How Many Beast-Types does a Druid Need?

[Pooky the Imp]

I think it's fair to say that the whole 'Beast of the Land/Sea/Sky' statblocks for the 6E Druid haven't gone down particularly well.

Not least because they're incredibly generic and don't feel like the respective animals due to the stats always being the same and not getting any abilities (e.g. a spider can't climb on ceilings or spin webs, a snake can't constrict etc.).

I know some have suggested a build-a-bear concept, where you pay points for different traits.

However, I was wondering how practical it would be to have a set of statblocks that advance as the Druid gains levels, similar to how the 'Summon X' line works.

For example, you might have a 'Bear' statblock, which could represent anything from a young, black bear to a full-grown dire bear, depending on the Druid's level. In essence, it would simplify Wild Shape to some extent (as you could just have these templates in the same place in the PHB, rather than players needing to flip through various monster books), and would also allow a Druid to maintain a given theme, rather than having to switch out at higher levels because you run out of animals at higher CR.

So here's my question - how many different beasts of the land/sea/sky do you think you'd need to cover a sufficient number of themes/animals?

Additionally, do you think the list is small enough to warrant this sort of change, or would it be better to work out a way to just take an animal's statblock and have it advance with a druid's level? e.g. if a Druid can Wild Shape into a CR3 or lower creature, he gets bonuses to the statblock if the CR is less than 3.

[Mastikator]

Dungeon Dudes from youtube suggested that there should be a bunch of general templates based on animal family, but the druid starts out by know only like 3, and then as they gain level they learn more templates.
Something like

Lupine (has pack tactics and, at T2 knockdown rider) (wolves, dogs, hyena)
Feline (has pounce and, at T2 stealth) (tiger, lion, panther)
Ursine (has more AC and, at T2 bigger damage dice) (bears)
Suidae (has charge and, at T2 relentless) (pigs, boars, hogs)
Cervus (has high speed and, at T2 charge) (raindeer, elk)
Reptile/dinosaur (has grapple rider and, at T2 poison bite)
Ape (can use tools and simple weapons, has climb speed)
Arachnid/Insect (has spiderclimb and web walk and, at T2 poison bite)
Cephalopod (has grapple rider and expert stealth with hide in plain sight)
Shark (has blindsight and advantage on tracking/finding wounded creatures)
Whale (has hold breath 1 hour and breathes air, has blindsight and dash as bonus action)
Bird (has flight and flyby and expert perception)
Bat (has flight and flyby and blindsight 30)

[Goobahfish]

Dungeon Dudes from youtube suggested that there should be a bunch of general templates based on animal family, but the druid starts out by know only like 3, and then as they gain level they learn more templates.
Something like

Lupine (has pack tactics and, at T2 knockdown rider) (wolves, dogs, hyena)
Feline (has pounce and, at T2 stealth) (tiger, lion, panther)
Ursine (has more AC and, at T2 bigger damage dice) (bears)
Suidae (has charge and, at T2 relentless) (pigs, boars, hogs)
Cervus (has high speed and, at T2 charge) (raindeer, elk)
Reptile/dinosaur (has grapple rider and, at T2 poison bite)
Ape (can use tools and simple weapons, has climb speed)
Arachnid/Insect (has spiderclimb and web walk and, at T2 poison bite)
Cephalopod (has grapple rider and expert stealth with hide in plain sight)
Shark (has blindsight and advantage on tracking/finding wounded creatures)
Whale (has hold breath 1 hour and breathes air, has blindsight and dash as bonus action)
Bird (has flight and flyby and expert perception)
Bat (has flight and flyby and blindsight 30)


So here is the design issue with this approach. Taxonomy is not even a good way of sorting out animals from a scientific point of view, let alone from a game perspective and especially not from a fantasy perspective.

The main reasons are is that the divisions are often arbitrary (cat vs dog vs bear are exceedingly small differences) compared to crocodile, snake, turtle, lizard etc.

So if we're looking at design constraints, there are several things that should be considered.

#1: What should a druid acting as a beast be capable of. The reason this is an interesting question, because this should be different (in the druid's favour) compared to natural beasts. For example, a druid disguised as a dog could quite possibly be stronger than any real dog.

#2: How to implement those capabilities to fit within a 5e design space.

I think, druids should be able to:

Use a variety of natural weapons most of which confer a slightly different mechanical advantage
Have a variety of sensory-related mechanics each of which have a niche-use.
Have a series of mobility advantages depending on form.
Have some limited control over the size of creature they can adopt.


This is my big list. So when there are choices between different animals, I need to feel like those choices are manifest by different capacities.

Animal weapons consists of the following:

Beaks
Claws & Talons
Goring weapons such as horns/tusks/antlers
Hoof/kicking weapons
Bites
Bludgeoning attacks such as fists, large tails, shoulder charges
Poison whether from stings, spines or bites
Ingestion (like being a giant toad/snake etc)
Constriction like tentacles, snake bodies etc
Wings - maybe for buffetting


Most of these can compact down to a single weapon. D8+Wisdom. Some are more fun with slightly different modifiers D6 but 2D6 if you charge for example. D6 but 2D6 if the target is prone. Poison should be something like D4+Wisdom but Fort save for extra poison damage etc. Constriction, tripping, grappling etc has mostly been covered by unarmed strikes.

Senses
Good smelling, darkvision, blindsight, tremorsense, acute hearing covers most of animal senses without getting more strange like sharks sensing muscle movements through water or seals following water trails.

The thing is, in all of this, I can't justify why you need a huge amount of difference in AC, HP etc for any beast, nor large variations in their Str, Dex, Con etc. These differences are just bookkeeping without substantially changing anything.

Needing a whole stat-block to cover off a 'clade' of animals seems like a lot of repetitious text.

[Kane0]

Cat, dog, bear, mount, snake, spider, rodent, fish, bird
Likely a few more i missed

Edit: dinosaur!

[MukkTB]

A small form that can scout//stealth while not being combat capable would be nice.

[JellyPooga]

A small form that can scout//stealth while not being combat capable would be nice.

This is the crux of the argument for me. It's not about Land, Sea and Sky or about the plethora of special abilitiea in combat, so much as it's about the division between combat, exploration/movement and utility, such as stealth/infiltration. The question isn't "what can I be?", it's "what can I do?". Brown Bear isn't a popular form for the Moon Druid, for example, because everyone likes bears; it's because it has a significant combat advantage over other forms of that level. Likewise, forms that fall behind the power-curve are left behind in favour of those that keep up; this too is a problem for me.

In a streamlined iteration of Wild Shape, I'd see templates emphasising and distinguished by those utility aspects and abilities and downplaying mere combat stats.

I would also see Wild Shape become a modifier of the base character rather than a stat replacement. A druid built like a brick proverbial should turn into a bear that is consequently and equivalently physically powerful, whilst a weedy Druid with the physique of dry straw should reap the same equivalency of turning into Whinny the Pooh. This can also open up the possibility of the more mystical or mythological aspects of animals by modifying mental stats as well as physical; who hasn't heard of the cunning of foxes or the wisdom of owls? Using Wild Shape to not only change shape fully but also adopt aspects of animals, such as that foxes cunning or the bear's strength, without fully changing, is very much within the remit/mythology of the ability.

[Aimeryan]

So here is the design issue with this approach. Taxonomy is not even a good way of sorting out animals from a scientific point of view, let alone from a game perspective and especially not from a fantasy perspective.

The main reasons are is that the divisions are often arbitrary (cat vs dog vs bear are exceedingly small differences) compared to crocodile, snake, turtle, lizard etc.

I disagree; all that argument amounts to is giving more distinct Beasts priority over less distinct Beasts. It does not make having less distinct Beasts amount to 'not even a good way', just that such an implementation may be weaker than it otherwise could be. A counterpoint is that there is value in having Beats that are more well known be available, as they are likely to be more desired; so, having both Feline and Lupine species could be a good implementation.

--------

My suggestion on how many needed is that you first need to cover the mechanic space:

1. Charge/Pounce
2. Web
3. Poisoned
4. Knockdown on hit
5. Pack Tactics
6. Grapple on hit
7. Spider Climb
8. Swim
9. Fly
10. Strong (+Str)
11. Agile (+Dex and Speed)
12. Tough (+Con)

There need not actually be one Beast dedicated to each, but it wouldn't necessarily hurt to do so either. So thats up to a dozen. You then likely want some creatures that are flavourful, even if they cover the same mechanic (although, preferably in a different way). So I think you want somewhere between say 12-24 Beasts. Note that the PHB has 25 Beasts, so this is not unprecedented.

You then need them to scale, however, you don't need different stat blocks for this - the Moon Druid subclass could manage this by offering increases to the relevant statistics.

[GloatingSwine]

So here is the design issue with this approach. Taxonomy is not even a good way of sorting out animals from a scientific point of view, let alone from a game perspective and especially not from a fantasy perspective.

Do you mean us to believe humans aren't actually fish?

I think the real question should be "what things does a druid actually want their animal forms to do?" and "if those things need to scale with level, how well should they do so?"

They should really be thinking about wild shape as a utility belt of different tools and abilities the druid can add to in order to address different situations, rather than "here's a bag of stats you can change into maybe?".

[Segev]

Do you mean us to believe humans aren't actually fish?

I think the real question should be "what things does a druid actually want their animal forms to do?" and "if those things need to scale with level, how well should they do so?"

They should really be thinking about wild shape as a utility belt of different tools and abilities the druid can add to in order to address different situations, rather than "here's a bag of stats you can change into maybe?".

Both. The tools in the box should be quirky ones that come packaged with ups and downs, not merely a menu of a la carte special abilities. You aren't just adding swimming and water breathing; you're turning into a fish or a squid or an alligator.

[GloatingSwine]

Both. The tools in the box should be quirky ones that come packaged with ups and downs, not merely a menu of a la carte special abilities. You aren't just adding swimming and water breathing; you're turning into a fish or a squid or an alligator.

Yeah, once you've decided on the list of abilities you think it's reasonable for a druid to have, then you match those to critters that they can turn into and decide how they scale them when they level up and they have all the pros and cons of being that critter.

The point is to decide the utility first then map that out to suggested beast forms so that a druid player has the convenience of "here's a list of options and what they will let you do" (because the stated reason for the change is so they don't have to trawl for just the right form).

You don't even need to restrict it to the list once you've communicated the concept and given the core that will be useful most of the time (be small, be tough, be sneaky, be able to fly, obtain particular senses, etc).

[Pooky the Imp]

My suggestion on how many needed is that you first need to cover the mechanic space:

1. Charge/Pounce
2. Web
3. Poisoned
4. Knockdown on hit
5. Pack Tactics
6. Grapple on hit
7. Spider Climb
8. Swim
9. Fly
10. Strong (+Str)
11. Agile (+Dex)
12. Tough (+Con)


Very minor point but I would suggest perhaps adding 'climb' as a separate trait from 'spider climb'.

For example, animals like bears may have climb speeds (allowing them to climb faster than most characters), but they won't be able to easily scale vertical surfaces with no handholds or to walk on ceilings.

[False God]

I'd sort them into roles rather than animal types.
Bears are tough defenders, lotta HP, good AC, moderate attack.
Wolves are rogues, agile, low HP, average attack.
Cats are offensive, high attack, good HP, lower AC

Flyers are scouts, avoidance, speed, low attack.

Insets are control, poison, web, stun.**

*Sea animals are special, since they're basically repeats of the other categories but situationally limited to water. Crabs can operate like underwater spiders, sharks, whales, other fast attack fish fill those roles, and so on. While it would be fine to include one or two fishy options, having a full swath of them would be more appropriate for a specific setting splat book.

*Dinosaurs are special because they're again, situational repeats of existing categories. Once again, having a couple notable entries are fine, but outside of a specific setting where dinosaurs are as common as horses, they should not be part of a druid's regular assortment of animal shapes.

**Insects could also be covered this way, with only a few options in Core and then more in say, an Underdark splatbook.

I would personally include one of each type of animal per tier. So you unlock regular cats, bears, birds, fish at level 1, then "Dire" versions at level 6 maybe "Giant" at level 11 and I dunno, "Legendary" at level 16 or something. At a bear minimum that's 6 forms times 4 tiers for 24 animals or at least 6 animals with 5 variations (see: dragons) with, I dunno, another 2-3 for sea creatures and 2-3 for dinosaurs without having stand-alone splats for them, so 30?. Of course that's assuming the forms scale, if they don't, you've got what, 6, 8?

To be fair, you could handle scaling form options for all types of creatures in splatbooks, with the Core assuming that Druids are going to progress through their animal selection and use lower-level ones for their utility effects since in 5E, low level threats are supposed to remain relevant for much longer.

I don't think every animal special ability needs to be covered, and certainly not right off the bat at least. Since there are some people who aren't going to care at all what special ability 90% of the other options have, because they just want to turn into a tiger 100% of the time.

[KorvinStarmast]

Your question is badly framed, and demonstrates a desire to limit player creativity. I find this approach reductionist and fundamentally bad for TTRPG.
For a CRPG I can see why you'd want to limit total types out of a desire to keep coding magnitude reasonable for a given feature.

[Goobahfish]

I disagree; all that argument amounts to is giving more distinct Beasts priority over less distinct Beasts. It does not make having less distinct Beasts amount to 'not even a good way', just that such an implementation may be weaker than it otherwise could be. A counterpoint is that there is value in having Beats that are more well known be available, as they are likely to be more desired; so, having both Feline and Lupine species could be a good implementation.

--------

My suggestion on how many needed is that you first need to cover the mechanic space:

1. Charge/Pounce
2. Web
3. Poisoned
4. Knockdown on hit
5. Pack Tactics
6. Grapple on hit
7. Spider Climb
8. Swim
9. Fly
10. Strong (+Str)
11. Agile (+Dex and Speed)
12. Tough (+Con)

Minor nitpick (canine is probably more useful than lupine) :D

I think this list covers most of 'what can animals do' side of things pretty well. The issue I have is trying to tie these to some specific creature line. Other than Web (which is clearly spiders), the rest fall into a variety of animal categories. I have no issue with a 'strong dog' or a 'grappling bear, lion, crocodile' etc. They all fit reasonably well. I'd rather the templates remain relatively generic (i.e., this template represents one of a few different animals) but sufficiently varied that you 'feel' like you are doing something different with each animal. That said, I don't want them split up so much that it takes more than a few minutes to get the gist of it.

---

That said, I'm not sure what the affinity for pack-tactics is beyond power-gaming. Near-automatic advantage seems very... questionable as a design choice for PCs.


Both. The tools in the box should be quirky ones that come packaged with ups and downs, not merely a menu of a la carte special abilities. You aren't just adding swimming and water breathing; you're turning into a fish or a squid or an alligator.

This I strongly agree with. I am actually (despite what it may seem) quite opposed to a build-a-bear system. I want a pre-built build-a-bear (as weird as that sounds) using a very simple build-a-bear system. Snakes can constrict, but they aren't going to be opening doors or climbing non-tree surfaces. Sometimes this will be a pretty narrow definition (snakes I think are unique enough to warrant their own statblock or something close to it... even then, it might be better described by a passive trait... limbless or some such), but the differences between a wolf and tiger should be little more than skills rather than damage or HP.


The point is to decide the utility first then map that out to suggested beast forms so that a druid player has the convenience of "here's a list of options and what they will let you do" (because the stated reason for the change is so they don't have to trawl for just the right form).
This I think is the most important design point. Work out what animals are allowed to do first, then assign animals to the general 'shapes' animals adopt.

[Leon]

Zero to X

Druids do not inherently need wildshape to be druids, its a optional thing that can be safely ignored or removed except if you choose to play one with a focus on that.

[GooeyChewie]

I agree with sorting them into roles rather than specific animal types. For example, the 4e Shaman has a 'Protector spirit' companion. The base flavor is bear, but the book pointed out you could reflavor it to whatever animal you felt epitomized protection. So when I played Shaman, I had my 'Protector spirit' appear as a turtle. Identifying the form as a 'Protector' rather than 'Ursine' could make that sort of refluffing easier for players.

Sorting by roles could also help bring that Tiny form back down to a lower level. Based on what WotC, it sounds like their concern was that the current implementation allows the Tiny form the same defenses as all other size forms. If they add stat blocks for various roles, they could add an exploration/scouting Tiny form that doesn't have very high defenses.

I also like the idea of subclasses adding stat blocks. For example, I could see an elements-based Druid that adds forms based on elementals, or another subclass might delve into Fey stat blocks. (And if you don't feel like Druids should be connected to the Fey, it's a lot easier to not play that subclass than to try to work around it being mixed into the base class.)

[Pooky the Imp]

Your question is badly framed, and demonstrates a desire to limit player creativity. I find this approach reductionist and fundamentally bad for TTRPG.

{Scrubbed}

[Chronos]

I'll echo JellyPooga and MukkTB that it isn't all just about the combat forms. One of the key benefits of wildshape is being able to turn into an animal that's inconspicuous in your environment. And that's at least as many different animals as there are environments. In a city, it might be a stray cat (or even a well-groomed pet cat, if you want to fit in in the posher parts of the city). In a forest, it might be a squirrel. It might be any number of birds, if you want to be able to fly (but not all parts of the world have the same birds). It might be a bat or a lizard, in a cave. It might be some aquatic animal. You don't need stats for all of these, since they won't be getting into combat anyway, but you do want an ability that's broad enough to allow for them.

[Segev]

I'll echo JellyPooga and MukkTB that it isn't all just about the combat forms. One of the key benefits of wildshape is being able to turn into an animal that's inconspicuous in your environment. And that's at least as many different animals as there are environments. In a city, it might be a stray cat (or even a well-groomed pet cat, if you want to fit in in the posher parts of the city). In a forest, it might be a squirrel. It might be any number of birds, if you want to be able to fly (but not all parts of the world have the same birds). It might be a bat or a lizard, in a cave. It might be some aquatic animal. You don't need stats for all of these, since they won't be getting into combat anyway, but you do want an ability that's broad enough to allow for them.

I will state that both the generic stat blob and the specific stat blocks (but with ability to reflavor to "similar" animals) accomplish this goal. As long as "tiny" size remains an option. (The restriction of it to level 10+ is an amazingly awful design decision.)

[Mastikator]

I'll echo JellyPooga and MukkTB that it isn't all just about the combat forms. One of the key benefits of wildshape is being able to turn into an animal that's inconspicuous in your environment. And that's at least as many different animals as there are environments. In a city, it might be a stray cat (or even a well-groomed pet cat, if you want to fit in in the posher parts of the city). In a forest, it might be a squirrel. It might be any number of birds, if you want to be able to fly (but not all parts of the world have the same birds). It might be a bat or a lizard, in a cave. It might be some aquatic animal. You don't need stats for all of these, since they won't be getting into combat anyway, but you do want an ability that's broad enough to allow for them.

Beast of the Land allows for small size, so you can be a dog. That scenario is already covered.

[Pooky the Imp]

I will state that both the generic stat blob and the specific stat blocks (but with ability to reflavor to "similar" animals) accomplish this goal. As long as "tiny" size remains an option. (The restriction of it to level 10+ is an amazingly awful design decision.)

This is a good point.

Not sure how best to do this with generic stat blocks. Maybe have a 'harmless' version of the different forms that Druids can use for stealth/infiltration?

[Segev]

Beast of the Land allows for small size, so you can be a dog. That scenario is already covered.

You can be a fairly large dog. And also, your dog is no different than your snake or spider.

[Mastikator]

You can be a fairly large dog. And also, your dog is no different than your snake or spider.

What's your point?

[GooeyChewie]

This is a good point.

Not sure how best to do this with generic stat blocks. Maybe have a 'harmless' version of the different forms that Druids can use for stealth/infiltration?

We’d really only need one or two non-combat forms. One for stealth, and maybe one for exploration.

[Kane0]

I think it'd be interesting if the size of the forms you could assume were based on your normal size, so if you're medium you can turn into a medium or small creature and if you're small you can turn into a small or tiny creature. Some neat little benefit to playing halfling or gnome as a druid.

[Goobahfish]

As long as "tiny" size remains an option. (The restriction of it to level 10+ is an amazingly awful design decision.)


We’d really only need one or two non-combat forms. One for stealth, and maybe one for exploration.

It is kind of interesting because these 'stealth forms' are a bit of a 5e 'new thing'. In 3.5, Tiny was restricted to level 11... (literally... 11). I always found it a bit jarring in 5e where you could turn from a normal person into a tiny spider to crawl around under doors and such. At level 2 this seems awfully powerful.

I'm not at all advocating for a return to 3.5, but the balance issue is there. It reminds me a bit of gaseous form in terms of utility so somewhere in the level 5-7 range would probably more suitable than level 11 (I mean, who even plays until level 11?) but also more suitable than level 2.

I think having an entirely different stat-block for tiny forms might be a good idea though. Having a rat with strength 20 is a bit of an 'immersion killer'. Hilarious, but I would prefer that to be a... specialisation rather than the default.

[Kane0]

Well now you can use your Wildshape to just make a tiny familiar to do it for you...

But anyways, how about
Default Wildshape: Small and medium sizes
Level 5: Tiny and large sizes
Level 11: Huge size

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Well now you can use your Wildshape to just make a tiny familiar to do it for you...

But anyways, how about
Default Wildshape: Small and medium sizes
Level 5: Tiny and large sizes
Level 11: Huge size

Honestly, they just need to make a "Scout" template, give it size T, Climb from the get go, Fly at level 5, etc.

They flat out said the only reason they delayed Tiny to level 11 is because it dawned on them what you could do as a Tiny Creature with your own HP, a fairly solid AC and Melee attack and good stats across the board.

[Goobahfish]

Honestly, they just need to make a "Scout" template, give it size T, Climb from the get go, Fly at level 5, etc.

They flat out said the only reason they delayed Tiny to level 11 is because it dawned on them what you could do as a Tiny Creature with your own HP, a fairly solid AC and Melee attack and good stats across the board.

Caerbannog?

[animorte]

I mentioned this over in the UA thread and thought it might be worth bringing into this conversation. I haven't really seen anybody talk about it yet (might have overlooked it):


Strength AND Dexterity should both always be replaced by your Wisdom score in any form. Damage should be adjusted according to size instead of form (d10=large, d8=medium, d6=small, d4=tiny) - perhaps with other minor differences to compensate.

Now imagine being a small dog (land) or even a tiny rat with 16+ Strength and dealing 1d8+Wis damage vs being a large pteranodon with 8 Strength and dealing 1d4+Wis damage. (Str relevant for saves.) Looks kinda silly, right? Dare I say, ridiculous?

[Cheesegear]

AFAIC:

A Druid knows up to as many Beast Forms equal to their Proficiency + Wisdom Modifier.
A Druid can change one Form they know each time they gain a level in Druid.
All other restrictions remain in place.

[Kane0]

Honestly, they just need to make a "Scout" template, give it size T, Climb from the get go, Fly at level 5, etc.

They flat out said the only reason they delayed Tiny to level 11 is because it dawned on them what you could do as a Tiny Creature with your own HP, a fairly solid AC and Melee attack and good stats across the board.

Works for me. Just two or three extra statblocks would do the trick, with a notable feature or two each

[Yakk]

I think we should fold companion mechanics and beast form into a signal set mechanical subset.

So, Familiars, a Ranger Beast companion uses the same mechanical do-dads as a Druid Beast Form.

Then we should make the Beast companion a bigger part of the Ranger class, and add a Beast Form Barbarian Subclass.

Find Familiar stops being a spell. Having Find Familiar becomes a class feature (which can be swapped out for a different one) that hooks into the same mechanics. Chain Warlocks get a Find Familiar, as an example. Some pick (not subclass) for Wizards gets a Familiar, and possibly also Sorcerer.

Then we should get Companion stat blocks. These are highly specific, not generic, even if they are built based on a formula under the hood. There is a Bear, Wolf, Eagle, Panther, etc, companion, a Raven, Cat and Owl familiar, etc. If DMs and players want to reskin or create their own, they can.

These each have as much mechanical weight as a spell (which we have plenty of). It can have a "at higher level" clause where it improves with more oomph.

And finally, Druids would learn a certain number of Beast Forms, and more as they gain levels. Maybe it would be wizard like, with a "auto-learn" number with the ability to learn more, but if so I'd keep a max cap. Or maybe it would be "you learn these two when you get the feature (DM may let you swap), and your cap is X. You can learn more by observing a creature."

So learning Velocoraptor form requires the DM give you access to Velocoraptors. But the base "Wolf and Raven" is automatic.

[Segev]

I think we should fold companion mechanics and beast form into a signal set mechanical subset.

So, Familiars, a Ranger Beast companion uses the same mechanical do-dads as a Druid Beast Form.

Then we should make the Beast companion a bigger part of the Ranger class, and add a Beast Form Barbarian Subclass.

Find Familiar stops being a spell. Having Find Familiar becomes a class feature (which can be swapped out for a different one) that hooks into the same mechanics. Chain Warlocks get a Find Familiar, as an example. Some pick (not subclass) for Wizards gets a Familiar, and possibly also Sorcerer.

Then we should get Companion stat blocks. These are highly specific, not generic, even if they are built based on a formula under the hood. There is a Bear, Wolf, Eagle, Panther, etc, companion, a Raven, Cat and Owl familiar, etc. If DMs and players want to reskin or create their own, they can.

These each have as much mechanical weight as a spell (which we have plenty of). It can have a "at higher level" clause where it improves with more oomph.

And finally, Druids would learn a certain number of Beast Forms, and more as they gain levels. Maybe it would be wizard like, with a "auto-learn" number with the ability to learn more, but if so I'd keep a max cap. Or maybe it would be "you learn these two when you get the feature (DM may let you swap), and your cap is X. You can learn more by observing a creature."

So learning Velocoraptor form requires the DM give you access to Velocoraptors. But the base "Wolf and Raven" is automatic.
I could potentially see this working. I would want the creatures in question to be the same ones the DM uses to represent those creatures, at least by default. If you want the druid to learn animal forms similarly to the wizard, there's no need for a "max cap" as long as the DM controls access (the way he does to a wizard's spells) and/or there's sufficient cost to learning a new form (e.g. how Lunars in Exalted work: have to taste the heart's blood of a sample creature, or something similarly dependent on subduing one...or a ritual that costs x gp per CR of the form or something).

[Yakk]

I could potentially see this working. I would want the creatures in question to be the same ones the DM uses to represent those creatures, at least by default. If you want the druid to learn animal forms similarly to the wizard, there's no need for a "max cap" as long as the DM controls access (the way he does to a wizard's spells) and/or there's sufficient cost to learning a new form (e.g. how Lunars in Exalted work: have to taste the heart's blood of a sample creature, or something similarly dependent on subduing one...or a ritual that costs x gp per CR of the form or something).
First, I'd go backwards. Making monsters out of companion mechanics can exist, like how you make monsters out of PC classes.

And the monsters in the DMG can be based off of (Level X companion) stats, like how the Veteran is a (variation of a) level 5 fighter. But companions are pre-simplified, while the veteran is an explicitly simplified PC fighter, so less (if any) difference is needed.

[Segev]

First, I'd go backwards. Making monsters out of companion mechanics can exist, like how you make monsters out of PC classes.

And the monsters in the DMG can be based off of (Level X companion) stats, like how the Veteran is a (variation of a) level 5 fighter. But companions are pre-simplified, while the veteran is an explicitly simplified PC fighter, so less (if any) difference is needed.

It's already a little frustrating when the NPC who allegedly has the same training you do has noticeably different abilities that you can't replicate even if you're built to do exactly the same job. It is unacceptably so when, for example, your spider companion or spider form can't do the things that the spider monster can. This is one of the issues with the MMotM versions of various spellcaster NPCs that replace actual spellcasting with unique features that only vaguely gesture in the direction of the theme they're meant to elicit, rather than actually casting spells that the PC spellcaster of the same class and alleged subclass might have.

I agree that it can make sense for a simplified NPC stat block to not be a full PC build. And maybe a PC companion beast will have more bits and bobs than you want detailed in a beast stat block for an encounter. But the core of the companion beast should be the core of the creature that the DM is using. Numbers may vary, but should be theoretically possible on both sides. Defining features should be the same (pack tactics, spider climb, constrict, poison, etc. depending on the creature).

[Pooky the Imp]

I can't find the post I was looking at earlier, but I'm sure someone suggested Wild Shape modifying the Druid's stats, rather than replacing them outright. So a Druid who is already strong would become a more muscular bear than a weedy druid.

Just to say, I do quite like this idea, though I wonder if it would make more sense for a particular theme (e.g. a werebeast Druid, where he's keeping a roughly humanoid form).

Either way, I think it would be fun if a Druid's Wild Shape forms resemble him in some way. e.g. a Druid with a scar over one eye might transform into similarly scarred animals. Likewise, an overweight Druid might turn into unusually portly animals. :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

I can't find the post I was looking at earlier, but I'm sure someone suggested Wild Shape modifying the Druid's stats, rather than replacing them outright. So a Druid who is already strong would become a more muscular bear than a weedy druid.

Just to say, I do quite like this idea, though I wonder if it would make more sense for a particular theme (e.g. a werebeast Druid, where he's keeping a roughly humanoid form).

Either way, I think it would be fun if a Druid's Wild Shape forms resemble him in some way. e.g. a Druid with a scar over one eye might transform into similarly scarred animals. Likewise, an overweight Druid might turn into unusually portly animals. :smallbiggrin:

Templating is more difficult than just replacing, in terms of ease-of-running and ease-of-play. PF1 does it (poorly) by having (small) adjustments to your stat line for the shapeshifting spells, so even a strength-based character is probably never as strong as a real elephant, even when transformed into one. You could have it instead based off of treating your stat above or below 10 as a bonus or penalty to the baseline stat of the target creature, but that also can get out of hand.

Replacing with the target creature's specific numbers has more likelihood of keeping your numbers in a reasonable range, because those numbers are balanced for the target creature. Complete packages are easier to balance than a la carte selections.

[KorvinStarmast]

Zero to X

Druids do not inherently need wildshape to be druids, its a optional thing that can be safely ignored or removed except if you choose to play one with a focus on that. There's another "let's restrict the player" approach that I find to be heading in the wrong direction.
Wild shaping is a core Druid-unique talent that goes back to their introduction in Eldritch Wizardry (1976). Yes, it's iconic.
How to implement it seems to be the discussion here.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} Your assumption is utterly wrong and completely backwards.
The wide variety of choices from both the PHB and MM allow the player great latitude. That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing, as it provides the player with creative options. None of that needs to change.


But anyways, how about
Default Wildshape: Small and medium sizes
Level 5: Tiny and large sizes
Level 11: Huge size
I don't see why Tiny can't be inside the default.
I do find your idea on the Large Huge (earn the right to do this) to fit with some other sub class and class features. You wanna be a Dire Wolf? Need to be level 5 to get there. Want to be a Giant Constrictor Snake or a Mammoth? Need to be level 11 to have that.

[Segev]

I do find your idea on the Large Huge (earn the right to do this) to fit with some other sub class and class features. You wanna be a Dire Wolf? Need to be level 5 to get there. Want to be a Giant Constrictor Snake or a Mammoth? Need to be level 11 to have that.

In 5e, being bigger doesn't really offer many advantages by itself. Only whether you can be ridden or grappled by creatures of certain other sizes really comes into play, as potential positives, and being larger restricts where you can fit, otherwise. (Okay, it also multiplies your lifting capacity, which is nice, but hardly level-lock-worthy.)

Most of the usual changes due to size from earlier editions are gone. Weapons are suggested to change damage in the DMG, but don't actually do so if you change size using PC-facing mechanics (which is another point of irritation). Monsters get bigger HD if they're larger, but that's not something that changes for YOU as a PC if your size changes (unless you're inheriting the target's hp, the way you do in 5e with shapeshifting...but not with enlarge).

In short, there's not a lot of reason to restrict large/huge, since they're mostly inconveniences and the CR limits lock down hp better than size limits do.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Caerbannog?

Yeah, basically. Bit more tactics than just raw smash but yeah.


I don't see why Tiny can't be inside the default.
I do find your idea on the Large Huge (earn the right to do this) to fit with some other sub class and class features. You wanna be a Dire Wolf? Need to be level 5 to get there. Want to be a Giant Constrictor Snake or a Mammoth? Need to be level 11 to have that.

It's how the Size T functions with the generic stat block.

Imagine a fight against a Level 1 Party. The enemies are three orcs blocking a pass while a Warlock in the back throws magical blasts. Normally you'd have to shove through the line, or take them out, some effort made to get to the Warlock to stop it from just blasting (Or standing back and exchanging arrows.

In comes a Size T 1D&D Druid. At level 1 they have 8+Con HP, we'll assume 10 HP from a 14 in Con, we'll also assume a 16 or 17 Wis. Suddenly you're Size T with a 16 in Str and Dex and still have your 10 HP. (Have we checked if AC is JUST 10+Wis or is that your base and you can add Dex?) Either way, you now can b-line straight through the enemy orcs, at worst taking 1 Attack of Opportunity and be on the Warlock immediately. Still attacking and dealing 1d8+3 damage. You're now a full caster who can become a slightly lower HP version of the party fighter and move anywhere on the map with almost no resistance.

Essentially the benefits of the Tiny scout creatures were always countered by you only having 1-4 HP, having no attack abilities to speak of and the knowledge that one hit will throw you back to Druid Form.

By no means should size T wait to level 11, but that was the hiccup they were trying to work around.

[Pooky the Imp]

Your assumption is utterly wrong and completely backwards.

As was yours, it didn't stop you asserting it.

{Scrubbed}




The wide variety of choices from both the PHB and MM allow the player great latitude. That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing, as it provides the player with creative options. None of that needs to change.


My issue with the current system is that it works great at lower levels but then quickly falls off a cliff because there are so few animals at higher challenge ratings, and the lower CR ones swiftly become obsolete in combat.

What's that? Your Druid has a strong bear theme? Well I hope you like using mammoths at higher levels.
Wolf theme? Mammoth.
Cat theme? Mammoth.
Spider theme? Arachnid King. Nah, just kidding, it's the Mammoth again.

I don't want to limit player options/creativity, but I fail to see how the above is anything but that.

If you don't like the idea of a smaller pool of statblocks that advance with the Druid's level, then what about a way to advance the regular animal statblocks, based on the difference between their CR and the maximum CR the druid can transform into?

So if your Druid can turn into CR6 creatures, you can either choose the above Mammoth, or you can pick a lower CR beast that fits your theme and get bonuses to it (e.g. better stats, more hp, maybe an extra attack - stuff to keep it in line with higher CR beasts, not to mention the enemies you'll be fighting at that level).

[Segev]

My issue with the current system is that it works great at lower levels but then quickly falls off a cliff because there are so few animals at higher challenge ratings, and the lower CR ones swiftly become obsolete in combat.

What's that? Your Druid has a strong bear theme? Well I hope you like using mammoths at higher levels.
Wolf theme? Mammoth.
Cat theme? Mammoth.
Spider theme? Arachnid King. Nah, just kidding, it's the Mammoth again.

I don't want to limit player options/creativity, but I fail to see how the above is anything but that.

The easy solution is to print a few more Beasts at higher CR. :smallconfused:

[KorvinStarmast]

As was yours, it didn't stop you asserting it. Hardly. You are following the bad precedent of assuming a problem where there isn't one, and trying to fix what isn't broken. You aren't the first, and you won't be the last. I have offered similar feedback to a variety of OPs who have the same conceptual problem that you brought to this topic.

My issue with the current system is that it works great at lower levels but then quickly falls off a cliff because there are so few animals at higher challenge ratings, and the lower CR ones swiftly become obsolete in combat.
Given that a druid has access to spells level 1 through 9, that doesn't matter. There are a variety of choices and options to play with.

If, on the other hand, the core identity of the Druid was its shape changing, then the scaling would matter.

But it isn't, so it doesn't.

To frame this question in a way that may hit home with you, so that you understand my objection to your premise:

How many role playing games do you, Pooky the Imp, need?
My (pulled out of my backside) answer is Zero.
Which is as valid as your set of proposed limitations on someone else's concept of a druid.

Needless to say, I found Xanathar's proposed limitation by land type to be utterly wrong, and I find the Wild Shape for D&Done to be in its current state a complete mess that needs a lot of work.

To further emphasize my point: don't carry the dev's water for them.
They are making an utter mess of the wild shape feature of the druid.
Agreeing with their assumption that "restricting choices is a good idea" is not helpful.

[Goobahfish]

Given that a druid has access to spells level 1 through 9, that doesn't matter. There are a variety of choices and options to play with.

If, on the other hand, the core identity of the Druid was its shape changing, then the scaling would matter.

But it isn't, so it doesn't.

This is a bit of a silly argument. If you give an ability to a player, present for their entire career, it seems reasonable that they should be able to continue to use it reliably. I.e., spell casting being the feature lets you cast level 1, then level 9 spells.

Giving a feature which is only viable at low levels and is not expanded upon... seems like 'trap' design.

[Bosh]

I think this might get a bit overwhelming with new players having a bunch of different forms that all need to be recalculated every level.

The main problem with the 5e wildshape is that CR is a **** way of gauging what critters make sense for a druid to be able to turn into at what level. So just stop using CR to determine what critter a druid can turn into at what level.

Just make a curated list of what critters druids can turn into at what level that is appropriate power-wise for a character at that level and otherwise keep the 5e system.

[Mastikator]

I think this might get a bit overwhelming with new players having a bunch of different forms that all need to be recalculated every level.

The main problem with the 5e wildshape is that CR is a **** way of gauging what critters make sense for a druid to be able to turn into at what level. So just stop using CR to determine what critter a druid can turn into at what level.

Just make a curated list of what critters druids can turn into at what level that is appropriate power-wise for a character at that level and otherwise keep the 5e system.

We could even have them scale with the druid level, so that if you really like wolves you can be a wolf at high level and that wolf is a better wolf than a low level druid wild shaped into a wolf. But they'd have to make some kind of scaling stat block for the druid.



The easy solution is to print a few more Beasts at higher CR. :smallconfused:

Bloating the monster manual with 10 different beasts for every CR up to 6 is not the easy solution. It's a really bad, boring, not good solution. The DMG gives advice on how a DM can level up monsters so it doesn't really help the DM either.

[Pooky the Imp]

Hardly. You are following the bad precedent of assuming a problem where there isn't one, and trying to fix what isn't broken.

{Scrubbed}

Yet you say that I assumed a problem where none exists, so you must think that Druids transforming into cubes of flesh with no distinguishing characteristics is fine and dandy.

Not only that, but right at the start I asked whether this sort of idea would even be worth it over just using the current system with some quality-of-life tweaks.

{Scrubbed}

[Aimeryan]

We could even have them scale with the druid level, so that if you really like wolves you can be a wolf at high level and that wolf is a better wolf than a low level druid wild shaped into a wolf. But they'd have to make some kind of scaling stat block for the druid.

...

Bloating the monster manual with 10 different beasts for every CR up to 6 is not the easy solution. It's a really bad, boring, not good solution. The DMG gives advice on how a DM can level up monsters so it doesn't really help the DM either.

Yeah, while I'm not against having Beasts function in this way like Dragons (Whelp, Youngling, Adolescent, Elder, Ancient, etc.), I do think that for all the Beasts we would be looking at that may be too much of an ask.

My own suggestion is about 20 Beasts at CR1 in the PHB, covering a diverse mechanical and flavourful space. Scaling should then be applied to these.

The implementation of that scaling is for WotC to work through. One way is to act as a CR increase, providing stat upgrades (HP, AC, damage, DC, etc.) per CR increased. Whether this increase would be a set amount or a multiplier is something to look at - the first is quicker and easier to work with, the second allows the Beasts to maintain their differences more strongly. Beasts available to the DM at different CRs could then be optional forms that easily fold into this system (i.e., if the Moon Druid could have a CR4 form and wants to use a CR2 DM Beast they would add 2 CR increases - at the agreement with the DM). A 'Wildshape Approved' tag on DM Beasts would be ideal to allow for this.

If we want a stronger Wild Shape than the 5e implementation, however, we are going to need to detract from also being a full caster. That means using full caster resources; Spell Slots. A one-to-one Spell Slot to CR increase might work. It would work out at a CR every two levels, a couple of times per Long Rest - i.e., a Level 9 Druid would have a couple of Level 5 Spell Slots available and could therefore increase the CR by 4, so a CR5 Beast. The cost is they don't have Level 5 Spell Slots for Spells and can only take that CR a couple of times a Long Rest, with lower CRs (via lower Spell Slots) otherwise.

As I say, the implementation is really for WotC to work out, but the idea is pretty solid.

[Segev]

Bloating the monster manual with 10 different beasts for every CR up to 6 is not the easy solution. It's a really bad, boring, not good solution. The DMG gives advice on how a DM can level up monsters so it doesn't really help the DM either.

1) I didn't say "add 10 different beasts for every CR." I said "add more beasts at higher CRs."
2) I didn't say they had to all be in the Monster Manual. There are other books, and 1-3 beasts in the appendix format in each of the books that have bestiaries would be quite sufficient.
3) As demonstrated in my bears of CR 1/4 to 6 thread, it is possible to condense the "like beasts" down to a table format that is quite compact.
4) You say it would be "boring," but your subjective feeling on that is just that: your subjective feeling. I'm sure there are people who find scads of new spells (particularly with so many being less useful than existing PHB spells) to be "boring," too.

So, no, your counterpoint here is not a valid nor useful argument against my position, given that it requires changing my argument to a strawman, and is factually false where it isn't subjective.

And, heck, your last sentence, which actually is accurate in its opening clause, is yet another reason this is a pointless objection: the rules for "leveling up" monsters to higher CR exist, so just apply them to the animal your druid wants to play if it's truly a problem.



But, just to re-emphasize: having more than just "the mammoth" at CR 6 doesn't require "adding 10 more animals at every CR up to 6." It requires adding even 1 to make it ONE other thing. I'd suggest more than that, but I'd also suggest tabular format for them and encouraging use of the DMG's rules for beefing monsters up to get existing ones to different CRs. You want to play a spider druid? Take the giant wolf spider and the giant spider and use the CR-adjustment rules to get stronger versions to fill out the CRs.

[Yakk]

I think this might get a bit overwhelming with new players having a bunch of different forms that all need to be recalculated every level.

The main problem with the 5e wildshape is that CR is a **** way of gauging what critters make sense for a druid to be able to turn into at what level. So just stop using CR to determine what critter a druid can turn into at what level.

Just make a curated list of what critters druids can turn into at what level that is appropriate power-wise for a character at that level and otherwise keep the 5e system.
CR is perfectly reasonable for combat forms, if a bit granular. Beasts are all brawlers, skirmishers with the occasional dash of lurker.

For non-combat, the size limits and flying limits deal with it reasonably.

What is missing?

I mean, are you complaining that beasts discount the grapple/restrained condition on druid beast forms too much? Be specific.

[verbatim]

I don't see why Tiny can't be inside the default.

The main thing I think is to encourage players to use Find Familiar to "befriend a small animal" to accomplish such a task (stealth). And then for tasks that involve being tiny and then becoming big again you could put tiny transformations at a nearby but not identical level.

[Pooky the Imp]

If we want a stronger Wild Shape than the 5e implementation, however, we are going to need to detract from also being a full caster. That means using full caster resources; Spell Slots. A one-to-one Spell Slot to CR increase might work. It would work out at a CR every two levels, a couple of times per Long Rest - i.e., a Level 9 Druid would have a couple of Level 5 Spell Slots available and could therefore increase the CR by 4, so a CR5 Beast. The cost is they don't have Level 5 Spell Slots for Spells and can only take that CR a couple of times a Long Rest, with lower CRs (via lower Spell Slots) otherwise.

Out of interest, do you think Wild Shape (or a similar shpeshifting ability) could be stronger if it was applied to a class like the Ranger or Monk (i.e. not a 9th level caster)?

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Out of interest, do you think Wild Shape (or a similar shpeshifting ability) could be stronger if it was applied to a class like the Ranger or Monk (i.e. not a 9th level caster)?

There are 2 Prestige Classes from 3.X I would LOVE to see come back and the fact that neither are casters at all makes them really fit well with Non-Casters.

Rough Ideas:

Barbarian Subclass: The WarShaper.
Most martial characters rely on manufactured gear such as a sword and a shield or natural endowments such as teeth and claws to survive on the battlefield. The warshaper finds those options sadly limiting, instead growing and evolving her own weapons and armor to suit the threat at hand. Blessed with the ability to change form at a moment’s notice, warshapers delight in surprising their foes by growing massive claws, armored skin, or other unpleasant surprises.

At Level 3:
WarShape: When Raging the Barbarian also assumes an animal form as a Moon Druid of = level. This form lasts for the duration of the Rage.
Morphic Body: When Raging the Barbarian can use their Natural Constitution Score in place of their Strength Score.

