Ok, so my favorite wild shape was the owlbear or two-headed owlbear, but now since they are monstrosities can I still wild shape into them? Short answer: No. Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I could probably use my 15 +3 charisma stat on my DM to get them to let me still use them. And when I'm DMing I'll let my druids wild shape into owlbears. Why not.
I wouldn't say the ruling is weird, as creatures at one with nature druids can turn into beasts. Is a simple and thematic rule.
By definition monstrosities are unnatural creatures so it is quite logical that druids who "revere nature above all" can not tun into such unnatural creatures.
Of course the DM makes the rules I do not think their is a major issue mechanically with druids turning into Owlbears, hough circumstantially there may be problems with things like basilisks. Honor Among Thieves made druids turning into Owlbears a thing so some would be inclined to allowed it.
It's not a weird ruling, owlbears have always been monstrosities in 5E and Wildshape has always specified that you can turn into a beast, not a monstrosity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The movie has created some confusion on this issue. However, I have always allowed monstrosities as a houserule since the options for beasts aren't super thrilling for one of my players. But it is not RAW.
Yep ... Owlbear isn't allowed as a wild shape RAW.
However, by the time a moon druid could change into one at level 9, I'd have no issue allowing it as DM if the player really wanted to change into an Owlbear. The stat block isn't game breaking at that level.
In addition, the limited amount of lore in the monster manual indicates that they could actually be a natural creature ..
"However, venerable elves claim to have known these creatures for thousands of years, and some fey insist that owlbears have always existed in the Feywild."
.. and as such, they could easily be misclassified as a monstrosity as opposed to a beast. :)
"It's not a weird ruling, owlbears have always been monstrosities in 5E and Wildshape has always specified that you can turn into a beast, not a monstrosity." @6thLyranGuard Yeah but the movie definitely confused me on that.
The whole Monstrosity category is bonkers. There are things in there that should definitely be classed as Beasts, and others that should definitely be Aberrations.
The whole Monstrosity category is bonkers. There are things in there that should definitely be classed as Beasts, and others that should definitely be Aberrations.
Yeah, it's pretty arbitrary. I don't have a wild-shaping druid in the campaign I'm DMing but I do have a ranger who wants to talk to every "animal" they meet, and I tend to have a very liberal interpretation of what Speak With Animals can be used on. Owlbears? Sure. Displacer beasts? Why not
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The whole Monstrosity category is bonkers. There are things in there that should definitely be classed as Beasts, and others that should definitely be Aberrations.
If you think it's bad now, you should have seen it in 3.5 Edition, when it was split into "magical beasts" and "monstrous humanoids."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
"It's not a weird ruling, owlbears have always been monstrosities in 5E and Wildshape has always specified that you can turn into a beast, not a monstrosity." @6thLyranGuard Yeah but the movie definitely confused me on that.
Absolutely understandable. As a note, that likely was done in the movie for 2 reasons.
1: It's cool to see on-screen. 2: Owlbears are one of the more well-known monsters in D&D.
They broke a few rules of D&D but it was cool so it's fine. Movies don't need to play exactly by the rules of the game. For reference, there was another scene that broke a rule in a big way:
Speak With Dead. Not only does the corpse not get its personality back the way it did, the spell also has a time limit and the corpse can't ask its own questions. However, that was one of my favorite scenes and I'm glad they did the credit scene with the running gag.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok, so my favorite wild shape was the owlbear or two-headed owlbear, but now since they are monstrosities can I still wild shape into them? Short answer: No. Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I could probably use my 15 +3 charisma stat on my DM to get them to let me still use them. And when I'm DMing I'll let my druids wild shape into owlbears. Why not.
I wouldn't say the ruling is weird, as creatures at one with nature druids can turn into beasts. Is a simple and thematic rule.
By definition monstrosities are unnatural creatures so it is quite logical that druids who "revere nature above all" can not tun into such unnatural creatures.
Of course the DM makes the rules I do not think their is a major issue mechanically with druids turning into Owlbears, hough circumstantially there may be problems with things like basilisks. Honor Among Thieves made druids turning into Owlbears a thing so some would be inclined to allowed it.
It's not a weird ruling, owlbears have always been monstrosities in 5E and Wildshape has always specified that you can turn into a beast, not a monstrosity.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The movie has created some confusion on this issue. However, I have always allowed monstrosities as a houserule since the options for beasts aren't super thrilling for one of my players. But it is not RAW.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Yep ... Owlbear isn't allowed as a wild shape RAW.
However, by the time a moon druid could change into one at level 9, I'd have no issue allowing it as DM if the player really wanted to change into an Owlbear. The stat block isn't game breaking at that level.
In addition, the limited amount of lore in the monster manual indicates that they could actually be a natural creature ..
"However, venerable elves claim to have known these creatures for thousands of years, and some fey insist that owlbears have always existed in the Feywild."
.. and as such, they could easily be misclassified as a monstrosity as opposed to a beast. :)
Yeah I'll just ask my DM
"It's not a weird ruling, owlbears have always been monstrosities in 5E and Wildshape has always specified that you can turn into a beast, not a monstrosity." @6thLyranGuard Yeah but the movie definitely confused me on that.
The whole Monstrosity category is bonkers. There are things in there that should definitely be classed as Beasts, and others that should definitely be Aberrations.
Yeah, it's pretty arbitrary. I don't have a wild-shaping druid in the campaign I'm DMing but I do have a ranger who wants to talk to every "animal" they meet, and I tend to have a very liberal interpretation of what Speak With Animals can be used on. Owlbears? Sure. Displacer beasts? Why not
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you think it's bad now, you should have seen it in 3.5 Edition, when it was split into "magical beasts" and "monstrous humanoids."
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Absolutely understandable. As a note, that likely was done in the movie for 2 reasons.
1: It's cool to see on-screen.
2: Owlbears are one of the more well-known monsters in D&D.
They broke a few rules of D&D but it was cool so it's fine. Movies don't need to play exactly by the rules of the game. For reference, there was another scene that broke a rule in a big way:
Speak With Dead. Not only does the corpse not get its personality back the way it did, the spell also has a time limit and the corpse can't ask its own questions. However, that was one of my favorite scenes and I'm glad they did the credit scene with the running gag.