No More CoDzilla?

[Pex]

Can't have more than one buff spell, even if just improving weapon damage.

Concentrating on your one buff and engaging in melee you will get hit by your opponent. Alternatively enemy spellcaster casts a damage spell against you or even in addition that same round. You're almost always having to make a Concentration check. You will fail it eventually and lose your buff spell. What's the point then? At best you have your buff for your first attack. Maybe have it again next round, but then you'll lose it.

I accept dedicated warriors should be prime for combat, but even paladins have this problem. It is not a sin for a cleric or druid player wanting to engage in combat, but I don't see how they can do it. You're practically forced to spend a feat to get your proficiency bonus added the first time it's available assuming your campaign will use them and forgo boosting your casting stat.

[Theodoxus]

There aren't a ton of useful in combat buffs for clerics or druids that bring them on par with melee classes. Of course, with the absence of BAB, clerics and fighters have an equal chance in hitting (until fighters get more attacks). In fact, given the number of domains that grant access to heavy armor and decent weapon choices, a cleric can perform nearly as well as a fighter - and use their spells for greater efficiency.

Druids are a whole other ball of wax - onion druids are quite capable of taking a sustained beating, and taking Sentinel wouldn't be a bad choice for them either.

CoDzilla is toned down a bit, but yes, given the right feats and armaments, they're still formidable.

[MadBear]

It's not all that bad.

It's only a DC 10 check, unless they did 22+ damage.

With a 14 con (which is pretty low for a front line character), you have a +2 at lvl 1 (+4 if you're proficient in con saves).

that's only a 35% chance of failing the roll. Unless you're the sole target of attack (and if you are, you probably should lose it), it's probably last 2-4 rounds realistically.

[Soras Teva Gee]

For Paladins, I should point out that from level 6 onward with a what +3-5 to all saves they're better off before the Resilient feat then any caster besides the EK Fighter (who's not a caster really) who they are on par with or even exceeding at level 6. After Resilient they'll have the best Concentration checks period.

[Inevitability]

It's only a DC 10 check, unless they did 22+ damage.

You know that the DM rules already contain monsters who deal 22 damage on average at CR 4?

[Beige]

indeed - the codzilla has been slain, and the ability to be the best melee fighter in the game has returned to classes that where designed to be melee fighters. Meanwhile, the cleric is one of the most flexible casters in the game due to the sheer number of prepared spells (as normal for level + stat, pluss the 10 domain spells) combined with knowing their whole spell list unlike full spontanous casters.

that's not to say the cleric is a bad melee fighter. war domain makes you a force to be reckoned with, and gives you the toughness needed to sub for the melee classes as well, but even then the primary focus of the cleric is his spells. War caster can help to maintain buffs - and the EK/Paladin have good enough con saves to be able to safely chance full melee combat whilst maintaining spells, and since pala gets the best buff spells anyway, hes the closes to the CoDzilla (just change CoD to mean caster of divine XD).

it is still possible to stack buff spells, and many buff spells have got a bit of a boost, but it requires the whole party to work together rather than one dude super-charging themselves in the background then rushing in to lay down the hurt

on the topic of concentration, it's not as unreliable as you assume. war caster, plus a decent con score will pass most, and if your still worried, picking up resilient for con will let you soar through most of them - meaning the combat cleric still exists, he's just not a gamebreaker anymore :smallsmile:

[Caelic]

Keep in mind, though, that the lack of massively-layered buffs does NOT render clerics and druids unable to contribute in melee combat; far from it. A level 2 Moon druid can assume bear-form and attack twice, with impressive damage; few fighters are going to have a similar sustained damage output until later on.

[emeraldstreak]

CoDzilla is just starting. The last time it also took awhile until the likes of Persistent DMM and Venomfire appeared. But don't worry, the splatbook deck is stacked in favor of full casters and shapechangers.

[Soras Teva Gee]

CoDzilla is just starting. The last time it also took awhile until the likes of Persistent DMM and Venomfire appeared. But don't worry, the splatbook deck is stacked in favor of full casters and shapechangers.

No it existed in Core. Seriously everything that came later was just icing on the cake.

Supposedly it was even to a point deliberate so people would play the classes for reasons other then last one to the table, party needs a healbot.

And unless it avoids the Concentration rule it will have trouble existing again, well at least in full form, some level of melee ability is appropriate.

[Caelic]

No it existed in Core. Seriously everything that came later was just icing on the cake.


Well, the "-Dzilla" part really came into its own in 3.5, rather than 3.0.

[archaeo]

CoDzilla is just starting. The last time it also took awhile until the likes of Persistent DMM and Venomfire appeared. But don't worry, the splatbook deck is stacked in favor of full casters and shapechangers.

Well, except that Mearls & Co. have said that they don't want a splat treadmill this edition virtually every time anybody asks them about it.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You know that the DM rules already contain monsters who deal 22 damage on average at CR 4?
The DMG has monsters?

I have a question for the OP: You have a problem with some of the most OP classes of older versions being taken down a peg?

[archaeo]

The DMG has monsters?

They're probably talking about DM rules found at Wizard's Basic Rules page (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules).

[Soras Teva Gee]

Its more of a Monster Manual then a DMG, total false advertising.

Well okay magic items.

[archaeo]

Its more of a Monster Manual then a DMG, total false advertising.

Well okay magic items.

I think you're probably joking, but just as a reminder for those who don't know/don't remember, the Basic DM rules will be updated with more DMG material after the book gets released. It's still just v0.1, after all.

[Shadow]

Well, except that Mearls & Co. have said that they don't want a splat treadmill this edition virtually every time anybody asks them about it.

Yep :biggrin:

[Vhaluus]

Well, except that Mearls & Co. have said that they don't want a splat treadmill this edition virtually every time anybody asks them about it.

What they want and the financial decision the company make are likely to be very different things.

[archaeo]

What they want and the financial decision the company make are likely to be very different things.

I don't see why that's at all likely. Do you think WotC just lets him go out and say whatever he wants? He's talked about how the splat treadmill isn't really a very profitable business, which is the kind of thing you say when you've seen smartly prepared charts and graphs, and he's talked about how the company wants to spend more energy working on D&D as a brand rather than just a TRPG, which is the kind of thing you hear in corporate strategy meetings. I see no reason to believe Mearls & Co. don't know what WotC is actually planning.

[Shadow]

They have stated quite clearly that thier research shows that the splatbook per month model drives away more players than it keeps.
When they say that they're not going to do that, and exactly why, I believe them.

[Knaight]

They have stated quite clearly that thier research shows that the splatbook per month model drives away more players than it keeps.
When they say that they're not going to do that, and exactly why, I believe them.

I believe that it is their intentions, but with Hasbro breathing down their necks I wouldn't be surprised if splatbook releases were more common than they currently want or expect. Perhaps not to the level of monthly, but once every two, three months? I wouldn't be surprised.

[Vhaluus]

I believe that it is their intentions, but with Hasbro breathing down their necks I wouldn't be surprised if splatbook releases were more common than they currently want or expect. Perhaps not to the level of monthly, but once every two, three months? I wouldn't be surprised.

Exactly this. You can talk about D&D as a brand all you want but at the end of the day it is a product first and a brand second. If you aren't selling product the brand withers and dies.

With the way this product works they have to be selling new things. You really think they can release the handbook, DMG and MM and then rely on them to keep the division going for the next 5 years? maybe throwing in the occasional campaign book?

Without constant new releases sales dry up and the product dies.

It is the same with magic the gathering, they could cut all the non-good cards and release only 1 set a year of the good stuff but this wouldn't generate the sales needed to sustain the product.

[Shadow]

Well we know that the campaign settings are in the works. Like, all of them unless I'm mistaken. DL, GH, FR, Rv, DS, Eb, etc. We know that the DMG will have more races, and probably more class options (sub-classes/archetypes, whatever you want to call them). We can assume that those will be in the campaign books as well, along with the possibility (and likelihood) of more classes (arty/psion for Eb, etc).
They have even stated that when something isn't being recieved well they will likely add options available (possibly even for free online) to attend to that (more ranger archs was the one specifically mentioned in this regard).
And then there are the adventures, which will be the majority of sales for quite some time, and all of those offer these possibilites as well.

So there are plenty of opportunities for more source material from them without the splatbook model. With all of that in mind, I see no reason why they would want to go against the mandate they've set themselves for a couple of years at the earliest.

[Vhaluus]

I actually hope you are right shadow, I'm just a bit cynical from seeing so many companies say one thing and then do another.

[archaeo]

I believe that it is their intentions, but with Hasbro breathing down their necks I wouldn't be surprised if splatbook releases were more common than they currently want or expect. Perhaps not to the level of monthly, but once every two, three months? I wouldn't be surprised.

Hasbro isn't really breathing down their necks, though. From everything I've read, it sounds like Hasbro pretty much lets WotC do what they like, since the cardboard crack business continues to basically be a license to print US dollars. D&D represents a tiny, tiny part of the corporation's budget.

Plus, keep in mind that, thus far, 5e has had a gangbusters release. The PHB topped the charts for all books on Amazon and was the top of Publishers Weekly's nonfiction charts. The MM and DMG likely won't follow suit, but after that there's DungeonScape, which looks like an awfully compelling freemium product. And, as I've tried to remind people, there are things that Mearls has hinted at that we still haven't even heard the name of yet, much less a description.

I don't think it's time to worry yet, in any case.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Exactly this. You can talk about D&D as a brand all you want but at the end of the day it is a product first and a brand second. If you aren't selling product the brand withers and dies.

With the way this product works they have to be selling new things. You really think they can release the handbook, DMG and MM and then rely on them to keep the division going for the next 5 years? maybe throwing in the occasional campaign book?

Without constant new releases sales dry up and the product dies.

It is the same with magic the gathering, they could cut all the non-good cards and release only 1 set a year of the good stuff but this wouldn't generate the sales needed to sustain the product.

Except that it hasn't worked and they've admitted it hasn't worked and not driven sales.
D&D is a already dying brand remember?

Now if 5E sells well yes they will keep putting out more content, but you can do so more slowly. There are ways to do that that don't involve more "rules" in the form of classes, spells, archetypes, feats, etc. Many Paizo books contain like under a page of that, a spell or two not a whole chapter of them, because they're brief setting supplements for if you want some more info on a particular part of Golarion.

Oh and while its always good intellectual masturbation to indulge in conspiracies of the Big Bad Evil Corporation its rarely so simple. Since you brought up MtG you should check out When Cards Go Bad (http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5) because frankly your notion is limited and ignorant. Even if it was possible to perfectly identify the "non-good" cards all you would create is a continual power creep because power is relative in a competitive environment.

Similar principles apply to all game design, there's no magic solution out there.

[Sartharina]

Exactly this. You can talk about D&D as a brand all you want but at the end of the day it is a product first and a brand second. If you aren't selling product the brand withers and dies.

With the way this product works they have to be selling new things. You really think they can release the handbook, DMG and MM and then rely on them to keep the division going for the next 5 years? maybe throwing in the occasional campaign book?

