Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Wild Shape
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 8949451" data-attributes="member: 7035894"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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)?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>less</em> effectively than barbarian/fighter/paladin rather than more? And can we give them access to <em>some</em> of the flexibility that allows so much fun, imaginative play without removing almost all of it?</p><p></p><p>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!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Clint_L, post: 8949451, member: 7035894"] 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 [I]less[/I] effectively than barbarian/fighter/paladin rather than more? And can we give them access to [I]some[/I] 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! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Wild Shape
Top