Because WotC accidentally stumbled into a grand slam with eldritch invocations. Give classes thematic abilities that can be used at will based on class level. It doesn’t undermine warlocks because each class is incredibly class dependent. Paladins? Smites and Auras. Druids? Forms Ranger? Nature based spells/abilities Sorcerers already have sorcery points. Monks have ki points. Fighters should have been battle masters by default. Bards can have expanded features for bardic inspiration. It’s very thematic to the core of fantasy of the classes. Let the players have more choice.
Don’t agree. It WILL take away from warlocks. I was very disappointed in the Apothecary class by the Dungeon Dudes because of it. The apothecary literally feels much more like a reskin warlock fix than a separate class. Eldritch Invocations should remain the warlocks’ signature ability.
@@СтаниславБерезовский-щ5я Can you give precise details of how, using the DD example, giving a list of 20 forms, and letting a Druid choose 3-4 to master, in any way impacts a warlocks ability to customize their Eldritch blast, or cast a single spell at will from a list of curated spells? How does increasing the viability of a class specific ability, at all effect the function of how Eldritch Invocations work for warlocks?
@@Michael-ft5bm I believe it is a very bad idea. Know why? Because that’s the reason I don’t play Pathfinder 2e. It has no thematic focus. If you turn every class into a jigsaw puzzle of ”pick-your-own-abilities”, the class only loses it’s purpose and identity. The class loses all of its roleplay focus and becomes a meaningless, soulless construct of optimized mechanics. That’s no way to play an RPG. Essentially, if the class can be anything, then it ends up being nothing.
Honestly, I want more classes to get tons of options, like Warlock getting Eldritch Invocations, or battlemaster fighters getting maneuvers. Paladins getting to choose between a handful of flavors of smites without using the smite spells would be super cool, and provides a nice degree of flexibility in flavoring your character. Edit: Can't believe y'all missed Smites getting opened up for ranged and unarmed attacks, which is huge and I love it.
@Wing Sprocket I feel you. I also play Pathfinder but when your whole group knows 5e and doesn't want to commit to a new system, sometimes you've gotta beg the DM for a homebrew Magus Class to play for 5 instead.
i see lotsa of people talking about Pathfinder with this take but i think it works well for 5e just as much, if you take a page out of star wars 5e's rules. every class has their own list of things they get granted at different levels (i play a scholar, so every so often i get a discovery - there are even some discoveries unlocked by my subclass!) and i've said ever since trying that system that it should definitely be incorporated into the next version of d&d. it's unique enough from pf2e bc the mechanics of 5e still apply and all classes and subclasses have static features, but it's a good way to let players have extra customization without opening up the floodgates to overwhelmingly endless options !!
Yes, 12 animal families, but choose 2, 3, 4, or over time maybe 5. That seems flavorful, flexible enough without being random, and provides scaling which wild shape has been really bad with to date. Elementals (vis-a-vis the Wildfire Druid) make sense, too, but only for certain Circles or after a certain level, IMO. Removing the tank aspect of wildshape makes sense, since druids conceptually should not be the party tank. . . but it is a huge nerf. I wouldn't mind if they had an opportunity to regain HD (using the short rest mechanic, for example) each time they change shape, though. It make sense (their flesh flows into a new shape and partially heals as they do so. . . ) In 5E RAW they gain 50+ temp HP, which is pretty OP at low levels, and then insignificant, due to the drawbacks in communication and spellcasting, at higher levels.
Subclass templates or alterations would also work. Imagine Circle of the Canines, which starts with a wolf/fox/etc form with enhanced smell, but over time becomes a werewolf form that can both cast Hex through its bite attack and cast other spells of specific schools.
i like the sort of radical customisation but realistically most beasts are just varying bite and claw attacks and this approach is much better game design wise then having to balance every beast around the druid.
I also feel like this concept applied to the beast master rangers animal companion would work really well too and bring back the uniqueness that the original BM had with its companions.
I'm so glad you addressed this. I have been a druid main for a long long time and it pains me to say: With the wildshape changes as they are *at this moment*, I daresay there is little to no reason for a druid player to ever use the wildshape feature.
I completely agree with you. I remember talking to a friend who said, a dampire with long-stride is better than theses forms as it keeps similar speeds, let’s you climb and you can keep casting spells! Honestly I felt they solved the Druid hit point issue with circle of the spores. Have it be you gain x per Druid level, scale it down if needed. One neat idea of scaled down, could be to let you expend multiple uses of wild shape at once to add the hit points together. So let’s say you get 2 per Druid level, and your level 5. 1 wild shape for 10 hit points or 2 for 20 hit points.
It's pretty useful for getting your Druid past a substantial obstacle or in a better place without expending spell slots. As for the rest of the party they still need to use their abilities anyway so its only use-case is a selfish one.
I agree with what u said. I understand balancing the Druid health bar but the fun part for Druid was the adaptability of nature and losing that would hurt greatly
It is a balance, but druid has poor weapon choices, can't use metal armour, so it's already hamstrung and a bit squishy, the wild shape hp countered some of that
@@paulharrison2557 Druids can use metal armour, just many choose not to. Which I think is dumb, because what about Druids who are into geology and stoneworking or crystals or metals?
most all the complaint comes not from DRUID but from the subclass of Moon Druid .. so really was any other druid subclass really all the OP? just a rework of the current 5e Moon Druid subclass Might have been all that was Really needed.
Expanding on Monty's idea of a limited number of wild shapes know, I propose a flora form. You could have vines that could suck out nutrients if you're grappling an enemy, healing you for 1d4 damage, you'd get an innate speak with plants while transformed and you could get a bonus to stealth if you don't move.
I was surprised you didn't speak to the other Wildshape nerfing they did. You don't carry over anything from your classes, race, feats, or skills. That's great for preventing weird interactions, except that everything you turn into is worse than the Druid you just were unless you need to flee via climbing, swimming, or flying. Wildshape has been reduced to Flee Speed.
I forgot all about that, but you’re right. They just decided to dumpster the druid for the playtest and leave them with nothing to show it. Just an awful, awful design proposal. Worst i’ve seen by far.
I would love to see druid environments be incorporated into wild shape abilities like Eldritch Invocations modify Eldritch Blast. You’re a tundra or desert druid, so you can modify your wild shapes to have cold or fire resistance. You’re an Underdark druid, so all of your wild shapes have tremorsense or blindsight. You’re a savannah druid, your wild shapes get extra movement. I think it would be a great way to incorporate backstory into a druid’s powers, which often just feel nebulous in how they relate to nature as a whole.
@@kamchatmonk It wouldnt be flavored that way. Invocation esque features would serve the purpose of allowing druids forms to have more variety, as actual animals do. They suggested subclass, I would suggest invocation-style choices as they level up, but either way the flavor is the same. They are a spirit of the land that, because they are an underdark druid, takes the form of a mole which can burrow and has tremorsense. They take an invocation that enables them to have sharp teeth or claws. Now instead of a normal fish, they're a shark. Instead of a songbird, they're a bird of prey.
What you’re saying is exactly how I feel about bard and their special spells like viscous mockery. The fact it’s just a spell on the arcane list means you’ll get wizard, sorcerer, etc. getting those spells too. Makes the Bard feel less special because the wizard already does literally everything
Yep. Wizards is trying to dumb shit down for their stupid VTT nobody is going to use anyway. That is what it has to be, because literally NOBODY asked for one static list of spells for every spellcaster. First WoTC takes away defining alignment from certain monsters. Then they take away class defining ASIs (which I was actually okay with, but this is what that has led to). Now they are taking away defining characteristics of each class. This just sucks. Every class is losing it's unique identity and feel so it can be lumped together into one of two bases it seems--caster or martial. And the only reason I can think of doing this--since again literally NOBODY asked for this horse crap, is for their dumbass VTT that they want to push on people. It's utter garbage, and one of the multitude of reasons I will not be switching to OneDND unless they cut this shit out.
I like the idea of the smite spells being tied to your Paladin Oath, with new ones for your Oath being unlocked at higher levels. That way you'd be adding another feature to make each Oath stand out, and would give options of different smites to use. It'd also solve the problem of the Cleric being better at smite spells than the Paladin, by tying it to a class feature.
The idea for selecting different wild shape forms to master is really cool. There are so many possibilities with just that feature that it should honestly be its own class. Picture it: a shapeshifter class that masters different forms as they progress and maybe can modify them in different ways based on what subclass was chosen.
The idea of a fixed list in the PHB isn't particularly new, but it is good. 5e even has this already. The problem is the scaling - the PHB Beasts in 5e are not enough due to this. Which is why the MM is open to the player. Fix the scaling, save the Wildshape. A particular suggestion is to have the Moon Druid subclass provide that scaling, rather than pick a Beast that has that scaling - so have a dozen or so curated, diverse, flavourful Beasts in the PHB at CR1, then have the Moon Druid scale them up as they level. You could even have the UA 'flavour-as-you-like' included; pick a similar beast from the options provided, reskin. So, Panther becomes Cougar, Hawk becomes Falcon, etc. This way, as long as the mechanic space for Beasts is adequately covered (so Spider Climb, Movement hindering, Tough, etc.) then the flavouring can be infinite. The DM Beasts (MM, etc.) should be available for players if the DM is fine with that, however, they need curating. My suggestion here would be to have a tag 'Wildshape Approved' that lets the DM know this is safe for the player. So, no Onyx.
With the Paladin the wording allows for a ranged smite. "Immediately after you hit a target with an attack roll using a weapon or an Unarmed Strike." They give up the Nova but now you can really Dex your pally and give them a bow, also giving you a chance to be a holy puncher.
@thedeathofabachelor8782 You still have a finite number of spell slots. I don't think Paladins can consistently outperform the Rogue and Ranger at what they're best at.
Kind of? Paladins get their smites but it is only once per turn, and it's still expending slots to smite as well. So yeah it definitely is strong to smite with ranged attacks, but I don't think it outclasses Rangers or Rogues.
@@snazzyfeathers I agree i mean it irks me when people don't seem to get that Rogues not only get an extra ASI but they can just focus on Dex, Rangers are fine with leaving wisdom at 16, Paladins really can't ignore charisma.
@@thedeathofabachelor8782 Rangers are preparation DPS, by setting up more and more damage per turn with their subclass stuff and hunters mark. but once set up, they are very powerful, adding a couple dice on every attack at higher levels Rogues use consistent pot-shot attacks. they can only do a max of 2 attacks per round, but those attacks do an insane amount of damage for little setup and no spent resources. Paladins are a middle ground, a versatility of the prep ranger and pot-shot nature of Rogues, but with the caveat that it requires spell slots every time you use such. you will be burning through them faster than either of the prior but you wont be any more or less powerful than the other two. add on the fact that the wider Divine spell list exists, your Divine Sense is boosted, and your for free Find Steed, you still have your own role in the party - RP and Combat - compared to the other two
I'd just like to say that Kelly has really found his stride in the last few months, and seems more confident, happy, and comfortable showing his silly side and I love that!!!
I LOVE your Druid idea in so many ways. Makes druid more approachable for new players. Plays into druids having a "go-to"s. No just picking a form just for hp. Keeps the different speed forms level locked. Having druid sub classes with unique transformations, like the wildfire or stars druid.
When I first got into DnD, I actually expected Smite to be a 1/turn thing. Like, it's not something that... sounds like, something you would be doing on every attack, you know? In any case, I have allways felt that Paladin spells were overlooked in favor of Smite, so I'm happy that this might make people consider spellcasting more. As for druids, I pretty much agree with everything you said. I could imagine fewer stat blocks though, but each one has some customization options like the Tasha summon spells have.
Yeah a lot of paladin spells get overlooked for smite but the paladin is the weakest damaging of the three melee martials (damage sponges) without smites. With the barbarian getting reckless attack and brutal critical, not to mention the rage damage on each attack, and the fighter is just so consistent with how many attacks they are just able to throw. Paladins have to burn spell slots or save them to chunk important enemies to keep up (barb rage is limited but longer lasting and at 20 becomes infinite). Paladin does have the same extra attack as the fighter up to level 11 but fighter has better stat focus which leads to generally being a little better no resource.
@@hyper_sword8835 This. The Paladin's damage is actually only decent. Sure, they can get the PAM+GWM combo, but that is kind of it. Unlike a Fighter, they can't get Archery + XBE + SS, which is more damage, more reliable, and far safer being ranged. When people think of Paladin damage, they think of that triple Smite with crits against an Undead/Fiend - but how often is this actually happening? Its a blue moon event, one which you may go an entire campaign without seeing. Smites are poor damage for Spell Slot. Now, Paladin spells suck. You've got Bless, and Find Steed if you count that. Most of the rest just are not that good. Command has its moments (especially if paired with a rogue that the creature has to go past), but generally, its just Bless. So, even though you really only *want* to Smite on a crit or if you are sure it will make the difference in the enemy not getting another turn, you don't usually have much else to use Spell Slots on. One of the reasons to Multiclass is to put those Spell Slots to use (the other major reason is so you can go ranged). However, that doesn't make Smite good damage in general. This change to making Smite once per turn, fine. However, it really needs more situations that it is useful in, especially now that the Smite Spells have been made a whole lot better (which means Cleric is better at Smiting than a Paladin). I'm also not adverse to giving Paladins better spells, which the generic spell list does. Ranged options have also been added. One problem here is, what is the difference between Paladin and Cleric? If the Cleric gets Extra Attack, it really comes down to full caster progression vs Aura of Protection. Its a little homogenous.
