OneD&D UA - THE DRUID AND PALADIN [Archive] - Page 3

Artagon

2023-03-01, 12:36 PM

I haven't read the whole thread, so automatically you can read past me :P

My two cents on the wildshape is that these stat blocks scale, so the wild shape remains viable in or out of combat throughout the game. That said, I agree that there are opportunities to make more choices whenever you choose to wildshape. I'd want to see templates within the stat blocks, similar to the Tasha summon spells.

Here's some the options one of those spells does:

FEY SPIRIT

Bonus Actions

Fey Step. The fey magically teleports up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space it can see. Then one of the following effects occurs, based on the fey’s chosen mood:

Fuming. The fey has advantage on the next attack roll it makes before the end of this turn.
Mirthful. The fey can force one creature it can see within 10 feet of it to make a Wisdom saving throw against your spell save DC. Unless the save succeeds, the target is charmed by you and the fey for 1 minute or until the target takes any damage.
Tricksy. The fey can fill a 5-foot cube within 5 feet of it with magical darkness, which lasts until the end of its next turn.

Why not do something similar for each of the blocks provided?

Also, I think the flowers thing is probably there for them to do another subclass around. It sucks in it's base form, but [insert subclass here] makes it GREAT!

animorte

2023-03-01, 12:38 PM

My appeal to everyone:
Make sure to highlight this in your feedback during the survey: I certainly shall.
Love when people remember this.

Trickery please, Twilight was a mistake.
Trickery, yes please. My favorite from day one.

Xihirli

2023-03-01, 12:56 PM

I don't find it to be a problem. It's a one or two level spike. So too is Paladin level 5 and the wizard's fireball at level 5.

Everyone spikes at five. Except Rogues and maybe Artificers. Full casters get third level spells like fireball, Hypnotic Pattern, Fear, Spirit Guardians, or Conjure Animals. Half-casters get Extra Attack and second level spells like Find Steed. Full martials get Extra Attack, and the abilities they already had (action surge, bonus rage damage) tend to improve off of Extra Attack well. The problem with a dramatic spike at level 2 is, nobody else gets that spike except maybe… the divination wizard? MAYBE. Low level power spikes aren’t negligible, those levels are your introduction to the game. How would it feel to spend the first EIGHT WEEKS of this new game you’re trying out watching the druid barbarian better than you? Eight sessions seems about right to get to fifth level, yes?

Psyren

2023-03-01, 01:00 PM

I'll be honest, given that OneD&D has for some reason decided that the only class features Druids have is Wild Shape, but that it has to be a terrible feature that doesn't do anything resembling what its fantasy asks of it NOR does it give you reason to ever use it even as more features are piled on...

...what is a druid?

Is it just "primal full caster, the class?" Why not just give Clerics the option to be primal casters instead of divine casters, and save all that space, maybe make Cleric have 8 domains instead of 4?

What, aside from choice of spell list, makes a druid a druid, in OneD&D? (Remember, people are going so far as to suggest Druid should lose Wild Shape altogether and it should become its own martial class focus. What would you replace Wild Shape with?)

I don't know who those "people" are, I can only speak for myself. I want druids to keep wild shape. I want Tiny Forms at level 1, usable neither as combat forms nor to scout the entire dungeon/building while the party waits outside. (Scouting the next few rooms or eavesdropping on a conversation are fine.) I want combat forms to have the defense necessary to be frontliners and some abilities to make them interesting. None of that is incompatible with their design goal of killing book diving and reducing complexity.

Why not do something similar for each of the blocks provided?

That's fine though I'd want abilities that are more beast than fey. Keen Senses, Trample, Gore etc.

Also, I think the flowers thing is probably there for them to do another subclass around. It sucks in it's base form, but [insert subclass here] makes it GREAT!

Dreams most likely. In fact, I bet that's one of the ones that gets promoted to core, so that parties have a dedicated healer option that isn't Life Cleric, and that can serve as the Nature Cleric analogue.

Everyone spikes at five. Except Rogues and maybe Artificers. Full casters get third level spells like fireball, Hypnotic Pattern, Fear, Spirit Guardians, or Conjure Animals. Half-casters get Extra Attack and second level spells like Find Steed. Full martials get Extra Attack, and the abilities they already had (action surge, bonus rage damage) tend to improve off of Extra Attack well. The problem with a dramatic spike at level 2 is, nobody else gets that spike except maybe… the divination wizard? MAYBE. Low level power spikes aren’t negligible, they’r those levels are your introduction to the game. How would it feel to spend the first EIGHT WEEKS of this new game you’re trying out watching the druid barbarian better than you? Eight sessions seems about right to get to fifth level, yes?

Indeed.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-01, 01:00 PM

How would it feel to spend the first EIGHT WEEKS of this new game you’re trying out watching the druid barbarian better than you? Eight sessions seems about right to get to fifth level, yes? I don't have these issues that seem to concern you.
The basic unit of the game is a team/party, of 3-5, or 6, PCs.
Since I began play in the auld days, it's always been a team game. (Yes, we had a few games break up due to 'it's all about me' attitudes by some of the players).
If our druid/bar is good, that's a win for the team. Bring it on, DM. :smallsmile:

Segev

2023-03-01, 01:03 PM

I don't know who those "people" are, I can only speak for myself. I want druids to keep wild shape. I want Tiny Forms at level 1, usable neither as combat forms nor to scout the entire dungeon/building while the party waits outside. (Scouting the next few rooms I want combat forms to have the defense necessary to be frontliners and some abilities to make them interesting. None of that is incompatible with their design goal of killing book diving and reducing complexity.

You and I have fundamental disagreements on a lot of issues regarding game design. However, just to explore your desires here, a bit, what is it you envision tiny forms being used for if neither combat nor scouting are appropriate uses, to you? Is there a nuance in what you wrote here that I'm missing?

Tanarii

2023-03-01, 01:11 PM

Given that Moon Druids are said to drop off in effectiveness sharply after level 5 or 6, and that I ran a moon druid (along with 3-4 other PCs, depending on who showed up in a given week) through Forge of Fury - which is a dungeon crawl for levels 3-5 - I can say that the THP issue was...not an issue. If anything, it barely made her survivable.

Not sure what was done wrong, but something was. Moon Druids THP makes them thoroughly dominate through mid-Tier 2. They "drop off" only in that they stop completely dominating as much.

On the flip side, taking away THP entirely without giving something defensive in return is going too far in the other direction.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-01, 01:12 PM

Melil12

2023-03-01, 01:13 PM

I think everything can be boiled down to Druid needs more Options for their wild shape feature. Not Combat Options … but something to enhance the stat blocks. Almost like meta magics or invocations but specific to wild shape.

“I took the option that lets me walk on walls in my spider form.” Ect.

Moon druid, the subclass, is just bad … i will let you all debate on how to fix it.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-01, 01:15 PM

I think everything can be boiled down to Druid needs more Options for their wild shape feature. {snip} “I took the option that lets me walk on walls in my spider form.” Ect. Nice summary.

Or they could get rid of the Moon Druid subclass altogether.

Wait, why are you all looking at me like that? :smalltongue:

Atranen

2023-03-01, 01:24 PM

My favorite one is a tiny insect (druid) that encounters a frog, whose tongue zips out and catches the insect, and there we are, druid: you are now in a frog's digestive tract.

Is the PC now dead and gone, digested by a frog,
or,
at some point does it lose that 1 HP and then explode into a humanoid form, shredding the frog from inside out?

I'd like to see tiny forms brought back, but with a "mishap" table for especially tiny ones. Eaten, stepped on, got lost, etc. That seems a more fun way to balance them.

Psyren

2023-03-01, 01:32 PM

You and I have fundamental disagreements on a lot of issues regarding game design. However, just to explore your desires here, a bit, what is it you envision tiny forms being used for if neither combat nor scouting are appropriate uses, to you? Is there a nuance in what you wrote here that I'm missing?

Yes, there was a typo/incomplete thought that I corrected. I'm in favor of scouting, but shorter duration than normal wild shape, because Tiny forms are inherently strong at the Exploration pillar.

I don't have these issues that seem to concern you.
The basic unit of the game is a team/party, of 3-5, or 6, PCs.
Since I began play in the auld days, it's always been a team game. (Yes, we had a few games break up due to 'it's all about me' attitudes by some of the players).
If our druid/bar is good, that's a win for the team. Bring it on, DM. :smallsmile:

"It's a team game" does not excuse a full caster also dominating melee without needing to cast or maintain a single buff. Moreover, it's not that they're on par with the Barbarian, they blow him out of the water. 34 HP at level 2, that stack not only with their real HP, but any temp HP as well? More attacks than a monk? It's insane.

Not sure what was done wrong, but something was. Moon Druids THP makes them thoroughly dominate through mid-Tier 2. They "drop off" only in that they stop completely dominating as much.

On the flip side, taking away THP entirely without giving something defensive in return is going too far in the other direction.

Agreed. All they need is more AC and getting their saving throw proficiencies back and offense+defense are covered. And the moon elemental stuff should apply to your unarmed strike too, not just beast strike.

Mastikator

2023-03-01, 01:36 PM

TBH I think tiny should be an option from level 1. At level 11 I'd rather see something else, like an improvement on Wild Companion (it now counts as upcast to your highest level spell slot).

Also healing blossom should improve. At level 5 it also removes disease, daze, poison and uses d6. At level 11 it removes stun, blinded, deafened, charmed and uses d8. At 17 it could I dunno... remove exhaustion and paralyzed and use d10.

Gignere

2023-03-01, 01:37 PM

Agreed. All they need is more AC and getting their saving throw proficiencies back and offense+defense are covered. And the moon elemental stuff should apply to your unarmed strike too, not just beast strike.

Actually the one area I’m not totally on board besides AC was that I felt they should have elemental wild forms instead of elemental damage. I thought the current elementals were kinda of cool and not OP to transform into at level 10. Maybe get a separate elemental form stat block instead of just extra elemental damage at higher levels?

Amnestic

2023-03-01, 02:19 PM

What features do you want it to interact with that require it to be a Beast? Because it seems to me that this is even more powerful as a familiar, or as a target of animal friendship and beast sense, than it is as a wild shape option. Should we remove all spells druids have to interact with and control Beasts in order to open this option up to you?

Unclear why you mention Find Familiar when that spell already pulls from a curated list:

You gain the service of a familiar, a spirit that takes an animal form you choose: bat, cat, crab, frog (toad), hawk, Lizard, Octopus, owl, Poisonous Snake, fish (quipper), rat, raven, Sea Horse, Spider, or Weasel. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the familiar has the Statistics of the chosen form, though it is a Celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice) instead of a beast.

So I'm not overly worried about that, personally, no.

Animal Friendship makes a beat friendly to you for 24 hours, at the cost of a spellslot. It doesn't turn it into a pet, it doesn't give you the same information that YOU getting truesight would give you. If you think having a pet is the same as being able to turn into one is the same thing then let wizards (or hell, warlocks) turn into their familiar twice per short rest, see how that changes their gameplay. I would anticipate it would be pointedly not the same, and they normally have far greater control over their actions compared to making a successful animal handling check.

What, exactly, does the "All-Seeing Owl" lose if it's a Monstrosity, other than the fact that now Beast-affecting spells don't affect it?

How many times must I say the interactions with features that are relevant to the beast type? One major ping against the Nature Cleric's channel divinity, for instance, is lack of relevant beasts/plants at higher CRs to use it on. A lot of this conversation has been centred on druid for obvious reasons but there's, so far as I know, zero beasts above CR8 (and that's a t-rex, hardly commonplace). I 100% believe that Polymorph's existence is part of the reason for that. By polymorph - a spell - existing the way it does it directly impacts on a subclass feature.

But a Monstrosity that looks like a slightly unusual owl gives exactly the same tone as a Beast that is a slightly unusual owl.

See above.

You're telling me the aberrations, monstrosities, and humanoids that are in this encounter are actually working for the Beast, and not the Beast working for the traditionally scarier and more intelligent types? I think you're stretching, here.

Why not? Giant Elks have an int of 7, have their own language and understand multiple other languages. Ditto for Giant Owl (Int 8). Are you saying an Int 8 character can't lead people into battle? Now who's stretching?

Furthermore, awakened animals don't change their type. They're still beasts.

Again, what does your "leader of the pack" creature lose by being a Monstrosity, if you want it to be smart and dangerous enough that it forced humanoids and aberrations and other monstrosities into its pack?

What purpose does the Beast type serve?

I dunno how many times I have to repeatedly point to the features that interact with the beast type and not the monstrosity type. Perhaps, maybe, putting everything interesting in the monstrosity type which doesn't interact with any mechanics isn't very fun or interactive?

You said, "because I want it to interact with features that care about being beasts," but the whole reason we're having this discussion is because you want to remove features that care about anything being Beasts. Nothing you've proposed is somehow less of a problem with the other things Druids can do to access Beasts just because Druids can't wild shape into them.

Potentially taming a creature is a far cry from turning into one twice per short rest.

I am less than inclined to believe this assertion to be accurate, simply because it's unsupported, while I have seen lengthy discussion and explanation of the position you are simply saying "nuh-uh" to.

You haven't evidenced that they drop off, so I don't see why I should buy your assertion either. "I saw a discussion". Great!

What's to support? They don't get a wild shape boost at 5th level where the martials (well, not rogues) get extra attack. Instead the druid gets 3rd level spells. They then get a boost at 6th level and they're right back riding the gravy train.

Moon druids do not under any definition "drop off" at 5th level. Some characters climb up a bit to catch up where specifically wild shape is concerned. That's not a drop-off.

Segev

2023-03-01, 02:39 PM

Not going to respond quote-by-quote as it's getting long, but to try to summarize in general:

Beast sense will give that druid Truesight as a level 2 spell.

I don't actually have a problem with the intelligent Beasts that exist. If I'd been designing, I'd probably have made them Monstrosities, yes, because it's weird, but hey, no harm done. So, your proposed "Leader of the Pack" feature now goes on, specifically, something like a Giant Elk or Giant Owl or Giant Eagle that has its own language and human-like intelligence, and is a creature known for leading packs of disparate monsters and even humanoids. It's quite the interesting creature, indeed. Are you sure it's a Beast, though? And, if it is, are you sure it's a generic Beast of which there are many examples, and not a very specific one?

I'll acknowledge that, technically, the RAW on Wild Shape would allow a Druid to assume the form of one of the specific-named Beasts in one of the modules if he met that specific one, but I question whether a DM would actually let him do so, in much the same way I question whether a DM would let you True Polymorph a fighter into an Archmage just because the Archmage stat block exists. This probably is another discussion altogether, though. Personally, I'd chalk it up to "rulings, not rules" and move on with it.

You know how you can easily handle your "Leader of the Pack" feature, though? Let's say it's on the "Giant Wolf" Beast you've designed. All of your concerns about it would be trivially handled like this:

Leader of the Pack. The Giant Wolf casts bless without using components or an action when it rolls initiative, unless it is surprised.

(Variation on the casting condition, how often, etc., is optional. The point is that you solve all of your problems by simply making "leader of the pack" be the ability to cast bless. Now it doesn't stack with other castings of bless, it uses concentration, and the worst it does is convert a use of Wild Shape into a casting of a first level spell. Maybe multiple castings, yes, if it can be used multiple times. Of course, that also presumes that the "no casting spells while wild shaped" rules aren't interpreted to shut down the ability to use spells the beast form grants, in which case it winds up semi-accidentally locked away, anyway!)

Potentially taming a creature is far more powerful than turning into it 2x/short rest.

And I've seen analysis of it, yes. Which is more than I can say for your assertion, which is just a bald assertion. Even your own attempt to re-analyze it in response to me asking for it, with your goal being to show that it's keeping up, points out that the other classes catch up to its number of attacks and that the moon druid gets third level spells. That's nice and all - and call lightning while in wild shape isn't bad - but "the druid chassis is solid because full casting" isn't really supporting that the subclass stays good. By that logic, the subclass could actively lose all features at level 6 and you'd still be able to argue, "well, they have full casting, so that's fine!" Moon Druid competes with the other Druid subclasses as well as with martials, given its position in the game.

I'd love it if the claims it drops off are wrong. I would enjoy playing a 5e moon druid at some point (just havne't had a concept for it for a game that's actually running, yet).

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-01, 03:25 PM

"It's a team game" does not excuse a full caster also dominating melee without needing to cast or maintain a single buff. Moreover, it's not that they're on par with the Barbarian, they blow him out of the water. 34 HP at level 2, that stack not only with their real HP, but any temp HP as well? More attacks than a monk? It's insane. Point missed, it appears.

Kane0

2023-03-01, 03:52 PM

I'm all for expanding creature type options for druids as they level up. Turning into a pidgeon or bat at level 11 doesnt excite me nearly as much as say a blink dog or aurumvorax, or going from wolves and bears to worgs and owlbears. There are so many creatures that are just mixtures of regular animals or normal beasts with one or two fantastical traits in a game/world brimming with magic that it seems silly druids wouldnt consider a lot of them natural and be able to assume their forms too. Its like a woerd reverse metagame where druids can only turn into things *we* consider normal and mundane, and not something like a shocker lizard or rust monster.

Same for subclasses extending that further, so the dreams druid can go into fey options, the moon druid lycanthropes, the spore druid oozes, some hypothetical weather druid elementals and so on. Some things like constructs and undead should stay off limits of course, but 'natural' creatures can be a very broad scope.

Captain Panda

2023-03-01, 07:13 PM

Nice summary.

Or they could get rid of the Moon Druid subclass altogether.

Wait, why are you all looking at me like that? :smalltongue:

What they've done in this playtest is basically just that. A lot of design words and terrible features tacked onto a page to avoid just admitting they want to get rid of the class.

elyktsorb

2023-03-01, 08:17 PM

I just find the attitude of "we found that few players were picking druid*" leading to nerf druid into the ground** is very confusing.

Actually I've found it makes tons of sense from the WoTC's angle if you think of OneDnd's Moon Druid as being the equivalent to the Arcane Trickster, or Eldritch Knight subclasses. Except instead of adding neat spellcaster stuff, they added a very boring/restrictive fighter block to it.

Want to play a Moon Druid? Here, turn into a squishy fighter who can cast 1 school of spells while wild shaped. That's what everyone wanted right?

Schwann145

2023-03-01, 08:21 PM

I meant to comment on it earlier, but there's seriously disappointing amount of class comparison going on in this thread.

"Druid 2 does Barb 4 but better."
"Why would I play a Druid when I could just play X instead?"
Etc.

D&D. Is. Not. A. Video. Game. No matter how hard WotC wants to dumb it down into one.

I posted my review of the Druid already, and harsh as I was (frankly) I was holding back. But the reason you play a Druid? Because it matches the fantasy you want for your class while going on fantastical adventures.
You can't "win" D&D, so picking "the best class" doesn't exist. The best class is the one you enjoy in the moment.

Yes, there is absolutely mechanical consideration because D&D is a problem/puzzle solving game and you want to be a valuable member of your party, but "Monk does X better than Druid so I should just be a Monk" is absolutely the wrong way to approach a ttrpg. Does Monk fit your character better? Then yea, you should be a Monk instead. But if the sole reason is because Monk (or whatever class) is mathematically better by +X than the class that best matches your character theme, that's *not* a good reason to switch it.

Play the character. The class is secondary.

=================================================

Now, on an entirely separate tangent:
Can we please, for the love of all that is holy, stop calling the Wild-Shaping Druid a "full caster?"
Yes, the Druid is a class that has full caster progression - none of which matters when you're wildshaped. And the level at which suddenly it does matter is so high that the vast majority of games never reach it, so it's a non-issue entirely.

Being able to concentrate on a single spell, which you're likely to lose in combat anyway, and then have zero access to any of your other spells without giving up the entirety of your combat capibility, is *not* the same thing as being "a martial who's also a full caster." If you're making that argument, you're being disingenuous by totally ignoring the very obvious class restrictions.

And that's not even getting into how the Druid spell list is a far cry from the problematic spell list that people are actually concerned with when they bemoan the unfair strengths of a "full caster."
You're a Cleric who traded some very important spells for some not-so-great blasty options. It's not a crazy impressive spell list.

animorte

2023-03-01, 08:42 PM

Play the character. The class is secondary.
Just pulling this part out to acknowledge.

Segev

2023-03-01, 11:24 PM

Now, on an entirely separate tangent:
Can we please, for the love of all that is holy, stop calling the Wild-Shaping Druid a "full caster?"
Yes, the Druid is a class that has full caster progression - none of which matters when you're wildshaped. And the level at which suddenly it does matter is so high that the vast majority of games never reach it, so it's a non-issue entirely.

Being able to concentrate on a single spell, which you're likely to lose in combat anyway, and then have zero access to any of your other spells without giving up the entirety of your combat capibility, is *not* the same thing as being "a martial who's also a full caster." If you're making that argument, you're being disingenuous by totally ignoring the very obvious class restrictions.

And that's not even getting into how the Druid spell list is a far cry from the problematic spell list that people are actually concerned with when they bemoan the unfair strengths of a "full caster."
You're a Cleric who traded some very important spells for some not-so-great blasty options. It's not a crazy impressive spell list.

I think the point people are making is that the druid is a full caster. The fact that wild shape denies them access to casting is just one more reason not to use it.

It's a reason not to use it even when it's good. Such limitations are good design...as long as the trade-offs actually are worth considering. Unfortunately, the UA Wild Shape isn't worth considering, especially when you can cast spells if you don't do it.

And that's without getting into the part I hate about it: the generic stat blob.

Gignere

2023-03-01, 11:38 PM

I think the point people are making is that the druid is a full caster. The fact that wild shape denies them access to casting is just one more reason not to use it.

It's a reason not to use it even when it's good. Such limitations are good design...as long as the trade-offs actually are worth considering. Unfortunately, the UA Wild Shape isn't worth considering, especially when you can cast spells if you don't do it.

And that's without getting into the part I hate about it: the generic stat blob.

No it’s more like the moon Druid has a choice and usually they can do both in a fight, otherwise I must be hallucinating in my games with the moon Druid because he was casting and shifting in encounters that was hard enough for him not to just cantrip stuff. Granted it’s usually one concentration spell and shift but still that’s not that different from every full caster that casts a big spell and then cantrips the rest of the fight. However the animal forms typically is much hardier and usually does more interesting things while doing damage, than cantrips. Like auto proning, auto restrain, or pack tactics.

The worse part is because they are so efficient with their spell slots they usually can convert a substantial amount of slots end of day into goodberries. A well played moon Druid can routinely start the day between 40 - 80 points of healing. There were definitely days that was all the healing the party needed, didn’t even use hit dice just use goodberries.

Segev

2023-03-02, 12:06 AM

No it’s more like the moon Druid has a choice and usually they can do both in a fight, otherwise I must be hallucinating in my games with the moon Druid because he was casting and shifting in encounters that was hard enough for him not to just cantrip stuff. Granted it’s usually one concentration spell and shift but still that’s not that different from every full caster that casts a big spell and then cantrips the rest of the fight. However the animal forms typically is much hardier and usually does more interesting things while doing damage, than cantrips. Like auto proning, auto restrain, or pack tactics.

The worse part is because they are so efficient with their spell slots they usually can convert a substantial amount of slots end of day into goodberries. A well played moon Druid can routinely start the day between 40 - 80 points of healing. There were definitely days that was all the healing the party needed, didn’t even use hit dice just use goodberries.

I was referring to the UA's moon druid, but fair enough.

And yeah, it's both cool as a player and a bit frustrating as a DM. But it's worth noting that in 5e, it's actually rare for hp attrition to really be the thing that slows down the party across multiple fights. It can be; I've seen it happen. But full healing between fights is not something that cripples D&D 5e's ability to be a challenge. 5e is all about the risk of going down DURING the fight while healing effects are action-inefficient compared to damage effects.

Moon druids are designed to be able to use wild shape as a steady source of combat prowess, and that's fine.

Talij

2023-03-02, 12:17 AM

Now, on an entirely separate tangent:
Can we please, for the love of all that is holy, stop calling the Wild-Shaping Druid a "full caster?"
Yes, the Druid is a class that has full caster progression - none of which matters when you're wildshaped. And the level at which suddenly it does matter is so high that the vast majority of games never reach it, so it's a non-issue entirely.

Being able to concentrate on a single spell, which you're likely to lose in combat anyway, and then have zero access to any of your other spells without giving up the entirety of your combat capibility, is *not* the same thing as being "a martial who's also a full caster." If you're making that argument, you're being disingenuous by totally ignoring the very obvious class restrictions.

And that's not even getting into how the Druid spell list is a far cry from the problematic spell list that people are actually concerned with when they bemoan the unfair strengths of a "full caster."
You're a Cleric who traded some very important spells for some not-so-great blasty options. It's not a crazy impressive spell list.

This.

Let's take wildshape out of the 5e druid for a minute and ignore conjure animals since it's arguably broken. Druid as pure caster isn't great. Less healing than the cleric, less damage than the wizard or sorcerer. Less buff/debuffs than the bards. Druids strength is arguably control, but I would say wizards still top them. So if you're building a caster character to fill a role, you're likely better off with another class.

Arguably the best druid spells are the ones that involve summoning or transforming into animals, so wildshape fits that thematically. They just need to find the balance where base wildshape is viable, but not superior in combat.

Gignere

2023-03-02, 12:20 AM

This.

Let's take wildshape out of the 5e druid for a minute and ignore conjure animals since it's arguably broken. Druid as pure caster isn't great. Less healing than the cleric, less damage than the wizard or sorcerer. Less buff/debuffs than the bards. Druids strength is arguably control, but I would say wizards still top them. So if you're building a caster character to fill a role, you're likely better off with another class.

Arguably the best druid spells are the ones that involve summoning or transforming into animals, so wildshape fits that thematically. They just need to find the balance where base wildshape is viable, but not superior in combat.

In my experience they do more healing than most clerics other than life. Goodberries is insanely good, and like my post above well play moon druids can start with 40 - 80 points of goodberry healing every day. That’s usually more healing than clerics other than life outputs per day.

Kane0

2023-03-02, 12:58 AM

Well now if they arent going to whildshape they get a fistful of d4s worth of healing per short rest instead, so you can use those slots on things other than goodberry, or in addition to

Segev

2023-03-02, 01:30 AM

Well now if they arent going to whildshape they get a fistful of d4s worth of healing per short rest instead, so you can use those slots on things other than goodberry, or in addition to

The point about goodberry isn't that they're casting it throughout the day due to having no better spells. The point is that they don't need to use all their spell slots, and so at the end of the day, casting all of them as goodberries gives them the berries for the next day.

Bosh

2023-03-02, 02:35 AM

Point missed, it appears.

There's a difference between missing the point and not agreeing with it you're not going to be many people agreeing with "class balance is a complete non-issue to me."

elyktsorb

2023-03-02, 02:46 AM

In my experience they do more healing than most clerics other than life. Goodberries is insanely good, and like my post above well play moon druids can start with 40 - 80 points of goodberry healing every day. That’s usually more healing than clerics other than life outputs per day.

This feels more like an issue with Goodberry specifically than the entire rest of the class.

Schwann145

2023-03-02, 03:28 AM

Goodberry is the "lembas bread" of D&D.
If the best use for Druid spell slots is to dump them into Berry production to abuse the 1hp restoration mechanic, that is just confirming that the Druid spell list is trash and they should not be lumped in with "full casters" in discussions like these. :smalltongue:

Kane0

2023-03-02, 04:16 AM

Aimeryan

2023-03-02, 06:56 AM

Eh I think wild shape as a non-moon druid should still be an OK combat option, worse than martials, better than Shillelagh.

I think I just fundamentally disagree with this. The problem here is that Wild Shape is melee, and you don't want to go into melee half-cocked. If the options were: cantrip or half-cocked Wild Shape, I know which I'm picking every single time. Even if the option was move away and Dodge or half-cocked Wild Shape I know what I would take every single time. I just don't see how going into melee in such a situation is at all beneficial.

