D&D (2024) New Wild Shape

[Cadence]

No - if they were guaranteeing the previous version would continue to exist and be available as long as 1D&D did, and saying that DMs who allowed one should allow the other (obviously the RPG police can't make them, but a suggestion helps), then I think there would be a real case for that position.

However, that is not the case.

Whilst WotC have danced around it, the most likely outcome is that the 5E PHB will simply go out-of-print and cease being available on digital (certainly on Beyond). Thus after a certain point, anyone getting into D&D new will have to use the new version. There will also be DMs who only allow the new one, for reasons good or insane (or anywhere in-between), and thus it's extremely important the new one is balanced pretty well, and not a massive weird nerf.

It's also likely the 3D VTT, which may be the future of D&D for a lot of people, will only support 1D&D material.

A large number of people seemed pretty set on the idea of it not being a new edition and that there would be no confusion or need to say what version of the PHB was being used, so I was just checking.

My predictions feel pretty close to yours. Curious what others think.

 

[Clint_L]

If it's the same edition and they can always choose either one because they're totally compatible, doesn't that mean any outrage is unwarranted?

This is a fair point and is exactly what I would do if this version moved forward (which I highly doubt happens). I was thinking in terms of what it means for the future vision for the class, and how those player see themselves reflected in ongoing design goals. But it would also mean adding a lot of confusion by having two competing and very distinct versions of the same class/sub-class in the game. Very distinct.

For comparison, if you added the updated paladin right now, I think it would be favourably received and lots of players might update their character. If you added the updated druid right now, moon druid in particular, I think a huge number of players would nope out of it.

Playing WoW for over a decade proved to me that it's very, very hard to sell players on even a tiny nerf to their character, even to correct a blatant imbalance. Nerfing it out of existence, at least in the role they've always played it, would be unthinkable.

 

[Clint_L]

Sorry, but it needed nerfing it to the ground...

But some THP are totally warranted. You can easily get them by barkskin though.
Maybe moon druid should allow casting self transmutations in beast form. And give some bonus to keep concentrating.

Why did it need complete nerfing, though? To the ground? The concept of a character who tanks through having low mitigation but tons of hit points seems to me to be an interesting option. The problem is that from levels 2-4 the moon druid has basically too many HP, not to mention overly powerful offence to go with its extreme flexibility.

By 5th level up until 17th, the sub-class plays fine - most would consider it a strong option but not out of line with the best sub-class from most other classes. It still has lots of HP but the difference between it and other tank sub-classes has narrowed in that regard, while its low AC and static hit rolls become an increasing liability. By that point, the main value is in the sub-class's flexibility, as it should be. It's a capable off-tank if needed, it can shape shift to gain advantages in different situations, and if needed the druid can just function as a capable if unspectacular caster. It's an effective jack of all trades.

OneD&D is already moving the sub-class choice to level 3, so if nothing else changed, we would be talking about a level 3-4 problem. Do we want to gut the way the most popular druid sub-class is played for the sake of two levels? Why not try to figure out how to tone it down, instead?

So what would be reasonable, assuming that we still want moon druids to be able to tank ( I do; that's my bottom line and I think it is only fair to players who love the archetype - maybe they played a bear tank in WoW or something, whatever. So if you don't agree with the premise don't bother challenging me on it; we'll just agree to disagree right up front)?

The main issue is bear form (or similar beasts). Being able to adopt this form twice effectively gives the druid 81 HP at level 2. That's a lot! On top of that, it has two attacks, +6 to hit, for 1d8+4 and 2d6+4. That's also really good! Its AC is 11, which is terrible, so there's that - mitigation is terrible.

Against a typical orc (+5 to hit, 9 damage), that druid is going to last roughly 11.5 rounds of the orc just whaling on it. Holy moly, that is tough!

A level 2 barbarian tank has a variable AC depending on whether they opt for unarmored defence or not, but let's call it AC 14, 24 HP, and one attack for, say, 2d6+3, + 5 to hit. For additional mitigation they have rage, which is excellent and effectively gives them double HP against melee attacks.