Without constant new releases sales dry up and the product dies.

It is the same with magic the gathering, they could cut all the non-good cards and release only 1 set a year of the good stuff but this wouldn't generate the sales needed to sustain the product.Except Splatbooks don't sell - they cost more to produce than they recoup in sales. So, D&D's going with a different marketing scheme.

Monopoly's been selling without dramatic re-releases for almost a century.

[nocker]

Be Moon circle druid.
Become a tiger right from level 2. Enjoy having (the admittedly weaker) pounce.
On level 3 can cast heat metal completely ruining a fighter or any other armor user's day. No save, no attack. Just pain.
Level 7 you start becoming CR 2 creatures. Remember that each combat form you assume at very least works like a huge HP buffer.
Level 11 for Contagion. If you can hit an attack to land this spell you'll enjoy at very least 3 rounds of happiness against any creature that's not immune to disease.
Level 13 for becoming CR 3 creatures. With bounded accuracy, these will matter against high level opposition.
...
Level 18 and you're now a Giant Dire Cave Bear or whatever, that also cast spells.
Level 20 and you honest to goodness stop caring about HP damage.

The D part of CoDzilla is alive and well with just the PHB. It has the potential to become hilariously broken once the MM is out and we can see exactly what they can become at higher levels.

[hymer]

The D part of CoDzilla is alive and well with just the PHB. It has the potential to become hilariously broken once the MM is out and we can see exactly what they can become at higher levels.

The Moon druid deals about as much damage in combat as a monk that doesn't use any ki points (and they often fall a tad behind on to-hit). Mooids (is that too horrible?) can tank a whole bunch of damage, but the poor interaction between wild shape and spells (not to mention concentration spell buffing) means that the mooid is definitely a strong character, and in its niche rivalled only by certain barbarians; but it's not a druidzilla any more than the fighter is a fightzilla.

[Snails]

They have stated quite clearly that thier research shows that the splatbook per month model drives away more players than it keeps.
When they say that they're not going to do that, and exactly why, I believe them.

They may never go to such a large number of splatbooks, because they are (I presume) perceived by potential new players as a barrier to entry ("I just want to may a guy to hits things with a sword. What do you mean I need to peruse these additional three books for feats and PrCs?"), but past WotC research has also shown that game line needs to continually produce stuff to be perceived as a real game, particularly by store owners. There are only so many campaign books that can be effectively marketed, and adventure modules have very thin profit margins (because only the DMs buy them).

Furthermore, in the context of early playtesting of 5e, WotC talked openly about modules of optional rules, with the Core rules kept simple and clean. "Modules of optional rules" sound a lot like we will eventually see Unearthed Arcana, PHB2, Unearthed Arcana 2. They may have the self discipline to stop there, but they have been promising some splatbooks (in a manner of speaking) since forever.

[Demonic Spoon]

Furthermore, in the context of early playtesting of 5e, WotC talked openly about modules of optional rules, with the Core rules kept simple and clean. "Modules of optional rules" sound a lot like we will eventually see Unearthed Arcana, PHB2, Unearthed Arcana 2. They may have the self discipline to stop there, but they have been promising some splatbooks (in a manner of speaking) since forever.

...which is irrelevant in this context, because the player doesn't choose which optional rules the campaign uses, so he can't buy Unearthed Arcana 2 and show up at the table with an expanded Druid spell list that ruins everything.

[Caelic]

Exactly this. You can talk about D&D as a brand all you want but at the end of the day it is a product first and a brand second. If you aren't selling product the brand withers and dies.




Well, yes and no. It's a basket of products, and of those products, the tabletop RPG stopped consistently being the most profitable quite a while ago. By the end of the TSR era, D&D novels were turning more of a profit than the game itself.

[emeraldstreak]

No it existed in Core. Seriously everything that came later was just icing on the cake.



Some of you are too young to remember the early forums of 3.5.

Some of you are old enough but did not follow them.


Back then, many many people didn't understand why the fighter or the monk or even the barbarian were so far behind the full casters, core or more. There were massive flamewars that were so flamy you'll never see a single post like those around here without it being scrubbed by mods and the poster slapped with a ban within the hour.

And it still took months if not years to hammer even the most basic truths about the edition in the heads of the countless posters defending the martial types. Today you take for granted everyone knows about caster supremacy, but that knowledge was not common at all in the beginning, and it was through our work that it became the common norm in the community.


Now, I'm not going to say 5e balance is exactly this or that...for now. It's too early, I don't even have the MM yet. I have expectations, but I haven't run any thorough numbers or applied optimization scenarios. Based on my first glance things 1) don't look rosy for martials 2) will get worse. When we have the full Core out, then I'll get to thoroughly crushing the Fighter&Co with the Dzilla&Co in every scenario possible, proving a party is always better by taking more Druids instead of martials.

[Pex]

Some of you are too young to remember the early forums of 3.5.

Some of you are old enough but did not follow them.


Back then, many many people didn't understand why the fighter or the monk or even the barbarian were so far behind the full casters, core or more. There were massive flamewars that were so flamy you'll never see a single post like those around here without it being scrubbed by mods and the poster slapped with a ban within the hour.

And it still took months if not years to hammer even the most basic truths about the edition in the heads of the countless posters defending the martial types. Today you take for granted everyone knows about caster supremacy, but that knowledge was not common at all in the beginning, and it was through our work that it became the common norm in the community.



And we've been suffering for it ever since.

