A middle ground for "monster diving" effects: the fixed list

[PhoenixPhyre]

Apropos of the whole druid/conjure/polymorph "monster book diving" issue, it seems (and has been proposed several times) to just do what Find Familiar and Find (Greater) Steed do and have a fixed list of monsters that can be summoned/transformed into with a "DMs may extend this list" clause (as a reminder, not a restriction).

If I were doing this for wild shape (using the CR limits currently found), I'd say that a minimal list would look like



Min Druid Level
CR
Beasts


2
0
Any subject to movement restrictions


2
1/4
Boar, Constrictor Snake, Draft Horse, Giant Bat**, Giant Lizard (swimming variant*), Giant Poisonous Snake, Giant Owl, Giant Wolf Spider, Panther, Wolf


4 (2 for moon)
1/2
Ape, Black Bear, Crocodile (moon*), Reef Shark (moon *), Warhorse


8 (2 for moon)
1
Brown Bear, Dire Wolf, Giant Eagle (moon **), Giant Octopus (moon *), Giant Spider, Giant Toad (moon *), Lion, Tiger


-- (6 for moon)
2
Cave/Polar Bear, Giant Boar, Giant Constrictor Snake, Giant Elk, Hunter Shark, Rhinoceros, Saber-Toothed Tiger


-- (9 for moon)
3
Giant Scorpion, Killer Whale


-- (12 for moon)
4
Elephant


-- (15 for moon)
5
Giant Crocodile, Giant Shark


-- (12 for moon)
6
Mammoth


* Requires level 4 for swimming speed
** Requires level 8 for flying speed

Note that these are all Basic Rules creatures (and in fact almost all of the basic rules creatures, leaving out near-duplicates and dinosaurs). Individual adventures, settings, and splats can add things to this table (subject to DM approval of course).

You'd need to extend that list slightly and reformat it for polymorph or conjure animals, but only slightly.

A prime virtue here is that it's way more streamlined for players--they know exactly what qualifies, up front. No need to search through (poorly-laid-out) indexes to find what qualifies as a beast at particular CRs and then look up individual entries for swimming/flying speeds.

[stoutstien]

Not bad, though I wonder if keeping the swim/flight speed lv gates are worth it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not bad, though I wonder if keeping the swim/flight speed lv gates are worth it.

I was going for a "minimal change" here, so I didn't bother adjusting it.

Personally, I'd say that nixing the swim speed gate is fine; the fly speed I'd probably drop to level 5 (when a wizard could cast fly).

[stoutstien]

I was going for a "minimal change" here, so I didn't bother adjusting it.

Personally, I'd say that nixing the swim speed gate is fine; the fly speed I'd probably drop to level 5 (when a wizard could cast fly).

Aye agreed. Figured dropping unnecessary rules is always a plus.

I'd probably put a lower limit on size as well just because.

[JackPhoenix]

I was going for a "minimal change" here, so I didn't bother adjusting it.

Personally, I'd say that nixing the swim speed gate is fine; the fly speed I'd probably drop to level 5 (when a wizard could cast fly).

What's weird is that swim speed is gated, but burrow speed, which is much more abusable, isn't. Now, there aren't many burrowing animals (in MM, just the badgers, in fact, and they aren't particularly fast) but still.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aye agreed. Figured dropping unnecessary rules is always a plus.

I'd probably put a lower limit on size as well just because.

Meh, I've yet to see someone try to abuse the whole "become tiny and hide" thing. Because my players like to actually do interesting things and aren't so concerned about optimal things.

Plus, there's a healthy table culture of "no, people don't just ignore creatures walking through their lairs" (which applies to familiars as well)--you try to go scouting in a beast shape (or send a familiar) and there's a decent chance (not a 100% chance, it depends on the location and the inhabitants) that something's going to try to stab/shoot/bash you. For food if nothing else. Plus, you know, closed doors.

[stoutstien]

Meh, I've yet to see someone try to abuse the whole "become tiny and hide" thing. Because my players like to actually do interesting things and aren't so concerned about optimal things.

Plus, there's a healthy table culture of "no, people don't just ignore creatures walking through their lairs" (which applies to familiars as well)--you try to go scouting in a beast shape (or send a familiar) and there's a decent chance (not a 100% chance, it depends on the location and the inhabitants) that something's going to try to stab/shoot/bash you. For food if nothing else. Plus, you know, closed doors.
Again agree but it's a simple line to toss on that would have clear intent and implications.
Honestly I've gotten to the point with a lot of stuff to just give upper and lower sizes to stuff like wild shapes and then wing it. Keep it between a squirrel and a large horse and have at.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Again agree but it's a simple line to toss on that would have clear intent and implications.
Honestly I've gotten to the point with a lot of stuff to just give upper and lower sizes to stuff like wild shapes and then wing it. Keep it between a squirrel and a large horse and have at.

If I had infinite time and attention, I'd instead split the class. Stapling wild shape onto a full caster makes things janky. And in that regime, I could see a lot more freedom.

But as to sizes, I run "tiny" by default as more towards the "large housecat" size. No turning into a single spider unless that single spider comes from somewhere in Fantasy Australia and is the size of a house cat. Etc.

[stoutstien]

If I had infinite time and attention, I'd instead split the class. Stapling wild shape onto a full caster makes things janky. And in that regime, I could see a lot more freedom.

But as to sizes, I run "tiny" by default as more towards the "large housecat" size. No turning into a single spider unless that single spider comes from somewhere in Fantasy Australia and is the size of a house cat. Etc.

I splinted it off casting myself and am keeping it that way in my WIP. They get some rituals and other stuff besides wild shapes but it's thier <thing> so it's the bulk of the class. Still figuring out the finer points but it's ok so far in the rough. Hard to mess up "I want to be someone who turns into animals" unless you know.. stick with the fastest spell casting progression/ best spell casting preparation option.

[False God]

Yeah I think this is a more reasonable approach than "Any beast under the sun" or "this weird stat-blob".

Plus they could easily expand the list by adding specific animals that are properly tuned to be Wild Shape options.

Add in some line to Wild Shape "You can turn into any of the listed animals, or any animal specifically marked as a valid Wild Shape option." to leave the door open for future content. They could even use this caveat to allow weird options for weird Druid variants. IE: "This creature is available to Circle of the YaddaYadda Druids at level X."

[Psyren]

1) Having a very debatably succinct summary list doesn't save the druid player (or a rules-minded DM for that matter) from having to either memorize or go look up all these different statblocks in play - not just the one you're initially thinking of turning into, but all the others at that tier or even below it, to make sure you're not (a) confusing the stats of your chosen form with the last one and/or (b) overlooking a choice that might be better for the situation at hand.

2) You've also still failed to solve the other key problem that the current implementation has, i.e. animal statblocks get very thin on the ground at higher CRs. If you don't want to be a mammoth (I assume you meant to put 18 next to that one rather than 12?) then you get to jolly well keep buying books until the devs hopefully make some other beast at that CR you can be instead, preferably something that can actually fit inside a dungeon, and while you're at it, you'd better hope that CR 6 beast has stats besides a wall of HP that are worth a damn both offensively and defensively in a ECL 18 fight too.

3) Even putting those two mechanical issues aside, we're still left with the aesthetic issue whereby the Tiger Druid has to hope the campaign stops at level 8 or so if they want to keep that title. And if I'm going to be begging the DM and everyone else I'm playing with to pretend I look like a tiger anyway, I'd rather just be something whose aesthetics are explicitly and magically mutable to my heart's content in universe rather than starting from the Mammoth statblock, especially when I further have to see if my DM to let my new "Trampling Tiger" multiattack like my old one did.

In brief, I don't think "here is an index to go with our badly conceived ability, it might fit on a notecard, you're welcome!" is the silver bullet that suddenly solves the major issues of 2014 wild shape for the next 10 years.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) Having a very debatably succinct summary list doesn't save the druid player (or a rules-minded DM for that matter) from having to either memorize or go look up all these different statblocks in play - not just the one you're initially thinking of turning into, but all the others at that tier or even below it, to make sure you're not (a) confusing the stats of your chosen form with the last one and/or (b) overlooking a choice that might be better for the situation at hand.

2) You've also still failed to solve the other key problem that the current implementation has, i.e. animal statblocks get very thin on the ground at higher CRs. If you don't want to be a mammoth (I assume you meant to put 18 next to that one rather than 12?) then you get to jolly well keep buying books until the devs hopefully make some other beast at that CR you can be instead, preferably something that can actually fit inside a dungeon, and while you're at it, you'd better hope that CR 6 beast has stats besides a wall of HP that are worth a damn both offensively and defensively in a ECL 18 fight too.

3) Even putting those two mechanical issues aside, we're still left with the aesthetic issue whereby the Tiger Druid has to hope the campaign stops at level 8 or so if they want to keep that title. And if I'm going to be begging the DM and everyone else I'm playing with to pretend I look like a tiger anyway, I'd rather just be something whose aesthetics are explicitly and magically mutable to my heart's content in universe rather than starting from the Mammoth statblock, especially when I further have to see if my DM to let my new "Trampling Tiger" multiattack like my old one did.

In brief, I don't think "here is an index to go with our badly conceived ability, it might fit on a notecard, you're welcome!" is the silver bullet that suddenly solves the major issues of 2014 wild shape for the next 10 years.

You can write those down on a note card and have the entire list, period, full stop.

Does it solve all the problems? No. Is it lightyears better than either the existing (old PHB) one or the proposed (OneD&D) one? Absolutely. And it's a heck of a lot more extensible. And fits all the thematics way better.

And as for the scaling? Yeah. You'll never solve that as long as you're tied to a slow progression. Those uniform stat blocks? They're no good past level 5 or so.

As I've said many times, the right answer is to put more effort into it and split the shapechanger away from the full-caster. Then you can actually scale properly, including giving scaling formulas and/or allowing transformations into a whole new set of beasts.

Heck, you could right now solve your 2nd and 3rd problems by simply saying that you can either switch to a new form or give your "favorite" one sidekick levels. That takes care of the scaling right there, it's already balanced, and it's fairly simple.

[Atranen]

1) Having a very debatably succinct summary list doesn't save the druid player (or a rules-minded DM for that matter) from having to either memorize or go look up all these different statblocks in play - not just the one you're initially thinking of turning into, but all the others at that tier or even below it, to make sure you're not (a) confusing the stats of your chosen form with the last one and/or (b) overlooking a choice that might be better for the situation at hand.

Phoenix has addressed 2&3 well. As for 1, this is already simpler than what the wizard has to track, and can be further simplified by having a "suggested form" at each level. Done and done.

[Witty Username]

A generally prefer fixed lists when it comes to these things, so I like the concept.

If you're not getting the forms you plan to use written down prior to play, that's your own fault. Notecard your forms, notecard your summons (especially if they are the frustrating Tasha's summons that have a bunch of hidden numbers in their blocks), notecards are our friends, they make play faster.

Slow scaling is not going to be a problem that can be solved by this, CR plays havoc with it. It would require either ripping out of the class (I am neutral) or using custom stat blocks (I personally dislike, as it puts cracks in my immersion). Sounds like scaling is beyond the scope of this fix, so its not really a criticism that it doesn’t address it.

I think the list is large enough to be cumbersome still (looks like PHB+MM?), and bottom heavy, I would endeavor for less options at the bottom and more at the top. But we are working with what we have, so I am not sure that is a thing this framework could address.

[Psyren]

Does it solve all the problems? No. Is it lightyears better than either the existing (old PHB) one or the proposed (OneD&D) one? Absolutely. And it's a heck of a lot more extensible. And fits all the thematics way better.

That would be the assertion I'm disagreeing with, yes.


And as for the scaling? Yeah. You'll never solve that as long as you're tied to a slow progression. Those uniform stat blocks? They're no good past level 5 or so.

So you're saying that 3 attacks with full PB (or 2 with advantage), max ability score, mutable element, and a scaling damage boost, on a full caster, are no good? ...Compared to what, the statblocks you listed? Seriously?

The biggest issue Moon has isn't damage output - though I wouldn't say no to more personally - it's defenses and lack of features. And that's fixable.


Heck, you could right now solve your 2nd and 3rd problems by simply saying that you can either switch to a new form or give your "favorite" one sidekick levels. That takes care of the scaling right there, it's already balanced, and it's fairly simple.

For Warrior (the only one usable with beasts) to be balanced, the animal you start with has to be CR 1/2 or lower. Which again, throws certain animals out of consideration - no Rhino, no Elephant, no to nearly every dinosaur etc. Moreover, Sidekick's balance is dependent on being able to apply ASIs to the base form, while 5e Wild Shape isn't. It's better than just hoping for decent statblocks as you level, but it's still not a solution.


As I've said many times, the right answer is to put more effort into it and split the shapechanger away from the full-caster. Then you can actually scale properly, including giving scaling formulas and/or allowing transformations into a whole new set of beasts.

Even if I agreed with you - good luck with that.

[False God]

1) Having a very debatably succinct summary list doesn't save the druid player (or a rules-minded DM for that matter) from having to either memorize or go look up all these different statblocks in play - not just the one you're initially thinking of turning into, but all the others at that tier or even below it, to make sure you're not (a) confusing the stats of your chosen form with the last one and/or (b) overlooking a choice that might be better for the situation at hand.

Or they can purchase a supplemental product that has all the animals on handy-dandy cards.

I don't understand the framing of the Druid player being under such a horrendous burden when Wizards, Clerics and Sorcerers have the exact same burden but for spells.

Fundamentally, discouraging players from going to "other books" for their materials is just going to result in reduced product sales.

[Oramac]

Apropos of the whole druid/conjure/polymorph "monster book diving" issue, it seems (and has been proposed several times) to just do what Find Familiar and Find (Greater) Steed do and have a fixed list of monsters that can be summoned/transformed into with a "DMs may extend this list" clause (as a reminder, not a restriction).

If I were doing this for wild shape (using the CR limits currently found), I'd say that a minimal list would look like

snip

So effectively you've created a "spell list" of sorts for Wild Shape. I like it.

I think the swim speed restriction could probably just be ignored. Outside of specifically nautical games it comes up so rarely that it probably doesn't matter. I would still keep the flying restriction, though.

[Mastikator]

If you're a high level moon druid you better start loving mammoths. :smallcool: Any 5 feet wide corridor or 5 feet ceiling dungeon will be the bane of your existence.

[Captain Cap]

So effectively you've created a "spell list" of sorts for Wild Shape.
It would be even more spell-like if you could also upscale shapes instead of just accessing more of them as you level up, for example increasing Attributes/HD/AC/etc. This could help with the scaling and limited variety issues, although it'd increase the amount of bookkeeping.

[False God]

It would be even more spell-like if you could also upscale shapes instead of just accessing more of them as you level up, for example increasing Attributes/HD/AC/etc. This could help with the scaling and limited variety issues, although it'd increase the amount of bookkeeping.

For certain characters, I really would have loved the ability to turn into a single animal and have it "level up" as I did.

[Oramac]

It would be even more spell-like if you could also upscale shapes instead of just accessing more of them as you level up, for example increasing Attributes/HD/AC/etc. This could help with the scaling and limited variety issues, although it'd increase the amount of bookkeeping.


For certain characters, I really would have loved the ability to turn into a single animal and have it "level up" as I did.

I fully agree. Especially for the Beastmaster Ranger. One of the things I loved the most about that long-past UA was that it allowed your beast pet to scale with you. I really wish they would bring that back.


although it'd increase the amount of bookkeeping.

Sadly, this is also true. Which means the OneD&D designers are incredibly unlikely to implement it.

[Mastikator]

I fully agree. Especially for the Beastmaster Ranger. One of the things I loved the most about that long-past UA was that it allowed your beast pet to scale with you. I really wish they would bring that back.

Tasha's beast master beast levels with you.

[Kuu Lightwing]

This does sound like a reasonable fix. Create a baseline for what ability actually gives you access to, leave room for DM to allow additional content, and you can also print the base creatures in PHB too (which IIRC they do anyway).

IMO way better solution than the nuclear option they chose for ODD.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you're a high level moon druid you better start loving mammoths. :smallcool: Any 5 feet wide corridor or 5 feet ceiling dungeon will be the bane of your existence.

As a note, the reason it's all alone there is that it is literally the only officially-published CR 6 beast. There are some CR 7s and 8s, but no other CR 6s. And at that point the (PHB) moon druid will have Elemental Wild Shape anyway.

That actually goes for the rest of the table--only at CR 1/4 and 1/2 did I prune any "regular" monsters. And those were basically redundant with other ones. The only ones I left out wholesale are the dinosaurs, because, well, those don't fit in every campaign nicely. If they do, DMs could absolutely place them back in.

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

Looking at actual beast abilities, there really just aren't that many.

1. Pounce and charge are basically the same ability (one gives a bonus attack after they're prone, the other just gives extra damage all the time).
2. Spiders have web and poison, the latter of which is shared with the poisonous snakes.
3. Constrictor snakes and octopi and toads have a constrict-like (grapple/restrain on hit).
4. Boars have Relentless...which kinda sucks as it's restricted to hits that deal less than 10 damage.
5. toads have swallow
6. wolves have pack tactics, with dire wolves getting a knockdown on hit.

That's about the entire list of unique things (not counting movement). But all of those (except pack tactics) have super low and non-scaling DCs. Like...10-13. So the chances of actually sticking one of those by level 6 (or higher) is negligible.

Bears don't have anything meaningful except a stack of hit points and multiattack.

[Oramac]

Tasha's beast master beast levels with you.

Eh. Kinda. Some of its numbers scale off proficiency, but the beast doesn't scale. I preferred the version in which your beast could actually get an ASI and gain new proficiencies and such.

[stoutstien]

As a note, the reason it's all alone there is that it is literally the only officially-published CR 6 beast. There are some CR 7s and 8s, but no other CR 6s. And at that point the (PHB) moon druid will have Elemental Wild Shape anyway.

That actually goes for the rest of the table--only at CR 1/4 and 1/2 did I prune any "regular" monsters. And those were basically redundant with other ones. The only ones I left out wholesale are the dinosaurs, because, well, those don't fit in every campaign nicely. If they do, DMs could absolutely place them back in.

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

Looking at actual beast abilities, there really just aren't that many.

1. Pounce and charge are basically the same ability (one gives a bonus attack after they're prone, the other just gives extra damage all the time).
2. Spiders have web and poison, the latter of which is shared with the poisonous snakes.
3. Constrictor snakes and octopi and toads have a constrict-like (grapple/restrain on hit).
4. Boars have Relentless...which kinda sucks as it's restricted to hits that deal less than 10 damage.
5. toads have swallow
6. wolves have pack tactics, with dire wolves getting a knockdown on hit.

That's about the entire list of unique things (not counting movement). But all of those (except pack tactics) have super low and non-scaling DCs. Like...10-13. So the chances of actually sticking one of those by level 6 (or higher) is negligible.

Bears don't have anything meaningful except a stack of hit points and multiattack.

Giant hyenas' rampage is a least slightly interesting even if it's one note.

[Mastikator]

As a note, the reason it's all alone there is that it is literally the only officially-published CR 6 beast. There are some CR 7s and 8s, but no other CR 6s. And at that point the (PHB) moon druid will have Elemental Wild Shape anyway.

That actually goes for the rest of the table--only at CR 1/4 and 1/2 did I prune any "regular" monsters. And those were basically redundant with other ones. The only ones I left out wholesale are the dinosaurs, because, well, those don't fit in every campaign nicely. If they do, DMs could absolutely place them back in.

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

Looking at actual beast abilities, there really just aren't that many.

1. Pounce and charge are basically the same ability (one gives a bonus attack after they're prone, the other just gives extra damage all the time).
2. Spiders have web and poison, the latter of which is shared with the poisonous snakes.
3. Constrictor snakes and octopi and toads have a constrict-like (grapple/restrain on hit).
4. Boars have Relentless...which kinda sucks as it's restricted to hits that deal less than 10 damage.
5. toads have swallow
6. wolves have pack tactics, with dire wolves getting a knockdown on hit.

That's about the entire list of unique things (not counting movement). But all of those (except pack tactics) have super low and non-scaling DCs. Like...10-13. So the chances of actually sticking one of those by level 6 (or higher) is negligible.

Bears don't have anything meaningful except a stack of hit points and multiattack.

Moon druid at 3, non-moon at 5: when you wildshape you can choose a beast type:
Charger/Pouncer: such as rhino, boar, lion, panther. When you move 20 feet toward a creature and make a beastial attack you can add +1d6 damage to that attack. The creature must then make make a strength saving throw against your spellcasting DC or be knocked prone.
Webber: such as a spider, you gain spiderclimb feature
Poisoner: such as a spider, viper or certain reptiles, on your round when you hit a creature with a bestial strike you can add +1d8 poison damage, the creature must then make a constitution saving throw or be poisoned until the start of your next round.
Constrictor: such as a boa constrictor, giant toad or hound. When you make a bestial strike to grapple a creature that is no more than 1 size larger than you, you deal 1d6+str damage, you can't attack again while grappling in this way
Pack tactics: such as a wolf, you gain the pack tactics feature which gives you advantage on all attacks while an ally is within 5 feet of you.
Tank: such as a bear, rhino, elephant or hippopotamus, your AC increases to 13+wisdom
Stampede: such as a zebra, when you attack someone and then move out of their range they don't get an opportunity attack

Moon druid at 5, non-moon at 7: you also gain access to advanced creature abilities
Swallow whole, such as a giant toad, large dinosaur. When you hit a bestial strike you can attempt to swallow the creature, it must be 2 size categories smaller than you, if it fails a strength saving throw it becomes restrained inside your body, taking 1d6 acid damage every round. If it deals damage to you you must make a concentration check or vomit them, leaving them prone in an adjacent square.
Moon druid 6, non-moon at 8. When you wild shape you can gain 2 beastial types
Moon druid 11, non-moon at 17. When you wild shape you can spend 2 channel nature charges to gain up to 4 beast type features.
Moon druid 14. You only spend 1 charge to gain 4 beast type features


Pros of this approach:
The beast type levels with you.
You are way more flexible with when you can actually benefit from the effects, (for example huge creatures are not viable in most scenarios)
You don't have to read monster entries.
You're still using your own HP so no more infinite HP cheese
You're not as strong a martial as a fighter at any level, which you shouldn't have been anyway. Getting to be a brown bear at level 2 is absolutely broken, you're out-martialing the martials while still being a full caster. Seriously how is this forum defending that?

Cons of this approach:
It doesn't say "brown bear" and your stats don't perfectly mimic a typical brown bear from the MM (not that a DM is in any way required to keep make all brown bears carbon copies). So it doesn't feel like you're an actual brown bear, not that you ever were since you got to keep your mental stats and skills, but let's ignore that little detail. Therefore it's OK to totally break the balance in a way that make socadins and hexadins embarrased :smallsigh:

[BRC]

As a note, the reason it's all alone there is that it is literally the only officially-published CR 6 beast. There are some CR 7s and 8s, but no other CR 6s. And at that point the (PHB) moon druid will have Elemental Wild Shape anyway.

That actually goes for the rest of the table--only at CR 1/4 and 1/2 did I prune any "regular" monsters. And those were basically redundant with other ones. The only ones I left out wholesale are the dinosaurs, because, well, those don't fit in every campaign nicely. If they do, DMs could absolutely place them back in.

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

Looking at actual beast abilities, there really just aren't that many.

1. Pounce and charge are basically the same ability (one gives a bonus attack after they're prone, the other just gives extra damage all the time).
2. Spiders have web and poison, the latter of which is shared with the poisonous snakes.
3. Constrictor snakes and octopi and toads have a constrict-like (grapple/restrain on hit).
4. Boars have Relentless...which kinda sucks as it's restricted to hits that deal less than 10 damage.
5. toads have swallow
6. wolves have pack tactics, with dire wolves getting a knockdown on hit.

That's about the entire list of unique things (not counting movement). But all of those (except pack tactics) have super low and non-scaling DCs. Like...10-13. So the chances of actually sticking one of those by level 6 (or higher) is negligible.

Bears don't have anything meaningful except a stack of hit points and multiattack.

As far as Sufficiently Thematic abilities, I feel like the ones people actually care about will be

1. Charge/Pounce
2. Web
3. Poison
4. Knockdown on hit
5. Pack Tactics
6. Grapple/Constrict on hit

Relentless and Rampage are both niche situational things, if I turn into a Boar, I think I'm going to care more about the charge than about Relentless. Swallow doesn't work against large enemies, which is going to be a lot of what PC's fight.

[Eldariel]

3e did this with summons. It worked great. I thoroughly support the endeavour.

[Psyren]

As far as Sufficiently Thematic abilities, I feel like the ones people actually care about will be

1. Charge/Pounce
2. Web
3. Poison
4. Knockdown on hit
5. Pack Tactics
6. Grapple/Constrict on hit

Relentless and Rampage are both niche situational things, if I turn into a Boar, I think I'm going to care more about the charge than about Relentless. Swallow doesn't work against large enemies, which is going to be a lot of what PC's fight.

I'd say Keen Smell will be a big draw also; It's a very easy way to make the druid feel special when dealing with an exploration/investigation challenge in a way that few other classes can match, and doesn't risk imbalancing anything at low levels.



I don't understand the framing of the Druid player being under such a horrendous burden when Wizards, Clerics and Sorcerers have the exact same burden but for spells.

Right, and Druids have that same burden (spell selection) too. So why are people okay with them getting twice as much burden as every other class in the game? Why shouldn't the designers be attempting to do anything about that?

On top of which, spellcasters have that burden exactly once per adventuring day (at the end of a long rest, when they're deciding what to prepare.) 5e Druids meanwhile have it literally every time they use their feature, which now can be up to 12 or so times per day for a wide variety of scenarios on the fly - and they have it on top of the first burden as mentioned.


Fundamentally, discouraging players from going to "other books" for their materials is just going to result in reduced product sales.

This might come off as shocking since we're talking about WotC, but short-term book sales are not their only objective. For starters, monster books and adventure path encounters are generally not intended for player consumption anyway, and implicitly encouraging players to page through those looking for new beasts can have negative ramifications for the game at large. How many people who either got turned off the class because of 2014 wild shape's relative complexity, or who innocently went book diving and inadvertently spoiled what could have been an exciting encounter or plot development, ended up harming their or their DM's fun or even quitting D&D entirely over the past decade? I don't have the answer to that, but based on Crawford's statements I suspect the design team has a rough idea.

Second, even if the profit motive is your primary concern - consider that their long-term plan is to sell a lot of other products besides "books." The more classes they can get people to try and the higher they can get the druid's % played stat, the longer they can keep people in the D&D ecosystem with new character concepts they find interesting, and the more products they can offer them. Nobody who bounces off druid because it's either relatively inscrutable or because it sucks at high levels if it tries to do be anything other than a wild cleric with no DI, is going to be interested in druid subclasses, druid feats/items, or yes, druid-themed cosmetics in DDB or the VTT.

In short, getting players to engage with more class concepts is going to do a lot more for long-term retention (and yes, recurrent spending) than trying to nudge them towards more monster manuals that players aren't meant to be reading in the first place.

[False God]

In short, getting players to engage with more class concepts is going to do a lot more for long-term retention (and yes, recurrent spending) than trying to nudge them towards more monster manuals that players aren't meant to be reading in the first place.

Sorry, this "the players aren't supposed to read certain books" is complete hogwash made up by DMs who want power over their players. To ascribe any portion of it to WoTC's intended design is absolute silliness.

As for supplemental products, people don't buy those either if they have low investment in the game. The fewer products a player buys, the fewer products they're going to buy.

[stoutstien]

Sorry, this "the players aren't supposed to read certain books" is complete hogwash made up by DMs who want power over their players. To ascribe any portion of it to WoTC's intended design is absolute silliness.

As for supplemental products, people don't buy those either if they have low investment in the game. The fewer products a player buys, the fewer products they're going to buy.

I mean DMGs and MM are, and should, be designed from a GM Perspective. It's not gatekeeping it's just basics TTRPG design principle. They are literally just a bunch of tools for running the game that are only usable by the GM or with GM buy in.

If a player want to buy and read a MM they can but the only *play* value it will have is via a GM one way or the other.

[Mastikator]

Sorry, this "the players aren't supposed to read certain books" is complete hogwash made up by DMs who want power over their players. To ascribe any portion of it to WoTC's intended design is absolute silliness.

As for supplemental products, people don't buy those either if they have low investment in the game. The fewer products a player buys, the fewer products they're going to buy.

Again. It's not about letting the player read the monster manual. It's about forcing the player to read the monster manual.

Anyone can buy a monster manual and read it and no DM can stop you. But the game shouldn't require it.

[Psyren]

Sorry, this "the players aren't supposed to read certain books" is complete hogwash made up by DMs who want power over their players. To ascribe any portion of it to WoTC's intended design is absolute silliness.

I'm not "ascribing" anything nor is it silly, Crawford himself literally said monster entries are intended to be DM-facing at 4:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPO2oCnmPPA. If you have a problem with that design intent, take it up with them not me, all I'm doing is agreeing with it.

Also, what Mastikator and stoutstien said.


As for supplemental products, people don't buy those either if they have low investment in the game. The fewer products a player buys, the fewer products they're going to buy.

Right but that cuts both ways. They could buy less because they aren't feeling the weight of the sunk cost from a critical mass of books as you suggest, sure, but they could also buy less because there are fewer classes that appeal to them because the ones that are left are seen as overly complicated to get into. Personally I think the latter is a better target for the design team to shoot for alleviating than the former. 5e's strategy has never been to churn out a ton of books with something for everyone to buy (that was the TSR approach), it's always been more targeted.

[Yakk]

Sure, a fixed list.

But once you have a fixed list you might as well treat it like a spell list. These creatures and stats should exist mainly for the purpose of the feature (the PC), and be for the DM in a secondary capacity.

We already have spells. Having "beast forms" be akin to spells makes sense, but it is better if we reuse them for more than just one class.

So, druids, ranger animal companions, and maybe something else should use the same set of stat blocks.

Myself? I'd revive the Warden.

Here is a set of "could use stat blocks:"
Druid
Moon Druid (higher level forms)
Beastmaster Ranger
Warden Ranger (takes on half-animal forms)
Totem Barbarian (takes on aspects of animals)
Familiars
Summon Spells
Paladin Mounts
Artificer Constructs

So make these stat blocks tie in mechanically to the above.

Then make them specific. It is a bear not a land animal. It doesn't have to be comprehensive.

To help this, the above features shouldn't say "turn into any", no more than someone should have "cast any spell". The act of pre-picking spells prevents the "I open the rulebook and search" being part of a player's turn.

Of course this then leads to the non-animal summon spells.

[Aimeryan]

As far as Sufficiently Thematic abilities, I feel like the ones people actually care about will be

1. Charge/Pounce
2. Web
3. Poison
4. Knockdown on hit
5. Pack Tactics
6. Grapple/Constrict on hit

Relentless and Rampage are both niche situational things, if I turn into a Boar, I think I'm going to care more about the charge than about Relentless. Swallow doesn't work against large enemies, which is going to be a lot of what PC's fight.

Yup, along with the movement types and physical stat specilisation. So:

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

Have a creature for each of those.

Now, for Moon Druid I would also look at using Spell Slots in some fashion. Lose the Channel Nature thing for Wild Shape. Choose a Spell Slot when Wild Shaping, scaling as appropriate for a Druid that gets access to that level - cap the Spell Slot that can be used by Druid Level (so that dips don't get the whole thing).

[Bosh]

Yes this is much better than either the 5e or UA versions. You can fine tune things to improve balance instead of having inflexible blanket rules (so you don't need to sort critters solely by CR)and you don't have to worry about obscure beasts in some random module. It also gives the devs an incentive to round out the selection at certain levels.

Don't see what the big deal is about druids turning into a cat and scouting when Find Familiar is a first level spell. What's the point of making it so hard for druids to scout as a cat when it's so trivial to send a cat out to scout (or even invisible demons in the case of chain warlocks).

Rogues aren't even much good at scouting compared to other classes (bards can do it much better with minimal investment) not letting druids turn into cats doesn't really help rogues, what would help rogues would be an overall buff to the out of combat abilities of non-magical classes.

[stoutstien]

Yes this is much better than either the 5e or UA versions. You can fine tune things to improve balance instead of having inflexible blanket rules (so you don't need to sort critters solely by CR)and you don't have to worry about obscure beasts in some random module. It also gives the devs an incentive to round out the selection at certain levels.

Don't see what the big deal is about druids turning into a cat and scouting when Find Familiar is a first level spell. What's the point of making it so hard for druids to scout as a cat when it's so trivial to send a cat out to scout (or even invisible demons in the case of chain warlocks).

Rogues aren't even much good at scouting compared to other classes (bards can do it much better with minimal investment) not letting druids turn into cats doesn't really help rogues, what would help rogues would be an overall buff to the out of combat abilities of non-magical classes.

I don't think anybody's arguing that druids can't turn into cats the argument is is they shouldn't be able to turn into a extremely small animal and then claim that they're so small that they don't need to ever worry about the risks of being caught.

Having a rough lower size scale makes as much sense as having an upper bounded one.

[Bosh]

I don't think anybody's arguing that druids can't turn into cats the argument is is they shouldn't be able to turn into a extremely small animal and then claim that they're so small that they don't need to ever worry about the risks of being caught.

Having a rough lower size scale makes as much sense as having an upper bounded one.

Well I think that WotC counts as "anybody" since with the new UA they wouldn't let druids turn into cats until level 11, but they let wizards have cat familiars as level 1.

[stoutstien]

Well I think that WotC counts as "anybody" since with the new UA they wouldn't let druids turn into cats until level 11, but they let wizards have cat familiars as level 1.

Seeing how this is the 5e form you probably should indicate you are referring to UA of an entirely different edition to avoid confusion.

[Psyren]

Seeing how this is the 5e form you probably should indicate you are referring to UA of an entirely different edition to avoid confusion.

Eh, OP made it clear (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654511-A-middle-ground-for-quot-monster-diving-quot-effects-the-fixed-list&p=25719377&viewfull=1#post25719377) that the proposed change to wildshape is the impetus for this thread, at least in part. This is after all the "middle ground" between what we have now and what OneD&D is trying to do, at least in theory.

Having said that, I agree with you, WotC is being overly cautious with Tiny forms. Level 11 is far too late for the risk they present.