Same orc, my probably crappy math has the barbarian lasting 9.5 rounds. Well suddenly the druid tanking is not quite as broken as we thought. And this is at level 2 where the druid tank has the biggest edge, mind.

Level 2 fighter, specced for tanking: AC 19 (chain, shield, defence spec), 19 HP plus second wind for additional mitigation, so call it just 25 effective HP. Same orc takes 8.5 rounds to kill them.

Level 2 paladin, AC 19, lay on hands plus healing spells are potential mitigation, though has to give up an action. Let's just count the lay on hands and call it 30 effective HP. Same orc is looking at roughly 10 rounds to bring him down.

So, just in terms of durability the druid bear wins, but it's not as broken as I thought. The problem is that it gets that PLUS strong damage, PLUS flexibility to infiltrate as a spider or take any of a huge number of other situationally advantageous forms (i.e. giant elk to rush most of the party to safety, etc.), PLUS spell casting when not in wild shape.

How do we make that more reasonable at levels 3-4 without totally breaking the class fantasy that a lot of players have developed over a decade? Can we come up with a generic wild shape that still lets them tank, but a little less effectively than barbarian/fighter/paladin rather than more? And can we give them access to some of the flexibility that allows so much fun, imaginative play without removing almost all of it?

Edit: the bark skin suggestion, assuming the druid is using the new version of bark skin, allows him to live just 3-4 rounds or so against that orc, with a good chance of being one shotted if it crits. It's gonna take a lot more than that to make the druid a viable, if slightly inferior tank!

 

[shadowoflameth]

I should point out my own earlier rules mistake. In 5e The Wild Shaped Druid gets the Hit points and Hit Dice of the creature, not Temporary HP. So, perhaps a tiny Wild Shape should use the druid's current HP, a Small get 5 THP, a medium 10, a large 15 and a huge 20 or a gargantuan 25 if there are any. Because of the mechanic of going to zero HP then going to the Druid's own HP, I tend, incorrectly to think of them as THP. My error. Thanks.

 

[shadowoflameth]

I wouldnt take that for granted. Polymorph in 5ed is tightly coupled with the wild shape in how it is formulated, so I would expect a similar rework of that if this way of handling wildshape survive the playtest.

That's entirely possible. but unless the spell level is changing, or other mechanics are radically changing, then being able to have a Swim speed at 4th and a Fly at 8th are not out of balance with what others in the party can potentially do. A Druid can have a familiar at 1st in the playtest and if feats are allowed can do so in 5e now.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'll admit I only skimmed this (it was long) but is your criticism really of their approach, or the specifics?

Both? Yeah, both. Their approach annoys me, and feels like it goes too far in a frustrating direction, and the specifics of their approach are just... terrible.

Regarding "wildshape the class" in some ways its actually less so. In the old version you got Wild Shape. In the new version you get Channel Nature, and the option for using it, across all subclasses, will be Wild Shape. But presumably every subclass will get unique uses.

See, I'd be more willing to accept this except for two things

1) In the entirety of the Druid base class and the Moon Druid subclass, there are a total of 16 features (skipping feats and the epic feat), out of those sixteen features five of them do not deal with Wild Shape. That is 70% of the class features going towards a single use of a single ability.

This would be like clerics have 11 features that focus exclusively on Turn Undead.

And what are these five features? Druidic (Useless), Spellcasting, Two other uses for the same resource (Blossoms which are terribly underpowered, and the Familar with is superior to most uses of Wildshape), A recharge for the Resource you can use for Wild shape, Alter Self at will at level 14 (pretty much useless)

2) We have no indication from this UA that other uses of Channel Nature are currently on the Table. We can assume so, but since the Base Class focuses nearly all its energy on Wild Shape, the question will constantly be if the subclass features are worth the loss of the main focus of the entire class

And I agree that the way they filled out the class progression table has some wonky bits, but I love that at least there's stuff in the table! The old version had basically nothing but spell lots and ASIs/Feats. At least there's stuff!

But it is the illusion of stuff. Aquatic and Aerial form aren't new, they are actually coming later than they used to. Going tiny used to be a thing you could do immediately, now they've pulled it out. They filled out the chart by breaking a single ability into multiple abilities, which... isn't a direction I want to encourage?

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer

While I generally agree, that some buffs are in order, all they did was filling "empty" levels, where you get the next higher spell level with improvements of wild shape. So they always get better in spellcasting like the old 5e druid. It is just, that the wild shape improvements are spelled out explicitely.

But most important: it is a playtest. Please take the survey and spell out that wild shape as is is too weak.

But, as I mentioned in my admittedly long and rambling rant post, their are significant problems with Druid Spellcasting, mostly that you cast a single spell per fight, and then nothing else, because the vast majority of druid spells are concentration spells. So, getting better at spellcasting doesn't really feel like enough, because you aren't able to USE that improvement.

I said it before, I played a druid who I loved dearly, but I begged my DM for a magical item so I could cast more than one spell per combat. And I specifically pointed out to him that I finished most days with over half my spell slots, because there was no way to use them. It doesn't feel like Druids are full casters, more so than any other full caster I've ever played, because they are so hampered by concentration.

And yes, I know it is a playtest, and I plan on filling out this survey like I have every other survey for every other playtest.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Several people have noted the balance/niche protection conflict between "an effective combat wildshape" and "full caster with 9-levels of spells." 3 campaigns ago (time flies) the moon druid in my game became pretty disappointed with his wildshape options around level 7 or so. I developed template-based wildshape options and added kickers that he could get by burning spell slots. That way the ability to be really tanky or deal occasional nova damage came at cost of fewer spells later when he was in humanoid form. It seemed to strike a good balance: if he really want to be a shape-changing terror on the battlefield, he had to accept casting fewer spells later on.

This feels like it has the proper direction for something more balanced. It still has the issue that every druid would then focus on Wild shaping, but I can live with that issue if everything else is fixed.

This also sort of plays into the idea that @Enrahim2 touched on. I think their solution does cause issues for the Moon Druid (since casting some spells in wildshape is their thing) but this could be a fun design space of allowing the casting of buffs when you wildshape, "creating" a different form that has more power at the cost of spell slots.

 

[mellored]

How do we make that more reasonable at levels 3-4 without totally breaking the class fantasy that a lot of players have developed over a decade?

There are numbers between +81 HP of the previous versions, and the -5 AC that the playtest gets.

Can we come up with a generic wild shape that still lets them tank, but a little less effectively than barbarian/fighter/paladin rather than more?

Lets do the math
using your +5 to hit, 9 damage orc.
And considering the others last 8 to 10 rounds.
Then let's say the target for the druid is 6 rounds of being orc bait.

I'll leave the low AC of 13 (10 + Wis), cause I like the flavor. So 60% hit rate. I think you ignored crits so I will too.

9*.6 = 5.4 DPR
* 6 rounds = 32.4

L2 Druid comes with 15 HP.
= 17 more. Or roughly double.

So... gain THP equal to your max HP?

Need go check other levels to confirm that if that scales appropriately, but trading AC for THP seems good to me.

Edit: the bark skin suggestion, assuming the druid is using the new version of bark skin, allows him to live just 3-4 rounds or so against that orc, with a good chance of being one shotted if it crits. It's gonna take a lot more than that to make the druid a viable, if slightly inferior tank!

Also, concentration will fail.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Outrage is unwarranted more because this isn't the final version. Concern is totally warranted, though, and the time to voice that concern is now.

Outrage, if it's needed at all (and it rarely is), can come later.

Eh, I'm not convinced. Yes, it isn't the final version, but they thought this was what people wanted. And I don't get why. Even basic stuff, like getting the Aquatic form two levels after you get Water Breathing should have been a signal that something wasn't right, but we still got it.

And, maybe this is just terminology, but I don't think expressing my vehement disappointment with this version prevents me from filling out the survey, so I don't see how it matters here beyond reaching a quorum.