D&D 5E (2024) Wild shape on the core druid should be...

[James Gasik]

Wildfire druids are so cool!

I'm sure they are, but again, of the three Druids I've seen, all were Circle of the Moon.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Druid was the least popular class according to DNDB in 2020.

Yes, I know. I was just commenting that it was a heck of an extrapolation from your experience to the overall data.

 

[bloodtide]

Without talking about Moon Druids, why do you think that is necessary at all?

Powers need drawbacks.

My wild shape house rule has always had the loose your mind risk.....where the druid gets to become the animal and get a bonus. Though this comes with a 'forced' role playing bit. As a typical 'bad' player will refuse to do this: they never get that power. I would love to see that...

 

[Clint_L]

All the casters of 5e needed some sort of a nerf.

Totally disagree. Going by tier ranking from every source I've seen, by player choice on the table as reflected on DDB, and by what I see in games, casters, part casters, and non-casters are extremely well balanced in 5e.

And the notion that complexity makes druids unpopular is speculation.

 

[Enrahim2]

Totally disagree. Going by tier ranking from every source I've seen, by player choice on the table as reflected on DDB, and by what I see in games, casters, part casters, and non-casters are extremely well balanced in 5e.

And the notion that complexity makes druids unpopular is speculation.

I think it is commonly accepted that they are pretty balanced at the first two tiers. The extreme inbalance at higher tiers doesn't cause more people to play castes to any statistically significant degree. And I believe the reason for this is that the overwhelming majority simply avoid those tiers (due to the balance breakdowns?)

Would a massive nerf to high level casters make high level play more appealing to the masses? Possibly. But I find it more likely that it would cause a 4ed style backlash, where people are complaining magic is not special anymore. Having this image of the future potential of their casters is inspiring, even if hardly anyone actually get to the point of realizing that potential in game.

So I agree with the assesment that a major caster nerf is likely not the way to go for the 5ed compatible oneDnD. But just quoting usage statistics is a too simple argument.

 

[James Gasik]

Each edition of D&D has faced the question. Buff casters, or nerf casters.

When they ask the fans, they rarely get "leave them alone" as a response. People either think they are too good or not good enough. So let's take a look:

AD&D: uncapped damage spells.

2nd Edition: damage spells gain caps (no more than 10d6 fireball or 5 magic missiles).

3rd Edition: several improvements on casters such as not losing AC when casting, more spell slots, a separate pool of cantrips, Concentration as a skill, scaling DC's.

3.5: initially a mild nerf to caster save DC's (the Feats that increased them were lowered from 2 to 1). y the end of the edition, however, spell bloat, feat bloat, and caster PrC's that required them to give up almost nothing for more power made it a spellcaster's paradise.

4e: complete rework of all classes to try and balance their power.

5e: casters were given back a lot of their powerful spells; at will scaling cantrips were retained from 4e. Less spell slots and limits on how many spells could be cast at a time (no bonus action + leveled spell; only one concentration spell) somewhat balance this out; balance somewhere between 2e and 3e initially, but over time, casters get more powerful options.

If this is a trend, then it would follow that the next iteration of the game will feature nerfs to spellcasting, no doubt followed by an edition that "makes casters good again".

 

[kolya]

I have always felt that the druid is trying to do two separate things; animal shapeshifter, and the nature priest spellcaster. This split focus results in the druid doing both badly.
My ideal would make the druid purely the shapeshifter animal warrior, and the nature spellcaster would be another class (shaman?).

 

[James Gasik]

It really might be easier to add spells that replicate Wild Shape into different forms to the Primal spell list, like 3.5 tried to do after they realized each new monster book was making polymorph and it's relatives stronger than expected.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The existence of polymorph is another reason (in my mind) to go with scaling templates, to greater differentiate the two abilities. Polymorph lets you choose from the MM; Wild Shape lets you turn into something polymorph can't exactly replicate.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Powers need drawbacks.

And what power are they getting that requires the drawback? How is it different from the power of the Barbarian, or the fighter, or the rogue, or the wizard, or the bard?

Sure, you can make a declaration like this but without explanation it just reads as an aesthetic preference, like saying that all warlocks should only be able to do magic with elaborate blood rituals, because that would be more flavorful.

My wild shape house rule has always had the loose your mind risk.....where the druid gets to become the animal and get a bonus. Though this comes with a 'forced' role playing bit. As a typical 'bad' player will refuse to do this: they never get that power. I would love to see that...

Yeah, I can't imagine why players aren't jumping at the chance to mutilate their character concepts on an ability like wildshape. It is so clearly in need of forcing people to make a mockery of their characters. /s