[Malifice]

The Moon druid deals about as much damage in combat as a monk that doesn't use any ki points (and they often fall a tad behind on to-hit). Mooids (is that too horrible?) can tank a whole bunch of damage, but the poor interaction between wild shape and spells (not to mention concentration spell buffing) means that the mooid is definitely a strong character, and in its niche rivalled only by certain barbarians; but it's not a druidzilla any more than the fighter is a fightzilla.

Playing HoTDQ at the moment and the party just hit 2nd level. My S16 GWF/ GWM fighter is already outclassed and virtually obsolete by the Moon Druid.

He wildshaped into a Grizzly bear. S19, 34 HP, 2 attacks per round (at +6) doing 2d6+4 and 1d8+4 damage each. Moves at 40'. Large size. Can spam spell slots to regenerate outclassing my second wind ability.

He has double my HP (and can shift again for an additional 34 HP once that expires), a better attack bonus, more attacks, deals more damage with his primary attack, moves faster and has better reach. His bonus action healing already beats mine.

He can do this twice a day already for a total of 68 bonus HP per day.

His AC is only 11 and he gets hit a lot, but with 2x34 HP buffers (and 3 x cure wounds as a bonus action per long rest already).

WTF?

[hymer]

Yes, level 2 is high tide for the moon druid. The only obvious downside is atrocious AC (and being so big is sometimes useful, sometimes problematic, and having no ranged attack can suck). But it's all downhill for them from here on. Comparing damage when hitting now to when they're level 20, they're already at over half. Compared to this, a fighter's damage will multiply by a factor of about five in that interval (without considering manoeuvres, action surges, magical weapons, and so on - by just hitting things like he does at level 1).
The moon druid will probably shift to polar bear at level six for a two-point bump to damage and +7 to-hit. Martials will roughly catch up at level 5 when they get two attacks. Monks and rogues get smoothly advancing damage throughout their career, and they catch up to the moon druid at level 5 too.
Moon druids have another high point (but comparatively nothing like the level two case) when they start getting elemental form at level 10. That does come with the downside of costing both wild shapes per rest. The fighter leaps ahead again in damage the next level when he gets three attacks, and the rogue is already on par with the moon druid's elemental bump. The monk is back ahead again at level 12.

Putting it simply (and cutting some corners): The moon druid has better damage potential than most melee at levels 2-4 and at level 10. The rest of the time is about on par or behind the average. And this is without monks spending ki points, and taking no fighter archetype into account, and generally disregarding rogues, who deal comparable or better (often much better) damage from level 3-20.

Did the DM wonder whether the druid had ever seen a bear? I think it'd be reasonable, for the sake of the other players, to keep in mind that a druid can only turn into a beast s/he's seen. You may want to delay the more powerful forms a level or three. There's also something weird going on. You say 'Grizzly', which I don't know the stats on. A brown bear, on the other hand, has +5 to-hit.

[Demonic Spoon]

Yes, level 2 is high tide for the moon druid. The only obvious downside is atrocious AC (and being so big is sometimes useful, sometimes problematic, and having no ranged attack can suck). But it's all downhill for them from here on. Comparing damage when hitting now to when they're level 20, they're already at over half. Compared to this, a fighter's damage will multiply by a factor of about five in that interval (without considering manoeuvres, action surges, magical weapons, and so on - by just hitting things like he does at level 1).
The moon druid will probably shift to polar bear at level six for a two-point bump to damage and +7 to-hit. Martials will roughly catch up at level 5 when they get two attacks. Monks and rogues get smoothly advancing damage throughout their career, and they catch up to the moon druid at level 5 too.
Moon druids have another high point (but comparatively nothing like the level two case) when they start getting elemental form at level 10. That does come with the downside of costing both wild shapes per rest. The fighter leaps ahead again in damage the next level when he gets three attacks, and the rogue is already on par with the moon druid's elemental bump. The monk is back ahead again at level 12.

Putting it simply (and cutting some corners): The moon druid has better damage potential than most melee at levels 2-4 and at level 10. The rest of the time is about on par or behind the average. And this is without monks spending ki points, and taking no fighter archetype into account, and generally disregarding rogues, who deal comparable or better (often much better) damage from level 3-20.

Did the DM wonder whether the druid had ever seen a bear? I think it'd be reasonable, for the sake of the other players, to keep in mind that a druid can only turn into a beast s/he's seen. You may want to delay the more powerful forms a level or three. There's also something weird going on. You say 'Grizzly', which I don't know the stats on. A brown bear, on the other hand, has +5 to-hit.

You're forgetting the Druid is also a full spellcaster. Compare to the land druid, which gets

-An extra cantrip
-Bonus spells prepared automatically
-Recovers some spell slots
-Some other movement bonuses and bonuses against certain types of creatures.

The moon druid should not, at any level, be better than a raw martial class like fighter or barbarian at fighting. The moon druid should be a full caster that can supplement his spells with decent melee in a pinch, not a full caster that can also, depending on level, be either as good as a fighter or way, way better than a fighter. Also consider that when the fighter's HP run out, the fighter is down, whereas the moon druid returns to his full HP caster form or spends a bonus action to return to full health again.

Fortunately, I think toning down the moon druid might be as simple as reducing the CR of the forms it can take. Being able to shift into a form that gives you a separate HP pool and competent melee as a bonus action is already quite good.

[hymer]

@ Demonic Spoon: I think you misunderstand my position. It's this: In 3.5 the wild shaped druidzilla was consistently and almost inevitably a stronger and more versatile fighter than the fighter - and then there was the animal companion. The 5th edition wildshaped druid has his moments, but he is not on average a better fighter than the fighter. As I said earlier, the druid now is no more druidzilla than the fighter is fightzilla.

