Another issue is the word "Druid". There are many examples across the literature that is different than the historical expression. For example, Merlin was supposedly a druid to some authors and a mage to others. Allanon from Shannara stories is a Druid, who had a broad range of abilities. List of druids and neo-druids - Wikipedia
I like Wildshape belonging to Druids. I wish there was a subclass that focuses the Druid to Wildshape into plants rather than animals. A druid that Wildshapes into an ent?
Clerics in One D&D are getting a choice at level 2 called Holy Order. Perhaps something similar can be included for Druids, where one option is the Wildshape ability. I am not certain what other options would be reasonable.
Yes, I've played Moon Druid in 5E, up to level 9 and certainly at those levels, Moon Druid is overpowered, getting 4th levelled spells and the ability to be tanking damage up front or tossing out spells when situation open up to it. The thing is you can toss out a spell and wild shape in 1 turn as a moon druid, you can toss out a plant growth or moon beam and transform on the same turn. Heck remember one time using conjure animals and being wild shaped myself to get some broken combos and action economy. You might say spell casting and being wild shaped don't go together but moon druid can just drop wild shape to spell cast and only a bonus action to transform again on their next turn; their flexibility and versatility here is exceptional.
Add to that the fact that the Wild Shape itself has its own fat layer of HP that protects the druid while he's in that meat tank...
Another issue is the word "Druid". There are many examples across the literature that is different than the historical expression. For example, Merlin was supposedly a druid to some authors and a mage to others. Allanon from Shannara stories is a Druid, who had a broad range of abilities. List of druids and neo-druids - Wikipedia
I like Wildshape belonging to Druids. I wish there was a subclass that focuses the Druid to Wildshape into plants rather than animals. A druid that Wildshapes into an ent?
Clerics in One D&D are getting a choice at level 2 called Holy Order. Perhaps something similar can be included for Druids, where one option is the Wildshape ability. I am not certain what other options would be reasonable.
it would be kinda neat if each different subclass differentiated themselves with their own specific animal (within a range to allow for different climates) or plant to 'dire-shift' into. one might become a mighty elk for a time and, antlers glowing with charming but deadly tines. another might burst into a swarm of bees to increase their presence across the battlefield for powerful touch healing or soothing emotions. yet another might become a monstrosity with increased utility or burst of power like basilisk, grick, or owlbear (we know this is coming, right?). while still yet another might plant themselves as a grappling great-thorned bodark tree or burrow as a shallow fairy ring of rot-inducing mushrooms or bloom into a charming/repellent corpse flower, etc...
obviously if these packed a sufficient punch, then they'd require some big downside in addition to being short lived. i'd prefer something like gain a level of exhaustion after (until you're high enough level or something) rather than limit it to once a day.
edit: i meant to add that i'd enjoy druid "wildshape" being a conjuration (or enhancement?) for some subclasses rather than only shape shifting. any of those above 'dire-shift' examples could have instead been a summoning that enhanced magic damage or utility output. no sense in falling into the trap of being the werebear class with some extraneous non-bear cleric subclasses for role play value, or such.
I like Wildshape belonging to Druids. I wish there was a subclass that focuses the Druid to Wildshape into plants rather than animals. A druid that Wildshapes into an ent?
There was a Ranger 'kit' (nominally a watered-down subclass option) in 2e called the 'Greenwood Ranger' that had the Ranger slowly turn into a tree over time. It was really weird compared to the others kits as it was far more.... transformative than kits normally were.
I understand that making them primarily shifters instead of casters would make many current Druid characters impossible to play under the new rules. But I'm just curious how people feel about it, independent of their existing characters' potential future next year if they switch to the new books.
A bit late to the party,but this is my belief.
There are four major archetypes that the druid covers. Yes, one of them is being a shapeshifter. Another archetype is that of the old wise (wo)man at the edge of town, dealing in herbal remidies and healing salvants. A third is the spirit / fey summoner. Lastly is the geomancer, the master of magically controlling and altering the weather and terrain - an actual nature priest who's one with the land.
