1D&D Fixing the Moon Druid, pls PEACH

[BerzerkerUnit]

Aloha all!

Note: This is a focused post that retreads a recommendation I made in the One D&D Druid/Paladin post on the 5e gaming page. Since that thread is growing at the speed of sound, I'm reposting here for feedback.

So I've read the Druid update and I have some notes. Moon Druid is not functional. You're given the choice of being bad in melee but supplementing damage with a concentration spell or being bad in melee and supplementing your durability with a concentration spell. Being in melee is not conducive to using concentration spells and you no longer get a bear's con bonus or what have your to help with that. There's also a concern the wildshape feature may also make it impossible to use melee related feats (or feats of any kind, even warcaster).

Imagine a Bladesinger wizard that got an AC debuff and was limited to healing while they used their bladesong. Would "but you have 9th level spells" be a legitimate argument for the satisfactory nature of your subclass? I thought not.

So here are my complaints (echoed by others elsewhere) and my recommended fixes:

1. Complaint: Shapes are boring. 3 statblocks differentiated by movement speed and damage die size. This is perhaps the most unacceptable thing. A near total lack of mechanical differentiation of forms is boring. Streamlining choices is good, limiting that choice to mattering only if you're literally in water at the moment is bad.

1a. Fix: Add the following text to Combat Wildshape: “In addition, when you assume an animal form you may add 1 of the following traits to your form granted by your deeper connection to the fauna of the Multiverse.

Stalker. Like great cats of the savannahs or jungles you have advantage on stealth rolls and deal an additional 2d6 damage to a creature that has not taken an action during the 1st round of combat.

Crusher. Like the claws of mighty crustaceans or coils of great serpents, when you grapple a target it is Restrained instead of Grappled. The target remains Restrained until the grapple ends.

Venomous. Like vipers and vermin your attacks can expose your target to potent toxins. Once per turn when you hit a target with your bestial strike and deal piercing damage, it deals an additional 1d10 poison damage and the target must succeed on a constitution save vs your spell DC or be poisoned for 1 minute. The target repeats the save at the end of their turn, ending the poisoned condition on a success.

Pack Lord. Like the wolves of great forests you can lead allies in the hunt. When you hit a creature with your bestial strike your allies have advantage on attacks against that creature until the beginning of your next turn or the creature moves more than 5 feet away from you.

Herd Master. Like the great beasts of the planes, once per turn when you hit a target with your bestial strike it must succeed on a strength save vs your spell DC or be knocked prone."

2. Complaint: Resilience is nonexistent. No buffer HP, terrible AC, like maybe the worst in game when you get the subclass. Feat Patching or multiclassing are not acceptable fixes. But I have a one step solution.

2a. Fix: Change Barkskin to Abjuration. Done.

3. Complaint: Damage in wildshape is mediocre. This would be acceptable if any remnant of tankyness remained, but does not, so needs a bump. It doesn't need to scale with level, just a little bump to carry you to 10th.

3a. My 1a and 2a fixes address this with some round 1 spike damage if you get initiative, some poison damage even if you don't, or options that will improve the party's overall damage.

4. Complaint: Terrible capstone. I don't know why they think this is such a great feature, but Alter Self is bad and they should feel bad.

4a. Replace with the following:

Mighty Chimera
At 14th level your Wildshapes are further empowered as your connection to multiversal life deepens. Your animal forms can be Huge. Additionally you may choose 2 traits from your Combat Wildshape feature instead of 1. In either case, this use of Wildshape lasts only 10 minutes.

Rationales:
1a. The names of the traits and provided fluff are evocative. Adding them onto the standard blocks will make them feel more like specific creatures than just repeating a mantra of "I'm and Owlbear, I'm an Owlbear" ever will. An Owlbear with the owlbear hug? 1000% better.

2a. It's current place as a transmutation spell no longer makes any sense. It's literally a cross between healing and protection, heals are abjurations now, abjurations are defense spells. This is an obvious choice and IMO creates a balanced means to keep Moon Druids at an acceptable but not overwhelming level of tankyness.

3a. Rationale in bullet.

4a. This feels like a capstone. Become a massive creature (or absurdly massive version of traditionally tiny creature) and/or have your animal forms feel more like classic monstrosities. Take the Fire Element powers from level 6 and 10, tack them onto a flying form with Herd Master to feel like a Chimera (wings, bestial strikes that can bite with flames like a dragon head or ram with horns like a ram or goat, all on the body of a lion).

