Are Druids too complex... or just boring?

[Schwann145]

Jeremy Crawford is telling us that, through feedback gathered, (when/how such feedback is gathered remains a mystery to me - I've certainly never seen any way to indicate such specifics to developers through any function of D&DBeyond!) the big negative to Druid popularity is that Wild Shape is too difficult. It requires too much book diving for specific stat blocks and that's too much to handle for enough players that it is the primary factor for it being the least-played class.

Or...

Is the lack of Druid popularity more to do with the fact that it's entire theme is the weakest among available themes?
Nature, as compared to Arcane, Divine, etc, is at the bottom of the pile. It is the forgotten power source. It concerns itself with plants and beasts, both of which are incredibly few in number, incredibly weak, or both.
Your Wild Shape options are limited to the weakest possible option. Beasts are a joke of a creature type as compared to almost every other. The only one worse is probably plants and maybe oozes... which are also part of a Druid's "theme!"

Also, it's the class with the absolute least amount of out-of-game inspiration to draw from. All of the famous literary Druids we can point to are how we got the Wizard class. (Allanon of Shannara, Merlin, etc.)
If you're a big MtG fan, you can probably find some Druidic inspiration, but outside of that? There's almost none to be found.

Long story short? I don't doubt that Druid has ended up as the least popular class. But I seriously doubt it's because Wild Shape is too hard and is much more likely to be the disrespect the developers have for "the natural" combined with a lack of inspiration for players to draw from.

[Unoriginal]

Is the lack of Druid popularity more to do with the fact that it's entire theme is the weakest among available themes?


It's definitively not that.

People may not like the Druid's theme, but that doesn't make it a weak theme.

If anything feedback shows that weak themes will always enjoy a decent amount of popularity under the "most people drinks water" principle.



Arguably, the Druid's thematic baggage is *too present* for people to enjoy. Ex: "druids won't wear metal armor" being widely despised.

[JackPhoenix]

Personally, I don't like the theme, and I don't like the ranger for the same reasons: I'm not a fan of "the nature guys". It's not a weak theme... and, as far as I'm concerned, the prohibition against metal armor is a good thing, though it should have more (i.e. any) punch behind it... though the latest UA weakened it a lot. I would welcome more elemental-themed druid subclass, though, or one that doesn't rely on Wild Shape to be usable in melee... Bladesinger doesn't specifically needs anything unique to wizard and druids and wizards get subclass features at the same level... hm....

[Miele]

I believe that druid being less played has nothing to do with complexity, but more with the theme of the class.
Aside from World of Warcraft, there is not much to be excited about druids.
Wizard spellcasting is more varied and interesting, clerics, rangers and monks are more appealing. Druid can be a good class for powergamers (Shepherd, T1 Moon), but in my experience most new players don't look at it twice (except WoW players, that is).

[JellyPooga]

The problem I see with Druid theming is not that it's weak or unpopular, but that it's...misdirected. As you say, the literal inspirations (i.e. fictional characters that are called "druids", like Allanon) tend to be better represented by the Wizard or other Classes. Where Druid should lean, IMO, is in what it actually does and who, in fiction and history, the Class actually represents; the witch and witch-doctor, the shaman and spirit-talker, the fae-charmed shapeshifter and the beast-friend. Rather than identifying that these are the archetypes the Druid represents, D&D just sort of mashes them all together and tells us it's something unique because they don't wear metal armour or something.

In 5e at least, I'm of the opinion they really missed the mark on subclasses too:
- Spores druid just has some weak-sauce damage buffs and access to zombies...for some reason related to mushrooms. Why isn't the "necromancy druid" a witch-doctor that does deals with spirits, speaking with the dead, summoning shades, placing curses and possessing corpses and the living alike?

- Moon Druid is arguably powerful, sure, but it's ability theming is so weak. Where's the half-beast forms? Where's the subtle shifting for growing talons or a tail? Where's the improvement of favoured forms? No no, all we need is tacking magical attacks on to regular beasts and slam up some elemental forms out of nowhere. Why are elemental forms part of Moon Druid and not the ever-so-obviously-missing "Elemental Druid" subclass.

- No Fae-Druid Class that has anything to do with actual Fey abilities or interactions beyond just telling us "this is fey related...honest, guv". The subclass that gives you the literal language of the Fey is the "beastmaster" druid...um, what?

- No Elemental Druid (no, Land Druid is not this...though with better focus could and possibly should be).

- Land Druid having literally no connections to their chosen land type beyond a few additions to their spell list.

- Stars druid? Really? This is a Druid thing and not a Wizard thing? The Class literally gives you a piece of writing to use your abilities with. How is this a Druid thing!? Druids are about wild things and the antithesis of civilisation. Writing is civilisation! I can definitely get on with a Druid with a focus on celestial bodies; sign me up for some improvements to the orbital death laser Moonbeam and other sun (because yes, the sun is just a close star) and star themed spells and abilities. Which brings me to...

- Wildfire druid? Um...there's literal lore for deities being gods of both the sun and healing. Why isn't this whole theme wrapped up in the Stars Druid again? Hey, let's lean in to the ancient greek myth and throw in some prophecy and prediction too. After all, that's what being a celestially inclined druid should all be about, isn't it? Predicting the cycle of time, weather, life and existence in general? Whilst disintegrating your foes with sun-themed plasma-death-lasers, of course.

Yeah, that's enough of a rant for now I reckon...

[Skrum]

I second everything said so far, druids problems are multifaceted, but the other I always stumble on is why is the druid adventuring at all. Like why are they venturing from their woods, why are they going into civilization, why are they teaming up with a party, etc.

Druids are far better suited to npcs. A vengeful avatar of nature, a helpful ally that shows up with useful information, a mysterious nature cult that lives deep in the wilds, whatever the case may be, it doesn't make a ton of sense for them to be a full time adventurer traveling here and there. Why does a druid care that House Roth is making House Hart's live difficult by stopping Hart's imports using their connections at the EBRC Shipping Company. They literally fled civilization because they *don't* think the machinations of man are the most important thing to focus on.

[Amnestic]

I second everything said so far, druids problems are multifaceted, but the other I always stumble on is why is the druid adventuring at all. Like why are they venturing from their woods, why are they going into civilization, why are they teaming up with a party, etc.


What's the fastest way to protect the woods from civilisation? Buy up all the land with your adventuring cash and kick out all the people! Simple! :smallcool:

[Hurrashane]

For me it's because it's theme is very narrow. It's a similar reason as to why I don't play many clerics or paladins. It just doesn't fit many character concepts. Add to that the bookkeeping involved with it's various wildshapes (how much can a giant Eagle lift again? A question that has come up a few times on my current game) And you get a recipe for a class I don't play often.

[Eurus]

- Stars druid? Really? This is a Druid thing and not a Wizard thing? The Class literally gives you a piece of writing to use your abilities with. How is this a Druid thing!? Druids are about wild things and the antithesis of civilisation. Writing is civilisation! I can definitely get on with a Druid with a focus on celestial bodies; sign me up for some improvements to the orbital death laser Moonbeam and other sun (because yes, the sun is just a close star) and star themed spells and abilities. Which brings me to...

To be fair, the druidic star map might not be historically inaccurate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coligny_calendar).

[da newt]

Personally I like Druids (and BTW the best druid in literature is Getafix aka Panoramix and I'll fight you tooth and nail if you disagree), but they have a bit of a weird spell list and grab bag of abilities.

Many of their spells are difficult to exploit for new players and terrain things don't work well if you don't use a grid/minis. While it is true the beast list is a bit weak and requires a bit of homework / prep, I'm not sure why so many people are put off by something that requires a little forethought. They don't have a very good primary combat cantrip. Their combat niche isn't well/easily defined, so I think many folks overlook it, etc.

But for me, these are all things that I like about the class. You don't see them in every party. They can do so many different things. They are my favorite full caster to play. Sure you could change them to try to make them more popular, but is more popular = better?




Oh yeah - CONJURE ANIMALS is a complete mess that need to be rewritten and balanced, but I'll be really disappointed if the caster doesn't get to choose what animals they conjure.

[animorte]

(except WoW players, that is).
Ok, I admit it. The reason I played a Druid in the first place was because Druid was my favorite character I had in WoW. I still played them the same. Even with all the forms, I didn't use any for combat purposes because it would take away my versatility in those moments. I was very good in PvP for this reason.

I know that comes across as counterintuitive, as the versatility is available because the forms in the first place. I would use non-combat forms for their versatility while maintaining my normal wide range of abilities through spells/abilities in combat. I play D&D Druid the same, keeping access to my spells.


What's the fastest way to protect the woods from civilisation? Buy up all the land with your adventuring cash and kick out all the people! Simple! :smallcool:
Get outta mah swamp!

[JackPhoenix]

To be fair, the druidic star map might not be historically inaccurate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coligny_calendar).

Bah, everyone knows druids should carry around miniature Stonehedge!

[Waazraath]

I don't know about out of game inspiration... less than a lot of other archypes, yeah, true. But thinking about fantasy literature, there are some, like Allanon, from the Shannara chronicles; Radegast the Brown from Middle Earth; in other games Druids are also a pretty common theme, like in Magic the Gathering. In computer game, in addition to (Wo)W, Diablo 4 will have a druid class.

So I'm not convinced that for D&D, they are not suitable as in 'concept is not popular enough'. I do found playing one boring, but that's more the gameplay: I played Shepard, and optimal playing was often summon a bunch of creatures, and they stay in the backline plinking cantrips or (relative weak) other spells, until a healing or status removal effect were needed. Not my cup of tea.

I'm not sure I'm buying the 'too complex' either though. Lots of folks ('m one of them) do want complex classes and lots op options.

[animorte]

I second everything said so far, druids problems are multifaceted, but the other I always stumble on is why is the druid adventuring at all. Like why are they venturing from their woods, why are they going into civilization, why are they teaming up with a party, etc.
That's like asking why the Wizard ever leaves their tower (or library). Why does the Rogue ever leave the streets? Why does a Barbarian ever leave the pit? Why does a Monk ever leave the temple?

[stoutstien]

That's like asking why the Wizard ever leaves their tower (or library). Why does the Rogue ever leave the streets? Why does a Barbarian ever leave the pit? Why does a Monk ever leave the temple?

I mean...why would a wizard leave?

[Sparky McDibben]

That's like asking why the Wizard ever leaves their tower (or library). Why does the Rogue ever leave the streets? Why does a Barbarian ever leave the pit? Why does a Monk ever leave the temple?

I don't know that's the best comparison. A wizard adventures for spells. Rogues and barbarians adventure for cash. Monks adventure to find more powerful monks whose butts they need to kick.

What are druids doing, unless there's a quest or a threat to their forest? I think druids share more in the vein of paladins when it comes to "hard to motivate toward adventure."

[Gignere]

I don't know about out of game inspiration... less than a lot of other archypes, yeah, true. But thinking about fantasy literature, there are some, like Allanon, from the Shannara chronicles; Radegast the Brown from Middle Earth; in other games Druids are also a pretty common theme, like in Magic the Gathering. In computer game, in addition to (Wo)W, Diablo 4 will have a druid class.

So I'm not convinced that for D&D, they are not suitable as in 'concept is not popular enough'. I do found playing one boring, but that's more the gameplay: I played Shepard, and optimal playing was often summon a bunch of creatures, and they stay in the backline plinking cantrips or (relative weak) other spells, until a healing or status removal effect were needed. Not my cup of tea.

I'm not sure I'm buying the 'too complex' either though. Lots of folks ('m one of them) do want complex classes and lots op options.

My favorite Druid from literature is probably the Iron Druid. Current moon Druid or any other Druid subclass in 5e does a poor job of representing it. The OD&D moon Druid could do it in the aspect that the Druids in Iron Druid chronicles are fixed to exactly 4 forms that they discover when they first become a Druid.

They need spell power to become strong and powerful though. Of course the Druids in that world are as strong as gods so doesn’t really reflect D&D Druids.

I think moon Druids needing to buff with spells for combat wildshape to be a viable martial is probably where OD&D has to land on. Probably has to be spell buffs just so you don’t allow a nova encounter of the Druid blowing conjure animals and using another top slot to max buff their combat wild shape, if buffs were just powered by spell slots instead of actual spells.

[Hurrashane]

What are druids doing, unless there's a quest or a threat to their forest? I think druids share more in the vein of paladins when it comes to "hard to motivate toward adventure."

You find Paladins, the literal crusaders against evil, hard to motivate towards adventure?

[firelistener]

I've run games for lots of new players fairly often over the years, and Druid has always been a popular choice, much to my chagrin. The thematic elements are, from what I saw, almost always the reason the class was chosen. Certain people absolutely love the idea of being able to speak with animals, turn into them, and overall be more "connected" to nature. Plus, it's also a caster class so many new players have wanted to play Druid because they feel it has a little bit of everything available.

I don't think the monster stat block thing was too terribly complex for new players, but I agree that it has always added to the pile. I've always hated that my new players want to play divine casters like cleric or druid because the spell lists are massive. Preparing spells from the huge list is, in my opinion, more confusing for brand new players than Wild Shape is because most players just want to be a wolf (or dire wolf) and be done with it. I've personally never seen a new player even express interest in other creatures than whichever single animal they have in mind. I've only seen that from more experienced players who have a secondary motive to choose Druid as a powergaming option.

Conversely, when I tell new players to choose their prepared spells, many players look at me in shock at first when I help explain how that works. Digital lists are better organized, but flipping through pages in the PHB or other books is incredibly tedious since they have little idea how any of the spells work and need to read about each one as they choose spells. Then the process worsens as they gain access to higher level spells.

[Sparky McDibben]

You find Paladins, the literal crusaders against evil, hard to motivate towards adventure?

In the sense of being reactive, yes. Paladins don't really want anything other than to maintain the (presumably good) status quo. You can get around that with minimal effort (the status quo is evil, there's a quest, etc). But in a regular sandbox campaign, everyone needs a reason to go into dark dangerous holes in the ground. The paladin doesn't have a built-in reason to adventure.

[animorte]

I don't know that's the best comparison. A wizard adventures for spells. Rogues and barbarians adventure for cash. Monks adventure to find more powerful monks whose butts they need to kick.

What are druids doing, unless there's a quest or a threat to their forest? I think druids share more in the vein of paladins when it comes to "hard to motivate toward adventure."
That's where I think the motivation comes in. Be proactive for your cause, whatever it may be. Many are aware that more is to be gained outside of their particular comfort zone, whether that be money, items, spells, forms, peace, family...

I suppose that's the problem. Not all classes tell you what your motivation should be to adventure. This doesn't bother me personally.

[GloatingSwine]

Too Mysterious.

Obviously.

Wild shape being "too difficult" is, I think, code for "this attracts people to fiddly optimisation and analysis paralysis over which is the best form to use right now", or at least makes them think they have to do that to get the most out of druid.

"Too much book diving" could be handled easily by putting brief statblocks of sample critters players might want to consider into the PHB (various sizes, flying, useful tricks a druid might want) and then pointing to the rest of the MM if you want to get fancy.

[Sparky McDibben]

That's where I think the motivation comes in. Be proactive for your cause, whatever it may be. Many are aware that more is to be gained outside of their particular comfort zone, whether that be money, items, spells, forms, peace, family...

I suppose that's the problem. Not all classes tell you what your motivation should be to adventure. This doesn't bother me personally.

Oh, I 100% agree with you and Hurrashane. But that motivation comes from the player, it's not built into the class. And that's one extra degree of difficulty that's trivial for an experienced player to get 'round, but will trip up a neophyte.

[Amnestic]

I don't know that's the best comparison. A wizard adventures for spells. Rogues and barbarians adventure for cash. Monks adventure to find more powerful monks whose butts they need to kick.

What are druids doing, unless there's a quest or a threat to their forest? I think druids share more in the vein of paladins when it comes to "hard to motivate toward adventure."

A lot of it will depend on what your personal druid is doing and their backstory, I suppose.

If you take the perhaps most stereotypical druid: grew up in a Circle, in a forest, among other druids. If you want to still be on good terms with them, the most basic reasoning I'd give for them to go adventuring is "see the world". Nature is larger than just a forest, and if you're going to be a guardian of nature you need to experience all of it with your own eyes. What's the easiest way to experience nature (when you can't pay for guards)? Adventuring.

A wizard adventures for spells, a druid adventures to experience nature (and by doing so, gains more of a connection to it, and - in turn - spells).

There's other stuff you could do - maybe they were "kicked out" due to the Circle growing too large, as part of an ancient tradition. Maybe you got kicked out for being a problem child. Maybe you take the most stereotypical backstory and your village Circle was all killed and you're the sole survivor, out for justice/revenge. Maybe your Elder foresaw a great upcoming problem and all druids, regardless of skills, were sent forth - including you - to try to avert it.

The Gatekeepers of Eberron are a druidic order that seek to defend against a number of unnatural creatures (daelkyr/outsiders/undead). You might not find many of these in a forest, but you will with an adventuring party. Extrapolated out, a druid circle that's taking a proactive approach to the 'balance' instead of a 'reactive' one works just fine.

Maybe you never wanted to be a druid at all: You were sent to a circle as a child against your will, and once you came of age you ran away. Unfortunately, it turns out you're a bit of a natural (pun intended) at being a druid, so you keep using the powers to keep yourself alive. Sure, you could get a normal job, but you're free now, who wants to be tied down again? Better to follow where the wind takes you as an adventurer.

There's also the non-typical "druids" - a dhampir spore druid makes a pretty great fake-vampire. The druidic language aspect is a bit of a pain for these but you can always opt not to speak it I suppose. At that point it opens up things like being bonded to a fire elemental to make a wildfire druid, or a fey blessing for a dreams druid. Unwilling and not 'trained' exactly, yet nevertheless bonded to nature and its powers. Pseudo-warlocks via druidism, and since they've not got a connection to a Circle...the world's your (organically raised, sustainably farmed) oyster for motivations.

These are all backstories that require no particular DM buy-in or connection.

[Sparky McDibben]

A lot of it will depend on what your personal druid is doing and their backstory, I suppose.

These are all backstories that require no particular DM buy-in or connection.

Actually, several of those depend on how the DM views druids in their world, so there is some buy in. As to your other points, nolo contendre, but see my second reply to animorte, above.

[OvisCaedo]

I'm not sure I'd even put stock into the claim that it is generally the least-played class. It might be? It might also not be and WotC just singled out a data point without context in order to justify the changes they wanted to do anyhow. Are DnDB players a majority or representative of the playerbase? Are there aspects of play on DnDB itself that make some choices more or less popular for the platform? How many characters in the database are actually being played, and how many are just builds thrown together to look at?

Who knows! Maybe Druids really are that unpopular. But data can be interpreted in a lot of ways, especially if the one interpreting it has a goal.

[animorte]

Oh, I 100% agree with you and Hurrashane. But that motivation comes from the player, it's not built into the class. And that's one extra degree of difficulty that's trivial for an experienced player to get 'round, but will trip up a neophyte.
Well said, as usual. :smallsmile:

[False God]

For me it's because it's theme is very narrow. It's a similar reason as to why I don't play many clerics or paladins. It just doesn't fit many character concepts. Add to that the bookkeeping involved with it's various wildshapes (how much can a giant Eagle lift again? A question that has come up a few times on my current game) And you get a recipe for a class I don't play often.

I'd say this is a better description of the problem than boring. It's limited. Even with all the "variations", you're still functionally playing "The Nature Guy", which while I enjoy the concept, it's still just one concept. Even Monk has "five-finger-death-punch". "the avatar" and "goku", while they revolve around similar concepts (unarmed combat) they're all executed in dramatically different ways (good and bad).

I think a number of classes have the same problem, but their thematics are much less overt, so you're less likely to notice how similar they are.

[ArlEammon]

If I may, Druids are not the antithesis of civilization, they are harmony with nature, with nature being sort of a nurterer, authority over it. If that makes sense.

[GooeyChewie]

I think a big part of the problem is that Wild Shape is presented as a major part of the class. In both 5e and the OD&D playtest, all the class features aside from Spellcasting revolve around turning into an animal. Yet aside from Circle of the Moon, Druids don’t care that much about turning into animals. For Land, Dreams and Shepard, Wild Shape is a utility feature, used every so often for scouting or other non-combat purpose. For Spores, Stars and Wildfire, Wild Shape gets transformed into something else entirely.

I think Druid would see more play if WotC treated Wild Shape as a single utility feature (that Moon Druid turns into a combat feature) and let the class get additional features later on instead of boosts to Wild Shape.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've run games for lots of new players fairly often over the years, and Druid has always been a popular choice, much to my chagrin. The thematic elements are, from what I saw, almost always the reason the class was chosen. Certain people absolutely love the idea of being able to speak with animals, turn into them, and overall be more "connected" to nature. Plus, it's also a caster class so many new players have wanted to play Druid because they feel it has a little bit of everything available.

I don't think the monster stat block thing was too terribly complex for new players, but I agree that it has always added to the pile. I've always hated that my new players want to play divine casters like cleric or druid because the spell lists are massive. Preparing spells from the huge list is, in my opinion, more confusing for brand new players than Wild Shape is because most players just want to be a wolf (or dire wolf) and be done with it. I've personally never seen a new player even express interest in other creatures than whichever single animal they have in mind. I've only seen that from more experienced players who have a secondary motive to choose Druid as a powergaming option.

Conversely, when I tell new players to choose their prepared spells, many players look at me in shock at first when I help explain how that works. Digital lists are better organized, but flipping through pages in the PHB or other books is incredibly tedious since they have little idea how any of the spells work and need to read about each one as they choose spells. Then the process worsens as they gain access to higher level spells.

This is my experience. Druids are very common among my new players. And the spells and associated superstructure is the hard part, not the wild shape. Even given spell and monster cards.

[MukkTB]

Stone Henge architect guy was a Druid. He had astounding technical knowledge, and designed a mechanism that predicted the motions of the heavens.

Isaac Newton was a Wizard. He had astounding technical knowledge, and developed a mathematical structure that predicted the motions of the heavens.

Context matters. Fantasy kitchen sink sometimes fails because the concepts are distinguished by their context. And kitchen sink context is by definition a mess.

[DruidAlanon]

The problem I see with Druid theming is not that it's weak or unpopular, but that it's...misdirected. As you say, the literal inspirations (i.e. fictional characters that are called "druids", like Allanon) tend to be better represented by the Wizard or other Classes. Where Druid should lean, IMO, is in what it actually does and who, in fiction and history, the Class actually represents; the witch and witch-doctor, the shaman and spirit-talker, the fae-charmed shapeshifter and the beast-friend. Rather than identifying that these are the archetypes the Druid represents, D&D just sort of mashes them all together and tells us it's something unique because they don't wear metal armour or something.


I officially confirm this. :durkon:



In 5e at least, I'm of the opinion they really missed the mark on subclasses too:
- Spores druid just has some weak-sauce damage buffs and access to zombies...for some reason related to mushrooms. Why isn't the "necromancy druid" a witch-doctor that does deals with spirits, speaking with the dead, summoning shades, placing curses and possessing corpses and the living alike?


I'm currently playing a spores and these where exactly my thoughts on this when I was reading the subclass(es). I RP him as a witch doctor, mostly inspired by Diablo III, which is a very interesting and fresher look at the class, than the standard celtic descendant. To its defence, Spores' flavor I think is excellent due to its Magic the Gathering origins and the black-green color, the Golgari bacgkround from Ravnica etc. But it still speaks volumes to me that the more interesting ideas do not come from the flavour of the standard class.



- Moon Druid is arguably powerful, sure, but it's ability theming is so weak. Where's the half-beast forms? Where's the subtle shifting for growing talons or a tail? Where's the improvement of favoured forms? No no, all we need is tacking magical attacks on to regular beasts and slam up some elemental forms out of nowhere. Why are elemental forms part of Moon Druid and not the ever-so-obviously-missing "Elemental Druid" subclass.

+1. A werewolf/shifter type of Druid would be awesome.



- Stars druid? Really? This is a Druid thing and not a Wizard thing? The Class literally gives you a piece of writing to use your abilities with. How is this a Druid thing!? Druids are about wild things and the antithesis of civilisation. Writing is civilisation! I can definitely get on with a Druid with a focus on celestial bodies; sign me up for some improvements to the orbital death laser Moonbeam and other sun (because yes, the sun is just a close star) and star themed spells and abilities. Which brings me to...



The idea is intersting despite the failed flavor ot the subclass. For instance, I was recently reading about animist calendars, lunisolar cycles, the mesoamerican calendars etc as part of my Spores druid backstory, and I was thinking that a Stars druid that combines traditional lore with a druidic calendar (that can record specific dates, astronomical cycles etc on bone artifacts, wood etc, not on a scroll) is not terribly bad and can fit thematically a niche. In my game for instance, the lunisolar druidic calendar was replaced by a gregorian (invented by wizards) and there's a cultural and even religious clash between the rural areas and villages, that still use the traditional lunisolar calendar and follow the "old" druidic festivals and celebrations, with the cities and esp the capital, which is mostly controlled by the wizards' academy and do not really celebrate anything but the new year. The gregorian is more "scientific" in the sense that is perfectly calibrated without the need of leap months, etc, whereas the druidic is more archaic, a bit less accurate (as it needs leap months etc) but also linked to animist celebrations of the new moon, the equinoxes, etc, which are closer to druidism and nature. What I'm trying to say is that the subclass makes sense thematically to me, but not as written. It should have been closer to a lunar/eclipse druid than "stars". But they used "moon" for the moon druid to link it very loosely to lycanthropy, so the trademark was taken already. So, canstellations/stars druid became a thing.

edit: I just noticed that somebody pointed out earlier a similar thought, with a link to a lunar calendar wiki page.




Yeah, that's enough of a rant for now I reckon...

I found your post very interesting; thanks for this.

[JackPhoenix]

A wizard adventures for spells, a druid adventures to experience nature (and by doing so, gains more of a connection to it, and - in turn - spells).

Not to mention druids have to be familiar with animals they want to Wild Shape into. If they want more powerful forms that don't live in their proverbial backyard, they have to go seek them. Or build a zoo, but that's not very druid-y.

[OvisCaedo]

Not to mention druids have to be familiar with animals they want to Wild Shape into. If they want more powerful forms that don't live in their proverbial backyard, they have to go seek them. Or build a zoo, but that's not very druid-y.

Huh? Since when do druids wild shape into animals?

But really, even with the 5e druid, I feel like non-moon druids probably don't have much drive or need to go searching for stronger animal forms. They cap out at CR 1, at level 8. Which... wow. They seriously don't even improve it again after 8 until getting spellcasting at 18.

[Tectorman]

For me, it was the class features pulling you in multiple directions, more than I wanted to explore in one character. You're the guy with the nature-y spells and the animal transformations. I played my first Druid character to emphasize the whole "weather witch". Then SCAG came out and I remade the character as a storm sorcerer. Why? Because Druids can wild shape twice per rest, and I had used wild shape twice over that character's entire career (up until rebuilding them). It was just too much upkeep for an ability that I really didn't want to be using (and also didn't want to be wasting).

My second Druid character was a Monk who had found a Staff of the Woodlands. One level later, she had her one and only level in Druid, just to use that staff (and without wasting wild shape, since that's at second level). Of course, now that more books have come out that let you use wild shape uses for other things (for example, the star forms), I might have considered more levels.

Which isn't to say I'm against wild shape on a character. But if that's the theme, then that's what I want the major focus of the character to be. Animal transformations, partial transformations, going from Animorphs to Odo to the Impossible Man, and without having a spell list to also think about.

For me, I think it comes from starting in 3.5. The Druid had the spells AND the wild shape AND the animal companion. Way too much. 4E sort of split that up and simplified it into the transforming Warden and sort of transforming Druid (wild shape), the Druid and the Shaman (spells), and the Shaman having a companion. No longer way too much. Now the 5E Druid still avoids the companion (beyond a spell that you don't have to prepare), but you're back to having a spell list to worry about and a list of animals to turn into. We had picked a lane, but we couldn't stick to it.

Oh, and the "can't use metal armor and shields" didn't help and can die in a fire. Assuming D&DOne keeps that change, good riddance.

[Segev]

I second everything said so far, druids problems are multifaceted, but the other I always stumble on is why is the druid adventuring at all. Like why are they venturing from their woods, why are they going into civilization, why are they teaming up with a party, etc.

Druids are far better suited to npcs. A vengeful avatar of nature, a helpful ally that shows up with useful information, a mysterious nature cult that lives deep in the wilds, whatever the case may be, it doesn't make a ton of sense for them to be a full time adventurer traveling here and there. Why does a druid care that House Roth is making House Hart's live difficult by stopping Hart's imports using their connections at the EBRC Shipping Company. They literally fled civilization because they *don't* think the machinations of man are the most important thing to focus on.

My current druid PC is a drow orphan who grew up in an orphanage on the surface in the poorer part of a reasonably-sized city. He is fascinated by the Underdark and desperate to learn about his people, feeling that the way he gets stigmatized for his race (being literally the only drow he knows until basically the last two sessions of a game that's run weekly since November '22) must mean that 'evil' means 'cool' and thus, despite being one of the most good-aligned PCs in the party, he strives for an edgelord-type attitude. He raised a giant wolf spider from a spiderling (surprised when it just kept growing), milks him for poison he uses on his daggers and his hand crossbow bolts, uses pass without trace and Wild Shape and Wild Companion liberally for stealth and scouting purposes, and draws his magical strength from the Underdark and his unwavering fascination with it (which is essentially faith in nature). He loves plants, fungi, spiders, and other creepy-crawly things, and he has self-taught in alchemy and herbalism.

[Hurrashane]

I wonder if wildshape would work better as a spell. Like a self only polymorph, being able to upcast it to turn into higher CR beasts.

Just thinking aloud

[Kane0]

*Points to 4e Primal power source*
The basic theme of 'nature' is fine. There's enough fuel in that fire to get multiple classes even.

But in some agreement with the OP:
- 'regular' animals and magical animals shouldn't have been separate creature types (in the same vein, giants are just humanoids... but big)
- Spell lists are always messy, but arcane poaches a *lot* that could be more specific to primal/nature magic.
- Druid subclasses are really hit and miss, and wildshape can be really one-note if you want alternative nature powers

[False God]

*Points to 4e Primal power source*
The basic theme of 'nature' is fine. There's enough fuel in that fire to get multiple classes even.

But in some agreement with the OP:
- 'regular' animals and magical animals shouldn't have been separate creature types (in the same vein, giants are just humanoids... but big)
- Spell lists are always messy, but arcane poaches a *lot* that could be more specific to primal/nature magic.
- Druid subclasses are really hit and miss, and wildshape can be really one-note if you want alternative nature powers

I'd be really nice if D&D could pick up better creature typing from it's neighbor MTG. It doesn't need to be perfect, but "Humanoid - Giant" would go a long way to alleviate some of the strange targeting rules of the game.

[JackPhoenix]

I'd be really nice if D&D could pick up better creature typing from it's neighbor MTG. It doesn't need to be perfect, but "Humanoid - Giant" would go a long way to alleviate some of the strange targeting rules of the game.

Another lesson learned in 4e and promptly forgotten.

[DruidAlanon]

I'd be really nice if D&D could pick up better creature typing from it's neighbor MTG. It doesn't need to be perfect, but "Humanoid - Giant" would go a long way to alleviate some of the strange targeting rules of the game.

+1 that would have been really nice.

[Leon]

Bah, everyone knows druids should carry around miniature Stonehedge!

