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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6107961" data-attributes="member: 7006">Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it... although looking at it objectively, I would suspect that it might rub some people the wrong way.  Mainly because it would seem like wildshaping equals spellcasting.  So wildshape would be nothing more than just having a whole bunch of Polymorph Self spells on your spell list.Now granted, indeed that's pretty much what wildshaping is-- just a whole bunch of polymorph abilities-- so having one resource pool (spells) rather than two (spells and wildshapes per day) is just shrinking mechanics down for ease-of-use.  But in order to get across that wildshaping is really meant to be a wholly different thing than spellcasting... you really need to keep them separate.  It's the fluff coming through.  Spellcasting implies and feels like one thing within the fiction.  Other class abilities feel different.  And thus they should have their own resource.It's the same reason why many players like having Channel Divinity abilities separate from spells-- they just feel like different things.  They tried Turn Undead as a spell... it apparently didn't feel right to many players, and so they changed it back.The urge to condense abilities down into smaller and smaller pools of resources is normally a good one-- it results more often than not in cleaner and easier-to-use design... but there comes a point where it loses it's flavor when it does.  IE in 4E when a Fighter's Daily exploit is written out in block form exactly as a Wizard's Daily spell is... and both of them use the same formatting and gridded table mechanical results.  While the fiction says they are meant to be different... for many people it doesn't feel that way.Sometimes keeping things different is actually a good thing.</blockquote>

Verification