Thing is, it's not how any other shapeshifter in game works.
It's the way every type of PC shapeshifting works. It's not the way NPC shapeshifting works, but NPC shapeshifting is generally a totally useless ribbon feature, I've had to adjust its stats so it actually made sense to use.
Yes. Axing the druid class abilities all around wild shape is a rookie mistake they already performed with the ranger.
Druid is first a caster, why forget it while designing it like this.
A lot like the magician, but considerably weaker on spell list, and spell option, most of the spell are useless, you have basically less option than a sorcerer. Wild shape combat should only be linked to one archetype. Its so silly. I dont play druid for wildshape, its like playing rogue for expertise. It sure spice a bit but is not the main dish.
Just ******* give the druid something to make it only one rank behind magician, not two whole league. And not some supid channel "nature" I mean the contempt on players is reaching some deep level.
Channel Essence at least. Druids are linked to primordial plan. Nature is just a consequence of the balance between the essence. I dont know something not that junkie.
For combat, it forces you into a melee role -- without giving you the defenses to survive doing so, and your damage isn't terribly exciting either.
Would it be fair to say that a wildshape druid of any particular level should be about as effective in melee combat as a fighter of the same level should be at spellcasting?
For combat, it forces you into a melee role -- without giving you the defenses to survive doing so, and your damage isn't terribly exciting either.
Would it be fair to say that a wildshape druid of any particular level should be about as effective in melee combat as a fighter of the same level should be at spellcasting?
You'll note that 'spellcasting' is not a major feature of fighters. If a large percentage of a classes' level advances have as their only feature 'better at X', you would expect X to be ... useful.
Completely removing wild shape from druids and replacing it with something useful is certainly a possibility, but if it's part of the class, it should be something you actually want to use.
I can get behind this. I would enjoy seeing more design focus on channel nature and less focus specifically on the wild shape part of it--maybe leave that to a subclass. But I really don't see anything replacing spellcasting as the druid's major class feature.
For combat, it forces you into a melee role -- without giving you the defenses to survive doing so, and your damage isn't terribly exciting either.
Would it be fair to say that a wildshape druid of any particular level should be about as effective in melee combat as a fighter of the same level should be at spellcasting?
Fighters get a dozen class features that have nothing to do with spellcasting though. If Wildshape is going to be a trash ribbon feature (or removed entirely) then give druid 6-8 new class features to replace it.
PS No it is not fair to say that b/c a wild shaped druid gives up their spellcasting entirely when they WS. It's like giving the fighter a spellcasting feature where they have to use an action to give themselves the ability to cast one cantrip at the cost of losing all their equipment, class features, and ability to make weapon attacks.
You make it sound like wild shape is something inflicted on the druid. If the druid wants to keep casting powerful spells, just don't wild shape until you are done doing that. No class needs to be everything everywhere all at once :)
You make it sound like wild shape is something inflicted on the druid. If the druid wants to keep casting powerful spells, just don't wild shape until you are done doing that. No class needs to be everything everywhere all at once :)
Wild shape is something inflicted on the druid: you don't have a choice to not have the ability. The correct time to use it at the moment is "never". You're better off in human form casting cantrips.
The time to use it is out of combat as utility, which is what I think they need to add a little bit more back into the form stat blocks to handle. In combat druids are first and foremost casters focused on battlefield manipulation.
You make it sound like wild shape is something inflicted on the druid. If the druid wants to keep casting powerful spells, just don't wild shape until you are done doing that. No class needs to be everything everywhere all at once :)
One D&D Wildshape is designed to be used in combat. If the answer is "don't use it in combat" then why does it exist at all? Just remove it entirely and give Druids 6 new features that focus on other things just like the cleric does.
You make it sound like wild shape is something inflicted on the druid. If the druid wants to keep casting powerful spells, just don't wild shape until you are done doing that. No class needs to be everything everywhere all at once :)
One D&D Wildshape is designed to be used in combat. If the answer is "don't use it in combat" then why does it exist at all? Just remove it entirely and give Druids 6 new features that focus on other things just like the cleric does.
It's only "designed to be used in combat" because they don't give Moon druids many buffs to use the forms (BA wildshape, Abjuration spells, Unarmed Strike as BA, Elemental resistance/damage swap/damage boost). I would be fine if the base templates were a little weaker and had the customization options available, but moon druids got more buffs to this weaker form, like AC and HP boost, Damage boosts, etc.
Even if they add customization I still don't think WS is the better option for non-moon druids. But I get where you are coming from.
As for "Full casters shouldn't also be good in melee combat"... it's true, but the solution isn't making combat wild shape nonfunctional, it's making the druid that chooses to focus on bestial combat not as good at spellcasting. The easy way to do that is by having wild shape cost spell slots.