Crusher and Venom for a massive serpent or an Antlion. Acid Elemental damage, Crusher and burrowing to be an Ankheg.

ACK! Burrowing. How overlooked.

Basic Wildshape movements fix:
Climb speed, available from 1.

Swim, Gated to present

Fly and Burrow, Gated to 9th.

[Deepbluediver]

I agree that the Wildshape feature in 5E seems underwhelming for combat. I think it would be better if rather than just throwing the whole book "Beasts" section of the MM at people and saying "use these stats" the game provided actual rules that enhanced traits based on whatever your goal was: tankiness, damage, movement, sneakiness.
Basically have a list of animal forms that LOOK like forest creatures but use entirely different stats. That's probably a more complicated fix though.

And the concentration-spells in melee are definitely also an issue. AFAIK that stems from the desire to kill off the 3.5 thing where by applying a ton of fire-and-forget buffs the party could move up several notches in power. But now EVERYTHING with a duration is concentration based and it's gone to far in the other direction, and I just don't use those spells.

I like the additions to combat-wildshape; the only thing I would maybe suggest is having them scale. Such as increasing the number or size of the extra dice as you level up, etc.
Right now they all appear to be offensively-focused, any thoughts on anything defensive, or to help protect your party? Or as a suggestion, what about one that helped out with AoOs?

For the change of Barkskin, I'm not sure I get the point. Wouldn't it still be Concentration? What about the spell is altered by swapping it to another school? And what about other boosts to toughness such as adding to AC, giving some kind of dodge or evasion, boosting spell-saves, or temporary HP? Obviously we don't need ALL of them, but I'm worried that most wildshapes will still be kinda squishy.

And for the capstone, are you implying that you can take a normally medium or large wildshape and upsize it? I'm just trying to make sure I understand, because I'm pretty sure that when playing a Druid I already Wildshaped into a Mammoth at one point to provide a party-bus and there was no rule prohibiting it.

[Yakk]

I don't see a reason wildshape can't have stat blocks for a bunch of creatures, like you might for spells.

So an actual bear form, a wolf form, etc. It doesn't have to have *every* animal form. Just a dozen.

And not "use any beast".

Then limit the druid to knowing a certain number of them. Maybe like a wizard.

Now, this works better if they could be used for more than just druids. What I'd do is:

a) Add a barbarian who can rage into animal form.
b) Split the ranger into 3 subtypes (not subclasses) like the Warlock - Hunt, Claw and Pack. The Pack gets an animal companion _based off those stats_. The Claw gets the ability to take on aspects of creatures _based off those stats_. The Hunt gets HM and spellcasting upgrades.

Now we have 3 core classes using those stat blocks, instead of 1.

[Deepbluediver]

I don't see a reason wildshape can't have stat blocks for a bunch of creatures, like you might for spells.

So an actual bear form, a wolf form, etc. It doesn't have to have *every* animal form. Just a dozen.

And not "use any beast".

Then limit the druid to knowing a certain number of them. Maybe like a wizard.

I am entirely 100% on board with that.


Edit: Also I only realized after my original post that there was apparently a new playtest version of the Druid, which I guess is what the OP is referring to.

[ahyangyi]

I don't see a reason wildshape can't have stat blocks for a bunch of creatures, like you might for spells.

So an actual bear form, a wolf form, etc. It doesn't have to have *every* animal form. Just a dozen.

And not "use any beast".

Then limit the druid to knowing a certain number of them. Maybe like a wizard.

I'd argue that this is more or less the design intent of the original 5e druids; when they say “you can change into something you have seen before”, the intention is definitely not asking all druids to visit exotic zoos, but ask the players and DMs to work out a shortlist of animals for the druid to work with.

Unfortunately, a clause like that without a numeric limit is usually just ignored or worked around.

Also, when I saw the playtest as well as this homebrew, I was asking about "what about Spheres of Power". Not exactly a replacement, but it does help enabling more narrowly defined / specific transformations.

[BerzerkerUnit]

I don't see a reason wildshape can't have stat blocks for a bunch of creatures, like you might for spells.

So an actual bear form, a wolf form, etc. It doesn't have to have *every* animal form. Just a dozen.

And not "use any beast".

Then limit the druid to knowing a certain number of them. Maybe like a wizard.

