Into the Depths of Control's Foundation

 I have now played through Control's first DLC (I think first,) Foundation. Taking place after the events of the main game (while I do think it's the first one they released, I also believe that the second, AWE, can be started while still in the middle of the main plot,) this sees you descend into cavernous depths of the Oldest House and resolve a crisis in which the house and the Astral Plane are bleeding into one another.

DLC, or its previous iteration, the Expansion Pack, is always kind of funny. It's not quite a sequel, but you hope that it sort of becomes a big, memorable part of the game you've already enjoyed.

But, inevitably, it's going to be a tighter, smaller experience. And if, like I've just done, you play it pretty much immediately after the completion of the main game, sometimes that smallness can feel disappointing.

Not counting World of Warcraft expansions (which, despite technically being expansion packs, truly are essentially sequels) the DLC content I've played the most of in recent years has been that of FromSoft games. Bloodborne had its excellent Old Hunters expansion, while Dark Souls III had its so-so-except for an insane final boss Ashes of Ariendele and its somehow-even-harder-than-the-main-game The Ringed City.

I got both of these games as whole pieces, and played through (what I could beat of, in the case of DSIII) the DLC before finishing up the main game, making them feel like thematically connected side-quests. In a way, you could almost liken DLC to a post-finale movie based on a TV show - the show has hopefully resolved its main plot by the time of its finale, but that also means that at best the movie is going to be an extra-long episode.

Foundation is a challenge, and is absolutely a change of scenery - we spend most of the DLC in the natural (though with otherworldy bright red sand that is reminiscent of that salt planet from the end of The Last Jedi) caverns that lie beneath the Oldest House, or out in the white void of the Astral Plane.

But I think the DLC loses some of the stuff that really appealed to me about Control in the first place. It's mostly concerned with environmental puzzles, and while we get some lore about the discovery of the Oldest House and the FBC's move-in there, along with the birth of the Service Weapon-derived authority of a Board-appointed Director (interestingly it looks like Jesse is only the third such Director after Trench, and before him, Northmoor - interesting how that name feels connected to Polaris, the north star). Still, tragically missing are the wonderful Doctor Darling videos, and given that only a short segment of the DLC actually takes place in FBC offices (a department that was for some reason sucked down into the Foundation) there aren't nearly as many fun notes and memos to read and collect.

I do wonder if I'd have liked it more if I had played the game when it first came out in 2019, and had to wait for more Control content. I'm almost tempted to try to hold off on playing AWE for a little bit and see if that whets my appetite a little more.

It is funny, though - given that Control takes place in a shared universe with other games by the same studio, I wonder if it would actually make sense to never make a direct sequel to it, but instead explore some other corner of the world they're building. I could imagine playing some future game in which Director Faden of the FBC is a friendly NPC who helps us out.

I'm also tempted to go back and play Alan Wake, if it's playable on the PS5.

Control, the New Weird, and the Conspiracy Theorist's Wish

 When I was first introduced to the concept of a conspiracy theory, it was sort of benign.

Oh, spoilers for the main plot of Control.

Taking Control

 So, I beat the main story of Control.

It's interesting: Control is sort of a Metroidvania game - you get various things that allow you to explore more of the Oldest House, where the game takes place, and then find new items and abilities that let you explore further in those new places - but it's also playing around with being an open-world game. Frequently over the course of the game, you'll get side missions and even randomized, periodic alerts that require you to complete their missions within the next 20 minutes (this actually reminded me a bit of the turf wars from GTA San Andreas, actually).

Of course, Control's Oldest House is almost the opposite of an Open World. The brutalist nightmare is all labyrinthine corridors and artificial lighting. In that sense, it shares a bit of the Metroid-style exploration where sometimes the challenge is more about how one gets from here to there.

The version of the game I got (unsurprising given that it's a 4-year-old game) comes with DLC, which I'm sure I'll get around to, though it felt like a good stopping place to pause when the credits rolled (the real credits, I should say).

While the source of the major threat is removed with the game's (or, perhaps we should say, the main mission's) ending, the justification for allowing you to continue on with other content in it does have the sort of bummer effect of never letting you truly consider the crisis resolved. If the Hiss-infected people in the building were all gone, there wouldn't be much game anymore, but also, you know, until then, you can't actually leave the building.

I guess that's just the nature of video games - you can't go beyond the boundaries of the spaces they've actually built.