I like the 'idea' of the spell lists and then setting up the access by schools of magic. But the implementation just feels problematic. If this was a less defined spell casting system, where manipulation of spells and improvisations of effects were available, then limiting effects based on school would make WAY more sense. But when spells 'say what they do and don't do what they don't say' the whole thing feels a little misplaced.
I think there should an Invocation/Infusion like system for each class that can help customize each class. Paladins could get Divine Blessings that they can channel a number times per day that can produce a short list of effects like day the smite spells. Druids could have Aspects of Nature that can help customize their Channel Nature or Wild Shape forms. Etc...
I kinda like the idea of having the arcane, primal, and divine spell lists but then having class specific spells as well. then you have some spells that many classes can use and spells that add to a classes flavor.
I was hoping to also hear you talk about the healing flower thing you can do with channel nature...I love the concept but it seems insanely weak after you get past the first couple levels.
Agreed, having a baked in healing option for druids (the medicine men since the beginning of history) is a great touch, but it’s such a pathetic amount of hit points and will end up only getting used as a shorter range healing word to jump up unconscious persons
Seeing the Druid changes immediately gave me pause about 1DnD as a whole. It's such a miss across the board. Agreed, love Channel Nature. Also I love Monty's thought on limiting forms - feels like fighting styles or invocations in the sense that you have to pick and choose for your specific character, and the ability to re-train means that no one is locked in to a form that turns out to be not so great for their campaign. But the biggest miss is the Moon Druid. This is the result of tuning several knobs of something in a small way that add up to a HUGE difference in feel and practice. The HP pool was an issue, and like Kelly said, we kind of have to put aside our desire for power in the game to see that it's a good thing to not have multiple large HP pools. But the changes to wild shape effectively destroy the way the Moon druid works. It's the only subclass that is around wild shape, and that only worked because it was given access to more powerful forms on top of the fact that it was able to shift into actual bestial forms with specific and unique abilities. Yes, those forms were over-the-top early on, but the issue is that CR is crazy and scaled poorly overall, not that the wild shape ability itself needed a massive rework. And the removal of elemental forms is just the nail in the coffin. Literally just move it to 14th level and move Alter Self to 10th level. It's not front-loaded, it feels awesome as a capstone ability at 14th level, and it actually fits the power level of the rest of the game at that point! Why would you cripple one of the coolest subclasses in DND and take away the thing that gets everyone excited to play it? I know that any DM that's had a Moon Druid has struggled to challenge them at times, myself included. But stripping the class of nearly everything that makes it stand out isn't balancing, it's fixing design mistakes with bigger mistakes. If it's a struggle to challenge players in combat, maybe the creatures need to be buffed rather than nerfing the characters? Maybe some things need to be shifted around (you mentioned a move away from front-loading classes and proficiency based uses, I totally agree). But honestly, with Monty's suggested changes to the way wild shape has been proposed and the re-addition of Elemental Forms at 14th level, I think we'd see a really fun and powerful Moon Druid that doesn't beat everything out for best subclass like it does in 5e.
My idea is to give them a temp hp pool when they wild shape along the lines of the spore druid, like 4 per level. And also give them some more class specific ways they could use spell slots in combat. I can't remember but I think 1dnd now lets them use a slot for hp recovery? So maybe add the ability to increase AC or damage with a slot too?
Because moving stats around doesn't change some of the core issues with spellcasting and druids as a whole. Druids have more utility, more power, more versatility, more everything than just about every other class in the game. You can't fix that with fundamentally adjusting the class, and it needs to be done.
Simple fix for wild shape: instead of druids reverting to their original form with their full health pool after dropping to 0 in their wild shape, just have them drop to 0 so they don't have two health pools to work with. That seems like such an obvious fix that I don't understand how it was overlooked
@@tylerrees85 the problem is it would shut down a lot of out of combat wildshapes, because who's going to wildshape into a rat with 5 hp or whatever to infiltrate the castle when a guard stepping on them could kill their character outright?
You guys hit the nail on its head for both classes, but specially the druid , the fun part was looking at all the beasts and finding the one you can use with its special ability for the conundrum you have . multiple options should still be the case with special abilities for each i like the species concept but still allow for cross species abilities. yes like mutants, owlbear comes to mind. i mean i just used a seahorse in my last game to guide the boat to our destination, it creates that fun challenge that is part of the whole concept. Oh and yes PF2 has it really good for druids, with even options for dragons, and plant forms. They took the tiny form from them why not take the rest.
Awesome idea for wildshape! I’ve always played my druids with just a few forms in mind, cause a guy who can transform into literally any obscure beast is hard to justify narratively.
It's also impossible to justify in the rules "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before" That obscure beast you've clearly never seen before you can't transform into it.
One big problem with the playtest druid that is tangential to wildshape is that almost all of the other class features are now dependent on wildshape. So if you're one of those subclasses like wildfire, spores or stars, you don't get much at those levels. It's true that some of these levels used to be "dead", or reserved for new spell levels essentially, but it still feels weird how much of a core feature wild shape feels now, when many popular builds don't touch it.
If you really look at the 5e Druid, it's the same. Look at their class table, and add in all the levels where you get a Wildshape improvement that's normally hidden away at level 2, and it's basically the same thing: the entire class is spells, ASIs, and wildshape.
@@AnaseSkyrider you're right but it still feels kinda weird. Like if you're a stars druid, and you get to level 5, you read the text for your new thing and immediately go "oh, this doesn't really apply to my build. Ok I guess." But I think the solution the dudes suggest solves this. If you get new forms at these levels, you can still have fun picking forms for versatility or scouting even if you don't use wild shape they often. And the scaling text that lives in the main class text moves to the stat blocks.
Druids at my tables have always needed to have some experience with the animals whose forms they sought to assume. When one player was wanting to be a bear so badly, but kept rolling terribly, I allowed him to spend some down time communing with a forest. So even though he wasn’t able to see a bear directly, he was able to “see” one through the “eyes” of a tree.
@@darkdragonsoul99 RUclips seems to delete comments that link to sage advice, but yes there are zoo's in the forgotten realms according to Ed Greenwood. Likely any sufficiently wealthy area would have them.
@@darkdragonsoul99 people do use homebrew and things outside of official material. Beyond that, the forgotten realms do have official things like zoos. In the Descent into Avernus book, there is an entire section detailing the Garynmor Stables and Menagerie which “contains variety of rare creatures both mundane and magical” and is part of Baldurs Gate
Regarding the Druid I like the framework of Wildshape: Air, Land, Sea. Kinda reminds me of the revamped/ alternate Beastmaster from Tashas. Same three categories. HOWEVER. Inside each framework, there should be beast size brackets: Small, Medium, Large. And depending of you size, you should get less or more HP depending on the beast. And to compensate small size with low hp you could get more speed and dexterity. If large sure gets tons of hp, resistance but a bit lower speed. If SAME size as your humanoid form? Well you get a small buff in hp and bonus on saving throws. Also you could flavor EACH size bracket/ category and adjust if you want to use the hp of a certain beast like in 5e. As an OPTION! If not fiddling with more details for your wildshape. Use the standarized up or downscaling regarding HP etc in any of the Wild Shape frameworks: Air, Land, Sea
You should not get more or less HP. That's the core issue of the Druid, too much HP. Why would you get more HP as a bear when it's still your body that is taking damage? I can see the idea of getting more AC which is in the new versions. But it is still you that is taking damage and being hurt.
@@techbeef in my opinion with the new druid, i hate that theres.... really no reason to use wildshape. you lose access to all your magic items, class features, spells, everything, all for something with comparable AC to you as-is with only a single attack (which would go off your spell attack mod, but oops, you dont benefit from that +1 focus anymore) and a movement speed. yeah, too much HP was a big problem, but giving really *nothing* aside from a movement speed, slight size change, and a singular feature each? this is nothing. if anything, dont give them new hp, give them like idk, 3-5 temp hp per druid level when you transform. it cant be healed or stacked cuz its temp, and you dont revert when it runs out so you'll need to use time to revert and transform back rather than immediately boosting back to max. that's a good change and keeps it fun, just as a singular change to what we already have as it is right now? transforming is just shooting yourself in the foot, and Moon Druid feels like a bandage on the wound rather than even a Cure Wounds cast. you loose *everything* to get basically nothing. at least back in 5e, you'd have uses for wildshape in both combat or not even as a land druid.
@@patdav56 so you're saying the only reason to use wildshape was to be broken? There are a lot of abilities in the game that don't give you any particular improvement or increase in strength. I always had a distinct issue with the level of power that druids had, effectively no weakness, infinite versatility, powerful spells, good healing, etc etc etc. They still have everything else except now they have weaknesses and don't have infinite versatility. Seems like exactly the nerf that was needed.
@@techbeef No, the comment is that the new version literally debilitates you in its current form. Your AC will almost guarantee drop. You can't cast spells, can't use equipment. You are better off just doing Shillelagh and holding a shield.
What @@TheFurrLord said exactly. Compare that to something like Tenser's Transformation, which drops your spellcasting altogether as a wizard, but *gives* better defenses, offenses, etc, as a one-time micro class change, and coordinates with multiple subclasses like bladesinger and war wizard You have ZERO use for this feature as the new druid, as it is better to just use shillelagh or any other spell
personally I think removing the specific spell lists will be good in the long run. if you describe your spell list in relative terms (ie arcane abjuration, etc) you create a more flexible game system that can accommodate the additions of spells and classes without errata on top of errata every time a book comes out with new stuff. someone did a video about this, but honestly its how I felt from the beginning.
Instead of having 1-2 dozen stat blocks, they could keep it to 3-4 stat blocks, but give each block a handful of customizing features. Just like the new Summon Spells, let you pick between 3 unique features for your summon.
Like, these statblocks, but for land you have such and such generic animals. And as you pick one, you get the specific ability of that animal group, like: feline -> earth animal stat block, but with pounce ability.
@@odinulveson9101 it's not bad, but it's too many... There would be 5 pages of Wildshapes... That's not a good idea... Particularly when you could just have a handful of stat blocks, and then pick a bonus feature.
@@guamae if there's 5 pages of wildshapes but you only get to pick 3 you have mastered... I really think Monty is onto something there. It solves the bookkeeping issue and like he says, it's really thematic and feeds nicely into role-playing. What did your druid do to commune with the giant spiders in order to master that form?
I remember seeing a good solution with the elegant Druid, where you have 2 forms (combat and scouting), with the combat form being able to pick a template based off of various creatures, and the scouting form having different speeds based off of if they chose air land or sea
I really like your approach of a range of forms to choose from with premade state blocks and variety of skills. So long as I could choose the size that would work great for me. The part I don't want to lose is all of the exploration aspects of wild shape. That is a part I really love in the game.
As a Paladin Stan I can accept the limit to smites but I really hope they lift the restriction to not being able to use spells at the same time and just limit it to the smite spells since that is what they wanted to limit anyways
Or just let it combine anyway, because you have to take up a preparation slot to do this, it still consumes your bonus action, and you're still burning through spell slots very quickly.
@@Wintermute909 And then the Paladin hits the Cleric's flying steed with a ranged smite, knocking them out of the sky and forcing the Cleric to spend 10 minutes and a spell slot summoning a new one. When the Cleric then retaliates by killing the Paladin's steed, the Paladin gets inconvenienced for a whole 6 seconds summoning a new one.
Imho find steed and the smite spells need to be gone from the divine spell list. That's a much bigger issue. Scaling back smite and having it mutually exclusive with the spells (and the spells almost being a 1to1 substitute for a smite) is alright. Same for smite not critting anymore. That is in line with sneak not critting etc. If we're bringing down damage numbers across the board, it stands to reason, wotc wants monster health to be more reasonable. Hence, we can't have giga nuking paladins. But the cleric CANNOT get access to find steed and the smite spells. Cause that just means "the best paladin is a cleric". Kinda like "the best paladin is a sorcerer/bard" that we have now except that the cleric needs 0 levels in paladin to be better at everything the paladin does while current meta at least has 6 levels of paladin on almost any build. Because the way i see it WotC envisions the paladin as a super fast first aid kit. Riding over the battlefield healing fallen allies. Which conflicts already with the aura. Now have clerics be better at both dashing around the battlefield and healing and you don't need the paladin any longer.
"To not create new beast stat blocks , because if you did you will be giving a new form for a druid to potentially turn into". That's great! You open a new book and you have new content to refresh already old and stagnant classes! The only thing they need to do is to ensure the CR is properly set so all beasts are balanced.
I feel like there are some really good ideas and perspectives here. I really agree with the main concept of classes/subclasses that give choices in order to diversify really is the way to go forward. It allows things to get simplified at lower levels and increase complexity as the character grows which is important.
I appreciate you guys having a back and forth with the one dnd material. I do believe it is ultimately for the best that spellcasting classes get nerfed in each their way, and martials get buffed in each their own way. However, no class should lose its identity. I have to respect one dnd for actually trying, and I'm glad you guys are too.
They need to add back the Temp HP and the animal abilities like Pounce, Multiattack, and the animal AC. Just make the attacks and Temp HP scale as one levels up. A bear at level 20 that got added a hit dice every 3 levels with a bonus to their attack equal to their profiency modifier + wisdom modifier could be such an awesome power up.
