D&D 5E Alternative Wildshape Rules

[plisnithus8]

To me these alternate rules would make 5e feel much more gamey. Actually turning into an animal feels so much more magical.

 

[Xeviat]

To me these alternate rules would make 5e feel much more gamey. Actually turning into an animal feels so much more magical.

I find this odd.

 

[plisnithus8]

I find this odd.

A totem warriors get animal-like features. Druids turning into animals sets them apart.
Just adding abilities and stats all the time has a game-like feel.
Being able to do something different, having a different kind nd of mechanic for gaining abilities by becoming a (basically) whole new creature instead of just a power boost overlay is not something I want to give up.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

A totem warriors get animal-like features. Druids turning into animals sets them apart.
Just adding abilities and stats all the time has a game-like feel.
Being able to do something different, having a different kind nd of mechanic for gaining abilities by becoming a (basically) whole new creature instead of just a power boost overlay is not something I want to give up.

As I stated in my original post, my approach to Wild Shape is simplified and anti-simulationist. Besides, how do a bunch of numbers give you a better sense that you are a dog versus a wolf versus a badger? All beasts have a set of common traits that separates them (in general) from humanoids. Including types of movement, keen senses, and stealth. All I've done is distill them down into their common traits, and allow the player to just describe how their change presents itself. This way if you want to be a hawk, be a hawk. If you want to be an arrowhawk or pseudodragon, you can describe being those things. Not only that, but now you have a standardized power capacity that will be the same across every form.

Taken another way, what difference does it make if you describe magic missile as bolts of invisible force versus screaming skulls rocketing through the air from a portal to the Nine Hells? Do those 3 1d4+1 missiles inherently make them anything other than an end result of damage? Would we really need a different spell write up for one versus the other?

Also, lets say you want your druid to specialize in Wild Shaping into a wolf. If they only use wolf, or dire wolf, at some point that becomes a sub-optimal choice if you stick to the idea that each stat block inherently feels or separates it from being anything other than the creature it is labeled as.

 

[Leatherhead]

Here is a problem I see right off the bat.
If you turn into a bear, you are not strong like a bear. If you turn into a cat, you are not as graceful like a cat. This is kind of a problem, because sometimes it's not just about combat, it's about the utility. Especially if you aren't a Moon druid.

Additionally, you can turn into a large bird with 20 STR at level 8. Or a tiny rat with gobs of STR at level 2. There are quite a few issues that can cause.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Here is a problem I see right off the bat.
If you turn into a bear, you are not strong like a bear. If you turn into a cat, you are not as graceful like a cat. This is kind of a problem, because sometimes it's not just about combat, it's about the utility. Especially if you aren't a Moon druid.

Additionally, you can turn into a large bird with 20 STR at level 8. Or a tiny rat with gobs of STR at level 2. There are quite a few issues that can cause.

Here's my counter point. As a non-Moon Druid, you can turn into a black bear at level 4, but that creature has a strength of 15. That a +2 bonus. Assuming you completely dump strength as a non-Moon Druid, that is only a difference of 2-3 in your strength modifier. But then, why are you using a Wild Shape form for strength? As I state in my original thread, I do not believe the intent of Wild Shape is to replace physical stats to make them higher for a druid character, but to aid in the Exploration/Stealth phase of the game. Even if you want that higher strength, you can't Wild Shape into a Brown Bear (Str 19) until level 8 at the earliest. By that time, if you need to physically move an obstacle out of the way, you also have access to spells such as Call Lightning to destroy the obstacle, Conjure Animals to call a creature of CR 2 to help you move the obstacle (twice as strong as a Brown Bear), Polymorph, and Stone Shape. So for what purpose would you need a higher strength?

As for being as graceful as a cat, you would not get the benefit of being an acrobatic cat... no. But you could certainly sneak around with their advantage on stealth checks. Druids can assume these shapes, but should we believe that druids would be as competent or able in these shapes as the creatures they are emulating? Once again, what purpose would having "the grace of a cat" serve that could not be emulated by my adjustment, with spells available to the druid, or with other party members that might be more inclined for that role? Is Wild Shape meant to allow the druid to step seamlessly and competently into every role? I don't believe so.

I would argue that the non-Moon Druid is not meant to use their Wild Shape forms for Strength or Dexterity.

With your example of being a rat with high strength, you are still a tiny creature. That limits your strength a great deal. With a strength of 8 you are still only able to lift a quarter of what a medium sized creature could at that same strength score. Is that a lot for a rat? Sure. But once again, in what scenario would that matter or break the game? Also, consider that a cat and a spider are both considered tiny creatures. A cat has a strength score of 3, and the spider has a 2. Per the PHB, a cat can carry almost 12 pounds, and a spider can carry almost 8 pounds! Not only that, but that's just carry weight! For push, they can both double that! A spider is able to push around 16 pounds if it wants. Based on this, are the numbers provided for these stat blocks really representative of our expectations for what these creatures can do compared to their real life counterparts?

As for Moon Druids, their Wild Shape is once again not meant to be a substitute for poor physical stats, but as a way to allow for competent front line fighting. Substituting Wisdom to modify attack and damage rolls makes up for their lack of strength, as well as a cantrip-like natural attack to keep up with classes that gain additional attacks. For what purpose would they need strength? And once again, if it comes down to moving an obstacle, they still have spells that can assist with that.

I look at what problem is Wild Shape trying to solve. I don't believe Wild Shape is to allow Druids to have good physical AND mental stats. No class should have such an advantage. But I do believe Wild Shape is meant to aid with exploration/stealth, and with combat for Moon Druids. My adjustments maintain the spirit of addressing those problems without the complication of taking on entirely different stats or having to choose from multiple different options to maximize the outcome.

And if the ability scores still concern you, then add the Enhance Ability spell to the Druid Spell list.

 

[machineelf]

@Li Shenron I'm basing this off personal experience, as my wife's first time playing with me (or ever) was a moon druid because she thought it would be cool to turn into a bear and rip stuff up. But she never used her wild shape abilities for many of the reasons I pointed out, including complexity and record keeping. She didn't want to have to search through multiple pages or look at different character sheets just to be a bear and rip stuff up. Individual experiences vary.

I don't hate the concept, although I would finagle with some of the numbers, and give more HP for differing beast shapes. But ultimately the problems you point out aren't really big problems, as far as I'm concerned. Since it's your wife's first time playing, there is naturally going to be some complexity that she's not familiar with, but that would be the case with a lot of classes, not just druids. Wizards come to mind. Second, one of the problems you mention, the flipping through the monster manual book problem, are easily resolved by just photocopying the pertinent pages so she can keep them together in her own binder at the table, or something.

 

[Li Shenron]

Since it's your wife's first time playing, there is naturally going to be some complexity that she's not familiar with, but that would be the case with a lot of classes, not just druids. Wizards come to mind. Second, one of the problems you mention, the flipping through the monster manual book problem, are easily resolved by just photocopying the pertinent pages so she can keep them together in her own binder at the table, or something.

Agreed, this also puzzled me a bit because IMXP the 5e wildshape is hardly complicated. The text description is fairly long but it's 10 times simpler and clearer than in older editions. One chunk of the text is there only to explain how to handle your equipment, and it's both easy and generous in how it lets you choose what you want.

The designers anyway addressed the issue of beast choice with the UA/XGE rules for known shapes. But then I think this isnt even necessary. IMHO the idea is simply:

- if you play a Land Druid, your wildshape is just for exploration and stealth. Your exact stats hardly even matter, so just go with a narrative choice: wanna track an enemy? Turn into a wolf. Wanna go unnoticed in a town for spying? Turn into a cat. Wanna scout overhead at night? Turn into an owl. Forget about fighting in wildshape.

- if you play a Moon Druid, pick ONE beast for combat with maximum CR. Which one you pick only makes a minor difference.

If there is any shortcoming, it is the lack of a ready list of beasts by CR in the PHB or MM. Not hard to find on the web or spend an hour on an idle evening to make your own.

 

[Mecheon]

I find this odd.

Its not really

You turn into a constrictor, you get constrictor abilities. You turn into a giant scorpion, you're going to fight a lot more differently

The way Hawk's describing it, you get nothing. There's no turning into different forms for different abilities or for flavour (Such as a constrictor or octopus to tie down a troublesome enemy). No turning into Brontosaurus excelus and god damn just trampling your way into a base because you are the noble thunder lizard and your neck alone serves as a method to break things by slamming it down. Heck, no using a Brontosaurus to be a living bridge. Just dull stats.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I don't hate the concept, although I would finagle with some of the numbers, and give more HP for differing beast shapes.

Why would the druid need more HP/Temp HP? Once again, clerics, bards, and wizards are all full caster classes. Should we also give them more HP? Would you be ok with those classes getting wild shape to get good physical stats and more HP? This is not me being contentious, but honestly curious about how others see it. Druids are already full caster classes that get medium armor, shields, and a d8 HP. Think about Wizards who as full casters with no armor and a d6. Outside of their Arcane Recovery and Archetype abilities, they get nothing additional until level 18.

But ultimately the problems you point out aren't really big problems, as far as I'm concerned. Since it's your wife's first time playing, there is naturally going to be some complexity that she's not familiar with, but that would be the case with a lot of classes, not just druids. Wizards come to mind. Second, one of the problems you mention, the flipping through the monster manual book problem, are easily resolved by just photocopying the pertinent pages so she can keep them together in her own binder at the table, or something.

Why do so many focus on those two aspects of my reasoning? What about the artificial distinction between what makes a beast or what makes a magical beast? Why is a CR 1/4 creature ok if its a beast, but suddenly not ok if it is anything but a beast? A great example that comes to mind are blink dogs. They are in the section with all the other animals. Same thing with Winter Wolves and Phase Spiders. Yet for some reason those options are not eligible for Wild Shape. Also, the distinction for what is a beast versus magical beast is not based on reality, as you have options to use giant and dire versions of animals as well as dinosaurs. Sure, those creature might have existed at one point in reality, but do we really know enough about how they lived to create a stat block that is any different than a mythical creature? Or lets consider swarms! Remove the idea of a swarm and the word swarm from the stat block, and you have a creature with a CR just as any other. Why is there a distinction there if you could theoretically wild shape into that particular CR?

What about the idea of the Monster Manual not being meant as a player resource?

Yes, I mentioned the example about my wife, but that is not the reason I am exploring a change to Wild Shape. I have felt these same things all the way back since 3E before I had even met my wife. And while 5e improves the game in many ways, to me this still feels like something that is the way it is more as a legacy to the 3e druid than anything else.

Agreed, this also puzzled me a bit because IMXP the 5e wildshape is hardly complicated. The text description is fairly long but it's 10 times simpler and clearer than in older editions. One chunk of the text is there only to explain how to handle your equipment, and it's both easy and generous in how it lets you choose what you want.

The designers anyway addressed the issue of beast choice with the UA/XGE rules for known shapes. But then I think this isnt even necessary. IMHO the idea is simply:

- if you play a Land Druid, your wildshape is just for exploration and stealth. Your exact stats hardly even matter, so just go with a narrative choice: wanna track an enemy? Turn into a wolf. Wanna go unnoticed in a town for spying? Turn into a cat. Wanna scout overhead at night? Turn into an owl. Forget about fighting in wildshape.

- if you play a Moon Druid, pick ONE beast for combat with maximum CR. Which one you pick only makes a minor difference.

If there is any shortcoming, it is the lack of a ready list of beasts by CR in the PHB or MM. Not hard to find on the web or spend an hour on an idle evening to make your own.

Ok. Good for you. You like Wild Shape as it is. Your experience is different than mine. I am not posting here looking for ways to help me use Wild Shape as presented in the PHB. I am looking for feedback regarding what I have created in terms of balance. If its not for you, cool. I don't expect everyone to like it or even understand my reasons for changing it. But please, don't waste my time or yours trying to give me "tips" to work with the PHB Wild Shape. It doesn't change my opinion that it needs to go.

Its not really

You turn into a constrictor, you get constrictor abilities. You turn into a giant scorpion, you're going to fight a lot more differently

The way Hawk's describing it, you get nothing. There's no turning into different forms for different abilities or for flavour (Such as a constrictor or octopus to tie down a troublesome enemy). No turning into Brontosaurus excelus and god damn just trampling your way into a base because you are the noble thunder lizard and your neck alone serves as a method to break things by slamming it down. Heck, no using a Brontosaurus to be a living bridge. Just dull stats.

You can't turn into a brontosaurus until level 15 at the earliest anyways if you are a Moon Druid, and never if any other kind of druid. If you want to be an actual brontosaurus, you can still achieve this by using Polymorph (which is on the druid spell list). Also, this highlights one of the issues I have with Wild Shape. The brontosaurus example you make is not in the Monster Manual, but Volo's Guide. With Wild Shape, every book that releases monsters now becomes a player resource. And just as every book released can allow for power creep, I believe this is even more so for new monster stats. CR is not supposed to be a guide for the power level compared to a single player. CR represents the relative difficulty the creature presents to an entire party. It is messy and more difficult to balance against other individual abilities that other players could achieve. But also from a design perspective, I doubt most designers are considering Wild Shape or even spells like Polymorph when designing a creature stat block. Monsters are not supposed to be designed as a player tool, but rather to make an interesting and reasonable challenge for a party of a given level. But a reasonable challenge of a party of a given level does not mean that those abilities or capacities are appropriate for a player character.

I have also admitted in my design notes that the normal riders you could gain with the PHB Wild Shape (such as grapple, trample, ect) are missing in my version. I don't know that is a problem, but I also don't know how to address it without either making it more complicated or unbalanced. I don't know that such riders/abilities are appropriate to non-Moon Druids, since once again I see Wild Shape as a whole more for exploration rather than constricting enemies, breaking things, or even using your body as a bridge. I don't think Wild Shape was supposed to be a Swiss Army Knife. But such riders are potentially useful and appropriate for the Moon Druid. I tried to keep them relevant in battle by increasing their damage based on level, as well as using Wisdom in place of Strength or Dexterity for attacks. The damage keeps pace with what most max CR beast could produce (at least using the Monster Manual as a guide. Once again, if expansions are taken into account, the CR 5 Brontosaurus FAR exceeds what the CR 5 Triceratops or CR 5 Giant Crocodile are capable of based on damage and reach alone. Including those options would skew the average higher). This may be less interesting than additional combat options. Perhaps there is a way to include them, but I am not sure how. This is something I can consider.