Please... Don't. You have plenty of druid mains that love the set up as is. The new proposed changes water it down and waste some of the different circles potency, and honestly... The current system works. This one .. seems broken.
Changes are coming, one way or another. Might not be these changes, but probably not too far off either. They want monster stat blocks to be for the DM and they seem focused on streamlining Wildshape for new and old players. They've been moving in this direction for a while now (Tasha's summon spells, Beastmaster Ranger's Companion)
I agree with Thrikreen that the current Wild Shape has a number of problems. It effectively serves as a boatload of hit points instead of being much of a meaningful or cool feature that can optimally be used outside of combat for utility. Not only that, but certain builds and subclasses can easily exploit it in order to be way more powerful than just about everyone else.
All in all, I hope the feature changes and gets nerfed some so that more mechanical room and power can be spent on making other themes of the Druid - like their connection to plants, trees, and nature - a more important and more viable part of the class. That being said, this UA did not do an optimal job at this, since it offered no new abilities in return for the ones lost, and it spent 7 class features on something it was trying to make a less integral part of Druid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
While it needs a lot of work, the proposed implementation is more of a tuning issue than a concept issue:
Since it uses your own HP, AC is too low in all forms, especially for Moon. Either the AC needs to be higher or WS needs THP.
Tiny (utility) forms are too late in the game to be useful. The 10 min duration and half damage are already enough to keep them in check.
WS losing all racials, proficiencies and feats feels bad (Why does becoming a Wolf make me worse at following tracks? Why can elf druids be put to sleep?)
No animal abilities at all feels bad - forget exotic stuff like Web or Burrow, where's the simple things like Keen Smell or Charge?
Sea form should get similar strength to Land form (being a weak Giant Octopus or Whale is silly.)
All of these are fixable without ditching the underlying unified statblocks idea.
~ There are plenty of people who want wild shape to focus on a single animal. When I first went to play a Moon Druid, way back with the game was first released, I was going to play a wolf-themed druid shapeshifter type. Classic werewolf. It could not be done. Not past the very first levels. There simply weren't the options.
~ There are quite the number of people turned away from the class because they don't want to have to do what amounts to homework to make wildshape work. Numbers just kind of start blurring together after a while. Yes, its readily available, but it creates a kind of higher barrier for entry that's not desirable for the long term health of the class. Lots of people just don't want to sit down and do the research. Which is, frankly, very understandable.
~ CR was a mess in 5e. I don't know how it will work out in 1dnd, but sometimes your form was overpowered for the levels, othertimes you were underpowered. Balance was a joke. I know several DMs who flat out banned Moon druid because of headaches from early bear form moon druids.
~ I know several DMs who found that wildshaping into tiny animals made better scouts than the Rogue and Ranger. Making them, well, kind of obsolete. Not cool. I admit, that does depend a bit on the DM, but it was enough of a problem that it really did need to be addressed. CoDzilla, full caster domination, etc is unhealthy for the game in the long term.
~ Of the seven official Druid subclasses, four have alternative uses for Wildshape, Dream will want to use healing in place of wildshaping under the new rules. Only Land and Moon actively care about wildshaping. Both the new (1D&D) and old rules (2014 PHB) for Wildshape get in the way.
While it needs a lot of work, the proposed implementation is more of a tuning issue than a concept issue:
Since it uses your own HP, AC is too low in all forms, especially for Moon. Either the AC needs to be higher or WS needs THP.
Tiny (utility) forms are too late in the game to be useful. The 10 min duration and half damage are already enough to keep them in check.
WS losing all racials, proficiencies and feats feels bad (Why does becoming a Wolf make me worse at following tracks? Why can elf druids be put to sleep?)
No animal abilities at all feels bad - forget exotic stuff like Web or Burrow, where's the simple things like Keen Smell or Charge?
Sea form should get similar strength to Land form (being a weak Giant Octopus or Whale is silly.)
All of these are fixable without ditching the underlying unified statblocks idea.
To #3, I would be fine if they at least allowed you to keep your saving throw proficiencies and skill proficiencies. I’m on the fence about racial/class features and feats.
