Druid and Paladin Survey Video

[Psyren]

This just dropped:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96uFjfL8CJk

Highlights:

Paladin:

- Nearly everything in the Paladin scored 80s and 90s. Smite was the lowest at 72%.
- People are resistant to ranged smites.
- People want Smite Spells to be Paladin Exclusive

Druid:

- Two camps: "Templates rule" and "We never want to see this version"
- Near even split between both camps (slight majority to the second)
- They're still against people diving through 100 statblocks
- Channel Nature will get more options baseline
- They agree Moon is too weak in melee
- Unlimited Wildshapes too strong for Moon Druids

They then finish up with some miscellaneous comments on subclass design I found pretty fascinating.

[Ionathus]

Sometimes I feel like I'm in my own little world with Paladin. I feel like the "Divine Smite Nuke" potential of 2014 PHB Paladin to destroy every combat and ruin every other player's day is a meme based in white-room forum theorycrafting. It never holds up in practice.

But it sounds like the playtest paladin did well in the survey, even the smite nerfs, so maybe I'm just in the minority here.

Glad to see that they got vocal feedback on the Druid wildshape. I don't think any class got done as dirty as the Druid did. alliteration!

[tokek]

Sometimes I feel like I'm in my own little world with Paladin. I feel like the "Divine Smite Nuke" potential of 2014 PHB Paladin to destroy every combat and ruin every other player's day is a meme based in white-room forum theorycrafting. It never holds up in practice.

But it sounds like the playtest paladin did well in the survey, even the smite nerfs, so maybe I'm just in the minority here.

Glad to see that they got vocal feedback on the Druid wildshape. I don't think any class got done as dirty as the Druid did. alliteration!

I think the paladin problem is really with multi-classing into full casters. I've seen some dumb nuclear paladin stuff using that.

I think the druid will be interesting to see. They really do seem adamant that the moon druid tank is not going to be a thing because its too good.

[Ionathus]

I think the paladin problem is really with multi-classing into full casters. I've seen some dumb nuclear paladin stuff using that.

I think the druid will be interesting to see. They really do seem adamant that the moon druid tank is not going to be a thing because its too good.

Which is strange because I've played a Moon Druid to level 14 and never felt any insane power spikes. Every time you're in wildshape, you're wishing you'd cast spells X, Y, and Z before you shifted. Every time you're spellcasting, you wish you were a Sabre-toothed Cat or a Fire Elemental. It's a fun subclass with a fun core tradeoff, but overwhelmingly OP it ain't.

[Psyren]

Sometimes I feel like I'm in my own little world with Paladin. I feel like the "Divine Smite Nuke" potential of 2014 PHB Paladin to destroy every combat and ruin every other player's day is a meme based in white-room forum theorycrafting. It never holds up in practice.

I'd say it only has to destroy one combat to be noticeable, rather than "every." And it does happen.


Glad to see that they got vocal feedback on the Druid wildshape. I don't think any class got done as dirty as the Druid did. alliteration!



I think the druid will be interesting to see. They really do seem adamant that the moon druid tank is not going to be a thing because its too good.

Based on their druid comments I predict the following:

- Wild Shape is definitely getting changed from the 2014 version. Whether they go with templates or "curated list" remains to be seen, but we can be relatively confident that the current "any beast of CR X" is out.

- I didn't get "we don't want moon druids to be tanky." Quite the opposite! Crawford: "{survey respondents are} desiring for the forms to be more resilient so the Moon Druid can continue to function in melee without being afraid of being squashed too easily. We hear that feedback and will absolutely respond to it."

They're concerned about the effects unlimited wild shape (i.e. the capstone) had when combined with current wildshape, which replaces your hit points, so that's going to change - but they seem to have heard loud and clear that the Moon Druid they presented isn't tanky enough.

[Dienekes]

Sometimes I feel like I'm in my own little world with Paladin. I feel like the "Divine Smite Nuke" potential of 2014 PHB Paladin to destroy every combat and ruin every other player's day is a meme based in white-room forum theorycrafting. It never holds up in practice.

But it sounds like the playtest paladin did well in the survey, even the smite nerfs, so maybe I'm just in the minority here.

Glad to see that they got vocal feedback on the Druid wildshape. I don't think any class got done as dirty as the Druid did. alliteration!

Eh, I've seen it done. Essentially one-shotted a boss, thanks to a lucky crit and dropping their highest spell slots on their attacks. Level 5, two 2nd level smites in a round, one of which is a crit, with a +4 modifier and wielding a greatsword does an average of 69.5 damage. 83 if undead. That's not a small amount of damage right there.

Now that said, it of course isn't something that's consistently done.

Was it a big deal? Ehh. I don't think so. Honestly, it was mostly just really memorable.

But agreed with Wildshape. Dumpster diving for animals to use is the fun of the subclass. Now, nerfing unlimited wild shapes, yeah that's fair.

[Oramac]

Eh, I've seen it done. Essentially one-shotted a boss, thanks to a lucky crit and dropping their highest spell slots on their attacks. Level 5, two 2nd level smites in a round, one of which is a crit, with a +4 modifier and wielding a greatsword does an average of 69.5 damage. 83 if undead. That's not a small amount of damage right there.

It's also blowing all their highest level resources in a single action. I did the same thing with a Tempest Sorcerer at 5th level and one-shot an Illithid*, but I don't hear people calling for those shenanigans to be nerfed.

* Took 2 levels of Tempest Cleric, 3 levels of Storm Sorc. Cast Chromatic Orb at 3rd level and crit. 5d8 maximized x2 is 80 lightning damage. Illithids have around 72 hp.

[Skrum]

Ghaa why doesn't everyone just agree with me. I'm obviously right.

Joking aside, I guess this is a good sign? While I agree that the current paladin is "unbalanced," I still hesitate to change it because it's unbalanced relative to other martial classes. In terms of the paladin competing with full casters, I think it's probably pretty close to the right spot. I.e., I'd rather see the ranger, fighter, barb, and monk brought closer to where the 5e paladin then the One paladin nerf'd.

I'm not surprised at all by the druid feedback. I actually think the One moon druid looks pretty fun, and I think it'll be tankier than people give are giving it credit for (it loses the HP but has a massive boost to AC and utility). That to me is a good place for it to be - a moon druid shouldn't be able to outclass a dedicated martial class 2/day. But sure, throw some extra toughness in there. At the end of the day, I'm strongly in Team No Book Diving, so if that gets tossed out in favor of smoother power progressions, I'm good.

[Dienekes]

It's also blowing all their highest level resources in a single action. I did the same thing with a Tempest Sorcerer at 5th level and one-shot an Illithid*, but I don't hear people calling for those shenanigans to be nerfed.

* Took 2 levels of Tempest Cleric, 3 levels of Storm Sorc. Cast Chromatic Orb at 3rd level and crit. 5d8 maximized x2 is 80 lightning damage. Illithids have around 72 hp.

I think a part of why you won’t hear me complain about it is because I have never seen a tempest cleric played. Not once. And, I kinda think everyone just accepts that you can do nonsensical shenanigans if you multiclass. It’s not great, by any means, but so long as we allow people to dive into other classes to get features they like you’re basically just setting things up for people to find unanticipated and over strong combos.

[Skrum]

I think a part of why you won’t hear me complain about it is because I have never seen a tempest cleric played. Not once.

That's also way more of a gimmick build. Giving up 2 levels of spell progression so you can nuke super hard 1/SR. I think it's a fun build, but it's very arguable whether it's actually better than straight caster. It definitely doesn't have the fairly ridiculous synergy of the various sorlock/sorcadin mix-ups.

[tokek]

- I didn't get "we don't want moon druids to be tanky." Quite the opposite! Crawford: "{survey respondents are} desiring for the forms to be more resilient so the Moon Druid can continue to function in melee without being afraid of being squashed too easily. We hear that feedback and will absolutely respond to it."

They're concerned about the effects unlimited wild shape (i.e. the capstone) had when combined with current wildshape, which replaces your hit points, so that's going to change - but they seem to have heard loud and clear that the Moon Druid they presented isn't tanky enough.

I would have to listen again but there was definitely something about even at lower levels refreshing HP with beasts that sometimes have more HP than the druid is an issue they intend to fix.

[Gignere]

I would have to listen again but there was definitely something about even at lower levels refreshing HP with beasts that sometimes have more HP than the druid is an issue they intend to fix.

That doesn’t mean they don’t want the moon Druid to tank they just don’t want the moon Druid to have over 100 hps way of tanking at low levels and infinite hps at high levels.

[Psyren]

I would have to listen again but there was definitely something about even at lower levels refreshing HP with beasts that sometimes have more HP than the druid is an issue they intend to fix.

I'm fairly certain they only mentioned higher levels - but even if they meant all levels, you seem to have jumped from there to "moon druid tank is not going to be a thing" which doesn't align at all with what Crawford said. You don't need more HP than a martial to be a decent tank, HP is just one defense.

[OvisCaedo]

- Unlimited Wildshapes too strong for Moon Druids

For the current PHB version, or the direction their rework is going in? The former, sure, the latter... I'm not even sure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've seen the dreaded Paladin nova on a straight-class paladin (and not a particularly optimal one, dexadin with a rapier and no big combat feats): one-shot an ithillich at level 9 on round 1 turn 1. But it was fairly anomalous (see below).

Setup:
1. Group manages to talk their way into melee range before things go down.
2. Paladin rolls really well on initiative, goes first.
3. Walks up, attacks once, crit. Dumped highest smite. Rolled well.
4. Attacks the second time, nat 1...but halfling. So reroll...and crit. Dumped next slot. Rolled well.
5. Used a custom magic item that allowed a bonus action shield attack (1d4 bludgeoning). This one wasn't a crit, but it hit and a third smite.

~200 HP of damage in a single turn.

Was it a super big problem? nah, not really. Noticeable? Yup.

Honestly, I've seen more issues (in regards to paladins) with their auras. Now I certainly don't think paladins need more power, but they're (the 2014 version) fairly high on my "ok, this class works properly" list.

Of course multi-class can get weird.

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

As for templates or not for druids...meh. It could be implemented well. The UA's version wasn't. My personal opinion is that stapling a meaningful "combat wildshape" on a full caster is always going to be awkward and messy. Especially if it's just on one subclass and the base casting is "strong enough" (ie most of the spell-casting prowess is on the base class, not other subclasses). It'd fit a whole lot better on a dedicated class that was at most a 1/3 caster.

[GooeyChewie]

- Near even split between both camps (slight majority to the second)
I got the impression it was more than “slight,” just not enough to say one side ran away with it.


I'm fairly certain they only mentioned higher levels - but even if they meant all levels, you seem to have jumped from there to "moon druid tank is not going to be a thing" which doesn't align at all with what Crawford said. You don't need more HP than a martial to be a decent tank, HP is just one defense.

They mentioned “lower levels,” but they were talking in comparison to Archdruid (level 20), so “lower” may still have meant pretty high.

[Oramac]

but they're (the 2014 version) fairly high on my "ok, this class works properly" list.

IMO the 2014 paladin is one of, if not the, best designed class in the whole 2014 PHB.

[LudicSavant]

IMO the 2014 paladin is one of, if not the, best designed class in the whole 2014 PHB.

Original 5e Paladin (not One D&D) is definitely on my list of better designed classes in 5e. It gets class features that are actually significant enough to maybe give up some spell progression (mostly the aura), and it plays well into the core fantasy of a Paladin -- right down to the part where they save up their resources and then let them all go at once on one climactic strike to banish a great evil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujC7rxFVZ18). And the gap between subclass quality seems to be markedly less than many other classes.


I've seen the dreaded Paladin nova

If anything, I rate the Paladin nova as highly appropriate to the class fantasy. These sorts of character archetypes go nova in media on a regular basis. Shifting that instead to a consistent output regardless of what they're fighting would be a big step down in terms of ludonarrative design in my book.

[OvisCaedo]

I'm not surprised at all by the druid feedback. I actually think the One moon druid looks pretty fun, and I think it'll be tankier than people give are giving it credit for (it loses the HP but has a massive boost to AC and utility). That to me is a good place for it to be - a moon druid shouldn't be able to outclass a dedicated martial class 2/day. But sure, throw some extra toughness in there. At the end of the day, I'm strongly in Team No Book Diving, so if that gets tossed out in favor of smoother power progressions, I'm good.

I think "massive boost to AC" is overstating it quite a bit. 10+wis might be better than a lot of animal forms, but it's not really... great, either. And notably, with wild shape continuing to just use your own hit points, quite possibly lower AC than a druid just had in humanoid form to start with. Light armor and shield, which they're proficient in, sits pretty easily at 14+dex for AC. Though I suppose maybe not every druid will always want to have been holding a shield.

[tokek]

I'm fairly certain they only mentioned higher levels - but even if they meant all levels, you seem to have jumped from there to "moon druid tank is not going to be a thing" which doesn't align at all with what Crawford said. You don't need more HP than a martial to be a decent tank, HP is just one defense.

Around 10:40 and on. He goes on to talk about before the high level infinite wildshape also being a problem.

The current level of moon druid tank is probably not going to be a thing because he specifically calls it out as something they intend to fix. That does not mean they have to be flimsy of course.

[Skrum]

I think "massive boost to AC" is overstating it quite a bit. 10+wis might be better than a lot of animal forms, but it's not really... great, either. And notably, with wild shape continuing to just use your own hit points, quite possibly lower AC than a druid just had in humanoid form to start with. Light armor and shield, which they're proficient in, sits pretty easily at 14+dex for AC. Though I suppose maybe not every druid will always want to have been holding a shield.

Bears have 11 AC, and that's the best animal form till like 6th level or something.

But One druids can also cast abjuration spells in animal form, and they have easy access to Shield thanks to Magic Initiate (a first level feat). They natively get absorb elements. That's on top of maintaining concentration on something like Bark Skin that grants renewing temp HP (new version). They also get a floating resistance at level 6.

Is it enough to make up for the pools of temps granted with each wild shape, well no almost certainly not. But I don't think it's all that squishy either.

[Ionathus]

Ghaa why doesn't everyone just agree with me. I'm obviously right.

Joking aside, I guess this is a good sign? While I agree that the current paladin is "unbalanced," I still hesitate to change it because it's unbalanced relative to other martial classes. In terms of the paladin competing with full casters, I think it's probably pretty close to the right spot. I.e., I'd rather see the ranger, fighter, barb, and monk brought closer to where the 5e paladin then the One paladin nerf'd.

Agreed. Martials are already on such a back foot in 5e that it's frustrating to see Johnny Wizard pointing at Paladins for a nerf when his own hands are already smoking with guaranteed-hit long-range multi-target 8d6 fire smites from Level 5 onward.


I'm not surprised at all by the druid feedback. I actually think the One moon druid looks pretty fun, and I think it'll be tankier than people give are giving it credit for (it loses the HP but has a massive boost to AC and utility). That to me is a good place for it to be - a moon druid shouldn't be able to outclass a dedicated martial class 2/day. But sure, throw some extra toughness in there. At the end of the day, I'm strongly in Team No Book Diving, so if that gets tossed out in favor of smoother power progressions, I'm good.

(Not responding to your position, just riffing off it) I'm less worried that the MoOne Druid won't be mechanically viable, and more worried that it won't be fun. I agree that Moon Druid shouldn't be a full caster who can outclass all martials at the same time, but I do want them to keep the flavor and the raw badassery of the subclass. If wildshaping feels like a mediocre buff that you're obligated to do so you don't fall behind in every fight, that's not fun...that's just a basically-mandatory Barkskin with extra steps.

Rage and Divine Smite grasp this sweet spot really well. These features are fun to use. I am always excited to pop Rage in a combat because I know it's gonna make the combat more enjoyable and interesting. The fact that Barbarian needs Rage to "keep up" and make up for its mediocre AC and advantage-granting Reckless Attack is an afterthought, because the raw joy of charging through a sea of minions and rolling chonky d12 damage wins out.


Eh, I've seen it done. Essentially one-shotted a boss, thanks to a lucky crit and dropping their highest spell slots on their attacks. Level 5, two 2nd level smites in a round, one of which is a crit, with a +4 modifier and wielding a greatsword does an average of 69.5 damage. 83 if undead. That's not a small amount of damage right there.

Now that said, it of course isn't something that's consistently done.


I've seen the dreaded Paladin nova on a straight-class paladin (and not a particularly optimal one, dexadin with a rapier and no big combat feats): one-shot an ithillich at level 9 on round 1 turn 1. But it was fairly anomalous (see below).

Setup:
1. Group manages to talk their way into melee range before things go down.
2. Paladin rolls really well on initiative, goes first.
3. Walks up, attacks once, crit. Dumped highest smite. Rolled well.
4. Attacks the second time, nat 1...but halfling. So reroll...and crit. Dumped next slot. Rolled well.
5. Used a custom magic item that allowed a bonus action shield attack (1d4 bludgeoning). This one wasn't a crit, but it hit and a third smite.

~200 HP of damage in a single turn.

Was it a super big problem? nah, not really. Noticeable? Yup.

Fair points. I totally get the sucker-punch feeling of realizing "I prepared so much for this fight but didn't factor in the Paladin edge case and now it's just been trivialized." Paladin can be deceptive for that.

Add in being a new GM and I can see somebody reacting with fear and nerfing the class.

Hopefully those moments were fun for the rest of your players. My table always loves to cheer our paladin on whenever he's unloading his smites on a nova turn.

[Ionathus]

Around 10:40 and on. He goes on to talk about before the high level infinite wildshape also being a problem.

If you're looking for "balance" above 12th level you're doing it wrong (Is there a "half sarcastic" color)

[Psyren]

Around 10:40 and on. He goes on to talk about before the high level infinite wildshape also being a problem.

The current level of moon druid tank is probably not going to be a thing because he specifically calls it out as something they intend to fix. That does not mean they have to be flimsy of course.


I would have to listen again but there was definitely something about even at lower levels refreshing HP with beasts that sometimes have more HP than the druid is an issue they intend to fix.



They mentioned “lower levels,” but they were talking in comparison to Archdruid (level 20), so “lower” may still have meant pretty high.

I think GooeyChewie has it right but here's the exact quote to be safe:

Crawford: "When it comes to wildshape, {people were} desiring for the forms to be resilient so that Circle of the Moon Druid can continue to function in melee without being afraid of being squashed too easily; we hear that feedback, we will absolutely respond to it - while at the same time not bringing back the runaway power the Circle of the Moon Druid could have at high levels in the 2014 version."

Kenreck: "And what made them have runaway power?"

Crawford: "One of the main reasons is that at high level, the Druid got unlimited uses of wildshape - which, for the Circle of the Moon Druid, meant unlimited hit point recharges because every time you entered a new form you got all the hit points of that form. But even before you got the unlimited version of wild shape, you got enough uses of wild shape and enough forms you could turn into with large hit point pools that it made it very difficult for Dungeon Masters to make Circle of the Moon Druids feel threatened in any way because of this ability to essentially hit the wildshape button and sometimes get more hit points than the druid themselves had. And so, that WILL be reined in no matter how the Circle of the Moon subclass ends up, as we go through the feedback."

The closest thing I can see to "lower levels" in that quote is "even before you got unlimited wild shape" - but that could mean any level range. (Not that that matters for his underlying point.)


Original 5e Paladin (not One D&D) is definitely on my list of better designed classes in 5e. It gets class features that are actually significant enough to maybe give up some spell progression (mostly the aura), and it plays well into the core fantasy of a Paladin -- right down to the part where they save up their resources and then let them all go at once on one climactic strike to banish a great evil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujC7rxFVZ18). And the gap between subclass quality seems to be markedly less than many other classes.

To be fair, you can still re-enact this scene with a 1/turn Smite. You just need a bit more teamwork to get the boss low enough, which is arguably a good thing.

[Dienekes]

If anything, I rate the Paladin nova as highly appropriate to the class fantasy. These sorts of character archetypes go nova in media on a regular basis. Shifting that instead to a consistent output regardless of what they're fighting would be a big step down in terms of ludonarrative design in my book.

Personally, I agree. I'd say making it so their nova is unrelated to the randomness of crits would probably be an improvement in fitting that class fantasy. But just that they can call upon divine power to destroy the evil, demonic, undead, and corrupted is really perfect for what the legends the class is based on can do.

[OvisCaedo]

Bears have 11 AC, and that's the best animal form till like 6th level or something.

But One druids can also cast abjuration spells in animal form, and they have easy access to Shield thanks to Magic Initiate (a first level feat). They natively get absorb elements. That's on top of maintaining concentration on something like Bark Skin that grants renewing temp HP (new version). They also get a floating resistance at level 6.

Is it enough to make up for the pools of temps granted with each wild shape, well no almost certainly not. But I don't think it's all that squishy either.

It's about as squishy or not squishy as the exact same druid just NOT wild shaping, though. Wild shape is trading out range and full spellcasting for melee damage with no real increase to survivability. Is it ENOUGH melee damage for that to be a good decision? Maybe! But in terms of cost/benefit that makes wild shape largely a "glass cannon" option compared to just not using it, and that just... feels wrong.

[Psyren]

I got the impression it was more than “slight,” just not enough to say one side ran away with it.

Exact quote again: "It was similar to when we think about groups that use feats compared to ones that don't... it was a simple majority, just over the line of 50%."


It's about as squishy or not squishy as the exact same druid just NOT wild shaping, though. Wild shape is trading out range and full spellcasting for melee damage with no real increase to survivability. Is it ENOUGH melee damage for that to be a good decision? Maybe! But in terms of cost/benefit that makes wild shape largely a "glass cannon" option compared to just not using it, and that just... feels wrong.

