancer]

Nothing stops you from making low-dex barbarian. They don't rely on AC to survive anyway, and they can have AC 17 even with Dex of 10.

Something obviously does. It's the Medium Armor requirement. Yeah, I can make a mechanically weaker character if I want to, and I will probably survive (though I'll be a bigger burden on my party, who will have to invest more resources keeping me up).

I shouldn't be punished for wanting to invest in other stats apart from physical stats, specially when the only reason that the requirement exists is not balance, but some weird cultural conceptions about Barbarians and Civilization.

[Theodoxus]

I shouldn't be punished for wanting to invest in other stats apart from physical stats, specially when the only reason that the requirement exists is not balance, but some weird cultural conceptions about Barbarians and Civilization.

3.PF (I'm not sure which) has the Armored Hulk, which was a "subclass" of barbarian that could use heavy armor without losing their other class defining abilities (I think it traded the +10 move speed to wear heavy armor). It wouldn't be overly difficult to create a subclass in 5E that did the same - though of course, if you're planning on taking the subclass at 3rd, so tanking Dex because it's not necessary later on, that's gonna hurt for two levels... So better if there's a repec option, or if you're starting the game at 3rd+ (though that brings up other issues of backstory and whatnot, which some folks have trouble ignoring.)

I think if you were to offer heavy armor to baseline barbarians as an option (a bit like how Fighters can start with either leather or chain mail), it would cut into the design allowance, and I'm not sure what would need to be weakened to grant HAP. If Barbs got a fighting style, I could see swapping that, but /shrug.

Off the cuff idea: Maybe there should be Defensive Styles to go along with Fighting Styles. Throw Defense, Protection, and Heavy Armor Proficiency into the group (with potentially other concepts) then Fighters get both a Defense and Offense Fighting Style, Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers get to choose one or the other...

[diplomancer]

3.PF (I'm not sure which) has the Armored Hulk, which was a "subclass" of barbarian that could use heavy armor without losing their other class defining abilities (I think it traded the +10 move speed to wear heavy armor). It wouldn't be overly difficult to create a subclass in 5E that did the same - though of course, if you're planning on taking the subclass at 3rd, so tanking Dex because it's not necessary later on, that's gonna hurt for two levels... So better if there's a repec option, or if you're starting the game at 3rd+ (though that brings up other issues of backstory and whatnot, which some folks have trouble ignoring.)

I think if you were to offer heavy armor to baseline barbarians as an option (a bit like how Fighters can start with either leather or chain mail), it would cut into the design allowance, and I'm not sure what would need to be weakened to grant HAP. If Barbs got a fighting style, I could see swapping that, but /shrug.

Off the cuff idea: Maybe there should be Defensive Styles to go along with Fighting Styles. Throw Defense, Protection, and Heavy Armor Proficiency into the group (with potentially other concepts) then Fighters get both a Defense and Offense Fighting Style, Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers get to choose one or the other...

I'm not so sure about that. As Psyren has pointed out, AC-wise there is not enough difference between Heavy Armor and Medium Armor to be worth a feature. What makes it problematic for the Barbarian is precisely because so many of their defining class features depend on Str, and then they get this need for decent Dex tacked on. I certainly don't think that Barbarians would even be much more powerful if they got Heavy Armor proficiency. Definitely not too powerful... just more flexible about their tertiary stat (which could still be Dex, mind you, if the player wanted it, there are still good reasons to have a decent Dex).

But whether they would be more powerful if given Heavy Armor proficiency, I'd say that what is definitely unreasonable is to punish those who DO pay for Heavy Armor proficiency somehow, and tell them "nope, you still can't wear heavy armor and rage, because reasons".

[Theodoxus]

I think Barbarians' original 'build points' do take into consideration that Dex is needed for a decent AC. Primarily because Wisdom is also quite important for a Barbarian (controlling a Barbarian is quite the boon for enemy casters after all). So being able to move those points out of Dex and into Wisdom and still keep your AC via heavy armor, AND have advantage on Dex saves from Danger Sense, it's a bit much... Especially at 1st level.

I don't think we'll ever see something like this, but a Barbarian Subclass for an Armored Hulk type, that at 3rd level has "Get Swoll: When you first gain this subclass, you can move up to four points from your Dexterity score to your Strength score. You can't lower your Dexterity below 8 nor raise your Strength above 18." would be pretty nifty.

