i mean crawford's response was about the rationale for the tabletop mechanics and really didnt address what the actual impact of wild shape changes (mainly, free action to drop animal form and bonus action to assume animal form) could be both at low levels or at later game - if we ignored bg3, even if these changes were implemented as standard in the tabletop id still want to hear what wotc thoughts are on the gameplay/mechanics impact, and crawfords answer still didnt address that (also not considering other questions from the stream, ie swen seemed to be able to take numerous [bear, bird, badger, cat] forms in one run whereas i thought wildshape was 2x/rest for the standard druid? - someone please correct me if im wrong here). imho, that whole segment with crawford really didnt reassure my concerns with the game's direction, and makes it seem like wotc isnt closely involved (or interested) in the development of the game.
to stay in the spirit of this thread, i do hope y'alls days are going well tho
- lets hope patch 4 is able to drop next week
more detail below from another post regarding that interaction, but its like an ~1:33 into the panel for those whom want to hear for themselves
Even the WotC guy was there for the reason I expected - yeah, there are limitations to tabletop and that's why its fine that changes are made. He was kind enough to ignore the balancing arguments for why it requires a bonus action to turn off wildshape and why no flying speed - its definitely not because 'we don't know what you might encounter in your tt-adventure' - most will see birds even without being adventurers.
this is so true - like, we can debate the changes that larian made to the wild shape mechanic and adapting to a computer versus human dm, but crawford didnt even address that.
larian presented wild shape action economy changes for a pc game with a 'hey, we changed this mechanic bc cool/fun - is that alright/what are your thoughts on these changes?', and crawfords response doesnt address the mechanical fallout of the change at all, and instead responds with the rationale as to why mechanics in the tabletop game restricting a druid's wild shape ability were structured in such a way (ie not to slow down the game for others at the table and not overpowering/unbalancing the game in the favor of the druid class) - it came off hollow and makes it sound like wotc isnt actually that closely involved in bg3's development at all tbh