I've been feeling kind of sick and gross the last couple days (possibly food poisoning) and to an extent I think maybe I should have held off on playing more of this until I was feeling physically better. The aesthetic of this New Weird genre that I find so interesting is, in part, interesting because of the kind of unpleasantness of its mundanity.

I don't really know what I think of the thing overall. I think mostly positively - though as is often the case I kind of see this as a lot of really good first ideas that maybe need refinement (I'll have to see how the DLCs are).

Entering the Oldest House in Control

 I have a soft spot for kind of mid-century aesthetics and government conspiracies around paranormal events. When I was a kid, the X-Files was a really popular show (one that I didn't watch until I was in my 20s) and I think, to a large extent, thanks in part to that show (which itself owed a lot to the far more surreal Twin Peaks) but also to the end of the Cold War and questions about what that massive intelligence apparatus was up to now that the Soviet threat was gone (in 2023, the notion that we wouldn't have to worry about a sinister, autocratic regime in Russia seems very naive in retrospect,) there was a lot of interest in cryptids and UFOs and that sort of thing during my childhood.

As an aesthetic, it's something I dig.

On a friend's recommendation, I've started playing Control. The game is an enigma from the get-go. You play as Jesse (or do you? She seems to address the player as a kind of unseen partner,) who finds the Federal Bureau of Control - a secret government agency that investigates and contains paranormal stuff. We've got fragments of a backstory - Jesse mentions her brother was taken by the FBC 17 years ago, and so we assume she's trying to find him, though she's also evidently drawn by the mysteries the FBC investigates.

However, as soon as she shows up, things are already in a bad state - the place appears to be empty. She meets a janitor who somehow opens an elevator that wasn't there at first, and you go into the building. Jesse finds the director of the bureau, evidently dead of a self-inflicted (or probably not) wound. Upon taking up the gun, though, Jesse is contacted by an eldritch intelligence that takes the form of a pyramid known as The Board, and is anointed the new Director.

The building is under threat by a presence that Jesse identifies as "The Hiss," and, being director, that terminology is quickly adopted by the other employees who have not be infected by its essence.

I'm in the early stages - I've got some crafting materials that I don't yet know how to use. It's early goings, but I really dig the vibe, even if I sort of wish there had been a little slower of a build-up to the truly otherworldly stuff going on.

The game does seem built to have a lot of rug-pulling twists. I'm definitely skeptical of the friendly NPC I've just met. I'm also curious about who "I" am, as Jesse does a lot of narration speaking to the player - I think.

God of War Ragnarok

 When I was a Sophomore in college, I heard about a game called God of War - it was supposedly amazing, where you fought your way across the world of Greek mythology. I've been a big fan of Greek myth my entire life, and so I was intrigued.

The game, which had come with the most amazing reviews and recommendations... I didn't really like it. I played through a substantial portion of it, but gave up at a late stage where you had to climb up these bloody pillars in the underworld where if you made any error you had to start the whole thing over. It didn't really feel worth my time. The protagonist was the epitome of mid-2000s edgelords, who seemed to just kind of hate everyone and not really have any redeeming qualities. It was just a rage simulator (though admittedly one that was also built around a lot of platforming puzzles).

The game went on to finish out a trilogy, where the non-Ares Olympians were revealed as villains as well that Kratos would go on to slaughter, but even as people raved about how good the games were, I kind of ignored them. They were also gore-fests - I remember seeing a clip of the fight against Cronus in which viscerally gross violence was performed to his titanic fingernails and I said "eh, pass."

So, when "God of War" (actually God of War 4, but this was at the height of the "name a legacy sequel the same as the original" trend) came out in 2018, showing Kratos relocated from the realm of Greek myth to one of Norse myth, I was skeptical.

But what I saw of it also looked, well, fun. And furthermore, the characterization had shifted significantly. Kratos was no longer the young, hot-blooded rage monster, but instead an aged, weary figure whose primary goal now was raising a son he struggles to understand.

Kratos is still kind of an asshole at the start of the fourth game, and he's not a good father. But the journey that he and Atreus take together to grieve Atreus' mother (who is only kind of a suggested presence in that game) along with the confrontation with the "Stranger" who is actually a key figure to the apocalyptic prophecies of Ragnarok, lead to a complex and interesting narrative.

The 2018 game was good, though I think some of its promise is left a little underbaked - you get the sense that the budget was big enough to qualify as a AAA game, but they were figuring out a lot of things - not the least of which a radically different gameplay style and visual tone.

God of War Ragnarok does a lot of things really well - one is that it fulfills the promise of 4's massive open world that allows you to travel to all 9 realms of Norse myth (admittedly, even here a couple of the realms are reserved only for specific story chapters).

What is particularly effective, though, is the way that it actually feels like a fitting end for this saga.

Again, I never finished 1 nor played 2 or 3, so I can't comment very well on the Greek portion of Kratos' journey. But over the course of these past games, we see something that is sadly rare in this era of endless franchises. Kratos changes - significantly. By the end of the story, you actually feel that maybe, just maybe, Kratos is going to know peace and actually feel he's truly redeemed himself.

Now, a lot of figures from Norse myth are going to have to die for that to happen, but this isn't a wholesale slaughter - the Aesir are portrayed as complex and nuanced (well, except Heimdall, who's just a total bastard). In particular, while Thor plays an antagonistic role and certainly has a lot to answer for, at the same time you can see how he became that way, and I think he's not straight-up a villain, per se.

Odin absolutely is, and is unquestionably the prime antagonist of the story. Given that these games have always been an examination of western culture, Odin is naturally the representative of patriarchy. What I think is amazing about his portrayal (played by the West Wing's Richard Schiff, whose likeness is used for the in-game model) is that you can absolutely see that there is some kernel of something sympathetic within him. His goals are not strictly evil - it's just that the only way he understands how to deal with others is to manipulate them. He constantly belittles Thor as a dumb brute in order to keep him the dumb brute he can send after his foes. And he offers to teach Atreus magic in exchange for help with his quest, but really winds up just having Atreus use his skills and powers to aid Odin's goals without really doing anything for him in return.

Now, I'll admit that having played a ton of Elden Ring, my expectations for Open Worlds is quite high - there are elements of Ragnarok's world that I found frustrating (in particular, when returning to an area I'd completed earlier in the game to fight one of the Berserkers that are part of a major side quest, I got lost for like an hour going in circles just trying to get out to one of the Mystic Gateways that allow you to travel the realms, and got genuinely panicked and frustrated) and I think the difficulty of the game swung wide and unpredictably (I eventually wound up playing on the lowest difficulty when confronting one of those Berserkers in Alfheim and just kept it low so I could see the story - though even on that difficulty setting, the Berserker, who has two side-bosses with them, was still very hard).

Still, this is an emotionally satisfying game experience, and one that I think anyone with any affection for this series will probably think is a fitting end to it.

We'll of course see whether it is - corporations love branding. But I think that it would be kind of sad to see Kratos dragged into some new conflict when this could be the close of his story.

Anticipating Weapons in One D&D

 Cryptically, we've gotten a number of hints in the One D&D playtest documents that we'll be seeing some changes to how weapons work. This is likely going to come with the Warrior class group UA, which will give us the Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk (I hope we get all together instead of breaking them up like they did for the Priests).

What we do know that Warriors will share is Fighting Styles - Rangers and Paladins are given them as a sort of exception, but it appears this will be the uniting feature the way that Expertise is for Experts and Channel Divinity/Nature is for Priests.

That's actually interesting given that in 5E (I'll be using this to describe the current version of the game - I'm trying to decide on a good abbreviation for One D&D - maybe ODD, or One, or 6E) only one of those classes gets them.

But the change to weapons will have implications for many classes - not just Warriors (that is, unless only Warriors will benefit from these special properties).

The thing is: we have no idea what those properties are or how they will differ from the current system.

In 5E, there are sort of four broad categories of weapons. There are Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strikes, which are outside of the purview of this post, and then Simple and Martial Weapons. In 5E, classes are often given specific weapon proficiencies, though some simply get "Simple Weapons" or "Simple and Martial Weapons" if they're not really restricted. Furthermore, there are Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons.

(Actually, in point of fact, Firearms, which exist only in the DMG, but then again so do +1 weapons, are technically just Martial Weapons, which means any Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin could show up to a fight with a machine gun.)