[KorvinStarmast]

The KISS principle is: get rid of medium armor proficiency for druids. And redo Barkskin so that it's as valuable as the WIZARD's mage armor.
But wait, I forgot: it isn't Druids of the Coast, it's Wizards of the Coast. :smallyuk:

[JNAProductions]

The KISS principle is: get rid of medium armor proficiency for druids. And redo Barkskin so that it's as valuable as the WIZARD's mage armor.
But wait, I forgot: it isn't Druids of the Coast, it's Wizards of the Coast. :smallyuk:

That'd be fine with me. If a Druid wants Medium or Heavy armor, they can pay the normal costs for it from Light armor beginning.

Barkskin, I think, could work similarly to Heroism-a refreshing pool of THP, instead of a direct AC boost. Drop it to first level, and maybe make it self-only, but have it give Casting Stat+Slot Level THP at the start of your turn, every turn, for the duration. Longer duration than Heroism-maybe scale it like Hex?

[KorvinStarmast]

That'd be fine with me. If a Druid wants Medium or Heavy armor, they can pay the normal costs for it from Light armor beginning.

Barkskin, I think, could work similarly to Heroism-a refreshing pool of THP, instead of a direct AC boost. Drop it to first level, and maybe make it self-only, but have it give Casting Stat+Slot Level THP at the start of your turn, every turn, for the duration. Longer duration than Heroism-maybe scale it like Hex? I think we had a similar discussion in the D&Done threads. The THP is more fiddly than Armor Class, but it does reflect "damage absorption" a bit better than "armor" depending on what kind of feel one is going for.

Barkskin as an AC boost in the PHB is just a poorly built spell.

[Chronos]

For the metal armor question, "they just don't" doesn't work as an answer. OK, so a druid won't willingly put on metal armor, but there are still a lot of what-ifs left. Suppose someone knocks a druid out and takes her prisoner, and put metal armor on her while she's unconscious. Maybe it's because they believe (correctly or not) that it'll take away her powers, maybe it's just because they want to humiliate her, whatever.

Well, what happens when she comes to? Obviously she'll want to get the armor off. But how quickly? If she ends up rolling initiative as soon as she awakens, does she need to take the armor off before she can fight, or is she allowed to wait until after the fight's over? What if it's a less-urgent situation (but still somewhat urgent), like the guards patrolling around the dungeon she's in just passed her cell, and will be back in ten minutes? Can she even fight effectively, or are her class features disabled? Or maybe just some of them, so she has to decide for herself when it's worthwhile to take it off? You need rules for this, not just a vague handwave of what they "won't do".

"Metal armor falls to the ground when you wildshape" works as a rule. It gives a clear incentive to not wear metal armor, but says what happens if you do anyway. And it's probably exactly what that captive druid would want. "No spells nor wildshape works in metal armor" is harsher, but it also works as a rule. Heck, if you wanted to be really harsh, you could say "If a druid ever wears metal armor, she's unable to cast spells or wildshape until she's removed the armor and ritually bathed to cleanse herself". Though this would actually lead the captive in my example to choose to leave the armor on, until she's in a situation safe enough for the ritual bath.

But if you're going to have a rule against something that's nonetheless physically possible, then you need to specify what the consequences are of violating that rule.

[KorvinStarmast]

For the metal armor question, "they just don't" doesn't work as an answer. Yes it does.

"Metal armor falls to the ground when you wildshape" works as a rule. So does "if you are wearing it you can't wild shape" but for whatever reason they didn't write that one in either.

[NontheistCleric]

Perhaps 'druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal' is actually a deterministic statement. Strictly by RAW, no DM is allowed to create a world in which at any point a druid will come to wear armor or use shields made of metal, even though there is no particular reason why they shouldn't. They might even think about it, but for some reason or another the possibility of wearing that armor will never be realized. It's simply a physical fact of all RAW D&D worlds.

[Amnestic]

Perhaps 'druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal' is actually a deterministic statement.

I say it goes a step further: reality itself should prevent a druid from wearing metal armour, utilising an almost magnetic force repellent should any tried to be placed on them. Though they cannot wear metal armour, druids nevertheless have learned to harness this power in the form of armour-based slingshots, catapulting them as projectiles - weapons of war. More than one castle has fallen victim to an onslaught of plate armour being launched through their walls with the power of futuristic railguns.