At Level 6:
Morphic Weapons: As a Bonus action, a warshaper can grow natural weapons such as claws or fangs, allowing them to deal 1d6+Str damage as a Melee attack.
If the warshaper’s form already has a natural weapon of that type, the weapon deals damage as if it were one category larger. For example a Tabaxi would deal 1d8 damage with their claw, if Raging as a Tiger their bite deals 1d12
Morphic Reach: A warshaper can suddenly stretch its limbs, neck, or other appendages outward, giving it 5 more feet of reach than the creature it’s emulating. Unlike most creatures, warshapers don’t appear to have a longer reach until they actually use it.

At Level 10:
Morphic Immunities: While raging the Barbarian learns to shift their vital organs about during the flow of combat, they are immune to Critical Hits.
Morphic Healing: While raging the Barbarian gains Regeneration = to their Constitution Score.

At Level 14:
Multimorph: During the Rage transformation the Barbarian can shift animal forms as a Bonus Action without using a new Rage charge.
Wildshape: Becoming truly in tune with their adopted forms the Barbarian can now Wildshape as a normal druid outside of combat.


Want to do a Rogue Master of Many Forms as well but will have to sort out which forms go where.

[Aimeryan]

Out of interest, do you think Wild Shape (or a similar shpeshifting ability) could be stronger if it was applied to a class like the Ranger or Monk (i.e. not a 9th level caster)?

Yup. The reason it is held back is because you have to balance it with having access to full casting. Even if you cannot do the two technically at the same time (until 18th), you can still get a lot out of both by first casting a Concentration Spell. There is also out of combat Spells.

Often the greater limitation on a full caster is the Spell Slot resource rather than the action economy - unless you are in the practice of 5 minute work days. Even at higher levels this is true because a lot of the power is still held in the latest Spell Slots - Legendary Saves tend to become more of the issue at this point. Anyhow, Wild Shape effectively makes Spell Slot consumption lessened by giving an alternative to casting mid-level non-Concentration Spells once the high-level Concentration Spell is up. The 5e implementation of Wild Shape doesn't offer much other than being a no-heal-required-damage-sponge (after Tier 1), but that is enough for a full caster.

Wild Shape has a lot more to offer, but is curtailed by being on a full caster. The ridiculous thing is, even for a non-Moon Druid most of the Druid features are Wild Shape related - so Wild Shape also effectively curtails the full caster from other options too. There is a lot of work put into something that is very much held back - its not really a good fit at all for something that could be so much more.

[Kane0]

There are 2 Prestige Classes from 3.X I would LOVE to see come back and the fact that neither are casters at all makes them really fit well with Non-Casters.

The WarShaper.
Master of Many Forms

I remember the Warshaper, fun times. Barbarian already has the Beast path so maybe share it around with Fighter or Rogue as shapeshifting 'counterparts' to EK and AT? Hell i'd even be interested in a shapeshifting monk or ranger.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I remember the Warshaper, fun times. Barbarian already has the Beast path so maybe share it around with Fighter or Rogue as shapeshifting 'counterparts' to EK and AT? Hell i'd even be interested in a shapeshifting monk or ranger.

Barbarian is just what popped to mind, could see it on any Martial though.

For Rogue I was thinking Master of Many Forms, but as with my Fighting Styles and Warshaper this isn't me taking time to sit and plan out, this is me tossing an idea together in a minute and seeing how it looks.

Master of Many Forms needs the ability to shapeshift into Humanoids, Giants, Monstrosities, Fey, ooze, Elemental and Dragons while keeping some semblance of balance. I think it fits well with a Rogue because if their Capstone ability turns on Shapechange for them, well, that matches with when other classes can get the spell, but how to balance it from 3-16 is the question.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is a bit of a silly argument. If you give an ability to a player, present for their entire career, it seems reasonable that they should be able to continue to use it reliably. I.e., spell casting being the feature lets you cast level 1, then level 9 spells.

Giving a feature which is only viable at low levels and is not expanded upon... seems like 'trap' design. No. It's a useful class feature. Your assumption that it has to also scale as a full caster does is ungrounded. The circle of the land Druids can still use the feature, but their POWER is in their spell casting. It is only the single sub class of Moon Druid who min maxers get all wound up about. The land druids, or other non Moon druids, can apply that feature in a variety of creative ways.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{Scrubbed}

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{Scrubbed}

I took the time to explain to you where your premise fails.
You don't have to agree.

[Segev]

No. It's a useful class feature. Your assumption that it has to also scale as a full caster does is ungrounded. The circle of the land Druids can still use the feature, but their POWER is in their spell casting. It is only the single sub class of Moon Druid who min maxers get all wound up about. The land druids, or other non Moon druids, can apply that feature in a variety of creative ways.

I object to the characterization that one must be a min/maxer to look at the Circle of the Moon Druid and acknowledge that their pickings for their signature trait are pretty slim at higher levels. I play a Circle of the Land Druid, and I agree that the power of Wild Shape for me is in utility, and that he's primarily a spellcaster. Heck, I am even a powergamer, and arguably a min/maxer, but I also am interested in games being designed such that min/maxing isn't trivial to do, and the game is robust enough to handle at least most of it.

None of which means that Moon Druids should be denied more beast options at high level.

[Bosh]

We could even have them scale with the druid level, so that if you really like wolves you can be a wolf at high level and that wolf is a better wolf than a low level druid wild shaped into a wolf. But they'd have to make some kind of scaling stat block for the druid.




Bloating the monster manual with 10 different beasts for every CR up to 6 is not the easy solution. It's a really bad, boring, not good solution. The DMG gives advice on how a DM can level up monsters so it doesn't really help the DM either.

A few more high CR beasts would be nice but neither that nor scaling beasts are necessary. Just let high level druids turn into non-beast critters.

Just have a curated list of critters by level druids can turn into. No need to throw out the baby with the "let's tie everything to CR" bathwater.

[Mastikator]

1) I didn't say "add 10 different beasts for every CR." I said "add more beasts at higher CRs."
2) I didn't say they had to all be in the Monster Manual. There are other books, and 1-3 beasts in the appendix format in each of the books that have bestiaries would be quite sufficient.
3) As demonstrated in my bears of CR 1/4 to 6 thread, it is possible to condense the "like beasts" down to a table format that is quite compact.
4) You say it would be "boring," but your subjective feeling on that is just that: your subjective feeling. I'm sure there are people who find scads of new spells (particularly with so many being less useful than existing PHB spells) to be "boring," too.
[snipping out other points to better address them]
But, just to re-emphasize: having more than just "the mammoth" at CR 6 doesn't require "adding 10 more animals at every CR up to 6." It requires adding even 1 to make it ONE other thing. I'd suggest more than that, but I'd also suggest tabular format for them and encouraging use of the DMG's rules for beefing monsters up to get existing ones to different CRs. You want to play a spider druid? Take the giant wolf spider and the giant spider and use the CR-adjustment rules to get stronger versions to fill out the CRs.

Wolves, dogs, cats, spiders, reptiles, vipers, constrictor snakes, toads, tortoises, seals, birds, bats, elks, horses, reindeer, flies, bugs, centipedes, sharks, hydrocephalus, whales.
One for each CR category 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 21 animal types x 8 CR = 168 unique stat blocks. It would take a whole book
Yes, you made a couple extra bear stat blocks. But what if a player doesn't want to just be a bear all the time? There's a whole range of animals out there. You either create over a 160 different stat blocks to be able to fulfill the creative desires of every player that wants to play the druid class. OR you create a general modular stat block that can be used to emulate any specific animal but is unique to the specific druid.



So, no, your counterpoint here is not a valid nor useful argument against my position, given that it requires changing my argument to a strawman, and is factually false where it isn't subjective.
Are you accusing me of strawmanning your argument?



And, heck, your last sentence, which actually is accurate in its opening clause, is yet another reason this is a pointless objection: the rules for "leveling up" monsters to higher CR exist, so just apply them to the animal your druid wants to play if it's truly a problem.

So not only is a moon druid required to buy and read the monster manual just to merely play their subclass, they also are required to buy and read the DMG? Just for ONE lonely subclass to function. A class and subclass found in the PHB should be able to function with just the PHB, you shouldn't be required to buy and read other books to merely be able to play it at all.

Any player should feel free to buy and read whatever book they want to, if they want to. But it shouldn't be a bare minimum requirement. No other class requires this much babysitting.

Edit-


A few more high CR beasts would be nice but neither that nor scaling beasts are necessary. Just let high level druids turn into non-beast critters.

Just have a curated list of critters by level druids can turn into. No need to throw out the baby with the "let's tie everything to CR" bathwater.

T1 moon druids already break the game completely. Their only balancing factor is that there aren't that many high CR critters they can turn into. The fact that the beast options at T3 are so sparse is why they are demoted from "breaking the game" to "overpowered". Adding more creature types wouldn't fix the game, it would elevate the already overpowered high level moon druid back into "breaking the game".

Let me be clear here: breaking the game is a bad thing. It's the reason we don't actually want players to be coffeelocks. It's the reason we don't like every paladin and bard to dip into hexblade, it's the reason we don't like wizards dipping into fighter. And druid is worse than the coffeelock, to be a coffeelock you need to multiclass and you need DM buy in. A moon druid needs no DM buy in. They just automatically break the game. And the only road block to a moon druid breaking the game is when a DM says "no you can't wildshape into that, you haven't seen that creature". That's their signature move and they can't use it.
A player should be able to use their class features without the DM needing to constantly police them, and the player shouldn't accidentally break the game when the DM slips up. This is really really really bad game design.

[Segev]

Wolves, dogs, cats, spiders, reptiles, vipers, constrictor snakes, toads, tortoises, seals, birds, bats, elks, horses, reindeer, flies, bugs, centipedes, sharks, hydrocephalus, whales.
One for each CR category 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 21 animal types x 8 CR = 168 unique stat blocks. It would take a whole book Or parts of several, if you wanted to go that route. I don't see how this is a problem for the company that publishes new monster books and adds monsters to other books as it publishes them, especially when they already publish scads of spells in many of their splat books.

But no, this isn't required; it's just one possible approach.

Yes, you made a couple extra bear stat blocks. But what if a player doesn't want to just be a bear all the time? There's a whole range of animals out there. You either create over a 160 different stat blocks to be able to fulfill the creative desires of every player that wants to play the druid class. OR you create a general modular stat block that can be used to emulate any specific animal but is unique to the specific druid.Or you put scaling rules in the PHB for ease of use, enabling a druid to just add some hp and damage to existing beasts to scale up their CRs. Maybe the moon druid gets a feature to upscale a creature to one size category larger when he turns into it if he wants to at some level.


So not only is a moon druid required to buy and read the monster manual just to merely play their subclass, they also are required to buy and read the DMG? Just for ONE lonely subclass to function. A class and subclass found in the PHB should be able to function with just the PHB, you shouldn't be required to buy and read other books to merely be able to play it at all.I agree; it should. Does the moon druid need to be able to turn into a CR 6 version of everything in your list at the top of this post? I think it would be nice, sure, but it's hardly necessary. You seem to be trying to exclude the middle ground of "some of these" by saying that, if we have more than "the mammoth" at CR 6, we must have every single one. Yes, I made "some bears." It was an exercise to show how simple it would be to also make "some wolves," "some spiders," etc. I doubt a CR 6 horse form is needed. Let's start with bears, wolves, snakes, spiders, sharks, and a bird of prey. If you're allergic to the table format that was made of my bears to condense it down, you can just add one or two stat blocks at mixes of CRs so that we have a better scattering. Maybe a CR 3 bird of prey, a CR 5 spider, a CR 6 octopus and wolf. Etc.

Ideally, however, the scaling rules would go into either the druid section or the appendix with the beasts. They could be as simple as "hit point minimum" and an extra "primal attack" that is added to the existing stat blocks, if you really, absolutely must have the generic stat blob formulae involved. This would give any Moon Druid form a scaled up attack to substitute for the lackluster ones of a low-CR creature if the druid wants pure damage out of it, without sacrificing the ability to actually be that animal in all the important ways to the druid. I, personally, prefer something a little more robust, and think that the tables of stat blocks exemplified by the table made of my bears would be a good thing to have in the appendix. You could have that be done for less than half of the animals you list above and cover enough variety for any player who is self-restricting to the PHB, while having tables like that for other "template" type creatures. It'd be useful to DMs, too, to be able to quickly scale a monster to various CRs.


Any player should feel free to buy and read whatever book they want to, if they want to. But it shouldn't be a bare minimum requirement. No other class requires this much babysitting.By this logic, spellcasters shouldn't have so many spells, either. The spells section is "babysitting" for them, if I extend your reasoning. We are discussing what a future druid should look like, and what the PHB should have in it. Proclaiming an extensive list of 160 entries must to go into the PHB in order to have more variety than is in the 5e PHB is more than a bit hyperbolic.

"We can only sell one kind of shoe to everyone in the world if we want to accommodate shoe sizes other than size 1, 6, and 15," is obviously false. But that's the style of argument you're making, because you're asserting that every shoe ever made must be made in every possible size in sufficient number for every human ever born to have one of each size if you are going to have more than one kind of shoe. People can have more choices without having all the choices. Taking away all of the existing choices and pretending that the identical shoes are actually every style of shoe is not solving the problem you claim exists, either. It's making it worse.

T1 moon druids already break the game completely. Their only balancing factor is that there aren't that many high CR critters they can turn into. The fact that the beast options at T3 are so sparse is why they are demoted from "breaking the game" to "overpowered". Adding more creature types wouldn't fix the game, it would elevate the already overpowered high level moon druid back into "breaking the game".This is flat-out false. I have run a T1->low T2 game for a moon druid. The moon druid was not overpowered in the slightest compared to the rest of the party. The rest of the post is thus bupkis because it is predicated on this false premise.

[Mastikator]

Or you put scaling rules in the PHB for ease of use, enabling a druid to just add some hp and damage to existing beasts to scale up their CRs. Maybe the moon druid gets a feature to upscale a creature to one size category larger when he turns into it if he wants to at some level.

That's what a template is. If you scale the beast stat block on the druid level then what you have is a template. The "blob" as you often call it is just the result of having too few template options. You can have as many templates as you'd like for different kinds of beasts. We don't need over a hundred beast stat blocks for druids to be playable, we just need one for every kind of beast and scale it. That's a template baby.

[Segev]

That's what a template is. If you scale the beast stat block on the druid level then what you have is a template. The "blob" as you often call it is just the result of having too few template options. You can have as many templates as you'd like for different kinds of beasts. We don't need over a hundred beast stat blocks for druids to be playable, we just need one for every kind of beast and scale it. That's a template baby.

Then I would like a template for every beast type printed. :P Because I want the base beast of the "template" to be the thing that the DM pulls out when he uses one, unless he's making some unique monster of his own with that as the base.

A template that overlays the base beasts would be more or less fine.

But frankly, I still think that the "oh no, that's way too much work and word count" objection to tables such as the one encapsulating the CR 1/4 to 6 bears I filled out is overblown. Give the PHB a wolf table, a bear table, a flying creature or two, and a swimming creature or two - six tables - and that's enough to start with. It's already more variety than the UA gives the druid, and if the druid player wants to stick with the PHB and just use the same generic stat blob conceit that his "wolf" is actually a "tiger," so be it. If another book publishes either a stand-alone tiger or a table of tigers, great! Unlike the restriction to a generic stat blob, the druid will be able to use that tiger or table of tigers if he wants to be a tiger, now that it's available!

[Mastikator]

Then I would like a template for every beast type printed. :P Because I want the base beast of the "template" to be the thing that the DM pulls out when he uses one, unless he's making some unique monster of his own with that as the base.

A template that overlays the base beasts would be more or less fine.

But frankly, I still think that the "oh no, that's way too much work and word count" objection to tables such as the one encapsulating the CR 1/4 to 6 bears I filled out is overblown. Give the PHB a wolf table, a bear table, a flying creature or two, and a swimming creature or two - six tables - and that's enough to start with. It's already more variety than the UA gives the druid, and if the druid player wants to stick with the PHB and just use the same generic stat blob conceit that his "wolf" is actually a "tiger," so be it. If another book publishes either a stand-alone tiger or a table of tigers, great! Unlike the restriction to a generic stat blob, the druid will be able to use that tiger or table of tigers if he wants to be a tiger, now that it's available!
Go back to page 1 and see that's exactly what I suggested.

[Aimeryan]

T1 moon druids already break the game completely. Their only balancing factor is that there aren't that many high CR critters they can turn into. The fact that the beast options at T3 are so sparse is why they are demoted from "breaking the game" to "overpowered". Adding more creature types wouldn't fix the game, it would elevate the already overpowered high level moon druid back into "breaking the game".

I disagree with this. Tier 1 Moon Druid is very good, possibly overpowered (more at 2, less at 4, definitely not at 5) - it does not break the game. Tier 2 Moon Druid ranges from good to meh as the levels increase. Tier 3 onwards is really just an ever increasing meh.

Part of this is the lack of Beasts giving a lack of versatility. Part of it is DCs not scaling. Part of it is damage not scaling as Feats and ASIs don't help. Part of it is the CR scaling is poor, with CR2 Beasts being minor upgrades from CR1 Beasts, but you are stuck with them until 9.

There is an argument, however, that this is intended, since Spellcasting scales ever more greatly compared to non-Spellcasting as level increases, thus Wild Shape needs to descale ever more greatly as level increases in turn. I'm not sure about this, however, since it would imply WotC purposely made Spellcasting scale like this in the first place. I'm a fan of non-Spellcasting getting more, and enemy encounters getting more, rather than clipping Spellcasting - largely because I find non-Spellcasting to be quite dull in 5e. This is not a numbers thing for martials; its more a versatility thing. For enemy encounters the numbers probably do need increasing, but versatility is again more important.

Wild Shape early levels are probably the most fun 'martials' due to the versatility they have, but as noted, that gets curtailed as levels increase - which is a shame. The numbers may need paring down early (i.e., CR1 creatures), but the numbers afterward needs increasing. In fact, CR scaling in general needs increasing, so that may solve the scaling issue for Moon Druids too. Then you need to fix the versatility issue - which is true for all martials, but for Moon Druid it is having the versatility and then losing it, rather than just never gaining it.

As mentioned before, I think a curated, diverse mechanical and flavour space group of CR1 Beasts need to be present in the PHB. Then apply scaling to those. Splats can add more down the line, but as always they should be optional additions, not necessities. DM Beasts could also do this, but need curating (Wild Shape ApprovedTM).

[Pooky the Imp]

There are 2 Prestige Classes from 3.X I would LOVE to see come back and the fact that neither are casters at all makes them really fit well with Non-Casters.

Rough Ideas:

Barbarian Subclass: The WarShaper.
Want to do a Rogue Master of Many Forms as well but will have to sort out which forms go where.

Oh yeah, I remember the Warshaper. I loved that class.

Not totally sure Barbarian is the best fit for it, but I'd definitely like to see it return in some form. I guess it's a little awkward in terms of 5e's mechanics, as it was clearly supposed to be taken by lycanthropes and monsters (/monstrous races) as well as regular PCs.



I remember the Warshaper, fun times. Barbarian already has the Beast path so maybe share it around with Fighter or Rogue as shapeshifting 'counterparts' to EK and AT? Hell i'd even be interested in a shapeshifting monk or ranger.

A shapeshifting monk would definitely be interesting. The closest I've seen is the Living Weapon, though the shapeshifting doesn't really amount to much.

As for Ranger, I still think Wild Shape would fit them better than the Druid.

I'd also be interested in a shapeshifting Warlock, though I'm not sure if there's a patron that would make sense for such a theme. :smallconfused:



I'm a fan of non-Spellcasting getting more, and enemy encounters getting more, rather than clipping Spellcasting - largely because I find non-Spellcasting to be quite dull in 5e. This is not a numbers thing for martials; its more a versatility thing. For enemy encounters the numbers probably do need increasing, but versatility is again more important.

I'd agree with you on that front. Part of it seems to be that so many non-spell supernatural abilities that used to exist have either been subsumed into spells or else just removed entirely.

I know that 5e wanted to simplify the game (or at least those aspects of it that don't involve spellcasting), but I really wish it had gone a different direction regarding martial characters. It still saddens me that the Book of Nine Swords, one of the best things to ever happen to martials, has been all but forgotten, its memory relegated to a single fighter subclass. And even that is a pale shadow of what that book brought.

Anyway, I guess the point is that I think the game could do with more supernatural abilities that aren't spells and can be used to give some versatility to martial classes without just making them spellcasters.

[Kane0]

I'd also be interested in a shapeshifting Warlock, though I'm not sure if there's a patron that would make sense for such a theme. :smallconfused:


The mother of all werewolves, the original lycanthrope, the eldest curse-bearer.
Alternatively 'The Faceless', the dopplest of gangers.

[animorte]

Alternatively 'The Faceless', the dopplest of gangers.
Pfft, love it! OR Koh, the Face Stealer... (or his lesser known mother, a work of art.)

But what shall we do with Mask of Many Faces invocation?

[Kane0]

Pfft, love it! OR Koh, the Face Stealer... (or his lesser known mother, a work of art.)

But what shall we do with Mask of Many Faces invocation?

I think you're on to something here.

I think it can stay, same with Master of Myriad Forms and Scultor of Flesh. Those would be natural dovetails for the patron powers, like it's already half supported.

[Bosh]

I disagree with this. Tier 1 Moon Druid is very good, possibly overpowered (more at 2, less at 4, definitely not at 5) - it does not break the game. Tier 2 Moon Druid ranges from good to meh as the levels increase. Tier 3 onwards is really just an ever increasing meh.

Part of this is the lack of Beasts giving a lack of versatility. Part of it is DCs not scaling. Part of it is damage not scaling as Feats and ASIs don't help. Part of it is the CR scaling is poor, with CR2 Beasts being minor upgrades from CR1 Beasts, but you are stuck with them until 9.

There is an argument, however, that this is intended, since Spellcasting scales ever more greatly compared to non-Spellcasting as level increases, thus Wild Shape needs to descale ever more greatly as level increases in turn. I'm not sure about this, however, since it would imply WotC purposely made Spellcasting scale like this in the first place. I'm a fan of non-Spellcasting getting more, and enemy encounters getting more, rather than clipping Spellcasting - largely because I find non-Spellcasting to be quite dull in 5e. This is not a numbers thing for martials; its more a versatility thing. For enemy encounters the numbers probably do need increasing, but versatility is again more important.

Wild Shape early levels are probably the most fun 'martials' due to the versatility they have, but as noted, that gets curtailed as levels increase - which is a shame. The numbers may need paring down early (i.e., CR1 creatures), but the numbers afterward needs increasing. In fact, CR scaling in general needs increasing, so that may solve the scaling issue for Moon Druids too. Then you need to fix the versatility issue - which is true for all martials, but for Moon Druid it is having the versatility and then losing it, rather than just never gaining it.

As mentioned before, I think a curated, diverse mechanical and flavour space group of CR1 Beasts need to be present in the PHB. Then apply scaling to those. Splats can add more down the line, but as always they should be optional additions, not necessities. DM Beasts could also do this, but need curating (Wild Shape ApprovedTM).

Well of course the 5e Moon Druid has horrible scaling issues. That's because everything is tied to CR which isn't a good measure of power in the hands of PCs. That's why everything would work better if there was a curated list like so:

At level 2 Druids can turn into: A, B, and C.
At level 3 Druids can turn into: D, E, and F as well

etc. etc. etc.

Then choose critters of an appropriate power for the level so that it scales properly. At higher levels through in some non-beast critters to open up the selection a bit, just make sure that everything is appropriately powerful for the level.

[Segev]

Well of course the 5e Moon Druid has horrible scaling issues. That's because everything is tied to CR which isn't a good measure of power in the hands of PCs. That's why everything would work better if there was a curated list like so:

At level 2 Druids can turn into: A, B, and C.
At level 3 Druids can turn into: D, E, and F as well

etc. etc. etc.

Then choose critters of an appropriate power for the level so that it scales properly. At higher levels through in some non-beast critters to open up the selection a bit, just make sure that everything is appropriately powerful for the level.

I could get behind this, as long as it's actually using the creatures that the DM is using, and not creating arbitrary "player-friendly" blobs that resemble what they're called every bit as much as a chicken mcnugget resembles a chicken.

[Pooky the Imp]

The mother of all werewolves, the original lycanthrope, the eldest curse-bearer.

Is that actually a thing?



Pfft, love it! OR Koh, the Face Stealer... (or his lesser known mother, a work of art.)

I need this patron. Now. :smallbiggrin:

[Bosh]

I could get behind this, as long as it's actually using the creatures that the DM is using, and not creating arbitrary "player-friendly" blobs that resemble what they're called every bit as much as a chicken mcnugget resembles a chicken.

Yeah, at the end of they day the "turn into a monster from the MM" isn't really the problem, it's WHAT monsters from the MM druids are turning into. The stuff a moon druid can turn into at level 2 is ludicrously overpowered and then their selection turns into thin gruel at higher levels. Easy enough to fix that without uprooting the entire system.

Also, at least for me "you're a horse now, you have exactly the same stats as a horse" just feels more real than "you can turn into any animal that you want, but it doesn't matter which you choose." Little things like that even if the actual difference stat-wise isn't that big just make "I'm a horse now" FEEL more real.

[Segev]

Yeah, at the end of they day the "turn into a monster from the MM" isn't really the problem, it's WHAT monsters from the MM druids are turning into. The stuff a moon druid can turn into at level 2 is ludicrously overpowered and then their selection turns into thin gruel at higher levels. Easy enough to fix that without uprooting the entire system.I disagree that it's overpowered to a degree worth worrying about (if at all), simply based on my direct - admittedly anecdotal - experience running Forge of Fury for a party that included a level 3-5 moon druid. The only PC who was regularly outshined was one who had difficulty with tactics, and also bad dice luck. The other warriors did more damage than the moon druid, and while the moon druid soaked up some hp by being scary-looking, potentially she'd have been less than effective if I'd played monsters optimally based on damage output and had them largely ignore her.


Also, at least for me "you're a horse now, you have exactly the same stats as a horse" just feels more real than "you can turn into any animal that you want, but it doesn't matter which you choose." Little things like that even if the actual difference stat-wise isn't that big just make "I'm a horse now" FEEL more real.
This I fully agree with.

[Bosh]

I disagree that it's overpowered to a degree worth worrying about (if at all), simply based on my direct - admittedly anecdotal - experience running Forge of Fury for a party that included a level 3-5 moon druid. The only PC who was regularly outshined was one who had difficulty with tactics, and also bad dice luck. The other warriors did more damage than the moon druid, and while the moon druid soaked up some hp by being scary-looking, potentially she'd have been less than effective if I'd played monsters optimally based on damage output and had them largely ignore her.


This I fully agree with.

Well things vary from table to table but being able to get 68 HPs on level 2 that are on top of your normal HPs and an addition to being a full caster is a bit much for most tables.

[Segev]

Well things vary from table to table but being able to get 68 HPs on level 2 that are on top of your normal HPs and an addition to being a full caster is a bit much for most tables.

I confess that level 2 was one level I did not run a game for a moon druid at. Frankly, though, while that sounds powerful, I admit that I won't lose much sleep over the small number of encounters you'll have at level two potentially facing this problem.

It wasn't a big problem at level three.

[False God]

Well things vary from table to table but being able to get 68 HPs on level 2 that are on top of your normal HPs and an addition to being a full caster is a bit much for most tables.


I confess that level 2 was one level I did not run a game for a moon druid at. Frankly, though, while that sounds powerful, I admit that I won't lose much sleep over the small number of encounters you'll have at level two potentially facing this problem.

It wasn't a big problem at level three.

Fundamentally, for as much as WotC wants to talk about monsters and players being "designed differently" they function identically save for two (technically one) notable point:

The ratio of HP to AC is inverted. PCs have high AC and low HP for their level comparative to appropriate-CR monsters. While monsters are reversed, with low AC and high HP.

At a certain balance point, the difference amounts to the same thing: Getting hit less means you last longer in a fight. Soaking more damage means you last longer in a fight. So a Druid who has high HP but low AC is fundamentally functioning on the same principles as a Sword & Board Fighter with high AC and (comparatively)low HP. The high AC/low HP setup for players keeps combat dangerous, as a couple good hits will take you down, while the high HP/low AC setup of monsters keeps them in the fight longer to avoid combats being over in the blink of an eye.

IMO: Both the "I don't take damage" and the "I have a lot of HP" should be viable approaches to defense on the player side. No, you can't reach 68 HP as a player (max HP barbarian is 34*) at level 2, but that's in part due to the expectation that you'll have a much higher AC.
*Which means he'll also be sitting at a minimum 15 AC with 18 HP at level 1.

We can easily look to 3.5's high HP/low AC monster design and see how that resulted in the often bemoaned "rocket tag" where combat was over for either side as soon as anyone got a solid hit.

The Druid using the monster's design to stay in the fight longer really isn't a problem when you consider how much more likely they are to be hit, and the low AC makes them particularly vulnerable to large numbers of enemies that the higher AC of other PCs means they don't have to worry about.

[Arkhios]

Off the top of my head...

For each three different environments (air, land, and water):

Air beasts:
- Tough beast: e.g. a bald eagle
- Ferocious beast: e.g. The Cassowary common vampire bat.
- Cunning beast: e.g. a raven
- Stealthy beast: e.g. an owl

Land beasts:
- Tough beast: e.g. a bear
- Ferocious beast: e.g. a boar
- Cunning beast: e.g. a wolf
- Stealthy beast: e.g. a panther

Water beasts:
- Tough beast: e.g. a turtle
- Ferocious beast: e.g. a shark
- Cunning beast: e.g. a dolphin
- Stealthy beast: e.g. a manta

Preferably of varying sizes, from tiny to large. Maybe even huge, if available. Several of those above have size variations in their respective groups, after all. For example, bears, boars, eagles, owls, wolves, cats, turtles, sharks, whales (dolphin is a cetacean, a.k.a. a whale).

Not to forget the elementals. They count too, imho.

...TL;DR quite a few in fact.

[Kane0]

Ferocious as they are, cassowaries dont fly just FYI

[Arkhios]

Ferocious as they are, cassowaries dont fly just FYI

Haha, fair point! x)

[Jakinbandw]

There's another "let's restrict the player" approach that I find to be heading in the wrong direction.

The issue is that players are already restricted. If I play a druid, and want to turn into a wood tick, with the current rules I can't. There isn't a creature called 'wood tick' for me to get a stat block from. In a way, having generic stat blocks gives me far more options than limiting me to the few beasts that have seen print.

You're accusing others of limiting the druid, but you're doing far more to limit what can be accomplished with wildshape than the other posters in this thread.

[Segev]

The issue is that players are already restricted. If I play a druid, and want to turn into a wood tick, with the current rules I can't. There isn't a creature called 'wood tick' for me to get a stat block from. In a way, having generic stat blocks gives me far more options than limiting me to the few beasts that have seen print.

You're accusing others of limiting the druid, but you're doing far more to limit what can be accomplished with wildshape than the other posters in this thread.

Your entire premise is flawed. The generic stat blob no more lets you play a wood tick than the current rules do. The current rules do, however, provide spiders and possibly a couple other insects you could reflavor as wood ticks. The generic stat blob being a "wood tick" is no more accurate than a spider stat block being a "wood tick."

If all you need is explicit permission to reflavor what you call your form and what it looks like, then that can be added without having to make it equally impossible to play a spider AND a wood tick by making them have the same stats as a house cat and a cobra.

[Jakinbandw]

Your entire premise is flawed. The generic stat blob no more lets you play a wood tick than the current rules do. The current rules do, however, provide spiders and possibly a couple other insects you could reflavor as wood ticks. The generic stat blob being a "wood tick" is no more accurate than a spider stat block being a "wood tick."

If all you need is explicit permission to reflavor what you call your form and what it looks like, then that can be added without having to make it equally impossible to play a spider AND a wood tick by making them have the same stats as a house cat and a cobra.

Sure, but once you are saying a spider statblock isn't just for spiders, your just back into the territory of generic statblocks.

I'm not saying the current implementation is any good, mind, but it does give more freedom. The trick is figuring out what the statblocks should be.

[Segev]

Sure, but once you are saying a spider statblock isn't just for spiders, your just back into the territory of generic statblocks.

I'm not saying the current implementation is any good, mind, but it does give more freedom. The trick is figuring out what the statblocks should be.

The difference is that "it's a spider statblock representing a wood tick" is not saying there can't BE a wood tick stat block. Nor that you can't use it if it comes into being. The generic stat blob does. The generic stat blob says that, even if there is a spider AND a wood tick stat block in the game, you can never be either of them. The "it's a spider statblock; you can use it to represent a wood tick" form of flexibility is the same flexibility the DM has to represent a wood tick (for whatever reason) using a spider stat block because he doesn't want to make a new stat block for the wood tick. If, for whatever reason, the wood tick stat block exists, the DM is likely to use that, instead, and the druid (under the "it's a spider stat block but you can use it to represent a wood tick" paradigm) can also use the wood tick stat block.

Even with the "curated list" version where the druid has a whitelist of forms, if the wood tick is close enough in power to the spider and the spider is on the druid list, the druid can be told, "sure, go ahead and treat 'wood tick' as being on your whitelist."

And, most importantly, if the druid wants to be a spider, the "it's a spider stat block and you can use it to represent a wood tick" paradigm allows the druid to become a spider better than does the "generic stat blob" paradigm.

[Jakinbandw]

The difference is that "it's a spider statblock representing a wood tick" is not saying there can't BE a wood tick stat block. Nor that you can't use it if it comes into being. The generic stat blob does. The generic stat blob says that, even if there is a spider AND a wood tick stat block in the game, you can never be either of them. The "it's a spider statblock; you can use it to represent a wood tick" form of flexibility is the same flexibility the DM has to represent a wood tick (for whatever reason) using a spider stat block because he doesn't want to make a new stat block for the wood tick. If, for whatever reason, the wood tick stat block exists, the DM is likely to use that, instead, and the druid (under the "it's a spider stat block but you can use it to represent a wood tick" paradigm) can also use the wood tick stat block.

Even with the "curated list" version where the druid has a whitelist of forms, if the wood tick is close enough in power to the spider and the spider is on the druid list, the druid can be told, "sure, go ahead and treat 'wood tick' as being on your whitelist."

And, most importantly, if the druid wants to be a spider, the "it's a spider stat block and you can use it to represent a wood tick" paradigm allows the druid to become a spider better than does the "generic stat blob" paradigm.

So, to play a druid, a player should need to own every single source book so that if a wood tick statblock comes out, they are actually able to play it?

Also, you are using the spider as a generic insect stat block here. A spider is a spider not a woodtick. They do different things (ticks don't spin thread).

So I'd rather have general starblocks that work for differant creatures. An insect statblock, and then if I want to play a spider I get the 'webbing, and poison' perks with it, while a woodtick form has 'stealthy and tough'. And now I don't have to buy every monster Manuel that comes out, and I can play everything I want right out of the gate, with more accuracy than being limited to the books would be.

I dont think 5.1 will go that route (balancing and ideas are hard), but it would be my preferred path.

[Segev]

So, to play a druid, a player should need to own every single source book so that if a wood tick statblock comes out, they are actually able to play it?Only if he wants to use that stat block for the wood tick.


Also, you are using the spider as a generic insect stat block here. A spider is a spider not a woodtick. They do different things (ticks don't spin thread).If there's a better stat block to represent the wood tick (that the druid is allowed to use), the druid player is free to use that.


So I'd rather have general starblocks that work for differant creatures. An insect statblock, and then if I want to play a spider I get the 'webbing, and poison' perks with it, while a woodtick form has 'stealthy and tough'. And now I don't have to buy every monster Manuel that comes out, and I can play everything I want right out of the gate, with more accuracy than being limited to the books would be.Except...if you have all those options, you can instead have a "stealthy and tough" tiny land creature.


I dont think 5.1 will go that route (balancing and ideas are hard), but it would be my preferred path.Fair enough. I still think you'll get what you want better by what I propose, because the proposal of the build-a-bear is going to be innately harder to balance and you can still get the wood tick simulated by something. And it's easier to balance because each stat block can have what it needs to be its "thing" without having to worry about combos of features that might be overpowered if you don't nerf them to naught.

[False God]

So, to play a druid, a player should need to own every single source book so that if a wood tick statblock comes out, they are actually able to play it?

Should a fighter have to own every book for every feat or maneuver they want to use?
Should a wizard have to own every splat book that contains a spell they want to use?
Should a player have to even be bothered to own anything at all?

I feel like a lot of the origin of this change to druid doesn't stem from improving the druid. It stems from wanting reduce the "burden" of having to buy more books that may not be 100% related to the player-side of the game.

As a player and a DM, I never felt bad about having to buy more books. It increased my knowledge of the game, my access to additional resources and also increased the collective book count of the table. It gave me more resources, it gave my group more resources and generally improved the table.

But the core NuShape arguments seem to suggest that this is in fact, a problem and that players don't want to buy more books, they don't want to invest in the game, they don't want to look up new and interesting things or invest time in playing their class to the best of their abilities.

And I guess I have to ask, why do we care what those people think, and why do we want those people playing D&D?

[Goobahfish]

And I guess I have to ask, why do we care what those people think, and why do we want those people playing D&D?

Moneyz :D

WOTC is going for broad and shallow, that much is clear. 5e was already pretty broad without going too shallow (i.e., the game is still reasonably deep despite the very simplistic rules in certain parts of the game).

I'm of the firm belief that there won't actually be that many 5e grognards when push comes to shove. 5.1 just isn't doing enough to offend the majority of players rules-wise. It is just a bit uninspiring so far. The feedback stage will likely fix the 'moon druid is garbage' issue but probably not enough to satisfy Segev et al., but might be enough to satisfy me.

[Segev]

Moneyz :D

WOTC is going for broad and shallow, that much is clear. 5e was already pretty broad without going too shallow (i.e., the game is still reasonably deep despite the very simplistic rules in certain parts of the game).

I'm of the firm belief that there won't actually be that many 5e grognards when push comes to shove. 5.1 just isn't doing enough to offend the majority of players rules-wise. It is just a bit uninspiring so far. The feedback stage will likely fix the 'moon druid is garbage' issue but probably not enough to satisfy Segev et al., but might be enough to satisfy me.

I'll say this: I stuck with 3.5 and PF1 (and likely would've stuck with 3.5 without PF1) until 5e came out, and still play 3.PF even while also playing 5e. I did not play 4e, and it wasn't stubbornness. I tried it, and found it entirely unfun.

So assuming OneD&D winds up being the uninspiring morass of bleh it's looking like, what'll likely happen is that I'll keep playing 5e, or move to other systems, depending what my friends who I play with do...but I probably won't play OneD&D if it's as bleh as it looks.

If it's ONLY the druid that's the problem, I may just avoid playing the druid while playing the system overall. Though I dislike it, the way they're trying to push spell preparation isn't so bad I'd ditch the system over it. My biggest fear, honestly, is that OneD&D will be playable but a step down in quality, but will drag people along with it enough that the "playable, if not as good" nature means that the better system gets left behind.

[False God]

Moneyz :D

WOTC is going for broad and shallow, that much is clear. 5e was already pretty broad without going too shallow (i.e., the game is still reasonably deep despite the very simplistic rules in certain parts of the game).

I'm of the firm belief that there won't actually be that many 5e grognards when push comes to shove. 5.1 just isn't doing enough to offend the majority of players rules-wise. It is just a bit uninspiring so far. The feedback stage will likely fix the 'moon druid is garbage' issue but probably not enough to satisfy Segev et al., but might be enough to satisfy me.

Normally I'd agree, but I'm left scratching my head as to what they're actually going to be selling these people who want to buy as little as possible.

[flat_footed]

The Fullmetal Mod: Thread locked for review.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: thread re-opened. Everyone please dial down the hostility. Address yourself to the arguments and not the poster. Either engage in good faith, with the assumption of best intentions on all sides, or don't engage.

[Segev]

"Broad and shallow" is not a strategy that seems wise. There is a reason freemium games focus on "whales." "Minnows" are part of the product, and the amount they spend is too little, even in aggregate, to sustain such games.

I think tabletop RPGs are even more prone to this model. The few who get really into it spend all the money. The broad-but-shallow 'base' are those who play because their friends are, who borrow their friends' books or just let their friends guide them in building PCs or learning/applying the rules.

They will not, even in aggregate, support a print run.

Moreover, additional books will only sell if they have something to offer. The broader base of "whales" is still really involved players, not DMs. Expanding the number of things those customers find of interest in a splatbook is good business. Reducing the audience for additional books by making sure players have no business with them only makes those future books less worth developing.

[Goobahfish]

"Broad and shallow" is not a strategy that seems wise. There is a reason freemium games focus on "whales." "Minnows" are part of the product, and the amount they spend is too little, even in aggregate, to sustain such games.

I think tabletop RPGs are even more prone to this model. The few who get really into it spend all the money. The broad-but-shallow 'base' are those who play because their friends are, who borrow their friends' books or just let their friends guide them in building PCs or learning/applying the rules.

They will not, even in aggregate, support a print run.

Moreover, additional books will only sell if they have something to offer. The broader base of "whales" is still really involved players, not DMs. Expanding the number of things those customers find of interest in a splatbook is good business. Reducing the audience for additional books by making sure players have no business with them only makes those future books less worth developing.

Not sure I can comment on the efficacy of WOTC's strategy for sales. Presumably they have some amount of data from previous editions on what sold etc. Each book has a fixed input cost (the cost of getting someone to design and put it together) and then a sales margin. So, basically, some books are profitable while others aren't. If I was being completely cynical, new editions are likely released when these thresholds fall below some price point.

I.e., if you make a good Book 1 (PHB) you might sell a lot and make pretty good money. By the time you are getting to splat-book 10, you've probably lost 90% of the market to attrition. There are a lot of players that live and breath on PHB, DMG, MM and little else. There are also a lot of players that just homebrew their way into variety. Moreover, given that most of the details can be found online in one form or another, convincing enough people to by splat-book X is probably a tall order.

The thing is, that as time goes on, the creative space is going to decline. Between the previous 5 editions, there isn't a huge amount a 6th-ed could really bring to the table without just retreading old ground. So... I dunno, they might be able to convince a certain amount of the market to follow them on with 6th edition, but presumably they are dual-targeting 'converted players' (will always play latest edition) and 'new blood' (never played D&D before). Until they work out a subscription model they can get enough willing people to pay then there will be a certain boom-bust quality to their revenue which investors certainly do not like.

I'm not sure the freemium whale analogy holds here as freemium whale widgets have a very high margin compared to books and virtually no fixed input cost (one bit of art and a few number changes).

[Aimeryan]

If I was in charge of splats, I would likely target a splat book on a specific subject and flesh that out, adding a lot of depth to it. Consider Tome of Battle for 3.5e; very popular for the time it came out, targeting martial combat and going in depth with it.

I find the 5e splat book design of a thing here, a thing there, for various different subjects as not very interesting to me even if I happen to enjoy one of those subjects. It doesn't offer enough depth. Further more, as mentioned above, it is a lot easier to justify just grabbing the thing that applies to the subject you're interested in online, rather than buy a whole splat for it.

[Zwinmar]

I think the biggest problem is that Wizards got lazy with the CR in the monster manual in general, and in this case, beasts. I think the moon druid would have been better if they added templates to the things they could transform into: i.e. Large, Giant, Cave, Dire, etc. All these things existed in 3.0/.5 Of course, I also think that the locking out of magical beasts, certain abominations, dragons, monstrosities, etc, really hurts the potential as in a magic environment these creatures are really no different than the beast classification, and that they took something away when they decided they need a bunch of different classifications for the cool possible transformations.

[Snails]

I think the biggest problem is that Wizards got lazy with the CR in the monster manual in general, and in this case, beasts. I think the moon druid would have been better if they added templates to the things they could transform into: i.e. Large, Giant, Cave, Dire, etc. All these things existed in 3.0/.5

I think laziness is the correct diagnosis.

There are only 8 beasts in the MM that are CR3 or above, and 4 are dinosaurs and 1 is aquatic. If a player or DM wanted enforce a simple theme like "Forest Druid" the options above CR 2 are exactly zero.

It is not as if it is difficult to stat an even bigger bear or an even bigger wolf or crocodile smaller than the huge CR 5 example. It only takes a small amount of effort and space, or perhaps a paragraph or two describing how to do so instead.

[Segev]

I think laziness is the correct diagnosis.

There are only 8 beasts in the MM that are CR3 or above, and 4 are dinosaurs and 1 is aquatic. If a player or DM wanted enforce a simple theme like "Forest Druid" the options above CR 2 are exactly zero.

It is not as if it is difficult to stat an even bigger bear or an even bigger wolf or crocodile smaller than the huge CR 5 example. It only takes a small amount of effort and space, or perhaps a paragraph or two describing how to do so instead.

The guidelines are in the DMG. I had a thread a few weeks ago where I built bears up to CR 6. I put more effort into it than necessary to try to make them more interesting than must pure increased damage and hp, but increasing damage and hp directly is a perfectly valid way to push CR higher.