Wildshape

[SLOTHmaster]

Would only being able to turn into the form of the creature you have the strongest affinity with, i.e. your animal companion, be a good way of staving off druidzilla?

 

[triqui]

One single creature seems very limiting. Most people will take a combat creature (wolf, bear, panther, etc).

I'd like to see a few creatures, depending on the level, which might be used for other parts of the game (such as exploration).

So a given druid might have "rat, Bat, python" while some other will select "weasel, pigeon, wolverine" or "spider, owl, wolf", etc. The exact number of creatures, it's kind, and the number of per day uses, should be playtested, of course, but this works as an example.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the best way to wildshape is to the druid to invest resources that could go into spellcasting and animal companion.

The "master of shapes" druid would have few spells and a weaker animal companion.

The "beastmaster" druid would have few spells and fewer forms.

The "primal master" druid would have few forms and a weak companion.

 

[Serendipity]

At least, restrict wildshape to a single creature when the ability is first gained, and increase the number of preferred forms by increment, possibly opening it to more forms than the few the character can already assume at high level - 15th or so maybe?

 

[Jester David]

The problem with druidzilla was that there was so much druids could do and could do very well. They could shapechange. They could cast spells. They had an animal companion. And they could do that all from a low level.

All of that is pretty essential to the druid. I don't think they could do what they did in 4e and remove elements from the druid and have it feel as iconic or edition neutral.
So the cleric fix of splitting it into builds is less optimal.

Personally, I think they should design the druid so you choose your speciality at first level (wildshaping, pets, spells) and then gain additional specialities at higher levels, albeit weaker. Or just keep focusing on a single speciality and unlocking mastery bonuses.

 

[whearp]

For my tastes, I'd prefer for the whole wild shape thing to be an optional Druid/Primal thing if in the game at all.

 

[Stormonu]

No, removing anything resembling Natural Spell will be a giant step towards avoiding druidzilla.

Wild Shape back in 2E wasn't a bad thing, it was, in fact, a bit underpowered. It was when your gear would meld into your shape (and work) and being able to cast spells in animal form that there became no reason not to be wild shaped.

Animal Companions and Wild Shape should be tools, right along with the druid's spells. Each individual component should NOT be the whole purpose of the class as it was originally envisioned.

 

[GreyICE]

No, removing anything resembling Natural Spell will be a giant step towards avoiding druidzilla.

Wild Shape back in 2E wasn't a bad thing, it was, in fact, a bit underpowered. It was when your gear would meld into your shape (and work) and being able to cast spells in animal form that there became no reason not to be wild shaped.

Animal Companions and Wild Shape should be tools, right along with the druid's spells. Each individual component should NOT be the whole purpose of the class as it was originally envisioned.

The problem is that method of balancing is virtually impossible. You have three elements that you have for the druid (Shapeshifting, companion, spellcasting, you could even throw in summoning) and you have to balance it so it ends up being at the same power level as other classes.

What will happen, if you try this, is that the Animal Companion will feel lackluster, the Wildshape will feel lackluster, and the spells will feel lackluster, and you'll end up jumping through hoops to keep up with other classes. Or all three DON'T feel lackluster and you're Druidzilla again.

4E's method of having you choose whether you spent tons of time as an animal, casting spells, or summoning monsters was practically perfect, with the animal companion along for the ride.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the best way to wildshape is to the druid to invest resources that could go into spellcasting and animal companion.

The "master of shapes" druid would have few spells and a weaker animal companion.

The "beastmaster" druid would have few spells and fewer forms.

The "primal master" druid would have forms and a weak companion.

I think would be the best route to follow, because not everyone who wants to play a Druid also wants shapeshifing or animal companions.

I would like one Druid to be able to focus on wildshaping, getting many forms and using them better in combat.

I would like another Druid to have one great animal companion, or alternatively lots of smaller companions.

I would like another more Druid to have just spells and no companions or wild shape.

I guess that balancing these 3 things against each other so that you can trade-off between them might prove too hard for the designers. Therefore as a second, more realistic option, at least I would like if there were Druid-only feats to choose your 2nd, 3rd etc. wildshape form or improve your animal companion. So the druid who isn't interested much in animal companions get a smaller one that works as a scout but is of little use in fighting, and the druid who isn't keen on wildshape gets a simple form usable mostly for disguise.

Why feats instead of class-specific selectable abilities?

Because with feats you have a choice of taking wildshape-enhancement OR something completely different not even necessarily specific to the Druid class.

 

[MarkB]

One option would be to do what they did with Turn Undead for the Cleric - make Wildshape a spell that's always available to the druid, but requires the use of a spell slot to cast. You could even have different level versions for more powerful wild shapes.