Moon Druids in the Party

[pwykersotz]

So I'm running a game with 5 level 4's at the moment, one of which is a Moon Druid. You all know the problem, and it comes to a tune of about 72 extra hit points per short rest. This is so far out of whack with the other characters that it's causing some issues with challenges. I'm trying to figure out the most seamless way of fixing it. So far, I've had two ideas.

Idea 1) The Druid no longer gets the HP of his new form. He keeps his own, and when he's at 0 he's dying. If the form has fewer HP than the Druid normally would, such as if he turned into a badger, when the Druid is reduced by that much hp he reverts forms. HP does not change due to the form's new Con score. Everything else functions as normal.

Advantage: The Druid is now on a fairly even playing field. He has his recharge mechanic with expending spell slots for recovery, and he keeps all the other benefits of shapeshifting. He also doesn't go beyond the capability of the other classes for the most part.

Disadvantage: Nerfing PC classes is never fun. Players tend to feel cheated, and the need to reiterate the restriction into a custom houserule and make sure everyone knows about it is annoying. Not the worst thing, but it does suck.


Idea 2) Increase the xp budget for encounters since the Druid has the HP of 2 additional players.

Advantage: The player doesn't feel cheated out of his ability, and the extra damage from more powerful or plentiful creatures offsets the advantage of the Druid. It also allows for the DM to dynamically change the extra xp needed as leveling changes the size of the advantage the Druid has.

Disadvantage: This requires a proportionally greater number of attacks to target the Druid as opposed to the party members, which may wear thin after a while. It also (assuming its played straight) has the party level faster than normal and makes things more dangerous for the rest of the party overall.


I'm still mulling it over, I'm not even close to implementing a change. Does the playground have other ideas for how to deal with this other than just letting all the enemies get eaten by bears?

[Demonic Spoon]

The moon druid's advantages become less overpowering in higher levels, so I wouldn't blanket-nerf the ability.


Have you considered limiting the CR of the creature more in the early levels? I'd say CR 1/2 max until 5, CR 1 from 5-6 or 5-7, and then standard progression after that.

From an encounter balance standpoint, consider using disables rather than attempting to kill the moon druid with hitpoint damage. Or just having enemies go around the moon druid and beat on his friends.

[pwykersotz]

The moon druid's advantages become less overpowering in higher levels, so I wouldn't blanket-nerf the ability.


Have you considered limiting the CR of the creature more in the early levels? I'd say CR 1/2 max until 5, CR 1 from 5-6 or 5-7, and then standard progression after that.

From an encounter balance standpoint, consider using disables rather than attempting to kill the moon druid with hitpoint damage. Or just having enemies go around the moon druid and beat on his friends.

I agree, the blanket-nerf is undesirable, even though it would be simple.

Limiting the CR was not something I considered extensively yet. That's a good one to add to the list.

In terms of disables, I agree that would be nice. Unfortunately, low level creatures have fewer disables that I've found. Most of the CR's 1-4 have different ways of dealing HP damage. And also there's the ID. :smalltongue: I haven't comprehensively read the MM yet though, so I'll see what I can find in that regard.

[Segev]

I suggest finding something other than hp damage with which to threaten/challenge the druid. If he's not serving as the party tank by drawing the majority of the fire (and thus running through his extra hp faster than the rest of the party goes through their normal amounts), then he's a hard target and the smart thing for foes to do in general would be to take out the softer ones first.

If he's a threat on top of being durable (and I assume he is), then he's the one that battlefield-controlling abilities should be used to separate from the rest of the party or to delay or temporarily neutralize. If the bad guys have some sort of fire-and-forget effect which has the potential to keep the druid out of the fight, or fighting at partial-effectiveness, or even just to delay him for a round or few while they focus on the rest of the party, that's how you challenge him. Yes, damage is threatening, but when the problem is one of having too tanky a PC who doesn't make sense (for whatever reason) to target with most of the damage, then the second-best option is to make him the one who you save for later. Either by temporarily disabling or inconveniencing his ability to attack, or by simply accepting that he's going to have to go down last and focusing on the squishier ones.

Yes, that may seem like you're picking on the squishier ones, but it's just good tactics. Take out his allies, and the druid loses due to action deficit. Therefore, not somehow keeping people on him is his failure condition, rather than "lose all his hp."

[pwykersotz]

I suggest finding something other than hp damage with which to threaten/challenge the druid. If he's not serving as the party tank by drawing the majority of the fire (and thus running through his extra hp faster than the rest of the party goes through their normal amounts), then he's a hard target and the smart thing for foes to do in general would be to take out the softer ones first.

If he's a threat on top of being durable (and I assume he is), then he's the one that battlefield-controlling abilities should be used to separate from the rest of the party or to delay or temporarily neutralize. If the bad guys have some sort of fire-and-forget effect which has the potential to keep the druid out of the fight, or fighting at partial-effectiveness, or even just to delay him for a round or few while they focus on the rest of the party, that's how you challenge him. Yes, damage is threatening, but when the problem is one of having too tanky a PC who doesn't make sense (for whatever reason) to target with most of the damage, then the second-best option is to make him the one who you save for later. Either by temporarily disabling or inconveniencing his ability to attack, or by simply accepting that he's going to have to go down last and focusing on the squishier ones.

Yes, that may seem like you're picking on the squishier ones, but it's just good tactics. Take out his allies, and the druid loses due to action deficit. Therefore, not somehow keeping people on him is his failure condition, rather than "lose all his hp."

This is all excellent advice. I've been using it so far. It works. Unfortunately it is a good deal of work to implement in such a way that it is transparent to the players. I'm looking for a simple and elegant houserule to minimize my workload in this regard. I might fail to find it and need to keep doing exactly this, and honestly it's not that big of a problem. But I think both my players and myself would be happiest with the issue being fixed instead. Still, I appreciate the input. :smallsmile:

[thereaper]

I would ask why you would even let someone play a Moon Druid in the first place.

That's, like, the second thing you're supposed to ban (right after Simulacrums and just before Necromancers).

[pwykersotz]

I would ask why you would even let someone play a Moon Druid in the first place.

I'm not really sure how to answer, there are a number of reasons.