As I recall, there's a conscious effort in OneDnD to reduce the value of multiclassing... Clerics don't get their subclass features at level 1 anymore, for example. I'm pretty sure that's the motivation for removing the Druid's ability to combine Wildshape with other class features... I think they just overshot it. I think that's the tricky thing about Wildshape... it is simultaneously intimidating for new players, and very easy to exploit for experienced players. As unpopular as Druid is in terms of number of active players, it's still considered a top tier build and it's largely accepted that, if you took a bunch of level 20 characters and tossed them in a fighting pit, the Druids would be the last ones standing largely because of Wildshape.
While it needs a lot of work, the proposed implementation is more of a tuning issue than a concept issue:
Since it uses your own HP, AC is too low in all forms, especially for Moon. Either the AC needs to be higher or WS needs THP.
Tiny (utility) forms are too late in the game to be useful. The 10 min duration and half damage are already enough to keep them in check.
WS losing all racials, proficiencies and feats feels bad (Why does becoming a Wolf make me worse at following tracks? Why can elf druids be put to sleep?)
No animal abilities at all feels bad - forget exotic stuff like Web or Burrow, where's the simple things like Keen Smell or Charge?
Sea form should get similar strength to Land form (being a weak Giant Octopus or Whale is silly.)
All of these are fixable without ditching the underlying unified statblocks idea.
To #3, I would be fine if they at least allowed you to keep your saving throw proficiencies and skill proficiencies. I’m on the fence about racial/class features and feats.
I see no reason they can't do what they did before - racials that depend on your original anatomy are removed, DM is the final arbiter of what you keep.
If they're going to remove all racials in the name of simplicity - which I still think is a mistake, a Stone Goliath Bear should feel different from a Halfling or Eladrin one - then it's even more imperative that we get varied and interesting beast abilities to compensate for what we lost.
~ There are plenty of people who want wild shape to focus on a single animal. When I first went to play a Moon Druid, way back with the game was first released, I was going to play a wolf-themed druid shapeshifter type. Classic werewolf. It could not be done. Not past the very first levels. There simply weren't the options.
~ There are quite the number of people turned away from the class because they don't want to have to do what amounts to homework to make wildshape work. Numbers just kind of start blurring together after a while. Yes, its readily available, but it creates a kind of higher barrier for entry that's not desirable for the long term health of the class. Lots of people just don't want to sit down and do the research. Which is, frankly, very understandable.
~ CR was a mess in 5e. I don't know how it will work out in 1dnd, but sometimes your form was overpowered for the levels, othertimes you were underpowered. Balance was a joke. I know several DMs who flat out banned Moon druid because of headaches from early bear form moon druids.
~ I know several DMs who found that wildshaping into tiny animals made better scouts than the Rogue and Ranger. Making them, well, kind of obsolete. Not cool. I admit, that does depend a bit on the DM, but it was enough of a problem that it really did need to be addressed. CoDzilla, full caster domination, etc is unhealthy for the game in the long term.
~ Of the seven official Druid subclasses, four have alternative uses for Wildshape, Dream will want to use healing in place of wildshaping under the new rules. Only Land and Moon actively care about wildshaping. Both the new (1D&D) and old rules (2014 PHB) for Wildshape get in the way.
i see this comment a lot. For me, who is currently playing a Land Druid that used WS almost exclusively, especially at the higher levels that we are at now, for utility, that this is more of a player issue. If a Druid can’t realize that there are other players who’s specialty is sneaking and scouting and wants to do it all themselves then that’s on the player. Not the class. But if there is no rogue or ranger in the group then it’s beneficial to the party.
the current wild shape system is bad, and should be changed. I think that the concrete solution that they have proposed is very bad, but the concept is correct. I mean, using three statblocks sounds right to me, and I think that's the model they should follow. The problem is that the blockstats have not been worked on enough. They are very static, scale poorly, and don't reflect the variability that wild shape should have. In my opinion the best solution is to include several options to choose from within each statblock, and unlock new, more powerful options at successive levels. Something similar to what happens with eldritch invocations, except that they would be chosen every time you use wildshape.
i see this comment a lot. For me, who is currently playing a Land Druid that used WS almost exclusively, especially at the higher levels that we are at now, for utility, that this is more of a player issue. If a Druid can’t realize that there are other players who’s specialty is sneaking and scouting and wants to do it all themselves then that’s on the player. Not the class. But if there is no rogue or ranger in the group then it’s beneficial to the party.
