Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Captain Panda" data-source="post: 7585503" data-attributes="member: 6861845">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</blockquote>

Verification