[diplomancer]

For the metal armor question, "they just don't" doesn't work as an answer. OK, so a druid won't willingly put on metal armor, but there are still a lot of what-ifs left. Suppose someone knocks a druid out and takes her prisoner, and put metal armor on her while she's unconscious. Maybe it's because they believe (correctly or not) that it'll take away her powers, maybe it's just because they want to humiliate her, whatever.

Well, what happens when she comes to? Obviously she'll want to get the armor off. But how quickly? If she ends up rolling initiative as soon as she awakens, does she need to take the armor off before she can fight, or is she allowed to wait until after the fight's over? What if it's a less-urgent situation (but still somewhat urgent), like the guards patrolling around the dungeon she's in just passed her cell, and will be back in ten minutes? Can she even fight effectively, or are her class features disabled? Or maybe just some of them, so she has to decide for herself when it's worthwhile to take it off? You need rules for this, not just a vague handwave of what they "won't do".

"Metal armor falls to the ground when you wildshape" works as a rule. It gives a clear incentive to not wear metal armor, but says what happens if you do anyway. And it's probably exactly what that captive druid would want. "No spells nor wildshape works in metal armor" is harsher, but it also works as a rule. Heck, if you wanted to be really harsh, you could say "If a druid ever wears metal armor, she's unable to cast spells or wildshape until she's removed the armor and ritually bathed to cleanse herself". Though this would actually lead the captive in my example to choose to leave the armor on, until she's in a situation safe enough for the ritual bath.

But if you're going to have a rule against something that's nonetheless physically possible, then you need to specify what the consequences are of violating that rule.

Is this hypothetical Druid a PC or an NPC? If it's an NPC, NPCs don't follow Class rules, but work however the DMs want them to. If it's a PC, it would have been an NPC that imprisoned them thus. As the DM chose to create that scenario, now he has to adjudicate how to deal with it.

Really, these far-fetched scenarios are nice for Internet arguments, or as fun hypothetical exercises, but have absolutely zero relevance for play.

[MonochromeTiger]

For the metal armor question, "they just don't" doesn't work as an answer.

Agreed though not just for the open ended scenarios it brings up. There's a deeper problem of internal consistency where some harsher rules may be worse but they would make more sense than what we have.

As I mentioned earlier there's not an actual restriction on metal weapons aside from proficiency, you can pick up a sickle or a scimitar with obvious metal on it without issues and they've been an option since the beginning because Gygax had nothing to really work with aside from "well historical druids used sickles for some things." Even beyond that there's any number of things that are metal but aren't technically armor, either we handwave "alright so they can wear metal just not metal made for these very specific functions" or we end up having to ask "wait then do I not get to use a bunch of magic items because there's metal in them?"


OK, so a druid won't willingly put on metal armor, but there are still a lot of what-ifs left. Suppose someone knocks a druid out and takes her prisoner, and put metal armor on her while she's unconscious. Maybe it's because they believe (correctly or not) that it'll take away her powers, maybe it's just because they want to humiliate her, whatever.

And to your credit this is another weird situation where "they just don't" doesn't work. The act of putting metal on them would almost certainly be done for a purpose but that purpose runs into the issue that "they just don't wear it" does nothing to explain what happens if they weren't given a choice. They didn't actually choose to wear it, they had no say in it, does that automatically violate some tenet of their beliefs? Is someone else incapable of putting it on them? We have no clue, just a vague "they won't wear x"


"Metal armor falls to the ground when you wildshape" works as a rule. It gives a clear incentive to not wear metal armor, but says what happens if you do anyway. And it's probably exactly what that captive druid would want.

It would be deeply annoying to play since you'd need to account for all the other metal too to fix the inconsistency issue and that just turns Wildshape into "you can use this ability but you've got to pick up everything again later." That said it would be a clearer statement and go a way to clarifying why the rule is there instead of just saying "well someone thought it was a good idea once and we rolled with it without asking questions."


"No spells nor wildshape works in metal armor" is harsher, but it also works as a rule.

Again, would suck to play with but it would at least mean something and give some possible insight into why, again assuming it actually accounts for all metal instead of the weirdly unexplained and very specific exclusion we have now.


Heck, if you wanted to be really harsh, you could say "If a druid ever wears metal armor, she's unable to cast spells or wildshape until she's removed the armor and ritually bathed to cleanse herself". Though this would actually lead the captive in my example to choose to leave the armor on, until she's in a situation safe enough for the ritual bath.