They should not add back in the temp HP, too much HP and versatility are the core design problems with druid. Why should you get more HP when it is still your body in wildshape? Higher AC? Sure, but not more HP.
I certainly agree that too much HP may be an issue. But a bear with 20hp won't do much when the wizards can call a meteor strike and the warrior can multiattack 4 times in a turn.
@@antoniovideos9629 oh so you're not the most broken thing on the battlefield and out of combat and for exploration and... You get it. How tragic. You can out tank a barbarian, you can out cast sorcerers, you can out stealth the Rogue, you can heal, aoe control, etc etc etc etc. Like damn man, save something at the table for everyone else
@@techbeef Nah, the solutions is for the One DnD barbarian to out-tank the 5e barbarian, the sorcerer to out cast the 5e sorcerer, and the rogue to out-stealth the 5e Rogue. In that way the duid can't out-rank them if everyone is even better at their things than before.
My wildshape idea fix is just to limit your character to a certain number of wildshape forms, that way you have to be more selective and intentional about your wildshapes, what abilities you want, what speaks to your character thematically, and you won't have all the options that could make a player potentially broken
Its alredy limited. It is and only should be beasts/ animals. No. The framework air/ land/ sea is great! But alot of aspects like blandness and HP gutting is beyond bad
You get to pick forms like you pick prepared spells. I like this idea. You couldn't turn into anything, but you could plan 3-6 animals as your go-to, and only use those. If you didn't pick anything small and sneaky, you can't sneak.
@@odinulveson9101 The generic template with minor alterations kills the shapeshifting vibe. You don’t turn into a specific animal, you turn into a painfully watered down silhouette of the idea of animals.
Did this for my last druid player. Forms known = Wis mod. I also said that they needed to spend a week with the creature in a natural context. So no dinosaurs.
Great ideas for druid wildshape dudes! I hope wotc hears this and takes it on. I would also like to add that there shouldn't be any level locking for swim and fly. when you consider that some druid circles like coast or consider flavour/roleplay like a mountain druid, then it would make sense for them to be able to master swim or flying shapes first before land.
My disappointment is that it feels like a Cleric will be a better "Paladin" then the actual Paladin class. It does almost everything a paladin does but quicker and easier
Yes! I was just talking that Smite Spells should just be passive abilities that a Paladin gets added onto their smite as they go up in level. and then the sub classes can have their own unique one.
It's easy to fix the powerful early level feature issue, always build in scaling which works with class level in some way. Monk is actually a great example of this in how their martial art die and ki increases at certain stages, incentivizing players to take more levels rather than multiclass. Now, monk still needs to be powerful to be great, but it at least understands how to scale features.
That's an idea I had about solving the new smite issue: create a resource where you need to use them to be able to smite in the turn, just like the Ki Points where you consume to use flurry of blows, where the more points you invest in one turn, the more damage you deal, but cap them and make the smite spells just like invocations from the warlock, and they need to consume points as well. Ex: by lvl20, a pally would have 20 Smite points, where each point grant 1d8 radiant damage, being able to double the damage when crit, and capping at max 7 points to use in a turn, where the Banishing Smite would cost 5 points to use, and would be able to be used in the same turn and attack as well as Divine Smite, but not the same as any other different smite bc of bonus action. By these rules, you would end with a pally that deals less dmg than the 5e version, but still can do some kind of nova, and wouldn't have the issue of being less powerful than any multiclass or class that can pick smite spells by now
@@Daredevil_MCZ my solution would be to scale the damage die with increasing Paladin levels. d4s at first, d6s at level 5, d8s at lvl 11, d10s at the highest lvls. Makes multiclassing paladin for smites much less attractive until you get decent investment into the class.
There's alot of lore about how druids end up picking a particular animal to specialize with and begins taking on those traits. The ettercap monster was a cult of druids that really liked spiders until they became consumed by it.
As a paladin fan, I'm not happy. While I do think that classes/subclasses in general got too powerful in 5th edition and new monsters are not necessarily cathing up, I think that limiting the number of times you can smite per turn to 1 would have been enough.
Personally, I think there is _some_ design solution that allows front-loading and Prof Bonus to work with Multi-classing. The design idea to me is : Does a single-classed character get _better_ uses of this feature, rather than simply _more_ uses of it. If that's the case, then it could work.
Regarding the splitting of spells into Arcane, Divine and Primal rather than class spells, It is worth mentioning that Pathfinder 2e already does this but has 2 more categories, occult and Focus. I've been DM'ing a Pathfinder 2e game for about 2 years now, allowing casters to pick from a category over class spells grants them a lot of customization and versatility. However Focus spells are class unique spells so that each character had their own Identity. (Edit, spelling errors)
I can see the reasoning behind generic spell lists. Specific class lists squash the ability to bring out new splatbooks with new spells and classes without retro-actively listing out every class that gets access to each spell. And it gets exponentially harder with each new book. Far better to say this new spell is Primal and Abjuration. Then you know immediately which classes get it. And if a new Elemental Warlord class is brought out, you only have to say "this class can access Abjuration and Evocation spells from the Primal list". And you know that, hey, it can cast that spell from that other splatbook. I like the idea of stealing the idea of Focus spells from Pathfinder though. Just a few spells unique to a class, like smite spells for a paladin
re: Druids, I think it was a holdover from having played in 4e, but our table generally limits druid wild shape forms to "beasts you've seen". So if you're in say, Eberron, a dinosaur might not be too unbelievable, but in Faerun, maybe not. This helps balance it at least at our table.
I think they should have gone in the exact opposite direction with the spell tables. I think every class that can cast should have a unique spell table with uniquely themed spells so there isn't so much overlap with casting.
For the Druid, I'd approach it a little differently. Instead of discrete forms, I think 3 or 4 basic forms are fine, but then have an invocation type system of buying enhancement as you progress in levels. Then you can layer these enhancements upon the base form to achieve a ton of combinations. Then the flavor is up to the player. Land beast could be a horse, giant lizard, or bear, but slapping on the the burly feature gives you a certain amount of temporary hit points when you first shift, while "fleet" increases your speed.
Aside _some_ HP boost, the key thing is to provide a list of ALL the special abilities that the beasts had such as burrow, constrict, web, poison stings, etc. and let us choose an increasing number of such traits as you level up. 👍 Because THAT is where the most fun of wild shape is? Yeah, it's becoming a bit mutant-y but didn't they mention that the shapes could eventually get mixed in the presentation video? 🤔 Edit: I do like the list of forms provided though 👍
To make it less "mutanty" you could have packages of related powers that you get with a given form. Spider = "web, climb, poison", Wolf = "trip, track, pack tactics", bear = "+THP, grapple", horse = "+speed, carry" or whatever :)
Here's the sticking point there: why grant a full caster the ability to produce spell effects without spending spell slots (in general, not just with the druid)? Polymorph, web, spider climb, enlarge/reduce, illusion spells, fly, etc....all available via spell slot expenditure. If limiting spells to only X uses per day is how magical effects are balanced out you can't have a way to bypass that limitation without impacting balance.
@@kaynadinstilleverge3843 Fair point. Resource management (spell slots etc) has always been a thorn in the side of the system. It's rarely well balanced across classes, (except 4E where it was _specifically_ balanced across classes), and so the assumption that (limited powerful options) is balanced against (always available, less powerful options) is fundamentally a bad design decision, since it's so open to variation across playing groups. But to your point, I think the added options would need to be less powerful than the spells, and be gated by higher levels in Druid in the same way Fly etc is. Note also, that, until the highest levels, a Druid is _either_ in wildshape _or_ they're a full-caster, so that's part of the tradeoff. But a Wizarrd could cast Fly and _also_ fireball or whatever. I would like to see _more_ class features that replicate powerful spell options available to _more_ classes, rather than fewer, to be honest. But hey, I like me some cinematic gameplay :)
@@kaynadinstilleverge3843 I would say because they are minor effects, weaker than their actual full spell counterparts & that come to the cost of sacrificing most of the Druid's actual spellcasting ability since they can only at best maintain concentration on a spell? While endangering yourself much more as you go in melee, something that is suicidal for most casters. There are to be some kind of benefits as a trade off for stunting what is your most valuable ability & exposing yourself much more than if the druid sticked to casting from a distance. :)
The generic spell lists issue is interesting because Pathfinder 2e also uses generic spell lists. However, in P2e there are also unique spells called focus spells that are exclusively gained through choosing a certain class or subclass. For instance, goodberry is a focus spell that only druids can use. So despite shared spell lists existing, there is still room for each class to have its own unique flavor due to focus spells. It seems wotc took the idea of using generic spell lists without considering how that would take away from some class's identities. I felt a bit bummed when I found out vicious mockery would be lumped in with other arcane spells for example. Hope wotc does something to remedy this. :/
i like the idea of doing an invocation style deal for the wild shapes, then like, at first you can pick 1 "wildvocation" (spider climb or tiny size, or whatever) then, at higher levels, let them pick additional wildvocations and unlock them, just like w/ warlock, the x number of forms works too, but wildvocations feels like it'd take less space in a book and stuff lol
Unique spell lists limit the expandability of classes in DND, as every subsequent class requires an ever increasing amount of reprents, self referencing, and complication. Generic allows for a new class to simply state "Arcane, but no evocation school" and that is it. If you get a setting book that adds a spell to the Arcane list, that spell doesn't have to be retroactively applied to a new class
Excellent review, Monty and Kelly! Please also note that when Paladins choose a fighting style in 5e, they can select Blessed Warrior that offers a selection of cleric cantrips to add a little more magic to the build.
Love your idea for specific forms with basic stat blocks as long as the stat blocks remain similarly generic, but based on form. I also think that a happy medium with health could be something like this: “Using the wildshape ability grants you a number of temporary hit points equal to your Druid level with each use.”
Thought about the lack of extra hit points and thought of this. When you wild shape, you gain temporary hit points equal to 5 times your proficiency bonus. Temporary hp can’t stack, can still be overcome with damage, but incentivizes the wild shapes and provides a buff while retaining the flavor of being toughened by natures strength. It would also be easy to scale as a class feature by changing the number to 10x your bonus and maybe a capstone of 15x. Not huge, but definitely nothing to ignore either. Low levels isn’t huge so it will toned down a bit but 10hp isn’t anything to scoff at either at levels three or four, and it stays relevant as you gain more levels. Maybe an extra increase for the moon Druid? If you wanted to prevent the chaining of wild shapes you can say you only get this buff when you change from your normal form. It won’t stop it, but slows it enough to add a cost and require strategic planning. Iwould love to see what you think. Also definitely a longer list than 3 forms. Or at least a one trait, one combat trick, one exploration bonus from a list. Something other than 3 stat blocks. Love to hear the feedback
I think you guys made an excellent case for divorcing Wild Shape from the Druid chassis. It is a strong and interesting enough feature to be it's own class.
@@alstonjacobs4934 I know what they're saying. And the arguments that they are making about Wild Shape are also great arguments as to why it should be spun off into its own class.
I think every Druid should have an ability to Wild Shape into a few forms. Allow it to be a few like say a person can only pick 2 at first (0Cat and a Horse), then at a certain level also a Dolphin too and later add a Falcon (total of 4). Something that allows them a few options to still do things but that their connection to Nature only allows a few Fauna that they share a connection with. Also include with that the Druid's Find Familiar thing. Then, you can have the Moon Druid (or a couple versions of the Moon Druid archetype like a Tank one and a Stealth one) and a Shepard Circle Druid (or a Beastmaster like Druid somehow) who have far less limitations towards what animals they can turn into or summon without a spell slot. That way the rest of the Druids can actually focus on the essense of Nature they attach themselves to.
@@c.v.emmans And I think this is a terrible, TERRIBLE take. One of the identities of druid IS the ability to wildshape, period. Yeah moon can do it *better* but ALL druids can and should be able to wildshape, and making that a specific sublcass of druid is just dumb, imo. It removes one of the defining characteristics of what a druid is even more than OneDnD is already trying to do.
@@shawnwolf5961 lol, so Spores, Wildfire, and Stars are what, not real druids then? They use the Wild Shape resource for something else and never need to turn into animals at all. I think people get too precious about features "belonging" to a class and in this case, I think it hurts the druid. Remember the Primeval UA and how disappointing it was? Like, the druid having an animal companion, should be a no-brainer, right? But it was terrible, and part of the reason for that is because the druid is hard to balance and find new, creative mechanics and gimmicks for because they have Wild Shape and full spellcasting. A druid with no subclass would play just fine because the base class gives you so much. I think that's an obvious problem. If Wild Shape is separated from the druid class, there is a lot more room to a) expand what can be done with Wild Shape (monstrosities, aberrations, demons, lycanthropy, etc), and b) there's more room for new mechanics or reflavored mechanics that are already familiar (like having a dinosaur companion, as in the previously mentioned UA) to be good and substantial. I think you gain a lot more than you lose by separating it. WotC probably won't do it, but I'd love to see them at least tinker with it. You're free to disagree, but I think more people should at least consider it rather than simply dismissing it out of hand. On a side note, I don't think "turning into an animal" is an inherent and intrinsic part of being a druid. Like, what if you're a genasi from the plane of fire, or an elf from the Shadowfell? "Nature" could be and mean something totally different for you. I think exploring that mechanically would be cool.