1) I learn through experience, and this is the first full on game of 5e I've run. Default rules, no restrictions, minimal houserules is a great way to test things, and I can patch or adjust as I please as I learn what breaks.

2) Shapeshifting focus is awesome in concept and fun to play.

3) Sometimes things appear broken in theory that are actually not. This might be one of those times. It might not be. That's why I'm taking my time while judging.

But yeah, I'm not a particularly restrictive GM in terms of player selection of character options. I think more fun is had when players have the freedom to customize. I know I like it when I'm a player. I'm just not understanding the Druid having 72 temp hp per short rest and the rest of the shapeshifting benefits when (to my knowledge) no other class comes remotely close at that level. It's even more effective than Uncanny Dodge.

[MeeposFire]

If it is the amount of HP they get which is really nasty if you don't like changing the CR progression perhaps what you could do is use half HP of the creature until a certain level and then it becomes full HP on certain CRs. You could then put full HP on levels that have a dead level just for fun. This way you don't lose any more offensive potential but the HP bloat is half as bad until you get to a level where the moon druid is not so bad (and then you only need to fix the capstone).

[pwykersotz]

If it is the amount of HP they get which is really nasty if you don't like changing the CR progression perhaps what you could do is use half HP of the creature until a certain level and then it becomes full HP on certain CRs. You could then put full HP on levels that have a dead level just for fun. This way you don't lose any more offensive potential but the HP bloat is half as bad until you get to a level where the moon druid is not so bad (and then you only need to fix the capstone).

Not bad. 18 temp HP twice per short rest is much more manageable, and I do agree that the problem seems like it will diminish at higher levels...

I will add it to my list. Thanks for the input!

[Eslin]

I would ask why you would even let someone play a Moon Druid in the first place.

That's, like, the second thing you're supposed to ban (right after Simulacrums and just before Necromancers).

Yaaay we're back to 3.5 again. Nobody roll a tier 1, you'll make the fighter cry!

[hymer]

Two little thoughts, though I'm afraid it's not a house rule to end the problem:
The moon druid does come with a significant drawback: No ranged attacks. They generally have to drop wild shape to cantrip or shoot their ranged weapons. So have encounters where something separates the party from the enemy, chasms, cliffs, a fast river, or flying opponents. At the least, the moon druid will be occupied with making Athletics checks for some rounds, and when/if s/he gets there, will be quite alone with all the enemies.
Another thought is to focus fire on the moon druid. They have lousy AC as a rule, and they're often bigger than anything else around, so it makes narrative sense that they get shot at more than anyone else. This at least keeps the rest of the party melee happy (or less unhappy, there's still the offensive gap at level 4, but it goes away on its own at level 5). If the moon druid doesn't care in the least about keeping a concentration spell up, this will be less useful, but the threat of losing concentration can be a way to challenge other than direct hp loss.

[Strill]

Another thought is to focus fire on the moon druid. They have lousy AC as a rule, and they're often bigger than anything else around, so it makes narrative sense that they get shot at more than anyone else. This at least keeps the rest of the party melee happy (or less unhappy, there's still the offensive gap at level 4, but it goes away on its own at level 5). If the moon druid doesn't care in the least about keeping a concentration spell up, this will be less useful, but the threat of losing concentration can be a way to challenge other than direct hp loss.

This is why Barbarian 3/Moon Druid x is a crazy combination. Rage cuts damage in half, and Unarmored Defense works while in Wild Shape.

[Cambrian]

Unarmored Defense works while in Wild Shape.Has that been confirmed? Seem like natural armor is still armor.

[Eslin]

Has that been confirmed? Seem like natural armor is still armor.

Unarmoured defense says not wearing armour, you'd have to twist that really hard to make turning into a bear equal wearing armour.


This is why Barbarian 3/Moon Druid x is a crazy combination. Rage cuts damage in half, and Unarmored Defense works while in Wild Shape.

Barbarian 5 is a lot better, since you're doubling the amount of attacks from an attack action.

And if your DM rules multiattack is an action rather than a way of using the Attack action, beastmasters suddenly become unable to order their pets to multiattack.

[hymer]

Has that been confirmed? Seem like natural armor is still armor.

There is nothing clear I've found so far. The interpretation is very much down to the the conscience of the individual churchgoer DM.

[Objulen]

Not bad. 18 temp HP twice per short rest is much more manageable, and I do agree that the problem seems like it will diminish at higher levels...

I will add it to my list. Thanks for the input!

That also sounds like the best option to me. Instead of basing it off of the form's native HD and HP, you may just want to give the character 2 or 3 temp HP per Druid level.

[thereaper]

I'm not really sure how to answer, there are a number of reasons.

1) I learn through experience, and this is the first full on game of 5e I've run. Default rules, no restrictions, minimal houserules is a great way to test things, and I can patch or adjust as I please as I learn what breaks.

2) Shapeshifting focus is awesome in concept and fun to play.

3) Sometimes things appear broken in theory that are actually not. This might be one of those times. It might not be. That's why I'm taking my time while judging.

But yeah, I'm not a particularly restrictive GM in terms of player selection of character options. I think more fun is had when players have the freedom to customize. I know I like it when I'm a player. I'm just not understanding the Druid having 72 temp hp per short rest and the rest of the shapeshifting benefits when (to my knowledge) no other class comes remotely close at that level. It's even more effective than Uncanny Dodge.

Ok, then. If you didn't know better, then you didn't know better. It happens.

But one of the best house rules I've heard for dealing with polymorph effects in general is to make a certain percentage of the damage carry over to the original form. So for every, say, 3 damage they take while wild-shaped, their true form takes 1. That way, they're, at maximum, three times as tough as they should be. Making it two-for-one might be even better, since the Druid doesn't even need wild-shaping to be one of the best classes in the game.

[archaeo]

Who are the other players in the party? Does the Druid have any responsibilities other than "be a bear"?

It seems like the best way to limit Moon Druid power is to make it difficult to remain in the form for all of the adventuring day. Bonus points for making the Druid feel useful by giving up on the form, i.e. making it change into a flying or swimming form, encouraging the use of spells, etc.