But D&D is a gamist game. If you have a solution to a problem, and you don't use it, it's strange behavior to say the least. That is why the options that each class has have to be measured, and try not to exceed the capabilities of other specialist classes in that field. Because if there is a problem to solve, and you have the solution, it is very rare that you are avoiding it on purpose. It's like the system is forcing you to play poorly so as not to overstep other roles.
I would buy that argument if we were talking about a narrative game. But D&D is not. And yes, you can play in a more narrative way with it, but it is not designed with that philosophy in mind, nor is it what most players are going to look for. Because if you are looking for a narrative game, you have endless options on the market that far exceed it in that regard. Basically, because they are designed for that.
If you have a solution to a problem, and no one else in the party has a solution, and you do not use it, that’s strange behavior. If the rogue in the party and another character because of background, both have proficiency in thieves tools and when confronted by a locked door both of them look away, that’s strange. If they both look at the door and they decide between themselves, since it is a cooperative game, that the rogue should give it a try, that’s being a good party member. And as far as scouting goes they both could actually work together.
It effectively serves as a boatload of hit points instead of being much of a meaningful or cool feature that can optimally be used outside of combat for utility. Not only that, but certain builds and subclasses can easily exploit it in order to be way more powerful than just about everyone else.
Both of these points apply to Moondruid's "Combat Wildshape" not the default Druid Wildshape ability. Honestly, the Moondruid is less of a problem with respect to outshining martials than Bladesingers, Hexblades, or Swords Bards (all three of which are simultaneously martials and full spellcasters, whereas the moon druid has to choose whether they are a spellcaster or a martial in any particular combat / round.)
PS there is no good "build" or exploit of Moon Druid that lasts beyond a handful of levels. Moon druid is utterly broken from level 2-5, but is fine beyond that.
And as far as scouting goes they both could actually work together.
This is the big reason I don't get the "stepping on toes" argument. Druids and rogues are both good at stealth but have completely different toolsets to approach it. Druids can't pick locks, sneakily backstab guards, or use whatever other skills with expertise (like a social skill) to get out of trouble when caught. Meanwhile, rogues can't turn tiny and squeeze under a door, spider climb up a sheer wall, or fly. Either one can solve your typical stealth encounter if they play smart, but their abilities also complement one another by being good at dealing with different stealth challenges so if they go together they can have each other's backs.
If you have a rogue, a ranger, and a druid in the same party and need a stealth mission done... Send all three so they can support each other and mitigate risks. If you only have a druid in your party you have someone who can attempt the stealth mission solo even if you don't have a rogue or ranger.
Both of these points apply to Moondruid's "Combat Wildshape" not the default Druid Wildshape ability. Honestly, the Moondruid is less of a problem with respect to outshining martials than Bladesingers, Hexblades, or Swords Bards (all three of which are simultaneously martials and full spellcasters, whereas the moon druid has to choose whether they are a spellcaster or a martial in any particular combat / round.)
Druids who use their Wild Shape for means other that combat are going to suffer when they're in combat and things aren't going well. At a minimum, the feature provides a nice extra pool of hit points, and using that pool for something else can really come later and bite you in the back.
Yes, this problem is way, way worse when the Druid in question belongs to the Circle of the Moon. That being said, the complexity of Wild Shape along with how hard it is to get access to and sort through so many stat blocks is not good. Admittedly, the Dungeon Master should provide there Monster Manual for the Druid player to use, and there are plenty of resources breaking down all the different beasts online.
However, not every group can conveniently lend their books to each other, and some tables don't even have any books. Druids would have their options limited far more than any class in groups like those, and this is another difficulty that people who play Druid have to deal with. The same thing is said for finding and reading the resources about various beats online. Even if you know enough to look for a helpful source, it still might be hard to understand what's being said and find time to read through it all.'
Druid players have a lot to deal with when they want to effectively use and enjoy their most important class feature. Sure, each of the problems might be fine individually. However, having to think about utility, stealth and coolness versus survival, having to use other people's books or pay for your own, and having to know all the beasts in the game and what you should and shouldn't turn into combine to make it so that playing a Druid isn't as easy for new players. So while their may be some people who Druid and Wild Shape works great for, the feature is one of the main reasons why it is one of the least played classes in all of D&D.
Anyways, if we can scale down the power of Wild Shape in order to make other parts of Druid cooler, then why not?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Both of these points apply to Moondruid's "Combat Wildshape" not the default Druid Wildshape ability. Honestly, the Moondruid is less of a problem with respect to outshining martials than Bladesingers, Hexblades, or Swords Bards (all three of which are simultaneously martials and full spellcasters, whereas the moon druid has to choose whether they are a spellcaster or a martial in any particular combat / round.)
