So being one of my parties resident “tanks” AND heavy melee disher’s, being in grizzly form almost every battle, it got me thinking: Would it be a good idea to take 1 or even 2 levels of Barbarian? While I know I stunt my Spell level 1 or 2 levels I get:
lvl 1:
• +2 damage (always a nice boost)
• Con mod to AC (excellent in tank animal forms)
• 1/2 damage from any of the 3 physical forms of damage (this is the MAIN reason for even considering this)
lvl 2:
• Advantage on all melee attacks, but so does any enemy attack. (this could be really good against high AC foes that will hit you anyway)
• Advantage on Dex saves. (not bad)
Thoughts?
Depends.
Pure druid will give you more of an all the time bonus, and more spells.
Barbarian gives you a bonus in short burst.
So do you have alot of little fights (druid)? Or do you have a few big fights (barbarian/druid)?
Several little fights with one large fight at the end.
a 3rd barbarian level with bear totem will give him resistance to EVERYTHING (except spychic)
One level of dragon sorc would give you 3 armor at all times. What is also nice about this is that you dont lose out on SPELL slot progression, just spell LEVEL progression. Sorc is nice for if you want to use animals like Lion or wolf with low Con's, you can still have a nice AC. I would take the following spells, Minor Illusion (overall useful and doesnt require Chr), True Strike (Great to cast on the first round of combat, then use a bonus action to shift to your animal form), False Life for HP buff and Magic Missle for auto damage when out of bear form.
Might not be as strong as barbarian but it could be pretty good I think 
Three levels of Sorc would get your Blur.... that would be crazy tanky :D
dwgautier wrote:
Then why not say screw the high level casting? If you're going to be in animal form for most of the time, why not hunker down and tank it out, with rage granted resistance and trading in spell slots for healing?
Markus.l wrote:
Oh yeah. Derp. Don't know why I was thinking 17 was the boundry for creature CR.
Perhaps start Fighter, somewhen going to Fighter 2 for Action Surge?
That way you can wear Ring mail (doesn't specify the rings are made of metal, perhaps they're made of hardened bone) and a Shield (see before) for an AC of 16.
It also allows you to pick up a Fighting Style. For a change Defensive is probably the best choice here since it'll always be on, boosting your AC to 17.
This is all off the top of my head though, so don't take it as gospel (except the bit about ring mail and shields not having to be made of metal).
Yunru wrote:
If the beast is capable of wearing it it does :P
And +1 armor resizes itself to fit the wearer so a beast of any shape could wear it.
Yunru wrote:
Well then how about a different track:
Pick up two levels in Rogue, get Expertise in Athletics and one other of your choice, and start grappling everything.
Bonus points if you pick out the squishy and drag it to your side to beat on.
Depending on your DM I would say Monk. If you're allowed your claw and bite attacks to be counted as unarmed, as they should be, the bonus attack(s) are pure beast mode. You retain your Wisdom, which should be high, to add to your AC. Ability to use ki in beast form, extra movement, and all the other goodies makes for a powerful combination. This will create a more powerful striker though, do not necessarily super tanky. But maybe mixed with Barbarian could give some good options. Also, remember when calculating AC you wouldn't get any natural armor bonus from the beast if you use ether Unarmored Defense options.
Great idea's Danny! But why no Natural armor with the Unarmored Defense options? Isn't Nat armor just like the beasts skin and not actual armor? Or is there a rule in the PH that I am missing that specifically states no Unarmored Defense options with Nat armor?
Check out my guide. It goes pretty deep into the pros and cons of multiclassing.
Markus.l wrote:
Danny, would you allow anyone to use features that require "weapon attack" with an unarmed strike? If so then yes it could be argued that beasts attacks are unarmed attacks. If not then I think it's a lot more dubious as every single beast attack is a "mellee weapon attack". Melee weapon attacks don't strike me as meant to be unarmed, but ymmw.
Keendk wrote: