• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D (2024) Should moon druids have elemental form?

Moon druids should..

  • be beasts only.

    Votes: 27 57.4%
  • keep the old elemental forms.

    Votes: 5 10.6%
  • Be able to mix elements and beasts

    Votes: 11 23.4%
  • Something else.

    Votes: 6 12.8%

mellored

Legend
So I've seen several people suggest that the elemental wild shape should be it's own subclass (possibly with wild fire), as it doesn't really fit the beast form theme.

And it seems to me that that elemental forms where only added because they ran out of high level beasts.

So what's the consensus? Should moon druids just stick to pure beasts
Screen-Shot-2019-06-24-at-9.21.26-AM.png

turn into elementals
IDhMWEP_d.webp


Or a mix like frost wolves and phoenix?
how-to-find-and-catch-all-3-legendary-birds-in-pokmon-lets-go-pikachu-and-pokmon-lets-go-eevee.jpg
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Gorck

Prince of Dorkness
I think that they do need to split Monstrosities so they can add some magical beasts like Owlbears, Griffons and Winterwolf to the Wildshape list but otherwise it ought to be all Beast (Mondane & Magical).

Elemental Druid should indeed be its own thing (maybe tied to a Natural Disaster theme)
This. I know it’s semantics, but Circle of the Moon invokes images of wolves howling at the moon, which implies beasts. I’m intrigued by the idea of allowing Moon Druids to Wild Shape into Monstrosities, but I haven’t looked over the full list of Monstrosities to see if there are any problematic options.

A separate subclass allowing Druids to Wild Shape into Elementals also seems like a good idea, but I’m not sure what other abilities to give such a subclass. I’ll need to ponder this further.

EDIT: Using koboldplus.club to look at the list of Monstrosities that are CR 6 or lower (based on the 2014 "Circle Forms" ability of level/3 rounded down), there are a few that don't seem to fit: Centaur, Harpy, Medusa, Mimic. So there would need to be more restrictions put in place.
 
Last edited:

Amrûnril

Adventurer
I voted for the beast only option, though I'll add the caveat that I'd like beast-like monstrosities to be included as well.

I suspect that elemental forms were originally part of the Moon Druid because the 2014 Druid only had two subclasses, a wild shape subclass and a spellcasting subclass. In a world where every class will have at least four subclasses, though, it's hard to see an argument beyond tradition for merging the Beast Shape Druid and Elemental Druid archetypes into a single subclass.

Thus far, though, it doesn't seem like the developers have considered the possibility of splitting these archetypes. Perhaps this is because the Moon Druid is currently the most popular subclass, but if so, I think this perspective is misguided. The Moon Druid is popular because it's the only subclass that fits the archetypes many Druid players are interested in. Many of those players would likely be more satisfied by a more focused subclass, even if none of those focused subclasses were individually as popular as the Moon Druid.
 


Clint_L

Legend
I think if you replaced the current elemental options with some comparatively powerful beast or monstrosity options, most moon druid players would be onboard. In fact, maybe this is the place to allow a limited selection of beast-like monstrosities. Like a CR 5 owlbear (come on, after the movie you know folks are going to want it).
 



Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top