OneD&D UA - THE DRUID AND PALADIN

[Aimeryan]

That's been consistent from what I recall. I'm curious what kind of responses people are offering that they run out of words so much easier than myself (and I'm not even stingy with my response).

I found it almost painful with the Class comments, although much more so with Druid. Here is my Druid class comment, managed to get it into 198 words, but with a lot of reasoning left out for non Wild Shape stuff:

Multiclassing: Remove the leave requirement.
Channel Nature: If Wildshape provides no HP, remove the limit altogether.
Spellcasting: No to Prepared Spells being locked to Spell Slots.
Nature's Aid: Healing Blossoms scales too poorly. Shares charges with a better feature.
Might: Too combat focused for a class Wildshape feature.
Aquatic/Aerial/Resurgence/Beast Spells/Archdruid: Taking up class budget for things already pretty much covered by another feature or should be.
Alternative Forms: Remove the time limit. The class is balanced around Spellcasting, stop being awkward about it. Should be earlier.

Wild Shapes (+Tiny): No to the custom block; these are flavourless, mechanically destitute, and not even Beasts. Please use a curated, mechanical and flavourful diverse list of Beasts, place in the PHB. Keep the appearance choice, require it be something similar. Scaling as part of the Moon Druid subclass features so they remain relevant from 1-20. Start with about 20; more Beasts can be added in splats. Consider tagging Beasts in DM material with a 'Wildshape Approved' for DMs that wish to offer these to the player. HP provided by form is required; going into melee with poor AC with caster HP is not viable - more survivable to just cast cantrips.

Didn't get to comment on the stuff I found satisfying and why, so hopefully they just figure that out I guess.

[False God]

My hot take atm, is that they should change wildshape so that druids can actually cast in that form. Maybe it could be limited casting, like you cant concentrate on a spell but you can cast reactions and 1 shot nonconcentration spells. Stats and so forth would need to be adjusted of course.

THe reason i’m orienting towards this solution, is b/c I think the current design team are not capable of adequately gauging the opportunity cost of what (1 action lost + spell loss) actually represents. Its also hard for players to gauge as well since we don’t have an update on the new spells power and utility levels.

Moreover, you kinda want features synergizing as opposed to being rather complicated tradeoffs that introduce a pretty large variability in what a class can do round to round.

There is also what I would call the World of warcraft hybrid problem. Certain classes, like the death knight were designed to be able to both tank, as well as cast support spells. But were not supposed to threaten the primary classes in those roles (eg DK < warrior in melee), (dk < cleric for support). The problem with that is they would almost never have a role in raids. B/c while they were tanking, they weren’t supporting, and while they were tanking they were 90% as good as a fighter.

This led to the scenario where they necessarily (to not be useless) had to be brought up to like 99% of what a fighter could be, or 99% as effective as a cleric. And that overpowered them in a different way.

So my hot take is that a druid should remain a primary spell caster, even in wildshape, so that it stays in its lane. As opposed to having to be a martial lite who cant cast spell after round1.

If Druids are primary casters at all times, why don't we just make each "animal form" a spell? I realize the D&DOne version is doing that with its Blob Form, but if we're trying to make the tradeoff more apparent, why don't we just make a selection of spells that turn the Druid into specific forms? Then Wild Shape can be taken piecemeal. Want to only ever be a Bear? Just take the Bear Form spell. Want to be be water-themed? Just take the water forms.

It'd kinda eliminate the "Druid of the Land" entirely though because it would eliminate Wild Shape entirely, but the tradeoff would be much clearer, "If you want to turn into animals, you won't have as many spells to cast." and it would contextualize animals forms more akin to spells, which are clearly designed to cover a wide variety of purposes, as opposed to the Blob Form which is only combat oriented.

[Oramac]

If Druids are primary casters at all times, why don't we just make each "animal form" a spell? I realize the D&DOne version is doing that with its Blob Form, but if we're trying to make the tradeoff more apparent, why don't we just make a selection of spells that turn the Druid into specific forms? Then Wild Shape can be taken piecemeal. Want to only ever be a Bear? Just take the Bear Form spell. Want to be be water-themed? Just take the water forms.
snip

If you're doing that, it ought to scale with spell level too. Which begs the question: why not just make Wild Shape use a spell slot? Other than PhoenixPhyre hating it, obviously. :P

In any case, I'm still formulating my thoughts. I'll take the survey before it closes.