Yeah, a base of 15 AC (which realistically, is 13-14 before level 8) and keeping your own d8 HP are just not enough defenses for a dedicated melee character, even one that can cast abjuration spells. Especially when you consider that the best abjuration spells for this concept are not on the Primal list.

[tokek]

Kenreck: "And what made them have runaway power?"

Crawford: "One of the main reasons is that at high level, the Druid got unlimited uses of wildshape - which, for the Circle of the Moon Druid, meant unlimited hit point recharges because every time you entered a new form you got all the hit points of that form. But even before you got the unlimited version of wild shape, you got enough uses of wild shape and enough forms you could turn into with large hit point pools that it made it very difficult for Dungeon Masters to make Circle of the Moon Druids feel threatened in any way because of this ability to essentially hit the wildshape button and sometimes get more hit points than the druid themselves had. And so, that WILL be reined in no matter how the Circle of the Moon subclass ends up, as we go through the feedback."

The closest thing I can see to "lower levels" in that quote is "even before you got unlimited wild shape" - but that could mean any level range. (Not that that matters for his underlying point.)



If I had to take a guess I think they will do a curated list as the next UA and make sure that nothing in the list can have more hp than a druid at those levels. Lets wait and see

[Ionathus]

Personally, I agree. I'd say making it so their nova is unrelated to the randomness of crits would probably be an improvement in fitting that class fantasy.

This is a perfect example of a change that makes sense on paper but sucks in practice. The designer says "we've improved your class flavor and lore, because your smite is no longer at the mercy of the dreaded crit randomness!" and the player hears "so I lose this cool bonus I've had for the past 5 years that makes me extra excited every time I get a crit. Great job thanks I love it."

Either that or it sounds like a PR person trying to spin a bad choice as a genius masterstroke, actually. "Oh yeah this is actually a good thing because randomness can't hurt you now" when the randomness was only ever a good thing.

Crits are fun. Smiting on a crit (even when it doesn't make tactical sense but you really, really want to) is fun. Give every class something extra on crits.1 Don't sand down the edges chasing a "balance" unicorn.

Don't nerf the paladin. Buff everyone else. At least all the other martials.

1. Yes, besides double damage, you absolute chucklemongers.

[Zevox]

Well, I am glad to hear they got plenty of negative feedback on the Druid's Wild Shape and will be doing something completely different with it next time we see it. Still quite skeptical whether that something will be anything but a downgrade thematically from what we already have, though, given the direction it feels like they intend to go.

I am disappointed to hear the Moon Druid feedback, as one of those who did give them feedback that losing the Elemental forms was among the many things I disliked about that.

Also, they didn't say anything one way or the other about the 1/turn smite thing. I have to imagine that was no small part of why Smite was the lowest-rated part of the class - I know it was my main criticism - so that's concerning. Guess we'll see if it's still there in future iterations.


Glad to see that they got vocal feedback on the Druid wildshape. I don't think any class got done as dirty as the Druid did. alliteration!
I'd say Warlock got it even worse, personally, but Druid is a solid second due to Wild Shape.

[Dienekes]

This is a perfect example of a change that makes sense on paper but sucks in practice. The designer says "we've improved your class flavor and lore, because your smite is no longer at the mercy of the dreaded crit randomness!" and the player hears "so I lose this cool bonus I've had for the past 5 years that makes me extra excited every time I get a crit. Great job thanks I love it."

Either that or it sounds like a PR person trying to spin a bad choice as a genius masterstroke, actually. "Oh yeah this is actually a good thing because randomness can't hurt you now" when the randomness was only ever a good thing.

Crits are fun. Smiting on a crit (even when it doesn't make tactical sense but you really, really want to) is fun. Give every class something extra on crits.1 Don't sand down the edges chasing a "balance" unicorn.

Don't nerf the paladin. Buff everyone else. At least all the other martials.

1. Yes, besides double damage, you absolute chucklemongers.

I think there is value in tweaking certain elements of a class to better fit the desired fantasy and desired play patterns. Criticals are fun, yes. But does a crit focus really match the flavor of the Paladin? I'd honestly say "No."

What they do match, is the flavor of the wild and furious Barbarian. Which, the designers even realized with Brutal Critical. Though, wow the original run on the ability was terrible. The new one isn't particularly great either. But at the very least it's only taking up 1 level.

In a perfect world, the Paladin would have other means of interacting with the combat system to get their own flavor of fun. And of course, if tweaking the numbers to not work on smite to have those numbers improved in other ways. Because I do agree, Paladin in 5e is in a good space. My only qualms with it are very, very mild thematics. And not even so much a flaw with the class but a flaw in the saving throw system (Aura of Protection is basically a patch on the fact that saving throws don't work right at later levels, which I don't think a single class feature should be used to fix something like that). I don't want Paladin to be nerfed. It's I think one of the best balanced classes in the game.

Now, I will freely admit, that this may be asking a bit too much from WotC designers. But, ehh, it's not like any of us have any pull over there anyhow.

[LudicSavant]

To be fair, you can still re-enact this scene with a 1/turn Smite. You just need a bit more teamwork to get the boss low enough, which is arguably a good thing.

Being able to flavor the finishing blow as some colossal thing is a rather different thing, from the perspective of ludonarrative design, than the Paladin player actually saving up all of their resources for a climactic moment against the thing they value highest.

Basically, good ludonarrative design isn't just you applying fluff to something, it's the mechanics reinforcing the experience of that fluff in the player(s).

The Paladin being a nova class is good ludonarrative design, IMHO, because of the way it fits into soooooo many iconic Paladin stories.

[Psyren]

If I had to take a guess I think they will do a curated list as the next UA and make sure that nothing in the list can have more hp than a druid at those levels. Lets wait and see

That's my expectation as well. So long as the curated list still incorporates stat scaling I can live with it.



Also, they didn't say anything one way or the other about the 1/turn smite thing.

They did say one thing - as a whole nuSmite was 72%, i.e. a passing grade. Combined with the only noteworthy negative written feedback on smite being against ranged smite, and it suggests that 1/turn smite is going to stick around.


Being able to flavor the finishing blow as some colossal thing is a rather different thing, from the perspective of ludonarrative design, than the Paladin player actually saving up all of their resources for a climactic moment against the thing they value highest.

Basically, good ludonarrative design isn't just you applying fluff to something, it's the mechanics reinforcing the experience of that fluff in the player(s).

The Paladin being a nova class is good ludonarrative design, IMHO, because of the way it fits into soooooo many iconic Paladin stories.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you can get there with a single 5th-level slot as opposed to three of them (or 5/4/4 etc.) Smiting with your highest available slot still requires a degree of resource management.

[Oramac]

snip

Don't nerf the paladin. Buff everyone else. At least all the other martials.

This. 100% this.

[LudicSavant]

Don't nerf the paladin. Buff everyone else. At least all the other martials.

More nice things for martials, yes please.

[Zevox]

They did say one thing - as a whole nuSmite was 72%, i.e. a passing grade.
That is quite literally not the same thing, that's you attempting to read into what they said about the ability as a whole.

I was hoping to hear some comment on how that was recieved overall, or why they implemented it. We didn't get one.

[Skrum]

When I first started playing a warlock with eldritch smite*, I was team 1 smite/turn for the paladin. But now, months later and seeing the change happen in One, I'm quite convinced it should not be changed.

Paladin is my pick for the best designed class in 5e. It gets good, mechanically significant abilities at every level into at t3 (which means every level is good in the vast majority of games), each of the subclasses are good picks, it has defined strengths, but it's still not good at everything. It really should be the baseline for other classes. Classes weaker than paladin should be buffed, and classes stronger than it should be nerf'd.

The design space that I *don't* think is good is the paladin (and rogue) being the only classes that really benefit from crits. Purely from a fun perspective, rolling crits should be meaningful. It's part of the tension of rolling dice. That should be spread around to more classes than just the ones that get their damage in the form of lots of dice.


*It felt unfair in the initial, but at equal character level ES does double what DS does, and has a very strong rider effect. It's fair.

[Snails]

I think "massive boost to AC" is overstating it quite a bit. 10+wis might be better than a lot of animal forms, but it's not really... great, either. And notably, with wild shape continuing to just use your own hit points, quite possibly lower AC than a druid just had in humanoid form to start with. Light armor and shield, which they're proficient in, sits pretty easily at 14+dex for AC. Though I suppose maybe not every druid will always want to have been holding a shield.

Boost? As a practical matter, there is no boost to AC -- it is pure penalty. An unremarkable level 1 Druid can easily have an AC of 16 without having made any big effort, which is much better than the AC 13 or 14 the wild shaped form will likely be in most of T1/T2 play. And it would hardly be strange for a Druid to get magical armor or shield or some other boost, climb to AC 19, and leave the animal forms in the dust forever.

Getting an extra attack is nice, but giving up spell casting and suffering a -2 or or -3 or -4 AC penalty is flirting with disaster. I would be better off using Flaming Sphere and staying in human form for offense, and keep the better AC and tactical flexibility to cast spells when the moment is right.

[KorvinStarmast]

Original 5e Paladin (not One D&D) is definitely on my list of better designed classes in 5e. [snip] And the gap between subclass quality seems to be markedly less than many other classes.
{snip}
If anything, I rate the Paladin nova as highly appropriate to the class fantasy. These sorts of character archetypes go nova in media on a regular basis. Shifting that instead to a consistent output regardless of what they're fighting would be a big step down in terms of ludonarrative design in my book.
Said what I was thinking.

If you're looking for "balance" above 12th level you're doing it wrong (Is there a "half sarcastic" color) Why the blue text? :smallcool:

[Ionathus]

Why the blue text? :smallcool:

Because I lack the courage of my convictions :smallcool:

[Psyren]

That is quite literally not the same thing, that's you attempting to read into what they said about the ability as a whole.

I was hoping to hear some comment on how that was recieved overall, or why they implemented it. We didn't get one.

I know it's not definitive - that's why I said "suggests" in the part you omitted.


Boost? As a practical matter, there is no boost to AC -- it is pure penalty. An unremarkable level 1 Druid can easily have an AC of 16 without having made any big effort, which is much better than the AC 13 or 14 the wild shaped form will likely be in most of T1/T2 play. And it would hardly be strange for a Druid to get magical armor or shield or some other boost, climb to AC 19, and leave the animal forms in the dust forever.

Getting an extra attack is nice, but giving up spell casting and suffering a -2 or or -3 or -4 AC penalty is flirting with disaster. I would be better off using Flaming Sphere and staying in human form for offense, and keep the better AC and tactical flexibility to cast spells when the moment is right.

Indeed - and it gets worse when you compare it to other gish subclasses like Valor Bard or Hexblade that don't have to choose between melee and spellcasting at all.

[animewatcha]

So rogue gets 1/round (versus the standard today of 1/turn) while paladin can smite 1/turn (their turn and then reaction) ?

[Saelethil]

So rogue gets 1/round (versus the standard today of 1/turn) while paladin can smite 1/turn (their turn and then reaction) ?

It sounds like in the Rogue update they’ll change it back to 1/turn.

[animewatcha]

To address the paladin crit probably, couldn't it be simply changed to must declare smite before attack roll but keep the crit? Miss means lost spell slot anyway?

[Kane0]

Highlights:

Paladin:
- Nearly everything in the Paladin scored 80s and 90s. Smite was the lowest at 72%.
- People are resistant to ranged smites.
- People want Smite Spells to be Paladin Exclusive

Druid:
- Two camps: "Templates rule" and "We never want to see this version"
- Near even split between both camps (slight majority to the second)
- They're still against people diving through 100 statblocks
- Channel Nature will get more options baseline
- They agree Moon is too weak in melee
- Unlimited Wildshapes too strong for Moon Druids


I agree with all this feedback.

Actually i'd make smite a channel power, that would disconnect it from spells and allow subclasses to expand on it with riders while also combating dips.

[Theodoxus]

Which is it, you don't want a full caster also being able to wade into melee, doing as well if not better (2014 Moonie) as a Fighter, or you do want the Moonie to be able to take a few hits like a Fighter...

The complicated take would be to get the full HP of the beast you're assuming, but divided by some number, like 4 or 10, rounded up and you get that many THP, refreshing up to that number each round. This would cause some/most hits to hurt the Druid's HP, but still grant a bit of ablative damage resistance. Once all the THP are used up, the wildshape drops, just like the 5E Druid. It looks like Barkskin was an attempt to go that route, but I think it should be native to the ability, not an additional spell.

The less complicated take would be if using stat block shapes, maybe a base THP like 5 or 10 that is then multiplied by your PB. So, at 3rd level you get a total of 20 THP, and can use a max of 4 per round.

[Gignere]

Which is it, you don't want a full caster also being able to wade into melee, doing as well if not better (2014 Moonie) as a Fighter, or you do want the Moonie to be able to take a few hits like a Fighter...

The complicated take would be to get the full HP of the beast you're assuming, but divided by some number, like 4 or 10, rounded up and you get that many THP, refreshing up to that number each round. This would cause some/most hits to hurt the Druid's HP, but still grant a bit of ablative damage resistance. Once all the THP are used up, the wildshape drops, just like the 5E Druid. It looks like Barkskin was an attempt to go that route, but I think it should be native to the ability, not an additional spell.

The less complicated take would be if using stat block shapes, maybe a base THP like 5 or 10 that is then multiplied by your PB. So, at 3rd level you get a total of 20 THP, and can use a max of 4 per round.

What they need to do is use spell slots to make wildshape better and stronger to the equivalent of a fighter / barbarian. What is happening is that the current moon Druid can contribute fully as a caster until they are out of slots but still contribute fully as a melee tank due to wildshape.

Then you have those crazy good players that contributes as both in the same encounters really punching way above their weight because they are dumpster diving for the best wildshape, best spells, and the best interactions between the two allowing them to ezmode most CR appropriate encounters.

[Kane0]

Id be fine with just getting some THP once when you enter wildshape, and then when you get the multiform ability later the THP refreshes when you assume a new form.

[Theodoxus]

Id be fine with just getting some THP once when you enter wildshape, and then when you get the multiform ability later the THP refreshes when you assume a new form.

That's exactly what the 2014 wildshape does... unless that what you're calling for, then cool. (Outside of the form's HP not being expressly called THP, which then allows for actual THP to be added on top, but Druids really REALLY don't need that, in any way, shape, or form.

[Kane0]

That's exactly what the 2014 wildshape does... unless that what you're calling for, then cool. (Outside of the form's HP not being expressly called THP, which then allows for actual THP to be added on top, but Druids really REALLY don't need that, in any way, shape, or form.

Well for all druids, and moon getting some extra. Using spell slots to improve your wildshape i think is a good solution

[sithlordnergal]

Bears have 11 AC, and that's the best animal form till like 6th level or something.

But One druids can also cast abjuration spells in animal form, and they have easy access to Shield thanks to Magic Initiate (a first level feat). They natively get absorb elements. That's on top of maintaining concentration on something like Bark Skin that grants renewing temp HP (new version). They also get a floating resistance at level 6.

Is it enough to make up for the pools of temps granted with each wild shape, well no almost certainly not. But I don't think it's all that squishy either.

I feel like it will depend on how high attack bonuses eventually get, and how high your Wisdom Modifier can get. I find AC loses a lot of value as you get into higher levels, and it eventually gets to the point where you can only reliably tank with AC if you can reach 30 AC or higher because NPCs have +12 to hit or higher. Monks are an excellent example of how this is an issue. Sure, they add their Dex and Wis Mods to their AC, but their AC raises so slowly that it ends up not mattering at higher levels.

Additionally, the Temp HP from Barkskin is not nearly enough to make up for this difference, or add anything to their survivability. Its Wisdom Mod+Proficiency Bonus, doesn't upscale in any meaningful way, and requires Concentration. It'll be fine at low levels, when you gain 5 Temp HP each round and a single attack from a Goblin deals 5 points of damage. It's going to be worthless when they reach high levels. Because unless they get a higher Wisdom Mod than +5, they're only getting 11 Temp HP at level 20. Kinda worthless when you get to face a creature with Multiattack with an average damage of 62 to 83 every round, with Multiattack, and a +14 to hit.

In order to make Barkskin worth it, you're want enough Temp HP to soak up at least one hit. So a minimum of 22 Temp HP per round. Its why Armor of Agathys is the only worthwhile source of Temp HP from a spell. Because it gives 5 temp HP, and increases by 5 for every level, but even then its not nearly enough.

As it currently stands, a Moon Druid has basically 0 survivability once they leave Tier 1.

[Snails]

The idea of templates instead of dumpster diving into stat blocs is okay, but the templates they have suh-huck. Rather than a template being flavorless and rigid, they could be much like a spell. I would not call it a template, either -- too generic. No, not a template or spell, but more like an invocation.

I would used the word "Forms". A specific Druid might know a number of Forms, much like a Warlock knows a certain number of invocations.

Here are some rough ideas.

Bear Form:
THP: 4 X Druid level
Move 40
AC: 11 + PB
Attacks: MultiAttack.
Bite: PB + Wis to hit / 1d8 + PB damage
Claws: PB + Wis to hit / 2d6 + PB damage

The bear is the simple bruiser Form. High THP, soft AC, no climb, good attacks. A form should scale up to be useful at all levels.


Spider Form:
THP: 1 X Druid level
Move 30, Climb 30
AC: 10 + PB
Skills: Stealth (PB + Wis)
Senses: Darkvision 60, Blindsight 10
Special: Web Sense, Web Walker
Attacks:
Bite: PB + Wis to hit / 1d8 + PB damage + 2d8 poison (DC 10 + PB, save for half)
Web: (Recharge 5-6) PB + Wis to hit / Restrained (DC 10 + PB to escape)

This is a stealth creature. It has some useful attacks, but with its low AC and and low THP, you might choose to not fight in this form after the first round and the THP are probably gone.

All forms give some THP. The Spider is at the low extreme and the Bear at the high extreme, and this is necessary because ACs tend to be lower than the Druid in humanoid form. Most would give THP of 2 X Druid level.

Forms should ideally have a perceivable reason for choosing it. Bear is the best in a straightforward fight. Wolf gives mobility and tracking, and some fighting skills. Spider stealthing. Etc, etc.

I would pop 8-10 Forms into the PHB, and you select them much like a Warlock chooses Invocations. More Forms in expansion books, and these are easy to create.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Indeed - and it gets worse when you compare it to other gish subclasses like Valor Bard or Hexblade that don't have to choose between melee and spellcasting at all.

IMO, I think that latter state is a horrible defect. You shouldn't be able to be a full caster and an effective melee at the same time. You should have to give up spell-casting equivalent to roughly the top half in order to be as effective at melee as a ranger or paladin or all but 1/3 of your casting to be as effective (lol) as a fighter or barbarian.

The whole idea of a full-casting gish who doesn't trade off spellcasting for melee prowess is a huge part of the disparity. It's the whole CODZILLA problem, 5e edition.

[Skrum]

I feel like it will depend on how high attack bonuses eventually get, and how high your Wisdom Modifier can get. I find AC loses a lot of value as you get into higher levels, and it eventually gets to the point where you can only reliably tank with AC if you can reach 30 AC or higher because NPCs have +12 to hit or higher. Monks are an excellent example of how this is an issue. Sure, they add their Dex and Wis Mods to their AC, but their AC raises so slowly that it ends up not mattering at higher levels.

Additionally, the Temp HP from Barkskin is not nearly enough to make up for this difference, or add anything to their survivability. Its Wisdom Mod+Proficiency Bonus, doesn't upscale in any meaningful way, and requires Concentration. It'll be fine at low levels, when you gain 5 Temp HP each round and a single attack from a Goblin deals 5 points of damage. It's going to be worthless when they reach high levels. Because unless they get a higher Wisdom Mod than +5, they're only getting 11 Temp HP at level 20. Kinda worthless when you get to face a creature with Multiattack with an average damage of 62 to 83 every round, with Multiattack, and a +14 to hit.

In order to make Barkskin worth it, you're want enough Temp HP to soak up at least one hit. So a minimum of 22 Temp HP per round. Its why Armor of Agathys is the only worthwhile source of Temp HP from a spell. Because it gives 5 temp HP, and increases by 5 for every level, but even then its not nearly enough.

As it currently stands, a Moon Druid has basically 0 survivability once they leave Tier 1.

I'm straight-up not thinking about t3 and 4. I play up to level 10, so that heavily shades what I say.

And TBC, I agree that the One moon druid is almost certainly in need of a durability buff. My point was simply that it's actually tougher than it looks at first glance; not unlike fighters actually doing quite a bit more than a glance would suggest (what with the loss of the GWM and SS).

My sense of it though is that moon druids can piece together a few different defensive tools and be fairly tanky. Are they going to wade in like a bear totem barb and just soak hits? No. But if they use their floating resist to hit a relevant damage type, cast barkskin (it might not be a ton of temps, but temps every round very quickly adds up to a lot of extra hit points over a few rounds of combat), and then shield when they get focused fired, like that's pretty decent.

If I were to buff the form as it was presented...maybe do something like make a bark skin effect be part of being in the new form? Saves them the action econ, the concentration; that would be quite good.

[elyktsorb]

I don't get the issue with unlimited wild shapes and why that's factored so much into the design changes. Like, you literally already made it so they don't get unlimited wild shapes.

Additionally, if the core concern was just about Moon Druids, or any Wild Shaped Druid, having too much additional hp, why not just say as part of the whole Wild Shape ability that 'Instead of using the Animals HP you instead use XHP per Druid level' or something like that.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm straight-up not thinking about t3 and 4. I play up to level 10, so that heavily shades what I say.

And TBC, I agree that the One moon druid is almost certainly in need of a durability buff. My point was simply that it's actually tougher than it looks at first glance; not unlike fighters actually doing quite a bit more than a glance would suggest (what with the loss of the GWM and SS).

My sense of it though is that moon druids can piece together a few different defensive tools and be fairly tanky. Are they going to wade in like a bear totem barb and just soak hits? No. But if they use their floating resist to hit a relevant damage type, cast barkskin (it might not be a ton of temps, but temps every round very quickly adds up to a lot of extra hit points over a few rounds of combat), and then shield when they get focused fired, like that's pretty decent.

If I were to buff the form as it was presented...maybe do something like make a bark skin effect be part of being in the new form? Saves them the action econ, the concentration; that would be quite good.

You should think about all tiers of play, not just up to level 10, because when you do I think you'll find its not as tanky as you think. T1 the Moon Druid is fine, T2 its not really good but still usable, T3 and onward, its about as tanky as a Monk, maybe a bit less so. Looking through the spell list, they don't actually have any decent high level protection spells. Sure, they have Absorb Elements, and can get the Shield spell...but outside of that we have Stoneskin and Protection from Energy. Neither of which are good spells.

And you're putting a lot of emphasis on Barkskin. The temp hp will not matter at higher levels. It'll only block 11 to 12 points at most, and that's when you can reasonably expect to take 140 damage from a single spell, with an average max HP of 163 if you have a +3 to Con. That Temp HP will leave you with 35 total HP, and you'll get to have 42 when it refreshes. That is...not nearly enough to survive at level 20. Heck, the one monster I talked about with an average damage between 62 to 83 is just your standard Purple Worm, sand is only CR 15. Sure, it can add up over time, but that doesn't matter if you only survive 2 rounds, if you're lucky.

Shield also won't do anything once creatures reach a +9 to hit or higher if it can only raise your AC to 20. Again, you're only looking at level 10 and below. Go look at the CR 14+ and tell me honestly if you think the Druid has enough HP and AC to reasonably survive if a DM is out to actually kill PCs.


Personally, I'd buff them by just giving them access to the current Wild Shape, as I've never had an issue with it as a DM or player. Or, instead of Temp HP, I'd give them something similar to Arcane Ward. Maybe 4xCurrent Druid level or 3xCurrent Druid level, and have it be separate from Temp HP so Temp HP can stack with it. That gives them enough HP to last in higher Tiers of play, without being too crazy at low levels

[Theodoxus]

The whole idea of a full-casting gish who doesn't trade off spellcasting for melee prowess is a huge part of the disparity. It's the whole CODZILLA problem, 5e edition.

Agreed, but it would ideally require more classes than we currently have. Right now, 5E has a "World of Warcraft" problem, where from time to time, the devs push the hybrid classes (Paladin and Druid, primarily) to the point where they can do all three (tank, damage, and heal) as well, or better, than classes that are tuned to only one of those aspects, with a lesser capability for a second.

Moon druids in 5E definitely take that aspect and nearly everyone thinks its a 'bad thing' for balance. IMO, a saving grace is action economy; another is spells prepared and slots available. Yes, the moon druid can be a great healer, a great melee combatant, a great battlefield controller (mostly because the druid class can do two of those out of the box and moon just adds to it). But much like WoW, you have a very hard time being effective at all three in any particular encounter.

But is versatility really detrimental to class balance? Only when it outshines other player choices. I would argue that an all druid party could do close to 90% of what a more "traditional" party could do. Really only failing at the subtle rogue things and arcane utility stuff, but the first is mostly covered by background choices and the latter tends to not matter when the party can fly for 4 hours at level 8 with nothing but the low low cost of a wildshape expense. (on top of teleportation options like tree stride, et al.)

All that to say, while wildshape has become iconic with Druids, it seems Paizo has probably gone the correct route, making it a spell, thus costing actual resources. I'm not wholly satisfied with their implementation, but going that route in D&D would free up design space to split off WS from the Druid wholesale and add it to a new primal 1/3 caster that is currently missing from the class archetypes.

Which brings me to my wishlist - added classes that fill currently unavailable niches. A Divine 1/3 caster, I'm thinking something along the lines of Van Helsing, mastering finesse and crossbows, getting a ranged smite that triggers off of sneak attack styled hits (basically, only when a rogue would get sneak attack, this class would instead be able to expend a spell slot to deal extra damage.) Subclasses would concentrate on a specific type of creature: aberrations, undead, fiends, celestials, etc. gaining added damage, tracking capabilities and the like. While a Fighter subclass could work, akin to EK, I think there's sufficient differences to allow for a whole class to spring up (I also think EK could be easily reworked as its own class, with subclasses gaining different arcane schools - which, especially for D&DOne would allow for keeping things like weapon proficiencies out of the hands of the casters.)

A Primal 1/3 caster that has the moon druid version of wildshape and primarily uses their slots for buffing the form (either through concentration spells like Barkskin or others that grant other boons) or via direct expenditure towards healing and temporary buffs (using a 1st level slot to turn their attacks magical for a minute, sans concentration, for instance).

The design space is there... just woefully underutilized.

[Psyren]

IMO, I think that latter state is a horrible defect. You shouldn't be able to be a full caster and an effective melee at the same time. You should have to give up spell-casting equivalent to roughly the top half in order to be as effective at melee as a ranger or paladin or all but 1/3 of your casting to be as effective (lol) as a fighter or barbarian.

The whole idea of a full-casting gish who doesn't trade off spellcasting for melee prowess is a huge part of the disparity. It's the whole CODZILLA problem, 5e edition.

The 5e gishes are nowhere near 3e CoDzilla, for the simple reason that needing to concentrate to maintain anything of note (whether that be a lone buff, debuff, or battlefield control effect) just means that being in melee greatly increases your chances of your concentration dropping. They're fine.


Agreed, but it would ideally require more classes than we currently have. Right now, 5E has a "World of Warcraft" problem, where from time to time, the devs push the hybrid classes (Paladin and Druid, primarily) to the point where they can do all three (tank, damage, and heal) as well, or better, than classes that are tuned to only one of those aspects, with a lesser capability for a second.

Of course they do that, and it's not a problem - it creates more viable group compositions. Back in Classic WoW your choices for an endgame tank are Prot Warrior or GTHO. It made people wonder why they even bothered having Prot Paladin and Bear Druid in the game - or Ret Paladin and Moonkin Druid for that matter, on the damage side.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The 5e gishes are nowhere near 3e CoDzilla, for the simple reason that needing to concentrate to maintain anything of note (whether that be a lone buff, debuff, or battlefield control effect) just means that being in melee greatly increases your chances of your concentration dropping. They're fine.


Except...those ones you cited? Don't have to concentrate to be good martials. They're (nearly) on par with martials without spending significant ongoing resources, including concentration. And then they can burst up higher if they do want to do so.

And that doesn't even begin to talk about their out of combat stuff.

Sure, they're not utterly obliterating martials like CoDzilla did. But they have 99% of full caster and 90% of full martial. That's not even opportunity costs. That's have your cake and eat it too. And it's utterly corrosive to the game. "I can do everything you can do and I can do a bunch of things you can't even think of doing". "Full Martials" have to give up their full subclass (which are generally beefier than caster subclasses) to get a tiny sliver of caster power (no, 1/3 casting is not 1/3 of a full caster's power). Casters...just have to maybe do a 1 level dip. Or take a subclass that gives them 90% of martial power, plus caster goodies.

I reject the full caster gish. It shouldn't ever be a thing. At least as long as being a full caster also means <genie voice>phenomenal cosmic power</genie voice>.

[LudicSavant]

I personally would rather see martials move towards having more tricks rather than casters have less (barring some major outliers).

[Psyren]

I reject the full caster gish. It shouldn't ever be a thing.

No common ground it is then.

[Skrum]

OK now I'm curious; what is the overpowered gish build that isn't making significant tradeoffs on either side?

Hexasorcadin is (paladin 6 hexblade 1 sorcerer X) is my pick for top gish build, but it's obviously giving up quite a bit on the caster side. 7 levels of progression.

Straight hexblade is not a full caster and I absolutely refuse to entertain it as such. It's a solid class on its own but there's clear tradeoffs on the spell progression and also durability compared to a fighter or barb.

Other options, like pal 2 sorc X, are obviously giving up extra attack. This is a great build, but you're giving up basically all sustained damage in favor of nova bursts. And you're still losing 2 levels of progression.

The attraction of taking caster levels as a martial is the relative lack of good features after level 6 or so in fighter, barb, and ranger. I fully agree that going caster is a good move, but you're never catching up to the full casters.

[Theodoxus]

Bladesinger, especially with access to Fighting Style feats gets nearly everything it would like from the martial side for literally no cost other than potentially the opportunity cost of not having Portent or Arcane Ward, or other school based boons.

Sword Bard is another case for a full casting gish.

Both could arguably get additional martial prowess from a dip into Fighter or Paladin (particularly the Bard) but it certainly isn't necessary to make a decent gish from either subclass.

But both are definitely cases where they're getting a lot of martial power while also having all the power and usefulness of being a full caster. The opposite never happens.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Bladesinger, especially with access to Fighting Style feats gets nearly everything it would like from the martial side for literally no cost other than potentially the opportunity cost of not having Portent or Arcane Ward, or other school based boons.

Sword Bard is another case for a full casting gish.

Both could arguably get additional martial prowess from a dip into Fighter or Paladin (particularly the Bard) but it certainly isn't necessary to make a decent gish from either subclass.

But both are definitely cases where they're getting a lot of martial power while also having all the power and usefulness of being a full caster. The opposite never happens.

Bladesinger is one that really gets my goat. You get a better version of the EK "cast and attack" multiattack...earlier. The EK gives up potentially 3 attacks to cast a cantrip, while the bladesinger...gets an extra attack for free, giving up nothing if they were already casting a cantrip that turn. Plus the built-in, non-spell-slot-consuming defenses. And a bunch of other strong features. Stapled on the entire wizard list. They're just as strong casters as any other wizard casting outside their specialty. They fireball as well as any non-Evoker. Etc. They pay basically zero for getting most of the necessary martial prowess.

There already was a bladesinger. It's called a dex-based EK.

[Skrum]

I'm gonna disagree on both.

A sword bard (either one) is not a good fighter. They have low hp, low ac, and bards don't exactly have the best spell list, especially for gish-type stuff. They're passable as a melee fighter, but if they wade in, thinking they're a rune knight, they're gonna get flatlined.

Bladesinger is the closest, but in my experience, a bladesinger is a wizard with a higher movement speed and AC. Like that's the real benefit. You still have a d6 hit dice. Just like a sword bard, start acting like an actual melee combatant and there's gonna be a dead bladesinger.

To me, neither of these are really what I think of when I think of a proper gish.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm gonna disagree on both.

A sword bard (either one) is not a good fighter. They have low hp, low ac, and bards don't exactly have the best spell list, especially for gish-type stuff. They're passable as a melee fighter, but if they wade in, thinking they're a rune knight, they're gonna get flatlined.

Bladesinger is the closest, but in my experience, a bladesinger is a wizard with a higher movement speed and AC. Like that's the real benefit. You still have a d6 hit dice. Just like a sword bard, start acting like an actual melee combatant and there's gonna be a dead bladesinger.

To me, neither of these are really what I think of when I think of a proper gish.

Lots of people disagree. In fact, the claim is repeatedly made that a bladesinger is a better tank than most "Tank" martials (EK, etc). Do I agree? Meh. Maybe, maybe not.

But even granting that they're not 100% of a martial...if all they can do is 70% of a martial's martial ability (especially swords bards as archers), that's still way better than the best a "full martial" can do vis a viz spellcasting. Which is a low 30%, being generous. Getting 3rd level spells in T4 is not exactly significant power. And off of only a couple of schools. And since martial subclasses generally are stronger than caster ones, they're giving up even more to do so. So an EK is 90% of a "pure" martial and 30% of a "pure" caster. While a bladesinger is 99.9% of a "pure" caster and 70% of a "pure" martial. And personally, that kind of asymmetry for no reason is repellant. It's just pure blatant caster favoritism.

Picking up martial capability is way easier and cheaper than picking up casting capability. Especially since martial capability is mostly binary--you have it or you don't. Where caster capability is multi-step scaling. It's the asymmetry that causes issues. And that they've shown zero signs of trying to fix--in fact, the other way is the truth. They're making better gishes and making it easier and easier to poach the martials' "cool things"...while leaving those cool things as non-scaling and non-interactive as possible and shoving all the interactive stuff into spells. The Haves and Have Nots, Electric Boogaloo edition.

[Skrum]

Lots of people disagree. In fact, the claim is repeatedly made that a bladesinger is a better tank than most "Tank" martials (EK, etc). Do I agree? Meh. Maybe, maybe not.

But even granting that they're not 100% of a martial...if all they can do is 70% of a martial's martial ability (especially swords bards as archers), that's still way better than the best a "full martial" can do vis a viz spellcasting. Which is a low 30%, being generous. Getting 3rd level spells in T4 is not exactly significant power. And off of only a couple of schools. And since martial subclasses generally are stronger than caster ones, they're giving up even more to do so. So an EK is 90% of a "pure" martial and 30% of a "pure" caster. While a bladesinger is 99.9% of a "pure" caster and 70% of a "pure" martial. And personally, that kind of asymmetry for no reason is repellant. It's just pure blatant caster favoritism.

Picking up martial capability is way easier and cheaper than picking up casting capability. Especially since martial capability is mostly binary--you have it or you don't. Where caster capability is multi-step scaling. It's the asymmetry that causes issues. And that they've shown zero signs of trying to fix--in fact, the other way is the truth. They're making better gishes and making it easier and easier to poach the martials' "cool things"...while leaving those cool things as non-scaling and non-interactive as possible and shoving all the interactive stuff into spells. The Haves and Have Nots, Electric Boogaloo edition.

Ok that I agree with. And I'll just add that the real problem is martials don't actually have all that much to them, and like you said, if a class gets extra attack and has some durability they've got a good chunk of what a fighter, ranger, monk, or barbarian can do. Which I agree, is pretty lame.

But, on the other hand, spells are awesome. And from a design perspective, it's a lot easier to add spells than it is it make new ways for a martial class to do cool and unique things.

I am gonna say bladesinger as tank is insane though. Like no way. Their AC is decent (but not top shelf), but their defenses are built on having good reaction spells. If they get focused fire, especially if you're playing with flanking, it quickly becomes apparent that they're still a wizard and shouldn't be in melee.

[LudicSavant]

I reject the full caster gish. It shouldn't ever be a thing.

I don't reject it, and here's why:

There are other game systems out there where casters and martials are well balanced against each other (at least, far, far moreso than in D&D), and many of them not only include full caster gishes, but also the ability for the casters to get insane powers.

It's often tempting for folks to think that the problem in D&D is 'stealing another character's role,' but I think this is a mistake. Role protection isn't actually necessary for balance. And whether you're doing damage by casting a spell or hitting with a sword is a primarily aesthetic difference, at the end of the day.

Think of it this way: If you removed Bladesingers from the game, Chronurgists wouldn't become any more balanced against Champions, and Bladesingers aren't stronger than Chronurgists.

Heck, Valor Bards aren't even one of the better Bards available. Extra Attack fundamentally is just not that special in and of itself. It's not that caster players are paying too little for Extra Attack -- they're paying about what it's worth and full caster gishes tend to have real tradeoffs compared to playing other full spellcasters (like some posters above said). Instead, it's that some martial characters just don't have enough nice things in their class progression, especially at higher levels.

[Aimeryan]

To address the paladin crit probably, couldn't it be simply changed to must declare smite before attack roll but keep the crit? Miss means lost spell slot anyway?

The problem is that DS isn't actually that good for normal Spell Slot use. Well, for the 5e Paladin it kinda is because the spell list is so awful (with Bless being the one of the only standouts); of course, Sorc multiclass is a thing. In any case, the spell list wont be an issue in D&Done.

DS scales poorly. Using Level 1 Spell Slots for it when you crit is alright. Using Level 5 Spell Slots? Against an ordinary mook? No. Level 5 Spell Slot on a crit against a boss, though? Sure, THEN its worth it. Thing is, without a crit it is just a really bad conversion. Even using every Spell Slot for DS only on crits the baseline DPS is hardly moved, with Archery Fighters and Action Surge beating it out fairly easily. The only thing DS has going for it is damage NOW, which means being able to nova. However, that is also bad when the boss gets gibbed in turn 1.

Ultimately it needed reining in, but it does make DS a poor choice most of the time. Personally, I think those Smite Spells need removing and the riders being optional choices added to DS.

[Kane0]

The problem is that DS isn't actually that good for normal Spell Slot use. Well, for the 5e Paladin it kinda is because the spell list is so awful (with Bless being the one of the only standouts); of course, Sorc multiclass is a thing. In any case, the spell list wont be an issue in D&Done.

DS scales poorly. Using Level 1 Spell Slots for it when you crit is alright. Using Level 5 Spell Slots? Against an ordinary mook? No. Level 5 Spell Slot on a crit against a boss, though? Sure, THEN its worth it. Thing is, without a crit it is just a really bad conversion. Even using every Spell Slot for DS only on crits the baseline DPS is hardly moved, with Archery Fighters and Action Surge beating it out fairly easily. The only thing DS has going for it is damage NOW, which means being able to nova. However, that is also bad when the boss gets gibbed in turn 1.


Sometimes i think its good to remember this is a game where someone can upcast magic missile to a 9th level slot, and at the most fundamental level the game structure doesnt assume this to be a colossal waste.

[Aimeryan]

Sometimes i think its good to remember this is a game where someone can upcast magic missile to a 9th level slot, and at the most fundamental level the game structure doesnt assume this to be a colossal waste.

Unless you're using the misunderstood 'roll for damage once' rule... yeah, sure, the game structure may allow it - but then so does it allow you to take Find Traps.

[animorte]

I reject the full caster gish. It shouldn't ever be a thing. At least as long as being a full caster also means <genie voice>phenomenal cosmic power</genie voice>.
Itty bitty living space!

Honestly, I think it would be mostly fine provided the full caster is actually required to spend a large amount of resources (spells and features) in order to maintain sufficient martial capability. That way they really can't do both all the time.


I don't reject it, and here's why:
I think the point being stated is less about any specific full-caster-subclass-gish vs full caster. The point being that no matter what the subclass features say, at the end of the day it's still a full caster with access to the same spells and progression. Otherwise, I very much agree with your post.

[Psyren]

I don't reject it, and here's why:

There are other game systems out there where casters and martials are well balanced against each other (at least, far, far moreso than in D&D), and many of them not only include full caster gishes, but also the ability for the casters to get insane powers.

It's often tempting for folks to think that the problem in D&D is 'stealing another character's role,' but I think this is a mistake. Role protection isn't actually necessary for balance. And whether you're doing damage by casting a spell or hitting with a sword is a primarily aesthetic difference, at the end of the day.

Think of it this way: If you removed Bladesingers from the game, Chronurgists wouldn't become any more balanced against Champions, and Bladesingers aren't stronger than Chronurgists.

Heck, Valor Bards aren't even one of the better Bards available. Extra Attack fundamentally is just not that special in and of itself. It's not that caster players are paying too little for Extra Attack -- they're paying about what it's worth and full caster gishes tend to have real tradeoffs compared to playing other full spellcasters (like some posters above said). Instead, it's that some martial characters just don't have enough nice things in their class progression, especially at higher levels.

All of this; I'm not opposed to martials getting nicer stuff. Like my proposal for Barbarians to get some kind of Spell Sunder ability instead of Brutal Critical.



I think the point being stated is less about any specific full-caster-subclass-gish vs full caster. The point being that no matter what the subclass features say, at the end of the day it's still a full caster with access to the same spells and progression. Otherwise, I very much agree with your post.

Ludic was using specific examples, but the point being made applies to all the caster gishes in 5e. Yes, they get the same spells as their non-gish subclass counterparts (mostly), but someone who chooses Bladesinger is going to be pushed towards picking worse spells overall than an Abjurer or Diviner; and even if they pick the exact same spells, the Bladesinger is going to get less mileage out of the best ones because they're constantly getting punched in the face, spending their actions on attacking and other resources on defense, and/or or needing to position themselves less advantageously.

In short, the caster effectiveness you give up by being a gish is generally not outweighed by the martial effectiveness you gain. For someone who is okay with casters in general, therefore, gishes aren't overpowered. But for someone who already hates where casters currently are, gishes being a provable step down may not be enough to assuage their concerns.

[Theodoxus]

But, on the other hand, spells are awesome. And from a design perspective, it's a lot easier to add spells than it is it make new ways for a martial class to do cool and unique things.

It shouldn't be any harder to develop a martial 'cool thing' than it is to create a new spell... just take said new spell and turn it into a martial 'cool thing'.

[animorte]

In short, the caster effectiveness you give up by being a gish is generally not outweighed by the martial effectiveness you gain. For someone who is okay with casters in general, therefore, gishes aren't overpowered. But for someone who already hates where casters currently are, gishes being a provable step down may not be enough to assuage their concerns.
Absolutely agreed (and that's as it should be), but again, I don't think that's what the statements were about. It wasn't comparing the full-caster-subclass-gish to the full-caster-non-gish. The gish just becomes arguably better as a martial than a martial, while no amount of multi-classing, feats, what-have-you will ever have the hope of a martial even remotely approaching that caster ability. Did I put it better that time?

