D&D 5E Druid 20 = Infinite Hit Points

[Gilbetron]

I was looking at the rules for Druid and I don't see how a Druid can shift into a new form without changing back into its normal form first. Wildshape isn't a spell, but a class ability, so it can't be cast while Wildshaped, as far as I can see. So that means the Druid must go back to normal form for at least one round between Wildshapes (bonus action to return, bonus action to shift). And while in normal form, the Druid's HP total is tracked as normal. So if a Druid in Wildshape form is close to 0 HP, the Druid must shift out for a round, or risk having the Wildshape form go to 0 and take the extra damage.

Am I missing something?

 

[Manbearcat]

Obviously its a fubar class feature (and it affects low level as well as high level, but not as much mid-level where Fighters and Barbarians sort of catch up total HP-wise). I don't know why we can't just have consensus on "yeah, its a problem...hopefully there will be errata sorting it out soon." We don't need to rationalize the problem. Its getting downright silly with all of these "the GM can/will/should handle it...its a table issue" answers to each of these issues that are cropping up (to saving throws, to Polymorph, to Contagion, etc, etc). If this was a Monty Python skit we would keep incrementally escalating the problem to see what new rationalizations we get until we finally end up with a level 17 class feature that reads:

"Once per Short Rest, the designers will come to your house, kiss your sister, eat all of your mother's cookies, kick your dog, duct tape you to the wall and force you to watch Gigli from the excruciating beginning to the godawful end. No save."

 

[Charles Wright]

I, for one, will be very happy when the Druid is able to shapeshift into a tiger and drag my unconscious self out of the fight then transform back into human shape to heal me/stabilize me.

 

[Charles Wright]

Obviously its a fubar class feature (and it affects low level as well as high level, but not as much mid-level where Fighters and Barbarians sort of catch up total HP-wise). I don't know why we can't just have consensus on "yeah, its a problem...hopefully there will be errata sorting it out soon." We don't need to rationalize the problem. Its getting downright silly with all of these "the GM can/will/should handle it...its a table issue" answers to each of these issues that are cropping up (to saving throws, to Polymorph, to Contagion, etc, etc). If this was a Monty Python skit we would keep incrementally escalating the problem to see what new rationalizations we get until we finally end up with a level 17 class feature that reads:

"Once per Short Rest, the designers will come to your house, kiss your sister, eat all of your mother's cookies, kick your dog, duct tape you to the wall and force you to watch Gigli from the excruciating beginning to the godawful end. No save."

I feel that it's downright silly to have to have every little thing specifically spelled out in the rules like your'e reading a technical manual and people can't just make up their own minds about how they will handle it in their game.

About the only reason for the rules to do that would be for Adventurer's League and they've already shown that they have a different set of rules.

 

[Manbearcat]

I feel that it's downright silly to have to have every little thing specifically spelled out in the rules like your'e reading a technical manual and people can't just make up their own minds about how they will handle it in their game.

About the only reason for the rules to do that would be for Adventurer's League and they've already shown that they have a different set of rules.

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] mentioned this just upthread. Its about brevity, clarity, and precision within the rules text that is the most relevant to play such that mental assimilation of those rules and application of them in-situ at the table is a breeze. Its not about an exhaustive tome of caveats that handle all exceptions and corner cases. No one wants that and I haven't seen anyone advocate for that. Again, brevity, clarity, and precision.

In other areas its about resolving to meet your design goals (which aren't met with the unbounded math of the Proficiency system interacting with the Saving Throw system as levels pile on).

 

[Neonchameleon]

@Neonchameleon mentioned this just upthread. Its about brevity, clarity, and precision within the rules text that is the most relevant to play such that mental assimilation of those rules and application of them in-situ at the table is a breeze. Its not about an exhaustive tome of caveats that handle all exceptions and corner cases. No one wants that and I haven't seen anyone advocate for that. Again, brevity, clarity, and precision.

Different thread although one on the same subject so I'm going to copy the full response across.

I'm finding clarity and detail are being confused here - and it's leading to people talking past each other.

Clear rules I find essential. If the rules aren't clear then I, as player, can't work out whether I'm likely to be able to do something in character.

An example of a game with clear and non-detailed rules would be Lasers and Feelings. The only thing that matters for your roll is whether it's combat (lasers) or not (feelings). You use the same number for both - one's roll over, one roll under. Minor details don't matter much. But it's pretty obvious what you do and how to resolve anything.

An example of a game with clear and detailed rules would be GURPS 3E (especially with GURPS Vehicles). You have literally dozens of skills, point buy off at least 100 points - and if you want to design a car using the vehicles rules, the chassis weight is based on the square of the cube root of the volume and IIRC you want to pick the power of the engine in kW. Everything works, the maths is good, but you need a spreadsheet to work the full thing out. Or to be 14, ill in bed, bored, good at maths, and determined.

If I were to mention games with rules I found unclear they'd all be perjoritive, so I won't.

When I hear people opposing rules being clarified what I hear is that they are opposing rules being easily usable and the player being able to guess at their chance of success. What I think is meant is they are opposing detail as in GURPS Vehicles. That they want a system that doesn't sweat the small stuff. Would I be right here?

 

[Vowtz]

Since I started this thread I will show my understanding about most opinions I saw the last few days:

There are people who agree with OP and offer solutions:


1. "You can just change it from X to Y"

Yes, for now I am playing the game as designed, but once all core books are out it will maybe be a good time to start changing things (like my most hated healing rules), and I will use the solutions presented on this thread.

You all already have my thanks.




There are people who simply do not care:


2. "It's a level 20 ability, most people play at level 4~15"

Well, ok.

I intend to do it soon.



3. "It's a capstone ability"


Yes, one that is so superior to another classe's capstones that it's hard to design an encounter to challenge a moondruid and a monk/barbarian/fighter/rogue at the same time.




And others defend that this ability is just fine as it is, no need for any change:




4. "You can't shape from one form to another."


It's pretty clear that, by raw, you can. An animal is just as physically capable of turning into another animal as a human is physically capable of turning into an animal.


It's a class feature, if it transfers to your beast form, then you can use it.


Yet, it is a good houserule. And it will be good if designers change to that with an Errata/FAQ.




5. "A DM can just add more creatures"


If the moon archdruid have a chance of not surviving an encounter, no martial class will survive as well.


The DM just killed everyone because he tried to challenge the druid.




6. "A DM can just use the right creatures with save or die"


That is just my personal opinion, but a DM having to greatly narrow types of encounters down and putting monsters where they should not be just because of one classe's ability means this ability was not well designed.




7. "Even if you are immortal, that makes no difference if you are just standing there taking hits and doing nothing"


Moondruid resets HP as a bonus action, on his real action (standard action or whatever) he is still a capable 9th circle caster, or 8th circle if he takes my advice and cast foresight.




8. "It's just a PvP problem"


I was introduced to two examples of monsters, Tarrasque and Pit Fiend, that are suposed to be very strong, but both seem to have a great difficulty / zero chance to win against moondruid.




9. "It's just a PvE problem, an "other class 20" can win"


If you find a way to Barbarian 20 have even the slightest chance to kick moondruid's ass, please share, I want to try it.


Even fighter 20 with action surge hell is not enough, again, if you make all calculations and manage to kill his beast form and druid form in one round, I want to see it! (remember that if you assume the fighter to have magical weapons, then do so for human form druid's armor and shield too).


If it's another caster I understand that moondruid will maybe win, but most likely lose, no problems there.








Conclusion


10. Is the ArchMoonDruid absolutely invincible?


Most certainly not, he is vulnerable to some things, but is invincible to a lot of challenges that should pose a threat.




11. Is that a problem?


Not if you ignore 20th. If you are like me and intend to play at 20 by raw in the future, then it is a problem.






*sorry for english mistakes, it's not my native language

 

[Andor]

8. "It's just a PvP problem"


I was introduced to two examples of monsters, Tarrasque and Pit Fiend, that are suposed to be very strong, but both seem to have a great difficulty / zero chance to win against moondruid.

Any 20th level Cleric, Sorcerer or Wizard can dispose of the Tarrasque in 1 round by opening a Gate under his feet and dropping him down the side of the infinite mountain that is Gehenna. (You may need to shrink him first.)

A Pit Fiend is vulnerable to a one round fight from a failed save vs banishment and that's only a 4th level spell. Heck a Planar Binding will make him you lackey for a year and a day out of a 9th level slot.

The point is that fights against a single boss monster are simply not how you challenge high level D&D parties. A better question might be, can I use a 20th level Druid as a Boss monster for a lower level Party without a certainty of a TPK? The answer is yes. Whittle his animal form down a bit and a simple sleep spell will drop him with no save.

Running a campaign for High level characters is very tricky, and we simply don't know enough about 5e yet, without the MM and DMG to say if the Mooncircle Druid is a campaign wrecker or not. My inclination is no. Or at least not because he can turn into infinite Mammoths. His buddy who can open a Gate to anywhere and whistle up an army of outsiders is probably a bigger problem.

 

[Gilbetron]

I really don't see the problem anymore. It is obvious that the druid must switch to druid form to shift to another form, requiring an extra round. Problem solved

 

[TwoSix]

Consider it from an in world perspective for a moment. If the King has an audience with a Cleric and a Druid to determine which religion his Kingdom will follow. "Demonstrate your greatest power to me." he says. Who is going to impress him more, the guy who gets him face time with Pelor, or the guy who does a one man production of Madegascar?

That's tough. Madagascar was a really good movie.