If I am going into melee someone is going to have a very bad day - and that someone better not be me.

Sorinth

2023-03-02, 08:51 AM

Segev

2023-03-02, 08:54 AM

Tanarii

2023-03-02, 09:54 AM

Psyren

2023-03-02, 09:56 AM

Point missed, it appears.

I'm happy to elaborate when you do, otherwise pithy statements like this serve no purpose.

I meant to comment on it earlier, but there's seriously disappointing amount of class comparison going on in this thread.

"Druid 2 does Barb 4 but better."
"Why would I play a Druid when I could just play X instead?"
Etc.

D&D. Is. Not. A. Video. Game. No matter how hard WotC wants to dumb it down into one.

I posted my review of the Druid already, and harsh as I was (frankly) I was holding back. But the reason you play a Druid? Because it matches the fantasy you want for your class while going on fantastical adventures.
You can't "win" D&D, so picking "the best class" doesn't exist. The best class is the one you enjoy in the moment.

Yes, there is absolutely mechanical consideration because D&D is a problem/puzzle solving game and you want to be a valuable member of your party, but "Monk does X better than Druid so I should just be a Monk" is absolutely the wrong way to approach a ttrpg. Does Monk fit your character better? Then yea, you should be a Monk instead. But if the sole reason is because Monk (or whatever class) is mathematically better by +X than the class that best matches your character theme, that's *not* a good reason to switch it.

Play the character. The class is secondary.

No one is saying you should tell people not to play what they want. But class comparison is the entire point of a playtest where the designers are specifically asking for class balance feedback. It would be one thing if they specifically said "our intent is that druids should be the highest-damage and most durable martials in the game in Tier 1 and moving into Tier 2" - but to my knowledge, they haven't done that.

Now, on an entirely separate tangent:
Can we please, for the love of all that is holy, stop calling the Wild-Shaping Druid a "full caster?"
Yes, the Druid is a class that has full caster progression - none of which matters when you're wildshaped. And the level at which suddenly it does matter is so high that the vast majority of games never reach it, so it's a non-issue entirely.

Being able to concentrate on a single spell, which you're likely to lose in combat anyway, and then have zero access to any of your other spells without giving up the entirety of your combat capibility, is *not* the same thing as being "a martial who's also a full caster." If you're making that argument, you're being disingenuous by totally ignoring the very obvious class restrictions.

And that's not even getting into how the Druid spell list is a far cry from the problematic spell list that people are actually concerned with when they bemoan the unfair strengths of a "full caster."
You're a Cleric who traded some very important spells for some not-so-great blasty options. It's not a crazy impressive spell list.

This is an overly simplistic take; A Druid's status as a full caster isn't just a nominally true statement, it's a big deal when considering their martial capability. Druids, especially Moon Druids, have options that no martial can match.

For starters, there are a number of primal spells that work in combat and don't need concentration, even just in core at low levels. For example, a Longstrider cast before combat makes the already fast druid even faster, and so a Druid might never have to burn an action Dashing during a fight even at the lowest levels where distance or difficult terrain are issues for other martials. Jump also lasts an entire combat, and if you're not able to reach your target in the first round due to terrain anyway then this is a fine buff to put on yourself on the first round prior to Wildshaping.

Second, there's Moon's ability to cast Abjurations while wildshaped, which expands their options during a fight considerably, even beyond all the healing options that are abjuration now. The new Resistance is Primal now, and becomes a fantastic reaction for them that costs no build resources to pick up; they can simply turn off blind or poison effects on themselves; at mid levels, they can render themselves immune to paralysis, restraint, grapples and difficult terrain entirely; and they can even turn off the buffs/defenses of enemy casters.

Lastly, you're vastly underestimating their ability to pick up powerful non-Primal spells in OneD&D. Magic Initiate is available right at level one now, which lets them grab notables like Shield, Protection from Evil, Sanctuary, Armor of Agathys, and even Mage Armor if WotC doesn't wise up and fix wild shape AC.

And all of the above is just core. Going outside of that gets us even more stuff, whether you allow them in from 5e or wait until they're newly printed in 1DnD, we can look forward to things like Absorb Elements, Gift of Alacrity, and other spells we can't even conceive of yet joining the fray. Fighters, Barbarians, Monks etc get almost none of this. It also ignores the (in)ability to protect one's concentration; spending build resources on that means you can have even more powerful things running.

Aimeryan

2023-03-02, 10:05 AM

Finally got around to looking at it. Not surprisingly there's some good and some bad.

I'm happy they seem to be fixing the smite spells, in theory this will also apply to the Ranger spells like Hail of Thorns, Ensnaring Strike. Though it seems odd that Banishing Smite doesn't require concentration.
Divine Smite getting nerfed a little is probably a good thing.
Abjure Foes seems really strong, this will probably need to be paired down some
I don't like how they worded the suppression effects of Auras

Not really sure what to think with regards to having Familiars with an attack that only takes your Reaction
Similarly not sure about Spare the Dying. I was mostly on the fence with popup healing before so I'll have to see how this actually plays out
Long Rests getting clarity on interruptions is good

For the Druid I'm not really liking the changes. I'm happy with there being generic stat blocks and room to really customize your wildshape. In theory you can wilshape into an Owlbear now or even look like a Displacer Beast which could lead to some interesting situations. But the wildshapes themselves are just not great. Even Channel Nature just doesn't sit right.

Divine Smite doesn't crit now, nor get the Undead bonus. That is more than a little nerf! It is difficult to foresee a good situation I would want to use it rather than a Spell Slot (although Paladin spells in 5e are awful, but then I always multiclass to get better ones for that reason). Sure hope the Paladin spells haven't been made better.

---

Long Rest interruptions haven't been clarified to me at all - we still have the one hour per interruption and the immediate resumption issue. How do we immediately resume after rolling for initiative? Can we wait for combat to end? If so, can we cast a spell during combat? Is that an additional interruption to something that has yet to resume? If I walk for an hour, do I immediately need to drop at that hour mark? If I take damage, do I need to immediately drop and rest?

Until they clear up that immediate part, nothing is clear. Immediate is not an absolute period of time - it is purely subjective, which means not clear.

Aimeryan

2023-03-02, 10:08 AM

Segev

2023-03-02, 10:23 AM

Yup, here is the new Owlbear Wildshape:

http://static.wikia.nocookie.net/criticalrole/images/7/7c/Owlbear_-_Aviv_Or.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20191202182526

Ah, I see he is going for an optimal form that keeps hands which can wield items and weapons!

Sorinth

2023-03-02, 10:31 AM

The only customization is the costume you put on. Your displacer beast and owlbear are identical in every way save appearance to each other and to your constrictor snake, your scorpion, and your land toad. (Your water toad has entirely different stats, and you have to burn another wild shape to switch from a toad that can hop about on land at the exact same speed as your wolf can lope and with just as much jumping ability to a toad that can swim in the water just as well as a fish, octopus, or your aqua-tiger, none of which can move about on land at all.)

Disguise Self is also just a costume you put on, there's a lot of value in being able to having a costume in D&D. The generic stat blocks themselves are very underwhelming though.

Long Rest interruptions haven't been clarified to me at all - we still have the one hour per interruption and the immediate resumption issue. How do we immediately resume after rolling for initiative? Can we wait for combat to end? If so, can we cast a spell during combat? Is that an additional interruption to something that has yet to resume? If I walk for an hour, do I immediately need to drop at that hour mark? If I take damage, do I need to immediately drop and rest?

Until they clear up that immediate part, nothing is clear. Immediate is not an absolute period of time - it is purely subjective, which means not clear.

Look if you can't figure the "immediately" part out then I'm confident in saying the problem is you and not WotC writing something that's actually unclear.

Aimeryan

2023-03-02, 10:34 AM

Look if you can't figure the "immediately" part out then I'm confident in saying the problem is you and not WotC writing something that's actually unclear.

And yet, you didn't answer any of the questions - maybe everyone but WotC is the problem? I'm certain JC will agree with you.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-02, 10:40 AM

What they've done in this playtest is basically just that. A lot of design words and terrible features tacked onto a page to avoid just admitting they want to get rid of the class. Maybe so, but if good feedback gets to them and they tweak it again, then maybe it fits better. Get those creative juices flowing and suggest some scaling options that fit better.

"Druid 2 does Barb 4 but better."
"Why would I play a Druid when I could just play X instead?"
Etc.

D&D. Is. Not. A. Video. Game. No matter how hard WotC wants to dumb it down into one.

I posted my review of the Druid already, and harsh as I was (frankly) I was holding back. But the reason you play a Druid? Because it matches the fantasy you want for your class while going on fantastical adventures. You can't "win" D&D, so picking "the best class" doesn't exist. The best class is the one you enjoy in the moment.

Yes, there is absolutely mechanical consideration because D&D is a problem/puzzle solving game and you want to be a valuable member of your party, but "Monk does X better than Druid so I should just be a Monk" is absolutely the wrong way to approach a ttrpg. Does Monk fit your character better? Then yea, you should be a Monk instead. But if the sole reason is because Monk (or whatever class) is mathematically better by +X than the class that best matches your character theme, that's *not* a good reason to switch it.

Play the character. The class is secondary. Saved me some typing, thanks.

Can we please, for the love of all that is holy, stop calling the Wild-Shaping Druid a "full caster?"
Yes, the Druid is a class that has full caster progression - none of which matters when you're wildshaped. And the level at which suddenly it does matter is so high that the vast majority of games never reach it, so it's a non-issue entirely. Good point. And with AC generally low in wild shape form, the concentration heavy Druid spell list, if cast before wild shaping, have lots of chances to go away with a hit here and there, particularly in Tier 2 and 3. (My own experience).

Being able to concentrate on a single spell, which you're likely to lose in combat anyway, and then have zero access to any of your other spells without giving up the entirety of your combat capibility, is *not* the same thing as being "a martial who's also a full caster." If you're making that argument, you're being disingenuous by totally ignoring the very obvious class restrictions. Concur.

And that's not even getting into how the Druid spell list is a far cry from the problematic spell list that people are actually concerned with when they bemoan the unfair strengths of a "full caster." Has some nice ones at very high level though, if the campaign gets there. :smallsmile:

Just pulling this part out to acknowledge. +1

I think the point people are making is that the druid is a full caster. The fact that wild shape denies them access to casting is just one more reason not to use it.

It's a reason not to use it even when it's good. Such limitations are good design...as long as the trade-offs actually are worth considering. Unfortunately, the UA Wild Shape isn't worth considering, especially when you can cast spells if you don't do it. Good perspective, I may fold some of that thought into my feedback.

Segev

2023-03-02, 10:43 AM

Disguise Self is also just a costume you put on, there's a lot of value in being able to having a costume in D&D. The generic stat blocks themselves are very underwhelming though.

The ability isn't "animal costume" or "animal disguise." It's "Wild Shape," and it implies heavily that you're actually transforming, not creating an illusion that is barely skin deep.

ZRN

2023-03-02, 10:58 AM

Sorinth

2023-03-02, 11:11 AM

The ability isn't "animal costume" or "animal disguise." It's "Wild Shape," and it implies heavily that you're actually transforming, not creating an illusion that is barely skin deep.

I'm not sure what your point is here. You do remember that you were the one who called it a costume in the first place right?

Sorinth

2023-03-02, 11:23 AM

Proposed changes:

1. Keep a single basic wildshape stat block.
2. Instead of all this vague "you can be a tiny elephant or a green elk or a spider without webs" stuff you get to pick from a discrete list of a dozen or so animal forms, each with a few unique abilities.
3. The tankier forms get some THP.
3. Instead of a new stat block for aquatic and flying forms, you instead get additional list options at those levels.

So at level 1 maybe your options are like:

Bear: Your size is Large, your strength is equal to your Wisdom, and you gain 1d10 THP when you wildshape. (You lose these THP if you change forms.)
Giant Spider: You can climb on walls and ceilings as with the spider climb spell.
etc.

The benefit of this is that it lets you use shapeshifting to do different stuff without having to dig through a bunch of stat blocks in the PHB or MM.

I do think some of the "unique" animal abilities should get unlocked (Probably choosing from a list), stuff like forcing a save to prone/grapple on hit. Plenty of animals have those types of extras and really it doesn't matter whether you are a bear or a wolf. Even the more specific ones like web walking, given that you can now create hybrid forms it's not a stretch to have non-spiders have that.

elyktsorb

2023-03-02, 11:28 AM

I also find that there is a specific issue with vague stat blocks where your limits for the form appear to be any animal or a hybrid of two animals. Not beasts, just animals, of which humans and insects are animals.

Is there anything stopping me from being a Animal of the Land that is a human but with extra arms? Yes, the form has no bearing on my abilities, but I will have four arms. What if I'm a spider human with six arms? They don't give me extra attacks, but there's no reason I couldn't hold onto six items then right? Or are the extra arms just for show? What determines which of the extra arms is for show? If I hold something in two of the hands, does that stop any of my other hands from functioning?

What if I have a form with no mouth, or nose, or any distinguishable way of breathing? Like if I decided to be a human moth hybrid as many species of moth don't have mouths and breath through their exoskeleton, but I didn't take the exoskeleton either. If my additional arms are for show, would the lack of breathing organs also be for show?

What if I decided to have no eyes, can I or can I not still see?

When I can turn into an animal of the sky, do I even technically need wings? If the form is for show, I have a flight speed regardless. So I could be a floating octopus.

Segev

2023-03-02, 11:42 AM

I'm not sure what your point is here. You do remember that you were the one who called it a costume in the first place right?

The issue is that the UA makes it into just a costume that has no mechanical effect. Literally, the mechanics are divorced from the costume with one exception: you want your costume to have hands because those matter whether they're there or not.

This does make it basically disguise self but for animal shapes, which is bad.

The ability is called Wild Shape. It isn't called "animal disguise" or disguise self as animal. The fact that it is just a costume is the problem. 5e had it work just fine. The only thing people tend to really gripe about is the hp buff (and moon druids at low level having multiattack). Thematically, flavorfully, etc., the assumption of beast stat blocks is good. It makes it more than a costume; the form is actually linked to the abilities it grants.

animorte

2023-03-02, 11:50 AM

Here you go: Design the Wild Shape stat blocks the way they differentiated Ardlings in the second rendition. Looks to me like that's where the effort went.

Segev

2023-03-02, 11:58 AM

Here you go: Design the Wild Shape stat blocks the way they differentiated Ardlings in the second rendition. Looks to me like that's where the effort went.

Except that Ardlings were rejected, too. And I suspect at least some of the rejection is for a similar reason: "HEre, you can be any animal-person you want! All animal-people have some mix-and-match traits, rather than a bespoke stat block."

But it's worse with Wild Shape. The "real" wolf you encounter will always be different from anything you can become. And the more you throw in extra bonus traits or modular traits to the wild shape template, the closer you come to just having it be easier to use the stat blocks.

Sorinth

2023-03-02, 12:14 PM

The issue is that the UA makes it into just a costume that has no mechanical effect. Literally, the mechanics are divorced from the costume with one exception: you want your costume to have hands because those matter whether they're there or not.

This does make it basically disguise self but for animal shapes, which is bad.

The ability is called Wild Shape. It isn't called "animal disguise" or disguise self as animal. The fact that it is just a costume is the problem. 5e had it work just fine. The only thing people tend to really gripe about is the hp buff (and moon druids at low level having multiattack). Thematically, flavorfully, etc., the assumption of beast stat blocks is good. It makes it more than a costume; the form is actually linked to the abilities it grants.

I'm not saying that overall the UA wildshape is better then the original, it's not. But I very much disagree with the claim that disguise self but for animal shapes is bad. That's a very good ability.

Segev

2023-03-02, 12:22 PM

I'm not saying that overall the UA wildshape is better then the original, it's not. But I very much disagree with the claim that disguise self but for animal shapes is bad. That's a very good ability.

It isn't a bad one, but it's hardly worth building a class around. It's a nice ribbon, or a reasonable level 1 spell, at best. And it isn't Wild Shape. Just like disguise self isn't polymorph (even in editions where polymorph wasn't limited to beasts).

Psyren

2023-03-02, 12:23 PM

Except that Ardlings were rejected, too. And I suspect at least some of the rejection is for a similar reason: "HEre, you can be any animal-person you want! All animal-people have some mix-and-match traits, rather than a bespoke stat block."

But it's worse with Wild Shape. The "real" wolf you encounter will always be different from anything you can become. And the more you throw in extra bonus traits or modular traits to the wild shape template, the closer you come to just having it be easier to use the stat blocks.

Ardling may have been rejected failed to clear the playtest threshold, but the new Beastmaster Ranger was welcomed with open arms. It's too early to conclude that mutable statblocks are conceptually undesirable.

ZRN

2023-03-02, 12:28 PM

I do think some of the "unique" animal abilities should get unlocked (Probably choosing from a list), stuff like forcing a save to prone/grapple on hit. Plenty of animals have those types of extras and really it doesn't matter whether you are a bear or a wolf. Even the more specific ones like web walking, given that you can now create hybrid forms it's not a stretch to have non-spiders have that.

I disagree on both counts. First, because I don't like hybrid forms as a baseline druid ability. You're a druid, not a werewolf or a body horror anime. You're getting shapeshifting from your love of/connection to nature and natural animals, you shouldn't be turning into some kind of weird feral monstrosity or tiny elephant.

As a part of that, those individual creatures should be as specific and concrete in their abilities as is practical without overwhelming players with options and details (like the 2014 version did). If you want to spin webs, that means turning into a spider, with everything else that entails. If you want to wrap and strangle someone you need to be a constrictor snake. If you want to "prone/grapple" people in some way that's not specific to a particular animal form, good news, that's part of the baseline game rules - just spend an attack.

animorte

2023-03-02, 12:31 PM

Except that Ardlings were rejected, too. And I suspect at least some of the rejection is for a similar reason: "HEre, you can be any animal-person you want! All animal-people have some mix-and-match traits, rather than a bespoke stat block."
For me, that falls in line with, "just because 4e was crap doesn't mean we can't learn from some of what it did."

*Disclaimer: I never played 4e, but I've seen this sentiment echoed many times.

Psyren

2023-03-02, 01:06 PM

And yet *gestures vaguely at WotC*. Sometimes it's astounding the things they need to hear in feedback, assuming they aren't making stupid mistakes on purpose.

I think they're being overly cautious with the first round stuff and then powering it up after feedback. We also saw this pattern with the first round of Epic Boons and the first Dragonborn, and we're likely going to see it again with the Rogue. Personally I think they should do the opposite, come out of the gate swinging and then tone things down - but at the same time, I can also see how disappointment now is probably better than disappointment on release.

PB/day abilities might work poorly with multiclasses?

Yes, but wild shape has an easy solution, have it turn off features you get from other classes. The playtest does that now, it just goes a smidge too far. The you can boost, say, Land Beast AC without worrying about e.g. every monk wanting to dip 1 level in druid. If doing so meant no martial arts/ki/flurry etc they will leave that alone.

Druid/Monk would still be a viable option, just not with wild shape - it would be used more with Shillelagh, and with non-wildshaping druids like Spores.

Theodoxus

2023-03-02, 02:17 PM

Probably because the whole arcane/divine/expert/warrior set-up is hilariously artificial, and doesn't actually line up very well with D&D's classes, which are more like:

Categories
5e Classes

Arcane
Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

Divine
Cleric, Druid

Expert
Rogue

Warriors
Barbarian, Fighter

Hybrids
Bard (Arcane/Expert), Paladin (Divine/Warrior),
Ranger (Expert/Warrior)

I Dunno?
Artificer, Monk

I mean, you could shoe-horn the four core classes that don't fit neatly into the categories in there, but you'd have to change them WAY more heavily than the design team seems willing to do. If they were really committed to making the grid work, they'd have to fiddle with the classes way harder than they seem comfortable with.

For example, maybe Expert classes could get Expertise Dice that they can spend to boost skill checks, with each class getting a different take on using them:

Bards and Rangers are both half-casters (because sure, why not?)
Everyone who gets Expertise Dice can spend them on ability checks they're proficient in. There are feats that give you extra uses for Expertise Dice.
Bards get to lend out Expertise Dice (Bardic Inspiration!) and can spend them to boost their own spellcasting.
Rangers get to use Expertise Dice to improve their combat abilities —think the old Monster Hunter UA.
Rogues get to be more consistent with Expertise Dice, meaning that they can use them all willy-nilly.

Or something like that.

In one of my homebrew iterations, I threw Monk, Ranger, and Rogue into the Expert group, granting them Precision Dice. Monk's spend dice to make flurry of blows, one attack per die - so instead of increasing their martial arts die, they just make more d6+Dex mod attacks as they level. Ranger's add their precision dice to attacks against their favored enemies (or increases the Hunter's Mark damage, depending on what iteration of favored enemy the ranger was using. Rogue just stayed Sneak dice.

I also really like how Worlds Without Number rebalanced the 4 classes, which loosely mirrors your own take - Artificers (which I feel mirrors the arcane/expert hybrid better than bard, ymmv), Paladins, and Ranger - all being 1/2 casters, hews closely to the Adventurer idea from WWN.

Segev

2023-03-02, 02:25 PM

Ardling may have been rejected failed to clear the playtest threshold, but the new Beastmaster Ranger was welcomed with open arms. It's too early to conclude that mutable statblocks are conceptually undesirable.

Oh, I don't doubt that there are enough people who'll like the generic stat blobs that we're stuck with them.

I will be (very pleasantly) shocked if OneD&D publishes with player-facing mechanics that let you actually use things in the game world rather than generic stat blobs you pretend are things in the game world. I think generic stat blobs are here to stay, no matter that I'll be blasting them in the survey. Just because I expect there are people who're happy with them, and I triply expect that WotC is going to quintuple down on them at every opportunity as long as this crop of writers is in charge, doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. It just means I'm resigned to disappointment, and that I probably won't buy OneD&D products. I'll likely crib some decent mechanics ideas from them (I like the proposed rules for dual wielding better than 5e's, and find them usable in 5e), but overall I have been disappointed to outright disgusted by the "Big Ideas" that have been demonstrated as the guiding principles in these UAs.

Pex

2023-03-02, 02:49 PM

Oh, I don't doubt that there are enough people who'll like the generic stat blobs that we're stuck with them.

I will be (very pleasantly) shocked if OneD&D publishes with player-facing mechanics that let you actually use things in the game world rather than generic stat blobs you pretend are things in the game world. I think generic stat blobs are here to stay, no matter that I'll be blasting them in the survey. Just because I expect there are people who're happy with them, and I triply expect that WotC is going to quintuple down on them at every opportunity as long as this crop of writers is in charge, doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. It just means I'm resigned to disappointment, and that I probably won't buy OneD&D products. I'll likely crib some decent mechanics ideas from them (I like the proposed rules for dual wielding better than 5e's, and find them usable in 5e), but overall I have been disappointed to outright disgusted by the "Big Ideas" that have been demonstrated as the guiding principles in these UAs.

I wouldn't mind specific stat blocks of these choices as long as the choices are meaningfully different. You get the abilities of the creature you turn into. You can be a Spider and get spider climb, web, poison but can only ever be this Spider for game purposes, not any Spider variety published in any Monster Manual. If you become a Tiger you get these stats with pounce and can only be this Tiger, not any Tiger found in any Monster Manual, and so forth. It will make druids homogenous in terms of the creatures they turn into, but it will have to be the price worth paying to give the Wild Shape players want without the book diving optimization other players aren't liking. To get back some diversity provide a large list of different creatures, yet each individual druid may only choose a subset of the list but of their choice.

Segev

2023-03-02, 02:54 PM

I wouldn't mind specific stat blocks of these choices as long as the choices are meaningfully different. You get the abilities of the creature you turn into. You can be a Spider and get spider climb, web, poison but can only ever be this Spider for game purposes, not any Spider variety published in any Monster Manual. If you become a Tiger you get these stats with pounce and can only be this Tiger, not any Tiger found in any Monster Manual, and so forth. It will make druids homogenous in terms of the creatures they turn into, but it will have to be the price worth paying to give the Wild Shape players want without the book diving optimization other players aren't liking. To get back some diversity provide a large list of different creatures, yet each individual druid may only choose a subset of the list but of their choice.

That'd be better.

Heck, as long as they don't deliberately go hog wild and make stupid decisions in creature design, I'd be okay with the generic stat blobs being a "default" and a sidebar discussing a more robust and interesting but optional system of taking on actual beast forms, more or less cribbed from 5e with maybe some balance tweaks around the numbers or when you get access to certain features (maybe lower CR ceilings for moon druids at various levels, or move when they can access particular kinds of features, if needs be; where that is would be a discussion of its own).

animorte

2023-03-02, 03:02 PM

I'd be okay with the generic stat blobs being a "default" and a sidebar discussing a more robust and interesting but optional system of taking on actual beast forms
This would make a lot of sense. Here are some time-saving generic stat-blocks with varied interesting options (as default). Or here's the variant side-bar with a maximum CR per Druid level guideline. Now go find whatever beast your DM will allow.

MukkTB

2023-03-02, 03:21 PM

What I'd like to see is synergy. Suppose that the idea of the base class druid is "full spellcaster who shapeshifts and fights in melee range." You're supposed to use your status as a full caster to cast a really impactful concentration spell before shifting. Not being able to bring combat feats along, racial features that help in melee combat, or other (multi)class features that improve combat really hurts your melee performance. It feels like you'd be better hiding in the backline somewhere if you cast a good concentration spell than sitting up front with terrible AC.

The great things other full caster base classes bring is how they improve the core strategy. A wizard with no subclass still gets ritual casting and a great spell list. Making them very flexible casters with solid stamina. A sorcerer with metamagic just casts better spells than anyone else; subtle spell counter spell, twin haste. The 5e base druid gets a ton of utility from wild shape; spider climb, poison, scent. And the great thing base class martial partial casters get is ways that amp their spell casting into combat; smite, agonizing blast with eldritch blast...

Why not shift the emphasis to tank? Take away the extra attack at level 5 from the base druid's wildshape. Knock off some more damage, maybe by taking away wis to hit and damage. Give it a good AC. Give it a couple temp HP. Wis to con saves. Give it proficiency in con saves. Give the base class the ability to cast abjuration spells when wild shaped. You now have the most durable full caster, and synergy with the "cast one really impactful concentration spell" strategy. The spells it casts may not be as numerous or strong as other casters. But it would be the best at holding concentration.

The moon druid could then be the subclass that gets bonuses to damage, extra attack at level 5, and wis to hit and damage so that its DPR at least reaches baseline. The wildfire druid could get to cast evocations in wildshape and be great at AOE damage while tanking on the front line. Another subclass could focus on casting healing spells while wildshaped.

Kane0

2023-03-02, 03:28 PM

I wouldn't mind specific stat blocks of these choices as long as the choices are meaningfully different. You get the abilities of the creature you turn into. You can be a Spider and get spider climb, web, poison but can only ever be this Spider for game purposes, not any Spider variety published in any Monster Manual. If you become a Tiger you get these stats with pounce and can only be this Tiger, not any Tiger found in any Monster Manual, and so forth. It will make druids homogenous in terms of the creatures they turn into, but it will have to be the price worth paying to give the Wild Shape players want without the book diving optimization other players aren't liking. To get back some diversity provide a large list of different creatures, yet each individual druid may only choose a subset of the list but of their choice.

That'd be better.

This would make a lot of sense.

That is exactly how Artificers work with their Replicate Magic Item Infusion. Its a curated shortlist rather than 'pick an item of X rarity' and you dont automatically learn all the options available.
Which works fine, and would have been a perfectly viable solution for shapechanging forms, familiars, beastmaster pets, etc.
If you want something specific that isnt on that list you can work with your DM to make an exception

Psyren

2023-03-02, 04:06 PM

That is exactly how Artificers work with their Replicate Magic Item Infusion. Its a curated shortlist rather than 'pick an item of X rarity' and you dont automatically learn all the options available.
Which works fine, and would have been a perfectly viable solution for shapechanging forms, familiars, beastmaster pets, etc.
If you want something specific that isnt on that list you can work with your DM to make an exception

Which brings us back to my earlier suggestion - why not let Druid have the simpler form of shapeshifting, and then have a more complex class outside of core that gets to do the statblock diving across multiple books thing? Would that not be the best of both worlds? (Particularly if you subscribe to PhoenixPhyre's belief that statblock diving and 9th-level spellcasting are too much for one class.)

