In general it feels like 5E plays it overly safe out of fear of breaking something, to the point that it makes a lot of it bland and uninteresting. Like the OG Beastmaster Ranger, where whomever designed it was so paranoid about having the pet be overpowered that they made it completely worthless. Or player monster races with terrible statlines and/or racial penalties. The paranoia about making flight available to low level players. A feats list that can fit on a handful of pages shared by everyone, so even rolling a new character doesn't give you anything new to pick from. Etc.
My biggest complaint is that leveling up, the event that should be one of the most exciting parts, is often a disappointed "...oh, that's all I get?". If it were up to me, odd levels would be incremental improvements and even levels would either be new tools or significant improvements on your existing ones. Every even level should feel like you're getting away with something, like you're breaking the game open with your newfound skills. There's only 10 even levels, how bloody hard is it to think of something exciting for each of them?
But then you have the problem of making the game inaccessible to the masses.
Because now you're having to look at every level to determine how to properly multiclass.
The problem with the beastmaster imo is that your animal can die.
Either you make the animal crap, in which case you ask yourself "well why did I pick this subclass?!" or you make it a murder machine in which case you ask yourself "oh god, Socks died! WHAT DO I DO NOW!?".
They seemed to figure this out with Artificer
I love my battle smith pet (even if in the game it's much more fucked up because the DM makes me describe what materials on hand I'm using for it, and my most recent batlte smith pet is a dead drow whos brain I replaced with a crystal and shocked with Arcane Bolt, the DM made me declare "It's alive!!!" for this to work).
Sure the text limits what forms it can take, but thats what DMs are for. The important part is it gives me a stat block, abilities, and I've unlocked new abilities for it as I've leveled.
This is how Ranger Pet should have worked. Flight would replace a passive ability like Pack Tactics if you want a bird, just give you a statblock you can plug shit into. Base it on your ranger level. Bam. Pet dead? It costs one spell slot of your highest ranger spell slot to resummon it, as an action.
The problem of the ranger and druid et al is less that 5e was afraid of breaking things and more that individual classes and subclasses were designed by different people with no cross input.
The more famous example of this is the elemental monk. Which gets minor spells until very late level while the other monks are all “make 4 con saves or die”. And then of course there was clearly no editing over the whole to address those issues.
The ranger has similar issues. Whomever designed it... just didint make it interesting compared to a rogue or fighter. Especially now that rogues and fighters get spells.
Wild shape limitations are because druids are “natural”. Drakes arent so youre excluded.
Right. Arbitrary and stupid. I also sort of get the feeling a lot of D&D content authors, mechanic or lore wise, have no idea what nature is. And I don't just mean in the real world. Like I get the feeling if you asked them to describe what was "natural" and what wasn't, they wouldn't have any good answer they've thought about at all.
Like, similar to the druid wildshade question, why can beastmaster rogues only get "beasts", and why do they have to be 1/4th of a CR, and why does that never change.
My own personal bugbear that I will FIGHT ANYONE ON is druids and metal armor
I'm currently playing a half were-rat druid who literally grew up in the city of waterdeep living as an actual rat. I learned druidcraft from sickly nature spirits and am kind of a planeteer sort - but my character's personal ethos is that civilization is a part of nature, but like any other part of nature has to exist in a healthy form - this means they shouldn't be dumping waste just wherever and the animals that inhabit the city should be protected
I will turn you into a rat and toss you in a sewer drain for abusing your dog, and the next hour of your life will be very unpleasant, etc
For some reason this character is supposed to inherently know that metal armor is bad? Why did they even give me medium armor proficiency?
Or what about a Dwarven druid, or a Snirfeblin Druid from Blingdenstone who worships the stone?
The problem of the ranger and druid et al is less that 5e was afraid of breaking things and more that individual classes and subclasses were designed by different people with no cross input.
The more famous example of this is the elemental monk. Which gets minor spells until very late level while the other monks are all “make 4 con saves or die”. And then of course there was clearly no editing over the whole to address those issues.
The ranger has similar issues. Whomever designed it... just didint make it interesting compared to a rogue or fighter. Especially now that rogues and fighters get spells.
Wild shape limitations are because druids are “natural”. Drakes arent so youre excluded.
Right. Arbitrary and stupid. I also sort of get the feeling a lot of D&D content authors, mechanic or lore wise, have no idea what nature is. And I don't just mean in the real world. Like I get the feeling if you asked them to describe what was "natural" and what wasn't, they wouldn't have any good answer they've thought about at all.
Like, similar to the druid wildshade question, why can beastmaster rogues only get "beasts", and why do they have to be 1/4th of a CR, and why does that never change.
Because its not a mechanic or lore question its a thematic question regarding the archetype of druids. The archetype of druids do not run around with drakes so druids don't get drakes. Beast Masters archetypes don't have imp companions and so beast maters only get beasts.
