Let the Druid (and everyone else) "dive through the books."

[sithlordnergal]

I do need to clarify some things first I think. My belief is (based on personal experience), that there are two kinds of Druid players.
Type 1: I want to be animal X. They choose their animal based on aesthetic. Moon Druid does not serve them without reskins.
Type 2: I want POWWA!! They choose their animal based on meta-game advantages (i.e., they pick the powerful option). I'm not suggesting munchkinism here, just that if a wolf does more damage than a jaguar, they will pick wolf.

As it stands, I like having 'generic scaling stat blocks' as a general idea because it serves player Type 1 (my preferred player type). There are some players who want to play 'manic shifter' but they seem to be more in the minority. So, that play style should be open to them, but they aren't 'the first customer'. So, there really isn't a number of 'stat blocks' you can reasonably put at level 2 that will keep Type 1 players happy without giving them too many options (and also wasting a lot of page space).

Hence, my preference for... a handful of generic stat-blocks like... agile land, armoured land, brutish land which cover off 90% of what the creatures at that level are. Then have the 'little bonus rules' PhoenixPhyre points out isn't a very long list. I got this idea from how Insect Swarms are handled where the rules for them are basically unified, but if they are spiders => spiderclimb, wasps => flight, beetles => burrow etc.

I feel like you're missing a type...

type 3: I want to turn into as many different animals as possible to change things up, because being a wide variety of animals is simply cool, fun, and interesting.


I didn't follow a theme or aesthetic with my animal choices. I also don't care much about "POWWA". If I did, my level 20 Moon Druid would only ever turn into a Fire Elemental or Air Elemental. Can you say "Boring"? I play Moon Druids to turn into as many different forms as possible!! Screw themes, screw optimal choices!! I wanna go from being a Humanoid, to a Giant Spooder, to a Dino, to a Snek!! That's fun, that's cool!! There's a reason my Moon Druid will just go from one form to another now that they have unlimited Wild Shapes! If I'm bored with being the Water Elemental, I'll just turn into a Giant Croc, or a Brachiosaurus. Maybe a Giant Turtle for kicks! Or if there's no combat, hang out on my friend's head as a regular spider, turn into a cat and wander around.

Your generic statblock would be far too boring. =/ "Time to turn into the Generic land animal again. Maybe we can go with Spiderclimb this time! Whoop-dee-doo!!" There's no real difference between what you turn into with the generic statblock. You're just some undefined blob, no real substance to it. You're closer to a guy in a wolf costume than an actual wolf.

In your efforts to "rein in" power players, you end up just ruining the class for people like me who find turning into a huge variety of creatures to be the biggest reason to play one in the first place.

[Aimeryan]

As I noted in the other thread...

There just aren't that many unique abilities that beasts get. And they all suffer from extremely low and non-scaling DCs targeting generally good saves, making them mostly totally useless beyond level 6 (CR 2) or so.

The entire list:
1. Move > 20 ft, hit with an attack => chance to knock prone + some extra damage (Pounce and Charge are only trivially different, and charge is better because the additional damage is guaranteed to trigger on hit, not dependent on two separate rolls with low to-hit values).
2. Web (ranged restraint...with a crappy to-hit and a crappy escape DC).
3. grapple+restrain on hit (toads, constrictor snakes, octopus).
4. Extra poison damage
5. swallow (restricted to medium or smaller enemies, giant toad)
6. Pact Tactics (wolves + dire wolves)
7. Chance to knockdown on regular hit (dire wolves, again a crappy DC on a good save)
8. Blindsight (bats)

That's basically the entire list other than movement speeds. You could easily sprinkle those between the proposed generic stat blocks and completely replicate the existing beasts other than the exact numbers...which only matter if you're highly meta-gaming. Not that the existing generic stat blocks are much good, mind.

Thanks for the list. I see absolutely no difficulty in have 8 beasts (or a few more, like Segev mentioning the high Str creature) that fulfil those placed in a chapter at the back of the PHB. Have scaling built into them in the appropriate places (so +Wis, +Prof., +Druid Level., etc.). People could then reskin from there the closest match in abilities (or with DM permission use ones from the MM).

How much work is that for WotC? Given the number of creatures in 5e... almost none? Comparitively. It fits those who want to feel like they are actually becoming one of those creatures. It fits those who want options. Its interesting and flavourful. Its balanced fairly easily. What is the downside, here?

