Being a healer has always been a part of the Druid bag. The existence of a single other full casting healer does not make having a second one redundant/pointless; even with these changes, the two classes handle very differently, so that means the party isn't locked into requiring someone to play a Cleric if they want a dedicated healer in the group. This is also why they need to fix the Bard spell list so they have Cure Wounds back in their core repertoire and actually function like a distinct full caster and not a bargain bin Wizard, but I digress. As a counterpoint, having healing as a core class theme doesn't mean you're obliged to dedicate a bunch of spells to healing if you don't want to for your build. It's almost certain they're going to have several subclasses that have alternate uses for Channel Nature, so it's no skin off your nose that a healing option exists.
Being a healer has always been a part of the Druid bag. The existence of a single other full casting healer does not make having a second one redundant/pointless; even with these changes, the two classes handle very differently, so that means the party isn't locked into requiring someone to play a Cleric if they want a dedicated healer in the group. This is also why they need to fix the Bard spell list so they have Cure Wounds back in their core repertoire and actually function like a distinct full caster and not a bargain bin Wizard, but I digress. As a counterpoint, having healing as a core class theme doesn't mean you're obliged to dedicate a bunch of spells to healing if you don't want to for your build. It's almost certain they're going to have several subclasses that have alternate uses for Channel Nature, so it's no skin off your nose that a healing option exists.
The problem is not the existence of Healing Blossoms, it is the lack of other viable uses of Channel Nature. If WotC want Druids to feel more like "nature wizards" then one of the uses of Channel Nature should support that fantasy - e.g. regain 1 expended spell slot of 2nd level or lower or deal elemental damage to 1 creature or create/remove difficult terrain in a 10 ft radius - Giving Druid more healing doesn't make druid feel more like a "nature wizard" it makes them feel more like a leafy-cleric.
Being a healer has always been a part of the Druid bag. The existence of a single other full casting healer does not make having a second one redundant/pointless; even with these changes, the two classes handle very differently, so that means the party isn't locked into requiring someone to play a Cleric if they want a dedicated healer in the group. This is also why they need to fix the Bard spell list so they have Cure Wounds back in their core repertoire and actually function like a distinct full caster and not a bargain bin Wizard, but I digress. As a counterpoint, having healing as a core class theme doesn't mean you're obliged to dedicate a bunch of spells to healing if you don't want to for your build. It's almost certain they're going to have several subclasses that have alternate uses for Channel Nature, so it's no skin off your nose that a healing option exists.
The problem is not the existence of Healing Blossoms, it is the lack of other viable uses of Channel Nature. If WotC want Druids to feel more like "nature wizards" then one of the uses of Channel Nature should support that fantasy - e.g. regain 1 expended spell slot of 2nd level or lower or deal elemental damage to 1 creature or create/remove difficult terrain in a 10 ft radius - Giving Druid more healing doesn't make druid feel more like a "nature wizard" it makes them feel more like a leafy-cleric.
I expect the other Channel Nature uses to be subclass features, in the same vein as Clerics, Paladins, and Bards. This is not some unheard of concept, so I don't understand why so many people completely ignore the idea. Also, pretty sure they are leaning more heavily towards leafy-cleric than leafy-wizard, given that they're under the "Priest" group.
Being a healer has always been a part of the Druid bag. The existence of a single other full casting healer does not make having a second one redundant/pointless; even with these changes, the two classes handle very differently, so that means the party isn't locked into requiring someone to play a Cleric if they want a dedicated healer in the group. This is also why they need to fix the Bard spell list so they have Cure Wounds back in their core repertoire and actually function like a distinct full caster and not a bargain bin Wizard, but I digress. As a counterpoint, having healing as a core class theme doesn't mean you're obliged to dedicate a bunch of spells to healing if you don't want to for your build. It's almost certain they're going to have several subclasses that have alternate uses for Channel Nature, so it's no skin off your nose that a healing option exists.
The problem is not the existence of Healing Blossoms, it is the lack of other viable uses of Channel Nature. If WotC want Druids to feel more like "nature wizards" then one of the uses of Channel Nature should support that fantasy - e.g. regain 1 expended spell slot of 2nd level or lower or deal elemental damage to 1 creature or create/remove difficult terrain in a 10 ft radius - Giving Druid more healing doesn't make druid feel more like a "nature wizard" it makes them feel more like a leafy-cleric.
Actually, I think the existence of Healing Blossoms is part of the problem. Not because it's making Druids into healers, they have always had access to healing spells. But because Healing Blossoms takes away a nature/elemental CN option from the base Druid. And it's lumped into Wildshape at 15th level with Wild Resurgence. It should be a more nature/elemental type feature that fits into the "nature magician" that JC referenced in the video, which the UA does absolutely nothing to support it. Granted, neither did the 2014 PHB base Druid class. EDIT: it's a problem because it keeps WotC from adding something like what you suggested in, unless they want to give Druids 4 CN options right off the bat (WS, level 1, HB, WC level 2, plus a nature magician option)
Look at the Cleric UA. Their CD gives them a heal/radiant damage ability (Divine Spark) along with Turn Undead. Druid just gets an AOE heal, with spectral flowers so you feel druid-like I guess, and a summon familiar. Clerics get their Divine Order to help flesh out what kind of Cleric they want to be. Druids get nothing like that. Not saying that Druids need some kind of Holy Order, but at least make the CN option, other than the familiar, more nature themed and maybe, just maybe, flesh out the "nature magician" side of the class as well.
Being a healer has always been a part of the Druid bag. The existence of a single other full casting healer does not make having a second one redundant/pointless; even with these changes, the two classes handle very differently, so that means the party isn't locked into requiring someone to play a Cleric if they want a dedicated healer in the group. This is also why they need to fix the Bard spell list so they have Cure Wounds back in their core repertoire and actually function like a distinct full caster and not a bargain bin Wizard, but I digress. As a counterpoint, having healing as a core class theme doesn't mean you're obliged to dedicate a bunch of spells to healing if you don't want to for your build. It's almost certain they're going to have several subclasses that have alternate uses for Channel Nature, so it's no skin off your nose that a healing option exists.
The problem is not the existence of Healing Blossoms, it is the lack of other viable uses of Channel Nature. If WotC want Druids to feel more like "nature wizards" then one of the uses of Channel Nature should support that fantasy - e.g. regain 1 expended spell slot of 2nd level or lower or deal elemental damage to 1 creature or create/remove difficult terrain in a 10 ft radius - Giving Druid more healing doesn't make druid feel more like a "nature wizard" it makes them feel more like a leafy-cleric.
I expect the other Channel Nature uses to be subclass features, in the same vein as Clerics, Paladins, and Bards. This is not some unheard of concept, so I don't understand why so many people completely ignore the idea. Also, pretty sure they are leaning more heavily towards leafy-cleric than leafy-wizard, given that they're under the "Priest" group.
I can see the leafy-cleric, but I don't necessarily think that's how they are viewing it even with them being in the Priest group. I think Druid spells lean more toward battlefield control/summons, etc.. that is more in line with wizards than clerics. But I could be wrong, I haven't looked too close at the Primal spell list. Clerics already get the choice of being a "war priest" Protector Holy Order, the "learned priest" Scholar Holy Order, or "spell priest" Thaumaturge Holy Order..
To touch on the Paladin, does anyone else think it's a little odd that Paladins have access to the entire Divine spell list when Rangers don't from the Primal (they get everything except Evocation spells)
Being a healer has always been a part of the Druid bag. The existence of a single other full casting healer does not make having a second one redundant/pointless; even with these changes, the two classes handle very differently, so that means the party isn't locked into requiring someone to play a Cleric if they want a dedicated healer in the group. This is also why they need to fix the Bard spell list so they have Cure Wounds back in their core repertoire and actually function like a distinct full caster and not a bargain bin Wizard, but I digress. As a counterpoint, having healing as a core class theme doesn't mean you're obliged to dedicate a bunch of spells to healing if you don't want to for your build. It's almost certain they're going to have several subclasses that have alternate uses for Channel Nature, so it's no skin off your nose that a healing option exists.
The problem is not the existence of Healing Blossoms, it is the lack of other viable uses of Channel Nature. If WotC want Druids to feel more like "nature wizards" then one of the uses of Channel Nature should support that fantasy - e.g. regain 1 expended spell slot of 2nd level or lower or deal elemental damage to 1 creature or create/remove difficult terrain in a 10 ft radius - Giving Druid more healing doesn't make druid feel more like a "nature wizard" it makes them feel more like a leafy-cleric.
I expect the other Channel Nature uses to be subclass features, in the same vein as Clerics, Paladins, and Bards. This is not some unheard of concept, so I don't understand why so many people completely ignore the idea. Also, pretty sure they are leaning more heavily towards leafy-cleric than leafy-wizard, given that they're under the "Priest" group.
The issue there then becomes, why isn't Druid just a subclass of Cleric?
Being a healer has always been a part of the Druid bag. The existence of a single other full casting healer does not make having a second one redundant/pointless; even with these changes, the two classes handle very differently, so that means the party isn't locked into requiring someone to play a Cleric if they want a dedicated healer in the group. This is also why they need to fix the Bard spell list so they have Cure Wounds back in their core repertoire and actually function like a distinct full caster and not a bargain bin Wizard, but I digress. As a counterpoint, having healing as a core class theme doesn't mean you're obliged to dedicate a bunch of spells to healing if you don't want to for your build. It's almost certain they're going to have several subclasses that have alternate uses for Channel Nature, so it's no skin off your nose that a healing option exists.
The problem is not the existence of Healing Blossoms, it is the lack of other viable uses of Channel Nature. If WotC want Druids to feel more like "nature wizards" then one of the uses of Channel Nature should support that fantasy - e.g. regain 1 expended spell slot of 2nd level or lower or deal elemental damage to 1 creature or create/remove difficult terrain in a 10 ft radius - Giving Druid more healing doesn't make druid feel more like a "nature wizard" it makes them feel more like a leafy-cleric.
I expect the other Channel Nature uses to be subclass features, in the same vein as Clerics, Paladins, and Bards. This is not some unheard of concept, so I don't understand why so many people completely ignore the idea. Also, pretty sure they are leaning more heavily towards leafy-cleric than leafy-wizard, given that they're under the "Priest" group.
I can see the leafy-cleric, but I don't necessarily think that's how they are viewing it even with them being in the Priest group. I think Druid spells lean more toward battlefield control/summons, etc.. that is more in line with wizards than clerics. But I could be wrong, I haven't looked too close at the Primal spell list. Clerics already get the choice of being a "war priest" Protector Holy Order, the "learned priest" Scholar Holy Order, or "spell priest" Thaumaturge Holy Order..
I suspect the 4 domains we will see are life, light, tempest and trickster. All because of both popularity of those archetypes and because of how they change or enhance the cleric. Tempest/storms will likely be the most "nature" cleric.
For everyone getting on my case about the "leafy cleric" bit, I didn't literally mean they're meant to play like a Nature Cleric, just that comparatively between Wizard and Cleric, the Druid is likely meant be more like the Cleric than the Wizard. If I had to guess on why there's not another CN use, it's because at this point they decided to limit the full casters to 3 core options for their Channel feature, and I can see healing, (nominal) shapeshifting, and summoning a familiar coming in ahead of some kind of plant magic they'd have to create from whole cloth rather than adapt from the prior edition. Personally I don't think it's going to impede my ability to enjoy playing a druid if I need to take a spell to have some plant powers, but I don't actually have a dog in this fight one way or the other.
The issue there then becomes, why isn't Druid just a subclass of Cleric?
Because clerics don’t turn into animals or summon animals.Clerics don’t cast many of the spells on the Primal list. Most importantly it’s because Clerics have a different theme. 5e Ranger could have arguably been better as a subclass of fighter or rogue. Barbarians could be subclass of Fighter. By not being a subclass it allows for more development fleshing out of a class.
To touch on the Paladin, does anyone else think it's a little odd that Paladins have access to the entire Divine spell list when Rangers don't from the Primal (they get everything except Evocation spells)
Not really but that is because I think paladins are more thematically spell casters than rangers are.
Not really but that is because I think paladins are more thematically spell casters than rangers are.
How so? I'd personally argue the opposite; actual spellcasting has always been somewhat secondary for paladins (at least in 5e), whereas it's more core to how Ranger functions. Your average Paladin doesn't care about divine favor, but a lot of Rangers will make full use of hunter's mark or zephyr strike (at least in earlier tiers), a ranged Ranger wants to get conjure barrage or lightning arrow to give them area attacks, a lot of Rangers will take pass without trace to greatly boost party stealth etc.
That's not to say there are no spells Paladins might want to cast, but a lot of those slots are best spent on a well timed Divine Smite. Paladins have some really great core features that reduce the need for them to cast spells at all, as they already have great aura effects and built-in healing.
Back onto the Druid Wildshape, but I just had a thought; with Find Familiar moving to a template, and Wildshape doing the same, it actually got me to thinking but do we actually need Wildshape to be a fully defined feature in its own right anymore? Wildshape could theoretically just become a free way to cast find familiar, and later summon beast (without concentration) except that instead of summoning a new creature you become that creature. This would simplify the feature quite a bit since we'd just be re-using those templates rather than defining yet another set that has to be balanced independently, and the Wildshape rule only has to specify how it works (you change, revert on 0 hp., keep INT/WIS/CHA etc.). Scaling the feature is then as simple as increasing the level at which the spell is cast for free.
Now this still has some issues left to resolve; we'd still need to add some options onto the land template to get back some of the missing utility (choice of blindsight, keen senses, pack tactics etc.) but it'd be a lot simpler overall.
I'd probably still move Wildshape back to 2nd-level, but I'd love to see it accompanied by a Warlock Eldritch Invocations style set of choices (quillcannon actually has a thread on that idea in the Druid sub-forum) but instead of limiting it to just Wildshape upgrades I'd have it also upgrade or add other Channel Natures. For example, Druid could go back to only having Wildshape by default, but an "invocation" could add "Healing Blossom" as a 5th-level option to cast aura of vitality as a Channel Nature (casting at higher levels as you level up). Another invocation would allow you to summon the familiar/beast rather than turning into it. Maybe one that boosts primal magic somehow and so-on, to support a range of Druid builds (which is what Crawford claimed he wanted despite then releasing a Wildshape focused UA).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Being a healer has always been a part of the Druid bag. The existence of a single other full casting healer does not make having a second one redundant/pointless; even with these changes, the two classes handle very differently, so that means the party isn't locked into requiring someone to play a Cleric if they want a dedicated healer in the group. This is also why they need to fix the Bard spell list so they have Cure Wounds back in their core repertoire and actually function like a distinct full caster and not a bargain bin Wizard, but I digress. As a counterpoint, having healing as a core class theme doesn't mean you're obliged to dedicate a bunch of spells to healing if you don't want to for your build. It's almost certain they're going to have several subclasses that have alternate uses for Channel Nature, so it's no skin off your nose that a healing option exists.
The problem is not the existence of Healing Blossoms, it is the lack of other viable uses of Channel Nature. If WotC want Druids to feel more like "nature wizards" then one of the uses of Channel Nature should support that fantasy - e.g. regain 1 expended spell slot of 2nd level or lower or deal elemental damage to 1 creature or create/remove difficult terrain in a 10 ft radius - Giving Druid more healing doesn't make druid feel more like a "nature wizard" it makes them feel more like a leafy-cleric.
I expect the other Channel Nature uses to be subclass features, in the same vein as Clerics, Paladins, and Bards. This is not some unheard of concept, so I don't understand why so many people completely ignore the idea. Also, pretty sure they are leaning more heavily towards leafy-cleric than leafy-wizard, given that they're under the "Priest" group.
The issue there then becomes, why isn't Druid just a subclass of Cleric?
same reason that wizards and sorcerers arnt subclasses from each other since there both arcane casters. druids are different enough from clerics that it wouldnt be done justice just being a subclass
My read on this is firstly to question the research that Druid is the least played class. That seems like absolute stinking lies. Out of the eight campaigns I've run or played in over the last three years, there's been a Druid in every single campaign. Now, yeah as a DM it can be frustrating constantly trying to look up the different wildshape forms, but that's where having a character sheet on D&D beyond can help because you can quickly and easily reference the stat blocks in the extras tab. Having seen how well Druids frequently causes obscene levels of damage or just solve the puzzles and obstacles I throw out I actually don't feel like it needs 'fixing'. I feel like one real good improvement would be that Druids perhaps could be limited to a single wildshape form per level. That's not saying they'll get extra wildshape slots, but rather they pick a new form each level. That limits the pool of stat blocks and actually makes the creatures they choose more meaningful from a storytelling perspective.
To caveat all this though, I basically throw out any sources that aren't Player's Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide. This means that druids aren't competing with the nonsense races, classes and subclasses that came afterwards. It was this that has made me wonder why the druid would be an underplayed class and this realisation as to why.
Frankly, the problem with a lot of the PHB content is that the stuff that has come afterwards has mostly been seized upon as giving players loads of choices and flexibility, but certainly many of the races/subclasses in trying to make them unique and cool have unbalanced and overshadowed the PHB content. With each new publication the writers have wanted to make the new options attractive but have never really had balance or a wider view on the overall design. So the Druid content of the UA feels very much like trying to fix a problem that the writers themselves caused, but doing it so badly that they'll cause the same problems for the future. The Druid proposed here is so poorly considered that it really won't take much for it to become irrelevant with future publications.
Back onto the Druid Wildshape, but I just had a thought; with Find Familiar moving to a template, and Wildshape doing the same, it actually got me to thinking but do we actually need Wildshape to be a fully defined feature in its own right anymore? Wildshape could theoretically just become a free way to cast find familiar, and later summon beast (without concentration) except that instead of summoning a new creature you become that creature. This would simplify the feature quite a bit since we'd just be re-using those templates rather than defining yet another set that has to be balanced independently, and the Wildshape rule only has to specify how it works (you change, revert on 0 hp., keep INT/WIS/CHA etc.). Scaling the feature is then as simple as increasing the level at which the spell is cast for free.
An interesting idea, but it then limits you to having to decide (which may be a good thing) if you want to be the wolf or do you want to be fighting alongside your wolf summon. Or summon a wolf, WS into another wolf, and tag team your opponent. Would this use of WS be different than casting the spell with a slot so you can do the dual wolf thing? Maybe I’m thinking of it wrong
Back onto the Druid Wildshape, but I just had a thought; with Find Familiar moving to a template, and Wildshape doing the same, it actually got me to thinking but do we actually need Wildshape to be a fully defined feature in its own right anymore? Wildshape could theoretically just become a free way to cast find familiar, and later summon beast (without concentration) except that instead of summoning a new creature you become that creature. This would simplify the feature quite a bit since we'd just be re-using those templates rather than defining yet another set that has to be balanced independently, and the Wildshape rule only has to specify how it works (you change, revert on 0 hp., keep INT/WIS/CHA etc.). Scaling the feature is then as simple as increasing the level at which the spell is cast for free.
An interesting idea, but it then limits you to having to decide (which may be a good thing) if you want to be the wolf or do you want to be fighting alongside your wolf summon. Or summon a wolf, WS into another wolf, and tag team your opponent. Would this use of WS be different than casting the spell with a slot so you can do the dual wolf thing? Maybe I’m thinking of it wrong
If it was concentration free then I think you could both be a "summoned" beast, and fight alongside one (same as you can now), but it should probably require the spell slot and/or the Channel Nature summon option shouldn't bypass concentration (i.e- it's only concentration free if you turn into it yourself)?
While it sounds like a lot of exceptions, I think it could still be simpler overall while allowing for a bunch of options, and I have to assume summon beast etc. is what they'll be aiming for in future to replace the existing monster stat summon spells like conjure woodland beings and other player and/or DM headaches, but we'll presumably see that in a later UA with a big overhaul of spells (they just seem to be focused on a handful for now, particular those tied to a class).
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.
Back onto the Druid Wildshape, but I just had a thought; with Find Familiar moving to a template, and Wildshape doing the same, it actually got me to thinking but do we actually need Wildshape to be a fully defined feature in its own right anymore? Wildshape could theoretically just become a free way to cast find familiar, and later summon beast (without concentration) except that instead of summoning a new creature you become that creature. This would simplify the feature quite a bit since we'd just be re-using those templates rather than defining yet another set that has to be balanced independently, and the Wildshape rule only has to specify how it works (you change, revert on 0 hp., keep INT/WIS/CHA etc.). Scaling the feature is then as simple as increasing the level at which the spell is cast for free.
An interesting idea, but it then limits you to having to decide (which may be a good thing) if you want to be the wolf or do you want to be fighting alongside your wolf summon. Or summon a wolf, WS into another wolf, and tag team your opponent. Would this use of WS be different than casting the spell with a slot so you can do the dual wolf thing? Maybe I’m thinking of it wrong
This could be a good solution, actually... having 20 different templates for various pets, summons spells, and shapechanging ability is no simpler than having 20 different beast stat blocks in the monster manual that are reused by these various abilities.
Have it be:
As an action you expend one use of your Channel Nature ability to cast Summon Beast, at a level up to the highest level spell you can cast without expending a spellslot, that transforms yourself into the summoned beast. When cast this way it does not require your concentration, all you statistics are replaced by those of the beast, except you retain your Channel Nature and related abilities, You use its hit points rather than your own, and revert to your normal shape when reduced to 0 hp .... At 1st level you must pick Beast of the Land, at 4th level you can choose between Beast of the Land or Beast of the Sea, at 8th level you can choose between Beast of the Land, Beast of the Sea or Beast of the Sky.
Moon Druid gets the ability to activate it as a BA and magical attacks, and at level 10 can cast Summon Elemental instead of Summon Beast.
Polymorph can use the same statblocks as well, but it lets you pick from those associated with Find Familiar or Summon Beast, and requires concentration but can target self, allies or enemies, and the spell is cast at the level that you cast Polymorph.
Then, True Polymorph lets you use any statblock attached to any summon spell, and Shapechange is just Polymorph but every turn you can use an Action to change your form but can only target yourself.
My read on this is firstly to question the research that Druid is the least played class. That seems like absolute stinking lies. Out of the eight campaigns I've run or played in over the last three years, there's been a Druid in every single campaign.
First off, accusing research "stinking lies" is never a good start, and when your refutation is based on personal anecdote, it's meaningless. In my experience, Druid is the least used class other than Sorceror. Even then... there's not a lot of difference. Indeed, a Wizard has been in almost every campaign, same as the Rogue and the Paladin, as well as the Fighter. A Druid was for a couple of levels in an abortive campaign. That doesn't cast doubt on your experience, it.doesmshow it's not universal.
DDB class data shows that the Druid is either the 3rd least popular class or dead last (depending on the date the data was taken, I believe). The Druid is a generally unpopular class. There are multiple reasons for that, class complexity being one and Wildshape being another, by my estimation. I'm not convinced by a long shot that the UA changes are even close to a positive response to that, but it does seem evident that the Devs are thinking about those weaknesses in their changes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Not really but that is because I think paladins are more thematically spell casters than rangers are.
How so? I'd personally argue the opposite; actual spellcasting has always been somewhat secondary for paladins (at least in 5e), whereas it's more core to how Ranger functions. Your average Paladin doesn't care about divine favor, but a lot of Rangers will make full use of hunter's mark or zephyr strike (at least in earlier tiers), a ranged Ranger wants to get conjure barrage or lightning arrow to give them area attacks, a lot of Rangers will take pass without trace to greatly boost party stealth etc.
That's not to say there are no spells Paladins might want to cast, but a lot of those slots are best spent on a well timed Divine Smite. Paladins have some really great core features that reduce the need for them to cast spells at all, as they already have great aura effects and built-in healing.
None of that is thematic, it is 5e mechanics. Which even is more about how some people choose to play the class vs what they gain. They have tons of great spells and if people were not so focused on a big hit they'd cast them more often for better effect. Do you know how hilarious it is at level 2 as a human paladin with heavy armor mastery to cast heroism. It is actually surprising how many levels that combo is insane in most fights. Yeah the one big tank enemy fights like giants or dinos or whatever 6 damage off every attack is less meaningful, but orcs, bandits, archers, goblins, kobolds, wolves etc and its insane . Every other edition paladins were clearly better casters and it makes sense. Rangers thematically are wilderness warriors, nothing about that speaks to magic at all, paladins thematically are divinely empowered warriors while that does not thematically mean spell casting it does mean some level of magic. 1d&d seems to know this which is why rangers are a expert and paladins are a priest. Rangers are more focused on their skills than magic, paladins are more focused on their magic than rangers, its why like every one of their abilities except fighting style and extra attack is magic based. Whether its the aura, immunity to disease, lay on hands, the smites, its all magic based. The ranger other than the spell casting and I guess primeval awareness what from their abilities speaks to magic, everything else is focusing on their skills. For me a paladin would be toss up between warrior and priest for them as thematically its a pretty even split warrior/priest. Ranger is more 80/20 and that 20 is just D&D legacy mechanics and has nothing to do with what people think of when the think of rangers.
that being said I am not a massive fan of this change in that I like each class having some unique spells. Though is they are going this route maybe they could change the smite feature to be all smite spells are auto prepared for free by paladins that way smiting spells seem more of a part of being a paladin.
My read on this is firstly to question the research that Druid is the least played class. That seems like absolute stinking lies. Out of the eight campaigns I've run or played in over the last three years, there's been a Druid in every single campaign.
First off, accusing research "stinking lies" is never a good start, and when your refutation is based on personal anecdote, it's meaningless. In my experience, Druid is the least used class other than Sorceror. Even then... there's not a lot of difference. Indeed, a Wizard has been in almost every campaign, same as the Rogue and the Paladin, as well as the Fighter. A Druid was for a couple of levels in an abortive campaign. That doesn't cast doubt on your experience, it.doesmshow it's not universal.
DDB class data shows that the Druid is either the 3rd least popular class or dead last (depending on the date the data was taken, I believe). The Druid is a generally unpopular class. There are multiple reasons for that, class complexity being one and Wildshape being another, by my estimation. I'm not convinced by a long shot that the UA changes are even close to a positive response to that, but it does seem evident that the Devs are thinking about those weaknesses in their changes.
So, I do get where you are coming from but let's be clear here it's been a while since any real data was released. Last I remember is was 2020...which was pre lockdowns where everything about D&D saw a change due to the different mechanisms for play.
Beyond that, any simple search online will reveal a ton of surveys that contradict DDB's 2020 data (D&D: And The Most Popular Class Is... - Bell of Lost Souls). I've seen druids receive over 10% of responses to big D&D creator twitter surveys (hundreds, sometimes thousands of respondants). Moreover, it isn't anecdotal what I'm relaying. I can give you the data from my 5e games over the last 8+ years. In that time I have played in more than 30 different game groups and that's without one-shots included. There has never been a group that didn't have a druid represented. So out of to my estimation 150 characters at a minimum, at least 25 of those characters have been Druids.
That's before we even get into the weeds of how few people actually use D&D Beyond compared to the number of players of the game over all. How many old school pen and paper folks who reject digital play entirely. Or who chose other platforms like Roll20. And as someone who has conducted a lot of research over the years I am pretty confident in telling you that WotC and DDB's surveys and data gathering systems are utter garbage.
And frankly, I do think that the approach to data gathering and market research by the development team is why so much of the One D&D playtest materials have just fallen flat on their back. They just don't know how to gather the information they need to inform their development process.
Is Druid a complex class? Yes. However, with the right scaffolded support players are going to be able to cope with it. Perhaps it still deters new players to the class. Even if that's the case, I still assert that the reason these UA are missing the mark is the slap-dash approach and dodgy assumptions being made.
Being a healer has always been a part of the Druid bag. The existence of a single other full casting healer does not make having a second one redundant/pointless; even with these changes, the two classes handle very differently, so that means the party isn't locked into requiring someone to play a Cleric if they want a dedicated healer in the group. This is also why they need to fix the Bard spell list so they have Cure Wounds back in their core repertoire and actually function like a distinct full caster and not a bargain bin Wizard, but I digress. As a counterpoint, having healing as a core class theme doesn't mean you're obliged to dedicate a bunch of spells to healing if you don't want to for your build. It's almost certain they're going to have several subclasses that have alternate uses for Channel Nature, so it's no skin off your nose that a healing option exists.
The problem is not the existence of Healing Blossoms, it is the lack of other viable uses of Channel Nature. If WotC want Druids to feel more like "nature wizards" then one of the uses of Channel Nature should support that fantasy - e.g. regain 1 expended spell slot of 2nd level or lower or deal elemental damage to 1 creature or create/remove difficult terrain in a 10 ft radius - Giving Druid more healing doesn't make druid feel more like a "nature wizard" it makes them feel more like a leafy-cleric.
I expect the other Channel Nature uses to be subclass features, in the same vein as Clerics, Paladins, and Bards. This is not some unheard of concept, so I don't understand why so many people completely ignore the idea. Also, pretty sure they are leaning more heavily towards leafy-cleric than leafy-wizard, given that they're under the "Priest" group.
Actually, I think the existence of Healing Blossoms is part of the problem. Not because it's making Druids into healers, they have always had access to healing spells. But because Healing Blossoms takes away a nature/elemental CN option from the base Druid. And it's lumped into Wildshape at 15th level with Wild Resurgence. It should be a more nature/elemental type feature that fits into the "nature magician" that JC referenced in the video, which the UA does absolutely nothing to support it. Granted, neither did the 2014 PHB base Druid class. EDIT: it's a problem because it keeps WotC from adding something like what you suggested in, unless they want to give Druids 4 CN options right off the bat (WS, level 1, HB, WC level 2, plus a nature magician option)
Look at the Cleric UA. Their CD gives them a heal/radiant damage ability (Divine Spark) along with Turn Undead. Druid just gets an AOE heal, with spectral flowers so you feel druid-like I guess, and a summon familiar. Clerics get their Divine Order to help flesh out what kind of Cleric they want to be. Druids get nothing like that. Not saying that Druids need some kind of Holy Order, but at least make the CN option, other than the familiar, more nature themed and maybe, just maybe, flesh out the "nature magician" side of the class as well.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I can see the leafy-cleric, but I don't necessarily think that's how they are viewing it even with them being in the Priest group. I think Druid spells lean more toward battlefield control/summons, etc.. that is more in line with wizards than clerics. But I could be wrong, I haven't looked too close at the Primal spell list. Clerics already get the choice of being a "war priest" Protector Holy Order, the "learned priest" Scholar Holy Order, or "spell priest" Thaumaturge Holy Order..