While they're not mutually exclusive, I don't want all of them shoved down my throat together.
Yeah, the Druid, the Hedge Witch. the Shaman, and the Witchdoctor (though which matches which archetype varies depending on what particular story you were reading at the time). Some of these could also be covered by Warlock... sorta. The last time I tried building something along these lines, I ended up with a Fey Warlock/Druid multi-class, and we had to do a bit of bending of LAW (Lore As Written ;) ), as the 'pact' was supposed to be an agreement with Spirit-Folk in general rather than a single entity.
Hedge witch isn't really a concept that scales to 20th level, if you ask me. Also it's an NPC role, or a background, not an adventuring class.
I think the idea of a "channel nature" that has a different use based on your subclass makes perfect sense. If you made them have the same power level, players could even mix and match them. Have an elemental blaster Druid who, instead of assuming an elemental form, can turn into bees. Sure. Why not.
(By the way... We know that "protection from the elements" wasn't meant to refer to, like, D&D elemental damage types, right? Nobody who doesn't play D&D thinks of negating acid attacks when they say that. Lol.)
Another issue is the word "Druid". There are many examples across the literature that is different than the historical expression. For example, Merlin was supposedly a druid to some authors and a mage to others. Allanon from Shannara stories is a Druid, who had a broad range of abilities. List of druids and neo-druids - Wikipedia
I like Wildshape belonging to Druids. I wish there was a subclass that focuses the Druid to Wildshape into plants rather than animals. A druid that Wildshapes into an ent?
Clerics in One D&D are getting a choice at level 2 called Holy Order. Perhaps something similar can be included for Druids, where one option is the Wildshape ability. I am not certain what other options would be reasonable.
I'd be okay with this. If they can't make wildshape useful for every druid archetype, let us opt out of it entirely and use our channel on something more fitting. But I think it's not that hard to give wildshape utility, just tiny forms and a few abilities like flight or blindsense.
Question for the people who say "all you need to be a nature mage is Spellcasting, you don't deserve anything else".
Is spellcasting all the cleric needs to be a divine mage? Or do they have a bunch of other class features to help hone in on that class fantasy of the gods-blessed sage or warrior?
I'm with the folks who say Circle of the Moon can be the ONLY Wild Shape subclass, or at least the primary one. Make Moon Wild Shape better, then get the crappy closet furry shapeshifting out of the core class and give us some real goddamn druidic powers. For real - let Moon use spell slots to fuel/empower Wild Shape so Moon folks can go full Doric and solve all their problems with their owlbear hands, and then let the rest of us actually be badass natural sages, scholars, and/or warriors.
It's only fair.
Technically all base 5e cleric gets to support it being a divine mage is channel divinity and divine intervention. Base channel divinity doesn’t support them being divine mages. Turn undead and eventually destroy undead is the only CD that comes from the base cleric. Literally fixing the primal list to have more spells that are not concentration would be better support for a nature mage build than touching Wild shape. Circle of land, gives more spells that aren’t concentration, circle of stars gives spell like abilities and a spell, and circle of wildfire also gives spells that aren’t concentration.
The easiest way to have a no Wild Shape “Nature Mage” in one dnd is for them to update Nature domain and just give it access to the primal list or to create a wizard with access to the primal list. Now that all classes get their features at the same level we are likely to get a theurgist wizard eventually, so a primal wizard wouldn’t be out of the question.
Having played a moon druid up to 8th level, in tier 1 shapeshifting was definitely a significant part of my offensive power, but in tier 2 it pretty much becomes a mobility tool and a quick source of a hit point buffer, I don't remember the last time shifted an actually took the attack action.
As far as class concept goes, I'm sort of tempted by mostly removing shifting from the druid core (bring back polymorph self as a spell, though I expect polymorph to see big changes in One D&D) and making the primary shifter a ranger subclass -- wild shape pretty much turns a druid into a nature-themed melee fighter who's also really good at scouting, and that's pretty much the core concept of a ranger.
