• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Moon Circle Druid Play Report

All I have to add are two random assumptions.

1. As I understand it, the 5e game puts levels 1-3 as the "scrub" levels, where players are just starting their adventuring careers and are struggling to master their new roles as adventurers. I also understand that the XP chart makes quick work of gaining those 3 levels. So, if "the game" as intended has players rocketing through said scrub levels, why is there such a focus on level 2? It will all pan out once every player start getting their 3rd level spec benefits and (optionally) their 4th level feat.

2. Sure, a dim-witted giant knows that throwing rocks at bears is smarter, but he's a g.d. giant - he shouldn't have anything to fear from bears.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Do most 2nd level fighters have plate armor?

Probably not. Our Fighter (and our Cleric) got it at level 3 in a massively overwhelming fight against 2 to 1 odds with 4 of the opponents being 5th level or higher (two attacks per round) and the other 6 opponents being nearly on par with the PCs that could easily have been a TPK. If it were not for the fact that PCs have spells and these NPCs did not, it would have been.


But the fact that we are talking 2nd level or 3rd level means little. These are levels, especially level two, that are short term ones. Being more uber than the other PCs for a few levels means little in the big scheme of things. The third level druid shapechanges, gets into a massive combat and either lives or dies. The third level wizard sees that combat is going against him, goes invisible, and practically auto-survives (shy of some really unusual circumstances). Which of these two PCs really has more power? Look at level 17. Who thinks that a Fighter is more uber than a Wizard at that point?

And, the point remains that players who are more interested in "me, me, me" and some DMs who are concerned about game balance might tend to view the more uber options as broken whereas players who are more interested in the team might not.
 

haha, if a player said they were raised by tigers, I'd say, "Really? More likely you were eaten by tigers.". For one, tigers don't behave like that; they are pretty solitary. Secondly, it's pretty silly.

There is a case of a lioness eating the mother of a baby antelope and then adopting the baby. Course, the lioness could not really care for the baby, so it eventually died, but it is interesting how people make assumptions about how things work in the animal kingdom that really are not true, even in the real world, let alone a fantasy one. Animals are often more intelligent than most people give them credit for and are sometimes capable of actions that most people would think impossible.
 

But the fact that we are talking 2nd level or 3rd level means little. These are levels, especially level two, that are short term ones. Being more uber than the other PCs for a few levels means little in the big scheme of things. The third level druid shapechanges, gets into a massive combat and either lives or dies. The third level wizard sees that combat is going against him, goes invisible, and practically auto-survives (shy of some really unusual circumstances). Which of these two PCs really has more power? Look at level 17. Who thinks that a Fighter is more uber than a Wizard at that point?

This is a weak argument. A single session dominated by a single player is one too many, and may very well cause the game to fall apart and never reach higher levels at all. As a DM, if I ran into this while playing and didn't know about it as a potential problem, I would probably just can the campaign after that session and pick a new system to run.

A lot of people also play primarily in shorter campaigns and one-shots. I often run campaigns that are only intended to last a few levels. Not every game is a straight 1-20 grind, and the game should be balanced at every level, not just across many levels.
 

This is a weak argument. A single session dominated by a single player is one too many

What do you do when a single player has a strong personality and tends to handle the heavy lifting of roleplaying?

Do you cry foul and say "Give the other players a chance!". Or do you just let group dynamics work as they are going to work, focusing on the shy players as needed, but not penalizing the exuberant players when they take charge?

, and may very well cause the game to fall apart and never reach higher levels at all. As a DM, if I ran into this while playing and didn't know about it as a potential problem, I would probably just can the campaign after that session and pick a new system to run.

Interesting. As a player, I play a Wizard. He just made level 4. Total in the campaign, he has done about 100 points of damage in about 16 encounters. I literally roll that bad (even when he hits with a cantrip, I often roll 1 or 2 points of damage) and the fact that most spellcaster damage is wimpier than most weapon damage doesn't help. Several of the other PCs have probably done about 500 or more points of damage in those same 16 encounters (probably much more for some PCs). Even rolling bad damage, they do a minimum of 4 or more points of damage when they hit.