[rollingForInit]

I would ask why you would even let someone play a Moon Druid in the first place.

That's, like, the second thing you're supposed to ban (right after Simulacrums and just before Necromancers).

Because banning two of the thematically more interesting subclasses sounds like such a great idea if players have great character concepts they want to go with.

[SiuiS]

this requires a proportionally greater number of attacks to target the Druid as opposed to the party members, which may wear thin after a while. It also (assuming its played straight) has the party level faster than normal and makes things more dangerous for the rest of the party overall.

Consider that ganging up on the guy who morphs into a bear and throws himself into a frenzy with no regard for life is going to get ganged up on because it makes sense, not because it's you balancing things.

The point of that feature is he's getting up in everyone's grill, right? You could solve this by making that a good idea. Making him want to do it. Maybe he holds of the enemy cyclops while the party runs interference on everything else in the stronghold. Maybe he needs to be the one who blocks off an exit with his body. He's basically a barbarian who focuses on health and tanking. Let him health and tank. He doesn't get up in Nazibar's grill? Nazibar's lays waste to everything with max range sniping fireballs; because there are consequences other than "you personally lose HP and die". If the party does because he doesn't Hulk out, or if they die because he does hulk out, that's losing too.

Outliving the party is no fun.

[emeraldstreak]

The druid will fall in relative power all the way to lvl 9. CR 2 beasts aren't as relatively powerful as CR 1s (at least until an overpowered one gets published).

[rlc]

fudge rolls. bear dude always seems to get hit really hard.

[Eslin]

fudge rolls. bear dude always seems to get hit really hard.

This is my vote for worst solution. Don't pick on a player for having a better character.

[Objulen]

Out of curiosity, what CR 1 Beast is the Druid turning into at level 4 that gives them 72 extra hit points? Some CR 1's in the book have 20 or so HP, but unless you're counting burning a spell slot to heal, I'm not really seeing how they get that many extra HP from MM creatures.

[RustyArmor]

If you are running a game where everything gets maxed HP, some do, some don't, maybe just have the wild shapes only get the book average instead of max. I'm assuming at 72 HP he is giving said form maximum possible.

[Demonic Spoon]

he said per short rest.

I know that the brown bear (PHB) has 34 HP, and he can transform into that from twice per short rest = 68 HP. There might be another CR-1 form he's using that is 36 HP.

[Segev]

I would ask why you would even let someone play a Moon Druid in the first place.

That's, like, the second thing you're supposed to ban (right after Simulacrums and just before Necromancers).

Okay, why are Necromancers on your ban-list? Perhaps its my perennial frustration with a lack of minionmancy before mid-levels, but I'm not seeing what makes 5e necromancers any worse than any other wizard archetype.

[Objulen]

That makes sense.

[Objulen]

Okay, why are Necromancers on your ban-list? Perhaps its my perennial frustration with a lack of minionmancy before mid-levels, but I'm not seeing what makes 5e necromancers any worse than any other wizard archetype.

Old qualms about hydra skeletons, maybe?

[Tenmujiin]

Edit: I really need to start refreshing the thread before I post.

[emeraldstreak]

giant hyena has like 45, but brown bear is generally better. giant octopus is also good with restrain, hp, and hold breath for 1h.

[pwykersotz]

For the HP, sometimes it's the Dire Wolf. It has 37 average HP. Though I was misremembering the Brown Bear...I thought it had 36 hp, hence my number. :smallredface:

Regarding Natural Armor, I've seen some cases where it provides a +1 and some cases where it sets the value. We're just keeping it simple and saying no to anything that recalculates the animal's statblock. It keeps with the value of not doing math at the table. If the player wants to go through and redo his animal statblocks I've left that door open for him, but he has not wanted to as of yet.

Regarding carryover damage, it's a possible solution, but I'll admit I don't like it much. Managing two health bars at once is annoying. Right now the player has the bear character sheet and the Druid character sheet. He just sets one aside and picks up the other. Very simple. Again it's not a bad idea, but it's probably not for my table.

Regarding the rest, yeah, varying the encounters has been what's kept this going so far. I have the party attack from range, have the bears intimidation be SUPER effective as everyone fires at him, have the bears intimidation be lackluster and he's pretty much ignored in favor of easier targets (this is just based on his intimidation check), and of course there's still plenty of times where he gets to just use his class feature to eat faces and feel good about it.

The thing is, my gamers are fairly tactically adept. They'll focus fire the major threats first. Sometimes it just takes the bear tanking the for a single round, and then he's dead. The minions around are dealt with on the next turn. The cost is that the rest of the party is down 25-50% of their health and maybe a few spells, while the Druid has spent one of his most rechargeable feature.

I should also note, this isn't causing out of character problems. No one is resenting the Druid, nor relying on him overmuch. They've recognized the power of the class, but that's all. And I'm the type of DM to give plenty of RP and Exploration challenges as well, so there's more than just staying in bear form all day. I just want to challenge the bear in combat [I]sometimes without overkilling the party or one-shot restraining the bear.

Thanks for the continued discussion, it's really helping me toss ideas around. :smallsmile:

[Segev]

Well, to challenge him "sometimes" is relatively easy: pit the party against, if not a mirror-match, then at least encounters where there are 1-2 heavy hitters on the enemy side which the druid will have to square off against if the party isn't going to get squished.

Do you have other meleeists in the party besides your druid? How do they compare?

[archaeo]

We're at level 4, right? Seems like you've only got a little more time before level 5, when the martials get their extra attack, casters get 3rd level slots, and Warlocks get their next invocation/whatever other goofy stuff Warlocks have.

Otherwise, I feel like SiuiS has the right idea above. The Druid has all those hit points, but outliving the party is not much fun. Just challenge the bulk of your players for now, I think, and let the Druid be invincible for a bit perhaps; you can enjoy ruining them with conditions in a few levels. In the meantime, as long as the players aren't bummed out and the Druid isn't bored, I'd say you're doing a fine job.

[thereaper]

Okay, why are Necromancers on your ban-list? Perhaps its my perennial frustration with a lack of minionmancy before mid-levels, but I'm not seeing what makes 5e necromancers any worse than any other wizard archetype.