Druids who use their Wild Shape for means other that combat are going to suffer when they're in combat and things aren't going well. At a minimum, the feature provides a nice extra pool of hit points, and using that pool for something else can really come later and bite you in the back.
NONSENSE! I have DMed for druids of every subclass, the only one (other than moon druids) that used WS in combat was a Shepherd druid and they exclusively used Badger form so they could burrow and hide with full cover while their horde of conjured animals tore the enemies to shreds. The extra HP from regular WS is pathetic, amounting to around 2 attacks worth in tier 1-2, and 1 attack's worth in tier 3-4. Given that druids are almost always concentrating on a spell the lowered AC from WS makes it a terrible choice in combat, (unless you're using it to hide / fly away to avoid being targeted by attacks at all).
having to know all the beasts in the game
You do not need to know this for WS, WS is explicitly limited to "beasts you have seen" so druids should not be assuming that they automatically know every beast in the book, most druids would have not have seen an Allosaurus, a Pteraodon, a Giant Constrictor Snake, etc.... What you need to know this for is Polymorph (which most full spellcasting classes get access to and which nobody complains about).
order to make other parts of Druid cooler
What other parts? Druids don't get any other class features in 5e, and they barely gave them anything else in One D&D.
I'm more worried that a single stat block for every animal make the animal you choose a moot point. In the current Wildshape I can turn into a wolf to fight in combat and a horse to travel long distance. But in the new Wildshape all creatures are the same, so you are a slow horse or a wolf without trip. Now there isn't really a benefit to turning into a something different like a bat or spider.
I think a slightly better option would be a basic stat block with one modifier. So if you wanted to be a horse or a cheetah something fast you could chose +10' speed. If you want to be more defense focused animal +2 AC or offensive animal +to hit, etc. Then we could add dark vision as a modifier because currently most animals don't have dark vision. You could even make it as though moon druids get more than one modifier, because they are more Intune with the animals they are turning into.
NONSENSE! I have DMed for druids of every subclass, the only one (other than moon druids) that used WS in combat was a Shepherd druid and they exclusively used Badger form so they could burrow and hide with full cover while their horde of conjured animals tore the enemies to shreds. The extra HP from regular WS is pathetic, amounting to around 2 attacks worth in tier 1-2, and 1 attack's worth in tier 3-4. Given that druids are almost always concentrating on a spell the lowered AC from WS makes it a terrible choice in combat, (unless you're using it to hide / fly away to avoid being targeted by attacks at all).
You do not need to know this for WS, WS is explicitly limited to "beasts you have seen" so druids should not be assuming that they automatically know every beast in the book, most druids would have not have seen an Allosaurus, a Pteraodon, a Giant Constrictor Snake, etc....
Ah, I see that we've inadvertently stumbled into another of the big problems with Wild Shape. To me at least, some adventurers may have actually seen an Allosaurus, a Pteraodon, or a Giant Constrictor Snake. The latter of those animals is something that my players encounter all the time when they enter woods or forests. As for Dinosaurs, they are more common and less common depending on the world, and it isn't impossible that adventurers might have seen them.
When I design a setting, I don't think about how likely it is that a given explorer will see a certain beast, and I don't focus on the beast population and community makeup in certain areas. Some Dungeon Masters might argue that "exotic" creatures are beasts your players will never have seen before. However, not only is what is and is not exotic not fully clear, not only does the rules not give any parameters on this controversial part of Wild Shape, not only do some campaigns not have a heavy focus on writing backstories for characters and what they've encountered or looked at before, not only might there be some places where it would make sense for there are Dinosaurs or beasts in enclosures and zoos even though the Dungeon Master may not have decided one all, and not only does this rule lead to endless background optimizing, but it also forces the DM to make a ruling in the moment, on the spot, and likely immediately.
This is a heavily contentious part of Wild Shape, and it causes lots of problems. Players have to look through the books and try to figure out how every beast works before a campaign and then say, "Does my DM allow all beasts and not deal with the sight stuff, will they only allow a few of the creatures, and what is common for my character to have seen on this world and what beasts might they have encountered before?"
So yeah, this is very much not a perfect feature whatsoever. This is one of the many parts of it that should be changed.
