The highest hit points for CR1 beasts in the PHB is 37 hp. Highest AC is 14. (Dire Wolf for both.) Highest "to hit" is +5. Highest # of attacks: 2. For non-Moon, you need to be level 8 at minimum. Now let's look at CR 6 to CR 9 creatures the party is likely to fight:
A giant octopus has 52 hit-points in the basic rules, +5 to hit with a 15 foot reach and can auto-grapple and restrain a target with a decent escape DC of 16.
What I was saying though is that for 1 use of what at higher levels becomes unlimited uses, you've gained 52 hit-points on a basic Druid who hasn't specialised in wildshape; if you use that four times in a fight that's 208 extra hit-points for an enemy to chew through. It's equivalent (AC vs. enemy attack modifier dependent) to casting false life at 9th-level every turn. The only class that can do more is Moon Druid, because they're throwing out unlimited [Tooltip Not Found] as a bonus action.
But my entire point (which you seem to be missing?) was that they set themselves up for an obvious balance/exploit nightmare from the start, and seem to be overreacting in the UA. I'm not sure why you should find that statement controversial?
LOL you're reaching here. It's 104 extra hit points at the cost of 2 actions at level 8 and sacrificing your spellcasting. Do you know what's actually equivalent? Casting Polymorph on yourself.. only that gives you 157 extra hit points and a powerful ranged attack at the same time - and only costs 1 action. Hm... it's almost like WS kind of sucks for non-Moon druids doesn't it...
To put it simply, these spell all do very similar but more powerful things than WS. If WS is an obvious balance/exploit nightmare then surely these spells are utterly game breaking and must immediately be removed or massively nerfed as well:
Conjure Animals Polymorph Animal Forms Shapechange True Polymorph
Special mention:
Animal Friendship - can be used to recruit an entire army of animal buddies to fight for you Conjure X - there are way more conjuration spells than just animals - devils, elementals, fey, celestials, planar creatures etc...
Your irrational hatred of WS is just that : irrational. A Bear Totem Barbarian effectively doubles their much larger it point pool by raging, Bladesingers and Artificers are practically unhittable, Paladins can nearly double their hit points by using Lay on Hands on themselves, Fighters and Celestial Warlocks get SR-recharge healing. I could handily make a dozen characters with more survivability in combat than a WSing non-moon druid without even breaking a sweat - and all of those would be more effective in combat.
It's 104 per short rest (more for a moon). Run the same survivability math with 6-8 encounters a day with a few short rests thrown in (the standard adventuring day). If your group only runs one or two fights a day? A barbarian will obviously be better as will a number of builds later game. The group is not being taxed on their resource pools at all so the math tilts towards survival/DPS nova builds that only need to last 3-4 rounds one or twice a day.
Except it isn't a standard adventuring day. Even in published adventures rarely do you see more than 5 encounters per day, and to be perfectly honest... not a single group I've played with enjoys that style of game. 6-8 weak encounters per day is incredibly boring - and FYI number of encounters is meaningless you can have 12 encounters per day easily if the party cancels have of them in the first round with an AoE. Even the 5 encounters in published adventures often become monotonous. IMO a combat that lasts less than 2 rounds isn't worth the effort of rolling initiative and getting out a map, and if you're doing 6-8 encounters per day then most of them are lasting no more than 2 rounds at which point WS is generally a waste b/c you can't cast spells which means you can't use the AoE spell that will insta-kill the handful of mooks in random easy encounter # 14, your just a trash fighter with nothing to offer the party / combat other than standing there playing a pin cushion. Having played a Moon druid from level 3-12, I can say from experience past level 7 moon druid feels WEAK. The spellcasting is just not good enough compared to a Wizard, Sorcerer or even a Bard, WS just turns you into a second or third rate fighter, and you've got literally nothing else in your class. I'm hoping 9th level spells pick up again because the 7th and 8th level ones are just awful, and upcasting Call Lightning is not really impressive, and all the battlefield control is niche.
and the expectation is that Eldritch Blast will be a class ability, not a spell, and nerf some of that
That does nothing to stop coffee-locking but we'll wait and see. No body is arguing against the fact that level 2-4 moon druid needs a nerf. But non-Moon Druid WS isn't broken at all in 5e, so there was no need to nerf it into oblivion (and non-Moon Druid WS is what we are talking about). Regular WS was fun and interesting, now it is a waste of the pages it is printed on. Moon druid needs fixing at multiple levels, it's too strong at level 2, and too week at level 7-9, but they totally botched that as well the elemental strikes is sooo boring compared to what becoming an elemental gave you. Unlimited WS needed throwing out, that was poor design just in general but since it was level 20 it didn't really matter b/c almost no one played that high.
Sorry, Giant Octopus is not in the PHB. My suggestion was re: using PHB beasties being the most essential onees. I missed the GO b/c it was not part of my idea for using PHB beasts as the essential ones for OneD&D. Not that it's bad beast form, by any means; however, note that you are sacrificing having multiple attacks per round for a very low AC Wildshape. Good luck keeping concentration on any of your spells. Also, please re-read Post #155 on how much more powerful it is to use Conjure Animals (a Concentration spell) than it is to Wildshape yourself.
I wasn't replying to your suggestion, I was talking about why wildshape was always set up to be problematic to balance, especially when it becomes unlimited free uses later on within the context of Jeremy Crawford's video.
YOU replied to ME. Moving the goalposts to PHB only isn't helping your case if you're ignoring what I actually said in the first place (multiple times now).
This thread is so long that I really don't have the patience to read through every page. Perhaps you can restate what you main argument is. If it's Wildshape is "hard to balance", I agree that it's true for Moon Druid. I disagree about non-Moon Druids (b/c Druids are primary casters and melee with bad AC is just asking for your spell to go bye bye). If your argument is something else, please use plain English to explain what, precisely, you are arguing as we are clearly just going to keep circling without getting to the point otherwise.
Quote from Agilemind>> It's 104 per short rest (more for a moon). Run the same survivability math with 6-8 encounters a day with a few short rests thrown in (the standard adventuring day). If your group only runs one or two fights a day? A barbarian will obviously be better as will a number of builds later game. The group is not being taxed on their resource pools at all so the math tilts towards survival/DPS nova builds that only need to last 3-4 rounds one or twice a day.
Except it isn't a standard adventuring day. Even in published adventures rarely do you see more than 5 encounters per day, and to be perfectly honest... not a single group I've played with enjoys that style of game. 6-8 weak encounters per day is incredibly boring - and FYI number of encounters is meaningless you can have 12 encounters per day easily if the party cancels have of them in the first round with an AoE. Even the 5 encounters in published adventures often become monotonous. IMO a combat that lasts less than 2 rounds isn't worth the effort of rolling initiative and getting out a map, and if you're doing 6-8 encounters per day then most of them are lasting no more than 2 rounds at which point WS is generally a waste b/c you can't cast spells which means you can't use the AoE spell that will insta-kill the handful of mooks in random easy encounter # 14, your just a trash fighter with nothing to offer the party / combat other than standing there playing a pin cushion. Having played a Moon druid from level 3-12, I can say from experience past level 7 moon druid feels WEAK. The spellcasting is just not good enough compared to a Wizard, Sorcerer or even a Bard, WS just turns you into a second or third rate fighter, and you've got literally nothing else in your class. I'm hoping 9th level spells pick up again because the 7th and 8th level ones are just awful, and upcasting Call Lightning is not really impressive, and all the battlefield control is niche.
All of these posts about maxing actions, who's stronger and weaker, all of this combat focused thinking, is missing so much of the Druid's possibilities. Why do posts NEVER mention roleplay, interaction, exploration, problem solving, etc?
You can play the game as you want, and I'm not trying to critique that, but I am saying in a discussion about a class re-build, most of these posts are not presenting a full picture of a Druid's potential using Wildshape, especially in light of how the game is evolving. Has anyone bothered to notice that the most recent adventures released have options for non-combat resolutions to encounters? That is significant, and while I enjoy the game being 1/3 combat as much as anyone, I'm certainly not designing my character around it.
One, if my Druid (or whatever I'm playing) is too "weak" I will find my niche in the party and play roles that are needed. Healing, support through area control or summoning, any other creative solutions. Wildshape is a part of this, and it's not important if I'm a land druid and it's not a strong melee form. With all of the beasts available, I'll find something useful.
Secondly, your comment about spellcasting is "just not god enough" boggles the mind. Druids have unique spells, they're fun, some quite powerful, most just fine in any combat. What is it about equalling other characters carnage abilities? Have any of you ever heard of dice? There is always a chance to hit, crit, or do a lot of other fun stuff.
Combat is fun, but man, it is not as important as one would think reading all of these threads.
This thread is so long that I really don't have the patience to read through every page. Perhaps you can restate what you main argument is. If it's Wildshape is "hard to balance", I agree that it's true for Moon Druid. I disagree about non-Moon Druids (b/c Druids are primary casters and melee with bad AC is just asking for your spell to go bye bye). If your argument is something else, please use plain English to explain what, precisely, you are arguing as we are clearly just going to keep circling without getting to the point otherwise.
I stated my point in perfectly plain english in the first place (and restated it several times). Literally my entire original point was that any feature that upgrades to unlimited free uses needs to be balanced carefully, and it was obviously going to be a balancing problem from the outset; I was really only pointing out that it's silly for Wizards to act like it was an unexpected consequence, or for them to overreact by making wildshape one of the weakest features in the game instead.
You keep making assumptions about what I meant that don't bear any relation to what I said, because it's not about the melee it's about the hit-points; wildshape enables Druids to tank (take hits) very effectively. While it's rarely the best use of their turns, if it's what you need to do in the moment then you've got that option. Take two characters at level 10 as an example:
First you've got a Barbarian, assuming they've started with +3 in Strength and Constitution, and boosted each to +4, you're looking at average hit-points of 115, so while Raging they've effectively got 230 assuming the enemy's attacks are of the ideal damage type(s).
Next we've got a tanky Druid, so let's assume the same Constitution (since it helps with concentration), giving them average hit-points of 93. With one wildshape into a giant octopus they've got 145, with two they've got 197, which is not bad at all for a full caster, and great if what you need is someone to take damage so others don't (you'll be the easiest target to hit in the same way as a Reckless Attacking Barbarian, so it's reasonable to expect this to work, especially if you do grapple the target). Plus that added durability isn't conditional on the damage type(s) being used (the Barbarian needs to be Bear totem to guarantee their extra durability most of the time).
Even if you scale this up it's still a solid ability, and when you hit 17th-level (20th-level, my bad) you can do it an unlimited number of times. At 17th-level20th-level that Barbarian reaches 285 hit-points (570 effective vs. ideal damage) to the tanky Druid's 203, or 255 with one wildshape. That's enough to withstand an average full round of attacks from a tarrasque (232 damage). While the Barbarian will be in better shape (because the Tarrasque is dishing out ideal damage, leaving them on around 169 hp.) we're still talking enough durability to stay standing after taking all of the damage that could have otherwise been directed at others. And going into that second round you can refresh it so you've got the Druid on 75 to the Barbarian's 169. While the Barbarian will take more of the attacks before going down in the second round that's still competing pretty damn well with the class that's supposed to be all about tanking, using a feature you got as standard at 2nd-level, and without spending any additional resources to increase the durability further (which can enable you to compete even more closely).
Assuming less extreme combats, every use of wildshape is damage you haven't taken, which means conserving healing resources throughout an adventuring day, meanwhile for a Barbarian every hit is damage that still needs to be healed at some point (only Battleragers get any kind of buffer, and while it adds up over a day it's tiny round to round), though it depends how much excess the Druid ends up taking. Meanwhile against non-ideal (for the Barbarian) damage types you can actually outperform the Barbarian (including Bear totem vs. psychic damage) on taking damage, especially if you use it across multiple rounds. Now obviously I'm not arguing that this is the most optimal thing a Druid can be doing in a battle (I have never said so), and the Barbarian still has the advantage of being able to dish out damage at the same time (Druid can only do so if they change in advance or don't get forcibly reverted in a single round), but the fact remains that a low level feature can give a pretty damn competitive amount of durability, even in the least favourable circumstances and without the much tougher forms available to the Moon Druid. And as I already said, even on regular Druid it's roughly equivalent to casting false life on yourself at 9th-level for free every turn (except that you can actually stack it with temporary hit-points), anything equivalent to a free high(er) level spell needs to be balanced carefully, and it's basically impossible for it to be properly balanced if it becomes unlimited.
I'm all for wildshape adding some durability, and I think it should return to doing so, but it needs to scale in a more controlled/uniform way, and without Moon Druid boosting it as much as it does now, as while Druid should be able to be tanky for a full caster they shouldn't compete with a class whose entire deal is tanking. It should probably be treated as actual temporary hit-points as well to prevent stacking of any kind (e.g- somehow picking up false life).
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.
You missing a key point though. A Barbarian rages as a Bonus Action, they still get 2 full round of attacks using Reckless and GWM to dish out 50-100 DPR while still taking those hits. While the druid does 0 damage. Just not dying immediately is not actually a useful ability in a fight because enemies will simply keep doing damage regardless of how much you "soak" until they are dead. Considering the Tarrasque, that Barbarian by dealing 150 damage to that Tarrasque prevented at least an entire round of damage by that Tarrasque by killing it quicker, which the WSing druid did not. Thus the Barbarian reduced the damage taken by the party as a whole : 232+1/2 of the damage the Barbarian recieved. The druid meanwhile reduced the total damage taken by the party as a whole by 104 (i.e. roughly 1/4 what the Barbarian did).
You missing a key point though. A Barbarian rages as a Bonus Action, they still get 2 full round of attacks using Reckless and GWM to dish out 50-100 DPR while still taking those hits. While the druid does 0 damage.
No I'm not. I literally mentioned it, and it has precisely zero relevance to the point I was making. Even so, it's also only true on turns in which the Druid wildshapes –wildshape lasts a lot longer than Rage even at early levels, so it's fairly easy to be wildshaped in advance.
