Druid is the least popular class in 2014 5e, the new 2024 revision is hoping to change that by fixing current pain points. This poll is meant to find out whether the changes are really achieving that goal of making more people want to play a druid. Or if it is just making people who don't like druids hate them less.
I can't say for sure that my absolute next choice for a character in a campaign would be a UA Druid, but I certainly would play one sooner or later. Druid has always been one of my favorite classes thematically since AD&D, although I admit I haven't played them too often for one reason or another. In 5e, it always seemed like someone else in the group had already chosen to play a Druid in the party (so in my group at least, Druid is not the least popular), or I just happened to have another type of character in mind that I wanted to play more.
Look, I like the 5.0 Druid, but there are absolutely massive quality of life changes here:
Can speak during wildshape
Can convert spell slots to wildshape
Can convert wildshape to spell slots
The FINAL DEATH of the incessant metal armor debate
Full duration familiar
Caster druid buffs (cantrip damage/range, lots of good 1st-level feats for casters)
No more book-diving
No more army summoning
Better wildshape damage and HP scaling
Moon AC no longer sucks past low levels
Moon damage no longer sucks past low levels
Moon can cast during wildshape before 18
I was a 2014 Druid fan - it was one of the first 5e classes I ever played - but to me UA8 is better in just about every way.
I do have a few things I want them to tweak, like the forms known scaling up too fast (12 forms known feels like too many and will slow down play), the upgrade to 300ft cantrips feels pretty blah for level 15, and Wild Resurgence needs some scaling (You go from "I can get an extra 1st-level slot" at level 5 to "I can get an extra 8th-level slot at 20!" with absolutely nothing in between.) And monster abilities like webs and poison barely scale at all (Giant Scorpion poison is DC 12 at level 9! Seriously?) But ultimately these things are minor compared to the much more impactful list above.
I think the main 5e pain points that are remaining for me are spell related rather than class related?
First is that the 5e Druid list doesn't have a lot of good single target damage spells, which is problematic in fights where you have melee allies engaged; you can pivot to support or something instead but that feels weird if you were wielding the full fury of nature in the previous round.
Second is the general spell mix which has been really hard to keep track of during the UA, but Druid has historically had some pretty lacklustre spells and while I could have missed it, I haven't noticed some of the worst offenders being updated yet. For example flame blade is pretty bad, while maelstrom and tidal wave don't scale which limits their usefulness at higher levels. I want these to remain options but they all need their scaling improved.
Beyond that it's mostly minor little tweaks to a couple features, but nothing that's going to ruin the game if it doesn't happen.
I still ultimately prefer 5e's version of Moon Druid, even if I like the UA's Druid core class more overall. At this point, I'd play a UA8 Moon Druid if my group were playing UA8 but I wouldn't be excited to play it over 5e's version like I would the new Land Druid, for example.
If anything I'd probably go Sea Druid even if I think the Circle of the Sea is in desperate need of more ribbon features so it's not all storms and lightning.
But Moon... I dunno. Maybe it's because they're completely reinventing the theme of the subclass. I like a lot of the new mechanical changes from UA8 but they're really trying to force us into the Night Elf WoW Druid playstyle, and that's just not why I picked Moon Druid.
I'm also still a bit concerned by the lack of attack scaling with the new Wildshape. In 5e it didn't matter as much because Wildshape was a massive HP buffer and we had access to elemental forms that had unique utility. Now that it's our HP being hit back failing to hit over and over is going to feel really bad.
The FINAL DEATH of the incessant metal armor debate
As someone who was firmly in the camp of metal armor is a choice, not a rule, I am pleased with the final end of the endless debate. It was never about the number for me, it was about them making choices for me. Now the rule is solid. I never NEEDED scale or other medium armors, but I was very much not on board with them telling me the kind of choices my character just makes. They took their hands off my agency, and I am pleased with simply being limited to light armor. This works.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
The UA8 version is pretty good. Only gripe is that species features can’t be used while Wildshaped.
I'm curious about you and others who have said the same or similar, what is it about the retention of species features while in Wildshape that you find so important?
The UA8 version is pretty good. Only gripe is that species features can’t be used while Wildshaped.
I'm curious about you and others who have said the same or similar, what is it about the retention of species features while in Wildshape that you find so important?
And how would one justify access to a species feature while they are a different species entirely? Oh, I was able to fly when I had wings, but now that I'm a bear I should still be able to fly ....
I don't mind losing race traits that are based on anatomy. But Halfling Druids losing their Luck while wildshaped, or Firbolg Druids losing their magical invisibility, or even passive stuff like Dwarf druids losing their poison resistance, just feels odd. Worse, it's kinda boring - it means the best races for moon druids now are plain Humans since you keep proficiencies and feats.
I don't mind losing race traits that are based on anatomy. But Halfling Druids losing their Luck while wildshaped, or Firbolg Druids losing their magical invisibility, or even passive stuff like Dwarf druids losing their poison resistance, just feels odd. Worse, it's kinda boring - it means the best races for moon druids now are plain Humans since you keep proficiencies and feats.
I really don't see why a dwarf would retain poison resistance while in bear form, and I think the ability to go invisible for Firbolgs probably shouldn't be retained in my opinion, but for some reason I can see why Halflings should maybe retain their Luck. It would also be strange for a Druid to lose proficiency in some skill that they got through their race.
I guess this means that it is a rather subjective line that tends to be drawn by anybody, so in the end, I can also understand the argument for keeping any of these. Of course, 5e tried to solve this with the "physically able" wordage (so no flying bears), but it really didn't help to make it much more objective. Probably denying all of the species traits is the only way to make it objective.
Probably denying all of the species traits is the only way to make it objective.
I fully agree that it's objectively the easiest (albeit laziest) solution for most druids.
Again though, if their goal is to keep it as simple as possible by removing all advantages from race for a moon druid, they've failed at that. A Human Moon Druid will either keep their bonus feat/proficiencies and get an advantage while wildshaped that no other race can match - or they'll lose access to their bonus feat, which can actually make things more complex. Even something simple like Skilled could leave the DM asking "Hey Jim, which of your proficiencies came from that again?" Or if John and Bob both have Tough, "Hold on John, your Tough comes from your background so you get to keep that when you wildshape, while Bob, yours is from your racial right? You both wild-shaped, so let's recalculate your HP again..."
What I'll be voting for in my survey is that they bring back the "physically capable" clause and actually rule on the common cases (any race with resistance) and the edge cases (like Changeling.) There's bound to be a meaty Sage Advice after this thing drops anyway.
The UA8 version is pretty good. Only gripe is that species features can’t be used while Wildshaped.
I'm curious about you and others who have said the same or similar, what is it about the retention of species features while in Wildshape that you find so important?
Why have different playable species with unique traits at all? Because it adds another dimension to the uniqueness of our character. Wanting species traits in Wildshape is ultimately just wanting to retain a little of that uniqueness when doing what you're going to be doing for 70% of the game.
My Lizardfolk Druid plays slightly differently from my Dragonborn Druid who plays slightly differently than my Half-Orc Druid because they have different traits that slightly alter their Wildshapes.
My Lizardfolk flies into a feeding frenzy and gets a Bonus Action bite a number of times a day, making him more primal and predatory than the others.
My Dragonborn has a hidden breath attack he can magically unleash while in the guise of a beast to catch enemies off guard (Crawford said he'd allow it in a Sage Advice, as it just requires a mouth and the ability to exhale).
My Half-Orc strikes with a wild fury when scoring critical hits due to his orcish rage mixing with the feral instincts of the beast.
It's usually not a huge difference, but losing the difference entirely feels bad.
An Orc Moon Druid using Adrenaline Rush and resisting death with Relentless should feel different than an Eladrin Moon Druid using Fey Step and resisting charm with Fey Ancestry. Losing all of that is just blah.
The UA8 version is pretty good. Only gripe is that species features can’t be used while Wildshaped.
I'm curious about you and others who have said the same or similar, what is it about the retention of species features while in Wildshape that you find so important?
Why have different playable species with unique traits at all? Because it adds another dimension to the uniqueness of our character. Wanting species traits in Wildshape is ultimately just wanting to retain a little of that uniqueness when doing what you're going to be doing for 70% of the game.
