D&D (2024) New Wild Shape

[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.