D&D 5E Moon Circle Druid Play Report

[Sacrosanct]

If I made a druid character with the Hermit or Outlander background, and my DM tried to tell me I'd never seen a large predator, I'd have a hard time believing he was serious. Sure, maybe I've never run into a giant spider. But a brown bear? .

That's not what I was getting at. I was talking about animals that reasonably wouldn't even live in the area. Like my personal example above, I said that someone like me who grew up in Oregon and Alaska, sure there's a great chance that I'd know what a bear or cougar or wolf is. But someone just visiting who decides to go scouting one day probably isn't going to see them nearly as easily as what was implied. And certainly, I wouldn't know what an elephant or giant hyena (heck, not even a normal hyena, let alone a giant one) is. That's the part I was disagreeing with. Some folks seem to by saying that pretty much all monsters listed in the back are fair game because that restriction really isn't one.

Well, it sure is a valid restriction for anyone who understands basic ecology.

 

[Dausuul]

That's not what I was getting at. I was talking about animals that reasonably wouldn't even live in the area. Like my personal example above, I said that someone like me who grew up in Oregon and Alaska, sure there's a great chance that I'd know what a bear or cougar or wolf is. But someone just visiting who decides to go scouting one day probably isn't going to see them nearly as easily as what was implied. And certainly, I wouldn't know what an elephant or giant hyena (heck, not even a normal hyena, let alone a giant one) is. That's the part I was disagreeing with. Some folks seem to by saying that pretty much all monsters listed in the back are fair game because that restriction really isn't one.

Well, it sure is a valid restriction for anyone who understands basic ecology.

But you were arguing that the restriction is important to balance, and it's not. You don't need every monster in the back of the MM for the class to become overpowered. You just need one. Everyone seems to agree that the brown bear is one of the most powerful choices; a low-level druid who can Wild Shape into a brown bear is a balance issue. Whether that druid can also WS into a giant spider or a giant hyena is much less important--that's just a bit of versatility icing on a cake of raw power.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But you were arguing that the restriction is important to balance, and it's not. You don't need every monster in the back of the MM for the class to become overpowered. You just need one. Everyone seems to agree that the brown bear is one of the most powerful choices; a low-level druid who can Wild Shape into a brown bear is a balance issue. Whether that druid can also WS into a giant spider or a giant hyena is much less important--that's just a bit of versatility icing on a cake of raw power.

It is important to balance because it's limiting to what creatures you can find. If you're a desert druid, or a jungle druid, probably no brown bear. And even if you are in an area where brown bears are, they have limitations as well (like super low AC) and you most likely won't have ever seen a tiger to decide to change into that instead. And that's not even mentioning things like a dinosaur or elephant for down the road. To be honest, if a player tried metagaming like that, I'd put the kibosh on it quickly.

It's also worth noting:

* Even the bear form isn't that OP judging by many of the people's actual play experience feedback. You're up front in melee and getting hit almost every time because your AC is so low. I have yet to see a front line bear form last more than a handful of rounds like that, while the fighter (and especially barbarian with damage resistance) lasted A LOT longer
* the rate of leveling from 1 to 5 is very fast, and the relative power of the bear quickly diminishes after level 2.


Is it a really nice power? Sure. But you can't really call it OP if you're going to ignore much of the mitigating rules. This conversation strongly reminds me of how people would complain that the AD&D magic user was too OP, only to find out they were ignoring spell components, spell interruptions, and % to learn/spell failure rules. Well duh.

 

[bleezy]

I think you two both agree with each other. We all agree that no druid should have access to every animal shape and that a druid must describe his homeland. Just about every region of the world should have large predators that the druid would easily have encountered in his early life. He either gets wolf/bear or hyena/lion/rhino/elephant or jaguar/giant snake or tiger.

IRL I spent years hiking in the Santa Cruz mountains and never saw a cougar, but saw a pack of wolves eating a elk after 3 days in Yellowstone. So it is clearly possible to get lucky and see a top predator on a short visit to a new area, but that should generally be the sort of thing that is part of an actual play session (your DM says "you see a pack of wolves feasting on a kill") as opposed to something the player just makes up on his own.

It is also worth noting that the animal forms are best against really powerful monsters or those with advantage that would generally hit a low level character no matter what his AC is. Likewise, a second level character with 80+ effective HP is going to fare much better than a high-AC fighter against spell attacks and area effects that don't use attack rolls. Against swarms of weaker monsters the low AC is a bigger handicap (but then the bear has multiattack so that helps).

Reminding the druid player that he couldn't talk in bear form would probably get him to shift back to human form after every fight, but it might be a little mean considering most groups probably talk about combat tactics and adventure strategy OOC.

Edit: And I wouldn't let any player start with giant or prehistoric animal forms. Those would absolutely need to be encountered in an adventure.

 

[Cannyjiggit]

It is important to balance because it's limiting to what creatures you can find. If you're a desert druid, or a jungle druid, probably no brown bear. And even if you are in an area where brown bears are, they have limitations as well (like super low AC) and you most likely won't have ever seen a tiger to decide to change into that instead. And that's not even mentioning things like a dinosaur or elephant for down the road. To be honest, if a player tried metagaming like that, I'd put the kibosh on it quickly.

It's also worth noting:

* Even the bear form isn't that OP judging by many of the people's actual play experience feedback. You're up front in melee and getting hit almost every time because your AC is so low. I have yet to see a front line bear form last more than a handful of rounds like that, while the fighter (and especially barbarian with damage resistance) lasted A LOT longer
* the rate of leveling from 1 to 5 is very fast, and the relative power of the bear quickly diminishes after level 2.


Is it a really nice power? Sure. But you can't really call it OP if you're going to ignore much of the mitigating rules. This conversation strongly reminds me of how people would complain that the AD&D magic user was too OP, only to find out they were ignoring spell components, spell interruptions, and % to learn/spell failure rules. Well duh.

I completely agree with this. If it were my campaign, I would sit down with the player to work out the background, fix his area of origin and develop a suitable list of creatures from there. I would also potentially rule that he can only change into creatures he has observed since first becoming a recognised druid (level 1) other than those he would be extremely familiar with. This takes out the powergamers "I went to xxxxxxx once and saw a yyyyyyyy". However, I would be totally on board with the druid convincing the party to seek out new forms he could take, after all, who knows what they might come across on the way. Even if the druid wasn't that pro-active, I think I would still throw in the occasional creature that fits the potential targets. For me, its all about the communication, the DM and the player working together rather than the confrontational attitude of DM vs players.

As a side note, I loved the old % to learn rules etc of the original mage. Mostly because I had so much fun playing one who failed all the usual spells (Magic missile, burning hands, shocking grasp, invisibility, fireball, lightning bolt etc etc) and had to find creative ways to use other spells. In fact until he researched his own 4th level spell (pretty much an acid based fireball type), the only spell he had that caused damage was Melfs Minute Meteors but he had a whole host of ways to disable one or more enemies at a time. It became a real fun tactical game positioning him for the right use of a particular spell to tilt the odds dramatically in the parties favour

 

[Will Doyle]

But, my druid was raised by Giant Spiders ...

I don't like limiting it to forms you've seen for exactly this reason. Your life doesn't begin with your first adventure, and it's the GM treading on the player's toes to dictate what creatures their character has and hasn't seen before they start play.

Put it this way: if a player comes to you with a backstory about their fighter's village being wiped out by giant spiders, that's fine. But if that same player is running a druid, it's not, because balance. Sure, you could argue that they're trying to worm their way around a ruling, but why create the problem in the first place.

 

[enigma32]

I think the fact that a druid's melee fighting ability is being discussed in comparison to that of the fighter and barbarian is telling. So, druid isn't really any better in melee than those classes, ok. Well, what else can they do? They're s spellcaster. They are, at least at some levels, on par or sometimes better than martial combat classes. They also have the versatility of a full spell caster. I can't speak for everyone, but the druid in my game throws off game balance by a huge margin. We don't need to all agree. We can run our games how we like. Me, that druid is getting nerfed.

 

[keterys]

And I'd raise an eyebrow to any DM who tried to say the drow druid can't say he's seen a giant spider

In order to cause balance problems at level 2 you just need one of a few key forms, and you can get that via background in all kinds of ways, nevermind visiting a zoo or circus. The form limitation is not much of a balance limitation in terms of raw power for this example, but almost entirely for versatility. Still.

In a way, it's like saying that longbows aren't common in your campaign except for from one land, so no one can start with a longbow. The elf is gonna think his DM is a bit off when he says he can't use one.

It actually feels most like it's useful for DMs who go "My campaign doesn't have any giant hyenas, at all, so pick something else". I also hope some DMs will go "In this arctic campaign, you've been exposed to a few other options, namely X, Y, and Z"

 

[Joe Liker]

I think the fact that a studio's melee fighting ability is being discussed in comparison to that of the fighter and barbarian is telling. So, druid isn't really any better in melee than those classes, ok. Well, what else can they do? They're s spellcaster. They are, at least at some levels, on par or sometimes better than martial combat classes. They also have the versatility of a full spell caster. I can't speak for everyone, but the druid in my game throws off game balance by a huge margin. We don't need to all agree. We can run our games how we like. Me, that druid is getting nerfed.

The strength of the druid class is its versatility. Apart from this bear discussion, which I find overblown anyway, the druid is supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades class. But it's not exceptionally powerful in any one area. In particular, the druid spell list is not all that zing-wow if you actually take a look at it, especially at lower levels.

I think it might be wise to let the druid play as written for a while before pulling out the nerf hammer. Just be certain you truly understand the class, and that you are enforcing the rules already in place, such as no talking in beast form and the time limits on shapeshifting.

A Druid of the Moon is already at a sharp disadvantage (compared to other druids) in terms of spell slots. If he or she is really that much more powerful than the other characters, it's possible the other characters are not being played to their full advantage.

 

[enigma32]

The strength of the druid class is its versatility. Apart from this bear discussion, which I find overblown anyway, the druid is supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades class. But it's not exceptionally powerful in any one area. In particular, the druid spell list is not all that zing-wow if you actually take a look at it, especially at lower levels.

I think it might be wise to let the druid play as written for a while before pulling out the nerf hammer. Just be certain you truly understand the class, and that you are enforcing the rules already in place, such as no talking in beast form and the time limits on shapeshifting.

A Druid of the Moon is already at a sharp disadvantage (compared to other druids) in terms of spell slots. If he or she is really that much more powerful than the other characters, it's possible the other characters are not being played to their full advantage.

Until the 2nd level druid came to my table, my game was challenging and fair. One day with the druid and you could see one person was having most of the fun. He was able to do solo what the other 3 party members did together. He didn't even require healing after the battle. I think their wild shape ability was very poorly thought out. As an example, the bear has 35hp. The enemies in the encounter hit on average of 5hp of damage or so. That's 7 hits before the first bear goes down. No matter, druid can just wild shape back into a bear again for another 35 free hp. 7 hits later, the druid is back to druid form, and the enemies accomplished nothing.