3. The restriction on tiny forms makes no sense, should just have an alternate template for tiny creatures at level 1.
Just out of curiosity, why does it make no sense to you? As far as I'm aware, Tiny size is a pretty powerful exploration tool.
I'd rather the druid do it than a familiar as then they have skin in the game. My personal belief is they just should make wildshapes and familiars noticeably unnatural. The familiar should its not a owl its a demon owl or fey owl. Under the current template form where people can add dog heads to their cats or whatever they want maybe a disguise check to look like a real rat.
But maybe tiny isn't a problem I've seen arguments here that everyone basically kills all critters they see. And if that is what makes sense to you tiny scouts aren't a issue. So the DM can fix it I guess.
3. The restriction on tiny forms makes no sense, should just have an alternate template for tiny creatures at level 1.
Just out of curiosity, why does it make no sense to you? As far as I'm aware, Tiny size is a pretty powerful exploration tool.
I'd rather the druid do it than a familiar as then they have skin in the game. My personal belief is they just should make wildshapes and familiars noticeably unnatural. The familiar should its not a owl its a demon owl or fey owl. Under the current template form where people can add dog heads to their cats or whatever they want maybe a disguise check to look like a real rat.
But maybe tiny isn't a problem I've seen arguments here that everyone basically kills all critters they see. And if that is what makes sense to you tiny scouts aren't a issue. So the DM can fix it I guess.
I think I would be fine with Tiny being a later feature but I think 11th is a bit too late. If they rolled the 7th and 9th swim and flight templates into the Land one then Tiny could be in one of those slots. The initial template should give access to other utility options with some behind level requirements for balance.
And I agree, I don’t care for druids using familiars instead of going themselves. I do go myself with my Land Druid. Personally I would prefer they leave familiars to the Mage group and use that Channel Nature spot for something else, even if it is a different summon option. But would prefer a more nature/elemental option.
But no matter what WotC does they can’t make everyone happy. So much depends on personal taste.
Lets look back at the first version of wild shape that was in the DnD Next playtest that led up to 5e. Lets look at playtest packet 10 released in 2013 and the last packet released before 5e came out.
It also uses templates for your form ( the druid was introduced in packet 6 and from when it was introduced it used templates)
you gained the different templates at the following levels : 2 : hound 5 : steed. 7: Fish, Rodent 9: bird
The moon druid got additional templates : 6 : bear and cat 16 Behemoth
The templates often gave bonuses and penalties to stats posting cat template as a example. In the feedback people found it very cumbersome to calculate AC ability scores and attack bonus when they changed and it increased the number of ability scores a druid had to invest in, during playtest package 9 and 10 there was a big backlash against these changes. op until package 8 the templates had given you static values for your AC Str Dex and Con scores and a set attack bonus ( this had the disadvantage of not scaling as you leveled)
It is interesting to see that after doing templates for 5 playtest packages they went for something totally different in the final release. Looking back it might have been that they rushed in a new option after the big backlash against the template changes. And in their rush forgetting that unlimited wild shape now basically caused a infinite HP buffer.
Especially because they did notice a similar problem before. In package 9 the moon druid had the ability "when you revert to your normal form after using WildShape, you regain a number of hit points equal to your druid level." They saw that this would lead to infinite healing with the unlimited wildshape and changed it package 10 to ". When you revert to your normal form after using WildShape and have half your hit points or fewer, you regain a number of hit points equal to your druid level"
But failed to catch That there would be a similar issue if you gave people the HP of the creature.
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.
I'm commenting to note that they are going to have the EXACT same problem with Artificer. No one book will contain all the cool magic items. If they nerf Druid by allowing only a handful of statbocks, think of what they are going to do to the Artificer in OneDND. It will arguably be even worse for them.
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.
I'm commenting to note that they are going to have the EXACT same problem with Artificer. No one book will contain all the cool magic items. If they nerf Druid by allowing only a handful of statbocks, think of what they are going to do to the Artificer in OneDND. It will arguably be even worse for them.
I could see the removal of the ability to make those uncommon magical items, just have the list of imbues and that is it.
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.
I'm commenting to note that they are going to have the EXACT same problem with Artificer. No one book will contain all the cool magic items. If they nerf Druid by allowing only a handful of statbocks, think of what they are going to do to the Artificer in OneDND. It will arguably be even worse for them.