Reminds me of what Pathfinder 1 did, they kept the same issue of specifically metal armor and shields not being allowed and gave a statement that wearing metal armor cuts off your powers for a full day. Issue is they also did the inconsistency of "well it's ok to use metal weapons and non-armor gear without explaining why only armor wasn't allowed, and they made a point of saying you can still just use wooden versions of metal armor magically treated to be as strong as metal.

Then of course they did the same thing D&D has where there's a specific deity that just outright allows Druids to wear metal armor making it confusing why they bothered making the exclusion in the first place.


But if you're going to have a rule against something that's nonetheless physically possible, then you need to specify what the consequences are of violating that rule.

And the reasoning. The entire reason I brought it up as an example is because, like some creatures not being allowed by Wildshape, there isn't actually a full reason given or an explanation of why it's not allowed or what will happen if it's ignored. It's just a blanket statement of "nuh uh that doesn't happen" where anyone asking why just gets "because it doesn't" or whatever argument another player or DM makes to justify instead of literally any concrete reason why it doesn't work and why so many other things that should logically be caught up in the same thing are fine.

It isn't a rule made for logic. It isn't a rule that can be thought of logically in relation to story due to the gaping holes in it. It's something that got thrown around one time and instead of anyone trying to think it through it just stuck, and now some people would rather defend it because it's what they know and "it worked" instead of question why it was ever needed in the first place.

To tie it into the Barbarian issue that got brought up earlier, they've got some of the same problem. Armor specifically gets shot down and it's based off nothing more than a very selective reading of Conan as the class inspiration that completely ignores Conan actually wore armor if he thought it would be helpful. It's all appeals to a class fantasy that wasn't even accurate when it started much less years later when anyone who makes the slightest effort can poke enough holes in it to put the most obsessed doughnut maker to shame, but with no worthwhile payoff at the end.

Going back to the original point, it puts "the balance of nature" and "the natural order" on such shaky logical ground that they don't work well for justifying excluding some creatures from Wildshape. An attempt could be made off of magic being involved in their creation but as others have pointed out there's plenty of monsters where magic absolutely wasn't involved in their origin that are excluded still. Of course not every Druid will get access to all those forms if that's changed but that's why the Wildshape focused Subclass exists, if "not everyone gets it" was a valid reason not to include it at all then Circle of the Moon might as well get axed entirely, and that doesn't actually serve any purpose aside from arbitrarily saying it's wrong to have fun with it.

[Theodoxus]

Maybe it should go the other way. Grant Druid PCs a boon for not wearing metal armor. Maybe, as long as they've never worn metal armor, they get the benefits of Barkskin as a boon. Then, if they willingly wear metal armor, they lose the boon forever. If they're forced against their will (like some crazy nature hating arch-lich wants to torment them or something) they can take that ritual bath and restore their barkiness.

I think I'm gonna incorporate that in my homebrew.

[JackPhoenix]

Apparently, the notion there may be some difference between holding <6 lb metal weapon in your hand or wearing a tiny piece of metal jewelry and encasing most of your body in 20+ pounds of metal armor is too difficult to comprehend for some people, and a "consistency issue".

[MonochromeTiger]

Apparently, the notion there may be some difference between holding <6 lb metal weapon in your hand or wearing a tiny piece of metal jewelry and encasing most of your body in 20+ pounds of metal armor is too difficult to comprehend for some people, and a "consistency issue".

Is there just something about this that brings out the passive aggressive non-answers? You realize I'm not beating down your door and saying "you personally must work by a theoretical rules change made to address this"?

The consistency issue is in metal in general. Either there's something preventing its use entirely or "no metal armor" is an arbitrary decision. If it's the former then that needs to be made clear so that it makes sense instead of just being a strange one off rule that doesn't really accomplish anything that couldn't have been done by only giving proficiency in specific armor types. If it's the latter then you've got a case where you can run around with a pair of metal sickles, metal rings, a metal circlet, a metal belt, metal in your boots, and any number of other things all adding up but somehow "I've got a chain shirt" pushes things over an unexplained line.

As it is now we've got the no metal armor or shields rule as the only true example of its kind and that uniqueness invites questions of why. It's so specific that it fails to account for any other presence of metal or how allowing that metal undermines the idea behind no metal armor or shields, that is an inconsistency because it's arbitrarily deciding there's some threshold that could be met in any other way but only this one specific way counts.

But instead of actually acknowledging that, or ignoring it to focus on the Wildshape question, people are deciding to treat the metal armor tangent like it's a personal attack to be put down and that it somehow violates the sanctity of the game.