My Lizardfolk Druid plays slightly differently from my Dragonborn Druid who plays slightly differently than my Half-Orc Druid because they have different traits that slightly alter their Wildshapes.
My Lizardfolk flies into a feeding frenzy and gets a Bonus Action bite a number of times a day, making him more primal and predatory than the others.
My Dragonborn has a hidden breath attack he can magically unleash while in the guise of a beast to catch enemies off guard (Crawford said he'd allow it in a Sage Advice, as it just requires a mouth and the ability to exhale).
My Half-Orc strikes with a wild fury when scoring critical hits due to his orcish rage mixing with the feral instincts of the beast.
It's usually not a huge difference, but losing the difference entirely feels bad.
Probably denying all of the species traits is the only way to make it objective.
I fully agree that it's objectively the easiest (albeit laziest) solution for most druids.
Again though, if their goal is to keep it as simple as possible by removing all advantages from race for a moon druid, they've failed at that.
It's not about removing all advantages from species, it is about removing uncertainty and removing the need to "mother may I?" ask DMs to interpret a vague clause, and prevent arguments quoting what different reddit of twitter threads say how they would interpret it. [Just because Crawford says he would run it one way doesn't mean every DM will run it that way - e.g. Crawford has also said the Dragon breath attacks aren't magical therefore I would interpret that dragons & dragonborn have special glands that allow their breath attack therefore it isn't available in WS]
This goal means there are two options from WotC perspective: keep all species traits or none of them. Hopefully we all agree that keeping all of them is a terrible idea as having an Aarakocra be able to fly while WSed as a bear, or a tortle be able to hide in their shell while WSed as a mouse is stupid and immersion breaking.
The UA8 version is pretty good. Only gripe is that species features can’t be used while Wildshaped.
I'm curious about you and others who have said the same or similar, what is it about the retention of species features while in Wildshape that you find so important?
Why have different playable species with unique traits at all? Because it adds another dimension to the uniqueness of our character. Wanting species traits in Wildshape is ultimately just wanting to retain a little of that uniqueness when doing what you're going to be doing for 70% of the game.
My Lizardfolk Druid plays slightly differently from my Dragonborn Druid who plays slightly differently than my Half-Orc Druid because they have different traits that slightly alter their Wildshapes.
My Lizardfolk flies into a feeding frenzy and gets a Bonus Action bite a number of times a day, making him more primal and predatory than the others.
My Dragonborn has a hidden breath attack he can magically unleash while in the guise of a beast to catch enemies off guard (Crawford said he'd allow it in a Sage Advice, as it just requires a mouth and the ability to exhale).
My Half-Orc strikes with a wild fury when scoring critical hits due to his orcish rage mixing with the feral instincts of the beast.
It's usually not a huge difference, but losing the difference entirely feels bad.
Like I said earlier, I do respect this point of view, but for me personally the fire-breathing bear seems really cheesy and as Agilemind states, breaks immersion like the Aarakocra or Tortle examples given. One other thing influencing me is that when I have had Moon Druids in my party (I have never played one yet personally), they do not spend all of their time in beast form and so have chances to use their species traits when not wildshaped. So, for them the species choice still is relevant, but maybe your experience is different. Now, the Lizardfolk and Half-Orc examples certainly do seem like more mentally-focused traits and as with Halfling Luck, I certainly see the argument for keeping them. However, I think there needs to be a much better definition of which species traits are anatomical (wings, shell), which are "magical" (I'd argue Firbolg's invisibility and probably Dragon's Breath), and which are mental (Orcish Rage, Feeding Frenzy, bonus skills) and a clear rule for which of these are usable in Wildshape (I'd say only the mental abilities, but would be okay with magical as well).
It's not about removing all advantages from species, it is about removing uncertainty and removing the need to "mother may I?" ask DMs to interpret a vague clause, and prevent arguments quoting what different reddit of twitter threads say how they would interpret it. [Just because Crawford says he would run it one way doesn't mean every DM will run it that way - e.g. Crawford has also said the Dragon breath attacks aren't magical therefore I would interpret that dragons & dragonborn have special glands that allow their breath attack therefore it isn't available in WS]
This goal means there are two options from WotC perspective: keep all species traits or none of them. Hopefully we all agree that keeping all of them is a terrible idea as having an Aarakocra be able to fly while WSed as a bear, or a tortle be able to hide in their shell while WSed as a mouse is stupid and immersion breaking.