There are, then, a number of properties that are applied to different weapons, and there are kind of damage penalties for each feature:

If we look at the most powerful weapons (not counting firearms) - Mauls, Greatswords, and Greatxes - they deal 2d6 or 1d12 damage. These are all heavy, two-handed weapons. Glaives, Pikes, and Halberds are bumped down to 1d10 in exchange for Reach. The Heavy Crossbow gets bumped down in damage twice for being a ranged weapon, but then back up one for having the Loading property (which prevents you from using it with Multiattack, for example). The Longbow is bumped down twice, but lacking loading doesn't get bumped up again, so it has 1d8.

The Longsword, Warhammer, and Battleaxe are only bumped down once to 1d10 if wielded in two hands, but bumped down twice if you use their versatile property to wield them in one hand. Flails, War Picks, and Morningstars are bumped down the same amount, but without the versatility to get a d10 for using both hands (also, oddly, Morningstars are both heavier and more expensive than War Picks, making them strictly worse).  Rapiers are in a similar category to these last few, except they get the finesse property without paying any additional cost. (While not as heavy, they're substantially more expensive than the other 1d8 piercing weapons).

Thrown weapons take a penalty as well - Tridents, Spears, and Javelins are all 1d6 weapons (though Tridents and Spears can also up their damage to 1d8 if wielded with both hands). Likewise, the Light property seems to inflict a penalty to damage on top of being one-handed, as no light weapon does more than 1d6 damage. The Dagger, then, pays a bunch of penalties - it's light, thrown, and finesse, so it gets downgraded all the way to 1d4.

There are some oddities - the Quarterstaff is similar to the Trident or Spear in that it's 1d6 in one hand or 1d8 in two, but cannot be thrown. And then you have the stranger "Special" weapons, such as the Lance, which gets to do a full 1d12 damage but has the very odd properties of being designed to only work well at max reach (if you attack someone within 5 feet you have disadvantage) and only allowing you to wield it one-handed if you're also mounted (and given that mounted combat is a sort of underdeveloped part of the game, that's somewhat rare).

But anyway, that's a lot of data that sort of boils down to the following: if you're willing to wield a heavy, two-handed weapon, your damage caps at 12. If you want a one-handed weapon, the best you can get is 1d8, and only then if you're not wielding a weapon in your off-hand. If you want to dual-wield, you'll be using weapons that do d6s.

And this also then means that a lot of weapon types are almost never going to be good as others. Why would you use a Greatclub when a Quarterstaff does just as much damage but can also be one-handed and can be used if you're small-sized?

In a lot of cases, the answer is basically flavor. On a character who always uses a shield, there's no real penalty to using a Flail instead of a Warhammer - even if the latter is strictly better other than costing 5g more. As a DM, I sometimes like to hand out unusual magic weapons to encourage people to try them out (one of these days I'm going to drop a +3 Lance in a tier 1 party and see how much they'll bend over backwards to make use of that bonus).

But the weapons could certainly be more interesting and impactful. In particular, I like to point out that Glaives and Halberds are actually functionally identical. Like, they do the same damage, weigh the same amount, cost the same amount, and are both affected by the Polearm Master feat in the same way (something that cannot be said for Pikes, which are otherwise similar weapons that do piercing damage).

One example we've seen referred to, though not yet identified, is that Shortswords and Scimitars are meant to "play different roles" in ODD (I guess I'll use that abbreviation).

In 5E, both are one-handed, light martial melee weapons finesse. Oddly, Rogues get proficiency with Shortswords while Druids get proficiency with Scimitars. Scimitars are significantly more expensive, and weigh a little more, and they deal slashing damage while shortswords deal piercing damage.

In ODD, the only change we've seen is that Shortswords have been made into Simple weapons, rather than Martial ones, which more or less makes them usable by all classes. This move to use broad categories actually means that Druids will be swapping their Scimitars for Shortswords, as the former are still Martial Weapons, but Druids now just get proficiency in Simple Weapons and not a long, broad list.

So, other than the damage type difference, what will separate these two?

I must confess I'm at a bit of a loss - how much of an impactful mechanic can you place on these weapons before they get busy and possibly mess with gameplay balance?

But let's also ask a different question: what do we want to incentivize here?

The groups I have played D&D with have typically been fairly flavor-first. We're a bunch of writers, actors, and creative types, and so while we enjoy the strategy game of it all, we're here more for the big dramatic moments that RPGs can allow. As such, we usually have a good mix of melee and ranged characters.