Mastikator

2023-03-02, 04:37 PM

The issue is that the UA makes it into just a costume that has no mechanical effect. Literally, the mechanics are divorced from the costume with one exception: you want your costume to have hands because those matter whether they're there or not.

This does make it basically disguise self but for animal shapes, which is bad.

The ability is called Wild Shape. It isn't called "animal disguise" or disguise self as animal. The fact that it is just a costume is the problem. 5e had it work just fine. The only thing people tend to really gripe about is the hp buff (and moon druids at low level having multiattack). Thematically, flavorfully, etc., the assumption of beast stat blocks is good. It makes it more than a costume; the form is actually linked to the abilities it grants.

"Wild Shape. As a Magic action, you transform into a form that you have learned for this feature"

The text says you are actually transformed.

The text also says you lose your own racial features and gain new ones. That's mechanically more different than in the 2014 PHB version where you keep some of your racial features.

sithlordnergal

2023-03-02, 04:55 PM

"Wild Shape. As a Magic action, you transform into a form that you have learned for this feature"

The text says you are actually transformed.

The text also says you lose your own racial features and gain new ones. That's mechanically more different than in the 2014 PHB version where you keep some of your racial features.

Flavor text means nothing if the mechanics don't support it. It can have the word transformed all it likes, but with the route they went you're not actually transforming into anything. If you face a generic Wolf while "transformed" into a Wolf, you and that wolf don't have access to the same abilities, which means you're not actually a Wolf.

Segev

2023-03-02, 05:04 PM

Which brings us back to my earlier suggestion - why not let Druid have the simpler form of shapeshifting, and then have a more complex class outside of core that gets to do the statblock diving across multiple books thing? Would that not be the best of both worlds? (Particularly if you subscribe to PhoenixPhyre's belief that statblock diving and 9th-level spellcasting are too much for one class.)Maybe? But in that case, just take the feature entirely away from Druids, because the feature is stupid as presented. This is my personal feeling, but I actively find these generic stat blobs aesthetically repugnant, and do not want to play things that use them. I refuse to use the Summon spells from TCE for that reason. They actively are anti-fun for me.

"Wild Shape. As a Magic action, you transform into a form that you have learned for this feature"

The text says you are actually transformed.

The text also says you lose your own racial features and gain new ones. That's mechanically more different than in the 2014 PHB version where you keep some of your racial features.

Flavor text means nothing if the mechanics don't support it. It can have the word transformed all it likes, but with the route they went you're not actually transforming into anything. If you face a generic Wolf while "transformed" into a Wolf, you and that wolf don't have access to the same abilities, which means you're not actually a Wolf.Exactly. Furthermore, what's worse, you "transform" into a snake and another druid "transforms" into a wolf, and you both have exactly the same stats insofar as the "form" is concerned.

Theodoxus

2023-03-02, 05:35 PM

Segev

2023-03-02, 05:46 PM

What I'd like is something in the middle; explain to DMs who might not realize that they don't have to run the game like it's hard coded, that there is a sliding scale of options, from boring but safe blobs all the way to specific beasts in various books. And then decide as a table what is optimal for both the DM and the druid and come to an understanding, if not actual compromise.

I could stomach the presence of (ugh) the stat blobs in animal costumes if there were an in-PHB side bar optional rule that explains the "real rules" (as far as I'm concerned) that are much more in line with how 5e does it. So it's right there for the player to ask the DM about and the DM to see what the player is asking about.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-02, 05:50 PM

For me, that falls in line with, "just because 4e was crap doesn't mean we can't learn from some of what it did."
Advantage came from 4e, IIRC the Avenger class had it.

sithlordnergal

2023-03-02, 06:00 PM

Eh, as has been thrown around a lot in this thread, that's the CRPG version of the ability. The question becomes, does a specific DM run it that way. I mean, if your druid turns into a wolf, and meets a 'real' wolf, does the real one treat the druid as a wolf from another pack, or as a humanoid 'dressed' in wolf's clothing?

I dunno about your DMs, but I've never had an animal treat my wildshaped Druid as a Humanoid dressed in wolf's clothing. They treat you as another beast. If that means fighting over territory, you'll be fought over territory. If it means you're ignored, then you're ignored.

Yes, it'd be nice if the rules covered universality. But again, it's a game. Even if it were spelled out explicitly that a druid wildshaping turns into an actual animal capable of breeding with others of the kind the druid turned into and is welcomed as a member of the species they shaped into - a DM is perfectly within their purview to deny that. Likewise, they could expand on the blob and grant it more power than the ability specifies.

What I'd like is something in the middle; explain to DMs who might not realize that they don't have to run the game like it's hard coded, that there is a sliding scale of options, from boring but safe blobs all the way to specific beasts in various books. And then decide as a table what is optimal for both the DM and the druid and come to an understanding, if not actual compromise.

Problem is most DMs are gonna run it like its hard coded anyway, simply because it makes life easier. And I won't lie, I'm one of those DMs. I don't really do changes for classes, races, or their abilities. If ability X says it does Y, then it does Y, no changes. No debate. Reason I do that is because it makes encounter balancing that much easier. I know how a standard PHB druid plays, I know its strengths and weaknesses, no need to add some weird X factor in. The only exception I make is with the Warlock, where I give them one extra spell slot and Invocation at level 5, because that ends up bringing them to be on par with every other class.

Plus I tend to forget changes I make to classes and NPCs. Heck, I gave Zombies Resistance to Piercing and Bludgeoning damage during Tomb of Annihilation, even put it in their statblock so I wouldn't forget. Totally forgot I had done it because I know the zombie statblock by heart, didn't bother to look at their sheet outside of an occasional glance where I just missed the fact I had added Resistances.

Now, if they had the blob as a side thing, I could get behind it. If the new wildshape said something along the lines:

Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before. You can use this feature twice. You regain expended uses when you finish a short or long rest.

Your druid level determines the beasts you can transform into, as shown in the Beast Shapes table. At 2nd level, for example, you can transform into any beast that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower that doesn't have a flying or swimming speed. Alternatively, you can transform into <insert generic stat blob here>.

At that point you have the generic stat blob for new players and players that don't want to look at Beast stats. But at the same time you keep the fantasy of turning into a beast. Or I'd be ok if the standard Wildshape was the statblob, and the proper Wildshape was rolled into a Subclass. Like a Land Druid could turn into the generic statblob, while a Moon Druid turned into actual Beasts.

Mastikator

2023-03-02, 06:14 PM

Flavor text means nothing if the mechanics don't support it. It can have the word transformed all it likes, but with the route they went you're not actually transforming into anything. If you face a generic Wolf while "transformed" into a Wolf, you and that wolf don't have access to the same abilities, which means you're not actually a Wolf.

But if you wild shape your goblin into a wolf and keep nimble escape, a feature that wolves don't have, then that counts as being a wolf. What's the defining feature of wolf? Is it pack tactics?

People keep bringing up "the exact same stats" but you never had that. It's objectively, factually, not true. That's never a thing that existed.

Psyren

2023-03-02, 06:18 PM

Maybe? But in that case, just take the feature entirely away from Druids, because the feature is stupid as presented. This is my personal feeling, but I actively find these generic stat blobs aesthetically repugnant, and do not want to play things that use them. I refuse to use the Summon spells from TCE for that reason. They actively are anti-fun for me.

I can only hope they don't listen to you then.

But if you wild shape your goblin into a wolf and keep nimble escape, a feature that wolves don't have, then that counts as being a wolf. What's the defining feature of wolf? Is it pack tactics?

People keep bringing up "the exact same stats" but you never had that. It's objectively, factually, not true. That's never a thing that existed.

Exactly. And in addition to racials, the 5e moon druid "wolf" can randomly heal itself too. What wolf can do that? Answer, none.

Kane0

2023-03-02, 06:20 PM

sithlordnergal

2023-03-02, 06:24 PM

But if you wild shape your goblin into a wolf and keep nimble escape, a feature that wolves don't have, then that counts as being a wolf. What's the defining feature of wolf? Is it pack tactics?

People keep bringing up "the exact same stats" but you never had that. It's objectively, factually, not true. That's never a thing that existed.

I don't think you'd be able to keep that. I'm not sure if a Wolf would be capable of using Nimble Escape. Now, you do gain some benefits from your class, such as Spell Casting, Beast Spells, and Archdruid, so you do have a few extra things you can do over an average wolf. But I can't name a single DM that has given a Wild Shaped Druid access to their racial features.

Though I guess you technically have a point with "exact same stats". A Wolf can't cast spells. However, you do end up with the same stats that matter. I.E. actions, movement speed, HP, ect. You're actually a Wolf, unlike with a faceless stat blob that's just nothing at all.

Mastikator

2023-03-02, 06:39 PM

I don't think you'd be able to keep that. I'm not sure if a Wolf would be capable of using Nimble Escape. Now, you do gain some benefits from your class, such as Spell Casting, Beast Spells, and Archdruid, so you do have a few extra things you can do over an average wolf. But I can't name a single DM that has given a Wild Shaped Druid access to their racial features.

Though I guess you technically have a point with "exact same stats". A Wolf can't cast spells. However, you do end up with the same stats that matter. I.E. actions, movement speed, HP, ect. You're actually a Wolf, unlike with a faceless stat blob that's just nothing at all.

RAW you can.

You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so

You playing with DMs who don't play according to the rules is not a good argument that Wildshape wouldn't let you use Nimble Escape.

Another example is Dhampir. Dhampirs use their teeth as natural weapons. Wolves have teeth. Can a dhampir druid wildshaped into a wolf drink blood and gain HP? YES. RAW they can. That is allowed by the rules. That's a vampire wolf, which AFAIK isn't the exact same stats as a wolf. Actually it's pretty far from it.

What about barbarian unarmored defense? It requires that you don't wear armor. Is a wolf's natural armor armor? No. A wolf isn't wearing its skin is it? So a barbarian druid wildshaped into a wolf can use unarmored barbarian defense. Yeah. RAW. Not very wolfy is it.

Segev

2023-03-02, 06:59 PM

I can only hope they don't listen to you then.

I mean, I can say the same thing to you. Though I fear they will listen more to you, because you seem more in line with what they either want, or feel they're required to do.

As I have said, you and I have some fundamental disagreements on game design. Sadly for me, your views seem more in line with WotC's at the moment, which I view as bad for the game.

HolyAvenger7

2023-03-02, 07:57 PM

The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order. Sometimes called cavaliers, white knights, or holy warriors, these paladins meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in pursuit of justice and the greater good. -PHB

I'm starting to feel the find Steed as the cavalier portion of the Paladin, but Devotion is the traditional holy warrior. The entire flavor of the subclass is supposed to be about smiting evil. Sacred weapon as a bonus action is a MUCH needed fix. Now it's usable. The loss of turn the unholy does pull a lot from the holy warrior stereotype. Would it be too much to add a rider to the sacred weapon CD something along the following lines:

"Each fiend or undead stuck with your sacred weapon must make a Wisdom saving throw. If the creature fails its saving throw, it is turned for 1 minute or until it takes additional damage."

Changing from "that can see or hear you within 30 feet of you" nerfs it sufficiently to not be OP, but retains some of the flavor.

Additionally, the Smite of Protection feels too cleric like. Flavor it for subclass. I'm thinking change out

"The chosen creature gains Temporary Hit Points equal to 1d8 plus the level of the Spell Slot used for the Divine Smite."

for

"The chosen creature receives the benefits of the Protection from evil and good for 1 minute."

Some might consider this a nerf as it's usable in fewer situations, but I think it defines the subclass better. Maybe it makes up for the additional rider on sacred weapon.

Hurrashane

2023-03-02, 07:59 PM

I don't think you'd be able to keep that. I'm not sure if a Wolf would be capable of using Nimble Escape. Now, you do gain some benefits from your class, such as Spell Casting, Beast Spells, and Archdruid, so you do have a few extra things you can do over an average wolf. But I can't name a single DM that has given a Wild Shaped Druid access to their racial features.

Though I guess you technically have a point with "exact same stats". A Wolf can't cast spells. However, you do end up with the same stats that matter. I.E. actions, movement speed, HP, ect. You're actually a Wolf, unlike with a faceless stat blob that's just nothing at all.

How much, in your mind, can you change before you cease to be a wolf? A moon druid monk multiclass with improved movement speed, Ac, and a new BA attack are they still a wolf? If you have someone cast aid on you to increase your max HP as a wolf are you no longer a wolf because your HP is no longer the same? If you had magic items that you can wear as a wolf that increased attributes does wearing them stop you from being a wolf? If a DM wanted to make a wolf stronger by adding sidekick levels or just upping it's HP, damage numbers, etc does it cease to be a wolf? If a DM did those things can you become -that- wolf?

Can your druid turn into the monk/Druid's wolf form to gain that other Druid's class abilities and species features on top of the wolf block?

Aimeryan

2023-03-02, 08:10 PM

I mean, I can say the same thing to you. Though I fear they will listen more to you, because you seem more in line with what they either want, or feel they're required to do.

As I have said, you and I have some fundamental disagreements on game design. Sadly for me, your views seem more in line with WotC's at the moment, which I view as bad for the game.

If, as I think many of us are suspecting, this is to make the VTT easier to design there is a slight chance they would go for a fixed list. If they have to put the animal forms in anyway, this is actually easier to just allow access to a small selection than to make the Wildshapeless Blob. The real thing they don't want is to have to bring up the entire list of potential forms.

That said, it depends on who this idea came from; if its JC himself its not going to be dropped.

Bosh

2023-03-02, 09:13 PM

For the Druid I'm not really liking the changes. I'm happy with there being generic stat blocks and room to really customize your wildshape. In theory you can wilshape into an Owlbear now or even look like a Displacer Beast which could lead to some interesting situations. But the wildshapes themselves are just not great. Even Channel Nature just doesn't sit right.

Yup, they're laying a few bricks of 4e's "wall made out of tigers with tigers on top" between crunch and fluff which I don't like. I'm not going to run around screaming that they're going to ruin everything and 6e is going to be a 4e clone or anything, but they certainly seem to be taking a few measured steps away from Combat as War and towards Combat as Sport (https://www.enworld.org/threads/very-long-combat-as-sport-vs-combat-as-war-a-key-difference-in-d-d-play-styles.317715).

Having flavor stuff like ("I'm a wolf!" or "I'm an owlbear!") have no mechanical meaning whatsoever tends to make players care about them less. Of course you CAN roleplay well and get really invested in your wolfiness when you wildshape but having the rules nudge players towards caring about certain things (like "are you a wolf or a bear?") can help in my experience. Also having things be SPECIFIC ("you're a bear!") generally makes it easier for DMs to adjudicate players doing unusual things that the devs didn't really think about when they wrote the rules than things that are very general ("you're any kind of animal you want!").

Psyren

2023-03-02, 09:25 PM

Hurrashane

2023-03-02, 09:39 PM

Assuming you mean the OneD&D druid, don't they lose all their monk features when they shapeshift?

I was talking regular 5e druid

Psyren

2023-03-02, 10:00 PM

I was talking regular 5e druid

Ahh gotcha, my bad. This thread is getting tough to follow...

You playing with DMs who don't play according to the rules is not a good argument that Wildshape wouldn't let you use Nimble Escape.

Another example is Dhampir. Dhampirs use their teeth as natural weapons. Wolves have teeth. Can a dhampir druid wildshaped into a wolf drink blood and gain HP? YES. RAW they can. That is allowed by the rules. That's a vampire wolf, which AFAIK isn't the exact same stats as a wolf. Actually it's pretty far from it.

What about barbarian unarmored defense? It requires that you don't wear armor. Is a wolf's natural armor armor? No. A wolf isn't wearing its skin is it? So a barbarian druid wildshaped into a wolf can use unarmored barbarian defense. Yeah. RAW. Not very wolfy is it.

Exactly.

sithlordnergal

2023-03-03, 12:05 AM

How much, in your mind, can you change before you cease to be a wolf? A moon druid monk multiclass with improved movement speed, Ac, and a new BA attack are they still a wolf? If you have someone cast aid on you to increase your max HP as a wolf are you no longer a wolf because your HP is no longer the same? If you had magic items that you can wear as a wolf that increased attributes does wearing them stop you from being a wolf? If a DM wanted to make a wolf stronger by adding sidekick levels or just upping it's HP, damage numbers, etc does it cease to be a wolf? If a DM did those things can you become -that- wolf?

Can your druid turn into the monk/Druid's wolf form to gain that other Druid's class abilities and species features on top of the wolf block?

They do have improved movement and AC...though they don't really get a new BA attack. Correct me if I'm wrong, an Animal's Natural Weapons are not considered Unarmed Strikes or Monk Weapons, meaning you can't make a bite attack and then do a Bonus Action attack.

I also question the example of Aid since you can use that on a Wolf just as easily. That would be like asking if a Cleric suddenly casts Aid on a wild Wolf, are they no longer a Wolf. The question itself makes no logical sense. Same holds true for magic items. If a regular Wolf can use it, Druid wolves can too, that doesn't make them any different from a normal Wolf.

As for being a super special wolf, I believe I already stated that if a DM wanted to make a special Wolf, they can. I think someone mentioned swapping the Orc and Wolf statblocks. And again, that's fine, as long as the DM remains consistent. And if the DM wants to allow the Druid to be that special wolf, then yes, they are still technically a Wolf.

But you're missing the problem here. A Wolf Druid is STILL going to be more of a Wolf then the generic Animal of the Land claiming to be a Wolf, even if they have Monk levels, or if the DM allows them to use racial abilities they normally wouldn't, allows them to use magic items, or makes them a brand new statblock.

And after giving it some thought, I think I can explain why now. So, lets say you turn into a Wolf, and have all those extra things you guys are talking about. You can do far, far more than a normal Wolf, yes. But here's the important question: Are you able to do the same things as a Wolf that you can as a Bear? Bears and Wolves both have Keen Sense, but would you say the Bear and Wolf use the same statblock? How about a Giant Scorpion and Giant Spider?

They are according to Animal of the Land. Even if you allowed small modifications like your form has poison damage, or a Climb speed, all your forms are effectively the same. They all have the same movement, HP, AC, Proficiency Bonus, they even all have the same attack. The only difference is if it deal Bludgeoning, Slashing, or Piercing.

Same holds true with Animal of the Water/Sky. You're telling me that a Quipper and Giant Shark both have the same exact stats? That an Owl and Giant Owl are the same?

And the moment everything becomes the same, you simply lose out on those forms. Currently, if you run into a Monk/Druid with the exact same stats, items, buffs, and build as yourself, but you turn into a Bear and they turn into a Wolf, you both have different abilities. As a bear you have higher HP and multiattack, the Wolf had some control with their Bite and Pack Tactics. With a generic statblock like what OneDnD has, what's the actual mechanical difference between your two Druids? You turn into a Wolf, they turn into a Bear, what's the mechanical difference there? Anything? Maybe your Size? You do Piercing and they do slashing? Nothing else, at all. You two aren't Bears or Wolves, you're wearing a costume at best.

Psyren

2023-03-03, 01:02 AM

Kane0

2023-03-03, 01:07 AM

And after giving it some thought, I think I can explain why now. So, lets say you turn into a Wolf, and have all those extra things you guys are talking about. You can do far, far more than a normal Wolf, yes. But here's the important question: Are you able to do the same things as a Wolf that you can as a Bear? Bears and Wolves both have Keen Sense, but would you say the Bear and Wolf use the same statblock? How about a Giant Scorpion and Giant Spider?

They are according to Animal of the Land. Even if you allowed small modifications like your form has poison damage, or a Climb speed, all your forms are effectively the same. They all have the same movement, HP, AC, Proficiency Bonus, they even all have the same attack. The only difference is if it deal Bludgeoning, Slashing, or Piercing.

Same holds true with Animal of the Water/Sky. You're telling me that a Quipper and Giant Shark both have the same exact stats? That an Owl and Giant Owl are the same?

At what point does it shift from all being the same? One feature like Pounce? Two? One and a different speed or AC? Two and a different speed or AC? Two and a different speed and AC?

Personally I follow the rule of 3s, but I could accept two modifications to differentiate in this case (but then again size is one already, so that makes three).

I want to be a Wolf Druid, and I reach level 9. What do I turn into? Dire Wolf I suppose, but their +5 to hit and single attack has been falling off for a few levels now - at 9, I have the same chance to hit as a 12 Str barbarian, and half as many attacks to boot.

For me, it's a no-brainer, the 5e version is worse in every way. Maybe if my druid has no attachment to a specific animal or appearance and I can book dive for the best one, then I have a chance of finding something better, but even then my choices get thinner and thinner as I level. Give me the mutable form any day.

At this point I think the two valid solutions are 'scaling/generic statblock with DM able to give you specific alternate statblocks' and 'choose from a curated list of specific statblocks with your DM able to give you a scaling one'. Which are basically the same thing, but a question of which one is the default and which is optional.

Hurrashane

2023-03-03, 01:20 AM

But you're missing the problem here. A Wolf Druid is STILL going to be more of a Wolf then the generic Animal of the Land claiming to be a Wolf, even if they have Monk levels, or if the DM allows them to use racial abilities they normally wouldn't, allows them to use magic items, or makes them a brand new statblock.

And after giving it some thought, I think I can explain why now. So, lets say you turn into a Wolf, and have all those extra things you guys are talking about. You can do far, far more than a normal Wolf, yes. But here's the important question: Are you able to do the same things as a Wolf that you can as a Bear? Bears and Wolves both have Keen Sense, but would you say the Bear and Wolf use the same statblock? How about a Giant Scorpion and Giant Spider?

They are according to Animal of the Land. Even if you allowed small modifications like your form has poison damage, or a Climb speed, all your forms are effectively the same. They all have the same movement, HP, AC, Proficiency Bonus, they even all have the same attack. The only difference is if it deal Bludgeoning, Slashing, or Piercing.

Same holds true with Animal of the Water/Sky. You're telling me that a Quipper and Giant Shark both have the same exact stats? That an Owl and Giant Owl are the same?

And the moment everything becomes the same, you simply lose out on those forms. Currently, if you run into a Monk/Druid with the exact same stats, items, buffs, and build as yourself, but you turn into a Bear and they turn into a Wolf, you both have different abilities. As a bear you have higher HP and multiattack, the Wolf had some control with their Bite and Pack Tactics. With a generic statblock like what OneDnD has, what's the actual mechanical difference between your two Druids? You turn into a Wolf, they turn into a Bear, what's the mechanical difference there? Anything? Maybe your Size? You do Piercing and they do slashing? Nothing else, at all. You two aren't Bears or Wolves, you're wearing a costume at best.

Would it be more interesting that instead of having the current land, sea, air blocks that they were something like, swift animal, tough animal, strong animal (or something not sold on the last one)? Each being able to have one of the three speed types (unlocked through level up). So there can be variance between land, sea, and air animals?

Segev

2023-03-03, 01:34 AM

Let's have it your way then. Each type of Wolf has one and only one possible statblock, the one printed for it in its respective book. Any deviation from a wolf statblock means you're not a wolf.

I want to be a Wolf Druid, and I reach level 9. What do I turn into? Dire Wolf I suppose, but their +5 to hit and single attack has been falling off for a few levels now - at 9, I have the same chance to hit as a 12 Str barbarian, and half as many attacks to boot. I can't refluff, say, Giant Scorpion because that's clearly Not A Wolf. I guess I could beg the DM to homebrew me a higher CR wolf now, and then again at CR 4 in a few levels. I'm sure that'll work at every table.

Orrrr.... I can be a Beat of the Land and give it whatever lupine appearance I want. And glowing eyes or fangs when it activates its elemental form. And my Beast of the Sky can be a winged wolf form. And I can talk to my party. Oh, but I lost Pack Tactics - wait never mind, I can shove prone as a bonus action and still attack with advantage (twice!) so who cares. And I have little doubt that the AC (which is higher than a Dire Wolf's anyway) and the abilities will get buffed in the next playtest round. For me, it's a no-brainer, the 5e version is worse in every way. Maybe if my druid has no attachment to a specific animal or appearance and I can book dive for the best one, then I have a chance of finding something better, but even then my choices get thinner and thinner as I level. Give me the mutable form any day.

The 5e druid's dire wolf is still better than the UA druid's stat blob at that level.

But to answer your question about how you get your better wolf, you can get CR 3 beasts, now. You want to play the Wolf Druid and only ever transform into wolves? You have a few options.

One - which you've already demonstrated you have no issue with since you're okay with generic fungible stat blobs taking any old shape they want - is to choose "armored saber-tooth tiger" and just say it is a wolf in shape.
Slightly more boldly, you could do that, but replace "pounce" with "pack tactics," and replace the saber tooth tiger's bite and claw stats with the Dire Wolf's bite-and-knockdown effect, damage updated per the increase in Strength (so one more damage). Arguably, you could buff that damage just a little more, maybe going to 2d8 instead, but that might take some playtesting.
Open the DMG to p. 274 and use the stats-by-CR table to pump up the dire wolf's AC, hp, attack bonus, and damage to an appropriate level for CR 3.
Choose to be something other than a wolf that is CR 3.
As the first option, but any CR 3 creature whose stats you like and still claim it's "a wolf."

Now, I like the second and third options, myself, but each of these is at least as good as the generic stat blob in terms of serving the goals you outlined (though the penultimate one IS admittedly not even looking like a wolf, so maybe you consider that one to fail the condition). And the first one and the last two don't require anything special in terms of preparation beyond picking the beast and running with it.

Psyren

2023-03-03, 01:41 AM

The 5e druid's dire wolf is still better than the UA druid's stat blob at that level.

Less AC, less to hit, less damage, less Str and Dex, 1 attack... is your definition of better based on math?

But to answer your question about how you get your better wolf, you can get CR 3 beasts, now. You want to play the Wolf Druid and only ever transform into wolves? You have a few options.

One - which you've already demonstrated you have no issue with since you're okay with generic fungible stat blobs taking any old shape they want - is to choose "armored saber-tooth tiger" and just say it is a wolf in shape.
Slightly more boldly, you could do that, but replace "pounce" with "pack tactics," and replace the saber tooth tiger's bite and claw stats with the Dire Wolf's bite-and-knockdown effect, damage updated per the increase in Strength (so one more damage). Arguably, you could buff that damage just a little more, maybe going to 2d8 instead, but that might take some playtesting.
Open the DMG to p. 274 and use the stats-by-CR table to pump up the dire wolf's AC, hp, attack bonus, and damage to an appropriate level for CR 3.
Choose to be something other than a wolf that is CR 3.
As the first option, but any CR 3 creature whose stats you like and still claim it's "a wolf."

- Can't do #1 and #5 because per sithlordnergal, if it isn't that statblock it isn't a wolf. That was the criteria he was using to disqualify BotL.
- #2 and #3 are homebrew/rule zero. I recall that being a fallacy of some kind.
- #4 is "well, don't be a wolf druid." What a fun game!

Yeah, thanks anyway.

Segev

2023-03-03, 01:58 AM

Less AC, less to hit, less damage, less Str and Dex, 1 attack... is your definition of better based on math?More hp, and actual abilities that make turning into a wolf worthwhile as opposed to it being you, but worse.

- Can't do #1 and #5 because per sithlordnergal, if it isn't that statblock it isn't a wolf. That was the criteria he was using to disqualify BotL.You can, because per you, it is fine to have a generic stat blob that just looks like the creature. Therefore, by your standards, they are no worse at making you "a wolf druid" than the OneD&D UA generic stat blob is. And they still are superior statistically and flavor-wise to it.