Having 100 skeletons with your proficiency bonus at level 20 is simply not an ability PCs should be allowed to have. 5? Sure. 10? Maybe. But once you start going beyond that, you start reaching the point that the game breaks down. Trap-triggering, damage, tanking, alarm system, the possibilities get very ridiculous, very fast (and nearly all of them are things that the Wizard isn't even supposed to be able to do in the first place).

There are technically things you can do as a DM to make Necromancer Ned less attractive, but when one has to bend over backwards to completely shut down something just to prevent it from wrecking the game, then that thing simply shouldn't be allowed to exist in the game in its original form to begin with (after all, unless you want the game to be all about Necromancer Ned, you're going to design every encounter specifically to negate them anyway, so they might as well not exist in the first place).

The Necromancer, like the Moon Druid, can be fixed (specifically, Necromancers need a hard limit on the number of minions they can have; something like 3 or 5). But, failing that, they need to be banned in order for the game to work as intended.

And as for Simulacrums, well...there's really not much that can be done to fix those. Even with chains ignored, they still break the game. The ability to gain what are effectively extra PCs (to say nothing of using it to copy things that aren't PCs) is simply too powerful for PCs to possess. It's the exact same reason that no one ever used Leadership (even when there were technically no rules against it, everyone assumed by default that it was banned, because it was simply that overpowered).

[archaeo]

There are technically things you can do as a DM to make Necromancer Ned less attractive, but when one has to bend over backwards to completely shut down something just to prevent it from wrecking the game, then that thing simply shouldn't be allowed to exist in the game in its original form to begin with (after all, unless you want the game to be all about Necromancer Ned, you're going to design every encounter specifically to negate them anyway, so they might as well not exist in the first place).

Or, you can accept the premise that D&D is a game that is at least partially about shared storytelling, and treat the necromancer as an opportunity for the player to affect the game's world. How does your campaign setting react to a Wizard raising all the corpses around? How does the rest of the party feel about it?

There's nothing wrong, of course, with saying "I don't feel like telling a story that involves necromancy, so I'd prefer it if you didn't use those spells," or whatever, but it's hardly broken if it brings such huge flavor to a campaign.

Moon Druids are, of course, a different thing entirely. They're a little unbalanced in the early game, insofar as "difficult to kill with HP damage compared to other classes" is somewhat problematic. IMO, the easiest solution is to just let the Moon Druid enjoy feeling powerful for a few levels, perhaps throw a few encounters or dungeons that challenges their assumptions. Nothing dire happens if you can't kill a Moon Druid easily between levels 2 and 5; there are other party members to kill, after all!


And as for Simulacrums, well...there's really not much that can be done to fix those. Even with chains ignored, they still break the game. The ability to gain what are effectively extra PCs (to say nothing of using it to copy things that aren't PCs) is simply too powerful for PCs to possess. It's the exact same reason that no one ever used Leadership (even when there were technically no rules against it, everyone assumed by default that it was banned, because it was simply that overpowered).

Simulacrum is a very powerful spell. It's a good thing it's extremely inconvenient to cast in the middle of an adventure, costs a bunch more money than hiring a squad of hirelings, and only really works as more than a pile of HP for a couple of adventuring days at most.

It's also a really cool spell to give to somebody like an Ancient Red Dragon. Sort of like how animate dead makes for a really cool enemy spell!

[Eslin]

Simulacrum is a very powerful spell. It's a good thing it's extremely inconvenient to cast in the middle of an adventure, costs a bunch more money than hiring a squad of hirelings, and only really works as more than a pile of HP for a couple of adventuring days at most.

It's also a really cool spell to give to somebody like an Ancient Red Dragon. Sort of like how animate dead makes for a really cool enemy spell!

It also breaks the campaign the instant the wizard gets access to wish, infinite gold and simulacra.

[archaeo]

It also breaks the campaign the instant the wizard gets access to wish, infinite gold and simulacra.

Well, it doesn't have to break the campaign; levels 17-20 can turn into a very interesting story about what happens when a party's Wizard unlocks the secret of infinite wealth and wishes.

However, given that this spell interaction is an obvious mistake, I doubt it's going to trouble many DMs, who will just houserule it away until WotC gets around to issuing errata. And it would probably be for the best for us not to muck up the thread by going further off-topic about a loophole we've already discussed to death.

[Rallicus]

I don't know if it's been suggested, but what about changing the Wildshape rule to long rest replenish only? At least until the power gap seems less obvious.

[BRKNdevil]

I don't know if it's been suggested, but what about changing the Wildshape rule to long rest replenish only? At least until the power gap seems less obvious.

Why isn't it like that already for that matter? I mean the barbarian only gets a few rages till long rest.

[emeraldstreak]

general flexibility. it feels right to be able to turn into scouting forms without losing your main combat feature for a day

imo the best way to retain that and balance moon is to let moon change twice per short rest as a normal druid, and edit the numbers/refresh of the stronger moon changes.

[archaeo]

imo the best way to retain that and balance moon is to let moon change twice per short rest as a normal druid, and edit the numbers/refresh of the stronger moon changes.

Personally, if it needs a nerf, I'd just make Circle Forms not kick in until level 6. Combat Wild Shape should be enough of a boost until then, and while Circle Forms would be a big increase in power (level 5=CR 1/2 creatures, level 6=CR 2 creatures), it would at least prevent the somewhat OP nature of the Moon Druid from level 2-5.

I'm still not convinced that we have a problem, but it'll take more play to sort out.

[edge2054]

Wild Shape only works on animals that the Druid has seen before. Rather or not it's reasonable to assume that a Druid has encountered a Brown Bear before the game starts is up to the DM. You don't have to assume that just because the character is a Druid it has seen every beast in the MM. This may take some retconning at this point but you could also level with the player,

If you want to be really strict limit Wild Shape to animals you've actually introduced in the game.

[Rallicus]

general flexibility. it feels right to be able to turn into scouting forms without losing your main combat feature for a day

imo the best way to retain that and balance moon is to let moon change twice per short rest as a normal druid, and edit the numbers/refresh of the stronger moon changes.

That's a good idea.

