Wild Shape focused Druid acf?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I was thinking the other day... what if you made the following tweaks to a Moon Druid?
*Spellcasting cut back to the Ranger progression
*Wild Shape at will
*You keep your original hit points(and physical stats?) when you shapeshift, but you get to add your Wis to AC when in animal form and not wearing barding.
*Hit die upgraded to a d10.

------------

Edit: Back to the drawing board. You guys are probably right-- a Master of Many Forms style shapeshifter (which is what I'm after; I want to be the guy who goes "problem? I have a form for that!") probably works better on a Ranger subclass. Or maybe even a base class... I could see Beasts and Monstrosities for the base class, with subclasses for Aberrations/Oozes, Humanoids/Giants, and Dragons...

Edit 2: Hey, look what I made (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585774-The-Wildling-%28Shapeshifting-Base-Class%29).

[farrenj]

Nobody would take that. The increased hit die doesn't make up for losing out on the hp buffer that wild shaping gives you and wild shaping at will isn't useful as you lose your ability to wild shape once you run out of hit points anyway. Tack on the reduced spell progression and I think the subclass would become rather obsolete.

[CheddarChampion]

This is a hefty downgrade for sure.

The downsides:
Full spellcasting -> Half spellcasting
Lose the HP buffer
Druid capstone nerfed
(Reduced physical stats in animal form -> SEVERE MAD?)

The upsides:
Wild shape as much as you want
Increased AC when wild shaped (Unless you keep your own physical stats, including lack of natural armor)
1 hit point per level (2 at first)

Overall the tank power goes down.
Overall the spellcasting ability goes down.
Overall the utility might go up (depending on if you keep your physical stats).

Would you keep your strength score if you turned into, say, an owl?

If you think Moon Druid needs a nerf (which I'd disagree with) either change the wildshaping or the casting but not both. Both would be too much.

If you're trying to create a full-on shifter, don't do it like this.

[nickl_2000]

I actually made a class at least somewhat similar to this idea awhile back which I called the nature's warden.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16YhAZX1LutyiS3WeQ_uJht2Lc-qLEAG7/view?usp=drivesdk

[Griswold]

I was thinking the other day... what if you made the following tweaks to a Moon Druid?
*Spellcasting cut back to the Ranger progression
*Wild Shape at will
*You keep your original hit points (and physical stats?) when you shapeshift, but you get to add your Wis to AC when in animal form and not wearing barding.
*Hit die upgraded to a d10.

I think you'll get a lot of pushback from people seeing this as a nerf to the druid (and you are, and it is).

But, if you made it a Ranger subclass, I think it would be fine. Just replace all the ranger conclave abilities with Moon Druid abilities + wildshape as above. And give them bonus spells known.

They should get a buff to the self-healing, though to offset the slower spell progression. Perhaps 2d8 per spell level?

[dejarnjc]

You'd have to revamp the spell list and revamp wildshape to make that work.

[sophontteks]

What is the point of shapeshifting if you keep your HP and stats?

[Dr. Cliché]

What is the point of shapeshifting if you keep your HP and stats?

Basically this.


Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a shapeshifter class/subclass, but I don't think this is the way to do it.

Put simply, if you're going to remove all of a Druid's High-Level spells plus their Cantrips (which seems especially unnecessary and anti-flavour, as they lose access to Primal Savagery), then their shapeshifting ability needs to get much stronger.

Instead, you've actually made it drastically weaker. You've made it unlimited use . . . but also removed the main benefit to using it in the first place.



I think you'll get a lot of pushback from people seeing this as a nerf to the druid (and you are, and it is).

But, if you made it a Ranger subclass, I think it would be fine. Just replace all the ranger conclave abilities with Moon Druid abilities + wildshape as above. And give them bonus spells known.

They should get a buff to the self-healing, though to offset the slower spell progression. Perhaps 2d8 per spell level?

Basically this, though I'd also let them have at least a couple of Druid Cantrips.