What other parts? Druids don't get any other class features in 5e, and they barely gave them anything else in One D&D.
For one, Druid does get class features other than Wild Shape in 5e, such as spells, Timeless Body, their Druid subclass features, and more. That being said, I agree that there aren't enough other things in the current Druid. That's why I want more room for the nature and magic part of the class to be explored in more depth.
Yes, the recent playtest failed to do this, and I dislike how it remodeled Wild Shape. That being said, the ability needs to be modified.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Players have to look through the books and try to figure out how every beast works before a campaign and then say, "Does my DM allow all beasts and not deal with the sight stuff, will they only allow a few of the creatures, and what is common for my character to have seen on this world and what beasts might they have encountered before?"
But they don't. If they want to they can, but they don't need to. Players can create their character, say to themselves "my character grew up in a tropical dungeon, they probably have seen monkeys, snakes, panthers, and parrots. Then pull up D&DBeyond Monster reference and search for "monkey", "ape", "snake", "panther", "parrot" and add those to their character sheet. If they then go to the city and say to themselves: there's lots of dogs, cat, horses, and rats in cities - and go search for those in the reference and add them to their character sheet.
If a player wants to min-max and find the absolutely best WS form for any particular situation then sure they have to go through every beast on D&DBeyond (or other reference) filtering by appropriate CR. But that's no different than a player who wants to min-max looking up every single possible beast to use with Polymorph, or to use with Conjure Elemental, or to use with Conjure Lesser Demon, or to use with Conjure Elemental, etc.. etc.... , or looking up every single feat, race, and spell ever published to find the optimal build. Wildshape is completely functional as a feature if you only ever use 3 different forms, or if you want to use 20 different forms. D&DBeyond already solved this problem for conjuration, and WotC have already solved it for spells both in the same way: provide the players with a list of default suggestions and let the players go from there.
TBH you don't NEED a statblock for an animal if the druid is just using it for out-of-combat utility. E.g. the aformentioned druid wants to turn into a parrot to fly up over the canopy to help the party navigate in the wilderness - you don't need a statblock to do that just let them roll a perception check at advantage, done! Or if they want to turn into a bloodhound to follow a scent trail to find a murderer or a monster, again you don't need a statblock to do that, just let them roll Survival with Advantage. Or if they want to turn into a giant turtle to carry the party across a lake, again you don't need a statblock! The rules are just suggestions, it's really not hard to allow druids to flexibly turn into whatever they want outside of combat. And I wish WotC would emphasize more that Flavour is Free! Want to be an owlbear but technically you can't? Just reflavour a brown bear as a owlbear. Want to transform into a kangaroo? Just use the Elk statblock and say it's a kangaroo. My druid turns into a bandicoot (using the Weasel statblock) on occasion.
Sure druids ask about animals, but other players ask about stuff outside the rules all the time too, or ask about the world beyond what you planned. Being able to improvise answers is part of the skills of being a DM. And if you decide to change your mind later and retcon something you said without fully thinking it through, your players should be totally fine with that because they should be considerate, kind human beings!
Please... Don't. You have plenty of druid mains that love the set up as is. The new proposed changes water it down and waste some of the different circles potency, and honestly... The current system works. This one .. seems broken.
Changes are coming, one way or another. Might not be these changes, but probably not too far off either. They want monster stat blocks to be for the DM and they seem focused on streamlining Wildshape for new and old players. They've been moving in this direction for a while now (Tasha's summon spells, Beastmaster Ranger's Companion)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I agree with Thrikreen that the current Wild Shape has a number of problems. It effectively serves as a boatload of hit points instead of being much of a meaningful or cool feature that can optimally be used outside of combat for utility. Not only that, but certain builds and subclasses can easily exploit it in order to be way more powerful than just about everyone else.
All in all, I hope the feature changes and gets nerfed some so that more mechanical room and power can be spent on making other themes of the Druid - like their connection to plants, trees, and nature - a more important and more viable part of the class. That being said, this UA did not do an optimal job at this, since it offered no new abilities in return for the ones lost, and it spent 7 class features on something it was trying to make a less integral part of Druid.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.While it needs a lot of work, the proposed implementation is more of a tuning issue than a concept issue:
All of these are fixable without ditching the underlying unified statblocks idea.
The current system does NOT, in fact, work.
