General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
sorry folks but I just don't see this as a druid. witch doctor, shaman yes druid no go folks. First it has too much of an african feel to it. Nothing wrong with that except it's no druidish. You need to change the name people.
__________________ something wicked this way comes
I could go for a name change, too. Really, the 3e druid wasn't much of a "druid", either. I might even say the 2e druid lost some shine, too. I'm kinda okay, kinda not with that because I really just want an animist caster.
Of course, that want looks like it'll run completely contrary to the 4e druid that is reputed to be primarily a shape-shifter.
The ranger hasn't really been accurately named since at least the release of 3.5, probably earlier. WotC has never been particularly good about using names to mean what they mean.
Edit: Discount what I said, since I'm off topic. I'll leave the speculative rant, though.
Last edited by Mercule; 7th October 2008 at 09:09 PM..
sorry folks but I just don't see this as a druid. witch doctor, shaman yes druid no go folks. First it has too much of an african feel to it. Nothing wrong with that except it's no druidish. You need to change the name people.
Sure, WotC means exactly what they say: "Here's a trademark, love it, buy it" I wouldn't mind seeing this book though, I'm hoping the classes are good enough.
Of course, I've got to wonder, are you really criticising a class that wouldn't come out till November? That we don't know anything about then a little piece of text? Or do you mean the Druid from the Advanced Players Guide?
Last edited by Byronic; 7th October 2008 at 06:55 PM..
Off topic, yeah the quasi-historical druid has been erased by a more generic nature priest in recent editions. Which makes sense, since some folks practice a druidism (sp?) making it a real world religion (might as well stat up a Rabbi, right?). But still I miss the non-historical, romanticized flavor of Merlin and Co.
__________________ ENworld OAF (Old-school Admirer of 4th edition)
sorry folks but I just don't see this as a druid. witch doctor, shaman yes druid no go folks. First it has too much of an african feel to it. Nothing wrong with that except it's no druidish. You need to change the name people.
Is there a teaser PDF somewhere, or in a different forum? How do you get that from the little bit of text on their site? 'Elemental forces' sound very druid-y to me.
And for the record D&D has never gotten close to getting the Druid right, it's Celtic. And D&D is so very not. The best Druid for d20 though was without a dpubt from Slaine, which of course is very Celtic.
Is there a teaser PDF somewhere, or in a different forum? How do you get that from the little bit of text on their site? 'Elemental forces' sound very druid-y to me.
Is there a teaser PDF somewhere, or in a different forum? How do you get that from the little bit of text on their site? 'Elemental forces' sound very druid-y to me.
And for the record D&D has never gotten close to getting the Druid right, it's Celtic. And D&D is so very not.
Just drink more when you play, you'll get there.
So little is known about the druids, there pretty much whatever you want them to be. The AD&D druid did have various celtic and what might now be called "neopagan" references. (for example, shapechanging is popular in celtic mythology). I think it was a better try, in the broader context of the game, then you give it credit for. Of course, thanks to D&D, druid has gradually moved to generic nature priest in meaning.
Speaking of which, based on one brief look over, I am liking the nature priest from the advanced players guide better then what I am seeing here.
4E has rituals, use them, they're magic; Want to see the greatest thing you will ever see? then click; You can use “Earth” as a D&D setting; Origins of The Rouse; (look for it) The Rouse responds; (look for it) One can appreciate both old and new D&D.
Off topic, yeah the quasi-historical druid has been erased by a more generic nature priest in recent editions. Which makes sense, since some folks practice a druidism (sp?) making it a real world religion (might as well stat up a Rabbi, right?).
Heh. I did exactly that in a mage game. He was orthodox. The party was upset that he wouldn't cast spells on the sabbath.
__________________ -Andor
"Congratulations. You just invented 'negligent regicide.'" - Schlock Mercenary
What a strange and silly thread! The druid is not a druid and needs a name change??? Well the 4E barbarian WotC just previewed is a berzerker, not a barbarian. 4E's paladin is actually a generic religious warrior, not a paladin according to the meaning of that title. The 4E dryads are treants! 4E halflings are... I think you get my point?
The concept of something being not worthy of the name given it in 4E is ludicrous. This is 4E!
Well the 4E barbarian WotC just previewed is a berzerker, not a barbarian.
FWIW, this is true of Barbarians in all editions of D&D. Show me an edition of D&D that portrays a Barbarian as a culture rather than an occupation defined by a special ability to get really angry and I'll show you an edition of D&D that has not yet been written
Quote:
4E's paladin is actually a generic religious warrior, not a paladin according to the meaning of that title.
No edition of D&D has ever portrayed a paladin according to the original meaning of that title. I believe that the title "Palatinus" traditionally referred only to high-level government and Church officials (i.e., beaurocrats). It was romantic literature that later linked the derived "Paladin" to martial champions (notably in tales of Charlemagne).
Show me an edition of D&D that portrays a Barbarian as a culture rather than an occupation defined by a special ability to get really angry and I'll show you an edition of D&D that has not yet been written
Wasn't the 2e barbarian's handbook more about culture than about being angry?