I could see the removal of the ability to make those uncommon magical items, just have the list of imbues and that is it.
I'm pretty sure that would kill the Artiicer's game play for most of the people who currently enjoy them.
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.
I'm commenting to note that they are going to have the EXACT same problem with Artificer. No one book will contain all the cool magic items. If they nerf Druid by allowing only a handful of statbocks, think of what they are going to do to the Artificer in OneDND. It will arguably be even worse for them.
I could see the removal of the ability to make those uncommon magical items, just have the list of imbues and that is it.
I'm pretty sure that would kill the Artiicer's game play for most of the people who currently enjoy them.
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.
I'm commenting to note that they are going to have the EXACT same problem with Artificer. No one book will contain all the cool magic items. If they nerf Druid by allowing only a handful of statbocks, think of what they are going to do to the Artificer in OneDND. It will arguably be even worse for them.
I could see the removal of the ability to make those uncommon magical items, just have the list of imbues and that is it.
I'm pretty sure that would kill the Artiicer's game play for most of the people who currently enjoy them.
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.
I'm commenting to note that they are going to have the EXACT same problem with Artificer. No one book will contain all the cool magic items. If they nerf Druid by allowing only a handful of statbocks, think of what they are going to do to the Artificer in OneDND. It will arguably be even worse for them.
I could see the removal of the ability to make those uncommon magical items, just have the list of imbues and that is it.
I'm pretty sure that would kill the Artiicer's game play for most of the people who currently enjoy them.
That's also true of Druid, but they still did it.
Yes, that's my point as to why using templates for OneD&D Druid is a bad idea. It kills the creativity of the people who already enjoy the class, which will make it LESS popular in the future.
Yes, that's my point as to why using templates for OneD&D Druid is a bad idea. It kills the creativity of the people who already enjoy the class, which will make it LESS popular in the future.
The theory they are going with is its a niche class, artificer is the same boat and while it will drive away a bunch of the people who like it as is it will draw in more people to the class than it loses as they think most people don't like creative and want easy. While I think they are right, I think they are missing that there are tons of easy options so you don't need more of that. And they will be leaving a group, even though it may be a small group out in the cold so they may have a larger overall loss in players.
Yes, that's my point as to why using templates for OneD&D Druid is a bad idea. It kills the creativity of the people who already enjoy the class, which will make it LESS popular in the future.
Using templates for Wildshape shouldn't affect creativity, in fact it should do the opposite as the templates can represent any creature you want, rather than only the specific beast stat-blocks that we're given, and in the grand scheme of things there aren't actually that many beasts across all released books, and even fewer that people regularly use, so the templates represent the possibility for more choice, not less.
The problem with the templates is that they're not flexible enough to actually do that in the current UA, which is why we need more ways to customise them; a choice of special features could return a lot of what is lost by no longer using fixed stat-blocks.
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.
The problem for me is that playing Druid is about having a creative toolbox of natural solutions to problems, and this reduces those into a few very dull choices.
I get that this game can be complex, but Druid doesn't have to be complex for someone to enjoy it. In 5e players can make a choice how they want Druid (and other classes) to be played, and it can be chaotically complex or superbly simplified in relation to backstory and character development.
If I want my wildshape to be a single specific animal with specific traits, I can do that. If I want it to be a tiny/medium/large toolbox with lots of different proficiences and abilities, it can be that also.
The proposed changes just make it less creative, less interesting, less variable for those who want variability and specificity. I'd venture to say that would be a lot of D&D players, and a huge number of those who choose Druids.
Yes, that's my point as to why using templates for OneD&D Druid is a bad idea. It kills the creativity of the people who already enjoy the class, which will make it LESS popular in the future.
Using templates for Wildshape shouldn't affect creativity, in fact it should do the opposite as they templates can represent any creature you like, rather than only the specific beast stat-blocks that we're given (in the grand scheme of things there aren't actually that many beasts across all released books, and even fewer that people regularly use).
The problem with the templates is that they're not quite flexible enough to actually do that in the current UA, which is why we need more ways to customise them; a choice of special features could return a lot of what is lost by no longer using fixed stat-blocks.
