D&D (2024) Playtest Druid and Paladin One D&D survey is live.

[FitzTheRuke]

Me too! Weird that it wasn’t in the survey.

The most likely reason is that they noticed it themselves and fixed it and don't need a lot of people pointing it out after the fact.

Of course, that is something of an optimistic view.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I wouldn’t say being able to turn into a mouse that hits like a bear (and takes hits like one) is any more OP than being able to turn into a bear that hits (and takes hits) like a bear. It can move through creatures’ spaces I guess, but that could be fixed with an exception in the test of the feature it the stat block if need be. The main problem in my mind isn’t that it’s OP, it’s that it’s weird.

This is why I suggested in my feedback just giving the tiny form a durability limitation.

Tbh I think wild shape needs THP to be worth using, and tiny form could be taken out of wild shape when it loses the THP, while having very few THP.

Or it could simply be written such that you lose wild shape in tiny form if you take damage.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is why I suggested in my feedback just giving the tiny form a durability limitation.

Tbh I think wild shape needs THP to be worth using, and tiny form could be taken out of wild shape when it loses the THP, while having very few THP.

Or it could simply be written such that you lose wild shape in tiny form if you take damage.

Yeah, I agree. Without the layer of bonus HP from the form, it’s mostly just more complex shillelagh and barkskin.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, I agree. Without the layer of bonus HP from the form, it’s mostly just more complex shillelagh and barkskin.

Yep. And no one would use either if they meant you couldn’t use spells while under the spell’s effects.

 

[mamba]

I wouldn’t say being able to turn into a mouse that hits like a bear (and takes hits like one) is any more OP than being able to turn into a bear that hits (and takes hits) like a bear.

the mouse can infiltrate a castle and other stealth / investigation missions, try that as a bear

The risk was the vulnerability, with the new statblock that is gone, so this is objectively stronger than in 5e and from my perspective why they moved tiny form to a higher level.

It’s not about how hard the mouse hits (as hard as any other form), it’s about what it allows you to do while still hitting as hard as a bear.

 

[Bolares]

Feedback mostly positive. Gave Druid overall high rank, and then bottom ranked half its features, used every avaialable word for my primary written feedback.

Basically, moon is boring, wild shape too limited in several unnecessary ways, base class should upgrade other uses of channel nature not just wild shape.

Said that wild shape should either be less limited. Just give tiny forms a durability limitation, and put them and aquatic forms at level one bc wtf? Add Fey at later levels, and the ability to cast self and touch spells either to the base feature or to moon Druid.

Moon also needs to invoke the moon, like having lycanthropy themed regeneration, eventual hybrid forms, ability to add radiant damage in the form of moonlight with attacks, ability to take on a luminous spirit form, etc.

Wild companion should be a spirit advisor, not a less-good-than-the-spell familiar.

It's so weird to me how they decided to design this druid, they pick the least played class in the PHB, make wild shape worse, than focus almost all of the classes features on wild shape...

 

[Bolares]

This is why I suggested in my feedback just giving the tiny form a durability limitation.

Tbh I think wild shape needs THP to be worth using, and tiny form could be taken out of wild shape when it loses the THP, while having very few THP.

Or it could simply be written such that you lose wild shape in tiny form if you take damage.

I agree with the THP argument, but if for some reason they continue going without it, you could put a concentration-like mechanic on tiny forms that makes them less resilient.

 

[James Gasik]

the mouse can infiltrate a castle and other stealth / investigation missions, try that as a bear

The risk was the vulnerability, with the new statblock that is gone, so this is objectively stronger than in 5e and from my perspective why they moved tiny form to a higher level.

It’s not about how hard the mouse hits (as hard as any other form), it’s about what it allows you to do while still hitting as hard as a bear.

Yes, why Crawford brought up "tiny creatures in combat" is puzzling, when there were lots of other reasons he could have cited like "tiny scouts better under new rules" or "DM's will balk at thing that doesn't make sense".

 

[James Gasik]

It's so weird to me how they decided to design this druid, they pick the least played class in the PHB, make wild shape worse, than focus almost all of the classes features on wild shape...

Wild shape is a proud nail. It's already a primary feature of the Druid class, even though it's not terribly good for non-Moon Druids. It requires player skill and poking around in non-player books, and it's subject to DM permission ("have you ever seen a Deinonychus? I think not.").

Then in the hands of Moon Druids, it's very strong at low levels, but really starts to level off due to bad scaling.

Plus, there's the knock-on effect on creature design; you ever wonder why so few new beasts get printed, and why there's still not a beast more powerful than a T-Rex? It's not because they couldn't make them, or they have no ideas how to do it, lol. It's because any new critter they add is another potential tool in the Druid playbook.

And say what you will about their spell list, there's still the fact that without Wildshape, Druids are still full casters. So they can still do a lot even without turning into a massive beast with tons of hit points.

So even without the "not enough Druid players", there's several compelling reasons for a redesign. Honestly, I think the only reason they mentioned complexity was to try and obfuscate the other, more important reasons to make these changes. I highly doubt Wizards really cares if there's a class people don't play much. It's not like they can get rid of it, lol.*

*Look up that time they pushed Gnomes out of the PHB.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I also wrote several things about potential problems with the current wildshape rules, but also don't have an issue with how the rules were presented to us in the first place. The whole point of the playtest is to throw out ideas and concepts that no one really knows how they will be received. Was this system flawless? Of course not. Because why spend time creating a flawless system if they don't even know if people will like the system they present?

So they have no idea if people would accept going from using every animal statblock in the game to using a template statblock. Or whether people would accept no longer having that extra bunch of hit points that came from adding the animal's HP as a bumper on top of your own. Or whether players would find the idea of tiny creatures hitting at full template power and never getting knocked out of tiny animal form while they waltz around whatever area they are scouting to be grossly overpowered at 2nd, 3rd, 5th level. The only way to find out how we feel about all of this is to put it into a playtest and let us put our minds to it.

Why that should bother any of us that they are asking us to analyze these ideas seems odd to me. Better to hear my thoughts now so there is plenty of time to change or iterate than to just release the book with these changes made and we have no choice in the matter.