"always cheaper to get a new 33-Megalith Circle than upgrade your old one"

While I haven't played one in 5e Druids are up there as one of my Fav classes in this devolving game and Wildshape is the first thing i look to swapping out for something more interesting and have never been inconvenienced for not have its clunky mechanics in play. I suppose at least in 5e there are a number of subclass features you can use it to power since the game lacks the options to have variants. At its core the Druid is a interesting spell list and anything else is extra.

The Theme is ultimately what you make of it because the broad vague idea's that WotC provide rarely suit many people for any class. In my Favorite Setting Druids are effectively Eco Terrorist's who would like to see civilization sprawl stopped and reduced lest the Primal god they draw power from turn its attention back to the living world (Bad for everyone including the Druids) and thus generally don't work well many typical adventures but you can use the frame work of them to make other concepts work well. Have played a Druid who looked and acted so unlike what was "Typical" of a druid that even other Druids were sus as to how he knew the language. Have for a long time had a idea of a Druid who lived in a huge city and had never been outside of it but lived in a rambling park.

On out of game inspiration ~ its always problematic to try and shoehorn any non D&D Character into a game/class it has maybe no bearing on other than a similar name ~ What a Wizard is in D&D isn't or indeed shouldn't be the same as what a Wizard is in its native setting. Possibly easier for me as my inspiration is generally Art and it is much easier to fit to any setting as needed.

[strangebloke]

This is my experience. Druids are very common among my new players. And the spells and associated superstructure is the hard part, not the wild shape. Even given spell and monster cards.

agreed. Wildshape is trivial.

"I would like to turn into a bear"
"okay, here's a second character/npc sheet, I set it up with macros"
"okay"

The druids at my table have been some of the mechanically weaker players. And they've been fine.

Straight up don't believe JC here.

[Unoriginal]

in the same vein, giants are just humanoids... but big

They are not.

In the D&D context, Giants designate a group of creatures that are different from humanoids, due to when and by whom they were created.


Same way that Dragons are their own separate beings.

[Frogreaver]

I mean this is coming from the dev team that says picking subclass at level 1 is too much. So it doesn't surprise me that they view the complexity of wildshape as a problem.

Though, I agree with their premise that choosing which animal form to use shouldn't be a straight up optimization problem and it currently is. I like the concept of being able to choose a form to a handful of forms to wildshape into and having them grow stronger with me instead of having to find a new form every few levels.

I like the Druid concept, but they aren't super strong outside of moon druid wilshape and conjure animals. Nearly all their control spells rely on movement hindrance, which can be hit and miss in effectiveness (entangle, plant growth, sleet storm). They have super weaksauce damage spells.

Don't get me wrong, Druids are not weak, they are just fairly limited in the kinds of effects they can bring to the table compared to other casters. To me that makes them a tad boring.

Then there's the thematics. Most campaigns just aren't set up in such a way that it makes alot of sense for a nature loving druid to be along for the ride. Yea, you can force it to work, but it's not nearly as easy to do as it is for a fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, barbarian, bard, monk, paladin.

TLDR: it's multiple problems
1. For new players it's complexity - wildshape is an absolute pain for a newer player when reading the class because you can't actually gauge what it allows you to do or even if it's any good.
2. For optimizers the Druid's answer is virtually always - wildshape as a moon druid if before level 5. Conjure animals as a shepherd druid after level 5. If you want to do something smaller but helpful, probably entangle.
3. For thematics, the class often isn't a great fit for most campaigns. You can make it work - but it's not usually the most natural fit.

[Kane0]

I mean this is coming from the dev team that says picking subclass at level 1 is too much.

I'm guessing this was in one of their interviews? I haven't sat through them.



Though, I agree with their premise that choosing which animal form to use shouldn't be a straight up optimization problem and it currently is. I like the concept of being able to choose a form to a handful of forms to wildshape into and having them grow stronger with me instead of having to find a new form every few levels.

Serpent, Canine/Feline, Mount? Then later on expand to Bird, Fish, Dino?

[KorvinStarmast]

JCraw speaks with forked tongue.

Personally I like Druids (and BTW the best druid in literature is Getafix aka Panoramix and I'll fight you tooth and nail if you disagree) Concur. My first druid was named Derelix. :smallcool:

Stone Henge architect guy was a Druid. He had astounding technical knowledge, and designed a mechanism that predicted the motions of the heavens.
Isaac Newton was a Wizard. He had astounding technical knowledge, and developed a mathematical structure that predicted the motions of the heavens.

Context matters. Fantasy kitchen sink sometimes fails because the concepts are distinguished by their context. And kitchen sink context is by definition a mess. Laughed, I did.

agreed. Wildshape is trivial.

"I would like to turn into a bear"
"okay, here's a second character/npc sheet, I set it up with macros"
"okay"

The druids at my table have been some of the mechanically weaker players. And they've been fine.

Straight up don't believe JC here. Not seen a single player have trouble with Druid.
We worked together on summons packages.
Sorted.

[Frogreaver]

I'm guessing this was in one of their interviews? I haven't sat through them.

Don't recall where it came from, but subclasses seem to be set to moving to third level for all classes.


Serpent, Canine/Feline, Mount? Then later on expand to Bird, Fish, Dino?

I'm thinking more like pick an animal you can wildshape into at level 2. Pick another at maybe every 4 levels. The statblocks automatically scale with your druid level so if you pick wolf, you don't then need to go pick dire wolf, snow wolf, etc.

Possibly in exchange for not picking a new form you can boost your current forms a bit. The power vs versatility tradeoff.

[Jophiel]

2. For optimizers the Druid's answer is virtually always - wildshape as a moon druid if before level 5. Conjure animals as a shepherd druid after level 5. If you want to do something smaller but helpful, probably entangle.
I'm not really a hard core optimizer but I am largely put off by druids seemingly based around either Wild Shape or minionmancy. Neither is a play style that appeals to me and making a druid that uses neither just leaves me feeling like I'd be better off playing some other caster.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Jeremy Crawford is telling us that, through feedback gathered, (when/how such feedback is gathered remains a mystery to me - I've certainly never seen any way to indicate such specifics to developers through any function of D&DBeyond!) the big negative to Druid popularity is that Wild Shape is too difficult. It requires too much book diving for specific stat blocks and that's too much to handle for enough players that it is the primary factor for it being the least-played class.

Um, the last time I saw statistics for play only 25% of Druids were Moon Druids with the other 75% being the more caster focused ones. This was before Tasha's came out. Tasha then came out with druids that specifically gave you something else to do with Wild Shape charges.

I think it's pretty clear that people like the Nature theme just fine (People being general, some do some don't) But that either Wildshape is lackluster, too complex or is an extra piece they don't want to deal with.

I honestly have yet to play a druid that cares about their wildshape. I like the class and play it often, but it's always Circle of Stars, Circle of Wildfire or before that, Circle of Dreams or Shepherds.


I'm not really a hard core optimizer but I am largely put off by druids seemingly based around either Wild Shape or minionmancy. Neither is a play style that appeals to me and making a druid that uses neither just leaves me feeling like I'd be better off playing some other caster.

Honestly, try Circle of Stars. A bunch of extra Guiding Bolts per day and your Wildshape charges give you either a bonus action attack similar to Spiritual Weapon or a major healing boost or the ability to better keep your control spells going.

[Kane0]

Stars is by a wide margin my fav druid subclass (of the official ones). Spores and wildfire coming in behind that but falling short for their own reasons.

[animorte]

Stars is by a wide margin my fav druid subclass (of the official ones).
100% agreed on this.

[Waazraath]

Stars is by a wide margin my fav druid subclass (of the official ones). Spores and wildfire coming in behind that but falling short for their own reasons.

+1 Not only the flavour (I find it really fitting), but I also really like the abilities and the options they offer.

[Hurrashane]

I think it's pretty clear that people like the Nature theme just fine (People being general, some do some don't) But that either Wildshape is lackluster, too complex or is an extra piece they don't want to deal with.



Often for me, if I wanted to make a nature caster, is that I don't see the character as someone who turns into animals.

I wish there were more Wildshape substitutions, I'd want to be able to use wildshape uses to cast like beast sense or something. But then again I'd just really like to be able to play a Discworld style Witch in D&D.

[elyktsorb]

I'm of the belief that Druid is unpopular according to dndbeyond.

I don't think I'd call the druid complicated. Not any more so than a couple other classes anyway, and I also wouldn't call them boring.

Moon is a decently powerful option for wildshape.

Land, land is kind of boring.

Shepard is usually just a headache imo but it can be fun.

Spores is frustrating, but not boring.

Stars is great.

Wildfire is cool.

Dreams is forgettable.

Of these Shepard feels the most complex, but that's just because of minion bookkeeping.

I dunno, I'm probably pretty biased because I've been a fan of Druids ever since I played Baldur's Gate for the first time.

[Segev]

Often for me, if I wanted to make a nature caster, is that I don't see the character as someone who turns into animals.

I wish there were more Wildshape substitutions, I'd want to be able to use wildshape uses to cast like beast sense or something. But then again I'd just really like to be able to play a Discworld style Witch in D&D.

What makes someone a 'nature caster' to you? Would a wizard, bard, or cleric with the druid spell list qualify well enough?

[KorvinStarmast]

Um, the last time I saw statistics for play only 25% of Druids were Moon Druids with the other 76% being the more caster focused ones. Ya gotta love that 101%. :smallbiggrin:

This was before Tasha's came out. Tasha then came out with druids that specifically gave you something else to do with Wild Shape charges.
The Shepherd is/was pretty darned good as a summoner, not a wild shaper.

Honestly, try Circle of Stars. A bunch of extra Guiding Bolts per day and your Wildshape charges give you either a bonus action attack similar to Spiritual Weapon or a major healing boost or the ability to better keep your control spells going. Stars might be a bit "too strong" (The Dragon form has made some con/concentration saves moot in our game) but I love the thematic combination of the features. I have had a couple of DMs say the Stars druid needs a tweak/nerf to play, or "Tasha's power creep is bad" and there are so many other classes and sub classes to play ...

I'm of the belief that Druid is unpopular according to dndbeyond. Which is a sub set of the player base.

Of these Shepard feels the most complex, but that's just because of minion bookkeeping.
The player and I worked on some summons packages, pre formed, that he'd call on when summoning was chosen. He's a competent player and an experienced DM so he has no trouble handling multiple creatures in combat.

I dunno, I'm probably pretty biased because I've been a fan of Druids ever since I played Baldur's Gate for the first time. I like them ever since I played one from Eldritch Wizardry.

Too complicated? Nope.

[Hurrashane]

What makes someone a 'nature caster' to you? Would a wizard, bard, or cleric with the druid spell list qualify well enough?

A cleric with the druid list perhaps would but the rest of their kit doesn't feel nature-y. But they'd likely need to be a wisdom caster as that feels right (though that's likely because of D&D Druids/Rangers being wis based).

Having to explain it makes me realize how difficult it is for me to explain.

A nature-y Bard could work pretty well, someone who interacts with nature via music and song. But it just being a bard with the druid list slapped on doesn't really work for me.

Honestly, thinking about it, I don't even think the druid does what I'd want in a nature caster. Like, they should be able to speak with animals or at least be able to do a more magical version of animal handling without a spell. I'm becoming more convinced that wildshape should be a spell and the druid should gain more nature/animal themed class features like, I feel like the ranger is more nature guy than the druid.

I don't know if most of this made sense I kinda think as I type so it might be a bit of a ramble.

[Segev]

A cleric with the druid list perhaps would but the rest of their kit doesn't feel nature-y. But they'd likely need to be a wisdom caster as that feels right (though that's likely because of D&D Druids/Rangers being wis based).

Having to explain it makes me realize how difficult it is for me to explain.

A nature-y Bard could work pretty well, someone who interacts with nature via music and song. But it just being a bard with the druid list slapped on doesn't really work for me.

Honestly, thinking about it, I don't even think the druid does what I'd want in a nature caster. Like, they should be able to speak with animals or at least be able to do a more magical version of animal handling without a spell. I'm becoming more convinced that wildshape should be a spell and the druid should gain more nature/animal themed class features like, I feel like the ranger is more nature guy than the druid.

I don't know if most of this made sense I kinda think as I type so it might be a bit of a ramble.

In earlier editions - 3e, I particularly remember - there was a class feature Druids had called "Wild Empathy." IT was a die roll to try to influence animals and other wildlife, and part of its problem in 3e is that, regardless of whether the RAW were technically specific or not, they were sufficiently unclear to most readers that people had trouble telling what Wild Empathy did that Animal Handling (a skill, not a class feature) didn't, and vice-versa, and whether one "stepped on the toes" of the other, and whether you needed the skill if you had the class feature, and if so, what it let you do that the feature didn't.

But it sounds like you could probably take speak with animals and beast sense and beast bond and move them to class features to make you a bit happier. Much like Misty Visions and the Illusionist Wizard, there's a certain irony that a Warlock (of any Patron, not just the Archfey) can actually be better at talking to animals than the Druid. Sure, speak with animals is a ritual, but the 10 minute casting time makes it a lot less natural-seeming (in the sense of "it's just something I can do," not in the "nature vs. cities" sense of "natural") than the Invocation that Warlocks can get. With the Primal spell list becoming something that multiple classes access the whole of, it may even make sense to give certain spells from it as at-will class features to specific classes or subclasses.

All Arcane casters can access eldritch blast, but only Warlocks can make it as amazing as invocations can make it. All Divine casters can access the smite spells, but only Paladins get to cast them as part of single attacks (not that they get this now; I'm spitballing suggestions). All Primal casters have access to speak with animals and beast sense, but only Druids get it always prepared and the ability to cast it at will without components or spell slots.

[JackPhoenix]

In earlier editions - 3e, I particularly remember - there was a class feature Druids had called "Wild Empathy." IT was a die roll to try to influence animals and other wildlife, and part of its problem in 3e is that, regardless of whether the RAW were technically specific or not, they were sufficiently unclear to most readers that people had trouble telling what Wild Empathy did that Animal Handling (a skill, not a class feature) didn't, and vice-versa, and whether one "stepped on the toes" of the other, and whether you needed the skill if you had the class feature, and if so, what it let you do that the feature didn't.

But it sounds like you could probably take speak with animals and beast sense and beast bond and move them to class features to make you a bit happier. Much like Misty Visions and the Illusionist Wizard, there's a certain irony that a Warlock (of any Patron, not just the Archfey) can actually be better at talking to animals than the Druid. Sure, speak with animals is a ritual, but the 10 minute casting time makes it a lot less natural-seeming (in the sense of "it's just something I can do," not in the "nature vs. cities" sense of "natural") than the Invocation that Warlocks can get. With the Primal spell list becoming something that multiple classes access the whole of, it may even make sense to give certain spells from it as at-will class features to specific classes or subclasses.

Shepherd can speak to animals, but yeah, it's something I'd expect from any druid, without spells.

[Psyren]

(when/how such feedback is gathered remains a mystery to me - I've certainly never seen any way to indicate such specifics to developers through any function of D&DBeyond!)

Not all feedback has to be directly solicited. However, as a reminder They DID do so directly at least once, via the extensive round of PHB surveys back in late 2021 that covered every feat, spell, race, and class among other things.


the big negative to Druid popularity is that Wild Shape is too difficult. It requires too much book diving for specific stat blocks and that's too much to handle for enough players that it is the primary factor for it being the least-played class.

Or...

Is the lack of Druid popularity more to do with the fact that it's entire theme is the weakest among available themes?
Nature, as compared to Arcane, Divine, etc, is at the bottom of the pile. It is the forgotten power source.

There's a lot of claims in here I find dubious. If any power source is "forgotten" it's Psionics. And the theme of a nature priest is quite enduring I'd say.



It concerns itself with plants and beasts, both of which are incredibly few in number, incredibly weak, or both.

Nature covers far, far more concepts than just plants and animals, but even focusing just on them - define "incredibly weak"... or "incredibly few in number" for that matter.

Even in the cases where I might agree with those assessments, that's why nature empowers druids (and rangers) in the first place - to defend and champion the wild spaces in ways that such creatures can't do on their own. That doesn't make nature weak, in fact it makes it a force to be reckoned with. A force of nature, one might say :smallamused:


Your Wild Shape options are limited to the weakest possible option. Beasts are a joke of a creature type as compared to almost every other. The only one worse is probably plants and maybe oozes... which are also part of a Druid's "theme!"

The idea is that a wild shaped druid is never *just* a beast.


Also, it's the class with the absolute least amount of out-of-game inspiration to draw from. All of the famous literary Druids we can point to are how we got the Wizard class. (Allanon of Shannara, Merlin, etc.)
If you're a big MtG fan, you can probably find some Druidic inspiration, but outside of that? There's almost none to be found.

Just because druids were largely "wizards who lived outside" pre-D&D doesn't mean that isn't a valid character inspiration. Yes, Radagast and Saruman were both "wizards, but very few people would consider them both equal inspiration for the same character concept. The same is true for Zatanna and Poison Ivy, or Beast Boy and Raven, and nearly all of these characters predate D&D too.


Long story short? I don't doubt that Druid has ended up as the least popular class. But I seriously doubt it's because Wild Shape is too hard and is much more likely to be the disrespect the developers have for "the natural" combined with a lack of inspiration for players to draw from.

I see neither disrespect from the devs for nature, nor a lack of inspiration for players at all. I don't think you've put enough effort into either to make such a judgment.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll note that the fictional term "wizard" and the D&D Wizard class...don't match up well at all. Most fictional wizards are not well represented thematically or in power set by D&D wizards at all.

Merlin, depending on the depiction, was closer to either a Warlock (in the "made a pact with hell" sense) or a sorcerer (innate magic nature). He's not (in most depictions) an academic who learns from books.

D&D magic, generally, is sui generis. It really only thematically represents...D&D magic. Most of the distinctions we make between sorcerers, warlocks, wizards, witches, etc...just don't exist in the fiction except where inspired by D&D.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The thing to keep in mind is almost no Fantasy Magic system actually translates perfectly well to D&D unless it was designed to do so.

Let's look at two of the biggest Fantasy Authors writing right now who have put extensive effort into explaining their magic and how they actually translate to D&D.

My personal Favorite is L. E. Modesitt Jr. He has a plethora of different series but running down the most popular ones.

Recluce: Magic is the manipulation of Order and Chaos as in specifically impacting Stasis and Entropy in the world. Order mages can heal, strengthen bonds in things and on the surface might be "Clerics" but they also control the weather, direct lava flows and turn invisible. Chaos Wizards on the surface throw fire and scry via mirrors. But also weaken objects, raise mountains and can charges high tech items with their magic. BOTH are genetic traits inherited which would make them Sorcerers, neither can be played in D&D as a Sorcerer very well.

SpellSong: Magic is musically based. You envision what you want, sing a song that requests it, boom. Bard right? Nope. The power is not inherent, it's learned, and it ties to how precise and perfect the music is along with the users understanding of what they want. It's a Wizard.

Imager: But now we have the above without song. Understand something, will it to be and rearrange matter to create it. It's, again, genetic and requires immense Constitution AND Intelligence and Willpower. So... Some sort of Wis based Sorcerer that needs high Int and Con for their abilities too?

Now let's turn to Sanderson, probably the most casually well known.

Mistborn: This is a wierd Sorcerer almost Artificer. It's genetic to learn, but you use the magic by literally eating a type of metal and then burning it inside you to get the power. So it's Sorcerer for how you got the ability but then Artificer for how you power it sorta?

Stormlight: After being emotionally and mentally broken you form a bond with a Spirit of some sort. That's Warlock. But every last one of them are Blade Pacts and have such a diverse set of powers it's really hard to make most of them, though I'd say this is the most direct comparison.

It's generally better to quit worrying about the class' name and worry about how to make a character do what you want.

If I want a Nature Priest I MIGHT take Druid, or I might take Bard and talk to my DM about switching out some spells.

On the other hand I happily have a Changeling Druid because I wanted to make a Mystique type character, Not nature themed at all really.

[PhoenixPhyre]

SpellSong: Magic is musically based. You envision what you want, sing a song that requests it, boom. Bard right? Nope. The power is not inherent, it's learned, and it ties to how precise and perfect the music is along with the users understanding of what they want. It's a Wizard.


Except:
- No fixed spells. You can do just about anything if you can write a lyric and a tune. But the actual outcomes depend on lots of emotional variables and other details. So the whole "fixed list of spells with fixed effects" (as well as the whole spell slot/spell level) thing doesn't apply
- Power is both inherent and learned--the actual spellsingers are very rare even among people who can sing.
- You generally need a backing band to do anything of any value, unless you're the (incredibly talented and empowered) MC.
- No spell slots--you can sing yourself hoarse over and over again. It's limited by your own conditioning (Constitution, sort of), with magic being intensely draining (to the point of lethality in several cases).
- You can learn new spells (if you're good enough) by listening to someone perform.

So...yeah. Not really close to being a D&D wizard. And that's the closest analogue in the list.

I do basically agree, just nitpicking on some details =)

D&D doesn't even try to emulate fantasy generally. It emulates D&D and D&D only. And is better off treated that way. At least IMO. Trying to import external characters or concepts just never goes well.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'll note that the fictional term "wizard" and the D&D Wizard class...
I hear that Magic User was a great term for a Swords and Sorcery/Fantasy game. Maybe they should use that. :smallbiggrin:


Most fictional wizards are not well represented thematically or in power set by D&D wizards at all. And Elminster went backwards, form D&D to fiction and {further comments are censored}.

D&D magic, generally, is sui generis. It really only thematically represents...D&D magic. Yes. Magic Users are Mediums, Seers, Conjurers, Theurgists, Thaumaturgists, Magicians, Enchanters, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Necromancers, and Wizards.
And Mages. And Witches. And so on ...

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Except:
- No fixed spells. You can do just about anything if you can write a lyric and a tune. But the actual outcomes depend on lots of emotional variables and other details. So the whole "fixed list of spells with fixed effects" (as well as the whole spell slot/spell level) thing doesn't apply
- Power is both inherent and learned--the actual spellsingers are very rare even among people who can sing.
- You generally need a backing band to do anything of any value, unless you're the (incredibly talented and empowered) MC.
- No spell slots--you can sing yourself hoarse over and over again. It's limited by your own conditioning (Constitution, sort of), with magic being intensely draining (to the point of lethality in several cases).
- You can learn new spells (if you're good enough) by listening to someone perform.

I know you're just debating and picking for fun but now I feel compelled back. O:-)

-I'd argue the spells are fixed, you can't really freeform a spell, you have to have it written in advance and ready, like a prepared spell scroll. 5e focuses less on it but Wizards are technically encouraged to come up with their own spells if there isn't one that does what they want, working with the DM to determine power level and costs.
-Not really, in fact, I'd argue the inherent aspects is a subversion, Natural talent leads one to focus less on precision and details which is lethal there. Spellsingers are incredibly rare because you need perfect vocal control and learning that is dangerous. Like if there aws no teachers to train you in firearms and if you don't hold the gun perfect it shoots you.
-The Accompaniment is to project sounds further. I'd be curious if the place ever gets modern electricity if a Mic and Amplifier would do the same. And remember, Anna and later Secca's abilities are from training and education, not MC natures. In fact, the reason Secca is never on Anna's level is precisely because of that science education. She reads a spell later on that involves an atomic explosion and works on splitting atoms but the notes warn "If you don't know what this means, do NOT try this."
-This becomes flavor, I'd argue Spell Slots simulate your stamina. Basically if you gave a mechanic that let you burn HP into Spellslots you could mimic the dangers.
-You have me there. Though again I think it translates well because a lot of people won't hear nuance or details to a song the first hear, so without the sheet music you might be out of luck.

PS: Glad to see another Modesitt fan, or at least Spellsong fan. :-D

[KorvinStarmast]

-This becomes flavor, I'd argue Spell Slots simulate your stamina. Basically if you gave a mechanic that let you burn HP into Spellslots you could mimic the dangers.
Evoker, Overchannel.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I know you're just debating and picking for fun but now I feel compelled back. O:-)

-I'd argue the spells are fixed, you can't really freeform a spell, you have to have it written in advance and ready, like a prepared spell scroll. 5e focuses less on it but Wizards are technically encouraged to come up with their own spells if there isn't one that does what they want, working with the DM to determine power level and costs.
-Not really, in fact, I'd argue the inherent aspects is a subversion, Natural talent leads one to focus less on precision and details which is lethal there. Spellsingers are incredibly rare because you need perfect vocal control and learning that is dangerous. Like if there aws no teachers to train you in firearms and if you don't hold the gun perfect it shoots you.
-The Accompaniment is to project sounds further. I'd be curious if the place ever gets modern electricity if a Mic and Amplifier would do the same. And remember, Anna and later Secca's abilities are from training and education, not MC natures. In fact, the reason Secca is never on Anna's level is precisely because of that science education. She reads a spell later on that involves an atomic explosion and works on splitting atoms but the notes warn "If you don't know what this means, do NOT try this."
-This becomes flavor, I'd argue Spell Slots simulate your stamina. Basically if you gave a mechanic that let you burn HP into Spellslots you could mimic the dangers.
-You have me there. Though again I think it translates well because a lot of people won't hear nuance or details to a song the first hear, so without the sheet music you might be out of luck.

PS: Glad to see another Modesitt fan, or at least Spellsong fan. :-D

The difference with fixed spells is that a Spellsinger's effects depend less on the actual written spell and more on the emotional and imagination state of the caster. The words and music are some constraint, but two different Spellsingers could perform the same work and get very different outcomes categorically. Including "blowing up in your face". Which is something the D&D wizard doesn't face--his either work or don't, but every time they work they do exactly the same thing down to the details. And Anna actually creates spells on the fly regularly.

There's hints that that's not quite true. Children of spellsingers tend to be better spellsingers even from the start of their training. And having perfect pitch is a requirement to be a good spellsinger...and that's definitely not a learned thing. Sure, it's not as inherent as some of his other magic systems. But it has a strong inherent component that D&D wizards lack[1].

Accompaniment also drastically increases power and reduces strain. To the point of making something that knocks Anna on her butt when she tries it alone into something fairly effortless.

A wizard with no spell slots can still fight (assuming he has a weapon proficiency) and cast cantrips with no trouble. A spellsinger after a full day of singing (or one or two big songs) is on the point of death, often having aged significantly in the process. Potentially even killing themselves.

[1] Although my personal opinion is that D&D wizards do depend on talent more than stated. But wizard-supremacists hate that argument =)

I like Modesitt, although his work does tend to get a bit anvilicious where it comes to ecological ideology. It's been a darn long time since I've read the entire Spellsong Cycle--I've got the Recluse books (at least the early ones) in my home library though.

@KorvinStarmast But imagine that any spell ate into your HP and often took days to recover from one big spell. Casting a 9th-level spell or equivalent might put you down for several weeks and then you'd have to rebuild your strength almost from scratch. Or kill you if you weren't strong enough.

That's another difference--unlike D&D where a low-level caster can't do a high-level effect...any spellsinger could, in principle, attempt and successfully complete any of the songs. The strain will probably kill him or her though.

[KorvinStarmast]

@KorvinStarmast But imagine that any spell ate into your HP and often took days to recover from one big spell. Casting a 9th-level spell or equivalent might put you down for several weeks and then you'd have to rebuild your strength almost from scratch. Or kill you if you weren't strong enough. I'd not mind that, or the risk of that, to be in the game. I'd also like there to be a chance of failure when crafting magic items. But that's partly from my RL 'how to invent something or build a new prototype' experience and my OD&D and AD&D 1e "this might not work" feature... (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/76084/22566)and what are the consequences of that?
Compare, for example, Blades in the Dark "consequences" when you get a low roll to create/craft something: it might not work, it might blow up in your face, it might anger all of the ghosts in a two mile radius or it might work with nasty side effectgs.
D&D lacks that in WotC versions, except that a few artifacts and cursed item feature that exact a king of price. And the ever popular Wand of Wonder.

That's another difference--unlike D&D where a low-level caster can't do a high-level effect...any spellsinger could, in principle, attempt and successfully complete any of the songs. The strain will probably kill him or her though.
He who will not risk cannot win.
No balls, not blue chips.
No Guts No Glory. Etc.

[Willie the Duck]

Jeremy Crawford is telling us that, through feedback gathered, (when/how such feedback is gathered remains a mystery to me - I've certainly never seen any way to indicate such specifics to developers through any function of D&DBeyond!) the big negative to Druid popularity is that Wild Shape is too difficult.
Lotta people don't think JC or the dev team in general are being forthright, and the company as a whole sure hasn't earned our trust so I get it. And since they are never going to share the receipts, we'll never really know how they know (or think they know) this. I am confident, however, that they are very interested in collecting our money. For that reason, I'm willing to lend them some faith that, if they are putting forth options for changing the druid, it is because their customer research did indeed indicate that the druid needed a change (and that they are changing the part that people at least said was the problem). Honestly, the way they missed the mark with this most recent UA, to me, really does reflect a group whose take-away from their research was 'we need to fix wildshape, it's the big problem, the temp-hp are the balancing issue and choosing between animal listings is the other problem.' That's exactly what they fixed, without stepping back and looking at the big picture or use-case of the resultant new versions. None of this means they were right (about what people were saying, which I can't know; nor what the problems were, to which I only have my own opinions), but IMO their actions line up very well with people who legitimately believed it to be the case.


Or... Is the lack of Druid popularity more to do with the fact that it's entire theme is the weakest among available themes?
Nature, as compared to Arcane, Divine, etc, is at the bottom of the pile. It is the forgotten power source. It concerns itself with plants and beasts, both of which are incredibly few in number, incredibly weak, or both.
Your Wild Shape options are limited to the weakest possible option. Beasts are a joke of a creature type as compared to almost every other. The only one worse is probably plants and maybe oozes... which are also part of a Druid's "theme!"

Well, it certainly doesn't have to be one or the other, the first one being questionable doesn't imply the second, etc.

Regardless, specifically going by theme, I would disagree.
Reasoning: I've multiple times casually tried to explain the class breakdown of D&D to my wife (who has no interest in playing, but does upon occasion enjoy hearing the exploits of a given party or the like). She consistently agrees that a Fighter-type class is a seems at-it's-face a natural power fantasy for a swords-and-dragons kind of game; and after that dashing rogues* and a 'magic users'**. After that, 'nature guys' -- rangers and druids*** (particularly ones with pets or beast-speach or shapeshifting) -- comes right next in the making sense part ("you guys go out into the woods/wilds to find your adventure, someone who is really good at doing that and maybe even can turn the wilds into an asset, seems like a perfect fit"). It's monks/barbarians/paladins ("why are these not just more fighters?"), and particularly clerics and bards ("why isn't this that Background thing that explains what they did before adventuring? And, other than that one time in your gaming career you want to play Friar Tuck or that Witcher minstrel, how often were people really were champing at the bit to play a priest or entertainer?") for which she doesn't understand entire classes existing.
*although now that everyone gets skills and have backgrounds, why that isn't just a fighter with certain skills and backgrounds isn't clear
**why there need to be three types based on whether the magic comes from book-learning, ancestry, or a pact, is not clear to her
***with some confusion on why there need to be two types, especially since rangers also have spells

Frankly, I agree with her layperson's assessment -- nature expert is a perfectly enjoyable theme for a fantasy power-fantasy and/or character. What is an issue is that D&D hasn't always made the implementation that great. For rangers, the game hasn't usually made the survival aspect exciting, and thus being really good at it isn't fun either (you aren't doing things like harrying your opponents as they travel, preventing them from resting or successfully foraging; such that when you do confront them in full they are weakened and vulnerable, as you might do in a skirmish/scouting wargame or the like). For druids, it is because D&D (in general and particularly 5e) hasn't made 'the wilds' (nature, the raw elements and elementals, IRL and IRL prehistoric wild animals) scary --- at least not over the course of all the levels. Instead they are the bush league before you get to pit traps, magic traps, curses, dragons, upper tier giants, beholders and mind flayers, and especially undead/devils/demons (or enemy NPCs).