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
To touch on the Paladin, does anyone else think it's a little odd that Paladins have access to the entire Divine spell list when Rangers don't from the Primal (they get everything except Evocation spells)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The issue there then becomes, why isn't Druid just a subclass of Cleric?
I suspect the 4 domains we will see are life, light, tempest and trickster. All because of both popularity of those archetypes and because of how they change or enhance the cleric. Tempest/storms will likely be the most "nature" cleric.
Because clerics don’t turn into animals or summon animals.Clerics don’t cast many of the spells on the Primal list. Most importantly it’s because Clerics have a different theme. 5e Ranger could have arguably been better as a subclass of fighter or rogue. Barbarians could be subclass of Fighter. By not being a subclass it allows for more development fleshing out of a class.
Not really but that is because I think paladins are more thematically spell casters than rangers are.
How so? I'd personally argue the opposite; actual spellcasting has always been somewhat secondary for paladins (at least in 5e), whereas it's more core to how Ranger functions. Your average Paladin doesn't care about divine favor, but a lot of Rangers will make full use of hunter's mark or zephyr strike (at least in earlier tiers), a ranged Ranger wants to get conjure barrage or lightning arrow to give them area attacks, a lot of Rangers will take pass without trace to greatly boost party stealth etc.
That's not to say there are no spells Paladins might want to cast, but a lot of those slots are best spent on a well timed Divine Smite. Paladins have some really great core features that reduce the need for them to cast spells at all, as they already have great aura effects and built-in healing.
Back onto the Druid Wildshape, but I just had a thought; with Find Familiar moving to a template, and Wildshape doing the same, it actually got me to thinking but do we actually need Wildshape to be a fully defined feature in its own right anymore? Wildshape could theoretically just become a free way to cast find familiar, and later summon beast (without concentration) except that instead of summoning a new creature you become that creature. This would simplify the feature quite a bit since we'd just be re-using those templates rather than defining yet another set that has to be balanced independently, and the Wildshape rule only has to specify how it works (you change, revert on 0 hp., keep INT/WIS/CHA etc.). Scaling the feature is then as simple as increasing the level at which the spell is cast for free.
Now this still has some issues left to resolve; we'd still need to add some options onto the land template to get back some of the missing utility (choice of blindsight, keen senses, pack tactics etc.) but it'd be a lot simpler overall.
I'd probably still move Wildshape back to 2nd-level, but I'd love to see it accompanied by a Warlock Eldritch Invocations style set of choices (quillcannon actually has a thread on that idea in the Druid sub-forum) but instead of limiting it to just Wildshape upgrades I'd have it also upgrade or add other Channel Natures. For example, Druid could go back to only having Wildshape by default, but an "invocation" could add "Healing Blossom" as a 5th-level option to cast aura of vitality as a Channel Nature (casting at higher levels as you level up). Another invocation would allow you to summon the familiar/beast rather than turning into it. Maybe one that boosts primal magic somehow and so-on, to support a range of Druid builds (which is what Crawford claimed he wanted despite then releasing a Wildshape focused UA).
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.
same reason that wizards and sorcerers arnt subclasses from each other since there both arcane casters. druids are different enough from clerics that it wouldnt be done justice just being a subclass
My read on this is firstly to question the research that Druid is the least played class. That seems like absolute stinking lies. Out of the eight campaigns I've run or played in over the last three years, there's been a Druid in every single campaign. Now, yeah as a DM it can be frustrating constantly trying to look up the different wildshape forms, but that's where having a character sheet on D&D beyond can help because you can quickly and easily reference the stat blocks in the extras tab. Having seen how well Druids frequently causes obscene levels of damage or just solve the puzzles and obstacles I throw out I actually don't feel like it needs 'fixing'. I feel like one real good improvement would be that Druids perhaps could be limited to a single wildshape form per level. That's not saying they'll get extra wildshape slots, but rather they pick a new form each level. That limits the pool of stat blocks and actually makes the creatures they choose more meaningful from a storytelling perspective.
To caveat all this though, I basically throw out any sources that aren't Player's Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide. This means that druids aren't competing with the nonsense races, classes and subclasses that came afterwards. It was this that has made me wonder why the druid would be an underplayed class and this realisation as to why.
Frankly, the problem with a lot of the PHB content is that the stuff that has come afterwards has mostly been seized upon as giving players loads of choices and flexibility, but certainly many of the races/subclasses in trying to make them unique and cool have unbalanced and overshadowed the PHB content. With each new publication the writers have wanted to make the new options attractive but have never really had balance or a wider view on the overall design. So the Druid content of the UA feels very much like trying to fix a problem that the writers themselves caused, but doing it so badly that they'll cause the same problems for the future. The Druid proposed here is so poorly considered that it really won't take much for it to become irrelevant with future publications.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
An interesting idea, but it then limits you to having to decide (which may be a good thing) if you want to be the wolf or do you want to be fighting alongside your wolf summon. Or summon a wolf, WS into another wolf, and tag team your opponent. Would this use of WS be different than casting the spell with a slot so you can do the dual wolf thing? Maybe I’m thinking of it wrong
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
If it was concentration free then I think you could both be a "summoned" beast, and fight alongside one (same as you can now), but it should probably require the spell slot and/or the Channel Nature summon option shouldn't bypass concentration (i.e- it's only concentration free if you turn into it yourself)?
