Which is well below their “passing score” of 70. I thought it interesting that of all the features that “passed” wildshape had the lowest score at @72% while the others were n the mid- high 80s.
Which is well below their “passing score” of 70. I thought it interesting that of all the features that “passed” wildshape had the lowest score at @72% while the others were n the mid- high 80s.
The 72% was talking about Pally and smite. That was not said about druid.
Which is well below their “passing score” of 70. I thought it interesting that of all the features that “passed” wildshape had the lowest score at @72% while the others were n the mid- high 80s.
In addition to Aquilontune's correction, Crawford outright said they knew the Wild Shape response would be "mixed." This round was more about getting feedback than attempting to pitch a finished product.
I thought it was conspicuous how they didn’t talk about satisfaction percents with the Druid. I’m guessing that means it was fairly low.
They did though?
"In the feedback to wild shape, there are basically two camps... {those who said} this was their favorite version of wild shape they've ever seen, paired with people who never want to see this version of wild shape in print. And {the second group were} similar to when we think about groups that use feats compared to ones that don't... it was a simple majority, just over the line of 50%."
So at absolute most, I'd say a 40/60 favorability split, and it's probably closer to 45/55 or even closer.
I misunderstood. I'd thought he was talking about general feedback they get about the class as opposed to playtest specific feedback. That's what I get for trying to listen and work at the same time.
So, they did say something. But it does seem they were really unusually vague about the numbers. Last time they were this vague was about the ardling. I'm not trying to imply they're going to drop the druid. But seems like they have their work cut out.
So, they did say something. But it does seem they were really unusually vague about the numbers. Last time they were this vague was about the ardling. I'm not trying to imply they're going to drop the druid. But seems like they have their work cut out.
They've pretty much confirmed that this version of wild shape isn't going to see print.
I misunderstood. I'd thought he was talking about general feedback they get about the class as opposed to playtest specific feedback. That's what I get for trying to listen and work at the same time.
So, they did say something. But it does seem they were really unusually vague about the numbers. Last time they were this vague was about the ardling. I'm not trying to imply they're going to drop the druid. But seems like they have their work cut out.
The big difference between this and Ardling is that the two opposing camps have clear common ground, i.e. wanting 2024 wild shape to be simpler than 2014. Whether they go with templates or curation, the one thing we can be sure of is that they won't revert to book-diving through 100+ beast statblocks in the MM.
So, they did say something. But it does seem they were really unusually vague about the numbers. Last time they were this vague was about the ardling. I'm not trying to imply they're going to drop the druid. But seems like they have their work cut out.
They've pretty much confirmed that this version of wild shape isn't going to see print.
Yup. Druids don't really appeal to me, so I don't have a dog in this fight. But I hope that whatever they do land on is something fun for all the druid-lovers out there.
Also seems like no ranged smites for paladins. And making some paladin spells (even though they talked about smite spells, they were also talking about find steed, right?) into class features, or at least class spells, instead of just spells.
And I hope they do beef up channel nature like they're hinting at. Similar to how I hope they'll do a bit more with cleric orders. Those kinds of little choices and differences can really help make a character more interesting and customized.
I am VERY glad Crawford addressed the issue of how the hit point buff from WS as it stands in the 2014 version creates a problem, especially at high levels. I know I'm virtually alone in this position, but I look forward to seeing how the next UA for druids addresses this.
I am VERY glad Crawford addressed the issue of how the hit point buff from WS as it stands in the 2014 version creates a problem, especially at high levels. I know I'm virtually alone in this position, but I look forward to seeing how the next UA for druids addresses this.
It's pretty widely known that the giant hit point buffer is a problem, it's just that "Okay, a wild shaped druid should be a front line fighter with terrible AC and low hit points" is... replacing one problem with a new and different problem.
And a Wildshaped Druid loses a lot of options as well, so is it that much more broken than, say, a Bear Totem Barbarian taking half damage on pretty much everything on top of d12 Hit Die and probably at least +2 or 3 CON? It's a minor damage sponge, but the low AC and lack of save profs make it pretty easy to whittle it back down. Moon does better, of course, but since their whole theme is being able to perform well in melee as a beast, that's by design, and even then the low AC and lack of physical save profs give a lot of mid to high end monsters several avenues to fight back on.
I am VERY glad Crawford addressed the issue of how the hit point buff from WS as it stands in the 2014 version creates a problem, especially at high levels. I know I'm virtually alone in this position, but I look forward to seeing how the next UA for druids addresses this.