Is it really so difficult for people to actually read what I actually said before responding? If you can't be bothered reading something, then don't reply to it.
Update: Also should have pointed out, but a tarrasque is immune to non-magical weapon attacks so the barbarian actually won't deal any damage to it unless you assume a magical weapon, at which point you also need to factor in the Druid having magical items and using spells before/during wildshape etc.; you're already adding in feats to complicate matters, which isn't helpful when all I'm doing is highlighting the scale of damage absorption that wildshape enables. You know, the thing that Wizards of the Coast seems to be reacting to (again, my point)?
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.
You missing a key point though. A Barbarian rages as a Bonus Action, they still get 2 full round of attacks using Reckless and GWM to dish out 50-100 DPR while still taking those hits. While the druid does 0 damage.
No I'm not. I literally mentioned it.
Is it really so difficult for people to actually read what I actually said before responding, or to just not respond at all?
So you agree that a Barbarian is at least 4X better at reducing damage taken by the party than the druid is?
So you agree that a Barbarian is at least 4X better at reducing damage taken by the party than the druid is?
No, see above.
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.
All of these posts about maxing actions, who's stronger and weaker, all of this combat focused thinking, is missing so much of the Druid's possibilities. Why do posts NEVER mention roleplay, interaction, exploration, problem solving, etc?
You can play the game as you want, and I'm not trying to critique that, but I am saying in a discussion about a class re-build, most of these posts are not presenting a full picture of a Druid's potential using Wildshape, especially in light of how the game is evolving. Has anyone bothered to notice that the most recent adventures released have options for non-combat resolutions to encounters? That is significant, and while I enjoy the game being 1/3 combat as much as anyone, I'm certainly not designing my character around it.
One, if my Druid (or whatever I'm playing) is too "weak" I will find my niche in the party and play roles that are needed. Healing, support through area control or summoning, any other creative solutions. Wildshape is a part of this, and it's not important if I'm a land druid and it's not a strong melee form. With all of the beasts available, I'll find something useful.
Secondly, your comment about spellcasting is "just not god enough" boggles the mind. Druids have unique spells, they're fun, some quite powerful, most just fine in any combat. What is it about equalling other characters carnage abilities? Have any of you ever heard of dice? There is always a chance to hit, crit, or do a lot of other fun stuff.
Combat is fun, but man, it is not as important as one would think reading all of these threads.
I pretty much agree with you, Obvert. Druids, as a whole, are not a weak class. As you have suggested, they are a very flavorful and useful addition to any party when the the player knows what they are doing. My perception of this thread, and the passion with which people are arguing various points, is that many of us are concerned about the future of the Wildshape feature. People are want to form their arguments around Combat specifically because that is where the term "overpowered" matters in D&D. Exploration, problem-solving, and role-playing are great. TBH, I wish more tables spent time on lore, improv technique, and ways to expand out the skills list than on min-maxing. However, the focus is often about combat because D&D, in its roots, is a war game. It was developed originally as a different kind of war game, with each player controlling one miniature instead of a dozen or more. Most of the D&D rules are about combat. The grid maps, distances for spells, commonality of using miniatures, and emphasis on what can happen every 6 seconds of a round: this is all a legacy of its being originally a war game. Once D&D stops being, fundamentally, a war game, people will start emphasizing the other aspects you mentioned: exploration, problem-solving, role-play. Since D&D is still mostly a wargame with additional elements added on top of it, what is "overpowered" and therefore is first in line to get nerfed, becomes relevant. That is why there is so much back and forth about what features are strong or weak in combat.
This thread is so long that I really don't have the patience to read through every page. Perhaps you can restate what you main argument is. If it's Wildshape is "hard to balance", I agree that it's true for Moon Druid. I disagree about non-Moon Druids (b/c Druids are primary casters and melee with bad AC is just asking for your spell to go bye bye). If your argument is something else, please use plain English to explain what, precisely, you are arguing as we are clearly just going to keep circling without getting to th
Next we've got a tanky Druid, so let's assume the same Constitution (since it helps with concentration), giving them average hit-points of 93. With one wildshape into a giant octopus they've got 145, with two they've got 197, which is not bad at all for a full caster, and great if what you need is someone to take damage so others don't (you'll be the easiest target to hit in the same way as a Reckless Attacking Barbarian, so it's reasonable to expect this to work, especially if you do grapple the target). Plus that added durability isn't conditional on the damage type(s) being used (the Barbarian needs to be Bear totem to guarantee their extra durability most of the time).
I don't have the time right now to respond your post in full, Haravikk. I would like to note somethings, one of which i realized yesterday after looking up CR 2 beasts. The Giant Octopus has almost the same hit points as the Allosaurus, just above 50. The Allosaurus is a CR 2 beast with no multi-attack and AC 13. The Giant Octopus also has no multi-attack and a lower AC (11), but has Ink Cloud and its grappling feature has a higher DC than the Allosaurus's Pounce ability, which is significant. I think the devs should have applied CR 2 to the Giant Octopus. In fact, in my homebrew version of it (with Multiattack and slightly higher hp), I put it at CR 3. My second point, which you likely already knew, is that CR is not an accurate gauge of creature combat capability in the first place. As we see from just this one comparison, the Giant Octopus's CR is too low.
No, the math for both creatures averages out correctly.
The giant octopus has an offensive CR 2 and a defensive CR 1/4. The average would be 1 1/8, so we round down to 1.
The allosaurus has an offensive CR 4 and a defensive CR 1/2. The average would be 2 1/4, so we round down to 2.
Now, if you want to talk monsters that don't add up, the wolf has an offensive CR 1 and a defensive CR 1/8. The average of that would be 1 1/16, or 0.5625. We should round that off to an average CR 1/2, but the rules officially list it as CR 1/4. And an orc is only CR 1/2 if you use their javelins the entire time and they never close the gap, instead relying on their Aggressive to gradually encircle while seeking advantageous cover.
All of these posts about maxing actions, who's stronger and weaker, all of this combat focused thinking, is missing so much of the Druid's possibilities. Why do posts NEVER mention roleplay, interaction, exploration, problem solving, etc?
You can play the game as you want, and I'm not trying to critique that, but I am saying in a discussion about a class re-build, most of these posts are not presenting a full picture of a Druid's potential using Wildshape, especially in light of how the game is evolving. Has anyone bothered to notice that the most recent adventures released have options for non-combat resolutions to encounters? That is significant, and while I enjoy the game being 1/3 combat as much as anyone, I'm certainly not designing my character around it.
One, if my Druid (or whatever I'm playing) is too "weak" I will find my niche in the party and play roles that are needed. Healing, support through area control or summoning, any other creative solutions. Wildshape is a part of this, and it's not important if I'm a land druid and it's not a strong melee form. With all of the beasts available, I'll find something useful.
Secondly, your comment about spellcasting is "just not god enough" boggles the mind. Druids have unique spells, they're fun, some quite powerful, most just fine in any combat. What is it about equalling other characters carnage abilities? Have any of you ever heard of dice? There is always a chance to hit, crit, or do a lot of other fun stuff.
