Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Leatherhead" data-source="post: 8968768" data-attributes="member: 53176">There has been much discussion about the D&D playtest Druid as of late. Mostly regarding the new Wildshape.To explain why it's being changed, Wildshape, in its current 5e form, has some big problems.Firstly, it’s a lot of bookkeeping. There are over 200 stat blocks that Druid players and their DMs have to sort through when looking at potential wild shape options.Secondly, Beasts are Monsters. Meaning they aren’t really balanced against each other and especially aren’t balanced against other PCs. Leading to wild spikes in performance. The infamous level two Moon Druid being a prime example of this.These two factors alone are enough to make the ability a headache, but when combined they also create a knock-on effect that hampers the design space for any new monsters. Despite monsters not being designed for player use in general, any new beast made has to go through a “What if a Druid turns into it?” check. This design element wasn’t really that much of a consideration early in 5e’s life cycle, but later it was hammered in to the point where late-edition-cycle books have reprinted several previously beast monsters with new non-beast creature typings.The 1D&D dev team’s initial response to this problem was to use templates, similar to the new templates used by Beast Master Rangers post Tasha’s: Three templates, based upon their primary movement type. This, as evidenced by the plethora of posts and videos you have doubtlessly seen by now, was not well received. Some people prefer the old way (a minority, as evidenced by WoTC’s own polls indicating Druid as the least popular class), and others just don’t like the templates as provided. Unfortunately, WoTC has a tendency of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to playtest feedback, leading me to make this post.I personally believe that templates are the best way forward for Wildshape, but I have to admit that WoTC picked the wrong templates for their bases. The most logical alternative I have seen to templates is a tightly curated list of animals to select. Something I consider to be the “worst of both worlds” solution. Lacking both the endless variety of the current open-ended approach, and the tighter balance or page-count of a templated option. So here I will provide an outline for how templates can be better used.To begin with, the core templates have to be re-picked. The Air/Aquatic/Land division is just not a useful categorization. Instead, I would issue templates based upon their roles:The non-combat roles (which should be stock for all druids) The combat roles having a list of mutually exclusive special abilities or attacks that lets them fulfill their purpose.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A tiny scout (the mouse for spying) This would ideally have a 1-hp buffer, meaning any damage would break the form, potentially causing the druid to be shunted to a proper space for their form (suffering extra damage in the process.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A burly beast of burden (for hauling/riding) While I would categorize this as a non-combat option, there would be no reason why it couldn’t be used in combat, which will come into play later.</li> </ul>The combat roles (for the moon druid specifically)<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A higher damage option. (for contrast with the others)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A higher defense option. (commonly known as a tank)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A higher speed option. (a skirmisher)</li> </ul>From these skeletons, the series of beast abilities can be attached. From their movement type, to interesting passives, to senses. They would mimic the wolves, and eagles and sharks. Which is the biggest complaint about the templates, their lack of resemblance to the beasts in game. There could even be campaign specific abilities presented in various setting books, allowing the Druids to be even more in-tune to the lands they are supposed to be from.What wouldn’t be attached are special attacks.  Now, there are a lot of people who are going to say “Wait, how can I turn into an octopus if I can’t shoot ink?” And there will also be people who ask “But why play a Fighter if you can just turn into a Bear, be a tank for a bit, then swap back into a full casting Druid?”For the answer to those questions, we need to take a look at the other change to Wildshape from the playtest packet: The ability to cast Abjuration spells (which includes a lot of healing spells now) while Wildshaped.  Personally, I consider this change dubious at best. If you have turned into a bear, you didn’t do it to heal the wounded, you did so to maul someone in the face. To that end I believe we side grade this mechanic into a workable solution:  Beast Spells. Giving the Beast tag to a spell will enable the spell to be cast while in Wildshape (and also possibly while Polymorphed, for possible future rebalances to that spell).As some examples, consider the Primal Savagery cantrip, as a cantrip, it is used to perform a Melee Spell attack which deals Acid Damage. as a Beast Spell, you could do the same; you wouldn’t even need to tweak the damage numbers because it’s designed for such things. Pass without Trace could be used to give your tiger form superior stealth capabilities. New beast spells could even be poached from other lists. Blindness/Deafness, for instance, would be great for mimicking several kinds of animal attacks, like the aforementioned octopus ink. Furthermore, new beast-only spells could be made, allowing for really cool and thematic additions, like an intimidating roar, frenzied mauling (damage scaling with spell level!), or poisonous sting.  And despite what I said earlier, something like a self heal that works while in Wildshape, allowing some extra survivability at an appreciable cost, would be good too.In recap:Wildshape should let you pick a template based on your role first. Fixing the problems of diving through every book ever as a menu, and allowing the players who only want to play a single type of animal (the “just a wolf” players) a suitable level of variance.After you pick a role, you pick abilities that mimic real beasts, mitigating the ludonarrative dissonance of being a bat who can’t echolocate (among other things).While in Wildshape, you should be able to use spells to mimic the special abilities and attacks of animals (and also maybe some other appropriately druidish things). Allowing you to do cool things, but also attach them to a tangible cost so that Wildshape doesn’t totally outshine classes with only a secondary resource.From these three principles, we can rework Wildshape into something better balanced for all players. Reducing the overall bookkeeping needed to play a Druid. Reducing the number of core class features necessary for the mechanic to work (which can then be reworked for other druidish things, like talking to plants). And future proofing. So please, when you fill out the survey later this week, consider that templates could be made to work better before you trash the current offerings and convince WoTC to abandon templates altogether.</blockquote>

Verification