Maybe limit druids to shaping into anything over 1 CR only twice until long rest. Anything beneath can be replenished by short rest.

So if a druid went bear form, let's say, he'd use up one slot. Then he turns into a small bird to scout ahead... his shifting is done for the day.

Let's say the party then takes a short rest after the battle. Druid regains one wildshape slot rather than 2. Now he can use this for whatever form as before, but if he shifts into something other than a <CR1, he'll need to long rest to replenish.

[Ramshack]

I said this in another thread related to the same subject matter so I'll say it here too:

We have a moon druid in our group and quiet honestly he is on par or even slightly below everyone else in terms of damage and survivability. Our standard level 4 barbarian is far more resilient with higher AC and damage resistance to everything, along with Great Weapon Master he often gets 2 attacks a turn.

Our rogue / assassin is much more mobile, and does higher single target damage then the druids multi attack.

Infact just this weekend the druid had both it's bear forms used up twice in 2 turns fighting a group of hogoblins. With it's poor AC, like 11 or 12 for a bear? they hit every time and with the hobgoblin ability to do extra damage when next to an ally it's 34 hp was just annihilated.

I think the druid is fine terms of power balance. In fact I think their forms need a slight buff to AC and to Hit personally. The druid's bear form never seems to last longer than 2-3 turns when literally every swing against them lands. Their AC is a huge concern. The only time the Druid becomes a concern for me is the level 20 cap stone but I don't think I'll ever play in a campaign that takes us to level 20.

[Tenmujiin]

The main change I would implement for moon druids is simply removing their ability to use the animal's multi-attack until 5th level (where martials get their 2nd attack).

[Demonic Spoon]

The main change I would implement for moon druids is simply removing their ability to use the animal's multi-attack until 5th level (where martials get their 2nd attack).

I don't think this is a good solution; there are CR1 creatures with an without multiattack, and the ones that do not have it have other stuff to compensate. All you're doing is making multiattack creatures traps without actually solving the underlying problem.

[Ramshack]

The main change I would implement for moon druids is simply removing their ability to use the animal's multi-attack until 5th level (where martials get their 2nd attack).

I don't think that's balanced at all there are plenty of ways for characters to get multiple attacks or otherwise increase their damage before level 5. Limiting the druid isn't a fair option. IMHO

A Ranger with Horde Breaker and dual wield had 4 attacks by level 5. 3 attacks at level 3.

A cleric can get extra attacks for the war domain at level 1?

A Frenzy Barbarian is hitting 2 times a round for 2d6 +6 and has double it's hp pool due to resistance,

Rogue is doing 3d6 no counting auto crits if it's assassin.

Anyone with the great weapon master feat is getting second attacks on crits or kills.

Anyone Dual Wielding...

No need to limit the druid's extra attacks.

[Easy_Lee]

It doesn't seem like you'll be dealing with this problem much longer, so I wouldn't worry about it.

If I were Wotc, I would errata it so druids can't shift to CR 1 creatures til later, probably 5. If I were you, I'd just let him be strong a bit longer since you said it isn't causing problems at your table.

I'm more concerned about the moon druid's lategame power than its early, what with unlimited shifting. Who knows what kinds of crazy beasts druids might eventually be able to shift into. Hydra? Sphinx? Phoenix? Giant Squid? Lots of potential for great fun, and great cheese.

[archaeo]

I'm more concerned about the moon druid's lategame power than its early, what with unlimited shifting. Who knows what kinds of crazy beasts druids might eventually be able to shift into. Hydra? Sphinx? Phoenix? Giant Squid? Lots of potential for great fun, and great cheese.

It definitely seems like WotC purposefully limited the number of possible beast forms in the rules so far. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there only a single CR 6 beast in the game (Mammoth)? There's a lot of versatility, obviously, but you're kind of just going to be a fancy damage sponge for some portions of the game.

[Easy_Lee]

It definitely seems like WotC purposefully limited the number of possible beast forms in the rules so far. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there only a single CR 6 beast in the game (Mammoth)? There's a lot of versatility, obviously, but you're kind of just going to be a fancy damage sponge for some portions of the game.

That's true, and many things that characters would actually want to morph into seem to have other types. For example, unicorns are celestial, meaning WoTC probably doesn't like MLP (thank the gods).

There is still a lot of room for role play and general usefulness, ex: does a druid who wildshapes into a fly even have to roll stealth? Can the druid wildshape warhorse, have another character sell him to some orcs, then wildshape earthworm and burrow away? But druids, for the most part, aren't stepping on everyone's toes.

[emeraldstreak]

There is still a lot of room for role play and general usefulness, ex: does a druid who wildshapes into a fly even have to roll stealth? Can the druid wildshape warhorse, have another character sell him to some orcs, then wildshape earthworm and burrow away? But druids, for the most part, aren't stepping on everyone's toes.

He'll have to roll Stealth against things interested in flies...so, dragonflies, small birds, and clerics with True Seeing :smallsmile:

As for the warhorse example, that's part of what being a druid is. Druids are the epitome of freedom.

[Thrythlind]

So I'm running a game with 5 level 4's at the moment, one of which is a Moon Druid. You all know the problem, and it comes to a tune of about 72 extra hit points per short rest. This is so far out of whack with the other characters that it's causing some issues with challenges. I'm trying to figure out the most seamless way of fixing it. So far, I've had two ideas.

Idea 1) The Druid no longer gets the HP of his new form. He keeps his own, and when he's at 0 he's dying. If the form has fewer HP than the Druid normally would, such as if he turned into a badger, when the Druid is reduced by that much hp he reverts forms. HP does not change due to the form's new Con score. Everything else functions as normal.

Advantage: The Druid is now on a fairly even playing field. He has his recharge mechanic with expending spell slots for recovery, and he keeps all the other benefits of shapeshifting. He also doesn't go beyond the capability of the other classes for the most part.

Disadvantage: Nerfing PC classes is never fun. Players tend to feel cheated, and the need to reiterate the restriction into a custom houserule and make sure everyone knows about it is annoying. Not the worst thing, but it does suck.


Idea 2) Increase the xp budget for encounters since the Druid has the HP of 2 additional players.

Advantage: The player doesn't feel cheated out of his ability, and the extra damage from more powerful or plentiful creatures offsets the advantage of the Druid. It also allows for the DM to dynamically change the extra xp needed as leveling changes the size of the advantage the Druid has.

Disadvantage: This requires a proportionally greater number of attacks to target the Druid as opposed to the party members, which may wear thin after a while. It also (assuming its played straight) has the party level faster than normal and makes things more dangerous for the rest of the party overall.


I'm still mulling it over, I'm not even close to implementing a change. Does the playground have other ideas for how to deal with this other than just letting all the enemies get eaten by bears?

Moon Druid is a tank build, they are supposed to soak up attacks.

They lose the tactical advantage of spell casting in exchange for wild shape.

They also never get a second attack the way the fighters, barbarians, rangers and paladins do.

The extra HP/self-healing replaces the higher AC ability.

[Thrythlind]

Yaaay we're back to 3.5 again. Nobody roll a tier 1, you'll make the fighter cry!

Yeeeah, Fighters can melt faces pretty easily in this version of the game with very little effort in character build.

In 3.5 you could get face-meltiness if you had every supplement in existence and knew your synergy. In this, Champion and Battle Master are both pretty awesome. Eldritch Knight is iffy, but ehh.

[Eslin]

Yeeeah, Fighters can melt faces pretty easily in this version of the game with very little effort in character build.

In 3.5 you could get face-meltiness if you had every supplement in existence and knew your synergy. In this, Champion and Battle Master are both pretty awesome. Eldritch Knight is iffy, but ehh.

Agreed for the most part, but that last bit?

Champion is pretty crap and incredibly boring, it gives you no options at all. Eldritch knight is by far the best archetype if you're planning to single class fighter, since it's the only one that actually scales. Battlemaster is great, but only as a dip - you get 4 superiority dice for the first 3 levels and 2 superiority dice for the next 17.

[pwykersotz]

I said this in another thread related to the same subject matter so I'll say it here too:

We have a moon druid in our group and quiet honestly he is on par or even slightly below everyone else in terms of damage and survivability. Our standard level 4 barbarian is far more resilient with higher AC and damage resistance to everything, along with Great Weapon Master he often gets 2 attacks a turn.

Our rogue / assassin is much more mobile, and does higher single target damage then the druids multi attack.

Infact just this weekend the druid had both it's bear forms used up twice in 2 turns fighting a group of hogoblins. With it's poor AC, like 11 or 12 for a bear? they hit every time and with the hobgoblin ability to do extra damage when next to an ally it's 34 hp was just annihilated.

I think the druid is fine terms of power balance. In fact I think their forms need a slight buff to AC and to Hit personally. The druid's bear form never seems to last longer than 2-3 turns when literally every swing against them lands. Their AC is a huge concern. The only time the Druid becomes a concern for me is the level 20 cap stone but I don't think I'll ever play in a campaign that takes us to level 20.

Interesting! I have a Barbarian in my party too, and even though he rages and takes half damage, the Druid is still vastly more tanky (and moonbeam adds some very nice damage output). It might also be a statistical oddity what I experience. Thanks for the input, I'm glad to hear its not a uniform experience.

[emeraldstreak]

duhhh

dont listen to random anecdotes about tanking. Its either the DM targeting the best tank disproportionally, or peculiar mob abilities (yes hgoblins might be good vs hp but kobolds are good vs ac, etc), or random luck.

if you want to compare barb vs druid lets see some actual numbers and compare against a broad number of monsters.

[pwykersotz]

duhhh

dont listen to random anecdotes about tanking. Its either the DM targeting the best tank disproportionally, or peculiar mob abilities (yes hgoblins might be good vs hp but kobolds are good vs ac, etc), or random luck.

if you want to compare barb vs druid lets see some actual numbers and compare against a broad number of monsters.

Of course the numbers should take priority. But random anecdotes are still more data. Incomplete perhaps, but there's a reason why theory-craft needs to be played out at the table sometimes. It may not be what I prioritize when weighing the results, but anecdotes are appreciated.

[Ramshack]

duhhh

dont listen to random anecdotes about tanking. Its either the DM targeting the best tank disproportionally, or peculiar mob abilities (yes hgoblins might be good vs hp but kobolds are good vs ac, etc), or random luck.

if you want to compare barb vs druid lets see some actual numbers and compare against a broad number of monsters.


Defensively:
The Druid in Bear form has 11 AC with 34 HP in Druid form she has 16 AC and 35 HP. Even using Bear Form twice that's 68 HP at 11 ac + 35 HP at 16 ac so 103 Effective Hit Points.

The Barbarian in my Party has 55 HP with a 17 AC and Takes Half Damage. So Effective Hit Points are 110 at 17 AC.

The Barbarian has more Effective HP and with a higher AC than the druid using both Bear Forms and it's Druid Form

Offensively:
The Bear does 1d8 +4 with a +5 and 2d6 +4 with a +5

The Barbarian does 2d6 +6 with a +7 OR 2d6 +16 with a +2 (Great Weapon master) if he critical hits or kills an enemy he can make a second attack.

The Druid has a potential to do do 32 damage in a turn if both attacks hit and rolls max damage. The Barbarian can do do 18 Damage with one attack or 36 if he generates a second attack. OR he can do 28 with 1 attack and using Greatweapon Master or up to 56 if he generates a second attack.

The Bear has a worse tank and does more consistant damage, But the Barbarian does have the Potential to do significantly more damage.


TLDR Druids are fine.

[Bubzors]

I recently was asked by a player of mine on how dispel magic works on druid wildshape. It states it is a magical effect, but isn't through a spell, so it's kind of fuzzy on whether you can target it with dispel.

I was just wondering what people's opinion on this was. At first I thought yea, it can be dispelled, but it seems pretty lame to have a class feature be easily dispelled at higher levels. Maybe something like the DC to dispel is as if the wild shape was of the highest level spell you can cast? Or would you just not have it effected at all?

[Thrythlind]

Agreed for the most part, but that last bit?

Champion is pretty crap and incredibly boring, it gives you no options at all. Eldritch knight is by far the best archetype if you're planning to single class fighter, since it's the only one that actually scales. Battlemaster is great, but only as a dip - you get 4 superiority dice for the first 3 levels and 2 superiority dice for the next 17.

The lack of choice is a problem for multiple classes that worries me. I wouldn't play this game if a GM disallows using Feats. They give a lot more options in character design and development.

The superiority dice limit doesn't bother me. It is a powerful ability.

My main problem with Eldritch Knight is that aside from some levels, it is limited to Abjuration and Evocation. That will improve as more spells are written. However I am disappointed that some of the spells that best support a warrior, such as True Strike or Enlarge are left out of the possible lists. Though I worked True Strike in via Magical Initiate for the 1-20 Arcane Archer build I did.

Champion isn't weak, but boring it is. You need Feats to bring a Champion to life.

Also, anything past level 15 tends to be pretty much gravy rather than meat. It looks nice but you aren't likely to get much use out of it since it comes when the game is close to finishing.

[Ramshack]

The lack of choice is a problem for multiple classes that worries me. I wouldn't play this game if a GM disallows using Feats. They give a lot more options in character design and development.

The superiority dice limit doesn't bother me. It is a powerful ability.

My main problem with Eldritch Knight is that aside from some levels, it is limited to Abjuration and Evocation. That will improve as more spells are written. However I am disappointed that some of the spells that best support a warrior, such as True Strike or Enlarge are left out of the possible lists. Though I worked True Strike in via Magical Initiate for the 1-20 Arcane Archer build I did.

Champion isn't weak, but boring it is. You need Feats to bring a Champion to life.

Also, anything past level 15 tends to be pretty much gravy rather than meat. It looks nice but you aren't likely to get much use out of it since it comes when the game is close to finishing.

Maybe I misread the PHB but i thought you only had to choose 1 evocation and 1 abjuration after that you could choose spells from other schools.

[MaxWilson]

My main problem with Eldritch Knight is that aside from some levels, it is limited to Abjuration and Evocation. That will improve as more spells are written. However I am disappointed that some of the spells that best support a warrior, such as True Strike or Enlarge are left out of the possible lists. Though I worked True Strike in via Magical Initiate for the 1-20 Arcane Archer build I did.

It is disappointing, but at least you get to pick up to 4 spells from any school, which is enough to be very interesting (especially combined with Eldritch Strike). E.g. Suggestion, Expeditious Retreat or Haste, Hypnotic Pattern, Blur. (Conjure Minor Elementals might be good in a solo game.) Fill out the rest of your spell list with things like Banishment, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Counterspell, Shield, Darkness, and Wall of Fire. You will have more than enough interesting choices to make compared to a Battlemaster, and in the end you will be a very happy fighter.

You would be a very sad and limited wizard, but then a wizard with a wizard's martial abilities would be a very sad fighter.

[Surrealistik]

In my games polymorph effects do not grant you effective bonus HP or a larger HP pool; any damage you take applies to your existing and unchanged hit point total. There is already benefit enough in terms of the sheer flexibility these provide with respect to special abilities, multiattacks, movement modes and sight types that can be used on an as needed basis.

The most I would do is have these effects grant THP equal to the positive difference between the form you polymorph into, and your normal form, and even that strikes me as too much.

[hawklost]

The DM in one of my campaigns decided to do something slightly more complicated but it has reigned in the worry of the Druid going off with too much HP.

They still get the Animals HP but when they revert back to their natural form (or if they shift forms between Animals), their true form takes half the HP damage (rounded down).

So if the Druid had 20 HP normally and turned into an animal with 45 HP, they could see the following circumstances.

1) Animal Form is forcibly shifted due to lack of HP (took 50 total). the Druid would take 27 damage. 22 from half the animal form and 5 from the overflow. This would knock the Druid out.
2) Animal form takes 20 damage. Druid shifts back and takes only 10 points of the damage.
3) Animal form takes 10 damage. Druid shifts from one animal to another. Druid takes 10 points of damage to his true form during the shift but the new form has its full hp.

Healing the Animal form does not heal his natural form at all. So the Cleric cannot 'overheal' to bring the Druid up.

The DM has explained it away as shifting process closes the wounds but that the Druids true body still takes some damage in the process.

[Ramshack]

The DM in one of my campaigns decided to do something slightly more complicated but it has reigned in the worry of the Druid going off with too much HP.

They still get the Animals HP but when they revert back to their natural form (or if they shift forms between Animals), their true form takes half the HP damage (rounded down).

So if the Druid had 20 HP normally and turned into an animal with 45 HP, they could see the following circumstances.

1) Animal Form is forcibly shifted due to lack of HP (took 50 total). the Druid would take 27 damage. 22 from half the animal form and 5 from the overflow. This would knock the Druid out.
2) Animal form takes 20 damage. Druid shifts back and takes only 10 points of the damage.
3) Animal form takes 10 damage. Druid shifts from one animal to another. Druid takes 10 points of damage to his true form during the shift but the new form has its full hp.

Healing the Animal form does not heal his natural form at all. So the Cleric cannot 'overheal' to bring the Druid up.

The DM has explained it away as shifting process closes the wounds but that the Druids true body still takes some damage in the process.


Bah, I don't know why everyone is over reacting to the druid. It has a strong second level and then balances it out with each level there after. No need to make such permanent changes to a temporary problem. Let the player have the moment in the sun.

[emeraldstreak]

Defensively:
The Druid in Bear form has 11 AC with 34 HP in Druid form she has 16 AC and 35 HP. Even using Bear Form twice that's 68 HP at 11 ac + 35 HP at 16 ac so 103 Effective Hit Points.

The Barbarian in my Party has 55 HP with a 17 AC and Takes Half Damage. So Effective Hit Points are 110 at 17 AC.

The Barbarian has more Effective HP and with a higher AC than the druid using both Bear Forms and it's Druid Form

Offensively:
The Bear does 1d8 +4 with a +5 and 2d6 +4 with a +5

The Barbarian does 2d6 +6 with a +7 OR 2d6 +16 with a +2 (Great Weapon master) if he critical hits or kills an enemy he can make a second attack.