Having played a moon druid up to 8th level, in tier 1 shapeshifting was definitely a significant part of my offensive power, but in tier 2 it pretty much becomes a mobility tool and a quick source of a hit point buffer, I don't remember the last time shifted an actually took the attack action.
As far as class concept goes, I'm sort of tempted by mostly removing shifting from the druid core (bring back polymorph self as a spell, though I expect polymorph to see big changes in One D&D) and making the primary shifter a ranger subclass -- wild shape pretty much turns a druid into a nature-themed melee fighter who's also really good at scouting, and that's pretty much the core concept of a ranger.
Another issue is the word "Druid". There are many examples across the literature that is different than the historical expression. For example, Merlin was supposedly a druid to some authors and a mage to others. Allanon from Shannara stories is a Druid, who had a broad range of abilities. List of druids and neo-druids - Wikipedia
I like Wildshape belonging to Druids. I wish there was a subclass that focuses the Druid to Wildshape into plants rather than animals. A druid that Wildshapes into an ent?
Clerics in One D&D are getting a choice at level 2 called Holy Order. Perhaps something similar can be included for Druids, where one option is the Wildshape ability. I am not certain what other options would be reasonable.
Hedge witch isn't really a concept that scales to 20th level, if you ask me. Also it's an NPC role, or a background, not an adventuring class.
I think the idea of a "channel nature" that has a different use based on your subclass makes perfect sense. If you made them have the same power level, players could even mix and match them. Have an elemental blaster Druid who, instead of assuming an elemental form, can turn into bees. Sure. Why not.
(By the way... We know that "protection from the elements" wasn't meant to refer to, like, D&D elemental damage types, right? Nobody who doesn't play D&D thinks of negating acid attacks when they say that. Lol.)
With the exception of Haravikk, who really wants them to be nature mages first and foremost.
To be clear, I think they should be nature mages that have wildshape available as an option in their toolkit; I don't want to see wildshape go away or be diminished in any way, I just don't think it's crucial to every druid.
<Snipped>
Beautifully stated. I have also wanted Druid to primarily be a nature caster, with Wild Shape more of a cool side ability that can help further fit with the theme of the class. If people want to pick a subclass to be better at Wild Shape, then that is a perfectly valid and viable specialization.
However, I know that a a Druid that taps into numerous aspects of nature as opposed to centering on shape shifting is interesting and appealing to me, and likely other players who feel limited or don't enjoy how much Wild Shape is the predominant, focused on, major feature of the class with little non-magical abilities to supplement the nature theme. The current model is responsible for making Druid the least played class in the game, and I believe that is for a reason.
Personally, I think Druids are more mages than shapeshifters, they are more on the nature side. There was of course Moon Druid in 5E being very wild shape based and that wasn't entirely balanced since they still got full spell progression while also getting wild shape, multi-classing barbarian 3 levels with moon druid got very tanky.
Do I think we need 5 full casters? Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer and Bard? Probably not. I do think instead Druid could be made a half-caster with subclasses that are full-casters, that would likely help balance out the moon druid and other shape shifting druid subclasses. So your Circle of the Land Druid is still a full caster and gets full caster progression while Circle of the Moon gets half-caster progression and a simply better wild shape.
The problem there was that subclass, and since they didn't balance the life bag to make the path easy (The extra life worked well could avoid that problem.), but for the rest of the druids it doesn't cause problems, since it was useful.
NO, please NO, penalizing druids for turning into animals is a lousy idea, and you delete limits/differences to ranger arbitrarily... then make priests half casters for having divinity channel and measured armor, then remove them because they will be a diluted paladin. (I'm not seriously proposing it, it's an example.)
As far as class concept goes, I'm sort of tempted by mostly removing shifting from the druid core (bring back polymorph self as a spell, though I expect polymorph to see big changes in One D&D) and making the primary shifter a ranger subclass -- wild shape pretty much turns a druid into a nature-themed melee fighter who's also really good at scouting, and that's pretty much the core concept of a ranger.
Oh really? I don't argue that there may be a ranger subclass that can transform as well, but take it away from the druid and give it to the ranger?
