D&D (2024) Playtest Druid and Paladin One D&D survey is live.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Yes.
mellored
Legend
Yes, I make a lot of comments on the Druid and some on the rest.
FitzTheRuke
Legend
Done. I had lots to say about this one, and I'm not someone who was particularly outraged by this version of Wildshape. (Though I spoke up on behalf of complaints I've seen here - I've got your back wildshapers!)
One thing that I think might be interesting to discuss: I had a thought while posting:
Why isn't Wild Shape tied to various polymorph spells that could be on the Primal list (and to a lesser extent Arcane, I guess). I mean, they put most of the Smites on the Divine list and I would argue that they don't belong there. For one, they're pretty boring for spells, and for another, they don't really belong to the Cleric.
On the other hand, why can't a Ranger turn into a mountain lion, or a Barbarian into a Bear? Couldn't Wild Shape work like that? It would be more obvious to the designers which stat-blocks belong to which levels, if they were tied to spells. The Druid could still get "free" access to them, and the Moon Druid could still get enhancements (access to more of them/using them as a bonus action, and some Temp HP or whatever is needed).
What do you all think? I think there should be some design similarities between a Druid's Wild Shapes and a Ranger's Beast Companions (as well as Beasts that are summoned by either class, or any class really).
One thing that I think might be interesting to discuss: I had a thought while posting:
Why isn't Wild Shape tied to various polymorph spells that could be on the Primal list (and to a lesser extent Arcane, I guess). I mean, they put most of the Smites on the Divine list and I would argue that they don't belong there. For one, they're pretty boring for spells, and for another, they don't really belong to the Cleric.
On the other hand, why can't a Ranger turn into a mountain lion, or a Barbarian into a Bear? Couldn't Wild Shape work like that? It would be more obvious to the designers which stat-blocks belong to which levels, if they were tied to spells. The Druid could still get "free" access to them, and the Moon Druid could still get enhancements (access to more of them/using them as a bonus action, and some Temp HP or whatever is needed).
What do you all think? I think there should be some design similarities between a Druid's Wild Shapes and a Ranger's Beast Companions (as well as Beasts that are summoned by either class, or any class really).
shadowoflameth
Adventurer
One of my criticisms of the druid was that at 1st level a character can potentially have a tiny familiar to scout and a druid under the existing rules can cast Polymorph at 7th becoming tiny, swimming or flying. There is no reason to restrict access to higher levels for forms that the druid can already take with a different ability. I hope they listen to the feedback, IMHO both classes were bad. I put that I did not playtest. It was because nobody in my group wanted to play these.
This could work. It also keeps the druid ahead of other (potentially shape-changing) classes, since they have full spell progression. The disadvantage would come in multiclassing: you'd want its stats tied to your DRUID level, not just to the spell level.
The question ties to something that concerned me when I was filling it out, which is how to make the Find Steed distinctive for a paladin when it's on a spell list. As it is, Clerics get it (and the embedded Greater Find Steed) before Paladins, whcih is clearly wrong.
I proposed three fixes:
a. Make it a Primal spell ( I am less concerned with Barbarians and Druids having steeds), which Paladins have access to.
b. The bonus action abilities are only available to Paladins.
c. Paladins have the option for a Medium sized mount, not only a large one.
Any or all of these would be improvements, for me.
