Hey Hawk, probably super dead forum post but i must say i really like your alternate wildshape rules and we are trying them on our games, they are fun and make more sense, also is funny trying to give context to some of the transformations like swimming speed with secondary borrowing and turn into a newt or salamander that tends to bury itself in mud to stay wet, flying swimming flying snake, but some are really funky to contextualize in animals like climbing-swimming or flying-climbing
D&D 5E Alternative Wildshape Rules
- Thread starter Hawk Diesel
- Start date
Hawk Diesel
Adventurer
[MENTION=6991384]Saulfire[/MENTION] - Thanks buddy! I'm glad the rules are working for your table and you guys are having fun with it. Also, welcome to the forums!
Captain Panda
Explorer
I'll be honest, as a druid main these changes just outright destroy a major class feature and ruin moon druids entirely. The temp hp do not come close to replacing the durability you're taking away, the damage of wildshape was already pretty bad (after level 6 at least), and your changes further nerf it into the ground. I think the solution to the problem you're offering is significantly worse than the problem you're aiming to solve here. I can't imagine anyone who was previously enthusiastic about playing a druid wanting to play one anymore given these changes.
The temps given are too anemic, you've removed the utility from the shapechanging aspect of the feature (there are more benefits to shapeshifting than just a bit of movement speed and a size change), you've removed the flavor, you've removed the moon druid's ability to do reasonable damage... what benefit is the druid getting for having all of that taken away?
The temps given are too anemic, you've removed the utility from the shapechanging aspect of the feature (there are more benefits to shapeshifting than just a bit of movement speed and a size change), you've removed the flavor, you've removed the moon druid's ability to do reasonable damage... what benefit is the druid getting for having all of that taken away?
Hawk Diesel
Adventurer
First of all, I have codified my Wildshape adjustments at the DMsGuild Here: https://www.dmsguild.com/product/248228/Improving-Wild-Shape
They are "Pay What You Want" so feel free to download it for free. I'm not sure if I have made any changes from what is presented above since it has been so long since I've looked at this thread.
Sorry, but this is really an opinion so I don't know how to incorporate this feedback. These changes and suggestions may not fit the style of play you are accustomed to, and that's fine. But I obviously disagree with your stance that these changes "destroy a major class feature" or "ruin druids entirely."
For regular druids, in the original version beasts that a non-moon druid can turn into tend to have relatively low HP anyways. For those that do have a larger pool of HP, they tend to have lower AC. In my version, a druid maintains their own AC, which is often higher than the beast forms you might change into. So the temp HP and the higher AC offset what non-moon druids would otherwise have in wildshape. Non-moon druids usually use wildshape for scouting, sneaking into small spaces, or getting places they otherwise couldn't. They don't need the HP since they aren't using their wildshape for combat.
For Moon Druids using my version of wildshape, they also gain unarmored defense like monks, allowing them to reduce MAD and improving AC. In addition to this, they continue to benefit from all their equipment and magic items. This isn't the case for moon druids using the normal wildshape rules. They are forced to change their AC to match their form, which tends to be significantly lower, especially for forms with lots of HP. They also are forced to have their equipment be absorbed into their form if it won't fit on their chosen beast form, which in turn makes the equipment inert and non-functional. So once again, the loss of those HP pools is balanced by a typically higher AC and continual access to magic weapons.
Not to mention that both moon druids retain their ability to quickly heal using their spell slots in wildshape.
Have you actually compared the damage of the available beasts to the damage I propose for Wildshape? As an example, you can become an Allosaurus at level 6 under original wildshape rules. As an action, they can deal 2d10+4 damage with their bite. Using my rules, a moon druid will deal 2d8 damage, and add their Wisdom modifier to damage. In my version, MAD is reduced by allowing moon druid attacks to be modified by wisdom.
At level 12 you can become an elephant using the original wildshape. As an action, they can deal 3d10+6 damage with their stomp. My druid can deal 3d8 damage + their wisdom modifier. Once again, yes, the damage is a bit lower, but it is not "pretty bad." Personally, I think the trade-off is fair, as my version of wildshape does not need a player to actually have the monster stat block printed out in front of them, nor do they need to search through all their beast form options to determine which would be best in the particular circumstance. My wildshape options are meant to be modular and allow the character to have a simple template that goes over their mechanics, rather than outright replace them.
Once again, this is entirely opinion. You don't provide any concrete examples of how my wildshape "nerfs [the druid] into the ground," nor do you point out the ways that my version fails to solve the problem I am looking to solve. You also don't provide any ways that I might improve my design other than, essentially, "THIS SUCKS!" As I said, these changes may not be for you or your game table, but that alone does not mean that my design decisions are faulty or without merit.
Once of the only real concrete piece of feedback you provide, but once again, I think there are other aspects the balance out with the reduced HP pools.
How so? From the way that I read what I created, the shapechanging aspect is still there. Also, I don't know how you define utility? My version still gains advantage on chosen ability checks and provides darkvision. What specifically do you find missing or lacking that impacts what you define to be "utility"?
I personally think I've expanded the flavor. You are no longer stuck being a wolf, but could be a werewolf. Or a bugbear. Or a crab beast. Or a particularly vicious slime mold. What you become isn't limited to the specific beast you choose in the Monster Manual, but can be anything your imagination desires based on the choices you make for your wildshape options using my version.
I definitely dispute this. My version does do slightly less damage than a moon druid does. But it is not significantly less. It remains on par with what a fighter might do per round. But you have to remember that a druid, whether circle of the moon or otherwise, they are still full casters on par with wizards and clerics. They should not be full equals to fighters, paladins, or rangers in combat.
I see a lot of benefit. The monster manual no longer becomes a player resource. A player no longer has to have multiple printouts of the beasts they might change into. A player can easily use a simple template to put over their existing character sheet, rather than worry about changing abilities or ability scores. It is easier to track. You no longer have the problem of Moon Druids being just pools of limitless hit points. The player has more agency over what their wildshape appears like or how it functions. We no longer have to rely on CR to evaluate whether a beast form is appropriate for the character's level. You don't have to worry about future beasts being created without wildshape in mind. You now don't have to worry about gaps when you can't find beast forms of an appropriate CR (since higher CR creatures tend to be larger, meaning that they can't fit everywhere or be appropriate for tasks outside of raw combat in large, open spaces.
If you have more concrete feedback that is not completely based on opinion, or suggestions on how I might change or improve my product, I would greatly welcome the discourse. Otherwise, I just think this product doesn't fit you or your playstyle, rather than any real issues in my design of the mechanics presented.
They are "Pay What You Want" so feel free to download it for free. I'm not sure if I have made any changes from what is presented above since it has been so long since I've looked at this thread.
Sorry, but this is really an opinion so I don't know how to incorporate this feedback. These changes and suggestions may not fit the style of play you are accustomed to, and that's fine. But I obviously disagree with your stance that these changes "destroy a major class feature" or "ruin druids entirely."
For regular druids, in the original version beasts that a non-moon druid can turn into tend to have relatively low HP anyways. For those that do have a larger pool of HP, they tend to have lower AC. In my version, a druid maintains their own AC, which is often higher than the beast forms you might change into. So the temp HP and the higher AC offset what non-moon druids would otherwise have in wildshape. Non-moon druids usually use wildshape for scouting, sneaking into small spaces, or getting places they otherwise couldn't. They don't need the HP since they aren't using their wildshape for combat.
For Moon Druids using my version of wildshape, they also gain unarmored defense like monks, allowing them to reduce MAD and improving AC. In addition to this, they continue to benefit from all their equipment and magic items. This isn't the case for moon druids using the normal wildshape rules. They are forced to change their AC to match their form, which tends to be significantly lower, especially for forms with lots of HP. They also are forced to have their equipment be absorbed into their form if it won't fit on their chosen beast form, which in turn makes the equipment inert and non-functional. So once again, the loss of those HP pools is balanced by a typically higher AC and continual access to magic weapons.
Not to mention that both moon druids retain their ability to quickly heal using their spell slots in wildshape.
Have you actually compared the damage of the available beasts to the damage I propose for Wildshape? As an example, you can become an Allosaurus at level 6 under original wildshape rules. As an action, they can deal 2d10+4 damage with their bite. Using my rules, a moon druid will deal 2d8 damage, and add their Wisdom modifier to damage. In my version, MAD is reduced by allowing moon druid attacks to be modified by wisdom.
At level 12 you can become an elephant using the original wildshape. As an action, they can deal 3d10+6 damage with their stomp. My druid can deal 3d8 damage + their wisdom modifier. Once again, yes, the damage is a bit lower, but it is not "pretty bad." Personally, I think the trade-off is fair, as my version of wildshape does not need a player to actually have the monster stat block printed out in front of them, nor do they need to search through all their beast form options to determine which would be best in the particular circumstance. My wildshape options are meant to be modular and allow the character to have a simple template that goes over their mechanics, rather than outright replace them.
Once again, this is entirely opinion. You don't provide any concrete examples of how my wildshape "nerfs [the druid] into the ground," nor do you point out the ways that my version fails to solve the problem I am looking to solve. You also don't provide any ways that I might improve my design other than, essentially, "THIS SUCKS!" As I said, these changes may not be for you or your game table, but that alone does not mean that my design decisions are faulty or without merit.
Once of the only real concrete piece of feedback you provide, but once again, I think there are other aspects the balance out with the reduced HP pools.
How so? From the way that I read what I created, the shapechanging aspect is still there. Also, I don't know how you define utility? My version still gains advantage on chosen ability checks and provides darkvision. What specifically do you find missing or lacking that impacts what you define to be "utility"?
I personally think I've expanded the flavor. You are no longer stuck being a wolf, but could be a werewolf. Or a bugbear. Or a crab beast. Or a particularly vicious slime mold. What you become isn't limited to the specific beast you choose in the Monster Manual, but can be anything your imagination desires based on the choices you make for your wildshape options using my version.
I definitely dispute this. My version does do slightly less damage than a moon druid does. But it is not significantly less. It remains on par with what a fighter might do per round. But you have to remember that a druid, whether circle of the moon or otherwise, they are still full casters on par with wizards and clerics. They should not be full equals to fighters, paladins, or rangers in combat.
I see a lot of benefit. The monster manual no longer becomes a player resource. A player no longer has to have multiple printouts of the beasts they might change into. A player can easily use a simple template to put over their existing character sheet, rather than worry about changing abilities or ability scores. It is easier to track. You no longer have the problem of Moon Druids being just pools of limitless hit points. The player has more agency over what their wildshape appears like or how it functions. We no longer have to rely on CR to evaluate whether a beast form is appropriate for the character's level. You don't have to worry about future beasts being created without wildshape in mind. You now don't have to worry about gaps when you can't find beast forms of an appropriate CR (since higher CR creatures tend to be larger, meaning that they can't fit everywhere or be appropriate for tasks outside of raw combat in large, open spaces.
If you have more concrete feedback that is not completely based on opinion, or suggestions on how I might change or improve my product, I would greatly welcome the discourse. Otherwise, I just think this product doesn't fit you or your playstyle, rather than any real issues in my design of the mechanics presented.
Captain Panda
Explorer
That's fair. My initial impression was more a knee-jerk response as a druid main than proper analysis. That's a fair retort, I'll back my position up a bit.
That's totally fair. Your version of wildshape for non-moon druids might work. My vantage point is entirely that of a salty moon druid who would throw a fit if a DM tried to take my toys away.
I disagree with the design both from a balance and a flavor standpoint. On my view, the low AC that moon druids have wild wild shaped is not a bug, or a negative, but a feature. The low hp and high volume of expendable hit points do a great job encouraging even intelligent monsters to attack the druid, because they are already up close and make for very easy to hit targets. The low AC facilitates the moon druid's tanking capacity, and the beast attacks have a very different feel to them than standard melee characters or cantrips. Replacing the polar bear's 2d6+1d10+10 damage with 2d8+wisdom (at level 6) is not only a fairly hefty nerf, but it's also a change in feel. The damage formula you offer is on par with a standard cantrip, more or less. Cantrips (outside of eldritch blast and the Sword Coast ones) tend to be the literal bare-minimum the game system assumes for any given level range. Wildshape provided a wall of expendable, easy to hit HP and attack options that generally exceed that bare-minimum threshold by a bit, depending on the level and specific form.
Yes, I've compared the damage vs. the damage you're proposing. The standard forms I've seen used (and used) while progressing have been brown bear, polar bear, giant scorpion, earth elemental, stegosaurus or elephant, and mammoth. Comparing the damage of any of those forms to cantrip damage and the form's damage will come out on top, and typically by a reasonable amount.
Again, that's fair. If you are looking to remove bookkeeping from the druid, your way does that. I contend that it does so at a steep cost to the power potential of at least the moon druid subclass. You lose an enormous amount of disposable hit points but gain armor, which can be a good trade in certain circumstances, but I contend that in most situations where you want to soak up damage and attention you would be better served by having the large pool that you can replenish fairly easily for that purpose.
I'm here referring to the general abilities animals sometimes have. Unless I missed it, a druid using your rules could not turn into a giant spider and create a bridge of web across a chasm, for example, or take the form of a giant octopus to gain the ability to reliably restrain targets.
Moon druids already don't compete with fighters in damage, but this change makes the gulf wider. A level 12 fighter, specialized at doing ranged damage, can do 4d6+60 damage (assuming all hits) a round. The elephant's 3d10+6 is already way, way behind that. Making it 3d8+5 just pushes the moon druid down to the baseline, minimum assumed damage for the tier.
I don't see that as a problem, but the design intention of the subclass. Tanks operate in different ways. The eldritch knight has crazy high AC, the barbarian resists everything but has a modest AC, the bladesinger has a ridiculous AC and bare minimum hit points, and the moon druid has functionally no AC, but easily eats damage up.
Well, anything I suggest will be based on opinion, but I'll try to be a bit more constructive. Again, read that not as a reviewer, but as a salty moon druid having his favorite toy taken away. XD
Suggestions for improvement:
-The low AC, high HP design of the moon druid provides a unique function that isn't found elsewhere, to my knowledge, in fifth edition. One should be cautious in removing it.
-The damage should be scaled up to match or even exceed what a standard wild shape form would provide. My argument for this is that your version of wild shape will not last nearly as long as the standard one, so it should have more payoff during its limited duration.
-This one is big, but have you considered allowing spells to be cast while wild shaped? The Circle of Spores feature is very similar to what you have outlined, but the fact that it is less powerful but allows the player to continue using their primary resource, spellcasting, makes it a much more viable option.
I'd also suggest making this an option and not a mandatory feature. Some players, like me, enjoy the bookkeeping. The game has a lot of simple class options that don't require a great deal of forethought and bookkeeping, but I argue that they don't all need to be that way.
Hawk Diesel
Adventurer
[MENTION=6861845]Captain Panda[/MENTION] - I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your second post. I could tell that your first post seemed to be a knee jerk reaction to my proposed changes, which is fine. I did not mean for my post to come off as mean or anything (though I certainly can see that it could be taken that way), but I had a hard time with feedback that is largely reactionary or opinionated, since it speaks more to our personal tastes rather than the merits of the content. So thank you for coming back to the table to discuss your views on my proposed changes. We may not agree on whether this would be worth implementing at our game tables, but I'm glad we can remain respectful towards one another.
I'm certainly not trying to take anyone's toys away! ^_^ This is a problem that I've had with the druid since 3e. I just don't think CR is a good measure of balance for player abilities, nor do I think it appropriate that wildshape then turns the Monster Manual into a player resource. I think the Monster Manual should strictly be a DM resource. Of course, just because I view this as a problem, does not mean it is actually a problem. I certainly don't think that Wildshape, or Moon Druids are broken or break the game. But the WotC version of Wildshape is just not for me.
Sure, this may be a feature and not a bug. But it also comes with its own negatives. A lower AC does not just put a druid in general and moon druid in particular in danger of hit point loss. But it also makes them more vulnerable to any kind of effect that is based on attacks. That means they may be saving more often against conditions such as stunning strike, poison, grapples, and many other things that come up more often in higher level play. And having to make more saves means failing more saves. Additionally, since a wildshape has its own HP pool, it makes a druid vulnerable to things such as disintegrate, which would kill a wildshaped druid even if they would normally still have hit points remaining in their normal form.
Additionally, since Moon Druids typically can't cast spells while Wild Shaped, they still benefit from using a bonus action to heal themselves with their spell slots, continuing to give them access to as many hit points as they might need.
So there are some trade-offs. But my version also solves another problem of the druid's wildshape. At higher levels, more powerful beast shapes are usually on the small end large, and often huge. This limits their utility since you need enough space to effectively use such shapes and benefit from their increased power. Being a high level Moon Druid does not give you a way to make more basic or lower CR beast forms more powerful. If someone likes the wolf and wants to use one at higher levels, they would either have to use a sub-optimal beast form, hope there are appropriate, higher powerful wolves available, homebrew these beast forms, or attempt to reskin more powerful forms that may not exactly replicate the base wolf. My version of Wildshape allows greater thematic use of Wildshape since the specific look of the form is not tied to a pre-generated beast stat-block, and all options increase in power relative to your druid level.
I don't know if it changes the feel. You can describe any attack as multiple attacks. And yes, using a cantrip as the basis of the attack was intentional. It is more powerful, of course, since you can add your wisdom modifier to the damage. But again, since Druids, even Moon Druids, are full casters, I don't think it's appropriate to make them both tank-like with HP/AC and damage output.
Additionally, yes. My version does not account for things like Multiattack, Pack Tactics, Pounce, Stomp, Charge, or other abilities. But that is because these abilities are difficult to standardize against one another, and one of my goals was to standardize wildshape. With effective standardization, you remove the need to always optimize your beast form choice. Within a given CR, there are clear choices that offer the most power. But if CR is meant to represent the general power offered by creatures of a given CR, then any beast chosen should be just about as good as any other. Adding abilities into the mix such as Pack Tactics, Multiattack, Grab, ect increase the complexity of Wildshape. Perhaps there might be a way to incorporate such things into my version, but I am unsure how to do that without significantly increasing complexity.
Sure. But look at those options. They are at least large sized, and the most powerful ones are huge. That can put severe limits on what you can do if you choose those shapes. You can't wildshape into an elephant or mammoth in a small dungeon or an inn. You need specific battlefield conditions to really utilize those forms effectively. And if there is not enough room to wildshape into something large or huge sized, then you are forced to take supoptimal forms that deal less damage. Because from what I can see, the higher the CR of a beast, the bigger it is. You don't have small or medium beasts that are also higher in CR. So yes, while my version does nerf the damage output a bit, it also increases your flexibility in benefiting from your full power potential even in smaller, enclosed spaces.
I see these as being relatively equal, but player preferences vary.
Yes, this is certainly one of the drawbacks in my version compared with the original version of Wildshape. But in a system that prefers simplicity to complexity, and the ability to standardize the power and balance of Wildshape forms, unfortunately that means some things may be lost. For me, this is still an ok sacrifice to make. It makes the combat options of the Moon Druid less interesting. But some of these things can effectively come online once a druid can cast spells in wildshape. It's not perfect, but for my purpose and tastes, it's "good enough." Though I am open to suggestions that can maintain the streamlined feel of my wildshape option, while also allowing some of those unique beast abilities.
Average damage of an elephant is (3 x 5.5) + 6 = 22.5. Average attack of my version of a level 12 moon druid is (3 x 4.5) + 5 = 18.5. An average difference of 4 damage per round is significant, but it evens out knowing you can use a moon druid anywhere a medium creature can fight, where the elephant needs a space able to accommodate its huge size. But how do you get 4d6 + 60 damage a round? Assuming a longbow and the archery fighting style, at level 12 you will do 3d8 + 15 damage per round. Using Sharpshooter will increase that to 3d8 + 45 damage, but you are going to hit less often, especially against high AC targets. Of course, a fighter also has Action Surge, but that is not being used every round. How did you come up with your figure? Additionally, a ranged fighter is not a reasonable comparison for a moon druid, as they will be engaged in melee. So a melee fighter would be a more apt point of comparison anyways.
If you feel that strongly about the HP, you can certainly remove the unarmored defense and increase the temp hp. But once again, the original wildshape requires increasing complexity. My system doesn't require a druid to assume their armor gets absorbed and becomes inert, nor do they have to frequently change their physical stats arbitrarily. They continue to benefit from hard earned mundane and magic items.
Sure, but I think hit points are already bloated even for non-druids. Being big bags of hit points is not fun at my table, so I'm ok with this not being part of the game. YMMV
My version of wildshape, I believe, has a duration equal to that of the normal version. Additionally, the player has more flexibility in the types of damage they deal, and do not get limited by being in enclosed spaces at higher levels. I think it about evens out. The only issue I see is with the lack of combat options like Grab, Knock Down, ect.
Moon Druids can still cast while wildshaped, but they are just limited to self-heals. The risk with allowing spellcasting with combat wildshape is that now you have a frontline melee druid with full access to casting. For any gish type class, I think there has to be a trade-off. Druids can still concentrate on spells they cast before going into wildshaped. And since a moon druid wildshapes as a bonus action, they are likely casting a favorable spell with a duration before going into wildshape.
The players at my table always have the option of using my homebrew or original versions. I like my stuff better, obviously, but if a player will enjoy the core rules better, I won't take that away from them so long as it doesn't slow down the game (which I think Wildshape often does).
That's totally fair. Your version of wildshape for non-moon druids might work. My vantage point is entirely that of a salty moon druid who would throw a fit if a DM tried to take my toys away.
I'm certainly not trying to take anyone's toys away! ^_^ This is a problem that I've had with the druid since 3e. I just don't think CR is a good measure of balance for player abilities, nor do I think it appropriate that wildshape then turns the Monster Manual into a player resource. I think the Monster Manual should strictly be a DM resource. Of course, just because I view this as a problem, does not mean it is actually a problem. I certainly don't think that Wildshape, or Moon Druids are broken or break the game. But the WotC version of Wildshape is just not for me.
Sure, this may be a feature and not a bug. But it also comes with its own negatives. A lower AC does not just put a druid in general and moon druid in particular in danger of hit point loss. But it also makes them more vulnerable to any kind of effect that is based on attacks. That means they may be saving more often against conditions such as stunning strike, poison, grapples, and many other things that come up more often in higher level play. And having to make more saves means failing more saves. Additionally, since a wildshape has its own HP pool, it makes a druid vulnerable to things such as disintegrate, which would kill a wildshaped druid even if they would normally still have hit points remaining in their normal form.
Additionally, since Moon Druids typically can't cast spells while Wild Shaped, they still benefit from using a bonus action to heal themselves with their spell slots, continuing to give them access to as many hit points as they might need.
So there are some trade-offs. But my version also solves another problem of the druid's wildshape. At higher levels, more powerful beast shapes are usually on the small end large, and often huge. This limits their utility since you need enough space to effectively use such shapes and benefit from their increased power. Being a high level Moon Druid does not give you a way to make more basic or lower CR beast forms more powerful. If someone likes the wolf and wants to use one at higher levels, they would either have to use a sub-optimal beast form, hope there are appropriate, higher powerful wolves available, homebrew these beast forms, or attempt to reskin more powerful forms that may not exactly replicate the base wolf. My version of Wildshape allows greater thematic use of Wildshape since the specific look of the form is not tied to a pre-generated beast stat-block, and all options increase in power relative to your druid level.
I don't know if it changes the feel. You can describe any attack as multiple attacks. And yes, using a cantrip as the basis of the attack was intentional. It is more powerful, of course, since you can add your wisdom modifier to the damage. But again, since Druids, even Moon Druids, are full casters, I don't think it's appropriate to make them both tank-like with HP/AC and damage output.
Additionally, yes. My version does not account for things like Multiattack, Pack Tactics, Pounce, Stomp, Charge, or other abilities. But that is because these abilities are difficult to standardize against one another, and one of my goals was to standardize wildshape. With effective standardization, you remove the need to always optimize your beast form choice. Within a given CR, there are clear choices that offer the most power. But if CR is meant to represent the general power offered by creatures of a given CR, then any beast chosen should be just about as good as any other. Adding abilities into the mix such as Pack Tactics, Multiattack, Grab, ect increase the complexity of Wildshape. Perhaps there might be a way to incorporate such things into my version, but I am unsure how to do that without significantly increasing complexity.
Sure. But look at those options. They are at least large sized, and the most powerful ones are huge. That can put severe limits on what you can do if you choose those shapes. You can't wildshape into an elephant or mammoth in a small dungeon or an inn. You need specific battlefield conditions to really utilize those forms effectively. And if there is not enough room to wildshape into something large or huge sized, then you are forced to take supoptimal forms that deal less damage. Because from what I can see, the higher the CR of a beast, the bigger it is. You don't have small or medium beasts that are also higher in CR. So yes, while my version does nerf the damage output a bit, it also increases your flexibility in benefiting from your full power potential even in smaller, enclosed spaces.
I see these as being relatively equal, but player preferences vary.
Yes, this is certainly one of the drawbacks in my version compared with the original version of Wildshape. But in a system that prefers simplicity to complexity, and the ability to standardize the power and balance of Wildshape forms, unfortunately that means some things may be lost. For me, this is still an ok sacrifice to make. It makes the combat options of the Moon Druid less interesting. But some of these things can effectively come online once a druid can cast spells in wildshape. It's not perfect, but for my purpose and tastes, it's "good enough." Though I am open to suggestions that can maintain the streamlined feel of my wildshape option, while also allowing some of those unique beast abilities.
Average damage of an elephant is (3 x 5.5) + 6 = 22.5. Average attack of my version of a level 12 moon druid is (3 x 4.5) + 5 = 18.5. An average difference of 4 damage per round is significant, but it evens out knowing you can use a moon druid anywhere a medium creature can fight, where the elephant needs a space able to accommodate its huge size. But how do you get 4d6 + 60 damage a round? Assuming a longbow and the archery fighting style, at level 12 you will do 3d8 + 15 damage per round. Using Sharpshooter will increase that to 3d8 + 45 damage, but you are going to hit less often, especially against high AC targets. Of course, a fighter also has Action Surge, but that is not being used every round. How did you come up with your figure? Additionally, a ranged fighter is not a reasonable comparison for a moon druid, as they will be engaged in melee. So a melee fighter would be a more apt point of comparison anyways.
If you feel that strongly about the HP, you can certainly remove the unarmored defense and increase the temp hp. But once again, the original wildshape requires increasing complexity. My system doesn't require a druid to assume their armor gets absorbed and becomes inert, nor do they have to frequently change their physical stats arbitrarily. They continue to benefit from hard earned mundane and magic items.
Sure, but I think hit points are already bloated even for non-druids. Being big bags of hit points is not fun at my table, so I'm ok with this not being part of the game. YMMV
My version of wildshape, I believe, has a duration equal to that of the normal version. Additionally, the player has more flexibility in the types of damage they deal, and do not get limited by being in enclosed spaces at higher levels. I think it about evens out. The only issue I see is with the lack of combat options like Grab, Knock Down, ect.
Moon Druids can still cast while wildshaped, but they are just limited to self-heals. The risk with allowing spellcasting with combat wildshape is that now you have a frontline melee druid with full access to casting. For any gish type class, I think there has to be a trade-off. Druids can still concentrate on spells they cast before going into wildshaped. And since a moon druid wildshapes as a bonus action, they are likely casting a favorable spell with a duration before going into wildshape.
The players at my table always have the option of using my homebrew or original versions. I like my stuff better, obviously, but if a player will enjoy the core rules better, I won't take that away from them so long as it doesn't slow down the game (which I think Wildshape often does).
Last edited:
Captain Panda
Explorer
That's a fair point, and I admit one of my bigger criticisms of wild shape has been the lack of variety at the high end. I've always just picked what animal my druid likes early on and reskinned later shapes to be just bigger, meaner versions thereof. But that's hardly a clean solution.
That's true, and a fair point. I've always seen that as a drawback that helps balance the druid a bit. You can still go huge in a tight space, but you will be that much easier to hit and have disadvantage on attacks. I don't mind the idea of having to be careful about when and where to unleash the beast. Having that restraint, in my view, showcases the power on display. It's a bit like the Hulk being a bit constrained in where he can come out without completely smashing everything just by being there. This seems like a question of preference, though, and that's fine. I admit it sure would be convenient not worrying about it anymore.
My math, admittedly, assumes an optimized fighter. So a crossbow expert with sharpshooter and a hand crossbow. Four attacks a round, each doing 1d6+15 with sharpshooter. Variant human for sharpshooter, CBE at 4, dex boost at 6 and 8. Though yeah, the comparison isn't exactly fair because that's a fighter built for damage. My point is just that a druid's wildshape just cannot compete with a competently built fighter after level 4 or so, so a nerf is not necessary. I think the same argument would work if we swapped from a ranged build to a melee GWM build.
I don't want to go point by point to reply because I think you've answered my main critiques fairly well. And honestly so long as it's an option and not something that's being suggested as a mandatory fix for my precious, precious wild shape, I don't have any problem with it at all. XD
Similar Threads
D&D (2024)
Shapechange Spell a bit OP now?