Your suggestion for the wild shape is SO MUCH BETTER than the original, the perfect in middle between hundreds in MM and the 3 limited forms However, I would still like to have a hp buffer in wild shape, even diminished (because ok it's op), just because i'm giving up on the versatility of spellcasting when I'm wildshaped
I also enjoy the idea of druids only being able to turn into things they themselves have observed. Make it a check the druid has to roll in order to "catch" or "learn" that wild shape. It makes the forms the druid knows feel earned and reflect the narrative of the campaign. Just feels weird that a druid can randomly become an angel or dragon when they've probably never even seen one beyond pictures in a book. A set number of forms also works and maybe even adding a penalty/risk to trying advanced forms can be included. Maybe a level 3 druid trying to become a t rex results in the druid changing their form but not maintaining control so there's just a t rex who doesn't realize the food surrounding is actually their party.
I completelly agree with monty on the new preparation of spells, by far the change that annoys me the most and it seems set in stone by now. I wish they would go back to spellcasting from 5e, specially with the spells prepared/spells known and the class spell lists
They are definitely trying to turn into Pathfinder light. They basically combined the way prepared and innate casters function in Pathfinder. 5e players would hate how prepared casters work in Pathfinder, it’s even more restrictive then what we got in One DnD.
@@XanderHarris1023 When I checked pf I didn't like the way you prepared/learnt spells at all. But they are different games, so the more vancian system might super work for pathfinder. imho it doesn't for dnd. These changes have a super mixed-bag feeling to it: it totally looks like their intent is to simplify things, ie. less options on how to distribute spells per level, less focus on strategies with upcasting, a preset spell list, etc. On the other hand it feels like the result will be the opposite, for people like me who love optimization, this will send us down a path where we just remove the flavour spells in favour of the most optimal options, it won't super affect me personally, but most of my friends who are newer/like to pick worse/not the best spells just for the flavour are going to suffer the most from this changes... cos you better pick the best level 6 spell in the game, you aint getting another one for 8 more levels
@@Lily-sk6sr You can still change your level 6 spell every long rest if the one you picked isn't working for you. Another leg up One DnD has on Pathfinder is subclass spells are still a thing and they don't count against your number of prepared spells. Maybe the spells you get from your subclass will actually matter if you aren't picking up every optimal spell off the arcane spell list.
I like the beastial attacks and general Land/ Air/ Sea Framework. But its TOO bland and generalized. And idiotic nerf to hit point buffer if large animal! WTF? Just balance it by having the large beastie being slower or SOMETHING
Trent monk gave a good reason for why they are doing spell list the way they are in the UA it is far easier for future classes and helps manage the bloat later down the road
I honestly thought that this was how smites worked at first so this makes sense to me. I really like the bonus smites being features of sub classes. I want to see the unique spells come back. There are so many spells that are iconic to the class. Love your take on the improvements that can be made to the wild shape changes. I have a Druid in my party and she tends to just lean towards two forms more cause she knows them then anything else. Will be very sad that the barbarian moon Druid combo is going away tho. The invocations idea is super interesting. For Druids it could be adding dark vision to all forms or increasing climbing/burrowing speeds. For Paladins smite bonuses and changes to their steeds and auras. Very interesting ideas! Thanks y’all!!
Very excited to hear your ideas on ways to better build the druid class. My hope is the DnD dev team listens to your notes on wild shape! Using the Battle Master Fighter as a comparison makes a lot of sense and removes the "dread" factor of choosing the right wild shape option from an ever expanding list of options.
@Treantmonk’s Temple has a great video on why the spell list to wizards of the coast to are necessary not be class specific. I think the correct solution is the smite as a class feature. Paladins and smite are intertwined, if you only use a feature or action as a part of a class even if it isn’t specific to the class. it should probably class feature.The spell list as they are in one dnd will be easier to learn in the future.
I 100% agree with you. If I wanna turn into a Cat the stat block can't be the same as if i'm turning into a bear. For the Paladin, I'd go with this change as it is but increasing the damage dice for the single smite, so that it is limited but you're still getting a little bit more from that single use you get.
Maybe give the Druid a D12 hit die to make up for the extra hit points lost in wildshape. Druids bodies are honed beyond average due to their changing nature.
Balanced and insightful analysis as always, guys. What I was hoping for from the Paladin, and didn't get, was a way to make your casting stat also your weapon stat. There's a reason Hexadins are so popular, and now, presumably, you will need to take three levels of Warlock to become a Hexblade and get this one feature. Druids have it (kind of) with a cantrip, Shillelagh; Monks have it with Dedicated Weapon, at least at the moment. I'd like to see Paladins get the opportunity without having to multiclass. It could be a feat, that would be fine, but give us _something_. Agree with you on the uniqueness of the smites and Find Steed being important. Druid wild shape is a terrible mess. Making something easier to do only works if it's still worth doing, and wild shape now almost isn't. And your point about not giving too much power to multiclassing is well taken, but now multiclassing into druid isn't at all attractive, since you can't use your other abilities while in wild shape. I agree with you that there's a middle way. Don't require Druid players to look up the Monster Manual, but still make the form you assume have mechanical weight. The reason you turn into a beast is that the beast can do something you can't: it's faster, stronger, tougher, more stealthy, more perceptive... It wouldn't be hard to say, for example, "Large forms don't cut in until level X, but when you're in a Large form, you get a STR bonus and a CON bonus; Tiny forms don't cut in until level Y, but when you're in a Tiny form, you get a DEX bonus and a stealth bonus; predatory forms have more or better attacks," and so forth. Though I really like your approach too. It hits a sweet spot between "look through a ridiculous number of MM forms" and "you have three almost flavourless options".
Maybe, as an idea bouncing off of Monty’s, you pick 3-4 forms to master/know and whatever circle you pick for your subclass, you could learn that circles form as an additional free form to master/know
Both as a dm and a player, I absolutely adore having access to a whole lot of animal shapes to shine in any scenario. Plus its really fun to homebrew new beasts for your druid players to stumble onto in the wild and add to their arsenal of options
What I liked about the new smite is, that it is uncapped now and on ALL weapon attacks, melee and ranged as well as unarmed/natural weappons, that is really cool.
I like this idea of your proposal for Wild Shape, it feels like you treating a Druid's use of Wild Shape like a Warlock's Eldritch Invocations. As for the matter of HP, I would suggest creating a table that lists temp HP based on the beast's size plus your proficiency bonus, this way it build's the feeling that a druid's power grows with their level.
I played as a Moon Druid and the DM based my abilities on what I’ve seen in my travels and if I wanted to learn new forms I had to go out and find them.
I think a really fun thing to do with the Druid to nerf wild shape cheese is fairly simple and fair For health: every time you wild shape give a sizable number of temp hp based on your druid level. When that temp hp runs out you revert back to your normal form. That way it keeps that tanky play style of wild shaping to absorb damage, but not to the absurd levels of like a bear or mammoth. For the bestial options: I think a really fun idea would be to treat the Druid like the wizard, and what I mean by that is have Druids have a sort of “spellbook” where they can copy down animals that they can turn into. Again, the amount of animals you can turn into scales with level and you can use gp and downtime similar to a spellbook to copy down more animals that you see. This gives you and your dm more liberty to describing more animals you see because a) you can control it for balance as far as the campaign goes and b) you need to choose which animals are most valuable to you. Plus it makes it easier planning sessions cuz the dm will know what animals you can turn into and can plan around that instead of studying the whole bestial compendium in the monster manual. Also could be fun making new beast stat blocks this way. On top of that I think it makes the Druid more fun to play and technically nerf them at the same time.
When I DM for a Druid, it's usually under the flavor of "choose the animal you'd like to be, and I'll find a monster in the manual that is closest to it and flavor it to be your choice". So Monty's suggestion of having generalized creature forms works quite well with that.
6:53 Finally someone saying it. The Problem with the cleric and the paladin sharing a spell list is quite obvious, and I absolutely hate it. The real Issue with the generic Spell lists, however, has yet to be published. With the Artificer, Bard, Sorcerer Warlock and Wizard, the Arcane Casters consist of four Full-Casters and One Half-Caster (excluding subclasses like Arcane Tricksters). Up Until now, we've only seen the Bard. Making all of these classes feel different is going to be a challenge that I don't think WotC can solve. Especially the Wizard, which was previously known for having the largest smell list in the game, alongside with the changes to spell preparation (making all casters prepared casters), is nearly impossible to get right without changing the Wizard's entire class identity. They took away the only two things the Wizard had going on and with the marketing being, that One DnD is going to be downwards compatible changing the class identity seems a bit much for me. I know you should not judge before they even put out the document, but I can't see a world where this is going to end well.
Having a limited number of forms to focus on from a wider template set would probably be ideal. Also reminds me in a decent way of the original Warcraft druids and how they had a focus on specific forms to shapeshift into - with the Archdruid rank being some of the few able to do multiple forms at peak level. It could've been a good idea for D&D to copy, having the "ultimate" level 19-20 ability for druids being that "shapeshift into any template with all bonuses" perk as befits an Archdruid of some kind, and helping keep up with other "epic level" classes too.
In regards to the OneDnD Druids and Wild Shape. My thought was this: Since they are redoing the Monster Manual as well why not just add a new line similar to CR (Challenge Rating) being DL (Druid Level). If a beast doesn't have a DL line then the Druid can't turn into that form. Then Moon Druids just cut that number in half or something like that. Still not being able to unlock Swim and Flight till later levels. And maybe instead of gaining a beasts full HP they get Half of the HP as Temp HP. Still a bit of a boost if they want to tank with it but not as possible overpowered as getting the full HP of that beast. This way they don't have to come up with 20 or whatever generic stat blocks you just look in the Monster Manual for entries with a DL rating that matches your Druid level (with Moon Druids getting that number cut if half or a third or or maybe a flat value of -2 or whatever.)
Love your ideas regarding picking from a larger set of characters - I have basically implemented something similar for conjure animal spells. I would add one additional feature. I would split your choices into combat shapes vs others. So for combat options you would pick from the list as you have described. But I would then also allow them to pick any shape for utility but with a set low HP of 2 or something, and do anything your imagination and the dice and your DM will let you do, and roleplay your heart away. Oh, I would also let them swap out selected combat shapes whenever they level.
Very great points and love the explanations. I hope enough of the community feedback is taken well by the DND makers. My favorite part of this was your insight to why those changes are necessary from your own experience building your own classes. Also hope to see another look at your sub classes from your new book. Love the insight from you both on a design level. Also hope to see a delirium lich lol.
![Eminem - Temporary (feat. Skylar Grey) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZaK9Wi5ho0o/mqdefault.jpg)
I feel like the solutions presented in this vido boil down to "give every class eldritch invocations" and I love it
doing little things of that nature, is a awsome concept
Because WotC accidentally stumbled into a grand slam with eldritch invocations. Give classes thematic abilities that can be used at will based on class level. It doesn’t undermine warlocks because each class is incredibly class dependent.
Paladins? Smites and Auras.
Druids? Forms
Ranger? Nature based spells/abilities
Sorcerers already have sorcery points.
Monks have ki points.
Fighters should have been battle masters by default.
Bards can have expanded features for bardic inspiration.
It’s very thematic to the core of fantasy of the classes. Let the players have more choice.
Don’t agree. It WILL take away from warlocks. I was very disappointed in the Apothecary class by the Dungeon Dudes because of it. The apothecary literally feels much more like a reskin warlock fix than a separate class. Eldritch Invocations should remain the warlocks’ signature ability.
@@СтаниславБерезовский-щ5я Can you give precise details of how, using the DD example, giving a list of 20 forms, and letting a Druid choose 3-4 to master, in any way impacts a warlocks ability to customize their Eldritch blast, or cast a single spell at will from a list of curated spells?
How does increasing the viability of a class specific ability, at all effect the function of how Eldritch Invocations work for warlocks?
@@Michael-ft5bm I believe it is a very bad idea. Know why? Because that’s the reason I don’t play Pathfinder 2e. It has no thematic focus. If you turn every class into a jigsaw puzzle of ”pick-your-own-abilities”, the class only loses it’s purpose and identity. The class loses all of its roleplay focus and becomes a meaningless, soulless construct of optimized mechanics. That’s no way to play an RPG. Essentially, if the class can be anything, then it ends up being nothing.
Honestly, I want more classes to get tons of options, like Warlock getting Eldritch Invocations, or battlemaster fighters getting maneuvers. Paladins getting to choose between a handful of flavors of smites without using the smite spells would be super cool, and provides a nice degree of flexibility in flavoring your character.
Edit: Can't believe y'all missed Smites getting opened up for ranged and unarmed attacks, which is huge and I love it.
Not to be that guy but if this is what you want you should play Pathfinder
@Wing Sprocket I feel you. I also play Pathfinder but when your whole group knows 5e and doesn't want to commit to a new system, sometimes you've gotta beg the DM for a homebrew Magus Class to play for 5 instead.
