Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="machineelf" data-source="post: 7311260" data-attributes="member: 6774924">You have a personal dislike of the druid wild-shape; that's why you proposed your changes. And your changes do nerf the class, which is part of the point of your changes. And I mean that's cool, but not everyone shares your dislike of the class abilities. And it would be a real shame for some players in your game who want to play a druid to find out they can't play the class they wanted because the DM just didn't like it and so they have to play some altered form the DM came up with, or else play another class. (Have you put it up for a vote by your players? I'd be curious if more of them would prefer to play your version of the druid over the official version.)I generally favor light touches when it comes to house rules and changes to mechanics. And before I make a big change, I try to make sure it's not just my own personal dislike of something that is driving the change. Case-in-point, I really personally dislike multi-classing. But most other people don't agree with me, so I still allow my players to do it because I don't want to take the fun away from them. You started off by saying it was the difficulty of the class and the need to use the MM to reference beasts that prompted your changes. But of course other classes may also need to reference the MM. Rangers with their pets. Casters with their familiars. Wizards and bards with polymorph. Wizards (and others?) with conjure elementals. Etc. Additionally, most people I know don't find it too difficult to play druids or photocopy some monster block stats to keep with them for their wild-shape forms.Now it seems to me your real complaint is that you think druids are overpowered. None of your original four reasons for wanting to change wild-shape referenced their over-powered nature, but it has risen to the top of your arguments. I'm not trying to argue that my opinion on the class is better than your opinion. I'm just saying it might be worthwhile to consider if wild-shape is disliked by others in your game as much as it is by you, and whether or not to just allow your players to just have fun with the class if they like to play it.As far as your proposals specifically, I am not against the idea of making rules a little less complex and easier to understand and run. But I find your rules changes more complex, not less. It seems a lot easier to just say, "oh you turn into a bear? Here is your stat sheet. You are now this bear." That seems a lot easier than the various rules you proposed. (Also more fun, IMO. I'm not just an amorphous, abstract, wild-shape thing, and every wild-shape thing is the same with the same abilities. I am a bear! With its own unique traits.)</blockquote>

Verification