But one of the balance issues that has always been part of RPG design is how to reward melee characters for making the choice to go right up to the monster and risk getting smacked in the face - not to mention the need to get up to said monsters in order to smack them.

As a Warlock, I can pelt my foe with Eldritch Blasts from 120 feet away. With Agonizing Blast (an invocation I think like 99% of Warlocks take at level 2) I'm hitting for 1d10+Cha Force damage - the equivalent of a Heavy Crossbow but without the loading property and dealing damage that almost nothing can resist (and matching a Fighter for number of attacks per round, even leapfrogging them at level 17, getting a fourth attack three levels before they do).

If I'm somewhat selfish and just looking to be the best single-target damage dealer in the party, why would I want to risk my hide getting into melee with that Frost Giant when I could be chilling way back here with a Margarita at a spot said giant will have to spend three turns (or one and a half while dashing) just to get close enough to attack me (boulders notwithstanding)?

Certainly, there are tank characters focused on drawing attacks from those foes and locking them down as best they can (and thus keeping the Margarita-sipping Warlock free to blast from afar) but if we're just trying to deal damage, why be in melee?

So, one thing I wonder about is whether we'll see melee weapons gain new properties to improve their effect. What might this look like beyond bigger damage dice, though?

Ok, so let's talk about Short Swords versus Scimitars. The former is now a Simple Weapon, while the latter is Martial.

It seems obvious that Martial Weapons should be more powerful than Simple Weapons - they require special training to use effectively, after all. And this is, of course, born out in the 5E versions - a Mace is not as good as a Flail, despite both being one-handed melee weapons that do bludgeoning damage.

But the Shortsword and Scimitar are used basically the same way in 5E.

Now, I could possibly imagine making light weapons that deal 1d8 damage in ODD, but that does kind of shuffle things around - now there's even less of a reason to use a Morningstar.

What if, instead, Martial Weapons conferred a defensive bonus?

Shields are used to block and deflect attacks. But a skilled swordsman also uses their weapon to parry attacks. What if Scimitars added a +1 to your AC? Perhaps you need to be wielding two of them to get this property (otherwise having two would give you the same bonus as a Shield). This actually makes flavorful sense - someone with flashing scimitars in both hand seems like they'd be able to knock incoming attacks out of the way.

That defensive benefit is certainly a possible universal trait, but what if we went a little crazy?

Again, this could contribute to rules bloat, but let's let our imagination run wild and then see how close it is to the actual solution.

One of the main reasons, historically, that things like Warhammers were used historically was their ability to puncture armor. Actually, if you google images of War Hammers and War Picks, you kind of get almost identical images - both looked not all that dissimilar to a hammer you might find in a toolbox, though rather than the Peen (yes, that's the term for the forked bit on the other side of a hammer that you use to pry up nails. Get your mind out of the gutter) it's more of a spike (really the pick side, as opposed to the hammer side). Given that a lot of armor like chain mail was designed to stop bladed weapons, the hammer either ignored the inability to penetrate by just hitting with massive concussive force, and the pick/spike could, when coming in with all that weight behind it, go right through the loops of chain mail or even sometimes a metal plate itself.

Perhaps, then, something like a War Pick could ignore a certain amount of armor - maybe you get a +1 to hit the target, though no extra damage (or vice versa).

If we wanted to get really crunchy, a War Pick might reduce the target's effective AC by 1 only if they're wearing armor. By contrast, a Flail, given its unpredictable arc, might reduce the target's AC by 1 only if they are gaining some benefit from Dexterity (as in, if they're not wearing heavy armor).

That's all well and good, but dear lord would it make things complicated. AC itself is an abstraction in order to keep things from getting too complicated (I've tried multiple times to homebrew an armor system that distinguishes between armor and your overall evasiveness, and while it could be cool, it's basically a different RPG system at that point).

One thing I'd hope here is that if we got interesting but playably simple enough distinctions for these weapons, we might find a way to balance Firearms and make them an easier option to add to the game. (It's funny, in real life I'm very anti-gun, but my urge to escape medieval stasis in fantasy makes me a major opponent of fantasy gun control). (My favorite solution is to make firearms use two weapon dice, similar to the modern guns in 5E, but have you not add your Dexterity modifier to the damage - highly Dexterous characters will get consistently higher damage with a bow, but guns are more exciting on a crit and can be used more easily by people with lower Dex).

Given that we're not even getting the survey for Druids and Paladins for another two weeks, I think we've got a bit of a wait before we really see what they're working on here. (Hell, we might get Mages next.) Still, put me down as intrigued.

Fixing One D&D's Wild Shape

 The most recent One D&D playtest document gave us updated versions of the Druid and the Paladin, filling out the set of "Priest" classes and leaving us with the Warriors and Mages to get all twelve of the PHB classes (I'm still bummed the Artificer isn't being put in the PHB, but oh well).

The Paladin's changes were relatively minor, with a slight nerf but an expansion to the versatility of Divine Smite, and a few other tweaks that will need iteration, but leaves the class viable as it was before, if not a little more.

The Druid got a more extensive redesign, specifically regarding Wild Shape. While the Druid can serve as the game's nature-mage, and that's actually the core of the class, the ability to transform into various beasts is arguably its most iconic ability. Druids in other fantasy RPGs tend to also get shapeshifting abilities, making the Druid kind of the "shapeshifter class" when going through classic RPG archetypes.

The revisions to the Druid put this capability front and center, allowing you to use Wild Shape at 1st level through the new "Channel Nature" feature that is basically identical to Channel Divinity for Clerics and Paladins. We've seen "wild shape charges" used as a resource for subclass features, like the Cirlce of Stars, Wildfire, and Spores, and so I suspect that most subclasses will be using this in some other way (Circle of the Moon, our one example subclass, does not, but given that it's the "Wild Shape" subclass, I think that's all right).

So, before we propose any tweaks, we've got to talk about the core concepts we'll be keeping.

One D&D's Wild Shape no longer has the Druid player crack open the Monster Manual and search for Beasts within a certain Challenge Rating range. Instead, you get access to a stat block, and later two others, which cover any transformation you choose - a Wolf, Tiger, Bear, Spider, Elk, or Snake are all covered by the Animal of the Land stat block.

I actually think this is a good change. It is certainly a limitation, but it's a simplification that will free future design to make as many crazy beasts as the designers want. As long as these stat blocks are tuned tightly, I think this is the right direction to go for the ability (I also suspect that Conjuration spells will get a similar rework, as we've seen with Find Familiar and Find Steed). So, I'm happy about this change - it's a question of tuning those stat blocks.

I actually think this is the block we need to focus on the most, as the Sea and Sky animals necessarily sacrifice a bit of power for their alternate mobility modes. You could argue that Sea in particular should not be that much farther behind, which I'd probably agree with, but we'll kind of set them aside and make the assumption that the latter two blocks will receive similar changes.

So, let's look at the Animal of the Land as presented in this first Druid UA:

Animal of the Land

Small, Medium, or Large Terrestrial Animal (Your Creature Type Doesn't Change)

Armor Class: 10 + your Wisdom Modifier

Hit Points: You continue to use your Hit Points and Hit Dice

Speed: 40 ft., Climb 40 ft. (requires 5th+ level)

STR, DEX equal your Wisdom Score

CON, INT, WIS, CHA use your scores

Senses: Darkvision 60 ft.

Languages: the languages you know

Proficiency Bonus: equals your Proficiency Bonus

Keen Senses: You have advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks

Actions:

Bestial Strike: Melee Weapon Attack: your Spell Attack Modifier to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 1d8+your wisdom modifier Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing damage.

Multiattack (Requires 5th+ level): You make two Bestial Strike attacks.

    So, let's break this down:

First off, you choose your size when you transform. I think that's fine, and can be a strategic choice - being larger makes you harder to push around. What I think is odd is that you don't change creature type. An elf druid who transforms into a Panther will still be a humanoid. This actually removes some of the benefit, as you remain susceptible to spells like Hold Person or Charm Person, and almost makes this seem more like an illusion than a real transformation. I think it'd be fine to just have you turn into a Beast (yes, I realize that this lets you turn into an owlbear and get over the beast/monstrosity divide - maybe you could choose one or the other).

Now, let's talk AC. This one might be a long discussion, as it, along with HP, are kind of at the core of my issues with the new system.

In One D&D, Druids get training with shields and light armor (no weird "medium armor as long as it's not made of metal" stuff). A druid could have a decent Dexterity, but let's assume it never goes up to more than a +2 - say you start at 14 and never touch it again. In Studded Leather (which is cheap enough to be able to get pretty early on) and with a shield, you would thus have an AC of 16.