"Sigmar bless this Shot!"
i see lotsa of people talking about Pathfinder with this take but i think it works well for 5e just as much, if you take a page out of star wars 5e's rules. every class has their own list of things they get granted at different levels (i play a scholar, so every so often i get a discovery - there are even some discoveries unlocked by my subclass!) and i've said ever since trying that system that it should definitely be incorporated into the next version of d&d. it's unique enough from pf2e bc the mechanics of 5e still apply and all classes and subclasses have static features, but it's a good way to let players have extra customization without opening up the floodgates to overwhelmingly endless options !!
to much options isnt good either. A sweat middleground would be best. Also makes it easier for new players to dive into the game
Honestly the idea of roughly 12 templates to cover the bases seems really solid.
Yes, 12 animal families, but choose 2, 3, 4, or over time maybe 5. That seems flavorful, flexible enough without being random, and provides scaling which wild shape has been really bad with to date. Elementals (vis-a-vis the Wildfire Druid) make sense, too, but only for certain Circles or after a certain level, IMO.
Removing the tank aspect of wildshape makes sense, since druids conceptually should not be the party tank. . . but it is a huge nerf. I wouldn't mind if they had an opportunity to regain HD (using the short rest mechanic, for example) each time they change shape, though. It make sense (their flesh flows into a new shape and partially heals as they do so. . . ) In 5E RAW they gain 50+ temp HP, which is pretty OP at low levels, and then insignificant, due to the drawbacks in communication and spellcasting, at higher levels.
Totally agree with that ... maybe give some special templates for the different archetypes (like some strong combat options for moon druid)
Subclass templates or alterations would also work. Imagine Circle of the Canines, which starts with a wolf/fox/etc form with enhanced smell, but over time becomes a werewolf form that can both cast Hex through its bite attack and cast other spells of specific schools.
i like the sort of radical customisation but realistically most beasts are just varying bite and claw attacks and this approach is much better game design wise then having to balance every beast around the druid.
I also feel like this concept applied to the beast master rangers animal companion would work really well too and bring back the uniqueness that the original BM had with its companions.
I'm so glad you addressed this. I have been a druid main for a long long time and it pains me to say: With the wildshape changes as they are *at this moment*, I daresay there is little to no reason for a druid player to ever use the wildshape feature.
I completely agree with you. I remember talking to a friend who said, a dampire with long-stride is better than theses forms as it keeps similar speeds, let’s you climb and you can keep casting spells!
Honestly I felt they solved the Druid hit point issue with circle of the spores. Have it be you gain x per Druid level, scale it down if needed.
One neat idea of scaled down, could be to let you expend multiple uses of wild shape at once to add the hit points together.
So let’s say you get 2 per Druid level, and your level 5. 1 wild shape for 10 hit points or 2 for 20 hit points.
Same and I agree. I was extremely disappointed by the playtest.
Druids must band together to prevent this
It's pretty useful for getting your Druid past a substantial obstacle or in a better place without expending spell slots. As for the rest of the party they still need to use their abilities anyway so its only use-case is a selfish one.
@@theamazingwam7998 without using a spell slot, but EXPENDING a much more PRECIOUS resource...for virtually nothing. 🙄
I agree with what u said. I understand balancing the Druid health bar but the fun part for Druid was the adaptability of nature and losing that would hurt greatly
They should still add temp hp or something to the moon druid combat wild shape.
@@galion1991 yes, and the temp hp can scale with druid level
It is a balance, but druid has poor weapon choices, can't use metal armour, so it's already hamstrung and a bit squishy, the wild shape hp countered some of that
@@paulharrison2557 Druids can use metal armour, just many choose not to.
Which I think is dumb, because what about Druids who are into geology and stoneworking or crystals or metals?
most all the complaint comes not from DRUID but from the subclass of Moon Druid .. so really was any other druid subclass really all the OP? just a rework of the current 5e Moon Druid subclass Might have been all that was Really needed.
Expanding on Monty's idea of a limited number of wild shapes know, I propose a flora form. You could have vines that could suck out nutrients if you're grappling an enemy, healing you for 1d4 damage, you'd get an innate speak with plants while transformed and you could get a bonus to stealth if you don't move.
You should read the spell *Guardian of Nature* which isn't exactly what you described but pretty close :)
I was surprised you didn't speak to the other Wildshape nerfing they did. You don't carry over anything from your classes, race, feats, or skills. That's great for preventing weird interactions, except that everything you turn into is worse than the Druid you just were unless you need to flee via climbing, swimming, or flying. Wildshape has been reduced to Flee Speed.
wow what a fucking joke. I didn't catch that part in the stat blocks.
Funny, didn't hear J Craw address this in the playtest survey feedback 😅
I forgot all about that, but you’re right. They just decided to dumpster the druid for the playtest and leave them with nothing to show it. Just an awful, awful design proposal. Worst i’ve seen by far.
I would love to see druid environments be incorporated into wild shape abilities like Eldritch Invocations modify Eldritch Blast.
You’re a tundra or desert druid, so you can modify your wild shapes to have cold or fire resistance.
You’re an Underdark druid, so all of your wild shapes have tremorsense or blindsight.
You’re a savannah druid, your wild shapes get extra movement.
I think it would be a great way to incorporate backstory into a druid’s powers, which often just feel nebulous in how they relate to nature as a whole.
Same with paladin divine smites! Instead of smite spells, just let them change divine smite
I think this belongs to circle of the land. Shapeshifting into unnatural aberrant things is not exactly a druid thing IMO.
@@kamchatmonk It wouldnt be flavored that way. Invocation esque features would serve the purpose of allowing druids forms to have more variety, as actual animals do.
They suggested subclass, I would suggest invocation-style choices as they level up, but either way the flavor is the same.
They are a spirit of the land that, because they are an underdark druid, takes the form of a mole which can burrow and has tremorsense.
They take an invocation that enables them to have sharp teeth or claws. Now instead of a normal fish, they're a shark. Instead of a songbird, they're a bird of prey.
Really wish they would get The true essence of The moon druid without The Wonky scaling.
What you’re saying is exactly how I feel about bard and their special spells like viscous mockery. The fact it’s just a spell on the arcane list means you’ll get wizard, sorcerer, etc. getting those spells too. Makes the Bard feel less special because the wizard already does literally everything
Yep. Wizards is trying to dumb shit down for their stupid VTT nobody is going to use anyway. That is what it has to be, because literally NOBODY asked for one static list of spells for every spellcaster.
First WoTC takes away defining alignment from certain monsters. Then they take away class defining ASIs (which I was actually okay with, but this is what that has led to). Now they are taking away defining characteristics of each class.
This just sucks. Every class is losing it's unique identity and feel so it can be lumped together into one of two bases it seems--caster or martial. And the only reason I can think of doing this--since again literally NOBODY asked for this horse crap, is for their dumbass VTT that they want to push on people. It's utter garbage, and one of the multitude of reasons I will not be switching to OneDND unless they cut this shit out.
"I cast viscous mockery!"
-You throw a glob of pudding at the face of the orc, make a ranged spell attack
I like the idea of the smite spells being tied to your Paladin Oath, with new ones for your Oath being unlocked at higher levels. That way you'd be adding another feature to make each Oath stand out, and would give options of different smites to use. It'd also solve the problem of the Cleric being better at smite spells than the Paladin, by tying it to a class feature.
The idea for selecting different wild shape forms to master is really cool. There are so many possibilities with just that feature that it should honestly be its own class. Picture it: a shapeshifter class that masters different forms as they progress and maybe can modify them in different ways based on what subclass was chosen.
The idea of a fixed list in the PHB isn't particularly new, but it is good. 5e even has this already. The problem is the scaling - the PHB Beasts in 5e are not enough due to this. Which is why the MM is open to the player. Fix the scaling, save the Wildshape.
A particular suggestion is to have the Moon Druid subclass provide that scaling, rather than pick a Beast that has that scaling - so have a dozen or so curated, diverse, flavourful Beasts in the PHB at CR1, then have the Moon Druid scale them up as they level. You could even have the UA 'flavour-as-you-like' included; pick a similar beast from the options provided, reskin. So, Panther becomes Cougar, Hawk becomes Falcon, etc. This way, as long as the mechanic space for Beasts is adequately covered (so Spider Climb, Movement hindering, Tough, etc.) then the flavouring can be infinite.
The DM Beasts (MM, etc.) should be available for players if the DM is fine with that, however, they need curating. My suggestion here would be to have a tag 'Wildshape Approved' that lets the DM know this is safe for the player. So, no Onyx.
Maybe a sort of "prepared wild shapes "?
tbh yea, at that point if your going to far into it it could be its own class
Monty’s idea of multiple wild shape forms and ones you have prepared is EXCELLENT
The idea for Druid makes perfect sense!! I hope they listen to this and use it
I love your druid idea - Current one D&D druid does not look fun, but your idea looks so much better!
I agree. I really like the idea of a certain number of go-to "generic" forms specific to a genus like _Canis,_ or _Felidae,_ etc.
I’d really like for them to do that but I think they want to make it more “player friendly” or simplify it to make it more commercialized
Yeah, Druid is already the least played class and canning everything that makes it interesting ruins it.
With the Paladin the wording allows for a ranged smite. "Immediately after you hit a target with an attack roll using a weapon or an Unarmed Strike." They give up the Nova but now you can really Dex your pally and give them a bow, also giving you a chance to be a holy puncher.
Yeah but, isn't that too much? That would make the Paladin a great ranged option which, in turn, hurts classes like the Ranger and the Rogue.
@thedeathofabachelor8782
You still have a finite number of spell slots. I don't think Paladins can consistently outperform the Rogue and Ranger at what they're best at.
Kind of? Paladins get their smites but it is only once per turn, and it's still expending slots to smite as well. So yeah it definitely is strong to smite with ranged attacks, but I don't think it outclasses Rangers or Rogues.
@@snazzyfeathers I agree i mean it irks me when people don't seem to get that Rogues not only get an extra ASI but they can just focus on Dex, Rangers are fine with leaving wisdom at 16, Paladins really can't ignore charisma.
@@thedeathofabachelor8782 Rangers are preparation DPS, by setting up more and more damage per turn with their subclass stuff and hunters mark. but once set up, they are very powerful, adding a couple dice on every attack at higher levels
Rogues use consistent pot-shot attacks. they can only do a max of 2 attacks per round, but those attacks do an insane amount of damage for little setup and no spent resources.
Paladins are a middle ground, a versatility of the prep ranger and pot-shot nature of Rogues, but with the caveat that it requires spell slots every time you use such. you will be burning through them faster than either of the prior but you wont be any more or less powerful than the other two. add on the fact that the wider Divine spell list exists, your Divine Sense is boosted, and your for free Find Steed, you still have your own role in the party - RP and Combat - compared to the other two
I'd just like to say that Kelly has really found his stride in the last few months, and seems more confident, happy, and comfortable showing his silly side and I love that!!!
Glad to see you guys objectively. Going over the changes to see the good and the bad not just nerf= bad
I LOVE your Druid idea in so many ways. Makes druid more approachable for new players. Plays into druids having a "go-to"s. No just picking a form just for hp. Keeps the different speed forms level locked. Having druid sub classes with unique transformations, like the wildfire or stars druid.
When I first got into DnD, I actually expected Smite to be a 1/turn thing. Like, it's not something that... sounds like, something you would be doing on every attack, you know? In any case, I have allways felt that Paladin spells were overlooked in favor of Smite, so I'm happy that this might make people consider spellcasting more.
As for druids, I pretty much agree with everything you said. I could imagine fewer stat blocks though, but each one has some customization options like the Tasha summon spells have.
Yeah a lot of paladin spells get overlooked for smite but the paladin is the weakest damaging of the three melee martials (damage sponges) without smites. With the barbarian getting reckless attack and brutal critical, not to mention the rage damage on each attack, and the fighter is just so consistent with how many attacks they are just able to throw. Paladins have to burn spell slots or save them to chunk important enemies to keep up (barb rage is limited but longer lasting and at 20 becomes infinite). Paladin does have the same extra attack as the fighter up to level 11 but fighter has better stat focus which leads to generally being a little better no resource.
@@hyper_sword8835 This. The Paladin's damage is actually only decent. Sure, they can get the PAM+GWM combo, but that is kind of it. Unlike a Fighter, they can't get Archery + XBE + SS, which is more damage, more reliable, and far safer being ranged.
When people think of Paladin damage, they think of that triple Smite with crits against an Undead/Fiend - but how often is this actually happening? Its a blue moon event, one which you may go an entire campaign without seeing.
Smites are poor damage for Spell Slot. Now, Paladin spells suck. You've got Bless, and Find Steed if you count that. Most of the rest just are not that good. Command has its moments (especially if paired with a rogue that the creature has to go past), but generally, its just Bless. So, even though you really only *want* to Smite on a crit or if you are sure it will make the difference in the enemy not getting another turn, you don't usually have much else to use Spell Slots on. One of the reasons to Multiclass is to put those Spell Slots to use (the other major reason is so you can go ranged). However, that doesn't make Smite good damage in general.
This change to making Smite once per turn, fine. However, it really needs more situations that it is useful in, especially now that the Smite Spells have been made a whole lot better (which means Cleric is better at Smiting than a Paladin). I'm also not adverse to giving Paladins better spells, which the generic spell list does. Ranged options have also been added.
One problem here is, what is the difference between Paladin and Cleric? If the Cleric gets Extra Attack, it really comes down to full caster progression vs Aura of Protection. Its a little homogenous.
I could definitely see Smites becoming something like Eldritch Invocations. Personally tho, I think class spell lists is a better fix.
