Quote from: S'mon;1055829Well it 'works' - the lost world dinosaur druid is more powerful than the druid restricted to medieval European animals, but it's not game breaking. I'd say it's a lot like wizard spellbooks, another open-ended power; it would be reasonable to allow druids to quest for unusual animals to acquire more forms.

For wizards, though, the current rules guarantee that they gain two spells of their choice every time they level up. That means that any spell they find will be at most their third choice - probably less. So it's far less of a vital difference. This means that encountering a powerful enemy wizard will be notable, but not necessarily crucial.

For druids under current rules, it's quite possible that a creature they encounter will become their top pick wildshape. That means that as GM, if I have dinosaurs or other beasts in my adventure, it may majorly change the party balance.

This seems like more of a bug than a feature to me. As a GM, I'd prefer to be OK putting dinosaurs in my adventures without worrying that it will mess things up. I'd be inclined to do like wizards, and give druids a free choice of wildshape of their choice per level - but have other house rules to more strictly limit their power and flexibility. I'd lean towards lowering the CR available at lower levels, and also requiring a predefined limited number of forms - maybe one form at the start and adding one per level.

Of course giving a character the ability to arbitrarily assume the form of any animal is unbalanced. This should be obvious to anyone with even basic experience in game design or who has ever read Animorphs.

5e is going to be unbalanced for as long as the writers and community refuse to acknowledge that it is unbalanced. While 4e was much-maligned, it still tried to address the balance issues. 5e just undid all that work and then retread much of the same ground as 4e without realizing it because the writers seemingly blocked all memory of developing 4e.

There are many systemic reasons why 5e is unbalanced. It does not acknowledge that an imbalance exists even though "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" is an infamous cliche. It does not rely on a point-buy system for balance like GURPS or Mutants & Masterminds does. It does not try to buff other classes by giving them equally useful options.

So I will never play 5e.

Quote from: S'mon;1055838How about spending a Long Rest with one? Bit of Diane Fossey/Gorillas in the Mist?

You could be kind and allow 'attunement' to a form on a Short Rest, a la magic items.

That works if it's like a dog, but how do you do that with a T Rex. The kind of animal you'd quest to find or encounter in the jungle and be excited to use.

If there is a creature classified as a "beast" that you do not want a druid to wildshape into in your world, reclassify it as something else.  Likewise, if you want something else to be available, reclassify it as a "beast".  Done.  This is how the default rules handle it, and it is easy to modify.

Quote from: jhkim;1055846I'd be inclined to do like wizards, and give druids a free choice of wildshape of their choice per level - but have other house rules to more strictly limit their power and flexibility. I'd lean towards lowering the CR available at lower levels, and also requiring a predefined limited number of forms - maybe one form at the start and adding one per level.

I'm inclined to agree that would be a better approach. Like I said, the current system works - certainly better than it first appears, my original PHB was full of pencilled strike throughs in the Moon Druid region, later erased. But it certainly feels pretty half-arsed.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1055852If there is a creature classified as a "beast" that you do not want a druid to wildshape into in your world, reclassify it as something else.  Likewise, if you want something else to be available, reclassify it as a "beast".  Done.  This is how the default rules handle it, and it is easy to modify.

Agreed - that's what I did with the owlbear, to give a decent CR 3 combat option.

And because I have two cool owlbear minis.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1055852If there is a creature classified as a "beast" that you do not want a druid to wildshape into in your world, reclassify it as something else.  Likewise, if you want something else to be available, reclassify it as a "beast".  Done.  This is how the default rules handle it, and it is easy to modify.

Quote from: S'mon;1055858Agreed - that's what I did with the owlbear, to give a decent CR 3 combat option.

And because I have two cool owlbear minis.

The monster types mechanic is a mind-numbingly stupid way to balance anything. If the developers thought it made sense as a way to balance anything at all, they really need to get their heads examined.