~ There are plenty of people who want wild shape to focus on a single animal. When I first went to play a Moon Druid, way back with the game was first released, I was going to play a wolf-themed druid shapeshifter type. Classic werewolf. It could not be done. Not past the very first levels. There simply weren't the options.
~ There are quite the number of people turned away from the class because they don't want to have to do what amounts to homework to make wildshape work. Numbers just kind of start blurring together after a while. Yes, its readily available, but it creates a kind of higher barrier for entry that's not desirable for the long term health of the class. Lots of people just don't want to sit down and do the research. Which is, frankly, very understandable.
~ CR was a mess in 5e. I don't know how it will work out in 1dnd, but sometimes your form was overpowered for the levels, othertimes you were underpowered. Balance was a joke. I know several DMs who flat out banned Moon druid because of headaches from early bear form moon druids.
~ I know several DMs who found that wildshaping into tiny animals made better scouts than the Rogue and Ranger. Making them, well, kind of obsolete. Not cool. I admit, that does depend a bit on the DM, but it was enough of a problem that it really did need to be addressed. CoDzilla, full caster domination, etc is unhealthy for the game in the long term.
~ Of the seven official Druid subclasses, four have alternative uses for Wildshape, Dream will want to use healing in place of wildshaping under the new rules. Only Land and Moon actively care about wildshaping. Both the new (1D&D) and old rules (2014 PHB) for Wildshape get in the way.
To #3, I would be fine if they at least allowed you to keep your saving throw proficiencies and skill proficiencies. I’m on the fence about racial/class features and feats.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
As I recall, there's a conscious effort in OneDnD to reduce the value of multiclassing... Clerics don't get their subclass features at level 1 anymore, for example. I'm pretty sure that's the motivation for removing the Druid's ability to combine Wildshape with other class features... I think they just overshot it. I think that's the tricky thing about Wildshape... it is simultaneously intimidating for new players, and very easy to exploit for experienced players. As unpopular as Druid is in terms of number of active players, it's still considered a top tier build and it's largely accepted that, if you took a bunch of level 20 characters and tossed them in a fighting pit, the Druids would be the last ones standing largely because of Wildshape.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I see no reason they can't do what they did before - racials that depend on your original anatomy are removed, DM is the final arbiter of what you keep.
If they're going to remove all racials in the name of simplicity - which I still think is a mistake, a Stone Goliath Bear should feel different from a Halfling or Eladrin one - then it's even more imperative that we get varied and interesting beast abilities to compensate for what we lost.
i see this comment a lot. For me, who is currently playing a Land Druid that used WS almost exclusively, especially at the higher levels that we are at now, for utility, that this is more of a player issue. If a Druid can’t realize that there are other players who’s specialty is sneaking and scouting and wants to do it all themselves then that’s on the player. Not the class. But if there is no rogue or ranger in the group then it’s beneficial to the party.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
the current wild shape system is bad, and should be changed. I think that the concrete solution that they have proposed is very bad, but the concept is correct.
I mean, using three statblocks sounds right to me, and I think that's the model they should follow. The problem is that the blockstats have not been worked on enough. They are very static, scale poorly, and don't reflect the variability that wild shape should have.
In my opinion the best solution is to include several options to choose from within each statblock, and unlock new, more powerful options at successive levels. Something similar to what happens with eldritch invocations, except that they would be chosen every time you use wildshape.
But D&D is a gamist game. If you have a solution to a problem, and you don't use it, it's strange behavior to say the least.
That is why the options that each class has have to be measured, and try not to exceed the capabilities of other specialist classes in that field. Because if there is a problem to solve, and you have the solution, it is very rare that you are avoiding it on purpose. It's like the system is forcing you to play poorly so as not to overstep other roles.
I would buy that argument if we were talking about a narrative game. But D&D is not. And yes, you can play in a more narrative way with it, but it is not designed with that philosophy in mind, nor is it what most players are going to look for. Because if you are looking for a narrative game, you have endless options on the market that far exceed it in that regard. Basically, because they are designed for that.
