Utilizing modular templates makes sense for Moon Druids. I just don't think it's worth it for non-Moon Druids as it adds layers of complication (math and multiple choices) to something that, for most Druids, plays a function essentially similar to that of "Jack of All Trades" for the Bard class.
I think that depends on the simplicity; if most things scale by druid level they could probably do a table for easier reference, as you only need the calculated stats when they actually come up (when you take damage etc.), and of course ideally D&D Beyond will actually support templates by the time OneD&D comes out (they've existed since Tasha's Cauldron) as with digital tools you'll just be told what the stats are for each form you might use (or be able to quickly select the one you're in and apply it).
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.
Is taking away tanking what many people want? I've only ever raised it previously to highlight how broken the unlimited wildshape uses are, I think it's fine up until that point, though it can give access to quite a lot of "free" hit-points. My preference though would be for Moon Druid to get wildshapes that are better all-rounders in combat (i.e- not quite as tanky, but can hold their own on damage at all tiers), but then be able to spend extra resources to boost them further in either damage, durability or utility as desired.
It's by far the most common justification I've seen for the uber-nerf in the OneDnD version of WS. Re: boosting WS, the thing is that now that Druid has access to the ranger spell list, they have loads of ways to boost their WS using spells IF they were allowed to use them while WSed. Want more damage use Hunter's Mark, want more tanking use the One D&D Barkskin or other healing spell, want more movement use Zephyr Strike, want more battlefield control use Ensnaring Strike. Use Protection from Energy for your elemental resistance, or Stoneskin for a pseudo-rage. Valor Bard gets full spellcasting + Extra Attack, so does Bladesinger, and Swords Bard and Pact of the Blade Warlocks get ~3/4 casting and they all have way better combat spells than Druid does. If a moon druid is using their own Hit Points while in WS the only way it is a viable choice is to give them access to their spellcasting while they are doing so, that or you make them truly at parity with a full martial, because otherwise being a full spellcaster is always going to trump being a second-rate martial so the best strategy is just to say no to combat-WSing.
Druids have never been Mages. They're Priests. And I don't just mean that in the sense of the OneD&D UA groupings. From the start, they were an offshoot of Clerics, with a specifically tailored set of spells. In 2e, they were just a Cleric with a different set of "Spheres" (sort of comparable in concept to Domains, but Domains are much more narrow than Spheres).
That's why they are Wisdom casters, just like a Cleric. That's why they're Divine casters.
They're Priests, not Mages. Always have been. Which is also why they're somewhat capable of being semi-Martial (just like a Cleric). They just have a very different flavor, and thus mechanics, from a Cleric.
As for the poll? Definitely "Both" (the first poll option) but you could be forgiven for making the shapeshifting be reliant on spells instead of class abilities (pretty sure that's what 2e did). They're absolutely/definitely spellcasters, but they aren't / never have been Mages / Arcane-Casters. If you're going to de-emphasize something, it's moving the shapeshifting to spells.
In 2e, they were just a Cleric with a different set of "Spheres"
This is also one of the things I think 2e did exactly correctly. If I were to change the Druid in any way, I would make a Druid Domain for the Cleric, which had access to Primal Spells (in the way that a Divine Soul Sorcerer can access two spell lists), and the family of spells that have the theme of whildshape (Alter Self, Polymorph, etc.). I might introduce a new spell or two that fits the same mold. Oh, and, of course, the Druid Domain would include the ability to speak the Druidic language.
Then I would get rid of the Druid class.
Of course, I'm also someone who feels that exact same way about the existence of the Barbarian, Bard, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Warlock classes... Paladin and Ranger could easily just be variations of the Eldritch Knight and/or Cleric/Fighter multiclass. The Barbarian could easily be a Fighter subclass (as it has been in some previous editions), and the Monk could also be a subclass of the Fighter, Rogue, or Rogue/Fighter multiclass. Anything other than the Core Four (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) are clutter.
I can get on board with this type of drastic consolidation. I'm all about hot takes and crazy reworks. I don't know that there's enough space in Rogue to justify a full class, with several subclasses, for example. Some of them really feel like they're stretching to make it work. Same for Barbarian, same for Cleric if I'm being honest. My personal list would probably be: Fighter (includes Ranger (INT), Paladin (CHA), Barbarian (WIS)), Expert (includes Wizard (INT), Bard (CHA), Rogue (WIS)), and Magician (includes Warlock (INT), Cleric (CHA), Druid (WIS)). Each one would have a small degree of flexibility in regards to casting spells: Fighters would range from no spells to a few minor spells, at the player's discretion, so you could have spell-less Paladins for example. Experts could range from a few minor spells to a few major spells, meaning that even Rogues have a little magic -- probably trinkets and "borrowed" spells. Magicians could range from a few major spells to a lot of major spells.
