7

I have really poor stats in my next game: 13 12 10 10 10 9. So I decided to play moon druid to compensate for the weak ability scores. I also plan to multiclass into barbarian, monk, or rogue.

So which benefits from this list work in beast form?

  • barbarian's rage
  • monk's martial arts (unarmed strike as a bonus action)
  • rogue's sneak attack

PS: Maybe I missed some valuable options for moon druid in Multiclassing or in feat list. Are there alternatives that will help compensate for the poor ability scores?

KorvinStarmast
  • 143,146
  • 34
  • 471
  • 760
UseNoose
  • 233
  • 1
  • 2
  • 7

2 Answers2

10

The barbarian's rage works, and can be a powerful combination. The monk's martial arts is controversial, depending on whether your DM counts the animal attacks to be "unarmed strikes" or not. For both of those classes, you'll also need to work out with your DM how Armor Class calculates out.

Rogue Sneak Attack will rarely work, if ever, as animal attacks are not finesse weapons. If you choose an animal form that bases its attacks on dexterity, a generous DM might call that a "finesse" attack and let it work, but that's not RAW.

Also note that to multiclass, you must have a 13 in the primary stat of both classes, which you do not have there. To multiclass druid with barbarian will require a 13 Wis and a 13 Str; for monk or rogue, you'll need 13 Wis and 13 Dx. If the numbers you show are before racial bonuses, then you can make it work. Otherwise, you may have to wait until 4th level in your starting class, to get an ASI and raise your stats enough to change to the other class.

Phil Boncer
  • 15,892
  • 5
  • 36
  • 88
  • 1
    Ye, stats are before racial bonuses, so I still can get 14 and 14 for 2 main abilities – UseNoose Nov 26 '17 at 23:15
  • 2
    @UseNoose if you're planning on fighting in animal form mostly, you're probably better off taking a 15 in wisdom and a 13 in the appropriate physical stat. – Ben Barden Nov 27 '17 at 15:58
  • 3
    Crawford has said, "A natural weapon (a claw, horn, bite, etc.) is not an unarmed strike." – SevenSidedDie Nov 27 '17 at 16:16
  • OK. That's kind of counter-intuitive, but apparently them's the RAW. – Phil Boncer Nov 27 '17 at 18:29
  • Also, this isn't consistent -- Both tabaxi and tortles use the following phrasing: Your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike. – Phil Boncer Nov 28 '17 at 04:17
  • 1
    @PhilBoncer: The fact that those two call out the natural weapons as able to make unarmed strikes strongly implies that all other natural weapons are not unarmed strikes – Mooing Duck Dec 04 '17 at 19:40
  • I disagree. Those are specifically called out because those races are able to be PCs now. I think it could rationally be considered to provide evidence for natural weapons being unarmed strikes in general -- a clarification, not an exception. – Phil Boncer Dec 04 '17 at 19:46
  • @PhilBoncer Monsters are not built like PCs in 5e; the rules for unarmed strikes apply only to player characters, not monsters. And in-universe, the techniques for gaining mastery over one's own body do not transfer to a different form (not without DM Fiat, anyhow). – chif-ii Dec 04 '17 at 20:09
  • The fact that the rules for unarmed strikes are designed for PCs is WHY the clarification needed to be explicitly made for Tabaxi and Tortles. That doesn't in any way preclude considering natural weapons as unarmed strikes in general. Also, where is the rule written that "the techniques for gaining mastery over one's own body do not transfer to a different form"? I want a reference for that. Also also, monsters that are similar to PCs in nature ARE built like PCs in 5e. Simplified a bit sometimes, but really using pretty much the same rules. – Phil Boncer Dec 04 '17 at 20:23
  • And note that I did NOT make the claim that natural weapons were clearly to be considered as unarmed strikes; I said "the monk's martial arts is controversial, depending on whether your DM counts the animal attacks to be 'unarmed strikes' or not" -- and ALL I've said since is that there is rational reason to rule either way. You guys would apparently rule "not"; I have not decided how I would rule yet. – Phil Boncer Dec 04 '17 at 20:28
  • 1
    I still side with @MooingDuck. Specific always beats general, and the fact that this had to be called out specifically as a feature of a PC race (as opposed to a Sage Advice, errata, or even as a sidenote in another book) indicates that it is not true in any other circumstance. That being said, a Bear Claw practitioner that can turn into an actual bear is a really strong character concept, so if OP's DM allows it (beyond the scope of the question), go for it. – chif-ii Dec 04 '17 at 20:43
  • Also, my "different form" comment was not intended to be definitive rules reference; only my justification were I asked to rule on it. – chif-ii Dec 04 '17 at 20:44
-3

Based on a comment, natural attacks are not Unarmed strikes, so monk is a bad choice. This leaves ranger, rogue, and barbarian as valid choices.

Natural attacks are not finesse weapons except by dm fiat, so that knocks rogue it off the running.

Than we have 5 levels ranger, druid * to give us 2 attacks + s hours breaker attack.

I could not find anywhere that Mentone I'd hord breaker works with multi-attack, if it dies than only 3 ranger lecture are needed to create a very powerful wild ahape that attacks multiple times per round.

The Rangers 1/2 spell progestin is a nice bit of extra spells, and using unearthed arcana ranger, the potential extra savage against a creature type can be handy.

But barbarians are a smudge superior to Rangers

You get Unarmored defence while in wildshape, ( not sure how the barbarian Unarmored defence interacts with natural armor, one probably supersedes the other) but regardless having 10+ con + dex ac, is better than most other wild shaoe acs.

Level 3 gives resistance to everything but psychic (one of the better choices), and you still get 9th level spells.

Level 5 gives fast movement and an extra attack, extra damage from rage. But all in all it will only give aprox, +5 dpr vs an eventuql 9th level spell slot, and slower wild ahape progression.

To compare the two.

Barbarian 3, druid 2, does 2d6+6, 1d8+6 damage while in bear shape.

Ranger 3, druid 2 does 2d6+4, 1d8+4 damage (if multi-attack triggers hord breaker, an aditional 2d6+4 damage)

Barbarian 5 druid 2 does 2*(2d6+7), can use wild and reckless to get advantage on attacks, and has resistance to pretty much everything.

Ranger 5 druid 2 does 2*(2d6+4) against 1 target abs 2d6+4 against his buddy.

Average damage for L5 characters is 23.5 (barbarian) 19.5, (+ 11, dms descision) ranger

For L7 characters it is 28 (barbarian) Vs 22 (+11 vs, adjacent enemy, ranger)

Of course the barbarian can opt to stick with 3 levels and go for a faster spell progression.

Ranger works are laughable, not really worth mentioning.

Pliny
  • 1,403
  • 11
  • 14