[Amnestic]

Apparently, the notion there may be some difference between holding <6 lb metal weapon in your hand or wearing a tiny piece of metal jewelry and encasing most of your body in 20+ pounds of metal armor is too difficult to comprehend for some people, and a "consistency issue".

Shields - be they metal or wood - are 6lbs. Even if we just stick with standard druid proficiences (and we don't have to) dual wield scimitars...are also 6lbs.

And so, yes, it is a consistency issue that carrying one 6lb metal item in hand (a shield) is something they will not do but carrying other metal items in hand that also stack up to 6lbs is absolutely hunky dorey.

And, again, doesn't touch on magic helmets. It's not armour, so this metal doohickey (https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/4654-helm-of-comprehending-languages) is perfectly appropriate for a druid to strap to their noggin.

[JLandan]

Another couple of ways to resolve the Druid in metal armor conundrum.

1) Light armor proficiency plus Hide armor. This sort of discretion is in many weapon proficiencies lists.

2) Druids cannot cast spells in metal armor, just as they cannot in Wildshape.

Something else that might work for Druids is Unarmored Defense with Wisdom. That will greatly lessen the desire for any kind of armor.

As for Owlbears: IMO hybrid creature are monsters not animals, even if they breed in the wild. Dragons breed in the wild too, but no one argues that they're Beasts. Owlbears, griffons, hippogriffs, winter wolf, bulette, manticore, roc, warg... monsters, not animals. Your mileage may vary.

Druids should not Wildshape into monsters. Just because it's done in a "DnD movie" doesn't make it a game rule. A lot of things in the movie were not from the game, like a Bard that never used ANY Bard features or spells.

[NontheistCleric]

I don't see anything inherently wrong with druids being able to turn into monsters. Back in 3.5, there were ways for them to turn into almost anything. 'Undead Wild Shape' was even a thing for a certain 'fallen druid' class.

[LibraryOgre]

As for Owlbears: IMO hybrid creature are monsters not animals, even if they breed in the wild. Dragons breed in the wild too, but no one argues that they're Beasts. Owlbears, griffons, hippogriffs, winter wolf, bulette, manticore, roc, warg... monsters, not animals. Your mileage may vary.

Personally, I go the other way; creatures that are not supernatural and not intelligent (qv owlbears and griffons) should be fair game for Wild Shape, just as dinosaurs are. Manticores, winter wolves, and wargs are intelligent, to say nothing of the winter wolf's frost breath. But an owlbear is, to my mind, just a weird bear.

[Amnestic]

I don't see anything inherently wrong with druids being able to turn into monsters.

They can in 5e too - moon druids can turn into elementals. Transforming into an owlbear seems positively tame in comparison to that. I don't think monstrosities in general rank weirder and more mystical than Fire Elementals. That said, from a balance perspective giving moon Monstrosity Wildshape as an additional powerboost is probably not a great plan, it's already very good.

But like, narrative, there's not a great deal of reason for them not to have them as options.

You could indeed open up subclasses for other creature types too - I made one for dragons, and I'm sure you could make an ooze druid or a plant druid subclass with the relevant wildshape options.

[MonochromeTiger]

Personally, I go the other way; creatures that are not supernatural and not intelligent (qv owlbears and griffons) should be fair game for Wild Shape, just as dinosaurs are. Manticores, winter wolves, and wargs are intelligent, to say nothing of the winter wolf's frost breath. But an owlbear is, to my mind, just a weird bear.

Somewhat agreed but in 5e the Circle of the Moon ability at level fourteen, Thousand Forms, does slightly complicate that. Admittedly the fact that it grants an at will Alter Self spell effect instead of stating an ability to fully change from, say, an Elf to a Half-Orc, does imply some hard limits but at the same time it demonstrates that a Druid's Wildshape has the potential to include the forms of intelligent creatures. There's even an implied degree of modularity possible to Wildshape from the fact that the effect Thousand Forms is copying also includes adding natural weapons or a swim speed and the ability to breath underwater to a body that wouldn't normally have it.

Then again Thousand Forms and its predecessor Thousand Faces are a bit strange at times. Like how the 3.5 version got erratad from copying Alter Self to Disguise self but still included the stipulation that it was a physical change and that worn equipment doesn't change.

[NontheistCleric]

It was essentially the same as a Changeling's racial ability in 3.5.