(And yes, I'm going back to Jack Vance for my Wizards and Warlocks. The big-name Magicians like Rhiallto were Warlocks, they had pacts. A Wizard would be more like Turjan, who can only carry, like, five spells at a time.)
But that's gonna start some fights if I don't clarify that I barely care.
I can get on board with this type of drastic consolidation. I'm all about hot takes and crazy reworks. I don't know that there's enough space in Rogue to justify a full class, with several subclasses, for example. Some of them really feel like they're stretching to make it work. Same for Barbarian, same for Cleric if I'm being honest. My personal list would probably be: Fighter (includes Ranger (INT), Paladin (CHA), Barbarian (WIS)), Expert (includes Wizard (INT), Bard (CHA), Rogue (WIS)), and Magician (includes Warlock (INT), Cleric (CHA), Druid (WIS)). Each one would have a small degree of flexibility in regards to casting spells: Fighters would range from no spells to a few minor spells, at the player's discretion, so you could have spell-less Paladins for example. Experts could range from a few minor spells to a few major spells, meaning that even Rogues have a little magic -- probably trinkets and "borrowed" spells. Magicians could range from a few major spells to a lot of major spells.
(And yes, I'm going back to Jack Vance for my Wizards and Warlocks. The big-name Magicians like Rhiallto were Warlocks, they had pacts. A Wizard would be more like Turjan, who can only carry, like, five spells at a time.)
But that's gonna start some fights if I don't clarify that I barely care.
I mean if you're thinking radical shakeups I'd do away with classes entirely except as a guide to new players (basically sample builds) and make character building fully modular with feature trees based around a rough fighter/rogue/mage structure. If you want to go pure mage you still could by advancing a spell list plus a "style" of magic (maybe deity + primal for a druid, spellbook + arcane for a wizard, pact + arcane for a warlock etc.), and maybe every few levels you get can put a point into a special feature such as Metamagic for a sorcerer build, or Wildshape for a Druid etc.
Do the same for non-combat abilities so every character has a balance of in and out of combat utility (might require a separation of combat/non-combat casting for that to work though), and basically make the whole game a build-your-own class type system.
But I think Wizards of the Coast set out mainly to "refine" 5th edition (although with the scale of some changes to classes it makes your wonder if they forgot that), so radical simplifications back to Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard or to fully modular seem unlikely.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mean if you're thinking radical shakeups I'd do away with classes entirely except as a guide to new players (basically sample builds) and make character building fully modular with feature trees based around a rough fighter/rogue/mage structure. If you want to go pure mage you still could by advancing a spell list plus a "style" of magic (maybe deity + primal for a druid, spellbook + arcane for a wizard, pact + arcane for a warlock etc.), and maybe every few levels you get can put a point into a special feature such as Metamagic for a sorcerer build, or Wildshape for a Druid etc.
Basically make the whole game a build-your-own class type system.
But I think Wizards set out mainly to "refine" 5th edition (although with the scale of some changes to classes it makes your wonder if they forgot that), so radical simplifications back to Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard or to fully modular seem unlikely.
It's a scary thing when I end up agreeing with multiple posters In one day.
But I agree the promises of it being a revision means there's a theoretical limit to the changes wotc will implement. At a certain point it becomes too much.
I wouldn't go that way, no. I think the existence of classes is really good. I just think the particular classes we have are a little lacking. Some of them, anyway. And some of them are fun on their own but fall short when compared to others.
It's like this: A customer at a restaurant might want to have the chef make an alteration to their meal. Swap out an ingredient or something. That's fine. But if you put that customer in the kitchen and had them make it themselves? They're probably not going to be real happy with that meal. Especially when it comes out still costing the same.
For me, I would either stick with the core four (the primary classes going back to late Original Edition, Holmes Basic, and the primary/non-secondary classes of 1e AD&D): Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard (though, those are modern names, three of them had different names originally).
Or I would go with the 3 classes from the 3e "Generic Classes" (in the UA book):
Warrior, Expert, Spellcaster
The difference between that and what was suggested above is: Wizards are Spellcasters, not Experts.
Any spellcasting is in the Spellcaster class. Any special feature you would associate with one of the caster classes, that is focused on magic (Metamagic, probably wild shape, etc.) would be features of the Spellcaster class. The 3e rules were very vague about it, but you could see them being something like talent trees (like what the Basic Classes had in d20Modern). The Spellcaster class has access to all spells. Other classes do not have access to any spells.
Warriors are everything Martial. That might include Sneak Attack. It would definitely include Monks main abilities, but ... would it include ki, or would ki become a set of spells and talent trees? That's where things get difficult to decide. But Rage? Rage would be a Warrior ability that is either part of a talent tree or part of a subclass.
Experts would be all about skill and tool proficiency, Expertise, etc. Some of their abilities might border into magic-like abilities (I'm thinking about the Artificer's ability to create magic items, but NOT the artificer's ability to cast spells). MAYBE Bardic songs that have benefits, but aren't directly spell based.