Now, this works better if they could be used for more than just druids. What I'd do is:

a) Add a barbarian who can rage into animal form.
b) Split the ranger into 3 subtypes (not subclasses) like the Warlock - Hunt, Claw and Pack. The Pack gets an animal companion _based off those stats_. The Claw gets the ability to take on aspects of creatures _based off those stats_. The Hunt gets HM and spellcasting upgrades.

Now we have 3 core classes using those stat blocks, instead of 1.

Aloha all!

Thank you so much for bringing life to the thread.

Let me say, any arbitrary # of beasts only delays the issue people see with it now, which is generic stat blocks. It would be really easy for me to take the 3 blocks we have, duplicate them 20 times and mix and match movement modes and the traits I'm proffering here for review. I could then give them individual animal names and you'd have exactly what you're saying you want but collectively we'd be divided, one side saying too many and the other side saying too few.

Since the Land/Sea/Air option was embraced for ranger companions devs are running with that, so here I'm looking for feedback on the viability of adding a limited # of variable traits to add mechanical depth but which also reinforce RP choices.

Climbing and Poison? Black Mamba, Wood Scorpion, Centipede
Swimming and Crushing? Giant Crab/Lobster, Python, Octopus, Giant Frog
Walking and knockdown? Bear, Ox, Wolf, Ram
Flying and Ambush? Owl, Sugar Glider, Kingfisher, Bat
Burrowing and pack tactics? Ants, bloodworms and so on

The little system I propose here covers... A lot without needing to rewrite the proposed feature.

I have significant doubts the Moon Druid we see here will see print as is. But I don't see more than 3 forms being offered because it's not newb friendly. Pitching the class and then saying "In addition to the mountain of spells, here's 8 extra pages of stat blocks" isn't noticeably less of a hurdle to a newb than "here's extra books to sift through." Especially now that it's something they have to worry about from level 1. This is your big feature at level 1 besides spells.

What I'm pitching fits on one page. Respectfully, I'd request some feedback on it. I look forward to your own threads about any tangents concerning other classes.

[Deepbluediver]

I have significant doubts the Moon Druid we see here will see print as is. But I don't see more than 3 forms being offered because it's not newb friendly. Pitching the class and then saying "In addition to the mountain of spells, here's 8 extra pages of stat blocks" isn't noticeably less of a hurdle to a newb than "here's extra books to sift through." Especially now that it's something they have to worry about from level 1. This is your big feature at level 1 besides spells.

What I'm pitching fits on one page. Respectfully, I'd request some feedback on it. I look forward to your own threads about any tangents concerning other classes.

I recognize the issue of over-complexity, and can appreciate a solution that is workable and SUCCINT, but still I'm not sure I'd recommend a Druid* for a new player in ANY case. There are definitely some classes that work better, I think, for someone just getting started with TTRPGs, and so while "this class isn't new-player friendly" isn't an excuse for bad design, you can still recognize that it happens and incorporate certain expectations into your 'brew.

For example, every single spell on the Wizard spell-list is TECHNICALLY a Wizard class feature, but no one requires new players to be an expert on 80+ pages of spell-descriptions before they play that class (because they are imagining themselves as Merlin or Gandalf or Harry Potter or whoever).
Similarly you could start off with 2-4 simpler animal forms for druids to pick from, such as: wolf, lynx, boar, etc. Then as they level up also let them take stronger or more complex animals (grizzly, lion, giant scorpion, roc, etc, or even magical creatures like behirs or worgs or elementals.


If you prefer your shorter solution then that's fine- I think it gets the job done. And (I think) I restricted the suggestions in my first post to things that could be minor additions. I'm just saying that a more complex overhaul would also, IMO, be a fine goal to have if anyone wanted to tackle it.

*and it's not JUST Druids, lest you believe I'm discriminating; I'd also encourage newbies away from Paladins, Bards, and a whole pile of classes from 3.5 that mainly just ended up as 5E archetypes

[Yakk]

Aloha all!

Thank you so much for bringing life to the thread.

Let me say, any arbitrary # of beasts only delays the issue people see with it now, which is generic stat blocks. It would be really easy for me to take the 3 blocks we have, duplicate them 20 times and mix and match movement modes and the traits I'm proffering here for review. I could then give them individual animal names and you'd have exactly what you're saying you want but collectively we'd be divided, one side saying too many and the other side saying too few.

Yes, you can do what I described badly. The existence of doing something badly is not a good argument against it being a good idea.

Since the Land/Sea/Air option was embraced for ranger companions devs are running with that, so here I'm looking for feedback on the viability of adding a limited # of variable traits to add mechanical depth but which also reinforce RP choices.

This is exactly what I'm against. I don't want plug-and-play modules that you add then label it.

I don't mind that being inspiration for the design of the choices, but I don't want that to be the design.

I've had decades of experience with what happens in an RPG with such described plug and play, and I won't want any of those experiences. I want creatures you transform into, not modular abilities you buy.

Climbing and Poison? Black Mamba, Wood Scorpion, Centipede
Swimming and Crushing? Giant Crab/Lobster, Python, Octopus, Giant Frog
Walking and knockdown? Bear, Ox, Wolf, Ram
Flying and Ambush? Owl, Sugar Glider, Kingfisher, Bat
Burrowing and pack tactics? Ants, bloodworms and so on

The little system I propose here covers... A lot without needing to rewrite the proposed feature.

Yes, it does a lot and does it badly. As does every modular system similar to what you describe.

There is a reason D&D has classes and not modular abilities you buy with points and stick together, and when you do the modular thing to build classes it doesn't work.

I have significant doubts the Moon Druid we see here will see print as is. But I don't see more than 3 forms being offered because it's not newb friendly. Pitching the class and then saying "In addition to the mountain of spells, here's 8 extra pages of stat blocks" isn't noticeably less of a hurdle to a newb than "here's extra books to sift through." Especially now that it's something they have to worry about from level 1. This is your big feature at level 1 besides spells.

You offer a list of fixed forms. These are not generic, but specific.

At level 2, you can turn into a Chicken and a Wolf.

At level 6, you gain access to a Bear. Etc.

Then you add on additional forms that can swap in and replace forms.

Nothing at all generic. They are all specific animals. If you want a different specific animal, you can craft it and swap it in with your DM's permission.

What I'm pitching fits on one page. Respectfully, I'd request some feedback on it. I look forward to your own threads about any tangents concerning other classes.

It minimizes texture; a wolf has pack tactics and scent and a faster foot speed because *it is a wolf*; in such a system, there would rarely be a reason why a druid would pick that set of 3 abilities as being optimal. So you wouldn't get a wolf -- you'd get a wolf-shaped blob of stats with abilities optimized for the specific situation the druid thinks they are in.

The abilities will be mispriced guaranteed (it isn't possible to avoid mispricing abilities; for reference, see every pricing system in every RPG ever), and without the defence of packaging this mispricing will be extended and magnified by the ability to cherry pick multiple small misbalanced packages.

We've tried something like this in 4e, where the druid's animal form was a generic beast whose abilities came from a set of generic beast abilities, and told the druid to pick what it looked like with no mechanical impact. It, in play, didn't work all that great. We've tried something like this with point-buy classes in every version of D&D since OD&D, and it hasn't worked well ever, despite dozens of attempts.

The generic beast companion of the Ranger is mediocre, but as it isn't the identity of the PC it isn't as harmful. In addition, as it is less variable, the DM should feel really free about saying "ok, it is a horse" or whatever and give it horse-like abilities. With the druid, if the DM lets the druid say "it is a horse, so on top of the mechanical abilities I also get horse-like ones" things go really pear shaped. The druid gets to be horse-like one minute, then ape-like the next, then crocodile-like the next, etc. The wiggle room gets expanded.

On the other hand, if the druid has a fixed number of shapes, then one being horse-like is far less of a problem. Similarly for the Ranger.

The Ranger would be improved by having a menu of companions instead of generic "companion of the land". But as it is a single subclass's abilities, justifying an ever expanding menu is difficult. As a core class ability of the druid, this restriction doesn't hold. And, as noted, if we do this well then the Druid form choices and mechanics can be the same ones that Familiars and Paladin mounts and Ranger companions and the like can pick over.

Point or trait based systems are always tempting, but they always fall apart in almost the same way. Use a point based systems behind the hood to build a specific choice? Fine, so long as it isn't inflexible dogma that forces things into specific shapes to satisfy the system for no other reason than the system's requirements. Exposing the raw framework? No, that is almost never a good idea, unless you want the system to be cheap/fast (like in Tashas, where the goal for the Ranger was to fix a bunch of problems on a low budget).

Respectfully, those are my comments.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Yes, you can do what I described badly. The existence of doing something badly is not a good argument against it being a good idea.

This is exactly what I'm against. I don't want plug-and-play modules that you add then label it.

I don't mind that being inspiration for the design of the choices, but I don't want that to be the design.

I've had decades of experience with what happens in an RPG with such described plug and play, and I won't want any of those experiences. I want creatures you transform into, not modular abilities you buy.


Yes, it does a lot and does it badly. As does every modular system similar to what you describe.

There is a reason D&D has classes and not modular abilities you buy with points and stick together, and when you do the modular thing to build classes it doesn't work.


You offer a list of fixed forms. These are not generic, but specific.

At level 2, you can turn into a Chicken and a Wolf.

At level 6, you gain access to a Bear. Etc.

Then you add on additional forms that can swap in and replace forms.

Nothing at all generic. They are all specific animals. If you want a different specific animal, you can craft it and swap it in with your DM's permission.


It minimizes texture; a wolf has pack tactics and scent and a faster foot speed because *it is a wolf*; in such a system, there would rarely be a reason why a druid would pick that set of 3 abilities as being optimal. So you wouldn't get a wolf -- you'd get a wolf-shaped blob of stats with abilities optimized for the specific situation the druid thinks they are in.

The abilities will be mispriced guaranteed (it isn't possible to avoid mispricing abilities; for reference, see every pricing system in every RPG ever), and without the defence of packaging this mispricing will be extended and magnified by the ability to cherry pick multiple small misbalanced packages.

We've tried something like this in 4e, where the druid's animal form was a generic beast whose abilities came from a set of generic beast abilities, and told the druid to pick what it looked like with no mechanical impact. It, in play, didn't work all that great. We've tried something like this with point-buy classes in every version of D&D since OD&D, and it hasn't worked well ever, despite dozens of attempts.

The generic beast companion of the Ranger is mediocre, but as it isn't the identity of the PC it isn't as harmful. In addition, as it is less variable, the DM should feel really free about saying "ok, it is a horse" or whatever and give it horse-like abilities. With the druid, if the DM lets the druid say "it is a horse, so on top of the mechanical abilities I also get horse-like ones" things go really pear shaped. The druid gets to be horse-like one minute, then ape-like the next, then crocodile-like the next, etc. The wiggle room gets expanded.

On the other hand, if the druid has a fixed number of shapes, then one being horse-like is far less of a problem. Similarly for the Ranger.

The Ranger would be improved by having a menu of companions instead of generic "companion of the land". But as it is a single subclass's abilities, justifying an ever expanding menu is difficult. As a core class ability of the druid, this restriction doesn't hold. And, as noted, if we do this well then the Druid form choices and mechanics can be the same ones that Familiars and Paladin mounts and Ranger companions and the like can pick over.

Point or trait based systems are always tempting, but they always fall apart in almost the same way. Use a point based systems behind the hood to build a specific choice? Fine, so long as it isn't inflexible dogma that forces things into specific shapes to satisfy the system for no other reason than the system's requirements. Exposing the raw framework? No, that is almost never a good idea, unless you want the system to be cheap/fast (like in Tashas, where the goal for the Ranger was to fix a bunch of problems on a low budget).

Respectfully, those are my comments.

Where did you get a points system from?

You made it clear that you don’t like this approach (although your approach is fundamentally identical and, to some, worse since it tries harder to limit player creativity by shortlisting which animals you can be) but it doesn’t seem like you had a grasp of what the mechanical execution was. I saw an extended tangent about point buy which is no part of my pitch.

I do appreciate the effort made.

[BerzerkerUnit]

I agree that the Wildshape feature in 5E seems underwhelming for combat. I think it would be better if rather than just throwing the whole book "Beasts" section of the MM at people and saying "use these stats" the game provided actual rules that enhanced traits based on whatever your goal was: tankiness, damage, movement, sneakiness.
Basically have a list of animal forms that LOOK like forest creatures but use entirely different stats. That's probably a more complicated fix though.

And the concentration-spells in melee are definitely also an issue. AFAIK that stems from the desire to kill off the 3.5 thing where by applying a ton of fire-and-forget buffs the party could move up several notches in power. But now EVERYTHING with a duration is concentration based and it's gone to far in the other direction, and I just don't use those spells.

I like the additions to combat-wildshape; the only thing I would maybe suggest is having them scale. Such as increasing the number or size of the extra dice as you level up, etc.
Right now they all appear to be offensively-focused, any thoughts on anything defensive, or to help protect your party? Or as a suggestion, what about one that helped out with AoOs?

For the change of Barkskin, I'm not sure I get the point. Wouldn't it still be Concentration? What about the spell is altered by swapping it to another school? And what about other boosts to toughness such as adding to AC, giving some kind of dodge or evasion, boosting spell-saves, or temporary HP? Obviously we don't need ALL of them, but I'm worried that most wildshapes will still be kinda squishy.

And for the capstone, are you implying that you can take a normally medium or large wildshape and upsize it? I'm just trying to make sure I understand, because I'm pretty sure that when playing a Druid I already Wildshaped into a Mammoth at one point to provide a party-buff and there was no rule prohibiting it.

I thought of an Amadillo/turtle option this morning I might add.

Changing Barkskin to Abjuration allows the combat Wildshape to recast if it drops.

The UA moon Druid uses templates you flavor instead of existing statblocks and they do not allow Huge forms at present.

[windgate]

One of the fundamental reasons behind the continued success of Dungeons and Dragons is the relative simplicity of its game design. An entire class gets fleshed out (excluding subclasses) in less than 3 printed pages of text.

Druids have a problem. The Current version of Wildshape (A single feature of the base class) takes almost a full page to describe what it does and then you still need to pull out an entire book (the monster manual) to choose a form for it.

That diverges from the framework the rest of the game has been built into. You may not like the compressed stat blocks (because they are boring) but the change is needed to make it adhere to the system's design philosophy.

(Side Note)
To be blunt, I would have preferred Wild Shape be changed into a Primal Transmutation Spell to further reduce the visual text clutter of the class. Technically, Bards and Rangers would then get access to it, but base Druid class features could be designed in a way that only a druid would use the spell for combat (and a moon druid would excel at it).
(/Side Note)


As for your specific moon druid suggestions:

1) Barkskin as abjuration: Yes, great idea

2) Feature distribution: Each one of your changes are a notable increase to combat ability. If you sample the framework for other classes, this doesn't usually happen. There is typically at least one subclass feature that is either pure utility, enhances a non-combat base class feature or is extremely niche.

3) Modular creature traits: Do not have the players pick a species. Have them pick an attribute instead (ex: Thick Hide/Scales, Sharpened Claws, Speed, Horns, Social - Pack Tactics)) The player can then assume the base druid can make any creature as well, but some stuff if just "for show" unless you are a moon druid.

[Deepbluediver]

Changing Barkskin to Abjuration allows the combat Wildshape to recast if it drops.

Oh I see- with the new Druid class feature you can recast Abjuration spells in wild shape (and Abjuration spells only).

Honestly, this seems kinda...odd, to me. (the unearthed arcana feature, not your version) I get that it's for the mechanics, but I don't understand the fluff. If you wanted to allow Druid players access to SOME spells in wildshape but not all of them until level 17, why not just let a Driud have access to any one school of their choice instead? That way the player can tailor the game to their own playstyle, instead of being shoehorned into this very specific role?

(spell-schools are an entirely separate issue that I've discussed at length, but rehashing that is outside the scope of this thread)

The UA moon Druid uses templates you flavor instead of existing statblocks and they do not allow Huge forms at present.

Gotcha gotcha. Now that I've actually tracked down a copy of the UA and read it, I see that. Thanks for clarifying.

[BerzerkerUnit]

One of the fundamental reasons behind the continued success of Dungeons and Dragons is the relative simplicity of its game design. An entire class gets fleshed out (excluding subclasses) in less than 3 printed pages of text.

Druids have a problem. The Current version of Wildshape (A single feature of the base class) takes almost a full page to describe what it does and then you still need to pull out an entire book (the monster manual) to choose a form for it.

That diverges from the framework the rest of the game has been built into. You may not like the compressed stat blocks (because they are boring) but the change is needed to make it adhere to the system's design philosophy.

(Side Note)
To be blunt, I would have preferred Wild Shape be changed into a Primal Transmutation Spell to further reduce the visual text clutter of the class. Technically, Bards and Rangers would then get access to it, but base Druid class features could be designed in a way that only a druid would use the spell for combat (and a moon druid would excel at it).
(/Side Note)


As for your specific moon druid suggestions:

1) Barkskin as abjuration: Yes, great idea

2) Feature distribution: Each one of your changes are a notable increase to combat ability. If you sample the framework for other classes, this doesn't usually happen. There is typically at least one subclass feature that is either pure utility, enhances a non-combat base class feature or is extremely niche.

3) Modular creature traits: Do not have the players pick a species. Have them pick an attribute instead (ex: Thick Hide/Scales, Sharpened Claws, Speed, Horns, Social - Pack Tactics)) The player can then assume the base druid can make any creature as well, but some stuff if just "for show" unless you are a moon druid.

Thank you for your feedback!

I believe the existing UA Wildshape feature to which my proposals are intended to be applied, comes n at under 200 words and then 3 very skeletal statblocks akin to those any PC using a summoning spell would see.

The Moon Druid as I understand it was not intended as “the best or most versatile” wildshaper, because the most potent utility the different forms applied could be found between 2 and 4 for all Druids. Tiny scouts, Unique senses or mobility.

The Moon Druid (owing to the name of its first subclass feature) was a Druid intended to bring Wildshape into combat. The price was always Spellcasting in combat.

For 1D&D, nerfs are justified.
The nerfs to utility across the board are IMO unnecessary. A DM hack for running solo recon should be a staple for the rogue and ranger sections.

(My preference is a simple check with success levels determining how many rooms the PCs can see before having to enter and/or a number of patrols/random encounters they can skip, it’s less spotlight at the expense of the rest of the table ffor those classes)

But the nerfs to combat function for moon Druid specifically are too extreme. So the features I proposed are intended to shore them up.

The most potent damage adder, Poison, is incompatible with a later damage buff (Level 10) because it depends on dealing piercing.

Another whole line of thought came to me today as follows:

Create a list of Moon Druid bonus spells and add those to the Abjuration spells you can cast in Wildshape.

Enlarge/Reduce, Primal Savagery, Poison Spray, long strider, jump, etc. Boilerplate beast form stuff.

Add “replace a bestial strike with a Cantrip granted by this subclass” to the level 5 multiattack.

Then you have some juice. Maybe add an “advantage on concentration check” in beast form for good measure if they insist on keeping the warrior feat chocolate out of beast form peanut butter. I’ll give that a pitch in a separate thread.

[Deepbluediver]

A DM hack for running solo recon should be a staple for the rogue and ranger sections.

Your comment made me think of this, but what about a trait that boosts stealth and sneaking? The "stalker" is good for ambushes but that's still combat. Lots of animals rely on camouflage though, to both attack their prey easily and to avoid being attacked.

Also, it's probably not crucial 95%+ of the time but I think it would be nice if you at least had the option to take "Animal of the Sea" instead of "Animal of the Land" at level 1. I don't think it would be broken but it would be nice if you were playing in an aquatic campaign, or for the GM to create a druid-NPC of an aquatic race for the party to encounter, etc.
Or if you're already at a higher level and only want a dip of Druid; maybe make "Animal of the Sky" available to anyone whose total level if 9+. Overall I'd say there is quite a bit of 5E that is tied to class-level instead of ECL for no other reason than to screw over multiclassers, but maybe that's just me.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Your comment made me think of this, but what about a trait that boosts stealth and sneaking? The "stalker" is good for ambushes but that's still combat. Lots of animals rely on camouflage though, to both attack their prey easily and to avoid being attacked.

Also, it's probably not crucial 90% of the time but I think it would be nice if you at least had the option to take "Animal of the Sea" instead of "Animal of the Land" at level 1. I don't think it would be broken but it would be nice if you were playing in an aquatic campaign, or for the GM to create a druid-NPC of an aquatic race for the party to encounter, etc.
Or if you're already at a higher level and only want a dip of Druid; maybe make "Animal of the Sky" available to anyone whose total level if 9+. Overall I'd say there is quite a bit of 5E that is tied to class-level instead of ECL for no other reason than to screw over multiclassers, but maybe that's just me.

I agree water mode should be available earlier, but level 1 might be too early. I only say that because it’s a significant enough element that it would make the class feel like “amphibious” was supposed to be a significant thematic element of the class.

As for hosing multiclassers, I think it is warranted.

I think ideal design for me is high level is so fueled by cocaine that the degree is irrelevant. Whether you’re wizard 20 using a handful of spells or a 5 class monster using feature synergy doesn’t matter when the goal is to punch god.

But low level should be manageable for DMs and newbs, and level 3 god modes like moon Druid2/Barb1 or Hexblade1/Wizard2 are tough to manage. An experienced player that uses these in a game run by a newb or next to other newb players will seem like a superhero.

That doesn’t feel like a collaborative fun to me anymore.

[Deepbluediver]

I agree water mode should be available earlier, but level 1 might be too early. I only say that because it’s a significant enough element that it would make the class feel like “amphibious” was supposed to be a significant thematic element of the class.

You might be right, although personally I'm still not against the idea entirely. It wouldn't be OP in a normal campaign, but in an aquatic campaign it could make the whole "dealing with water" thing a lot easier, and therefor attractive for some players. And also as I said, the option to build an NPC of a particular persuasion for the PCs to meet is also there.
It wouldn't have to be ONLY the Druid that had this kind of option- I'd also be in a favor of some kind of "aquatic terrain" element for a Ranger, too, even if I expected 99% of players to skip it.

As for hosing multiclassers, I think it is warranted.

I think ideal design for me is high level is so fueled by cocaine that the degree is irrelevant. Whether you’re wizard 20 using a handful of spells or a 5 class monster using feature synergy doesn’t matter when the goal is to punch god.

Eh, I sort of agree that you might want to control high-level play, but to me that doesn't mean you screw over low-levels to compensate. The game should be fun and have different kinds of options at all stages.

Personally I'm not in favor of high-level characters breaking the setting either, at least not without SIGNIFCANT effort and a compliant GM, but I don't really see how this could do that so.... good luck I guess?

But low level should be manageable for DMs and newbs, and level 3 god modes like moon Druid2/Barb1 or Hexblade1/Wizard2 are tough to manage. An experienced player that uses these in a game run by a newb or next to other newb players will seem like a superhero.

That doesn’t feel like a collaborative fun to me anymore.

I would agree, but I don't exactly see how my suggestions overpower the game. They are situationally powerful maybe, but any class feature could be in a given circumstance.

I feel like in 3.5, WotC didn't consider multiclassing at all, or at least never assumed and anything existed outside of the core rulebooks and whatever supplement they were writing at that moment. And then people on the forums posted about theoretical builds where you dip a bunch of stuff from a dozen different non-core sourcebooks and build Pun-Pun, and WotC kinda assumed that was the level of optimization they had to account for ALL THE TIME. So in 5E we've got a few small gifts tossed to multiclassers, like spellslots automatically stacking, and for everything else they took a chainsaw and cut it off at the knees. I feel like there has to be a middle-ground.

If I suggest some kind of homebrew, and someone comes up with a way to break the game using it, I'm happy to homebrew as much more as I need to to address that issue. But I don't see it here, yet, so I'll keep pushing for things that I think are intersting.

[SharkForce]

I'm not sold on the division of templates by terrain type being a good solution in the first place.

Truthfully, the only one that really needs any restriction is flying (and probably tunnelling, if we're going to put that up for grabs). You can climb or swim at half your land movement speed anyways, so it isn't like those really need to be restricted to higher levels. And basically, putting water form at level 4 for most people either means they gain nothing at level 4 (because there are no water environments that need it), or they have gained nothing until level 4 (because they are in a water environment and the ability to use a land form is of limited value). I suppose there is a small group of games where people are on a ship and thus land is useful-ish while water becomes a legitimate upgrade at level 4, but for most groups it really isn't much of an improvement at all.


I would suggest a division by roles instead... possibly 2 types of combat forms (offence and defence?) and exploration, with different menus to choose from for each form (offence adding some damage or possibly mobility like bonus action dashes, defence adding abilities that are more control-oriented with a bit of extra toughness added in one way or another - maybe something like the duelist feat or the defensive fighting style? exploration could offer a range of enhanced senses as the main attraction I would say).

Moon druids could eventually maybe choose menu items from any 2 categories when creating their forms at higher levels? just tossing out ideas here at this point.

And to some extent, those options can overlap... just because something is on the "offensive" menu list doesn't mean it can never appear on the "tank" list, or vice versa.

For movement types, as I said I would only *really* gate flight and burrowing speeds.

and while I can agree that there will be min/maxing if it's a modular system, there will *always* be min/maxing. If you provide a list of fully-themed forms, you are limiting the options of what people can be and the min/maxers will just choose the most effective packages - because there will be some. Or perhaps you haven't noticed that, for example, min/maxers choosing their familiar don't tend to choose lizards or crabs very often. Or that they tend to choose specific classes and subclasses in D&D just like they might choose specific abilities in a point-buy system.

So long as the value of the abilities are reasonably close (or not directly comparable because they're used in different situations) it should be fine. Sure, there will be people who will follow guides and choose the "best" ability, but so what? As long as it's close, it'll be fine. If someone is desperate to be 5% more effective, let them have their fun their way, and the people who want their themed choices can have just as much fun and most of the time the average person won't see a huge difference in power between them anyways.