[Demonic Spoon]

@ Demonic Spoon: I don't think you understand my position. It's this: In 3.5 the wild shaped druidzilla was consistently and almost inevitably a stronger and more versatile fighter than the fighter - and then there was the animal companion. The 5th edition wildshaped druid has his moments, but he is not on average a better fighter than the fighter. As I said earlier, the druid now is no more druidzilla than the fighter is fightzilla.

Just because the druid overshadows other classes less now than it did in 3.5 does not mean that it's fine.

First off, there should not be levels where the druid is better at fighting than a fighter. Classes should be balanced from 1-20. If a class is underpowered 50% of the time and overpowered the other 50%, it's balanced and fun 0% of the time.

A wildshaping druid should always be worse at fighting than a fighter. He should, of course, still be a much better fighter than a wizard or some other caster, and it's probably appropriate to be around on par with something like a college of valor bard. Also, your damage comparison cherrypicks the single thing that the druid is most comparable to the fighter in. Moon druids have a ton more flexibility in their fighting ability than fighters, and are substantially harder to kill due to bonus-action-hitpoint-refresh.

Further, the druid does not have to be always categorically better than the fighter at one thing in order to overshadow him. If the moon druid is 90% as effective as a fighter at actually fighting, and is also a full 9th-level caster, it's still broken - the 10% fighting ability gained by playing a fighter does not make up for the immense power and utility granted by full spell progression.

[hymer]

Why are you telling me this? I never said things were fine or balanced. What I will say is that I'd never consider making a straight fighter in 3.5 for the purpose of being best at fighting. I might well do so in 5th edition.

[Demonic Spoon]

Why are you telling me this? I never said things were fine or balanced. What I will say is that I'd never consider making a straight fighter in 3.5 for the purpose of being best at fighting. I might well do so in 5th edition.

Sorry - it was implied that you were saying that things were fine because you were championing the strengths of other classes over a moon druid while not talking about their weakness.

[hymer]

No worries. :smallsmile: The beginning of the debate may not be obvious any more.
Edit: Looking back, I see I was responding to a blanket statement about how wild shape would soon be 'hilariously broken'.

[Malifice]

A brown bear, on the other hand, has +5 to-hit.

Ah yes +5.

The Druid gets a 68 hp buffer. 2 wild shapes per short rest (assuming bear form). At second level.

He'll be outfighting my Fighter till 5th level, at which point we should be about on par.

Then at 6th level he gets to Wildshape into a CR2 beast; we're still on par with attacks however as a Sabre tooth Tiger he will have an extra 104 HP per short rest. We#ll basically be on par till 9th level.

At 9th level he can become a Giant Scorpion (3 attacks a round, including the tail that deals an extra 4d10 poison attack). 104 extra HP a short rest, AC15.

At 10th level the elemental forms come online - Earth elemental alone grants an extra 126 HP twice per short rest. AC17.

Thats more HP than a 10th level fighter with a Con of 20. And he gets it twice - and then he gets his own HP (d8's). Again he leapfrogs the Fighter.

[hymer]

The moon druid only gets one elemental per rest, though. Which also means that if you realize this was a poor choice, you're stuck with it if you want to stay in melee.
The giant scorpion's claws are fairly pathetic for that level, it has worse to-hit than the brown bear, and poison comes with a fairly low save to avoid. It's also a damage type that whole classes of beings are immune to, and many are resistant. I think I'd stick with the polar bear, it's pretty good save for the AC.

[Malifice]

The moon druid only gets one elemental per rest, though. Which also means that if you realize this was a poor choice, you're stuck with it if you want to stay in melee.
The giant scorpion's claws are fairly pathetic for that level, it has worse to-hit than the brown bear, and poison comes with a fairly low save to avoid. It's also a damage type that whole classes of beings are immune to, and many are resistant. I think I'd stick with the polar bear, it's pretty good save for the AC.

The Brown bear is deadly enough till the Fighter reaches 5th level and they pull up on par.

I mean seriously. At 2nd level:

The Fighter has 18 HP (plus second wind 1d10+2) per short rest.

The Moon Druid has 85 HP (plus cure wounds 3d8+9) per short rest.

[hymer]

Yeah, as I said, it's the very best place on the level table to be for a moon druid. I don't know why you keep saying it, I don't think anyone disagrees. When you DM a moon druid, keep the limitation on forms in mind, so you can rein this problem in before it occurs.

[Malifice]

Yeah, as I said, it's the very best place on the level table to be for a moon druid. I don't know why you keep saying it, I don't think anyone disagrees. When you DM a moon druid, keep the limitation on forms in mind, so you can rein this problem in before it occurs.

Its poor balance to hand out a class feature that invalidates another class.

Its simply OP at that level.

[hymer]

Its poor balance to hand out a class feature that invalidates another class.

Its simply OP at that level.

Yes... Are you talking to me? As I've said a few times, I don't disagree. I also think Sleep is a spell that requires special attention from the DM for three or four levels, and a variant human getting Heavy Armor Master at level 1. There are no doubt more.

[Malifice]

Yes... Are you talking to me? As I've said a few times, I don't disagree. I also think Sleep is a spell that requires special attention from the DM for three or four levels, and a variant human getting Heavy Armor Master at level 1. There are no doubt more.

Sleep is an encounter ender 1/day. Sometimes 2/day. Thats no change from 1-3.5 edition. Its not that bad in play.

Heavy armor master is negating 3 hp a hit. Its also not that bad in actual play.