When something attacks and threatens the forest, you can imagine that the druid explodes with anger, transforming into a violent and dangerous bear, or if he is not good enough (he is not from the moon) he uses the same power of the forest to destroy everything, create storms, controlling roots and thorns, invocations of animals (or asking for help from the same animals of the place)... he cannot and has to urgently seek help from other druids, or he needs to move from one end of the forest to another faster, without be a high level: becomes a wolf or moose, etc...
On the other hand, the ranger, although he can help him, will not explode wildly to protect the forest, perhaps he tracks them down and hunts them one by one, and he is usually a link/intermediary between civilization and the druid/nature. Sometimes tame or ask for help to work as a team with other animals.
So by the way I see, wildshape is much more appropriate on druid than ranger.
Oh really? I don't argue that there may be a ranger subclass that can transform as well, but take it away from the druid and give it to the ranger?
One of the issues with 5e is that the scouting that is supposed to be the strength of the ranger and the rogue winds up being taken over by find familiar and wild shape.
Oh really? I don't argue that there may be a ranger subclass that can transform as well, but take it away from the druid and give it to the ranger?
One of the issues with 5e is that the scouting that is supposed to be the strength of the ranger and the rogue winds up being taken over by find familiar and wild shape.
I think the problem with mages taking over scouting is partly down to DMs responding to a familiar or wildshape by just saying what it sees, without any kind of checks to make it risky. This is partly from a lack of guidance on how to run things like exploration/scouting/stealth, and partly a lack of emphasis on DMs establishing the danger of a situation.
If you say "I send my wildshape into the clearing, what does it see?" it's only natural for a DM to respond by telling you, but what they should be encouraged to do is roll to see if that familiar is spotted. After all, most familiars and wildshapes aren't actually any good at stealth (most beasts don't have any skill proficiencies), so they're not actually good at remaining unnoticed. The other question is what to do when enemies do notice them; do you have bored guards who'll take a pot-shot? Is that cat approaching too confidently?
While I'm generally an advocate for not rolling unnecessary checks, I'd argue that all forms of infiltration/stealth should include at least some checks to establish danger, make it tense etc. Plus that's where a Rogue with expertise in Stealth makes all the difference, or a character doing social stealth that can stack Deception in their favour.
Because while various wildshapes can stealth, they're really relying on a DM being generous and giving them advantage on rolls for picking forms that make sense to be where they are. Because if you have a cat in a building that's supposed to be secure, then guards should be suspicious and try to get rid of it. Nobody wants insects or rats in their home etc., and a bird flying into eavesdropping range without a clear incentive is strange.
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.
Because while various wildshapes can stealth, they're really relying on a DM being generous and giving them advantage on rolls for picking forms that make sense to be where they are.
Because while various wildshapes can stealth, they're really relying on a DM being generous and giving them advantage on rolls for picking forms that make sense to be where they are.
I think you're ignoring the part about them needing to make sense where are (though I've admittedly phrased it a bit poorly); a giant spider being Large isn't going to easily go unnoticed in someone's home, as stealth bonuses are no use if there's nowhere to hide (if an average ceiling height is around 8 feet, you're not going to fail to notice the 10 foot spider crawling on your ceiling).
In more populated areas like a town hall, guard barracks or such, while a Rogue might have the same difficulty finding cover as a Medium beast, they can instead stealth by looking like they belong (e.g- are just waiting outside an office to be seen, disguised in a guard uniform etc.).
When stealthing you're usually trying to go unnoticed (or unchallenged) in places you're not supposed to be, the benefit of wildshape is in potentially being able to get caught in places you might be found unexpectedly, without that necessarily raising an alarm.
I will be surprised if they don't nerf pass without trace though, +10 to Stealth is equivalent to transforming disadvantage (-5) into advantage (+5), and being able to use it on yourself just invites exploit. It would make more sense as something you can bestow to others based on your own stealth skill, i.e- so a stealthy Ranger can make the checks on behalf of their clumsy friends.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Personally, I think Druids are more mages than shapeshifters, they are more on the nature side. There was of course Moon Druid in 5E being very wild shape based and that wasn't entirely balanced since they still got full spell progression while also getting wild shape, multi-classing barbarian 3 levels with moon druid got very tanky.