[Chronos]

You don't need an arcane explanation for why druids don't wear armor, like how armor interferes with the flow of nature magic, or something. It's enough to say that it's against their vows. Why those particular vows? Because those are the druid vows. It's the same sort of idea as how, in earlier editions, clerics could only use bludgeoning weapons. Why is it OK to smash someone's brains in, but not to skewer them? Because dem's da rules.

But those vows only matter, because druids and clerics (and paladins) are religious characters, who draw their power from their religion. If anyone else makes a vow, and then breaks it, that's just roleplaying, and it's up to the player to decide how they'll respond to it. A druid's vow, though, just might matter. Does it? Either explicitly say that it doesn't, and that individual players can decide how to handle it, or give explicit consequences for breaking that vow.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't mind the restriction if it were just explained better, at least mechanically.With a monk it's clear what they can and can't do in what armor, even if they multiclass, and the same is true for barbarians. If Druid did that then we wouldn't have nearly as many arguments about it, you'd just have the groups that decide to houserule it and the ones that play it straight. It's the arguments I find annoying, not the limitation.

[JackPhoenix]

Related to the topic: Menagerie building in the latest UA allows you to send hirelings to catch certain creatures for you. The accompanying table includes bunch of animals, and, as a sole exception, an owlbear, though it later clarifies the DM may allow the capture of creatures not on the table, limited to beasts and "certain monstrosities".

[Psyren]

I expect 2024 Owlbears will be Beasts to put this whole thing to bed. In addition to the wildshape thing, too many BG3 players enjoyed being able to Speak With Animals on owlbears too.

[Argok]

So going back to older editions. In 3rd Edition (Not 3.5) Owlbears were in fact beasts. 3.5 they were magical beast. Though they also had animal as a classification and basic wild shape was animals not beast so you couldn't change into an Owlbear anyway.
4e had them as "Fey Beast" which was something that wild shape worked with.

I'm sure like others have said, They will return to beast in the future.

[Kane0]

Next, sealions!

[Chronos]

Quoth Argok:

So going back to older editions. In 3rd Edition (Not 3.5) Owlbears were in fact beasts. 3.5 they were magical beast. Though they also had animal as a classification and basic wild shape was animals not beast so you couldn't change into an Owlbear anyway.
Yeah, the creature types are very similar between 3rd and 5th, except that they changed the name. The creature type that used to be called "animal" is now called "beast", and the creature type that used to be called "beast" is now called "monstrosity".

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah, the creature types are very similar between 3rd and 5th, except that they changed the name. The creature type that used to be called "animal" is now called "beast", and the creature type that used to be called "beast" is now called "monstrosity".

Pretty much, and "monstrosity" had former "monstrous humanoid" rolled in there too. Which, like giant, feels like pointless category... just make them humanoids.

[NontheistCleric]

Pretty much, and "monstrosity" had former "monstrous humanoid" rolled in there too. Which, like giant, feels like pointless category... just make them humanoids.

Humanoid is a useful type to keep limited, though, to make it so that some spells are only effective on 'common' creatures.

[Goobahfish]

One thing I find fascinating, is in a world where magic is explicitly part of physics, what is the difference between a beast, and a magical beast?

I mean... is a platypus magical because it synthesize poison and lays eggs? If not, why is breathing fire magical?

[Kane0]

One thing I find fascinating, is in a world where magic is explicitly part of physics, what is the difference between a beast, and a magical beast?

I mean... is a platypus magical because it synthesize poison and lays eggs? If not, why is breathing fire magical?

I've often asked this question, and usually that way lies the path of madness.

[NontheistCleric]

In a world where magic is part of physics, it might be as simple as saying that some creatures have the magic gene and others do not.

[JackPhoenix]

Humanoid is a useful type to keep limited, though, to make it so that some spells are only effective on 'common' creatures.

I have the opposite stance. There's no reason why Charm Person shouldn't work on a giant because it's big or a harpy because it's got wings when goliaths and aarakocra exist.

[NontheistCleric]

I have the opposite stance. There's no reason why Charm Person shouldn't work on a giant because it's big or a harpy because it's got wings when goliaths and aarakocra exist.

Well, I think it's more that Charm Person is only a first-level spell, and so it makes sense that its power is somewhat limited–even if the means of that limiting are not necessarily the most consistent or even balanced.

[Amnestic]

Well, I think it's more that Charm Person is only a first-level spell, and so it makes sense that its power is somewhat limited–even if the means of that limiting are not necessarily the most consistent or even balanced.