Wow this devolved into axing the Druid and even 5e all together. Y’all started designing a completely new game. Major flaw with tree systems was discovered in 3.5 there is always an optimal tree. No matter how you try to balance it certain builds will be better. You will start claiming everyone can build what they want from 4 or 3 base classes, but the optimal route will leave you with only 4-3 play styles.
I wouldn't go that way, no. I think the existence of classes is really good. I just think the particular classes we have are a little lacking. Some of them, anyway. And some of them are fun on their own but fall short when compared to others.
It's like this: A customer at a restaurant might want to have the chef make an alteration to their meal. Swap out an ingredient or something. That's fine. But if you put that customer in the kitchen and had them make it themselves? They're probably not going to be real happy with that meal. Especially when it comes out still costing the same.
There are so many options already in 5e, and those options are not diminishing, just changing as I see the UA playtests so far. They are simplifying factors of each class, but we still don't know how many "schools" of each class there will be. I love complexity, and options, but there is a limit that WOTC are trying to establish to continue the marketability of the game, whether long time players like it or not. They want new blood, growth, as well some concessions to the legacy players of the game.
When you say classes are "lacking" and "fall short" I just don't see that in the games I play. Everyone seems to enjoy being in the game if it's a good set of players who enjoy all aspects of the game. So much is focused on balancing combat, whatever that actually means, but forget that combat is not happening in a void where the stats of each character are the only relevant aspects of play. Tehre are still personalities, backstories, choices, terrain, NPCs, unforseen circumstances. A good DM will involve and balance play between characters through loot for specific characters, or just how certain situations play out.
No class is lacking. They all have cool abilities and differences. It's how you creatively blend them for yourself. People just don't like change, and get caught up thinking they can't do what they used to like doing. So what? Try something new, maybe? ;)
Druids are mainly spellcasters. Remember that they not only shapeshift, maybe that is what we usually see in some theatral representation, but what about all we don't see? Druids take care of nature, defend it and can make use claiming its power, and that is the Primal domain spell list. Think about the circle of druids making a ritual to clean an area, making the plants to grow better, or invoking a storm against the invader.
The shapeshifting is more situational, even if is something that visual representations want to spam to us. Even this can be made with Polymorph spell + Nature skill (you have to know in what are going to polymorph), that is class related.
Wow this devolved into axing the Druid and even 5e all together.
I don't recall seeing anyone suggesting axing 5e all together... but I will point out that this is in the UA section, and UA has been fairly focused on "One D&D" (which is a radical departure from 5e, even if it's officially still part of 5e -- so we're already talking about a radical departure from how 5e was done). 5e is particularly well suited to going back to the core four classes, due to the way it does subclasses, combined with multiclassing and the lesser-class-feature Feats. Nothing proposed, that I've seen, would actually be incompatible with 5e. It would entirely work as a re-implementation of 5e. You wouldn't even need to get rid of the core four classes, just implement subclasses for them that emulate the other classes.
Y’all started designing a completely new game.
Nothing even close to that. The 3 Generic Classes, the Core Four classes, and features found in the d20M Basic classes are not even remotely new. They're a call-back to earlier editions of this same system.
Major flaw with tree systems was discovered in 3.5 there is always an optimal tree. No matter how you try to balance it certain builds will be better. You will start claiming everyone can build what they want from 4 or 3 base classes, but the optimal route will leave you with only 4-3 play styles.
Maybe the way they were done in 3.5 was a problem (but I don't recall seeing talent trees in the Revised PHB, so I'm not even sure about what claim you're making -- but it has been a while, so maybe), but in d20M (which isn't 3.5e) I didn't see any such problem with talent trees. Instead, I recall seeing characters that could each pick a niche within overlapping Basic Classes, and end up with a very different "Strong Hero" than the other "Strong Hero" in the group (or with two different Tough Heroes, and so on).
The problem I do remember is that the game was so different from D&D, yet also so familiar to D&D, that people had a lot of cognitive dissonance from having one foot in a D&D mindset and one foot in a non-D&D mindset.
Wow this devolved into axing the Druid and even 5e all together.
I don't recall seeing anyone suggesting axing 5e all together... but I will point out that this is in the UA section, and UA has been fairly focused on "One D&D" (which is a radical departure from 5e, even if it's officially still part of 5e -- so we're already talking about a radical departure from how 5e was done). 5e is particularly well suited to going back to the core four classes, due to the way it does subclasses, combined with multiclassing and the lesser-class-feature Feats. Nothing proposed, that I've seen, would actually be incompatible with 5e. It would entirely work as a re-implementation of 5e. You wouldn't even need to get rid of the core four classes, just implement subclasses for them that emulate the other classes.
Y’all started designing a completely new game.
Nothing even close to that. The 3 Generic Classes, the Core Four classes, and features found in the d20M Basic classes are not even remotely new. They're a call-back to earlier editions of this same system.