Nope. Not as written in the UA anyway.
This makes no mention of very FUN abilities like pack tactics (Dire Wolf), Pounce (Lion and Tiger), Rampage (Giant Hyena), Web + Web Walker (Giant Spider), Standing Leap and Swallow (Giant Toad), and these are only CR 1 animals. There are also VERY FUN situational abilities like an Ape's ranged weapon rock, a Crocodile's hold breath, a Giant Goat's sure-footedness and Charge, or a War Horse's Trampling Charge (and the ability to carry a fellow character). Not even getting to any of the specific swim/fly animal traits and abilities.
It also requires 5th level for climb which is ridiculous when you can pick a low CR creature very early with this ability in 5e. Plus it just gives it to EVERY creature at level 5 which is also ridiculous. Dig is missing completely, which is really fun when used with Giant Badger.
That is the point. This reduces the FUN, the role play of specific beasts, the flavour of skills, abilities, proficiencies that make this class so unique and enjoyable to those who choose it.
By ostensibly making it easier, this is just reducing the FUN of playing the Druid class.
Yes, that's my point as to why using templates for OneD&D Druid is a bad idea. It kills the creativity of the people who already enjoy the class, which will make it LESS popular in the future.
The theory they are going with is its a niche class, artificer is the same boat and while it will drive away a bunch of the people who like it as is it will draw in more people to the class than it loses as they think most people don't like creative and want easy. While I think they are right, I think they are missing that there are tons of easy options so you don't need more of that. And they will be leaving a group, even though it may be a small group out in the cold so they may have a larger overall loss in players.
How will it draw more people to the class? The only unique feature of the class is now utterly useless. So why would someone play it? If you want to play a full caster with loads of utility and Battlefield Control you'd play a wizard, if you want to play a support & healer character you'd play a cleric, if you want to play a nature-lover that fights along side the forces of nature herself you'd play a ranger.
Yes, that's my point as to why using templates for OneD&D Druid is a bad idea. It kills the creativity of the people who already enjoy the class, which will make it LESS popular in the future.
Using templates for Wildshape shouldn't affect creativity, in fact it should do the opposite as they templates can represent any creature you like, rather than only the specific beast stat-blocks that we're given (in the grand scheme of things there aren't actually that many beasts across all released books, and even fewer that people regularly use).
The problem with the templates is that they're not quite flexible enough to actually do that in the current UA, which is why we need more ways to customise them; a choice of special features could return a lot of what is lost by no longer using fixed stat-blocks.
Nope. Not as written in the UA anyway.
This makes no mention of very FUN abilities like pack tactics (Dire Wolf), Pounce (Lion and Tiger), Rampage (Giant Hyena), Web + Web Walker (Giant Spider), Standing Leap and Swallow (Giant Toad), and these are only CR 1 animals. There are also VERY FUN situational abilities like an Ape's ranged weapon rock, a Crocodile's hold breath, a Giant Goat's sure-footedness and Charge, or a War Horse's Trampling Charge (and the ability to carry a fellow character). Not even getting to any of the specific swim/fly animal traits and abilities.
It also requires 5th level for climb which is ridiculous when you can pick a low CR creature very early with this ability in 5e. Plus it just gives it to EVERY creature at level 5 which is also ridiculous. Dig is missing completely, which is really fun when used with Giant Badger.
That is the point. This reduces the FUN, the role play of specific beasts, the flavour of skills, abilities, proficiencies that make this class so unique and enjoyable to those who choose it.
By ostensibly making it easier, this is just reducing the FUN of playing the Druid class.
In Haravikk’s post you quoted the last paragraph acknowledges that the UA lacks the flexibility needed. And many of us in this thread and others have also said as much.
I’m fine with the template as long as some of the utility and flexibility is returned in features that you can choose or gain based on level.
I do agree that giving every land firm climb is dumb. All forms should get features based on if their anatomy allows. So no wolves or horses climbing vertical cliffs. Mountain goat? Sure, and the template allows that.
I also think hybrid forms are just bad. Cool idea but if you need hands to manipulate objects then every form will have gorilla hands, or equivalent. So welcome gorilla wolves, monkey octopuses, etc
Hybrid forms I think simply needs a disclaimer: "You may also turn into certain hybrid forms, such as a griffon or an owlbear, consult with your DM which hybrid forms would fit the setting."