So the part of my post you cut out, how do you respond to that then? Either Human Druids will be the strictly superior option, or they will actually become more complex in play than they are in 2014. Neither option seems desirable.
It's not about removing all advantages from species, it is about removing uncertainty and removing the need to "mother may I?" ask DMs to interpret a vague clause, and prevent arguments quoting what different reddit of twitter threads say how they would interpret it. [Just because Crawford says he would run it one way doesn't mean every DM will run it that way - e.g. Crawford has also said the Dragon breath attacks aren't magical therefore I would interpret that dragons & dragonborn have special glands that allow their breath attack therefore it isn't available in WS]
This goal means there are two options from WotC perspective: keep all species traits or none of them. Hopefully we all agree that keeping all of them is a terrible idea as having an Aarakocra be able to fly while WSed as a bear, or a tortle be able to hide in their shell while WSed as a mouse is stupid and immersion breaking.
So the part of my post you cut out, how do you respond to that then? Either Human Druids will be the strictly superior option, or they will actually become more complex in play than they are in 2014. Neither option seems desirable.
Already certain species are strictly superior to others for Moondruids (in 2014, Kalastar is the optimal choice), if you are building entirely around being in WS all the time (which TBH seems kind of silly to do but I digress), so that is nothing new and cannot be avoided unless you completely wipe all species traits entirely including species-feats, species-proficiencies, species-bonus hit points etc.. which certainly could be done but would be a total pain to actually run at the table.
But that's nothing new, I would argue for most classes / subclasses / builds certain species provide more benefits than others. E.g. Orc traits are clearly more beneficial for a melee-focused character than it is for a ranged spellcaster, elf & tiefling traits are much better for spellcasters than for non-spellcasters, halfling is best for classes making a lot of d20 rolls (e.g. rogues & martials) and/or moving around in combat a lot (e.g. rogues & monks) and less useful for spellcasters. The Tabaxi + Rogue and Tabaxi + Monk is kind of infamous for how well they fit together, yet you'll likely never hear about Tabaxi + Sorcerer being good. Whereas the Tiefling Sorcerer or Tiefling Wizard will be the talk of the town.
Yes, certain species are better for Moon druid than others, but so what? certain species are better or worse for every class/subclass.
In terms of fun, well that's the subjective. Is empowering you to have more fun of greater value than avoiding misery at another table where the druid & DM spend 2 hours arguing about whether some species trait does or doesn't work in WS?
I don't see a problem with humans being a strictly superior option. That's sort of always been a thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Druid is the least popular class in 2014 5e, the new 2024 revision is hoping to change that by fixing current pain points. This poll is meant to find out whether the changes are really achieving that goal of making more people want to play a druid. Or if it is just making people who don't like druids hate them less.
I can't say for sure that my absolute next choice for a character in a campaign would be a UA Druid, but I certainly would play one sooner or later. Druid has always been one of my favorite classes thematically since AD&D, although I admit I haven't played them too often for one reason or another. In 5e, it always seemed like someone else in the group had already chosen to play a Druid in the party (so in my group at least, Druid is not the least popular), or I just happened to have another type of character in mind that I wanted to play more.
Look, I like the 5.0 Druid, but there are absolutely massive quality of life changes here:
I was a 2014 Druid fan - it was one of the first 5e classes I ever played - but to me UA8 is better in just about every way.
I do have a few things I want them to tweak, like the forms known scaling up too fast (12 forms known feels like too many and will slow down play), the upgrade to 300ft cantrips feels pretty blah for level 15, and Wild Resurgence needs some scaling (You go from "I can get an extra 1st-level slot" at level 5 to "I can get an extra 8th-level slot at 20!" with absolutely nothing in between.) And monster abilities like webs and poison barely scale at all (Giant Scorpion poison is DC 12 at level 9! Seriously?) But ultimately these things are minor compared to the much more impactful list above.
I think the main 5e pain points that are remaining for me are spell related rather than class related?