[KorvinStarmast]

I found it almost painful with the Class comments, although much more so with Druid. Here is my Druid class comment

I'll borrow a few of those (in my own words) to add to the feedback on "you messed up wild shape" theme.

"If you want to turn into animals, you won't have as many spells to cast." and it would contextualize animals forms more akin to spells, which are clearly designed to cover a wide variety of purposes, as opposed to the Blob Form which is only combat oriented.

Interesting approach. I am still not happy with the HP scheme, and will address that directly.

[Segev]

If you're doing that, it ought to scale with spell level too. Which begs the question: why not just make Wild Shape use a spell slot? Other than PhoenixPhyre hating it, obviously. :P

What level spell slot? This kind-of works for Warlocks where it gets used because pact magic spell slots are all the same level, and scale up as the warlock levels. If a druid can use any spell slot, it's effectively become a first level spell. Why not just make it a spell, then, and give it to certain druids as a freebie they always have prepared? Maybe that's one of the aspects of the Moon Druid: they get the primal spell wild shape always prepared. Other druids (and rangers) have to prepare it normally.

[Oramac]

What level spell slot? This kind-of works for Warlocks where it gets used because pact magic spell slots are all the same level, and scale up as the warlock levels. If a druid can use any spell slot, it's effectively become a first level spell. Why not just make it a spell, then, and give it to certain druids as a freebie they always have prepared? Maybe that's one of the aspects of the Moon Druid: they get the primal spell wild shape always prepared. Other druids (and rangers) have to prepare it normally.

That's an option. I wasn't saying that's what they should do. Just tossing the idea out there. I wouldn't say no to it, but would need to see it properly written out to really make a decision.

On another note, perhaps it's been said, but I just noticed that as written, the new Lay on Hands works on undead and constructs. The 2014 version has a line specifically calling out that it doesn't work, but the new one just says "you touch a creature...to restore hit points". No mention of UD or constructs at all. Seems a little odd.

[Psyren]

You absolutely can compare PC level and CR. Otherwise, the entire CR system is worse than useless.

You can compare them for their intended purpose, i.e. a starting point for computing encounter difficulty for a group of PCs of that level. But as a consistent yardstick for what abilities are appropriate in player hands at the corresponding level, it has never been successful.

If you're doing that, it ought to scale with spell level too. Which begs the question: why not just make Wild Shape use a spell slot? Other than PhoenixPhyre hating it, obviously. :P

It would probably intensify the cries of them stealing from Pathfinder. It's doable though.

[Lord Ruby34]

The more I think about the druid, the more convinced I am that wildshape is too big of a feature for a full casting class. Shapeshifting is a major power, one that thematically lets a character keep up with martial power sources, like rage or pure skill. I think that the druid should probably be split off into two classes, one that focuses on shapeshifting, and one that focuses on primal magic. (Though I would probably let the caster have a subclass that got access to some shapeshifting, kind of like Arcane Trickster and Eldrich Knight.)

Spoiler: DnD Movie

Show

The druid in the DnD movie never casts a single spell, but makes extensive use of her wildshape. Frankly, the movie is better for it. Shapeshifting is a cool combat power, and the movie shows it off pretty well. The character didn't need magic to be effective, and her powers would have been less conceptually clear if she was able to cast spells.

Shapeshifted subclasses also have a lot of potential. Various subclasses could unlock new forms, or play into different shapeshifting fantasies. The master of many animal forms is a different concept from the master of one form, that increases in power, or the shapeshifted who wants to play like a werewolf.

[Oramac]

The more I think about the druid, the more convinced I am that wildshape is too big of a feature for a full casting class.

I fully agree. Or, at the very least, Wild Shape and Spellcasting should be subclass features, making them mutually exclusive with each other.

[Aimeryan]

I fully agree. Or, at the very least, Wild Shape and Spellcasting should be subclass features, making them mutually exclusive with each other.

Yup, I wrote in the final comments section that Wild Shaping is curtailed by being lumped together with a full caster, and the full caster is being curtailed by Wild Shape being there. I suggested they make it a subclass for Barbarian.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The more I think about the druid, the more convinced I am that wildshape is too big of a feature for a full casting class. Shapeshifting is a major power, one that thematically lets a character keep up with martial power sources, like rage or pure skill. I think that the druid should probably be split off into two classes, one that focuses on shapeshifting, and one that focuses on primal magic. (Though I would probably let the caster have a subclass that got access to some shapeshifting, kind of like Arcane Trickster and Eldrich Knight.)

Spoiler: DnD Movie

Show

The druid in the DnD movie never casts a single spell, but makes extensive use of her wildshape. Frankly, the movie is better for it. Shapeshifting is a cool combat power, and the movie shows it off pretty well. The character didn't need magic to be effective, and her powers would have been less conceptually clear if she was able to cast spells.

Shapeshifted subclasses also have a lot of potential. Various subclasses could unlock new forms, or play into different shapeshifting fantasies. The master of many animal forms is a different concept from the master of one form, that increases in power, or the shapeshifted who wants to play like a werewolf.

I completely agree with this. Although I'd probably invert the relationship--letting the shapeshift class get 1/3 casting. Because "1/3 shapeshifting" is (at least now) underspecified--it's either "all the good non-combat stuff" (ie the scouting, hiding, movement parts) or it's "basically worthless." Whereas 1/3 spellcasting is well defined. That could change, and I'm not opposed to a "minor shapeshifting" feature.

[Segev]

Druid may be associated with shapeshifting, but what about "shapeshifter" says "druid is the class?" In other words, is "shapeshifter" truly the only thing that identifies the druid class, enough that it's all they should get? When somebody comes into D&D and thinks, "I want to play a druid," will they be satisfied if they open the class up and see it's really just "shapeshifter, the class?"

[PhoenixPhyre]

Druid may be associated with shapeshifting, but what about "shapeshifter" says "druid is the class?" In other words, is "shapeshifter" truly the only thing that identifies the druid class, enough that it's all they should get? When somebody comes into D&D and thinks, "I want to play a druid," will they be satisfied if they open the class up and see it's really just "shapeshifter, the class?"

I think there's room for two different pieces (both of which are part of the druid currently):
1) Nature mage. The hippy type who watches after nature, talks to the animals and fey and elementals, etc. Spellcaster with other minor things.
2) The shapeshifter.

In my experience with people playing druids, they lean into one or the other, but rarely both. Either they want to live in Wild Shape 100% of the time or they only use it rarely.

But I don't want a nature wizard (basically spellcasting only, distinguished only by their spell list). So the nature mage should have some other special piece. I like the 4e shaman as a model here, with placeable auras that do various things.

[Oramac]

Druid may be associated with shapeshifting, but what about "shapeshifter" says "druid is the class?" In other words, is "shapeshifter" truly the only thing that identifies the druid class, enough that it's all they should get? When somebody comes into D&D and thinks, "I want to play a druid," will they be satisfied if they open the class up and see it's really just "shapeshifter, the class?"

I think there's room for two different pieces (both of which are part of the druid currently):
1) Nature mage. The hippy type who watches after nature, talks to the animals and fey and elementals, etc. Spellcaster with other minor things.
2) The shapeshifter.

In my experience with people playing druids, they lean into one or the other, but rarely both. Either they want to live in Wild Shape 100% of the time or they only use it rarely.

But I don't want a nature wizard (basically spellcasting only, distinguished only by their spell list). So the nature mage should have some other special piece. I like the 4e shaman as a model here, with placeable auras that do various things.

Pretty much what Phoenix said. My experience is the same. Either the player lives in Wild Shape, or ignores it entirely.

As I said above, I think the best way to handle it would be to give each option (Wild Shape and Spellcasting) to separate subclasses that focus on those things. In this way they are mutually exclusive, since you can't multi-sub-class, and it allows for each player to really focus on the thing they want to do without worrying about "losing" a significant portion of the class.

EDIT: and hell, if they decide to bring in multi-sub-classing at some point, it would still work, since the only people that will do it are those that are actually interested in it.

[Zevox]

In my experience with people playing druids, they lean into one or the other, but rarely both. Either they want to live in Wild Shape 100% of the time or they only use it rarely.

Well, yeah, because that's how it's designed currently. Either you're a Moon Druid and the whole reason you chose to be that is because you want to use Wild Shape to its fullest, or you're not and Wild Shape is mostly a utility tool you'll use if and when a situation where it's useful arises.

[Psyren]

1) For me, druid being both a shapeshifter and a full caster is fine. At least the shapeshifting mechanic means they have to choose between raw martial prowess, scouting/exploration, and spellcasting most of the time (compare to Cleric which can do two at once, or Bard/Warlock which can do all three and be the face too.)

2) Calling druid "shapeshifter, the class" smacks to me like calling cleric "turn undead, the class." Yes, it's the base class' most prominent non-spellcasting feature, but people pick both classes to be spellcasters first and foremost; even with wildshape offering greater overall utility, the other base features are largely gravy, and getting a bigger piece of their build identity from their subclass is fine.

3) Even putting aside that druids do get much, much more to do outside of shapeshifting and spellcasting from their subclass, we have the opportunity now to put more of that into the base class if that's truly what people want. In prior editions Druids could use wild shape to take on plant-like defenses, rage like wolverines, remain conscious at zero HP like badgers and boars, sprout wings or gills and so on. Those things were gated behind feats in those editions, but it's not impossible for them to be optional or alternative uses for Channel Nature in this one.

[Gignere]

Well, yeah, because that's how it's designed currently. Either you're a Moon Druid and the whole reason you chose to be that is because you want to use Wild Shape to its fullest, or you're not and Wild Shape is mostly a utility tool you'll use if and when a situation where it's useful arises.

The best played moon Druids plays fluidly between caster and shifter. They don’t stay either or they choose the best tool for the job. Either casting or shifting or even “wasting” a shift to go back to casting. The ceiling of the moon Druid is really high but the floor is really low too.

[Zevox]

The best played moon Druids plays fluidly between caster and shifter. They don’t stay either or they choose the best tool for the job. Either casting or shifting or even “wasting” a shift to go back to casting. The ceiling of the moon Druid is really high but the floor is really low too.

That doesn't really have anything to do with my point there. Phoenix's observation that most players either use Wild Shape a lot or very little is simply the natural consequence of how the ability works in 5E. You either picked a subclass specifically focused on the ability because you want to make heavy use of it, or you didn't and instead have a weaker, more niche version of it that you'll likely prefer to save for circumstances where it serves a utility purpose.

[Kane0]

Hmm. You could keep it all on the Druid by putting greater weighting into the subclasses. Moon druids being the shapeshifters, land druids being the casters, shepherd the ones with placeable auras, wildfire the ones with a pet, and so on.

The key would be balancing the channel and spell slot resources for those powers in addition to basic casting, which would be quite the challenge between the shared lists and slots = preps (neither of which i'm sold on)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmm. You could keep it all on the Druid by putting greater weighting into the subclasses. Moon druids being the shapeshifters, land druids being the casters, shepherd the ones with placeable auras, wildfire the ones with a pet, and so on.

The key would be balancing the channel and spell slot resources for those powers in addition to basic casting, which would be quite the challenge between the shared lists and slots = preps (neither of which i'm sold on)

I'm just not sure what the base class would have except the bare chassis (HD, proficiencies) if you shoved that much into the subclasses. And you'd not be able to do a full caster as a subclass unless it got subclasses at level 1, which they're not doing now.

That's why I'm in favor of separate classes. It's way easier to handle these sorts of things if they're decoupled properly instead of the base class basically being "you get a subclass feature at every level".

[Lord Ruby34]

I'm just not sure what the base class would have except the bare chassis (HD, proficiencies) if you shoved that much into the subclasses. And you'd not be able to do a full caster as a subclass unless it got subclasses at level 1, which they're not doing now.

That's why I'm in favor of separate classes. It's way easier to handle these sorts of things if they're decoupled properly instead of the base class basically being "you get a subclass feature at every level".

Agreed. Two different classes would also give us a nice trifecta of primal classes.

1. Shapeshifter (Uses primal magic to change shape to be a dedicated frontliner.)
2. Ranger (Primal Half-Caster) (More ambivalent about this one)
3. Druid (Primal Full Caster, with some other magical, nature abilities.)

[animorte]

Hmm... Perhaps Wild Shape (or the concept of shape shifting) should be a primal feature, implemented in different ways depending on which primal class you're using.

[Oramac]

And you'd not be able to do a full caster as a subclass unless it got subclasses at level 1, which they're not doing now.

That's why I'm in favor of separate classes.

Agreed. Two different classes would also give us a nice trifecta of primal classes.

1. Shapeshifter (Uses primal magic to change shape to be a dedicated frontliner.)
2. Ranger (Primal Half-Caster) (More ambivalent about this one)
3. Druid (Primal Full Caster, with some other magical, nature abilities.)

All good points.

Sadly, the odds of WOTC essentially making two new classes for the OneD&D PHB are hilariously low. More likely we'll be stuck with the amalgamation we have now, either with stat blocks or book diving.

[Kane0]

Sadly, the odds of WOTC essentially making two new classes for the OneD&D PHB are hilariously low. More likely we'll be stuck with the amalgamation we have now, either with stat blocks or book diving.

Sad but true.

[Segev]

The druid I played last night (and have played from level 3 through 6 so far) uses wild shape fairly liberally, but doesn't live in it. He uses it for scouting, for spying, for infiltration and escape, and he uses it for survival in combat when he finds himself stuck in melee despite his best efforts. He uses it to hide amongst conjured animals, and to swim better if he doesn't have time or patience to fumble along at half speed. (He almost always has water breathing active.) But he plays primarily as a caster, despite that.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just want to thank every one for the discussion in this thread.
The good ideas presented here informed my comments.
I leaned into "Wild Shape Nerf was over done"
and
"Paladin nerfs went too far in most cases, but I like 1 Divine Smite per turn limit."
Commented on the pointless nerf to Banishment spell and Banishing smite.
I agreed with smite spells being BA. And said so.

Delaying Divine Sense is pointless, as is making it a Channel Divinity tax.

[Hytheter]

Shapeshifting definitely has enough substance and thematic appeal to stand as a class on its own. It'd make for a compelling and novel take on a martial class, I feel.

I like 'Wild Shape as spell(s)' too, though. It would allow you to decide exactly where along the Caster to Shifter spectrum you want to sit without feeling like you're wasting features by leaning too strongly into one side. Plus it opens up splashing the spell(s) into other classes. Why shouldn't a ranger be able to turn into a bear?

[Psyren]

"Paladin nerfs went too far in most cases, but I like 1 Divine Smite per turn limit."
Commented on the pointless nerf to Banishment spell and Banishing smite.
I agreed with smite spells being BA. And said so.

Delaying Divine Sense is pointless, as is making it a Channel Divinity tax.

Even with the Channel Divinity cost, they buffed Divine Sense massively I'd say - bonus action, lasts 10 minutes per use, and above all, it works through walls now so you can actually use it before opening a door or sarcophagus or while exploring a building etc.

My problem with Paladin however comes down to the spell list - I don't mind clerics getting smites, but I do mind them being better at smiting than paladins are. And clerics should definitely not get Steeds.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My problem with Paladin however comes down to the spell list - I don't mind clerics getting smites, but I do mind them being better at smiting than paladins are. And clerics should definitely not get Steeds.

That's been a fear of mine with the whole consolidation of spell lists. It threatens (if implemented poorly) to remove significant uniqueness and do so in a way that favors the full casters. Who definitely don't need it. It's the "bards can cast find steed before paladins can" problem on steroids.

If smiting is a paladin's "thing", then no one else should be able to do it as well as they can. And certainly not more frequently (spell slots being much cheaper for a full caster than a half caster, and the full caster can do the bigger smites earlier).

It'd certainly kill the "multiclass for Divine Smite" thing, since you can multiclass into cleric, keep your full spell slot progression, and get better features faster. Silver linings?

[Zevox]

Even with the Channel Divinity cost, they buffed Divine Sense massively I'd say - bonus action, lasts 10 minutes per use, and above all, it works through walls now so you can actually use it before opening a door or sarcophagus or while exploring a building etc.

My problem with Paladin however comes down to the spell list - I don't mind clerics getting smites, but I do mind them being better at smiting than paladins are. And clerics should definitely not get Steeds.

Honestly, I'm more fine with Clerics getting Steeds than Smites myself. Smites are the more iconic Paladin ability of the two.

Though oddly, there is another class that I've long thought should get access to the smite spells: Eldritch Knight. The spells as-is are kind of perfect for a subclass that's all about being a Fighter/Mage hybrid: hit things with your weapon, add bonus magical effects when you do. And as a 1/3 caster, they'll never be better at it than the Paladin.