New Wild Shape

[billd91]

I normally agree with a lot you say, but just no. Barbarians have 2 more HP/level and no spells. Fighters have 1 more HP/level.

Except it is more complex than that - and in the barbarian's and fighter's favor. The barbarian's ability to take hit point damage from most sources doubles while raging, so +2 hp/level isn't quite the right factor. And the fighter's going to have a much better AC than the druid under the wildshape, probably negating about 20-25% of the hits he'd be taking compared to the druid (depending on form).
So the druid needs something more than their own hit points as a wildshaped combatant. Maybe it's not 5x or quite what they had in 5e's version of wildshape, but stuck with their own hit points and low AC isn't right.

 

[mellored]

How about taking the Toughness feat, buffing with spells, and buying combat wildshape focused magic items?

Toughness doesn't last long with such low AC.

You don't get to choose magic items in 5e.

Buffing spells take concentration, and your getting hit a lot with such a low AC, it won't last.

 

[Bolares]

Wild shape grants a 1d8+wisdom damage attack.

So does a cantrip

 

[mellored]

The problem is the drop in AC that’s what harms this Druid in combat. The ability should give the Druid AC 10 + Wis bonus + Dex bonus. Plus any magic improvements to AC.

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.

 

[ehren37]

Toughness doesn't last long with such low AC.

You don't get to choose magic items in 5e.

Buffing spells take concentration, and your getting hit a lot with such a low AC, it won't last.

That's what the spells/items are for. Not all buffs require concentration. Seems like a good time to rethink that "no buying magic items" thing then as well.

Current Wildshape would be cool if fighters/barbarians got a little side ability that gave them full 9 level casting 4 times a day, but somehow I don't think that would fly...

 

[ehren37]

Except it is more complex than that - and in the barbarian's and fighter's favor. The barbarian's ability to take hit point damage from most sources doubles while raging, so +2 hp/level isn't quite the right factor. And the fighter's going to have a much better AC than the druid under the wildshape, probably negating about 20-25% of the hits he'd be taking compared to the druid (depending on form).
So the druid needs something more than their own hit points as a wildshaped combatant. Maybe it's not 5x or quite what they had in 5e's version of wildshape, but stuck with their own hit points and low AC isn't right.

They have 9 levels of spells. They SHOULDNT be able to tank. Call me when they're a half caster.

 

[Enrahim2]

It is the traditional flavour of druids in RPGs, and I don't see it as a barbarian thing at all. I don't think the change will go through as currently framed, since it is already receiving heavy criticism. And I don't think it is at all fair to tell players that the way they have played their character for years would require them to re-roll as a totally different class.

The numbers need massaging at low levels, but the basic play style of druid tanking is fun and unique, and should not be removed from the game.

In AD&D 2ed shape change wasn't unlocked before level 7. In 3.5 it didn't unlock before level 5. In 4ed it unlocked at 1st level, but didn't give any significant boosts beyond being a requisite for using certain not very strong powers.

Moreover in 2ed you healed 10-60% of your damage when shapechanging, in 3ed you got your level hp back and in 4ed there was no healing involved. In other words it appear to me like when it comes to D&D, druid tanking is a pure 5ed phenomenom. It also appear to be a WoW phenomenom, but that hardly seem enough to call this "the traditional flavor in rpgs"?

And what is it with the play style of druid tanking that make it fun and unique, that you wouldn't have gotten from a barbarian based wildshaper?

 

[billd91]

They have 9 levels of spells. Call me when they're a half caster.

That they can't use while wildshaping.
I accept that the ability to wildshape and be a full spell caster gives druids a lot of potential flexibility. But all that flexibility is still channeled through one set of actions at any one time. So bringing up that they're spell casters in discussions about the power of wildshape isn't quite the same topic.
I've found it pretty unusual for a druid to be making the most of wildshaping and being a full spell caster at the same time.

 

[mellored]

Current Wildshape would be cool if fighters/barbarians got a little side ability that gave them full 9 level casting 4 times a day, but somehow I don't think that would fly...

Current wildshape needs a nerf, yes. At least at lower levels (i.e. the bear), though if you tried mammoth at higher level, your mostly a punching bag, always getting hit and dealing very little back.

But in the playtest you're just getting -5 to AC...

 

[Clint_L]

Except it is more complex than that - and in the barbarian's and fighter's favor. The barbarian's ability to take hit point damage from most sources doubles while raging, so +2 hp/level isn't quite the right factor. And the fighter's going to have a much better AC than the druid under the wildshape, probably negating about 20-25% of the hits he'd be taking compared to the druid (depending on form).
So the druid needs something more than their own hit points as a wildshaped combatant. Maybe it's not 5x or quite what they had in 5e's version of wildshape, but stuck with their own hit points and low AC isn't right.

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.

 

[OB1]

Toughness doesn't last long with such low AC.

You don't get to choose magic items in 5e.

Buffing spells take concentration, and your getting hit a lot with such a low AC, it won't last.

Exactly! That's why I'm thinking a great simple fix to Wildshape would be to no require concentration checks for damage while in the form. That would make Wildshaping VERY useful by buffing your concentration spells, giving a unique shtick to the Druid.

 

[mellored]

Exactly! That's why I'm thinking a great simple fix to Wildshape would be to no require concentration checks for damage while in the form. That would make Wildshaping VERY useful by buffing your concentration spells, giving a unique shtick to the Druid.