I understand why they don't (page space reasons) but it does feel remarkably limited to not have Charm Monstrosity/Dragon/Giant/etc. spells as well.

I guess a "solution" could be to make it a 'Charm Monster' spell, where you pick which creature type the spell works on when you learn/prepare the spell, and then Greater Charm Monster at 4th removes the limitations on creature type.

[Goobahfish]

I understand why they don't (page space reasons) but it does feel remarkably limited to not have Charm Monstrosity/Dragon/Giant/etc. spells as well.

I guess a "solution" could be to make it a 'Charm Monster' spell, where you pick which creature type the spell works on when you learn/prepare the spell, and then Greater Charm Monster at 4th removes the limitations on creature type.

An upcast for Charm Person might be a good option.

Still, I think charming restrictions by type (rather than by CR or some other metric) are a bit dysfunctional.

[Grim Portent]

I also think it's stupid to have multiple Charm spells that just affect different arbitrary creature types. If Charm needs to be arbitrarily partitioned so the low level version doesn't work on powerful enemies, spell slot level, CR and HD are right there as possible limitations.

Though I would prefer it if the sort of enemies you don't want being charmed just had good saves or outright immunity where it makes sense, and it was accepted that 'dumb' enemies are trivial targets for enchantment and illusion based control. But that would also probably necessitate an overhaul of the way spells work since a lot of low level spells wouldn't need replaced as you level up because dumb enemies don't get inherently better at resisting them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But that would also probably necessitate an overhaul of the way spells work since a lot of low level spells wouldn't need replaced as you level up because dumb enemies don't get inherently better at resisting them.

Two options--

1. Accept that low-level spells create low-level effects and adjust appropriately. That means no more spell-level-2 paralyze for any target.
2. Decide that the whole "replace low level spell with higher level spell that does 99% of the same thing but has bigger numbers/relaxed targeting" is a waste of book space and just go with it. "Greater X" is a symptom of a screwed up magic system.

I'm kinda in both boats, but doing this requires adding a number of "half-way" conditions. Something like the following (with probably other conditions):

Staggered:
* A staggered creature has disadvantage on attack rolls
* A staggered creature has disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws and ability checks.
* A staggered creature that attempts to cast a spell must make a Constitution saving throw with DC = 10 + spell level. On a failed save, the spell does not take effect and the action is lost but the spell slot is not expended.

So l2 hold creature (what was hold person) would impose the staggered condition on a failed save, targeting anyone.

when upcast to level X, it would impose the stunned condition, and level Y the paralyzed condition. Heck, you could even add in some "if the target succeeds on the saving throw, they get staggered until the end of your next turn instead of stunned/paralyzed."[1]

And similarly, charm person now would be charm creature and only do "their attitude toward you increases one step" or maybe "you or a creature you choose when you cast the spell has advantage on CHA checks made while interacting with them.". Upcast it and you get the full basic charm effect (friendly + advantage), upcast it further and you get the dominate effect.

If you feel like it, reduce the number of spells that can be prepped because now one spell goes further. Or something.

[1] fewer "save vs really bad effect, entirely negating it on a success or being totally screwed on a failure" spells is, IMO, a good thing.

[Psyren]

I have the opposite stance. There's no reason why Charm Person shouldn't work on a giant because it's big or a harpy because it's got wings when goliaths and aarakocra exist.

D&D Giants aren't just "humanoids but big" though; they have ancestral ties to elemental powers and the like. There's no reason to assume anti-humanoid magic should work on them just because they have superficial similarities like humanlike ethnicities and limb arrangement.

[NontheistCleric]

Do they even have humanlike ethnicities? Storm Humans and Stone Humans and Fire Humans aren't exactly D&D standard, though they surely exist in some setting out there.

[JackPhoenix]

D&D Giants aren't just "humanoids but big" though; they have ancestral ties to elemental powers and the like. There's no reason to assume anti-humanoid magic should work on them just because they have superficial similarities like humanlike ethnicities and limb arrangement.

Goliaths exist. So do genasi. And tieflings, for infernal powers. And aasimar, for celestial powers. And I could keep going.

[Psyren]

Goliaths exist. So do genasi. And tieflings, for infernal powers. And aasimar, for celestial powers. And I could keep going.

And? Those are all humanoids for a reason; their non-human progenitors aren't.

[Grim Portent]

D&D Giants aren't just "humanoids but big" though; they have ancestral ties to elemental powers and the like. There's no reason to assume anti-humanoid magic should work on them just because they have superficial similarities like humanlike ethnicities and limb arrangement.

