D&D (2024) New Wild Shape

[Bill Zebub]

It's telling all those people that they have been having badwrongfun and there is no place for it in the game.

No, it’s not. That’s over-the-top hyperbole. It’s merely saying the Druid in general wasn’t popular, but this one way of playing the Druid was so effective that it was a trap choice.

Which is true. I’m sorry they are taking away a favorite toy, but it was incredibly effective.

 

[Clint_L]

No, it’s not. That’s over-the-top hyperbole. It’s merely saying the Druid in general wasn’t popular, but this one way of playing the Druid was so effective that it was a trap choice.

Which is true. I’m sorry they are taking away a favorite toy, but it was incredibly effective.

So...you say the my description is "over-the-top hyperbole"... but then you agree with the substance of my statement. I don't get it.

And what about the rest of my question? So, okay, you've obliterated moon druids (i.e. most druids), and nerfed wild shape for druids in general (while still making it a focus of a ton of their abilities), so...who plays druids now?

If the play style was too effect at levels 2-4, which everyone agrees with...why not tune it down rather than remove it and an entire play style?

Edit: example - make one of the new generic shapes a tanking option for moon druids, and when they transform they gain HP = to 5 times their level? And no spell casting. Plus let them add dex bonus to AC.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So...you say the my description is "over-the-top hyperbole"... but then you agree with the substance of my statement. I don't get it.

And what about the rest of my question? So, okay, you've obliterated moon druids (i.e. most druids), and nerfed wild shape for druids in general (while still making it a focus of a ton of their abilities), so...who plays druids now?

If the play style was too effect at levels 2-4, which everyone agrees with...why not tune it down rather than remove it and an entire play style?

Edit: example - make one of the new generic shapes a tanking option for moon druids, and when they transform they gain HP = to 5 times their level? And no spell casting. Plus let them add dex bonus to AC.

I didn’t say that you (and other people) don’t have feedback worth listening to, just that your way of characterizing the message of the change is hyperbolic. And unnecessary.

Were GWM barbarians using reckless attacks with the -5/+10 “badwrongfun”? No! They were freaking awesome.

Too awesome, in fact, so they nerfed it. It was not a criticism of the people who enjoyed it.

 

[OB1]

So, it just hit me that the Druid changes are the opposite of what Crawford said was a main design goal, to make changes to classes for the people who love the class.

Instead, it seems like the Druid changes are to try to make it more popular (as it ranks last), but that's a huge mistake. If the class was played FAR less than the next closest, I could see the need to try and increase it's popularity, but it's basically within a few percentage points of every class except the Fighter and Rogue, and those two are higher than then next most popular class than the Druid is behind the 3rd place class.

Let the druid be awesome for the people who love it (and also make every other class awesome for the people who love those). There is no need to have every class appeal to every player.

 

[mellored]

Edit: example - make one of the new generic shapes a tanking option for moon druids, and when they transform they gain HP = to 5 times their level? And no spell casting. Plus let them add dex bonus to AC.

I think that might be a bit on the powerful side. Either the HP (THP is my preference) or the AC. Not both.

Though, since your Dex is equal to your Wis, then your AC is 10+Dex. So that kind of already is.

Also, for the moon druid, stuff like pounce, spider climb, poison stinger, pack tactics, grapple, swallow (giant frog style), ect... not all at once, but pick a few when you transform.

 

[Shardstone]

A level 1 barbarian is going to likely have AC 13 or better, 13-14 HP, and take half damage from melee combat. A level 1 fighter/paladin tank is going to have AC 18 (chain plus shield), and 12-13 HP. Under the UA, a level 1 druid tank is likely to have AC 13 and 9-10 HP.

In comparison to the barbarian, that druid will get hit at least as often and be able to last about a third as long in melee. The fighter/paladin will get hit far less often and will have slightly more HP. A tank cleric could also have the high AC and self heals, with the same HP as the druid.

Under this change, the druid is not a viable tank any longer. Not remotely - you might just as well put a Warlock or Rogue on the front line for all the difference it will make.

Obviously, moon druid tanking is currently OP at low levels, specifically levels 2-4. Beyond that, they are more used as off-tanks, not primary tanks. So we are have taken a sledgehammer to them to fix a 3 level problem. There has to be a better solution.

Can't moon druids use healing word as a bonus action to sustain themselves?

 

[TheSword]

I would rather keep the extra THP than keep the AC.

It's different, and makes Druids better againt spells and elemental blasts than against foes with weapons.

I bet you would. Unfortunately it’s just too good.

 

[Azzy]

I bet you would. Unfortunately it’s just too good.

I'm not convinced.

 

[mellored]

I bet you would. Unfortunately it’s just too good.

Depends on how much you get.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well. In spite of all the back-and-forth, it looks like it's generally agreed that Druids needed a nerf, but maybe not this much of a nerf, in particular at higher levels. Let's all make sure we give our feedback, whatever our opinions on it. I'm already sure that we're gonna see another stab at this one (in that, it's clearly not going to pass muster). Hopefully it will get there before it goes to print (because the 2014 one was, at least IMO, obviously not quite there when it did).