Nifty as that would be, I don't think being a moon druid and transformation into a wolf in order to keep concentration on your spiked growth is the fantasy that most players have.

Though maybe a land druid could do that.

 

[OB1]

Nifty as that would be, I don't think being a moon druid and transformation into a wolf in order to keep concentration on your spiked growth is the fantasy that most players have.

Though maybe a land druid could do that.

Oh, I'm saying give the concentration buff to all Druids. The moon druid will need a bit more, probably some kind of regeneration or THP, but that with Hunters Mark up will make them pretty decent combatants. The issue is WITHOUT the concentration buff, Hunters Mark or whatever else you want to cast will be gone after 2 rounds if you go front line and start taking damage.

 

[Sir Brennen]

A lot of different opinions on a class that gets played the least.

I like the idea of the basic templates, as well as a lot of the suggestions in this thread to add variety to them.

I'm okay with the changes making the druid less of a frontline fighter. Merging ranger spells into the Primal list along with the already formidable Druid list gives them a lot more options in combat besides "I turn into a bear."

But the power de-escalation shouldn't necessarily to the point where there's no real reason to change into a "bear" in a fight if the player wants to. Again, some of the ideas to give the option to gain temporary hit points and/or increased armor class when using Wildshape can help address that. But the options shouldn't necessarily be on par with the existing druid.

I'd also like to see the class less Wildshape focused. Note the playtest doc for the cleric, where they actually reduced the number of improvements to Turn Undead compared to the current PHB class (mainly by making Smite Undead at 5th a scaling ability). The improvements to the Wildshape ability could be kept level-locked, but within the Wildshape ability description instead of taking up a class level ability slot. Of course, the designers would have to come up with other abilities to fill the resulting dead levels. Maybe something to support the other pillars of play?

Then beef up the playtest Moon Druid and make it the true Wildshape tank for players that prefer that style.

 

[Remathilis]

So remember last packet when barkskin got changed to temp hp instead of setting your AC to 16?

I think we know why.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I wonder if a compromise for wildshape would be for non-moon druids to use the simpler stat blocks for their beast forms and balance them specifically for the non-moon druids, and then let the moon druid keep the old version of the subclass since the wildshape and its vast versatility to me seems to be the entirety of the subclass's identity.

I don't know, I just can't stand this change. It's the first change in the OneD&D playtest that I have been completely turned off to. As a Druid fan, I don't feel like this revision was made for people like me who greatly enjoy playing Wildshaping druids and choosing from various fun and useful beast forms despite what the video claims. This all my personal opinion of course, I don't speak for anyone else but myself, but I don't know....this really bugs me.

 

[mellored]

So remember last packet when barkskin got changed to temp hp instead of setting your AC to 16?

I think we know why.

If only you didn't lose concentration after being hit repeatedly, as a melee, low AC wildshape.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, sorry, I should point out "like a total trash version of a WoW Druid". I play a Druid when I play WoW to be clear. I got severely triggered by Aquatic Form (literally the same name as WoW), and Aerial Form is just a thesaurus of Flight Form. At least a WoW Moon Druid-equivalent (Guardian/Feral) is a good strong tank or DPS.

The whole approach is soulless and idiotic, frankly. It makes WoW look particularly charming by comparison.

I mean, WotC could at LEAST give us a free adventure path as great as the Epic Flight Form quest line….

 

[Clint_L]

I don't play a druid currently (well, I don't play anything but a monk currently because I rarely get to play rather than DM), but I think we have to keep in mind the perspective of those players who actually play druids, most of whom specifically play moon druids and love the fantasy of...well, pretty much exactly what you see in the movie clip.

I think almost everyone is onboard with "but that is OP at low levels" and were expecting a bit of a nerf. But that is not what this change proposes. This change proposes removing that entire playstyle from the game. It's telling all those people that they have been having badwrongfun and there is no place for it in the game.

Moving to generic beast stats has arguments both ways. It definitely simplifies things, though for more devoted players a lot of the fun is building a list of different animals for different purposes, and that would be gone. To me, this is a pros and cons argument (aside from taking away the ability to become a tiny insect, rat, etc. with 1 hp; that is all con and I will never support it because it makes the game way less fun to play).

But removing the extra hit points from wild shape makes moon druids something else entirely.

I have no interest in the argument that "this doesn't feel like what druids should be to me; this should be barbarians, etc." or "this was the wrong call in 2014." That horse left the barn (possibly while wild shaped) 10 years ago. You can't say that you are keeping 5e while changing the fundamental nature of one of the core 5e classes.

I don't think this proposal will fly because look at the pushback it is already getting. This will likely go the way of the revamped critical hits. If it did happen, I would just ignore it and keep using the 2014 PHB. But I would rather have an update that addresses the issue of low-level moon druids without completely gutting the sub-class.

Also, question: under the current proposals...why would you play a druid? The new version of wild shape makes them into a poor fighter, and their spell list is already considered subpar compared to a wizard or cleric. What's the upside of a druid?

Least played class (allegedly) getting massive nerf is a weird look for OneD&D.

 

[Bill Zebub]

@Ruin Explorer I read your criticisms, and I think they have merit, but the substance of it seems to be about the specific implementation in this first iteration, not necessarily in the concept of templates instead of specific MM entries.

It seems to me that you might have good feedback for them about how to make the idea work, but it was hard to tell amidst the cloud of hatred and vitriol.