Previous editions, I feel, support this. When the ranger and druid classes were powerful or thematic, they were favored. Certainly in the TSR era where animals could have deadly poison and traversing through the wilderness in-between dungeons was a mostly a series of xp-less encounters of unknown difficulty. In 1e pre-Dragonlance, when (I think) more people actually played this out; being good in the wild was considered very helpful. In 2e, druids were weaker (certainly wildshape was not powerful, and their spells were hit-and-miss), but them and rangers* were still popular. Perhaps some of this got conflated with Drizzt clones and general elf-love (these two being classes they or half-elves could take) of the era, but I also think 2e did a good flavor-upgrade on them, selling the 'wilderness protector' vibe strongly. In 3e rangers were not good, and weren't favored. Druids were, though (woods-CoDzilla who could turn into a flying bear that could still cast spells, have a bear pet, and summon more bears with a spell, and not have to change theme as they level-advanced), and were popular.
*who honestly outside of tracking were weaker than a fighter who put non-weapon-proficiencies into wilderness survival and weapon-proficiencies into two-weapon-fighting they could do in not-light-armor
**Didn't hurt that rangers were a mostly-strictly-better fighter unless you wanted to do the keep&army thing at name level


Also, it's the class with the absolute least amount of out-of-game inspiration to draw from. All of the famous literary Druids we can point to are how we got the Wizard class. (Allanon of Shannara, Merlin, etc.)
If you're a big MtG fan, you can probably find some Druidic inspiration, but outside of that? There's almost none to be found.

I think it depends on how much you are willing to stretch the concept. As others have mentioned, most literary wizards don't line up well with D&D ones either. If we afford druids the same leeway (in particular not require everything the literary character does being an innate spell), it becomes a lot more open. Much of the elven magic of LotR could be druidic. Same with Radagast. Also Beorn. Prospero from the Tempest explicitly learns his magic from books, but his repertoire is clearly druidic (pointing out that marrying D&D to anything else will always involved 'so which pile does this fit?' questions). Poison Ivy & Swamp Thing and other plant-themed heroes/villains from superhero comics. The Beastmaster from the movie of the same name would be a druid or ranger. Arnold Schwarzenegger's character from Predator would be a sci-fi equivalent (with improbable movie luck&skill subbing for D&D's explicit spells). There is a genre-character that the nature-theme classes fill, regardless of how well they do it.


I think a big part of the problem is that Wild Shape is presented as a major part of the class. In both 5e and the OD&D playtest, all the class features aside from Spellcasting revolve around turning into an animal. Yet aside from Circle of the Moon, Druids don’t care that much about turning into animals. For Land, Dreams and Shepard, Wild Shape is a utility feature, used every so often for scouting or other non-combat purpose. For Spores, Stars and Wildfire, Wild Shape gets transformed into something else entirely.
I think Druid would see more play if WotC treated Wild Shape as a single utility feature (that Moon Druid turns into a combat feature) and let the class get additional features later on instead of boosts to Wild Shape.

For me, I think it comes from starting in 3.5. The Druid had the spells AND the wild shape AND the animal companion. Way too much. 4E sort of split that up and simplified it into the transforming Warden and sort of transforming Druid (wild shape), the Druid and the Shaman (spells), and the Shaman having a companion. No longer way too much. Now the 5E Druid still avoids the companion (beyond a spell that you don't have to prepare), but you're back to having a spell list to worry about and a list of animals to turn into. We had picked a lane, but we couldn't stick to it.
In 1e, druids, clerics, and illusionists had 7 levels of spells, and even if they had 9 they would not have been on-par with magic users. By 3e, they all had 9 levels (with some attempt to make spells of level X comparable*). That may have been a mistake. When they were developing 5e**, they needed to pare down the sum total of the 3e bear-casting-with-bear-buddy-and-bear-spells thing I mentioned above, but were already married to the 9 levels of spells of nearly-wizard-level power, leaving them very little room to work with for the wildshape and animal companion (coming back online with Tasha's and the UA as familiars); particularly if you want a wildshape+ version for this Moon Druid variant they wanted to make. Personally, I wouldn't have minded if druids had been 2/3 casters***, half-caster (rangers as 0-1/3 caster), or something like warlocks (0-9, but clearly not as spell-powerful as clerics/wizards, leaving more space open for wildshape or modular options. A warlock-like druid who could make a blade/chain/tome decision between casting/pet/wildshape-focus would be awesome (plus being able to pick invocation-analogs for 'my wildshape is becoming a wolfman instead of a wolf' or the like).
*or at least scrolls of the spells cost the same and other indications that they were somehow equal.
**as others have said, ignoring much of what 4E did.
***like bards were in 3e, and both could have been in 5e if the devs wanted.

I will certainly be advocating in my UA responses that they step back and reassess completely what they want out of druids. Not just 'fix wildshape,' but decided what they want druids (Moon and otherwise) to be doing with their Channel Nature actions, and what the various class features at each level will do for wild shaping druids, wild-shaping moon druids, and druids who choose not to wild-shape.


This is my experience. Druids are very common among my new players. And the spells and associated superstructure is the hard part, not the wild shape. Even given spell and monster cards.
I've generally found it is the sum total of the moving pieces. Wildshapes (and choosing amongst the options), spells (which out of the whole class list to memorize each day, then which to cast now), which spell to have in concentration (and whether to protect your concentration at all costs or put your actions/build choices to good use for your other actions), and how not to have bonus-action conflicts. Also something I've noticed is that druids have a number of situational-blocks that tend to stymie less-experienced players -- the enemy that can fly over the spiked growth, the one who can tremorsense through the fog cloud, the demon who laughs at their (non-shepherd) summoned animal attacks. None of these individually are insurmountable, but in total can make people not have as much fun with the otherwise-newbie-appealing character concept.

[Sherlockpwns]

All this and how have we not asked the obvious question: Why isn’t monk in line to be fixed first?!

Jokes aside I don’t see any of the issues. Druid is a staple class. My most recent was a wildfire and I consider it one of the most fun and straight up powerful characters I’ve played.

I see wildshape get used often but basically never need a stat sheet. It’s mostly just scouting from the sky or through a mouse hole, etc. Ironically this kind of weighs me in favor of streamlining it. Give me some basic stats and let me describe what I turn into. Done.

Druid spells fit an important role as general support casters. Not everyone needs to be hurling fireballs. I do agree that conjure spells were poorly designed. Beyond that the reality is imo the biggest problem is the Druid spell purposes overlap the Bard’s too much. While they don’t share many spells directly, both are primarily CC with a dash of healing.

If I were working on this I’d actually be more focused on how to make bards more unique in how they interact; probably by leaning further into bards supporting by buffing vs druids supporting by CCing enemies. Remove most of the bard CC in favor of more and more efficient buffs.

But this ain’t about bards! Druids have a clear progression they can already lean into.

Tier 1 druids are CC / light healers focused casters that can use animal forms to scout or use the existing terrain to aid them.

Tier 2 druids are summoners, able to call forth natural creatures to aid them. Imo, other classes should have fewer to help make druids really stand out here. Tasha style summons ideally.

Tier 3 druids are harnessing the power of natural elements over regular creatures. So not just summoning elementals, but using elemental magic in other ways as well. I’d make all the common wall spells (fire, water, stone etc) Druid exclusive as an example.

Tier 4 Druids should (but don’t really do much yet) be focused on the power of the planes themselves. Planar travel, communication with other planes, and using that kind of power to really ruin someone’s day.

I always loved this progression of natural powers. Especially compared to sorcerer, who often feels like “I go from fireball to bigger fireball to biggest fireball!

So, tl;dr I would prefer druids really morph and change their focus as they grow in power, from simple manipulation of existing plants and animals to summoning companions to harnessing the elements to harnessing the planes. In general I am opposed to how cross pollinated all the caster classes are. Poor Clerics have it the worst here, but no class is unique anymore.

[Slingbow]

Long story short? I don't doubt that Druid has ended up as the least popular class. But I seriously doubt it's because Wild Shape is too hard and is much more likely to be the disrespect the developers have for "the natural" combined with a lack of inspiration for players to draw from.

Just boring. I've tried to play a Druid a couple times and I've been DM for several Druids. Regardless of the build one of three things happened.

1.The Druid casts moonbeam.
2. They cast call lighting.
3. The player hits the "hip hop horn" app on their phone and wildshapes. Into what? Yup. A bear.

And out for out of combat we've got good berries, high perception, and wildshape into a cat or rat or gnat for "spying".

In an RP sense it's even worse. They just are sad or indignant about how bad humanoids are for the environment. Just really judgemental. I mean we all love the planet it real life but why would anyone wanna RP a PETA superhero?
You know who's not gonna judge you for unwise shenanigans? The Chaoticly aligned Arcane caster that's who.

Vote wizard/warlock/Sorcerer/bard!!

[Segev]

Just boring. I've tried to play a Druid a couple times and I've been DM for several Druids. Regardless of the build one of three things happened.

1.The Druid casts moonbeam.
2. They cast call lighting.
3. The player hits the "hip hop horn" app on their phone and wildshapes. Into what? Yup. A bear.

And out for out of combat we've got good berries, high perception, and wildshape into a cat or rat or gnat for "spying".

In an RP sense it's even worse. They just are sad or indignant about how bad humanoids are for the environment. Just really judgemental. I mean we all love the planet it real life but why would anyone wanna RP a PETA superhero?
You know who's not gonna judge you for unwise shenanigans? The Chaoticly aligned Arcane caster that's who.

Vote wizard/warlock/Sorcerer/bard!!

Playing my drow Circle of the Land (Underdark) druid, I've cast moonbeam all of twice. The first time, I used thorn whip to try to drag the boss monster across it to get two bites at the damage apple from the spell per cycle through the initiative order, and it kind-of worked, but still didn't do much damage. The second, I couldn't get it to do appreciable damage to anything. I'm generally underwhelmed by the spell. He's only recently started properly using Wild Shape to buff his hp; mostly he turns into apes so he can keep using his poisoned daggers, though he did turn into a crocodile once with the intent to bite-and-grapple (and drag to a cliff). He got knocked out of it by a solid hit, instead, and also lost concentration on his conjure animals spell.

Now, he's not a moon druid, so "bear" was only ever going to be the black bear, which isn't what is considered the go-to when people talk about how (moon) druids always turn into bears. But he doesn't even use call lightning and moonbeam that often. I'm probably dropping moonbeam from his spells prepared, in fact. It just doesn't work very well for me, for some reason.

[KorvinStarmast]

If I were working on this I’d actually be more focused on how to make bards more unique in how they interact; probably by leaning further into bards supporting by buffing vs druids supporting by CCing enemies. Remove most of the bard CC in favor of more and more efficient buffs. I prefer to debuff enemies as a bard because each PC has its own features, but the action economy interaction benefits the party with debuffs. Also, as you go up in level a bunch of buffs don't require concentration: freedom of movement being a very good one to lay on your martial/front liner. There are 12 classes but not 12 PCs in each adventuring party. There is going to be some overlap. I disagree with your idea to stove pipe the classes like that.

Tier 1 druids are CC / light healers focused casters that can use animal forms to scout or use the existing terrain to aid them.

Tier 2 druids are summoners, able to call forth natural creatures to aid them. Imo, other classes should have fewer to help make druids really stand out here. Tasha style summons ideally.

Tier 3 druids are harnessing the power of natural elements over regular creatures. So not just summoning elementals, but using elemental magic in other ways as well. I’d make all the common wall spells (fire, water, stone etc) Druid exclusive as an example.

Tier 4 Druids should (but don’t really do much yet) be focused on the power of the planes themselves. Planar travel, communication with other planes, and using that kind of power to really ruin someone’s day.
Conceptually, I like this a lot. +1 :smallsmile:

[Joe the Rat]

I would really like a little more about how they determined what needed changed on druid - sometimes your interpretation isn't the only viable explanation from your evidence.

I think we've been around and back that the theme of Druid (nature shaman/wizard with magic focused around cajoling, controlling and conjuring aspects of nature, including the "classical elements") is fairly defined, if not necessarily well implemented. I've got my ideas on what it should look like, but it doesn't necessarily jibe with the common view. Like wildshape shouldn't be the Protected class feature. If you have a Protected feature, that means the class is in part defined by it, and loses some of its oomph when others can do it too. Which means at this point it shares a list with Bardic Inspiration, Barbarian Rage, Monk Dex-fist and stunning, Paladin Lay on Hands*, and Rogue Sneak Attack, since every other "distinctive" class ability can be accessed in part via feats or subtypes. Frankly, I don't think it's really that emblematic of Druid to be the Holdout ability. That's really kind of the crux - if your class is the only one that does X, then you will be defined by doing X. Rogues should be considered "the Expertise class", as they are the most skill focused, and rely heavily on those skills even in combat. But they are the only ones that Superstab as a free resource, so there you go. Viable unarmed combat used to be the monk thing, until they figured out that Big Guys punching people without an ascetic foundation is a big fantasy concept, and added Unarmed Fighting. Now it's just dex-punching and easy access stunning. If there were other ways to get utility-grade wildshape, then you can refocus what people see as being the point of you.

But honestly, I think the main issue with druid is that people aren't broadly interested in "hippy eco-terrorist priest that turns into bears." Some people don't want to have to be environmentally conscious to turn into an animal. Some people don't want turning into an animal being the thing about their spirit-talking -shaman. Hell "spirits" was an angle that they started playing with, but never really structured enough. That would have been a good angle to take here.

* - Celesital Warlock kind of does this, only without the ailment removal feature


Bah, everyone knows druids should carry around miniature Stonehedge!
And now I have this image of a Flinstone-style "Stonehenge Wristwatch" that simply must appear in one of my games.

[Schwann145]

Nature covers far, far more concepts than just plants and animals, but even focusing just on them - define "incredibly weak"... or "incredibly few in number" for that matter.

Even in the cases where I might agree with those assessments, that's why nature empowers druids (and rangers) in the first place - to defend and champion the wild spaces in ways that such creatures can't do on their own. That doesn't make nature weak, in fact it makes it a force to be reckoned with. A force of nature, one might say :smallamused:

Willie the Duck basically said it already:

For druids, it is because D&D (in general and particularly 5e) hasn't made 'the wilds' (nature, the raw elements and elementals, IRL and IRL prehistoric wild animals) scary --- at least not over the course of all the levels. Instead they are the bush league before you get to pit traps, magic traps, curses, dragons, upper tier giants, beholders and mind flayers, and especially undead/devils/demons (or enemy NPCs).

But, to build on that a little bit...
"Natural" threats tend to come in two flavors: Tier 1 speed bumps that are pretty easily overcome (non/magical plants, beasts, the entire "exploration" pillar, etc) or plot devices that a group can't mechanically interact with but have to rely wholly on the DM and plot to carry them through (the erupting volcano, impending tsunami, massive earthquake, etc).

When I say that "nature" is weak, I mean the nature that is a mechanical part of the game that players will test themselves against. Brown bears just aren't scary - at all. Overgrowth is an annoyance, not a struggle. Etc and so on.

And, interestingly enough, the parts of the natural world that could be threatening (ie: the elemental parts) aren't actually "natural" in D&D - they're extraplanar. They exist in the Arcane wheelhouse, not the Primal.
For instance: evoking Fire through spells, fire-based magical creatures, elementals, etc. are not part of the Prime Material and/or "natural" world. They source their power and/or existence from the Plane of Fire (or maybe even the Lower Planes, depending on which "fire creature" we end up talking about...)

Celestials, Constructs, Dragons, Elementals, Fiends, Giants, Humanoids, Monstrosities, and Undead are all threats from low to high levels.

Aberrations, Beasts, Fey, Plants, and Oozes just aren't. Not even close, really. And of these that aren't keeping up? 2/5 are *core* Druid/Nature themes (Beast, Plants), 2/5 are iffy (where do Oozes really fit? Really? And Fey end up lumped in with Druids when they probably shouldn't; much like Elementals, as explained above).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd say primal fits really well with the inner planes, including the Feywild and Shadowfell. Much better than Arcane does, really (at least with the latter two). Arcane may summon elementals, but primal handles elemental forces just fine (thematically).

Primal doesn't have to just be the Material plane, and fey have massive thematic overlap with the Material anyway. As do the elements (small e). Storms and volcanoes and earthquakes and blizzards are all primal forces of nature. Death is a primal thing, as is decay. As are emotions.

So primal isn't just plants and animals. I'd say the only parts that really don't fit are outer planar stuff and ethereal/astral stuff (although dreams and other manifestations are fairly solidly primal flavored). Maybe pure "raise the dead" necromancy.

[Psyren]

Willie the Duck basically said it already:


But, to build on that a little bit...
"Natural" threats tend to come in two flavors: Tier 1 speed bumps that are pretty easily overcome (non/magical plants, beasts, the entire "exploration" pillar, etc) or plot devices that a group can't mechanically interact with but have to rely wholly on the DM and plot to carry them through (the erupting volcano, impending tsunami, massive earthquake, etc).

When I say that "nature" is weak, I mean the nature that is a mechanical part of the game that players will test themselves against. Brown bears just aren't scary - at all. Overgrowth is an annoyance, not a struggle. Etc and so on.

And, interestingly enough, the parts of the natural world that could be threatening (ie: the elemental parts) aren't actually "natural" in D&D - they're extraplanar. They exist in the Arcane wheelhouse, not the Primal.
For instance: evoking Fire through spells, fire-based magical creatures, elementals, etc. are not part of the Prime Material and/or "natural" world. They source their power and/or existence from the Plane of Fire (or maybe even the Lower Planes, depending on which "fire creature" we end up talking about...)

Celestials, Constructs, Dragons, Elementals, Fiends, Giants, Humanoids, Monstrosities, and Undead are all threats from low to high levels.

Aberrations, Beasts, Fey, Plants, and Oozes just aren't. Not even close, really. And of these that aren't keeping up? 2/5 are *core* Druid/Nature themes (Beast, Plants), 2/5 are iffy (where do Oozes really fit? Really? And Fey end up lumped in with Druids when they probably shouldn't; much like Elementals, as explained above).

Yeah sorry, I don't agree with any of this. The very notion that Fey and Elementals are somehow incapable of being high-tier threats makes no sense to me at all, and is easily disproven even just within current D&D 5th edition content by way of a trivial CR filter. The entire premise of modules like Elemental Evil and Princes of the Apocalypse and Rime of the Frostmaiden is contingent on nature's destructive, even world-threatening potential; we also have named major D&D villains from both camps like Iggwilv and Zaratan, Primordials who went toe-to-toe with gods, or (fictional) mythological examples that are easily converted to D&D like Oberon/Titania, Baba-Yaga, Gaea, Surtr and so on and so on.

You're right that Beasts, Plants, Giants, and Oozes largely represent the low-middle end of that spectrum, but even they are capable of having formidable specimens among their ranks; just because 5e hasn't yet gotten around to converting something like a Mu Spore or a Gelatinous Emperor yet, doesn't mean it can't do so.

As for elements like fire being the province of Arcane - the Inner Planes are explicitly the source of Primal magic. There is overlap with Arcane because Arcane is drawing on the background magic of the multiverse as a whole, but that doesn't mean that only Arcane is capable of producing or manipulating Earth, Fire, Wind and Water - quite the opposite.

[Schwann145]

I'd say primal fits really well with the inner planes, including the Feywild and Shadowfell. Much better than Arcane does, really (at least with the latter two). Arcane may summon elementals, but primal handles elemental forces just fine (thematically).

Primal doesn't have to just be the Material plane, and fey have massive thematic overlap with the Material anyway. As do the elements (small e). Storms and volcanoes and earthquakes and blizzards are all primal forces of nature. Death is a primal thing, as is decay. As are emotions.

So primal isn't just plants and animals. I'd say the only parts that really don't fit are outer planar stuff and ethereal/astral stuff (although dreams and other manifestations are fairly solidly primal flavored). Maybe pure "raise the dead" necromancy.

To be clear, I'm just parroting the game's stance on this. At least as per what Intelligence checks cover what.
Arcana prof. covers: spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.
Nature prof. covers: terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles.

Inner or Outer, if you study the Planes or their inhabitants, you're studying Arcana. And, afaik, it's been this way through not just 5e, but pretty much every edition before it too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be clear, I'm just parroting the game's stance on this. At least as per what Intelligence checks cover what.
Arcana prof. covers: spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.
Nature prof. covers: terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles.

Inner or Outer, if you study the Planes or their inhabitants, you're studying Arcana. And, afaik, it's been this way through not just 5e, but pretty much every edition before it too.

Yeah, the arcana proficiency is way too broad as written. But the arcana proficiency =/= the arcane arts (as in separate from primal/divine). Because otherwise the study of the gods (who are inhabitants of other planes) would be arcane. As would any spell at all.

Primal power is that sourced from the natural world and natural forces, as opposed to the artificial (in the material) forces of arcane magic. Arcane magic forces these extraplanar forces into configurations. Primal power works with what is there normally. Divine power comes channeled from the gods and belief-based forces of the world.

It's a difference in method, not a strict pigeonhole of powers.

Putting it another way, a druid can study Arcana without knowing anything about the Arcane (power source) and will still drawing on nature for power. Or, you can not study any of that and still have power. The power source is utterly distinct from the study of the planes/etc.

[LibraryOgre]

Is the lack of Druid popularity more to do with the fact that it's entire theme is the weakest among available themes?


Personally, I've always felt that Divine had the weakest themes; they're really the only class that doesn't rely on expertise in something. Druids learn about nature, and how to make it work for them. Fighters fight, thieves thieve, wizards wiz... there's little reason that you can't take Bob the commoner and declare that he's now a 30th level cleric, because Mystra said so.

[Schwann145]

The very notion that Fey and Elementals are somehow incapable of being high-tier threats makes no sense to me at all, and is easily disproven even just within current D&D 5th edition content by way of a trivial CR filter.

FWIW, I was looking at the SRD Creature list by type as I wrote that. Fey is not very long of a list, and the CR only gets as high as a 7 (10 if you count Seasonal Eladrin, which I wasn't as they're really more Elf than wild Fey).

Elemental I didn't make that argument for, but did make the argument that they're an Arcane, not Primal, grouping of creature.


Yeah, the arcana proficiency is way too broad as written. But the arcana proficiency =/= the arcane arts (as in separate from primal/divine). Because otherwise the study of the gods (who are inhabitants of other planes) would be arcane. As would any spell at all.

Primal power is that sourced from the natural world and natural forces, as opposed to the artificial (in the material) forces of arcane magic. Arcane magic forces these extraplanar forces into configurations. Primal power works with what is there normally. Divine power comes channeled from the gods and belief-based forces of the world.

It's a difference in method, not a strict pigeonhole of powers.

Putting it another way, a druid can study Arcana without knowing anything about the Arcane (power source) and will still drawing on nature for power. Or, you can not study any of that and still have power. The power source is utterly distinct from the study of the planes/etc.

I think this is a pretty outstanding take for an in-character discussion on the topic, but I don't think it works for an out-of-character discussion very well.
My character would love to spend hours, days, weeks? debating the philosophy of life and existence and where it all fits with yours... but D&D puts things in boxes for a reason.

In this regard, I'm fairly confident that planar things go in the Arcane box, Gods and other Deities go in the Religion box, weather patterns and mating habits go in the Nature box, etc.

[Psyren]

FWIW, I was looking at the SRD Creature list by type as I wrote that. Fey is not very long of a list, and the CR only gets as high as a 7 (10 if you count Seasonal Eladrin, which I wasn't as they're really more Elf than wild Fey).

Elemental I didn't make that argument for, but did make the argument that they're an Arcane, not Primal, grouping of creature.

To be blunt, I don't really care how long the list is; 5e has a content-light publication approach and there'll always be more demand for straightforward/traditional foes like liches, archdevils and great wyrm dragons. The question rather is whether there is credible thematic space for things like archfey and primordial elementals at the top end, and the answer to that is unequivocally yes.

And Elementals are Primal for the reasons stated. They come from the Inner Planes. Conjure Elementals is on the Druid list in both 5e and OneD&D, as is Summon Elemental (not 1DD yet as it's not core, but can guarantee it will be.) That Arcane can access it too (because Wizards get literally everything) does not stop it from being a Nature theme.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think this is a pretty outstanding take for an in-character discussion on the topic, but I don't think it works for an out-of-character discussion very well.
My character would love to spend hours, days, weeks? debating the philosophy of life and existence and where it all fits with yours... but D&D puts things in boxes for a reason.

In this regard, I'm fairly confident that planar things go in the Arcane box, Gods and other Deities go in the Religion box, weather patterns and mating habits go in the Nature box, etc.

My point is that you're over-extrapolating from the skill to the spells. Nothing about the skill governs the actual powers involved. The study of spells (generally) is the Arcana skill, but Arcane magic is not the same. They just happen to share a name. That's all.

Arcane vs Primal vs Divine magic is a completely orthogonal issue to Arcana, Religion, Nature (the skills).

[Telwar]

I wonder...were druids ever demonstrably popular in the first place?

One of the problems with my question is there's almost no hard data possible until at least 4e, and I suspect WotC dumped their CB data (or it wasn't set up for that kind of data collection in the first place). So we're likely limited to anecdotal evidence from people's recollections.

Like, I remember two druids in our 8ish years of 3/.5, two in our 4e games, and three in our 5e games so far (two in one campaign, or, "I guess we're not optimizing, are we?").

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Just boring. I've tried to play a Druid a couple times and I've been DM for several Druids. Regardless of the build one of three things happened.

1.The Druid casts moonbeam.
2. They cast call lighting.
3. The player hits the "hip hop horn" app on their phone and wildshapes. Into what? Yup. A bear.

And out for out of combat we've got good berries, high perception, and wildshape into a cat or rat or gnat for "spying".

In an RP sense it's even worse. They just are sad or indignant about how bad humanoids are for the environment. Just really judgemental. I mean we all love the planet it real life but why would anyone wanna RP a PETA superhero?
You know who's not gonna judge you for unwise shenanigans? The Chaoticly aligned Arcane caster that's who.

Vote wizard/warlock/Sorcerer/bard!!

I've rarely cast Moonbeam, never used Call Lightning and While I used the Bear stat block once it was not a bear. I do love Goodberry but reflavor them as muffins and rarely spy in wildshape.

RP wise I have two Druids that made it long enough to stand out in memory. One was a Star Druid that was blind and essentially trained by an Astral deity. That's the one who occasionally used Moonbeam though they usually relied on CC and Guiding Bolts
The other is a Chef with a Disney Princess esq affection for animals. She is non violent and has no damaging options, using CC and the Gust Cantrip to move things around. Thanks to DM approval she's essentially a Kitsune and so all of her wildshapes are some variety of Fox I do tend to default to the Cat and wolf forms as a Fennic and Regular fox.

[Schwann145]

To be blunt, I don't really care how long the list is; 5e has a content-light publication approach and there'll always be more demand for straightforward/traditional foes like liches, archdevils and great wyrm dragons. The question rather is whether there is credible thematic space for things like archfey and primordial elementals at the top end, and the answer to that is unequivocally yes.

Then why aren't they?
WotC has had nearly a decade to print literally anything for powerful Fey and they've chosen not to, despite it being not-that-niche of a theme/enemy type.
(This would be a good example of what I mean when I say the developers are "disrespectful" of the theme.)


My point is that you're over-extrapolating from the skill to the spells. Nothing about the skill governs the actual powers involved. The study of spells (generally) is the Arcana skill, but Arcane magic is not the same. They just happen to share a name. That's all.

Arcane vs Primal vs Divine magic is a completely orthogonal issue to Arcana, Religion, Nature (the skills).

I am indeed doing that, but it's out of necessity.
From an in-world perspective, Arcane energy is just as much a part of regular ol' nature as everything else. But the Druid, for obvious reasons, can't just claim everything that exists naturally as it's own. Looking to how Intelligence/Knowledge checks define the lines is as good a distinction to start with as any, IMO.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I wonder...were druids ever demonstrably popular in the first place?

One of the problems with my question is there's almost no hard data possible until at least 4e, and I suspect WotC dumped their CB data (or it wasn't set up for that kind of data collection in the first place). So we're likely limited to anecdotal evidence from people's recollections.

Like, I remember two druids in our 8ish years of 3/.5, two in our 4e games, and three in our 5e games so far (two in one campaign, or, "I guess we're not optimizing, are we?").

Druid were considered one of the most OP classes in 3.X. There's a reason "CoDzilla" was a term (Cleric or Druid) as the Divine Casters were visious. The Druid takes it a step further by having a CLASS FEATURE that is close to on par with a standard Fighter, by itself most of the time.

2nd Ed and Lower had an issue with Druids because the official rules actively harmed a druid player getting out of Tier 2 essentially. Once you hit level 11 there's an RP wall. There are apparently only 9 level 12 druids in any geographical area, only 3 level 13s above that, only 1 level 14 above that. Then there's only 1 Level 15 Druid in the world period. Levesl 12-14 you can get by challenging and defeating the current holders, but the level 15 PICKS their successor. Then if you want to keep going once you are ready to hit level 16 you have to go find a level 14 druid with enough XP to level up and willingly give them the Level 15 title, THEN you can start leveling again.

So, Druids were great for low level games but never existed much in high levels to get anywhere.

[Psyren]

Then why aren't they?
WotC has had nearly a decade to print literally anything for powerful Fey and they've chosen not to, despite it being not-that-niche of a theme/enemy type.
(This would be a good example of what I mean when I say the developers are "disrespectful" of the theme.)

They have done so. That the list is shorter than, say, dragons and devils doesn't matter; all I need is a single example to show that high-CR fey can exist, and therefore the claim that they can't is false.

I'll further add that Dragons also straddle the line between Primal and Arcane, as evidenced by spells like Draconic Transformation and Summon Draconic Spirit, along with nature subclasses like Drake Warden.


I am indeed doing that, but it's out of necessity.

That doesn't make it any less wrong. Arcana in 5e represents theory/academia (and includes legacy skills like Planes and Spellcraft to boot.) No druid needs it in order to tap into elemental forces.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That doesn't make it any less wrong. Arcana in 5e represents theory/academia (and includes legacy skills like Planes and Spellcraft to boot.) No druid needs it in order to tap into elemental forces.

And you can have a rogue who has high Int and expertise in Arcana (or Religion or Nature) and can't cast a single spell. Or a wizard without Arcana proficiency.

Skills don't tell you anything about the power source or vice versa. The only overlap is some bad names.

[Pooky the Imp]

For me, the Druid has a number of issues:

1) The fluff/thematic aspects are, to my mind, not very appealing. I'm not opposed to nature(/beast/primal/fey) themes, but Druids seem to embody the least interesting aspects of all of them.

I think it would have been better to split things more evenly between Druids and Rangers (e.g. moving shapeshifting and some of the beast-themes) to Rangers, whilst making Druids more plant/element based. Or else create a separate shapeshifting class and make Druids more akin to shamans/witch doctors.

2) Keeping with the shapeshifting aspect, I think JellyPooga put it quite well:



- Moon Druid is arguably powerful, sure, but it's ability theming is so weak. Where's the half-beast forms? Where's the subtle shifting for growing talons or a tail? Where's the improvement of favoured forms? No no, all we need is tacking magical attacks on to regular beasts and slam up some elemental forms out of nowhere. Why are elemental forms part of Moon Druid and not the ever-so-obviously-missing "Elemental Druid" subclass.

This about sums up my thoughts on the Moon Druid. Wild Shape is a core aspect of the Druid, and this subclass focuses specifically on it . . . and it's still boring. Mainly because:
a) They're having to balance it with a 9th level spellcaster.
b) They're bizarrely adamant that Druids never shift into Magical Beasts (sorry, Monstrosities), so rather than going from Wolf to Dire Wolf to Winter Wolf, you instead go from Wolf to Dire Wolf to Water Elemental. :smallconfused:
c) Until Lv18, the Wild Shape mechanics compete with spellcasting (your other main mechanic), rather than complimenting it.

I really think Druid needs to lose Wild Shape entirely. As above, either make a dedicated Shapeshifter class, or else give shapeshifting to other classes. Let Rangers turn into animals (Lord knows they need something), make a werebeast-Monk class where an afflicted victim has mastered his curse through meditation and discipline, make a warlock whose pact gives him the power to morph into monstrosities or eldritch horrors.


Anyway, continuing the list...

3) Their spell list is depressing. They have far too many spells that are niche beyond all reason, and far too many combat spells that require concentration (generally leaving you with little else to do for the rest of the fight beyond flicking weaksauce cantrips at the enemy).

The spells get even worse if you want to play to any sort of beast or plant or fey theme, as most of their combat spells (other than a few summons) are element-themed. I guess your shapeshifter must also really like calling the lightning, conjuring walls of water, and setting arrows on fire. :smalltongue:

I don't know, maybe others feel differently, but for me it seems most of the druid's supposed themes just don't have the spell support to actually back them up (which isn't ideal for a caster).

I'd add that it suffers more than most from poorly thought-out summoning mechanics. Conjure Animals is a great spell . . . which will generally elicit a sigh from the table as you then have to control 8 bears or whatever. It seems one of the only times when your companions will cheer if your concentration is broken.

[Schwann145]

Who said anything about Skills being necessary for Spellcasting?

We're talking about themes here, and how they're supported/divided. "The Planes" is an Arcane theme (Wizards, Sorcerers, now Warlocks, etc) and it has been for decades.
Things get a bit muddy when one says, "but Fire is both a part of Nature and also a Planar phenomenon of the Plane of Fire." In much the same way, Nature gets a bit muddy when one understands that, in a D&D world, "the Arcane" is also just another part of regular ol' Nature. Hence the need for boxes. Planar things got boxed with Arcane things, not Nature (Primal) things. Elements and Elementals get boxed with Planar things.
This is all I mean.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Who said anything about Skills being necessary for Spellcasting?

We're talking about themes here, and how they're supported/divided. "The Planes" is an Arcane theme (Wizards, Sorcerers, now Warlocks, etc) and it has been for decades.
Things get a bit muddy when one says, "but Fire is both a part of Nature and also a Planar phenomenon of the Plane of Fire." In much the same way, Nature gets a bit muddy when one understands that, in a D&D world, "the Arcane" is also just another part of regular ol' Nature. Hence the need for boxes. Planar things got boxed with Arcane things, not Nature (Primal) things. Elements and Elementals get boxed with Planar things.
This is all I mean.

Not really. Or if it is, it's because originally there were only Magic Users who had all the themes. But since 3e at least, elemental planes and the elements have been also druidic. As have fey.

You're trying to put hard boxes on things that don't have hard boxes. Magic is ill-defined thematically. Yes. Wizards (specifically) eat too much thematic space (and do too little with it). That doesn't mean that elemental forces are somehow "arcane". Merely that wizards are greedy SoBs that stomp on anything possibly thematic for anyone else.

[lall]

Druids are hot. Maybe they need to spell that out somewhere.

[Willie the Duck]

Jokes aside I don’t see any of the issues. Druid is a staple class. My most recent was a wildfire and I consider it one of the most fun and straight up powerful characters I’ve played.
Druids can have great flavor. I am playing a wildfire druid (entertainer background) in a campaign with my niece and nephew. His wildfire spirit is themed as a legless tiny firebird named Flambé (which he refers to as his 'Molotov cockatiel'). Whenever he has a wildshape use leftover at the end of the day, he summons Flambé and jams out to Freebird (why Freebird? because a legless bird is inherently a free bird, since it is 'no perches necessary' <--let me assure you, 8-year-olds will repeat this joke endlessly).


I wonder...were druids ever demonstrably popular in the first place?
One of the problems with my question is there's almost no hard data possible until at least 4e, and I suspect WotC dumped their CB data (or it wasn't set up for that kind of data collection in the first place). So we're likely limited to anecdotal evidence from people's recollections.
Like, I remember two druids in our 8ish years of 3/.5, two in our 4e games, and three in our 5e games so far (two in one campaign, or, "I guess we're not optimizing, are we?").
No one seems to know. FWIW, bitd (TSR) I think a lot of druids were rolled-up because people had fun playing around with the theme and dreaming of magic scimitars and in 2e if your DM chose to use the specialty priests from The Complete Book of Priests then it was really advantageous to say you wanted to be a druid instead, but in actual play I think some other arrangement was usually made because druids lacked key spells like Raise Dead which were primary reasons to play divine casters. Druids certainly were talked-about a lot in 3e, what with being a key member of CoDzilla, but as to how many people actually played them, again no one seems to know.


Willie the Duck basically said it already:
I think you are extrapolating much further than I either said or meant. I said 'the wilds,' and that's what I meant. Brambles and mud and wet clothes and all the things IRL pre-modern people greatly dreaded aren't much of a threat in D&D (and poison isn't much in 5e). Pit traps and poison and dire bears are low-level threats compared to magical traps and undead-drain (muted as it is in 5e) and enemies with spells.


"Natural" threats tend to come in two flavors: Tier 1 speed bumps that are pretty easily overcome (non/magical plants, beasts, the entire "exploration" pillar, etc) or plot devices that a group can't mechanically interact with but have to rely wholly on the DM and plot to carry them through (the erupting volcano, impending tsunami, massive earthquake, etc).

When I say that "nature" is weak, I mean the nature that is a mechanical part of the game that players will test themselves against. Brown bears just aren't scary - at all. Overgrowth is an annoyance, not a struggle. Etc and so on.
Okay, yes, this is true. Most of the things that would be scary too often end up being a DM saying 'look, I won't kill you with a mudslide, because that would be boring, but I don't know how else to make this a challenge.' If the game books had exhaustive advice on how to (ex.) set up a boss battle in the caldera of a volcano and have intermittent steam geysers be hazards (and the druid have solid solutions to such things), it would make them easier to be seen as powerful.

Magic's modular, fire&forget nature also is an issue. If a wizard had to sacrifice hp or xp or gp or spend days on a ritual to cast fly on someone, but a druid could just turn into a sparrow, then that too would be an advantage to the druid. Instead it is all cheap&easy, so there's little you can do to make the druid's versions (bound by the constraint of resembling natural things) better in some fashion to the one with no thematic limits.



And, interestingly enough, the parts of the natural world that could be threatening (ie: the elemental parts) aren't actually "natural" in D&D - they're extraplanar. They exist in the Arcane wheelhouse, not the Primal.
For instance: evoking Fire through spells, fire-based magical creatures, elementals, etc. are not part of the Prime Material and/or "natural" world. They source their power and/or existence from the Plane of Fire (or maybe even the Lower Planes, depending on which "fire creature" we end up talking about...)
Celestials, Constructs, Dragons, Elementals, Fiends, Giants, Humanoids, Monstrosities, and Undead are all threats from low to high levels.

Aberrations, Beasts, Fey, Plants, and Oozes just aren't. Not even close, really. And of these that aren't keeping up? 2/5 are *core* Druid/Nature themes (Beast, Plants), 2/5 are iffy (where do Oozes really fit? Really? And Fey end up lumped in with Druids when they probably shouldn't; much like Elementals, as explained above).
Primal is a 4e concept, not a 5e one (nor is arcana a wizard skill). One type of monster isn't a 'druid monster' while the other is a 'wizard monster.' However, druids turn into animals and elementals (not elemental princes or anything, just the rather boring 'walking pile of fire/earth/air/water' types) and those aren't powerful and generally don't have interesting nuances (riding on the 'everything interesting is a spell' problem).

To me, the big issue is that, excluding sometimes dragons and giants (mostly the lower tier ones like hill and stone), most of the encounters in 'the wilds' aren't as threatening, scary, or evocative as those found in dungeons, abandoned temples, trips to hell, etc. And yes, there is a big stretch between battling a T-rex or a fire elemental and battling elemental princes (in the Temple of Elemental Evil) and making deals with the Raven Queen; whereas undead/demons/dragons tend to have a threat spectrum from 1-20, and that is certainly part of the problem.

Another is that, if things get too scary, they get peeled off into not-natural. Games like Symbaroum make the deep-dark forest scary by making beasts capable of being 'corrupted' by nefarious energies off lost relics and sites and such. D&D tends to turn those things into demons or undead and send them to dungeons or other planes (and, if anyone is dedicated to fighting them, it is clerics and paladins, although again I dispute if there really are class-targeted enemies).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Another is that, if things get too scary, they get peeled off into not-natural. Games like Symbaroum make the deep-dark forest scary by making beasts capable of being 'corrupted' by nefarious energies off lost relics and sites and such. D&D tends to turn those things into demons or undead and send them to dungeons or other planes (and, if anyone is dedicated to fighting them, it is clerics and paladins, although again I dispute if there really are class-targeted enemies).

That's just bad design. I did a whole set of arcs around corrupted creatures (corrupted by things leaking into elemental nodes which then changed life around them). Still natural beings, although at the very far end they also became aberrations. Works totally fine. And something a druid would care lots about--maintaining the interface between the elemental planes and the material plane.

[Brookshw]

Then why aren't they?
WotC has had nearly a decade to print literally anything for powerful Fey and they've chosen not to, despite it being not-that-niche of a theme/enemy type.
(This would be a good example of what I mean when I say the developers are "disrespectful" of the theme.).

Might want to look at Kobold Press' Tome of Beasts series, they've done a lot with fey, including at higher levels, supporting Psyren's point there's plenty of design space. Why WoTC isn't utilizing it,....I don't think it's ever really been a major point of focus for the brand, even though fey can be as cruel as any demon and make great enemies.

[Telwar]

Druid were considered one of the most OP classes in 3.X. There's a reason "CoDzilla" was a term (Cleric or Druid) as the Divine Casters were visious. The Druid takes it a step further by having a CLASS FEATURE that is close to on par with a standard Fighter, by itself most of the time.

I do remember that, but I feel like at the time, CoDZilla was meant in a "you realize all these 'OP' options from splats are overshadowed by the PHB cleric and druid, right?" sense, especially once they started getting their own prestige classes; one of the 3.5 druids in our group had a PrC that let him wild shape into a dragon, which he used the hell out of. Which kind of suggests that the CoDZilla classes weren't actually played that often.

I remember the 2e druid requirements, yeah.

So I kind of suspect that druids haven't ever really been popular...

[LibraryOgre]

I really think Druid needs to lose Wild Shape entirely. As above, either make a dedicated Shapeshifter class, or else give shapeshifting to other classes. Let Rangers turn into animals (Lord knows they need something), make a werebeast-Monk class where an afflicted victim has mastered his curse through meditation and discipline, make a warlock whose pact gives him the power to morph into monstrosities or eldritch horrors.


I long for the alternate dimension where rangers were based on Beorn, not Aragorn.

[strangebloke]

agreed with Pooky.

druids are very strong, but are thematically very much married to a beasts-and-trees sort of nature magic which is limiting. Maybe 30 years ago that kind of granola wizard was more popular, but nowadays its just sort of niche and trite. Sure we have these subclasses - wildfire, stars, fey, etc - but what does your subclass even mean if at the end of the day you're casting mostly the same spells and turning into a bear?

I think you could more easily have a few dedicated shapeshifting classes/subclasses, some of which could be druids, some of which could be rangers or even sorcerers, and I think having such a build 'dive through the books' for forms could be fun.

And this would then free the fire druid to, you know, actually focus on abilities related to fire! Stars druids can focus on stars! Why is the moon druid the one who turns into a flame elemental? What kind of theming is that?

[Kane0]

Not really. Or if it is, it's because originally there were only Magic Users who had all the themes. But since 3e at least, elemental planes and the elements have been also druidic. As have fey.

You're trying to put hard boxes on things that don't have hard boxes. Magic is ill-defined thematically. Yes. Wizards (specifically) eat too much thematic space (and do too little with it). That doesn't mean that elemental forces are somehow "arcane". Merely that wizards are greedy SoBs that stomp on anything possibly thematic for anyone else.

Ooh how about:
Primal: Inner (elemental) planes + the Feywild
Divine: Outer (afterlife) planes
Arcane: astral, ethereal & shadowfell

[KorvinStarmast]

Ooh how about:
Primal: Inner (elemental) planes + the Feywild
Divine: Outer (afterlife) planes
Arcane: astral, ethereal & shadowfell
I like the cut of your jib, but balance might be the next hurdle here .... :smallcool:

[Psyren]

Druid has 9 whole levels of spellcasting that take them beyond "turn into a bear," and they get more of that every single level even if they don't care about wild shape at all. And then they get even more from their subclass. Why do they need even more non-spell features on top of that?

I'd say all they really need is the ability to use Channel Nature to recover spell slots up to a certain level (see Harness Divine Power from Tasha's) and you can be a "fire druid" or "storm druid" who chooses to never wild shape just fine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ooh how about:
Primal: Inner (elemental) planes + the Feywild
Divine: Outer (afterlife) planes
Arcane: astral, ethereal & shadowfell

Preface: I'm not fond of hard boxes for any of this. All the sources can pull from different forms, just in different ways. I also think that the "power sources" are too ill-defined to be super rigorous.

I'd prefer to think about it in terms of approaches, rather than sources. Arcane forces things into the preferred state, manipulating things manually. This lends itself to brute force applications and compulsions, but (in this hypothetical) limiting its scope to stuff that can be handled by throwing energy at stuff. Gross manipulations rather than subtle stuff.

Divine channels the authority of the gods over things, acting in a mediated fashion. This gives it incredible power (since you're leaning on the god to do the heavy lifting), but narrow scope (only things the god has authority over). In this world, a divine caster would be narrowly tied to one or two domains.

Primal channels the flow and cycles that exist in the world around us, making deals with the (animistic) "spirits of all things". This gives it way more flexibility...as long as you're only making small tweaks. Trying to block the stream or bring things into places that they're not suited for doesn't work. So you have lots of flexibility but not tons of raw power to contravene the existing flows in the moment.

Generally, divine magic is most tied to celestials. Elementals are "free use" although divine magic is less likely to use them unless you're a devotee of an elemental god. And arcane magic is more likely to summon a raw ravening elemental that doesn't match the surroundings, while a primal caster is more likely to pull in a "matching" elemental.

Fey are (in my model) a manifestation of the primal spirits (in many different forms), so primal magic is most attuned to them.

Is this how they're implemented? No. As implemented currently, it's just a grab bag of random stuff thrown together with neither rhyme nor reason. So this is my thematic reconstruction.


Druid has 9 whole levels of spellcasting that take them beyond "turn into a bear," and they get more of that every single level even if they don't care about wild shape at all. And then they get even more from their subclass. Why do they need even more non-spell features on top of that?

I'd say all they really need is the ability to use Channel Nature to recover spell slots up to a certain level (see Harness Divine Power from Tasha's) and you can be a "fire druid" or "storm druid" who chooses to never wild shape just fine.

"My class is just spellcasting" was bad design for wizards. And this is even worse--you have a huge chunk of your class that only one subclass has any reason to use. Yay. Great design.

[LibraryOgre]

Ooh how about:
Primal: Inner (elemental) planes + the Feywild
Divine: Outer (afterlife) planes
Arcane: astral, ethereal & shadowfell

I did a 1e alteration where spellcasters were reduced to Druids and Illusionists. Druids were best at the elements and physical magic, while illusionists focused on illusions and mental magic.

[Psyren]

"My class is just spellcasting" was bad design for wizards. And this is even worse--you have a huge chunk of your class that only one subclass has any reason to use. Yay. Great design.

So it's no worse off than in 2014 (or 3e/PF for that matter) - and in fact it's better even, because now the familiar is baseline for utility and you can help your party save healing resources too. So what exactly is the complaint?

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I do remember that, but I feel like at the time, CoDZilla was meant in a "you realize all these 'OP' options from splats are overshadowed by the PHB cleric and druid, right?" sense, especially once they started getting their own prestige classes; one of the 3.5 druids in our group had a PrC that let him wild shape into a dragon, which he used the hell out of. Which kind of suggests that the CoDZilla classes weren't actually played that often.

Kind of makes my point that the class was in a good place. As an aside, yeah, Loved goofy shapeshifter classes. My most memorable 3.X character was a Changeling Druid 5/Warshape 5/Master of Many Forms 6 (Game stopped then). Could turn into literally anything except Plants, Oozes, Elementals and Dragons (Those would have come in next 4 levels). Was immune to Crits, could hop from form to form and then with the Changeling traits look different from what I actually was... DM loved it and hated it at the same time. Haven't figured out quite how to mimic it in 5e yet.

[Scarlet Knight]

I am surprised that druids aren't more popular. Perhaps with Keyleth they will become so.

I love the versatility of druids and my favorite character was just a straight PG land druid. Not too complex.

He was a nature caster for the most part. Underground? Wall spells were really useful. Backup healer is always needed. If the rogue was surrounded, a predator would leap to the rescue. Sneaky? Squirrel at your service.

Why did my druid leave the woods? To help a party member walking through them who ran into trouble. Why did he stay with the party? He fell for the rogue. That story fits for any class.

He did not have to be Radagast or a Celt. He could have been a Iroquois shaman. Mine happened to be based off of Tommy Chong, loved tie-dye and his pipe.

I highly recommend druids.

[Psyren]

Ooh how about:
Primal: Inner (elemental) planes + the Feywild
Divine: Outer (afterlife) planes
Arcane: astral, ethereal & shadowfell

OneD&D already has this split:

"A Primal Spell draws on the forces of nature and the Inner Planes."
"A Divine Spell draws on the power of gods and the Outer Planes."
"An Arcane Spell draws on the ambient magic of the multiverse."


I am surprised that druids aren't more popular. Perhaps with Keyleth they will become so.

Doric is likely to raise their profile as well.


He could have been a Iroquois shaman. Mine happened to be based off of Tommy Chong, loved tie-dye and his pipe.

Ha! Nice :smallbiggrin:

[Gignere]

Doric is likely to raise their profile as well.

More likely you’ll get

Player: “I’d like to turn into an Owlbear just like Doric. What class do I play?”

GM: “Well no class can turn into an Owlbear the closest is the moon Druid here is 150 other things and their stat blocks you can turn into however at higher levels you are restricted to being a mastodon, sorry this is AL so everything has to be RAW.”

[Pixel_Kitsune]

More likely you’ll get

Player: “I’d like to turn into an Owlbear just like Doric. What class do I play?”

GM: “Well no class can turn into an Owlbear the closest is the moon Druid here is 150 other things and their stat blocks you can turn into however at higher levels you are restricted to being a mastodon, sorry this is AL so everything has to be RAW.”

Or..

Well, no starting character can change into an Owlbear, but the Moon Druid would let you turn into a Brown Bear and since the PHB flat out says to reflavor as desired for fun, sure, we'll say it's an Owlbear in appearance but you'll use Brownbear stats.

Then an even more sane DM would look at an Owlbear and see it's just a buffed up Bear mechanically and let the PC have it at level 9 when a Moon Druid can do CR 3 critters.

[Psyren]

More likely you’ll get

Player: “I’d like to turn into an Owlbear just like Doric. What class do I play?”

GM: "OneD&D moon druid will be able to do what she can, they're working on it - until then you'll have to be a regular bear with the 2014 druid."

Fixed the last part.


Or..

Well, no starting character can change into an Owlbear, but the Moon Druid would let you turn into a Brown Bear and since the PHB flat out says to reflavor as desired for fun, sure, we'll say it's an Owlbear in appearance but you'll use Brownbear stats.

Then an even more sane DM would look at an Owlbear and see it's just a buffed up Bear mechanically and let the PC have it at level 9 when a Moon Druid can do CR 3 critters.

I agree that Owlbear isn't the most unbalanced monstrosity a DM could allow but that still has the potential to be a slippery slope, so I wouldn't say a DM leery about it isn't doing so due to lack of sanity per se.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I agree that Owlbear isn't the most unbalanced monstrosity a DM could allow but that still has the potential to be a slippery slope, so I wouldn't say a DM leery about it isn't doing so due to lack of sanity per se.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. The DM doesn't need to say "You can turn into Monstrosities now" It's just "You want this specific form and I'm allowing it at the appropriate power balance."

The first one is a slippery slope, but the other isn't.

[Gignere]

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. The DM doesn't need to say "You can turn into Monstrosities now" It's just "You want this specific form and I'm allowing it at the appropriate power balance."

The first one is a slippery slope, but the other isn't.

This can’t be done in AL and even outside of AL if you go outside of RAW you’ll probably have some players saying that’s not RAW and b*tch nonstop like some fans are doing already about the movie.

[Unoriginal]

Perhaps with Keyleth they will become so.

That is extremely unlikely.

From what I heard, they made Keyleth-from-the-cartoon suffer from the old "Big Magic Makes Girl Tired" bovine manure, and removed or diminished a lot of her demonstrations of power.

Frankly, if the changes are a tenth as bad as what I've been told, that show is an insult to Keyleth and to all D&D Druids in general.

[Psyren]

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. The DM doesn't need to say "You can turn into Monstrosities now" It's just "You want this specific form and I'm allowing it at the appropriate power balance."

The first one is a slippery slope, but the other isn't.

Either way, some are going to say no to the second whatever you believe.


That is extremely unlikely.

From what I heard, they made Keyleth-from-the-cartoon suffer from the old "Big Magic Makes Girl Tired" bovine manure, and removed or diminished a lot of her demonstrations of power.

Frankly, if the changes are a tenth as bad as what I've been told, that show is an insult to Keyleth and to all D&D Druids in general.

Well don't hold back man, tell us how you really feel :smallbiggrin:

[animorte]

That is extremely unlikely.

From what I heard, they made Keyleth-from-the-cartoon suffer from the old "Big Magic Makes Girl Tired" bovine manure, and removed or diminished a lot of her demonstrations of power.

Frankly, if the changes are a tenth as bad as what I've been told, that show is an insult to Keyleth and to all D&D Druids in general.
This is the first I've heard of that perception. I do understand how this could be portrayed as weak, but not necessarily an insult.

Actually, I think that character bridges the gap between confident adventurer and useless commoner. She chose to roleplay this character with struggles (of the non-edgelord type, heaven forbid).

From interviews with the entire cast, apparently they were prepared to go in fighting tooth and nail to make sure it was done properly, and they didn't need to fight much. A lot of it was to their expectation and anything that wasn't, they were there every step of the way for correction.

[Leon]

That is extremely unlikely.
From what I heard, they made Keyleth-from-the-cartoon suffer from the old "Big Magic Makes Girl Tired" bovine manure, and removed or diminished a lot of her demonstrations of power.
Frankly, if the changes are a tenth as bad as what I've been told, that show is an insult to Keyleth and to all D&D Druids in general.

Big magic should have a cost to it, the magic system in D&D is so badly flawed in that regard, powerful magic safely cast with no cost till you run out slots for it.

[Witty Username]

I personally find druid to be one of my preferred classes, I don't play it often because It fits a specific purpose, when it isn't that specific purpose, I don't use druid.

Mechanically, I don't find it all that complex, wild shape is pretty simple in play most of the time.

[Unoriginal]

Actually, I think that character bridges the gap between confident adventurer and useless commoner. She chose to roleplay this character with struggles (of the non-edgelord type, heaven forbid).

The roleplaying choices are not the issue here. The choices of the adaptation's writers are.



From interviews with the entire cast, apparently they were prepared to go in fighting tooth and nail to make sure it was done properly, and they didn't need to fight much. A lot of it was to their expectation and anything that wasn't, they were there every step of the way for correction.

Yeah, that's marketing. They weren't going to tell the CR viewers that the cartoon adaptation was not done properly.

If you want to be generous, you can say they were convinced that the changes that happened were necessary to make it work as an animated series.



Well don't hold back man, tell us how you really feel :smallbiggrin:

That would get me permabanned from this forum.


Big magic should have a cost to it, the magic system in D&D is so badly flawed in that regard, powerful magic safely cast with no cost till you run out slots for it.

But that's the thing, they chose to portray the Bard's magic as the typical D&D no-cost-just-spend-your-slots style.

If they wanted to change the magic systems for increased stakes/tension/drama/weight of the action, why not, but changing the rules for Keyleth (and also Vex since they removed her spellcasting) and not for Scanlan is a problem.

[animorte]

If you want to be generous, you can say they were convinced that the changes that happened were necessary to make it work as an animated series.
That's fair. I do believe something of that nature was mentioned. Of course it needed changes, and the cast seemed happy with what was necessary within those limits.

[Witty Username]

[1] Although my personal opinion is that D&D wizards do depend on talent more than stated. But wizard-supremacists hate that argument =)

Its the only way that makes sense to me really.

I personally see it as wizard is a mix of natural talent and understanding/creativity. Talent doesn’t get one very far without experience, knowledge and motivation.

Sorcerer is the weird one to me as it comes off as natural talent plus stupidity, more in practice than necessity, there is nothing prohibiting a sorcerer from having high int and understanding magic, but usually it comes with costs that makes the character less effective.

[Jophiel]

This can’t be done in AL and even outside of AL if you go outside of RAW you’ll probably have some players saying that’s not RAW and b*tch nonstop like some fans are doing already about the movie.
Can still fluff it though, even in AL. In my years of AL playing/running experience, that would have been fine at every table I've played at or ran. I'm sure someone out there would be a dink about it but any large enough population is going to have some dinks in it.

Your newbie player wouldn't be able to turn into an owlbear (CR3) until 9th level anyway (ignoring the creature type) so letting them fluff a black/brown/polar bear actually gets them what they really wanted that much faster. Hopefully, by 9th level, they're invested in their character and the game for reasons beyond "Wanna be an owlbear".

[Psyren]

That would get me permabanned from this forum.

Over a cartoon? ...oooookay.


Can still fluff it though, even in AL. In my years of AL playing/running experience, that would have been fine at every table I've played at or ran. I'm sure someone out there would be a dink about it but any large enough population is going to have some dinks in it.

AL will be just as fine with the OneD&D Wild Shape too.



Your newbie player wouldn't be able to turn into an owlbear (CR3) until 9th level anyway (ignoring the creature type) so letting them fluff a brown bear actually gets them what they really wanted that much faster. Hopefully, by 9th level, they're invested in their character and the game for reasons beyond "Wanna be an owlbear".

And the OneD&D version can get it at level 1, under any DM.

[Jophiel]

AL will be just as fine with the OneD&D Wild Shape too
Sure, but the movie releases this month and the new ruleset won't be AL legal for a long time yet.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Yeah, that's marketing. They weren't going to tell the CR viewers that the cartoon adaptation was not done properly.

If you want to be generous, you can say they were convinced that the changes that happened were necessary to make it work as an animated series.

You could make that argument IF.. The Caster weren't also Executive Producers with massive amounts of control and the directing and such was not littered with fans and members and former guest players.

Keyleth doesn't get tired all the time, she has moments of being tired after her really big stuff and then KEEPS casting. The only time I can remember her being weak and doing the whole force herself up and push through to cast was blasting Briadwood with the Sun Tree. And that was exhaustion from spell casting, that was injury from said vampire batting her across the entire room into a wall.

In fact, I can't really remember a big spell makes tired that was significant, but I also admit my memory is not perfect, could you provide an example?

[animorte]

You could make that argument IF.. The Caster weren't also Executive Producers with massive amounts of control and the directing and such was not littered with fans and members and former guest players.
I also considered going this route of discussion. The voice actor of Keyleth specifically being in a position of massive amounts of creative control and the voice actor for Grog actually owns Critical Role.

[False God]

Big magic should have a cost to it, the magic system in D&D is so badly flawed in that regard, powerful magic safely cast with no cost till you run out slots for it.

Well, it does. Slots are the cost. They're a rather awkward representation of your magical power. Once you use the slot, you've spent that power.

Points represent it better, the drain over time from casting. But D&D would probably be well served with a Fatigue mechanic wherein every spell or action wore you out over time. Though with an HP bar, an SP bar, and a FP bar, we're pretty close to playing Elder Scrolls at the table (not that I'm knocking it, those games are popular for a reason). But it would certainly lessen the D&D feel. Though I suppose there's a question of if its more important for the "D&D Feel*TM" to be one of good design, or tradition.

[Psyren]

Sure, but the movie releases this month and the new ruleset won't be AL legal for a long time yet.

I think newcomers will be understanding if told that new books are coming next year to coincide with the 50th anniversary of D&D.

[Pooky the Imp]

Well, it does. Slots are the cost.

A cost that has no use outside of the magic you're using it for is not a cost.

[KorvinStarmast]

He was a nature caster for the most part. Underground? Wall spells were really useful. Backup healer is always needed. If the rogue was surrounded, a predator would leap to the rescue. Sneaky? Squirrel at your service.

Why did my druid leave the woods? To help a party member walking through them who ran into trouble. Why did he stay with the party? He fell for the rogue. That story fits for any class.

He did not have to be Radagast or a Celt. He could have been a Iroquois shaman. Mine happened to be based off of Tommy Chong, loved tie-dye and his pipe. I love this post and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Big magic should have a cost to it, the magic system in D&D is so badly flawed in that regard, powerful magic safely cast with no cost till you run out slots for it. Not sure how to fold the exhaustion mechanic into it, but maybe that's a path forward in D&Done.

Well, it does. Slots are the cost. The only cost I have seen in play is opportunity cost. Only ever seen one Evoker use overchannel, and that was in a one shot.

[False God]

The only cost I have seen in play is opportunity cost. Only ever seen one Evoker use overchannel, and that was in a one shot.
In a very basic, boiled down sense, opportunity is cost is the only cost in D&D at all. Taking this Feat uses up the feat slot. Choosing to attack or cast a spell prevents you from doing the other. But that's just how D&D works.


A cost that has no use outside of the magic you're using it for is not a cost.

But that's how all things D&D works. Everything only applies to its own little area. It's still a cost, once I've used up all my 6th Level Slots I can't cast any more 6th level spells. But all "costs" of D&D are isolated to the section of the game they're using. Magic costs apply to the magic area. Feats apply to the feat area. Levels apply to the level area. Skills apply to the skill area. The cost of doing A is not being able to do B.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying these are good costs or good game design, I'm just saying it is a cost, and thats how D&D works.

Everything beyond that is asking for the inclusion of something new that D&D has never done, or modification of something that exists in a way the game has never used before. And especially when asking for changes to spellcasting, we're talking about massive, intensive game-wide systemic changes.