Except the very highest levels when they can cast in beast form its not worth the hit points after level 6ish and a small elemental window at level 10-12.. in some situations where maybe you can block the entire corridor with bulk and your party is mostly ranged, it can work I guess but that seems pretty niche. But they just don't contribute much. It needed work but it seemed odd they didn't seem to notice the biggest time it was broken levels 2-5.
I am VERY glad Crawford addressed the issue of how the hit point buff from WS as it stands in the 2014 version creates a problem, especially at high levels. I know I'm virtually alone in this position, but I look forward to seeing how the next UA for druids addresses this.
It's pretty widely known that the giant hit point buffer is a problem, it's just that "Okay, a wild shaped druid should be a front line fighter with terrible AC and low hit points" is... replacing one problem with a new and different problem.
The "giant hit point buffer" is about the same as a bear totem barbarian. Is a bear totem barbarian so much of a problem in the game that it should be removed entirely?
The "giant hit point buffer" is about the same as a bear totem barbarian. Is a bear totem barbarian so much of a problem in the game that it should be removed entirely?
The durability of wild shape wouldn't be a problem if that was all the class did, but when you stack on a full 9 levels caster, even if it's not the best spell list and you can't use it at the same time as the wild shape, it becomes an issue. Wild shape in tier 2 and beyond winds up being "push button in case of emergency so I can buffer tank a whole bunch of crap".
The "giant hit point buffer" is about the same as a bear totem barbarian. Is a bear totem barbarian so much of a problem in the game that it should be removed entirely?
The durability of wild shape wouldn't be a problem if that was all the class did, but when you stack on a full 9 levels caster, even if it's not the best spell list and you can't use it at the same time as the wild shape, it becomes an issue. Wild shape in tier 2 and beyond winds up being "push button in case of emergency so I can buffer tank a whole bunch of crap".
Except they aren't! Because you lose your spellcasting while in WS, you are NEVER (until level 18 which is so high noone plays it) both a full spellcasters and a meat shield. You are always one or the other. And in NEITHER of these versions can't you keep up in terms of DPR with a barbarian. If Barbarians don't break the game because "DMs have a hard time making them feel in danger" then neither do moon druids.
The "giant hit point buffer" is about the same as a bear totem barbarian. Is a bear totem barbarian so much of a problem in the game that it should be removed entirely?
The durability of wild shape wouldn't be a problem if that was all the class did, but when you stack on a full 9 levels caster, even if it's not the best spell list and you can't use it at the same time as the wild shape, it becomes an issue. Wild shape in tier 2 and beyond winds up being "push button in case of emergency so I can buffer tank a whole bunch of crap".
If you're not a Moon Druid, the HP pool caps out at CR 1 at level 6. That's a pretty poor "emergency pool" against any significant threat from that point on. And Paladins have their 5 * level Lay on Hands healing pool which pretty well matches a CR 1 HP pool at 6th level and continues to scale from there. Mitigation on this scope is not nearly so unheard of as some make it out to be.
You're missing any context for what you're talking about. It also depends on whether you're talking attacks vs AC or damage vs other defenses (the garbage AC on wild shape makes them relatively easy to take down with attacks but doesn't really affect taking them down with other stuff).
Thing with having just increased ac esp with that is it foesnt really take much for a none ws druid to meet or beat it. I was a level 16 druid before our campaign ended with 21ac in normal form (barrier tattoo for 18ac and a shield and staff of defense).
Also our barbaian was never dropped to 0hp in the whole campaign where unless was in elemental form struggled to keep in ws for more than 1 turn was reduced to 0 several times even had to be revivified more than once (pretty sure again only our barbarian didnt die at least once)
Which is well below their “passing score” of 70. I thought it interesting that of all the features that “passed” wildshape had the lowest score at @72% while the others were n the mid- high 80s.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The 72% was talking about Pally and smite. That was not said about druid.
In addition to Aquilontune's correction, Crawford outright said they knew the Wild Shape response would be "mixed." This round was more about getting feedback than attempting to pitch a finished product.
I misunderstood. I'd thought he was talking about general feedback they get about the class as opposed to playtest specific feedback. That's what I get for trying to listen and work at the same time.
So, they did say something. But it does seem they were really unusually vague about the numbers. Last time they were this vague was about the ardling. I'm not trying to imply they're going to drop the druid. But seems like they have their work cut out.
They've pretty much confirmed that this version of wild shape isn't going to see print.
The big difference between this and Ardling is that the two opposing camps have clear common ground, i.e. wanting 2024 wild shape to be simpler than 2014. Whether they go with templates or curation, the one thing we can be sure of is that they won't revert to book-diving through 100+ beast statblocks in the MM.
Yup. Druids don't really appeal to me, so I don't have a dog in this fight. But I hope that whatever they do land on is something fun for all the druid-lovers out there.
Also seems like no ranged smites for paladins. And making some paladin spells (even though they talked about smite spells, they were also talking about find steed, right?) into class features, or at least class spells, instead of just spells.
And I hope they do beef up channel nature like they're hinting at. Similar to how I hope they'll do a bit more with cleric orders. Those kinds of little choices and differences can really help make a character more interesting and customized.
I am VERY glad Crawford addressed the issue of how the hit point buff from WS as it stands in the 2014 version creates a problem, especially at high levels. I know I'm virtually alone in this position, but I look forward to seeing how the next UA for druids addresses this.
It's pretty widely known that the giant hit point buffer is a problem, it's just that "Okay, a wild shaped druid should be a front line fighter with terrible AC and low hit points" is... replacing one problem with a new and different problem.
And a Wildshaped Druid loses a lot of options as well, so is it that much more broken than, say, a Bear Totem Barbarian taking half damage on pretty much everything on top of d12 Hit Die and probably at least +2 or 3 CON? It's a minor damage sponge, but the low AC and lack of save profs make it pretty easy to whittle it back down. Moon does better, of course, but since their whole theme is being able to perform well in melee as a beast, that's by design, and even then the low AC and lack of physical save profs give a lot of mid to high end monsters several avenues to fight back on.
Except the very highest levels when they can cast in beast form its not worth the hit points after level 6ish and a small elemental window at level 10-12.. in some situations where maybe you can block the entire corridor with bulk and your party is mostly ranged, it can work I guess but that seems pretty niche. But they just don't contribute much. It needed work but it seemed odd they didn't seem to notice the biggest time it was broken levels 2-5.
The "giant hit point buffer" is about the same as a bear totem barbarian. Is a bear totem barbarian so much of a problem in the game that it should be removed entirely?
The durability of wild shape wouldn't be a problem if that was all the class did, but when you stack on a full 9 levels caster, even if it's not the best spell list and you can't use it at the same time as the wild shape, it becomes an issue. Wild shape in tier 2 and beyond winds up being "push button in case of emergency so I can buffer tank a whole bunch of crap".
Except they aren't! Because you lose your spellcasting while in WS, you are NEVER (until level 18 which is so high noone plays it) both a full spellcasters and a meat shield. You are always one or the other. And in NEITHER of these versions can't you keep up in terms of DPR with a barbarian. If Barbarians don't break the game because "DMs have a hard time making them feel in danger" then neither do moon druids.
If you're not a Moon Druid, the HP pool caps out at CR 1 at level 6. That's a pretty poor "emergency pool" against any significant threat from that point on. And Paladins have their 5 * level Lay on Hands healing pool which pretty well matches a CR 1 HP pool at 6th level and continues to scale from there. Mitigation on this scope is not nearly so unheard of as some make it out to be.
Moon druid is specifically what they mentioned the hit point buffer being an issue.
Here's the math/numbers for the doubters:
You're missing any context for what you're talking about. It also depends on whether you're talking attacks vs AC or damage vs other defenses (the garbage AC on wild shape makes them relatively easy to take down with attacks but doesn't really affect taking them down with other stuff).
Get rid of the additional HP and move to AC boost instead
start with natural armor similar to to loxodon
while wildshaped your AC = 12 + Wisdom modifier
a Moon Druid gets 12 + Wis + (Str, Dex or Con modifier - your choice)
This represents hide, scales, feathers, fur or just being too bloody tiny to hit
leave the ability to be tiny etc as it is now
add in the ability to spell cast at an appropriate place so you can boost HP with healing or AC with other spells
anywho that’s how I would design it
Thing with having just increased ac esp with that is it foesnt really take much for a none ws druid to meet or beat it. I was a level 16 druid before our campaign ended with 21ac in normal form (barrier tattoo for 18ac and a shield and staff of defense).
Also our barbaian was never dropped to 0hp in the whole campaign where unless was in elemental form struggled to keep in ws for more than 1 turn was reduced to 0 several times even had to be revivified more than once (pretty sure again only our barbarian didnt die at least once)