D&D 5E Advice on replacing druid shapeshifting?

[sunrisekid]

I would like to solicit some advice from you all.

I dislike at-will shapeshifting of the new Druid. Are there are any fair ways of replacing that feature with something else?

I’m the DM for our group and I prefer to run a grim, sword & sorcery style game. The shapeshifting druid is of a different feel and I’d like to disallow it but still want to keep players happy.

(sidebar comment: I’m a bit disappointed that a non-shaper druid isn’t present, for similar reasons that a non-spellcasting ranger isn’t present.)

 

[was]

Are you against the variety in shifting or shapeshifting itself? I have seen past druid variants that limited them to a totem animal/genus when shifting(i.e. canines/felines..etc..) Or maybe you could have them summon animals for aid outside of their normal casting abilities..

...just spitballing...

 

[sunrisekid]

I’m against the shapeshifting itself, especially its frequency. It’s a bit too “high magic” for my gaming taste. I’m looking to ban Monks already so might add Druid to the list. (No offence to those players who like those classes but the feel just doesn’t match my game.)

I like your suggestion of summoning animals but that leaves me to come up with mechanics, which I don’t really have the time/inclination for.

Perhaps Druid can have Ranger Beastmaster perks instead, perhaps with some equivalents to what Pathfinder offers (“diplomacy” with wild animals) and an extra skill.

 

[Gargoyle]

Perhaps Druid can have Ranger Beastmaster perks instead, perhaps with some equivalents to what Pathfinder offers (“diplomacy” with wild animals) and an extra skill.

Sounds like an idea that would work.

Curious what your thoughts are on the ranger itself?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Wild Shape is pretty integral to the druid class. If you don't want the shapeshifting, it might make more sense just to replace druids in your campaign with clerics of the nature domain. Maybe add a few of the more important or nature-y druid spells to their spell list. I think that's a lot simpler--and likely to wind up a lot more mechanically balanced--than trying to find something to replace a major druid class feature.

 

[sunrisekid]

On the whole, I am satisfied with it. Hunter is evocative and effective; Beastmaster seems a little barren but close analysis (from the recent "Ranger" thread) suggests that it's more or less balanced.

I'd prefer a non-casting Ranger option and to that effect I've seen a reasonable suggestion: drop spellcasting and give the Ranger both subclasses. Not sure how reasonable that is balance-wise but it's an easy fix for me. I'm sure there will be a sub-class (is that what we're calling them?) option that will be published sooner or later.

All that aside, I'm not strictly opposed to spellcasting rangers in my campaign, so if a player wants that I won't intercede.

 

[sunrisekid]

... likely to wind up a lot more mechanically balanced--than trying to find something to replace a major druid class feature.

Good point. Level progression clearly shows that the Druid does so through improved shapeshifting. Stripping that out leaves the Druid underwhelmed compared to other characters.

If a player wants a nature-y character with heavy spellcasting then, yes, Cleric with Nature domain and some perks works for me.

FWIW, in twenty years of DM'ing I've only had a player chose Druid once. Thematically I quite like the Druid - but shapeshifting that isn't lycanthropy just gets on my nerves.

(A druid so close to nature that he transforms into something like a savage beast does sound kinda cool - but when that smarmy player only turns into a squirrel because-for-the-lulz I only want to see that character get smoked, asap. Maybe that's just me

 

[Mouseferatu]

If a player wants a nature-y character with heavy spellcasting then, yes, Cleric with Nature domain and some perks works for me.

Only thing I don't get is, why does the nature cleric, of all domains, get a bonus proficiency for heavy armor. I'd replace that with a couple of the minor druid abilities--Land's Stride, for instance. But I'd probably do that whether or not I was replacing the druid with the nature cleric.

FWIW, in twenty years of DM'ing I've only had a player chose Druid once. Thematically I quite like the Druid - but shapeshifting that isn't lycanthropy just gets on my nerves.

That's fascinating to me. In my own experience, druid is one of the most common choices, outside of the basic four.

Thankfully, I've not yet had anyone thematically abuse Wild Shape in the way you're talking about. I'd probably want to kill the character, too.

"Rocs fall. Everyone dies."

"You mean 'rocks,' right?"

"No. No, I do not. You are not only dead, you are feather dandruff. The druids in the afterlife spend eternity laughing at you. Now make a real character, Squirrel Boy."

 

[Gargoyle]

On the whole, I am satisfied with it. Hunter is evocative and effective; Beastmaster seems a little barren but close analysis (from the recent "Ranger" thread) suggests that it's more or less balanced.

I'd prefer a non-casting Ranger option and to that effect I've seen a reasonable suggestion: drop spellcasting and give the Ranger both subclasses. Not sure how reasonable that is balance-wise but it's an easy fix for me. I'm sure there will be a sub-class (is that what we're calling them?) option that will be published sooner or later.

All that aside, I'm not strictly opposed to spellcasting rangers in my campaign, so if a player wants that I won't intercede.

I was curious, because with the spellcasting that rangers get, the idea occurred to me that it might be possible to just merge the two classes, dropping the wildshape, and making druid a third subclass of ranger that focuses on casting spells.

I like the idea of using the nature cleric better though. Ironically I think I will probably just ban the nature domain cleric from my games; the class itself doesn't bother me, but the overlap with the druid does.

 

[Li Shenron]

The good news is that the Druid's wildshape in 5e isn't very usable in combat (only the Circle of the Moon advanced shapes are supposed to be). This should make it much easier to replace!

First of all, was wildshape changed in the PHB compared to the playtest?? It used to be usable once per short rest, and later (8th level) twice per short rest.

If this was still the case, I would replace it with Channel Divinity with the Nature Domain property (whatever it is in the PHB).

It makes a lot of sense:

- it's a divine ability of the Cleric, and Druids are divine characters as well
- it's a 2nd level ability just like Wildshape
- it's usable once per short rest like Wildshape
- it improves to twice per short rest later, so just let it do so when Wildshape used to improve as well
- there is presumably a nature-oriented effect granted by the Nature clerical domain

If you think the basic effect (Turn Undead) is inappropriate for Druids, then replace it with a better alternative from the list of existing effects of Channel Divinity, but it might not be completely inappropriate either (it just makes the Druid slightly more similar to a Cleric in your campaigns).

OTOH, if Wildshape has changed a lot, then this is not going to work that smoothly...