[hymer]

Sleep is an encounter ender 1/day. Sometimes 2/day. Thats no change from 1-3.5 edition. Its not that bad in play.

Heavy armor master is negating 3 hp a hit. Its also not that bad in actual play.

We could grade the problematics of various abilities, but what are we talking about? You say moon druid as a bear at level 2 is broken, and I say yes, it's as bad as wild shape gets. Then you repeat it's bad, and I repeat myself that yes, it's bad. What's going on here?

[Malifice]

We could grade the problematics of various abilities, but what are we talking about? You say moon druid as a bear at level 2 is broken, and I say yes, it's as bad as wild shape gets. Then you repeat it's bad, and I repeat myself that yes, it's bad. What's going on here?

Im agreeing with you.

Im disagreeing with you about sleep and heavy armor master.

[hymer]

Im agreeing with you.

Im disagreeing with you about sleep and heavy armor master.

Allright, that clears that up. :smallsmile: Sleep and HAM is for another thread.

[Beige]

The moon druid should not, at any level, be better than a raw martial class like fighter or barbarian at fighting. The moon druid should be a full caster that can supplement his spells with decent melee in a pinch, not a full caster that can also, depending on level, be either as good as a fighter or way, way better than a fighter. Also consider that when the fighter's HP run out, the fighter is down, whereas the moon druid returns to his full HP caster form or spends a bonus action to return to full health again.

your forgetting, however, that until level 18 the moon druid shifts between being a full caster and being a melee fighter, and is not both at the same time. If wild-shape was never able to compete with a melee fighter, than there would never be any point in using it and you would always be better staying in regular druid form :smallwink:.

finally, at max level the druid has a max CR of 6 for his forms - he no longer comes close to competing with a melee fighter at melee fighting, and they would laugh at him if he tried to be anything but an annoyingly tough caster.

also, the druid can do the full HP thing twice before high levels.

level 2-4 is where the moon druid has the best offensive power as he can get multi-attack in his starting shifts, putting him on par with the monk/rogue for early damage. the problem is the moment the fighter/ranger/barbarian hit level 5 and get their second attack, they will be hitting harder. Furthermore, the druids HP dosen't scale except whenever he gains a new level he can assume, when he gets a bigger form, so he's tough now but he's not gonna be nearly as tough at level 3, or 4.

Level 1/2 is a rough time and a bad time to judge characters, as most of them haven't got all their toys come inti play yet that really defines them

[Demonic Spoon]

your forgetting, however, that until level 18 the moon druid shifts between being a full caster and being a melee fighter, and is not both at the same time. If wild-shape was never able to compete with a melee fighter, than there would never be any point in using it and you would always be better staying in regular druid form :smallwink:.

finally, at max level the druid has a max CR of 6 for his forms - he no longer comes close to competing with a melee fighter at melee fighting, and they would laugh at him if he tried to be anything but an annoyingly tough caster.

also, the druid can do the full HP thing twice before high levels.

level 2-4 is where the moon druid has the best offensive power as he can get multi-attack in his starting shifts, putting him on par with the monk/rogue for early damage. the problem is the moment the fighter/ranger/barbarian hit level 5 and get their second attack, they will be hitting harder. Furthermore, the druids HP dosen't scale except whenever he gains a new level he can assume, when he gets a bigger form, so he's tough now but he's not gonna be nearly as tough at level 3, or 4.

Level 1/2 is a rough time and a bad time to judge characters, as most of them haven't got all their toys come inti play yet that really defines them

Bonus action shift means that you can cast a spell and wildshape in the same round so not being able to cast spells and be a capable meleer doesn't mean a whole ton.

The full HP thing is powerful enough that doing it twice, and fighting well, and then reverting to a full caster, is really powerful. You say that wildshape isn't useful without the moon druid's current forms - does that mean you think it's useless on a land druid?

Furthermore, looking at the land druid's class features, do you think that they're as good as the moon druid's?

[Beige]

Bonus action shift means that you can cast a spell and wildshape in the same round so not being able to cast spells and be a capable meleer doesn't mean a whole ton.

right, yeah, you can still do that twice - so you have one spell, then your prepared for combat. if you want to cast another spell, you have to drop the combat form - and refreshing it will then use your last use of that ability.

so you can cast two spells per short rest, then spend the rest of the time in an almost decent melee form. hoo-rah :smallwink:


The full HP thing is powerful enough that doing it twice, and fighting well, and then reverting to a full caster, is really powerful. You say that wildshape isn't useful without the moon druid's current forms - does that mean you think it's useless on a land druid?

if your limited to a CR 1 beast? yes, I don't feel wild shape is worth having on a land druid post level 4-5 until level 18, as they don't have the bonus action shift and give up spell-casting to become a creature equal in combat skill to around a single level 4 character.

it does replace your hit points, but it DOSEN'T heal you - and any extras, that the paltry AC and pathetic HP of CR 1 creatures at the level their obtained, will carry through the form. and while your in it, you can't use the spellcasting your choice focuses on

even the CR 6 creatures of the Moon Druid aren't particularly good in a fight. They have a lot of HP, and as such will make you live longer, but since you by then have max level spellcasting and can cast in this form, you'll pretty much never use the attacks of the beast form, so they're almost ancillary to this discussion

because the land druid - and even in late game the moon druid - is not "fighting well". CR 1 are not good enough melee fighters to even be worth considering a suitable front line figher at the level they are obtained, let alone later in the game

and yes, being a full caster is really powerful - I have never said it isn't. I merely said the moon druid is not a better fighter than a Fighter except below 5th level, which btw is true as after 4th level the CR avaliable begins to screw you. 1/4 is designed to be a hard challenge for a 1st level adventuer, 1/2 a chalange for a second level one thats obtained at level 4, and 1 is designed to fight level 4s on even footing and is obtained at level 8

until level 18 when they can cast in animal form, the main use a land druid will have for it is escaping, as cr 1 beasts are to weak to even be considered useful at level 8.