Agreed
Class spell lists are a problem for the health of the system and needs to go, no matter how much it SEEMS like it might be too complicated now.
I like the 'idea' of the spell lists and then setting up the access by schools of magic. But the implementation just feels problematic. If this was a less defined spell casting system, where manipulation of spells and improvisations of effects were available, then limiting effects based on school would make WAY more sense. But when spells 'say what they do and don't do what they don't say' the whole thing feels a little misplaced.
Oath spells?
I think there should an Invocation/Infusion like system for each class that can help customize each class.
Paladins could get Divine Blessings that they can channel a number times per day that can produce a short list of effects like day the smite spells.
Druids could have Aspects of Nature that can help customize their Channel Nature or Wild Shape forms.
Etc...
I kinda like the idea of having the arcane, primal, and divine spell lists but then having class specific spells as well. then you have some spells that many classes can use and spells that add to a classes flavor.
I was hoping to also hear you talk about the healing flower thing you can do with channel nature...I love the concept but it seems insanely weak after you get past the first couple levels.
Agreed, having a baked in healing option for druids (the medicine men since the beginning of history) is a great touch, but it’s such a pathetic amount of hit points and will end up only getting used as a shorter range healing word to jump up unconscious persons
Seeing the Druid changes immediately gave me pause about 1DnD as a whole. It's such a miss across the board.
Agreed, love Channel Nature. Also I love Monty's thought on limiting forms - feels like fighting styles or invocations in the sense that you have to pick and choose for your specific character, and the ability to re-train means that no one is locked in to a form that turns out to be not so great for their campaign.
But the biggest miss is the Moon Druid. This is the result of tuning several knobs of something in a small way that add up to a HUGE difference in feel and practice. The HP pool was an issue, and like Kelly said, we kind of have to put aside our desire for power in the game to see that it's a good thing to not have multiple large HP pools. But the changes to wild shape effectively destroy the way the Moon druid works. It's the only subclass that is around wild shape, and that only worked because it was given access to more powerful forms on top of the fact that it was able to shift into actual bestial forms with specific and unique abilities. Yes, those forms were over-the-top early on, but the issue is that CR is crazy and scaled poorly overall, not that the wild shape ability itself needed a massive rework. And the removal of elemental forms is just the nail in the coffin. Literally just move it to 14th level and move Alter Self to 10th level. It's not front-loaded, it feels awesome as a capstone ability at 14th level, and it actually fits the power level of the rest of the game at that point! Why would you cripple one of the coolest subclasses in DND and take away the thing that gets everyone excited to play it?
I know that any DM that's had a Moon Druid has struggled to challenge them at times, myself included. But stripping the class of nearly everything that makes it stand out isn't balancing, it's fixing design mistakes with bigger mistakes. If it's a struggle to challenge players in combat, maybe the creatures need to be buffed rather than nerfing the characters? Maybe some things need to be shifted around (you mentioned a move away from front-loading classes and proficiency based uses, I totally agree). But honestly, with Monty's suggested changes to the way wild shape has been proposed and the re-addition of Elemental Forms at 14th level, I think we'd see a really fun and powerful Moon Druid that doesn't beat everything out for best subclass like it does in 5e.
My idea is to give them a temp hp pool when they wild shape along the lines of the spore druid, like 4 per level. And also give them some more class specific ways they could use spell slots in combat. I can't remember but I think 1dnd now lets them use a slot for hp recovery? So maybe add the ability to increase AC or damage with a slot too?
Because moving stats around doesn't change some of the core issues with spellcasting and druids as a whole. Druids have more utility, more power, more versatility, more everything than just about every other class in the game. You can't fix that with fundamentally adjusting the class, and it needs to be done.
Simple fix for wild shape: instead of druids reverting to their original form with their full health pool after dropping to 0 in their wild shape, just have them drop to 0 so they don't have two health pools to work with. That seems like such an obvious fix that I don't understand how it was overlooked
@@tylerrees85 the problem is it would shut down a lot of out of combat wildshapes, because who's going to wildshape into a rat with 5 hp or whatever to infiltrate the castle when a guard stepping on them could kill their character outright?
@@sambirch5153 I mean it wouldn't go much better for them if they reverted to their original form either
You guys hit the nail on its head for both classes, but specially the druid , the fun part was looking at all the beasts and finding the one you can use with its special ability for the conundrum you have . multiple options should still be the case with special abilities for each i like the species concept but still allow for cross species abilities. yes like mutants, owlbear comes to mind. i mean i just used a seahorse in my last game to guide the boat to our destination, it creates that fun challenge that is part of the whole concept. Oh and yes PF2 has it really good for druids, with even options for dragons, and plant forms. They took the tiny form from them why not take the rest.
Awesome idea for wildshape! I’ve always played my druids with just a few forms in mind, cause a guy who can transform into literally any obscure beast is hard to justify narratively.
It's also impossible to justify in the rules "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before" That obscure beast you've clearly never seen before you can't transform into it.
One big problem with the playtest druid that is tangential to wildshape is that almost all of the other class features are now dependent on wildshape. So if you're one of those subclasses like wildfire, spores or stars, you don't get much at those levels. It's true that some of these levels used to be "dead", or reserved for new spell levels essentially, but it still feels weird how much of a core feature wild shape feels now, when many popular builds don't touch it.
If you really look at the 5e Druid, it's the same. Look at their class table, and add in all the levels where you get a Wildshape improvement that's normally hidden away at level 2, and it's basically the same thing: the entire class is spells, ASIs, and wildshape.
@@AnaseSkyrider you're right but it still feels kinda weird. Like if you're a stars druid, and you get to level 5, you read the text for your new thing and immediately go "oh, this doesn't really apply to my build. Ok I guess."
But I think the solution the dudes suggest solves this. If you get new forms at these levels, you can still have fun picking forms for versatility or scouting even if you don't use wild shape they often. And the scaling text that lives in the main class text moves to the stat blocks.
Druids at my tables have always needed to have some experience with the animals whose forms they sought to assume. When one player was wanting to be a bear so badly, but kept rolling terribly, I allowed him to spend some down time communing with a forest. So even though he wasn’t able to see a bear directly, he was able to “see” one through the “eyes” of a tree.
It's also how the class is written it's one of those rules alot of people ignore that causes alot of trouble because they ignore it.
I just put in every druid characters backstory "they went to a zoo one time"
@@ATMOSK1234 As far as I'm aware there is no such thing as a zoo in the forgotten realms
@@darkdragonsoul99 RUclips seems to delete comments that link to sage advice, but yes there are zoo's in the forgotten realms according to Ed Greenwood. Likely any sufficiently wealthy area would have them.
@@darkdragonsoul99 people do use homebrew and things outside of official material. Beyond that, the forgotten realms do have official things like zoos. In the Descent into Avernus book, there is an entire section detailing the Garynmor Stables and Menagerie which “contains variety of rare creatures both mundane and magical” and is part of Baldurs Gate
Regarding the Druid
I like the framework of Wildshape: Air, Land, Sea. Kinda reminds me of the revamped/ alternate Beastmaster from Tashas. Same three categories. HOWEVER. Inside each framework, there should be beast size brackets: Small, Medium, Large. And depending of you size, you should get less or more HP depending on the beast. And to compensate small size with low hp you could get more speed and dexterity. If large sure gets tons of hp, resistance but a bit lower speed. If SAME size as your humanoid form? Well you get a small buff in hp and bonus on saving throws. Also you could flavor EACH size bracket/ category and adjust if you want to use the hp of a certain beast like in 5e. As an OPTION! If not fiddling with more details for your wildshape. Use the standarized up or downscaling regarding HP etc in any of the Wild Shape frameworks: Air, Land, Sea
You should not get more or less HP. That's the core issue of the Druid, too much HP. Why would you get more HP as a bear when it's still your body that is taking damage? I can see the idea of getting more AC which is in the new versions. But it is still you that is taking damage and being hurt.
@@techbeef in my opinion with the new druid, i hate that theres.... really no reason to use wildshape. you lose access to all your magic items, class features, spells, everything, all for something with comparable AC to you as-is with only a single attack (which would go off your spell attack mod, but oops, you dont benefit from that +1 focus anymore) and a movement speed.
yeah, too much HP was a big problem, but giving really *nothing* aside from a movement speed, slight size change, and a singular feature each? this is nothing.
if anything, dont give them new hp, give them like idk, 3-5 temp hp per druid level when you transform. it cant be healed or stacked cuz its temp, and you dont revert when it runs out so you'll need to use time to revert and transform back rather than immediately boosting back to max. that's a good change and keeps it fun, just as a singular change to what we already have
as it is right now? transforming is just shooting yourself in the foot, and Moon Druid feels like a bandage on the wound rather than even a Cure Wounds cast. you loose *everything* to get basically nothing. at least back in 5e, you'd have uses for wildshape in both combat or not even as a land druid.
@@patdav56 so you're saying the only reason to use wildshape was to be broken? There are a lot of abilities in the game that don't give you any particular improvement or increase in strength. I always had a distinct issue with the level of power that druids had, effectively no weakness, infinite versatility, powerful spells, good healing, etc etc etc. They still have everything else except now they have weaknesses and don't have infinite versatility. Seems like exactly the nerf that was needed.
@@techbeef No, the comment is that the new version literally debilitates you in its current form. Your AC will almost guarantee drop. You can't cast spells, can't use equipment. You are better off just doing Shillelagh and holding a shield.
What @@TheFurrLord said exactly. Compare that to something like Tenser's Transformation, which drops your spellcasting altogether as a wizard, but *gives* better defenses, offenses, etc, as a one-time micro class change, and coordinates with multiple subclasses like bladesinger and war wizard
You have ZERO use for this feature as the new druid, as it is better to just use shillelagh or any other spell
personally I think removing the specific spell lists will be good in the long run. if you describe your spell list in relative terms (ie arcane abjuration, etc) you create a more flexible game system that can accommodate the additions of spells and classes without errata on top of errata every time a book comes out with new stuff. someone did a video about this, but honestly its how I felt from the beginning.
Instead of having 1-2 dozen stat blocks, they could keep it to 3-4 stat blocks, but give each block a handful of customizing features.
Just like the new Summon Spells, let you pick between 3 unique features for your summon.
Like, these statblocks, but for land you have such and such generic animals. And as you pick one, you get the specific ability of that animal group, like: feline -> earth animal stat block, but with pounce ability.
I actually liked Montys suggestion of different groupings of animal types. Kinda genious and makes sense
@@odinulveson9101 it's not bad, but it's too many... There would be 5 pages of Wildshapes... That's not a good idea...
Particularly when you could just have a handful of stat blocks, and then pick a bonus feature.
@@guamae if there's 5 pages of wildshapes but you only get to pick 3 you have mastered... I really think Monty is onto something there. It solves the bookkeeping issue and like he says, it's really thematic and feeds nicely into role-playing. What did your druid do to commune with the giant spiders in order to master that form?
I remember seeing a good solution with the elegant Druid, where you have 2 forms (combat and scouting), with the combat form being able to pick a template based off of various creatures, and the scouting form having different speeds based off of if they chose air land or sea
I really like your approach of a range of forms to choose from with premade state blocks and variety of skills. So long as I could choose the size that would work great for me. The part I don't want to lose is all of the exploration aspects of wild shape. That is a part I really love in the game.
As a Paladin Stan I can accept the limit to smites but I really hope they lift the restriction to not being able to use spells at the same time and just limit it to the smite spells since that is what they wanted to limit anyways
Or just let it combine anyway, because you have to take up a preparation slot to do this, it still consumes your bonus action, and you're still burning through spell slots very quickly.
@@Wintermute909 And then the Paladin hits the Cleric's flying steed with a ranged smite, knocking them out of the sky and forcing the Cleric to spend 10 minutes and a spell slot summoning a new one. When the Cleric then retaliates by killing the Paladin's steed, the Paladin gets inconvenienced for a whole 6 seconds summoning a new one.
This IS a dealbreaker for me. If this makes it to tue reoease I Stick with 5 or switch glto black flag.
@@oliveranan4881 OneDnD is so bad so far I wouldn't even use it if someone gave me a free players handbook and DMguide. Screw that.
Imho find steed and the smite spells need to be gone from the divine spell list. That's a much bigger issue. Scaling back smite and having it mutually exclusive with the spells (and the spells almost being a 1to1 substitute for a smite) is alright. Same for smite not critting anymore. That is in line with sneak not critting etc. If we're bringing down damage numbers across the board, it stands to reason, wotc wants monster health to be more reasonable. Hence, we can't have giga nuking paladins.
But the cleric CANNOT get access to find steed and the smite spells.
Cause that just means "the best paladin is a cleric". Kinda like "the best paladin is a sorcerer/bard" that we have now except that the cleric needs 0 levels in paladin to be better at everything the paladin does while current meta at least has 6 levels of paladin on almost any build.
Because the way i see it WotC envisions the paladin as a super fast first aid kit. Riding over the battlefield healing fallen allies.
Which conflicts already with the aura. Now have clerics be better at both dashing around the battlefield and healing and you don't need the paladin any longer.
"To not create new beast stat blocks , because if you did you will be giving a new form for a druid to potentially turn into". That's great! You open a new book and you have new content to refresh already old and stagnant classes! The only thing they need to do is to ensure the CR is properly set so all beasts are balanced.