Last I checked hill giants, ogres and ettin have no meaningful supernatural ancestry or properties. They're mortal through and through, lacking the elemental/divine/fey qualities of some of the more fantastical giants.

I could maybe see a Storm Giant not being affected by various spells on the grounds that its basically a lightning storm in a humanoid body, but a hill giant is just a big fat guy, it's got more in common with a human than a planetouched does.

My general guideline would be that type restrictions for spells/effects should be mortals,* outsiders,** constructs, undead and aberrations. Maybe a handful specifically for fiends, celestials, elementals and fey on occasions where a generic outsider tag isn't thematically appropriate. Even then constructs, undead and outsiders are the only types I can really think of magical effects that should be segregated for, like repair spells and binding circles.

*Which is to say giants, beasts, humanoids, monstrosities, dragons and basically anything that lives in the material plane and isn't some sort of extra-dimensional or temporal anomaly that shouldn't be present like Mind Flayers or Aboleths.

**Literally everything that isn't from the material plane or closely related to the material plane natives with the exception of Aberrations. Where things like Fomorians and planetouched fit in I would need to think about, but I would lean mortal with selected outsider rules in their statblock.

[Chronos]

From a strictly in-universe standpoint, it does make sense to have some type differences in what charm spells work on what creatures. The way you nonmagically befriend a person is completely different from the way you nonmagically befriend an animal. Magic shortcuts the entire process, of course, but it still seems reasonable that the two processes would be different.

Though then again, that might just be better implemented with different spells for different int scores of the target. Especially since you'd befriend a wyvern by bringing it food, but befriend a bronze dragon by telling it jokes, even though they're both of the Dragon type.

[LibraryOgre]

Last I checked hill giants, ogres and ettin have no meaningful supernatural ancestry or properties. They're mortal through and through, lacking the elemental/divine/fey qualities of some of the more fantastical giants.


Then look to Bigby's Guide to Giants, where they are the offspring of Grolantor, himself the offspring of Annam. The 2e supplement Giantcraft has Grolantor as the son of Annam and an unnamed sky goddess, while the hill giants are descended from Ruk, son of Annam and Othea, herself a demi-goddess of the earth, so Grolantor is half-brother to Ruk in that supplement.

Regardless, all giants are descended from Annam through one of his sons, and those sons are gods in their own right.

[Psyren]

Last I checked hill giants, ogres and ettin have no meaningful supernatural ancestry or properties. They're mortal through and through, lacking the elemental/divine/fey qualities of some of the more fantastical giants.

As LibraryOgre mentioned, you may want to check again - Annam, common progenitor of all Giants, was either involved in the sorting of the Inner (elemental) planes, or in the formation of the First World that they were originally used to form. Thus, all giants have those planar ties. None of them are just "big human," not even Hill Giants.

[Grim Portent]

Being distantly descended from or made by a deity is hardly unusual, and IIRC ogres and ettins are children of Othea but not Annam, so they aren't even true giants but get the same benefits.

The significant factor to me is that hill giants have no special properties beyond the ones arbitrarily assigned to all giants. Despite their relative proximity to Annam they have more in common with the giantkin than the other true giants, and even if they did I think Cloud and Storm giants are the only ones that feel supernatural enough that not being affected by the same spells as humans doesn't feel completely arbitrary, but I'd still do away with the type limitation and rely either on CR/HD limits or just give things I don't want charmed good saving throws or selective immunities.

Frost giants are consistently portrayed as just big vikings who are immune to the cold, fire giants are basically just big evil dwarves with an affinity for fire. Neither should be resistent to any kind of magic that affects humanoids anymore than a genasi is.

[LibraryOgre]

Being distantly descended from or made by a deity is hardly unusual, and IIRC ogres and ettins are children of Othea but not Annam, so they aren't even true giants but get the same benefits.


That's Giantcraft (2e, Forgotten Realms), not Bigby's Giants (the 5e source). Bigby's doesn't mention Othea, and has the giants descended from their various deities... hill giants are the spawn of Grolantor, not Ruk, as FR has it.

In Giantcraft, Othea is the mother of all the giants, while an unnamed sky goddess is the mother of all the of giant gods. Othea is also mother to trolls, specifically, and to some of the giant-kin (firbolg, verbeeg, and formorians, and possibly voadkyn/wood giants, but they maintain they are descended from Annam, not Ulitu, or however his name is spelled).