- #2 and #3 are homebrew/rule zero. I recall that being a fallacy of some kind."Homebrew," sure, in the same sense that using the 3.5 rules to make custom magic items was "homebrew." Definitely not "rule zero," though. Besides, if you are going to bark up this tree, the actual proposals tend towards providing beasts that cover the range of CRs better.

I would actually argue the primary reason we don't have wolf options at every CR is precisely because they provided guidelines / rules to make monsters of any CR, and they are truly trivial to use to adjust existing monsters to a new CR without changing anything but some numbers. Several canon examples are literally just that; e.g. the armored saber tooth tiger is just the saber tooth tiger with a higher AC, pushing it up one CR.

Your are really reaching to find an excuse to reject these options.

- #4 is "well, don't be a wolf druid." What a fun game!I acknowledge this is the weakest option. I listed it for completeness. After all, however, you are arguing for no option to play "a wolf druid" at all, but rather "a generic beast of the land druid who maybe co plays as a wolf."

Yeah, thanks anyway.You're welcome. By the standards you use to reject each of these, any generic stat blob solution should definitely be rejected.

Psyren

2023-03-03, 02:21 AM

More hp, and actual abilities that make turning into a wolf worthwhile as opposed to it being you, but worse.

Actual abilities like advantage to hit? The thing that the OneD&D version can do too even if they don't change anything else, which they will?

Therefore, by your standards,

To be clear, I want a pool of abilities too. That doesn't mean I can't feel this version is closer to being actually good past level 6 than what we have now with the 5e version.

"Homebrew," sure, in the same sense that using the 3.5 rules to make custom magic items was "homebrew."

Uh... yes? If you have to source it from dreamland rather than a book and beg your DM to indulge you then it's homebrew.

Your are really reaching to find an excuse to reject these options.

I don't have to reach any distance to call homebrew homebrew.

Kane0

2023-03-03, 02:41 AM

Uh... yes? If you have to source it from dreamland rather than a book and beg your DM to indulge you then it's homebrew.

I don't have to reach any distance to call homebrew homebrew.

Not all homebrew is the same though. You got your math tweaks, your houserules, your custom material made from the published guidelines, your new content made whole-cloth, etc, etc.

I'd say that following the DMG guide to adjust stats for adjusted CRs is pretty tame on the homebrew spectrum.

tokek

2023-03-03, 04:14 AM

But if you wild shape your goblin into a wolf and keep nimble escape, a feature that wolves don't have, then that counts as being a wolf. What's the defining feature of wolf? Is it pack tactics?

People keep bringing up "the exact same stats" but you never had that. It's objectively, factually, not true. That's never a thing that existed.

I’m glad someone else noticed how hollow all those claims were. 5e wildshape is not polymorph and much of the issue with it is how you can just add more features onto existing features. A wolf has none of those extra features - your druid was never really a wolf.

What people are missing is the free extra abilities. The exact thing that made a Druid both very hard to learn to play well and also a deeply unbalanced class in skilful hands.

Schwann145

2023-03-03, 04:34 AM

I want to be a Wolf Druid, and I reach level 9. What do I turn into? Dire Wolf I suppose, but their +5 to hit and single attack has been falling off for a few levels now - at 9, I have the same chance to hit as a 12 Str barbarian, and half as many attacks to boot. I can't refluff, say, Giant Scorpion because that's clearly Not A Wolf. I guess I could beg the DM to homebrew me a higher CR wolf now, and then again at CR 4 in a few levels. I'm sure that'll work at every table.

Orrrr.... I can be a Beat of the Land and give it whatever lupine appearance I want. And glowing eyes or fangs when it activates its elemental form. And my Beast of the Sky can be a winged wolf form. And I can talk to my party. Oh, but I lost Pack Tactics - wait never mind, I can shove prone as a bonus action and still attack with advantage (twice!) so who cares.

C'moooon, you're taking the easy road here with Wolf. Pick something that can't be so easily replicated with a bonus-action Unarmed Strike option.
Like a Spider.
Tell me about your Spider Druid. :smalltongue:

Mastikator

2023-03-03, 04:43 AM

Nobody is arguing that the wildshape from the playtest doesn't need to be improved. For example I've said many times that you should get to choose between features like poison and charge to better emulate specific animals.

That being said, the 2014 wildshape version has a myriad of issues that can easily break the game and allows druids to be better than everyone at everything. How that's even remotely acceptable is beyond me.

Schwann145

2023-03-03, 05:19 AM

That being said, the 2014 wildshape version has a myriad of issues that can easily break the game and allows druids to be better than everyone at everything. How that's even remotely acceptable is beyond me.

Gonna need receipts for a claim like that, methinks.

Aimeryan

2023-03-03, 05:52 AM

Mastikator

2023-03-03, 06:01 AM

If that is what you have taken from 20 pages of discussion I am well and truly shocked. We burned that strawman back on page 1.

"It's not the exact same stat block" appeared 2 pages ago. So 20 pages of discussion going nowhere, nothing has been learned. The strawman is wearing a ring of fire protection.

Aimeryan

2023-03-03, 06:09 AM

"It's not the exact same stat block" appeared 2 pages ago. So 20 pages of discussion going nowhere, nothing has been learned. The strawman is wearing a ring of fire protection.

I think I see the issue; people are not arguing for the exact 2014 implementation, they are arguing for the idea of 5e Wildshape. Those are very different things. Eh, you keep arguing with yourself, if you like.

--------

The more I think about it, the more I realise that I actually just don't think Druid is a good fit for Wildshape in the way I would like. I think for druid the non-Combat Wildshape 5e implementation is actually pretty spot on, just then give Druid features that are not Wildshape.

For the Combat Wildshape, I think I would actually just prefer it as a subclass for Barbarian. No arguments about being a full caster and a full martial. Rage works well. Yeah.

Captain Panda

2023-03-03, 06:37 AM

For the Combat Wildshape, I think I would actually just prefer it as a subclass for Barbarian.

I'd be fine with Barbarians getting their own shapeshifting beast subclass. I mean, one different than the one they already get. But Druids shouldn't get shanked in the process.

And seriously, someone is claiming that Moon Druids are the best at everything? I mean, I love Moon Druids and might have said that before in a joking way, but if that's a serious opinion that's pretty silly.

Aimeryan

2023-03-03, 07:10 AM

I'd be fine with Barbarians getting their own shapeshifting beast subclass. I mean, one different than the one they already get. But Druids shouldn't get shanked in the process.

And seriously, someone is claiming that Moon Druids are the best at everything? I mean, I love Moon Druids and might have said that before in a joking way, but if that's a serious opinion that's pretty silly.

I think the issue that I have is that for a Moon Druid I want to emphasize the Wildshape part strongly and push down the caster side a lot. D&Done want the opposite. 5e has good Druid casting (one of the weaker Full Casters if you put aside the most broken forms of summoning), and has a really wonky Combat Wildshape progression ranging from perhaps overpowered by itself to completely behind the curve by itself.

The argument against making the Combat Wildshape good is that the Druid also has Full Caster Spell progression. It is awkward to use while also using Wildshape, but you can always throw out some high level Spells and then fall back on Wildshape. The charge system is awkward, but necessary to try to stop full abuse of this and the HP problem. Well, until it isn't at 18 and 20 and thats kinda bonkers. So, something has to give. As mentioned, I would like the spellcasting to be the one that gives, but it is awkward to do that on a Full Caster Class as a Subclass - hence, I think it would just be preferable on something like a Barbarian. The implementation is still at question (book diving - if you find that a problem, etc.) but I think a lot of the problems go away when put on Barbarian instead of a Full Caster (even if there is friction with the casting).

-----

Edit: I never really looked at the Beast Barbarian, but wow, I see so much in similar to the D&Done Wildshape - you are basically just emulating being a beast by changing one part of yourself to be able to act as a natural weapon, rather than transforming into an actual beast with all the associated physical and instinctual characteristics. Yeah, and I don't care for it, either.

Gignere

2023-03-03, 07:30 AM

I think the issue that I have is that for a Moon Druid I want to emphasize the Wildshape part strongly and push down the caster side a lot. D&Done want the opposite. 5e has good Druid casting (one of the weaker Full Casters if you put aside the most broken forms of summoning), and has a really wonky Combat Wildshape progression ranging from perhaps overpowered by itself to completely behind the curve by itself.

5e Druid is definitely not one of the weaker full casters maybe not quite as crazy as an optimized high level wizard. But their spell list is chock full of goodies although less versatile. They are certainly at least as good as the bard and more versatile because they prepare spells instead of spells known.

I mean they have spells on their list that overlaps with wizards and are usually good to great picks for wizards as well. Like absorb elements, wall of stone, planar binding, polymorph, summon draconic spirit, wall of fire, reverse gravity, foresight, shape change, etc.. Then they have the spells that are really good not on the wizard list faerie fire, pass without trace, spiked growth, moonbeam, heal, revivify, etc.

Note I have not even referenced one broken conjure spell yet, so adding the conjure spells that they do get, I just don’t get like in what objective sense Druids in 5e are one of the weaker casters. Certainly stronger than a warlock and cleric at least from my point of view, equal to bard + magical secrets, more versatile than a sorcerer, really only loses to a high level wizard.

Mastikator

2023-03-03, 07:35 AM

I think I see the issue; people are not arguing for the exact 2014 implementation, they are arguing for the idea of 5e Wildshape. Those are very different things. Eh, you keep arguing with yourself, if you like.

--------

The more I think about it, the more I realise that I actually just don't think Druid is a good fit for Wildshape in the way I would like. I think for druid the non-Combat Wildshape 5e implementation is actually pretty spot on, just then give Druid features that are not Wildshape.

For the Combat Wildshape, I think I would actually just prefer it as a subclass for Barbarian. No arguments about being a full caster and a full martial. Rage works well. Yeah.

It would be a whole lot less confusing if people said what they meant and didn't rely on telepathy.

Aimeryan

2023-03-03, 07:40 AM

5e Druid is definitely not one of the weaker full casters maybe not quite as crazy as an optimized high level wizard. But their spell list is chock full of goodies although less versatile. They are certainly at least as good as the bard and more versatile because they prepare spells instead of spells known.

I mean they have spells on their list that overlaps with wizards and are usually good to great picks for wizards as well. Like absorb elements, wall of stone, planar binding, polymorph, summon draconic spirit, wall of fire, reverse gravity, foresight, shape change, etc.. Then they have the spells that are really good not on the wizard list faerie fire, pass without trace, spiked growth, moonbeam, heal, revivify, etc.

Note I have not even referenced one broken conjure spell yet, so adding the conjure spells that they do get, I just don’t get like in what objective sense Druids in 5e are one of the weaker casters. Certainly stronger than a warlock and cleric at least from my point of view, equal to bard + magical secrets, more versatile than a sorcerer, really only loses to a high level wizard.

Weaker =/= weak. They are still a Full Caster. I would put all the Arcane casters ahead of them, so I stand by it. Its by-the-by anyhow, since it was a throwaway point - the real point being made was that they have Full Caster membership + Wildshape, and that equation is already overtuned even if Wildshape = 0.

Derges

2023-03-03, 08:44 AM

Weaker =/= weak. They are still a Full Caster. I would put all the Arcane casters ahead of them, so I stand by it. Its by-the-by anyhow, since it was a throwaway point - the real point being made was that they have Full Caster membership + Wildshape, and that equation is already overtuned even if Wildshape = 0.

I don't think the equation is quite correct there. For a lot of scenarios, they have full casting OR Wildshape.

If we take full casting to be already overtuned Wildshape could be seen to be bringing that back into line by virtue of excluding the much stronger combat option.
Not saying 5e Wildshape was the right way to do it but the One blob is far too bland to encourage people not to cast from the backline in my opinion.

Outside of Moon druids did people really consider 5e Wildshape to be too much on its own? If it was just Moon druids then shouldn't it have been more about the subclass than the entire feature?

Kane0

2023-03-03, 09:44 AM

Tanarii

2023-03-03, 10:18 AM

Have wildshape rely on spell slots rather than its own resource pool, with corresponding higher slot costs for more powerful forms. That gives you much more of a design budget to work with than trying to balance full caster on one side and martial ability on the other, have one be directly reliant on the other.Doesn't that design cause enough screaming already for 4-ele Monks?

Gignere

2023-03-03, 11:03 AM

Outside of Moon druids did people really consider 5e Wildshape to be too much on its own? If it was just Moon druids then shouldn't it have been more about the subclass than the entire feature?

No, even for Moon Druids wildshape by itself wasn’t too much. But it isn’t wildshape by itself, I disagree with you that moon Druids is either wildshape or full caster for the most part they can do both in many encounters. Granted generally it would be one big concentration spell and then combat wild shape for the rest of the fight. However, that is no different from how most full casters approach encounters one big spell and than cantrips.

Yes concentration is an issue but all skilled moon Druid players always prioritize resilient con and war caster asap so they hardly ever loses concentration.

Aimeryan

2023-03-03, 11:04 AM

I don't think the equation is quite correct there. For a lot of scenarios, they have full casting OR Wildshape.

For some scenarios, I agree. However, with the two charges per Short Rest there is a lot of opportunity to cast all the spells you desire and then take Wildshape. I would say they mostly lose out of reaction spells. So yeah, maybe the equation should be 80% Full Caster + Wildshape. Still likely overtuned even if Wildshape equals 0 (which is doesn't in 5e).

Technically, since I value the D&Done Wildshape less than 0, maybe they are trying to balance the Druid by fooling players into trap options? Sneaky WotC.

==========

Have wildshape rely on spell slots rather than its own resource pool, with corresponding higher slot costs for more powerful forms. That gives you much more of a design budget to work with than trying to balance full caster on one side and martial ability on the other, have one be directly reliant on the other.

Yup, thats how I would balance the equation. That would only target the power of Wildshape, though - the implementation is still not great in 5e and miles poorer in D&Done. Fixed list of forms (about 12 by my count) + the above Spell Slot resource and I think we are about 95% of the way there.

Psyren

2023-03-03, 11:06 AM

Not all homebrew is the same though. You got your math tweaks, your houserules, your custom material made from the published guidelines, your new content made whole-cloth, etc, etc.

I'd say that following the DMG guide to adjust stats for adjusted CRs is pretty tame on the homebrew spectrum.

I don't care if WotC promises to come to your DM's house and yell at them if they don't do it; adjusting CRs is the DM's purview, period. The very core of a player-facing feature should not depend on their willingness to indulge that.

C'moooon, you're taking the easy road here with Wolf. Pick something that can't be so easily replicated with a bonus-action Unarmed Strike option.
Like a Spider.
Tell me about your Spider Druid. :smalltongue:

For the umpteenth time, I'm not happy with naked statblocks either.
I want abilities. I want abilities. I want abilities.

If I were forced to make do, I have a climb speed and the Entangle spell (Web should really be on the primal list) but that's not good enough for me. Because, again, I want abilities.

Have wildshape rely on spell slots rather than its own resource pool, with corresponding higher slot costs for more powerful forms. That gives you much more of a design budget to work with than trying to balance full caster on one side and martial ability on the other, have one be directly reliant on the other.

But Channel Divinity and Bardic Inspiration get their own pools, why can't Channel Nature? Sure Wild Shape is strong(er), but it has hefty drawbacks too.

Doesn't that design cause enough screaming already for 4-ele Monks?

It's even worse for them - at least if they had spellcasting/slots you could help them out via multiclassing, race selection and feats.

Xihirli

2023-03-03, 11:08 AM

Aimeryan

2023-03-03, 11:12 AM

Doesn't that design cause enough screaming already for 4-ele Monks?

The reason it falls flat for them is that neither the Class system nor the Subclass for 4-ele has been implemented adequately - so putting them together while using the same resources still results in something inadequate. Now, if at least one of the systems was implemented well then it would be fine. Alternatively, different resources would work because they then would add together.

For Moon Druid, well the Druid class part is fine - good even. So, the overall power is fine as is. However, the Moon Druid part not so much - but, different resources so it gets used anyway. If they used the same resources in a meaningful way, you likely wouldn't use Wild Shape after the first few levels. To combat this you would need to make Wild Shape worth those Spell Slots - which both 5e past the first few levels and D&Done from the first level fail at (if we take any Spell Slot at the Druid's level max).

Atranen

2023-03-03, 11:18 AM

I don't care if WotC promises to come to your DM's house and yell at them if they don't do it; adjusting CRs is the DM's purview, period. The very core of a player-facing feature should not depend on their willingness to indulge that.

It's not "the core" of the feature, it's "one specific way to use the feature that many players won't care about". Personally, I haven't encountered the "I only want to be a wolf player". So far as I recall, one such player has been mentioned in the thread, who wants to play a tiger druid, and they strongly disliked the OneD&D change because a beast of the land doesn't feel like a tiger.

And, even if it were, then providing a more extensive list of beasts at higher CRs is pretty trivial. They have the guidelines in the DMG. They have the base statblocks. It's an easy problem to fix.

I think I see the issue; people are not arguing for the exact 2014 implementation, they are arguing for the idea of 5e Wildshape. Those are very different things. Eh, you keep arguing with yourself, if you like.

It seems no one is arguing for either the 5e druid or the UA druid as it stands.

GooeyChewie

2023-03-03, 11:23 AM

I think I have been won over to a curated list of wildshapes, with expansions based on subclass. In the feedback what list do you think we should go with?
Everyone gets a bear, moon gets a wolf, spores gets a giant spider or ant, stars gets… something nocturnal? What are some animals associated with Night time or stars?

Personally I would like to see the base class go for more utility animal forms, so that Moon Druid can fulfill the 'combat animal forms' niche. The other subclasses would not necessarily need their own animal forms if they are using Channel Divinity to do something else, but they could get something if it fits. A curated list would also make it easier for subclasses to introduce non-animal forms. For example, Spores Druid could have a Fungal Form stat block that turns you into something more like a shambling mound than a spider, or Wildfire Druid could have a Fire Elemental Form stat block that they could choose instead of (or in addition to, for an additional use of Channel Nature) the pet.

Doug Lampert

2023-03-03, 11:28 AM

The reason it falls flat for them is that neither the Class system nor the Subclass for 4-ele has been implemented adequately - so putting them together while using the same resources still results in something inadequate. Now, if at least one of the systems was implemented well then it would be fine. Alternatively, different resources would work because they then would add together.

For Moon Druid, well the Druid class part is fine - good even. So, the overall power is fine as is. However, the Moon Druid part not so much - but, different resources so it gets used anyway. If they used the same resources in a meaningful way, you likely wouldn't use Wild Shape after the first few levels. To combat this you would need to make Wild Shape worth those Spell Slots - which both 5e past the first few levels and D&Done from the first level fail at (if we take any Spell Slot at the Druid's level max).

Agreed.

If full casters are already adequately powerful (or even over powerful), then taking a full caster and adding an additional option (aka spell slot using wildshape) CAN NOT be too weak.

At worst, the option is simply never used and you still have the adequately powerful chasis.

Champion fighter works because fighter works fine with no subclass at all (see champion for something very close to an example of this in action). Monks need a subclass, and 4E doesn't add any real power, just some more options for the power they already have. Versatility is nice, but mostly it's only really powerful if your versatile actions are at level appropriate power.

Psyren

2023-03-03, 11:29 AM

It's not "the core" of the feature, it's "one specific way to use the feature that many players won't care about". Personally, I haven't encountered the "I only want to be a wolf player". So far as I recall, one such player has been mentioned in the thread, who wants to play a tiger druid, and they strongly disliked the OneD&D change because a beast of the land doesn't feel like a tiger.

I'm not basing it on this thread, I'm basing it on Crawford specifically saying (11:26) they have seen that desire among the druid playerbase to just be one thing. If you think he's lying about that, take it up with him, not me.

And, even if it were, then providing a more extensive list of beasts at higher CRs is pretty trivial. They have the guidelines in the DMG. They have the base statblocks. It's an easy problem to fix.

I'm not saying the calculation isn't doable, but the gamist part is only one aspect of design. Which wolf is beyond Dire Wolf? It's definitely not Worg, they're CR 1/2. Dire Wolf +2 maybe? Dire Dire Wolf? Super Dire Wolf? And beyond that? Dire Wolf +3? Dire Dire Dire Wolf? Mega Dire Wolf?

Aimeryan

2023-03-03, 11:34 AM

I think I have been won over to a curated list of wildshapes, with expansions based on subclass. In the feedback what list do you think we should go with?
Everyone gets a bear, moon gets a wolf, spores gets a giant spider or ant, stars gets… something nocturnal? What are some animals associated with Night time or stars?

My last revision on a fixed list was as such:

1. Charge/Pounce
2. Web
3. Poison
4. Knockdown on hit
5. Pack Tactics
6. Grapple/Constrict on hit
7. Spider Climb
8. Swim
9. Fly
10. Strong
11. Agile
12. Tough

Props go to others for most of the suggestions and searching for unique effects.
I would go with a creature for each of those, although some could be combined (Web, Poison, Spider Climb for example). Doesn't really matter which ones, just some common examples. People could then reskin an appropriately close creature from that - so Pack Tactics could be Wolf, but people could easily reskin to Hyena, Lion, etc., since they have similar tactics and physical attributes.

For scaling, I would go with Spell Slots being consumed to boost the transformation's numbers directly. +XYZ per Spell Slot, etc. I would put in a rule that it would be up to the maximum Spell Slot from a single-class Druid, or put in a chart like Max Spell Level per Class Level, whatever.

Segev

2023-03-03, 11:37 AM

Actual abilities like advantage to hit? The thing that the OneD&D version can do too even if they don't change anything else, which they will?So Beast of the Land is a wolf, great! Funny how you seem to want to say that it's fine for Beast of the Land - which is a wolf - to be a tiger, but not for a tiger (stat block) to be a wolf (in appearance). You're changing the rules by which you're rejecting alternate suggestions to the generic stat blob based on the suggestion you're rejecting, and even in so doing you are making generic stat blobs equally unacceptable. But still accepting them, because I guess the rules you're choosing to reject alternate approaches are not the rules you're using to accept the generic stat blobs. In short: you're being inconsistent, which means that I don't find your arguments even slightly persuasive. You like generic stat blobs; that's all I can get from your arguments. THey're good because you like them, and that seems to be all you can say. Any positive you list beyond that can be answered by other ways of doing things, but you change your rules to reject them based on things you wouldn't use to reject the generic stat blob.

To be clear, I want a pool of abilities too. That doesn't mean I can't feel this version is closer to being actually good past level 6 than what we have now with the 5e version.The only problem with the 5e version in that respect is a lack of beasts being printed. This is solved by printing more beasts, or using the tools provided by the DMG to fill the gaps.

Uh... yes? If you have to source it from dreamland rather than a book and beg your DM to indulge you then it's homebrew.

I don't have to reach any distance to call homebrew homebrew.Your error is not in calling it homebrew - though DMs "homebrewing" things by tweaking numbers is something we should expect to be commonplace; D&D 5e certainly is written with the expectation that it will be something nearly every DM does - but in calling it "rule zero."

It's only rule zero if "the DM can fix obvious flaws with the system" is being argued. What's being said here is that the rules to cover the situation are provided to the DM. You may as well call it "rule zero" if you say that the DM has to decide what a monster in a module does, because the module doesn't provide a round-by-round algorithm to precisely determine the monster's every move, no decision-making by the DM required.

The rules I am invoking are the DMG's rules on monster design by CR. They very clearly provide numbers to get monsters of any CR up to 30. Using those rules to modify an existing dire wolf to be CR 2, 3, 4, etc. is not "rule zero." It's just using the rules. Claiming it's "rule zero" and "sourced from dreamland" is making as untrue a claim as claiming that a scroll of tidal wave is "sourced from dreamland" and therefore not a valid thing to consider something that could exist in a game without "rule zero" because the rules only talk about making "spell scrolls" but never specifically enumerate the "Scroll of tidal wave" as an extant thing. The rules tell you how to get one, but they never explicitly list it as a thing, itself. Similarly, the rules tell you how to get a CR 3+ wolf, even if the exact stat block is not printed. You can use nothing but the printed rules to create a CR 3 wolf. "Homebrew" in the same sense that that Scroll of Tidal Wave is homebrew, but not "rule zero" because the rules tell you how to do it; it isn't the DM having to invoke "well, I can change the rules however I want in order to fix this flaw in the RAW."

Gignere

2023-03-03, 11:40 AM

My last revision on a fixed list was as such:

1. Charge/Pounce
2. Web
3. Poison
4. Knockdown on hit
5. Pack Tactics
6. Grapple/Constrict on hit
7. Spider Climb
8. Swim
9. Fly
10. Strong
11. Agile
12. Tough

Props go to others for most of the suggestions and searching for unique effects.
I would go with a creature for each of those, although some could be combined (Web, Poison, Spider Climb for example). Doesn't really matter which ones, just some common examples. People could then reskin an appropriately close creature from that - so Pack Tactics could be Wolf, but people could easily reskin to Hyena, Lion, etc., since they have similar tactics and physical attributes.

For scaling, I would go with Spell Slots being consumed to boost the transformation's numbers directly. +XYZ per Spell Slot, etc. I would put in a rule that it would be up to the maximum Spell Slot from a single-class Druid, or put in a chart like Max Spell Level per Class Level, whatever.

The biggest problem with using spell slots but not making them actual buff spells to the wildshape is that you make it so the Druid can blow a big concentration spell, blow another big slot for a powerful wildshape and suddenly you have literally a single character doing the work of two characters.

Pex

2023-03-03, 11:47 AM

I doubt template wild shape was intended to nerf druids into the ground. And beyond that, I doubt even more strongly that 'druids are too weak' is the reason people weren't playing them. At early levels a moon druid in bear form can easily solo encounters that were intended to be tough for the entire party, and at later levels the druid is a full spellcaster with a better spell list than the cleric.

I think it was on purpose. It is way too nerfed to be by accident. They know people regard 5E Moon Druid as the most powerful Druid subclass and have been complaining about it since the game launched. It's almost step by step the exact opposite. Animal hit points on top of your own to no extra hit points at all. Gain the statistics of the animal you turn into to you shall only have this and nothing else. Gain all the abilities of the animal you turn into to get nothing.

They want to gauge the ire of the nerf. They want to check if the ire against 5E Moon Druid is real or hype. They want to see how many defend 5E Moon Druid and how many applaud the change. 6E Moon Druid may not be 5E Moon Druid, but they're likely to put some oomph back into it. The compromise of specific animals with specific abilities choose from list, however biased I am, is too obvious to ignore.

Atranen

2023-03-03, 11:53 AM

I'm not basing it on this thread, I'm basing it on Crawford specifically saying (11:26) they have seen that desire among the druid playerbase to just be one thing. If you think he's lying about that, take it up with him, not me.

"There is a desire among the player base" does not mean "this is core to the class". It neans some players care about, and many players won't care about, as I said.

The right way to proceed would be to ask those players how they want that realized. At least some of them think generic blobs is a whiff.

II'm not saying the calculation isn't doable, but the gamist part is only one aspect of design. Which wolf is beyond Dire Wolf? It's definitely not Worg, they're CR 1/2. Dire Wolf +2 maybe? Dire Dire Wolf? Super Dire Wolf? And beyond that? Dire Wolf +3? Dire Dire Dire Wolf? Mega Dire Wolf?

Dire Wolf (CR 2) and Dire Wolf (CR 3). Big deal.

Gignere

2023-03-03, 11:54 AM

I think it was on purpose. It is way too nerfed to be by accident. They know people regard 5E Moon Druid as the most powerful Druid subclass and have been complaining about it since the game launched. It's almost step by step the exact opposite. Animal hit points on top of your own to no extra hit points at all. Gain the statistics of the animal you turn into to you shall only have this and nothing else. Gain all the abilities of the animal you turn into to get nothing.

They want to gauge the ire of the nerf. They want to check if the ire against 5E Moon Druid is real or hype. They want to see how many defend 5E Moon Druid and how many applaud the change. 6E Moon Druid may not be 5E Moon Druid, but they're likely to put some oomph back into it. The compromise of specific animals with specific abilities choose from list, however biased I am, is too obvious to ignore.