[Psyren]

It wasn't comparing the full-caster-subclass-gish to the full-caster-non-gish. The gish just becomes arguably better as a martial than a martial, while no amount of multi-classing, feats, what-have-you will ever have the hope of a martial even remotely approaching that caster ability. Did I put it better that time?

I totally get where you (and PP) are coming from, I just disagree with the premise that anyone should be expecting gishes and pure martials to have the same ceiling at all. The gish is mixing resourceless combat with resource-dependent combat; without their key resource they will spike lower, so with it they should spike higher. So long as they don't spike as high as a pure caster, I'm okay with all of the above. I think 5e achieves that, and OneD&D will do an even better job.

[Snails]

It shouldn't be any harder to develop a martial 'cool thing' than it is to create a new spell... just take said new spell and turn it into a martial 'cool thing'.

Agreed.

It is pretty simple: martials need something more than ribbon abilities for levels after 6th level.

At 7th level, a full caster gets a 4th level spell, and the martial gets a participation trophy (ribbon).
At 8th level, a full caster get a second level spell, and the martial get nothing. (And both get an ASI).
At 9th level, a full caster gets a 5th level spell, and the martial gets a participation trophy (ribbon).
At 10th level, a full caster gets a second 5th level spell, and the martial gets nothing. (And both get a participation trophy.)

It is bleeding obvious that participation trophies and nothing does not compete with meaty spells. This is not an inherent problem of martials being martials. It is a design choice, where the designers decide to avoid giving martials nice things. Two 4th level spells and two 5th levels spells are always going to be much better than a measly pair of ribbons.

Honestly, I think imagination is not even required here most players would be happy enough with additional pretty small nice things for martials, like added save proficiencies, skill proficiencies, fighting styles. It is not as if it would be a "problem" if the Fighter were proficient in 5 different saves at 10th level -- he is still going to fail a lot of saves where the dump stats are. Imaginative martial design would be better, but it is not absolutely necessary.

[animorte]

I think 5e achieves that, and OneD&D will do an even better job.
Yup, that's where we've been in agreement from day one.

[Psyren]

It shouldn't be any harder to develop a martial 'cool thing' than it is to create a new spell... just take said new spell and turn it into a martial 'cool thing'.

This might work for some spells, but not all of them. Justifying the likes of resurrection or wish or contact other plane as "martial cool things" is going to snap suspension of disbelief for most. And that means the gap can be narrowed but never eliminated.

[Dienekes]

I totally get where you (and PP) are coming from, I just disagree with the premise that anyone should be expecting gishes and pure martials to have the same ceiling at all. The gish is mixing resourceless combat with resource-dependent combat; without their key resource they will spike lower, so with it they should spike higher. So long as they don't spike as high as a pure caster, I'm okay with all of the above. I think 5e achieves that, and OneD&D will do an even better job.

I think the issue will always come back to: This is a terrible way to balance classes, as it relies on the DM catering thing expertly to make certain that the party cannot rest when all the most powerful members of the party are weak in order to get the usually weaker classes a chance to shine.

This is especially gauling when even some released adventures don't pull off that tightrope walk correctly.

So the whole foundation of the system relies on a premise that many straight disagree with.

[Snails]

This might work for some spells, but not all of them. Justifying the likes of resurrection or wish or contact other plane as "martial cool things" is going to snap suspension of disbelief for most. And that means the gap can be narrowed but never eliminated.

The real divide between martials and spellcasters should be flexibility versus stacking. Flexibility is indeed powerful and that is the spellcasters schtick, but Concentration largely prevents extremely powerful combos. Martials tend to have abilities that stack up on top of whatever they are already good with zero or little stacking cost (e.g. smite damage, battlemaster dice, etc.). Within the proverbial "wheelhouse" of a martial, the kind of power they should be able to access is not so difficult to measure against the spells. The Paladin has shown us that in the right situation, 5d8 damage is a decent trade for a 4th level spell. We do not have to stick to things that are so narrow as damage, but the principle holds.

[Theodoxus]

This might work for some spells, but not all of them. Justifying the likes of resurrection or wish or contact other plane as "martial cool things" is going to snap suspension of disbelief for most. And that means the gap can be narrowed but never eliminated.

Maybe... it kinda depends on how much technowizardry you want in your D&D game. I mean, going back to WoW as an example, Resurrection is available through a few engineering gadgets; I could see something similar, especially since both WoW and D&D lack baseline catastrophic damage - outside of a magic sword or DM fiat, PCs aren't losing limbs or organs, so a defibrillator shocking someone back to life would presumably work as well on Faerun as it does on Azeroth.

Wish is far more problematic, but that's true as a spell too. But something like Foresight, another 9th level spell could easily be a capstone ability for Fighter without breaking anything.

Why can't a Fighter with knowledge of physics not be able to use the very materials found in the fireball spell, to build a cannon that produces the exact same effect? Why is it perfectly ok for an Artificer to do that, but a Fighter can't?

Fog cloud sounds simple enough as a chemical reaction; add a different chemical and you have Stinking Cloud. Add some hydrogen cyanide and you get Cloudkill.

We have poisons available, some quite nasty, so it's not like the base ability doesn't exist. It just takes a slightly different take on what is possible.

[Snails]

I totally get where you (and PP) are coming from, I just disagree with the premise that anyone should be expecting gishes and pure martials to have the same ceiling at all. The gish is mixing resourceless combat with resource-dependent combat; without their key resource they will spike lower, so with it they should spike higher. So long as they don't spike as high as a pure caster, I'm okay with all of the above. I think 5e achieves that, and OneD&D will do an even better job.

Doesn't a Bladesinger basically spike at 99% of where "pure" spellcasters spikes?

FWIW, I am not particularly concerned with the Bladesinger, because wading into the melee when you have d6's for HP puts a damper on being a true frontliner. (Albeit they do well enough while rapidly burning through spell slots for Shield.)

[Psyren]

I think the issue will always come back to: This is a terrible way to balance classes, as it relies on the DM catering thing expertly to make certain that the party cannot rest when all the most powerful members of the party are weak in order to get the usually weaker classes a chance to shine.

This is especially gauling when even some released adventures don't pull off that tightrope walk correctly.

So the whole foundation of the system relies on a premise that many straight disagree with.

It's a terrible way to balance if hard "balance" is your primary goal, rather than an aspirational range where "good enough for most groups" is an acceptable, even desirable outcome.


The real divide between martials and spellcasters should be flexibility versus stacking. Flexibility is indeed powerful and that is the spellcasters schtick, but Concentration largely prevents extremely powerful combos. Martials tend to have abilities that stack up on top of whatever they are already good with zero or little stacking cost (e.g. smite damage, battlemaster dice, etc.). Within the proverbial "wheelhouse" of a martial, the kind of power they should be able to access is not so difficult to measure against the spells. The Paladin has shown us that in the right situation, 5d8 damage is a decent trade for a 4th level spell. We do not have to stick to things that are so narrow as damage, but the principle holds.

I don't disagree, but that divide doesn't really solve the balance issue others are stuck on either. A paladin hitting one person for weapon damage +5d8 with a 4th level slot kinda pales compared to a sorcerer hitting five targets for 4d6+2d8+difficult terrain with the same slot. Nothing imo will resolve that issue except choosing to move past it.


Maybe... it kinda depends on how much technowizardry you want in your D&D game. I mean, going back to WoW as an example, Resurrection is available through a few engineering gadgets; I could see something similar, especially since both WoW and D&D lack baseline catastrophic damage - outside of a magic sword or DM fiat, PCs aren't losing limbs or organs, so a defibrillator shocking someone back to life would presumably work as well on Faerun as it does on Azeroth.

Putting aside that Azeroth has way, way more magitech than Faerun - including things like spaceships, transporters, orbital satellites and the like - even there they make the technological means of accessing such effects less effective or less reliable than magic. Those jumper cables you mention can only be used by engineers, they have a chance to fail, they debuff the subject and they don't bring them back with the same level of effectiveness of even their setting's Revivify equivalent. Would I be against that in Faerun, or more reasonably, Eberron or Ravnica? No, but part of that is due to the fact that it wouldn't be on par with true magic.

I'm not against high level martials getting something similar to Foresight.


Doesn't a Bladesinger basically spike at 99% of where "pure" spellcasters spikes?

If they make all the same decisions as a non-gish, they can - but then that begs the obvious question of why they chose a gish subclass in the first place. (And as you mentioned, they can't align with a non-gish, because they're forced to do things like "burn through shield," cast false life" etc.

[Theodoxus]

I was using Azeroth as an example of the idea, not saying the idea should be ported over exactly as is. There's no reason the tech aspect couldn't use the same reliability as magic - or is that a bridge too far?

[PhoenixPhyre]

This might work for some spells, but not all of them. Justifying the likes of resurrection or wish or contact other plane as "martial cool things" is going to snap suspension of disbelief for most. And that means the gap can be narrowed but never eliminated.

My strong preference for those particular things is to move them into a new bucket. Still "magic", but not "spell". Things that anyone can (choose to) learn how to do, completely separate from whether you're a spell caster or not. Effectively beefed up, differently-balanced rituals. That aren't castable as spells at all. They're just "things in a magical world".

Anyone with the right connection to a deity or other-planar creature can call out for aid, and if they do the ritual right (and have the right power level to bridge the gap), the creature will listen.

I also dislike the idea that "martial === can't access magic at all" and that "magic === spells". Those don't make any sense and are super limiting on the fiction. Martials at high levels absolutely should be magical. They just shouldn't cast
spells.

[Psyren]

I was using Azeroth as an example of the idea, not saying the idea should be ported over exactly as is. There's no reason the tech aspect couldn't use the same reliability as magic - or is that a bridge too far?

Reliability (and access) tend to be the primary differentiators between magic and technology in settings that have both. Take those away and it begs the question of why they're separate to begin with.


My strong preference for those particular things is to move them into a new bucket. Still "magic", but not "spell". Things that anyone can (choose to) learn how to do, completely separate from whether you're a spell caster or not. Effectively beefed up, differently-balanced rituals. That aren't castable as spells at all. They're just "things in a magical world".

Anyone with the right connection to a deity or other-planar creature can call out for aid, and if they do the ritual right (and have the right power level to bridge the gap), the creature will listen.

I don't want to keep being that guy but... isn't this just how 4e does rituals? i.e. shoving nearly all the "plot" spells under that umbrella and divorcing their use from the fiction.


I also dislike the idea that "martial === can't access magic at all" and that "magic === spells".

We're aligned on this; I'm not advocating either of these ideas.

I do think, however, that in a game where spells have added restrictions that non-spell magic doesn't (like spell components), that drawback needs to be balanced with an upside of some kind.

[KorvinStarmast]

But something like Foresight, another 9th level spell could easily be a capstone ability for Fighter without breaking anything. Once per day, just as with casting level 9 spells. :smallwink:


Why can't a Fighter with knowledge of physics not be able to use the very materials found in the fireball spell, to build a cannon that produces the exact same effect? Why is it perfectly ok for an Artificer to do that, but a Fighter can't? Because it's Wizards of the Coast, and the Artificer is a weird take on the Transmutation School Wizard.

[Theodoxus]

Reliability (and access) tend to be the primary differentiators between magic and technology in settings that have both. Take those away and it begs the question of why they're separate to begin with.

Mostly for flavor, I'd say. Some people groove on the idea of a Wand of Magic Missiles looking like a gun. Others want magic to always look like Harry Potter. I'm perfectly happy with Sorcery being refluffed as psionics. Others want a wholly different system where psionics look nothing like magic in any possible way. To steal from a different RPG, Mage the Awakening, Magick as tech and tech as Magick work just as well as Magick as magic. (Arguably better since a bazooka shooting a fireball doesn't look a lot different than a bazooka shooting an RPG.) But some folks like their bazooka to look and operate like one in the real world and others are perfectly happy with a retro streampunk vibe. They are separate precisely because some people get an oogey feeling when a high level Fighter appears able to throw meteors out of the end of their sword, because reasons. Change sword to bazooka and that feeling dissipates.


I don't want to keep being that guy but... isn't this just how 4e does rituals? i.e. shoving nearly all the "plot" spells under that umbrella and divorcing their use from the fiction.

I don't know about divorcing them from the fiction part, they seemed pretty clearly linked to the narrative to me, but otherwise, what would be so wrong with adopting this type of ritual from 4E?


I do think, however, that in a game where spells have added restrictions that non-spell magic doesn't (like spell components), that drawback needs to be balanced with an upside of some kind.

Why shouldn't "non-spell" magic have components? Especially my examples, it seem components are pretty much required. And, they probably shouldn't be particularly cheap, and definitely should at least be partially consumed in the process.

I'm not really advocating for a Rifts style D&D where a railgun and a fireball are on an even keel. But it would be nice if at some point, somehow, we don't always have to look to casters (and more than often arcane only casters) for decent AOE options.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't want to keep being that guy but... isn't this just how 4e does rituals? i.e. shoving nearly all the "plot" spells under that umbrella and divorcing their use from the fiction.


Like with many things, 4e had good ideas and implemented them poorly. The concept of 4e rituals is actually great. It's even less disconnected from the fiction than spells are, which are just pure "push button, get result" black boxes. For example, commune doesn't actually require you to have any kind of connection with a deity. And you can use planar ally to get an ally from anyone.

But those are implementation details. Fixing that is actually fairly simple. And you can gatekeep/balance them based on many more parameters than just "has spell slot". A short list, of which any particular "incantations" (my pet name for it) may only have a few:
* Requiring more cast time. Since they're not spells, this doesn't interact with concentration.
* Requiring an actual ritual setup tied into the fiction. Such as requiring a holy place to do the highest tiers of resurrection.
* Incurring "exhaustion" (either formally the Exhaustion levels or in other ways), either on first cast (what I call "Major Debilitation") or only on subsequent casts
* Making it exclusive (so if you recast it, the first effect ends)
* Requiring fictionally appropriate expensive (consumed) or focus (non-consumed) components
* Requiring multiple casters to work in concert
* etc.

4e rituals suffered for two major reasons (with a bonus 3rd):
1. They were super restrictive on what they allowed you to do. Probably out of fear of breaking something. As a result, they weren't super appealing.
2. They, like most other 4e stuff, tried to separate fluff from crunch, leading to disconnected mechanics.
3. They still had requirements on classes, etc. Which is utterly pointless.

But those are all implementation details.

Note: I feel this same way (good ideas, bad implementation) about a lot of 5e as well.



We're aligned on this; I'm not advocating either of these ideas.

I do think, however, that in a game where spells have added restrictions that non-spell magic doesn't (like spell components), that drawback needs to be balanced with an upside of some kind.

Meh. Spell components are de minimis 99.9% of the time (either handwaved or ignored or removed by a feat such as War Caster or a focus). And there's nothing to say that non-spell magic can't have drawbacks of its own. I'm very much in favor of everyone having "drawbacks" (more properly "conditions and restrictions") on just about everything. That means you actually have to make choices and deal with consequences, not just 'push the right button and go'.

[KorvinStarmast]

Note: I feel this same way (good ideas, bad implementation) about a lot of 5e as well. Four Elements Monk comes to mind. :smallyuk:


That means you actually have to make choices and deal with consequences, not just 'push the right button and go'. Yes, that's preferred.

As to Rituals: Totem Path Barbarian gets ritual spells; speak with animals, beast sense, and Commune with Nature.

I have seen the latter pay dividends among players who embrace the game world, but not as much with players who play "push the right button and go."

All in all, I am on board with your general feeling about rituals. In 5e, it is in some ways an opportunity missed. Resurrection and True Resurrection as rituals ... yeah, that would be the better idea.

[Psyren]

Mostly for flavor, I'd say. Some people groove on the idea of a Wand of Magic Missiles looking like a gun. Others want magic to always look like Harry Potter. I'm perfectly happy with Sorcery being refluffed as psionics. Others want a wholly different system where psionics look nothing like magic in any possible way. To steal from a different RPG, Mage the Awakening, Magick as tech and tech as Magick work just as well as Magick as magic. (Arguably better since a bazooka shooting a fireball doesn't look a lot different than a bazooka shooting an RPG.) But some folks like their bazooka to look and operate like one in the real world and others are perfectly happy with a retro streampunk vibe. They are separate precisely because some people get an oogey feeling when a high level Fighter appears able to throw meteors out of the end of their sword, because reasons. Change sword to bazooka and that feeling dissipates.

I think some of these ideas are okay but on the whole, are too disjointed to fit into the same printed game.



I don't know about divorcing them from the fiction part, they seemed pretty clearly linked to the narrative to me, but otherwise, what would be so wrong with adopting this type of ritual from 4E?

At what point during their martial drills did a Fighter or Barbarian learn rituals for planar travel or raising the dead? 4e's answer to that is a cosmic shrug. That's not an implementation problem, that's conceptual.



Why shouldn't "non-spell" magic have components? Especially my examples, it seem components are pretty much required. And, they probably shouldn't be particularly cheap, and definitely should at least be partially consumed in the process.

You mean constructing a cannon in 6 seconds to shoot a fireball, then doing the same 6 seconds later?



I'm not really advocating for a Rifts style D&D where a railgun and a fireball are on an even keel. But it would be nice if at some point, somehow, we don't always have to look to casters (and more than often arcane only casters) for decent AOE options.

I'd rather just give martials some more AoE options of their own. Cleaves, whirlwind attacks, blade dances, cone shouts, cylinder volleys etc.

[verbatim]

At what point during their martial drills did a Fighter or Barbarian learn rituals for planar travel or raising the dead? 4e's answer to that is a cosmic shrug. That's not an implementation problem, that's conceptual.

I'd rather just give martials some more AoE options of their own. Cleaves, whirlwind attacks, blade dances, cone shouts, cylinder volleys etc.

I think you can stretch things pretty far with the right flavor.

A Barbarian subclass that is basically just an Earthbender could be given a fair amount of thematic new abilities (or reflavored spells, a la Psionic Warrior Fighter) that do crowd control.

Psionic Rogue kind of dabbled with this a bit by teleporting to where you threw your psychic knife. Open Hand, 4E, Shadow, and even base Monks all have abilities that are just spells that are accepted pretty openly. Leaning more in this direction (maybe preferably new abilities or if you're using an existing spell you add a rider) to address the martial spellcaster gap sounds like it could be cool.

IMO 4E monk failed because monks are the only base class without spell slots that gets subclasses that have spells where casting those spells drains base class resource. The 1/3 casters gaining spell slots makes them work and Shadow Monk is able to coast past this huge downside mainly off of how strong Pass Without Trace is.

I think something like how Sorcerer works, where you get a set number of times you can do your ability per rest, and then you can spend a base class resource to do it more often, would be a great fit for a 4E Monk reimagined as a 1/3 caster that doesn't fully throw out the original paradigm of spending ki on spells.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My pet implementation has rituals as effectively magic items (effectively non consumable spell scrolls). So no one learns them from their class by default. You find them in the world as quest rewards, purchases, etc). Simple ones are easy to learn, hard ones harder. Note this is the same as 4e, where you bought them outright.

You could extend that and give current ritual casters (including the feat) some base number they discover.

[Twelvetrees]

I understand their desire to make it so druid players don't feel like they have to book-dive for animal forms, but it's hard to make it feel like you've turned into a specific animal when your stats don't match the animal stats that already exist in the game.

I feel like they could find a middle ground between where they are now and where the 2014 version of druid is.

Just give druids a small preset list of animals they can turn into and let them choose three of them. Done. They could even do their usual "With the DM's permission" schtick and say "Other beasts may be available for you to select from, with the DM's permission."


At what point during their martial drills did a Fighter or Barbarian learn rituals for planar travel or raising the dead? 4e's answer to that is a cosmic shrug. That's not an implementation problem, that's conceptual.
4e's answer isn't that fighters or barbarians learned these rituals during weapon drills. In the exact same manner as in 5e, fighters or barbarians learning rituals happened through taking a feat: Ritual Caster.

The feats are near-identical, too. 5e requires Int or Wis 13, while 4e requires proficiency in Arcana or Religion, but they both give you the ability to cast rituals out of a ritual book.

I would contend that any issues with martial characters in 4e learning rituals are also present in 5e.


I'd rather just give martials some more AoE options of their own. Cleaves, whirlwind attacks, blade dances, cone shouts, cylinder volleys etc.
This, I entirely agree with.

[Skrum]

It shouldn't be any harder to develop a martial 'cool thing' than it is to create a new spell... just take said new spell and turn it into a martial 'cool thing'.

Oh, my point about that is making up a spell and adding it to the wizard, sorcerer, and warlock spell list has added a potentially significant feature to the game for three entirely separate classes. Make up a cool martial feature, and it's for one class, possibly only one subclass of a class. This isn't like any sort of defense of martials not getting that many cool features, but from a like "time put in to reward" sorta calculation, I can see how making up new spells would be more attractive than making up new martial features.

Spells are also back-portable in a way that martial features just aren't. Spell lists are modular, and players are used to them getting expanded all the time. This is not the case for class features.

[Hurrashane]

I understand their desire to make it so druid players don't feel like they have to book-dive for animal forms, but it's hard to make it feel like you've turned into a specific animal when your stats don't match the animal stats that already exist in the game.

Without looking up that stat block how would you even know? Also my human PC doesn't have the same stats as a human NPC, why should a PCs animal form match the NPCs? Shouldn't the druid be able to turn into a better animal than the animal? Shouldn't they be like, primal power incarnate in wolf form?

[Justin Sane]

As to Rituals: Totem Path Barbarian gets ritual spells; speak with animals, beast sense, and Commune with Nature.Ancestral Guardians actually pick up a few Divination spells (usable per short rest, no less) that make sense with their theme, too.
On the other hand, Storm Heralds can't herald actual storms. They can't even predict a storm (better than anyone else). I'm still salty about that one.

[Psyren]

I think you can stretch things pretty far with the right flavor.

A Barbarian subclass that is basically just an Earthbender could be given a fair amount of thematic new abilities (or reflavored spells, a la Psionic Warrior Fighter) that do crowd control.

Psionic Rogue kind of dabbled with this a bit by teleporting to where you threw your psychic knife. Open Hand, 4E, Shadow, and even base Monks all have abilities that are just spells that are accepted pretty openly. Leaning more in this direction (maybe preferably new abilities or if you're using an existing spell you add a rider) to address the martial spellcaster gap sounds like it could be cool.

IMO 4E monk failed because monks are the only base class without spell slots that gets subclasses that have spells where casting those spells drains base class resource. The 1/3 casters gaining spell slots makes them work and Shadow Monk is able to coast past this huge downside mainly off of how strong Pass Without Trace is.

I'm not against any of these magic martials. Sure, bring on Seismic Barbarians and Psychic Rogues and 4E Monks with spell slots.


I understand their desire to make it so druid players don't feel like they have to book-dive for animal forms, but it's hard to make it feel like you've turned into a specific animal when your stats don't match the animal stats that already exist in the game.

Why can't they start there and scale up? If I'm a "wolf" moon druid, I don't want my only option as I level to be to outgrow being a wolf; I want to eventually emulate Fenrir or Moro or Okami.



I would contend that any issues with martial characters in 4e learning rituals are also present in 5e.

Not in the least, because the level of spellcasting ability you can attain purely via rituals instead of class is drastically reduced in 5e relative to 4e. No teleportation circles or planar gates, no gaining an audience with a deity, no scrying, no removing curses or petrification, no interrogating or raising the dead etc. You need actual spellcasting instruction and talent (i.e. a casting class) for those.



Without looking up that stat block how would you even know? Also my human PC doesn't have the same stats as a human NPC, why should a PCs animal form match the NPCs? Shouldn't the druid be able to turn into a better animal than the animal? Shouldn't they be like, primal power incarnate in wolf form?

+100

[Theodoxus]

Oh, my point about that is making up a spell and adding it to the wizard, sorcerer, and warlock spell list has added a potentially significant feature to the game for three entirely separate classes. Make up a cool martial feature, and it's for one class, possibly only one subclass of a class. This isn't like any sort of defense of martials not getting that many cool features, but from a like "time put in to reward" sorta calculation, I can see how making up new spells would be more attractive than making up new martial features.

Spells are also back-portable in a way that martial features just aren't. Spell lists are modular, and players are used to them getting expanded all the time. This is not the case for class features.

A common complaint about Battlemaster is you get additional maneuvers at 7th, 10th, and 15th level, but you're picking from the same list that you had at 3rd level. What if, instead, there were additional options, level gated, like 4E monk choices. And what if these choices were cool things like cleaves, whirlwind attacks, blade dances, cone shouts, cylinder volleys, etc? And then, what if maneuvers and superiority dice were the 'One Thing' warriors got. At that point, maneuvers become just as modular as spells, and could be expanded all the time. "Spells for Warriors!" And if they remain short rest recoverable, all the better for it.

That was my point about turning spells into martial toys.



Not in the least, because the level of spellcasting ability you can attain purely via rituals instead of class is drastically reduced in 5e relative to 4e. No teleportation circles or planar gates, no gaining an audience with a deity, no scrying, no removing curses or petrification, no interrogating or raising the dead etc. You need actual spellcasting instruction and talent (i.e. a casting class) for those.

But that's the fun of this D&DOne experiment, none of those things are technically off the table. Just because 5E didn't do it that way doesn't mean the next gen has to follow suit. I still contend all 6th+ level spells should be rituals, and take longer to complete the higher the level. There's no reason Wizards should become akin to gods; able to warp reality on a whim and 6 seconds of time. But if we are going to keep that tradition for tradition's sake, then we should at least elevate warriors to some semblance of parity. Not all the way to teleportation and resurrection and calling asteroids out of space parity, but at least cleaves, whirlwind attacks, blade dances, cone shouts, cylinder volleys, etc. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

I don't see how a cone shout could ever be seen as a "semblance of parity" with raising the dead or planar travel, but if granting the former stops the routine lamenting on the subject across multiple message boards I'm all for it, cosigned!

[Twelvetrees]

Without looking up that stat block how would you even know?
Too much time behind a DM screen. And that applies to several of my players as well. :smalltongue:

To give a less tongue-in-cheek answer, let's look at the current version of Animal of the Land and say we're using it to represent a wolf. 95% of the stat block works well. However, the 40 foot climb speed would be a bit of a giveaway that when we transform, we don't match the existing wolf stats.

Is this a terrible problem? Nah. Just silly enough that I think the designers could play around with this some and come up with something better.


Shouldn't the druid be able to turn into a better animal than the animal? Shouldn't they be like, primal power incarnate in wolf form?
Why can't they start there and scale up? If I'm a "wolf" moon druid, I don't want my only option as I level to be to outgrow being a wolf; I want to eventually emulate Fenrir or Moro or Okami.
Sounds like a cool idea to me! Starting out with the base version of an animal and gaining something like warlock invocations to modify animal forms sounds awesome. I'd love the opportunity to play a druidic version of Babe the Blue Ox. Ooh, or something like 3.5's Geomancer?


Not in the least, because the level of spellcasting ability you can attain purely via rituals instead of class is drastically reduced in 5e relative to 4e. No teleportation circles or planar gates, no gaining an audience with a deity, no scrying, no removing curses or petrification, no interrogating or raising the dead etc. You need actual spellcasting instruction and talent (i.e. a casting class) for those.
Can you clarify for me where the line you're drawing with some abilities requiring actual spellcasting instruction and talent is? It's really fuzzy for me.

5e allows a fighter or barbarian with Ritual Caster (wizard) to make a telepathic link between party members (Rary's Telepathic Bond), create words in clouds (Skywrite), or make a nigh-impenetrable dome of force (Leomund's Tiny Hut). And to make matters more confusing for me, one of the examples you gave is something that's already possible: A fighter or barbarian could "gain an audience with a deity" through the use of Contact Other Plane.

Those are all fantastical magical abilities. What makes adding Teleportation Circle to the list of rituals a bridge too far?


Just because 5E didn't do it that way doesn't mean the next gen has to follow suit.
Exactly. If we're getting a new edition, I'd like to see improvements on what came before instead of a new coat of paint.

[sithlordnergal]

Without looking up that stat block how would you even know? Also my human PC doesn't have the same stats as a human NPC, why should a PCs animal form match the NPCs? Shouldn't the druid be able to turn into a better animal than the animal? Shouldn't they be like, primal power incarnate in wolf form?

Players aren't stupid, pattern recognition is a thing that exists. If a Wolf makes a bite attack against you with Advantage while an ally of theirs is standing next to you, and you have to make a Strength Save to avoid being knocked prone, they're gonna notice if they don't have that. Additionally, DMs should simply assume that players will always look up the statblock. I haven't met a player that doesn't look up statblocks.

Now, it would be interesting for a Druid to turn into a better version of an animal, but the current version doesn't.

EDIT: I will say, being able to modify one's chosen animal form would be interesting. Though we'd need to have that on top of the "Turn into as many different forms as you can". Cause that's the biggest draw for me as a Druid. A single form is meaningless to me, I just wanna turn into as much stuff as possible.

[Goobahfish]

Instructive video.

I was actually surprised that >50% wanted to go back to book-diving. Somehow, I don't think that number is a completely real number though. Given how much of a botch job the proposed model was, it is pretty easy to internalize 'old method is better' => stat blocks are better as a through-line rather than 'you botched it so hard I won't play druid any more'.

Honestly, I'm not even sure their aim is achievable. I imagine that druid kind of 'selects' for the system-expert type so 'willing book-divers' are probably over-represented amongst druid players. That said, I'm not sure how you get 'flexibility' (i.e., different animals do different things) without either becoming generic (i.e., all animals do different things) or having some fixed coupling (bears are tough, climb and have two attacks but no AC, whereas snakes have one attack, swim and grapple) via separate stat-blocks or something one step away from separate stat-blocks (i.e., a weapons list with keywords). There is a kind of minimum data organisation thing going on here. We've already pretty much hit the floor of simplicity vs flexibility, there isn't much further to go.

That design aim and design constraint together lead to a very narrow design space. I imagine the OneDnD devs are in a bit of a panic at the moment. Either side of that debate is going to lose player-base.

[Kane0]

Generic statblocks could work, if done well.

They were not done well.

[Aimeryan]

Instructive video.

I was actually surprised that >50% wanted to go back to book-diving. Somehow, I don't think that number is a completely real number though. Given how much of a botch job the proposed model was, it is pretty easy to internalize 'old method is better' => stat blocks are better as a through-line rather than 'you botched it so hard I won't play druid any more'.

Honestly, I'm not even sure their aim is achievable. I imagine that druid kind of 'selects' for the system-expert type so 'willing book-divers' are probably over-represented amongst druid players. That said, I'm not sure how you get 'flexibility' (i.e., different animals do different things) without either becoming generic (i.e., all animals do different things) or having some fixed coupling (bears are tough, climb and have two attacks but no AC, whereas snakes have one attack, swim and grapple) via separate stat-blocks or something one step away from separate stat-blocks (i.e., a weapons list with keywords). There is a kind of minimum data organisation thing going on here. We've already pretty much hit the floor of simplicity vs flexibility, there isn't much further to go.

That design aim and design constraint together lead to a very narrow design space. I imagine the OneDnD devs are in a bit of a panic at the moment. Either side of that debate is going to lose player-base.

No one mentioned >50% want to go back to book-diving, just that >50% prefer curated Beasts rather than build-your-blob. In any case, using any splat would qualify as 'book diving', so unless you think people are against additional material...?

The issue, if it even can be considered as such, with the 5e implementation of choosing the Beast to become is that it dives into DM material (i.e., the MM) and is wishy-washy on the requirements of 'must have seen before' - like a skeleton?; a picture?; in a zoo?; at a great distance?; someone who Wildshaped/Polymorphed?; for a brief moment as you ran away?; at some point in the past before the campaign started?; etc. A curated list in the PHB and further player-orientated splats avoids this, and the 'seen before' rule can be cleared up. Personally I would go with curated list always available, then any creature personally observed within gameplay for more than a minute at distance of less than 200ft to get a feel of it - even if the creature is dead. This allows the DM to pass DM material after it has already been used.

Another interesting point here is, the satisfaction numbers for the Druid were never given. The statement about the two camps, with one being slightly more than 50%, is not the same statement as the figures returned for the satisfaction. To put in other words, they could have received 0% satisfaction and still make the >50% remark about the two camps.

[Goobahfish]

No one mentioned >50% want to go back to book-diving, just that >50% prefer curated Beasts rather than build-your-blob. In any case, using any splat would qualify as 'book diving', so unless you think people are against additional material...?

The issue, if it even can be considered as such, with the 5e implementation of choosing the Beast to become is that it dives into DM material (i.e., the MM) and is wishy-washy on the requirements of 'must have seen before' - like a skeleton?; a picture?; in a zoo?; at a great distance?; someone who Wildshaped/Polymorphed?; for a brief moment as you ran away?; at some point in the past before the campaign started?; etc. A curated list in the PHB and further player-orientated splats avoids this, and the 'seen before' rule can be cleared up. Personally I would go with curated list always available, then any creature personally observed within gameplay for more than a minute at distance of less than 200ft to get a feel of it - even if the creature is dead. This allows the DM to pass DM material after it has already been used.

Hmm... maybe I misinterpreted what was being said? I got the distinct impression that there was a fair bit of 'we want a big list of stat blocks' on one end of the spectrum. Even if you have an extended curated list, you end up with every beast having two blocks if you are not careful (the Player and DM versions of the same creature). I am actually very curious to see if they work out something interesting as their final solution. Obviously 3 blobs (which largely don't do much) is a pretty boring approach to the space. They are also flagging that book-diving is out. That doesn't leave a huge amount of space in between.


Another interesting point here is, the satisfaction numbers for the Druid were never given. The statement about the two camps, with one being slightly more than 50%, is not the same statement as the figures returned for the satisfaction. To put in other words, they could have received 0% satisfaction and still make the >50% remark about the two camps.

Evidence of how screwed they are I think. They even admitted to the Rogue getting the odd 60 I think. I'm guessing the new wildshape basically came in in the 30's/40's or something similarly embarrassingly low. I can't think of anyone who would look at that first pass with glee. I think we are in polishing garbage territory.

Maybe they'll give in and just let druids sit in this slightly OP territory they've always occupied.

[Aimeryan]

They are also flagging that book-diving is out.

As I said, I don't think that is true at all. They said they don't want 100s of Beasts for the player who has just picked up Wildshape. There is an exaggeration from them here, of course, since you only get access to CR <=1 - but the point stands I think. A curated list and then only what you come across in campaign is a lot easier to manage and expands more slowly. Splats are still an option - you just wont get them unless its a specific player-orientated 'Shapes Gone Wild!' book, or the DM uses a new beast from them if DM-orientated.

[Gignere]

As I said, I don't think that is true at all. They said they don't want 100s of Beasts for the player who has just picked up Wildshape. There is an exaggeration from them here, of course, since you only get access to CR <=1 - but the point stands I think. A curated list and then only what you come across in campaign is a lot easier to manage and expands more slowly. Splats are still an option - you just wont get them unless its a specific player-orientated 'Shapes Gone Wild!' book, or the DM uses a new beast from them if DM-orientated.

I also think they want a clear division between NPC abilities and PC abilities. It’s quite obvious that a lot of NPCs abilities were designed to be action economy efficient like grapple and restrain on hit, or prone on hit, poison on hit, etc. That’s because most encounters with NPCs the action economy is firmly on the side of the PCs.

Allowing a PC option, namely the moon Druid to access these NPC designed abilities is hard to balance for and unintended. Imagine asking for pack tactics and restrain on hit on a barbarian or fighter subclass and every short rest they can change it to something else. That’s why they took pack tactics out of the PC options for kobolds. To gain any type of these attack abilities for PCs require both burning a resource and/or an action, at least a bonus action.

This change is core to their design philosophy. Asking access to NPCs abilities for the Druid/ moon Druid is a fruitless discussion. Give them ideas of how they can design animal forms for Druids without getting NPC abilities would be much more constructive.

[Zevox]

No one mentioned >50% want to go back to book-diving, just that >50% prefer curated Beasts rather than build-your-blob.
They didn't say a single word about "curated beasts." They said there are two camps on the UA's version: those that loved it, and those that never want it to see print, and that the latter group is the one a bit over 50%. That does not tell us any specific thing that the latter group as a whole does prefer, only that they don't want what was presented.

[Aimeryan]

They didn't say a single word about "curated beasts." They said there are two camps on the UA's version: those that loved it, and those that never want it to see print, and that the latter group is the one a bit over 50%. That does not tell us any specific thing that the latter group as a whole does prefer, only that they don't want what was presented.

They have discussed the two camps before, so I think we are inferring from that, however I do take the point. On the other hand, as I have mentioned previously, the version and the implementation are not the same thing - so we cannot in turn infer that just under 50% wanted 'what was presented' either.

To take your point further, however, we don't know that the the UA version would be preferred over the any other version, even at just under 50%. We simply know that just under 50% actually liked the version (but not necessarily the implementation). It is less a comparitive process and more just a process of 'do you like this idea at all?'. If say we stacked this up against a curated list with say a scaling mechanic and reskin feature to keep the list from growing too large then we may find the later overwhelmingly preferred.

We'll have to see what comes next, however, I am very confident it will be a curated list of some kind.

[Zevox]

They have discussed the two camps before, so I think we are inferring from that, however I do take the point.
Are you under the impression they previously implied that people who disliked the UA version wanted curated lists? Because I'm pretty certain that's not true at all. They previously talked about how they expected the change to be divisive, and had seen just that, with some loving and some hating it. They floated curated lists as one of the alternatives they were considering, but that's not the same as saying they had any reason to believe it would be what those against the generic stat block version want.


On the other hand, as I have mentioned previously, the version and the implementation are not the same thing - so we cannot in turn infer that just under 50% wanted 'what was presented' either.
True, just as it's likely that those opposed to the generic stat blocks aren't a monolith in prefered alternative, it's likely that not all of those that rated that version more positively loved it.


We'll have to see what comes next, however, I am very confident it will be a curated list of some kind.
A reasonably safe bet given WotC's apparent preferences, yes. Had this scored higher but not high enough I'd have expected basically this but with some changes and additions, but since they've said before that scoring under 60% on their metrics is a complete rejection in their mind and this very much did that, I think the curated list is likely to be what they try jumping to next.

[Aimeryan]

Are you under the impression they previously implied that people who disliked the UA version wanted curated lists? Because I'm pretty certain that's not true at all. They previously talked about how they expected the change to be divisive, and had seen just that, with some loving and some hating it. They floated curated lists as one of the alternatives they were considering, but that's not the same as saying they had any reason to believe it would be what those against the generic stat block version want.

They have floated curated lists as the alternative. I do agree with you that we cannot therefore presume that everyone who did not like the template will want a curated list. However, in practical terms this is the result at the current time. If that gets shot down in the next test, then things get interesting.

[Psyren]

Can you clarify for me where the line you're drawing with some abilities requiring actual spellcasting instruction and talent is? It's really fuzzy for me.

5e allows a fighter or barbarian with Ritual Caster (wizard) to make a telepathic link between party members (Rary's Telepathic Bond), create words in clouds (Skywrite), or make a nigh-impenetrable dome of force (Leomund's Tiny Hut). And to make matters more confusing for me, one of the examples you gave is something that's already possible: A fighter or barbarian could "gain an audience with a deity" through the use of Contact Other Plane.

Those are all fantastical magical abilities. What makes adding Teleportation Circle to the list of rituals a bridge too far?

Can I clarify it for every single capability in the game? No, I'm afraid I can't. It's like the line between risqué art and obscenity, the best I can say is I know it when I see it. 4e rituals leaped across that line for me, so far the 5e ones haven't (with only a tiny handful of exceptions, two of which are in your list.)

One rubric (among many) I use is how "external" the ability is. A fighter drawing on their innate physicality, discipline and training to heal themselves, even removing conditions, i view as perfectly fine. Healing someone else though starts to encroach on Paladin or Ranger territory.



Exactly. If we're getting a new edition, I'd like to see improvements on what came before instead of a new coat of paint.

"Improvements" are in the eye of the beholder. If you'll note, the new version of Ritual Caster in the Expert UA actually removes some of the ones you listed from the running, while also making it a half-feat. I consider that an improvement, but I'm guessing you wouldn't.


They have floated curated lists as the alternative. I do agree with you that we cannot therefore presume that everyone who did not like the template will want a curated list. However, in practical terms this is the result at the current time. If that gets shot down in the next test, then things get interesting.

This. We're almost certainly getting Curated as the next swing. My hope is they ultimately land somewhere in the middle, but I can live with anything that doesn't get us back to book-diving.

[Zevox]

They have floated curated lists as the alternative. I do agree with you that we cannot therefore presume that everyone who did not like the template will want a curated list. However, in practical terms this is the result at the current time. If that gets shot down in the next test, then things get interesting.
From their perspective, since they're eplicitly seeking an alternative to the existing version ("book diving"), indeed. For myself, well, I hope that things get interesting, as you put it.

[diplomancer]

I'm not a Druid fan (in fact, it's probably my least favourite class), but "curated and scaling list" would be an interesting solution. You start from the basic statblock of some of the more common beasts, so you start feeling very much like them, and then you make it scale with Druid level, just have to hit the right difference between Moon Druids and others. Might even give a limited number of options (with more options for Moon Druids), that increase in levels.

[Psyren]

As I said, I don't think that is true at all. They said they don't want 100s of Beasts for the player who has just picked up Wildshape. There is an exaggeration from them here, of course, since you only get access to CR <=1 - but the point stands I think. A curated list and then only what you come across in campaign is a lot easier to manage and expands more slowly. Splats are still an option - you just wont get them unless its a specific player-orientated 'Shapes Gone Wild!' book, or the DM uses a new beast from them if DM-orientated.

It's not an exaggeration for Moon Druids; from Allosaurus to Wolf, there are indeed ~100 beasts CR 6 and below purely in core.

[sithlordnergal]

As I said, I don't think that is true at all. They said they don't want 100s of Beasts for the player who has just picked up Wildshape. There is an exaggeration from them here, of course, since you only get access to CR <=1 - but the point stands I think. A curated list and then only what you come across in campaign is a lot easier to manage and expands more slowly. Splats are still an option - you just wont get them unless its a specific player-orientated 'Shapes Gone Wild!' book, or the DM uses a new beast from them if DM-orientated.

Isn't that basically how Druids work already? Players start with a small list that they and their DM agree upon, then they can only turn into things they see. I'm honestly not sure how players are able to freely dive through statblocks as if Wild Shape is Polymorph. The only things they can turn into are beasts they see, and the three Elementals.

I do get it can be somewhat annoying if the DM decides to thrown in an awesome beast, and then the Druid starts to turn into it. But usually those awesome Beasts have a CR of around 3 to 4...which means the Moon Druid only gets it at level 9 and 16. But if a Druid is trying to turn into a dinosaur, but there are none to be found, they can't suddenly turn into one.