For combat, it forces you into a melee role -- without giving you the defenses to survive doing so, and your damage isn't terribly exciting either.
Would it be fair to say that a wildshape druid of any particular level should be about as effective in melee combat as a fighter of the same level should be at spellcasting?
Fighters get a dozen class features that have nothing to do with spellcasting though. If Wildshape is going to be a trash ribbon feature (or removed entirely) then give druid 6-8 new class features to replace it.
PS No it is not fair to say that b/c a wild shaped druid gives up their spellcasting entirely when they WS. It's like giving the fighter a spellcasting feature where they have to use an action to give themselves the ability to cast one cantrip at the cost of losing all their equipment, class features, and ability to make weapon attacks.
Exactly. Druids are interesting because in 5e they can choose a number of different roles in and out of combat. Nature is a toolkit of forms (Wildshape) with different abilities, and spellcasting allows another range of abilities, some of which combine nicely with WS or other Druid features.
If Wildshape becomes a watered down, less interesting and adaptable combat focused feature with no extra HP, the Druid becomes more reliant on spellcasting actually. So it becomes more similar to other spellcasting classes, and less Druid. There is virtually no reason to use Wildshape other than to get the climbing feature (which is dumb) and later flying and swimming features (although I just noticed the higher level fly creature has less AC, WTF?). What is the point? I'd rather just buy some polymorph potions, but then I might as well be a ranger or a wizard or anything else.
And what is this Tiny Creature nonesense at Level 11? This is something that used to be possible from level 1 with a range of creatures available.
I just don't get it. How does a group of supposedly experienced designers sit down and come up with this totally uninspired, limp version of something that has a real and unique identity?
For combat, it forces you into a melee role -- without giving you the defenses to survive doing so, and your damage isn't terribly exciting either.
Would it be fair to say that a wildshape druid of any particular level should be about as effective in melee combat as a fighter of the same level should be at spellcasting?
Fighters get a dozen class features that have nothing to do with spellcasting though. If Wildshape is going to be a trash ribbon feature (or removed entirely) then give druid 6-8 new class features to replace it.
PS No it is not fair to say that b/c a wild shaped druid gives up their spellcasting entirely when they WS. It's like giving the fighter a spellcasting feature where they have to use an action to give themselves the ability to cast one cantrip at the cost of losing all their equipment, class features, and ability to make weapon attacks.
Exactly. Druids are interesting because in 5e they can choose a number of different roles in and out of combat. Nature is a toolkit of forms (Wildshape) with different abilities, and spellcasting allows another range of abilities, some of which combine nicely with WS or other Druid features.
If Wildshape becomes a watered down, less interesting and adaptable combat focused feature with no extra HP, the Druid becomes more reliant on spellcasting actually. So it becomes more similar to other spellcasting classes, and less Druid. There is virtually no reason to use Wildshape other than to get the climbing feature (which is dumb) and later flying and swimming features (although I just noticed the higher level fly creature has less HP, WTF?). What is the point? I'd rather just buy some polymorph potions, but then I might as well be a ranger or a wizard or anything else.
And what is this Tiny Creature nonesense at Level 11? This is something that used to be possible from level 1 with a range of creatures available.
I just don't get it. How does a group of supposedly experienced designers sit down and come up with this totally uninspired, limp version of something that has a real and unique identity?
Have you watched the video? They talk about some of this. Did you fill out the survey and let them know your thoughts?
I think the templates can be a good thing with some work. And that is the feedback I am providing.
Will it be exactly the same as the 5E Druid wildshape? No, but it can get closer than it is now. And I would be fine if they made the templates a little weaker but with the customization options some of us have been discussing. And then Moon druids get more buffs to the forms as part of combat wildshape. Like an HP boost or AC boost. Extra damage boosts. I mean, how many druids, outside of moon druids, were hopping into melee in wildshape in tiers 2, 3, or 4 anyway? We were mainly using them for the utility. Well, at least I was.
If Wildshape becomes a watered down, less interesting and adaptable combat focused feature with no extra HP, the Druid becomes more reliant on spellcasting actually. So it becomes more similar to other spellcasting classes, and less Druid.
I would propose that any class that is not reliant first and foremost on spellcasting as their primary class feature should not be a full caster class. That's how powerful spellcasting is.
I would propose that any class that is not reliant first and foremost on spellcasting as their primary class feature should not be a full caster class. That's how powerful spellcasting is.
The druid spell list is... not terrible, but not on a par with the wizard, or even really the cleric. As such, its secondary abilities should be somewhere between cleric and bard in effectiveness.
Wild Shape doesn't particularly need to be a combat feature (for non-Moon druids it isn't in 5e, and for moon druids it's kind of an error to focus on it as a combat feature after tier 1), but it needs to be doing something valuable for the build. The 1D&D wild shape seems intended for combat (because it doesn't have any significant utility features) and is bad at combat.