Other D&D derivatives had to change wildshape to be based on the character’s stats. Pathfinder’s wildshape doesn’t use stat blocks of the monster manual.

If the top game designers all converge on the same/similar solution maybe just maybe it isn’t possible to balance with players selecting monster/animal stat blocks.

Sception

2023-03-03, 11:58 AM

Segev

2023-03-03, 12:09 PM

Other D&D derivatives had to change wildshape to be based on the character’s stats. Pathfinder’s wildshape doesn’t use stat blocks of the monster manual.

If the top game designers all converge on the same/similar solution maybe just maybe it isn’t possible to balance with players selecting monster/animal stat blocks.

Using the underlying stats of the transformed character is undenyably easier to balance. You turn the ability into "add some buffs to the existing chassis." That doesn't make it better for a game, only better for the narrow goal of "balance."

It being the easiest to balance also doesn't mean it's the only way TO balance.

Frankly, the more you take the "use underlying stats and generic stat blob, but add some extra doodads that can be picked and chosen," the less easy it is to balance yet again, because you have to cross-balance all possible combinations of doodads. Packages of doodads and other buffs, in the form of, essentially, templates, which you apply to the base creature to transform it from its unique state as the original creature to its unique "self" as a member of this new template type would be even better for balance, because you can balance a specific package's abilities only against each other, rather than worrying about the optimal combination of abilities.

Frankly, if you want to make it so that there is a template for each kind of Beast, I'd probably be fine with it. You turn into a wolf by applying the "wolf template" to the druid's base stats. Not "generic stat block that is the same except for some modular doodads," but actually build the packaged template so that you can say, "If he had been born a wolf, this is what the base creature would be." But that's going to be more unique than "replace strength and dex with Wis, the same as you do for every other template."

Such templates should be able to be seen on the Beast entries for those creatures, too. Essentially, apply the template to a Commoner NPC, and you should get the MM Beast entry corresponding to that template. Possibly with some exceptions based on numbers of HD and proficiency bonuses.

These could then scale based on the druid's level simply because the druid is getting better.

It still needs an hp buff, though, in the current game paradigm.

All that said, I'm fine with and even prefer the current 5e implementation. I think that it's balanced well enough, and its flaws are solved by either DMs being better-educated in using the build-a-monster rules to tweak the CR of existing beasts, or just printing more beasts to cover the range of CRs. As both DM and player, I don't see the big hp buff reprsented by Wild Shape as a problem. Admittedly, I have not run for a Moon Druid past level 5, so maybe it's worse in Tier 2.

Psyren

2023-03-03, 12:18 PM

"There is a desire among the player base" does not mean "this is core to the class". It neans some players care about, and many players won't care about, as I said.

You have those backwards. He specifically called it out, so that contingent is the "many." At the very least, there's enough of them that the designers consider this desire noteworthy. If it was a fringe or niche ask, they wouldn't be designing around it.

Dire Wolf (CR 2) and Dire Wolf (CR 3). Big deal.

So you're proposing multiple statblocks with the exact same name and different CRs? Yes, that is a big deal if you care anything about indexing, searching, streamlining, and other things that designers should care about.

So Beast of the Land is a wolf, great! Funny how you seem to want to say that it's fine for Beast of the Land - which is a wolf - to be a tiger, but not for a tiger (stat block) to be a wolf (in appearance).

Beast of the Land specifically says you choose the appearance. The Tiger and Wolf statblocks do not. See how that works?

The only problem with the 5e version in that respect is a lack of beasts being printed. This is solved by printing more beasts, or using the tools provided by the DMG to fill the gaps.

Aka a pile of extra design and balancing for the former, or begging your DM to homebrew for the latter. Work smarter, not harder.

Your error is not in calling it homebrew - though DMs "homebrewing" things by tweaking numbers is something we should expect to be commonplace; D&D 5e certainly is written with the expectation that it will be something nearly every DM does - but in calling it "rule zero."

You are patching a flaw in the dreamland proposal by begging the DM's indulgence, so I'm more than happy to call it both.

Pex

2023-03-03, 12:27 PM

Not ideal spell to cast, ideal use of leftover slots. As was pointed out to me above.

Using up all your spell slots before you long rest is not a good idea. Things do happen at night sometimes.

Gignere

2023-03-03, 12:32 PM

Using up all your spell slots before you long rest is not a good idea. Things do happen at night sometimes.

The moon Druid is actually in a better position than the other casters who probably also have little to no spell slots left over either. Worse comes to worst they still have 2 wildshapes.

Unless you’re saying every overnight encounters happen exactly in the 1st hour of the long rest.

Aimeryan

2023-03-03, 12:41 PM

The biggest problem with using spell slots but not making them actual buff spells to the wildshape is that you make it so the Druid can blow a big concentration spell, blow another big slot for a powerful wildshape and suddenly you have literally a single character doing the work of two characters.

True, it allows for Nova that way (kind of, giving the Wildshape itself isn't really nova). However, using a big Spell Slot on the Spell means no big Spell Slot for Wildshape later - so its a tradeoff. Most casters can blow through big Spell Slots in short order if they wish to, so I'm not seeing much of a problem here (comparitively).

Segev

2023-03-03, 12:45 PM

So you're proposing multiple statblocks with the exact same name and different CRs? Yes, that is a big deal if you care anything about indexing, searching, streamlining, and other things that designers should care about.Or using the RAW that exist to upscale a CR 2 dire wolf to a CR 3 dire wolf. See how that works?

Beast of the Land specifically says you choose the appearance. The Tiger and Wolf statblocks do not. See how that works?And yet, in actual practice, there is no difference between declaring a dire wolf to be a CR 2 saber tooth tiger, and using a generic beast of the land stat blob to claim to be a saber-tooth tiger, in terms of how "inaccurate" the form applied is to the underlying mechanics.

If you're okay with a wolf that is called a "Beast of the Land" looking like a tiger, why are you not okay with a wolf using the wolf statblock looking like a tiger? What is better about the first than the second. Nothing, unless the only criterion of "goodness" you're going on is "I want generic stat blobs." (Prove me wrong by spelling out something that actually makes a difference. "It says it looks like whatever you want" isn't actually a difference when you can apply that standard to any beast without damaging the balance of the game in the slightest.)

Aka a pile of extra design and balancing for the former,Oh no! It's so horrible that the writers, who put out books upon books with more and more spells, might instead put out books upon books with some extra Beast stat blocks in place of some of those spells! All this unreasonable work to ask of people who...are...doing that...kind...of work...anyway. :smallconfused: Nope, I find this a non-argument unless you're going to suggest that only the core books should ever be published. No books with more subclasses, spells, monsters, feats, or anything else should EVER come out. After all, that's not how WotC makes money or anything.

or begging your DM to homebrew for the latter.Or using the RAW to buff the dire wolf to CR 3. Literally not any harder than re-applying the stupid generic stat block at every level.

You are patching a flaw in the dreamland proposal by begging the DM's indulgence, so I'm more than happy to call it both.You continuing to mischaracterize what I'm saying with insulting terminology doesn't make you magically correct. Dismissing the RAW and then pretending it's "rule zero" is...well, it's establishing a false premise, which means it doesn't matter how good or bad the rest of your argument is: you are factually wrong.

Applying different standards of acceptance to the generic stat blob than you do to the possibility of refluffing one beast as another is special pleading, which is a logical fallacy.

You require a false premise to reject one of my proposals and special pleading to reject the other while defending the UA generic stat blob. Your arguments have moved from subjective to objectively false and/or logically fallacious.

Psyren

2023-03-03, 12:57 PM

Or using the RAW that exist to upscale a CR 2 dire wolf to a CR 3 dire wolf. See how that works?

Begging the DM to upscale*
You the player have zero RAW to do so.

And yet, in actual practice, there is no difference between declaring a dire wolf to be a CR 2 saber tooth tiger, and using a generic beast of the land stat blob to claim to be a saber-tooth tiger, in terms of how "inaccurate" the form applied is to the underlying mechanics.

If you're okay with a wolf that is called a "Beast of the Land" looking like a tiger, why are you not okay with a wolf using the wolf statblock looking like a tiger?

In actual practice, I don't have to beg the DM to let me do the former, it's baked into my ability.

Oh no! It's so horrible that the writers, who put out books upon books with more and more spells, might instead put out books upon books with some extra Beast stat blocks in place of some of those spells!

Horrible business, yes.

- Spells are usable by any spell list they get added to, including later on down the line, plus features like subclasses, magical secrets etc - and of course by DMs.
- Beasts are usable by DMs (~1/5 of the player base) and players of your version of the Druid (even less.)

ROI matters when allocating limited resources.

Dismissing the RAW and then pretending it's "rule zero" is...well, it's establishing a false premise, which means it doesn't matter how good or bad the rest of your argument is: you are factually wrong.

Which "RAW" says players can change CRs and create new creatures? I'll wait.

Pex

2023-03-03, 01:11 PM

The moon Druid is actually in a better position than the other casters who probably also have little to no spell slots left over either. Worse comes to worst they still have 2 wildshapes.

Unless you’re saying every overnight encounters happen exactly in the 1st hour of the long rest.

They do for the meanie tyrant DMs who never let PCs rest. If they're going to interrupt a long rest they sure as heck aren't go to let the time sleeping before interruption count as a short rest.

Atranen

2023-03-03, 01:46 PM

You have those backwards. He specifically called it out, so that contingent is the "many." At the very least, there's enough of them that the designers consider this desire noteworthy. If it was a fringe or niche ask, they wouldn't be designing around it.

Ok, so now we're quibbling about what vaguely defined terms like 'some' and 'many' mean in the context of vague designer remarks like 'there is a desire among the playerbase'. Great. And you're back to the "Tautology of the Wizard": Because WoTC chose to design for something, it must have been the right thing to design for.

How many of the druid players you have played with like to turn into only one animal versus many? Have you asked them what they think about the 'beast of the land' change?

I'll start: I have never seen a druid player want that. Of the one person in this thread mentioned who did, they do not like the change.

So you're proposing multiple statblocks with the exact same name and different CRs? Yes, that is a big deal if you care anything about indexing, searching, streamlining, and other things that designers should care about.

It really isn't. As I mentioned pages ago, you can put all of the 'Dire Wolf' versions in the same statblock, as a table. Done.

Begging the DM to upscale*
You the player have zero RAW to do so.

Perhaps the designers could do so, eliminating the issue.

Or perhaps we can, as a quick exercise. All of the ones at CR2 and beyond get 2 bite attacks. (It strikes me as a bit overtuned especially at CR 2, but hey, I'm just applying the DMG guidelines. And this took all of 10 minutes).

asdas
Name
HPs
AC
To Hit
Damage
Save DC

Dire Wolf (CR 1)
37
13
5
2d6+3
13

Dire Wolf (CR 2)
72
13
5
2d6+4
13

Dire Wolf (CR 3)
87
13
5
3d6+4
14

Dire Wolf (CR 4)
102
13
6
3d8+4
15

Dire Wolf (CR 5)
117
14
6
4d8+4
15

Psyren

2023-03-03, 02:28 PM

Ok, so now we're quibbling about what vaguely defined terms like 'some' and 'many' mean in the context of vague designer remarks like 'there is a desire among the playerbase'. Great. And you're back to the "Tautology of the Wizard": Because WoTC chose to design for something, it must have been the right thing to design for.

Tell me Atranen, how do you determine what they consider important besides the things they openly talk about in design vlogs? Because I would genuinely love to know if you have a better means of divination than the literal words coming out of their mouths.

How many of the druid players you have played with like to turn into only one animal versus many? Have you asked them what they think about the 'beast of the land' change?

I'll start: I have never seen a druid player want that. Of the one person in this thread mentioned who did, they do not like the change.

Well I have. And I've seen new players groan at realizing they have to go look up their character's stats somewhere else besides their sheet when they wildshape. And I've seen new players decide to play something else entirely just by looking at the wild shape rules (550+ words in the PHB, down to 150+ words in the playtest.) These aren't just anecdotes either, the public player data from DnDBeyond as well as WotC's own internal data back this up as not an uncommon experience. It's not like 5e Druid is at the back of the class chapter and people just land on a bunch of other things they want to try first - people are actively skipping past it in literal droves to play Warlock instead.

For the OneD&D druid, the main criticism among folks I've spoken with are the things I've been harping on - low AC and lack of features while wildshaped, moreso than the concept of unified statblocks themselves.

It really isn't. As I mentioned pages ago, you can put all of the 'Dire Wolf' versions in the same statblock, as a table. Done.

Which is a circular and very gamist approach to creature design. What makes a CR 3 dire wolf CR 3, compared to a CR 1 version? It has more powerful stats/abilities! Okay, why does it have more powerful stats/abilities? Because it has a higher CR! And never mind that no statblock, index or search engine currently in the game works that way, so you're trying to prop up bad and circular design by foisting even more work onto the dev team. Not to mention the in-universe problem - your character identifies the creature as a dire wolf! Oh cool, my character has affected those with a Sleep spell in the past, I'll do that again! ...Uh yeah, actually, these are CR 4 Dire Wolves, your spell won't affect them... Huh? Well, how would my character know that, are CRs a thing that exist in universe? I guess they wouldn't, so you have to waste the spell anyway to avoid metagaming. Got it, this sucks.

And all for what? So you can keep the slurry of 200+ CR 0-6 beast stat blocks as class options on top of 9 levels of spellcasting? And even with those hundreds of statblocks, still be missing out on certain beast concepts that they will then have to go make? It's ludicrous.

Perhaps the designers could do so, eliminating the issue.

Or perhaps we can, as a quick exercise. All of the ones at CR2 and beyond get 2 bite attacks. (It strikes me as a bit overtuned especially at CR 2, but hey, I'm just applying the DMG guidelines. And this took all of 10 minutes).

asdas
Name
HPs
AC
To Hit
Damage
Save DC

Dire Wolf (CR 1)
37
13
5
2d6+3
13

Dire Wolf (CR 2)
72
13
5
2d6+4
13

Dire Wolf (CR 3)
87
13
5
3d6+4
14

Dire Wolf (CR 4)
102
13
6
3d8+4
15

Dire Wolf (CR 5)
117
14
6
4d8+4
15

One down, 199+ to go. Hop to it.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-03, 02:31 PM

asdas
Name
HPs
AC
To Hit
Damage
Save DC

Dire Wolf (CR 1)
37
13
5
2d6+3
13

Dire Wolf (CR 2)
72
13
5
2d6+4
13

Dire Wolf (CR 3)
87
13
5
3d6+4
14

Dire Wolf (CR 4)
102
13
6
3d8+4
15

Dire Wolf (CR 5)
117
14
6
4d8+4
15

I am stealing this, since I love dire wolves. (As a player and as a DM).

Damon_Tor

2023-03-03, 02:58 PM

Atranen

2023-03-03, 03:05 PM

Tell me Atranen, how do you determine what they consider important besides the things they openly talk about in design vlogs? Because I would genuinely love to know if you have a better means of divination than the literal words coming out of their mouths.

I know they consider it important. I'm disputing that it actually is important. This is the tautology of the Wizard: It is wizards design goal therefore it is the correct design goal.

Well I have. And I've seen new players groan at realizing they have to go look up their character's stats somewhere else besides their sheet when they wildshape. And I've seen new players decide to play something else entirely just by looking at the wild shape rules (550+ words in the PHB, down to 150+ words in the playtest.)

How often would you say these occur?

These aren't just anecdotes either, the public player data from DnDBeyond as well as WotC's own internal data back this up as not an uncommon experience. It's not like 5e Druid is at the back of the class chapter and people just land on a bunch of other things they want to try first - people are actively skipping past it in literal droves to play Warlock instead.

Uh, "we should expect more people to play classes that are near the front alphabetically" seems a silly prior.

Which data do we have that says the experience you describe is common? I've seen one data point so far, which says about 6% of D&DBeyond characters are druids, compared to 7% for Paladin, Bard, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Monk. And Paladin is getting some very minor changes.

Which is a circular and very gamist approach to creature design. What makes a CR 3 dire wolf CR 3, compared to a CR 1 version? It has more powerful stats/abilities! Okay, why does it have more powerful stats/abilities?

It is older, larger, or otherwise stronger. Done. (Actually, "every dire wolf is the same" strikes me as more gamist...)

And never mind that no statblock, index or search engine currently in the game works that way, so you're trying to prop up bad and circular design by foisting even more work onto the dev team.

Is there a good reason why it shouldn't? 5e statblocks kind of suck honestly, they're hard to use at the table. Most relevant stats for most monsters can fit on just a few lines.

Not to mention the in-universe problem - your character identifies the creature as a dire wolf! Oh cool, my character has affected those with a Sleep spell in the past, I'll do that again! ...Uh yeah, actually, these are CR 4 Dire Wolves, your spell won't affect them... Huh? Well, how would my character know that, are CRs a thing that exist in universe? I guess they wouldn't, so you have to waste the spell anyway to avoid metagaming. Got it, this sucks.

These wolves are bigger and stronger than the last wolves you fought. That's more immersive than "every wolf is the same".

And all for what? So you can keep the slurry of 200+ CR 0-6 beast stat blocks as class options on top of 9 levels of spellcasting? And even with those hundreds of statblocks, still be missing out on certain beast concepts that they will then have to go make? It's ludicrous.

One down, 199+ to go. Hop to it.

If you had followed my argument from before, you would recall I advocated for ~7 land forms, and ~3 each for swimming and air. So, 13. This took about 10 minutes, so it's an idle afternoon...

but even if I had to do 200, I wouldn't do it manually. I'm just applying the DMG table here. You could write a program to do it and churn them all out, again in a few hours.

I am stealing this, since I love dire wolves. (As a player and as a DM).

:smallsmile:

Damon_Tor

2023-03-03, 03:06 PM

.One down, 199+ to go. Hop to it.

If only there were professionals with experience in game design. We could get them to figure out these numbers for us and write them down on paper, perhaps glue several sheets of paper together. Then they could give us those paper objects to reference as we play the game. In exchange we could give them smaller green pieces of paper which can be exchanged for goods and services.

Segev

2023-03-03, 03:20 PM

Begging the DM to upscale*
You the player have zero RAW to do so.

Yes, because players are helpless and unable to do some paperwork to submit to a DM for approval.

If it's so horrifying to you, maybe we could even make the CR table player facing. I think that's excessive, but if you legitimately believe that having DMs involved in the process at all is unacceptable, that would work.

Or go ahead and do print 6 different wolf stat blocks. You assert that that's a terrible thing, but you've provided no proof of it other than your own exasperation that it might be needed.

animorte

2023-03-03, 03:24 PM

Well I have. And I've seen new players groan at realizing they have to go look up their character's stats somewhere else besides their sheet when they wildshape. And I've seen new players decide to play something else entirely just by looking at the wild shape rules (550+ words in the PHB, down to 150+ words in the playtest.)

How often would you say these occur?
I would say, honestly, that I've seen at least 5 different people legitimately interested in the Druid specifically and ultimately decide on something different because the bulk of the class. That's probably why I'm the only person I've ever seen play a Druid, and even then I only pick a few stat blocks I like and write them down (or take pictures) so I don't have to keep a big pile of them or hunt them down later.

While on that note, I've already mentioned that I don't care for combat Wild Shape, and thus Moon Druid. Almost any time I've ever used a non-subclass normal beast Wild Shape, it's been for out of combat purposes.

Atranen

2023-03-03, 03:29 PM

Psyren

2023-03-03, 03:37 PM

If only there were professionals with experience in game design. We could get them to figure out these numbers for us and write them down on paper, perhaps glue several sheets of paper together. Then they could give us those paper objects to reference as we play the game. In exchange we could give them smaller green pieces of paper which can be exchanged for goods and services.

You have every right to withhold your green pieces of paper when they don't do this.

I know they consider it important. I'm disputing that it actually is important.

I got that, and that leaves us nowhere to go. Your best recourse then is to tell them that, not me.

How often would you say these occur?

I don't understand the point of this question. Is there a number I could give you that you would believe, or that would matter?
If you must insist on one, take the number of times you think the opposite happens and add one to that.

It is older, larger, or otherwise stronger. Done. (Actually, "every dire wolf is the same" strikes me as more gamist...)

Shouldn't being older make it weaker? Shouldn't being larger make it easier to hit? See what I mean about gamist?
And it's not larger, unless you're making the higher ones Huge, which goes right back to being circular. Why is it bigger? It's higher CR! Why is it higher CR? It's bigger!

Is there a good reason why it shouldn't? 5e statblocks kind of suck honestly, they're hard to use at the table.

More unconvincing claims with no data.

These wolves are bigger and stronger than the last wolves you fought. That's more immersive than "every wolf is the same".

How much bigger and stronger? How can I know in universe when my spell will work and when it won't?

See, we have a wild and crazy way to do that in the current game, it's called "using a different monster." It doesn't require the DM arbitrarily deciding that this dire wolf is the last one's big brother or whatever.

If you had followed my argument from before, you would recall I advocated for ~7 land forms, and ~3 each for swimming and air. So, 13.

I not only followed your argument from before, I responded to it. I'd like a druid that can become more than 13 things thanks.

Yes, because players are helpless and unable to do some paperwork to submit to a DM for approval.

Ah yes, more paperwork, just the thing D&D needs.
I can't wait to spend my limited gaming time on... paperwork.

Atranen

2023-03-03, 04:00 PM

I got that, and that leaves us nowhere to go. Your best recourse then is to tell them that, not me.

What I'm hoping for here is an argument for why it is important that doesn't rely on "Wizards said it was". Animorte provided this by an example of their experience at the table.

I don't understand the point of this question. Is there a number I could give you that you would believe, or that would matter?

We are discussing how big of a problem is presented by the lack of an ability to change into one animal for all 20 levels. I am hoping for some kind of justification that it is a problem besides "uh, well, Wizards thinks it is".

Why do you assume I'm not going to believe you? What I've said that makes you think I'm going to think you're lying? :smallconfused:

If you said "hey, I run organized games and I've seen hundreds of players, and about half of players who want to play druid stay away because of the complexity", yes, that would be meaningful.

If you must insist on one, take the number of times you think the opposite happens and add one to that.

I'm not insisting that you make up a number, I'm asking you to ground your argument in real experiences.

Shouldn't being older make it weaker? Shouldn't being larger make it easier to hit? See what I mean about gamist?

It depends how old. Elderly, perhaps weaker. But otherwise, older can mean stronger.

Size has no effect on AC in 5th; your quarrel is with that, not with me. But if you want to justify it, it's easy: "despite these wolves being larger, they also have thicker skin and are more experienced, counteracting the size effect".

And it's not larger, unless you're making the higher ones Huge, which goes right back to being circular.

Of course, because every medium creature is exactly the same size. All dwarves and all elves and all humans and all hobgoblins and all orcs. Every single one. Precisely the same.

And if you prefer, it would be easy to add a column and say "CR 4 and higher Dire Wolves are Huge".

More unconvincing claims with no data.

Is there any data we can reliably access here? No. We are stuck with the sum of our own experiences. I think 5e statblocks suck. I axe them from every adventure I run and replace them with a table.

How much bigger and stronger? How can I know in universe when my spell will work and when it won't?

See, I find saying "b-b-but the dire wolves should have 37 hp, so my sleep spell should work!" to be pretty gamist.

I not only followed your argument from before, I responded to it. I'd like a druid that can become more than 13 things thanks.

Clearly you didn't, because you still can. I also specified reasonable reskinnings of the 13 stat blocks. Using 13 beasts to simulate all beasts is much better than using 1 beast to simulate all beasts.

EDIT: Your insistence on data when there is none and rejection of real experience (oh, you won't believe me, just make up whatever it takes to convince you) explains why you're so enamored with the tautology of the wizard and why we can't have a productive conversation. I agree data is good, but there is no data to be had. If you reject all the opinions of your fellow forumites as meaningless anecdote, say "I only trust data, and while we can't see the data Wizards can, and therefore Wizards is right about everything"....you end up with the tautology of the wizard. I think that's silly, but if you want to stick with it fine. But if you're going to continue to say any disagreement with Wizards' design goals is anecdote and unsubstantiated and not worth addressing, I think we're done here.

Mastikator

2023-03-03, 04:15 PM

Yes, because players are helpless and unable to do some paperwork to submit to a DM for approval.

If it's so horrifying to you, maybe we could even make the CR table player facing. I think that's excessive, but if you legitimately believe that having DMs involved in the process at all is unacceptable, that would work.

Or go ahead and do print 6 different wolf stat blocks. You assert that that's a terrible thing, but you've provided no proof of it other than your own exasperation that it might be needed.

That's yet another mother-may-I problem with the 2014 wildshape. The class features should work as written. The DM should only intervene with the rules to tell them that they can't use their class features. Not when they can use their class features.

Yes. A player can submit a new beast stat block. But they shouldn't have to.

stoutstien

2023-03-03, 04:19 PM

That's yet another mother-may-I problem with the 2014 wildshape. The class features should work as written. The DM should only intervene with the rules to tell them that they can't use their class features. Not when they can use their class features.

Yes. A player can submit a new beast stat block. But they shouldn't have to.

Eh. The more "mother may I" a system has the stronger it is as long as it also has the tools in place to address the request. Codified features will always break systems first both at table and design levels.

Psyren

2023-03-03, 04:19 PM

What I'm hoping for here is an argument for why it is important that doesn't rely on "Wizards said it was". Animorte provided this by an example of their experience at the table.

We are discussing how big of a problem is presented by the lack of an ability to change into one animal for all 20 levels. I am hoping for some kind of justification that it is a problem besides "uh, well, Wizards thinks it is".

Why do you assume I'm not going to believe you? What I've said that makes you think I'm going to think you're lying? :smallconfused:

If you said "hey, I run organized games and I've seen hundreds of players, and about half of players who want to play druid stay away because of the complexity", yes, that would be meaningful.

Okay - I run organized games and I've seen hundreds of players, and about half who want to play druid stay away because of the complexity.

I'm not insisting that you make up a number, I'm asking you to ground your argument in real experiences.

Why would you believe my real experiences and not those of Jeremy Crawford? Is he not a person? I mean, I guess I'm flattered, but I don't even have a design job to lose over potentially getting caught openly lying to the community in a devblog.

It depends how old. Elderly, perhaps weaker. But otherwise, older can mean stronger.

Size has no effect on AC in 5th; your quarrel is with that, not with me. But if you want to justify it, it's easy: "despite these wolves being larger, they also have thicker skin and are more experienced, counteracting the size effect".

If you're homebrewing a bunch of Elder Wolves anyway, why do they still need the Dire Wolf label?

Of course, because every medium creature is exactly the same size. All dwarves and all elves and all humans and all hobgoblins and all orcs. Every single one. Precisely the same.

You're the one trying to shove multiple versions of a single creature into one statblock, not me.

Is there any data we can reliably access here? No. We are stuck with the sum of our own experiences. I think 5e statblocks suck. I axe them from every adventure I run and replace them with a table.

My experience is that they're not only fine, they're the best statblocks we've had in D&D history.

See, I find saying "b-b-but the dire wolves should have 37 hp, so my sleep spell should work!" to be pretty gamist.

Even if your character literally encountered dire wolves in the campaign before and the spell worked?

Clearly you didn't, because you still can. I also specified reasonable reskinnings of the 13 stat blocks. Using 13 beasts to simulate all beasts is much better than using 1 beast to simulate all beasts.

No, the 1 beast is better. You don't even need a separate entry or sheet, much less a dozen.

Mastikator

2023-03-03, 04:41 PM

Eh. The more "mother may I" a system has the stronger it is as long as it also has the tools in place to address the request. Codified features will always break systems first both at table and design levels.

Do you feel this way about any of the fighter features? Or Wizard? Or any other class? What classes, that require no DM permission to merely work, break the system?

stoutstien

2023-03-03, 04:48 PM

Do you feel this way about any of the fighter features? Or Wizard? Or any other class? What classes, that require no DM permission to merely work, break the system?

Yeah. Magic<spells> are the worst offenders because they drag everything to the point where formulated interactions are codified and seen as the norm. Nothing just works without DM running through their internal resolution flow system. Doesn't matter if it's a clear X does Y or "ask your DM how this works".

There's nothing wrong with stuff like attack action(s) or casting having a solid base to be referenced but codifying has turned it into what it is. A boring default option where players play the stacking game on until it eventually breaks.

One of 5e most successful features is *not* trying to hard to make everything smooth and clear. Maybe they had realistic expectations of thier capacity or saw where that leads the nature life span of editions.

DnD one trying to reverse this will end badly IMO.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-03-03, 05:04 PM

Kane0

2023-03-03, 05:17 PM

Good to have more data on this. I think this is a good reason to swap to a fixed list (with possible additional options).

I think that may be why the PHB has some in it (and the same for familiars), which would definitely track since the PHB was released before the DMG and MM so there would need to be some statblocks somewhere to use before they came out (or the guidance for making your own for that matter)

Re: divine smite. It should be the core paladin channel divinity, not divine sense. Channel is the core feature of od&d priest classes. It is used to fuel the signature feature of each priest class. The signature feature of clerics is turn undead, and that is their base class channel ability in the play test. The signature feature of druids is wild shape, and that is their base class channel ability in the playtest.

The signature ability of paladins is not divine sense, and it certainly isn't abjure enemies. The signature paladin feature is Divine Smite. That should be their channel ability, and it should be available from level one like the other channels.

This should be instead of the smite spell line,

Well damn, it seems so obvious but I totally didnt think of it and now that i have I absolutely agree.

Atranen

2023-03-03, 05:39 PM

Okay - I run organized games and I've seen hundreds of players, and about half who want to play druid stay away because of the complexity.

Ok, when you parrot exactly what I say it doesn't come across as genuine. I mean say something about your own experiences.

Why would you believe my real experiences and not those of Jeremy Crawford? Is he not a person? I mean, I guess I'm flattered, but I don't even have a design job to lose over potentially getting caught openly lying to the community in a devblog.

I believe his experiences, and I believe they are one of many experiences people have. The fact that he is the designer does not make his experience more meaningful than anyone else's.

If you're homebrewing a bunch of Elder Wolves anyway, why do they still need the Dire Wolf label?

Easier to keep the information in one place.

You're the one trying to shove multiple versions of a single creature into one statblock, not me.

You said: "And it's not larger, unless you're making the higher ones Huge", implying that for things to differ in physical size, they must differ in game size. That is wrong.

My experience is that they're not only fine, they're the best statblocks we've had in D&D history.

Ok.

Even if your character literally encountered dire wolves in the campaign before and the spell worked?

Yes. Why should all dire wolves in the world be precisely the same?

No, the 1 beast is better. You don't even need a separate entry or sheet, much less a dozen.

You don't need classes at all--every player can have precisely the same stats. You don't need monster statblocks at all--every enemy can have precisely the same stats. You don't need different spells at all--every spell can do precisely the same thing. And then we can just 'flavor' them how we want. It would cut down on the hundreds of pages of rules we have now. That's a win, right?

I think that may be why the PHB has some in it (and the same for familiars), which would definitely track since the PHB was released before the DMG and MM so there would need to be some statblocks somewhere to use before they came out (or the guidance for making your own for that matter)

Restricting the wild shape to 'PHB forms by default' (ask your GM for others) would be a good way to go. As long as the PHB forms are appropriate.

Mastikator

2023-03-03, 06:25 PM

Yes. Why should all dire wolves in the world be precisely the same?

I have a question, not just for you, but for all the naysayers of the idea of using a template for wildshape (not for the naysayers of the implementation, which I count myself as one).

If all dire wolves are not precisely the same (and I agree, they shouldn't be), then why couldn't one such iteration of a wolf be like the template of a druid using wildshape beast of the land?

Atranen

2023-03-03, 06:36 PM

I have a question, not just for you, but for all the naysayers of the idea of using a template for wildshape (not for the naysayers of the implementation, which I count myself as one).

If all dire wolves are not precisely the same (and I agree, they shouldn't be), then why couldn't one such iteration of a wolf be like the template of a druid using wildshape beast of the land?

Astute question :smallwink: I get your point. Certainly it could. But using the statblock, your dire wolf is like one of the dire wolves that exist in the world. Using the 'beast of the land', your dire wolf is like no other dire wolf which exists in the world.

Mastikator

2023-03-03, 06:38 PM

Astute question :smallwink: I get your point. Certainly it could. But using the statblock, your dire wolf is like one of the dire wolves that exist in the world. Using the 'beast of the land', your dire wolf is like no other dire wolf which exists in the world.

What would it take to bridge the gap? I mean for template. What needs to be added to the class feature to make it possible for a beast of the land to be like one of the dire wolves that exist in the world?

Atranen

2023-03-03, 06:45 PM

What would it take to bridge the gap? I mean for template. What needs to be added to the class feature to make it possible for a beast of the land to be like one of the dire wolves that exist in the world?

For a dire wolf, Pack Tactics, the rider on the attack, the damage on the attack, and (ideally) the hp and ac distribution and speed the wolf has.

You could pick fewer of these, but it is in some way worse than being a wolf. And even if you get them all, I maintain that looking up a 'wolf' statblock is better than looking up a 'wolf' statblock, figuring out what I need to pick in order to match it, and then choosing those options from a list.

stoutstien

2023-03-03, 07:41 PM

Velaryon

2023-03-03, 09:49 PM

Skimmed the thread but didn't read all of it. This forum moves too fast for me to keep up sometimes.

Anyway, I'll add my own voice to the "I hate this change and will not be using it" side. It strikes me as trying to solve problems I don't have, while failing to address problems I do have and creating new problems where none existed before.

If Circle of the Moon druids being too tanky because of wild shape at low levels is a problem, there are plenty of ways to address that specific subclass without nerfing the class as a whole.

Personally I want things to move in the other direction: I want more wild shape uses, and I want the ability to be a little more useful for non-Moon druids. I play a Circle of the Stars druid in a Curse of Strahd game. We just defeated Strahd this last session. I have used wild shape to turn into an animal exactly one time this entire campaign, because I just don't find it a very useful ability. I use Starry Form all the time, but since I can only do it twice before resting I find myself strongly disincentivized to ever turn into animals.

I'd like to have at minimum a number of uses equal to my proficiency bonus, and I'd like to be able to turn into stronger monsters than CR 1. To my way of thinking, this UA change is headed in exactly the wrong direction (though to be fair, that's in keeping with the majority of other playtest materials I've seen for 1D&D so far).

Tanarii

2023-03-03, 09:51 PM

I would say, honestly, that I've seen at least 5 different people legitimately interested in the Druid specifically and ultimately decide on something different because the bulk of the class. That's probably why I'm the only person I've ever seen play a Druid, and even then I only pick a few stat blocks I like and write them down (or take pictures) so I don't have to keep a big pile of them or hunt them down later.
I've seen several new to D&D players that were overwhelmed by the Druid class. But also Wizard. I generally recommend Warlock or Sorcerer if a new-to-D&D player really wants to play a full caster.

But I don't have any direct experience with experienced players declining to play the Druid class because of Wildshape. Otoh that's not the kind of thing anyone would have told me, they just wouldn't have shown up with one. But I can say that Druids were more significantly more popular than Wizards and Bards.

Atranen

2023-03-03, 09:58 PM

I've seen several new to D&D players that were overwhelmed by the Druid class. But also Wizard. I generally recommend Warlock or Sorcerer if a new-to-D&D player really wants to play a full caster.

But I don't have any direct experience with experienced players declining to play the Druid class because of Wildshape. Otoh that's not the kind of thing anyone would have told me, they just wouldn't have shown up with one. But I can say that Druids were more significantly more popular than Wizards and Bards.

Yes, the comparison with other complex classes is also a good point. I think that having a more complex class (especially for GMs who are familiar with the MM) is a good thing, for the same reason having champion fighter for new players is a good thing. That's why I don't find the fact that fewer people play druid problematic.

Pex

2023-03-04, 02:20 AM

"Mother may I" is a canard. Nothing bar nothing exists or happens in the game unless and until the DM approves it and narrates it. Doesn't matter if you have a class feature or spell that says X. That's the operational reality--players do not narrate. They do not say what the character does, merely what he attempts to do. No rule can possibly bind the DM--he has plenary power to decide how/when/if to apply the rules. And to change them or ignore them at his will. The only limits are meta--what the players will tolerate. And those aren't part of the game's rule-set at all.

But there is a balance to be struck between codification and freeform. Where that balance lies may differ in different parts--the more routine, the more it benefits from codification (so you don't have to think about it). Codification makes things rigid and likely to break if modified; it also introduces the strong risk of loopholes causing unintended (or intended by munchkins) breakage. Freeform is slower and requires more trust and negotiation. I'm fine with codifying frameworks for resolution (ie "making an attack requires an attack roll and a damage roll"); I'm less fine with codifying in-fiction effects because that has lots of potential for breakage in various fictional circumstances. But other people may put the lines in different places, and that's fine.

That's being pedantic. "Mother May I" is to mean the "freeform" you're meaning. The point of rules is to have common ground of how to play the game. To say the DM can change anything is irrelevant. To insist on it makes the game itself irrelevant. In fact, the DM changing anything he wants whenever is the ultimate Mother May I. Any meaningful discussion necessitates the DM will follow the printed words on paper and leave house rules at the individual game table. Some classes don't need DM judgment to work, the "codification". The desire to cut down on the freeform, th e Mother May I, is the desired goal for some people. Because of reality it is impossible to eliminate all DM judgment. Adjudication is necessary because it is impossible to have a rule for every situation of everything of any idea in perpetuity. However, it is not a horrible sin to try to eliminate the necessity of it as possible. A PC is the only thing a player gets to control. It's not unreasonable for the player to want to be able to declare using a class feature and know how it works without the DM having to consider whether it can.

sambojin

2023-03-04, 04:54 AM

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 05:39 AM

For a dire wolf, Pack Tactics, the rider on the attack, the damage on the attack, and (ideally) the hp and ac distribution and speed the wolf has.

You could pick fewer of these, but it is in some way worse than being a wolf. And even if you get them all, I maintain that looking up a 'wolf' statblock is better than looking up a 'wolf' statblock, figuring out what I need to pick in order to match it, and then choosing those options from a list.

The moon druid will be able to knock someone prone with their bonus action, then make the attack roll. The wolf has 13 AC, so 16 wisdom will get you to the wolf's AC, wolves have keen hearing and smell, the beast of the land has keen senses. The wolf's attack is +4 to hit 2d4 + 2 (7) piercing, the beast of the land would be +5 1d8+3, (7.5) piercing.
So far the beast of the land and the wolf are almost exactly the same, the difference is that beast of the land has Darkvision and the wolf has Pack Tactics.
So if you could trade Darkvision for Pack Tactics, would that then be sufficiently wolfy?

The only thing missing is the HP. But I think actually getting a whole extra HP pool is ridiculously OP, especially on a full caster, and has made the druid the tankiest class by far. A druid easily out tanks a barbarian, there's no way I can agree that's OK. Martial classes that focus on tanking should not be overshadowed by a secondary class feature on a full caster. I don't even understand why there's any debate on this particular subject.

sambojin

2023-03-04, 05:50 AM

How freaky would it be if all 1DnD Monster Manual Beasts above about CR1/2 got a bonus action Unarmed Strike? So they can all swift-hit at Str/Dexmod+1 damage before or after multiattack, or knock prone for advantage, or grapple-drag away/ or drag through spell effects, or shove characters back to avoid AoOs while getting to squishies? So they all got what a Moon lvl3 gets?

That'd be f'ing scary, on top of their otherwise lacklustre stats/ saves/ AC and HP, but with slightly better movement. As a DM, I'd rub my hands with glee on the sorts of encounters and situations I could conjure out of nowhere with every "average beast".

So, yeah. Moon Druids get that. It's not bad.

((Also, every other martial'ish gets 2-3 attacks by lvl5 so far, and so do you, but one of yours is always a melee combat manoeuvre or low damage and you've always got a hand free, so it does help distinguish the classes a bit. Plus, you get full caster, so that's nice too. Apparently full caster is worth about 3-18damage a round (7-12+'ish?) compared to half casters. And that's pretty easy to do at later levels as a full caster at lvl5+))

Hytheter

2023-03-04, 06:25 AM

The only thing missing is the HP. But I think actually getting a whole extra HP pool is ridiculously OP, especially on a full caster, and has made the druid the tankiest class by far. A druid easily out tanks a barbarian, there's no way I can agree that's OK. Martial classes that focus on tanking should not be overshadowed by a secondary class feature on a full caster. I don't even understand why there's any debate on this particular subject.

I wouldn't say it's unthinkable for them to get some HP (maybe Temp HP?) but it's definitely quite ridiculous as things stand in 5e.

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 06:29 AM

I wouldn't say it's unthinkable for them to get some HP (maybe Temp HP?) but it's definitely quite ridiculous as things stand in 5e.

Moon druids can cast barkskin while wildshaped. With 16 wisdom it would mean 5 temp hp that regenerates every round. At level 5 with 18 wisdom it would be raised to 7 temp hp per round.

stoutstien

2023-03-04, 06:33 AM

That's being pedantic. "Mother May I" is to mean the "freeform" you're meaning. The point of rules is to have common ground of how to play the game. To say the DM can change anything is irrelevant. To insist on it makes the game itself irrelevant. In fact, the DM changing anything he wants whenever is the ultimate Mother May I. Any meaningful discussion necessitates the DM will follow the printed words on paper and leave house rules at the individual game table. Some classes don't need DM judgment to work, the "codification". The desire to cut down on the freeform, th e Mother May I, is the desired goal for some people. Because of reality it is impossible to eliminate all DM judgment. Adjudication is necessary because it is impossible to have a rule for every situation of everything of any idea in perpetuity. However, it is not a horrible sin to try to eliminate the necessity of it as possible. A PC is the only thing a player gets to control. It's not unreasonable for the player to want to be able to declare using a class feature and know how it works without the DM having to consider whether it can.

Soo PF2E or what One is looking at becoming?

sambojin

2023-03-04, 06:39 AM

Honestly, if the Primal list of spells had Spider Climb and Alter Self on it (and Alter Self didn't take concentration), I doubt anyone would complain as much about the druid.

Although, the Primal list is the only one with Enhance Ability on it, so maybe that's the cover-all? Advantage to Perception in wildshape, and something/whatever else on a stat score with Enhance Ability? You could even be a cute talky monkey/ poodle with that. I still reckon Spider Climb and Alter Self would be cool though, concentration or not. Lots of variations and playstyles, but still using resources and spell preps to do so.

Then maybe the lvl7 "water form" could have some cool stuff to run with as well. Yes, I'm saying restrain-on-hit and 10'+ range attacks or something :)

(If that lvl14(!?) subclass skill was as written for Moon, but also had this added:
"You can also cast Enhance Ability once per day on all of your allies within 60', as well as yourself. You may choose which form of the spell it takes on each recipient, on which characteristics are enhanced. This does not take concentration from you, as it allows all to harness their own inner beings from your experience of so many, so simply lasts 1hr, unless you wish to dispel it as a bonus action before then".
Then it would be a good class. Usually a free lvl5'ish spell, but awesome in "epic level stuff, lvl14+, mass buff stuff". And since you can just cast it again with concentration to "Captain Planet" your own party properly (or cast anything else you want after you've tried to save the day), it feels like a proper tier 3-4 level subclass thingo skill. Way better than just a lvl2 spell, for instance)

OvisCaedo

2023-03-04, 07:50 AM

I actually question if, as written, UA moon druids DO get a bonus action attack in wild shape. Wild shape's description says "You retain your personality, memories, ability to speak, and Wild Shape. You lose access to all your other features". Moon druid's benefits don't actually call out the unarmed strike as a Wild Shape feature.

Presumably they MEANT for it to be a wild shape compatible ability, but... frankly I also don't get why it's written the way it is now, either. I'd think it would specifically be meant for wild shape, and instead they wrote it as if it was something you'd want to do in humanoid form. Which, I suppose, you sometimes might since it could let you shove someone to disengage?

sambojin

2023-03-04, 08:04 AM

I'm just doing it as rules as written, and possibly intended. Spell casting? Nope, not in wildshape. Anything that obviously can't be done in that wildshape? Nope, not in wildshape.

Lvl3 Moon Druid? *Can* cast abjuration spells.

Literally nothing else is taken away that's not as powerful as full spell casting from a full caster with a full list to choose from. That's the only example that has been given on this as "such as:".

Seems to be intended, considering you *do* get a bonus action Unarmed Attack as a Moon Druid. And *can* cast abjuration spells while in wildshape. So, no full list, full caster stuff. No worries. And you probably have to be able to do any other stuff in your wildshape form, on a physical possibility. Can still concentrate on spells though, and retain full memories, so still know how to do all the stuff you did before (like dodge fireballs, have saves and skills, do adventure'y things, etc).

((Pretty sure you *don't* lose your stat increases from your background, for instance. Even though there's the word "feature" quite close to them, RAW))

OvisCaedo

2023-03-04, 08:27 AM

Spell casting is also the only real feature to list as being taken away for a single classed Druid, they don't really have anything else to lose. It gives a specific list of what you keep and outright says you lose all other features. But I also agree that this makes no sense for a lot of things like proficiencies and am very willing to chalk it up to not being written as thoroughly as they envisioned its usage to be.

JackPhoenix

2023-03-04, 08:39 AM

Which is a circular and very gamist approach to creature design. What makes a CR 3 dire wolf CR 3, compared to a CR 1 version? It has more powerful stats/abilities! Okay, why does it have more powerful stats/abilities? Because it has a higher CR! And never mind that no statblock, index or search engine currently in the game works that way, so you're trying to prop up bad and circular design by foisting even more work onto the dev team. Not to mention the in-universe problem - your character identifies the creature as a dire wolf! Oh cool, my character has affected those with a Sleep spell in the past, I'll do that again! ...Uh yeah, actually, these are CR 4 Dire Wolves, your spell won't affect them... Huh? Well, how would my character know that, are CRs a thing that exist in universe? I guess they wouldn't, so you have to waste the spell anyway to avoid metagaming. Got it, this sucks.

What makes CR 9 human (champion) CR 9, compared to CR 0 human (commoner)? It has more powerful stats/abilities! Why does it have more powerful stats/abilities? Because it has a higher CR! And what about the in-universe problem: your character identifies the creature as a human! Oh cool, my character has affected those with Sleep in the past, and the barbarian punched them unconscious with one hit, we'll do that again! Uh yeah, actually, those are high CR humans, your spell won't affect them, and they have too many HP to be downed with a single 4-damage unarmed attack... but how would my character know that?

Moon druids can cast barkskin while wildshaped. With 16 wisdom it would mean 5 temp hp that regenerates every round. At level 5 with 18 wisdom it would be raised to 7 temp hp per round.

Moon druids, like any druid, can cast Barkskin while wildshaped. At level 17.

Tanarii

2023-03-04, 10:13 AM

However, it is not a horrible sin to try to eliminate the necessity of it as possible.
Of course it's a sin! Clearly we can't be encouraging those Tyrannical Players again like 3e and 4e did.

Honestly as long as a player has a general idea of what they can do and not do, the system is working fine. If the individual player needs more specific prompting or examples or exact rules to get there, that's fine. There are games that give it, and games that don't. D&D is neither, and despite what OSR folks would tell you has never really been. :smallamused:

It IS interesting how the clock swings back and forth between slightly more CCRPG/VTT oriented (3e/4e) and slightly more OSR oriented (5e) and back again. WotC is definitely abandoning the OSR concept of Rulings not Rules, but they aren't doing it because of a dislike of "Mother May I". They're doing it because a CCRPG doesn't have a DM, and because a VTT runs smother the more you hardcode rules and remove the DM from them.

Pex

2023-03-04, 11:35 AM

Soo PF2E or what One is looking at becoming?

The other side of the coin. The other people don't want a game to be so crunchy to have a rule for almost everything due to difficulty remembering them all and/or what the rules actually say interferes with what they want to do. In Pathfinder's case, to be cynical about it for a moment, it is rather nitpicky. It delves hard into minutiae of game mechanics. System mastery requires the equivalent of memorizing Ye Olde Encyclopedia Britannica.

A rules light system doesn't go into the minutiae, but it's not uncalled for the rules that do exist to be clear and for a class ability, not needing to depend on who is DM that day on how it functions.

stoutstien

2023-03-04, 11:47 AM

The other side of the coin. The other people don't want a game to be so crunchy to have a rule for almost everything due to difficulty remembering them all and/or what the rules actually say interferes with what they want to do. It Pathfinder's case, to be cynical about it for a moment, it is rather nitpicky. It delves hard into minutiae of game mechanics. System mastery requires the equivalent of memorizing Ye Olde Encyclopedia Britannica.

A rules light system doesn't go into the minutiae, but it's not uncalled for the rules that do exist to be clear and for a class ability, not needing to depend on who is DM that day on how it functions.

I think there might be some misunderstandings when I say 5e works due to this inconsistency. I'm not saying it should have changes day to day and they should gut everything that is in there. It should be fairly predictable at a table level because they are using the same general framework.

As someone pointed out earlier, it beats with the heart of a OSR. The rules are as useful as they need to be and should be quickly disregarded if they interfere. You can do this because the rules don't actually have that much interaction with each other. They're isolated little scripts. It could be a heck of a lot better how it presents these little scripts but that's a formatting issue.

When it comes to wild shapes I personally would rather have it a little bit more codified on the players interaction with the future but have it much more open on the back end. You could both have a rough outline of available options and a more generic block that you could work with to make something if the options are not applicable. For my system I've actually written something up that takes up less page base than what's in the player handbook and it includes all the listed blocks and suggestions on how to modify them as the shifter becomes more proficient.

Atranen

2023-03-04, 12:46 PM

The moon druid will be able to knock someone prone with their bonus action, then make the attack roll. The wolf has 13 AC, so 16 wisdom will get you to the wolf's AC, wolves have keen hearing and smell, the beast of the land has keen senses. The wolf's attack is +4 to hit 2d4 + 2 (7) piercing, the beast of the land would be +5 1d8+3, (7.5) piercing.
So far the beast of the land and the wolf are almost exactly the same, the difference is that beast of the land has Darkvision and the wolf has Pack Tactics.
So if you could trade Darkvision for Pack Tactics, would that then be sufficiently wolfy?

The only thing missing is the HP. But I think actually getting a whole extra HP pool is ridiculously OP, especially on a full caster, and has made the druid the tankiest class by far. A druid easily out tanks a barbarian, there's no way I can agree that's OK. Martial classes that focus on tanking should not be overshadowed by a secondary class feature on a full caster. I don't even understand why there's any debate on this particular subject.

The dire wolf is +5 to hit for 2d6+3 (10); are you talking about the normal wolf?

On AC, fine. But I strongly disliked the "oh, you can shove as a bonus action, that's just like automatically forcing a save vs prone on a hit". Because it's just not.

Hp is an issue worth addressing, but the way the beast of the land does, you don't have it.

So no attack rider, no pack tactics, no hp, and a weaker attack. That's pretty different from a dire wolf.

And dire wolf is one of the easier examples to match with beast of the land.

Gignere

2023-03-04, 12:54 PM

The dire wolf is +5 to hit for 2d6+3 (10); are you talking about the normal wolf?

On AC, fine. But I strongly disliked the "oh, you can shove as a bonus action, that's just like automatically forcing a save vs prone on a hit". Because it's just not.

Hp is an issue worth addressing, but the way the beast of the land does, you don't have it.

So no attack rider, no pack tactics, no hp, and a weaker attack. That's pretty different from a dire wolf.

And dire wolf is one of the easier examples to match with beast of the land.

But the dire wolf is way too strong at level 2. You’re saying hey I have this OP as heck form with free hps but now I don’t, I mean that’s not a great argument. Personally I love the fixed stat block, I might roll a moon Druid now, I’ve avoided playing one because I’m an optimizer and if I played a moon or shepherd Druid, I’d quickly just dominate the whole party.

Atranen

2023-03-04, 01:00 PM

But the dire wolf is way too strong at level 2. You’re saying hey I have this OP as heck form with free hps but now I don’t, I mean that’s not a great argument. Personally I love the fixed stat block, I might roll a moon Druid now, I’ve avoided playing one because I’m an optimizer and if I played a moon or shepherd Druid, I’d quickly just dominate the whole party.

The issue of whether it's too strong or not is a separate question. It may be, and then they should change what CR a moon druid gets to do when. If you compare the level 5 beast of the land, the attack is a bit stronger. But it's still not a dire wolf!

Psyren

2023-03-04, 03:11 PM

Ok, when you parrot exactly what I say it doesn't come across as genuine. I mean say something about your own experiences.

I did! You choosing not to believe it is not my problem to solve.

I believe his experiences, and I believe they are one of many experiences people have. The fact that he is the designer does not make his experience more meaningful than anyone else's.

But you just said that numbers matter to you. They've seen and heard from more players than everyone in this thread combined. Do you distrust them because of their authority?

Easier to keep the information in one place.
...
You said: "And it's not larger, unless you're making the higher ones Huge", implying that for things to differ in physical size, they must differ in game size. That is wrong.
...
Yes. Why should all dire wolves in the world be precisely the same?

What you're fundamentally asking is "why does D&D use a single statblock to represent any given monster." And the answer is because doing that is good design.

Restricting the wild shape to 'PHB forms by default' (ask your GM for others) would be a good way to go. As long as the PHB forms are appropriate.

So no owlbear or phoenix form then, despite those being explicit design goals for them. No thanks.

Moon druids can cast barkskin while wildshaped. With 16 wisdom it would mean 5 temp hp that regenerates every round. At level 5 with 18 wisdom it would be raised to 7 temp hp per round.

They can't actually, it's Transmutation rather than Abjuration. They would need to revert to humanoid form first.

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 03:36 PM

Moon druids, like any druid, can cast Barkskin while wildshaped. At level 17.

Good point. Barkskin should be abjuration, weird that it isn't. I'll be sure to tell WotC in the upcoming survey.

Kane0

2023-03-04, 03:36 PM

But healing is abjuration now, i assume to fit into casting-while-wildshaped. Bleh.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-04, 03:59 PM

I still don't like the wildshape changes, but I'm still on the side of it not being as bad as people are making out.
Just needs another tweak, I think. Feedback: send it! :smallsmile:

It IS interesting how the clock swings back and forth between slightly more CCRPG/VTT oriented (3e/4e) and slightly more OSR oriented (5e) and back again. WotC is definitely abandoning the OSR concept of Rulings not Rules, but they aren't doing it because of a dislike of "Mother May I". They're doing it because a CCRPG doesn't have a DM, and because a VTT runs smother the more you hardcode rules and remove the DM from them. If they are gonna monetize it to triple revenue, they gotta make a substantial change.

Good point. Barkskin should be abjuration, weird that it isn't. I'll be sure to tell WotC in the upcoming survey. Likewise.

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 04:00 PM

Atranen

2023-03-04, 05:36 PM

But you just said that numbers matter to you. They've seen and heard from more players than everyone in this thread combined. Do you distrust them because of their authority?

And we're back to the tautology of the wizard: "Wizards has heard from more people and has more data therefore any decisions they make about design goals are correct". You'd think the OGL debacle would have put this to rest (surely OGL 1.1 and creative commons can't have been both right).

I trust Wizards to the extent that their actions show they deserve. Many of their recent design decisions have been poor ones. Hence, I do not trust them.

Is there a single design goal they could set that you could disagree with, using your logic? Not a little tweak here or there on playtest material, but a direct statement about "this is what we want to do with OneD&D"?

What you're fundamentally asking is "why does D&D use a single statblock to represent any given monster." And the answer is because doing that is good design.

No, it isn't. Different variants of monsters at different ages already exist, for example for dragons. Is the fact that I write "Dire Wolf (CR 2)" rather than "Elder Dire Wolf" such a big deal to you?

So no owlbear or phoenix form then, despite those being explicit design goals for them. No thanks.

There's no owlbear or phoenix form now, just "Beast of the Land" and "Beast of the Sky".

Yes by wolf I mean wolf.

Ok. In which case, you're still missing the most important features.

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 05:38 PM

Ok. In which case, you're still missing the most important features.

Which are?

Atranen

2023-03-04, 05:45 PM

Which are?

Pack Tactics, the attack rider, and speed.

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 05:56 PM

Pack Tactics, the attack rider, and speed.

Wolf speed: 40
Beast of the land: 40

Attack rider: if you hit, target must make strength save or become prone
Moon druid: can make shove prone as bonus action, in 1dnd is a saving throw

That leaves pack tactics. If 1dnd wildshape druid can trade darkvision for pack tactics would that be sufficient?

Atranen

2023-03-04, 06:00 PM

Wolf speed: 40
Beast of the land: 40

Attack rider: if you hit, target must make strength save or become prone
Moon druid: can make shove prone as bonus action, in 1dnd is a saving throw

That leaves pack tactics. If 1dnd wildshape druid can trade darkvision for pack tactics would that be sufficient?

No.

Speed is true for the wolf but not the dire wolf. If you're attacked by dire wolves and transform into one to run away, you'll find they just catch you. Bad!

Attack rider: A poor substitute. You have to 1) remember what the wolf gets in 5e (perhaps looking up the statblock) and 2) choose to use your bonus action in that thematic way (rather than any other way). If you are a wolf, you should just attack and do it. You shouldn't need additional knowledge and have to decide as a player to imperfectly mirror a beast's mechanic, when you could just get to use that mechanic.

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 06:11 PM

No.

Speed is true for the wolf but not the dire wolf. If you're attacked by dire wolves and transform into one to run away, you'll find they just catch you. Bad!

Attack rider: A poor substitute. You have to 1) remember what the wolf gets in 5e (perhaps looking up the statblock) and 2) choose to use your bonus action in that thematic way (rather than any other way). If you are a wolf, you should just attack and do it. You shouldn't need additional knowledge and have to decide as a player to imperfectly mirror a beast's mechanic, when you could just get to use that mechanic.

Wolf and dire wolf are different creatures. Please stick to the topic

Atranen

2023-03-04, 06:17 PM

Wolf and dire wolf are different creatures. Please stick to the topic

The topic was dire wolf. I made 4 dire wolf statblocks at successive CRs to show this. Even you yourself were talking about dire wolves:

What would it take to bridge the gap? I mean for template. What needs to be added to the class feature to make it possible for a beast of the land to be like one of the dire wolves that exist in the world?

This is all on topic.

It's true the beast of the land is a little closer to wolf than it is to dire wolf. It's a poor substitute for either.

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 06:24 PM

The topic was dire wolf. I made 4 dire wolf statblocks at successive CRs to show this. Even you yourself were talking about dire wolves:

This is all on topic.

It's true the beast of the land is a little closer to wolf than it is to dire wolf. It's a poor substitute for either.

A moon druid has access to a dire wolf at level 6. No non-druid can ever wildshape into a direwolf since it's CR 2.

At level 6 a moon druid wildshaped into a beast of the land can make 2 attacks, each with PB + WIS to hit, 1d8+1d6 + WIS damage. And a bonus action shove prone before or after. So a 1dnd moon druid will deal more damage.

A dire wolf has keen hearing and smell (advantage perception on smell and hearing). A beast of the land has keen senses (advantage perception on everything).

A dire wolf has 50 speed. A land of the beast has 40 speed.

A dire wolf has pack tactics. A land of the beast has darkvision.

Would trading darkvision and multiattack for packtactics and +10 speed be good enough?

Atranen

2023-03-04, 06:30 PM

A moon druid has access to a dire wolf at level 6. No non-druid can ever wildshape into a direwolf since it's CR 2.

Dire wolf is CR 1. (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dire%20Wolf#content)

At level 6 a moon druid wildshaped into a beast of the land can make 2 attacks, each with PB + WIS to hit, 1d8+1d6 + WIS damage. And a bonus action shove prone before or after. So a 1dnd moon druid will deal more damage.

Where are you getting the +1d6? It's 1d8 + WIS of a chosen elemental type.

Would trading darkvision and multiattack for packtactics and +10 speed be good enough?

No, for reasons that should be quite obvious by now. Hint: The attack rider.

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 06:40 PM

Dire wolf is CR 1. (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dire%20Wolf#content)

Where are you getting the +1d6? It's 1d8 + WIS of a chosen elemental type.

No, for reasons that should be quite obvious by now. Hint: The attack rider.

What is the difference between getting an attack rider to shove prone, and using bonus action to shove prone?

Atranen

2023-03-04, 06:41 PM

What is the difference between getting an attack rider to shove prone, and using bonus action to shove prone?

But you repeat yourself.

In the first case, it is something that happens as part of your attack.

In the second, you have to actively make the decision to do it, decide how to flavor it ('uh, it's kind of like, you know, when I bite him, I try to pull him down') and track the action economy yourself.

The first feels like a wolf. The second feels like the party's melee fighter.

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 06:44 PM

But you repeat yourself.

In the first case, it is something that happens as part of your attack.

In the second, you have to actively make the decision to do it, decide how to flavor it ('uh, it's kind of like, you know, when I bite him, I try to pull him down') and track the action economy yourself.

The first feels like a wolf. The second feels like the party's melee fighter.

So because you have to actively choose to use your bonus action to shove prone, it's meaningfully different in a way that makes the game less fun and engaging?

Atranen

2023-03-04, 06:47 PM

So because you have to actively choose to use your bonus action to shove prone, it's meaningfully different in a way that makes the game less fun and engaging?

Yes. In the first, you gain the ability to knock prone by default on your attacks because you are a wolf. In the second case, you can choose to use your bonus action to knock prone (or for anything else really) and it has nothing to do with you being a wolf. You'd get the same ability as a turtle.

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 06:56 PM

Yes. In the first, you gain the ability to knock prone by default on your attacks because you are a wolf. In the second case, you can choose to use your bonus action to knock prone (or for anything else really) and it has nothing to do with you being a wolf. You'd get the same ability as a turtle.

OK so what modification to the 1dnd beast of the land wildshape would it take to make the option to shove prone wolfy? How would you change the feature to make the beast of the land sufficiently able to emulate a wolf?

Also in dnd5e there are no stat blocks for turtle beasts, so a 5e druid can never wildshape into a turtle. 1dnd can, but in the 2014 version no such stat block exists.

Edit- thirdly. I've already established that 2014 PHB moon druids don't become wolves via wildshape. It's factually untrue. You need Polymorph to become a wolf. Wildshape doesn't turn you into a wolf. Please stop insisting it does. It does not.

Atranen

2023-03-04, 07:00 PM

OK so what modification to the 1dnd beast of the land wildshape would it take to make the option to shove prone wolfy? How would you change the feature to make the beast of the land sufficiently able to emulate a wolf?

Make it part of the attack, as it is in the wolf statblock.

Also in dnd5e there are no stat blocks for turtle beasts, so a 5e druid can never wildshape into a turtle. 1dnd can, but in the 2014 version no such stat block exists.

Edit- thirdly. I've already established that 2014 PHB moon druids don't become wolves via wildshape. It's factually untrue. You need Polymorph to become a wolf. Wildshape doesn't turn you into a wolf. Please stop insisting it does. It does not.

Ok, this is getting pedantic. Fine, be a frog then. In OneD&D, it gets to shove prone exactly like the wolf can.

The fact that you are not precisely the same as a wolf in every way possible does not negate that the 5e druid is significantly more wolf-like than the OneD&D one.

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 07:10 PM

Make it part of the attack, as it is in the wolf statblock.

Ok, this is getting pedantic. Fine, be a frog then. In OneD&D, it gets to shove prone exactly like the wolf can.

The fact that you are not precisely the same as a wolf in every way possible does not negate that the 5e druid is significantly more wolf-like than the OneD&D one.

Ok.

Would you think Beast of the Land is sufficiently wolflike if it had the option: when you wildshape you can transform into a pouncer like a wolf, panther, instead of darkvision on the first beast attack if you hit the target must make a strength saving throw or become prone. Additionally you either gain pack tactics (wolf) or pounce (panther) as a bonus action you can make a beastial attack

My actual point here is let's get away from "RAWR ARG I HATE THE NEW WILDSHAPE ARGARGAGRA" and into "how do we make it better"? Because the old version is too bad to exist. It's bad, mega bad. It's one of the best ideas and the worst implementation, it makes coffeelock level bad.

Atranen

2023-03-04, 07:23 PM

Ok.

Would you think Beast of the Land is sufficiently wolflike if it had the option: when you wildshape you can transform into a pouncer like a wolf, panther, instead of darkvision on the first beast attack if you hit the target must make a strength saving throw or become prone. Additionally you either gain pack tactics (wolf) or pounce (panther) as a bonus action you can make a beastial attack

My actual point here is let's get away from "RAWR ARG I HATE THE NEW WILDSHAPE ARGARGAGRA" and into "how do we make it better"? Because the old version is too bad to exist. It's bad, mega bad. It's one of the best ideas and the worst implementation, it makes coffeelock level bad.

Yes, that implementation is sufficient to make me feel like a wolf or a panther.

Aimeryan

2023-03-04, 08:07 PM

So because you have to actively choose to use your bonus action to shove prone, it's meaningfully different in a way that makes the game less fun and engaging?

Finally, you have realised that flavour cannot just dismissed. How you do something in a narrative sense can be very important to the immersion of a player's experience.

------

There are four subjects at hand here, which make up the overall implementation:

1) Sourcing
2) Flavour
3) Mechanics
4) Power

D&Done only works for me on the first point: it is easy, clean, and fast. All the other points it fails for me.

With 5e I don't actually mind the sourcing, but I do get that in an edition for which the byword could be 'lazy' it fails: it is slow, not made easy, and has some issues with accessing DM material. However, this is not a binary choice; there is at least one other choice available here that I personally think would work just as well from a player and DM perspective. A fixed list in the PHB would be fast, easy, and does not have those DM material issues.

The flavour of 5e for Wildshape is so much greater. You take the physical and instinctual abilities of an existing animal, as if you too were one of them. Your personality and mental stats may differ from the norm, but having been a guardian to a number of pets I can tell you they all differ in those respectives even amongst the same species. This hits the spot for me in a way a homogenous paint-your-blob does not.

The mechanics of 5e for Wildshape are greater for me as well; I always want more options, not less. Making choices is part of why I play the game. Having the same blob every single time mechanically is so dull. Many of the mechanics are also just missing.

The power in 5e with Wildshape is where it goes wrong, for me. Likely too strong at the start (although, it is honestly only for a level or two in my opinion). Scales horribly, having big troughs and the odd spike in the middle and the ridiculous spike at the end (although, compared to Full Casters I could see arguments to the contrary on that last one). A huge part of the problem for me is that this power has to be offset by the casting power of the Druid - maybe not 100% due to the restrictions, but still highly so. This is a subclass trying to do two completely different things as I see it, without even trying to seemingly mesh them like a true gish - and if you don't want to be a gish for this fantasy you are flat out denied past Tier 1. To get to a good power level here you need to detract from the casting power. Personally, I think the 5e Moon Druid subclass would be better off with Barbarian (with appropriate tweaks) and the Beast subclass with Druid.

So for me (if they keep Combat Wildshape with Druid, which they will):

1) Sourcing - Fixed List works
2) Flavour - Fixed List works
3) Mechanics - Fixed List works
4) Power - I think you need the Moon Druid Wildshape to consume Spell Slots one way or the other, but it also has to be practical and flavourful (so directly boosting the Wildshape makes sense to me)

Theodoxus

2023-03-04, 09:35 PM

1) Sourcing - Fixed List works
2) Flavour - Fixed List works
3) Mechanics - Fixed List works
4) Power - I think you need the Moon Druid Wildshape to consume Spell Slots one way or the other, but it also has to be practical and flavourful (so directly boosting the Wildshape makes sense to me)

I'm personally not in favor of a full caster Druid burning slots for Wildshape (as I've previously noted, my preferred solution is putting the Druid on the Warlock chassis and turning most of the spells and wildshape into invocations.)

But, if it were to go in that direction, I'd do something like:

Wild Shape. As a Magic action, you expend a spell slot and transform into a form that you have learned for this feature. You start knowing one form, Animal of the Land, which is detailed in the “Wild Shapes” section later in this class’s description. You stay in that form for a number of hours equal to the spell slot used or until you use Wild Shape again, have the Incapacitated condition, or die.You can also end Wild Shape early as a Bonus Action.

If you use a spell slot greater than 1st level, you gain additional abilities as show on table Wild Shape

Animal of the Land

Spell Slot
Additional Abilities

2
10 THP, AC +1, Knock prone on a hit or Pounce

3
As above, +10 THP, Rake

4
As above, +10 THP, AC +1 (stacks with level 2 slot bonus), Poison bite

5
As above, +10 THP, Choose 1: Blindsight, Spider Climb, or Burrow Speed = Walking Speed

6
As above, +10 THP, choose a second option from the 5th level spell selection above

7
As above, +10 THP, AC +1 (stacks with prior AC bonuses), gain all three options from the 5th level spell selection above

8
As above, +20 THP

9
As above, +20 THP

Similar things could be done for Water and Air (starting with higher level slots).

Psyren

2023-03-04, 09:56 PM

"Wizards has heard from more people and has more data therefore any decisions they make about design goals are correct".

I trust Wizards to the extent that their actions show they deserve. Many of their recent design decisions have been poor ones. Hence, I do not trust them.

Bold is a strawman I never uttered. And thinking they are always wrong because OGL is equally bad reasoning.

Is there a single design goal they could set that you could disagree with, using your logic? Not a little tweak here or there on playtest material, but a direct statement about "this is what we want to do with OneD&D"?

So because the things they've put out that I disagree with are relatively easy fixes, my disagreements don't count? It's no wonder you think I always agree with them if you're allowed to gloss like that.

No, it isn't. Different variants of monsters at different ages already exist, for example for dragons. Is the fact that I write "Dire Wolf (CR 2)" rather than "Elder Dire Wolf" such a big deal to you?

Which dragon statblocks have multiple ages of dragon in a single block?

There's no owlbear or phoenix form now, just "Beast of the Land" and "Beast of the Sky".

Which I can explicitly make look like those creatures on my own without begging the DM's indulgence.

Atranen

2023-03-04, 10:34 PM

Bold is a strawman I never uttered. And thinking they are always wrong because OGL is equally bad reasoning.

Not in those words, but it is the basis of the arguments you've been advancing. E.g.:

But you just said that numbers matter to you. They've seen and heard from more players than everyone in this thread combined. Do you distrust them because of their authority?

You have those backwards. He specifically called it out, so that contingent is the "many." At the very least, there's enough of them that the designers consider this desire noteworthy. If it was a fringe or niche ask, they wouldn't be designing around it.

I.e., they have data, they have heard from more people, hence it is important and the right thing to design for.

Now as for strawmen, I never uttered "they are always wrong because of the OGL". I said they should not be trusted to be right at all times regardless of how much data they have because of the OGL. Despite their access to data, they do not fundamentally understand their playerbase.

So because the things they've put out that I disagree with are relatively easy fixes, my disagreements don't count? It's no wonder you think I always agree with them if you're allowed to gloss like that.

There is a difference between quibbling over a few details and taking issue with the design direction. Are there any major design decisions they have made with OneD&D that you disagree with? Are there any that you could imagine disagreeing with and leaving OneD&D as a result?

Edit: I think I should phrase this more carefully. The main point is not having things you personally disagree with, but having things that make you say: "hey, wizards got it very wrong here", in the sense that they have lost sight of what the majority of their player base wants and likes in a game. Could you imagine something like that occuring?

Which dragon statblocks have multiple ages of dragon in a single block?

Why is it a big deal whether they're in a table or a single block?

Which I can explicitly make look like those creatures on my own without begging the DM's indulgence.

Sure. And I can make my wizard look like a pit fighter with a disguise self spell. It doesn't actually affect anything.

Kane0

2023-03-04, 11:59 PM

Im working on my own rendition of wildshape because i'm impatient like that. How would people feel if i reworked the generic statblock (there will only be one) to be a 'primal beast' rather than 'animal of the X'? Functionally the same, but specifically called out as only superficially resembling a real animal.
As part of this there will be choices along the way to include abilities as part of your primal beast form to replicate those of many normal animals (and later on, magical beasts).
Hopefully this will disconnect it a little bit from real-world comparisons too, so druids arent stuck with animals-at-the-gym and can use wildshape to assume forms as fantastical as the world they inhabit (while at the same time easily gating things for power/progression purposes)

Atranen

2023-03-05, 12:07 AM

Psyren

2023-03-05, 12:26 AM

Not in those words, but it is the basis of the arguments you've been advancing. E.g.:

I.e., they have data, they have heard from more people, hence it is important and the right thing to design for.

Making design decisions based on data, what an utterly insane concept... :smallconfused:

There is a difference between quibbling over a few details and taking issue with the design direction. Are there any major design decisions they have made with OneD&D that you disagree with? Are there any that you could imagine disagreeing with and leaving OneD&D as a result?

Movement - especially jumping.
Critical hits.
Spell Preparation.
Major enough?

Why is it a big deal whether they're in a table or a single block?

I've explained this already; indexing, searching, presentation. Also learning the game, knowing the DM is being fair, memory, avoiding mistakes with monster selection...
I'm not saying doing it the other way is impossible, but I can't help but notice all the major designers moving in this direction, both with their monster design and with shapeshifting abilities. It's not just WotC.

Sure. And I can make my wizard look like a pit fighter with a disguise self spell. It doesn't actually affect anything.

Wild Shape isn't an illusion last time I checked.

It's a different direction than the animal-form druid, but I think this appropriately balances flavor with the generic statblocks mechanics. As long as you don't pretend you're turning into real animals, I think it works fine. Good idea!

So you are in favor of one statblock + selectable abilities? Oh right, someone other than WotC or me is suggesting it this time, which makes all the diference.

Kane0

2023-03-05, 12:35 AM

So you are in favor of one statblock + selectable abilities? Oh right, someone other than WotC or me is suggesting it this time, which makes all the diference.

I'm not attempting to make my version replicate animals, statblock or otherwise.

Segev

2023-03-05, 12:42 AM

I would say, honestly, that I've seen at least 5 different people legitimately interested in the Druid specifically and ultimately decide on something different because the bulk of the class. That's probably why I'm the only person I've ever seen play a Druid, and even then I only pick a few stat blocks I like and write them down (or take pictures) so I don't have to keep a big pile of them or hunt them down later.

While on that note, I've already mentioned that I don't care for combat Wild Shape, and thus Moon Druid. Almost any time I've ever used a non-subclass normal beast Wild Shape, it's been for out of combat purposes.

I suspect that druid will become even less popular with the bland generic stat blob, especially if it is the main focus of the class. I can't say I've ever seen anyone reject the class because of needing to use beast stat blocks. I believe you when you say you have, but that has not been my experience. I cannot imagine the generic stat blob being any less intimidating, either.

animorte

2023-03-05, 12:55 AM

I suspect that druid will become even less popular with the bland generic stat blob, especially if it is the main focus of the class. I can't say I've ever seen anyone reject the class because of needing to use beast stat blocks. I believe you when you say you have, but that has not been my experience. I cannot imagine the generic stat blob being any less intimidating, either.
Someone mentioned that this could easily depend on the experience of the player. While I have certainly been it for myself, many players prefer to accomplish something without the prerequisite of putting in much additional work.

I think this is why, when most newer players I've seen want to play a caster, it's a secondary choice such as Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster, or a half-caster, Ranger/Paladin.

Psyren

2023-03-05, 01:21 AM

I'm not attempting to make my version replicate animals, statblock or otherwise.

But it could - or at the very least you could make it look like one, or at least an owlbear like they intend. Good enough.

Kane0

2023-03-05, 05:22 AM

It's a different direction than the animal-form druid, but I think this appropriately balances flavor with the generic statblocks mechanics. As long as you don't pretend you're turning into real animals, I think it works fine. Good idea!

But it could - or at the very least you could make it look like one, or at least an owlbear like they intend. Good enough.

Channel Nature (Wildshape)
Magic Action to transform into a primal beast. You can stay transformed for a number of hours equal to your proficiency bonus or until you are incapacitated or killed. You can end it early with a bonus action.
While transformed, the following applies:
- Your creature type changes to Beast, and you can change your size to small, medium or large
o At level 7 you can change your size to tiny
o At level 13 you can change your size to huge
- Your AC becomes 10 + Your Wisdom modifier
- You gain Temporary Hit Points equal to your Druid level
- You can choose one of your Strength, Dexterity or Constitution score to be replaced with your Wisdom score
o At level 7 you can choose two
o At level 11 you can replace all three
- You gain a natural attack that deals 1d8 +Wisdom modifier damage
o At level 11 this increases to 2d8 +Wisdom modifier damage
- You cannot perform any actions that require hands
- You cannot cast spells, though you can continue to concentrate on a spell you have already cast
- You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground or merges into your new form
- You choose one additional Wildshape ability from the list below. Once you choose one, you can't change your decision until you finish a long rest.
o At level 9 you can choose a second ability, and at level 15 you can choose a third

Wildshape abilities:
Long Limbed: Your walk speed increases by 15’
Keen Senses: You gain advantage on Perception checks
Camouflage: You gain advantage on Stealth checks as long as you move no more than half your speed
Spiderclimb (level 3): Climb speed of 20 feet and can climb difficult surfaces without needing to make a check
Aquatic Adaption (level 3+): Swim speed of 40 feet and can breathe underwater
Grab (level 5+): When you hit with your natural attack the target must succeed on a Dexterity save against your Spell DC or be restrained. While restraining a target you cannot use your natural attack
Poison (level 5+): When you hit with your natural attack the target must succeed on a Constitution save against your Spell DC or take additional Poison damage equal to your Druid level
Pounce (level 5+): When you hit with your natural attack the target must succeed on a Strength save against your Spell DC or be knocked Prone
Burrow Speed (level 7+): Burrow speed of 10 feet, and can leave behind a usable tunnel
Swallow (level 7+): When you hit with your Natural Attack the target must succeed on a Dexterity save against your spell DC or be blinded and restrained, gaining total cover but taking Acid damage equal to your druid level at the start of each of its turns. You can only swallow one target at a time, and if your Wildshape ends the target is no longer restrained.
Pack Tactics (level 9+): You have advantage on attack rolls against a creature if at least one ally is within 5 feet of the creature and isn’t incapacitated
Flight (level 9+): Fly speed of 40 feet plus Flyby attack
Rampage (level 9+): When you reduce a creature to 0 Hit Points with your natural attack on your turn you can use your bonus action to move up to half your speed and make another natural attack

Level 13: Alternating Forms
You can now rapidly shift between a Wild Shape form and your normal form. If you’re in a Wild Shape form, you can switch to your normal form as a Bonus Action, and you can then switch back into that Wild Shape form within the next minute

Level 15: Wild Resurgence
When you use your Wild Shape, you can also use Healing Blossoms as part of the same use of Channel Nature.

Level 17: Beast Spells
You can cast spells in any Wild Shape form, ignoring free material components.

MOON DRUID
Level 3: Combat Wildshape
- You can Wildshape as a bonus action
- You add your Proficiency Bonus to AC when transformed
- You gain double the Temporary Hit Points (ie twice your Druid level)
- While wildshaped, when you take damage you can use your reaction to expend one spell slot and reduce that damage to you by an amount equal to four times the level of the spell slot

Level 6: Extra Attack + Magical Maw (or Claw)
It’s Extra Attack
Also, while Wildshaped your natural attacks are considered magical for overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical weapon damage.

Level 10: Monstrous Form
When you Wildshape you can choose an additional Wildshape Ability, which can be one of these additional options:
- Tremorsense 60’
- Teleport (as per Blink Dog)
- Rust Metal (as per rust monster)
- Acid Spray (30’ line, Acid damage equal to 2x Druid level, Dex save vs Spell DC for half)
- Displacement (as per Displacer Beast)

Level 14: Thousand Forms
You can cast Alter Self at-will

Schwann145

2023-03-05, 06:30 AM

Wild Shape isn't an illusion last time I checked.

Nu-Wild Shape is no different, in theme, than an illusion. Because what you look like doesn't matter at all. If there is zero function in your appearance, then your appearance is meaningless and illusory.

Segev

2023-03-05, 08:36 AM

I still don't like the wildshape changes, but I'm still on the side of it not being as bad as people are making out.

Ok, at lvl1-2, it's kinda poo. And thematically it's worse on the wildshape side of things, but Channel Nature will make you feel very druid'y. That AoE heal is amazing. And 24hr long familiars is good too.

But at lvl3 Moon, you can "kinda" make some of the animals you want. Is your shove prone a wolf trip? The shove away a boar charge? The grapple a spider's web? The unarmed attack a bear's swipe? It takes a fair bit of effort on your part, but there is some variation available, if that's how you want to play. Although all forms can now have hands and can talk, which sort of ruins the illusion of being an animal. A monkey's paw, if you will.

But you do have things like Longstrider and Hunter's Mark and Jump and Barkskin and PwT and a bit of abjuration magic to speed/ damage/ move/ tank/ stealth with, to typify your form and playstyle. You do have to throw 1-2 spell slots at it, and limit your unarmed attack options to really feel like "a thingy that I'm trying to play as", which isn't optimal as a player or as a basic character chassis. But it can be done.

At lvl5, it gets a bit nicer, mostly because you have more attacks and spell slots and a climb speed, so you could self-invent some more options. While trying to convince your DM that "features" aren't "all the stuff you can normally do", but are "really special stuff like spellcasting, as noted, except for abjuration spells". So, yeah, sure, you keep your skills and proficiencies and stuff.

I'm not saying it's great. But if you actually played as one, you'd find it's ok'ish. The form types just need some extra chooseable abilities or bonus actions, and about 1-3tHP a level as a Moon (1 seems too little, 3 seems too strong).

I doubt anyone would ever multiclass into druid for wildshape, but as a druid into Moon, it's not great, but it's not terrible. Or rather, it's 1DnD terrible, which seems to be the norm in this playtest material.

At that rate, why bother with a 'Wild Shape' feature? Why not just give the Moon Druid those abilities all the time? They are honestly not so powerful that they need to be restricted to a few times a day and when unable to cast non-abjuration spells. And the druid can just pretend he has shape shifted and restrict himself to the subset of uses of his always-available abilities that almost maybe sort-of imitates the beast he is pretending to shapeshift into.

It is just wholly unsatisfying.

I would not support Kane0's Primal Beast form, either. Not unless one would, in general, say all Beasts use that stat block. I am sure people would object to this. I would, too, but it is the only way the generic stat blob on shapeshifting powers like these becomes remotely acceptable.

If you want a 'build-a-bear' form, make something like the Warshaper from 3.5 that actually is picking things to customize his form with to gain specific features. Don't claim it is turning into something else; it's just adding bits and bobs to its form for particular effects.

Pex

2023-03-05, 11:42 AM

Gignere

2023-03-05, 11:58 AM

Segev

2023-03-05, 12:10 PM

I think the moon Druid should have higher AC and likely expected to use new Barkskin to make up the hps deficit. Whether it’s 13 + wis or 10 + PB + Wis is probably fine.

I understand the sentiment, and that is probably part of he intention (barkskin in 5e is likely similarly meant to buff the lousy AC of most wild shape forms), but we still have to ask: why not just use Barkskin in native form, where you can still cast spells and do cantrip or shilleglegh damage?

Gignere

2023-03-05, 12:17 PM

I understand the sentiment, and that is probably part of he intention (barkskin in 5e is likely similarly meant to buff the lousy AC of most wild shape forms), but we still have to ask: why not just use Barkskin in native form, where you can still cast spells and do cantrip or shilleglegh damage?