If I took your POV here, I would conclude that Wizards totally suck. They waste a spell every day on Mage Armor, or they risk getting hit even more often then they do. Their hit points are weaker than everyone else's. Concentration totally limits spells now. Their cantrips and weapon attacks are subpar. Most non-instantaneous spells with a save last 0 to 2 rounds.

But one has to view both the pros and the cons. Does the Druid have any magical items? Most of them do not work while wild shaped. Even a ring. He cannot cast spells, so if he shapechanges back to cast a spell, that's it for his shapechanging until his next rest. If a group of non-mook NPCs storm the bear Druid, they will hit 75% of the time when he is in Bear form and they will sometimes take him down before he can shapechange back. The same non-mooks doing that to the 2nd level fighter who has 60% of the Bear's hit points, but with 5 (or more) better AC will only get hit 50% of the time. They will still take him down too, but the number of attacks should be similar. As for the wizard, he only shines one encounter in three, but he still does more to save the day than other PCs. An infrequent pro to offset his cons.

A lot of people also play primarily in shorter campaigns and one-shots. I often run campaigns that are only intended to last a few levels. Not every game is a straight 1-20 grind, and the game should be balanced at every level, not just across many levels.

This I can agree with. One shots might require a more linear balance, but then again, low level Wizard still suck, even in one shot campaigns. But I don't see where people are posting that low level Wizards should be beefed up. :lol:
 

What do you do when a single player has a strong personality and tends to handle the heavy lifting of roleplaying?

Do you cry foul and say "Give the other players a chance!". Or do you just let group dynamics work as they are going to work, focusing on the shy players as needed, but not penalizing the exuberant players when they take charge?

The moon circle druid is not equivalent to someone doing a lot of roleplaying while everyone else sits back. It's more like the mechanical equivalent of one of the players yelling over everyone else constantly when they're trying to speak (at second level, at least).

That's not to say the player is at fault. In my game, the guy picked moon circle because it sounded cool. He was horrified by what happened after. All we could do was laugh at a certain point as the bear just nullified the entire combat pillar of the game.

Interesting. As a player, I play a Wizard. He just made level 4. Total in the campaign, he has done about 100 points of damage in about 16 encounters. I literally roll that bad (even when he hits with a cantrip, I often roll 1 or 2 points of damage) and the fact that most spellcaster damage is wimpier than most weapon damage doesn't help. Several of the other PCs have probably done about 500 or more points of damage in those same 16 encounters (probably much more for some PCs). Even rolling bad damage, they do a minimum of 4 or more points of damage when they hit.

If I took your POV here, I would conclude that Wizards totally suck. They waste a spell every day on Mage Armor, or they risk getting hit even more often then they do. Their hit points are weaker than everyone else's. Concentration totally limits spells now. Their cantrips and weapon attacks are subpar. Most non-instantaneous spells with a save last 0 to 2 rounds.

I would disagree that low-level wizards suck. They bring a lot to the table that other classes don't. In combat, they have the ability to frontload large amounts of damage, and they excel at target-selection. Frontloading is important because it can remove enemies from the fight before they get a chance to do much, and target selection is important because it lets you take out the most dangerous targets first. Wizards can also use control spells for action denial, which can be extremely useful. The total damage you deal is less than a fighter's, but you deal damage to the right enemies at the right time, which is an important role in the party.

Wizards also bring a lot of non-combat utility to the table, with a great deal of versatility to decide when and how to use it. Damage is only a part of balance, albeit an important part.

The problem with the moon circle Druid is that they have all the advantages of being a spellcaster, plus they can turn into an animal and wreck everything. They really don't give up much for it.