Yes, that's my point as to why using templates for OneD&D Druid is a bad idea. It kills the creativity of the people who already enjoy the class, which will make it LESS popular in the future.
The theory they are going with is its a niche class, artificer is the same boat and while it will drive away a bunch of the people who like it as is it will draw in more people to the class than it loses as they think most people don't like creative and want easy. While I think they are right, I think they are missing that there are tons of easy options so you don't need more of that. And they will be leaving a group, even though it may be a small group out in the cold so they may have a larger overall loss in players.
How will it draw more people to the class? The only unique feature of the class is now utterly useless. So why would someone play it? If you want to play a full caster with loads of utility and Battlefield Control you'd play a wizard, if you want to play a support & healer character you'd play a cleric, if you want to play a nature-lover that fights along side the forces of nature herself you'd play a ranger.
I somehow doubt this is the last iteration of their template wild shape. Maybe the final version will be just as useless and then yes it wont draw more people to it. But assuming they do some basic fixes the ease of use probably will draw people in. I think it will drop overall satisfaction in the game though as even though more people may play druid those who liked the extra complexity will be left without a home.
Hybrid forms I think simply needs a disclaimer: "You may also turn into certain hybrid forms, such as a griffon or an owlbear, consult with your DM which hybrid forms would fit the setting."
I know people don't like tags, but they did work for the most part. Allow the shape change to be into things with the animal or beast tag, have hybrids like owlbear have two tags beast/monstrosity. Make it clear they can shape change into a form as long as one of its tags is beast.
Yes, that's my point as to why using templates for OneD&D Druid is a bad idea. It kills the creativity of the people who already enjoy the class, which will make it LESS popular in the future.
Using templates for Wildshape shouldn't affect creativity, in fact it should do the opposite as the templates can represent any creature you want, rather than only the specific beast stat-blocks that we're given, and in the grand scheme of things there aren't actually that many beasts across all released books, and even fewer that people regularly use, so the templates represent the possibility for more choice, not less.
There are over 2 dozen beasts just in the CR 0 to CR 1/2 categories, meaning that most of them are easily accessible to all Druids in 5e. Any template is going to fall far short of that if it's going to fit on one page.
A template that gives you Climb speed but no web ability or the ability to hang from the ceiling and no poison damage is not the same, mechanically speaking, as a Giant Spider. A template with a swim speed plus one status condition effect is not the same, mechanically speaking, as being able to Reef Shark-ify yourself, getting benefit of Pack Tactics and blindsight. Is it theoretically possible to create a template system that allows you to create a chimerical (not a Chimera) beast stat block with 3 different abilities that can perfectly mimic any beast in the PHB and the Monster Manual? Yes, but that significantly increases the complexity of using Wild Shape at all. If the complaint is that Druids are too complex for newer players, making highly customizable templates ADDS complexity. It does not simplify building a Druid.
~ 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.
I do think that, of all the 5e subclasses, Moon Druids are the outlier in terms of Wildshape. Too powerful from level 2-4, too weak from level 6 to 9 and arguably also weak from level 13 to 17. I totally get the desire to fix Moon Druid so you can be Badass Dire Wolf or Polar Bear whenever you WS. For that, we need a table reference system that changes "to hit" rolls, saving throws, and damage based on the number of Druid levels. We did not get that in 5e probably because the devs thought it would either be too complex, take up too much room in the PHB, and/or they ran out of time to implement it. That is a mostly separate issue from whether all other users of Wildshape (all non-Moon Druids) are well served by a small list of templates. My answer to that is a resounding NO.
I'd rather the druid do it than a familiar as then they have skin in the game. My personal belief is they just should make wildshapes and familiars noticeably unnatural. The familiar should its not a owl its a demon owl or fey owl. Under the current template form where people can add dog heads to their cats or whatever they want maybe a disguise check to look like a real rat.
But maybe tiny isn't a problem I've seen arguments here that everyone basically kills all critters they see. And if that is what makes sense to you tiny scouts aren't a issue. So the DM can fix it I guess.