[Segev]

Thanks for the list. I see absolutely no difficulty in have 8 beasts (or a few more, like Segev mentioning the high Str creature) that fulfil those placed in a chapter at the back of the PHB. Have scaling built into them in the appropriate places (so +Wis, +Prof., +Druid Level., etc.). People could then reskin from there the closest match in abilities (or with DM permission use ones from the MM).

How much work is that for WotC? Given the number of creatures in 5e... almost none? Comparitively. It fits those who want to feel like they are actually becoming one of those creatures. It fits those who want options. Its interesting and flavourful. Its balanced fairly easily. What is the downside, here?

Sounds reasonable to me. Personally, I wouldn't scale it off of the PC features, but rather borrow a concept from 3e's "advancement" entry in some monsters: I'd scale it based on CR. This would let the designers use the guidelines from the DMG or their own judgment on balance to decide how ahead or behind the curve a given numeric entry (e.g. AC, hp, to hit on this attack, damage on that attack, DC of this ability) should be, and let the Druid and other features like polymorph still base limits on CR rather than having to calculate something from the druid.

This then permits the optional rule that the DM can allow other Beasts from other sources without the DM having to create a progression for those other Beasts if he doesn't want to; those other Beasts he permits just use their native CR. No need to scale them unless the DM wants to put in the work, because the accessible CRs are all covered with the PHB entries that do scale across the various CRs. In other words, I suggest scaling based on CR rather than druid level/proficiency bonus/wisdom modifier/whatever/etc. in order to make this more flexible and minimize the difficulty of expanding on it. I believe it leads to the same endpoint, if you're sticking to the PHB options, and allows the DM and players more opportunity to customize things with less effort and less chance of breaking things.

[Gignere]

I feel like you're missing a type...

type 3: I want to turn into as many different animals as possible to change things up, because being a wide variety of animals is simply cool, fun, and interesting.


I didn't follow a theme or aesthetic with my animal choices. I also don't care much about "POWWA". If I did, my level 20 Moon Druid would only ever turn into a Fire Elemental or Air Elemental. Can you say "Boring"? I play Moon Druids to turn into as many different forms as possible!! Screw themes, screw optimal choices!! I wanna go from being a Humanoid, to a Giant Spooder, to a Dino, to a Snek!! That's fun, that's cool!! There's a reason my Moon Druid will just go from one form to another now that they have unlimited Wild Shapes! If I'm bored with being the Water Elemental, I'll just turn into a Giant Croc, or a Brachiosaurus. Maybe a Giant Turtle for kicks! Or if there's no combat, hang out on my friend's head as a regular spider, turn into a cat and wander around.

Your generic statblock would be far too boring. =/ "Time to turn into the Generic land animal again. Maybe we can go with Spiderclimb this time! Whoop-dee-doo!!" There's no real difference between what you turn into with the generic statblock. You're just some undefined blob, no real substance to it. You're closer to a guy in a wolf costume than an actual wolf.

In your efforts to "rein in" power players, you end up just ruining the class for people like me who find turning into a huge variety of creatures to be the biggest reason to play one in the first place.

One aspect of power is versatility, like yeah of course you find it fun to be able to reach inside your tool box to find the right tool for the challenge because you have a ginormous tool box that no other class or subclass even has. That’s why you find the current moon Druid fun, fight like a martial, have out of combat utility at least equal to experts if not surpassing them, heal as good as any cleric, and still have level 9 spells. Don’t you see somethings got to give, WoTC is saying level 9 spells stays, healing stays, but you can’t keep your martial abilities unless you self buff, and limiting utility so the moon Druid is worse than an expert.

I think this is the right goal to balance. Is it there yet? Well that’s why we are having this playtest.

[Segev]

One aspect of power is versatility, like yeah of course you find it fun to be able to reach inside your tool box to find the right tool for the challenge because you have a ginormous tool box that no other class or subclass even has. That’s why you find the current moon Druid fun, fight like a martial, have out of combat utility at least equal to experts if not surpassing them, heal as good as any cleric, and still have level 9 spells. Don’t you see somethings got to give, WoTC is saying level 9 spells stays, healing stays, but you can’t keep your martial abilities unless you self buff, and limiting utility so the moon Druid is worse than an expert.