Do I think we need 5 full casters? Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer and Bard? Probably not. I do think instead Druid could be made a half-caster with subclasses that are full-casters, that would likely help balance out the moon druid and other shape shifting druid subclasses. So your Circle of the Land Druid is still a full caster and gets full caster progression while Circle of the Moon gets half-caster progression and a simply better wild shape.
The problem there was that subclass, and since they didn't balance the life bag to make the path easy (The extra life worked well could avoid that problem.), but for the rest of the druids it doesn't cause problems, since it was useful.
NO, please NO, penalizing druids for turning into animals is a lousy idea, and you delete limits/differences to ranger arbitrarily... then make priests half casters for having divinity channel and measured armor, then remove them because they will be a diluted paladin. (I'm not seriously proposing it, it's an example.)
It's not penalizing, it's balancing, you can't have a character that does everything and Moon Druid very much had that issue. The cost isn't for transforming into animals via wild shape, the cost is for specializing into shape shifting with wild shape. If you want wild shape to be a viable main tactic then you shouldn't also have full spellcaster progression too. Full spellcaster progression is still the most powerful thing in the game for a class to have.
No idea why you think this means anything regarding limiting rangers or nerfing Clerics, it doesn't. Channel Divinity is a very limited action that will get used maybe twice a day, rarely more, wild shape is an ability that can be kept up for most of an adventuring day/most combats, these are not equal comparisons.
Another issue is the word "Druid". There are many examples across the literature that is different than the historical expression. For example, Merlin was supposedly a druid to some authors and a mage to others. Allanon from Shannara stories is a Druid, who had a broad range of abilities. List of druids and neo-druids - Wikipedia
I like Wildshape belonging to Druids. I wish there was a subclass that focuses the Druid to Wildshape into plants rather than animals. A druid that Wildshapes into an ent?
Clerics in One D&D are getting a choice at level 2 called Holy Order. Perhaps something similar can be included for Druids, where one option is the Wildshape ability. I am not certain what other options would be reasonable.
Add to that the fact that the Wild Shape itself has its own fat layer of HP that protects the druid while he's in that meat tank...
it would be kinda neat if each different subclass differentiated themselves with their own specific animal (within a range to allow for different climates) or plant to 'dire-shift' into. one might become a mighty elk for a time and, antlers glowing with charming but deadly tines. another might burst into a swarm of bees to increase their presence across the battlefield for powerful touch healing or soothing emotions. yet another might become a monstrosity with increased utility or burst of power like basilisk, grick, or owlbear (we know this is coming, right?). while still yet another might plant themselves as a grappling great-thorned bodark tree or burrow as a shallow fairy ring of rot-inducing mushrooms or bloom into a charming/repellent corpse flower, etc...
obviously if these packed a sufficient punch, then they'd require some big downside in addition to being short lived. i'd prefer something like gain a level of exhaustion after (until you're high enough level or something) rather than limit it to once a day.
edit: i meant to add that i'd enjoy druid "wildshape" being a conjuration (or enhancement?) for some subclasses rather than only shape shifting. any of those above 'dire-shift' examples could have instead been a summoning that enhanced magic damage or utility output. no sense in falling into the trap of being the werebear class with some extraneous non-bear cleric subclasses for role play value, or such.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
There was a Ranger 'kit' (nominally a watered-down subclass option) in 2e called the 'Greenwood Ranger' that had the Ranger slowly turn into a tree over time. It was really weird compared to the others kits as it was far more.... transformative than kits normally were.
A bit late to the party,but this is my belief.
There are four major archetypes that the druid covers. Yes, one of them is being a shapeshifter. Another archetype is that of the old wise (wo)man at the edge of town, dealing in herbal remidies and healing salvants. A third is the spirit / fey summoner. Lastly is the geomancer, the master of magically controlling and altering the weather and terrain - an actual nature priest who's one with the land.
