Ok, let's get some opinions out there.
Looking at the comments on Jeremy Crawford's twitter and the Youtube video where they discuss the Druid, you'd think that no one whatsoever is a fan of the Druid revisions in the latest UA. It remains to be seen whether that opinion is held by the people who take the Survey - both being avenues by which the team looks for feedback.
Before I get into what I think about these changes, let's try to reverse-engineer the intentions behind them. Then, I want to look at the ramifications of the changes as they are, and then we'll see how they match up with the intentions.
(As a note, I don't think I'll have as much to go into with Paladins, who frankly got a slap-on-the-wrist nerf to Divine Smite but an expansion to its functionality that will be a huge net positive to the class.)
Wild Shape is the iconic Druid ability. But it's also one of the old abilities that requires a player to either have access to a book the DM might be using to run a game or that they'd need to keep separately. It's an ability that expands endlessly as new books with new stat blocks are published.
So, the use of three set stat blocks is, I think, clearly intended to make this feature easier to use. The player can be expected to have copies of those three, and chooses the one that's appropriate for the situation.
Furthermore, by making these stat blocks generic as simply "Animal of the Land, Sea, or Sky," it encourages players to be creative - I might ask a player "so, when you transform into this dire wolf, what does it look like?" and get back "well, it's a big wolf," because they might not yet know the degree to which you can reskin things in this game. Here, that open-endedness is inherent.
Furthermore, as it currently stands, the highest CR you can get if you're not a Circle of the Moon Druid is CR 1. I believe part of this change is to make fighting in Wild Shape a more viable option for other subclasses.
I believe the intent here is to basically let players shift into forms equivalent to Circle of the Moon's regardless of subclass. Obviously, that's the case given the new Circle of the Moon, but we'll look at how it compares to the previous version.
Now, let's address the other thing here: I have to assume this is intentional because it's such a huge change: Wild Shape previously allowed you to effectively stack on a massive amount of extra HP. And I think that has got to be an intentional nerf.
Ok, so let's look at the ultimate ramifications of these changes.
First off, unquestionably, Wild Shape is going to be simpler to use. The stat blocks presented give some good, basic functionality, but you're not going to have any really weird, nuanced things that come from picking odd stat blocks. Here's the thing: this is going to be a welcome change for more casual players, but the deep theorycrafters will not like it. There's subreddits and things dedicated to optimization that will have fewer things to discuss if Wild Shape is shrunk down to three subclases, and people who love tinkering with "well, if we turn into this "Slyzlak" from this 3rd party monster book, we can pull off XYZ" will no longer be able to do such things. But, for what I imagine is most players, it'll be much easier to say "ok, I get it" when looking at the ability. Frankly, I think that's more valuable to me. Sometimes, limited options can force greater creativity.
Next, let's look at how this stat block compares with comparable beasts for a Druid to shift into. As it currently stands, by level 8, a non-Moon Druid can shift into a CR 1 creature at level 8. A Dire Wolf is a common choice. This is the cap for non-Moon Druids in terms of CR.
The Dire Wolf has an AC of 14, 37 HP, and a single bite attack with a +5 to hit and which deals 2d6+3 damage. It does have pack tactics and keen hearing and smell, and the attack forces a strength save or the target goes prone.
A level 8 Druid in the new system who takes on an Animal of the Land form (say, as a Dire Wolf) who has let's say +4 to Wisdom (with the new feats they might not have it capped out at 8) and +2 to Constitution would have an AC of 14, 67 HP (though that's total, not just the animal form.) They'd have Keen Senses (which is actually better than the Dire Wolf) and they'd have a climb speed of 40 feet and two Bestial Strikes with a +7 to hit that each deal 1d8+4 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage.
So, this is clearly a more powerful form, again with the exception that it's not more HP on top of their normal form. Now, a Moon Druid could get a CR 2 creature at this point. Let's say a Polar Bear. This has an AC of 12, 42 HP, Keen Smell, and a multiattack with +7 to hit, one of which does 1d8+5 and the other doing 2d6+5. So yeah, the AC's a bit lower, but the Polar Bear is maybe putting out a bit more damage.
Still, I think we're in a similar ballpark, which means the intent is kind of fulfilled.
Now, the next question is this: is the lack of separate HP going to utterly tank this as a feature?
In other words, can a Druid expect to be a front-line combatant when they take on their Wild Shape?
Because when it comes to the class fantasy, that's definitely high up there. You want to hop into the form of some large beast and maul the monster.
I would argue that this nerf has made that less possible, possibly prohibitively so.
So, we haven't yet seen what the Monk looks like in One D&D, but they're a class that has also suffered a bit from an identity crisis. But let's compare this with heavily-armored Fighters, Paladins, or the less-armored but still tanky Barbarians.
With heavy armor, you basically start off at an AC of 16, and can get that to 18 with Plate, adding 2 with a shield, meaning a range of 18-20 (before we get into fighting styles and magic items). Fighters and Paladins also get a d10 hit die, meaning on average one more HP per level than a Druid. Barbarians get a d12, so two more per level.
Outside of epic boons or quite rare magic items, the Druid's armor class in Animal of the Land or Sea form is going to cap out at 15 with a +5 to wisdom, and only hits 13 in Animal of the Sky. This means they're going to be way easier to hit. To be far, Animal of the Sky has Flyby, so unless dealing with ranged or flying monsters, you can probably do hit-and-run attacks. But our Animal of the Land, which is theoretically meant to be the one that's really most focused on tankiness, still caps at 15 AC (lower than a level 1 Paladin in Chain Mail and nothing else) and with no bonus to your HP, means you've got no more HP than a Rogue, Warlock, or Bard.
Now, I fully understand if the developers wanted to reduce the power of Wild Shape's HP pool - as we saw in a previous post, a Moon Druid who goes into Fire Elemental form is getting over 100 more HP. And even a non-Moon Druid who becomes a Dire Wolf is getting 37 extra, which is pretty substantial.
But surely there must be a middle-ground. What I might recommend is that when you Wild Shape, you get Temp HP equal to either twice or three times your Druid level. Basing it on Druid level will help reign in crazy multiclass combos like the Druid/Barbarian Rage Bear, but still lets the Druid feel a bit tankier.
Next, the very simple fix here is to just raise the base AC of the Wild Shape stat blocks. At +5 Wisdom, I think it's not unreasonable to allow for an AC equivalent to nonmagical plate. So, let's make the Animal of the Land at least have an AC of 13 + Wisdom. Level 8, when you can get a Druid's Wisdom to 20, is around the time that a heavy armor character can afford plate armor, so it works out.
And honestly, Druids wouldn't need much more - you still have the huge Primal Spell List to complement this power. I think it's ok that the Wild Shape form isn't quite as powerful as a true Warrior class, but your spells make up for the deficit.
The last thing I'd address is the Tiny form. There is absolutely no reason this can't come before 11th level. This should be like level 2, if not simply part of the level 1 Wild Shape trait in the first place.
Naturally, I'll be floating some of these ideas when the Survey goes live at the end of the month, but there's my thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment