No Druid Errata

[Easy_Lee]

We didn't get any errata for druids, implying that WotC is okay with some of the questionable things druids can do.

Turn into a multiattacking bear at level 2 for moon druids.
Onion druid effect with capstone.
Heat metal shenanigans.

And yet WotC decided one thing they were absolutely not okay with was a BM ranger commanding his beast to multiattack. Or monks benefiting from the spell magic weapon.

What is wrong with this picture?

[Person_Man]

My observation is that the errata was to correct ambiguities or typos in the rules, and not balance issues.

Multiattack at level 2 could have been solved by changing the CR formula for what Beast forms are allowed at particular levels. (It should have to be lower at level 2-4, is about right for levels 5-10, but should be higher at levels 11+).

The onion druid capstone is just crazy, and should probably be changed to something entirely different. Or they could keep it the same, and just change Wildshape so that your hit points stay the same.

Heat Metal IMO is fine. Its really good against some enemies, worthless against others.

But in each case, I think WotC wrote what they intended. Its just what they intended is a bit too powerful compared to the other classes.

[Kryx]

My observation is that the errata was to correct ambiguities or typos in the rules, and not balance issues.
They've said this several times. It's an unfortunate stance to take imo.

[ThermalSlapShot]

You also have to remember that they have the same issue as many others have.

3e BAB syndrome.

Where if something is at-will it must always be worth more or just as much as something that is rationed X/Day. Just because it is at-will.

Because Fighters can use grapple at-will it must be better than Bigby's Grasping Hand X/day.

Because a Ranger has their pet unlimited amount of time it must be better than the druid's wildshape.

This kind of crap leads to unbalanced games where multiattack is OK for a level 2 Druid form but not OK for a level 3 Ranger companion.

[Easy_Lee]

My observation is that the errata was to correct ambiguities or typos in the rules, and not balance issues.

That's fair. I believe that was their intent, though in some cases they added a lot more than could even be inferred (unarmed strike, for instance). I suppose it's a forgone conclusion that the balance issues, at least officially, are here to stay. Until 2017 or so, anyway.

[Chaosvii7]

The onion druid capstone is just crazy, and should probably be changed to something entirely different. Or they could keep it the same, and just change Wildshape so that your hit points stay the same.

Do you mean the unlimited uses of Wild Shape at level 20? I think they could remedy this by giving Druid more uses of Wild Shape as they level and making Archdruid into a different capstone.

Also, can we discuss Beast Spells for a second? It says that you can't provide material components for Druid spells in Wild Shape. How many Druid spells does this actually impact? Is it quantifiable enough for Moon Druids to actually be hampered by turning into a beast? If not, it might be more appropriate to target this ability or add Material components to some more Druid spells. I'd also reason that the ability to cast Druid spells in Wild Shape could make for a better capstone than the current Archdruid ability.

[Easy_Lee]

Do you mean the unlimited uses of Wild Shape at level 20? I think they could remedy this by giving Druid more uses of Wild Shape as they level and making Archdruid into a different capstone.

Also, can we discuss Beast Spells for a second? It says that you can't provide material components for Druid spells in Wild Shape. How many Druid spells does this actually impact? Is it quantifiable enough for Moon Druids to actually be hampered by turning into a beast? If not, it might be more appropriate to target this ability or add Material components to some more Druid spells. I'd also reason that the ability to cast Druid spells in Wild Shape could make for a better capstone than the current Archdruid ability.

I'm fond of number of wildshapes = proficiency bonus, personally. To your second question, here (http://donjon.bin.sh/5e/spells/) is a resource to answer it. A lot of druid spells have material components.

[rhouck]

My observation is that the errata was to correct ambiguities or typos in the rules, and not balance issues.

And IMO the issues at level 2 and level 20 are really not worth their time trying to correct right now. Level 2 is recommended to last ONE gaming session. And the number of Druids who have reached level 20 (via actual leveling, not one-offs) and played there for long enough for balance to matter... is I'm sure quite few. (Not to mention the numerous ways that have been discussed regarding killing them even if they are mammoths/elementals)

If they're going to address balance issues, I'd prefer they'd address things in the 5-10 range where the "meat" of most adventuring careers occurs.

[MrStabby]

And IMO the issues at level 2 and level 20 are really not worth their time trying to correct right now. Level 2 is recommended to last ONE gaming session. And the number of Druids who have reached level 20 (via actual leveling, not one-offs) and played there for long enough for balance to matter... is I'm sure quite few. (Not to mention the numerous ways that have been discussed regarding killing them even if they are mammoths/elementals)

If they're going to address balance issues, I'd prefer they'd address things in the 5-10 range where the "meat" of most adventuring careers occurs.

I think I would extend that from about 4 to 16, but I agree with your principle.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I'm fond of number of wildshapes = proficiency bonus, personally. To your second question, here (http://donjon.bin.sh/5e/spells/) is a resource to answer it. A lot of druid spells have material components.

I like the attaching the number of wildshapes to proficiency bonus.


And IMO the issues at level 2 and level 20 are really not worth their time trying to correct right now. Level 2 is recommended to last ONE gaming session. And the number of Druids who have reached level 20 (via actual leveling, not one-offs) and played there for long enough for balance to matter... is I'm sure quite few. (Not to mention the numerous ways that have been discussed regarding killing them even if they are mammoths/elementals)

If they're going to address balance issues, I'd prefer they'd address things in the 5-10 range where the "meat" of most adventuring careers occurs.

Tell that to my Adventure League game that has been at level 2 for like a month.

[Takewo]

Tell that to my Adventure League game that has been at level 2 for like a month.

Yeah! I know how you feel. We've been at level two since we started, about two months ago.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Yeah! I know how you feel. We've been at level two since we started, about two months ago.

Oh god... I feel your pain so much.

What the hell are they thinking with that bull crap?

[Vogonjeltz]

Multiattack at level 2 could have been solved by changing the CR formula for what Beast forms are allowed at particular levels. (It should have to be lower at level 2-4, is about right for levels 5-10, but should be higher at levels 11+).

What's wrong with Multiattack for a Druid at level 2? How is that, functionally, any different then another character using two weapon fighting? Still 2 attacks. The Druid can't use weapons with the light property, so no chance of them even getting 3 attacks. In point of fact, every character is capable of making those 2 attacks starting at level 1.

[rhouck]

What's wrong with Multiattack for a Druid at level 2? How is that, functionally, any different then another character using two weapon fighting? Still 2 attacks. The Druid can't use weapons with the light property, so no chance of them even getting 3 attacks. In point of fact, every character is capable of making those 2 attacks starting at level 1.

Every other character multiattack via two weapon fighting: (1d6+3*)+1d6 = avg 9 damage (if both hit), AND uses up the bonus action
*assuming a +3 Str and/or Dex modifier, add another 1.5 to average damage if two weapon fighting style

Druid via multiattack: (1d8+4)+(2d6+4) = avg 19.5 damage (if both hit), and does NOT use the bonus action

[Chronos]

If you set the number of wildshapes equal to proficiency bonus, it'll continue to increase if you multiclass. I'm not sure if that's what you intended, but it's definitely something to consider.

[Gnomes2169]

Yeah! I know how you feel. We've been at level two since we started, about two months ago.

... How? How is that possible?

... Just how?!?!

It took my party literally one session to level up after hitting level 2. What sorcery does your DM practice? :smalltongue:

[Demonic Spoon]

Every other character multiattack via two weapon fighting: (1d6+3*)+1d6 = avg 9 damage (if both hit), AND uses up the bonus action
*assuming a +3 Str and/or Dex modifier, add another 1.5 to average damage if two weapon fighting style

Druid via multiattack: (1d8+4)+(2d6+4) = avg 19.5 damage (if both hit), and does NOT use the bonus action

Ooh, don't forget the 34 bonus hitpoints and enhanced mobility (40 ft move, 30 ft climb)

[asorel]

They've said this several times. It's an unfortunate stance to take imo.

If it isn't broken, don't fix it, as the saying goes. Unfortunately, even a following of the aforementioned policy does not appear to take place. The rewording of Elemental Affinity and Empowered Evocation but not Agonizing Blast, for example (I'm not suggesting that it's unbalanced one way other. Just that WotC hasn't followed a policy of clarifications>balance).

[Takewo]

... How? How is that possible?

... Just how?!?!

It took my party literally one session to level up after hitting level 2. What sorcery does your DM practice? :smalltongue:

Either she gives away less experience that she ought to, or the adventure is so well designed that it takes ages to get enough experience. We've killed bandits, we've killed zombies, we've killed a spirit, we've killed goblins and an ogre... Also we've had very good ideas on how to handle encounters. But that accounts for nothing, I guess.

I dunno, but personally, I think that if after a session your party doesn't get enough experience to get to level three, you just give them enough experience.

[Longcat]

Personally, I am glad that they decided against videogame balance patch style errata. Level 20 gameplay is so marginal that balancing it should not be a priority, and while Onion Druid looks strong on paper, it is just an HP sponge with mediocre damage in actual gameplay. Moon Druids are strong level 2-4, but that is apprentice tier gameplay that should not last long anyway. Besides, they suffer from terribly low AC in those forms with great offensive power, which can only be improved via external buffs or multiclassing.

Heat Metal is not problematic at all. It's a concentration spell, so the enemy gets to disrupt it, and unless all your enemies are heavy armor wearing bruisers, it should be fine.

[Sindeloke]

If you set the number of wildshapes equal to proficiency bonus, it'll continue to increase if you multiclass. I'm not sure if that's what you intended, but it's definitely something to consider.

Well, you could put a separate column in the Druid table that identically follows proficiency. That's sort of what the barbarian rage bonus does (slight discrepancy around +5, IIRC, but they could have made it prof bonus and you wouldn't see a real difference).