Moon Druid has it better, but not by much - to the extent he'll still contribute much more to the fight before wildshaping, but he's still a decent enough fighter afterwards its not as much of an issue. Not as good anymore as a barbarian or fighter etc, but still passable


Furthermore, looking at the land druid's class features, do you think that they're as good as the moon druid's?

wait, what :smallconfused: did you decide to reply to me by accident here or did you add extra sentances to my previous post in your head...

I never even hinted that they where - the moon druid is by far the better of the two druid specs. i argued that the moon druids not as powerful as your trying to make out, and they are really not - so throwing this out there is putting words in my mouth :smallsigh:

Heck, I even argued that the wildshape should be able to compete with a melee fighter or else there's no point giving up being a full caster.

[Demonic Spoon]

did you decide to reply to me by accident here or did you add extra sentances to my previous post in your head...


No. I was extrapolating that if you think that the moon druid is fine as is, then you must either think that the land druid's features are as good or that the land druid is underpowered.

Anyway, I may be slightly overreacting to the moon druid's power, though even still characters should at least be vaguely balanced at 2nd level. At the very least, a druid should not outright obsolete the fighter, even if it's only for 3 levels.

[Sir_Leorik]

Hasbro isn't really breathing down their necks, though. From everything I've read, it sounds like Hasbro pretty much lets WotC do what they like, since the cardboard crack business continues to basically be a license to print US dollars. D&D represents a tiny, tiny part of the corporation's budget.

And it's an unprofitable part of Hasbro. 5E is D&D's last chance to impress the suits. Hasbro doesn't interfere with M:tG because it grosses enough. D&D did not sell well enough to prevent the corporation demanding 4E, Essentials and now 5E.


Plus, keep in mind that, thus far, 5e has had a gangbusters release. The PHB topped the charts for all books on Amazon and was the top of Publishers Weekly's nonfiction charts. The MM and DMG likely won't follow suit, but after that there's DungeonScape, which looks like an awfully compelling freemium product. And, as I've tried to remind people, there are things that Mearls has hinted at that we still haven't even heard the name of yet, much less a description.

I don't think it's time to worry yet, in any case.

I think that it's too early to tell if 5E will be a success or not. What's not too early to tell is that it needs to be a success, or Hasbro will pull the plug on all future D&D products. Why should they publish a product that loses them money? They'll probably allow .PDFs of older products to be sold, but that won't recoup the losses from 4E. (And I say this as a fan of 4E. WotC needlessly antagonized the fanbase, and loopholes in the OGL allowed Paizo to capitalize on that. The result is a broken fanbase arguing on the internet.)

[emeraldstreak]

There are no loopholes in the OGL. Its purpose was to protect DnD from greedy corporations and it succeeded.

[Sir_Leorik]

There are no loopholes in the OGL. Its purpose was to protect DnD from greedy corporations and it succeeded.

No, there were loopholes. The goal was to allow third-party content providers to develop adventures and campaign settings, without WotC taking the financial risk T$R did under Gygax, the Blumes or Lorraine Williams. Then the market for third party d20 supplements went south, and companies like Green Ronin or Mongoose put out OGL products that took advantage of clauses in the license that allowed them to not slap a big fat d20 logo on them.

In any event, Paizo is very much a corporation. And you left out an ampersand. It's D&D.

[hymer]

If 5th edition fails to live up to expectations, it probably won't be the end of published D&D. If by then Wizards or Hasbro don't want to try again (and hey, who's to say they won't, look at how many Jaws or Rockies got made; if someone makes the right pitch at the right time, anything is possible), they will eventually sell off the brand, at which point it can start again. It will likely get dramatically downscaled in such a case, but it's hard to imagine such a brand gathering dust for much more than a decade.

[Caelic]

If 5th edition fails to live up to expectations, it probably won't be the end of published D&D. If by then Wizards or Hasbro don't want to try again (and hey, who's to say they won't, look at how many Jaws or Rockies got made; if someone makes the right pitch at the right time, anything is possible), they will eventually sell off the brand, at which point it can start again. It will likely get dramatically downscaled in such a case, but it's hard to imagine such a brand gathering dust for much more than a decade.


Unlikely, Hymer. Hasbro very rarely lets go of properties, and D&D, as an intellectual property, has significantly more value than D&D, the tabletop roleplaying game.

[Slipperychicken]

I'd bet that, with enough splats, they'll include ways to concentrate on multiple spells at a time, like having items or familiars do concentration for you.

[pwykersotz]

I'd bet that, with enough splats, they'll include ways to concentrate on multiple spells at a time, like having items or familiars do concentration for you.

They've certainly done the ludicrous before, but one of the stated design goals was never to do that. They've said directly that if you have multiple concentration spells active at once, you've broken the game. They then followed it with saying DM's who want a game like that are welcome to it, but it's not a supported style.

[Slipperychicken]

They've certainly done the ludicrous before, but one of the stated design goals was never to do that. They've said directly that if you have multiple concentration spells active at once, you've broken the game. They then followed it with saying DM's who want a game like that are welcome to it, but it's not a supported style.

Nice, I hope they stick with that.

[Soras Teva Gee]

If 5th edition fails to live up to expectations, it probably won't be the end of published D&D. If by then Wizards or Hasbro don't want to try again (and hey, who's to say they won't, look at how many Jaws or Rockies got made; if someone makes the right pitch at the right time, anything is possible), they will eventually sell off the brand, at which point it can start again. It will likely get dramatically downscaled in such a case, but it's hard to imagine such a brand gathering dust for much more than a decade.


Unlikely, Hymer. Hasbro very rarely lets go of properties, and D&D, as an intellectual property, has significantly more value than D&D, the tabletop roleplaying game.

You both are making assumptions that D&D is a somehow a major property. Its not. Its an IP that "people have maybe heard of but few people actually like" and I'd be amazed if it even has the market base as such niche properties as comic books.

Only comic books can be made into movies that everyone likes. Dare to compare D&D there anyone?

D&D doesn't have obvious merchandising like toys, doesn't really work for kids, doesn't appeal to teens or adults, it appeals to a subsection of nerds themselves just a sub-culture. If it still turns a profit all well and good, but if it doesn't and we accept 4E failed... well it had its redemption shot. And it doesn't have a history of vast success to say that oh if you just keep at it the people will come back and it will be mainstream popular at some point.

[MeeposFire]

Actually D&D has been made into feature length films before and probably will again at some point (granted only one was done by a real motion picture company that is known). Sadly they generally have sucked but every once in a while they try again though usually not very hard. So it is certainly a property that they use just not very well.

However it is to be noted that it was a long time before Marvel could have a good movie too so it could be just giving it enough chances...

[Knaight]

D&D doesn't have obvious merchandising like toys, doesn't really work for kids, doesn't appeal to teens or adults, it appeals to a subsection of nerds themselves just a sub-culture. If it still turns a profit all well and good, but if it doesn't and we accept 4E failed... well it had its redemption shot. And it doesn't have a history of vast success to say that oh if you just keep at it the people will come back and it will be mainstream popular at some point.

D&D provides a way to get a bunch of hack fantasy novels published, which are reasonably successful. It's not a major product by any stretch of the imagination - MtG is vastly larger for WotC, and WotC is a pretty tiny part of Hasbro (they own Nerf, and that's not even their biggest subsidiary) - but it has enough merchandising to generally keep around, and enough for other companies to be willing to buy it if Hasbro decides they don't want it anymore and will sell it for comparatively cheap.

[pwykersotz]

Actually D&D has been made into feature length films before and probably will again at some point (granted only one was done by a real motion picture company that is known). Sadly they generally have sucked but every once in a while they try again though usually not very hard. So it is certainly a property that they use just not very well.

However it is to be noted that it was a long time before Marvel could have a good movie too so it could be just giving it enough chances...

I think the key point was movies that "everyone likes". :smalltongue:

[Soras Teva Gee]

D&D provides a way to get a bunch of hack fantasy novels published, which are reasonably successful. It's not a major product by any stretch of the imagination - MtG is vastly larger for WotC, and WotC is a pretty tiny part of Hasbro (they own Nerf, and that's not even their biggest subsidiary) - but it has enough merchandising to generally keep around, and enough for other companies to be willing to buy it if Hasbro decides they don't want it anymore and will sell it for comparatively cheap.

I would dispute that as a serious asset. Books on the whole aren't the hottest medium (though not in danger of extinction) around though do have exceptions this isn't one of them.

Go into a bookstore and sci-fi/fantasy we'll be only a part of that (and not the biggest) and the franchise books only a couple of shelves in that. And having been frequenting bookstores for the better part of two decades I can recall the shifts there. The shelves I used to by my SW EU and Forgotten Realms books on are still there, but now the content is by weight 40k books, a couple of video game ones like the Halo novels, a remnant of SW... and like one ordinary sized shelf of D&D content most of which was reprint versions of a certain character oh and I think a couple of the Dragonlance books. Maybe like 5 books were new-ish content

And let's be honest here, there's no Game of Thrones waiting to happen under a D&D label.
And it probably doesn't need a D&D label if it is because the author damn well knows its good enough to stand on its own.


I think the key point was movies that "everyone likes". :smalltongue:

You saved me from asking if the sand was warm.

[Knaight]

I would dispute that as a serious asset. Books on the whole aren't the hottest medium (though not in danger of extinction) around though do have exceptions this isn't one of them.

They don't need to be a serious asset. They're really cheap to produce, and do reliably make some money. It's not a huge amount by any stretch of the imagination, but it's enough to be worth keeping around.

[Soras Teva Gee]

They don't need to be a serious asset. They're really cheap to produce, and do reliably make some money. It's not a huge amount by any stretch of the imagination, but it's enough to be worth keeping around.

As long as the elf continues to sell and you have anyone doing publishing work at all you just license the author, maybe replace him.

No employed tabletop game staff is required for that so if its not a profit turning division in its own right...

[MeeposFire]

I think the key point was movies that "everyone likes". :smalltongue:

Ahh but why weren't the movies liked? Was it the IP or the fact the movies are just terrible.

Heck the movies have two major problems (at least). 1. They are just poorly made in so many ways and 2. They are not really related much to D&D at all if you actually look at the stories. They are often D&D in name only.

If you look at novel sales D&D is a good IP it just takes a real effort to make it work but that so far has never happened (and it is hard to do too).

[Knaight]

As long as the elf continues to sell and you have anyone doing publishing work at all you just license the author, maybe replace him.

No employed tabletop game staff is required for that so if its not a profit turning division in its own right...

It's only really the name they need to keep for that, yes. The game itself could easily be let languish.