[OvisCaedo]

Well hey, there's also Berserker Barbarian! That has a cost! Which uh... makes the subclass pretty universally disliked.

[Kane0]

Though with an HP bar, an SP bar, and a FP bar, we're pretty close to playing Elder Scrolls at the table (not that I'm knocking it, those games are popular for a reason). But it would certainly lessen the D&D feel.

You could merge the SP and FP resources.

[Pooky the Imp]

It's still a cost, once I've used up all my 6th Level Slots I can't cast any more 6th level spells. But all "costs" of D&D are isolated to the section of the game they're using. Magic costs apply to the magic area.

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine a theme park that's free to enter and gives you 10 tokens to spend on rides. Once you use your tokens, you can't go on any more rides until the next day, when they'll give you 10 more tokens. Also, the tokens are date-stamped and you can only use the ones for the current day (so you can't save them up).

The rides technically have a cost (because you're paying in tokens). However, you get the tokens back each day and there is nothing else you can use them for, so for all practical purposes, the rides are completely free.

It's the same story with D&D magic. Yes, casting spells uses spell slots. But you get your spell slots for free each day and there's nothing else you can do with them but cast spells.

Thus, for all practical purposes, spells in D&D have no real-world cost.

[False God]

You could merge the SP and FP resources.

You could, but you shouldn't...

Because the point is to increase MAD by introducing multiple resource systems that players need to moderate their usage of. FP keys off say, Con and SP keys off Int. With some very base points based on class and level. WotC and others keep talking about "well how do you limit nova-ing or high-level spells?

This is how you do it, because like the saves of old, each class will be good in one area, and bad in another. You use that "bad area" to act as a buffer to keep a class from only ever having to worry about it's "good area".

Multiple Resource Management is key to balancing games. Single Resource Dependency is what allows games to rapidly become unbalanced.

Because functionally, HP should be discarded as a resource you need to manage because it's not a resource you can actively use. If you could actively use your HP to say, cast Blood Magic, or continue attacking after your Fatigue bar has run out, then great (and I think these are things that should be included, in part because Rule of Three), but currently adding an SP bar is pretty doable (spell points variant) but it's the FP bar that requires the real work, because since both magic-users and mundanes would use FP, you'd need to reasonably balance their usage and amount of FP.


Let me give you an analogy. Imagine a theme park that's free to enter and gives you 10 tokens to spend on rides. Once you use your tokens, you can't go on any more rides until the next day, when they'll give you 10 more tokens. Also, the tokens are date-stamped and you can only use the ones for the current day (so you can't save them up).

The rides technically have a cost (because you're paying in tokens). However, you get the tokens back each day and there is nothing else you can use them for, so for all practical purposes, the rides are completely free.

It's the same story with D&D magic. Yes, casting spells uses spell slots. But you get your spell slots for free each day and there's nothing else you can do with them but cast spells.

Thus, for all practical purposes, spells in D&D have no real-world cost.

Yes...but that's the next day. You can't talk about costs in the now while referencing returns in the future. That's like saying "This dress didn't cost me anything at all, because I get paid again next week!"

It sounds like you're asking for permanent costs.

[Pooky the Imp]

Yes...but that's the next day. You can't talk about costs in the now while referencing returns in the future. That's like saying "This dress didn't cost me anything at all, because I get paid again next week!"

That isn't the same thing at all. Again, please re-read my analogy.

Money spent on a dress could be spent on any number of other things instead. Meanwhile, the theme park tokens in my analogy have no purpose or value beyond that theme park, and you get them for free every day.



It sounds like you're asking for permanent costs.

Not permanent, just something that has ramifications beyond "not being able to cast more spells of that level until you get more for free tomorrow". :smalltongue:

e.g. paying a hit point cost would make you more vulnerable in combat. Paying in ability scores would affect your ability to fight with mundane abilities and succeed in skill checks and saving throws. Paying with levels of exhaustion would also weaken you and could easily kill you.

I give these just as examples (not suggestions). But the point is that for magic's cost to be meaningful, it has to be something that either affects you in ways beyond your ability to cast more spells that day, or else has to have some sort of scarcity value (i.e. not something that replenishes automatically, every day, at no cost).

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I also considered going this route of discussion. The voice actor of Keyleth specifically being in a position of massive amounts of creative control and the voice actor for Grog actually owns Critical Role.

Not quite owned, but yeah. Each of Vox Machina's Voice actors plus Mercer have ownership stakes in the company.

Grog's is the CEO.
Brimscythe/Sylas Briarwood's is the CCO
Keyleth's is the Creative Director

Additionally the Voice Director and thus the person behind how the voices should come across and coaching the voice actors is also the voice of Zahra in the series, etc etc etc.

[Bohandas]

The problem I see with Druid theming is not that it's weak or unpopular, but that it's...misdirected. As you say, the literal inspirations (i.e. fictional characters that are called "druids", like Allanon) tend to be better represented by the Wizard or other Classes. Where Druid should lean, IMO, is in what it actually does and who, in fiction and history, the Class actually represents; the witch and witch-doctor, the shaman and spirit-talker, the fae-charmed shapeshifter and the beast-friend.

and also hippies, don't forget hippies

[Kane0]

You could, but you shouldn't...

Because the point is to increase MAD by introducing multiple resource systems that players need to moderate their usage of. FP keys off say, Con and SP keys off Int. With some very base points based on class and level. WotC and others keep talking about "well how do you limit nova-ing or high-level spells?

This is how you do it, because like the saves of old, each class will be good in one area, and bad in another. You use that "bad area" to act as a buffer to keep a class from only ever having to worry about it's "good area".

Multiple Resource Management is key to balancing games. Single Resource Dependency is what allows games to rapidly become unbalanced.


Few weeks back we posited an arrangement of:
Number of magicks known = INT
Amount of magical reserve = WIS
Strength of magicks (ie DC/Attack bonus) = CHA

And of course you also want Dex and Con for things like AC, initiative, HP and saves. Str might still be important for carrying stuff and some saves but the fighting types would have more emphasis on the physical stats than the mental ones (but still wanting them to know stuff, detect things, interact with people, make saves, etc).

Getting a health bar and resource bar (fatigue/stamina, magic, etc) could be as simple as not basing them both off Con (especially if you change around the six, but that's a major sacred cow), or hey if you're fiddling with going back to Fort/Ref/Will saves have each of those also create your resource bars used in different ways by different classes.

[Leon]

Well, it does. Slots are the cost. They're a rather awkward representation of your magical power. Once you use the slot, you've spent that power.

Slots are not a Cost, they are a counting metric nothing more. That Earth shattering High level spell you just cast N times, free and safely has no accountability.
A Cost is that spell has a price to pay that IS noticeable ~ be it a check to pass with a fail state, a cost in blood, energy or materials, the fact that if you miss it could go where you don't want it to.

[Schwann145]

In regards to cost... It's always important to remember that D&D is a roleplaying game.

The "cost" is your requirement to roleplay a thing properly.
For instance, channeling a lot of magic through your person is probably going to effect you, even if only for a moment. Taking a quick breather after a big spell (even if there's no mechanical hindrance built-in) is not only quite reasonable, it's also good roleplaying.

Keyleth is "tired" after doing some big spells, but never in a way that is detrimental to what she/the party is doing. She doesn't lose consciousness, or lose the ability to throw another spell immediately, or anything like that.
In other words, Keyleth is treated as a person who is going through things, rather than a wooden, emotionless, featureless, character sprite who is only ever effected by mechanics.

[False God]

Few weeks back we posited an arrangement of:
Number of magicks known = INT
Amount of magical reserve = WIS
Strength of magicks (ie DC/Attack bonus) = CHA

And of course you also want Dex and Con for things like AC, initiative, HP and saves. Str might still be important for carrying stuff and some saves but the fighting types would have more emphasis on the physical stats than the mental ones (but still wanting them to know stuff, detect things, interact with people, make saves, etc).

Getting a health bar and resource bar (fatigue/stamina, magic, etc) could be as simple as not basing them both off Con (especially if you change around the six, but that's a major sacred cow), or hey if you're fiddling with going back to Fort/Ref/Will saves have each of those also create your resource bars used in different ways by different classes.

In reverse order:
Yeah, keying "HP" and "Fatigue" off different stats has been a trick I've been trying to figure out, though keying two primary resources off a score that doesn't really contribute much to the game currently isn't terrible. I figured "each class adds a unique amount to each" is probably a solid solution, so Casters will get relatively little fatigue and high SP, while martials will get relatively little SP (Everyone gets the 3 bars, even if they don't use it as part of their class it can power stuff like magic items or scrolls) and a lot of Fatigue.

I think that probably, each score should relate to two sub-scores. Spitballing here....
Strength gives you physical damage and carrying capacity.
Dex gives you AC and targeting (all targeted attacks, including spells, would key off Dex for accuracy)
Con gives you HP and FP (even if these are tied together the value of other scores will mean you can't just pump Con alone)
Int gives you bonus skills and bonus spells
Wis gives you more spell points and better saves
Cha gives you spell potency (more damage, harder spell DCs)

At a minimum everyone will need to value 2 primary scores, put some value into one of two secondary scores, and can probably ignore the last 2 scores provided the party rounds everything out.

[Leon]

In regards to cost... It's always important to remember that D&D is a roleplaying game.

And?
There are many roleplaying games with magic systems that do have a fail state or a tangible cost to them and they are more interesting for that ~ its the gamble of do you use this Powerful ability despite the risk that it could pose, most of the time it does what its supposed to do and then it when it doesn't or it does much more than it was supposed that become memorable moments for the campaign.

[Schwann145]

And?
There are many roleplaying games with magic systems that do have a fail state or a tangible cost to them and they are more interesting for that ~ its the gamble of do you use this Powerful ability despite the risk that it could pose, most of the time it does what its supposed to do and then it when it doesn't or it does much more than it was supposed that become memorable moments for the campaign.

The original criticism was:

From what I heard, they made Keyleth-from-the-cartoon suffer from the old "Big Magic Makes Girl Tired" bovine manure, and removed or diminished a lot of her demonstrations of power.

Frankly, if the changes are a tenth as bad as what I've been told, that show is an insult to Keyleth and to all D&D Druids in general.
Roleplaying exhaustion, even when the mechanics don't require it, is as I said: quite reasonable, and good roleplaying.

(Also, fwiw, Keyleth was doing some *crazy big* magical stuff in the animation - if D&D Druids could be even close to what was shown for Keyleth, they'd be WAY more popular!) :amused:

[Hurrashane]

Few weeks back we posited an arrangement of:
Number of magicks known = INT
Amount of magical reserve = WIS
Strength of magicks (ie DC/Attack bonus) = CHA

And of course you also want Dex and Con for things like AC, initiative, HP and saves. Str might still be important for carrying stuff and some saves but the fighting types would have more emphasis on the physical stats than the mental ones (but still wanting them to know stuff, detect things, interact with people, make saves, etc).

Getting a health bar and resource bar (fatigue/stamina, magic, etc) could be as simple as not basing them both off Con (especially if you change around the six, but that's a major sacred cow), or hey if you're fiddling with going back to Fort/Ref/Will saves have each of those also create your resource bars used in different ways by different classes.

I'll take a hard pass on making the game more MAD. I kind of prefer my characters to be able to be mechanically different from eachother without it negatively impacting them where they need it.

Like, with the set up above playing a 8 Wis or cha wizard would absolutely tank your build. Gone are foolish Wizards or Wizards bad at social situations.

It's already hard to make Monks all that different from eachother attribute wise. All monks dump str/int/cha. It'd be nice to be able to play a big strong monk or a really foolish monk without tanking their AC and saves. Though this latter one could be solved by a unarmed barbarian or something.

[Kane0]

I'll take a hard pass on making the game more MAD. I kind of prefer my characters to be able to be mechanically different from eachother without it negatively impacting them where they need it.

Like, with the set up above playing a 8 Wis or cha wizard would absolutely tank your build. Gone are foolish Wizards or Wizards bad at social situations.

It's already hard to make Monks all that different from eachother attribute wise. All monks dump str/int/cha. It'd be nice to be able to play a big strong monk or a really foolish monk without tanking their AC and saves. Though this latter one could be solved by a unarmed barbarian or something.

It largely comes down to implementation, the idea being you could have multiple different evoker wizards that know a big variety of spells or can spam what they know more often or hit much harder with what they do know. Much like how EK fighters can dump INT and still have effective spells that dont rely on Spell DC (magic missile, shield), you have casters that drop one thing to focus on another rather than having the one stat governs spellcasting, and different casters would emphasise different stats based on build, spell list, etc.
It'd also basically be a nerf unless you get more stat points to spread around, but thats numbers that can be tweaked to suit

[Witty Username]

Big magic should have a cost to it, the magic system in D&D is so badly flawed in that regard, powerful magic safely cast with no cost till you run out slots for it.

Eh, I am more of the mind that abilities that are inherently risky or costly to use tend to be poor for gameplay.

If casting fireball costs an arm and a leg (literally in this case), then it amounts to no one playing mages because no one wants their character to either have no abilities, or be replaced by a new one every session.

It doesn't make magic more interesting, it just makes magic frustrating.

[Goobahfish]

I like druids. I think they're neat.

That is all.

[Sherlockpwns]

This thread has made me realize that a lot of D&D players are not very imaginative. That being the case I guess Wizards really does know what they are doing. The unimaginative need their imagination given to them and the rest of us will be imaginative regardless.

If that is what 1d&d will bring then it probably is for the best. If it doesn’t… well, there is no reason to buy it. See 4th edition for more information.

[Leon]

Eh, I am more of the mind that abilities that are inherently risky or costly to use tend to be poor for gameplay.

If casting fireball costs an arm and a leg (literally in this case), then it amounts to no one playing mages because no one wants their character to either have no abilities, or be replaced by a new one every session. It doesn't make magic more interesting, it just makes magic frustrating.

And yet people flock to playing Psykers in 40k RPGs despite the fact that a bad roll can instakill your character and summon a very bad thing (small chance but still one many possible mishaps when playing that class) The problem also in my mind isn't fireballs ~ the its hardly a earth shattering spell its the higher level magics that can and do often reality warping stuff at a whim for no cost or preparation.

[KorvinStarmast]

And yet people flock to playing Psykers in 40k RPGs despite the fact that a bad roll can instakill your character and summon a very bad thing (small chance but still one many possible mishaps when playing that class) The problem also in my mind isn't fireballs ~ the its hardly a earth shattering spell its the higher level magics that can and do often reality warping stuff at a whim for no cost or preparation.
Perhaps more of the 9th level spells need a feature like this one, from Wish:

The stress of casting this spell to produce any effect other than duplicating another spell (level 8 or less) weakens you. After enduring that stress, each time you cast a spell until you finish a long rest, you take 1d10 necrotic damage per level of that spell.
This damage can’t be reduced or prevented in any way. In addition, your Strength drops to 3, if it isn’t 3 or lower already, for 2d4 days. For each of those days that you spend resting and doing nothing more than light activity, your remaining recovery time decreases by 2 days. Finally, there is a 33 percent chance that you are unable to cast wish ever again if you suffer this stress.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

This thread has made me realize that a lot of D&D players are not very imaginative. That being the case I guess Wizards really does know what they are doing. The unimaginative need their imagination given to them and the rest of us will be imaginative regardless.

If that is what 1d&d will bring then it probably is for the best. If it doesn’t… well, there is no reason to buy it. See 4th edition for more information.

This is sadly where I'm at.

Plus they don't recognize the mechanics that aren't explained.

Like, look at the idea of the whip and the flail and that there could be something between that fits the balance.

Whip: 1d4 Slashing with Reach and Finesse
Flail: 1d8 Bluedgeoning
There's no reason you couldn't have a Castlevania style Chain Whip that either just deals 1d4 Bludgeoning, making it just a reflavor, or even making a Non finesse one that keeps reach but deals 1d6 Bludgeoning.

But the number of people that feel like they need to completely re-invent the wheel is staggering. Stats for Nunchucks, Katana separate from longswords, etc, etc.

For that matter, every argument I've seen against the new WildShape has come down to "But how does my druid turn into a snake? And how about a Cat to stealth?" and the answer of "That's flavor on the land form" is just like I'm speaking a foreign language.

[Samayu]

People were talking about costs. Most costs in D&D seem more like limits.

A barbarian can rage a certain number of times. That's clearly a simple limit. If it was tracked by Rage Points, would that suddenly be a cost instead of a limit? Monks can flurry or stun. The only cost to flurrying is that you can no long stun as many times.

To me, a real cost is when spending resources affects your ability to do something else. Like how frenzy gains you exhaustion. Or if there were a mechanic where you could spend hit points or hit dice for effects other than recovering hit points.

But really, I'm not sure it matters all that much. They're just words we use for varying degrees of cost.

[Psyren]

The only cost to flurrying is that you can no long stun as many times.

Well, not quite; Flurry also uses your bonus action, which carries an opportunity cost of its own. Also, ki isn't just for stunning, it's also for Patient Defense and whatever your subclass needs it for. I agree with the overarching "a cost is when spending resources affects your ability to do something else" point though.

[Witty Username]

And yet people flock to playing Psykers in 40k RPGs despite the fact that a bad roll can instakill your character and summon a very bad thing (small chance but still one many possible mishaps when playing that class) The problem also in my mind isn't fireballs ~ the its hardly a earth shattering spell its the higher level magics that can and do often reality warping stuff at a whim for no cost or preparation.

I am not saying it cannot be done, but it is not a cure all to all things balance issues. Psykers (at least in Dark Herasy, the one I am most familiar with) it is low risk, most of the mishaps being cosmetic, long-term (death is on there but most amount to sanity lost or gaining corruption) and is the only cost associated with the powers involved as they are essentially at will and pretty powerful in comparison to most other options. And this is 40k, a biffed roll in combat can mean instant death for almost anyone.

D&D using a similar system would mean risking similar things, but also only having a small number of slots to even attempt, essentially paying a premium to have the privilege of potentially doing one's self harm.

It is kinda similar to fumbles and such on attack rolls. Some systems do better with them than others, and while they can lead to interesting moments in play, they can also suck the momentum from a player. And this is much closer to the psyker example as, usually, there is no cost associated with making attacks.

Risk and cost to use abilities needs to be used in manageable ways, and depend on how they work with larger systems. And this limits its utility as a balancing tool. Like say an HP cost, if the cost is enough to end an adventuring day on its own, it amounts to the ability not being used while adventuring.* So it needs to be less than that, like perhaps enough to be an inconvenience if managed poorly in combat. But at that point we are less tackling a balance problem and more creating a narrative note to that ability.

Adding say, XP costs, to problem spells, won't change spells being problems so much as add a potential gameplay problem if the costs are untenable and used.
It is better from a balance perspective to simply ban problematic spells.

*this is why exhaustion for frenzy is a problem, arguably regardless of the effects of frenzy, it is a significant penalty for basically an entire game session to use once, and as such it only gets used rarely.

[LibraryOgre]

That is extremely unlikely.

From what I heard, they made Keyleth-from-the-cartoon suffer from the old "Big Magic Makes Girl Tired" bovine manure, and removed or diminished a lot of her demonstrations of power.

Frankly, if the changes are a tenth as bad as what I've been told, that show is an insult to Keyleth and to all D&D Druids in general.


Big magic should have a cost to it, the magic system in D&D is so badly flawed in that regard, powerful magic safely cast with no cost till you run out slots for it.

"Big magic exhausts people" has been in D&D since at least 1984; it constantly affected Raistlin in the Dragonlance trilogy.

So... 39 years of history in D&D? At least?

[Willie the Duck]

"Big magic exhausts people" has been in D&D since at least 1984; it constantly affected Raistlin in the Dragonlance trilogy.

So... 39 years of history in D&D? At least?

I'm pretty sure it is part of the complaint that this existed in the narrative only and never got matched with a analogous game mechanism.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm pretty sure it is part of the complaint that this existed in the narrative only and never got matched with a analogous game mechanism.

Ah. That's been an option since at least 1996, with the Channeling option from Spells & Magic. Though I do recall an earlier Dragon article about a variant Wu Jen, who powered spells with hit points...

I once killed myself with a fireball. Not blowback, just exhausted myself to death.

[Segev]

D&D has always struggled with exhaustion-based cost mechanics. Its combat is not built around a death spiral style of play; attrition of hp only represents the ticking clock of how much longer you can keep fighting, rather than having attendant penalties that make you less able to dish out damage and debuffs. This shapes a lot of the tactics of D&D, including the fact that focusing down enemies is better than dividing attacks between them. (In contrast, in L5R, because of the wound penalties, dealing damage to every enemy and making them accumulate those penalties means that you're denying all of them meaningful actions, whereas in D&D you want to focus down to start whittling away at action economy one actor at a time.)

This isn't a bad thing, necessarily; the death spiral isn't fun on the player side of things, because once you get hurt, you're less able to hurt the other guy, meaning he remains just as dangerous while you become a punching bag until the monster kills you.

But D&D not being built with a death spiral in mind means that any add-on mechanics that induce one - especially if they do so as a cost to using your abilities - is going to make the game a lot harder for those experiencing those mechanics. Death-spiral/exhaustion-based costs have an ongoing cost for the rest of the time you endure them, which means you're overall less effective and capable once you start paying them than you were before you started paying them. If what you're paying for is only as good as what others get for their top-tier resource expenditures, it isn't worth it. The wizard just threw a fireball, and sure, he's out of 3rd level spell slots, but his other stuff is still just as good as it was before. The barbarian Frenzied, though, and now for the rest of the day, not only is he down a Rage resource (if not out of them entirely), but he's actively worse than if he never raged at all.

Make those abilities actually awesome enough that sitting out the rest of the session (or at least feeling like a third wheel on a unicycle for the rest of the session) is worth it, and they snap the balance of the game, especially if people start abusing recovery mechanics and make the "when do we rest?" game a priority. Which they only naturally will.

D&D just doesn't support exhaustion-based mechanics very well. To induce the flavor, you'd probably need some sort of counterbalancing buff that goes with being more tired from this thing that is paid for with exhaustion. This doesn't make a lot of sense, on the surface, so would have to be cleverly done. "When raging, a berserker's exhaustion vanishes and he burns his reserves ever faster to greater effect. The effects of exhaustion are reversed while he is raging. He may choose to gain a level of exhaustion when he enters a rage." Or something like that.

[Joe the Rat]

"Big magic exhausts people" has been in D&D since at least 1984; it constantly affected Raistlin in the Dragonlance trilogy.

So... 39 years of history in D&D? At least?


I'm pretty sure it is part of the complaint that this existed in the narrative only and never got matched with a analogous game mechanism.
The closest you got was specific spells aging the caster (or recipient, c.f. haste), which then eventually translates into attribute shifts. Or the ones that cause other drains (the spell for creating magic weapons cost a point of Constitution on top of all the other time and material expenditures). But this is also the era of permanent level drain.

3rd had xp costs for magic items, and I think some spells, but that is a bit esoteric as an opportunity cost.

On other systems...
Dungeon Crawl Classics makes this a player choice - you can burn your physical attributes (spellburn) to increase your spell roll to guarantee success or achieve greater effects. Recovery is about a point a day, so pace yourself. This system uses roll for success instead of any sort of spell point, so that burn is your only spending resource.

GURPS and its ancestor The Fantasy Trip use "cast from hp" by default. The esssential magic item for serious casters is having some sort of spell battery.

Savage Kingdoms uses a Stamina system for magic... and every other special maneuver or ability. Conjure a firebolt, go berserk, run your enemy through with a spear and forcibly maneuver them or pin them in place? All the same resource. Getting below half-full imposes penalties, unless you have a specific feat.

If you really wanted a fatiguing (but not necessarily exhausting) system, have spellcasting require a Spell / Fortitude / Constitution Save to avoid a round or so of being wobbly - I'm looking at something like being slowed - reduced activity. Scale your DC by effective spell level (spell slot level, you upcasters you). You could probably finesse a sliding DC / fatigue duration system, but you need to be careful not to overdo it.

[Psyren]

I agree with Segev, double-edged sword mechanics are very tricky and D&D's balance is shaky enough as it is. Either they don't have enough upside for their cost and they get ignored (or you make them impossible to ignore and they feel punishing) - or, their upside is too good for their cost and they push the already weak balance off a cliff. Landing on the knife edge between these outcomes is nearly impossible in a game that has the kinds of assumptions that D&D does.

[GooeyChewie]

This is sadly where I'm at.

Plus they don't recognize the mechanics that aren't explained.

Like, look at the idea of the whip and the flail and that there could be something between that fits the balance.

Whip: 1d4 Slashing with Reach and Finesse
Flail: 1d8 Bluedgeoning
There's no reason you couldn't have a Castlevania style Chain Whip that either just deals 1d4 Bludgeoning, making it just a reflavor, or even making a Non finesse one that keeps reach but deals 1d6 Bludgeoning.

But the number of people that feel like they need to completely re-invent the wheel is staggering. Stats for Nunchucks, Katana separate from longswords, etc, etc.

For that matter, every argument I've seen against the new WildShape has come down to "But how does my druid turn into a snake? And how about a Cat to stealth?" and the answer of "That's flavor on the land form" is just like I'm speaking a foreign language.
If I may point out some arguments which don't boil down to "That's flavor on the land form":

•The new Wild Shape focuses heavily on combat. Of the seven 5e Druid subclasses, only Circle of the Moon focuses on turning into animals for combat. The other six subclasses are split evenly between primarily using Wild Shape for utility purposes and using Wild Shape to do things other than turn into animals. The OD&D playtest based Druid class does not set WotC up for success in designing Druid subclasses other than Circle of the Moon.
•Hands aren't just flavor. Despite the fact that the Wild Shape section says your chosen appearance has no mechanical impact, the Channel Nature section says that your ability to handle equipment depends on the limbs of your chosen appearance. Turning into a form which has the ability to handle equipment has no mechanical downside. For combat, turning into something which can handle equipment (such as a primate) is the right choice, because otherwise you are self-imposing a "no handling equipment" restriction for no upside.
•Whips and flails and longswords all have different stats. True, we don't need stats for every conceivable weapon, but I doubt many players would be happy with lumping all melee weapons into one single stat line. Likewise, I don't think we need a stat block for every conceivable animal a Druid might turn into, but lumping all land forms into a single stat block is reductive beyond what players would find acceptable in other parts of the game.

[CountDVB]

This thread has made me realize that a lot of D&D players are not very imaginative. That being the case I guess Wizards really does know what they are doing. The unimaginative need their imagination given to them and the rest of us will be imaginative regardless.

If that is what 1d&d will bring then it probably is for the best. If it doesn’t… well, there is no reason to buy it. See 4th edition for more information.

I think alot of them are imaginative, but not as smart as they think they are. There is this uncertainty if what they may or may not be able to do and often times trying to decide what can happen can be overwhelming, especially for new DMs.

[Psyren]

If I may point out some arguments which don't boil down to "That's flavor on the land form":

•The new Wild Shape focuses heavily on combat. Of the seven 5e Druid subclasses, only Circle of the Moon focuses on turning into animals for combat. The other six subclasses are split evenly between primarily using Wild Shape for utility purposes and using Wild Shape to do things other than turn into animals. The OD&D playtest based Druid class does not set WotC up for success in designing Druid subclasses other than Circle of the Moon.
•Hands aren't just flavor. Despite the fact that the Wild Shape section says your chosen appearance has no mechanical impact, the Channel Nature section says that your ability to handle equipment depends on the limbs of your chosen appearance. Turning into a form which has the ability to handle equipment has no mechanical downside. For combat, turning into something which can handle equipment (such as a primate) is the right choice, because otherwise you are self-imposing a "no handling equipment" restriction for no upside.
•Whips and flails and longswords all have different stats. True, we don't need stats for every conceivable weapon, but I doubt many players would be happy with lumping all melee weapons into one single stat line. Likewise, I don't think we need a stat block for every conceivable animal a Druid might turn into, but lumping all land forms into a single stat block is reductive beyond what players would find acceptable in other parts of the game.

On the hands point, I agree - it's a clear advantage for that a form that includes those, so limbless forms etc should have advantages of their own. For example, abilities like Constrict and Squeeze needing no limbs as a prerequisite. For the rest...

Those other subclasses are no worse off with the new druid either though. The new one has more wildshape-focused features, true, but in those spots the old druid had... nothing. 8 dead levels to be exact, 6 if you consider the wildshape improvements of swimming and flying to be hidden features. More features affecting wildshape aren't making them any worse off.

As for players finding multiple animals from one statline unacceptable - they accepted it just fine with the Beastmaster Ranger though. All the druid really needs are some abilities and better scaling.

[Hurrashane]

As an animal form with hands you can handle equipment but are you still proficient? Do proficiencies count as a feature you lose when you wild shape?

[Leon]

I am not saying it cannot be done, but it is not a cure all to all things balance issues. Psykers (at least in Dark Herasy, the one I am most familiar with) it is low risk, most of the mishaps being cosmetic, long-term (death is on there but most amount to sanity lost or gaining corruption) and is the only cost associated with the powers involved as they are essentially at will and pretty powerful in comparison to most other options. And this is 40k, a biffed roll in combat can mean instant death for almost anyone.

D&D using a similar system would mean risking similar things, but also only having a small number of slots to even attempt, essentially paying a premium to have the privilege of potentially doing one's self harm.

It is kinda similar to fumbles and such on attack rolls. Some systems do better with them than others, and while they can lead to interesting moments in play, they can also suck the momentum from a player. And this is much closer to the psyker example as, usually, there is no cost associated with making attacks.

Risk and cost to use abilities needs to be used in manageable ways, and depend on how they work with larger systems. And this limits its utility as a balancing tool. Like say an HP cost, if the cost is enough to end an adventuring day on its own, it amounts to the ability not being used while adventuring.* So it needs to be less than that, like perhaps enough to be an inconvenience if managed poorly in combat. But at that point we are less tackling a balance problem and more creating a narrative note to that ability.

Adding say, XP costs, to problem spells, won't change spells being problems so much as add a potential gameplay problem if the costs are untenable and used.
It is better from a balance perspective to simply ban problematic spells.

*this is why exhaustion for frenzy is a problem, arguably regardless of the effects of frenzy, it is a significant penalty for basically an entire game session to use once, and as such it only gets used rarely.

Yes its a Low risk but its a Risk that can End your character, some of the less potent ones can also really inconvenience you character/group as well but people still play them despite the risk (and persecution that comes from being one if your playing to type for the setting) Sometimes they are effects that you can then exploit to gain something extra.

Cost need not be a instant payment: like the Psyker, you make a test and can still have your effect work on a fail. Its the reminder that your wielding extremely potent forces that gives it a sense of weight and responsibility. Cost is the possibility that you may only get to cast this 9th level spell once or twice because spells of that magnitude shouldn't be just instantly known because you woke up from a long nap, rather earned from doing great tasks for powerful organizations or beings. Cost is the chance that your spell may not last as long or do as well as you intended it to. Cost is the chance to make you tired.

The Problem with the Berserker is that it just happens there is no check, the CRPG Solasta fixed that one nicely with a simple tests to see if you failed or not ~ it being a CON test on a class where you were likely going to have a reasonable score in that stat means you are most of the time going to pass but can still fail and get the level.


Perhaps more of the 9th level spells need a feature like this one, from Wish:

Exactly


Ah. That's been an option since at least 1996, with the Channeling option from Spells & Magic. Though I do recall an earlier Dragon article about a variant Wu Jen, who powered spells with hit points...
I once killed myself with a fireball. Not blowback, just exhausted myself to death.