In general it feels like 5E plays it overly safe out of fear of breaking something, to the point that it makes a lot of it bland and uninteresting. Like the OG Beastmaster Ranger, where whomever designed it was so paranoid about having the pet be overpowered that they made it completely worthless. Or player monster races with terrible statlines and/or racial penalties. The paranoia about making flight available to low level players. A feats list that can fit on a handful of pages shared by everyone, so even rolling a new character doesn't give you anything new to pick from. Etc.
My biggest complaint is that leveling up, the event that should be one of the most exciting parts, is often a disappointed "...oh, that's all I get?". If it were up to me, odd levels would be incremental improvements and even levels would either be new tools or significant improvements on your existing ones. Every even level should feel like you're getting away with something, like you're breaking the game open with your newfound skills. There's only 10 even levels, how bloody hard is it to think of something exciting for each of them?
But then you have the problem of making the game inaccessible to the masses.
Because now you're having to look at every level to determine how to properly multiclass.
The masses don't multiclass. And if you're making the progression boring for everyone, just so multiclassers can have an easier job of it, then you've picked poorly.
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
The problem of the ranger and druid et al is less that 5e was afraid of breaking things and more that individual classes and subclasses were designed by different people with no cross input.
The more famous example of this is the elemental monk. Which gets minor spells until very late level while the other monks are all “make 4 con saves or die”. And then of course there was clearly no editing over the whole to address those issues.
The ranger has similar issues. Whomever designed it... just didint make it interesting compared to a rogue or fighter. Especially now that rogues and fighters get spells.
Wild shape limitations are because druids are “natural”. Drakes arent so youre excluded.
Right. Arbitrary and stupid. I also sort of get the feeling a lot of D&D content authors, mechanic or lore wise, have no idea what nature is. And I don't just mean in the real world. Like I get the feeling if you asked them to describe what was "natural" and what wasn't, they wouldn't have any good answer they've thought about at all.
Like, similar to the druid wildshade question, why can beastmaster rogues only get "beasts", and why do they have to be 1/4th of a CR, and why does that never change.
Because its not a mechanic or lore question its a thematic question regarding the archetype of druids. The archetype of druids do not run around with drakes so druids don't get drakes. Beast Masters archetypes don't have imp companions and so beast maters only get beasts.
But that's pointlessly arbitrary and is meaninglessly narrowing the field of options and possibilities of players to fit it into a predefined and very narrow interpretation of the authors. Like, yes I get that you can just ask your GM to bypass some of these restrictions but 1. A lot of GM's are leery of going too far outside of official rules for a variety of reasons and 2. by not including official rules and options for this kind of thing they make it more difficult to actually do that bypassing even if your GM agrees. If it had occurred to someone that, like in 4e, some rangers might want a drake or other non-standard type of companion, they might have included more 1/4th CR options for those other kinds of monster, or added guidelines for lowering the challenge rating and stats of a monster, or by giving guidelines for picking a higher CR monster later on, or getting less benefits from the subclass right away if you do so. It just feels needlessly limiting.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
But its not pointlessly arbitrary. It defines classes and subclasses to their archetype. That is the point. Why doesn't the elemental monk get Compelled Duel or Tenser's Floating disk? Its not because its pointlessly arbitrary its because the elemental monk archetype does not encompass powers like compelled duel and tenser's floating disk.
There are plenty of other aspects you could make the same claims about and the answer is still the same. Barbarians don't get a spellcasting subtype because its off archetype. Wizards dont get healing spells because its off archetype. Druids don't wear metal armor because its off archetype.
Goumindong on
+3
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
edited October 2019
How does a barbarian not getting spells, and a druid not being able to shapeshift into an owlbear have anything to do with one another. At all.
One is saying that a class shouldn't necessarily get all the abilities of another class thus making them the same. But there is no class for whom something like expanded shapeshifting options, or more potential pet choices, or additional types of undead minions is somehow intruding into their area, and there isn't really a good reason to limit them except because "it's not how I imagine it"
Maybe if the argument was whether a ranger could get an undead wolf as an animal companion, or whether a druid could attune themselves to the plane of elemental fire and throw fireballs around, but it's not.
And yes. It is arbitrary. It is purely arbitrary. "These animals are 'natural' and thus valid choices, these animals are 'unnatural' and thus invalid" is purely an arbitrary choice and saying it's not arbitrary because it's made to fit into an arbitrary and subjective idea of a class or subclasses 'archetype' doesn't really disprove that.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
I'd be curious to know where you're drawing some of these thematic sources from. You feel your average Joe on the street would go "oh yeah, druids, no metal armour, well known that"?
Barbarians not having magic? Sure, people will go "yeah, Conan, he didn't have magic" and there's that. Saying Gandalf couldn't heal people is iffier ground already, and most likely a balancing decision more than a thematic one already. Metal armour is just... slow shrug of confusion?
