D&D (2024) Playtest Druid and Paladin One D&D survey is live.

[DEFCON 1]

I highly doubt Wizards really cares if there's a class people don't play much. It's not like they can get rid of it, lol.*

*Look up that time they pushed Gnomes out of the PHB.

Heh heh... WotC didn't push Gnomes out of the first 4E PHB cause no one played them... they pushed them back 9 months to when they knew they were releasing PHB2 that had the Bard in it... since the Gnome was the archetypical Bard race from 3E.

People often forget that WotC had planned from the beginning to have 16 classes available to players before Year 1 of 4E was done.

 

[Bolares]

So even without the "not enough Druid players", there's several compelling reasons for a redesign. Honestly, I think the only reason they mentioned complexity was to try and obfuscate the other, more important reasons to make these changes. I highly doubt Wizards really cares if there's a class people don't play much. It's not like they can get rid of it, lol.*

I agree that there were a lot of reasons for a redesign, but my point is that they still made wild shape weaker, while making it more relevant in the class features, and continuing to disconnect it from spellcasting. The playtest druid is a rope being pulled in two opposite directions, wild shape vs spellcasting.

 

[Clint_L]

I also wrote several things about potential problems with the current wildshape rules, but also don't have an issue with how the rules were presented to us in the first place. The whole point of the playtest is to throw out ideas and concepts that no one really knows how they will be received. Was this system flawless? Of course not. Because why spend time creating a flawless system if they don't even know if people will like the system they present?

So they have no idea if people would accept going from using every animal statblock in the game to using a template statblock. Or whether people would accept no longer having that extra bunch of hit points that came from adding the animal's HP as a bumper on top of your own. Or whether players would find the idea of tiny creatures hitting at full template power and never getting knocked out of tiny animal form while they waltz around whatever area they are scouting to be grossly overpowered at 2nd, 3rd, 5th level. The only way to find out how we feel about all of this is to put it into a playtest and let us put our minds to it.

Why that should bother any of us that they are asking us to analyze these ideas seems odd to me. Better to hear my thoughts now so there is plenty of time to change or iterate than to just release the book with these changes made and we have no choice in the matter.

I don’t have any problem with how they presented the ideas and I am happy they did so. I just think the current proposal for druids is so flawed and unpopular that it is unsalvageable.

I look forward to seeing the next ideas.

 

[James Gasik]

Heh heh... WotC didn't push Gnomes out of the first 4E PHB cause no one played them... they pushed them back 9 months to when they knew they were releasing PHB2 that had the Bard in it... since the Gnome was the archetypical Bard race from 3E.

People often forget that WotC had planned from the beginning to have 16 classes available to players before Year 1 of 4E was done.

They wrote a whole article claiming that the Gnome was problematic due to it's lack of identity. "So it's a small race that lives a peaceful life, but is somewhat mischievous..." "Oh, like Halflings!" "...and they live in the ground and mine..." "Like Dwarves!" "...and they have deep ties to nature and have a tradition of using magic..." "Like Elves!".

When I read that, I really felt like they were justifying the exclusion. And they didn't ever once say "oh they'll be back", in fact, they put them in the Monster Manual and made a big joke about that with a video about a Tiefling and a Gnome ("so Gnomes are in the monster manual now" "Ooh, I get a Lair!").

 

[Bolares]

They wrote a whole article claiming that the Gnome was problematic due to it's lack of identity. "So it's a small race that lives a peaceful life, but is somewhat mischievous..." "Oh, like Halflings!" "...and they live in the ground and mine..." "Like Dwarves!" "...and they have deep ties to nature and have a tradition of using magic..." "Like Elves!".

When I read that, I really felt like they were justifying the exclusion. And they didn't ever once say "oh they'll be back", in fact, they put them in the Monster Manual and made a big joke about that with a video about a Tiefling and a Gnome ("so Gnomes are in the monster manual now" "Ooh, I get a Lair!").

I really liked the identity of the 4e gnome. I tought it fit really well in Eberron.

 

[James Gasik]

I really liked the identity of the 4e gnome. I tought it fit really well in Eberron.

Oh Eberron Gnomes were fantastic, because they were given their own unique identity. And 4e did help them a bit by giving them a tie to the Feywild that was stronger than even the Elves (if memory serves). But before then, they were a real mishmash of concepts.

The real point is; WotC made it look like they removed the Gnome for flavor reasons and joked about it, and replaced them with Tieflings (previously only seen in Planescape and the Monster Manual) and Dragonborn (I think introduced in Races of the Dragon? Maybe?), and that stuck in a lot of people's craw, so that when the PHB2 came out, everyone took it as an "apology" from Wizards.

The ironic part then being, I never saw a Gnome played, lol. Though I had Svirfneblin Druid at one point.

 

[Emberashh]

Why that should bother any of us that they are asking us to analyze these ideas seems odd to me. Better to hear my thoughts now so there is plenty of time to change or iterate than to just release the book with these changes made and we have no choice in the matter.

It bothers people because it indicates they aren't actively engaging with their own game enough to at least have some idea of where the community is leaning.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They wrote a whole article claiming that the Gnome was problematic due to it's lack of identity. "So it's a small race that lives a peaceful life, but is somewhat mischievous..." "Oh, like Halflings!" "...and they live in the ground and mine..." "Like Dwarves!" "...and they have deep ties to nature and have a tradition of using magic..." "Like Elves!".

When I read that, I really felt like they were justifying the exclusion. And they didn't ever once say "oh they'll be back", in fact, they put them in the Monster Manual and made a big joke about that with a video about a Tiefling and a Gnome ("so Gnomes are in the monster manual now" "Ooh, I get a Lair!").

To be fair, they made a really good gnome when they did publish it.

I really liked the identity of the 4e gnome. I tought it fit really well in Eberron.

I did too. I pretty much use an amalgam of it and the writeup in Races of Stone.

They especially had a great ID visually, in 4e. I use it still other than making their eyes black with gemlike iris in the center, rather than just pure black.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It bothers people because it indicates they aren't actively engaging with their own game enough to at least have some idea of where the community is leaning.

The community leans in EVERY direction. Every single thing in the game has its supporters and its detractors. To think that druid Wildshape has a 100% agreement rate on how it should be designed and thus WotC should automatically be able to make their first playtest druid exactly that is silly.

Heck... you've already gone on record saying that you think the two 1st-level ranger abilities are great, and have gotten quite a bit of pushback for that opinion. So where exactly should WotC be thinking the community is leaning on that, hmm?

 

[Emberashh]

To think that druid Wildshape has a 100% agreement rate on how it should be designed and thus WotC should automatically be able to make their first playtest druid exactly that is silly.

I don't think anyone expects them to nail it on the first go.

I think most everyone, given the relatively uniformly negative reaction to the UA Druid, does expect them to not be  that bad.

So where exactly should WotC be thinking the community is leaning on that, hmm?

There's no contradiction here. The community agrees with where the Ranger is going because it does improve on the Tasha version (mostly). That doesn't contradict my personal opinion that laments the total loss of a flavorful if poorly executed core design.

As said in those back and forths, I wished they would have improved on what they had instead of scrapping it entirely.