For your non moon Druids that is probably the better option. However, if the moon Druid gets the buffed AC it will have better AC at higher levels. At level 5 combat wildshape will have multi attack and a bonus action attack.

Segev

2023-03-05, 12:22 PM

For your non moon Druids that is probably the better option. However, if the moon Druid gets the buffed AC it will have better AC at higher levels. At level 5 combat wildshape will have multi attack and a bonus action attack.

Why play any druid other than moon if only moon druids have any reason to use wild shape but wild shape eats all of the druid feature slots? Are the subclass features going to be so good that they make up for a class that has nothing (except, admittedly, full castings)? Ar all full casting classes going to have one useless ability that eats everything but their spellcasting in their design, that is clearly intended never to actually be used except by one subclass?

Gignere

2023-03-05, 12:26 PM

Why play any druid other than moon if only moon druids have any reason to use wild shape but wild shape eats all of the druid feature slots? Are the subclass features going to be so good that they make up for a class that has nothing (except, admittedly, full castings)? Ar all full casting classes going to have one useless ability that eats everything but their spellcasting in their design, that is clearly intended never to actually be used except by one subclass?

That seems to be the direction based on what they did with sheperd, wildfire, and stars. I’d expect similar changes with land Druid. They will likely have other uses with channel nature.

Segev

2023-03-05, 01:01 PM

That seems to be the direction based on what they did with sheperd, wildfire, and stars. I’d expect similar changes with land Druid. They will likely have other uses with channel nature.

Seems like bad design, to me. "Most of your base class chassis is eaten up by a worse-than-useless ability, so your real class is your subclass."

Atranen

2023-03-05, 01:09 PM

Making design decisions based on data, what an utterly insane concept... :smallconfused:

I never said the above. I said "assuming wizards is right because they have data is wrong".

Movement - especially jumping.
Critical hits.
Spell Preparation.
Major enough?

Spell preparation might be. Why do you think wizards, with all of their data, is making a bad decision for the game with respect to spell preparation?

I've explained this already; indexing, searching, presentation. Also learning the game, knowing the DM is being fair, memory, avoiding mistakes with monster selection...

And none of these add up. It's just as easy to search for a table as a statblock. The presentation is easier to reference at the table. It is not any more difficult to learn.

Wild Shape isn't an illusion last time I checked.

Nu-Wild Shape is no different, in theme, than an illusion. Because what you look like doesn't matter at all. If there is zero function in your appearance, then your appearance is meaningless and illusory.

In OneD&D it is. You can look like a frog or a housecat or an owlbear or a phoenix or a raccoon. It doesn't matter. It doesn't affect anything. It's illusory.

So you are in favor of one statblock + selectable abilities? Oh right, someone other than WotC or me is suggesting it this time, which makes all the diference.

I'm not attempting to make my version replicate animals, statblock or otherwise.

The difference here is precisely that the proposed mechanic does not attempt to say "you really are a wolf/owlbear/cat/whatever" despite giving you none of the abilities that make that creature unique. It is a generic "primal form", more reminiscent of calling on the primal forces of nature than of shape shifting.

Flavor matters--and if you want a generic transformation, this is the right way to flavor it. Not "you get to pretend you're a wolf but get none of the wolf abilities".

I still would prefer the 5e wild shape, but if they insist on having a single form I'd be happy with Kane0s version.

But it could - or at the very least you could make it look like one, or at least an owlbear like they intend. Good enough.

No, the whole point of Kane0s mechanic (and the whole appeal to me) to get away from this.

Kane0

2023-03-05, 02:11 PM

-Snip-

Yeah, seems fine to me. Still some awkward lurches in numbers but a definite improvement

HolyAvenger7

2023-03-05, 04:48 PM

Re: divine smite. It should be the core paladin channel divinity, not divine sense. Channel is the core feature of od&d priest classes. It is used to fuel the signature feature of each priest class. The signature feature of clerics is turn undead, and that is their base class channel ability in the play test. The signature feature of druids is wild shape, and that is their base class channel ability in the playtest.

The signature ability of paladins is not divine sense, and it certainly isn't abjure enemies. The signature paladin feature is Divine Smite. That should be their channel ability, and it should be available from level one like the other channels. It should deal a set amount of extra radient damage that scales with class level, and there should be additional paladin class features (perhaps chosen from a list like warlock invocations, with some gated by level or subclass) to burn a spell slot when you use divine smite in order to deal additional damage or impose additional effects.

This should be instead of the smite spell line, which shouldn't exist because it dilutes the paladins flavor by giving its core feature to other classes, particularly clerics who then get to make better use of smites than the paladin due to quicker access to more and higher level spell slots.

I agree and even the smites have a cleric feel. The I would propose bringing back the ability to affect fiends and undead and changing it from cleric healing to a feature more along paladin lines. Something like this perhaps.

Suggested revision to Smite of Protection: Your Divine Smite now even more focused against evil. Your divine smite now increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend. Whenever you use your Divine Smite, choose yourself or an ally within 30 feet of yourself. The chosen creature is now under the effects of the Protection from evil and good for 1 minute.

Adding undead and fiends back is is a situational buff, but Protection from evil and good is useful in less situations so essentially a nerf. It's a balanced change that gives Paladin back some original flavor and is less cleric like.

Psyren

2023-03-05, 04:50 PM

Nu-Wild Shape is no different, in theme, than an illusion. Because what you look like doesn't matter at all. If there is zero function in your appearance, then your appearance is meaningless and illusory.

So you can tell the druid's true form with an Investigation check, or simply by touching them? No? Then it is different and this is emotional pablum.

I never said the above. I said "assuming wizards is right because they have data is wrong".

And assuming wizards is wrong when they have data, what do you call that? To reverse your earlier question, do they have any major design objectives you agree with?

Spell preparation might be. Why do you think wizards, with all of their data, is making a bad decision for the game with respect to spell preparation?

Ah, so the others aren't "major" enough for you. What makes you the authority on that, and why should I care?

And none of these add up. It's just as easy to search for a table as a statblock. The presentation is easier to reference at the table. It is not any more difficult to learn.

If tables are really what you want, 3e hasn't gone anywhere.

In OneD&D it is. You can look like a frog or a housecat or an owlbear or a phoenix or a raccoon. It doesn't matter. It doesn't affect anything. It's illusory.

There are already some mechanical differences between these, and I'm in favor of them adding more.

The difference here is precisely that the proposed mechanic does not attempt to say "you really are a wolf/owlbear/cat/whatever" despite giving you none of the abilities that make that creature unique. It is a generic "primal form", more reminiscent of calling on the primal forces of nature than of shape shifting.

But it still is shapeshifting. It's not an illusion. It's a distinction without a difference.

GooeyChewie

2023-03-05, 05:23 PM

And assuming wizards is wrong when they have data, what do you call that?

I call it a false dilemma. Not assuming that WotC is right is not the same thing as assuming WotC is wrong.

I fully believe WotC has data to show that Druids are one of the (if not the) least played classes in the game. That belief does not necessarily mean I agree with the conclusions they’ve drawn or the changes they’ve proposed based on that data.

Kane0

2023-03-05, 05:28 PM

Does anyone find it strange that the healing blossoms don't scale, like at all? Feels like it's just for pop-ups and top-ups and that's about it.

Pex

2023-03-05, 05:32 PM

I agree and even the smites have a cleric feel. The I would propose bringing back the ability to affect fiends and undead and changing it from cleric healing to a feature more along paladin lines. Something like this perhaps.

Suggested revision to Smite of Protection: Your Divine Smite now even more focused against evil. Your divine smite now increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend. Whenever you use your Divine Smite, choose yourself or an ally within 30 feet of yourself. The chosen creature is now under the effects of the Protection from evil and good for 1 minute.

Adding undead and fiends back is is a situational buff, but Protection from evil and good is useful in less situations so essentially a nerf. It's a balanced change that gives Paladin back some original flavor and is less cleric like.

You'd want to add language to reflect as if you had cast the spell and are concentrating. There could be objection to being Orpah giving out cars. You get Protection From Evil, and you get Protection From Evil, everyone gets Protection From Evil as the paladin smites each round. The spell is concentration, but as written it's not clear that would count.

Perhaps your Aura provides Protection From Evil and it counts as concentration?

Kane0

2023-03-05, 05:48 PM

I'd just say give the bonus +1d8 vs fiends and undead, and when you smite pick someone to get the benefits of Protection vs Evil until the end of your next turn, or maybe you can choose to cast it as part of Smiting (gets you around the once per turn limitation but not the slot or concentration).

Sorinth

2023-03-05, 05:56 PM

Kane0

2023-03-05, 06:01 PM

One other thing that I'm not thrilled at is how Moon druid is even more 4 elements focused then before. I never really liked the theme of transforming into elementals in the original and now they seem to be doubling down on it. Like it totally makes sense to have an 4E themed druid it just shouldn't be the one whose focus is on transforming into beasts.

Yeah I think Moon druid should have been more about lycanthropes than anything else, and have another subclass for the elementalist direction (Wildfire could be a starting point there).

Psyren

2023-03-05, 07:33 PM

I call it a false dilemma. Not assuming that WotC is right is not the same thing as assuming WotC is wrong.

I fully believe WotC has data to show that Druids are one of the (if not the) least played classes in the game. That belief does not necessarily mean I agree with the conclusions they’ve drawn or the changes they’ve proposed based on that data.

It doesn't mean their conclusion is wrong either.

Does anyone find it strange that the healing blossoms don't scale, like at all? Feels like it's just for pop-ups and top-ups and that's about it.

My theory is that Dreams is going to be one of the new Druid subclasses added to core (since they're going from 2->4) and that will be one that powers up Blossoms, so they're being cautious with the base ability. This will fill the niche of "nature healer" that we're losing with Nature Cleric.

With that said, I agree with you - 5d4 per usage of the ability is pretty lame. They could scale that much better and still have room to power healing up further with the Dreams druid.

Kane0

2023-03-05, 08:16 PM

I would like to see the primal healers differentiated from the divine healers, something like burst vs sustained healing or maybe mass vs single target but that isnt my preferred route.

GooeyChewie

2023-03-05, 08:31 PM

It doesn't mean their conclusion is wrong either.

Yes, that's the gist of what I was saying. Not assuming that WotC is automatically right just because they have data is not the same thing as assuming WotC's conclusions are automatically wrong. Thus presenting "assuming wizards is wrong when they have data" as the alternative to "assuming wizards is right because they have data is wrong" is a false dilemma. Reasonable people can agree or disagree with WotC's conclusions for reasons other than the fact that the conclusions came from WotC. In fact, assuming their conclusions are automatically right or wrong just because of who they are is a different fallacy unto itself; "appeal to authority" if you think they're right or "ad hominem" if you think they're wrong.

Even WotC doesn't agree that they are necessarily right just because they have data. The whole point of conducting a playtest is to gather more data to see if their conclusions were actually right or wrong. Pre-emptively deciding that WotC's initial conclusions must be right (or must be wrong) just because they have some data (or just because they are WotC) works against their efforts to validate that data.

Atranen

2023-03-05, 08:46 PM

So you can tell the druid's true form with an Investigation check, or simply by touching them? No? Then it is different and this is emotional pablum.

Can you tell based on any mechanic that a toad form is different from an owlbear one? No? Then it isn't meaningfully different.

And assuming wizards is wrong when they have data, what do you call that? To reverse your earlier question, do they have any major design objectives you agree with?

But that's not at all what I'm doing. I'm saying evaluate the decisions on their own terms. Make arguments for or against them. At no point say "well it's in the wizards playtest so we should assume they are right".

For OneD&D, nothing major. The TWF is a good rule, and there are some other good rules. But the design objectives are definitively in the wrong direction for me.

If tables are really what you want, 3e hasn't gone anywhere.

Not if I want to do organized play, which I do, extensively. (At some point I should make a definitive post about why "don't like it? Then leave" is an awful response to OneD&D criticism.)

There are already some mechanical differences between these, and I'm in favor of them adding more.

What mechanical differences are there?

I call it a false dilemma. Not assuming that WotC is right is not the same thing as assuming WotC is wrong.

I fully believe WotC has data to show that Druids are one of the (if not the) least played classes in the game. That belief does not necessarily mean I agree with the conclusions they’ve drawn or the changes they’ve proposed based on that data.

Correct assessment of the situation.

Psyren

2023-03-05, 08:58 PM

Can you tell based on any mechanic that a toad form is different from an owlbear one? No? Then it isn't meaningfully different.

Both are meaningfully different from the base druid, ergo not illusions.

But that's not at all what I'm doing. I'm saying evaluate the decisions on their own terms. Make arguments for or against them. At no point say "well it's in the wizards playtest so we should assume they are right".

Obviously I agree with this, so what's your point?

For OneD&D, nothing major. The TWF is a good rule, and there are some other good rules. But the design objectives are definitively in the wrong direction for me.

Thought so.

Not if I want to do organized play, which I do, extensively. (At some point I should make a definitive post about why "don't like it? Then leave" is an awful response to OneD&D criticism.)

It's the only response if you what you really want is a return to 3e tables :smallconfused: What possible indication do you have that they'd be interested in that? Even Paizo is moving away from that.

What mechanical differences are there?

Phoenix form would be Beast of the Sky + Elemental Wild Shape (Fire). Housecat would be Tiny Beast of the Land and last 10 minutes. Owlbear would be Beast of the Land. Again, I'm in favor of more differences than these, but there are some already.

Yes, that's the gist of what I was saying. Not assuming that WotC is automatically right just because they have data is not the same thing as assuming WotC's conclusions are automatically wrong. Thus presenting "assuming wizards is wrong when they have data" as the alternative to "assuming wizards is right because they have data is wrong" is a false dilemma. Reasonable people can agree or disagree with WotC's conclusions for reasons other than the fact that the conclusions came from WotC. In fact, assuming their conclusions are automatically right or wrong just because of who they are is a different fallacy unto itself; "appeal to authority" if you think they're right or "ad hominem" if you think they're wrong.

Even WotC doesn't agree that they are necessarily right just because they have data. The whole point of conducting a playtest is to gather more data to see if their conclusions were actually right or wrong. Pre-emptively deciding that WotC's initial conclusions must be right (or must be wrong) just because they have some data (or just because they are WotC) works against their efforts to validate that data.

I'm not saying I think they're right, or that their first pass at a solution is right, just because they have data. But if quantity of data matters - which I can only assume it does to someone who considers polling a handful of random forumites a meaningful exercise - then pointing out where the most data resides is valid. And I'm going to keep doing that. You can come to whatever conclusions you want.

Atranen

2023-03-05, 09:22 PM

Both are meaningfully different from the base druid, ergo not illusions.

But not from each other.

Obviously I agree with this, so what's your point?

You didn't earlier, in the quotes I posted above.

It's the only response if you what you really want is a return to 3e tables :smallconfused: What possible indication do you have that they'd be interested in that? Even Paizo is moving away from that.

I don't have any interest wizards is moving there. I think they ought to be moving there.

You can just say "we disagree on the efficacy of tables" and leave it there.

Phoenix form would be Beast of the Sky + Elemental Wild Shape (Fire). Housecat would be Tiny Beast of the Land and last 10 minutes. Owlbear would be Beast of the Land. Again, I'm in favor of more differences than these, but there are some already.

Oh. I see why you're confused. See, my beast of the sky is a housecat-angel hybrid that has spectral wings which only appear when called upon. Which I never do. For all other purposes, it appears precisely like a normal housecat.

My beast of the land is a flightless phoenix.

My beast of the land and the sky are both owlbears.

Kane0

2023-03-05, 09:30 PM

My beast of the land is a flightless phoenix.

I'm sorry, in my mind's eye all i'm seeing is an angry emu that's been lit on fire

Sorinth

2023-03-05, 09:41 PM

Instead of starting with nothing and build up, perhaps we can start from over the top and take way the excess. Let's call 5E Moon Druid as it is right now over the top. For everyone who thinks it's perfect no need to go further. Copy paste into D&Done and declare finished. However, for sake of discussion, let's take it for granted 5E Moon Druid is too much. Given the opportunity to remake the subclass, take it as a given 5E Moon Druid is too powerful and needs to be toned down a bit. What can be taken away yet still make it fun to play while keeping the essence?

The hit points thing seems to be a major issue. Moon druid gets to out tank the barbarian some say. Alright, can everyone agree the hit points thing needs to be fixed? Getting rid of any hit points thing, the druid uses his own hit points, is striking a nerve. People still want a hit points thing. Temporary hit points feels like a good solution. The question is how much? Whatever the value it should increase as the levels progress. Ok, a solution. Druid gets X temporary hit points when wild shaped, increasing either by fixed amounts at later levels or a formula scale based on level. The exact numbers are to be determined, but that's not important to fill out right now. The idea for a settled solution is.

Is this ok? Is gaining temporary hit points fine for everyone? If no, why? What other idea do you have given no extra hit points what so ever at all of any kind is not a solution because other people do want it and we're trying to comprise a solution? For example, it might be ok for Moon Druid to get the temporary hit points but the regular Druid who Wild Shapes doesn't, for those who are really bothered Wild Shape has a hit points thing at all.

If this is ok, what next?

I agree temp HP seems like the right approach, and as a rough baseline we have/had Spore Druid that was giving 4 THP per Druid level. The 10min duration did somewhat limit it, but they could also cast spells which probably balanced each other out. Though there is the question should the form drop when the THP run out? Because I would assume whatever is done for Wildshape will also be done for the Polymorph spell with just the amount of THP being different.

As for what's next I would say the unique abilities/attacks that certain forms had. Being able to prone/grapple/restrain/charge/pounce/swallow as part of your attacks meant there was an assortment of tactics and deciding on the optimal form based on the context of the fight/party was/is certainly part of the fun of combat wildshaping.

Brookshw

2023-03-05, 09:49 PM

I'm sorry, in my mind's eye all i'm seeing is an angry emu that's been lit on fire

Not sure what the right response is here, either (1) I'd be angry too if I'd been lit on fire, or (2) is there such a thing as a non-angry emu?

Kane0

2023-03-05, 09:59 PM

Not sure what the right response is here, either (1) I'd be angry too if I'd been lit on fire, or (2) is there such a thing as a non-angry emu?

Oh yeah they absolutely can be chill, but they're still basically dinosaurs. Cassowaries are worse though.

Brookshw

2023-03-05, 10:12 PM

Cassowaries are worse though.

Dire turkeys :smallbiggrin:

GooeyChewie

2023-03-05, 10:45 PM

Dire turkeys :smallbiggrin:

As God as my witness... I thought turkeys could fly.

Psyren

2023-03-06, 01:50 AM

You can just say "we disagree on the efficacy of tables" and leave it there.

We disagree on the efficacy of tables.

Oh. I see why you're confused. See, my beast of the sky is a housecat-angel hybrid that has spectral wings which only appear when called upon. Which I never do. For all other purposes, it appears precisely like a normal housecat.

My beast of the land is a flightless phoenix.

My beast of the land and the sky are both owlbears.

Good start (except the first one - you choose the form's appearance when you activate the ability, you can't add and remove bits from it at will); now let's see what abilities they add. Even the folks who agree with this general direction seem to be in favor of them adding an ability pool of some kind.

I agree temp HP seems like the right approach, and as a rough baseline we have/had Spore Druid that was giving 4 THP per Druid level. The 10min duration did somewhat limit it, but they could also cast spells which probably balanced each other out. Though there is the question should the form drop when the THP run out? Because I would assume whatever is done for Wildshape will also be done for the Polymorph spell with just the amount of THP being different.

As for what's next I would say the unique abilities/attacks that certain forms had. Being able to prone/grapple/restrain/charge/pounce/swallow as part of your attacks meant there was an assortment of tactics and deciding on the optimal form based on the context of the fight/party was/is certainly part of the fun of combat wildshaping.

I'd say Temp HP from Wild Shape won't be necessary so long as they buff both Wild Shape AC and saving throw proficiencies, as well as letting racials work with WS. If they do that then the druid will have enough native defenses for their full casting progression to carry them the rest of the way.

In addition, I think Moon Druids should be able to cast both Abjuration and Trasmutation spells while wildshaped - not only does transmutation feel very fitting for them, it allows the druid who is most likely to benefit from Barkskin to be the best one at using it. Couple of options/thoughts here:

- Wild Shape works as currently proposed (Abjuration only).
- All druids get to cast Abjuration spells while wildshaped; Moon gets Transmutation as well.
- Only Moon can cast while wildshaped at all. They're limited to Abjuration spells, and Transsmutation spells that target themselves.

tokek

2023-03-06, 04:50 AM

Good to have more data on this. I think this is a good reason to swap to a fixed list (with possible additional options).

The UA has a list of 3 options - it’s an interesting discussion how long a list people think is optimal.

I love druids but honestly the bookkeeping of recording beasts seen is a bit of a pain if the DM demands it. The list is potentially dozens even at low level.

As a DM / Mod on a westmarches one of my recurring challenges was a player who adored the idea of druid but who just couldn’t master the complexity and became frightened of playing their own character. A simplified druid class something like this UA would really suit them.

Druid class in 5e has a high skill floor and a very high skill ceiling. It’s hard for some players to play at all yet in the hands of a player who masters it’s rules it’s hugely powerful.

Aimeryan

2023-03-06, 05:28 AM

Instead of starting with nothing and build up, perhaps we can start from over the top and take way the excess. Let's call 5E Moon Druid as it is right now over the top. For everyone who thinks it's perfect no need to go further. Copy paste into D&Done and declare finished. However, for sake of discussion, let's take it for granted 5E Moon Druid is too much. Given the opportunity to remake the subclass, take it as a given 5E Moon Druid is too powerful and needs to be toned down a bit. What can be taken away yet still make it fun to play while keeping the essence?

The hit points thing seems to be a major issue. Moon druid gets to out tank the barbarian some say. Alright, can everyone agree the hit points thing needs to be fixed? Getting rid of any hit points thing, the druid uses his own hit points, is striking a nerve. People still want a hit points thing. Temporary hit points feels like a good solution. The question is how much? Whatever the value it should increase as the levels progress. Ok, a solution. Druid gets X temporary hit points when wild shaped, increasing either by fixed amounts at later levels or a formula scale based on level. The exact numbers are to be determined, but that's not important to fill out right now. The idea for a settled solution is.

Is this ok? Is gaining temporary hit points fine for everyone? If no, why? What other idea do you have given no extra hit points what so ever at all of any kind is not a solution because other people do want it and we're trying to comprise a solution? For example, it might be ok for Moon Druid to get the temporary hit points but the regular Druid who Wild Shapes doesn't, for those who are really bothered Wild Shape has a hit points thing at all.

If this is ok, what next?

I do not feel this is quite the right framing. The problem is not that Moon Druid is too good, except perhaps at level 1 and 2 due to the awkward scaling WotC has used. The problem is largely the scaling is borked, and for those who don't like book diving there is that too.

In fact, you can't make Moon Druid Wildshape too weak; going into melee is a strong commitment and it is not like casters do not have other options. For example, with the D&Done power level I would never use it, instead I would stay back and spam low level spells or cantrips, or maybe just Hide/Dodge. There is no reason for me to lose Concentration and put myself at risk of sudden death just to do a piddly bit of melee damage.

If the concern is that Moon Druid Wildshape + casting potential is too strong, it almost certainly has to be the other factor that is weakened. The 5e implementation has Wild Shape largely weak in damage once you hit level 4 (arguably, XBE Fighter VHuman/CLinage holds up before even that). What it does have is that HP, which gives the Druid a way to help the party while Concentrating on a spell - although the low AC requires heavy Concentration protection investment in Resilient [Con] and Warcaster (but Moon Druids don't have much competition for ASI/Feats, anyhow). If you take away the HP there would just be no reason to do this - which is why D&Done fails here.

I've gone on record that I would prefer the casting side could be forgone to boost the Wildshape side, by consuming Spell Slots to boost the Wildshape instead of just being a meatshield after Tier 1. However, if that isn't the way WotC wants to go then the HP needs to return, else lose any reason for the Druid to commit to melee.

tokek

2023-03-06, 07:00 AM

I do not feel this is quite the right framing. The problem is not that Moon Druid is too good, except perhaps at level 1 and 2 due to the awkward scaling WotC has used. The problem is largely the scaling is borked, and for those who don't like book diving there is that too.

In fact, you can't make Moon Druid Wildshape too weak; going into melee is a strong commitment and it is not like casters do not have other options. For example, with the D&Done power level I would never use it, instead I would stay back and spam low level spells or cantrips, or maybe just Hide/Dodge. There is no reason for me to lose Concentration and put myself at risk of sudden death just to do a piddly bit of melee damage.

If the concern is that Moon Druid Wildshape + casting potential is too strong, it almost certainly has to be the other factor that is weakened. The 5e implementation has Wild Shape largely weak in damage once you hit level 4 (arguably, XBE Fighter VHuman/CLinage holds up before even that). What it does have is that HP, which gives the Druid a way to help the party while Concentrating on a spell - although the low AC requires heavy Concentration protection investment in Resilient [Con] and Warcaster (but Moon Druids don't have much competition for ASI/Feats, anyhow). If you take away the HP there would just be no reason to do this - which is why D&Done fails here.

I've gone on record that I would prefer the casting side could be forgone to boost the Wildshape side, by consuming Spell Slots to boost the Wildshape instead of just being a meatshield after Tier 1. However, if that isn't the way WotC wants to go then the HP needs to return, else lose any reason for the Druid to commit to melee.

Funny thing is I thought UA Moon Druid was going to work out different to how it does in play. I had a look at a fairly in-depth discussion elsewhere and when you build to use the wildshaped casting it can be pretty tanky. i tried a few things out myself.

Pure moon druid with just druid spells can still use Barskin at lower levels and Stoneskin at higher levels - and use Resistance cantrip to help hold onto concentration. Its tankier than it looks. Even with the current wording it seems very clear that Abjuration spells from any source are fine - so grab Magic Initiate for some Divine spells and try Shield of Faith as an alternative, or go for the classic gold-standard spell which is Shield from the Arcane list.

The damage output is only really comparable with a martial not using feats to boost their damage so its a bit underwhelming. But there is a fine line to tread between making it usable and making it outright better than any martial (which the 5e moon druid is at some levels). But the lack of feats has other complexities and problems so my main feedback on this is to allow the druid to retain feats while wildshaped - albeit that some of them will be limited by the form or by the restriction on casting spells. Tough not carrying over is a real rough area but we can look at other feats like Savage Attacker and there really is no sense in them not working in wildshape form. I think this fixes most of the issues with the UA and if they add in a few more flavourful feats over time it would fix all of them IMO. Martials can catch up with the 5e Moon Druid by picking one of a very few specific feats, while the 5e druid does not need that feat investment. I really don't mind if the new druid needs more feat investment to be a substitute melee martial than a real martial needs - but they need to open up the ability to do that.

Aimeryan

2023-03-06, 07:48 AM

Pure moon druid with just druid spells can still use Barskin at lower levels and Stoneskin at higher levels - and use Resistance cantrip to help hold onto concentration. Its tankier than it looks. Even with the current wording it seems very clear that Abjuration spells from any source are fine - so grab Magic Initiate for some Divine spells and try Shield of Faith as an alternative, or go for the classic gold-standard spell which is Shield from the Arcane list.

The problem here is that Barkskin is a Concentration spell - so you can't Concentrate on this and still be useful to the party by Concentrating on something else. Furthermore, it is not self-only - so why cast it on yourself and not the melee, instead? If you cast it on the melee you could then stand back being safe and still use your casting (non-Concentration). Preferably, however, you would just actually cast a big Concentration spell that has a big impact on the encounter.

I'm also not convinced that this is tanky other than over time. Yes, single digit temp HP every round over an hour can add up, but are you taking single digit damage only? Putting a low AC, low HP, caster Concentrating purposely in melee sounds daft. Using that spell on a tanky melee - preferably a Barbarian - on the other hand might be worth it if you are out of big impactful spells anyway (its a low level Spell Slot, after all).

Either way, where is the Wildshape coming into this?