I'd be curious to know where you're drawing some of these thematic sources from. You feel your average Joe on the street would go "oh yeah, druids, no metal armour, well known that"?
I have a feeling that if you asked a person on the street about druids they would not mention metal armor, but if you asked if druids should wear metal they would say "no". They would think of Radagast if anything(even though yes Radagast is a wizard he is also not a wizard and is an angel but thematically he is a druid) or have a vaguely celtic/irish/british pre-"civilization" pagan conception
edit: I understand why you have problems with the limitations and i am not adverse to removing those restrictions. But i also understand why the limitations exist (both in option overload, potential balance issue, and also thematic construction) and while it is arbitrary its only so in the facile way that any delineation is arbitrary.
Here is what i think it's the delineation between beast and other animals: could it plausibly be an animal on Earth? Bird with antlers? Bear with a beak? Firebreathing lizard with wings? No, no, and nope.
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
How does a barbarian not getting spells, and a druid not being able to shapeshift into an owlbear have anything to do with one another. At all.
Because they're both off thematic brand...
Though note that Druids can polymorph into Owlbears using the spell.
Thematic brands... which are purely arbitrary interpretations of the authors. And also, why should I care about thematic brands and what value is there in them, really, if they're so narrow and subjective?
And which spell do you mean, the druids standard shapeshift? And if so, why can they turn into Owlbears, which aren't beasts, but not drakes, which also aren't beasts (and most of which aren't magical in any way)
Here is what i think it's the delineation between beast and other animals: could it plausibly be an animal on Earth? Bird with antlers? Bear with a beak? Firebreathing lizard with wings? No, no, and nope.
It isn't, really, given that, for example, winged cats are beasts.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Thematic brands... which are purely arbitrary interpretations of the authors. And also, why should I care about thematic brands and what value is there in them, really, if they're so narrow and subjective?
And which spell do you mean, the druids standard shapeshift? And if so, why can they turn into Owlbears, which aren't beasts, but not drakes, which also aren't beasts (and most of which aren't magical in any way)
Its arbitrary in the same way the damage die of a sword is arbitrary. In that sure it handed down from on high but also in the sense that it must have been handed down on high and there must have been a line and as a result the lines they chose are necessarily not worse than the lines you choose.
It is narrow and subjective in the facile way that everything is narrow and subjective when there is no agreed upon breadth or purpose.
Why don't barbarians wear armor? Because the thematic construction of barbarians is that they don't wear armor (though in this case they are given some breadth to wear some armor its most definitely not heavy armor) just as druids are given breadth to wear armor so long as its not metal.
It isn't, really, given that, for example, winged cats are beasts.
Winged cats don't seem to be in the MM. It might be mislabed in a secondary product (If its the FR thing its supposed to be a magical beast and not a beast, though maybe that distinction was removed as winged serpents are regular beasts, it was very much a thing in 3.5)
Druids can also turn into crag cats which can just reflect spells back at their source and are definitely magical creatures. Druids CANNOT turn into owlbears unless they're 17th level and casting shapechange.
Druids won't wear metal armor because Wizards has a few grognards who are stuck in second edition mentally. The game doesn't presuppose the source of your nature magic, your alignment, your gods, or which world you're playing in. But you definitely won't wear metal armor.
You CAN however play a chaotic evil druid who's goal in life is to be a billionare industrialist who pays people to just dump toxic waste in the forest - the class absolutely allows you to do that though
It's a roleplaying decision they force on the players. And if my DM ever told me "sorry, your character won't wear metal armor" I repeat "I put on metal armor" until I'm removed from the game, because choosing what my character believes is the one thing that is the player's domain (that or I say "hey bard cast suggestion on me and suggest I wear metal armor")
If a DM says "yeah I agree with it as a balancing mechanic, so druids just don't get medium armor proficiency" I wouldn't put up a fuss though
In general it feels like 5E plays it overly safe out of fear of breaking something, to the point that it makes a lot of it bland and uninteresting. Like the OG Beastmaster Ranger, where whomever designed it was so paranoid about having the pet be overpowered that they made it completely worthless. Or player monster races with terrible statlines and/or racial penalties. The paranoia about making flight available to low level players. A feats list that can fit on a handful of pages shared by everyone, so even rolling a new character doesn't give you anything new to pick from. Etc.
My biggest complaint is that leveling up, the event that should be one of the most exciting parts, is often a disappointed "...oh, that's all I get?". If it were up to me, odd levels would be incremental improvements and even levels would either be new tools or significant improvements on your existing ones. Every even level should feel like you're getting away with something, like you're breaking the game open with your newfound skills. There's only 10 even levels, how bloody hard is it to think of something exciting for each of them?
But then you have the problem of making the game inaccessible to the masses.
Because now you're having to look at every level to determine how to properly multiclass.
The masses don't multiclass. And if you're making the progression boring for everyone, just so multiclassers can have an easier job of it, then you've picked poorly.
I suppose I'd want to see some sort of study but I consider my players to be "the dirty, unwashed masses" and half of them *do* multiclass.
Your second sentence is just plain ridiculous. It's a balancing act; I'm ok with there being a "dead" level here and there if it means my players will try out multiclassing and, hopefully, create some cool RP to back it up.
I'm not advocating for neutering an entire branch of system design for the sake of a few derps.
Tressym and Crag Cats have caused a lot of consternation because they are both magical creatures, but both are beasts, and have been clarified as intended to be by Crawford
DetectCat and ReflectCat are a bit nutters
override367 on
+8
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Thematic brands... which are purely arbitrary interpretations of the authors. And also, why should I care about thematic brands and what value is there in them, really, if they're so narrow and subjective?
And which spell do you mean, the druids standard shapeshift? And if so, why can they turn into Owlbears, which aren't beasts, but not drakes, which also aren't beasts (and most of which aren't magical in any way)
Its arbitrary in the same way the damage die of a sword is arbitrary. In that sure it handed down from on high but also in the sense that it must have been handed down on high and there must have been a line and as a result the lines they chose are necessarily not worse than the lines you choose.
It is narrow and subjective in the facile way that everything is narrow and subjective when there is no agreed upon breadth or purpose.
Why don't barbarians wear armor? Because the thematic construction of barbarians is that they don't wear armor (though in this case they are given some breadth to wear some armor its most definitely not heavy armor) just as druids are given breadth to wear armor so long as its not metal.
It isn't, really, given that, for example, winged cats are beasts.
Winged cats don't seem to be in the MM. It might be mislabed in a secondary product (If its the FR thing its supposed to be a magical beast and not a beast, though maybe that distinction was removed as winged serpents are regular beasts, it was very much a thing in 3.5)
The lines they chose are worse, because they limit player options and there's no actual mechanical reason why. There's a reason, within the framework of the system of dungeons and dragons and the tools used to play it (such as dice) and the greater mechanical structure of balanced play, that they decided to make different weapons have different damage dice and hit rolls and proficiencies. They're arbitrary to an extent, but there's also a clear mechanical framework for why. Barbarians wear no armor, but their mechanics are balanced around this and their focus on dealing damage, and they compensate in other areas.
The same can't really be said of no drake druids. You can keep saying archetypes and thematic, but that won't make them seem like a good or realistic reason for the decisions they made the more you use them. There was a lot more leeway in shapeshifting forms and ranger pets back in 4th edition, and for all that some people complained about the classes feeling samey in that, none of that was because rangers could have ambush drakes or that a druids' beast form was less rigidly defined. I don't remember many arguments that a 4th edition beastmaster being able to take any animal that they could reasonably fit into one of the basic categories for their animal companion was diluting their essence as beast masters.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
In general it feels like 5E plays it overly safe out of fear of breaking something, to the point that it makes a lot of it bland and uninteresting. Like the OG Beastmaster Ranger, where whomever designed it was so paranoid about having the pet be overpowered that they made it completely worthless. Or player monster races with terrible statlines and/or racial penalties. The paranoia about making flight available to low level players. A feats list that can fit on a handful of pages shared by everyone, so even rolling a new character doesn't give you anything new to pick from. Etc.
My biggest complaint is that leveling up, the event that should be one of the most exciting parts, is often a disappointed "...oh, that's all I get?". If it were up to me, odd levels would be incremental improvements and even levels would either be new tools or significant improvements on your existing ones. Every even level should feel like you're getting away with something, like you're breaking the game open with your newfound skills. There's only 10 even levels, how bloody hard is it to think of something exciting for each of them?
But then you have the problem of making the game inaccessible to the masses.
Because now you're having to look at every level to determine how to properly multiclass.
The masses don't multiclass. And if you're making the progression boring for everyone, just so multiclassers can have an easier job of it, then you've picked poorly.
I suppose I'd want to see some sort of study but I consider my players to be "the dirty, unwashed masses" and half of them *do* multiclass.
Your second sentence is just plain ridiculous. It's a balancing act; I'm ok with there being a "dead" level here and there if it means my players will try out multiclassing and, hopefully, create some cool RP to back it up.
I'm not advocating for neutering an entire branch of system design for the sake of a few derps.
I wouldn't consider anyone who multiclasses, let alone "looks at every level to decide how to do so" to be the unwashed masses, no. The vast majority of 5th Ed players will be people brought into the game via its exploding popularity on podcasts and streams, and they'll probably pick classes and skills that sound fun, or were played by their favourite personality, without looking at what they get down the line. People who pick a fun feat over getting their primary stat to 20. People who pick a race because it's cool, not because it has the best statline for their class. People who play it somewhat wrong, because despite everything it's still a game full of exceptions and keywords and Natural Language.
Druids should work like how I suggested for rangers: A generic animal stat block and a list of abilities (ala invocations) you can plug into it. Give druids X number of forms based upon their druid level. When you level up, a form levels up with you, and one of your known forms can be altered (like invocations can be swapped) at level up.
Swim speed ability? Level 4
Fly speed? Level 8
edit: screw it im going to make this and give it to my players see what they think
Druids should work like how I suggested for rangers: A generic animal stat block and a list of abilities (ala invocations) you can plug into it. Give druids X number of forms based upon their druid level. When you level up, a form levels up with you, and one of your known forms can be altered (like invocations can be swapped) at level up.
Swim speed ability? Level 4
Fly speed? Level 8
edit: screw it im going to make this and give it to my players see what they think
I think the Ravnica book has an NPC that works like that actually, from the Simic Combine.
If owlbears and antlions aren't natural, are they only made by wizards accidentally?
I enjoy that Pathfinder 2e has rarities assigned to some things like this, so some works are uncommon or rare instead of flat out saying you can't get them. Then some player abilities make them count as common for that player. I've always thought it'd be a good way to do ranger companions or druid forms.
Regardless, I think of a Beast Master ranger as kinda like Hagrid. Limiting their options goes against the fun of it in the first place.
This is obviously a work in progress and the numbers are completely spit balled but here's a google sheet if anyone is interested in seein what I mean (I dont have reductions in damage from multiattack or flying, etc, etc)
Tressym and Crag Cats have caused a lot of consternation because they are both magical creatures, but both are beasts, and have been clarified as intended to be by Crawford
[...]
Not gonna lie, considering how base line broken the druid is the fact you can't turn into dragons is fine with me. Like that sounds like it could be a fun subclass focus. However "normal forest creatures" seems like it already breaks the game pretty hard and is likely a good dividing line to draw.
Also the ambush drake, the only CR1/2 drake, has an ac/hp ratio that makes it tougher than any CR 1/2 beast right off the jump. Though hilariously it's damage is worse than any CR 1/2 beast (it's damage adds of pack tactics and suprise attack don't really compare to the damage add abilities all cr 1/2 beats have) which is why it still sits at a CR 1/2. As well it comes from an adventure and not a more core monster manual type entry like volos. The other drakes are in volos and are CR2 and thusly out of normal druid range (thus requiring a specialized sub class, which again sounds dope).
A more straightforward reason: elemental resistance. Every drake outside the ambush drake has an elemental damage resistance. There are like 5 beasts that have elemental resistance almost all of them arguably misassigned as beasts (the fiendish spider should probably be a fiend not a beast, same for the stench kow, the giant lightning eel is still arguably a beast), and none of them come from core materials all but the stench kow (volos) come from adventures.
The thing about the beasts is that unlike the rest of the monsters they're pretty obviously designed around being a player resource. there's a notable progression of available capability and toughness. Especially in the basic rules because those beasts were in fact designed with druid, circle of the moon, and beast master in mind.
Edit: also mindful that it's like definitely not perfect in the base but what they're going for is pretty straightforward. They just kinda played around in the space a bit.
In 4E, flavoring a stat-block was exactly how wild shape worked. You picked a general style, but the rules were explicitly "these are your stats regardless of how you look, pick an appearance that works for your character."
Oh for sure reskin is super workable, I have a druid in one of my parties that is a shepherd druid, but all he really summons is giant bees, His unicorn totem (a.k.a. best healing in the game) is this cursed unicorn bee image we found somewhere, and when he turns into a creature he turns into a giant bee. It's a whole bit. We use the giant wasp entry for most stuff. Every so often he'll pull in another insect like centipedes but almost everything else is bees.
A bear reskin to drake is super easy.
I'd probably just endup building a subclass that eventually goes into turning into a freakin dragon though.
Did it for a druid that could turn into a werebear, I'm sure I could work something out for dragons too.
The problem of the ranger and druid et al is less that 5e was afraid of breaking things and more that individual classes and subclasses were designed by different people with no cross input.
The more famous example of this is the elemental monk. Which gets minor spells until very late level while the other monks are all “make 4 con saves or die”. And then of course there was clearly no editing over the whole to address those issues.
The ranger has similar issues. Whomever designed it... just didint make it interesting compared to a rogue or fighter. Especially now that rogues and fighters get spells.
Wild shape limitations are because druids are “natural”. Drakes arent so youre excluded.
Right. Arbitrary and stupid. I also sort of get the feeling a lot of D&D content authors, mechanic or lore wise, have no idea what nature is. And I don't just mean in the real world. Like I get the feeling if you asked them to describe what was "natural" and what wasn't, in their setting, they wouldn't have any good answer they've thought about at all.
Like, similar to the druid wildshade question, why can beastmaster rangers only get "beasts", and why do they have to be 1/4th of a CR, and why does that never change.
Canonically drakes are manufactured in 5e; dragons and their minions effectively magic them into existance hence removing them from the natural order.
Beyond that, I'm pretty sure druids have never been able to shift into dracoforms.
2nd level you get access to dragon shapes a la moon druid getting higher level beasts, this allows dragons of a similar scale while your access to beasts is left unchanged. (You keep the ability to transform into small and useful animals but gain the ability to transform into draconic creatures of greater strength).
6th keeping with the moon druid pattern of unlocking druid level divided by 3 drakes all become available now, also include the attacks count as magic ability from circle of the moon.
10th level (the only place we gotta do a little extra) I think I'd call it something like aspect of the dragon, something like use a wild shape, or as part of a short rest select a dragon type receive resistance and a breath weapon from that dragon type while in humanoid form.
14th level we purposefully open up all young dragons which you wouldn't normally ever hit as a result of druid level divided by 3.
Just a quick stab in the dark at a subclass to do it.
It doesn't mention that it sets stuff on fire.
But it's fire.
help!?
That does seem odd, but with only a bit of mental gymnastics...Wall of Fire is a pretty constrained thing, it even has a side that does zero damage. It's a magical sheet of flames that reaches out and touch stuff on its no-no side. Flame Strike which is some sort of divine orbital death ray doesn't ignite things either, and neither does Hellish Rebuke, which I guess singes them on a metaphysical level (?).
I had a game last night and just wiffed every ability check and attack role I made except for two attacks. If it wasn't on Roll20 I'd have tossed my dice in the garbage.
I think they should turn the iconic D&D stuff into Forgotten Realms. Then they can use some of the PHB, DMG and MM on something new. Make warlocks the new standard arcane caster with wizards showing up somewhere else. Ditch paladins and clerics and make a cloth-wearing friar the basic divine caster along with a cloistered knight that can specialize in different kinds of magic to go with his sword and board as a modern warmachine. I want a snake-oil salesman alchemist instead of bard, a guy who has brought cocktails to the Seven Kingdoms but also knows how to make a firebomb. Y'know, jazz up some stuff. I really just want the cool D&D settings of old, but fresh, new crazy ideas.
I dislike the trend of every new fantasy race I see just being an animal-person. Illithids, beholders, and all that are what make D&D special, and none of that crap showed up in a Tolkien story.
Posts
They seemed to figure this out with Artificer
I love my battle smith pet (even if in the game it's much more fucked up because the DM makes me describe what materials on hand I'm using for it, and my most recent batlte smith pet is a dead drow whos brain I replaced with a crystal and shocked with Arcane Bolt, the DM made me declare "It's alive!!!" for this to work).
Sure the text limits what forms it can take, but thats what DMs are for. The important part is it gives me a stat block, abilities, and I've unlocked new abilities for it as I've leveled.
This is how Ranger Pet should have worked. Flight would replace a passive ability like Pack Tactics if you want a bird, just give you a statblock you can plug shit into. Base it on your ranger level. Bam. Pet dead? It costs one spell slot of your highest ranger spell slot to resummon it, as an action.
My own personal bugbear that I will FIGHT ANYONE ON is druids and metal armor
I'm currently playing a half were-rat druid who literally grew up in the city of waterdeep living as an actual rat. I learned druidcraft from sickly nature spirits and am kind of a planeteer sort - but my character's personal ethos is that civilization is a part of nature, but like any other part of nature has to exist in a healthy form - this means they shouldn't be dumping waste just wherever and the animals that inhabit the city should be protected
I will turn you into a rat and toss you in a sewer drain for abusing your dog, and the next hour of your life will be very unpleasant, etc
For some reason this character is supposed to inherently know that metal armor is bad? Why did they even give me medium armor proficiency?
Or what about a Dwarven druid, or a Snirfeblin Druid from Blingdenstone who worships the stone?
No metal armor? Really?
Because its not a mechanic or lore question its a thematic question regarding the archetype of druids. The archetype of druids do not run around with drakes so druids don't get drakes. Beast Masters archetypes don't have imp companions and so beast maters only get beasts.
But that's pointlessly arbitrary and is meaninglessly narrowing the field of options and possibilities of players to fit it into a predefined and very narrow interpretation of the authors. Like, yes I get that you can just ask your GM to bypass some of these restrictions but 1. A lot of GM's are leery of going too far outside of official rules for a variety of reasons and 2. by not including official rules and options for this kind of thing they make it more difficult to actually do that bypassing even if your GM agrees. If it had occurred to someone that, like in 4e, some rangers might want a drake or other non-standard type of companion, they might have included more 1/4th CR options for those other kinds of monster, or added guidelines for lowering the challenge rating and stats of a monster, or by giving guidelines for picking a higher CR monster later on, or getting less benefits from the subclass right away if you do so. It just feels needlessly limiting.
There are plenty of other aspects you could make the same claims about and the answer is still the same. Barbarians don't get a spellcasting subtype because its off archetype. Wizards dont get healing spells because its off archetype. Druids don't wear metal armor because its off archetype.
One is saying that a class shouldn't necessarily get all the abilities of another class thus making them the same. But there is no class for whom something like expanded shapeshifting options, or more potential pet choices, or additional types of undead minions is somehow intruding into their area, and there isn't really a good reason to limit them except because "it's not how I imagine it"
Maybe if the argument was whether a ranger could get an undead wolf as an animal companion, or whether a druid could attune themselves to the plane of elemental fire and throw fireballs around, but it's not.
And yes. It is arbitrary. It is purely arbitrary. "These animals are 'natural' and thus valid choices, these animals are 'unnatural' and thus invalid" is purely an arbitrary choice and saying it's not arbitrary because it's made to fit into an arbitrary and subjective idea of a class or subclasses 'archetype' doesn't really disprove that.
Barbarians not having magic? Sure, people will go "yeah, Conan, he didn't have magic" and there's that. Saying Gandalf couldn't heal people is iffier ground already, and most likely a balancing decision more than a thematic one already. Metal armour is just... slow shrug of confusion?
Because they're both off thematic brand...
Though note that Druids can polymorph into Owlbears using the spell.
I have a feeling that if you asked a person on the street about druids they would not mention metal armor, but if you asked if druids should wear metal they would say "no". They would think of Radagast if anything(even though yes Radagast is a wizard he is also not a wizard and is an angel but thematically he is a druid) or have a vaguely celtic/irish/british pre-"civilization" pagan conception
edit: I understand why you have problems with the limitations and i am not adverse to removing those restrictions. But i also understand why the limitations exist (both in option overload, potential balance issue, and also thematic construction) and while it is arbitrary its only so in the facile way that any delineation is arbitrary.
Thematic brands... which are purely arbitrary interpretations of the authors. And also, why should I care about thematic brands and what value is there in them, really, if they're so narrow and subjective?
And which spell do you mean, the druids standard shapeshift? And if so, why can they turn into Owlbears, which aren't beasts, but not drakes, which also aren't beasts (and most of which aren't magical in any way)
It isn't, really, given that, for example, winged cats are beasts.
Its arbitrary in the same way the damage die of a sword is arbitrary. In that sure it handed down from on high but also in the sense that it must have been handed down on high and there must have been a line and as a result the lines they chose are necessarily not worse than the lines you choose.
It is narrow and subjective in the facile way that everything is narrow and subjective when there is no agreed upon breadth or purpose.
Why don't barbarians wear armor? Because the thematic construction of barbarians is that they don't wear armor (though in this case they are given some breadth to wear some armor its most definitely not heavy armor) just as druids are given breadth to wear armor so long as its not metal.
The spell is "polymorph"
Winged cats don't seem to be in the MM. It might be mislabed in a secondary product (If its the FR thing its supposed to be a magical beast and not a beast, though maybe that distinction was removed as winged serpents are regular beasts, it was very much a thing in 3.5)
Druids can also turn into crag cats which can just reflect spells back at their source and are definitely magical creatures. Druids CANNOT turn into owlbears unless they're 17th level and casting shapechange.
Druids won't wear metal armor because Wizards has a few grognards who are stuck in second edition mentally. The game doesn't presuppose the source of your nature magic, your alignment, your gods, or which world you're playing in. But you definitely won't wear metal armor.
You CAN however play a chaotic evil druid who's goal in life is to be a billionare industrialist who pays people to just dump toxic waste in the forest - the class absolutely allows you to do that though
It's a roleplaying decision they force on the players. And if my DM ever told me "sorry, your character won't wear metal armor" I repeat "I put on metal armor" until I'm removed from the game, because choosing what my character believes is the one thing that is the player's domain (that or I say "hey bard cast suggestion on me and suggest I wear metal armor")
If a DM says "yeah I agree with it as a balancing mechanic, so druids just don't get medium armor proficiency" I wouldn't put up a fuss though
I suppose I'd want to see some sort of study but I consider my players to be "the dirty, unwashed masses" and half of them *do* multiclass.
Your second sentence is just plain ridiculous. It's a balancing act; I'm ok with there being a "dead" level here and there if it means my players will try out multiclassing and, hopefully, create some cool RP to back it up.
I'm not advocating for neutering an entire branch of system design for the sake of a few derps.
DetectCat and ReflectCat are a bit nutters
The lines they chose are worse, because they limit player options and there's no actual mechanical reason why. There's a reason, within the framework of the system of dungeons and dragons and the tools used to play it (such as dice) and the greater mechanical structure of balanced play, that they decided to make different weapons have different damage dice and hit rolls and proficiencies. They're arbitrary to an extent, but there's also a clear mechanical framework for why. Barbarians wear no armor, but their mechanics are balanced around this and their focus on dealing damage, and they compensate in other areas.
The same can't really be said of no drake druids. You can keep saying archetypes and thematic, but that won't make them seem like a good or realistic reason for the decisions they made the more you use them. There was a lot more leeway in shapeshifting forms and ranger pets back in 4th edition, and for all that some people complained about the classes feeling samey in that, none of that was because rangers could have ambush drakes or that a druids' beast form was less rigidly defined. I don't remember many arguments that a 4th edition beastmaster being able to take any animal that they could reasonably fit into one of the basic categories for their animal companion was diluting their essence as beast masters.
Swim speed ability? Level 4
Fly speed? Level 8
edit: screw it im going to make this and give it to my players see what they think
I think the Ravnica book has an NPC that works like that actually, from the Simic Combine.
I enjoy that Pathfinder 2e has rarities assigned to some things like this, so some works are uncommon or rare instead of flat out saying you can't get them. Then some player abilities make them count as common for that player. I've always thought it'd be a good way to do ranger companions or druid forms.
Regardless, I think of a Beast Master ranger as kinda like Hagrid. Limiting their options goes against the fun of it in the first place.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DAEpCvSqYZvNTaHYXO_-_YqVQBEI2Rvybg7Skr-29hQ/edit?usp=sharing
something kinda sorta like that
There is definitely no accounting for Crawford.
Also the ambush drake, the only CR1/2 drake, has an ac/hp ratio that makes it tougher than any CR 1/2 beast right off the jump. Though hilariously it's damage is worse than any CR 1/2 beast (it's damage adds of pack tactics and suprise attack don't really compare to the damage add abilities all cr 1/2 beats have) which is why it still sits at a CR 1/2. As well it comes from an adventure and not a more core monster manual type entry like volos. The other drakes are in volos and are CR2 and thusly out of normal druid range (thus requiring a specialized sub class, which again sounds dope).
A more straightforward reason: elemental resistance. Every drake outside the ambush drake has an elemental damage resistance. There are like 5 beasts that have elemental resistance almost all of them arguably misassigned as beasts (the fiendish spider should probably be a fiend not a beast, same for the stench kow, the giant lightning eel is still arguably a beast), and none of them come from core materials all but the stench kow (volos) come from adventures.
The thing about the beasts is that unlike the rest of the monsters they're pretty obviously designed around being a player resource. there's a notable progression of available capability and toughness. Especially in the basic rules because those beasts were in fact designed with druid, circle of the moon, and beast master in mind.
Edit: also mindful that it's like definitely not perfect in the base but what they're going for is pretty straightforward. They just kinda played around in the space a bit.
I don't think you necessarily need to be able to turn into a drake, letting you turn into a drake-shaped-bear-statblock would probably be fine
Thankfully this is what talking about character concepts with the DM is for
Teehee.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
A bear reskin to drake is super easy.
I'd probably just endup building a subclass that eventually goes into turning into a freakin dragon though.
Did it for a druid that could turn into a werebear, I'm sure I could work something out for dragons too.
Canonically drakes are manufactured in 5e; dragons and their minions effectively magic them into existance hence removing them from the natural order.
Beyond that, I'm pretty sure druids have never been able to shift into dracoforms.
2nd level you get access to dragon shapes a la moon druid getting higher level beasts, this allows dragons of a similar scale while your access to beasts is left unchanged. (You keep the ability to transform into small and useful animals but gain the ability to transform into draconic creatures of greater strength).
6th keeping with the moon druid pattern of unlocking druid level divided by 3 drakes all become available now, also include the attacks count as magic ability from circle of the moon.
10th level (the only place we gotta do a little extra) I think I'd call it something like aspect of the dragon, something like use a wild shape, or as part of a short rest select a dragon type receive resistance and a breath weapon from that dragon type while in humanoid form.
14th level we purposefully open up all young dragons which you wouldn't normally ever hit as a result of druid level divided by 3.
Just a quick stab in the dark at a subclass to do it.
Wanna be a young dragon whenever you want? Sure why not
everything's already so broken at that stage of the game, the whole point is fun ridiculous nonsense
It doesn't mention that it sets stuff on fire.
But it's fire.
help!?
Why don't ice spells say they freeze water?
Wall of fire sets flammable things on fire in its space and in the direction you make the flames do heat damage
You're not too blind to see?
Comics, Games, Booze
But they're ICONIC™
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I dislike the trend of every new fantasy race I see just being an animal-person. Illithids, beholders, and all that are what make D&D special, and none of that crap showed up in a Tolkien story.