NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 6405955" data-attributes="member: 5889">Theorycrafting in a vacuum is absolutely a problem, I would agree. Mainly because the models used are so limited compared to the variety of things that can happen in a real RPG scenario.That said, they are not useless. One thing they can help with is remove some of the player bias from Real World accounts. Its easy for someone to get critted twice in a combat and come away saying "this class is aweful!". Or for a class to get a lucky roll with that d12 and look like a damage machine. Our initial accounts can so color our assessments, that raw theory-crafting can bring in some balance.Again, just looking at the numbers I've done, I've come away with a few conclusions:1) A druid with combat wildshape looks like it can be very strong in combat at low levels. It can beat the barbarian both in damage and in durability but a good margin.2) Without wildshape and just spells, the druid can do okay in combat...in the ballgame with the barbarian.3) Wildshape provides the Druid a lot of flexibility.4) In campaigns with frequent short rest (which I would not consider an anomaly, but certainty not how all campaigns are run), the druid has the potential to be OP at low levels.So just potentials, but strong potentials. My theorycrafting tells me as a DM that I should "watch a moon druid very carefully in a low level game". It doesn't necessarily mean "nerf outright", but there is enough concern in the numbers to pay close attention.</blockquote>

Verification