If you have a solution to a problem, and no one else in the party has a solution, and you do not use it, that’s strange behavior. If the rogue in the party and another character because of background, both have proficiency in thieves tools and when confronted by a locked door both of them look away, that’s strange. If they both look at the door and they decide between themselves, since it is a cooperative game, that the rogue should give it a try, that’s being a good party member. And as far as scouting goes they both could actually work together.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Both of these points apply to Moondruid's "Combat Wildshape" not the default Druid Wildshape ability. Honestly, the Moondruid is less of a problem with respect to outshining martials than Bladesingers, Hexblades, or Swords Bards (all three of which are simultaneously martials and full spellcasters, whereas the moon druid has to choose whether they are a spellcaster or a martial in any particular combat / round.)
PS there is no good "build" or exploit of Moon Druid that lasts beyond a handful of levels. Moon druid is utterly broken from level 2-5, but is fine beyond that.
This is the big reason I don't get the "stepping on toes" argument. Druids and rogues are both good at stealth but have completely different toolsets to approach it. Druids can't pick locks, sneakily backstab guards, or use whatever other skills with expertise (like a social skill) to get out of trouble when caught. Meanwhile, rogues can't turn tiny and squeeze under a door, spider climb up a sheer wall, or fly. Either one can solve your typical stealth encounter if they play smart, but their abilities also complement one another by being good at dealing with different stealth challenges so if they go together they can have each other's backs.
If you have a rogue, a ranger, and a druid in the same party and need a stealth mission done... Send all three so they can support each other and mitigate risks. If you only have a druid in your party you have someone who can attempt the stealth mission solo even if you don't have a rogue or ranger.
Druids who use their Wild Shape for means other that combat are going to suffer when they're in combat and things aren't going well. At a minimum, the feature provides a nice extra pool of hit points, and using that pool for something else can really come later and bite you in the back.
Yes, this problem is way, way worse when the Druid in question belongs to the Circle of the Moon. That being said, the complexity of Wild Shape along with how hard it is to get access to and sort through so many stat blocks is not good. Admittedly, the Dungeon Master should provide there Monster Manual for the Druid player to use, and there are plenty of resources breaking down all the different beasts online.
However, not every group can conveniently lend their books to each other, and some tables don't even have any books. Druids would have their options limited far more than any class in groups like those, and this is another difficulty that people who play Druid have to deal with. The same thing is said for finding and reading the resources about various beats online. Even if you know enough to look for a helpful source, it still might be hard to understand what's being said and find time to read through it all.'
Druid players have a lot to deal with when they want to effectively use and enjoy their most important class feature. Sure, each of the problems might be fine individually. However, having to think about utility, stealth and coolness versus survival, having to use other people's books or pay for your own, and having to know all the beasts in the game and what you should and shouldn't turn into combine to make it so that playing a Druid isn't as easy for new players. So while their may be some people who Druid and Wild Shape works great for, the feature is one of the main reasons why it is one of the least played classes in all of D&D.
Anyways, if we can scale down the power of Wild Shape in order to make other parts of Druid cooler, then why not?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.NONSENSE! I have DMed for druids of every subclass, the only one (other than moon druids) that used WS in combat was a Shepherd druid and they exclusively used Badger form so they could burrow and hide with full cover while their horde of conjured animals tore the enemies to shreds. The extra HP from regular WS is pathetic, amounting to around 2 attacks worth in tier 1-2, and 1 attack's worth in tier 3-4. Given that druids are almost always concentrating on a spell the lowered AC from WS makes it a terrible choice in combat, (unless you're using it to hide / fly away to avoid being targeted by attacks at all).
You do not need to know this for WS, WS is explicitly limited to "beasts you have seen" so druids should not be assuming that they automatically know every beast in the book, most druids would have not have seen an Allosaurus, a Pteraodon, a Giant Constrictor Snake, etc.... What you need to know this for is Polymorph (which most full spellcasting classes get access to and which nobody complains about).
What other parts? Druids don't get any other class features in 5e, and they barely gave them anything else in One D&D.
I'm more worried that a single stat block for every animal make the animal you choose a moot point. In the current Wildshape I can turn into a wolf to fight in combat and a horse to travel long distance. But in the new Wildshape all creatures are the same, so you are a slow horse or a wolf without trip. Now there isn't really a benefit to turning into a something different like a bat or spider.
I think a slightly better option would be a basic stat block with one modifier. So if you wanted to be a horse or a cheetah something fast you could chose +10' speed. If you want to be more defense focused animal +2 AC or offensive animal +to hit, etc. Then we could add dark vision as a modifier because currently most animals don't have dark vision. You could even make it as though moon druids get more than one modifier, because they are more Intune with the animals they are turning into.