But one has to view both the pros and the cons. Does the Druid have any magical items? Most of them do not work while wild shaped. Even a ring. He cannot cast spells, so if he shapechanges back to cast a spell, that's it for his shapechanging until his next rest. If a group of non-mook NPCs storm the bear Druid, they will hit 75% of the time when he is in Bear form and they will sometimes take him down before he can shapechange back. The same non-mooks doing that to the 2nd level fighter who has 60% of the Bear's hit points, but with 5 (or more) better AC will only get hit 50% of the time. They will still take him down too, but the number of attacks should be similar. As for the wizard, he only shines one encounter in three, but he still does more to save the day than other PCs. An infrequent pro to offset his cons.

It really doesn't matter what the bear's AC is. He could have an AC of zero and still be overpowered, because he gets 35 free hp twice per short rest. In certain cases, yes, NPCs will be able to take him down before he can shape change back, but those are scenarios where any other PC of his level would be completely demolished (or are the result of miserable rolls, which can kill anyone in this game). You can always give the players an unwinnable encounter, but that doesn't make it balanced. It just means the moon druid and nobody else will get to be the one with a pile of bodies around them when they go down.
 

Huh? Being raised by animals is pretty much a staple of fantasy/fairy tales. For Romulus and Remus (and Mowgli) it was wolves, for Tarzan it was apes, but why couldn't it be lions? Or a tiger? Or some other animal that takes the player's fancy?


Being raised by animals most certainly isn't a staple of fantasy/fairy tales. It's very rare, compared to all the fantasy and fairy tale movies out there, which means it's not a staple at all. And even if it were, it certainly isn't a staple of D&D. I think that I can speak with certainty that when the designers were creating the rules of the game, they weren't thinking of making sure there's mechanical balance because PC will have been raised by tigers. Besides, like I said, tigers don't live in groups like wolves or apes either. And if they did think it was a staple, then they'd have that listed probably under the Outlander background or something.

If you want a PC raised by a clan of astral tigers, more power to you. But you need to understand that that isn't how the game is intended to be played in general, and thus shouldn't use your exceptional playing style as a reason to complain about a certain rule.
 

This is a weak argument. A single session dominated by a single player is one too many, and may very well cause the game to fall apart and never reach higher levels at all. .

You're right. That's why we should shelve the barbarian immediately. The barbarian's rage, with the damage resistance, overshadowed every other PC in the part, even the bear shaped moon druid in an adventure I was in last month. Over the course of the battles, the barbarian resisted way more points of damage than the druid had HP from bear form.

So I'm glad you agree that we need to nerf the barbarian...


Or maybe what really happened is that all of us were adults, didn't get jealous or upset, and said, "Hey, that's a big deal. Let's plan tactics and use that to our advantage." Amazingly, we all still contributed and had fun as a group. Amazing that...
 

You're right. That's why we should shelve the barbarian immediately. The barbarian's rage, with the damage resistance, overshadowed every other PC in the part, even the bear shaped moon druid in an adventure I was in last month. Over the course of the battles, the barbarian resisted way more points of damage than the druid had HP from bear form.

So I'm glad you agree that we need to nerf the barbarian...


Or maybe what really happened is that all of us were adults, didn't get jealous or upset, and said, "Hey, that's a big deal. Let's plan tactics and use that to our advantage." Amazingly, we all still contributed and had fun as a group. Amazing that...

Honestly, I haven't played with the barbarian yet, so I can't say what it's like at the table. But it seems like a very strong ability, and may need a nerf. Although resistance is less potentially game-breaking, because unlike with free hp you are taking at least some manner of lasting damage every time you're hit.

Also, the point of the game is to have fun. I deeply resent the idea that it's somehow more "adult" to just accept a broken game and work around it in play. You can be perfectly "adult" and still not want to play a clearly broken game. My mature adult table's response to seeing the moon druid was:

1) Laugh for about five minutes straight. I'm not even exaggerating, we were trying to play but we just kept busting up laughing.

2) Vow that nome of us would ever play a moon druid again, because it is clearly way messed up.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top