First is that the 5e Druid list doesn't have a lot of good single target damage spells, which is problematic in fights where you have melee allies engaged; you can pivot to support or something instead but that feels weird if you were wielding the full fury of nature in the previous round.
Second is the general spell mix which has been really hard to keep track of during the UA, but Druid has historically had some pretty lacklustre spells and while I could have missed it, I haven't noticed some of the worst offenders being updated yet. For example flame blade is pretty bad, while maelstrom and tidal wave don't scale which limits their usefulness at higher levels. I want these to remain options but they all need their scaling improved.
Beyond that it's mostly minor little tweaks to a couple features, but nothing that's going to ruin the game if it doesn't happen.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
I still ultimately prefer 5e's version of Moon Druid, even if I like the UA's Druid core class more overall. At this point, I'd play a UA8 Moon Druid if my group were playing UA8 but I wouldn't be excited to play it over 5e's version like I would the new Land Druid, for example.
If anything I'd probably go Sea Druid even if I think the Circle of the Sea is in desperate need of more ribbon features so it's not all storms and lightning.
But Moon... I dunno. Maybe it's because they're completely reinventing the theme of the subclass. I like a lot of the new mechanical changes from UA8 but they're really trying to force us into the Night Elf WoW Druid playstyle, and that's just not why I picked Moon Druid.
I'm also still a bit concerned by the lack of attack scaling with the new Wildshape. In 5e it didn't matter as much because Wildshape was a massive HP buffer and we had access to elemental forms that had unique utility. Now that it's our HP being hit back failing to hit over and over is going to feel really bad.
As someone who was firmly in the camp of metal armor is a choice, not a rule, I am pleased with the final end of the endless debate. It was never about the number for me, it was about them making choices for me. Now the rule is solid. I never NEEDED scale or other medium armors, but I was very much not on board with them telling me the kind of choices my character just makes. They took their hands off my agency, and I am pleased with simply being limited to light armor. This works.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The UA8 version is pretty good. Only gripe is that species features can’t be used while Wildshaped.
I'm curious about you and others who have said the same or similar, what is it about the retention of species features while in Wildshape that you find so important?
And how would one justify access to a species feature while they are a different species entirely? Oh, I was able to fly when I had wings, but now that I'm a bear I should still be able to fly ....
I don't mind losing race traits that are based on anatomy. But Halfling Druids losing their Luck while wildshaped, or Firbolg Druids losing their magical invisibility, or even passive stuff like Dwarf druids losing their poison resistance, just feels odd. Worse, it's kinda boring - it means the best races for moon druids now are plain Humans since you keep proficiencies and feats.
I really don't see why a dwarf would retain poison resistance while in bear form, and I think the ability to go invisible for Firbolgs probably shouldn't be retained in my opinion, but for some reason I can see why Halflings should maybe retain their Luck. It would also be strange for a Druid to lose proficiency in some skill that they got through their race.
I guess this means that it is a rather subjective line that tends to be drawn by anybody, so in the end, I can also understand the argument for keeping any of these. Of course, 5e tried to solve this with the "physically able" wordage (so no flying bears), but it really didn't help to make it much more objective. Probably denying all of the species traits is the only way to make it objective.
I fully agree that it's objectively the easiest (albeit laziest) solution for most druids.
Again though, if their goal is to keep it as simple as possible by removing all advantages from race for a moon druid, they've failed at that. A Human Moon Druid will either keep their bonus feat/proficiencies and get an advantage while wildshaped that no other race can match - or they'll lose access to their bonus feat, which can actually make things more complex. Even something simple like Skilled could leave the DM asking "Hey Jim, which of your proficiencies came from that again?" Or if John and Bob both have Tough, "Hold on John, your Tough comes from your background so you get to keep that when you wildshape, while Bob, yours is from your racial right? You both wild-shaped, so let's recalculate your HP again..."
What I'll be voting for in my survey is that they bring back the "physically capable" clause and actually rule on the common cases (any race with resistance) and the edge cases (like Changeling.) There's bound to be a meaty Sage Advice after this thing drops anyway.
Why have different playable species with unique traits at all? Because it adds another dimension to the uniqueness of our character. Wanting species traits in Wildshape is ultimately just wanting to retain a little of that uniqueness when doing what you're going to be doing for 70% of the game.