This stat block is meant to be something of a front-line fighter - you only have melee attacks, after all, and the whole flavor and fantasy of Wild Shape is about turning into a bear or other mighty beast and mixing it up in melee. But until you hit level 20 and get new new Epic Boon feature, or if you get the very rare stat-increasing magic book for Wisdom, you will never have an AC higher than 15 here.

Now, with the old (current) form of Wild Shape, it's true that most beasts you can transform into also have pretty low ACs. A Dire Wolf only has 14, and a Brown Bear only has 11. So, you might look at this and say that that's fair.

But that's because we haven't accounted for HP.

Here, we need to look at the Wild Shape feature itself for clarification: in the old/current version, when you transform, you assume the creature's hit points and hit dice - and that becomes a separate pool from your own. If you're a Dire Wolf and you take 40 damage, the Wolf form absorbs 37 of those, and only 3 are then deducted from your own humanoid form's HP.

Thus, while yes, your AC is certainly lower than a Fighter in full plate with a shield, you can take a lot of punishment because you can absorb a lot of damage.

Now, I will certainly concede that making a Druid in Wild Shape as powerful as a Fighter would be overpowered - the Druid has the massive versatility of being a full spellcaster, after all, while the Fighter only has their martial abilities.

But as this currently functions, one begins to wonder why you would even use this in the first place.

At level 1, a Druid could have the Shillelagh cantrip, and thus use a quarterstaff with their wisdom modifier to deal 1d8+Wis on a hit - which you'll note is the same damage as the Animal's attack. The Druid, as we've seen earlier, likely has a higher AC. The only things they're missing are the increased speed (unless they're a Centaur, though admittedly many aren't) and the Keen Senses. But their damage output is the same, and their survivability is slightly better. (I'll concede that one slight bonus is that, by using Wisdom to determine Dex and Str, it makes their saving throws better - though there are some format issues where technically they lose proficiency with all saving throws here, so...)

At 5, to be fair, things get a little better for the Wild Shape form. Shillelagh doesn't scale up with level, and cantrips that do will do so slower than the damage here - Produce Flame doing 2d8 fire damage is not quite as good as 2(1d8+4).

So, then, how do we fix this?

As it stands, Wild Shape provides no defensive bonus, and actually a defensive penalty, when it should absolutely be providing a bonus to allow a character who is primarily a squishy spellcaster to mix it up on the front lines. (Hey! It's the thesis of the post! We got there!) This, I believe, is the core of the problem with the new design, and fixing it would mean the rest of the changes would be mere polish (like letting you turn Tiny way, way earlier than level 11).

As I see it, there are three ways you can achieve this.

The first, and the one I'm going to actually just reject out of hand, is giving the form resistance to "kinetic" damage. We don't actually know how Rage resistance is going to work in One D&D, but I think this likely steps on the Barbarian's toes a little too much. It's also not very flavorful - why should your Druid's animal form be more resistant to damage than the creature you've transformed into?

The second is buffing HP. This is how the current/old Wild Shape works, with a big pool of HP on top of the Druid's regular HP. It's also kind of imitated in the Spore Druid's Symbiotic Entity, which gives them Temp HP equal to 4 times their Druid level, and grants its benefits as long as those Temp HP are up. Essentially, you deal with the fact that your Druid is going to get hit much more by not really caring so much about the damage they are taking.

The third change would be to increase the base AC of the Animal forms, putting your AC on par with other dedicated melee combatants.

Now, these three aren't mutually exclusive, but I think that if you combine them, you run the risk of making the Druid too powerful - again, we don't want a Druid to be as powerful as a Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, or Monk in melee (we haven't seen the updated Monk yet, but the Monk should absolutely be as powerful as those others in melee).

Let's talk about fixing the AC first because I think it's simpler to do.

Both Heavy and Medium armor-wearers can easily start the game with an AC of 16 - the former simply gets that flat amount from Chain Mail, while the latter only needs to have a +2 to Dexterity to achieve that with Scale Mail. On top of that, a Shield provides 2 additional AC. As such, many such characters can push that up to 18 from the very start if they're willing to sacrifice the ability to use two-handed weapons (or, in the case of my Eldritch Knight, drop their weapon every time they want to cast a spell).

Without looking at magic items, medium-armor wearers can push that up to 17/19 when they upgrade to half-plate, while heavy armor wearers can get to 17/19 with Splint armor. Heavy Armor than caps out with with Plate armor, which allows them to achieve 18/20 AC.

I think it would be reasonable, then, to allow Druids in Wild Shape to match, say, a Hexblade Warlock in terms of AC. A Hexblade can wear medium armor and a shield, meaning they can get up to that 19 level before talking about any kind of magic armor.

And, as it turns out, it's pretty simple to accomplish that. As it stands, the Animal of the Land has an AC equal to 10 + your Wisdom modifier. If we bump that up to 12+Wis, we get an AC that starts at 15 on most Druids and caps out at 17. If we wanted to incorporate the Shield, we simply make it 14 + Wis.

This means that a level 1 Druid could take on a form with a 17 AC (slightly less than someone with scale mail and a shield) but who will eventually get 19 once they max out their Wisdom (and up to 20 when they hit max level and presumably give their Epic Boon ASI to Wisdom).

So... honestly, does that solve it? Have we fixed it just by tweaking this number?

I think this would be a somewhat decent solution, if a bit uninspired. The benefit here is that you absolutely gain a combat benefit here unless your Druid has for some reason maxed out their Dexterity. This would certainly help fulfill the fantasy of Wild Shape better than the current version.

But I'm kind of inclined to go a different way - maybe just out of a sentimental attachment to the current/old version.

What would we need to do to make this worth it even if the AC remains pitifully low? How would we approach the HP situation?

This actually has, potentially, another simple solution, which is to just give the Wild Shape form its own pool of HP. Just as it is on the "live" game, you'd be knocked out of Wild Shape if the form's HP is reduced to zero, but the humanoid underneath is ok. The exact amount of HP each form should have would be sort of open to debate - you probably don't want a whole other Druid's worth of HP, because I think that's the reason for this nerf in the first place.

But what if we take a page out of the Spore Druid's book and say that the HP of your Wild Shape is equal to 4 times your Druid level?

That sounds good until you look at how that would look at level 1: you spend your action to get into your Tiger form, and a Zombie happens to land a hit and rolls a 3 on their d6 and you pop out of that form immediately.

Granted, at level 1 your Druid probably has like 10 HP, so that's still a 40% increase. But it seems kind of weak.

Maybe we need to just tweak the numbers. Six times your Druid level?

That looks a little better at early levels - your Druid having 16 HP and then a Wild Shape with 12 HP seems pretty good - indeed, under current rules, you could take the form of a Wolf at level 2 with 11 HP.

What about much later, though? A level 15 Druid with, say, +3 to Con, will have 123 HP, and their Wild Shape under this form would have 90. That's slightly under-par for a Moon Druid, but of course much better than other Druids whose CR caps out at 1.

Honestly, though, that's not really that bad, actually.

Now, I don't know how important it is to the designers that they rid Wild Shape of the whole "extra HP" thing. If they've identified that as the big problem with the feature, then perhaps this latter solution is too similar to the old version. Certainly, there are builds like the Barbarian/Druid who stretch that extra HP into insane damage absorption.

Still, I think that either the HP buff or the AC buff are necessary (and maybe both) to make Wild Shape fulfill the fantasy it's meant to.

Now, the rest of the issues I think are more about semantics and tweaking. Right now, the way the ability is described causes some weird interactions like losing all your skill proficiencies. I think it's obvious that if you keep your mind when you transform, you should also retain your knowledge about Religion or your ability to have Insights into the people around you.

This is all stuff that I think can be changed with relative ease, though.

We also didn't touch on damage, so I'll address that real quick:

The damage is a little low, but it's sort of in line with a Warlock's Eldritch Blast, at least at low levels. I'm actually kind of fine with the damage being sort of low if you don't take a subclass that focuses on Wild Shape - the Moon Druid in this UA gets to add d6s of elemental damage, which I think is plenty when you put it on top of the powerful full spellcaster a Druid is. This should be a situational option for most Druids, and not have to be the full, most efficient damage-dealing feature for the class.

Again, the key here is making Wild Shape something that grants you enough of a defensive benefit to justify wading into melee - a realm of D&D combat that is way more dangerous than being at ranged (as someone who has played a bunch of melee characters, playing my Wizard now has been a very different experience - in the whole campaign so far I've probably taken less than 50 total damage).