Major flaw with tree systems was discovered in 3.5 there is always an optimal tree. No matter how you try to balance it certain builds will be better. You will start claiming everyone can build what they want from 4 or 3 base classes, but the optimal route will leave you with only 4-3 play styles.
Maybe the way they were done in 3.5 was a problem (but I don't recall seeing talent trees in the Revised PHB, so I'm not even sure about what claim you're making -- but it has been a while, so maybe), but in d20M (which isn't 3.5e) I didn't see any such problem with talent trees. Instead, I recall seeing characters that could each pick a niche within overlapping Basic Classes, and end up with a very different "Strong Hero" than the other "Strong Hero" in the group (or with two different Tough Heroes, and so on).
The problem I do remember is that the game was so different from D&D, yet also so familiar to D&D, that people had a lot of cognitive dissonance from having one foot in a D&D mindset and one foot in a non-D&D mindset.
The "talent tree" thing he is referring to in 3.5 was how feats worked with prerequisites. Often times you needed a feat to get a different higher level feat so it became a "feat tree" if you will.
I wouldn't go that way, no. I think the existence of classes is really good. I just think the particular classes we have are a little lacking. Some of them, anyway. And some of them are fun on their own but fall short when compared to others.
It's like this: A customer at a restaurant might want to have the chef make an alteration to their meal. Swap out an ingredient or something. That's fine. But if you put that customer in the kitchen and had them make it themselves? They're probably not going to be real happy with that meal. Especially when it comes out still costing the same.
There are so many options already in 5e, and those options are not diminishing, just changing as I see the UA playtests so far. They are simplifying factors of each class, but we still don't know how many "schools" of each class there will be. I love complexity, and options, but there is a limit that WOTC are trying to establish to continue the marketability of the game, whether long time players like it or not. They want new blood, growth, as well some concessions to the legacy players of the game.
When you say classes are "lacking" and "fall short" I just don't see that in the games I play. Everyone seems to enjoy being in the game if it's a good set of players who enjoy all aspects of the game. So much is focused on balancing combat, whatever that actually means, but forget that combat is not happening in a void where the stats of each character are the only relevant aspects of play. Tehre are still personalities, backstories, choices, terrain, NPCs, unforseen circumstances. A good DM will involve and balance play between characters through loot for specific characters, or just how certain situations play out.
No class is lacking. They all have cool abilities and differences. It's how you creatively blend them for yourself. People just don't like change, and get caught up thinking they can't do what they used to like doing. So what? Try something new, maybe? ;)
The "talent tree" thing he is referring to in 3.5 was how feats worked with prerequisites. Often times you needed a feat to get a different higher level feat so it became a "feat tree" if you will.
ok, but that is not the reference to Talent Trees that he was replying to.
When I brought up Talent Trees, I was very much referring to what was done in the Basic Classes in d20Modern (and I referenced it as such), which has nothing to do with Feats. It's actually slightly more like 5e subclasses, in a very very general way, and a bit lighter in nature (like if instead of taking the 6th level subclass feature, you took a second 3rd level subclass feature from a different subclass; except the subclass features are much less dramatic than they are in 5e). Then when you get to 10th level, you either take a third 3rd level subclass feature, or you take the 6th level feature for one of the two existing subclasses you already picked.
The "talent tree" thing he is referring to in 3.5 was how feats worked with prerequisites. Often times you needed a feat to get a different higher level feat so it became a "feat tree" if you will.
ok, but that is not the reference to Talent Trees that he was replying to.
When I brought up Talent Trees, I was very much referring to what was done in the Basic Classes in d20Modern (and I referenced it as such), which has nothing to do with Feats. It's actually slightly more like 5e subclasses, in a very very general way, and a bit lighter in nature (like if instead of taking the 6th level subclass feature, you took a second 3rd level subclass feature from a different subclass; except the subclass features are much less dramatic than they are in 5e). Then when you get to 10th level, you either take a third 3rd level subclass feature, or you take the 6th level feature for one of the two existing subclasses you already picked.
1. What was done in d20 modern which I played 20 years ago wasn’t that great, and there were definitely optimal builds in that game as well. There were definitely more than 3-4 classes. There was one class to focus on each ability score.
2. If you are trying to push One dnd to be more like D20M I will repeat that you are trying to design a completely different game. One Dnd is not a new game. It is heavily based on 5e. It is much closer to 3.0 to 3.5 than 3.5 to 4e and 4e to 5e. If my history is correct 2e to 3e had some big changes as well but I started in 3e so I don’t know. What I do know is that your claim that breaking down the class count to 3-4 is completely different to 5e and counts as designing a different game.