If Wildshape becomes a watered down, less interesting and adaptable combat focused feature with no extra HP, the Druid becomes more reliant on spellcasting actually. So it becomes more similar to other spellcasting classes, and less Druid.
I would propose that any class that is not reliant first and foremost on spellcasting as their primary class feature should not be a full caster class. That's how powerful spellcasting is.
Wildshape as it is in 5e mitigates this by allowing the Druid to Wildshape in order to do things that spellcasting doesn't provide (or doesn't do as well in the specific situation), and during wildshape there is no spellcasting! So whether it's powerful or not, we're not talking all about just combat situations. Even in combat a Druid would have to cast a concentration spell, wildshape, and keep concentration to keep that spell going, so then the wildshape is not a combat feature but usually a movement or other utility feature to keep the Druid out of harms way, mostly.
It is an either/or, not a both in 5e between wildshape and casting, and most wizards or sorcerers would still be tougher or just as diverse outside of combat as a druid. So it's the interesting adaptibility, resilinse, creativity and flavour of becoming animals that is going to be missing if these changes go forward. A druid will just be another caster, so what the f-ing point?
I would propose that any class that is not reliant first and foremost on spellcasting as their primary class feature should not be a full caster class. That's how powerful spellcasting is.
The druid spell list is... not terrible, but not on a par with the wizard, or even really the cleric. As such, its secondary abilities should be somewhere between cleric and bard in effectiveness.
Wild Shape doesn't particularly need to be a combat feature (for non-Moon druids it isn't in 5e, and for moon druids it's kind of an error to focus on it as a combat feature after tier 1), but it needs to be doing something valuable for the build. The 1D&D wild shape seems intended for combat (because it doesn't have any significant utility features) and is bad at combat.
Yes to all.
Statblocks for wild shape suck. The video explains exactly why I'm worried about all of this. Again it's so much about combat, and the idea of customization is still going to be limited. People who want statblocks don't play druids. Who cares if druid isn't played as much? Playing the game is fun as a druid for those who use it. Isn't that enough?
If Wildshape becomes a watered down, less interesting and adaptable combat focused feature with no extra HP, the Druid becomes more reliant on spellcasting actually. So it becomes more similar to other spellcasting classes, and less Druid.
I would propose that any class that is not reliant first and foremost on spellcasting as their primary class feature should not be a full caster class. That's how powerful spellcasting is.
Maybe they should move the moon druid style play under the Ranger frame and give those forms beefy attacks and front lining. That way you're tacking on the martial focused forms onto a half casters focused on martial attacks and not making a full caster also a full front liner.
It's the way every type of PC shapeshifting works. It's not the way NPC shapeshifting works, but NPC shapeshifting is generally a totally useless ribbon feature, I've had to adjust its stats so it actually made sense to use.
Yes. Axing the druid class abilities all around wild shape is a rookie mistake they already performed with the ranger.
Druid is first a caster, why forget it while designing it like this.
A lot like the magician, but considerably weaker on spell list, and spell option, most of the spell are useless, you have basically less option than a sorcerer.
Wild shape combat should only be linked to one archetype.
Its so silly. I dont play druid for wildshape, its like playing rogue for expertise. It sure spice a bit but is not the main dish.
Just ******* give the druid something to make it only one rank behind magician, not two whole league.
And not some supid channel "nature"
I mean the contempt on players is reaching some deep level.
Channel Essence at least. Druids are linked to primordial plan. Nature is just a consequence of the balance between the essence.
I dont know something not that junkie.
Would it be fair to say that a wildshape druid of any particular level should be about as effective in melee combat as a fighter of the same level should be at spellcasting?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You'll note that 'spellcasting' is not a major feature of fighters. If a large percentage of a classes' level advances have as their only feature 'better at X', you would expect X to be ... useful.
Completely removing wild shape from druids and replacing it with something useful is certainly a possibility, but if it's part of the class, it should be something you actually want to use.
I can get behind this. I would enjoy seeing more design focus on channel nature and less focus specifically on the wild shape part of it--maybe leave that to a subclass. But I really don't see anything replacing spellcasting as the druid's major class feature.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Fighters get a dozen class features that have nothing to do with spellcasting though. If Wildshape is going to be a trash ribbon feature (or removed entirely) then give druid 6-8 new class features to replace it.
PS No it is not fair to say that b/c a wild shaped druid gives up their spellcasting entirely when they WS. It's like giving the fighter a spellcasting feature where they have to use an action to give themselves the ability to cast one cantrip at the cost of losing all their equipment, class features, and ability to make weapon attacks.
You make it sound like wild shape is something inflicted on the druid. If the druid wants to keep casting powerful spells, just don't wild shape until you are done doing that. No class needs to be everything everywhere all at once :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Wild shape is something inflicted on the druid: you don't have a choice to not have the ability. The correct time to use it at the moment is "never". You're better off in human form casting cantrips.