While it sounds like a lot of exceptions, I think it could still be simpler overall while allowing for a bunch of options, and I have to assume summon beast etc. is what they'll be aiming for in future to replace the existing monster stat summon spells like conjure woodland beings and other player and/or DM headaches, but we'll presumably see that in a later UA with a big overhaul of spells (they just seem to be focused on a handful for now, particular those tied to a class).
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.
This could be a good solution, actually... having 20 different templates for various pets, summons spells, and shapechanging ability is no simpler than having 20 different beast stat blocks in the monster manual that are reused by these various abilities.
Have it be:
Moon Druid gets the ability to activate it as a BA and magical attacks, and at level 10 can cast Summon Elemental instead of Summon Beast.
Polymorph can use the same statblocks as well, but it lets you pick from those associated with Find Familiar or Summon Beast, and requires concentration but can target self, allies or enemies, and the spell is cast at the level that you cast Polymorph.
Then, True Polymorph lets you use any statblock attached to any summon spell, and Shapechange is just Polymorph but every turn you can use an Action to change your form but can only target yourself.
First off, accusing research "stinking lies" is never a good start, and when your refutation is based on personal anecdote, it's meaningless. In my experience, Druid is the least used class other than Sorceror. Even then... there's not a lot of difference. Indeed, a Wizard has been in almost every campaign, same as the Rogue and the Paladin, as well as the Fighter. A Druid was for a couple of levels in an abortive campaign. That doesn't cast doubt on your experience, it.doesmshow it's not universal.
DDB class data shows that the Druid is either the 3rd least popular class or dead last (depending on the date the data was taken, I believe). The Druid is a generally unpopular class. There are multiple reasons for that, class complexity being one and Wildshape being another, by my estimation. I'm not convinced by a long shot that the UA changes are even close to a positive response to that, but it does seem evident that the Devs are thinking about those weaknesses in their changes.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
None of that is thematic, it is 5e mechanics. Which even is more about how some people choose to play the class vs what they gain. They have tons of great spells and if people were not so focused on a big hit they'd cast them more often for better effect. Do you know how hilarious it is at level 2 as a human paladin with heavy armor mastery to cast heroism. It is actually surprising how many levels that combo is insane in most fights. Yeah the one big tank enemy fights like giants or dinos or whatever 6 damage off every attack is less meaningful, but orcs, bandits, archers, goblins, kobolds, wolves etc and its insane . Every other edition paladins were clearly better casters and it makes sense. Rangers thematically are wilderness warriors, nothing about that speaks to magic at all, paladins thematically are divinely empowered warriors while that does not thematically mean spell casting it does mean some level of magic. 1d&d seems to know this which is why rangers are a expert and paladins are a priest. Rangers are more focused on their skills than magic, paladins are more focused on their magic than rangers, its why like every one of their abilities except fighting style and extra attack is magic based. Whether its the aura, immunity to disease, lay on hands, the smites, its all magic based. The ranger other than the spell casting and I guess primeval awareness what from their abilities speaks to magic, everything else is focusing on their skills. For me a paladin would be toss up between warrior and priest for them as thematically its a pretty even split warrior/priest. Ranger is more 80/20 and that 20 is just D&D legacy mechanics and has nothing to do with what people think of when the think of rangers.
that being said I am not a massive fan of this change in that I like each class having some unique spells. Though is they are going this route maybe they could change the smite feature to be all smite spells are auto prepared for free by paladins that way smiting spells seem more of a part of being a paladin.
So, I do get where you are coming from but let's be clear here it's been a while since any real data was released. Last I remember is was 2020...which was pre lockdowns where everything about D&D saw a change due to the different mechanisms for play.
Beyond that, any simple search online will reveal a ton of surveys that contradict DDB's 2020 data (D&D: And The Most Popular Class Is... - Bell of Lost Souls). I've seen druids receive over 10% of responses to big D&D creator twitter surveys (hundreds, sometimes thousands of respondants). Moreover, it isn't anecdotal what I'm relaying. I can give you the data from my 5e games over the last 8+ years. In that time I have played in more than 30 different game groups and that's without one-shots included. There has never been a group that didn't have a druid represented. So out of to my estimation 150 characters at a minimum, at least 25 of those characters have been Druids.
That's before we even get into the weeds of how few people actually use D&D Beyond compared to the number of players of the game over all. How many old school pen and paper folks who reject digital play entirely. Or who chose other platforms like Roll20. And as someone who has conducted a lot of research over the years I am pretty confident in telling you that WotC and DDB's surveys and data gathering systems are utter garbage.
And frankly, I do think that the approach to data gathering and market research by the development team is why so much of the One D&D playtest materials have just fallen flat on their back. They just don't know how to gather the information they need to inform their development process.
Is Druid a complex class? Yes. However, with the right scaffolded support players are going to be able to cope with it. Perhaps it still deters new players to the class. Even if that's the case, I still assert that the reason these UA are missing the mark is the slap-dash approach and dodgy assumptions being made.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.