[Hurrashane]

Players aren't stupid, pattern recognition is a thing that exists. If a Wolf makes a bite attack against you with Advantage while an ally of theirs is standing next to you, and you have to make a Strength Save to avoid being knocked prone, they're gonna notice if they don't have that. Additionally, DMs should simply assume that players will always look up the statblock. I haven't met a player that doesn't look up statblocks.

Now, it would be interesting for a Druid to turn into a better version of an animal, but the current version doesn't.

EDIT: I will say, being able to modify one's chosen animal form would be interesting. Though we'd need to have that on top of the "Turn into as many different forms as you can". Cause that's the biggest draw for me as a Druid. A single form is meaningless to me, I just wanna turn into as much stuff as possible.

I genuinely can't remember a time in 5e I've ever actually fought any animal. My DM I think generally steers clear of them as enemies. One because our group are all animal lovers (one even works for a zoo) and two because they're uninteresting enemies. We've -encountered- animals, but usually animal handling, speak with animals, etc means we don't fight them.

Out of the group I'm currently in (and have been for years now) I'm probably the only player that would look up statblocks and I don't. Also most of the time the DM just finds an appropriately challenging stat block and reskins it to whatever, so what it's described as and what it is aren't usually the same thing.

I really can't understand the mentality of "because I'm not what the book says is a wolf means I'm not a wolf" like, this is a game of pretend? I can play as a Vhuman and say my character is a wolf, be a barbarian, reflavor my greataxe as a bite and lo and behold as far as the game world is concerned my character is a wolf. NPCs will react to my character as if they're a wolf, other wolves will react to my character as if they're a wolf, like, they're a wolf for everything that matters.

[sithlordnergal]

I genuinely can't remember a time in 5e I've ever actually fought any animal. My DM I think generally steers clear of them as enemies. One because our group are all animal lovers (one even works for a zoo) and two because they're uninteresting enemies. We've -encountered- animals, but usually animal handling, speak with animals, etc means we don't fight them.

Out of the group I'm currently in (and have been for years now) I'm probably the only player that would look up statblocks and I don't. Also most of the time the DM just finds an appropriately challenging stat block and reskins it to whatever, so what it's described as and what it is aren't usually the same thing.

I really can't understand the mentality of "because I'm not what the book says is a wolf means I'm not a wolf" like, this is a game of pretend? I can play as a Vhuman and say my character is a wolf, be a barbarian, reflavor my greataxe as a bite and lo and behold as far as the game world is concerned my character is a wolf. NPCs will react to my character as if they're a wolf, other wolves will react to my character as if they're a wolf, like, they're a wolf for everything that matters.

Really? I tend to use them all the time for low level encounters. I find they're similar to Zombies, but with a bit more wisdom. In an open field, they're uninteresting, but toss them into a cave that they know really well, or similar situations, and they suddenly become very interesting and dangerous. More than one low level PC have fallen for the "Giant Spider on the ceiling" or "Giant Scorpion under the sand" tricks.

I'm also surprised by that. You have a pretty different group from what I play with. I tend to expect every person in my group to look up the statblock of a creature the moment they run into something and learn the name. Usually cause they're curious about it.


Yeeeah...I feel like that would break some verisimilitude. Which is rich coming from me since I tend to ignore versimilitude in most things. While this is a game of pretend, statblocks help to differentiate and define things. Its why stat-blobs that try to emulate all the things all at once utterly fail. The way I see it is that statblocks and mechanics help to sell the narrative of a thing. Without the mechanics to back up your narrative, your narrative is pointless because it can be anything. And if it can be anything, then it is nothing.

Like, I'm fine with you playing as a Wolf. Hell, I'm fine with you playing as an awakened leaf with googly eyes if you like. What matters is that you have the mechanics to back it up. If your mechanics match the narrative, then verisimilitude remains unbroken. Even if its the dumbest, craziest, stupidest, off-the-wall thing imaginable. If Wolves in the world use the Wolf statblock, and you come in rocking a d12 Bite attack, Rage, and a ton of Hit Points, you're not a Wolf. You lack the mechanics to back up the narrative of what a Wolf is. You can emulate some of them, sure, but they all come together to form the mechanics of a Wolf, which then upholds the narrative of a Wolf.

[diplomancer]

I genuinely can't remember a time in 5e I've ever actually fought any animal. My DM I think generally steers clear of them as enemies. One because our group are all animal lovers (one even works for a zoo) and two because they're uninteresting enemies. We've -encountered- animals, but usually animal handling, speak with animals, etc means we don't fight them.


Hmm, this is indeed odd. Now that you mention it, I'd say my experience is heavily weighted toward fighting some animals, but not others. Plenty of wolves (and their big brothers), some giant versions of tiny beasts (arachnids and frogs, mostly), a snake here and there, and maybe some dinosaurs. But never a Great Cat, a Bear (unless it's an owlbear:smallwink:), or an Ape, and definitely never something like a Giant Goat (though I believe there's a monstrous goat in a published adventure?). Lots of tropes! :)

[Dienekes]

I genuinely can't remember a time in 5e I've ever actually fought any animal. My DM I think generally steers clear of them as enemies. One because our group are all animal lovers (one even works for a zoo) and two because they're uninteresting enemies. We've -encountered- animals, but usually animal handling, speak with animals, etc means we don't fight them.


Mostly DM dependent. In my setting one of the more direct opponents is the Gravid Queen. The mother of beasts and monsters. Animals get thrown at players a lot if they upset her.

[Mastikator]

If animals by themselves are boring as enemies then DMs need to start using them as a part of a group of humanoid enemies. Gnomes riding on wolves, boars. Humans riding on bears or tigers. Halflings riding on dinosaurs. Elves riding on giant scorpions. Dwarves riding on rhinos.

A giant spider would be an AWESOME mount actually. Giant eagle too.

[Psyren]

If Wolves in the world use the Wolf statblock, and you come in rocking a d12 Bite attack, Rage, and a ton of Hit Points, you're not a Wolf. You lack the mechanics to back up the narrative of what a Wolf is. You can emulate some of them, sure, but they all come together to form the mechanics of a Wolf, which then upholds the narrative of a Wolf.

Right, you're not a Wolf; you're a druid wildshaped into a Wolf. But that doesn't mean you can't be considered or treated in most respects as a wolf, within the game fiction. A random peasant who sees you is not going to whip out their Pokedex, scan you, and yell that you're really some other entity in disguise because your stats don't match the entry.

[sithlordnergal]

Right, you're not a Wolf; you're a druid wildshaped into a Wolf. But that doesn't mean you can't be considered or treated in most respects as a wolf, within the game fiction. A random peasant who sees you is not going to whip out their Pokedex, scan you, and yell that you're really some other entity in disguise because your stats don't match the entry.

And in order to help sell that fiction you should use a statblock that is extremely similar to a Wolf. You can change one or two details, sure. But change too much, and you're no longer a Wolf. You're something else. Consider 5e's Wild Shape. You become that creature. Your only actions available to you are what's on the statblock, potentially an ongoing spell effect, and the ability to leave Wild Shape. Yes, your mental stats remain the same...but they effectively remain the same with Polymorph too. I've yet to find a player or DM that has a polymorphed creature act any differently than they would in their normal form.

And honestly...if a person came up like that, and said they're a Wolf when they're actually playing a V-Human Barbarian, I would have NPCs specifically call them out as being some sort of Wolf-like monstrosity and not a real Wolf, cause wolves don't do the things a V-Human Barbarian can/does.

EDIT: Now that isn't to say I'd be opposed to such a player. But you can bet that we'd be homebrewing an Awakened Wolf race, and they would not be able to wield weapons, and could only wear armor if its been shaped for a wolf to wear. I.E. I'd make the mechanics match the narrative. But if you're just a V-Human reskinned to be a Wolf? Yeah, no , that won't fly. You lack the mechanics to back up your narrative, and so your narrative is false. I don't do the whole "Just reskin it, it'll be fine" junk. If you have no mechanics to back it up, then your reskin is meaningless.

[Hurrashane]

Really? I tend to use them all the time for low level encounters. I find they're similar to Zombies, but with a bit more wisdom. In an open field, they're uninteresting, but toss them into a cave that they know really well, or similar situations, and they suddenly become very interesting and dangerous. More than one low level PC have fallen for the "Giant Spider on the ceiling" or "Giant Scorpion under the sand" tricks.

I'm also surprised by that. You have a pretty different group from what I play with. I tend to expect every person in my group to look up the statblock of a creature the moment they run into something and learn the name. Usually cause they're curious about it.


Yeeeah...I feel like that would break some verisimilitude. Which is rich coming from me since I tend to ignore versimilitude in most things. While this is a game of pretend, statblocks help to differentiate and define things. Its why stat-blobs that try to emulate all the things all at once utterly fail. The way I see it is that statblocks and mechanics help to sell the narrative of a thing. Without the mechanics to back up your narrative, your narrative is pointless because it can be anything. And if it can be anything, then it is nothing.

Like, I'm fine with you playing as a Wolf. Hell, I'm fine with you playing as an awakened leaf with googly eyes if you like. What matters is that you have the mechanics to back it up. If your mechanics match the narrative, then verisimilitude remains unbroken. Even if its the dumbest, craziest, stupidest, off-the-wall thing imaginable. If Wolves in the world use the Wolf statblock, and you come in rocking a d12 Bite attack, Rage, and a ton of Hit Points, you're not a Wolf. You lack the mechanics to back up the narrative of what a Wolf is. You can emulate some of them, sure, but they all come together to form the mechanics of a Wolf, which then upholds the narrative of a Wolf.

My DM is arachnophobic so spiders a lot of the time either only exist in their tiny state or just straight up do not exist.

But if my DM uses an animal like the scorpion example he'll more than likely make it some thing that is some sort of monstrous thing rather than it just being a scorpion. Even if it ultimately just uses the scorpion stat block.

If there's animals in a cave they know we'll then that's likely their home and why are we there? We'd need a good reason to be there and like, why animals at all? If it's some sort of wolf den a cave full of Kobolds or goblins with traps and such is more interesting. And with creatures like that you can talk and reason with them, and maybe not even need to fight.

If we want to know about a creature we'll ask to roll some kind of check to see what we know about it. Adds to the world building and prevents metagaming.

Why couldn't the barbarian wolf be like some kind of dire wolf? Or enhanced wolf? Some sort of primal wolf? By way of being a PC you're different than your run of the mill whatever. There's a champion NPC stat block, is a level 3 champion fighter not one because they don't have plate armor nor the ability to attack 3 times? Is a player playing an evoker not one because it doesn't match the NPC block? The answer should be no. As long as the "wolf" isn't doing anything outside of what a wolf could believably do then I have no problem believing it's a wolf. If the "wolf" say squeezed through a gap an inch wide I'm going to have difficulty believing it's a wolf and not some thing in wolf shape. A creature described as a wolf that has attacks described as bites I'm going the believe it's a wolf. If it does a ton of damage and can tank a lot of hits I'm not going to be like "hey wait, that's not a wolf" I'm going to be like "dang, this is one tough wolf!"

[Psyren]

And in order to help sell that fiction you should use a statblock that is extremely similar to a Wolf. You can change one or two details, sure. But change too much, and you're no longer a Wolf. You're something else. Consider 5e's Wild Shape. You become that creature. Your only actions available to you are what's on the statblock, potentially an ongoing spell effect, and the ability to leave Wild Shape. Yes, your mental stats remain the same...but they effectively remain the same with Polymorph too. I've yet to find a player or DM that has a polymorphed creature act any differently than they would in their normal form.

And honestly...if a person came up like that, and said they're a Wolf when they're actually playing a V-Human Barbarian, I would have NPCs specifically call them out as being some sort of Wolf-like monstrosity and not a real Wolf, cause wolves don't do the things a V-Human Barbarian can/does.

That you have to rocket to hyperbole-ville with outlandish scenarios like "I'm a VHuman Barbarian, call me a wolf" shows how untenable your position is. My BM ranger's Beast of the Land is a wolf because WotC specifically says I get to choose what kind of animal it represents. That's how any such templates would work. You can choose to houserule otherwise, and I can choose to avoid your table.

[sithlordnergal]

My DM is arachnophobic so spiders a lot of the time either only exist in their tiny state or just straight up do not exist.

But if my DM uses an animal like the scorpion example he'll more than likely make it some thing that is some sort of monstrous thing rather than it just being a scorpion. Even if it ultimately just uses the scorpion stat block.

If there's animals in a cave they know we'll then that's likely their home and why are we there? We'd need a good reason to be there and like, why animals at all? If it's some sort of wolf den a cave full of Kobolds or goblins with traps and such is more interesting. And with creatures like that you can talk and reason with them, and maybe not even need to fight.

If we want to know about a creature we'll ask to roll some kind of check to see what we know about it. Adds to the world building and prevents metagaming.

Why couldn't the barbarian wolf be like some kind of dire wolf? Or enhanced wolf? Some sort of primal wolf? By way of being a PC you're different than your run of the mill whatever. There's a champion NPC stat block, is a level 3 champion fighter not one because they don't have plate armor nor the ability to attack 3 times? Is a player playing an evoker not one because it doesn't match the NPC block? The answer should be no. As long as the "wolf" isn't doing anything outside of what a wolf could believably do then I have no problem believing it's a wolf. If the "wolf" say squeezed through a gap an inch wide I'm going to have difficulty believing it's a wolf and not some thing in wolf shape. A creature described as a wolf that has attacks described as bites I'm going the believe it's a wolf. If it does a ton of damage and can tank a lot of hits I'm not going to be like "hey wait, that's not a wolf" I'm going to be like "dang, this is one tough wolf!"

Huh, that's rather interesting that your DM specifically avoids using the beasts themselves, even if they use the statblocks.

As for a reason, I mean, why do adventurers do anything? Could be any number of reasons to go into an animal's den. From retrieving something, to having to use it to hide from deadly weather, to just accidentally stumbling into their den without knowing it was a den. By adding creatures you can't just talk to normally, I find it encourages my players to think outside of the box a little bit. Sure, they'll occasionally attack. But they'll also attempt to communicate via survival and animal handling checks.

Eh, I've always been of the opinion that metagaming happens, it'll always happen, and it's a part of the game. As long as your character waits until they've either made a check, or seen something in action, before using metagame knowledge, then I'm fine with metagame knowledge. A player knowing that the Demilich can instantly drop you to 0 HP won't change anything as long as the player does not act on it until they either see/hear it for themselves, or they make an Arcana check to see if they know.


See, I'm fine with your PC being a Wolf, Dire wolf, or whatever. BUT we'd be making a Homebrew Race for it. You wouldn't be able to use a Greataxe, you wouldn't be a V-Human, you wouldn't be able to use armor unless it was created specifically for a beast to use. And in exchange you'd gain the benefits of such a race, like a Bite Attack, Pack Tactics, ect. As for the other two examples, you'd be neither a Champion or an Evoker. You're something different, and if you ran into a knowledgeable enough NPC they'd be able to call you out on it with ease.

EDIT


That you have to rocket to hyperbole-ville with outlandish scenarios like "I'm a VHuman Barbarian, call me a wolf" shows how untenable your position is. My BM ranger's Beast of the Land is a wolf because WotC specifically says I get to choose what kind of animal it represents. That's how any such templates would work. You can choose to houserule otherwise, and I can choose to avoid your table.

That was actually the exact example Hurrashane used in his argument. To give a less outlandish scenario, looking at the OneDnD Wildshape, you can tell that you're not a wolf. You have nothing that a wolf does, you have nothing that relates to being a Wolf at all. But you're supposedly a Wolf? No, you're not, you're a nothing blob.


EDIT 2: I will admit, I find it funny that we're basically debating the Ship of Theseus, but with Wolves. How much can one change before a Wolf is no longer a Wolf. And if nothing is required to be a Wolf, does that mean everything is a Wolf

[Aimeryan]

It's not an exaggeration for Moon Druids; from Allosaurus to Wolf, there are indeed ~100 beasts CR 6 and below purely in core.

Oh definitely, but the main point they made was regarding a fresh player, where that is not the case (unless they are starting at a high level, but you kind of expect similar issues with any full caster). They did also mention a 'veteran who doesn't have time'; I think a 'veteran' would know the ones they like and just go with those, but eh.

In any case, if I recall the discussion was whether that goal ruled out splats, which I would say no as long as the curated list is not too big. Scaling and reskinning to similar creatures can massively shrink down the list, as has been discussed elsewhere.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh definitely, but the main point they made was regarding a fresh player, where that is not the case (unless they are starting at a high level, but you kind of expect similar issues with any full caster). They did also mention a 'veteran who doesn't have time'; I think a 'veteran' would know the ones they like and just go with those, but eh.

In any case, if I recall the discussion was whether that goal ruled out splats, which I would say no as long as the curated list is not too big. Scaling and reskinning to similar creatures can massively shrink down the list, as has been discussed elsewhere.

As can just being slightly selective. Most of that 100+ are CR 0s that differ only slightly mechanically and are unlikely to actually need any dice rolls in most cases. A lot of the rest are CR < 1/2, so not combat forms.

[Aimeryan]

As can just being slightly selective. Most of that 100+ are CR 0s that differ only slightly mechanically and are unlikely to actually need any dice rolls in most cases. A lot of the rest are CR < 1/2, so not combat forms.

Absolutely. In fact, I just checked, and there are only about 60 Beasts between CR1 and CR6 across all published books. If I look at only what I would consider the major sources (MM, Monsters of the Multiverse, PHB, DMG, Tashas, Volos, Xanathars), discounting repeats, I only get around 30 such Beasts (and they are all in the MM and Monsters of the Multiverse).

[Psyren]

That was actually the exact example Hurrashane used in his argument.

And? You quoted me in that post, not him; *I* never gave that example.



To give a less outlandish scenario, looking at the OneDnD Wildshape, you can tell that you're not a wolf. You have nothing that a wolf does, you have nothing that relates to being a Wolf at all. But you're supposedly a Wolf? No, you're not, you're a nothing blob.

I want abilities available through wildshape too, and said as much in my survey. But I'm not going to throw out the scaling-template baby with the lack-of-abilities bathwater either.


As can just being slightly selective. Most of that 100+ are CR 0s that differ only slightly mechanically and are unlikely to actually need any dice rolls in most cases. A lot of the rest are CR < 1/2, so not combat forms.


Absolutely. In fact, I just checked, and there are only about 60 Beasts between CR1 and CR6 across all published books. If I look at only what I would consider the major sources (MM, Monsters of the Multiverse, PHB, DMG, Tashas, Volos, Xanathars), discounting repeats, I only get around 30 such Beasts (and they are all in the MM and Monsters of the Multiverse).

Oh, only 60 statblocks to look through, that changes everything!

Even the fractional and zero CR creatures might have a useful combination of appearance, senses, movement and abilities; The player has no way of knowing until they look.

[Gignere]

And? You quoted me in that post, not him; *I* never gave that example.



I want abilities available through wildshape top, and said as much in my survey. But I'm not going to throw out the scaling-template baby with the lack-of-abilities bathwater either.

I’m almost positive the NPC abilities are not coming back there might be similar abilities but the auto restrain/prone/poison on hit, pack tactics, I think would be out because that’s their design philosophy for the last several books. It’s core to their change of design of separating PC and NPC abilities.

NPC abilities are just too action economy efficient. PC abilities can duplicate some of it but it would require either an action, resource or highly limited times per day, and likely have a slightly different name.

[Goobahfish]

The player has no way of knowing until they look.

This.

Even if you provide a 'curated list', if it ever says 'these or others' then you are back at square one. As I pointed out in another thread... my curated list is... at least 50ish forms without needing to really get obscure.

---

In general we've been over this territory a fair bit in an old thread (or two). I definitely agree with the sense that 'being a thing' requires a certain amount of mechanical buy-in to feel authentic.

Wildshape in the playtest really feels like a Hat of Disguise rather than Wildshape in any meaningful sense. Wildshape needs to have a bit of a 'janky' feel (webs, poisons, grapples, trips) in order to really keep 'the feels'.

To avoid genericness, the janky needs coupling. I.e., spider has web, climb but maybe low HP/AC and a pretty lame attack (other than poison). If I don't get that idiosyncrasy, it feels pretty lame to wild-shape. This necessitates certain design constraints, the easiest and worst solution to which is book-diving.

Likewise, the single-shifter (which is a very common trope) wants a CR1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 murderbat/snapping turtle/velociraptor which requires either another 100 stat-blocks or scaling stat-blocks.

This has an information floor which correlates to a big table. Species x Attributes. If you do this as stat blocks, you have one per species (or at best species group - good luck with that). If you do this with a table (my preferred method), you can get away with far fewer scaling stat-blocks plus a bunch of keywords (still not noob-friendly but certainly journeyman-friendly).

Based on the previous interviews, they are going to try to preserve 'texture' without book-diving (which they did say they dislike). So, I figure we'll end up with more generic statblocks with 'mini-choices' ala Tasha's summons.

[Aimeryan]

Oh, only 60 statblocks to look through, that changes everything!

It is only 60 if you include all the adventures and settings material. If you are at that point then you've likely seen most of them already for years.
For a new player it is 7 CR1 Beasts. Even by the time they get to CR6 Beasts it has only grown to about 30 - and that is level 18 Druid (which most wont even reach), so at least a year if not two or three.

The amount is just not onerous unless you are literally throwing a fresh player in at level 18+ with all the different books out there. My only contention is putting it on a full caster at the same time (to detriment of both).

Diving through the <CR1 forms in case there is a nugget somewhere is on you; no one is forcing a player to do that or even recommending it. If anything, this shows more of an issue for non-Moon Druids. The Moon Druid section on this even includes the following line to advise the player to go with higher CR forms:

The rites of your circle grant you the ability to transform into more dangerous animal forms. Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Wild Shape to transform into a beast with a challenge rating as high as 1

[Kane0]

3-5 statblocks per tier, and moon lets them all scale. If you want more, let the druid only have access to prof bonus forms at a time or something.
Crucially, the forms should actually have some interesting features beyond numbers and movement modes.

[Theodoxus]

Personally, I'd follow real life evolution. Nothing is ever free, and things like venom have costs. It's why there aren't constrictor sized rattlers or black widows the size of rats.

For 'build-a-bear' wildshape, this would come down to HD cost for abilities. Generic, off the line statblock with no mods: 2xlevel in HD, Attributes: Str 15, Dex: 11, Con: 13. AC: 10+PB+Dex mod. 1 attack (bite) for 1d6+Str.

Options using HD conversion.
1 HD to increase all three attributes by 1, max 3 HD
1 HD to increase damage by 1 die size; max 2 HD
2 HD to add another attack at current damage
2 HD to add Proneing attack
2 HD to add Pounce
2 HD to be water breathing (requires minimum 4th level)
3 HD to add 2d6 Poison (can also increase the number of dice and die size at the same cost as generic attack)
3 HD to add a Web attack
4 HD to add flight speed (requires minimum 8th level)

= others as needed/wanted/requested, following similar guidelines.

Maybe allow the use of spell slots to substitute HD at a 1:1 level, so you could burn a 3rd level slot when you Wildshape to increase your attributes by 3, or increase your generic attack to d8s and get a second attack to boot. I would still allow the use of HD conversion to work alongside the spell slot usage.

All costs subject to change, of course.

[Gignere]

Personally, I'd follow real life evolution. Nothing is ever free, and things like venom have costs. It's why there aren't constrictor sized rattlers or black widows the size of rats.

For 'build-a-bear' wildshape, this would come down to HD cost for abilities. Generic, off the line statblock with no mods: 2xlevel in HD, Attributes: Str 15, Dex: 11, Con: 13. AC: 10+PB+Dex mod. 1 attack (bite) for 1d6+Str.

Options using HD conversion.
1 HD to increase all three attributes by 1, max 3 HD
1 HD to increase damage by 1 die size; max 2 HD
2 HD to add another attack at current damage
2 HD to add Proneing attack
2 HD to add Pounce
2 HD to be water breathing (requires minimum 4th level)
3 HD to add 2d6 Poison (can also increase the number of dice and die size at the same cost as generic attack)
3 HD to add a Web attack
4 HD to add flight speed (requires minimum 8th level)

= others as needed/wanted/requested, following similar guidelines.

Maybe allow the use of spell slots to substitute HD at a 1:1 level, so you could burn a 3rd level slot when you Wildshape to increase your attributes by 3, or increase your generic attack to d8s and get a second attack to boot. I would still allow the use of HD conversion to work alongside the spell slot usage.

All costs subject to change, of course.

Should just use spell slots, this way you can’t cast in some encounters and in other use wildshape. If combining both casting and effective combat wildshape it would be your nova encounter.

However this is a lot of jank, which maybe counter to current D&D design. Anyway maybe something that scales with spell slots like the summoning spell might work. Like AC/Damage/Temp Hp all scale with the spell slot used to power the wildshape.

[Theodoxus]

I don't think there will ever be a 'one size fits all' option. It'd be awesome if WotC revised the 2E Unearthed Arcana, or the 3.5 PHB2 and offered multiple ways to use the same type of ability - across the board, not just wildshape - and let tables use whichever they find works best for them.

But I guess that would be too janky for some folks too.

[Moxxmix]

I'd go with a customizable template version for the PHB rules for the druid itself, and then an appendix of pre-gen wildshapes (which can be expanded in the equivalent of Xanathar's 2.0) that you can use if you don't want to do the math of building your custom beast.

Alternatively, the other way around. Have like a half dozen pre-gens in the druid section, and then an appendix for how to custom build your own wildshape. That might be more reasonable from an ease-of-use standpoint, especially for newer players.

Either way, the pre-gens have to show that it's reasonable to create the beast you're trying to imagine using the build system.

[Psyren]

It is only 60 if you include all the adventures and settings material. If you are at that point then you've likely seen most of them already for years.

No - as I've said repeatedly, that's just the 5e Monster Manual. I didn't include any splats, setting specific material, or APs.



Diving through the <CR1 forms in case there is a nugget somewhere is on you; no one is forcing a player to do that or even recommending it.

For Moon Druids, you do have to hand them the MM (or at the very least dive through it yourself and pick out selected forms for them) because the PHB forms quickly become useless after level 4 or so.

For non-moon druids, you can probably get by with restricting them to the low-level PHB forms since they likely won't be wildshaping much in combat anyway, but that's avoiding the problem rather than addressing it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd go with a customizable template version for the PHB rules for the druid itself, and then an appendix of pre-gen wildshapes (which can be expanded in the equivalent of Xanathar's 2.0) that you can use if you don't want to do the math of building your custom beast.

Alternatively, the other way around. Have like a half dozen pre-gens in the druid section, and then an appendix for how to custom build your own wildshape. That might be more reasonable from an ease-of-use standpoint, especially for newer players.

Either way, the pre-gens have to show that it's reasonable to create the beast you're trying to imagine using the build system.

I'd be mostly ok with this, depending on implementation. But I don't have tons of faith in WotC's implementation abilities on any matter.

[Dalinar]

After some thought, I do think a feat-like/invocation-like "customizable wild shape template" situation is probably the best way to split the difference between the book-diving design problem WOTC identified and what druid players actually want out of Wild Shape (versatility and survivability in exchange for spellcasting; more differentiation than the UA when it comes to turning into specific things).

Start with a handful of basic templates like the UA, give Druids a list of ability packages you can add on top of those templates (which can range anywhere in complexity from "the arachnid package" of webs and climbing and the like, to maybe simpler things like "chitinous plating" for extra AC), let them select a few of those options to spec into (and gain more as they level), and then they choose one of those options to apply when they use Wild Shape.

The neat thing about this design is that it also informs a great way to really sell Moon Druid as the Wild Shape specialist: you let them apply more packages to their shapes! Mix-and-match is often a logical next step to improve upon transformation abilities, and I don't think I've seen it done in D&D before.

Additionally, if you want to have someone that is specifically really good at one particular Wild Shape, you can also do that by having prerequisites on some of the packages (which is also probably how you gatekeep flying and swimming forms among other things). If you want to sell being a werewolf druid, you can spec into Wolf, Improved Wolf, and Superior Wolf, and you take Moon Druid to steal further bonuses from other packages while you're at it. If you want to be a more traditional druid, maybe you do Bear, Snake, Fish, and Bird of Prey.

[Kane0]

After some thought, I do think a feat-like/invocation-like "customizable wild shape template" situation is probably the best way to split the difference between the book-diving design problem WOTC identified and what druid players actually want out of Wild Shape

Lets be honest, the boon + invocation setup is a great way to mechanically handle most things.

[Aimeryan]

No - as I've said repeatedly, that's just the 5e Monster Manual. I didn't include any splats, setting specific material, or APs.

I've just counted them up; there are 28 Beasts between CR1 and CR6 inclusive in the 5e Monster Manual, not 60.



For Moon Druids, you do have to hand them the MM (or at the very least dive through it yourself and pick out selected forms for them) because the PHB forms quickly become useless after level 4 or so.

For non-moon druids, you can probably get by with restricting them to the low-level PHB forms since they likely won't be wildshaping much in combat anyway, but that's avoiding the problem rather than addressing it.

I think we all agree that the whole 28 could be put in the PHB. Splats would remain in splats, naturally. If they want to add another two dozen over the various splats (as they pretty much do currently), then I don't find that any more problematic than new Subclasses or Spells doing the same.

For non-Moon Druids, I think that IS addressing the problem; they absolutely don't need to look through 100 <CR1 forms just to be tiny and move around, which is what non-Moon Druid Wildshape largely amounts to. A selection of 10 would do the job. In fact, you know what, just direct them to the Find Familiar forms.

[Psyren]

I've just counted them up; there are 28 Beasts between CR1 and CR6 inclusive in the 5e Monster Manual, not 60.

I see the confusion, I was doing CR 0-1; sorry about that.


I think we all agree that the whole 28 could be put in the PHB.

Huh? Where did we agree on that? :smallconfused:

[Aimeryan]

Huh? Where did we agree on that? :smallconfused:

My bad, was in a hurry when I wrote that. I meant, I think we could all agree that 28 stat blocks could be put in the PHB instead of being forced to go into the MM.

Case to point, there already are that many (they just aren't all Beasts). I haven't got the PHB with me at this current time, however, I think most(?) of those 28 Beasts are in the PHB? It largely misses out higher CRs as you mention. So, maybe like 10 or so more need added?

[Psyren]

My bad, was in a hurry when I wrote that. I meant, I think we could all agree that 28 stat blocks could be put in the PHB instead of being forced to go into the MM.

Case to point, there already are that many (they just aren't all Beasts). I haven't got the PHB with me at this current time, however, I think most(?) of those 28 Beasts are in the PHB? It largely misses out higher CRs as you mention. So, maybe like 10 or so more need added?

There are 20+ beasts currently in the PHB, but of those, only 5 6 are CR 1 (Brown Bear, Dire Wolf, Giant Eagle, Giant Spider, Lion and Tiger.) That would leave a little over 20 more to add from the MM, i.e. doubling the number of creature statblocks at the back of the PHB, and that's assuming no additional ones from below CR 1 are added. I don't see that as the best use of their pagecount.

[Theodoxus]

That's even if they stick to the current CR formula for wildshape. Since all they gave us was blobs, there's no way of knowing if they stick to statblocks that Level / 3 will still be the max, or if another formula will be used. I don't think WotC really contemplated the fact that Moon would access CR 6 - since they have what, a total of 1 CR 6 beast, and it isn't particularly versatile... I guess if they do stick with Level / 3, they at least give at a minimum, one land, sea, and air beast of each CR 1-6. Two of each would be ideal, but I get that would be a lot of work on their end.

[Aimeryan]

There are 20+ beasts currently in the PHB, but of those, only 5 6 are CR 1 (Brown Bear, Dire Wolf, Giant Eagle, Giant Spider, Lion and Tiger.) That would leave a little over 20 more to add from the MM, i.e. doubling the number of creature statblocks at the back of the PHB, and that's assuming no additional ones from below CR 1 are added. I don't see that as the best use of their pagecount.

You say 20+? Is that between CR1-6?

There are only 6 CR1 Beasts without Swim/Fly in the MM. There are only 9 with them. From the ones you listed, there is only the Giant Hyena missing that would be available to a Moon Druid at level 2-3. From levels 4-5 there is also the Giant Toad and and Giant Octopus.

[Psyren]

You say 20+? Is that between CR1-6?

Do you mean the PHB or the MM? Sorry, this is getting confusing.

What I'm ultimately saying is that there are currently 20+ beasts in the PHB, only 6 of which are CR 1. You want to expand that to cover CRs 2-6 so Moon Druids have everything they need in one place, doing so could easily double the number of beasts in the PHB. I think that's a waste of space when scaling statblocks accomplish the same objective without needing to be dependent on challenge rating, which is (or should be) a DM-facing construct anyway.

[Hurrashane]

I will admit, I find it funny that we're basically debating the Ship of Theseus, but with Wolves. How much can one change before a Wolf is no longer a Wolf. And if nothing is required to be a Wolf, does that mean everything is a Wolf

If it's a wolf in the narrative then it's a wolf, no matter what it can do mechanically. For the DM reality is whatever they want it to be. They think that a cat stat block better represents a wolf, it's a wolf now.

There's a lot of questions I have around druid wildshape. Like they become a wolf, which wolf? Is it a specific wolf? Is it some sort of primal average wolf? Can they become a specific wolf? If they saw a pregnant wolf can they become that one? Are they just themselves in wolf shape? If so why then do they get pack tactics and the skills of a wolf? Can they change their wolf shape? Coloration? Can they look like the orc chief's battle tested scarred wolf? If not could they if it was the first wolf they saw? Can they become a wolf pup?

Like, I find the generic blob wildshape much more elegant. Are you a wolf? You look like one, and can be pretty convincingly wolf like if you know how wolves do. You're primal power in wolf form. Looking as fantastic or mundane as you like.

[MoiMagnus]

If it's a wolf in the narrative then it's a wolf, no matter what it can do mechanically.

Especially since the stat block for wolves don't contain much flavour in them. You can create a "definitely not a wolf" with exactly the same stat block (like some minor dinosaur), and a named wolf with some importance in the narrative would likely have a significantly different stat block.

There are stats blocks that have some significant flavour but the wolf is not one of them.

[Unoriginal]

Especially since the stat block for wolves don't contain much flavour in them. You can create a "definitely not a wolf" with exactly the same stat block (like some minor dinosaur), and a named wolf with some importance in the narrative would likely have a significantly different stat block.

There are stats blocks that have some significant flavour but the wolf is not one of them.

I mean, Pack Tactic, Keen Smell... It's kind of the expected wolf flavor, isn't it?

[Psyren]

I mean, Pack Tactic, Keen Smell... It's kind of the expected wolf flavor, isn't it?

Yeah but like... why can't a boar have that statblock? Or a hyena? Or a compy?

I'm in favor of the abilities themselves, but I'm not irrevocably married to one specific statblock for "wolf."

[Theodoxus]

I mean, Pack Tactic, Keen Smell... It's kind of the expected wolf flavor, isn't it?

Only because that's how the devs created the wolf to function like in game.

There's really no narrative reason a Druid needs the exact functionality of the wolf statblock.

I can just imagine a Druid joining a wolf pack as an outside member to observe wolf society like a modern day biologist would love to do. Some junior wolf asks the papa "Why is Uncle Jubjub so weird?" The alpha says "I don't know Tommy, maybe he's touched in the brain."

I agree with Psyren, the riders and special abilities are nice, but if it's easier to go with generic forms, then 'touched' beasts it is.

[Hurrashane]

I mean, Pack Tactic, Keen Smell... It's kind of the expected wolf flavor, isn't it?

Lions also have this. I guess that makes them a kind of wolf

[sithlordnergal]

If it's a wolf in the narrative then it's a wolf, no matter what it can do mechanically. For the DM reality is whatever they want it to be. They think that a cat stat block better represents a wolf, it's a wolf now.

There's a lot of questions I have around druid wildshape. Like they become a wolf, which wolf? Is it a specific wolf? Is it some sort of primal average wolf? Can they become a specific wolf? If they saw a pregnant wolf can they become that one? Are they just themselves in wolf shape? If so why then do they get pack tactics and the skills of a wolf? Can they change their wolf shape? Coloration? Can they look like the orc chief's battle tested scarred wolf? If not could they if it was the first wolf they saw? Can they become a wolf pup?

Like, I find the generic blob wildshape much more elegant. Are you a wolf? You look like one, and can be pretty convincingly wolf like if you know how wolves do. You're primal power in wolf form. Looking as fantastic or mundane as you like.

So, everything is a wolf then. As long as they are a wolf in the narrative, it doesn't matter if they have Pack Tactics, a Bite, have an 18 AC from using the Champion statblock, or can cast Power Word Kill, they're still just a regular wolf. Only as long as you describe them as a Wolf. Feels a bit ridiculous to have a Wolf that uses a Lich's statblock, or a regular Wolf that uses the Champion's statblock. But if it doesn't matter mechanically, then they're both wolves. Ancient Red Dragon statblock? Medium sized Wolf now, perfectly normal in every way.

As for Wild Shape, I would say they just turn into an average wolf. Nothing about it says you turn into a specific creature, just that you turn into that creature. Its kind of like polymorph. When you cast Polymorph, you aren't turning into one specific Beast, you're just turning into an average version of that beast.

I find generic stat blocks are anything but elegant. If you have to Druids turn into two different creatures, they should not be the same as each other. Which is what happens when you use a generic statblock. It doesn't matter if you claim to be a wolf, if the Druid that turned into a Giant Snake has the exact same abilities are you, then you're both nothing. And with a generic stat block, that's exactly what happens.

Lets say they add in the ability to choose some small benefits to OneDnD's Wild Shape. Like you can choose to have webs, poison, pack tactics, ect. Now, they could come in little packets, like you get Spider climb, Poison, and Webs, or you can take Pack Tactics, a Shove, and a bonus to your speed. Two druids could choose the different ones, still say "I'm a Wolf", and they both would be according to you.

EDIT

Lions also have this. I guess that makes them a kind of wolf

Heh, which brings me back to Ship of Theseus...or Ship of Wolfiness in this case. How much is requires for a Wolf to be a Wolf, and how much can one change. Looking at a Lion and a Wolf, they both have Pack Tactics and Keen smell, but the Lion has higher HP, Pounce, higher speed, Running Leap, and a Bite and Claw attack. Its different enough that they are used very differently.

[Theodoxus]

Well, to go full Plato on you, what is a wolf?

From what I see, we have 2 basic issues.

The RP aspect. When you describe a scene that has one or more wolves, how are they described? What in your description of the wolf, lets your players know they're not lions, or champions, or snakes, or red dragons?

The mechanics aspect. when you run a scene that has one or more wolves, how do they act? What mechanical abilities do they have that a lion, a champion, a snake, or a red dragon wouldn't or couldn't do?

The final question is, what parts of the RP aspect and the mechanics aspect are of dire consequence for a Druid to emulate that both PCs and NPCs would know "Oh, the Druid just used wildshape to become a wolf. Not a lion, a champion, a snake, or a red dragon. A wolf.

Get that right, and I bet most everyone is happy.

[Hurrashane]

So, everything is a wolf then. As long as they are a wolf in the narrative, it doesn't matter if they have Pack Tactics, a Bite, have an 18 AC from using the Champion statblock, or can cast Power Word Kill, they're still just a regular wolf. Only as long as you describe them as a Wolf. Feels a bit ridiculous to have a Wolf that uses a Lich's statblock, or a regular Wolf that uses the Champion's statblock. But if it doesn't matter mechanically, then they're both wolves. Ancient Red Dragon statblock? Medium sized Wolf now, perfectly normal in every way.

Maybe wolves in this setting can fly and breathe fire? Or can cast power word kill. A winter wolf, a wolf that can breath elemental cold is still a wolf, albeit not a regular one. If a DM used a dragon stat block for a wolf I'd still be like "this is one weird ass wolf" but it'd still be a wolf in the narrative.



As for Wild Shape, I would say they just turn into an average wolf. Nothing about it says you turn into a specific creature, just that you turn into that creature. Its kind of like polymorph. When you cast Polymorph, you aren't turning into one specific Beast, you're just turning into an average version of that beast.

That's kind of disappointing. I guess cosmically there is somewhere the most average wolf and your druid becomes that. Weird that all druids become that wolf. Without any personal flares or touches.



I find generic stat blocks are anything but elegant. If you have to Druids turn into two different creatures, they should not be the same as each other. Which is what happens when you use a generic statblock. It doesn't matter if you claim to be a wolf, if the Druid that turned into a Giant Snake has the exact same abilities are you, then you're both nothing. And with a generic stat block, that's exactly what happens.

Yet you're fine with all druids becoming the exact same average animal as eachother? Like a big buff druid and a slender druid both become the exact same wolf? Like a video game with only one wolf model.



Lets say they add in the ability to choose some small benefits to OneDnD's Wild Shape. Like you can choose to have webs, poison, pack tactics, ect. Now, they could come in little packets, like you get Spider climb, Poison, and Webs, or you can take Pack Tactics, a Shove, and a bonus to your speed. Two druids could choose the different ones, still say "I'm a Wolf", and they both would be according to you.


Sure. And I'm fine with them both having their own expression of wolfishness. if one wants to be just a regular wolf and one wants to be a wolf+ or a wolf but something is a bit off.



EDIT


Heh, which brings me back to Ship of Theseus...or Ship of Wolfiness in this case. How much is requires for a Wolf to be a Wolf, and how much can one change. Looking at a Lion and a Wolf, they both have Pack Tactics and Keen smell, but the Lion has higher HP, Pounce, higher speed, Running Leap, and a Bite and Claw attack. Its different enough that they are used very differently.

But I'd say that you could probably run a lion as a wolf and no one would question it if they didn't know what a wolf stat block was like. Wolves can leap and I've been scratched by dogs before.

[Kane0]

Generally i associate wolves with pack tactics and big cats with pounce. Similarly charge for most big enough things with tusks or horns

[Gignere]

Generally i associate wolves with pack tactics and big cats with pounce. Similarly charge for most big enough things with tusks or horns

I would argue a wolf has pack tactics because they were socialized to hunt in packs. A Druid turning into a wolf shouldn’t have pack tactics at all since they never learned to hunt in a pack. 5e is probably too simple a system to reflect it, but there should be learned abilities and DNA abilities like keen senses and bite are born abilities and Druids wild shaping into a wolf should get that. However learned abilities like hunting in a pack the Druid shouldn’t get that at all.

[Kane0]

I would argue a wolf has pack tactics because they were socialized to hunt in packs.

Yes



A Druid turning into a wolf shouldn’t have pack tactics at all since they never learned to hunt in a pack. 5e is probably too simple a system to reflect it, but there should be learned abilities and DNA abilities like keen senses and bite are born abilities and Druids wild shaping into a wolf should get that. However learned abilities like hunting in a pack the Druid shouldn’t get that at all.