I think I would be fine with Tiny being a later feature but I think 11th is a bit too late. If they rolled the 7th and 9th swim and flight templates into the Land one then Tiny could be in one of those slots. The initial template should give access to other utility options with some behind level requirements for balance.
And I agree, I don’t care for druids using familiars instead of going themselves. I do go myself with my Land Druid. Personally I would prefer they leave familiars to the Mage group and use that Channel Nature spot for something else, even if it is a different summon option. But would prefer a more nature/elemental option.
But no matter what WotC does they can’t make everyone happy. So much depends on personal taste.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Lets look back at the first version of wild shape that was in the DnD Next playtest that led up to 5e.
Lets look at playtest packet 10 released in 2013 and the last packet released before 5e came out.
It also uses templates for your form ( the druid was introduced in packet 6 and from when it was introduced it used templates)
you gained the different templates at the following levels :
2 : hound
5 : steed.
7: Fish, Rodent
9: bird
The moon druid got additional templates :
6 : bear and cat
16 Behemoth
The templates often gave bonuses and penalties to stats posting cat template as a example.
In the feedback people found it very cumbersome to calculate AC ability scores and attack bonus when they changed and it increased the number of ability scores a druid had to invest in, during playtest package 9 and 10 there was a big backlash against these changes.
op until package 8 the templates had given you static values for your AC Str Dex and Con scores and a set attack bonus ( this had the disadvantage of not scaling as you leveled)
It is interesting to see that after doing templates for 5 playtest packages they went for something totally different in the final release.
Looking back it might have been that they rushed in a new option after the big backlash against the template changes.
And in their rush forgetting that unlimited wild shape now basically caused a infinite HP buffer.
Especially because they did notice a similar problem before.
In package 9 the moon druid had the ability "when you revert to your normal form after using WildShape, you regain a number of hit points equal to your druid level."
They saw that this would lead to infinite healing with the unlimited wildshape and changed it package 10 to ". When you revert to your normal form after using WildShape and have half your hit points or fewer, you regain a number of hit points equal to your druid level"
But failed to catch That there would be a similar issue if you gave people the HP of the creature.
I'm commenting to note that they are going to have the EXACT same problem with Artificer. No one book will contain all the cool magic items. If they nerf Druid by allowing only a handful of statbocks, think of what they are going to do to the Artificer in OneDND. It will arguably be even worse for them.
I could see the removal of the ability to make those uncommon magical items, just have the list of imbues and that is it.
I'm pretty sure that would kill the Artiicer's game play for most of the people who currently enjoy them.
That's also true of Druid, but they still did it.
yup
Yes, that's my point as to why using templates for OneD&D Druid is a bad idea. It kills the creativity of the people who already enjoy the class, which will make it LESS popular in the future.
The theory they are going with is its a niche class, artificer is the same boat and while it will drive away a bunch of the people who like it as is it will draw in more people to the class than it loses as they think most people don't like creative and want easy. While I think they are right, I think they are missing that there are tons of easy options so you don't need more of that. And they will be leaving a group, even though it may be a small group out in the cold so they may have a larger overall loss in players.
Using templates for Wildshape shouldn't affect creativity, in fact it should do the opposite as the templates can represent any creature you want, rather than only the specific beast stat-blocks that we're given, and in the grand scheme of things there aren't actually that many beasts across all released books, and even fewer that people regularly use, so the templates represent the possibility for more choice, not less.
The problem with the templates is that they're not flexible enough to actually do that in the current UA, which is why we need more ways to customise them; a choice of special features could return a lot of what is lost by no longer using fixed stat-blocks.
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.
The problem for me is that playing Druid is about having a creative toolbox of natural solutions to problems, and this reduces those into a few very dull choices.
I get that this game can be complex, but Druid doesn't have to be complex for someone to enjoy it. In 5e players can make a choice how they want Druid (and other classes) to be played, and it can be chaotically complex or superbly simplified in relation to backstory and character development.
If I want my wildshape to be a single specific animal with specific traits, I can do that. If I want it to be a tiny/medium/large toolbox with lots of different proficiences and abilities, it can be that also.
The proposed changes just make it less creative, less interesting, less variable for those who want variability and specificity. I'd venture to say that would be a lot of D&D players, and a huge number of those who choose Druids.