While they're not mutually exclusive, I don't want all of them shoved down my throat together.
Yeah, the Druid, the Hedge Witch. the Shaman, and the Witchdoctor (though which matches which archetype varies depending on what particular story you were reading at the time). Some of these could also be covered by Warlock... sorta. The last time I tried building something along these lines, I ended up with a Fey Warlock/Druid multi-class, and we had to do a bit of bending of LAW (Lore As Written ;) ), as the 'pact' was supposed to be an agreement with Spirit-Folk in general rather than a single entity.
Hedge witch isn't really a concept that scales to 20th level, if you ask me. Also it's an NPC role, or a background, not an adventuring class.
I think the idea of a "channel nature" that has a different use based on your subclass makes perfect sense. If you made them have the same power level, players could even mix and match them. Have an elemental blaster Druid who, instead of assuming an elemental form, can turn into bees. Sure. Why not.
(By the way... We know that "protection from the elements" wasn't meant to refer to, like, D&D elemental damage types, right? Nobody who doesn't play D&D thinks of negating acid attacks when they say that. Lol.)
I'd be okay with this. If they can't make wildshape useful for every druid archetype, let us opt out of it entirely and use our channel on something more fitting. But I think it's not that hard to give wildshape utility, just tiny forms and a few abilities like flight or blindsense.
Technically all base 5e cleric gets to support it being a divine mage is channel divinity and divine intervention. Base channel divinity doesn’t support them being divine mages. Turn undead and eventually destroy undead is the only CD that comes from the base cleric. Literally fixing the primal list to have more spells that are not concentration would be better support for a nature mage build than touching Wild shape. Circle of land, gives more spells that aren’t concentration, circle of stars gives spell like abilities and a spell, and circle of wildfire also gives spells that aren’t concentration.
The easiest way to have a no Wild Shape “Nature Mage” in one dnd is for them to update Nature domain and just give it access to the primal list or to create a wizard with access to the primal list. Now that all classes get their features at the same level we are likely to get a theurgist wizard eventually, so a primal wizard wouldn’t be out of the question.
Having played a moon druid up to 8th level, in tier 1 shapeshifting was definitely a significant part of my offensive power, but in tier 2 it pretty much becomes a mobility tool and a quick source of a hit point buffer, I don't remember the last time shifted an actually took the attack action.
As far as class concept goes, I'm sort of tempted by mostly removing shifting from the druid core (bring back polymorph self as a spell, though I expect polymorph to see big changes in One D&D) and making the primary shifter a ranger subclass -- wild shape pretty much turns a druid into a nature-themed melee fighter who's also really good at scouting, and that's pretty much the core concept of a ranger.
This idea I like!
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
SNAP!
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/unearthed-arcana/167927-ua-druid-channel-nature
same thought
Beautifully stated. I have also wanted Druid to primarily be a nature caster, with Wild Shape more of a cool side ability that can help further fit with the theme of the class. If people want to pick a subclass to be better at Wild Shape, then that is a perfectly valid and viable specialization.
However, I know that a a Druid that taps into numerous aspects of nature as opposed to centering on shape shifting is interesting and appealing to me, and likely other players who feel limited or don't enjoy how much Wild Shape is the predominant, focused on, major feature of the class with little non-magical abilities to supplement the nature theme. The current model is responsible for making Druid the least played class in the game, and I believe that is for a reason.
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.The problem there was that subclass, and since they didn't balance the life bag to make the path easy (The extra life worked well could avoid that problem.), but for the rest of the druids it doesn't cause problems, since it was useful.
NO, please NO, penalizing druids for turning into animals is a lousy idea, and you delete limits/differences to ranger arbitrarily... then make priests half casters for having divinity channel and measured armor, then remove them because they will be a diluted paladin. (I'm not seriously proposing it, it's an example.)
Oh really? I don't argue that there may be a ranger subclass that can transform as well, but take it away from the druid and give it to the ranger?