I think this is the right goal to balance. Is it there yet? Well that’s why we are having this playtest.

I beg to differ. Moon Druids have utility, but it isn't "rivaling any expert." Not unless the only "utility" you can think of is "scouting," at which they are competent (but not as good as a proper expert). What really works best is a druid or other PWT caster using that on the expert scout. Shadow Monk is the only package that gets that naturally, and STILL needs feats or multiclassing to have the expertise.

Expert classes do utility better than moon druids, in general. Moon druids have neat tricks, and can substitute in a pinch, but they're not as good at it. This is fine.

[Yakk]

I beg to differ. Moon Druids have utility, but it isn't "rivaling any expert." Not unless the only "utility" you can think of is "scouting," at which they are competent (but not as good as a proper expert). What really works best is a druid or other PWT caster using that on the expert scout. Shadow Monk is the only package that gets that naturally, and STILL needs feats or multiclassing to have the expertise.

Expert classes do utility better than moon druids, in general. Moon druids have neat tricks, and can substitute in a pinch, but they're not as good at it. This is fine.

An extra +3 possible stacking bonus to stealth is far weaker than "even if spotted, you aren't recognized as a threat", let alone "oh and you are flying and invisible".

Expert classes get a small mechanical bonus to some checks.

Spellcasters and Beast Form change the situation and can even grant larger bonuses.

Imagine a party with no scout. Add either a moon druid or the best rogue scout in the game.

The moon druid with pass without trace can out-scout that rogue both in terms of skill modifiers and in terms of changing the situation entirely.

A Gloomstalker ranger with stealth expertise and pass without trace is a rival.

Warlock with Imp familiar (invisible, shape changing, flying).
Moon druid with pass without trace and an animal form.

Shadow Monk at 6 and also 11 starts to rival the above; cloak of shadows and the ability to step 60' between shadows while invisible is pretty good. But that is the point where it matches a tier 1 warlock and druid at "changing the scope of the problem" as opposed to just d20 modifiers.

Rogues? Rogues pretty much just get d20 modifiers out of combat. And without access to pass without trace, their modifiers aren't even that good.

[Mastikator]

Druids can prepare pass without trace at level 3. They can out-stealth rogues, rangers catch up at level 5 since they also can get PWT, unless the druid wildshapes into a panther, then it's ahead of the ranger. And the druid has more spell slots and prepare PWT on a need-to-stealth basis, the ranger can't change spells unless they level up.

Oh and PWT can affect the party, so a druid is better for team stealth too, rogues can only stealth themselves.

Druids are the best stealthers, better than experts who specialize in stealth. LOL. They do that without taking stealth proficiency BTW. A spores druid who dumped dex and didn't take stealth proficiency is better than a rogue who took expert stealth.

Very balanced.

[Segev]

An extra +3 possible stacking bonus to stealth is far weaker than "even if spotted, you aren't recognized as a threat", let alone "oh and you are flying and invisible".

"Flying and invisible" only comes online at level 8+, and "flying and invisible" doesn't make you "unheard." It certainly doesn't make you "hidden." Admittedly, he was a shadow monk 7 / rogue 1 at level 8, so he was stacking PWT on top of Stealth Expertise, but my last expert was all but unfindable when he wanted to be. Arcane Tricksters can also be Invisible and actually have a higher stealth bonus than the "flying and invisible" druid at level 8. Admittedly, unlike the druid--


--wait. Druids don't get invisibility or greater invisibility unless they're Circle of the Land (and then only particular ones), so "flying and invisible" doesn't apply to moon druids. But I'll grant you that it applies to certain land druids.

Okay back to the point:

An arcane trickster rogue is able to cast invisibility at level 7, a whole level before a druid of any Circle can get flying forms. So, at level 7, both of them can turn invisible (if the druid has greater invisibility from his subclass) and the rogue has the higher stealth score. Unless the druid does cast pass without trace, in which case the druid isn't invisible, but (assuming we're competing and not cooperating) the druid does have the extra +10 to stealth. That said, in actual partying? A rogue and a druid working together would have the rogue with the higher stealth score, again, as he'd also benefit from PWT.


Finally, "oh, it was just a cat" works really, really unreliably as a fallback when scouting. Whether the DM is playing fair or not in your opinion, he will almost always have somebody attack, shoo away, or otherwise impede the progress of a rat, cat, spider, or whatnot. Once, I had an NPC's crow familiar trying to eat my spying house spider.

And again, this is only on stealth. There's more to utility than that. Druids kind-of win on access to swimming forms, but rogues and other experts have their own tricks for that, and have more utility beyond that that druids can't compete with without a LOT of investment. (I know, that Land druid I'm playing is trying to be a backup Expert for the party.)

[Atranen]

Finally, "oh, it was just a cat" works really, really unreliably as a fallback when scouting. Whether the DM is playing fair or not in your opinion, he will almost always have somebody attack, shoo away, or otherwise impede the progress of a rat, cat, spider, or whatnot. Once, I had an NPC's crow familiar trying to eat my spying house spider.

Any fantasy world where druids are common should have measures in place to stop random animals from wandering in. I've also seen the unfair version...they all just happen to shoot at this crow.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Any fantasy world where druids are common should have measures in place to stop random animals from wandering in. I've also seen the unfair version...they all just happen to shoot at this crow.

Heck, I'd say any populated place should have at least some resistance to "oh hey look, random animal just happens to walk in". Undead? They hate life in general and will smack it on principle. Animals? They're generally predators and a mouse/cat/etc is either a rival or food. Either one is going to get chased out/killed. Or they're already occupying the area and don't want competition. Populated by humanoids? They generally don't like random animals walking in. Nor do their pet animals. Throw in the "it might be an enemy in a different shape" and they'll definitely take measures to keep them out of anywhere remotely sensitive (ie worth scouting).

Even trying to blend with the other mice/rats/bats is a problem--they know their own and you're different. Animals are mostly territorial and generally don't share well. There are exceptions, but those are exceptional.

[Segev]

Any fantasy world where druids are common should have measures in place to stop random animals from wandering in. I've also seen the unfair version...they all just happen to shoot at this crow.

Yeah, this is why I don't fault DMs who have at least a plurality of guards be suspicious of random animals. Especially ones that show undue interest.

It's also why I don't buy "inconspicuousness means nobody will care if you're there." That said, finding a good way to act like a normal animal of the sort helps. Spiders can be anywhere, but you do want to stick to corners wherever possible, for example. And they rarely move quickly and with purpose except to chase down a meal.

[Artagon]

Keep in mind here that the intent is to be "backwards compatible" with existing monsters and adventures.. so talking about rebooting all the beasts with new stats for use in wild shape is counter to that design philosophy.

[stoutstien]

Keep in mind here that the intent is to be "backwards compatible" with existing monsters and adventures.. so talking about rebooting all the beasts with new stats for use in wild shape is counter to that design philosophy.

Eh I think they are using "backwards compatible" as a buzzword and will keep it regardless of the outcome in the hope of not not splitting their core following in half.

Being backwards compatible with existing adventures/NPCs is a pointless statement because they are vague enough you could run them regardless of system with minor tweaks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh I think they are using "backwards compatible" as a buzzword and will keep it regardless of the outcome in the hope of not not splitting their core following in half.

Being backwards compatible with existing adventures/NPCs is a pointless statement because they are vague enough you could run them regardless of system with minor tweaks.

Yeah. "Backwards compatible" is used in the Apple Dev Tools (their consumer-facing stuff is better) sense--"we didn't bother to move somethings. Yet. If it works, it's mostly by accident. And no, we won't update the documentation. Or maybe we'll just throw away all the old documentation. Whatever. Use the newest version and adapt, if you don't, any breakage is on your head not ours."--not the Microsoft OS sense (where there's buckets of hacks on hacks to keep people's ancient software compatible).

[Atranen]

Yeah. "Backwards compatible" is used in the Apple Dev Tools (their consumer-facing stuff is better) sense--"we didn't bother to move somethings. Yet. If it works, it's mostly by accident. And no, we won't update the documentation. Or maybe we'll just throw away all the old documentation. Whatever. Use the newest version and adapt, if you don't, any breakage is on your head not ours."--not the Microsoft OS sense (where there's buckets of hacks on hacks to keep people's ancient software compatible).

The proof will be in what they do for organized play. I expect that 5e builds will not be allowed. In principle I like that as a GM, because it gives you fewer things to track; but given the state of OneD&D, I'm strongly opposed. Anyway, I expect they'll ban the old content.

[Segev]

Keep in mind here that the intent is to be "backwards compatible" with existing monsters and adventures.. so talking about rebooting all the beasts with new stats for use in wild shape is counter to that design philosophy.

I mean, I haven't suggested "rebooting all beasts." I've suggested using what they've got and expanding it a bit in an appendix in the PHB to cover the relevant CRs.

[sithlordnergal]

"Flying and invisible" only comes online at level 8+, and "flying and invisible" doesn't make you "unheard." It certainly doesn't make you "hidden." Admittedly, he was a shadow monk 7 / rogue 1 at level 8, so he was stacking PWT on top of Stealth Expertise, but my last expert was all but unfindable when he wanted to be. Arcane Tricksters can also be Invisible and actually have a higher stealth bonus than the "flying and invisible" druid at level 8. Admittedly, unlike the druid--


--wait. Druids don't get invisibility or greater invisibility unless they're Circle of the Land (and then only particular ones), so "flying and invisible" doesn't apply to moon druids. But I'll grant you that it applies to certain land druids.

Okay back to the point:

An arcane trickster rogue is able to cast invisibility at level 7, a whole level before a druid of any Circle can get flying forms. So, at level 7, both of them can turn invisible (if the druid has greater invisibility from his subclass) and the rogue has the higher stealth score. Unless the druid does cast pass without trace, in which case the druid isn't invisible, but (assuming we're competing and not cooperating) the druid does have the extra +10 to stealth. That said, in actual partying? A rogue and a druid working together would have the rogue with the higher stealth score, again, as he'd also benefit from PWT.


Finally, "oh, it was just a cat" works really, really unreliably as a fallback when scouting. Whether the DM is playing fair or not in your opinion, he will almost always have somebody attack, shoo away, or otherwise impede the progress of a rat, cat, spider, or whatnot. Once, I had an NPC's crow familiar trying to eat my spying house spider.

And again, this is only on stealth. There's more to utility than that. Druids kind-of win on access to swimming forms, but rogues and other experts have their own tricks for that, and have more utility beyond that that druids can't compete with without a LOT of investment. (I know, that Land druid I'm playing is trying to be a backup Expert for the party.)

Basically, all of this. The utility forms don't actually have that much utility, and the best utility forms are locked behind level 8. Don't get me wrong, being able to become Tiny and Climb, Burrow, or Swim is handy for getting to nooks and crannies. But that alone does not make for amazing utility. Heck, it doesn't even make for a great Scout all the time. If all you need to Scout is the ability to Hide well, then shouldn't a Wizard with Invisibility be better at Scouting than anyone? After all, Pass Without Trace may give you a +10 to Stealth, but if you don't have a spot to hide that +10 is worthless.

What are you gonna do when you're a Spider with a +14 to to Stealth and you run into a trapped door? How are you gonna let the party know about this trapped door? How about the enemies behind it?

Heck, if you wanna complain about a caster class taking the place of a Scout, might I suggest looking at a Pact of the Chain Warlock? Find Familiar lets you bypass a door since you can dismiss and resummon your Familiar as an Action, and you don't need to see the point that it reappears. Mix that with an invisible Imp, and now you have a proper, intelligent scout.

[strangebloke]

Frankly if an ability is cool and interesting and flavorful (which wildshape is) then it should be in the game. It isn't as though druids, for all their power, are that popular in actual play.

If the cool thing is overpowered, give other classes cool stuff to compensate. Make the system have an abundance of cool stuff.

[MinimanMidget]

No one should have to dive through the books. Especially not the DM, who already has by far the most stuff to handle. Therefore, in OneDND, there should be no Monster Manual. All the enemies the players face can use a single template statblock, scaling with CR, and the game will be simpler and easier for everyone.

[Theodoxus]

Was that meant as blue text? Because it feels very blue text-y to me...

I'm still in favor of options. Whether that's 'all druids use generic blob, but Moon (or equivalent) can use beast stats' or 'all druids use generic blob, but here's a knob the DM can turn that allows for beast stats instead.'

I mean, regardless of what the D&DOne PHB has for druids, experienced DMs (or new DMs cruising the 'net) can certainly do whatever they feel like (possibly at the urging of their druid player(s)) unless the D&DOne MM is lacking in beasts, or they're far more powerful than their 5E counterparts, and letting druids use them would be a massive power boost.

[MinimanMidget]

Was that meant as blue text? Because it feels very blue text-y to me...

I mean, I certainly don't believe it, but for those in favour of template creatures for the Druid, what makes the DM any different? Other than the considerably greater cognitive load they're already dealing with, of course.

[elyktsorb]

I don't get this 'dive through the book thing' when I play a druid, I just have my forms on other character sheets. Why would I want to do that mid-game?

This just seems like a commitment issue? Like, if your too lazy to write down the animals you want to transform into, are you also too lazy to write your spells down?

[Witty Username]

I don't get this 'dive through the book thing' when I play a druid, I just have my forms on other character sheets. Why would I want to do that mid-game?

This just seems like a commitment issue? Like, if your too lazy to write down the animals you want to transform into, are you also too lazy to write your spells down?

The debate isn't whether one should be allowed to book dive mid game so much as should abilities like say wild shape be allowed to expand with splat books and monster content vs having a set of rules for how it works and never expand beyond that point (either by a set list like find familiar or the generic stat blocks like the Tasha's beastmaster and summons rules)

Also, whether players other than the DM should be allowed to read the monster manual.
--
I like using monster statblocks for player abilities for verisimilitude purposes (if say a sky beast is nothing like an owl, saying it is an owl works poorly for me). That and I would prefer things like Summons to have CRs at the very least, in case I use them as a DM.

[Aimeryan]

The debate isn't whether one should be allowed to book dive mid game so much as should abilities like say wild shape be allowed to expand with splat books and monster content vs having a set of rules for how it works and never expand beyond that point (either by a set list like find familiar or the generic stat blocks like the Tasha's beastmaster and summons rules)

Also, whether players other than the DM should be allowed to read the monster manual.
--
I like using monster statblocks for player abilities for verisimilitude purposes (if say a sky beast is nothing like an owl, saying it is an owl works poorly for me). That and I would prefer things like Summons to have CRs at the very least, in case I use them as a DM.

I disagree; the debate is very much about diving through books in general, with all that comes with. For some, the problem is the time and effort (ideally not done during a session). For others, the problem is exposing DM material to the player. Yet others, the problem may be expansion of options with splats.

The last I actually find least worrying. I mean, theorectically the more options the more likely one is to be unbalanced and push the envelope. However, the MM is unbalanced enough that this hasn't really been an issue. Furthermore, the whole point of additional content is for, well, additional content - so unless the argument becomes that we should never have expansion material for anything I don't see why we would single out beasts here.

[Flereous]

So, I've been thinking about this for a few days and want to share my thoughts on it.

There are two main reasons for the Wildshape being kind of balance breaking/frustrating:

1. The "Temporary" HP you gain from transforming into a form and keeping most of your features during the transformation. These two tend to compound on each other to make the druid nigh unkillable without the DM making encounters specifically around the Druid tanking everything. That tends to then result in unbalanced and unfun encounters for everyone. This section is mostly resolved in the OneD&D playtest package, although the solution feels a bit too harsh on the Druid. There doesn't seem to be any easy way to limit the abilities differently though, without introducing some system like Ex/Sp/Su for features which would complicate matters further in a game centered around being beginner friendly and (relatively) simple.

2. The variety of forms a Druid can turn into and the ease of them adding new forms to their arsenal. A lot of people here have suggested having a list in the class itself, but I think going a bit further might be even better. The class itself should have a short list for every Wild Shape cutoff, but the Subclasses (not just the Circle of the Moon) should possibly also add their own forms to the list of automatically available forms. Also, allowing the Druid to add forms to their list by finding and taking a short rest to bond with a specific animal would let the DM have a more natural handle on the availability of forms, and limiting it to once per week should stop abuse. I thought of combining a Survival check to find the animal in question and an Animal Handling check to perform the bonding itself would do the trick, nothing too steep, and if you failed at Animal Handling with a specific beast, you'd have Advantage on your next attempt to prevent bad luck streaks. This way feels much more logical and flavorful than just "Uh, I've surely seen this animal somewhere before :) :)". I mean, Wizards can do pretty much the same thing with Scrolls anyways right?

As for the utility argument, I don't really see a point to try and force classes down to specific roles. The game itself ruins any real attempts at this due to Bound Accuracy/Difficulty Check principles. When most DCs in the game are not much higher than 15, why bother with Experts? Even a peasant can hit a Pit Fiend without even needing to roll a Nat 20. This is the main reason why Rangers and Rogues fall flat at their jobs, not the fact that other classes have access to spells which grant similar utility, but the fact that there is no need for really high Skill modifiers. Rogues have Sneak Attack at least, while Rangers have Favored Enemy :P.

The reality of the state of the game is that Martial focused characters simply have no way of contesting full casters, and removing some utility from Druid will not help that issue in any way. The only real way a Martial character can come close is if the DM is really generous with good magic item, and even then they will forever fall behind in utility matters.

[Aimeryan]

So, I've been thinking about this for a few days and want to share my thoughts on it.

There are two main reasons for the Wildshape being kind of balance breaking/frustrating:

1. The "Temporary" HP you gain from transforming into a form and keeping most of your features during the transformation. These two tend to compound on each other to make the druid nigh unkillable without the DM making encounters specifically around the Druid tanking everything. That tends to then result in unbalanced and unfun encounters for everyone. This section is mostly resolved in the OneD&D playtest package, although the solution feels a bit too harsh on the Druid. There doesn't seem to be any easy way to limit the abilities differently though, without introducing some system like Ex/Sp/Su for features which would complicate matters further in a game centered around being beginner friendly and (relatively) simple.

This is an issue, but not necessarily in the way you may think. It is not that they are unkillable - they can be killed. It is more that the DM dealing damage is the one of the main ways the DM has of progressing the combative journey - but the damage dealt here is temporary to a Short Rest, rather than a Long Rest. The temp HP is quite large too, so getting through that is a lot of the DM's resources. It also doesn't chug through the Spell Slots (via healing or otherwise), which is the other DM lever of note.

This is likely why they don't want to provide that HP in D&DONE. The problem is, that was how the Druid didn't just get smooshed by trying to go into melee. A slight AC improvement doesn't help here. In fact, in 5e even Fighters and Paladins can easily get smooshed in melee or at least require a lot of aftercare, which is why battlefield control and ranged options are so advantageous to the players. The Barbarian resists this somewhat by, well, resistance to damage - although it still costs Spell Slots (or Gold) to restore the lost HP, so the DM is still progressing on their side of the equation to some degree.

In my opinion, the way to resolve this is make the Wild Shape cost Spell Slots, instead of being a different throw-away resource. This would allow Wild Shape to be buffed by the Spell Slots, while not also being able to act as a Full Caster as effectively. It looks like they are trying something along these lines with the Abjuration spells, however, this is problematic in action economy and flavour, since it means the power is coming from the spells, not the Wildshape. It needs to be more direct.

[Flereous]

This is an issue, but not necessarily in the way you may think. It is not that they are unkillable - they can be killed. It is more that the DM dealing damage is the one of the main ways the DM has of progressing the combative journey - but the damage dealt here is temporary to a Short Rest, rather than a Long Rest. ... The Barbarian resists this somewhat by, well, resistance to damage - although it still costs Spell Slots (or Gold) to restore the lost HP, so the DM is still progressing on their side of the equation to some degree.

I'm not saying that they are unkillable period. I'm saying that their (and Bear Totem Barbarian's) very presence invokes the necessity to make harder hitting and more dangerous enemies in order to not bog down the game waiting for 20 rounds for one side to drop. The encounters are fundamentally different in execution and difficulty depending on if they have Wild Shapes/Rage left, which I personally really dislike. The more disparity in survivability in party members, the more difficulty in providing a balanced challenge where the frontliners feel endangered while still not threatening to outright kill squishier backline PCs if they breathe the wrong way. Especially when the disparity depends not on consistent always on features like Uncanny Dodge or Evasion, but on not always available features like Rage and Wild Shape, which can lead into feeling like you need to make 2 versions of every encounter in the game depending on if they have their resources or not in order to not TPK the party because the Druid player used Wild Shape earlier and didn't get to Short Rest.

I'd be happiest if Bear Totem ceased to exist because it is a similar, if not worse, feature in regard to this issue. Not to speak of the combination.

[Monster Manuel]

It actually surprises me that they are taking this general track of moving away from using MM statblocks in favor of genericized templates, for one cynical, practical reason: they want to sell more stuff to players. If the summon spells, wild shape, and animal companions/familiars all use a general template rather than actual creature statblocks, there's no reason for players to want to buy a Monster Manual (or digital creature resources from DDB or whatever).

Why aren't they Monetizing this problem? Put out that curated list of CR-appropriate beasts that give Druids several level-appropriate and balanced forms for each level or XP tier. Write call-outs to how it intersects with Polymorph, Find Familiar, Summon spells etc directly in the stat blocks. Add in some interesting Backgrounds for animal-focused archetypes. Call it the Players' Guide to Companions and Forms, charge 19.99 for it. Put a basic collection of the bare minimum options as an appendix to the PHB, like they do now, so that it's playable, but if you want all the best options and variations, use the Guide. You want to add dinosaurs to the list? Great, put out the Players' Guide to Prehistoric Forms, another 19.99. Bam, Papa Hasbro is happy with the monetization status of their IP, and they don't have to sell Drizzt NFTs to keep the lights on. Everybody...wins?

Frankly, for all the cycnicism, I would actually prefer this option. They want to make money? They can make their money selling things we want, and I would want this.

[Aimeryan]

I'm not saying that they are unkillable period. I'm saying that their (and Bear Totem Barbarian's) very presence invokes the necessity to make harder hitting and more dangerous enemies in order to not bog down the game waiting for 20 rounds for one side to drop. The encounters are fundamentally different in execution and difficulty depending on if they have Wild Shapes/Rage left, which I personally really dislike. The more disparity in survivability in party members, the more difficulty in providing a balanced challenge where the frontliners feel endangered while still not threatening to outright kill squishier backline PCs if they breathe the wrong way. Especially when the disparity depends not on consistent always on features like Uncanny Dodge or Evasion, but on not always available features like Rage and Wild Shape, which can lead into feeling like you need to make 2 versions of every encounter in the game depending on if they have their resources or not in order to not TPK the party because the Druid player used Wild Shape earlier and didn't get to Short Rest.

I'd be happiest if Bear Totem ceased to exist because it is a similar, if not worse, feature in regard to this issue. Not to speak of the combination.

I disagree, from experience. A normal encounter can bust through that Moon Druid HP quite easily - the low AC means all those missed hits don't miss. The problem is that getting the form's HP to 10% left is no different than 100%, since they get two uses per Short Rest and on average two combet encounters of note per short rest - so, the DM basically has to start over in the next combat meaning they did nothing of note.

It would be like hiring for a gold piece a golem that just soaked up all the damage, and of which you had a wagon full of then - the DM doesn't really get anywhere by focusing on them. You don't need to heal them, you didn't spend combat resources of note on them. If you do manage to burn through all the Wildshape charges, then that is so many resources the party didn't need to burn through elsewhere and the Druid still has all the Spell Slots.

That is the issue; if the Moon Druid had Spell Slots OR Wildshape charges it would be fine. Alternatively, make them the same thing by making Wild Shape use Spell Slots.

[Flereous]

I disagree, from experience. A normal encounter can bust through that Moon Druid HP quite easily - the low AC means all those missed hits don't miss. The problem is that getting the form's HP to 10% left is no different than 100%, since they get two uses per Short Rest and on average two combet encounters of note per short rest - so, the DM basically has to start over in the next combat meaning they did nothing of note.

I don't disagree, I've just had DMs take the different route of either throwing so many monsters or few very strong monsters in order to take out both Wild Shapes and the Druid's HP instead. And in those attempts, people who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time got downed fast.

That is the issue; if the Moon Druid had Spell Slots OR Wildshape charges it would be fine. Alternatively, make them the same thing by making Wild Shape use Spell Slots.

Problem is, however, how this would work mechanically. If you let the Druid have only Wild Shapes recharging on Short Rest as they are now, you fundamentally haven't done anything to fix the issue we are talking about. The Druid will still have access to way more HP and everything that comes with Shapes. And then they can just multiclass and get spells regardless.

On the alternate route, where you merge Wild Shape charges and Spell Slots, I don't see a simple easy way to do it. Which is why it is also not something which has a chance of happening with the way 5e/One is structured. But again, this problem is mostly solved by the OneD&D changes anyways, as I've said. The Druid just uses their own HP instead of getting "fake HP" and that part of the Wild Shape issue is all but resolved. They don't have 3x the HP of another party member for pretty much free anymore. My main beef with the new changes is the generic blob solution which sucks whichever way you spin it.