The mechanic itself is logically unsound (why can't a monster have two types?), poorly defined (what the hell is a monstrosity? what if a monster doesn't fit?), and relies on backwards world building. At least half of the types only make sense in a specifically D&D context and make no sense for any campaign setting not specifically built around the D&D rules. The distinction between "fey", "elementals" and "giants" is a perfect example: no mythology anywhere in the real world makes a distinction between those. Paracelsus, the guy who literally invented the concept of elementals, specifically referred to fairies as elementals. Norse mythology literally described giants as elemental beings, born from the elements and who lived on the Norse equivalent of elemental planes. In Scandinavian countries and the dictionary, trolls range in size from dwarves to giants; the D&D troll is specifically one that appeared in a story by Poul Anderson. Speaking of real mythology, D&D lacks a "spirit" type even though this is a universal concept in comparative mythology. Don't get me started on how a 5e "spirit shaman" conversion is expected to work.

Quote from: jhkimI'd be inclined to do like wizards, and give druids a free choice of wildshape of their choice per level - but have other house rules to more strictly limit their power and flexibility. I'd lean towards lowering the CR available at lower levels, and also requiring a predefined limited number of forms - maybe one form at the start and adding one per level.

Quote from: S'mon;1055857I'm inclined to agree that would be a better approach. Like I said, the current system works - certainly better than it first appears, my original PHB was full of pencilled strike throughs in the Moon Druid region, later erased. But it certainly feels pretty half-arsed.

Well, I've played and run in several games with Moon Druids without using house rules, and we had fun - so in that sense it works. But with a decent GM and a good social contract, just about any system works.

Design-wise, it was a dumb choice that obviously could have been done better - in that sense I agree with BoxCrayonTales.

Overall, though, I think 5e is a reasonable system. Balance isn't a big issue for me usually, notably. There are some points that definitely bug me - but then, there are points that bug me about nearly all published systems.

5e's balance is supposed to make it easier to DM, which our group found 3.X easier to DM at high levels than 5e.

So 5e's lack of balance kind of kills it for me, because aside from being easier to run/play, I see no reason to play it over 3.X, 4e, 2e, 1e, or BECMI, which the lack of balance undermines "ease of play"

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055861The monster types mechanic is a mind-numbingly stupid way to balance anything. If the developers thought it made sense as a way to balance anything at all, they really need to get their heads examined.

That your opinion and I understand why you would opt to do something else in your campaign. However it wasn't you writing 5e so they made a judgment call. Rather than making a specific list things that Druids are allowed to shapechange into. They used the monster type system which they developed. And picked the type, beasts, that reflect their feeling that Druid should only be able to shapechange into natural animals.

Not hard to see the chain of reason they used.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055861The mechanic itself is logically unsound (why can't a monster have two types?), poorly defined (what the hell is a monstrosity?

Page 7

QuoteMonstrosities are monsters in the strictest sense frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly natural, and almost never benign. Some are the results of magical experimentation gone awry (such as owl bears), and others ,are the product-of terrible curses (including minotaurs and yuan-ti). They defy categorization, and in some sense serve as a catch-all category for creatures that don't fit into any other type.

Seem pretty straightforward

Quotewhat if a monster doesn't fit?), and relies on backwards world building. At least half of the types only make sense in a specifically D&D context and make no sense for any campaign setting not specifically built around the D&D rules.

Aside from the fact that many hobbyist seem to disagree by using their dollars to make it the #1 RPG in the industry and hobby. Aside from ignoring that Dave Arneson's and Gary Gygax's specific mishmash of early 70s inspiration has spread throughout the globe to become dominant face of the fantasy genre.

It pretty flexible. Which is why the above two occurred. Moreso it not a a strong component of what make D&D 5e work. The wildshape ability is an illustration of this. It been a long standing trope of the Druid class that they can shapechange into animal form. Various editions handled the definition of animal forms differently but they all amount to a list. A list of thing that druids can shapeshift into. So if you don't like the list then change the fucking list and be done with it. Rather than thinking they are total idiots for coming up with a list in the first places. Especially what they chose is the category that represent natural animals

From Page 6

QuoteBeasts are nonhumanoid creatures that are a natural part of the fantasy ecology. Some of them have magical powers, but most are unintelligent and lack any society or language. Beasts include all varieties of ordinary animals, dinosaurs, and giant versions of animals.

QuoteThe distinction between "fey", "elementals" and "giants" is a perfect example: no mythology anywhere in the real world makes a distinction between those. Paracelsus, the guy who literally invented the concept of elementals, specifically referred to fairies as elementals. Norse mythology literally described giants as elemental beings, born from the elements and who lived on the Norse equivalent of elemental planes.

