D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Druid discussion

Kurotowa

Legend
Considering that the druid originally gained wild shape at 7th level and only 3/day, I'd say the shapechanging element has been overblown. It should be a caster first and shapechanger second.
Given the popularity of subclasses like Beast Barbarian, and characters like Doric in the Honor Among Thieves movie, maybe there's room for a more dedicated option. I'm not quite sure how you could make an entire class, with multiple subclasses, out of a shapechanger concept. But trying to bolt it onto the existing classes keeps running into barriers of clashing mechanics and limited power budget.

In Druid discussion that isn't about Wildshape, I'm looking at the spells changes. And I say to myself, "They doubled Produce Flame's range, they made the scaling on Cure Wounds good enough it'd actually be worth upcasting, all those extra healing dice would work well with the Healer feat's new "reroll 1's" trait... that all makes Wildfire Druid suddenly a lot more attractive."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Remathilis

Legend
Given the popularity of subclasses like Beast Barbarian, and characters like Doric in the Honor Among Thieves movie, maybe there's room for a more dedicated option. I'm not quite sure how you could make an entire class, with multiple subclasses, out of a shapechanger concept. But trying to bolt it onto the existing classes keeps running into barriers of clashing mechanics and limited power budget.

If WotC had figured out shapechanging, I could see it expand to other classes. Rangers who turn into treants, sorcerers into dragons, paladins into angels. However I still feel WotC punted on Wild Shape, so I don't see "turn into a monster" abilities spreading too far.
 

I'd be shocked if the Owlbear doesn't make it in as a CR3 beast, both because of DaDHAT and BG3. And give the Owlbear the Crushing Flight bonus action from BG3! Such an insanely satisfying ability :)
Yeah I really hope the owlbear is a beast this time around. There are several creatures which should be beasts, but because they don't exist irl they're monstrosities.

I've seen a lot of owlbear depictions which make them looks like a creature which could really exist.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I'm really surprised that they never gave another shot to WS Templates. The only thing IMO wrong with the first round's templates was that the templates themselves were really, shockingly, poorly thought out. The concept was fine. They just needed to be built around creatures of a certain purpose (scout, skirmisher, brute) not of a certain terrain (land, sea, sky).

At this point I think that the camps are so divided between preferring creature statblocks and preferring templates that it would be smart to make it possible to do either. Just say "pick one of these (generic template) creature statblocks, or alternately you can dig for a beast of CRx"

Then tables can pick their preference.
 

I'm really surprised that they never gave another shot to WS Templates.
It's the WotC specialty. Take a popular idea which people have been asking for, do it badly, and then axe the entire concept, bury it, and salt the earth where it lies for the rest of the edition.

I don't even like the idea of templates for wildshape, and yet I still feel they should have tried harder than that.
 

Additional moon-themed spells? Nobody cares. That's not why people play Moon Druids. The people who love the class love changing into beasts and, yes, elementals, and wrecking face.
Have transformation spells at later levels. I don't care if people hate nerfs. Druids in 3e and in 5e have stolen fun out of the game. For everyone. Actually just with 1 level later access to browm bear, it gets a bit better. But even needing to change forms to heal or cast some spells or have lousy armor but being effected by sleep spells with your fixed low hp later on is not that great of a fealing for the player too.
In the end, the DM is frustrated and starts exploiting the weaknesses because otherwise they are demolishing encounters. So what is wromg about a "nerf".
If you really look at tge new progression, it seems fine. At level 3 you get quite better AC and 9 THP. That is not bad at all. You are not knocked out of your shape if you go down to 0 THP or did I miss something?

Are elemental forms thematic? Not really. Put the elemntal forms in the base class (with druid spells. That is where they belong). Why is everyone playing moon druids? Not because they are flavourful. Because you are a bit silly if you don't take those forms. What do you get? A few (very good spells) and a recharge like the wizard gets. But the wizard is getting the same and more. So most people just take the more powerful route. Now other druid subclasses actually have a chance.
 

Yeah I really hope the owlbear is a beast this time around. There are several creatures which should be beasts, but because they don't exist irl they're monstrosities.

I've seen a lot of owlbear depictions which make them looks like a creature which could really exist.
We have seen the demise of the "magical beast category" in 3.5? So I could see the demise of the "monstrosity" category. Or at least have a clearer distinction.

I think anything that behaves and looks more or less like an animal and has animal intelligence should a beast.
 

We have seen the demise of the "magical beast category" in 3.5? So I could see the demise of the "monstrosity" category. Or at least have a clearer distinction.

I think anything that behaves and looks more or less like an animal and has animal intelligence should a beast.
Crazy stuff like basilisks, hydras, and things like that definitely fit into some monstrosity or magical beast category.

But owlbears are just some big furry creature with 4 legs and a beak. That's less exotic than irl animals which exist or have existed.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
The list of spells that can be cast while Wildshaped reminds me a lot of the Moonkin form from WoW. It’s a very popular Druid build in that game, so that may be where WotC got their inspiration.
D&D 2024 is just an MMO!

I apologize, but I had to.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
We have seen the demise of the "magical beast category" in 3.5? So I could see the demise of the "monstrosity" category. Or at least have a clearer distinction.

I think anything that behaves and looks more or less like an animal and has animal intelligence should a beast.
No, Magical Beast was retained, it was the generic "Beast" type that was removed in 3.5.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top