Combat is fun, but man, it is not as important as one would think reading all of these threads.
I pretty much agree with you, Obvert. Druids, as a whole, are not a weak class. As you have suggested, they are a very flavorful and useful addition to any party when the the player knows what they are doing. My perception of this thread, and the passion with which people are arguing various points, is that many of us are concerned about the future of the Wildshape feature. People are want to form their arguments around Combat specifically because that is where the term "overpowered" matters in D&D. Exploration, problem-solving, and role-playing are great. TBH, I wish more tables spent time on lore, improv technique, and ways to expand out the skills list than on min-maxing. However, the focus is often about combat because D&D, in its roots, is a war game. It was developed originally as a different kind of war game, with each player controlling one miniature instead of a dozen or more. Most of the D&D rules are about combat. The grid maps, distances for spells, commonality of using miniatures, and emphasis on what can happen every 6 seconds of a round: this is all a legacy of its being originally a war game. Once D&D stops being, fundamentally, a war game, people will start emphasizing the other aspects you mentioned: exploration, problem-solving, role-play. Since D&D is still mostly a wargame with additional elements added on top of it, what is "overpowered" and therefore is first in line to get nerfed, becomes relevant. That is why there is so much back and forth about what features are strong or weak in combat.
Thanks. I enjoyed reading that!
I come to D&D as a retired Grognard wargammer who spent over a decade playing Matrix's War in the Pacific: Admirals Edition. I get wargames, and love the strategy and tactics involved.
When I graduated to D&D I realized I'd been missing some things; sitting around with buddies, allowing chance to be involved in my strategy, laughing at stupid jokes while coming up with even more stupid reactions to whatever was happening in game. I came to wargamming from a board game background. That's where I grew up, (as I'm sure many here did). I'd still love to find a few friends who'd play a game of Diplomacy one evening.
I guess if everyone here loves the game, (as it's clear they do), and wants One D&D to feel both a continuation of the tradition that has led to now and incorporate some improvements, looking at classes and how they stack up against each other in combat just seems like the wrong way to do it. As we all know when the game begins, the DM decides how to balance the encounters the players face, and what will challenge some characters more than others. There will never be a perfect balance of the classes, as each one specializes in different things and different situations present unique challenges.
That's why I love this game. That's why I also want the Druid to keep some of it's complex, quirky, "toolbox" of nature feel. For me it's not about balancing against any other character or class, but having a class that can adapt to anything, because that is what nature does as well.
Even if you scale this up it's still a solid ability, and when you hit 17th-level you can do it an unlimited number of times.
You do know thats a level 20 ability not a level 17 ability (and yh it does make a moon druid very hard to kill at lvl 20)
After playing a moon druid from lvl 1-16 before quitting due to a falling out with the dm i can say that i have hardly ever felt op apart from when got to level 10 and almost taking a death tyrant single handedly but that op'ness soon went away ws forms just dont hang around long and they dont deal much in the way of damage,now there great for transport and ive helped ferry my fellow party members or run off to get back up but other classes also have there cool stuff
Our totem barbarian could with relevant ease defeat me and against our monk it would be close our other party members were 2 new to get a feel of their abilities but a time wizard and a paladin are pretty powerful and have ruined our dms plans a few times despite being new characters
You missing a key point though. A Barbarian rages as a Bonus Action, they still get 2 full round of attacks using Reckless and GWM to dish out 50-100 DPR while still taking those hits. While the druid does 0 damage.
No I'm not. I literally mentioned it.
Is it really so difficult for people to actually read what I actually said before responding, or to just not respond at all?
So you agree that a Barbarian is at least 4X better at reducing damage taken by the party than the druid is?
Ok straight up comparison then: Tarrasque makes all attacks vs either the druid or the barbarian until they fall to 0 hp, then remaining attacks target allies. The rest of the party does on average single-target damage of 75 DPR combined.
Barbarian is a standard pure level 20 Totem barbarian build: STR = 24, CON=20, feat: GWM + Tough, using a generic +3 Greatsword, and uses Reckless + GWM every round.
Barbarian DPR: +11 th (with GWM), damage = 2d6+24, vs AC 25 = 0.576*31*2 = 36 DPR Barbarian HP: 285, AC = 17
Druid DPR = 0 instead use unlimited WS every single round to turn into a Giant Octopus as an Action. Druid HP: 143, AC = 17
All party members action before the Tarrasque, Tarrasque deals 232 damage each round (guaranteed to hit). Round 1 (Barb): Tarrasque HP = 567 Damage to Barbarian = 116 (Barbarian HP: 169) Total Damage to party = 0
Round 2 (Barb): Tarrasque HP = 458 Damage to Barbarian = 116 (Barbarian HP: 53) Total Damage to party = 0
Round 3 (Barb): Tarrasque HP = 349 Damage to Barbarian = 53 (Barbarian is unconscious.) Total Damage to party = 126
Barbarian receives a 6th level Heal spell. Round 4 (Barb): Tarrasque HP = 240 Damage to Barbarian = 150 (Barbarian is unconscious.) Total Damage to party = 208
Barbarian receives a 7th level Heal spell. Round 5 (Barb): Tarrasque HP = 131 Damage to Barbarian = 160 (Barbarian is unconscious.) Total Damage to party = 280
9th level Mass Heal is cast. Barbarian restored to full hp Round 6 (Barb): Tarrasque HP = 22 Damage to Barbarian = 116 (Barbarian HP = 169.) Total Damage to party = 280
Round 7 (Barb): Tarrasque is Dead!
Round 1 (Druid): Tarrasque HP = 676-75 = 601 Damage to Druid = 195 (Druid is unconscious.) Total Damage to party = 37
Druid receives a 6th level Heal spell. Round 2 (Druid): Tarrasque HP = 526 Damage to Druid = 127 (Druid is unconscious.) Total Damage to party = 142
Druid receives a 7th level Heal spell. Round 3 (Druid): Tarrasque HP = 451 Damage to Druid = 137 (Druid is unconscious.) Total Damage to party = 237
9th level Mass Heal is cast. Druid is restored to full HP Round 4 (Druid): Tarrasque HP = 376 Damage to Druid = 195 (Druid is unconscious.) Total Damage to party = 274
8th level Heal is cast on Druid. Round 5 (Druid): Tarrasque HP = 301 Damage to Druid = 147 (Druid is unconscious.) Total Damage to party = 359
5th level Mass Cure Wounds is cast. Round 6 (Druid): Tarrasque HP = 226 Damage to Druid = 70 (Druid is unconscious.) Total Damage to party = 521
5th level Mass Cure Wounds is cast. Round 7 (Druid): Tarrasque HP = 151 Damage to Druid = 70 (Druid is unconscious.) Total Damage to party = 704
5th level Mass Cure Wounds is cast. Round 8 (Druid): Tarrasque HP = 76 Damage to Druid = 70 (Druid is unconscious.) Total Damage to party = 887
4th level Mass Healing Word is cast. Round 9 (Druid): Tarrasque HP = 1 Damage to Druid = 60 (Druid is unconscious.) Total Damage to party = 1080
Total Damage to Party (Druid) = 1080 = 3.9 x more damage than under the Barbarian Total Damage to Party (Barbarian) 280
TL:DR Druid combat lasts 2-3 more rounds, requires 4-5 more healing spells to be cast, and results in 3-4x more damage dealt to the party than the Barbarian
I would like to note somethings, one of which i realized yesterday after looking up CR 2 beasts. The Giant Octopus has almost the same hit points as the Allosaurus, just above 50. The Allosaurus is a CR 2 beast with no multi-attack and AC 13. The Giant Octopus also has no multi-attack and a lower AC (11), but has Ink Cloud and its grappling feature has a higher DC than the Allosaurus's Pounce ability, which is significant. I think the devs should have applied CR 2 to the Giant Octopus.
I'm not sure I agree it should be a higher CR, as Jounichi1983 says its relatively good offence is balanced by being comparatively weak defensively (plus a chunk of that offence is the grapple which is more of a side benefit), it's also slow out of water and can only breathe for an hour so rounding down is appropriate. That said I do make the allosaurus more like CR 2.333 for offence (since its save DC is only 13 on the pounce) but with its very high speed and lack of any particular weaknesses it makes sense to round it up to 2 rather than down to 1, but really we need some more fractional CRs at the low end, e.g- CR 1.5 or whatever.
But that's just a general weakness of the CR system; there are some very low CR creatures like a shadow that in a small group can absolutely wreck parties that CR says should have had no trouble, and higher CR creatures that the same party will absolutely steamroll. They've made some changes to how they're calculating CR for newer monsters but I'm not sure if that will fix any of the outliers, but it's a system to help DMs to quickly get a rough estimate of how tough a fight might be; we've always had to then adjust for other factors specific to a party, as a creature immune to a damage type the party favours will be a lot tougher than one that isn't etc.
I should say though to be clear; I'm not against the "curated list" alternative you were suggesting, as it should still solve the problems of the "any beast up to CR X" feature of 5e, it's just that the specific replacement for current/UA wildshape wasn't the point I was trying to make in my post. I think the main drawback of the list is whether Wizards of the Coast would keep it updated properly as new suitable beasts come out. If they bring back creature tags (which seemed to get abandoned in monsters of the multiverse?) they could do it by tagging monsters as "wildshape" or such but make sure there's a list to hand to make it a little quicker?
Personally I quite like the idea of the templates, I just hate the execution; templates with more utility and maybe temporary hit-points by size (with reversion and some extra temp. hp. for Moon Druid) would be my personal preference, but ultimately I'll be happy with any system that's a bit more straightforward for new players while still retaining the strong mix of utility/tactics that I think we can all agree is what's so great about 5e wildshape?
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.
PS to the above. By using WS to turn into a Giant Octopus each round, the Druid negated 1071 damage dealt to the party. If they had instead used their turn every round to cast a healing spell they could have instead healed the party for: 700+75+85+95+(28.5*4)+(28.5*4)+(28.5*4)+(10*4)+(10*4) = 1337-1377 hit points (aka 30% more hit points than they negated by using unlimited wildshape).
Druid combat lasts 2-3 more rounds, requires 4-5 more healing spells to be cast, and results in 3-4x more damage dealt to the party than the Barbarian
It's a very long post to say "I still haven't paid any attention to the actual point you've repeated multiple times". While I'm not sure how I confused it for a 17th-level feature, and that's my bad, I've corrected my post accordingly.
But I'm not even sure what you're trying to achieve here? The purpose of my example wasn't to show what to do, it's to highlight what's possible while spending zero resources in a fight that favours the barbarian. You've completely ignored the entire point (and the vast majority of my post), and compounded that by doubling down on skewing the fight even more heavily in the barbarian's favour by building a highly optimised barbarian to compare against an intentionally weak druid. But why? What's it for?
It's a lot of effort for a comparison that serves no purpose, and doesn't contradict or disprove any part of my post (which you'd know if you'd read it)?
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.
You argue that a Druid using unlimited WS is a better tank that a Barbarian because WS is so OP because it gives you so many extra HP, yet I clearly showed that it is 3-4X worse than a barbarian for tanking in the very fight you suggested. PS That wasn't a highly optimized Barbarian (Zealot Barb with PAM + GWM would have been significantly better with a DPR of 60 rather than 36) just one that takes the two most obvious feats for a Barbarian to take, and using the most standard magic item that a level 20 character might have.
There are no feats that significantly improve WS, and a non-Moondruid is going to be taking feats to benefit their spellcasting rather than WS, because as I reiterate the HP boost from WS does not make up for the losses in terms of losing your action & spellcasting.
You argue that a Druid using unlimited WS is a better tank that a Barbarian
I have never argued that a Druid is a better tank than a Barbarian, not once, because it would be a patently ridiculous thing to say at the class level. And you would know that if you read any of the posts you replied to.
Seriously dude, if you can't be bothered reading what someone actually said, why waste everybody's time attacking them for something they didn't? I've been on the forums long enough to have more than earned the benefit of the doubt, and it's just basic courtesy to not assume that someone is an idiot that needs to be disproved (and make yourself look foolish at the same time).
I shouldn't need to spell it out yet again (just as I shouldn't have needed to spell it out yet again the last 5-6 times) but my point is not that Druids are better tanks than Barbarians*, it was that wildshape enables a lot of damage to be absorbed and it's problematic to balance. That is all. I gave examples to highlight that in scenarios that favour the barbarian, to show just how close a Druid with zero added effort can get.
*But if you'd like to flip it round, I'm not arguing that wildshape can't be better either, because it absolutely can in ideal circumstances. If an enemy doesn't deal excess damage (or not much) then unlimited wildshape into a giant octopus has a theoretical maximum damage absorption of 748,800 over 24 hours. It's an obviously silly example (before you try to hijack that one as well) but it also highlights my point, because by comparison unlimited Rage can, at best, on a 249 hit-point barbarian give them 498 hit-points of damage absorption (plus rests and healing, same for the Druid). Again, this is why the scaling needs to be reconsidered, which was my point (and I already addressed it).
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Except it isn't a standard adventuring day. Even in published adventures rarely do you see more than 5 encounters per day, and to be perfectly honest... not a single group I've played with enjoys that style of game. 6-8 weak encounters per day is incredibly boring - and FYI number of encounters is meaningless you can have 12 encounters per day easily if the party cancels have of them in the first round with an AoE. Even the 5 encounters in published adventures often become monotonous. IMO a combat that lasts less than 2 rounds isn't worth the effort of rolling initiative and getting out a map, and if you're doing 6-8 encounters per day then most of them are lasting no more than 2 rounds at which point WS is generally a waste b/c you can't cast spells which means you can't use the AoE spell that will insta-kill the handful of mooks in random easy encounter # 14, your just a trash fighter with nothing to offer the party / combat other than standing there playing a pin cushion. Having played a Moon druid from level 3-12, I can say from experience past level 7 moon druid feels WEAK. The spellcasting is just not good enough compared to a Wizard, Sorcerer or even a Bard, WS just turns you into a second or third rate fighter, and you've got literally nothing else in your class. I'm hoping 9th level spells pick up again because the 7th and 8th level ones are just awful, and upcasting Call Lightning is not really impressive, and all the battlefield control is niche.
That does nothing to stop coffee-locking but we'll wait and see. No body is arguing against the fact that level 2-4 moon druid needs a nerf. But non-Moon Druid WS isn't broken at all in 5e, so there was no need to nerf it into oblivion (and non-Moon Druid WS is what we are talking about). Regular WS was fun and interesting, now it is a waste of the pages it is printed on. Moon druid needs fixing at multiple levels, it's too strong at level 2, and too week at level 7-9, but they totally botched that as well the elemental strikes is sooo boring compared to what becoming an elemental gave you. Unlimited WS needed throwing out, that was poor design just in general but since it was level 20 it didn't really matter b/c almost no one played that high.
This thread is so long that I really don't have the patience to read through every page. Perhaps you can restate what you main argument is. If it's Wildshape is "hard to balance", I agree that it's true for Moon Druid. I disagree about non-Moon Druids (b/c Druids are primary casters and melee with bad AC is just asking for your spell to go bye bye). If your argument is something else, please use plain English to explain what, precisely, you are arguing as we are clearly just going to keep circling without getting to the point otherwise.
All of these posts about maxing actions, who's stronger and weaker, all of this combat focused thinking, is missing so much of the Druid's possibilities. Why do posts NEVER mention roleplay, interaction, exploration, problem solving, etc?
You can play the game as you want, and I'm not trying to critique that, but I am saying in a discussion about a class re-build, most of these posts are not presenting a full picture of a Druid's potential using Wildshape, especially in light of how the game is evolving. Has anyone bothered to notice that the most recent adventures released have options for non-combat resolutions to encounters? That is significant, and while I enjoy the game being 1/3 combat as much as anyone, I'm certainly not designing my character around it.
One, if my Druid (or whatever I'm playing) is too "weak" I will find my niche in the party and play roles that are needed. Healing, support through area control or summoning, any other creative solutions. Wildshape is a part of this, and it's not important if I'm a land druid and it's not a strong melee form. With all of the beasts available, I'll find something useful.
Secondly, your comment about spellcasting is "just not god enough" boggles the mind. Druids have unique spells, they're fun, some quite powerful, most just fine in any combat. What is it about equalling other characters carnage abilities? Have any of you ever heard of dice? There is always a chance to hit, crit, or do a lot of other fun stuff.
Combat is fun, but man, it is not as important as one would think reading all of these threads.
I stated my point in perfectly plain english in the first place (and restated it several times). Literally my entire original point was that any feature that upgrades to unlimited free uses needs to be balanced carefully, and it was obviously going to be a balancing problem from the outset; I was really only pointing out that it's silly for Wizards to act like it was an unexpected consequence, or for them to overreact by making wildshape one of the weakest features in the game instead.
You keep making assumptions about what I meant that don't bear any relation to what I said, because it's not about the melee it's about the hit-points; wildshape enables Druids to tank (take hits) very effectively. While it's rarely the best use of their turns, if it's what you need to do in the moment then you've got that option. Take two characters at level 10 as an example:
First you've got a Barbarian, assuming they've started with +3 in Strength and Constitution, and boosted each to +4, you're looking at average hit-points of 115, so while Raging they've effectively got 230 assuming the enemy's attacks are of the ideal damage type(s).
Next we've got a tanky Druid, so let's assume the same Constitution (since it helps with concentration), giving them average hit-points of 93. With one wildshape into a giant octopus they've got 145, with two they've got 197, which is not bad at all for a full caster, and great if what you need is someone to take damage so others don't (you'll be the easiest target to hit in the same way as a Reckless Attacking Barbarian, so it's reasonable to expect this to work, especially if you do grapple the target). Plus that added durability isn't conditional on the damage type(s) being used (the Barbarian needs to be Bear totem to guarantee their extra durability most of the time).
Even if you scale this up it's still a solid ability, and when you hit
17th-level(20th-level, my bad) you can do it an unlimited number of times. At17th-level20th-level that Barbarian reaches 285 hit-points (570 effective vs. ideal damage) to the tanky Druid's 203, or 255 with one wildshape. That's enough to withstand an average full round of attacks from a tarrasque (232 damage). While the Barbarian will be in better shape (because the Tarrasque is dishing out ideal damage, leaving them on around 169 hp.) we're still talking enough durability to stay standing after taking all of the damage that could have otherwise been directed at others. And going into that second round you can refresh it so you've got the Druid on 75 to the Barbarian's 169. While the Barbarian will take more of the attacks before going down in the second round that's still competing pretty damn well with the class that's supposed to be all about tanking, using a feature you got as standard at 2nd-level, and without spending any additional resources to increase the durability further (which can enable you to compete even more closely).Assuming less extreme combats, every use of wildshape is damage you haven't taken, which means conserving healing resources throughout an adventuring day, meanwhile for a Barbarian every hit is damage that still needs to be healed at some point (only Battleragers get any kind of buffer, and while it adds up over a day it's tiny round to round), though it depends how much excess the Druid ends up taking. Meanwhile against non-ideal (for the Barbarian) damage types you can actually outperform the Barbarian (including Bear totem vs. psychic damage) on taking damage, especially if you use it across multiple rounds. Now obviously I'm not arguing that this is the most optimal thing a Druid can be doing in a battle (I have never said so), and the Barbarian still has the advantage of being able to dish out damage at the same time (Druid can only do so if they change in advance or don't get forcibly reverted in a single round), but the fact remains that a low level feature can give a pretty damn competitive amount of durability, even in the least favourable circumstances and without the much tougher forms available to the Moon Druid. And as I already said, even on regular Druid it's roughly equivalent to casting false life on yourself at 9th-level for free every turn (except that you can actually stack it with temporary hit-points), anything equivalent to a free high(er) level spell needs to be balanced carefully, and it's basically impossible for it to be properly balanced if it becomes unlimited.
I'm all for wildshape adding some durability, and I think it should return to doing so, but it needs to scale in a more controlled/uniform way, and without Moon Druid boosting it as much as it does now, as while Druid should be able to be tanky for a full caster they shouldn't compete with a class whose entire deal is tanking. It should probably be treated as actual temporary hit-points as well to prevent stacking of any kind (e.g- somehow picking up false life).
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.
You missing a key point though. A Barbarian rages as a Bonus Action, they still get 2 full round of attacks using Reckless and GWM to dish out 50-100 DPR while still taking those hits. While the druid does 0 damage. Just not dying immediately is not actually a useful ability in a fight because enemies will simply keep doing damage regardless of how much you "soak" until they are dead. Considering the Tarrasque, that Barbarian by dealing 150 damage to that Tarrasque prevented at least an entire round of damage by that Tarrasque by killing it quicker, which the WSing druid did not. Thus the Barbarian reduced the damage taken by the party as a whole : 232+1/2 of the damage the Barbarian recieved. The druid meanwhile reduced the total damage taken by the party as a whole by 104 (i.e. roughly 1/4 what the Barbarian did).
No I'm not. I literally mentioned it, and it has precisely zero relevance to the point I was making. Even so, it's also only true on turns in which the Druid wildshapes –wildshape lasts a lot longer than Rage even at early levels, so it's fairly easy to be wildshaped in advance.
Is it really so difficult for people to actually read what I actually said before responding? If you can't be bothered reading something, then don't reply to it.
Update: Also should have pointed out, but a tarrasque is immune to non-magical weapon attacks so the barbarian actually won't deal any damage to it unless you assume a magical weapon, at which point you also need to factor in the Druid having magical items and using spells before/during wildshape etc.; you're already adding in feats to complicate matters, which isn't helpful when all I'm doing is highlighting the scale of damage absorption that wildshape enables. You know, the thing that Wizards of the Coast seems to be reacting to (again, my point)?
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.
So you agree that a Barbarian is at least 4X better at reducing damage taken by the party than the druid is?
No, see above.
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.
I pretty much agree with you, Obvert. Druids, as a whole, are not a weak class. As you have suggested, they are a very flavorful and useful addition to any party when the the player knows what they are doing. My perception of this thread, and the passion with which people are arguing various points, is that many of us are concerned about the future of the Wildshape feature. People are want to form their arguments around Combat specifically because that is where the term "overpowered" matters in D&D. Exploration, problem-solving, and role-playing are great. TBH, I wish more tables spent time on lore, improv technique, and ways to expand out the skills list than on min-maxing. However, the focus is often about combat because D&D, in its roots, is a war game. It was developed originally as a different kind of war game, with each player controlling one miniature instead of a dozen or more. Most of the D&D rules are about combat. The grid maps, distances for spells, commonality of using miniatures, and emphasis on what can happen every 6 seconds of a round: this is all a legacy of its being originally a war game. Once D&D stops being, fundamentally, a war game, people will start emphasizing the other aspects you mentioned: exploration, problem-solving, role-play. Since D&D is still mostly a wargame with additional elements added on top of it, what is "overpowered" and therefore is first in line to get nerfed, becomes relevant. That is why there is so much back and forth about what features are strong or weak in combat.
I don't have the time right now to respond your post in full, Haravikk. I would like to note somethings, one of which i realized yesterday after looking up CR 2 beasts. The Giant Octopus has almost the same hit points as the Allosaurus, just above 50. The Allosaurus is a CR 2 beast with no multi-attack and AC 13. The Giant Octopus also has no multi-attack and a lower AC (11), but has Ink Cloud and its grappling feature has a higher DC than the Allosaurus's Pounce ability, which is significant. I think the devs should have applied CR 2 to the Giant Octopus. In fact, in my homebrew version of it (with Multiattack and slightly higher hp), I put it at CR 3. My second point, which you likely already knew, is that CR is not an accurate gauge of creature combat capability in the first place. As we see from just this one comparison, the Giant Octopus's CR is too low.
No, the math for both creatures averages out correctly.
Now, if you want to talk monsters that don't add up, the wolf has an offensive CR 1 and a defensive CR 1/8. The average of that would be 1 1/16, or 0.5625. We should round that off to an average CR 1/2, but the rules officially list it as CR 1/4. And an orc is only CR 1/2 if you use their javelins the entire time and they never close the gap, instead relying on their Aggressive to gradually encircle while seeking advantageous cover.
Thanks. I enjoyed reading that!
I come to D&D as a retired Grognard wargammer who spent over a decade playing Matrix's War in the Pacific: Admirals Edition. I get wargames, and love the strategy and tactics involved.
When I graduated to D&D I realized I'd been missing some things; sitting around with buddies, allowing chance to be involved in my strategy, laughing at stupid jokes while coming up with even more stupid reactions to whatever was happening in game. I came to wargamming from a board game background. That's where I grew up, (as I'm sure many here did). I'd still love to find a few friends who'd play a game of Diplomacy one evening.
I guess if everyone here loves the game, (as it's clear they do), and wants One D&D to feel both a continuation of the tradition that has led to now and incorporate some improvements, looking at classes and how they stack up against each other in combat just seems like the wrong way to do it. As we all know when the game begins, the DM decides how to balance the encounters the players face, and what will challenge some characters more than others. There will never be a perfect balance of the classes, as each one specializes in different things and different situations present unique challenges.
That's why I love this game. That's why I also want the Druid to keep some of it's complex, quirky, "toolbox" of nature feel. For me it's not about balancing against any other character or class, but having a class that can adapt to anything, because that is what nature does as well.
You do know thats a level 20 ability not a level 17 ability (and yh it does make a moon druid very hard to kill at lvl 20)
After playing a moon druid from lvl 1-16 before quitting due to a falling out with the dm i can say that i have hardly ever felt op apart from when got to level 10 and almost taking a death tyrant single handedly but that op'ness soon went away ws forms just dont hang around long and they dont deal much in the way of damage,now there great for transport and ive helped ferry my fellow party members or run off to get back up but other classes also have there cool stuff
Our totem barbarian could with relevant ease defeat me and against our monk it would be close our other party members were 2 new to get a feel of their abilities but a time wizard and a paladin are pretty powerful and have ruined our dms plans a few times despite being new characters
Ok straight up comparison then: Tarrasque makes all attacks vs either the druid or the barbarian until they fall to 0 hp, then remaining attacks target allies. The rest of the party does on average single-target damage of 75 DPR combined.
Barbarian is a standard pure level 20 Totem barbarian build: STR = 24, CON=20, feat: GWM + Tough, using a generic +3 Greatsword, and uses Reckless + GWM every round.
Barbarian DPR: +11 th (with GWM), damage = 2d6+24, vs AC 25 = 0.576*31*2 = 36 DPR
Barbarian HP: 285, AC = 17
Druid DPR = 0 instead use unlimited WS every single round to turn into a Giant Octopus as an Action.
Druid HP: 143, AC = 17
All party members action before the Tarrasque, Tarrasque deals 232 damage each round (guaranteed to hit).
Round 1 (Barb):
Tarrasque HP = 567
Damage to Barbarian = 116 (Barbarian HP: 169)
Total Damage to party = 0
Round 2 (Barb):
Tarrasque HP = 458
Damage to Barbarian = 116 (Barbarian HP: 53)
Total Damage to party = 0
Round 3 (Barb):
Tarrasque HP = 349
Damage to Barbarian = 53 (Barbarian is unconscious.)
Total Damage to party = 126
Barbarian receives a 6th level Heal spell.
Round 4 (Barb):
Tarrasque HP = 240
Damage to Barbarian = 150 (Barbarian is unconscious.)
Total Damage to party = 208
Barbarian receives a 7th level Heal spell.
Round 5 (Barb):
Tarrasque HP = 131
Damage to Barbarian = 160 (Barbarian is unconscious.)
Total Damage to party = 280
9th level Mass Heal is cast. Barbarian restored to full hp
Round 6 (Barb):
Tarrasque HP = 22
Damage to Barbarian = 116 (Barbarian HP = 169.)
Total Damage to party = 280
Round 7 (Barb): Tarrasque is Dead!
Round 1 (Druid):
Tarrasque HP = 676-75 = 601
Damage to Druid = 195 (Druid is unconscious.)
Total Damage to party = 37
Druid receives a 6th level Heal spell.
Round 2 (Druid):
Tarrasque HP = 526
Damage to Druid = 127 (Druid is unconscious.)
Total Damage to party = 142
Druid receives a 7th level Heal spell.
Round 3 (Druid):
Tarrasque HP = 451
Damage to Druid = 137 (Druid is unconscious.)
Total Damage to party = 237
9th level Mass Heal is cast. Druid is restored to full HP
Round 4 (Druid):
Tarrasque HP = 376
Damage to Druid = 195 (Druid is unconscious.)
Total Damage to party = 274
8th level Heal is cast on Druid.
Round 5 (Druid):
Tarrasque HP = 301
Damage to Druid = 147 (Druid is unconscious.)
Total Damage to party = 359
5th level Mass Cure Wounds is cast.
Round 6 (Druid):
Tarrasque HP = 226
Damage to Druid = 70 (Druid is unconscious.)
Total Damage to party = 521
5th level Mass Cure Wounds is cast.
Round 7 (Druid):
Tarrasque HP = 151
Damage to Druid = 70 (Druid is unconscious.)
Total Damage to party = 704
5th level Mass Cure Wounds is cast.
Round 8 (Druid):
Tarrasque HP = 76
Damage to Druid = 70 (Druid is unconscious.)
Total Damage to party = 887
4th level Mass Healing Word is cast.
Round 9 (Druid):
Tarrasque HP = 1
Damage to Druid = 60 (Druid is unconscious.)
Total Damage to party = 1080
Round 10 Tarrasque is Dead!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total Damage to Party (Druid) = 1080 = 3.9 x more damage than under the Barbarian
Total Damage to Party (Barbarian) 280
TL:DR
Druid combat lasts 2-3 more rounds, requires 4-5 more healing spells to be cast, and results in 3-4x more damage dealt to the party than the Barbarian
I'm not sure I agree it should be a higher CR, as Jounichi1983 says its relatively good offence is balanced by being comparatively weak defensively (plus a chunk of that offence is the grapple which is more of a side benefit), it's also slow out of water and can only breathe for an hour so rounding down is appropriate. That said I do make the allosaurus more like CR 2.333 for offence (since its save DC is only 13 on the pounce) but with its very high speed and lack of any particular weaknesses it makes sense to round it up to 2 rather than down to 1, but really we need some more fractional CRs at the low end, e.g- CR 1.5 or whatever.
But that's just a general weakness of the CR system; there are some very low CR creatures like a shadow that in a small group can absolutely wreck parties that CR says should have had no trouble, and higher CR creatures that the same party will absolutely steamroll. They've made some changes to how they're calculating CR for newer monsters but I'm not sure if that will fix any of the outliers, but it's a system to help DMs to quickly get a rough estimate of how tough a fight might be; we've always had to then adjust for other factors specific to a party, as a creature immune to a damage type the party favours will be a lot tougher than one that isn't etc.
I should say though to be clear; I'm not against the "curated list" alternative you were suggesting, as it should still solve the problems of the "any beast up to CR X" feature of 5e, it's just that the specific replacement for current/UA wildshape wasn't the point I was trying to make in my post. I think the main drawback of the list is whether Wizards of the Coast would keep it updated properly as new suitable beasts come out. If they bring back creature tags (which seemed to get abandoned in monsters of the multiverse?) they could do it by tagging monsters as "wildshape" or such but make sure there's a list to hand to make it a little quicker?
Personally I quite like the idea of the templates, I just hate the execution; templates with more utility and maybe temporary hit-points by size (with reversion and some extra temp. hp. for Moon Druid) would be my personal preference, but ultimately I'll be happy with any system that's a bit more straightforward for new players while still retaining the strong mix of utility/tactics that I think we can all agree is what's so great about 5e wildshape?
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.
PS to the above. By using WS to turn into a Giant Octopus each round, the Druid negated 1071 damage dealt to the party. If they had instead used their turn every round to cast a healing spell they could have instead healed the party for:
700+75+85+95+(28.5*4)+(28.5*4)+(28.5*4)+(10*4)+(10*4) = 1337-1377 hit points (aka 30% more hit points than they negated by using unlimited wildshape).
It's a very long post to say "I still haven't paid any attention to the actual point you've repeated multiple times". While I'm not sure how I confused it for a 17th-level feature, and that's my bad, I've corrected my post accordingly.
But I'm not even sure what you're trying to achieve here? The purpose of my example wasn't to show what to do, it's to highlight what's possible while spending zero resources in a fight that favours the barbarian. You've completely ignored the entire point (and the vast majority of my post), and compounded that by doubling down on skewing the fight even more heavily in the barbarian's favour by building a highly optimised barbarian to compare against an intentionally weak druid. But why? What's it for?
It's a lot of effort for a comparison that serves no purpose, and doesn't contradict or disprove any part of my post (which you'd know if you'd read it)?
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.
You argue that a Druid using unlimited WS is a better tank that a Barbarian because WS is so OP because it gives you so many extra HP, yet I clearly showed that it is 3-4X worse than a barbarian for tanking in the very fight you suggested. PS That wasn't a highly optimized Barbarian (Zealot Barb with PAM + GWM would have been significantly better with a DPR of 60 rather than 36) just one that takes the two most obvious feats for a Barbarian to take, and using the most standard magic item that a level 20 character might have.
There are no feats that significantly improve WS, and a non-Moondruid is going to be taking feats to benefit their spellcasting rather than WS, because as I reiterate the HP boost from WS does not make up for the losses in terms of losing your action & spellcasting.
I have never argued that a Druid is a better tank than a Barbarian, not once, because it would be a patently ridiculous thing to say at the class level. And you would know that if you read any of the posts you replied to.
Seriously dude, if you can't be bothered reading what someone actually said, why waste everybody's time attacking them for something they didn't? I've been on the forums long enough to have more than earned the benefit of the doubt, and it's just basic courtesy to not assume that someone is an idiot that needs to be disproved (and make yourself look foolish at the same time).
I shouldn't need to spell it out yet again (just as I shouldn't have needed to spell it out yet again the last 5-6 times) but my point is not that Druids are better tanks than Barbarians*, it was that wildshape enables a lot of damage to be absorbed and it's problematic to balance. That is all. I gave examples to highlight that in scenarios that favour the barbarian, to show just how close a Druid with zero added effort can get.
*But if you'd like to flip it round, I'm not arguing that wildshape can't be better either, because it absolutely can in ideal circumstances. If an enemy doesn't deal excess damage (or not much) then unlimited wildshape into a giant octopus has a theoretical maximum damage absorption of 748,800 over 24 hours. It's an obviously silly example (before you try to hijack that one as well) but it also highlights my point, because by comparison unlimited Rage can, at best, on a 249 hit-point barbarian give them 498 hit-points of damage absorption (plus rests and healing, same for the Druid). Again, this is why the scaling needs to be reconsidered, which was my point (and I already addressed it).
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.