The time to use it is out of combat as utility, which is what I think they need to add a little bit more back into the form stat blocks to handle. In combat druids are first and foremost casters focused on battlefield manipulation.
That's correct for 5e druids. For one D&D, it really doesn't give much utility either.
One D&D Wildshape is designed to be used in combat. If the answer is "don't use it in combat" then why does it exist at all? Just remove it entirely and give Druids 6 new features that focus on other things just like the cleric does.
It's only "designed to be used in combat" because they don't give Moon druids many buffs to use the forms (BA wildshape, Abjuration spells, Unarmed Strike as BA, Elemental resistance/damage swap/damage boost). I would be fine if the base templates were a little weaker and had the customization options available, but moon druids got more buffs to this weaker form, like AC and HP boost, Damage boosts, etc.
Even if they add customization I still don't think WS is the better option for non-moon druids. But I get where you are coming from.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
As for "Full casters shouldn't also be good in melee combat"... it's true, but the solution isn't making combat wild shape nonfunctional, it's making the druid that chooses to focus on bestial combat not as good at spellcasting. The easy way to do that is by having wild shape cost spell slots.
Exactly. Druids are interesting because in 5e they can choose a number of different roles in and out of combat. Nature is a toolkit of forms (Wildshape) with different abilities, and spellcasting allows another range of abilities, some of which combine nicely with WS or other Druid features.
If Wildshape becomes a watered down, less interesting and adaptable combat focused feature with no extra HP, the Druid becomes more reliant on spellcasting actually. So it becomes more similar to other spellcasting classes, and less Druid. There is virtually no reason to use Wildshape other than to get the climbing feature (which is dumb) and later flying and swimming features (although I just noticed the higher level fly creature has less AC, WTF?). What is the point? I'd rather just buy some polymorph potions, but then I might as well be a ranger or a wizard or anything else.
And what is this Tiny Creature nonesense at Level 11? This is something that used to be possible from level 1 with a range of creatures available.
I just don't get it. How does a group of supposedly experienced designers sit down and come up with this totally uninspired, limp version of something that has a real and unique identity?
Have you watched the video? They talk about some of this.
Did you fill out the survey and let them know your thoughts?
I think the templates can be a good thing with some work. And that is the feedback I am providing.
Will it be exactly the same as the 5E Druid wildshape? No, but it can get closer than it is now. And I would be fine if they made the templates a little weaker but with the customization options some of us have been discussing. And then Moon druids get more buffs to the forms as part of combat wildshape. Like an HP boost or AC boost. Extra damage boosts. I mean, how many druids, outside of moon druids, were hopping into melee in wildshape in tiers 2, 3, or 4 anyway? We were mainly using them for the utility. Well, at least I was.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I would propose that any class that is not reliant first and foremost on spellcasting as their primary class feature should not be a full caster class. That's how powerful spellcasting is.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I have, and what it tells me is that they really don't have someone who focuses on the math.
The druid spell list is... not terrible, but not on a par with the wizard, or even really the cleric. As such, its secondary abilities should be somewhere between cleric and bard in effectiveness.
Wild Shape doesn't particularly need to be a combat feature (for non-Moon druids it isn't in 5e, and for moon druids it's kind of an error to focus on it as a combat feature after tier 1), but it needs to be doing something valuable for the build. The 1D&D wild shape seems intended for combat (because it doesn't have any significant utility features) and is bad at combat.
Wildshape as it is in 5e mitigates this by allowing the Druid to Wildshape in order to do things that spellcasting doesn't provide (or doesn't do as well in the specific situation), and during wildshape there is no spellcasting! So whether it's powerful or not, we're not talking all about just combat situations. Even in combat a Druid would have to cast a concentration spell, wildshape, and keep concentration to keep that spell going, so then the wildshape is not a combat feature but usually a movement or other utility feature to keep the Druid out of harms way, mostly.
It is an either/or, not a both in 5e between wildshape and casting, and most wizards or sorcerers would still be tougher or just as diverse outside of combat as a druid. So it's the interesting adaptibility, resilinse, creativity and flavour of becoming animals that is going to be missing if these changes go forward. A druid will just be another caster, so what the f-ing point?
Yes to all.
Statblocks for wild shape suck. The video explains exactly why I'm worried about all of this. Again it's so much about combat, and the idea of customization is still going to be limited. People who want statblocks don't play druids. Who cares if druid isn't played as much? Playing the game is fun as a druid for those who use it. Isn't that enough?
Maybe they should move the moon druid style play under the Ranger frame and give those forms beefy attacks and front lining. That way you're tacking on the martial focused forms onto a half casters focused on martial attacks and not making a full caster also a full front liner.