My Lizardfolk Druid plays slightly differently from my Dragonborn Druid who plays slightly differently than my Half-Orc Druid because they have different traits that slightly alter their Wildshapes.
My Lizardfolk flies into a feeding frenzy and gets a Bonus Action bite a number of times a day, making him more primal and predatory than the others.
My Dragonborn has a hidden breath attack he can magically unleash while in the guise of a beast to catch enemies off guard (Crawford said he'd allow it in a Sage Advice, as it just requires a mouth and the ability to exhale).
My Half-Orc strikes with a wild fury when scoring critical hits due to his orcish rage mixing with the feral instincts of the beast.
It's usually not a huge difference, but losing the difference entirely feels bad.
Exactly.
An Orc Moon Druid using Adrenaline Rush and resisting death with Relentless should feel different than an Eladrin Moon Druid using Fey Step and resisting charm with Fey Ancestry. Losing all of that is just blah.
Exactly this.
It's not about removing all advantages from species, it is about removing uncertainty and removing the need to "mother may I?" ask DMs to interpret a vague clause, and prevent arguments quoting what different reddit of twitter threads say how they would interpret it. [Just because Crawford says he would run it one way doesn't mean every DM will run it that way - e.g. Crawford has also said the Dragon breath attacks aren't magical therefore I would interpret that dragons & dragonborn have special glands that allow their breath attack therefore it isn't available in WS]
This goal means there are two options from WotC perspective: keep all species traits or none of them. Hopefully we all agree that keeping all of them is a terrible idea as having an Aarakocra be able to fly while WSed as a bear, or a tortle be able to hide in their shell while WSed as a mouse is stupid and immersion breaking.
Like I said earlier, I do respect this point of view, but for me personally the fire-breathing bear seems really cheesy and as Agilemind states, breaks immersion like the Aarakocra or Tortle examples given. One other thing influencing me is that when I have had Moon Druids in my party (I have never played one yet personally), they do not spend all of their time in beast form and so have chances to use their species traits when not wildshaped. So, for them the species choice still is relevant, but maybe your experience is different. Now, the Lizardfolk and Half-Orc examples certainly do seem like more mentally-focused traits and as with Halfling Luck, I certainly see the argument for keeping them. However, I think there needs to be a much better definition of which species traits are anatomical (wings, shell), which are "magical" (I'd argue Firbolg's invisibility and probably Dragon's Breath), and which are mental (Orcish Rage, Feeding Frenzy, bonus skills) and a clear rule for which of these are usable in Wildshape (I'd say only the mental abilities, but would be okay with magical as well).
So the part of my post you cut out, how do you respond to that then? Either Human Druids will be the strictly superior option, or they will actually become more complex in play than they are in 2014. Neither option seems desirable.
Already certain species are strictly superior to others for Moondruids (in 2014, Kalastar is the optimal choice), if you are building entirely around being in WS all the time (which TBH seems kind of silly to do but I digress), so that is nothing new and cannot be avoided unless you completely wipe all species traits entirely including species-feats, species-proficiencies, species-bonus hit points etc.. which certainly could be done but would be a total pain to actually run at the table.
But that's nothing new, I would argue for most classes / subclasses / builds certain species provide more benefits than others. E.g. Orc traits are clearly more beneficial for a melee-focused character than it is for a ranged spellcaster, elf & tiefling traits are much better for spellcasters than for non-spellcasters, halfling is best for classes making a lot of d20 rolls (e.g. rogues & martials) and/or moving around in combat a lot (e.g. rogues & monks) and less useful for spellcasters. The Tabaxi + Rogue and Tabaxi + Monk is kind of infamous for how well they fit together, yet you'll likely never hear about Tabaxi + Sorcerer being good. Whereas the Tiefling Sorcerer or Tiefling Wizard will be the talk of the town.
Yes, certain species are better for Moon druid than others, but so what? certain species are better or worse for every class/subclass.
In terms of fun, well that's the subjective. Is empowering you to have more fun of greater value than avoiding misery at another table where the druid & DM spend 2 hours arguing about whether some species trait does or doesn't work in WS?
I don't see a problem with humans being a strictly superior option. That's sort of always been a thing.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha