Druids and Wildshape
Added 2024-05-31 14:00:17 +0000 UTCI'm working on a druid article for next week, and I have a yes/no question to ask you.
My sense is that Wild Shape is the core feature that makes druids distinct and fun.
Do you feel that druid players see Wild Shape as the most important feature of the class?
Comments
Agreed on spore druids - there's a ton of pressure to use wild shape for turning into beasts. It's hard for other approaches to compete.
Mike Mearls
2024-06-03 03:15:01 +0000 UTCoops, enter too early I think wildshape should be treated like a channel divinity type feature. Where it has a more general application that doesn't shoehorn the druid into any playstyle (1d6 healing x-times/rest or something) and then subclasses should differentiate and add those extra features on. It is reasonable to want a full healing druid, or a full, I talk to trees and do CC druid. The moon druid being able to do tons of forms is so specific compared to other druid archetypes. But putting it into a subclass, i think also lets you get more specific, with things like Circle of Land, maybe being restricted in the types of animals, but they get more powerful versions of those specific animals. So wildshape is core to ONE type of druid, but it is definitely holding back things like spore and fire druids from having more flavor on their alternate uses of wildshape.
Swiss Calavera
2024-06-03 01:24:17 +0000 UTCWildshape feels like it has become a runaway driving force of druids that is keeping it in a box by being in the Core Class. Although I am a huge proponent of things being moved to Sub-classes most of the time already, I think Wildshape is one of those really big things hindering druids as a whole. As was mentioned already the conflict of fantasies nature wizard vs animal fighting person is there.
Swiss Calavera
2024-06-03 01:16:55 +0000 UTC