The Druid has a potential to do do 32 damage in a turn if both attacks hit and rolls max damage. The Barbarian can do do 18 Damage with one attack or 36 if he generates a second attack. OR he can do 28 with 1 attack and using Greatweapon Master or up to 56 if he generates a second attack.

The Bear has a worse tank and does more consistant damage, But the Barbarian does have the Potential to do significantly more damage.


Working as intended I think. Barbarians are pretty awesome.




TLDR Druids are fine.

Maybe. Rage is still long rest resource and the druid is still a full caster. I'd say levels 3-8 are balanced for barbarian vs moon druid; 9 might be a problem because of giant scorp and 10 is likely the druid's with elementals. Lvl 2 is also a very strong level for the moon druid.

[WickerNipple]

Bah, I don't know why everyone is over reacting to the druid. It has a strong second level and then balances it out with each level there after. No need to make such permanent changes to a temporary problem. Let the player have the moment in the sun.

Completely agree. 2-4 is the Druid's moment to shine. It isn't going to stay like this forever. It will always be a powerful class, but it's not out of line with anything else later.

Continue being creative about challenging him and don't worry about it.

Most of the suggested nerfs here are complete overreactions and would really limit player fun.

[hawklost]

The Creation of this rule was to also compensate for the lvl 20 ability. It negated it from being an infinite Onion to being a very useful effect that had some limitations.

[Ramshack]

Working as intended I think. Barbarians are pretty awesome.




Maybe. Rage is still long rest resource and the druid is still a full caster. I'd say levels 3-8 are balanced for barbarian vs moon druid; 9 might be a problem because of giant scorp and 10 is likely the druid's with elementals. Lvl 2 is also a very strong level for the moon druid.

I agree, full caster progression changes things down the road, I simply meant in the instance of bear form from levels 2-4. Seems like a lot of people are overreacting the druids power level at level 2 when really it's right on par, if not sub par to other classes by level 4. I think people should give it a chance to play out before nerfing it into the ground.


Completely agree. 2-4 is the Druid's moment to shine. It isn't going to stay like this forever. It will always be a powerful class, but it's not out of line with anything else later.

Continue being creative about challenging him and don't worry about it.

Most of the suggested nerfs here are complete overreactions and would really limit player fun.

Couldn't agree more.

[Ramshack]

The Creation of this rule was to also compensate for the lvl 20 ability. It negated it from being an infinite Onion to being a very useful effect that had some limitations.

I agree at level 20 the infinite onion causes concern, but seeing how I'll most likely never DM or participate in a campaign that hit level 20 I'm not going to worry about trying to fix it yet :)

[archaeo]

The Creation of this rule was to also compensate for the lvl 20 ability. It negated it from being an infinite Onion to being a very useful effect that had some limitations.

The "infinite Onion" problem can be handled by reading the rules as I imagine they were intended: you can only transform into beast shape from your Druid shape. While this still gives the Druid virtually infinite hit points, it requires that the Druid take no other actions other than going back (as a bonus action) and transforming again (as a full action).

Of course, when the party's at level 20, having virtually infinite HP may not be much help, given the kinds of threats you'll be facing.

[thereaper]

Completely agree. 2-4 is the Druid's moment to shine. It isn't going to stay like this forever. It will always be a powerful class, but it's not out of line with anything else later.

Continue being creative about challenging him and don't worry about it.

Most of the suggested nerfs here are complete overreactions and would really limit player fun.

The Druid is a full caster. It shouldn't have anywhere near the survivability of tanky classes.

[Ramshack]

The Druid is a full caster. It shouldn't have anywhere near the survivability of tanky classes.

Really? Have you played with an Abjuration Wizard? Especially one with the staff of defense lol. Most ridiculous thing i've seen yet was during HotDQ was our Abjuration Wizard tanking 4 trolls at once for multiple rounds.

[pwykersotz]

So after contemplation, I've decided to not modify Moon Druids for the time being. They are perhaps the best tanky class early game, but many other classes compete.

According to my comparison with just the Barbarian, the Druid is only slightly ahead in comparative HP when you factor in rage. Granted the Druid recovers Wild Shape on a short rest, but in my games so far enough forms get burned on utility that it evens out. Then the gap closes even further at level 3, and is practically nonexistent at level 4.

I'll probably revisit this as time goes on, but for now my Druid player will keep his power. :smallsmile:

[thereaper]

Really? Have you played with an Abjuration Wizard? Especially one with the staff of defense lol. Most ridiculous thing i've seen yet was during HotDQ was our Abjuration Wizard tanking 4 trolls at once for multiple rounds.

And how exactly does this negate the argument that full casters shouldn't be allowed to tank like actual tank classes?

[Ramshack]

And how exactly does this negate the argument that full casters shouldn't be allowed to tank like actual tank classes?

Because a full caster can be a "tank class" A moon druid is a better tank than other druid circles. Just like an Abjuration Wizard is a tank class. They choose to give up being better at damage, or healing or utility to excel at tanking.

No where does it say full caster's can't be a tank class, especially if they make character choices that optimize the role.

[Easy_Lee]

Because a full caster can be a "tank class" A moon druid is a better tank than other druid circles. Just like an Abjuration Wizard is a tank class. They choose to give up being better at damage, or healing or utility to excel at tanking.

No where does it say full caster's can't be a tank class, especially if they make character choices that optimize the role.

Slight correction, an abjuration wizard can be a tank in addition to a competent caster, all while doing a pretty good job defending everyone else with the same build. In other words, not just a tank. Time will tell, but I suspect it'll be one of the best defensive/support options in the game.

[Triclinium]

And how exactly does this negate the argument that full casters shouldn't be allowed to tank like actual tank classes?

I don't see the issue with a full caster using his time and options to become an effective tank. That is exactly what an abjuration wizard is supposed to be good at.


The "infinite Onion" problem can be handled by reading the rules as I imagine they were intended: you can only transform into beast shape from your Druid shape. While this still gives the Druid virtually infinite hit points, it requires that the Druid take no other actions other than going back (as a bonus action) and transforming again (as a full action).

And this interpretation pretty much answers why the druid can do the same thing. Plus, if HP is your answer to every threat you are going to run into serious problems, especially at level 20.