1) I read their definition, and looked at what they put in those categories make sense to me.

2) Again D&D relies on the mish-mash that Gygax and Arneson found interesting in the early 70s. A combination of Victorian fairy tales, Hammer Horror films, Harryhausen fantasise, Tolkien, Vance, Howard, Medieval History, Greek Myths, Norse Myths, etc, etc.

You know what game does that? GURPS, while as references their sourcebooks are great. but their settings and adventures almost always suck. Because they adopt the same attitude you do and produce things that obviously grounded in history and real world myth. There are exceptions like Tredroy, Harkwood, the DF adventures, but mostly the results are dull, uninteresting and boring to most hobbyists.

Gygax and Arneson version of fantasy crops up over and over again because it is fun and interesting. But I will concede that it not 100% universal. Which is why are there are alternative.

Quotethe D&D troll is specifically one that appeared in a story by Poul Anderson. Speaking of real mythology, D&D lacks a "spirit" type even though this is a universal concept in comparative mythology. Don't get me started on how a 5e "spirit shaman" conversion is expected to work.

Certainty has a spirit, a spirit of fun and adventure. The sense that anything possible by the intersection of so many disparate elements mashed together in a fun and crazy mess. The example of Poul Anderson is a great one. Poul Anderson's Trolls are in the game because Gygax and Arneson used them in their campaign and players found them to be fun to fight compared to how Trolls work in Norse myth.

If D&D had a "spirit" in the way you are suggested then it would have been relagated to the same niche occupied by Middle Earth, Tekumel, Glorantha, Harn, Jorune, all setting with a strong sense of place and mythology. But all of them are specialized tastes actively played by narrow niches of the hobby.

I love Adventure in Middle Earth but I well well aware that it will never supplant D&D fantasy as the default. It too specific of a feel to work as a general purpose fantasy RPG despite being based on the D&D 5th edition rules.

Finally the point of what we do is play or referee a campaign where players interacts with a setting as their character. Unless the campaign is about a specific setting like Tekumel or Middle Earth, then the rules by default are going have to alter to fit the setting you have in mind. If the RPG is general purpose enough then generally this means picking which elements you going to use from the lists of monsters, treasure, character options, or magic system. Otherwise you will have alter the rules to make what doesn't fit, fit your setting.

This includes the list of creatures that Druid shapeshift into if indeed Druids exist in the setting and if they do they can shipshape into natural creatures.

Quote from: estar;1055869That your opinion and I understand why you would opt to do something else in your campaign. However it wasn't you writing 5e so they made a judgment call. Rather than making a specific list things that Druids are allowed to shapechange into. They used the monster type system which they developed. And picked the type, beasts, that reflect their feeling that Druid should only be able to shapechange into natural animals.

Not hard to see the chain of reason they used.

Plus, it doesn't have a lot to do with "balance" at all, at least not directly.  Yeah, they wanted to remove some of the problem creatures from the "list" to tone down the powers, but the main function behind using the "Beast" category is merely to make it simple to communicate.  The main "balance" factors are the CR limits and the various monster abilities (e.g. flying) gated by druid level.

Quote from: estar;1055869That your opinion and I understand why you would opt to do something else in your campaign. However it wasn't you writing 5e so they made a judgment call. Rather than making a specific list things that Druids are allowed to shapechange into. They used the monster type system which they developed. And picked the type, beasts, that reflect their feeling that Druid should only be able to shapechange into natural animals.

Not hard to see the chain of reason they used.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055861The mechanic itself is logically unsound (why can't a monster have two types?), poorly defined (what the hell is a monstrosity?

Page 7


Seem pretty straightforward



Aside from the fact that many hobbyist seem to disagree by using their dollars to make it the #1 RPG in the industry and hobby. Aside from ignoring that Dave Arneson's and Gary Gygax's specific mishmash of early 70s inspiration has spread throughout the globe to become dominant face of the fantasy genre.

It pretty flexible. Which is why the above two occurred. Moreso it not a a strong component of what make D&D 5e work. The wildshape ability is an illustration of this. It been a long standing trope of the Druid class that they can shapechange into animal form. Various editions handled the definition of animal forms differently but they all amount to a list. A list of thing that druids can shapeshift into. So if you don't like the list then change the fucking list and be done with it. Rather than thinking they are total idiots for coming up with a list in the first places. Especially what they chose is the category that represent natural animals

From Page 6



1) I read their definition, and looked at what they put in those categories make sense to me.

2) Again D&D relies on the mish-mash that Gygax and Arneson found interesting in the early 70s. A combination of Victorian fairy tales, Hammer Horror films, Harryhausen fantasise, Tolkien, Vance, Howard, Medieval History, Greek Myths, Norse Myths, etc, etc.

You know what game does that? GURPS, while as references their sourcebooks are great. but their settings and adventures almost always suck. Because they adopt the same attitude you do and produce things that obviously grounded in history and real world myth. There are exceptions like Tredroy, Harkwood, the DF adventures, but mostly the results are dull, uninteresting and boring to most hobbyists.

Gygax and Arneson version of fantasy crops up over and over again because it is fun and interesting. But I will concede that it not 100% universal. Which is why are there are alternative.




Certainty has a spirit, a spirit of fun and adventure. The sense that anything possible by the intersection of so many disparate elements mashed together in a fun and crazy mess. The example of Poul Anderson is a great one. Poul Anderson's Trolls are in the game because Gygax and Arneson used them in their campaign and players found them to be fun to fight compared to how Trolls work in Norse myth.

If D&D had a "spirit" in the way you are suggested then it would have been relagated to the same niche occupied by Middle Earth, Tekumel, Glorantha, Harn, Jorune, all setting with a strong sense of place and mythology. But all of them are specialized tastes actively played by narrow niches of the hobby.

I love Adventure in Middle Earth but I well well aware that it will never supplant D&D fantasy as the default. It too specific of a feel to work as a general purpose fantasy RPG despite being based on the D&D 5th edition rules.

Finally the point of what we do is play or referee a campaign where players interacts with a setting as their character. Unless the campaign is about a specific setting like Tekumel or Middle Earth, then the rules by default are going have to alter to fit the setting you have in mind. If the RPG is general purpose enough then generally this means picking which elements you going to use from the lists of monsters, treasure, character options, or magic system. Otherwise you will have alter the rules to make what doesn't fit, fit your setting.

This includes the list of creatures that Druid shapeshift into if indeed Druids exist in the setting and if they do they can shipshape into natural creatures.

I don't know where to begin rebutting you. Your take on the fantasy genre is completely wrong.

D&D is not the face of fantasy. Tolkien is. Rowling is. George Martin is. Those are household names. Gygax is not.

Unless fantasy fiction is outright based on D&D, which is a minority outside of Japanese light novels which are technically based on video games inspired by D&D, most writers take inspiration from mythology and a surface read of Tolkien.

Rowling, a world-famous author, took her monsters right out of mythology, not D&D.

Gygax used Anderson's troll because he probably had no idea Norse trolls existed since his only resource was his local library. Norse trolls, for anyone familiar, are infinitely more diverse an interesting.

The Trollhunters cartoon on Netflix has dozens of varieties of trolls, none of which take any inspiration from D&D. This works to its advantage.

My complaint about monster types is fairly minor in comparison and I don't expect you to understand it. You can provide definitions, but the very natural centaur and griffin are monstrosities whereas the strige and tressym and cranium rat are beasts. The writers cannot keep the types straight.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055878I don't know where to begin rebutting you. Your take on the fantasy genre is completely wrong.

D&D is not the face of fantasy. Tolkien is. Rowling is. George Martin is. Those are household names. Gygax is not.

You are right that Gygax or Arneson are not household names. Their take didn't become the face of fantasy because of what they did directly with tabletop gaming. It became the face of fantasy indirectly. Because of computer RPGs and MMORPGS particularly World of Warcraft. And those games owe their legacy to D&D as many of the early computer games were attempts to recreate D&D using software. Along with a strong contribution by Games Workshop through Warhammer Fantasy and 40k. In literature the TSR popular novels bled over and merged with the path blazed by Brook's Shannara that influenced the next two decades of fantasy novels. So circa 2000 much of fantasy was vaguely D&Dish. Not all but it was a dominant theme. And it wasn't in lockstop mostly variations on a theme.

It wasn't until Jackson's Lord of the Rings debuted that a serious alternative took hold particularly in TV and Movies. HBO's Game of Thrones further cemented this trend.

Incidentally, in part Game of Thrones was written by Martin as a reaction to what was happening in the fantasy genre in the late 80s because of the influence of D&D.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055878Rowling, a world-famous author, took her monsters right out of mythology, not D&D.

Except like Gygax and Arneson she put her own spin on them and they are not accurate in regards to the original source material. It a good adaptation and it good that you mentioned the Harry Potter series. Because along with Game of Throne is continued to support a healthy alternative to the legacy of Shannara and TSR.

However the alternatives didn't truly took hold until the movies and series came out. The superior visual presentation in conjunction with the excellence of the respective books it what in my opinion changed things. Prior to that fantasy inspired by Shannara and D&D ruled the roost.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055878Gygax used Anderson's troll because he probably had no idea Norse trolls existed since his only resource was his local library. Norse trolls, for anyone familiar, are infinitely more diverse an interesting.

I am certain that Gygax had a good understanding of mythology. I was a voracious reader growing up and was well aware of the different varieties of Norse trolls and other mythological creatures. Bullfinich's Mythology was a starting point that led me to seek out other books. Which were plenty of to be had in my rural Northwest Pa town of 15,000. Both in the library and the local bookstores including B. Daltons. Then there was Erie, PA 45 minutes away along with a visit to Pittsburgh a handful times a year.

The same with Lake Geneva, Madison, Milwaukee and Chicago. It was not some benighted dark age in the 60s or 70s.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055878My complaint about monster types is fairly minor in comparison and I don't expect you to understand it. You can provide definitions, but the very natural centaur and griffin are monstrosities whereas the strige and tressym and cranium rat are beasts. The writers cannot keep the types straight.

Spoke like a true snob. When it comes to the fantastic and supernatural is all made stuff whether it is last year, 40 years ago, or a thousand years ago. The point of the exercise is to present one's take on the material. If your goal is to help hobbyist pretend to be character in a setting where Norse mythology is real and part of the world. Then using Poul Anderson's take on troll is a good point of criticism for that work.  

However I will let Gygax tell you what the point of D&D was.

QuoteThese rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS & DRAGONS to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!

Quote from: Rhedyn;1055816I kind of hate that 5e requires heavy subjective balancing like this.

Let's just simplify it to the GM saying, "nuh uh" and move on.

From my perspective, if characters have abilities like wildshape, they should work even in the worse case that the druid is Chris Pratt and knows every dinosaur. But you know, 5e doesn't have solid rules like that and they basically don't work well "as is", so the GM has to step in and rework player abilities using open ended caveats.

If the PCs never visit Dinosaur Island or the Lost Plateau then they arent ever going to see these things. Or they might just not exist in the campaign. Same as how anything might or might not be in a campaign or setting. Dragonlance and Dark Sun come to mind. Then there is Masque of the Red Death which removes alot.

Overall 5e does work even if you know those dino/prehistoric shapes. As noted earlier. There are bonuses and cons to using them.

Top end example, currently, is the Mammoth with 126 hp. But an AC of 13 and a DEX of 9. So the Druid could get potentially something on the order of 378 extra HP and more likely to make STR and CON saves/checks. But is probably more vulnerable. Both due to the generally low AC and especially vs spells that require DEX saves like Fireball, Lightning Bolt and a few others. Much the same with the Triceratops for example, but only 95 hp.

Quote from: Omega;1055890If the PCs never visit Dinosaur Island or the Lost Plateau then they arent ever going to see these things. Or they might just not exist in the campaign. Same as how anything might or might not be in a campaign or setting. Dragonlance and Dark Sun come to mind. Then there is Masque of the Red Death which removes alot.

Overall 5e does work even if you know those dino/prehistoric shapes. As noted earlier. There are bonuses and cons to using them.

Top end example, currently, is the Mammoth with 126 hp. But an AC of 13 and a DEX of 9. So the Druid could get potentially something on the order of 378 extra HP and more likely to make STR and CON saves/checks. But is probably more vulnerable. Both due to the generally low AC and especially vs spells that require DEX saves like Fireball, Lightning Bolt and a few others. Much the same with the Triceratops for example, but only 95 hp.

Buut every attack against the druid is wasted.

All the low AC and saves do is make the form too vulnerable if the Druid was using their HP, which would make the forms kind'of useless. So instead they get a free HP bubble, which is just really powerful in 5e.