An option in '96 is an option in 96 not a carried forward rule, in 3.5 Druids had a outright effect as to why they didn't use metal armours (and it was supported by a great range on non Metal options), in 5e its a half assed line of text saying you wont but also next to none options for not wearing it


"Big magic exhausts people" has been in D&D since at least 1984; it constantly affected Raistlin in the Dragonlance trilogy.
So... 39 years of history in D&D? At least?

And that has constantly been an game effect? Or just an artifact of a Narrative character.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Based on the OP's options I'll go with boring, though that's probably too harsh. They're definitely not too complex. I'd probably frame them as 'a class that doesn't have broad appeal (nature vs. other themes) with subclasses that are inconsistent in both flavor and power.

If the default druid from the PHB was Land, it's pretty uninspired. Moons suffer from being too strong at low levels, then scale weird and you end up with a full caster that doesn't get any subclass support for their spellcasting. An optimized Shepherd is IMO the most overpowered subclass in the entire game at mid levels, so whatever flavor is there kind of gets overshadowed by trivializing encounters and overshadowing you party.
I actually think Wizards finally got it right with Wildfire and Stars, both in terms of flavor and power. You end up with something that scales well, has wildshape options that support an interesting theme, and can be played through all 4 tiers.

[GooeyChewie]

Those other subclasses are no worse off with the new druid either though. The new one has more wildshape-focused features, true, but in those spots the old druid had... nothing. 8 dead levels to be exact, 6 if you consider the wildshape improvements of swimming and flying to be hidden features. More features affecting wildshape aren't making them any worse off.
I didn't say anything about the number of Wild Shape-focused features. What I said is that the OD&D playtest Wild Shape focuses heavily on combat. With 5E Wild Shape, at least those other subclasses can still use Wild Shape as a utility feature. The OD&D playtest Wild Shape delays the best utility aspect of Wild Shape (the ability to turn into a Tiny beast such as a housecat) until level 11.

Granted, having all the non-spellcasting features revolve around Wild Shape is also a problem. It's a problem which exists in 5e and which WotC has failed to correct as of this version of the OD&D Druid playtest.


As for players finding multiple animals from one statline unacceptable - they accepted it just fine with the Beastmaster Ranger though. All the druid really needs are some abilities and better scaling.

I can't speak for everybody, but I know I'd be more interested in Beastmaster Ranger if they had a bit more variation in their beast companion options. But even if you are satisfied in that regard, you're comparing a subclass' feature to a base class feature. I might concede your point if Animal of the Land/Sea/Sky were specific to Circle of the Moon, with base Druid getting my utility-based stat blocks.

[Schwann145]

As for players finding multiple animals from one statline unacceptable - they accepted it just fine with the Beastmaster Ranger though.

To be fair, plenty of people don't like the way Beastmaster Ranger is handled.
It's certainly easier and simpler, but easier/simpler isn't necessarily "better."

[Psyren]

To be fair, plenty of people don't like the way Beastmaster Ranger is handled.

And plenty of people do. Is there room for further improvement, sure, but it's definitely a big step forward from the 5e version.


I didn't say anything about the number of Wild Shape-focused features. What I said is that the OD&D playtest Wild Shape focuses heavily on combat. With 5E Wild Shape, at least those other subclasses can still use Wild Shape as a utility feature. The OD&D playtest Wild Shape delays the best utility aspect of Wild Shape (the ability to turn into a Tiny beast such as a housecat) until level 11.

Oh I agree that's a problem. Utility Wild Shape i.e. tiny forms (with some, albeit fewer, abilities to choose from) should be available in Tier 1 (preferably level 1), and the level 11 feature should be something else entirely.


Granted, having all the non-spellcasting features revolve around Wild Shape is also a problem. It's a problem which exists in 5e and which WotC has failed to correct as of this version of the OD&D Druid playtest.

The healing blossoms don't, and I proposed the "regain spell slot" functionality from the Tasha's Cleric as another simple use of Channel Nature for non-wildshaping druids.

Alternatively, you could get some kind of elemental power ability similar to the Cleric's ability to channel radiant energy.


As an animal form with hands you can handle equipment but are you still proficient? Do proficiencies count as a feature you lose when you wild shape?

In this version you lose all proficiencies (because they are game statistics that the forms don't have) so you wouldn't keep them. That part I don't mind - wild shape doesn't need weapon or armor proficiencies - but losing skills, saving throws and all racials is a bridge too far.

[Unoriginal]

"Big magic exhausts people" has been in D&D since at least 1984; it constantly affected Raistlin in the Dragonlance trilogy.

So... 39 years of history in D&D? At least?


I'm pretty sure it is part of the complaint that this existed in the narrative only and never got matched with a analogous game mechanism.


Ah. That's been an option since at least 1996, with the Channeling option from Spells & Magic. Though I do recall an earlier Dragon article about a variant Wu Jen, who powered spells with hit points...

I once killed myself with a fireball. Not blowback, just exhausted myself to death.

The complaint is that they added that for the cartoon... but only for the lady caster (or lady casters, if what I read is accurate).

[Psyren]

The complaint is that they added that for the cartoon... but only for the lady caster (or lady casters, if what I read is accurate).

The only other "caster" on the team is Scanlan, and I'm pretty sure I've seen him magically overexert himself too

[animorte]

The only other "caster" on the team is Scanlan, and I'm pretty sure I've seen him magically overexert himself too
Pike is a War Cleric, just not there all the time.

[Psyren]

Pike is a War Cleric, just not there all the time.

Ah right, my bad - and she definitely has done that too

(War, really? Not Life/Light?)

[animorte]

Ah right, my bad - and she definitely has done that too

(War, really? Not Life/Light?)
Aye, I do believe so. I remember seeing it somewhere on a "CR collection of all characters" (including guests).

CMCC also has a "optimizing critical role characters" series.

Edit: I found confirmation that she was indeed a Life Cleric originally before she was cut in half and resurrected (at which point her hair turned from black to white), then trained to be a War Cleric instead. This was before the stream started and had something to do with their shift from Pathfinder to 5e.

[Segev]

As for players finding multiple animals from one statline unacceptable - they accepted it just fine with the Beastmaster Ranger though. All the druid really needs are some abilities and better scaling.

This carries an implication that those opposing the new UA all are hypocrites because they support the Beastmaster Ranger from TCE. Or was it XGE? Either way.

I didn't like that solution to the Beastmaster problem, either. Saying "They were fine with it!" is putting words in their mouths. You are fine with both. That doesn't mean everyone is fine with the generic stat blob on the ranger subclass just because it isn't under discussion at this time. It actually has a lot of if not all of the same problems I have with this UA's wild shape generic stat blob. In particular the way a ranger who seeks to tame a (say) spider has little to no difference with one who tames a wolf, and it is unlikely that it being a spider will matter even when in an environment designed for monster manual spiders.

[Psyren]

This carries an implication that those opposing the new UA all are hypocrites because they support the Beastmaster Ranger from TCE. Or was it XGE? Either way.

I didn't like that solution to the Beastmaster problem, either. Saying "They were fine with it!" is putting words in their mouths. You are fine with both. That doesn't mean everyone is fine with the generic stat blob on the ranger subclass just because it isn't under discussion at this time. It actually has a lot of if not all of the same problems I have with this UA's wild shape generic stat blob. In particular the way a ranger who seeks to tame a (say) spider has little to no difference with one who tames a wolf, and it is unlikely that it being a spider will matter even when in an environment designed for monster manual spiders.

I'm not calling/implying/etc anyone a hypocrite, nor am I saying that "everyone" is fine with BM ranger. I'm expressing my belief that the voices hating the very concept of mutable statblocks are a vocal minority of the playerbase, because the actual results of them doing a move like this for the BM Ranger have been positive overall.

Note too that the BM ranger forms have actual abilities on each of their base chassis, those would be a good start for the druid implementations.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Not to mention, while a lot of the complaints about the new WildShape START with "It takes away choice and flavor".

It boils down to the loss of HP, the loss of specific vision types and special moves (Constrict, Pack tactics, etc).

Getting some of those abilities back would be great and I think should happen. But no one is actually complaining about a lack of choice and flavor, it's the mechanics being removed.

[Kane0]

Familiars also got generic statblocks and that doesnt seem to have triggered the same response, so i'd wager it is largely over the effectiveness and loss of special abilities if the various forms you could pick.
I think Beastmasters didnt kick up as much of a stink (though there was one) because it was more effective, at the cost of those special abilities.

[Unoriginal]

Familiars also got generic statblocks and that doesnt seem to have triggered the same response

When did that happen? It's the first time I've heard of it.

[Kane0]

When did that happen? It's the first time I've heard of it.

Literally the same UA doc that has the Druid ones :smallamused:
Edit: Find Steed also got the same treatment, again not much fuss compared to the druid shapes. Again, methinks because it wasn't a large change in strength and there are still some abilities retained even within said generic statblock (much like Tasha's summons)

[Segev]

It takes energy to argue this stuff. I am not thrilled with the Find Steed or Familiar things, either, but Wild Shape is the more notable element, taking up more of the UA.

Pretty much all my complaints apply to the other two generic stat blob items.

Find Familiar now allows attacks, which I think is a mistake. It also makes it so you can't vanish your familiar without essentially killing it; you must recast the spell (including spending ten gp) to get it back if you do. Spell delivery is cleaned up a bit, which is good, but if there weren't other glaring problems, I would likely be looking to suggest tweaks to it, too.

[Schwann145]

Feels a bit like we're starting to compare apples and oranges here. Sure, they're both fruit but that's where the similarities end.

Find Familiar is, 9 times out of 10, a ribbon spell to give you a buddy/pet. Occasionally you'll send it out to scout if you don't have a player who specializes or someone who can cast PWOT, but otherwise, yeah, ribbon.

Find Steed is less ribbon, but with mounted combat being so poorly supported, it's basically just a movement spell. Wanna get somewhere quickly without the hassle of taking care of an actual horse? Find Steed. Flying might be a necessary part of travel? Find Greater Steed.

Wild Shape is getting all the heat because it's not a niche ability; it's, basically, the primary ability of every Druid, evidenced by the fact that they get basically no other support outside of spell progression.

[Kane0]

Feels a bit like we're starting to compare apples and oranges here. Sure, they're both fruit but that's where the similarities end.

Find Familiar is, 9 times out of 10, a ribbon spell to give you a buddy/pet.

Find Steed is less ribbon, but with mounted combat being so poorly supported, it's basically just a movement spell.

Wild Shape is getting all the heat because it's not a niche ability; it's, basically, the primary ability of every Druid

Erm okay. Find Familiar and Find Steed were changed from red grapes to white grapes. Wildshape was changed from a melon to a lemon.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Wild Shape is getting all the heat because it's not a niche ability; it's, basically, the primary ability of every Druid, evidenced by the fact that they get basically no other support outside of spell progression.

Except the use for Wildshape for a Not Moon Druid is exactly the same as those Ribbons you were saying.

Want to scout and no rogues? Turn into something small.

Want to flavor as an animal? Wildshape.

It wasn't combat efficient, or useful.

And now, much like the Wizard, the Druid's "Primary Ability" is Spells followed by their Subclass. Wildshape is just more interesting than Arcane Recovery.

[Segev]

Except the use for Wildshape for a Not Moon Druid is exactly the same as those Ribbons you were saying.

Want to scout and no rogues? Turn into something small.

Want to flavor as an animal? Wildshape.

It wasn't combat efficient, or useful.

And now, much like the Wizard, the Druid's "Primary Ability" is Spells followed by their Subclass. Wildshape is just more interesting than Arcane Recovery.

The bold part is not true with the UA version. Cosplaying as a beast, and being just as effective as if you wore a Halloween costume at immitating said beast's abilities and features, is not "interesting." It's disappointing.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The bold part is not true with the UA version. Cosplaying as a beast, and being just as effective as if you wore a Halloween costume at immitating said beast's abilities and features, is not "interesting." It's disappointing.

Except you're factually incorrect. If we take away all the flavor and fluff and just look at pure mechanics Base Land Wild Shape grants you the following:
Wisdom becomes the stat for AC and your Wisdom score becomes your Strength and Dexterity. You get Advantage on Perception, a +10 Movement Speed, Variable damage types.

It's a flat mechanical boost. It's actually mechanically useful to a non Moon Druid for more than just scouting.

[Segev]

Except you're factually incorrect. If we take away all the flavor and fluff and just look at pure mechanics Base Land Wild Shape grants you the following:
Wisdom becomes the stat for AC and your Wisdom score becomes your Strength and Dexterity. You get Advantage on Perception, a +10 Movement Speed, Variable damage types.

It's a flat mechanical boost. It's actually mechanically useful to a non Moon Druid.

I didn't say it wasn't "mechanically useful." I said it wasn't "interesting." If I want flat mechanical boosts, I could play a barbarian. Heck, maybe we should renamed "druid" to "barbarian" and "wild shape" to "rage," and drop the barbarian as-is entirely. :smallyuk:

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I didn't say it wasn't "mechanically useful." I said it wasn't "interesting." If I want flat mechanical boosts, I could play a barbarian. Heck, maybe we should renamed "druid" to "barbarian" and "wild shape" to "rage," and drop the barbarian as-is entirely. :smallyuk:

It wasn't "Interesting" before.

Interesting is always going to come down to fluff and flavor and the RP. Anything stripped to just the mechanics is simple.

It was never "Interesting" It was convoluted and clunky. It was the equivalent of Find Familiar with a bit of flavor (that hasn't been removed) and the issue of risking yourself instead of just a spell slot.

[Psyren]

It takes energy to argue this stuff. I am not thrilled with the Find Steed or Familiar things, either, but Wild Shape is the more notable element, taking up more of the UA.

Pretty much all my complaints apply to the other two generic stat blob items.

Find Familiar now allows attacks, which I think is a mistake. It also makes it so you can't vanish your familiar without essentially killing it; you must recast the spell (including spending ten gp) to get it back if you do. Spell delivery is cleaned up a bit, which is good, but if there weren't other glaring problems, I would likely be looking to suggest tweaks to it, too.


Feels a bit like we're starting to compare apples and oranges here. Sure, they're both fruit but that's where the similarities end.

Find Familiar is, 9 times out of 10, a ribbon spell to give you a buddy/pet. Occasionally you'll send it out to scout if you don't have a player who specializes or someone who can cast PWOT, but otherwise, yeah, ribbon.

Find Steed is less ribbon, but with mounted combat being so poorly supported, it's basically just a movement spell. Wanna get somewhere quickly without the hassle of taking care of an actual horse? Find Steed. Flying might be a necessary part of travel? Find Greater Steed.

Wild Shape is getting all the heat because it's not a niche ability; it's, basically, the primary ability of every Druid, evidenced by the fact that they get basically no other support outside of spell progression.

1) I don't think anyone is saying "Everyone is 100% fine with every other implementation of mutable unified statblocks besides wildshape." Obviously there exist folks who, like Segev, dislike most if not all permutations of this concept.

2) "Familiars are ribbons" is a take I've never seen in D&D. They have far too many mechanical benefits to be considered a ribbon feature, and the new version is no exception to that.


I didn't say it wasn't "mechanically useful." I said it wasn't "interesting." If I want flat mechanical boosts, I could play a barbarian.

I actually agree with you that the current proposal isn't interesting enough. Where I suspect we differ is that I think it's possible to rectify that without reverting from mutable unified statblocks.

[Bohandas]

Except you're factually incorrect. If we take away all the flavor and fluff and just look at pure mechanics Base Land Wild Shape grants you the following:
Wisdom becomes the stat for AC and your Wisdom score becomes your Strength and Dexterity. You get Advantage on Perception, a +10 Movement Speed, Variable damage types.

It's a flat mechanical boost. It's actually mechanically useful to a non Moon Druid for more than just scouting.

That doesn't address the point of it not imitating any of the beast's abilities

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I actually agree with you that the current proposal isn't interesting enough. Where I suspect we differ is that I think it's possible to rectify that without reverting from mutable unified statblocks.

100 %, we clearly need to have Tiny not be an unlock at level 11. I also see no issue with just giving the climb speed to Land Form from the get go. It's not like there's not plenty of races with Climb Speed already at level 1.

And, we could likely make the Bestial Strike get a bit more flavor. In addition to picking P/B/S damage maybe something like.

Attack Specialty: Choose one when you initiate Wild Shape, your animal form must support this ability.
Constrict: Your Damage is reduced by 1 die type, however you initiate grapple on a successful strike and while maintaining grapple can deal your damage each turn automatically. (Bludgeoning Only)
Charge: If you move more than 10' before making your attack the target it takes double damage and must make a Strength Save or be knocked Prone (Bludgeoning or Piercing Only)
Rake: If you use the attack action you can choose to make an additional Bestial Attack as a Bonus Action.

I'm sure those all need to be fine tuned and sorted, but voiloi, Now the new Wildshape can do everything the old one can without having to juggle six million stat blocks and giving the Druid giant extra HP batteries.


That doesn't address the point of it not imitating any of the beast's abilities

Which abilities would those be? As mentioned above I support a few tweaks that'd add some movement back in. But the thing your missing out on is a few unique vision options and gimmicks that add to something. Even just RAW you can still turn into a Snake and Constrict, you even get a bonus as your Wisdom becomes your Strength Score.

[Segev]

I actually agree with you that the current proposal isn't interesting enough. Where I suspect we differ is that I think it's possible to rectify that without reverting from mutable unified statblocks.

I agree that that's where we disagree. There probably is some level of build-a-bear that I would be okay with... but by the time we reach that, I think that all benefit of the generic stat block has been lost.

It actually creates more work and more room for unbalanced combinations of features (and invites powergamers to deviate even more from the "it's an animal" concept) once it has enough available to be able to do everything I think it needs to. Which is why I support the fixed stat blocks and the ability to modify them to other fixed stat blocks, rather than a generic blob that can be made into anything with build-a-bear rules that are not reliant on the idea that this is a unified theme of an animal.

Once it's a build-a-bear in the hands of players, any admonishment that it needs to fit a theme or anything becomes noise...unless the player is actually forbidden from using his own player-facing rules without playing "DM-may-I?" which again defeats a big part of the purpose.


Which abilities would those be? As mentioned above I support a few tweaks that'd add some movement back in. But the thing your missing out on is a few unique vision options and gimmicks that add to something. Even just RAW you can still turn into a Snake and Constrict, you even get a bonus as your Wisdom becomes your Strength Score.You can turn into a "snake" and "constrict" just as easily as you can turn into a "panther" and "constrict."

[Pixel_Kitsune]

You can turn into a "snake" and "constrict" just as easily as you can turn into a "panther" and "constrict."

You can turn into a Panther and constrict. It'd be a Displacer Beast most likely. Just like we could have a bear with a Beak doing piercing damage, Owlbear. The game clearly wants to allow that stuff, but your table could stick to just real animals.

Either way it's clear that's the goal since the One D&D wildshape form says "As you assume a form, you determine its appearance, selecting an example animal from the form’s description, selecting another appropriate animal, or choosing a hybrid form that incorporates visual characteristics from two or more animals."

Honestly, it's a better fit for the Druid's theme of Nature than it used to be. Beasts are different from Monstrosities and Other monster types for mechanic purposes and balances.

But a Druid who's part of Nature would view Displacer Beasts, Owlbears, probably Unicorns, etc as part of the over all thing, not weird extras that way we do from our perch in real life.

[Atranen]

You can turn into a Panther and constrict. It'd be a Displacer Beast most likely. Just like we could have a bear with a Beak doing piercing damage, Owlbear. The game clearly wants to allow that stuff, but your table could stick to just real animals.

Either way it's clear that's the goal since the One D&D wildshape form says "As you assume a form, you determine its appearance, selecting an example animal from the form’s description, selecting another appropriate animal, or choosing a hybrid form that incorporates visual characteristics from two or more animals."

Honestly, it's a better fit for the Druid's theme of Nature than it used to be. Beasts are different from Monstrosities and Other monster types for mechanic purposes and balances.

But a Druid who's part of Nature would view Displacer Beasts, Owlbears, probably Unicorns, etc as part of the over all thing, not weird extras that way we do from our perch in real life.

I wonder how many Beast of the Land players will say "I turn into a snake and constrict" versus "I turn into a panther and constrict" vs "I turn into a beast of the land; I spend 3 of my points to gain pack tactics, 2 points to constrict, and another 2 points for an armored shell"

[Segev]

You can turn into a Panther and constrict. It'd be a Displacer Beast most likely. Just like we could have a bear with a Beak doing piercing damage, Owlbear. The game clearly wants to allow that stuff, but your table could stick to just real animals.

Either way it's clear that's the goal since the One D&D wildshape form says "As you assume a form, you determine its appearance, selecting an example animal from the form’s description, selecting another appropriate animal, or choosing a hybrid form that incorporates visual characteristics from two or more animals."

Honestly, it's a better fit for the Druid's theme of Nature than it used to be. Beasts are different from Monstrosities and Other monster types for mechanic purposes and balances.

But a Druid who's part of Nature would view Displacer Beasts, Owlbears, probably Unicorns, etc as part of the over all thing, not weird extras that way we do from our perch in real life.

So, in other words, your form is irrelevant. You're just an amalgam of features, and your form may or may not bother to look like it should be able to do those things.


I wonder how many Beast of the Land players will say "I turn into a snake and constrict" versus "I turn into a panther and constrict" vs "I turn into a beast of the land; I spend 3 of my points to gain pack tactics, 2 points to constrict, and another 2 points for an armored shell"Exactly. Druids go from "assuming beast/animal forms" to "assuming build-a-monstrosity" forms. Which will be inherently harder to balance than a fixed stat block for a beast that has a curated combination of features.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I wonder how many Beast of the Land players will say "I turn into a snake and constrict" versus "I turn into a panther and constrict" vs "I turn into a beast of the land; I spend 3 of my points to gain pack tactics, 2 points to constrict, and another 2 points for an armored shell"

Which is on the table, not the game designer. At my table I'd be saying "What form is this and what do you look like?" And if it's mechancially allowed and they said "I'm a Chimeric creature with a Tortoise's body and two heads, one a wolf and one a snake." And I'd say cool, go for it. And if some other table doesn't question it even that much? Alright, and? It's their table, let them have fun the way they want.

Do we fault WotC because some players say "I take out a bit of phosphorous and squelch it through my hand throwing it forward and a wall of fire erupts across the length of the boat snaking this way and that between them and my friends." when another player says "I cast wall of fire, I'll put it between us and the bad guys."

Or how about "I pivot forward, sliding my shield up and catching the axe from the soldier to my left, throwing its wielder backward a bit as I draw cut my broadsword and cut across the soldier in front of me in a clean sweep, ending with the tip of the blade clipping across the foe to my right." vs "I use my Bonus action to Shove with my shield and attack twice with my long sword, once each to that guy and that guy."?

You're pointing out a thing that has to do with RP depth and a table, not the game design itself.


So, in other words, your form is irrelevant. You're just an amalgam of features, and your form may or may not bother to look like it should be able to do those things.

From a raw mechanics, sure, but that's, again, up to the table and flavor and fluff, not a critique one way or another on the game rules. You know, mechanically rage just gives advantage on strength, bonus melee damage and damage resistance. I've played a warforged barbarian who flavor wise stayed dead calm the entire time they raged because it wasn't a rage, it was just a mechanical overdrive of sorts that focused and pushed performance. Is it WotC's fault I played the class "wrong" from the standard expectation?

Your point is like arguing that 5e failed by not statting out the gladius, kukri, falcata, etc and just saying "short sword" Or that how come we don't have Nunchucks and tonfas and have to use the Club stats?

Now you're going to make an argument that "Well, no, it'd be like saying you want Nunchucks and use the Spear stats" To which I'd respond, If there's a point on the chucks sure, but more realistically, no, a player is not going to do that and as a DM I'd make them explain such a thing. AND, if someone does it at another table, that's not my concern.

Again, you lose nothing other than stuff we've all agreed needs retuning and a big hunk of extra HP. Also, you have to actually care about your Constitution.


Exactly. Druids go from "assuming beast/animal forms" to "assuming build-a-monstrosity" forms. Which will be inherently harder to balance than a fixed stat block for a beast that has a curated combination of features.

How will it be inherently harder to balance? Mechanically it's literally one thing with a few options, just like the Tasha spells. Only flavor changes around.

[Atranen]

Which is on the table, not the game designer. At my table I'd be saying "What form is this and what do you look like?" And if it's mechancially allowed and they said "I'm a Chimeric creature with a Tortoise's body and two heads, one a wolf and one a snake." And I'd say cool, go for it. And if some other table doesn't question it even that much? Alright, and? It's their table, let them have fun the way they want.

It's on both; it's the designer's job to make rules that encourage and allow fun and exciting play. If the rules make it a slog or are too generic, that's on the designer.

The examples you give are both different from this. We know what a wall of fire looks like. We know what attacking and shoving looks like. We don't know what a Beast of the Land looks like.


From a raw mechanics, sure, but that's, again, up to the table and flavor and fluff, not a critique one way or another on the game rules. You know, mechanically rage just gives advantage on strength, bonus melee damage and damage resistance. I've played a warforged barbarian who flavor wise stayed dead calm the entire time they raged because it wasn't a rage, it was just a mechanical overdrive of sorts that focused and pushed performance. Is it WotC's fault I played the class "wrong" from the standard expectation?

No. But a game that provides default flavor is better than one which expects the players to bring it all yourself.


How will it be inherently harder to balance? Mechanically it's literally one thing with a few options, just like the Tasha spells. Only flavor changes around.

Combinations of abilities can interact in unexpected ways, especially if a player gets to build them however they want. There are unforeseen rules interactions all the time, like with the coffeelock. That's less likely to happen if you just get a straight stat block.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

It's on both; it's the designer's job to make rules that encourage and allow fun and exciting play. If the rules make it a slog or are too generic, that's on the designer.

The examples you give are both different from this. We know what a wall of fire looks like. We know what attacking and shoving looks like. We don't know what a Beast of the Land looks like.

No. But a game that provides default flavor is better than one which expects the players to bring it all yourself.

The designer gave us rules that encourage and allow fun and exciting play, how much RP fluff and flavor is on the table, glad we agree. Also "generic" is going to be a subjective thing, not really debatable. After all, Savage Worlds is a successful TTRPG, generic is the word for it.

And yeah, we know what a Beast of the Land looks like. "An Animal of the Land is a flightless terrestrial animal, such as a bear, deer, horse, cat, dog, velociraptor, or big rodent." Which tells us in the scope of the game's intent we are talking animals. When combined with the overall Wildshape description of "As you assume a form, you determine its appearance, selecting an example animal from the form’s description, selecting another appropriate animal, or choosing a hybrid form that incorporates visual characteristics from two or more animals." you also get things like Displacer Beasts, Owlbears, Chimeric Creatures, etc.

The game provides default flavor, the entire argument here is the idea that because a player or a table might ignore that default flavor it should somehow be assumed that it's ignored by the designer. Which is nonsense. Right up there with the Druids wearing metal armor stuff.


Combinations of abilities can interact in unexpected ways, especially if a player gets to build them however they want. There are unforeseen rules interactions all the time, like with the coffeelock. That's less likely to happen if you just get a straight stat block.

This argument has nothing to do with the Druid though. The One D&D situation IS a straight stat block. Any abilities combining in unexpected ways would do so with the current Wildshape rules too.

I asked for an example of how it would be hard to balance, nothing you said makes the new version harder to balance than the existing one. In fact, the newer one is easier to balance because it's a straight stat block instead of every beast in the Monstrous Manual.

[Psyren]

I wonder how many Beast of the Land players will say "I turn into a snake and constrict" versus "I turn into a panther and constrict" vs "I turn into a beast of the land; I spend 3 of my points to gain pack tactics, 2 points to constrict, and another 2 points for an armored shell"

Speaking for myself, I see nothing wrong with the latter as long as it doesn't stop there; work with your DM and have your form follow that function. (And plenty of DMs/tables won't care if it stops there.)


Which is on the table, not the game designer. At my table I'd be saying "What form is this and what do you look like?" And if it's mechancially allowed and they said "I'm a Chimeric creature with a Tortoise's body and two heads, one a wolf and one a snake." And I'd say cool, go for it. And if some other table doesn't question it even that much? Alright, and? It's their table, let them have fun the way they want.

Do we fault WotC because some players say "I take out a bit of phosphorous and squelch it through my hand throwing it forward and a wall of fire erupts across the length of the boat snaking this way and that between them and my friends." when another player says "I cast wall of fire, I'll put it between us and the bad guys."

Or how about "I pivot forward, sliding my shield up and catching the axe from the soldier to my left, throwing its wielder backward a bit as I draw cut my broadsword and cut across the soldier in front of me in a clean sweep, ending with the tip of the blade clipping across the foe to my right." vs "I use my Bonus action to Shove with my shield and attack twice with my long sword, once each to that guy and that guy."?

You're pointing out a thing that has to do with RP depth and a table, not the game design itself.

Exactly this.



The examples you give are both different from this. We know what a wall of fire looks like. We know what attacking and shoving looks like. We don't know what a Beast of the Land looks like.

And what does a Mind Sliver look like? Or an Aura of Life? Or a Finger of Death? Plenty of rules elements are open to interpretation, not just BotL, and that's okay.



No. But a game that provides default flavor is better than one which expects the players to bring it all yourself.

The game already has plenty of "default flavor"; not every single class feature or player ability needs to be rigidly defined in this way.



This argument has nothing to do with the Druid though. The One D&D situation IS a straight stat block. Any abilities combining in unexpected ways would do so with the current Wildshape rules too.

I asked for an example of how it would be hard to balance, nothing you said makes the new version harder to balance than the existing one. In fact, the newer one is easier to balance because it's a straight stat block instead of every beast in the Monstrous Manual.

Indeed, especially the last part. It constrains future design because it means that they can never allow a beast CR 6 or below to have any ability they wouldn't want in player hands. And even when they're okay with all such abilities, it means they also need to compare them to every Primal buff, feat etc to make sure none of those might imbalance something they otherwise see as okay. It's a massive added design burden that is much easier to manage via a shortlist of curated abilities.

[Atranen]

The game provides default flavor, the entire argument here is the idea that because a player or a table might ignore that default flavor it should somehow be assumed that it's ignored by the designer. Which is nonsense. Right up there with the Druids wearing metal armor stuff.

The problem is not ignoring default flavor; I have no problem with that. What concerns me is when there is no default flavor.


This argument has nothing to do with the Druid though. The One D&D situation IS a straight stat block. Any abilities combining in unexpected ways would do so with the current Wildshape rules too.

I'm thinking about the 'stat block with additional abilities' option that has been suggested. There you can pick up odd combinations from very different creatures. Current wildshape does not.


Speaking for myself, I see nothing wrong with the latter as long as it doesn't stop there; work with your DM and have your form follow that function. (And plenty of DMs/tables won't care if it stops there.)

Agree to disagree.


And what does a Mind Sliver look like? Or an Aura of Life? Or a Finger of Death? Plenty of rules elements are open to interpretation, not just BotL, and that's okay.

There is some room for interpretation. But there are also bounds within which the game takes place. A tortoise using constrict or a panther having an armored shell break that.


The game already has plenty of "default flavor"

Disagree. And either way, "plenty" does not imply that adding more would be a bad thing.