3. With all the subclass features offered in 5e you will definitely end up with very optimal builds and some classes will end up extremely different and definitely not related to 5e at all. Let’s look at Barbarian first. I have to wait until I get a subclass feature to even get rage, because I’m actually a fighter. Now that I have rage are there new features I can take with my next subclass level to improve my rage feature. If yes then this is a tree and there will be optimal routes. If no then I can’t be anything like a 5e Barbarian unless everything needed for the subclass is packed into that first rage feature. Examples: Berserker Rage, Fire Storm Rage, Sea Storm Rage, Bear Totem Rage, Wolf Totem Rage. The flaw with this is that you have cram a lot into each feature and thus you will create optimal builds that find the best features in each subclass.
2. If you are trying to push One dnd to be more like D20M I will repeat that you are trying to design a completely different game.
The thing that I refuted was not the words "completely different game". The thing that I refuted was "completely new game." Though, neither is true. It would be different, yes. Completely different game? No -- still within the D&D/D20 family/envelope of games. Completely new game? No, not when the mechanics in question have been used in the larger D20 family before. It wouldn't even be as radical a departure as 4e was.
More different than what OneD&D has advertised itself to be so far, yes ... but you should go back and read the thread: my statement was part of/after-the-start-of a tangent within the topic that was talking about things like radical shake-ups, not about staying within the envelope of what OneD&D aims for.
Completely different edition (where OneD&D sort of has a D.I.D. confusion about whether or not it's 5.5e, or 6e, or something else)? Yes, the things that the radical shake-ups are talking about would make for a legitimately different edition, and definitely not merely a 5.5e. Not a completely different game, not a completely new game, just a new/different edition of the same game.
It's by far the most common justification I've seen for the uber-nerf in the OneDnD version of WS. Re: boosting WS, the thing is that now that Druid has access to the ranger spell list, they have loads of ways to boost their WS using spells IF they were allowed to use them while WSed.
I also think druids should get the ability to cast in animal form much, much earlier than they currently do. That only being available at level 18 was an overly dramatic reaction to Druidzilla from 3.5e, I think. Back when druids could get feats that let them turn into monstrosities and dragons and all other incredibly powerful creatures. Being a cryo-hydra with full access to healing spells is very overpowered, but 5e druids can't do that anymore anyway.
If druids got Beast Spells at say, level 8-12, it'd solve the big issue of Moon Druid wildshape falling off at that point in the game. Meanwhile, non-moon druids would be able to use their wildshape in fun, creative ways like turning into a sparrow and dropping lightning on someone's head when they least expect it, or turning into a chipmunk to hide inside a tree that you then animate and ride like some kind of demented forest mech.
It would also mean Moon Druids don't need to match fighters and barbarians in raw melee power with ONLY wildshape. Rather it'd be combining the beast's stats with their buffing spells that let them stay competitive in melee, thus using the entire druid toolkit to match a martial's entire toolkit. I think that is pretty fair.
Letting druids be animals without losing their magic access solves pretty much every problem Druid has. It marries both sides of the class and allows wildshape and spellcasting to finally synergize with one another, forming a complete class.
And of course, while Moon Druid takes that complete class and makes it more melee focused by giving stronger forms to enhance with magic, there should also be other sub-classes that offer alternative playstyles that don't rely on wildshape at all for those who want to focus exclusively on spellcasting.
It's by far the most common justification I've seen for the uber-nerf in the OneDnD version of WS. Re: boosting WS, the thing is that now that Druid has access to the ranger spell list, they have loads of ways to boost their WS using spells IF they were allowed to use them while WSed.
I also think druids should get the ability to cast in animal form much, much earlier than they currently do. That only being available at level 18 was an overly dramatic reaction to Druidzilla from 3.5e, I think. Back when druids could get feats that let them turn into monstrosities and dragons and all other incredibly powerful creatures. Being a cryo-hydra with full access to healing spells is very overpowered, but 5e druids can't do that anymore anyway.
I
With the latest one wild shape they could cast spells freely as level 1 while wild shaped with no balance issues. It is not a powerful transformation, it is a glorified disguise self spell. If the templates get upgraded into semi powerful combat models then restricting spell access might be good. I'd likely do it in a way that was spell level based, like at level 5 you can cast level 1 spells while wild shaped, level 9 level 2 spells etc. The scaling of the spells being dependent on how powerful the wild shape actually is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think that depends on the simplicity; if most things scale by druid level they could probably do a table for easier reference, as you only need the calculated stats when they actually come up (when you take damage etc.), and of course ideally D&D Beyond will actually support templates by the time OneD&D comes out (they've existed since Tasha's Cauldron) as with digital tools you'll just be told what the stats are for each form you might use (or be able to quickly select the one you're in and apply it).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It's by far the most common justification I've seen for the uber-nerf in the OneDnD version of WS. Re: boosting WS, the thing is that now that Druid has access to the ranger spell list, they have loads of ways to boost their WS using spells IF they were allowed to use them while WSed. Want more damage use Hunter's Mark, want more tanking use the One D&D Barkskin or other healing spell, want more movement use Zephyr Strike, want more battlefield control use Ensnaring Strike. Use Protection from Energy for your elemental resistance, or Stoneskin for a pseudo-rage. Valor Bard gets full spellcasting + Extra Attack, so does Bladesinger, and Swords Bard and Pact of the Blade Warlocks get ~3/4 casting and they all have way better combat spells than Druid does. If a moon druid is using their own Hit Points while in WS the only way it is a viable choice is to give them access to their spellcasting while they are doing so, that or you make them truly at parity with a full martial, because otherwise being a full spellcaster is always going to trump being a second-rate martial so the best strategy is just to say no to combat-WSing.
I think the topic has a flawed premise.
Druids have never been Mages. They're Priests. And I don't just mean that in the sense of the OneD&D UA groupings. From the start, they were an offshoot of Clerics, with a specifically tailored set of spells. In 2e, they were just a Cleric with a different set of "Spheres" (sort of comparable in concept to Domains, but Domains are much more narrow than Spheres).
That's why they are Wisdom casters, just like a Cleric. That's why they're Divine casters.
They're Priests, not Mages. Always have been. Which is also why they're somewhat capable of being semi-Martial (just like a Cleric). They just have a very different flavor, and thus mechanics, from a Cleric.
As for the poll? Definitely "Both" (the first poll option) but you could be forgiven for making the shapeshifting be reliant on spells instead of class abilities (pretty sure that's what 2e did). They're absolutely/definitely spellcasters, but they aren't / never have been Mages / Arcane-Casters. If you're going to de-emphasize something, it's moving the shapeshifting to spells.
This is also one of the things I think 2e did exactly correctly. If I were to change the Druid in any way, I would make a Druid Domain for the Cleric, which had access to Primal Spells (in the way that a Divine Soul Sorcerer can access two spell lists), and the family of spells that have the theme of whildshape (Alter Self, Polymorph, etc.). I might introduce a new spell or two that fits the same mold. Oh, and, of course, the Druid Domain would include the ability to speak the Druidic language.
Then I would get rid of the Druid class.
Of course, I'm also someone who feels that exact same way about the existence of the Barbarian, Bard, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Warlock classes... Paladin and Ranger could easily just be variations of the Eldritch Knight and/or Cleric/Fighter multiclass. The Barbarian could easily be a Fighter subclass (as it has been in some previous editions), and the Monk could also be a subclass of the Fighter, Rogue, or Rogue/Fighter multiclass. Anything other than the Core Four (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) are clutter.
I can get on board with this type of drastic consolidation. I'm all about hot takes and crazy reworks. I don't know that there's enough space in Rogue to justify a full class, with several subclasses, for example. Some of them really feel like they're stretching to make it work. Same for Barbarian, same for Cleric if I'm being honest. My personal list would probably be: Fighter (includes Ranger (INT), Paladin (CHA), Barbarian (WIS)), Expert (includes Wizard (INT), Bard (CHA), Rogue (WIS)), and Magician (includes Warlock (INT), Cleric (CHA), Druid (WIS)). Each one would have a small degree of flexibility in regards to casting spells: Fighters would range from no spells to a few minor spells, at the player's discretion, so you could have spell-less Paladins for example. Experts could range from a few minor spells to a few major spells, meaning that even Rogues have a little magic -- probably trinkets and "borrowed" spells. Magicians could range from a few major spells to a lot of major spells.
(And yes, I'm going back to Jack Vance for my Wizards and Warlocks. The big-name Magicians like Rhiallto were Warlocks, they had pacts. A Wizard would be more like Turjan, who can only carry, like, five spells at a time.)
But that's gonna start some fights if I don't clarify that I barely care.
I mean if you're thinking radical shakeups I'd do away with classes entirely except as a guide to new players (basically sample builds) and make character building fully modular with feature trees based around a rough fighter/rogue/mage structure. If you want to go pure mage you still could by advancing a spell list plus a "style" of magic (maybe deity + primal for a druid, spellbook + arcane for a wizard, pact + arcane for a warlock etc.), and maybe every few levels you get can put a point into a special feature such as Metamagic for a sorcerer build, or Wildshape for a Druid etc.
Do the same for non-combat abilities so every character has a balance of in and out of combat utility (might require a separation of combat/non-combat casting for that to work though), and basically make the whole game a build-your-own class type system.
But I think Wizards of the Coast set out mainly to "refine" 5th edition (although with the scale of some changes to classes it makes your wonder if they forgot that), so radical simplifications back to Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard or to fully modular seem unlikely.
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 a scary thing when I end up agreeing with multiple posters In one day.
But I agree the promises of it being a revision means there's a theoretical limit to the changes wotc will implement. At a certain point it becomes too much.
I wouldn't go that way, no. I think the existence of classes is really good. I just think the particular classes we have are a little lacking. Some of them, anyway. And some of them are fun on their own but fall short when compared to others.
It's like this: A customer at a restaurant might want to have the chef make an alteration to their meal. Swap out an ingredient or something. That's fine. But if you put that customer in the kitchen and had them make it themselves? They're probably not going to be real happy with that meal. Especially when it comes out still costing the same.
For me, I would either stick with the core four (the primary classes going back to late Original Edition, Holmes Basic, and the primary/non-secondary classes of 1e AD&D):
Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard (though, those are modern names, three of them had different names originally).
Or I would go with the 3 classes from the 3e "Generic Classes" (in the UA book):
Warrior, Expert, Spellcaster
The difference between that and what was suggested above is: Wizards are Spellcasters, not Experts.
Any spellcasting is in the Spellcaster class. Any special feature you would associate with one of the caster classes, that is focused on magic (Metamagic, probably wild shape, etc.) would be features of the Spellcaster class. The 3e rules were very vague about it, but you could see them being something like talent trees (like what the Basic Classes had in d20Modern). The Spellcaster class has access to all spells. Other classes do not have access to any spells.
Warriors are everything Martial. That might include Sneak Attack. It would definitely include Monks main abilities, but ... would it include ki, or would ki become a set of spells and talent trees? That's where things get difficult to decide. But Rage? Rage would be a Warrior ability that is either part of a talent tree or part of a subclass.
Experts would be all about skill and tool proficiency, Expertise, etc. Some of their abilities might border into magic-like abilities (I'm thinking about the Artificer's ability to create magic items, but NOT the artificer's ability to cast spells). MAYBE Bardic songs that have benefits, but aren't directly spell based.
Wow this devolved into axing the Druid and even 5e all together. Y’all started designing a completely new game.
Major flaw with tree systems was discovered in 3.5 there is always an optimal tree. No matter how you try to balance it certain builds will be better. You will start claiming everyone can build what they want from 4 or 3 base classes, but the optimal route will leave you with only 4-3 play styles.
There are so many options already in 5e, and those options are not diminishing, just changing as I see the UA playtests so far. They are simplifying factors of each class, but we still don't know how many "schools" of each class there will be. I love complexity, and options, but there is a limit that WOTC are trying to establish to continue the marketability of the game, whether long time players like it or not. They want new blood, growth, as well some concessions to the legacy players of the game.
When you say classes are "lacking" and "fall short" I just don't see that in the games I play. Everyone seems to enjoy being in the game if it's a good set of players who enjoy all aspects of the game. So much is focused on balancing combat, whatever that actually means, but forget that combat is not happening in a void where the stats of each character are the only relevant aspects of play. Tehre are still personalities, backstories, choices, terrain, NPCs, unforseen circumstances. A good DM will involve and balance play between characters through loot for specific characters, or just how certain situations play out.
No class is lacking. They all have cool abilities and differences. It's how you creatively blend them for yourself. People just don't like change, and get caught up thinking they can't do what they used to like doing. So what? Try something new, maybe? ;)
Druids are mainly spellcasters. Remember that they not only shapeshift, maybe that is what we usually see in some theatral representation, but what about all we don't see? Druids take care of nature, defend it and can make use claiming its power, and that is the Primal domain spell list. Think about the circle of druids making a ritual to clean an area, making the plants to grow better, or invoking a storm against the invader.
The shapeshifting is more situational, even if is something that visual representations want to spam to us. Even this can be made with Polymorph spell + Nature skill (you have to know in what are going to polymorph), that is class related.
I don't recall seeing anyone suggesting axing 5e all together... but I will point out that this is in the UA section, and UA has been fairly focused on "One D&D" (which is a radical departure from 5e, even if it's officially still part of 5e -- so we're already talking about a radical departure from how 5e was done). 5e is particularly well suited to going back to the core four classes, due to the way it does subclasses, combined with multiclassing and the lesser-class-feature Feats. Nothing proposed, that I've seen, would actually be incompatible with 5e. It would entirely work as a re-implementation of 5e. You wouldn't even need to get rid of the core four classes, just implement subclasses for them that emulate the other classes.
Nothing even close to that. The 3 Generic Classes, the Core Four classes, and features found in the d20M Basic classes are not even remotely new. They're a call-back to earlier editions of this same system.
Maybe the way they were done in 3.5 was a problem (but I don't recall seeing talent trees in the Revised PHB, so I'm not even sure about what claim you're making -- but it has been a while, so maybe), but in d20M (which isn't 3.5e) I didn't see any such problem with talent trees. Instead, I recall seeing characters that could each pick a niche within overlapping Basic Classes, and end up with a very different "Strong Hero" than the other "Strong Hero" in the group (or with two different Tough Heroes, and so on).
The problem I do remember is that the game was so different from D&D, yet also so familiar to D&D, that people had a lot of cognitive dissonance from having one foot in a D&D mindset and one foot in a non-D&D mindset.