Nope. Not as written in the UA anyway.
This makes no mention of very FUN abilities like pack tactics (Dire Wolf), Pounce (Lion and Tiger), Rampage (Giant Hyena), Web + Web Walker (Giant Spider), Standing Leap and Swallow (Giant Toad), and these are only CR 1 animals. There are also VERY FUN situational abilities like an Ape's ranged weapon rock, a Crocodile's hold breath, a Giant Goat's sure-footedness and Charge, or a War Horse's Trampling Charge (and the ability to carry a fellow character). Not even getting to any of the specific swim/fly animal traits and abilities.
It also requires 5th level for climb which is ridiculous when you can pick a low CR creature very early with this ability in 5e. Plus it just gives it to EVERY creature at level 5 which is also ridiculous. Dig is missing completely, which is really fun when used with Giant Badger.
That is the point. This reduces the FUN, the role play of specific beasts, the flavour of skills, abilities, proficiencies that make this class so unique and enjoyable to those who choose it.
By ostensibly making it easier, this is just reducing the FUN of playing the Druid class.
How will it draw more people to the class? The only unique feature of the class is now utterly useless. So why would someone play it? If you want to play a full caster with loads of utility and Battlefield Control you'd play a wizard, if you want to play a support & healer character you'd play a cleric, if you want to play a nature-lover that fights along side the forces of nature herself you'd play a ranger.
In Haravikk’s post you quoted the last paragraph acknowledges that the UA lacks the flexibility needed. And many of us in this thread and others have also said as much.
I’m fine with the template as long as some of the utility and flexibility is returned in features that you can choose or gain based on level.
I do agree that giving every land firm climb is dumb. All forms should get features based on if their anatomy allows. So no wolves or horses climbing vertical cliffs. Mountain goat? Sure, and the template allows that.
I also think hybrid forms are just bad. Cool idea but if you need hands to manipulate objects then every form will have gorilla hands, or equivalent. So welcome gorilla wolves, monkey octopuses, etc
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Hybrid forms I think simply needs a disclaimer: "You may also turn into certain hybrid forms, such as a griffon or an owlbear, consult with your DM which hybrid forms would fit the setting."
I somehow doubt this is the last iteration of their template wild shape. Maybe the final version will be just as useless and then yes it wont draw more people to it. But assuming they do some basic fixes the ease of use probably will draw people in. I think it will drop overall satisfaction in the game though as even though more people may play druid those who liked the extra complexity will be left without a home.
I know people don't like tags, but they did work for the most part. Allow the shape change to be into things with the animal or beast tag, have hybrids like owlbear have two tags beast/monstrosity. Make it clear they can shape change into a form as long as one of its tags is beast.
There are over 2 dozen beasts just in the CR 0 to CR 1/2 categories, meaning that most of them are easily accessible to all Druids in 5e. Any template is going to fall far short of that if it's going to fit on one page.
A template that gives you Climb speed but no web ability or the ability to hang from the ceiling and no poison damage is not the same, mechanically speaking, as a Giant Spider. A template with a swim speed plus one status condition effect is not the same, mechanically speaking, as being able to Reef Shark-ify yourself, getting benefit of Pack Tactics and blindsight. Is it theoretically possible to create a template system that allows you to create a chimerical (not a Chimera) beast stat block with 3 different abilities that can perfectly mimic any beast in the PHB and the Monster Manual? Yes, but that significantly increases the complexity of using Wild Shape at all. If the complaint is that Druids are too complex for newer players, making highly customizable templates ADDS complexity. It does not simplify building a Druid.
I do think that, of all the 5e subclasses, Moon Druids are the outlier in terms of Wildshape. Too powerful from level 2-4, too weak from level 6 to 9 and arguably also weak from level 13 to 17. I totally get the desire to fix Moon Druid so you can be Badass Dire Wolf or Polar Bear whenever you WS. For that, we need a table reference system that changes "to hit" rolls, saving throws, and damage based on the number of Druid levels. We did not get that in 5e probably because the devs thought it would either be too complex, take up too much room in the PHB, and/or they ran out of time to implement it. That is a mostly separate issue from whether all other users of Wildshape (all non-Moon Druids) are well served by a small list of templates. My answer to that is a resounding NO.