Hmm... Maybe. You've got me thinking.
Ah, I see that we've inadvertently stumbled into another of the big problems with Wild Shape. To me at least, some adventurers may have actually seen an Allosaurus, a Pteraodon, or a Giant Constrictor Snake. The latter of those animals is something that my players encounter all the time when they enter woods or forests. As for Dinosaurs, they are more common and less common depending on the world, and it isn't impossible that adventurers might have seen them.
When I design a setting, I don't think about how likely it is that a given explorer will see a certain beast, and I don't focus on the beast population and community makeup in certain areas. Some Dungeon Masters might argue that "exotic" creatures are beasts your players will never have seen before. However, not only is what is and is not exotic not fully clear, not only does the rules not give any parameters on this controversial part of Wild Shape, not only do some campaigns not have a heavy focus on writing backstories for characters and what they've encountered or looked at before, not only might there be some places where it would make sense for there are Dinosaurs or beasts in enclosures and zoos even though the Dungeon Master may not have decided one all, and not only does this rule lead to endless background optimizing, but it also forces the DM to make a ruling in the moment, on the spot, and likely immediately.
This is a heavily contentious part of Wild Shape, and it causes lots of problems. Players have to look through the books and try to figure out how every beast works before a campaign and then say, "Does my DM allow all beasts and not deal with the sight stuff, will they only allow a few of the creatures, and what is common for my character to have seen on this world and what beasts might they have encountered before?"
So yeah, this is very much not a perfect feature whatsoever. This is one of the many parts of it that should be changed.
For one, Druid does get class features other than Wild Shape in 5e, such as spells, Timeless Body, their Druid subclass features, and more. That being said, I agree that there aren't enough other things in the current Druid. That's why I want more room for the nature and magic part of the class to be explored in more depth.
Yes, the recent playtest failed to do this, and I dislike how it remodeled Wild Shape. That being said, the ability needs to be modified.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.But they don't. If they want to they can, but they don't need to. Players can create their character, say to themselves "my character grew up in a tropical dungeon, they probably have seen monkeys, snakes, panthers, and parrots. Then pull up D&DBeyond Monster reference and search for "monkey", "ape", "snake", "panther", "parrot" and add those to their character sheet. If they then go to the city and say to themselves: there's lots of dogs, cat, horses, and rats in cities - and go search for those in the reference and add them to their character sheet.
If a player wants to min-max and find the absolutely best WS form for any particular situation then sure they have to go through every beast on D&DBeyond (or other reference) filtering by appropriate CR. But that's no different than a player who wants to min-max looking up every single possible beast to use with Polymorph, or to use with Conjure Elemental, or to use with Conjure Lesser Demon, or to use with Conjure Elemental, etc.. etc.... , or looking up every single feat, race, and spell ever published to find the optimal build. Wildshape is completely functional as a feature if you only ever use 3 different forms, or if you want to use 20 different forms. D&DBeyond already solved this problem for conjuration, and WotC have already solved it for spells both in the same way: provide the players with a list of default suggestions and let the players go from there.
TBH you don't NEED a statblock for an animal if the druid is just using it for out-of-combat utility. E.g. the aformentioned druid wants to turn into a parrot to fly up over the canopy to help the party navigate in the wilderness - you don't need a statblock to do that just let them roll a perception check at advantage, done! Or if they want to turn into a bloodhound to follow a scent trail to find a murderer or a monster, again you don't need a statblock to do that, just let them roll Survival with Advantage. Or if they want to turn into a giant turtle to carry the party across a lake, again you don't need a statblock! The rules are just suggestions, it's really not hard to allow druids to flexibly turn into whatever they want outside of combat. And I wish WotC would emphasize more that Flavour is Free! Want to be an owlbear but technically you can't? Just reflavour a brown bear as a owlbear. Want to transform into a kangaroo? Just use the Elk statblock and say it's a kangaroo. My druid turns into a bandicoot (using the Weasel statblock) on occasion.
Sure druids ask about animals, but other players ask about stuff outside the rules all the time too, or ask about the world beyond what you planned. Being able to improvise answers is part of the skills of being a DM. And if you decide to change your mind later and retcon something you said without fully thinking it through, your players should be totally fine with that because they should be considerate, kind human beings!
If you're a Druid and your backstory isn't, "I grew up on Dinosaur Island", you're leaving money on the table.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium