How To Do Wildshape

[Steely_Dan]

What is ludicrous?
That mythological druids are not combatants or that D&D, a system where 90% of the rules are combat related and where every character is by default a competent fighter, is heavily combat focused?

Combat being mandatory in D&D.

I do agree the game is skewed (heavily) towards it, but not mandatory.

2nd Ed embraced that (less combat focus).

 

[Someone]

You know... burn me for a heretic, but I don't think that would be a disaster. It worked in 2e just fine!

But even as a spell or spells, wildshape could remain central to the class just by specifying it as auto-prepared.

If you're going to make the druid a cleric domain, I can see wildshape as a spell since domains already carry their own armor and weapons usage. Full of self-referencing (As Wildshape X, except Y) and the usual spell caveats (must have a hand free, speak the spell words, etc) which I don't feel it fits the idea very much. Even then I see the druid split into the more spellcaster, but less wildshapey cleric domain and the more feral but less spellcastey full blown druid.

 

[TwinBahamut]

You know, I don't understand why people keep comparing Wildshape to Turn Undead in this thread. They are not really very comparable, at all.

Turn Undead is a very situational ability that is hardly what I would call a central or defining mechanic for the Cleric. If anything, it is just a single variant of the general idea of channeling divine power, which is much closer to being an equivalent to Wildshape. You can't build a class around Turn Undead, because it isn't flexible, powerful, or interesting enough.

Wildshape, on the other hand, is anything but situational. It is an extremely powerful ability that can be character defining and useful in a wide range of combat and non-combat situations. It is trivial to build an entire class around this one ability, and it would be a very fun class.

 

[MarkB]

You know, I don't understand why people keep comparing Wildshape to Turn Undead in this thread. They are not really very comparable, at all.

You have a point, and mechanically what's being suggested is something more along the lines of the current implementation of Domain spells - a family of similarly-themed spells that are always available, assuming you have the spell slot to cast them.

Conceptually, however, they are similar - each is an ability that is seen as a staple of the class, but presents some problems as a standalone ability which can be alleviated by integrating it into the class's primary power-set.

Wildshape, on the other hand, is anything but situational. It is an extremely powerful ability that can be character defining and useful in a wide range of combat and non-combat situations. It is trivial to build an entire class around this one ability, and it would be a very fun class.

That's certainly true, and would be another good method of balancing the class.

 

[slobster]

You know, I don't understand why people keep comparing Wildshape to Turn Undead in this thread. They are not really very comparable, at all.

They are not directly equatable, but I think a comparison is still useful. They are both features of a class with a lot of D&D history, that have historically been treated as mandatory class features. Both of them reflect aspects of the class that some people have no interest in exploring when they play that class, but because of the ways the classes have traditionally been built they had no choice but to have it on their sheet. Both abilities are in character classes with something of a fuzzy focus, that is they cover a lot of conceptual ground.

After seeing them make Turn Undead into a spell for 5E, some of us liked the results a lot and wanted to do some theorycrafting of how you might do the same with wild shape. It's nothing more than that, really.

 

[TwinBahamut]

You have a point, and mechanically what's being suggested is something more along the lines of the current implementation of Domain spells - a family of similarly-themed spells that are always available, assuming you have the spell slot to cast them.

Conceptually, however, they are similar - each is an ability that is seen as a staple of the class, but presents some problems as a standalone ability which can be alleviated by integrating it into the class's primary power-set

They are not directly equatable, but I think a comparison is still useful. They are both features of a class with a lot of D&D history, that have historically been treated as mandatory class features. Both of them reflect aspects of the class that some people have no interest in exploring when they play that class, but because of the ways the classes have traditionally been built they had no choice but to have it on their sheet. Both abilities are in character classes with something of a fuzzy focus, that is they cover a lot of conceptual ground.

After seeing them make Turn Undead into a spell for 5E, some of us liked the results a lot and wanted to do some theorycrafting of how you might do the same with wild shape. It's nothing more than that, really.

I'll admit I wasn't expecting to get two replies to that comment this quickly. You both say some similar things that I want to address, though I apologize if it seems like I'm glossing over some of the details.

I can understand some complaints about how wildshape as it was in 3E had some problems, but I don't think that making it a spell solves those problems in a good way. If you take that sort of step, then the druid quickly becomes a class that is just a cleric or priest with a different spell list. It loses a lot of its own identity and squanders some of the great potential it has to be very unique. As I said, wildshape is the kind of ability you could build an entire class around, and there is no better class for that role than the Druid.

I will also say that I don't understand the argument being made that we should build to Druid to accommodate people who don't like wildshape. This seems rather backwards to me. From my own perspective, people who don't want to use one of the most iconic mechanics for a class should simply be directed to a different class (this is one reason I like the idea of having many class options). After all, a class is primarily a collection of mechanics, so I have trouble understanding any other reason for picking a particular class.

This is also a place where I most strongly believe that wildshape and turn undead can't be compared. A cleric without turn undead is still a cleric, but I don't feel that a druid without wildshape is still a druid. This is probably one of those more ephemeral things that not everyone will agree with me about, but I can't help but feel that way after years of playing videogames that define Druids as people who wildshape, yet I've almost never seen Turn Undead come up ever, anywhere.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I don't feel that a druid without wildshape is still a druid.

Well, many of us do, I do not want to be pigeonholed into changing into a vole or what-have-you to be a Druid; encompasses a whole (howl?) lot more than that.

 

[slobster]

As I said, wildshape is the kind of ability you could build an entire class around, and there is no better class for that role than the Druid.

This is an idea I'm certainly willing to entertain. As I've said, though, a class focused on shapechanging should drop some of the other stuff that druids have traditionally had, e.g. healing, melee ability, beastmaster petlord, weather control/gaia's revenge combat caster, combat buffer/debuffer and so on.

The class should have focus, or if we go the unfocused route, wild shaping shouldn't be made into the class's core conceit.

Splitting the druid into multiple classes is an idea that has a lot of appeal for me.

In the end I don't care if the Druid name gets attached to the beastmaster, the shapechanger, or whatever. I just want to see some original thinking to use the concepts and mechanics we've been talking about to their fullest.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Splitting the druid into multiple classes is an idea that has a lot of appeal for me.

Please, no, there is already a proliferation of classes in 3rd and 4th I would like to drop.

 

[CleverNickName]

If you take that sort of step, then the druid quickly becomes a class that is just a cleric or priest with a different spell list. It loses a lot of its own identity and squanders some of the great potential it has to be very unique.
...snip...
A cleric without turn undead is still a cleric, but I don't feel that a druid without wildshape is still a druid.

I disagree. Druids in the BECM edition of the game were exactly what you describe--clerics with different spell lists--and they were incredibly fun to play. They didn't suffer for lack of flavor or identity...in fact, I thought they were one of the most nuanced and colorful character classes available.

As I said, wildshape is the kind of ability you could build an entire class around, and there is no better class for that role than the Druid.

Again, I disagree. I think the barbarian and ranger are even better choices for wildshaping characters. Changing into an animal in combat makes me think of the "totem" warriors of the North American tribes, who called upon the spirits of animals to imbue them with strength and prowess on the battlefield. The Druid's schtik seems to be more of a spiritual, earthy-magicky character to me...not necessarily a feral combat specialist.

Unless it works differently, and druids do not actually turn into the animals they emulate. For battlefield wildshape, I would much prefer the druid to be imbued with the spirit of the animals instead, and keep their own forms. Something along these lines:

[SBLOCK="Warning - Large Images Inside"]

[/SBLOCK]
Actually turning into an animal can be problematic for your gear, your size category, your ability to communicate with your companions, your ability to drink a potion or cast other spells while in animal form, and so forth...but if it were to work like these Umbra here, it would prevent a lot of that mess. You get all of the combat prowess of the animal, without any of the mess.

Don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with wildshaping druids. I like them a lot. I will be very sad if druids can't turn into animals, whether it be on or off the battlefield. And I don't want wildshape to be the new iconic ability for rangers or barbarians; it would just be a nice option for them. (As a spell, you could brew up a few potions of wildshape and hand them to the barbarian.)