That said, do you think Wild Shape is even the way to go? Depending on what you're trying to achieve, I'm wondering if something closer to lycanthropy (like the 2nd edition Shapeshifter Druid) might actually be a better fit? That way you can focus on improving a single form (or 2 if there are separate hybrid and animal forms), rather than trying to balance transforming into every Beast in the MM.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What is the point of shapeshifting if you keep your HP and stats?
At-will shapeshifting-- to have unrestricted access to that huge toolbox of forms. The temporary HP buffer simply has to go if you're doing that, no way around it; my thought was that the AC bonus would help make up, but... yeah, it's not enough on its own.

Let's throw in Monstrosities with an Int of 6 or less, and have your AC be 10+Con+Wis. Thoughts when compared to...

The base Druid chassis (effectively trading the temp HP from Wildshape for more AC and options)
The modified Druid chassis (taking a bit out of casting to be a nastier beast)
The Ranger chassis

[JNAProductions]

Honestly, Grod, I think you're better off building a class from the ground-up rather than retrofitting Druid.

[farrenj]

Wild shaping resets on a short rest already. Realistically, most of the time you want to wildshape more than twice it's because you're in combat. Wild shape at will seems like it would provide more out of combat utility but it usually wouldn't.

It seems like you don't like the hp buffer of wildshaping and you're trying to find away to replace it.

[Daghoulish]

I'm not sure how I would do this. If you really wanted to keep the infinite wildshape but no temp HP then I think there's a few things I might do. Letting the druid choose to use their own str/dex/con or the forms would be a start. Letting a druid pump str to 18 early and still benefiting as well as not losing HP when they change form and lose Con. It would make the druid a little mad if they wanted to but also give them the ability to just pump Wis/Con and be alright. I think I need to make a con/pro list to really see this.

-Infinite Shape pros
Potentionaly longer forms. You can stay a bear for longer than 34 Hp(afb but sounds right for Brown)
Extra utility outside of combat. Only useful if your table is stingy with short rest but it happens.
Extra ac. It's alright, kinda nice.
-Cons
Lose full spellcaster progression . This really hurts.
Increased hit dice isn't that important. A higher hit dice at level 3 gives this druid 4 extra hp, it's not a lot. With a grand total of 21 extra hp at 20, if your table uses the average at level up.
Druid capstone no longer matters. Most games don't last this long so it's not a huge thing but it is something.

I'm not sure what you would do. Even my idea has problems. Letting a druid turn into a house cat with 50+hp and 18+Str(possibly) sounds quite ridiculous. I think I would just make a subclass based on the master of many forms from 3.X and just give the druid even more options to change into rather than giving infinite forms.

[Dr. Cliché]

@Grod

Could you explain what you're trying to achieve overall?

Is there a certain character you're trying to emulate?

If not, could you explain exactly what you want the Moon Druid to be? (From a fluff perspective, not a rules perspective.)

[Arkhios]

@Grod

Could you explain what you're trying to achieve overall?

Is there a certain character you're trying to emulate?

If not, could you explain exactly what you want the Moon Druid to be? (From a fluff perspective, not a rules perspective.)

I believe his intent was to bring back a 3.5 druid alternate class feature from Player's handbook 2.

The listed abilities in OP more or less align with it.

I think I would make this as a Ranger subclass instead of Druid.

[Dalebert]

Let's throw in Monstrosities ...

Monstrosities are unnatural, practically by definition. That flies in the face of the flavor of a druid. If you go that route, just make a new shape shifting class.

Maybe consider a fighter or monk archetype that alters their body to get certain benefits.

First thing I thought of when you said add wisdom bonus to AC is people already dip just one level of monk to get that.

[Dr. Cliché]

Monstrosities are unnatural, practically by definition. That flies in the face of the flavor of a druid.

How are you defining 'unnatural'?

[Daphne]

I think this would work better as a Ranger subclass, and I always thought Willd Shape was a little problematic.

A subclass focused on transformations could work similarly to the Primeval Guardian (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/2017_01_UA_RangerRogue_0117JCMM.pdf) from UA or the Lolth (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/932490057344204800?lang=en) patron (this is a unpolished draft) Mearls made some time ago.

[Dalebert]

How are you defining 'unnatural'?

Since this is a 5e forum, I was going by the monster manual.

"... Frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly natural..."

[Dr. Cliché]

Since this is a 5e forum, I was going by the monster manual.

"... Frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly natural..."

Sigh. Fine then, how does the monster manual define 'natural'?

What is this magical definition that leads to Winter Wolves and Owlbears being classed as natural, whilst Elementals are apparently perfectly natural in spite of not even being native to the same plane? :smallconfused:

[Dalebert]

Sigh. Fine then, how does the monster manual define 'natural'?


I'm on my phone so it's impractical to copy the whole paragraph but it talks about them being there results of mad wizard experiments and such. The Elemental planes are natural aspects of the d&d universe. The four elements all interact with the prime material.

Oh, and winter wolves and owlbears are also monstrosities, so I'm not sure what your point is in bringing them up.

[Man_Over_Game]

Sigh. Fine then, how does the monster manual define 'natural'?

What is this magical definition that leads to Winter Wolves and Owlbears being classed as natural, whilst Elementals are apparently perfectly natural in spite of not even being native to the same plane? :smallconfused:

The SRD definition: "Monstrosities are monsters in the strictest sense—frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly natural, and almost never benign. Some are the results of magical experimentation gone awry (such as owlbears), and others are the product of terrible curses (including minotaurs and yuan-ti). They defy categorization, and in some sense serve as a catch-all category for creatures that don’t fit into any other type."

Monstrosities are unnatural in the sense that they were not created with the worlds. They were crafted, either accidentally or intentionally.

It's effectively the same reason why Druids don't use metal.

[Dr. Cliché]

All I will say is that sounds like absolute nonsense of the worst kind.

[Man_Over_Game]

All I will say is that sounds like absolute nonsense of the worst kind.

In the end, the narrative falls on the DM.

Now, it's imbalanced to allow the Moon Druid to Wild Shape into Monstrosities. How you or your players justify that is up to you and them if that's unsatisfactory. For me, personally, it makes enough sense.


Not everything is going to be perfect. Why do Ancients Paladins turn Fey but not Undead? Why do Arcane Archers use Intelligence when they can use Druidcraft and their most commonly used Shot is the entangling one? Why does a Barbarian attacking recklessly with a Rapier and levels into Rogue deal more damage than a pure Barbarian attacking recklessly with a Great Sword?

Sometimes, you just fill in the narrative yourself.

[Dr. Cliché]

In the end, the narrative falls on the DM.

In other words, the fluff is just arbitrary nonsense and so it's left to the DM to try and distract players from the gaping holes in the logic.



Now, it's imbalanced to allow the Moon Druid to Wild Shape into Monstrosities.

Eh, there are a lot of Monstrosities that really should pose no issues at all.

The real problem is with there being no meaningful distinction between Beasts and Monstrosities (yes, I'm aware that the MM gives one, but it also refuses to stick to it), so what creature ends up in what category is basically a roll of the dice.

[Dalebert]

The real problem is with there being no meaningful distinction between Beasts and Monstrosities (yes, I'm aware that the MM gives one, but it also refuses to stick to it), so what creature ends up in what category is basically a roll of the dice.

It seems intuitively straight-forward for the most part. Creatures that exist or have existed in our world plus giant-sized versions of those things are beasts. Completely fictional creatures are a different category. Mixed beasts tend to be monstrosities, e.g. owl bears and griffons.

The only exceptions that come to mind are tressyms, winged monkeys, and flying snakes which I believe are all post-MM. I agree about those. They should be monstrosities also. For whatever reason, the designers decided those creatures evolved naturally in the d&d world.