Here’s another good question then: does a barbarian keep their Unarmored defense while in wild shape? Because that could increase the AC of multiple wildshape creatures (those with high CON) when used.
Here’s another good question then: does a barbarian keep their Unarmored defense while in wild shape? Because that could increase the AC of multiple wildshape creatures (those with high CON) when used.
Yes they do. This means that some wildshapes will have a better AC when the druid has multiclassed with barbarian than they would otherwise. Of course the character can choose to use whichever AC formula gives the better result.
Examples:
Deinonychus AC13 -> AC14
Brown Bear AC11-> AC13
Most beasts pick up 0 to 3 points of AC using the barbarian 10+dex+con formula
P.S. Another possible wildshape druid multiclass is monk. 10+dex+wis for AC (druids usually boost wis), plus the ability to make a bonus action unarmed strike though this works with the "Attack" action and not the "Multiattack" action (at least RAW). [but I think the barbarian multiclass is generally better]
Most beasts pick up 0 to 3 points of AC using the barbarian 10+dex+con formula
But, as I so often point out, you also have to weigh that against what you lose in staying single classed. You need to boost physical stats (that are dump stats for moon druids) and delay your wildshape progression which has a very weird power curve as it is. Most often you can gain a bit of AC and damage by taking more druid levels as well and getting to the next tier of beasts. A Moon Druid multiclass really needs to be built to play at a specific level, say level 8, where you won't benefit from taking more druid levels (you won't get to CR 3 creatures) anyway.
Heck, you lose concentration too, so I'd say it is very balanced.
You don't lose concentration by going into wild shape
But you do lose Concentration when you rage.
Ah yes, that's true. But that doesn't mean the wild shape rage combo doesn't work; you don't need concentration for either.
But it does mean that you can't have wildshape, rage, and a concentration buff, which might veer towards brokenness.
Actually, strictly speaking in RAW, you can have all three active at once.
Rage specifically says "If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging." and wildshape states "You can't cast spells" while transformed. So, as long as you wildshape between casting the spell and raging, you wouldn't lose concentration.
Admittedly a bit game-y, and maybe not RAI, but still definitely RAW.
Heck, you lose concentration too, so I'd say it is very balanced.
You don't lose concentration by going into wild shape
But you do lose Concentration when you rage.
Ah yes, that's true. But that doesn't mean the wild shape rage combo doesn't work; you don't need concentration for either.
But it does mean that you can't have wildshape, rage, and a concentration buff, which might veer towards brokenness.
Actually, strictly speaking in RAW, you can have all three active at once.
Rage specifically says "If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging." and wildshape states "You can't cast spells" while transformed. So, as long as you wildshape between casting the spell and raging, you wouldn't lose concentration.
Admittedly a bit game-y, and maybe not RAI, but still definitely RAW.
This falls under the category of ask your DM and how permissive the DM wants to be.
"If you are able to cast spells" - this does not define now or at the moment you rage or give any other context. So another interpretation is "Is a druid able to cast spells" - Yes - then when a druid rages they can't cast or concentrate on any spells. The form the druid happens to be in doesn't matter since they are still a druid and they are still able to cast spells even if the form they are currently in, is not able to cast spells.
So, I wouldn't count on that suggested reading of the rule working with a DM since it isn't the only interpretation consistent with RAW.
Heck, you lose concentration too, so I'd say it is very balanced.
You don't lose concentration by going into wild shape
But you do lose Concentration when you rage.
Ah yes, that's true. But that doesn't mean the wild shape rage combo doesn't work; you don't need concentration for either.
But it does mean that you can't have wildshape, rage, and a concentration buff, which might veer towards brokenness.
Actually, strictly speaking in RAW, you can have all three active at once.
Rage specifically says "If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging." and wildshape states "You can't cast spells" while transformed. So, as long as you wildshape between casting the spell and raging, you wouldn't lose concentration.
Admittedly a bit game-y, and maybe not RAI, but still definitely RAW.
This falls under the category of ask your DM and how permissive the DM wants to be.
"If you are able to cast spells" - this does not define now or at the moment you rage or give any other context. So another interpretation is "Is a druid able to cast spells" - Yes - then when a druid rages they can't cast or concentrate on any spells. The form the druid happens to be in doesn't matter since they are still a druid and they are still able to cast spells even if the form they are currently in, is not able to cast spells.
So, I wouldn't count on that suggested reading of the rule working with a DM since it isn't the only interpretation consistent with RAW.
Though I agree that you would have to clear this with your DM first, I'd disagree that this can be interpreted as you suggest, RAW it is entirely legal. The line from the rage rules in the PHB is:
"If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging."
The wording is "If you are able" not if you were able, will be or have ever met someone who can cast spells. The only additional clarification of a timeframe comes at the end of the sentence, "while raging". No mention is made of the conditions outside when you rage, so to interpret this as "is a druid able to cast spells" is a leap you are taking without any basis in the rule. You can provide additional justification by asking what is the point of adding "If you are able to" onto this rule? Why not just say "you can't cast or concentrate on spells while raging"? Surely it must've been done on purpose to allow for niche scenarios like this to let you use/concentrate on spells whilst raging.
Again, I admit this is a very game-y/rules lawyer-y thing that kind of stems from the whole issue WotC's insistence on plain language has created. And I agree this would have to be run past the DM if you wanted to make serious use of it, as I can imagine many would see it as an oversight that should be corrected.
"If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging."
The wording is "If you are able" not if you were able, will be or have ever met someone who can cast spells.
I'm inclined to agree with David42 personally; you're assuming one particular interpretation of the wording but the situation is not as clear cut as that.
If Rage stated "if you are able to cast spells" and Druid's Wildshape said "you are not able to cast spells" then there might be a more solid argument that in RAW that's how it works as the language would be an explicit match (although it would probably still be unintentional).
But that's not the language that's actually used, as the Druid's wildshape says "you can't cast spells". Is "can't cast spells" the same as "not able to cast spells"? That's a bit tricky, because you can argue that the wildshaped druid retains the ability to cast spells (the Spellcasting feature), even if they can't currently make use of it. In fact, Wildshape rather conspicuously does not remove the Spellcasting feature while active. So in that respect they are always able to cast spells.
So the issue is partly the timing; is Rage asking about your current ability to cast spells (can you cast them right now) or your ability to cast spells in general (is it something you are capable of)? This is what's unclear, though able and capable are essentially synonymous. Having the Spellcasting feature, Magic Initiate feat, magic items with spells etc. all mean that you are always capable of casting spells, even if something else is preventing you from doing so at the time.
Another way to look at it is that the "if you can cast spells" part isn't actually dependent upon Rage being active, that part of the sentence applies the moment you gain the ability to cast spells while also having a level in Barbarian, it's effectively saying "read the rest of this sentence if you are a spellcaster". It's only the rest of the sentence (can't cast spells or concentrate on them) that is limited by the "while raging" part.
This is why it will fall to a DM call, because the Rage text doesn't make clear which timing it refers to. I strongly suspect that "if you are able to cast spells" should be read as "if you have a feature or item that enables you to cast spells", as in this case it doesn't matter if something else prevents you.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Heck, you lose concentration too, so I'd say it is very balanced.
You don't lose concentration by going into wild shape
But you do lose Concentration when you rage.
Ah yes, that's true. But that doesn't mean the wild shape rage combo doesn't work; you don't need concentration for either.
But it does mean that you can't have wildshape, rage, and a concentration buff, which might veer towards brokenness.
Actually, strictly speaking in RAW, you can have all three active at once.
Rage specifically says "If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging." and wildshape states "You can't cast spells" while transformed. So, as long as you wildshape between casting the spell and raging, you wouldn't lose concentration.
Admittedly a bit game-y, and maybe not RAI, but still definitely RAW.
This falls under the category of ask your DM and how permissive the DM wants to be.
"If you are able to cast spells" - this does not define now or at the moment you rage or give any other context. So another interpretation is "Is a druid able to cast spells" - Yes - then when a druid rages they can't cast or concentrate on any spells. The form the druid happens to be in doesn't matter since they are still a druid and they are still able to cast spells even if the form they are currently in, is not able to cast spells.
So, I wouldn't count on that suggested reading of the rule working with a DM since it isn't the only interpretation consistent with RAW.
Though I agree that you would have to clear this with your DM first, I'd disagree that this can be interpreted as you suggest, RAW it is entirely legal. The line from the rage rules in the PHB is:
"If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging."
The wording is "If you are able" not if you were able, will be or have ever met someone who can cast spells. The only additional clarification of a timeframe comes at the end of the sentence, "while raging". No mention is made of the conditions outside when you rage, so to interpret this as "is a druid able to cast spells" is a leap you are taking without any basis in the rule. You can provide additional justification by asking what is the point of adding "If you are able to" onto this rule? Why not just say "you can't cast or concentrate on spells while raging"? Surely it must've been done on purpose to allow for niche scenarios like this to let you use/concentrate on spells whilst raging.
Again, I admit this is a very game-y/rules lawyer-y thing that kind of stems from the whole issue WotC's insistence on plain language has created. And I agree this would have to be run past the DM if you wanted to make serious use of it, as I can imagine many would see it as an oversight that should be corrected.
A couple of reasons I think "able" refers to the ability cast spells in general and not the ability to cast a spell at this particular moment in time.
1) As Havirikk says, Wildshape says the Druid can't cast spells, not that they are unable to cast spells. In addition, at higher levels, wildshaped druids CAN cast spells.
2) Is a barbarian/druid with their hands tied still able to concentrate on a spell when they rage? They are not able to cast a spell with a somatic component, if the only spells they have prepared have somatic components then the tied up druid/barbarian isn't able to cast a spell, at that moment in time. So if they rage, do they maintain concentration on a spell just because they can't cast a spell at that moment? What happens when they are freed from the restraints? Do they suddenly lose concentration because they are "able" to cast spells.
3) Would a barbarian/druid in a silence spell be able to rage without losing concentration on their Call Lightning because they can't perform any spells with verbal components but all the spells they have require verbal components?
4) Feeblemind also says the affected creature "can not cast spells". Would a barbarian/druid concentrating on a spell hit by feeblemind suddenly gain the ability to rage and maintain concentration on the spell? Feeblemind does not break concentration, it just prevents spell casting. It also doesn't remove the ability to cast spells, it just prevents spells from being cast at this particular moment.
5) "If you are able to cast spells ..." or "If you have the ability to cast spells ..." ... Are these the same? 5e is written in natural language and it would require a lawyer to distinguish between these.
Anyway, in a game I was DMing, it wouldn't work and I think that reading is consistent with RAW, but I can see the interpretation you are suggesting and would leave it up to the individual DM to decide it.
It's been a long time since I've been able to use the character, but I have a Kalashtar lev 6 Moon druid/lev 2 barbarian I'm planning on putting into bear Totem, so I have resistance to everything, and advantage on Wis saves.
IMO to interpret the antecedent of the following conditional to include a suppressed/implied temporal component is less plausible than interpreting it without the temporal component as stated:
If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging.
To clear up any ambiguity in the antecedent, it should be re-written as: "if you're a spellcaster", and re-write the entire conditional as: "if you're a spellcaster, you can't cast or concentrate on spells while raging".
IMO to interpret the antecedent of the following conditional to include a suppressed/implied temporal component is less plausible than interpreting it without the temporal component as stated:
If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging.
To clear up any ambiguity in the antecedent, it should be re-written as: "if you're a spellcaster", and re-write the entire conditional as: "if you're a spellcaster, you can't cast or concentrate on spells while raging".
I'd suggest if you wanted to re-write it without ambiguity - get rid of the IF. Raging prevents anyone from casting or concentrating on a spell whether they have a spellcasting ability or use a magic item. I think the original wording was intended to catch all cases and not just "spellcasters". Reducing it to the following statement without the IF would seem to clarify it.
"A character can't cast or concentrate on a spell while raging."
I'm all for clarifying rules. Maybe eliminating your re-write helps you make better sense (semantically) out of the rule. But if you've studied logic (or just thought real hard) you'd know that "If A, then B" and "All As are Bs" are the logically same, i.e., are true and false under the same conditions.
I'm all for clarifying rules. Maybe eliminating your re-write helps you make better sense (semantically) out of the rule. But if you've studied logic (or just thought real hard) you'd know that "If A, then B" and "All As are Bs" are the logically same, i.e., are true and false under the same conditions.
But the wording needs to make it clear clear all As are Bs. "If you are a spellcaster" raises question whether a high elf pure barbarian, or a pure barbarian with a ring of animal inflence is a spellcaster. Some munchkin power gamers could even try to argue their Druid 6 Barbarian 2 is only a part spellcaster and "a spellcaster" implies a full spellcaster.
"Able to cast spells" is less ambiguous but I do prefer David's wording.
Another question to this build, what if you are an Druid 5 / Babarian 5 and wild shape in a brownbear. The babarian has multiattack, same the brownbear. So is the result, that the brownbear uses his multiattack twice, because of the normal attack and the multiattack from the babarian?
Brown bears get a special action called multiattack that lets them make one claw and one bite. Barbarians get extra attack which allows them to make two weapon attacks when they take the attack action. You, as a player, must choose between the two: multiattack or extra attack. Multiattack isn't the attack action or an attack itself (it is an ability that allows you to make two attacks), so cannot be combined with extra attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here’s another good question then: does a barbarian keep their Unarmored defense while in wild shape? Because that could increase the AC of multiple wildshape creatures (those with high CON) when used.
Yes they do. This means that some wildshapes will have a better AC when the druid has multiclassed with barbarian than they would otherwise. Of course the character can choose to use whichever AC formula gives the better result.
Examples:
Deinonychus AC13 -> AC14
Brown Bear AC11-> AC13
Most beasts pick up 0 to 3 points of AC using the barbarian 10+dex+con formula
P.S. Another possible wildshape druid multiclass is monk. 10+dex+wis for AC (druids usually boost wis), plus the ability to make a bonus action unarmed strike though this works with the "Attack" action and not the "Multiattack" action (at least RAW). [but I think the barbarian multiclass is generally better]
But, as I so often point out, you also have to weigh that against what you lose in staying single classed. You need to boost physical stats (that are dump stats for moon druids) and delay your wildshape progression which has a very weird power curve as it is. Most often you can gain a bit of AC and damage by taking more druid levels as well and getting to the next tier of beasts. A Moon Druid multiclass really needs to be built to play at a specific level, say level 8, where you won't benefit from taking more druid levels (you won't get to CR 3 creatures) anyway.
Actually if you read up on rage it specifically says it doesn't cancel spells that are already cast using concentration
Nvm I misread lol
Actually, strictly speaking in RAW, you can have all three active at once.
Rage specifically says "If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging." and wildshape states "You can't cast spells" while transformed. So, as long as you wildshape between casting the spell and raging, you wouldn't lose concentration.
Admittedly a bit game-y, and maybe not RAI, but still definitely RAW.
That is some top notch pedantry, well done, sir!
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
This falls under the category of ask your DM and how permissive the DM wants to be.
"If you are able to cast spells" - this does not define now or at the moment you rage or give any other context. So another interpretation is "Is a druid able to cast spells" - Yes - then when a druid rages they can't cast or concentrate on any spells. The form the druid happens to be in doesn't matter since they are still a druid and they are still able to cast spells even if the form they are currently in, is not able to cast spells.
So, I wouldn't count on that suggested reading of the rule working with a DM since it isn't the only interpretation consistent with RAW.
Though I agree that you would have to clear this with your DM first, I'd disagree that this can be interpreted as you suggest, RAW it is entirely legal. The line from the rage rules in the PHB is:
"If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging."
The wording is "If you are able" not if you were able, will be or have ever met someone who can cast spells. The only additional clarification of a timeframe comes at the end of the sentence, "while raging". No mention is made of the conditions outside when you rage, so to interpret this as "is a druid able to cast spells" is a leap you are taking without any basis in the rule. You can provide additional justification by asking what is the point of adding "If you are able to" onto this rule? Why not just say "you can't cast or concentrate on spells while raging"? Surely it must've been done on purpose to allow for niche scenarios like this to let you use/concentrate on spells whilst raging.
Again, I admit this is a very game-y/rules lawyer-y thing that kind of stems from the whole issue WotC's insistence on plain language has created. And I agree this would have to be run past the DM if you wanted to make serious use of it, as I can imagine many would see it as an oversight that should be corrected.
I'm inclined to agree with David42 personally; you're assuming one particular interpretation of the wording but the situation is not as clear cut as that.
If Rage stated "if you are able to cast spells" and Druid's Wildshape said "you are not able to cast spells" then there might be a more solid argument that in RAW that's how it works as the language would be an explicit match (although it would probably still be unintentional).
But that's not the language that's actually used, as the Druid's wildshape says "you can't cast spells". Is "can't cast spells" the same as "not able to cast spells"? That's a bit tricky, because you can argue that the wildshaped druid retains the ability to cast spells (the Spellcasting feature), even if they can't currently make use of it. In fact, Wildshape rather conspicuously does not remove the Spellcasting feature while active. So in that respect they are always able to cast spells.
So the issue is partly the timing; is Rage asking about your current ability to cast spells (can you cast them right now) or your ability to cast spells in general (is it something you are capable of)? This is what's unclear, though able and capable are essentially synonymous. Having the Spellcasting feature, Magic Initiate feat, magic items with spells etc. all mean that you are always capable of casting spells, even if something else is preventing you from doing so at the time.
Another way to look at it is that the "if you can cast spells" part isn't actually dependent upon Rage being active, that part of the sentence applies the moment you gain the ability to cast spells while also having a level in Barbarian, it's effectively saying "read the rest of this sentence if you are a spellcaster". It's only the rest of the sentence (can't cast spells or concentrate on them) that is limited by the "while raging" part.
This is why it will fall to a DM call, because the Rage text doesn't make clear which timing it refers to. I strongly suspect that "if you are able to cast spells" should be read as "if you have a feature or item that enables you to cast spells", as in this case it doesn't matter if something else prevents you.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
A couple of reasons I think "able" refers to the ability cast spells in general and not the ability to cast a spell at this particular moment in time.
1) As Havirikk says, Wildshape says the Druid can't cast spells, not that they are unable to cast spells. In addition, at higher levels, wildshaped druids CAN cast spells.
2) Is a barbarian/druid with their hands tied still able to concentrate on a spell when they rage? They are not able to cast a spell with a somatic component, if the only spells they have prepared have somatic components then the tied up druid/barbarian isn't able to cast a spell, at that moment in time. So if they rage, do they maintain concentration on a spell just because they can't cast a spell at that moment? What happens when they are freed from the restraints? Do they suddenly lose concentration because they are "able" to cast spells.
3) Would a barbarian/druid in a silence spell be able to rage without losing concentration on their Call Lightning because they can't perform any spells with verbal components but all the spells they have require verbal components?
4) Feeblemind also says the affected creature "can not cast spells". Would a barbarian/druid concentrating on a spell hit by feeblemind suddenly gain the ability to rage and maintain concentration on the spell? Feeblemind does not break concentration, it just prevents spell casting. It also doesn't remove the ability to cast spells, it just prevents spells from being cast at this particular moment.
5) "If you are able to cast spells ..." or "If you have the ability to cast spells ..." ... Are these the same? 5e is written in natural language and it would require a lawyer to distinguish between these.
Anyway, in a game I was DMing, it wouldn't work and I think that reading is consistent with RAW, but I can see the interpretation you are suggesting and would leave it up to the individual DM to decide it.
Yeah, saying that Wildshaping allows a raging Barbarian to cast spells is beyond rules lawyering and in to "rules as I want them to be" territory.
It's been a long time since I've been able to use the character, but I have a Kalashtar lev 6 Moon druid/lev 2 barbarian I'm planning on putting into bear Totem, so I have resistance to everything, and advantage on Wis saves.
IMO to interpret the antecedent of the following conditional to include a suppressed/implied temporal component is less plausible than interpreting it without the temporal component as stated:
To clear up any ambiguity in the antecedent, it should be re-written as: "if you're a spellcaster", and re-write the entire conditional as: "if you're a spellcaster, you can't cast or concentrate on spells while raging".
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
helpful thread!
I'd suggest if you wanted to re-write it without ambiguity - get rid of the IF. Raging prevents anyone from casting or concentrating on a spell whether they have a spellcasting ability or use a magic item. I think the original wording was intended to catch all cases and not just "spellcasters". Reducing it to the following statement without the IF would seem to clarify it.
"A character can't cast or concentrate on a spell while raging."
I'm all for clarifying rules. Maybe eliminating your re-write helps you make better sense (semantically) out of the rule. But if you've studied logic (or just thought real hard) you'd know that "If A, then B" and "All As are Bs" are the logically same, i.e., are true and false under the same conditions.
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
But the wording needs to make it clear clear all As are Bs. "If you are a spellcaster" raises question whether a high elf pure barbarian, or a pure barbarian with a ring of animal inflence is a spellcaster. Some munchkin power gamers could even try to argue their Druid 6 Barbarian 2 is only a part spellcaster and "a spellcaster" implies a full spellcaster.
"Able to cast spells" is less ambiguous but I do prefer David's wording.
Actually I like David’s phrasing too, esp because it includes “can’t”.
Started playing 1e in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
Another question to this build, what if you are an Druid 5 / Babarian 5 and wild shape in a brownbear. The babarian has multiattack, same the brownbear. So is the result, that the brownbear uses his multiattack twice, because of the normal attack and the multiattack from the babarian?
No, that's not how it works.
Brown bears get a special action called multiattack that lets them make one claw and one bite. Barbarians get extra attack which allows them to make two weapon attacks when they take the attack action. You, as a player, must choose between the two: multiattack or extra attack. Multiattack isn't the attack action or an attack itself (it is an ability that allows you to make two attacks), so cannot be combined with extra attack.