Indeed, especially the last part. It constrains future design because it means that they can never allow a beast CR 6 or below to have any ability they wouldn't want in player hands. And even when they're okay with all such abilities, it means they also need to compare them to every Primal buff, feat etc to make sure none of those might imbalance something they otherwise see as okay. It's a massive added design burden that is much easier to manage via a shortlist of curated abilities.

What abilities do you imagine a beast having that would be inappropriate for a level 18 moon druid? (I'll be honest here, I don't care about and never play past level 10; anything beyond that is irrelevant to me).

Your second point is true, but it's solved just as effectively by having a shortlist of allowed forms.

[Hurrashane]

The Moon Druid's unarmed attack BA is pretty genius in it's (probable intended) use. You turn into a wolf as your beast of the land? Hey, look at that you can trip, heck in some situations better than an actual wolf as you can trip before you make attacks. You turn into a snake form and you can use that BA to grapple an enemy then use one of your attacks to describe you squeezing your foe. For a giant spider again you could use it as a grapple to describe webbing up your prey.

Like, it's a pretty good piece of flexible design. With some creative thinking. Letting the druid use feats while shaped, and adding a feat akin to the expert UA Grappler feat for shoves could go a long way to sort of giving a druid back those abilities they used to have in beast form without overcomplicating the basic wildshape.

It'd also be neat to be able to change the form's appearance as a BA, or just freely. Like, it's a pretty cool visual to pounce at a guy in the form of a panther but shift into that of a snake when you get on them. Like, being hard to fight by not staying in the same shape for very long.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The problem is not ignoring default flavor; I have no problem with that. What concerns me is when there is no default flavor.

There is default flavor, it very clearly describes what a Beast of the Land is. There is 100% default flavor, I quoted it from the UA file.


I'm thinking about the 'stat block with additional abilities' option that has been suggested. There you can pick up odd combinations from very different creatures. Current wildshape does not.

Did someone suggests a point buy table with multiple options? I didn't see it. I suggested a SINGLE attack option be available, no way to stack and combine things. It's also not part of what the UA has. It was my suggestion to address someone saying they WANTED to add. So you can't really argue against the One D&D because of it.


There is some room for interpretation. But there are also bounds within which the game takes place. A tortoise using constrict or a panther having an armored shell break that.

Again, the actual material doesn't allow it, but even if it did, we're in a magic world where Chimeric Creatures exist. Problem solved. We have Bears with Beaks and Feathers, Cats with Tentacles, Rabbits with Antlers, Horses with Horns. Adding an extra hinge of movement to a Tortoise's legs or armor plating to a cat are hardly game changers or out of the norm in D&D.


Disagree. And either way, "plenty" does not imply that adding more would be a bad thing.

Cool, please explain the flavor difference between Beast of the Land and Pre level 5 WildShape in the current 5e Druid. Not the mechanics, Purely the flavor, The only change is that Beast of the Land allows the form to look like Monstrosities and other monsters, not just beasts.


What abilities do you imagine a beast having that would be inappropriate for a level 18 moon druid? (I'll be honest here, I don't care about and never play past level 10; anything beyond that is irrelevant to me).

The fact that you're latching onto the level 18 tells me you know the issue is there. They said CR 6 because that's the max possible form, not because they're specifically worried about CR 6. You want examples of Beasts that have dumped the power curve?

CR 0:
Cranium Rat suddenly gave Druids Telepathy, DarkVision, Illumination and Telepathic Shroud making it a beast of a scout, outstripping any familiar and most Rogues.

CR 1/4:
Velocirator: Look, the Wolf got Multiattack.

CR 1:
Deinonychus: Look, the Raptor got bigger and more attacks...

CR 2:
Quezacoatlus: Fly speed 80, size Huge, Dive and Fly-by attacks. Major Strike plus can now just carry the whole party. Available at level 6.

That's not really going in depth, that just my casually glancing at MoM and remember that Cranium Rats are Beasts. I'm sure someone who's actively playing Moon Druids can do better. But yeah, we're talking a level 2 character suddenly getting 3 attacks a round with Pounce. And any Non Moon Druid still gets the Velociraptor making them melee strikers at low levels and still gets the Cranium Rat.


Your second point is true, but it's solved just as effectively by having a shortlist of allowed forms.

Yeah, but that's a Rule 0 issue, The game doesn't assume a shortlist of allowed forms, and depending on the world you might not even have a leg to stand on. One of the things I usually see is a House Rule disallowing Dinosaurs because it's unlikely the PC saw them... Well that's great right up until an Eberron game comes along and someone makes a Talandran Moon Druid...

[strangebloke]

Gosh I don't know how to say it but the onednd druid is just boring as sin. I can't see myself playing such a class under any condition.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

It'd also be neat to be able to change the form's appearance as a BA, or just freely. Like, it's a pretty cool visual to pounce at a guy in the form of a panther but shift into that of a snake when you get on them. Like, being hard to fight by not staying in the same shape for very long.

That seems a cool flavor thing to throw in, and they already kind of hit it with what is also a cool change to the Elemental Wild Shape. Instead of you being stuck to a specific Elemental, nope, pick an element, any of them, and your normal form changes. I LOVE the idea that I don't turn into a hulking Pillar of Flame, my Giant Fox just ignites in flame. And the next time? It's Lightning.


Gosh I don't know how to say it but the onednd druid is just boring as sin. I can't see myself playing such a class under any condition.

But can you share why? What makes it boring compared to the 5e one? Not arguing subjective opinion or anything, I struggle to ever play a Sorcerer and I know other people love them, but since this is a discussion form... elaboration is good.

[Psyren]

A tortoise using constrict or a panther having an armored shell break that.

Presumably, taking those abilities would mean you are no longer identical in appearance to a generic tortoise or panther.


What abilities do you imagine a beast having that would be inappropriate for a level 18 moon druid? (I'll be honest here, I don't care about and never play past level 10; anything beyond that is irrelevant to me).

Pixel covered it but I have a couple examples to add:

A fairly common beast ability I've seen cause near-endless questions and headaches (and stomachaches :smalltongue:) at tables regardless of level is Swallow Whole. What happens if the druid player swallows something and then changes shape/reduces to something smaller? Or if they swallow something and then their HP are reduced to zero? Or they're Enlarged and swallow something, but the spell ends early? Even the "simplest" approach of any change in form regurgitating the target is (a) not specified, (b) requires additional adjudication (where do they come out? Is it my choice? can I "vomit" them off a cliff, or into lava?) and (c) becomes a near unparalleled repositioning tool for both foes and friends. With an ability pool it's fairly easy to just skip all this, or at least create a shapeshifter-friendly modified version of the ability that specifies what happens in simpler terms.

There are also some uncommon beast abilities, like ranged attacks. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that one of the things that pushed the Giant Ape to CR 7 was an unwillingness to put an unlimited ammunition 50/100ft 7d6+6 magical ranged attack into player hands; certainly that's better than any druid cantrip.


Your second point is true, but it's solved just as effectively by having a shortlist of allowed forms.

There's no thematic expectation to have a large number of beast abilities though, just a large number of beast forms. Which control over the appearance gives you.

[Atranen]

There is default flavor, it very clearly describes what a Beast of the Land is. There is 100% default flavor, I quoted it from the UA file.

The default flavor is incredibly bland; one might say, flavorless.


Again, the actual material doesn't allow it, but even if it did, we're in a magic world where Chimeric Creatures exist. Problem solved. We have Bears with Beaks and Feathers, Cats with Tentacles, Rabbits with Antlers, Horses with Horns. Adding an extra hinge of movement to a Tortoise's legs or armor plating to a cat are hardly game changers or out of the norm in D&D.

Some chimeric creatures exist. Panthers with armor plating are not one of them.

And either way, this shift means moon druids will often be bizarre monstrosities, as opposed to animals. I don't like that.


Cool, please explain the flavor difference between Beast of the Land and Pre level 5 WildShape in the current 5e Druid. Not the mechanics, Purely the flavor, The only change is that Beast of the Land allows the form to look like Monstrosities and other monsters, not just beasts.

5e druids are beasts. OneD&D are beasts or eldritch horrors or anything in between. And the mechanics matter. 5e druids feel like specific beasts.


The fact that you're latching onto the level 18 tells me you know the issue is there. They said CR 6 because that's the max possible form, not because they're specifically worried about CR 6. You want examples of Beasts that have dumped the power curve?

This is all dealt with with a shortlist.


Yeah, but that's a Rule 0 issue, The game doesn't assume a shortlist of allowed forms, and depending on the world you might not even have a leg to stand on. One of the things I usually see is a House Rule disallowing Dinosaurs because it's unlikely the PC saw them... Well that's great right up until an Eberron game comes along and someone makes a Talandran Moon Druid...

The game ought to provide a shortlist.


Gosh I don't know how to say it but the onednd druid is just boring as sin. I can't see myself playing such a class under any condition.

I concur.


Presumably, taking those abilities would mean you are no longer identical in appearance to a generic tortoise or panther.

Why?


There's no thematic expectation to have a large number of beast abilities though, just a large number of beast forms. Which control over the appearance gives you.

We've done the "shortlist with mutable forms vs generic ville with some bonuses" before, so no response here.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The default flavor is incredibly bland; one might say, flavorless.

Um... Please explain the depth of difference between "As you assume a form, you determine its appearance, selecting an example animal from the form’s description, selecting another appropriate animal, or choosing a hybrid form that incorporates visual characteristics from two or more animals." vs "you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before."

Cause quite frankly, the new one gives MORE options while keeping the exact same flavor and I'm waiting for you explain the difference.


Some chimeric creatures exist. Panthers with armor plating are not one of them.

It's almost as if, you could make it up, because it's all a fantasy game. And, AGAIN, this is not actually in the UA Druid, nor was it in the example idea I tossed out, so your argument has no weight or purpose here.


And either way, this shift means moon druids will often be bizarre monstrosities, as opposed to animals. I don't like that.

Liking is not the same as a claim that the new thing lacks flavor or is bad for the overall class. And again, you're assuming a lot based on a Slippery Slope assumption about allowing the Druid to create fantastical beasts.

Also, getting a little confused here. Just a moment ago you said the new druid has no flavor at all, where as now you're stating the Chimeric Flavor is something you dislike. Aren't you admitting there's flavor right there?


5e druids are beasts. OneD&D are beasts or eldritch horrors or anything in between. And the mechanics matter. 5e druids feel like specific beasts.

No, Druids are priests of Nature, the Elements and Fey. We already have them shapechanging into Elementals in game, so we've already proven we're fine with turning into something other than beasts so long as it fits the flavor. Owlbears, Displacer Beasts, etc, are part of nature in the settings, not strange outerplanar creatures. Essentially anything the Nature skill covers should be fair game, if needing a subclass focus. Nature includes Beasts, Dragons, Elementals, Fey, Giants, Humanoids (from the Prime Material Plane), some Monstrosities (if they are naturally occurring), Oozes, and Plants.

As an aside, have you played 3.X because the Druid had a Prestige Class (read SubClass) that focused on being able to WildShape into literally anything.


This is all dealt with with a shortlist.

Which is a Table level thing, not a design choice. Because to do it for a Design choice you need floating tables for every geographical area, every campaign setting, every level of power scale. Again, A Forgotten Realms Short list likely doesn't have Dinos but an Eberron one 100% needs them there.

[Atranen]

Um... Please explain the depth of difference between "As you assume a form, you determine its appearance, selecting an example animal from the form’s description, selecting another appropriate animal, or choosing a hybrid form that incorporates visual characteristics from two or more animals." vs "you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before."

As I said, mechanics matter. The OneD&D version is both narratively broader and mechanically narrower. I.e., using the same thing to support a wide range of narratives, i.e. flavorless.


It's almost as if, you could make it up, because it's all a fantasy game.

If you can make it all up, it isn't a game.


Liking is not the same as a claim that the new thing lacks flavor or is bad for the overall class. And again, you're assuming a lot based on a Slippery Slope assumption about allowing the Druid to create fantastical beasts.

I dislike it because it's flavorless and bad for the class.

It's not a slippery slope. It's explicitly allowed.


Also, getting a little confused here. Just a moment ago you said the new druid has no flavor at all, where as now you're stating the Chimeric Flavor is something you dislike. Aren't you admitting there's flavor right there?

Saying "you can flavor this however you want" is what I mean by flavorless.


No, Druids are priests of Nature, the Elements and Fey. We already have them shapechanging into Elementals in game, so we've already proven we're fine with turning into something other than beasts so long as it fits the flavor. Owlbears, Displacer Beasts, etc, are part of nature in the settings, not strange outerplanar creatures. Essentially anything the Nature skill covers should be fair game, if needing a subclass focus. Nature includes Beasts, Dragons, Elementals, Fey, Giants, Humanoids (from the Prime Material Plane), some Monstrosities (if they are naturally occurring), Oozes, and Plants.

Displacer beasts are from the feywild. Owlbears are the results of an experiment gone awry.


As an aside, have you played 3.X because the Druid had a Prestige Class (read SubClass) that focused on being able to WildShape into literally anything.

Yes. I'd be fine with such a subclass in 5e.


Which is a Table level thing, not a design choice. Because to do it for a Design choice you need floating tables for every geographical area, every campaign setting, every level of power scale. Again, A Forgotten Realms Short list likely doesn't have Dinos but an Eberron one 100% needs them there.

No. You need one list for the default settings and a note that "different beasts may be available in other settings". Other settings can include specific lists if they wish.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

As I said, mechanics matter. The OneD&D version is both narratively broader and mechanically narrower. I.e., using the same thing to support a wide range of narratives, i.e. flavorless.

Alright, so what mechanics are lost that affect flavor?


If you can make it all up, it isn't a game.

So I guess a few questions here, #1: Do you DM at all? #2: Do you only ever use published creatures and never create anything on your own? #3: Do the DMs you play with never use anything but published creatures and never create anything on their own?

Because the only way your statement makes sense is if you're in a place where there's never homebrew ever and no DM actually has authority to do something.


I dislike it because it's flavorless and bad for the class.

Except you keep admitting it has flavor, just that you don't like it.


It's not a slippery slope. It's explicitly allowed.

Yes, but you're making the assumption that because it is allowed every single Moon Druid Player everywhere will automatically start building strange Chimeras for every Wildshape Form. Which is something you have no back up or evidence for.


Saying "you can flavor this however you want" is what I mean by flavorless.

But you can't flavor it however you want. You select a real animal, or combine traits of real animals. I can't just look like a Stone Golem, or a Magical cloud, There are limits, they're just not what you want personally.


Displacer beasts are from the feywild. Owlbears are the results of an experiment gone awry.

Yep, and Fey are part of the Druid's Purview as guardians of nature. Funny enough, so would Genies. :) And no, Owlbears are not automatically experiments gone wry, the flavor text says this is a popular theory but Elves recognize the creatures dating back millenia and fey say they come from the feywild. And.... Fey fall under Druid purview and even if they were experiments they breed and live in nature for so long that no one really knows where they came from, so Nature.


Yes. I'd be fine with such a subclass in 5e.

You would? But you have been railing against the Druid turning into Chimeric creatures.


No. You need one list for the default settings and a note that "different beasts may be available in other settings". Other settings can include specific lists if they wish.

Ah, but now we don't have a simplified list and need exceptions every new campaign setting that comes out. Also, what's the Default Setting? Forgotten Realms? So anything Volo has reviewed is gold? Or Eberron as the source of artificers and the only D&D Campaign setting designed by WotC that wasn't just a MtG update? Or Exandria as the most popular 5e setting?

How about a Druid from a Polar Region? Do they know Savannah Lions? Does the Druid from a Topical Island know a Polar Bear?

Again, you're just asking for different work than what is presented, but you're not showing why it's better or preferable save that you personally don't want the druid to turn into Chimeric creatures.

[Psyren]

And either way, this shift means moon druids will often be bizarre monstrosities, as opposed to animals. I don't like that.
...
5e druids are beasts. OneD&D are beasts or eldritch horrors or anything in between. And the mechanics matter. 5e druids feel like specific beasts.

Nothing would force you to be an armored panther or serpentine tortoise etc. If you want to be standard animal with abilities matching that form, ability pools wouldn't get in the way of that. But you wanting to be restricted purely to ordinary beasts doesn't mean every other druid player has to, not when WotC are trying to sell more fantastic options like owlbears, bulettes etc.


Why?

Say you're an aquatic form with a grab/constrict ability; the presumption is that you're something with tentacles, or possibly serpentine in shape - not a flounder or a seal.



This is all dealt with with a shortlist.


The game ought to provide a shortlist.

Ability pools do that, but better.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Ability pools do that, but better.

Just out of curiosity, Did someone post a full make up for ability pools and point values?

The entire argument seems to have been conjured out of nowhere and is being used to debate why the new Druid is bad, but I haven't seen a point buy ability pool.

I know I suggested something similar but it was like literally a handful of attack options that you would pick one of.

[Kane0]

Probably unrelated, i've been digging through the Druid on the playtest packets before 5e was released

First appears in packet 6:
Wildshape is an X per day affair (1/day at 1st, 2/day from 2nd to 4th, 3/day from 5th to 7th, 4/day from 8th to 13th and 5/day from 14th to 20th
Level one you can turn into a hound, level two a rodent, level 4 a steed and fish, level 6 bird of prey. These are their own little statblocks, and they don't have special abilities like pack tactics or pounce.
Moon druids exist from this inception point, gaining an extra use of wildshape and the bear, great cat and behemoth forms which do have special abilities. They also get extra size, AC, attack, damage and mobility when wildshaped, including a small list of bonus features you can add like a poisonous attack or spines you can throw
This version of wildshape doesn't change your HP when you enter your new form, though moon druids do heal a bit when they exit wildshape back into their normal form
This version cannot speak or cast spells while wildshaped

Packet 7 and 8 are unchanged

Packet 9 they receive some changes:
Wildshape starts at twice per day at level 2, third use at 5th, fourth at 11th and fifth at 13th
You can now speak while wildshaped, but still cannot cast spells
Hound is at level 2, steed at level 5, fish and rodent level 7 and bird level 9. Tiny forms at level 7,
Wildshaping still doesn't give you a fresh pool of HP, though Moon druids still heal when exiting wildshape
This is where the unlimited wildshape capstone appears. The base druid also gets Extra Attack at level 8
Moon is retains the bear, great cat and behemoth forms plus combat number increases, but the add-on abilities are removed

Also, Circle of the Oak is changed to Circle of the Land.

Packet 10 is unchanged except for some numbers here and there



In this light, the D&DOne UA appears to be going back to some of the concepts in this rendition

[Psyren]

Just out of curiosity, Did someone post a full make up for ability pools and point values?

The entire argument seems to have been conjured out of nowhere and is being used to debate why the new Druid is bad, but I haven't seen a point buy ability pool.

I know I suggested something similar but it was like literally a handful of attack options that you would pick one of.

I'd prefer it to be more than just attack options. Stuff like Keen Senses, Blindsight/Tremorsense, Burrow, Standing Leap etc.

[Atranen]

Alright, so what mechanics are lost that affect flavor?

Literally any ability that makes that animal that animal. Attack riders. Pack tactics. Constrict. Gore. Bonus action attacks on prone.


So I guess a few questions here, #1: Do you DM at all? #2: Do you only ever use published creatures and never create anything on your own? #3: Do the DMs you play with never use anything but published creatures and never create anything on their own?

Yes, no, no.


Because the only way your statement makes sense is if you're in a place where there's never homebrew ever and no DM actually has authority to do something.

No. My point is that games have rules. The GM having some latitude to modify rules is entirely different than there being no rules.

If I say "hm, I'll let you use radiant damage for eldritch blast as a celestial warlock", that's a rule. If I say "sure, kill the ancient dragon in one shot, and you want to be a turtle, and you want to cast fire storm, all as a 1st level fighter, whatever, do it all!" there are no longer rules.

At that point, "you can make it all up!" is a problem.


Except you keep admitting it has flavor, just that you don't like it.

"There is one class: "hero". You get d6 hp. You do d6 damage at 90 ft range. You flavor it however you want. A weapon? A spell? A wild shape? Necromancy? It's yours to flavor."

Does that system have more or less flavor than 5e? I say less. Because "being able to flavor a mechanic how you want" does not equate to "flavor". Constraints and mechanical effects do.


Yes, but you're making the assumption that because it is allowed every single Moon Druid Player everywhere will automatically start building strange Chimeras for every Wildshape Form. Which is something you have no back up or evidence for.

They don't all have to for it to be a problem. They can. That's a problem.


But you can't flavor it however you want. You select a real animal, or combine traits of real animals. I can't just look like a Stone Golem, or a Magical cloud

Why not? Would it be a problem if you did?


Yep, and Fey are part of the Druid's Purview as guardians of nature. Funny enough, so would Genies. :) And no, Owlbears are not automatically experiments gone wry, the flavor text says this is a popular theory but Elves recognize the creatures dating back millenia and fey say they come from the feywild. And.... Fey fall under Druid purview and even if they were experiments they breed and live in nature for so long that no one really knows where they came from, so Nature.

That's one way to justify it, but I disagree. Druids shouldn't turn into genies.


You would? But you have been railing against the Druid turning into Chimeric creatures.

Then you haven't understood me. I am opposed to the default druid being "someone who can change into eldritch horrors combinations of animals". That does not fit my view of what druids are.

It may fit an individual subclass that specializes in this.


Ah, but now we don't have a simplified list and need exceptions every new campaign setting that comes out.

There are not so many, and most of them have wolves.


Also, what's the Default Setting? Forgotten Realms? So anything Volo has reviewed is gold?

Yes. No, not if it's not on the list.


How about a Druid from a Polar Region? Do they know Savannah Lions? Does the Druid from a Topical Island know a Polar Bear?

That seems more appropriate for table by table decision.


Again, you're just asking for different work than what is presented, but you're not showing why it's better or preferable save that you personally don't want the druid to turn into Chimeric creatures.

I think that's sufficient. But to add to it: I want my druids to *feel like* the animal they turn into. For that to happen, the forms have to differ in tangible, not just imaginary, ways. To do that, they need to have the abilities those creatures have in the game. Otherwise I feel like I am faking it.


Nothing would force you to be an armored panther or serpentine tortoise etc. If you want to be standard animal with abilities matching that form, ability pools wouldn't get in the way of that. But you wanting to be restricted purely to ordinary beasts doesn't mean every other druid player has to, not when WotC are trying to sell more fantastic options like owlbears, bulettes etc.

But they should be, because druids turning into monstrosities is a bad decision. If they need the owlbear so badly, call it a beast and move on. But opening up every bizarre fever dream unnatural amalgamation people can dream up is not the way to do so.


Say you're an aquatic form with a grab/constrict ability; the presumption is that you're something with tentacles, or possibly serpentine in shape - not a flounder or a seal.

Why?

[Psyren]

Why?

Have you seen many seals or sharks? Constrict isn't an ability I'd typically associate with their forms.



But they should be, because druids turning into monstrosities is a bad decision. If they need the owlbear so badly, call it a beast and move on. But opening up every bizarre fever dream unnatural amalgamation people can dream up is not the way to do so.

Why?

[Atranen]

Have you seen many seals or sharks? Constrict isn't an ability I'd typically associate with their forms.


The appearance you choose has no effect on the form’s capabilities.

Who cares? It doesn't matter.


Why?

Because druids, being aligned with the natural world, should have abilities based on the natural world, rather than unnatural things. That's why spells like spike growth or plant growth or conjure animals or whatever are all good druid spells.

I could see an argument for fey related beings at higher levels. But any chimeric form you want? No way.

[SpanielBear]

Who cares? It doesn't matter.



Because druids, being aligned with the natural world, should have abilities based on the natural world, rather than unnatural things. That's why spells like spike growth or plant growth or conjure animals or whatever are all good druid spells.

I could see an argument for fey related beings at higher levels. But any chimeric form you want? No way.

Wait a second. Doesn’t this presuppose that our natural world (as in Earth’s) is the only natural world? And even then there’s additions like giant frogs, scorpions and spiders. Why is it that a giant frog is “natural” but an Owlbear never can be?

[Psyren]

Who cares? It doesn't matter.

I'm talking about after they add some abilities, not the current UA. Presumably they will want some gated by form, though I won't rend my garments if they leave it freeform.



Because druids, being aligned with the natural world, should have abilities based on the natural world, rather than unnatural things. That's why spells like spike growth or plant growth or conjure animals or whatever are all good druid spells.

The Feywild is as natural as it gets, and there are bound to be plenty of amalgamated or supernatural animals there. It's literally a dreamworld, it's not required to be or inspire the wholly mundane.

[GooeyChewie]

Your point is like arguing that 5e failed by not statting out the gladius, kukri, falcata, etc and just saying "short sword" Or that how come we don't have Nunchucks and tonfas and have to use the Club stats?

Now you're going to make an argument that "Well, no, it'd be like saying you want Nunchucks and use the Spear stats" To which I'd respond, If there's a point on the chucks sure, but more realistically, no, a player is not going to do that and as a DM I'd make them explain such a thing. AND, if someone does it at another table, that's not my concern.

I was the one who responded to your point about weapons, not Segev. And I stand by my point. The OD&D playtest Wild Shape takes all possible terrestrial beasts (and beast hybrids) and uses a single stat block to represent them. And then does the same thing for sea and sky beasts. The appropriate analogy for weapons would be if WotC took all possible melee weapons and used a single stat line to represent them, and then did the same thing for thrown and ranged weapons. And then they could claim that they added all possible weapons, because you can flavor that stat line however you want!

I think 5e struck a good balance in terms of weapons. They didn't go overboard statting out all sorts of minor variations, but they also made sure we had several choices each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Meanwhile with Wild Shape they've gone from one extreme (pick from all available beast stat blocks) to the other (everything boils down to one of three stat blocks). I'm arguing that the proper balance is probably somewhere in-between. Several people have proposed Wild Shapes solutions in this thread which I think would work better than either what 5e has now or the current playtest version.


But can you share why? What makes it boring compared to the 5e one? Not arguing subjective opinion or anything, I struggle to ever play a Sorcerer and I know other people love them, but since this is a discussion form... elaboration is good.

I cannot speak for strangebloke, but I can say I agree that this version of Wild Shape is boring and I can give my reasons why. There are two.

One, it gives me no actual incentive to pick an animal inspiration. The appearance makes no difference*. I might as well claim I look like a wookiee, or a human, or just call it Animal of the Land and not pick anything. Sure, the players at my table might encourage me to pick something, but the designers certainly haven't encouraged me to do so. They literally say "The appearance you choose has no effect on the form’s capabilities." They left the appearance a blank slate, but as much as a blank slate can leave one unfettered it can also leave one uninspired.

Two, it really only does combat. The best part of Wild Shape for non-Moon Druids (the ability to become a Tiny creature) got pushed all the way to level 11. A halfling-sized animal will have a lot harder time scouting than a normal-sized stray cat. If Non-Moon Druids in OD&D run parallel to what we got in 5e, non-Moon Druids aren't going to be too interested in turning into an animal mid-combat even with these combat-focuses stat blocks. They're better off either casting spells, or using their Wild Shape/Channel Nature for alternative uses. So for all the subclasses except the one in this playtest document, the Wild Shape amounts to pretty much nothing in my opinion. I would find it far more interesting if WotC leaned into Wild Shape being a utility feature for most Druids, with Moon Druid specifically getting combat-related forms. Then the base Druid class could get some new features as they level, rather than upgrading a martial combat prowess that they'll likely never use.


*Except for the ability to handle equipment, though it looks to me like they just didn't think that part through.

[Goobahfish]

I think 5e struck a good balance in terms of weapons. They didn't go overboard statting out all sorts of minor variations, but they also made sure we had several choices each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Meanwhile with Wild Shape they've gone from one extreme (pick from all available beast stat blocks) to the other (everything boils down to one of three stat blocks). I'm arguing that the proper balance is probably somewhere in-between.

I think this is where most people are at, there is just some arguing around the fringes.

Weapons is actually a really good analogy because Warhammer, Longsword and Battleaxe are basically the same weapon. At some level, I think many wildshapes are going to be the same. However, Whip, Spear etc... they are a bit suboptimal but do interesting things which in niche cases might be more useful or at least shake up the playstyle.

Honestly, if there were like 3 land options (strong, fast, tough), 2 sea options (str, dex) and 1 flying option I would be '70%' satisfied. The remaining 30% is 'spiders can shoot webs', 'bears can grapple' etc.

[Schwann145]

You can turn into a Panther and constrict. It'd be a Displacer Beast most likely. Just like we could have a bear with a Beak doing piercing damage, Owlbear. The game clearly wants to allow that stuff, but your table could stick to just real animals.

Either way it's clear that's the goal since the One D&D wildshape form says "As you assume a form, you determine its appearance, selecting an example animal from the form’s description, selecting another appropriate animal, or choosing a hybrid form that incorporates visual characteristics from two or more animals."

Honestly, it's a better fit for the Druid's theme of Nature than it used to be. Beasts are different from Monstrosities and Other monster types for mechanic purposes and balances.

But a Druid who's part of Nature would view Displacer Beasts, Owlbears, probably Unicorns, etc as part of the over all thing, not weird extras that way we do from our perch in real life.

Assuming one of the goals is to "allow" players the option of turning into Monstrosities as well as Beasts with Wild Shape, then they have failed, as I'd like to turn into a Phase Spider.
Shifting into a Beast of the Land with the appearance of a Phase Spider does not give me:
•Ethereal Jaunt
•Spider Climb
•Web Walker
•Additional Poison damage.
•The possibility of Paralyzing the victim of my bite.

Sure, you can fake-it-til-you-make-it by calling the free Unarmed Attack, used as a Grab, a "Constrict" (which it's not, because Constrict is a free Grapple as part of a damaging attack...), but there are plenty of things missing that you can't so easily fake with what Beast of the Land/Sea/Air actually gives.

[Segev]

Nothing would force you to be an armored panther or serpentine tortoise etc. If you want to be standard animal with abilities matching that form, ability pools wouldn't get in the way of that. But you wanting to be restricted purely to ordinary beasts doesn't mean every other druid player has to, not when WotC are trying to sell more fantastic options like owlbears, bulettes etc.

This is a ridiculous argument, which is easily demonstrated thusly:

Nothing would force you toarmored animist shaserpents recasting berserker etc. If you want stand magic less barbarian with abilities matching that archetype, spellcasting wouldn't get in the way of that. But you wanting to be restricted purely to nonmagical abilities doesn't mean every other barbarian player has to, not when WotC are trying to sell more fantastic options like half-giants, magitech cyborgs, etc.

Barbarians should have the option to cast spells; if you don't want yoursmto, don't have him use that feature.


And you will surely try to say this is a bad analogy, but you're wrong when you do: you are claiming that nothing prevents a druid player from picking sub-optimal combinations of abiLities to simulate beasts that actually exist in the world. This is no different than deliberately not using any other feature of a class.

Restrictions in both mechanics and in declared class fantasy give shape to the classes. Sure, reflavoring is a great tool, but that doesn't mean the original flavor must be trampled and made shapeless so that all flavor is external to the class and its features. If that's what you want, why are you playing a class-based game? Build a pure points-based system of character creation similar to BESM d20 or the like if you like the rough chassis of 5e but don't want the restrictions of races and classes that have defined features that give strong flavor in their default form.

[Psyren]

This is a ridiculous argument, which is easily demonstrated thusly:

Nothing would force you toarmored animist shaserpents recasting berserker etc. If you want stand magic less barbarian with abilities matching that archetype, spellcasting wouldn't get in the way of that. But you wanting to be restricted purely to nonmagical abilities doesn't mean every other barbarian player has to, not when WotC are trying to sell more fantastic options like half-giants, magitech cyborgs, etc.

Barbarians should have the option to cast spells; if you don't want yoursmto, don't have him use that feature.

Reductio ad absurdum makes anything ridiculous, it's right there in the name. There is a difference between "Druids, who are already (very) magical shapeshifters, could feasibly use their powers to assume forms beyond those of mundane animals without breaking their core themes" and "Let's give spellcasting to every class regardless of their own themes, and also some nonsense about magitech cyborgs or something."

Druids are empowered by the Feywild, and the Feywild doesn't just contain ordinary animals, regardless of whether you want it to.


And you will surely try to say this is a bad analogy,

Don't make bad analogies and I won't have to.


You are claiming that nothing prevents a druid player from picking sub-optimal combinations of abiLities to simulate beasts that actually exist in the world. This is no different than deliberately not using any other feature of a class.

You have no way of knowing what combinations might be optimal or not yet. For all you know, the most optimal forms will be the ones that approximate standard printed beasts most closely. Everything depends on what abilities they might add and what costs (including opportunity costs) might go along with accessing them.

[Captain Cap]

Reductio ad absurdum makes anything ridiculous, it's right there in the name. There is a difference between "Druids, who are already (very) magical shapeshifters, could feasibly use their powers to assume forms beyond those of mundane animals without breaking their core themes"
You mean the nature-revering shamans who are supposed to detest anything unnatural, exactly what artificial beast amalgams would be?

Also, did they explicitly say in the new edition that druids draw power from the Feywild (I'm seriously asking, I'm not updated on the new lore if there is any)? Because at least in 5e that is never mentioned, they're simply empowered by nature, and someone could easily argue Material plane's nature.

[Kane0]

You mean the nature-revering shamans who are supposed to detest anything unnatural, exactly what artificial beast amalgams would be?

Also, did they explicitly say in the new edition that druids draw power from the Feywild (I'm seriously asking, I'm not updated on the new lore if there is any)? Because at least in 5e that is never mentioned, they're simply empowered by nature, and someone could easily argue Material plane's nature.

5e doesnt have a magical beast creature type, so any animal that is remotely fantastical is defaulted to monstrosity or something else.

And something i dont quite like is how much Fey have come to pop up in 5e player races, i think theyre quite over-represented at this point.

[SpanielBear]

5e doesnt have a magical beast creature type, so any animal that is remotely fantastical is defaulted to monstrosity or something.

Unless it’s a giant frog. Or scorpion. Or ape. Or based on an extinct creature the exact taxonomy of which we are extrapolating from a tooth and a femur.

[Atranen]

Wait a second. Doesn’t this presuppose that our natural world (as in Earth’s) is the only natural world? And even then there’s additions like giant frogs, scorpions and spiders. Why is it that a giant frog is “natural” but an Owlbear never can be?

Yes, our world is the natural world. Animals that are more closely related to real animals are more natural than ones that are not, or which have magical abilities etc. Hence giant frogs are more natural than owlbears.

An owlbear is more beast like than, say, a drider. I could see an argument for it being a beast.


I'm talking about after they add some abilities, not the current UA. Presumably they will want some gated by form, though I won't rend my garments if they leave it freeform.

Ok, so you're unbothered with a seal using a constrict attack. Having seen seals and sharks, I don't associate constrict with their forms. I think they shouldn't get it.


The Feywild is as natural as it gets, and there are bound to be plenty of amalgamated or supernatural animals there. It's literally a dreamworld, it's not required to be or inspire the wholly mundane.

"Feywild powered casters" and "nature powered casters" are different things entirely. While some subclasses may lean into the fey, the default druid in the PHB never refers to the feywild as a magic source, and it has never been particularly important as a source of druid powers. So why you're recasting the druid as "feywild magic people" is beyond me.


Assuming one of the goals is to "allow" players the option of turning into Monstrosities as well as Beasts with Wild Shape, then they have failed, as I'd like to turn into a Phase Spider.
Shifting into a Beast of the Land with the appearance of a Phase Spider does not give me:
•Ethereal Jaunt
•Spider Climb
•Web Walker
•Additional Poison damage.
•The possibility of Paralyzing the victim of my bite.

Excellent point. And why can't my druid be a drider?


Also, did they explicitly say in the new edition that druids draw power from the Feywild (I'm seriously asking, I'm not updated on the new lore if there is any)? Because at least in 5e that is never mentioned, they're simply empowered by nature, and someone could easily argue Material plane's nature.

Not in the PHB. At best you have that they summon "fey spirits" with conjure spells. So people are proposing a new direction for druids to justify some silly changes.


And something i dont quite like is how much Fey have come to pop up in 5e player races, i think theyre quite over-represented at this point.

Agreed.

[Willie the Duck]

Wait a second. Doesn’t this presuppose that our natural world (as in Earth’s) is the only natural world? And even then there’s additions like giant frogs, scorpions and spiders. Why is it that a giant frog is “natural” but an Owlbear never can be?

Unless it’s a giant frog. Or scorpion. Or ape. Or based on an extinct creature the exact taxonomy of which we are extrapolating from a tooth and a femur.

Frankly, because the game made for people who exist in our world playing one form or another of power fantasy, so it's perfectly reasonable* that some of the qualities within said system or setting be reliant on real-world references as guideposts or boundaries. Same situation as magic -- it (loosely) is defined as anything that isn't possible in our world, even though clearly it is possible in the game world (but it is still called magic in the game world, and treated as being different from other things). Sometimes one has to square the circle on the whys in-game (the same way you throw a couple ballista on every castle wall to explain why there are open-topped castles in a world with dragons), and perhaps (if one goes down this route) there needs to be an explanation for why these creatures, out of the totality that are known in the gameworld, are the kinds druids can become.
*note: I am not advocating one way or the other on this, only positing that it is a reasonable distinction to include in one's preferences for a game.

[Psyren]

You mean the nature-revering shamans who are supposed to detest anything unnatural, exactly what artificial beast amalgams would be?

So if a druid in your world saw a griffon, or a couatl, or even a winged wolf, they would set fire to it? Dive for the nearest pitchfork?



Ok, so you're unbothered with a seal using a constrict attack.

No, I said the opposite. To do this, I'd expect them to have some feature that sets them apart from a garden-variety seal.


"Feywild powered casters" and "nature powered casters" are different things entirely.

Druids are both, as their spell list will tell you.

[Captain Cap]

So if a druid in your world saw a griffon, or a couatl, or even a winged wolf, they would set fire to it? Dive for the nearest pitchfork?
I'm just quoting the books:

Druids accept that which is cruel in nature, and they hate that which is unnatural

Monstrosities are monsters in the strictest sense— frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly natural, and almost never benign.
And anyway there's a big gap between hating and making use of. Vegans don't necessarily hate people who eat meat, even if they themselves are opposed to eating meat.


Druids are both, as their spell list will tell you.
Where? Are you talking about Conjure Woodland Beings? For that matter, they can also conjure elementals and normal animals, and they're not the only ones who can conjure Fey creatures anyway. You may very well say that casters in general can draw power from any plane.

[Psyren]

I'm just quoting the books:

How is "unnatural" defined in the book? Are a griffon, couatl, fire elemental or giant spider unnatural?
I think you're trying to pass your definition/interpretation of that word off as D&D's definition.

And while we're linking creature type definitions, here's Fey:


Fey are magical creatures closely tied to the forces of nature.



Where? Are you talking about Conjure Woodland Beings? For that matter, they can also conjure elementals and normal animals, and they're not the only ones who can conjure Fey creatures anyway. You may very well say that casters in general can draw power from any plane.

Druids aren't the only class that can conjure or turn into beasts and elementals either. Welcome to D&D, cross-pollination is inevitable.

[Captain Cap]

How is "unnatural" defined in the book? Are a griffon, couatl, fire elemental or giant spider unnatural?
I think you're trying to pass your definition/interpretation of that word off as D&D's definition.
I've literally quoted the passage where it's said that Monstrosities (like griffon) are not natural.
As for Coautl, they are Celestial, so they are beyond the scope of the basic Wild shape anyway (like Elementals, except for a specific subclass), so bad example.


Fey are magical creatures closely tied to the forces of nature.
Okay, Fey are tied to nature, how does this imply that druids are necessarily tied to Fey? And even if they can conjure Fey, how does this has any bearing on the possibility to transform into bestial amalgamations, which in general are monstrosities?

[Psyren]

I've literally quoted the passage where it's said that Monstrosities (like griffon) are not natural.
As for Coautl, they are Celestial, so they are beyond the scope of the basic Wild shape anyway (like Elementals, except for a specific subclass), so bad example.

Okay, Fey are tied to nature, how does this imply that druids are necessarily tied to Fey? And even if they can conjure Fey, how does this has any bearing on the possibility to transform into bestial amalgamations, which in general are monstrosities?

I meant the Quetzalcoatlus, which is a beast, not a celestial.
And the other two? Also unnatural in your view? The only things the Druid entry calls out as "unnatural" specifically are Aberrations and Undead.
And despite how "not truly natural" Monstrosities may be, Nature and Survival are still the skills used to know things about them per Tasha's, just like Beasts and Plants - rather than say Arcana. The separation is smaller than you believe it is.

Glad to see you've come around on fey being natural. As far as druids, it's important because the Feywild is a dreamlike realm with more fantastic beasts than the material has. Demanding that druids be restricted to the appearance of animals from our world or else be excommunicated is silly.

[Segev]

Reductio ad absurdum makes anything ridiculous, it's right there in the name. There is a difference between "Druids, who are already (very) magical shapeshifters, could feasibly use their powers to assume forms beyond those of mundane animals without breaking their core themes" and "Let's give spellcasting to every class regardless of their own themes, and also some nonsense about magitech cyborgs or something."I didn't have to reduce it to the absurd. I only had to point out the absurdity of the form. There is no difference in the form you're making the argument, hence the argument is itself ridiculous.


Don't make bad analogies and I won't have to.I didn't. I made a good analogy, because your argument is, itself, absurd.


You have no way of knowing what combinations might be optimal or not yet. For all you know, the most optimal forms will be the ones that approximate standard printed beasts most closely. Everything depends on what abilities they might add and what costs (including opportunity costs) might go along with accessing them.So, then, you're telling me that using existing beasts as a guide for what abilities beasts might reasonably have is not possible? I assure you, if it is, I have some idea of what abilities there should be. And, if it isn't, then it sounds to me like the abilities you hope to see will have nothing to do with beast forms at all.

I'll take Spider Climb, Pounce, and Pack Tactics, please. That's what a "wolf spider" would have, right? (What do you mean, "that's not what a wolf spider has?" I decide my wolf spider is just better than any existing one!) Oh, I can't have three trait choices? That's going to make it hard to make an ACTUAL giant wolf spider with Spider Climb, Web Walker, and Web Sense. And heaven forbid it be a Giant Spider, which also has a web-throwing ability on top of those! Are we going to make it based on point values to spend on different-valued ones? Are we going to make number of traits depend on druid level? Number of points depend on it? That "wolf druid" you've mentioned before is going to have a lot of strange features on his go-to wild shape by the time he's level 9, then. Why, one might even question whether he's actually just refluffing some other creature as a "wolf!" Except his optimal combo platter of powers isn't even balanced within a single package the way, say, refluffing a CR 3 saber-tooth tiger or a Moorebounder as a "wolf" would be.

[Psyren]

I didn't have to reduce it to the absurd.

Yes, you did have to. "Let druids take more fantastical forms" and "give barbarians spellcasting and also let them be cyborgs" are not even close to analogous.


So, then, you're telling me that using existing beasts as a guide for what abilities beasts might reasonably have is not possible?

What? I have no idea how you even got here :smallconfused: Of course I would source the ability set from existing beasts.


I'll take Spider Climb, Pounce, and Pack Tactics, please. That's what a "wolf spider" would have, right?

That's not the end of the conversation. What does each of those abilities cost? What level would you need to be to have all of them at once? What base form gets to combine them? What abilities are you foregoing in order to get those? Those are all important questions for an actual designer to consider.

[Atranen]

No, I said the opposite. To do this, I'd expect them to have some feature that sets them apart from a garden-variety seal.

Good thing we have a record of what you actually said. It was:


I'm talking about after they add some abilities, not the current UA. Presumably they will want some gated by form, though I won't rend my garments if they leave it freeform.

"I won't rend my garments if they leave it freeform" implies you aren't particularly bothered with them ignoring any connection between appearance and abilities.


Druids are both, as their spell list will tell you.

No it doesn't. What particular spell overrides the flavor text of the class and says "ah, actually they draw power from the feywild!"

If we can just ignore the text of the class...wizards draw their power from a guy named Mordenkainen, as their spell list will tell you.

You're having to make up an entire new block of flavor text in order to justify your position; that is a good sign that that is not how the 5e druid works.

[Psyren]

"I won't rend my garments if they leave it freeform" implies you aren't particularly bothered with them ignoring any connection between appearance and abilities.

Yes, I wouldn't burn my books over it. Is this your attempt at a gotcha?


If we can just ignore the text of the class...wizards draw their power from a guy named Mordenkainen, as their spell list will tell you.

When a character puts their name on a spell it's because they invented it, not because the power is coming from them. Who did you think Bigby and Drawmij were?

[Segev]

Yes, you did have to. "Let druids take more fantastical forms" and "give barbarians spellcasting and also let them be cyborgs" are not even close to analogous.The form of the argument is analogous. Your argument is: "Players shouldn't be restricted by class limitations." That is the form. It is ridiculous. The argument you're now narrowing it to is that "druids should have, as part of their class domain, more fantastical forms." This is a better argument, and now that you're actually making it, I happen to agree...or at least, I think Moon Druids should. This is an area of debate and discussion I think could actually be pretty interesting and useful.

Personally, I think giving various classes or subclasses that work with beasts access to Monstrosities in some fashion would be cool. I acknowledge that this could create more problems, since Monstrosities have more varied and more-likely difficult-to-balance abilities if they're not in "one-and-done" encounters. It probably needs to be a high-level - tier 3 if not 4 - feature.

Where I disagree is that druids at level 1 should be the cthulian horror class, which is what this kind of mix-and-match business quickly becomes. If any class is getting something like that, it should probably be the Great Old One subclass of Warlock. Or maybe a Pact Boon.


What? I have no idea how you even got here :smallconfused: Of course I would source the ability set from existing beasts.Here, let me quote the chain to help you see why I am responding to you this way:




You are claiming that nothing prevents a druid player from picking sub-optimal combinations of abiLities to simulate beasts that actually exist in the world. This is no different than deliberately not using any other feature of a class.You have no way of knowing what combinations might be optimal or not yet. For all you know, the most optimal forms will be the ones that approximate standard printed beasts most closely. Everything depends on what abilities they might add and what costs (including opportunity costs) might go along with accessing them.So, then, you're telling me that using existing beasts as a guide for what abilities beasts might reasonably have is not possible?What? I have no idea how you even got here :smallconfused: Of course I would source the ability set from existing beasts.
And that brings us back to here.

You said, and I quote again, "You have no way of knowing what combinations might be optimal or not yet." Which would require that I have no idea what features might be available to combine. This would mean that you are suggesting we not use the features that are present in existing beasts, since if we reference existing beasts, I do, in fact, have some idea of what is optimal to combine.


That's not the end of the conversation. What does each of those abilities cost? What level would you need to be to have all of them at once? What base form gets to combine them? What abilities are you foregoing in order to get those? Those are all important questions for an actual designer to consider.I addressed this in the part you didn't quote:


I'll take Spider Climb, Pounce, and Pack Tactics, please. That's what a "wolf spider" would have, right? (What do you mean, "that's not what a wolf spider has?" I decide my wolf spider is just better than any existing one!) Oh, I can't have three trait choices? That's going to make it hard to make an ACTUAL giant wolf spider with Spider Climb, Web Walker, and Web Sense. And heaven forbid it be a Giant Spider, which also has a web-throwing ability on top of those! Are we going to make it based on point values to spend on different-valued ones? Are we going to make number of traits depend on druid level? Number of points depend on it? That "wolf druid" you've mentioned before is going to have a lot of strange features on his go-to wild shape by the time he's level 9, then. Why, one might even question whether he's actually just refluffing some other creature as a "wolf!" Except his optimal combo platter of powers isn't even balanced within a single package the way, say, refluffing a CR 3 saber-tooth tiger or a Moorebounder as a "wolf" would be.

Specifically, whether it's points-based or if it's number-of-features-allowed-based, we wind up with a druid of a certain level no longer being able to be "the bear druid" by the standards you set out for said "bear druid." He'll wind up spending points or feature slots on features that have little to do with being "a bear," both for optimality and just because he has the points to spend and all bears have by default is "Keen Sense: Smell" and "Multiattack." And "Multiattack" is, if we take the existing UA as a base on which to add more stuff to make it "acceptable" (which I think is a reasonable place to start if we're going to go with the idea that generic stat blobs are fine, but the UA ones need heavy buffing), built into the leveling up. So your wolf, snake, bear, spider, owlbear, displacer beast, bullette, and tortoise all have it if you have it at all.

So the "bear druid" at higher levels is piling on spider climb, poison, pack tactics, or whatever makes his "bear" the best it can be for this particular encounter. At this point, the "bear" he's becoming is, as I point out in the quote, just as much a "bear" as it would be if we used fixed stat blocks and he picked out something CR-appropriate and called it a "bear." But in this case, the need to balance all possible combinations of features means that it's (a) likely all of them are overpriced for putting into thematic forms, and (b) there still will be optimal break points that slip through the cracks.

It is much easier to balance a list of features against each other when they are known to appear together in this specific stat block than it is to balance a much larger list of features against all other possible combinations of those features in a build-a-bear stat block. I'm not saying it's impossible (well, I am, but not that you can't get 'close enough' with enough work), but I am saying that it's a lot more effort than just making the stat blocks for the individual beasts and providing guidelines for the DM to work with. Even if the DM turns it over to the player, the fact that it's a DM tool will make it easier for the DM to say, "Okay, but we're tweaking it thusly, as this is just too much even if it technically follows the guidelines," than if the player is using a player-facing build-a-bear stat blob and finds a perfectly-tweaked combo platter of features that pose a problem.

Moreover, the DM-facing tool encouraging thematic construction will be a lot easier to enforce than a player-facing "flavor it however you like as you build your combo platter" tool, where the player decides his bear has venomous claws because, er, it does, and who're you to say it isn't thematic for Poisonbear E?

If I saw value in the build-a-bear thing from a thematic standpoint, I'd probably be with you, Psyren, defending it as something that COULD be done well (enough). But I don't. I see it as actively thematically worse for the game, for the druid, and in general, than the fixed stat blocks, and the fixed stat blocks are hands-down easier to balance for.

[Atranen]

Yes, I wouldn't burn my books over it. Is this your attempt at a gotcha?

I'm just reading what you said. "Presumably they will change it but I won't do anything extreme if they don't" implies

1) You do not care particularly much either way
2) You're making a not-so-subtle dig at people who do care as being irrational and extreme.

I'm ignoring 2, but taking 1 seriously.


When a character puts their name on a spell it's because they invented it, not because the power is coming from them. Who did you think Bigby and Drawmij were?

When a spell summons fey creatures that's because that's who it's summoning, not where the power is coming from.

If you had a nice clear statement that druids draw power from the feywild anywhere, you would have cited it. You don't and they don't. So all we have is this roundabout spells story.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

One, it gives me no actual incentive to pick an animal inspiration. The appearance makes no difference*. I might as well claim I look like a wookiee, or a human, or just call it Animal of the Land and not pick anything. Sure, the players at my table might encourage me to pick something, but the designers certainly haven't encouraged me to do so. They literally say "The appearance you choose has no effect on the form’s capabilities." They left the appearance a blank slate, but as much as a blank slate can leave one unfettered it can also leave one uninspired.

So you need the game to hold your hand to RP flavor. Understood.


Two, it really only does combat.

Fair, but given that it's UA I would think that'd be reason to offer constructive feedback vs "I would never play it." (That's not directed at you.)


Sure, you can fake-it-til-you-make-it by calling the free Unarmed Attack, used as a Grab, a "Constrict" (which it's not, because Constrict is a free Grapple as part of a damaging attack...), but there are plenty of things missing that you can't so easily fake with what Beast of the Land/Sea/Air actually gives.

No, there are mechanical buffs that are in the 5e version of the class you don't want to lose. That's not the same.


Also, did they explicitly say in the new edition that druids draw power from the Feywild (I'm seriously asking, I'm not updated on the new lore if there is any)? Because at least in 5e that is never mentioned, they're simply empowered by nature, and someone could easily argue Material plane's nature.

Nature has been the Skill to use to know things about Beasts, Fey, Monstrosities, Plants and Vermin. This has been a thing since 3.X and hasn't changed. Help me out here, if Monstrosities and Fey aren't tied to nature, why is it a Nature check to know about them?


Okay, Fey are tied to nature, how does this imply that druids are necessarily tied to Fey? And even if they can conjure Fey, how does this has any bearing on the possibility to transform into bestial amalgamations, which in general are monstrosities?

Because the Feywild is cloned off Aborea and the Beastlands and every Nature and Elven God is in one of the three places? A druid individually doesn't have to tie to the Fey. But all the Fey stuff tends to scream nature and the Non Druid Fey classes tie back into Nature repeatedly. Archfey Warlock? Plant Growth, half the Patrons are Nature Beings. Wild Magic Barbarian makes plants grow. Nature Cleric Gods include the Fey deities. Ancients Paladins channel Nature and invoke it repeatedly.

The only Fey classes that don't specifically nod to nature and link are the Bard, Ranger and Warlock which is focused on the Charm and Enthral specifically, same with Warlock though it gets Plant Growth. Ranger is already screaming Nature and it ties in perfectly with what the Fey Wanderer adds.


I'll take Spider Climb, Pounce, and Pack Tactics, please. That's what a "wolf spider" would have, right?

Sure, why not? What's your concern? Let's look at what we're seeing. The attack has Conditional Advantage, If the attack involves 20' movement and hits it can force a Str save or be knocked prone and then you get a Bonus Action Attack. Damage is 1d8+Stat for 2 attacks of damage in a single round and prone. Lastly, Spider Climb means you can get most places. So let's look at how else we could get this. And I'll stick to doing it by level 5 if possible.

Spider Climb: Dhampir,

Bonus Action Attack: and 2 Weapon warrior, Monk

Way to knock someone prone: Battle Master Trip, Paladin Thunderous Smite, Wizard Sapping Sting, Open Hand Monk, Four Elements Monk Fist of Unbroken Air, Water Whip as well.

And then Situational Advantage based on an Ally being near. Well easiest one I can think of is the Familiar with Flyby, Reckless Attack Barbarian

So a Level 4 Monk who takes Ritual Caster or Magic Initiate Wizard can have an Owl Familiar give Advantage, Hit 2-3 Times in a round and Knock the enemy prone, all while Spider Climbing and doesn't need to get a 20' running Start. That's 1 level behind the Druid. IF the Druid got it all at level 3.

[GooeyChewie]

So you need the game to hold your hand to RP flavor. Understood.

Me personally? No. But that doesn’t mean the designers shouldn’t encourage RP through flavorful mechanics.

[Segev]

Sure, why not? What's your concern? Let's look at what we're seeing. The attack has Conditional Advantage, If the attack involves 20' movement and hits it can force a Str save or be knocked prone and then you get a Bonus Action Attack. Damage is 1d8+Stat for 2 attacks of damage in a single round and prone. Lastly, Spider Climb means you can get most places. So let's look at how else we could get this. And I'll stick to doing it by level 5 if possible.

Spider Climb: Dhampir,

Bonus Action Attack: and 2 Weapon warrior, Monk

Way to knock someone prone: Battle Master Trip, Paladin Thunderous Smite, Wizard Sapping Sting, Open Hand Monk, Four Elements Monk Fist of Unbroken Air, Water Whip as well.

And then Situational Advantage based on an Ally being near. Well easiest one I can think of is the Familiar with Flyby, Reckless Attack Barbarian

So a Level 4 Monk who takes Ritual Caster or Magic Initiate Wizard can have an Owl Familiar give Advantage, Hit 2-3 Times in a round and Knock the enemy prone, all while Spider Climbing and doesn't need to get a 20' running Start. That's 1 level behind the Druid. IF the Druid got it all at level 3.So... a very specific build to get a particular combination of abilities not found on any beast out there means that every druid should have access to it in every beast form? :smallconfused:

There are two, maybe three issues here, depending how you count/separate them. The question of verisimilitude and form fidelity, of being what it is that you assume the form of, is a big part of it. This lizard-lion-wolf may be a lizard, a lion, a wolf, a snake, or even a vampire-ape as far as the generic stat blob is concerned. Should druids be turning into such amalgams? That's an open question, I suppose, but I would say "no," personally. There's also the question of optimal combos for situations - should the druid be able to pick the optimal combination of abilities for a precise scenario, like some sort of super-schoredinger's-wizard? Or should he have to pick the best beast he knows of for the situation, which may not have every possible advantageous ability all at once? As Psyren points out, with proper balancing, it's not necessarily a bad thing to allow a character to have such a build-a-suite feature set. Psionics in Pathfinder uses this in several places to good effect. I don't think it really works for the druid in general, though maybe the moon druid could justify being the "eldritch horror shapeshifter" instead of the "all of the powerful primal beasts" shapeshifter.

But if you aren't in the "druids should be eldritch horror shapeshifters" camp, then you have to be in a camp that supports fluffing any old beast form to have any combination of features. At which point you certainly can't object to the notion that a list of fixed beast forms might be refluffed to look like other beasts to accommodate higher CRs than are available for our poor, benighted Bear Druid who just wants to always turn into a bear (even if that bear can fly and breathe under water and spit webbing).

My argument is that the theme of shifting to specific stat blocks representing specific beasts - even if sometimes the druid reflavors it to a different beast - is both stronger as a theme than "generic shapeshifter" and is easier to balance than "build-a-bear." I am not saying that "build-a-bear" is impossible to balance, or at least that it's not possible to get it "balanced enough" for most tables to use, but I am saying that when the superior thematic solution is also easier to balance, that's an extra point in favor of the superior thematic solution (which, in this case, is fixed beast stat blocks that the druid assumes when wild shaping).

[Psyren]

Your argument is: "Players shouldn't be restricted by class limitations." That is the form. It is ridiculous.

No, that's a blatant strawman of my position and engaging with it is a waste of time. Stick to what I actually said, which wasn't that.


Here, let me quote the chain to help you see why I am responding to you this way:

And that brings us back to here.

You said, and I quote again, "You have no way of knowing what combinations might be optimal or not yet." Which would require that I have no idea what features might be available to combine.

No, it requires that you not know the costs/requirements of those abilities. Which you don't. As I said.


I addressed this in the part you didn't quote:

No, you didn't. That quote doesn't mention costs or requirements at all.



Specifically, whether it's points-based or if it's number-of-features-allowed-based, we wind up with a druid of a certain level no longer being able to be "the bear druid" by the standards you set out for said "bear druid."

I didn't set any kind of standard for "bear druid"; I'm open to seeing what they might come up with. (Frankly, the current land block - climb speed, high strength, multiattack - does bear druid just fine.)

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Me personally? No. But that doesn’t mean the designers shouldn’t encourage RP through flavorful mechanics.

They did. It suggests animals for ideas, it just also clarifies you can go beyond those suggestions.


So... a very specific build to get a particular combination of abilities not found on any beast out there means that every druid should have access to it in every beast form? :smallconfused:

This is a Mechanical argument, you're suggesting the combo is overpowered or problematic. I'm pointing out it's easy to get the same powers other means. It's not even a "Specific" build it's just the first and simplest one that came to mind on my work break without access to books. The last part you said is Hyperbole, you're guessing a worst case scenario and then arguing like it's fact.

[Psyren]

I'm just reading what you said. "Presumably they will change it but I won't do anything extreme if they don't" implies

1) You do not care particularly much either way
2) You're making a not-so-subtle dig at people who do care as being irrational and extreme.

I'm ignoring 2, but taking 1 seriously.


When a spell summons fey creatures that's because that's who it's summoning, not where the power is coming from.

If you had a nice clear statement that druids draw power from the feywild anywhere, you would have cited it. You don't and they don't. So all we have is this roundabout spells story.

That I'm more positive / less worked up about the possibility than you, doesn't mean I don't care about its implementation.

And even if this push towards wild shape enabling more fantastic expressions of nature truly were a complete departure from the possibility space of druids as we knew them before - so what? Let the moon druid look like an owl and a bear. Your table won't implode.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Me personally? No. But that doesn’t mean the designers shouldn’t encourage RP through flavorful mechanics.

I agree. And let me go further (all of this is personal opinion)--

I strongly believe that the primary job of a game designer is twofold--
(a) present evocative, strongly thematic and flavorful material
(b) backed up and reinforced mechanically.

The primary job of the mechanics is to reinforce the thematics. So "ehhh, flavor it however you want but use the same mechanics" is an abdication (in my mind) of the developer's primary job. It's why I'm not so fond of build-a-bear (literally or figuratively) systems--they drop the ball on thematics and hope (or just don't care) whether the players pick it back up. Which generally leads to generic mechanics. And to generic worlds, and generic stories with all the depth of cardboard.

Limits matter. Limits, in many cases, are more meaningful than allowances.

What does that mean about wild-shape? Well, there's a balance to be struck. IMO, the as-presented wild shape in this UA is...bad. Neither evocative fictionally nor mechanically satisfying. It's just lazy. It's not even as well thought out as the Tasha's Beastmaster stat blocks or the Summon X stat blocks, which have some differentiation based on a choice made at summon time.

I could see an argument for, l suppose, something like that: pick a trait when you transform that gives you an active ability and a passive trait, but otherwise keep the stat block generic. Meh, not my favorite, but well within the bounds of acceptability for me, personally.

I'd prefer (if we have to keep druids a full caster who also shapeshifts as their UCT) to have a fixed, short whitelist + a couple new higher-CR beasts. It really seems the best of both worlds. And can be applied almost copy-paste to the conjure line and polymorph, fixing those in one swell foop.

I'd really prefer to break the shapeshifting out into its own class and redo the whole thing from the ground up to match. Including having subclasses that can take on aberrant, draconic, elemental, monstrous, etc. forms. But that's not going to happen.

[Atranen]

That I'm more positive / less worked up about the possibility than you, doesn't mean I don't care about its implementation.

Then state that you care clearly and leave it there--you don't have to say "I care, but not really, not so much, I'm not mad about it, but actually I do care". Be upfront with your thoughts.


And even if this push towards wild shape enabling more fantastic expressions of nature truly were a complete departure from the possibility space of druids as we knew them before - so what? Let the moon druid look like an owl and a bear. Your table won't implode.

...and we're back to hyperbole. I never said my table would implode. I never said I would burn my books. I never said I would rend my garments. Please engage with what I am saying rather than taking all these jabs.

I said I do not want "eldritch horrors", by which I mean a dolphin with tentacles for a face (to get the constrict attack) or the legs of a horse with the torso of a spider (to get the web ability) or anything of that nature. I've mentioned before I'm amenable to the owlbear being reclassified as a beast. If that's the concern, we can just do that and call it a day.