Fair, distinguishing between nature and nurture is something historically not done well or consistently. But isn't the point of transforming into something else that the something else can do something that you cannot? That was my major contention with the proposed statblocks, not the lack of free HP but that the statblocks did not actually give you anything that represents the particular traits of creatures you may want to take advantage of, such as echolocation or a venomous bite or death rolling a poor soul you manage to snag in your teeth. Darkvision, swim speeds and even flight are already achievable by race selection. Wolves are pack hunters as are orcas and (female) lions, that's one of the major reasons you'd choose to turn into one. Tracking by scent is also something, but far more common amongst predators in general.

[Goobahfish]

Ha ha ha,

This thread got pretty silly pretty quickly.

On the topic of Pack Tactics and wolves. I don't think pack-tactics is essential to wolfdom. Nor do I think that any biological essentialism or nature/nurture argument is particularly helpful here.

My main contention would be that if turning into an animal does not give some of the following:
* Weird weapons (claws, bites, whompy tails, poisons)
* Special movement (climbing, swimming, burrowing)
* Special senses (i.e., advantage to smell/hearing/long distance vision)
* Some divergence of agility/bulk

Then Wildshape is a largely pointless feature. It may as well just be rage with flavour which is where the Playtest version went.

The fantasy I want to support with this ability specifically is this:

Druid in chains transforms into snake, slithers out silently and constricts guard.
Druid falling from airship transforms into a sugar-glider, slowing down before landing on a solider in bear-form.
Druid crawls across ceiling as a spider spraying web to restrain enemies.
Druid dives into raging river, springs forth as a dolphin before landing gracefully on the other side as once again a druid.
Druid glides above the battlefield as an eagle, diving down to snatch something from the hands of an enemy.

Nothing in the playtest comes close to representing the mechanical differences needed to fulfill these narrative turns. Some you could get away with assuming a good DM (the eagle, the snake getting out of the chains), but the restraining snake, the ceiling-crawling spider, webs, gliding squirrels etc. is all too nebulous for a DM to come up with on the fly.

[Gignere]

Nothing in the playtest comes close to representing the mechanical differences needed to fulfill these narrative turns. Some you could get away with assuming a good DM (the eagle, the snake getting out of the chains), but the restraining snake, the ceiling-crawling spider, webs, gliding squirrels etc. is all too nebulous for a DM to come up with on the fly.

Other than the web the rest can be modeled with the blob abilities. Pretty sure animal of the land gets a climb speed so becoming a spider and walking on the ceiling is no issue. Gliding squirrel is just animal of air, it has a fly speed just RP it you end your turn on land every turn. As for the restraining snake you bonus action shove / grapple someone and then use you action to either grapple or shove if you use your bonus action for the other. Enemy will be on ground unable to move and attacking others at disadvantage, aka constricted in all but name.

You won’t have webs to shoot out but that’s about the only thing you can’t model with the new stat blocks.

[MoiMagnus]

It may as well just be rage with flavour which is where the Playtest version went.

It also has some use as "disguise self, but to disguise yourself as an animal".

[Hurrashane]

My main contention would be that if turning into an animal does not give some of the following:
* Weird weapons (claws, bites, whompy tails, poisons)
* Special movement (climbing, swimming, burrowing)
* Special senses (i.e., advantage to smell/hearing/long distance vision)
* Some divergence of agility/bulk

Then Wildshape is a largely pointless feature. It may as well just be rage with flavour which is where the Playtest version went.



Weird weapons? Check. Bestial strike is unique so that's pretty weird.

Special movement? Check. Animal of the land gets climb, sea gets swim, and air gets fly.

Special senses? Check. All get darkvision and 2/3 get advantage to perception checks.

Some divergence of agility and bulk? Sort of check? The animal of the air gets flyby attack so it's more agile but less AC so it's less bulky?

Two of these might be a stretch, but a solid 2/4 for your criteria. Which I'd say qualifies as "some".

[LudicSavant]

Two of these might be a stretch, but a solid 2/4 for your criteria. Which I'd say qualifies as "some".

Perhaps, but 50% is still a flunking grade, is it not?

[Hurrashane]

Perhaps, but 50% is still a flunking grade, is it not?

The goal was for it to have "some" of those listed. I wouldn't be comfortable considering 3/4 as some, it's more like most. And if you give the one's that are a bit of a stretch partial credit that would push it over 50%, no?

[LudicSavant]

The goal was for it to have "some" of those listed. I wouldn't be comfortable considering 3/4 as some, it's more like most. And if you give the one's that are a bit of a stretch partial credit that would push it over 50%, no?

I wasn't disagreeing with your assessment that it constitutes 'some.'

However, I personally would expect all of those things and then some. So 50% of that list won't cut it for me.

[Melil12]

What I would like to see is a set stat block like they have but with options.

Pick 2 of this list to incorporate into your new form:

Pack tactics
Poison attacks
Blind sight
Ect

And let us make what ever we feel best describes our animal form.

You want to be a snake?
Take poison attacks and constrict

You want to be a bat?
Take Blindsight and a flying form

Ect.

[Gignere]

What I would like to see is a set stat block like they have but with options.

Pick 2 of this list to incorporate into your new form:

Pack tactics
Poison attacks
Blind sight
Ect

And let us make what ever we feel best describes our animal form.

You want to be a snake?
Take poison attacks and constrict

You want to be a bat?
Take Blindsight and a flying form

Ect.

Only way this can be balanced is if it costs spell slots to do this. Just think about it, every other class needs to blow a feat to access blindsight and just for 10 feet. For a Druid to use short rest resources and be able to gain 60 feet blindsight in one encounter and another swap to pack tactics/constrict or whatever would be too much.

[Melil12]

Only way this can be balanced is if it costs spell slots to do this. Just think about it, every other class needs to blow a feat to access blindsight and just for 10 feet. For a Druid to use short rest resources and be able to gain 60 feet blindsight in one encounter and another swap to pack tactics/constrict or whatever would be too much.

I was just giving examples it’s up to wizards devs to balance.

Can’t the druid already turn into a bat with blind sight? Yes they can.

[Gignere]

I was just giving examples it’s up to wizards devs to balance.

Can’t the druid already turn into a bat with blind sight? Yes they can.

Yes and current Druid balance and stat block diving is precisely why the devs are redesigning wild shape.

[Melil12]

Yes and current Druid balance and stat block diving is precisely why the devs are redesigning wild shape.

Well again I will leave balancing up to the devs. I think this is a valid format for getting a good mix of what everyone wants.

And from there we can agree to disagree some.

[Goobahfish]

It also has some use as "disguise self, but to disguise yourself as an animal".

At the moment it does feel very much like an animal 'hat of disguise'.


Weird weapons? Check. Bestial strike is unique so that's pretty weird.

Special movement? Check. Animal of the land gets climb, sea gets swim, and air gets fly.

Special senses? Check. All get darkvision and 2/3 get advantage to perception checks.

Some divergence of agility and bulk? Sort of check? The animal of the air gets flyby attack so it's more agile but less AC so it's less bulky?

Two of these might be a stretch, but a solid 2/4 for your criteria. Which I'd say qualifies as "some".

Yeah, it gets kind of close to what I want. Again, I would prefer 3 'of the land types'. Those would be cunning, armoured and ferocious or some-such.

Weird weapons is nearly ok. The issue, is that weird weapons usually includes +2d6 on a charge, attack with a free grapple, pack tactics etc.

The snake losing any ability to restrain (or something akin to restrain) is pretty disappointing. As I said before, I feel like wildshape has always flourished when it is a bit janky. You turn into some weak thing with some niche ability which is circumstantially useful. As it stands, it has lost a lot of the flavour. That said, I think they are headed in the right direction. They just need to give it a tasha's summon 3 choices of jank and I think it would be 90% what is needed.

[Sindal]

Out of interest, let's say we get a curated list (or thr avility to pick one extra feature when turning into a form). How many would you say is required?

Ex.
Land could have has : canine(and/or lupine), feline, ursine, insect and equine

(Pack mode, agile mode, big mode, webby/climbing mode and ride mode)

Then sea could have: amphibian, fish, octopus(creatures that can swim aren't fish and creatures that are fish and water grapple mode)

Then sky: bird or bat form (day form, night form)

That's about 10

Would that be cool? I know we're missing stuff but is thus many options acceptable, sdumknf they all have their own scaling stat block.

[Kane0]

Out of interest, let's say we get a curated list (or thr avility to pick one extra feature when turning into a form). How many would you say is required?

Ex.
Land could have has : canine(and/or lupine), feline, ursine, insect and equine

(Pack mode, agile mode, big mode, webby/climbing mode and ride mode)

Then sea could have: amphibian, fish, octopus(creatures that can swim aren't fish and creatures that are fish and water grapple mode)

Then sky: bird or bat form (day form, night form)

That's about 10

Would that be cool? I know we're missing stuff but is thus many options acceptable, sdumknf they all have their own scaling stat block.

I think we had a thread on that.
Ah, here it is
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?655019-How-Many-Beast-Types-does-a-Druid-Need

Cat, dog, bear, mount, snake, spider, rodent, dinosaur (can be flying), bird, fish, amphibian, crustacean, cephalopod, i'm sure i've missed some.

[Aimeryan]

I think we had a thread on that.
Ah, here it is
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?655019-How-Many-Beast-Types-does-a-Druid-Need

Cat, dog, bear, mount, snake, spider, rodent, dinosaur (can be flying), bird, fish, amphibian, crustacean, cephalopod, i'm sure i've missed some.

Yeah, generally you want to cover the following mechanic space at minimum:

Tactics:
1. Charge/Pounce
2. Web (Restrict, Difficult Terrain)
3. Poisoned (Condition)
4. Knockdown on hit
5. Pack Tactics (Advantage when essentially flanking)
6. Grapple on hit

Movement:
7. Run (Fast)
8. Spider Climb (Move on solid surfaces as normal, including ceilings)
9. Swim
10. Fly

Stat:
11. Strong (+Str)
12. Agile (+Dex)
13. Tough (+Con)

Some of those could be conjoined - so Web and Poisoned could be covered by a Spider, whiles also being Agile and having Spider Climb. So, if you are just trying to ensure there is a Beast that covers them, the list could actually be pretty short.

On the other hand, if you want Beasts that cover different combinations, then the number increases. Personally, I think you could have a Beast combo for many of: 2 tactics, 1 movement, 1 stat type. You wouldn't want them all since its good to not always get exactly what you want, and the numeric values could differ to ensure balance amonst strong combinations vs generically weaker ones.

One of the advantages of pre-constructed Beasts, besides being the natural representation rather than the aberation representation of the frankenstein blob, is that the combinations can be ensured to be balanced. Otherwise, you end up with combinations from free-choosing that require convoluted solutions to avoid the player using.

[Goobahfish]

Out of interest, let's say we get a curated list (or thr avility to pick one extra feature when turning into a form). How many would you say is required?

Ex.
Land could have has : canine(and/or lupine), feline, ursine, insect and equine

(Pack mode, agile mode, big mode, webby/climbing mode and ride mode)

Then sea could have: amphibian, fish, octopus(creatures that can swim aren't fish and creatures that are fish and water grapple mode)

Then sky: bird or bat form (day form, night form)

That's about 10

Would that be cool? I know we're missing stuff but is thus many options acceptable, sdumknf they all have their own scaling stat block.

That list is roughly right? There are a few extras like being a snake, boar, lizard/dinosaur/croc etc. For sea there are crustaceans. Insect is a surprisingly broad category with everything from spiders, to armoured beetles and dragonflies.

This is why I kind of advocate for ~5 base chassis. From there you can either do a Tasha's summon "Putrid/Ghostly/Skeletal" kind of choice for things like Grapples, Chargers etc. Otherwise you just end up missing things and then reskinning. As long as the chassis is mechanically broad (a few janky abilities) it will make Wildshape feel useful outside of pure 'bash bash'.

I find it much easier conceptually to have a broad chassis which you fit a creature into than to try to pretend a pig is a deer. This also serves the 1-aesthetic players better, because you could turn into an 'armoured bear' or a 'cunning bear' etc.

[Gignere]

Yeah, generally you want to cover the following mechanic space at minimum:

Tactics:
1. Charge/Pounce
2. Web (Restrict, Difficult Terrain)
3. Poisoned (Condition)
4. Knockdown on hit
5. Pack Tactics (Advantage when essentially flanking)
6. Grapple on hit

Movement:
7. Run (Fast)
8. Spider Climb (Move on solid surfaces as normal, including ceilings)
9. Swim
10. Fly

Stat:
11. Strong (+Str)
12. Agile (+Dex)
13. Tough (+Con)

Some of those could be conjoined - so Web and Poisoned could be covered by a Spider, whiles also being Agile and having Spider Climb. So, if you are just trying to ensure there is a Beast that covers them, the list could actually be pretty short.

On the other hand, if you want Beasts that cover different combinations, then the number increases. Personally, I think you could have a Beast combo for many of: 2 tactics, 1 movement, 1 stat type. You wouldn't want them all since its good to not always get exactly what you want, and the numeric values could differ to ensure balance amonst strong combinations vs generically weaker ones.

One of the advantages of pre-constructed Beasts, besides being the natural representation rather than the aberation representation of the frankenstein blob, is that the combinations can be ensured to be balanced. Otherwise, you end up with combinations from free-choosing that require convoluted solutions to avoid the player using.

The way they are designing NPC and PC abilities means PC getting NPC abilities will not be balanced. Like to get something similar to web and poison for any other class requires a second level spell slot and a feat poisoner. No other class or even race gets pack tactics any more.

Generally speaking NPC abilities are designed so it is action economy efficient/resource efficient because when facing PCs, the PCs generally have an action economy advantage so the NPCs need abilities that doesn’t require bonus action/action or even expend a resource since most likely that NPC won’t be fighting the PCs in the same day anyway.

Giving a PC the ability to grab NPC abilities makes it really difficult if not impossible to balance unless you make beasts totally boring and limit the design space around beasts.

Certainly getting NPC abilities on a short rest resource won’t be balanced however I can see if it costs the Druid spell slots to gain access to these NPC abilities it can be balanced. Like if they had to burn a second level slot when wildshaping to become a spider with web and poison.

[Aimeryan]

The way they are designing NPC and PC abilities means PC getting NPC abilities will not be balanced. Like to get something similar to web and poison for any other class requires a second level spell slot and a feat poisoner. No other class or even race gets pack tactics any more.

Generally speaking NPC abilities are designed so it is action economy efficient/resource efficient because when facing PCs, the PCs generally have an action economy advantage so the NPCs need abilities that doesn’t require bonus action/action or even expend a resource since most likely that NPC won’t be fighting the PCs in the same day anyway.

Giving a PC the ability to grab NPC abilities makes it really difficult if not impossible to balance unless you make beasts totally boring and limit the design space around beasts.

Certainly getting NPC abilities on a short rest resource won’t be balanced however I can see if it costs the Druid spell slots to gain access to these NPC abilities it can be balanced. Like if they had to burn a second level slot when wildshaping to become a spider with web and poison.

The resource cost is in the Channel Nature charge and the loss of Spellcasting. Given the power of high level Spell Slots this action economy loss is very substantial. I agree that the Wild Shape has issues with being on a full caster, however, that isn't going to change (unfortunately). There is the idea of using Spell Slots instead of Channel Nature, which more directly competes, and I will likely put that forth once more on the next applicable survey.

[Hurrashane]

At the moment it does feel very much like an animal 'hat of disguise'.



Yeah, it gets kind of close to what I want. Again, I would prefer 3 'of the land types'. Those would be cunning, armoured and ferocious or some-such.

Weird weapons is nearly ok. The issue, is that weird weapons usually includes +2d6 on a charge, attack with a free grapple, pack tactics etc.

The snake losing any ability to restrain (or something akin to restrain) is pretty disappointing. As I said before, I feel like wildshape has always flourished when it is a bit janky. You turn into some weak thing with some niche ability which is circumstantially useful. As it stands, it has lost a lot of the flavour. That said, I think they are headed in the right direction. They just need to give it a tasha's summon 3 choices of jank and I think it would be 90% what is needed.

I think them having like, swift animal, tough animal, ferocious animal forms would work better. Get to choose an additional movement speed (locked by level) when shaping so all 3 could be climb, swim, or fly.

I think the Moonies free unarmed strike, which then can be turned into a grapple or shove, helps let the form do things. But I wonder if it'd feel better if they just allowed the blobs attack to either be turned into a shove or grapple, or give it sort of the new tavern brawler thing of allowing you to do either of those things along with the attack instead of the bonus unarmed strike.

[Psyren]

If need be I can live with curated statblocks, so long as they scale in some way and are mutable (i.e. whatever they land on for "tiger" should be usable as a leopard or bear too, or whatever they land on for dire wolf should work as a dire hyena or dire boar too.) For me though, the ideal would be a small but more granular list of templates with abilities gated by type.

One example list I'd like would be:

Terrestrial

1) Insectoid/Arachnid ("Beast of the Cave") - multi-limbed, web, poison, climb speed, stealth bonus, darkvision/tremorsense, burrow speed
2) Limbless ("Beast of the Coil") - limbless/prone immunity, climb speed, constrict, poison, stealth, darkvision/blindsense
3) Primate/Biped ("Beast of the Branch") - prehensile hands, climb speed, jump, keen senses
4) Quadruped ("Beast of the Land") - fast land speed, charge, pack tactics, keen senses, climb speed, AC bonus

Aquatic

5) Piscine ("Beast of the Fin") - limbless, fast swim, amphibious, darkvision, pack tactics
6) Cephalopod ("Beast of the Tentacle") - slower swim, amphibious, prehensile tentacles, constrict, darkvision, multi-limbed

Aerial

7) Avian ("Beast of the Feather") - faster flight, flyby, dive
8) Apian/Wyvern ("Beast of the Sting") - slower flight, hover, poison

I'd be open to tweaking those abilities, as well as the druid being able to mix and match to an extent at higher levels - but beyond that, I think a set like this could be reasonably balanced between offense, defense and utility with each expression having a good chance of seeing play in the average campaign.

[Sindal]

If need be I can live with curated statblocks, so long as they scale in some way and are mutable (i.e. whatever they land on for "tiger" should be usable as a leopard or bear too, or whatever they land on for dire wolf should work as a dire hyena or dire boar too.) For me though, the ideal would be a small but more granular list of templates with abilities gated by type.

One example list I'd like would be:

Terrestrial

1) Insectoid/Arachnid ("Beast of the Cave") - multi-limbed, web, poison, climb speed, stealth bonus, darkvision/tremorsense, burrow speed
2) Limbless ("Beast of the Coil") - limbless/prone immunity, climb speed, constrict, poison, stealth, darkvision/blindsense
3) Primate/Biped ("Beast of the Branch") - prehensile hands, climb speed, jump, keen senses
4) Quadruped ("Beast of the Land") - fast land speed, charge, pack tactics, keen senses, climb speed, AC bonus

Aquatic

5) Piscine ("Beast of the Fin") - limbless, fast swim, amphibious, darkvision, pack tactics
6) Cephalopod ("Beast of the Tentacle") - slower swim, amphibious, prehensile tentacles, constrict, darkvision, multi-limbed

Aerial

7) Avian ("Beast of the Feather") - faster flight, flyby, dive
8) Apian/Wyvern ("Beast of the Sting") - slower flight, hover, poison

I'd be open to tweaking those abilities, as well as the druid being able to mix and match to an extent at higher levels - but beyond that, I think a set like this could be reasonably balanced between offense, defense and utility with each expression having a good chance of seeing play in the average campaign.

The thoufh of a player turning into a medium sized bee terrifies me. Haha

[Goobahfish]

If need be I can live with curated statblocks, so long as they scale in some way and are mutable (i.e. whatever they land on for "tiger" should be usable as a leopard or bear too, or whatever they land on for dire wolf should work as a dire hyena or dire boar too.) For me though, the ideal would be a small but more granular list of templates with abilities gated by type.

One example list I'd like would be:

Terrestrial

1) Insectoid/Arachnid ("Beast of the Cave") - multi-limbed, web, poison, climb speed, stealth bonus, darkvision/tremorsense, burrow speed
2) Limbless ("Beast of the Coil") - limbless/prone immunity, climb speed, constrict, poison, stealth, darkvision/blindsense
3) Primate/Biped ("Beast of the Branch") - prehensile hands, climb speed, jump, keen senses
4) Quadruped ("Beast of the Land") - fast land speed, charge, pack tactics, keen senses, climb speed, AC bonus

Aquatic

5) Piscine ("Beast of the Fin") - limbless, fast swim, amphibious, darkvision, pack tactics
6) Cephalopod ("Beast of the Tentacle") - slower swim, amphibious, prehensile tentacles, constrict, darkvision, multi-limbed

Aerial

7) Avian ("Beast of the Feather") - faster flight, flyby, dive
8) Apian/Wyvern ("Beast of the Sting") - slower flight, hover, poison

I'd be open to tweaking those abilities, as well as the druid being able to mix and match to an extent at higher levels - but beyond that, I think a set like this could be reasonably balanced between offense, defense and utility with each expression having a good chance of seeing play in the average campaign.

This is a pretty good version of the list. It covers most of the animals by function. I am assuming that you don't get all the traits or else I call shenanigans on pythons being simultaneously constrictors and venomous (it does happen in nature but is very rare). My assumption is that each of these would be a "Tasha-stat block" where the general common traits are things like... immune to prone and tremor-sense but you can be 'stealthy, poisonous or constrictory'. Likewise for chargers/stompers/biters etc.