I feel like there are some really good ideas and perspectives here. I really agree with the main concept of classes/subclasses that give choices in order to diversify really is the way to go forward. It allows things to get simplified at lower levels and increase complexity as the character grows which is important.
I appreciate you guys having a back and forth with the one dnd material.
I do believe it is ultimately for the best that spellcasting classes get nerfed in each their way, and martials get buffed in each their own way. However, no class should lose its identity.
I have to respect one dnd for actually trying, and I'm glad you guys are too.
They need to add back the Temp HP and the animal abilities like Pounce, Multiattack, and the animal AC. Just make the attacks and Temp HP scale as one levels up.
A bear at level 20 that got added a hit dice every 3 levels with a bonus to their attack equal to their profiency modifier + wisdom modifier could be such an awesome power up.
They should not add back in the temp HP, too much HP and versatility are the core design problems with druid. Why should you get more HP when it is still your body in wildshape? Higher AC? Sure, but not more HP.
I certainly agree that too much HP may be an issue. But a bear with 20hp won't do much when the wizards can call a meteor strike and the warrior can multiattack 4 times in a turn.
@@antoniovideos9629 oh so you're not the most broken thing on the battlefield and out of combat and for exploration and... You get it. How tragic. You can out tank a barbarian, you can out cast sorcerers, you can out stealth the Rogue, you can heal, aoe control, etc etc etc etc. Like damn man, save something at the table for everyone else
@@techbeef Nah, the solutions is for the One DnD barbarian to out-tank the 5e barbarian, the sorcerer to out cast the 5e sorcerer, and the rogue to out-stealth the 5e Rogue.
In that way the duid can't out-rank them if everyone is even better at their things than before.
I love Monty’s Wild Shape fix idea. Especially once you get into what it means for subclasses
My wildshape idea fix is just to limit your character to a certain number of wildshape forms, that way you have to be more selective and intentional about your wildshapes, what abilities you want, what speaks to your character thematically, and you won't have all the options that could make a player potentially broken
Its alredy limited. It is and only should be beasts/ animals. No. The framework air/ land/ sea is great! But alot of aspects like blandness and HP gutting is beyond bad
That is a wonderful idea!
You get to pick forms like you pick prepared spells. I like this idea. You couldn't turn into anything, but you could plan 3-6 animals as your go-to, and only use those. If you didn't pick anything small and sneaky, you can't sneak.
@@odinulveson9101 The generic template with minor alterations kills the shapeshifting vibe. You don’t turn into a specific animal, you turn into a painfully watered down silhouette of the idea of animals.
Did this for my last druid player. Forms known = Wis mod. I also said that they needed to spend a week with the creature in a natural context. So no dinosaurs.
Great ideas for druid wildshape dudes! I hope wotc hears this and takes it on. I would also like to add that there shouldn't be any level locking for swim and fly. when you consider that some druid circles like coast or consider flavour/roleplay like a mountain druid, then it would make sense for them to be able to master swim or flying shapes first before land.
My disappointment is that it feels like a Cleric will be a better "Paladin" then the actual Paladin class. It does almost everything a paladin does but quicker and easier
And that's a total mess. They have to fix this.
Yes! I was just talking that Smite Spells should just be passive abilities that a Paladin gets added onto their smite as they go up in level. and then the sub classes can have their own unique one.
It's easy to fix the powerful early level feature issue, always build in scaling which works with class level in some way.
Monk is actually a great example of this in how their martial art die and ki increases at certain stages, incentivizing players to take more levels rather than multiclass. Now, monk still needs to be powerful to be great, but it at least understands how to scale features.
That's an idea I had about solving the new smite issue: create a resource where you need to use them to be able to smite in the turn, just like the Ki Points where you consume to use flurry of blows, where the more points you invest in one turn, the more damage you deal, but cap them and make the smite spells just like invocations from the warlock, and they need to consume points as well. Ex: by lvl20, a pally would have 20 Smite points, where each point grant 1d8 radiant damage, being able to double the damage when crit, and capping at max 7 points to use in a turn, where the Banishing Smite would cost 5 points to use, and would be able to be used in the same turn and attack as well as Divine Smite, but not the same as any other different smite bc of bonus action. By these rules, you would end with a pally that deals less dmg than the 5e version, but still can do some kind of nova, and wouldn't have the issue of being less powerful than any multiclass or class that can pick smite spells by now
@@Daredevil_MCZ my solution would be to scale the damage die with increasing Paladin levels. d4s at first, d6s at level 5, d8s at lvl 11, d10s at the highest lvls. Makes multiclassing paladin for smites much less attractive until you get decent investment into the class.
I agree with yalls wildshape recommendations. Great ideas
There's alot of lore about how druids end up picking a particular animal to specialize with and begins taking on those traits. The ettercap monster was a cult of druids that really liked spiders until they became consumed by it.
I wish you were the ones designing One D&D. All your ideas sound very reasonable to me. Choosing things is fun! Bring back more choices!
As a paladin fan, I'm not happy. While I do think that classes/subclasses in general got too powerful in 5th edition and new monsters are not necessarily cathing up, I think that limiting the number of times you can smite per turn to 1 would have been enough.
Personally, I think there is _some_ design solution that allows front-loading and Prof Bonus to work with Multi-classing.
The design idea to me is : Does a single-classed character get _better_ uses of this feature, rather than simply _more_ uses of it. If that's the case, then it could work.
Regarding the splitting of spells into Arcane, Divine and Primal rather than class spells, It is worth mentioning that Pathfinder 2e already does this but has 2 more categories, occult and Focus.
I've been DM'ing a Pathfinder 2e game for about 2 years now, allowing casters to pick from a category over class spells grants them a lot of customization and versatility. However Focus spells are class unique spells so that each character had their own Identity.
(Edit, spelling errors)
I can see the reasoning behind generic spell lists. Specific class lists squash the ability to bring out new splatbooks with new spells and classes without retro-actively listing out every class that gets access to each spell. And it gets exponentially harder with each new book.
Far better to say this new spell is Primal and Abjuration. Then you know immediately which classes get it. And if a new Elemental Warlord class is brought out, you only have to say "this class can access Abjuration and Evocation spells from the Primal list". And you know that, hey, it can cast that spell from that other splatbook.
I like the idea of stealing the idea of Focus spells from Pathfinder though. Just a few spells unique to a class, like smite spells for a paladin
re: Druids, I think it was a holdover from having played in 4e, but our table generally limits druid wild shape forms to "beasts you've seen". So if you're in say, Eberron, a dinosaur might not be too unbelievable, but in Faerun, maybe not. This helps balance it at least at our table.
I think they should have gone in the exact opposite direction with the spell tables. I think every class that can cast should have a unique spell table with uniquely themed spells so there isn't so much overlap with casting.
Druid Wildshape could scale similarly to Warlock invocations and let you choose different forms or abilities as you level up.
For the Druid, I'd approach it a little differently. Instead of discrete forms, I think 3 or 4 basic forms are fine, but then have an invocation type system of buying enhancement as you progress in levels. Then you can layer these enhancements upon the base form to achieve a ton of combinations. Then the flavor is up to the player. Land beast could be a horse, giant lizard, or bear, but slapping on the the burly feature gives you a certain amount of temporary hit points when you first shift, while "fleet" increases your speed.
I really love the propsed changes to the druid wildshape here in the video it seems like infusions or eldritch invocations
Aside _some_ HP boost, the key thing is to provide a list of ALL the special abilities that the beasts had such as burrow, constrict, web, poison stings, etc. and let us choose an increasing number of such traits as you level up. 👍
Because THAT is where the most fun of wild shape is?
Yeah, it's becoming a bit mutant-y but didn't they mention that the shapes could eventually get mixed in the presentation video? 🤔
Edit: I do like the list of forms provided though 👍
To make it less "mutanty" you could have packages of related powers that you get with a given form. Spider = "web, climb, poison", Wolf = "trip, track, pack tactics", bear = "+THP, grapple", horse = "+speed, carry"
or whatever :)
@@eraz0rheadAgreed 👍
Here's the sticking point there: why grant a full caster the ability to produce spell effects without spending spell slots (in general, not just with the druid)? Polymorph, web, spider climb, enlarge/reduce, illusion spells, fly, etc....all available via spell slot expenditure. If limiting spells to only X uses per day is how magical effects are balanced out you can't have a way to bypass that limitation without impacting balance.
@@kaynadinstilleverge3843 Fair point. Resource management (spell slots etc) has always been a thorn in the side of the system. It's rarely well balanced across classes, (except 4E where it was _specifically_ balanced across classes), and so the assumption that (limited powerful options) is balanced against (always available, less powerful options) is fundamentally a bad design decision, since it's so open to variation across playing groups.
But to your point, I think the added options would need to be less powerful than the spells, and be gated by higher levels in Druid in the same way Fly etc is. Note also, that, until the highest levels, a Druid is _either_ in wildshape _or_ they're a full-caster, so that's part of the tradeoff. But a Wizarrd could cast Fly and _also_ fireball or whatever.
I would like to see _more_ class features that replicate powerful spell options available to _more_ classes, rather than fewer, to be honest. But hey, I like me some cinematic gameplay :)
@@kaynadinstilleverge3843 I would say because they are minor effects, weaker than their actual full spell counterparts & that come to the cost of sacrificing most of the Druid's actual spellcasting ability since they can only at best maintain concentration on a spell?
While endangering yourself much more as you go in melee, something that is suicidal for most casters.
There are to be some kind of benefits as a trade off for stunting what is your most valuable ability & exposing yourself much more than if the druid sticked to casting from a distance. :)
Your suggestion has touched on my idea for a homebrew druid subclass, I'm almost ready to add it to the discord somehow.
The generic spell lists issue is interesting because Pathfinder 2e also uses generic spell lists. However, in P2e there are also unique spells called focus spells that are exclusively gained through choosing a certain class or subclass. For instance, goodberry is a focus spell that only druids can use. So despite shared spell lists existing, there is still room for each class to have its own unique flavor due to focus spells.
It seems wotc took the idea of using generic spell lists without considering how that would take away from some class's identities. I felt a bit bummed when I found out vicious mockery would be lumped in with other arcane spells for example. Hope wotc does something to remedy this. :/
i like the idea of doing an invocation style deal for the wild shapes, then like, at first you can pick 1 "wildvocation" (spider climb or tiny size, or whatever) then, at higher levels, let them pick additional wildvocations and unlock them, just like w/ warlock, the x number of forms works too, but wildvocations feels like it'd take less space in a book and stuff lol
Unique spell lists limit the expandability of classes in DND, as every subsequent class requires an ever increasing amount of reprents, self referencing, and complication. Generic allows for a new class to simply state "Arcane, but no evocation school" and that is it. If you get a setting book that adds a spell to the Arcane list, that spell doesn't have to be retroactively applied to a new class
Excellent review, Monty and Kelly! Please also note that when Paladins choose a fighting style in 5e, they can select Blessed Warrior that offers a selection of cleric cantrips to add a little more magic to the build.
Both of you are absolutely "Power Gamers", that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does color your perceptions and opinions.
True
I want to start a petition to put you guys on the one dnd design team
I love this idea for the druid, I hope they entertain it
Love your idea for specific forms with basic stat blocks as long as the stat blocks remain similarly generic, but based on form. I also think that a happy medium with health could be something like this: “Using the wildshape ability grants you a number of temporary hit points equal to your Druid level with each use.”
I really dislike not being able to turn into critters at lower levels.
Thought about the lack of extra hit points and thought of this. When you wild shape, you gain temporary hit points equal to 5 times your proficiency bonus. Temporary hp can’t stack, can still be overcome with damage, but incentivizes the wild shapes and provides a buff while retaining the flavor of being toughened by natures strength. It would also be easy to scale as a class feature by changing the number to 10x your bonus and maybe a capstone of 15x. Not huge, but definitely nothing to ignore either. Low levels isn’t huge so it will toned down a bit but 10hp isn’t anything to scoff at either at levels three or four, and it stays relevant as you gain more levels. Maybe an extra increase for the moon Druid? If you wanted to prevent the chaining of wild shapes you can say you only get this buff when you change from your normal form. It won’t stop it, but slows it enough to add a cost and require strategic planning. Iwould love to see what you think. Also definitely a longer list than 3 forms. Or at least a one trait, one combat trick, one exploration bonus from a list. Something other than 3 stat blocks. Love to hear the feedback
I think you guys made an excellent case for divorcing Wild Shape from the Druid chassis. It is a strong and interesting enough feature to be it's own class.
They aren't saying to take wild shape from druid. They were talking about divorcing it from the main stats to determining what they can change into.
@@alstonjacobs4934 I know what they're saying. And the arguments that they are making about Wild Shape are also great arguments as to why it should be spun off into its own class.
I think every Druid should have an ability to Wild Shape into a few forms. Allow it to be a few like say a person can only pick 2 at first (0Cat and a Horse), then at a certain level also a Dolphin too and later add a Falcon (total of 4). Something that allows them a few options to still do things but that their connection to Nature only allows a few Fauna that they share a connection with. Also include with that the Druid's Find Familiar thing.
Then, you can have the Moon Druid (or a couple versions of the Moon Druid archetype like a Tank one and a Stealth one) and a Shepard Circle Druid (or a Beastmaster like Druid somehow) who have far less limitations towards what animals they can turn into or summon without a spell slot. That way the rest of the Druids can actually focus on the essense of Nature they attach themselves to.