The "talent tree" thing he is referring to in 3.5 was how feats worked with prerequisites. Often times you needed a feat to get a different higher level feat so it became a "feat tree" if you will.
Well said!
ok, but that is not the reference to Talent Trees that he was replying to.
When I brought up Talent Trees, I was very much referring to what was done in the Basic Classes in d20Modern (and I referenced it as such), which has nothing to do with Feats. It's actually slightly more like 5e subclasses, in a very very general way, and a bit lighter in nature (like if instead of taking the 6th level subclass feature, you took a second 3rd level subclass feature from a different subclass; except the subclass features are much less dramatic than they are in 5e). Then when you get to 10th level, you either take a third 3rd level subclass feature, or you take the 6th level feature for one of the two existing subclasses you already picked.
1. What was done in d20 modern which I played 20 years ago wasn’t that great, and there were definitely optimal builds in that game as well. There were definitely more than 3-4 classes. There was one class to focus on each ability score.
2. If you are trying to push One dnd to be more like D20M I will repeat that you are trying to design a completely different game. One Dnd is not a new game. It is heavily based on 5e. It is much closer to 3.0 to 3.5 than 3.5 to 4e and 4e to 5e. If my history is correct 2e to 3e had some big changes as well but I started in 3e so I don’t know. What I do know is that your claim that breaking down the class count to 3-4 is completely different to 5e and counts as designing a different game.
3. With all the subclass features offered in 5e you will definitely end up with very optimal builds and some classes will end up extremely different and definitely not related to 5e at all. Let’s look at Barbarian first. I have to wait until I get a subclass feature to even get rage, because I’m actually a fighter. Now that I have rage are there new features I can take with my next subclass level to improve my rage feature. If yes then this is a tree and there will be optimal routes. If no then I can’t be anything like a 5e Barbarian unless everything needed for the subclass is packed into that first rage feature. Examples: Berserker Rage, Fire Storm Rage, Sea Storm Rage, Bear Totem Rage, Wolf Totem Rage. The flaw with this is that you have cram a lot into each feature and thus you will create optimal builds that find the best features in each subclass.
The thing that I refuted was not the words "completely different game". The thing that I refuted was "completely new game." Though, neither is true. It would be different, yes. Completely different game? No -- still within the D&D/D20 family/envelope of games. Completely new game? No, not when the mechanics in question have been used in the larger D20 family before. It wouldn't even be as radical a departure as 4e was.
More different than what OneD&D has advertised itself to be so far, yes ... but you should go back and read the thread: my statement was part of/after-the-start-of a tangent within the topic that was talking about things like radical shake-ups, not about staying within the envelope of what OneD&D aims for.
Completely different edition (where OneD&D sort of has a D.I.D. confusion about whether or not it's 5.5e, or 6e, or something else)? Yes, the things that the radical shake-ups are talking about would make for a legitimately different edition, and definitely not merely a 5.5e. Not a completely different game, not a completely new game, just a new/different edition of the same game.
I also think druids should get the ability to cast in animal form much, much earlier than they currently do. That only being available at level 18 was an overly dramatic reaction to Druidzilla from 3.5e, I think. Back when druids could get feats that let them turn into monstrosities and dragons and all other incredibly powerful creatures. Being a cryo-hydra with full access to healing spells is very overpowered, but 5e druids can't do that anymore anyway.
If druids got Beast Spells at say, level 8-12, it'd solve the big issue of Moon Druid wildshape falling off at that point in the game. Meanwhile, non-moon druids would be able to use their wildshape in fun, creative ways like turning into a sparrow and dropping lightning on someone's head when they least expect it, or turning into a chipmunk to hide inside a tree that you then animate and ride like some kind of demented forest mech.
It would also mean Moon Druids don't need to match fighters and barbarians in raw melee power with ONLY wildshape. Rather it'd be combining the beast's stats with their buffing spells that let them stay competitive in melee, thus using the entire druid toolkit to match a martial's entire toolkit. I think that is pretty fair.
Letting druids be animals without losing their magic access solves pretty much every problem Druid has. It marries both sides of the class and allows wildshape and spellcasting to finally synergize with one another, forming a complete class.
And of course, while Moon Druid takes that complete class and makes it more melee focused by giving stronger forms to enhance with magic, there should also be other sub-classes that offer alternative playstyles that don't rely on wildshape at all for those who want to focus exclusively on spellcasting.
With the latest one wild shape they could cast spells freely as level 1 while wild shaped with no balance issues. It is not a powerful transformation, it is a glorified disguise self spell. If the templates get upgraded into semi powerful combat models then restricting spell access might be good. I'd likely do it in a way that was spell level based, like at level 5 you can cast level 1 spells while wild shaped, level 9 level 2 spells etc. The scaling of the spells being dependent on how powerful the wild shape actually is.