When something attacks and threatens the forest, you can imagine that the druid explodes with anger, transforming into a violent and dangerous bear, or if he is not good enough (he is not from the moon) he uses the same power of the forest to destroy everything, create storms, controlling roots and thorns, invocations of animals (or asking for help from the same animals of the place)... he cannot and has to urgently seek help from other druids, or he needs to move from one end of the forest to another faster, without be a high level: becomes a wolf or moose, etc...
On the other hand, the ranger, although he can help him, will not explode wildly to protect the forest, perhaps he tracks them down and hunts them one by one, and he is usually a link/intermediary between civilization and the druid/nature. Sometimes tame or ask for help to work as a team with other animals.
So by the way I see, wildshape is much more appropriate on druid than ranger.
One of the issues with 5e is that the scouting that is supposed to be the strength of the ranger and the rogue winds up being taken over by find familiar and wild shape.
I think the problem with mages taking over scouting is partly down to DMs responding to a familiar or wildshape by just saying what it sees, without any kind of checks to make it risky. This is partly from a lack of guidance on how to run things like exploration/scouting/stealth, and partly a lack of emphasis on DMs establishing the danger of a situation.
If you say "I send my wildshape into the clearing, what does it see?" it's only natural for a DM to respond by telling you, but what they should be encouraged to do is roll to see if that familiar is spotted. After all, most familiars and wildshapes aren't actually any good at stealth (most beasts don't have any skill proficiencies), so they're not actually good at remaining unnoticed. The other question is what to do when enemies do notice them; do you have bored guards who'll take a pot-shot? Is that cat approaching too confidently?
While I'm generally an advocate for not rolling unnecessary checks, I'd argue that all forms of infiltration/stealth should include at least some checks to establish danger, make it tense etc. Plus that's where a Rogue with expertise in Stealth makes all the difference, or a character doing social stealth that can stack Deception in their favour.
Because while various wildshapes can stealth, they're really relying on a DM being generous and giving them advantage on rolls for picking forms that make sense to be where they are. Because if you have a cat in a building that's supposed to be secure, then guards should be suspicious and try to get rid of it. Nobody wants insects or rats in their home etc., and a bird flying into eavesdropping range without a clear incentive is strange.
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.
Not really. A giant spider or giant wolf spider has perfectly adequate (+7) stealth, spider climb, blindsight, and lets you maintain pass without trace.
I think you're ignoring the part about them needing to make sense where are (though I've admittedly phrased it a bit poorly); a giant spider being Large isn't going to easily go unnoticed in someone's home, as stealth bonuses are no use if there's nowhere to hide (if an average ceiling height is around 8 feet, you're not going to fail to notice the 10 foot spider crawling on your ceiling).
In more populated areas like a town hall, guard barracks or such, while a Rogue might have the same difficulty finding cover as a Medium beast, they can instead stealth by looking like they belong (e.g- are just waiting outside an office to be seen, disguised in a guard uniform etc.).
When stealthing you're usually trying to go unnoticed (or unchallenged) in places you're not supposed to be, the benefit of wildshape is in potentially being able to get caught in places you might be found unexpectedly, without that necessarily raising an alarm.
I will be surprised if they don't nerf pass without trace though, +10 to Stealth is equivalent to transforming disadvantage (-5) into advantage (+5), and being able to use it on yourself just invites exploit. It would make more sense as something you can bestow to others based on your own stealth skill, i.e- so a stealthy Ranger can make the checks on behalf of their clumsy friends.
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.
It's not penalizing, it's balancing, you can't have a character that does everything and Moon Druid very much had that issue. The cost isn't for transforming into animals via wild shape, the cost is for specializing into shape shifting with wild shape. If you want wild shape to be a viable main tactic then you shouldn't also have full spellcaster progression too. Full spellcaster progression is still the most powerful thing in the game for a class to have.
No idea why you think this means anything regarding limiting rangers or nerfing Clerics, it doesn't. Channel Divinity is a very limited action that will get used maybe twice a day, rarely more, wild shape is an ability that can be kept up for most of an adventuring day/most combats, these are not equal comparisons.