@@c.v.emmans And I think this is a terrible, TERRIBLE take. One of the identities of druid IS the ability to wildshape, period. Yeah moon can do it *better* but ALL druids can and should be able to wildshape, and making that a specific sublcass of druid is just dumb, imo. It removes one of the defining characteristics of what a druid is even more than OneDnD is already trying to do.
@@shawnwolf5961 lol, so Spores, Wildfire, and Stars are what, not real druids then? They use the Wild Shape resource for something else and never need to turn into animals at all. I think people get too precious about features "belonging" to a class and in this case, I think it hurts the druid. Remember the Primeval UA and how disappointing it was? Like, the druid having an animal companion, should be a no-brainer, right? But it was terrible, and part of the reason for that is because the druid is hard to balance and find new, creative mechanics and gimmicks for because they have Wild Shape and full spellcasting. A druid with no subclass would play just fine because the base class gives you so much. I think that's an obvious problem. If Wild Shape is separated from the druid class, there is a lot more room to a) expand what can be done with Wild Shape (monstrosities, aberrations, demons, lycanthropy, etc), and b) there's more room for new mechanics or reflavored mechanics that are already familiar (like having a dinosaur companion, as in the previously mentioned UA) to be good and substantial. I think you gain a lot more than you lose by separating it. WotC probably won't do it, but I'd love to see them at least tinker with it. You're free to disagree, but I think more people should at least consider it rather than simply dismissing it out of hand.
On a side note, I don't think "turning into an animal" is an inherent and intrinsic part of being a druid. Like, what if you're a genasi from the plane of fire, or an elf from the Shadowfell? "Nature" could be and mean something totally different for you. I think exploring that mechanically would be cool.
Your suggestion for the wild shape is SO MUCH BETTER than the original, the perfect in middle between hundreds in MM and the 3 limited forms
However, I would still like to have a hp buffer in wild shape, even diminished (because ok it's op), just because i'm giving up on the versatility of spellcasting when I'm wildshaped
I'm never *this* early!
I also enjoy the idea of druids only being able to turn into things they themselves have observed. Make it a check the druid has to roll in order to "catch" or "learn" that wild shape. It makes the forms the druid knows feel earned and reflect the narrative of the campaign. Just feels weird that a druid can randomly become an angel or dragon when they've probably never even seen one beyond pictures in a book. A set number of forms also works and maybe even adding a penalty/risk to trying advanced forms can be included. Maybe a level 3 druid trying to become a t rex results in the druid changing their form but not maintaining control so there's just a t rex who doesn't realize the food surrounding is actually their party.
I completelly agree with monty on the new preparation of spells, by far the change that annoys me the most and it seems set in stone by now. I wish they would go back to spellcasting from 5e, specially with the spells prepared/spells known and the class spell lists
They are definitely trying to turn into Pathfinder light. They basically combined the way prepared and innate casters function in Pathfinder. 5e players would hate how prepared casters work in Pathfinder, it’s even more restrictive then what we got in One DnD.
@@XanderHarris1023 When I checked pf I didn't like the way you prepared/learnt spells at all. But they are different games, so the more vancian system might super work for pathfinder. imho it doesn't for dnd. These changes have a super mixed-bag feeling to it: it totally looks like their intent is to simplify things, ie. less options on how to distribute spells per level, less focus on strategies with upcasting, a preset spell list, etc. On the other hand it feels like the result will be the opposite, for people like me who love optimization, this will send us down a path where we just remove the flavour spells in favour of the most optimal options, it won't super affect me personally, but most of my friends who are newer/like to pick worse/not the best spells just for the flavour are going to suffer the most from this changes... cos you better pick the best level 6 spell in the game, you aint getting another one for 8 more levels
@@Lily-sk6sr You can still change your level 6 spell every long rest if the one you picked isn't working for you. Another leg up One DnD has on Pathfinder is subclass spells are still a thing and they don't count against your number of prepared spells. Maybe the spells you get from your subclass will actually matter if you aren't picking up every optimal spell off the arcane spell list.
I am really hoping that they listen, because I really want to play your version of the OneD&D druid.
the druid playtest is 100% bad, there are zero redeeming qualities to it.
What's wrong with a melee focused subclass with a 15 MAX AC at 20th level?
They have taken the class they say "is the least played class" and made it into the class nobody will EVER play.
Zero redeeming qualities? Even letting moon druids cast abjuration spells while wild shaped? You can't actually believe that.
I like the beastial attacks and general Land/ Air/ Sea Framework. But its TOO bland and generalized. And idiotic nerf to hit point buffer if large animal! WTF? Just balance it by having the large beastie being slower or SOMETHING
Trent monk gave a good reason for why they are doing spell list the way they are in the UA it is far easier for future classes and helps manage the bloat later down the road
The art for that green knight looks SICK
I honestly thought that this was how smites worked at first so this makes sense to me. I really like the bonus smites being features of sub classes. I want to see the unique spells come back. There are so many spells that are iconic to the class.
Love your take on the improvements that can be made to the wild shape changes. I have a Druid in my party and she tends to just lean towards two forms more cause she knows them then anything else. Will be very sad that the barbarian moon Druid combo is going away tho.
The invocations idea is super interesting. For Druids it could be adding dark vision to all forms or increasing climbing/burrowing speeds. For Paladins smite bonuses and changes to their steeds and auras.
Very interesting ideas! Thanks y’all!!
Well, we all know that part of the reason why Wildshape was changed is because of the druid in the new movie turning into an Owlbear, right? XD
I so agree with you about how they changed the amount of prepared spellslots. Kills for me the creativity
Very excited to hear your ideas on ways to better build the druid class. My hope is the DnD dev team listens to your notes on wild shape! Using the Battle Master Fighter as a comparison makes a lot of sense and removes the "dread" factor of choosing the right wild shape option from an ever expanding list of options.
@Treantmonk’s Temple has a great video on why the spell list to wizards of the coast to are necessary not be class specific. I think the correct solution is the smite as a class feature. Paladins and smite are intertwined, if you only use a feature or action as a part of a class even if it isn’t specific to the class. it should probably class feature.The spell list as they are in one dnd will be easier to learn in the future.
I 100% agree with you. If I wanna turn into a Cat the stat block can't be the same as if i'm turning into a bear. For the Paladin, I'd go with this change as it is but increasing the damage dice for the single smite, so that it is limited but you're still getting a little bit more from that single use you get.
Great suggestions for the druid stat blocks, guys.
Maybe give the Druid a D12 hit die to make up for the extra hit points lost in wildshape. Druids bodies are honed beyond average due to their changing nature.
Balanced and insightful analysis as always, guys.
What I was hoping for from the Paladin, and didn't get, was a way to make your casting stat also your weapon stat. There's a reason Hexadins are so popular, and now, presumably, you will need to take three levels of Warlock to become a Hexblade and get this one feature. Druids have it (kind of) with a cantrip, Shillelagh; Monks have it with Dedicated Weapon, at least at the moment. I'd like to see Paladins get the opportunity without having to multiclass.
It could be a feat, that would be fine, but give us _something_.
Agree with you on the uniqueness of the smites and Find Steed being important.
Druid wild shape is a terrible mess. Making something easier to do only works if it's still worth doing, and wild shape now almost isn't. And your point about not giving too much power to multiclassing is well taken, but now multiclassing into druid isn't at all attractive, since you can't use your other abilities while in wild shape.
I agree with you that there's a middle way. Don't require Druid players to look up the Monster Manual, but still make the form you assume have mechanical weight. The reason you turn into a beast is that the beast can do something you can't: it's faster, stronger, tougher, more stealthy, more perceptive... It wouldn't be hard to say, for example, "Large forms don't cut in until level X, but when you're in a Large form, you get a STR bonus and a CON bonus; Tiny forms don't cut in until level Y, but when you're in a Tiny form, you get a DEX bonus and a stealth bonus; predatory forms have more or better attacks," and so forth. Though I really like your approach too. It hits a sweet spot between "look through a ridiculous number of MM forms" and "you have three almost flavourless options".
Maybe, as an idea bouncing off of Monty’s, you pick 3-4 forms to master/know and whatever circle you pick for your subclass, you could learn that circles form as an additional free form to master/know
Both as a dm and a player, I absolutely adore having access to a whole lot of animal shapes to shine in any scenario. Plus its really fun to homebrew new beasts for your druid players to stumble onto in the wild and add to their arsenal of options
Everyone loves warlock invocations. Warlock invocations for everybody! Paladin invocations for the smite spells, Monty's forms for druid invocations.
I love your ideas for wild shape!
What I liked about the new smite is, that it is uncapped now and on ALL weapon attacks, melee and ranged as well as unarmed/natural weappons, that is really cool.
The druid at my table would turn into a squirrel constantly for reconnaissance. We called it "squirrel team 6"
I like this idea of your proposal for Wild Shape, it feels like you treating a Druid's use of Wild Shape like a Warlock's Eldritch Invocations. As for the matter of HP, I would suggest creating a table that lists temp HP based on the beast's size plus your proficiency bonus, this way it build's the feeling that a druid's power grows with their level.
I played as a Moon Druid and the DM based my abilities on what I’ve seen in my travels and if I wanted to learn new forms I had to go out and find them.
I think a really fun thing to do with the Druid to nerf wild shape cheese is fairly simple and fair
For health: every time you wild shape give a sizable number of temp hp based on your druid level. When that temp hp runs out you revert back to your normal form. That way it keeps that tanky play style of wild shaping to absorb damage, but not to the absurd levels of like a bear or mammoth.
For the bestial options: I think a really fun idea would be to treat the Druid like the wizard, and what I mean by that is have Druids have a sort of “spellbook” where they can copy down animals that they can turn into. Again, the amount of animals you can turn into scales with level and you can use gp and downtime similar to a spellbook to copy down more animals that you see. This gives you and your dm more liberty to describing more animals you see because a) you can control it for balance as far as the campaign goes and b) you need to choose which animals are most valuable to you. Plus it makes it easier planning sessions cuz the dm will know what animals you can turn into and can plan around that instead of studying the whole bestial compendium in the monster manual. Also could be fun making new beast stat blocks this way. On top of that I think it makes the Druid more fun to play and technically nerf them at the same time.
When I DM for a Druid, it's usually under the flavor of "choose the animal you'd like to be, and I'll find a monster in the manual that is closest to it and flavor it to be your choice". So Monty's suggestion of having generalized creature forms works quite well with that.
6:53 Finally someone saying it. The Problem with the cleric and the paladin sharing a spell list is quite obvious, and I absolutely hate it. The real Issue with the generic Spell lists, however, has yet to be published. With the Artificer, Bard, Sorcerer Warlock and Wizard, the Arcane Casters consist of four Full-Casters and One Half-Caster (excluding subclasses like Arcane Tricksters). Up Until now, we've only seen the Bard. Making all of these classes feel different is going to be a challenge that I don't think WotC can solve. Especially the Wizard, which was previously known for having the largest smell list in the game, alongside with the changes to spell preparation (making all casters prepared casters), is nearly impossible to get right without changing the Wizard's entire class identity. They took away the only two things the Wizard had going on and with the marketing being, that One DnD is going to be downwards compatible changing the class identity seems a bit much for me.
I know you should not judge before they even put out the document, but I can't see a world where this is going to end well.
Having a limited number of forms to focus on from a wider template set would probably be ideal. Also reminds me in a decent way of the original Warcraft druids and how they had a focus on specific forms to shapeshift into - with the Archdruid rank being some of the few able to do multiple forms at peak level. It could've been a good idea for D&D to copy, having the "ultimate" level 19-20 ability for druids being that "shapeshift into any template with all bonuses" perk as befits an Archdruid of some kind, and helping keep up with other "epic level" classes too.
In regards to the OneDnD Druids and Wild Shape. My thought was this: Since they are redoing the Monster Manual as well why not just add a new line similar to CR (Challenge Rating) being DL (Druid Level). If a beast doesn't have a DL line then the Druid can't turn into that form. Then Moon Druids just cut that number in half or something like that. Still not being able to unlock Swim and Flight till later levels. And maybe instead of gaining a beasts full HP they get Half of the HP as Temp HP. Still a bit of a boost if they want to tank with it but not as possible overpowered as getting the full HP of that beast. This way they don't have to come up with 20 or whatever generic stat blocks you just look in the Monster Manual for entries with a DL rating that matches your Druid level (with Moon Druids getting that number cut if half or a third or or maybe a flat value of -2 or whatever.)
The subclass opportunities you've come up with just by restricting the forms is quite interesting
Love your ideas regarding picking from a larger set of characters - I have basically implemented something similar for conjure animal spells. I would add one additional feature. I would split your choices into combat shapes vs others. So for combat options you would pick from the list as you have described. But I would then also allow them to pick any shape for utility but with a set low HP of 2 or something, and do anything your imagination and the dice and your DM will let you do, and roleplay your heart away. Oh, I would also let them swap out selected combat shapes whenever they level.
Very great points and love the explanations. I hope enough of the community feedback is taken well by the DND makers. My favorite part of this was your insight to why those changes are necessary from your own experience building your own classes. Also hope to see another look at your sub classes from your new book. Love the insight from you both on a design level. Also hope to see a delirium lich lol.