D&D 5E Druid spells .... gone?

[Shiroiken]

It's a little off-topic, but I have to disagree with this.

1) Gods weren't required in 3E or 4E, either.

That matters little to someone coming back from AD&D. My statement might not have been accurate for the OP (whom I guess is coming from 3E), but that doesn't change the fact that many of the classes have had their fluff altered quite a bit from prior editions, the paladin more so than most.

2) While there's technically no alignment restriction, the requirements of the Oath of Devotion (which is the "standard" paladin of prior editions) comes pretty close to enforcing Lawful Good. I mean, at a stretch, you could play one as Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good, but LG is pretty clearly the only alignment that fully embraces every aspect of the Oath's requirements.

Alignment is VERY broadly defined in the PHB (pg. 122), existing only as pretty much as only 1-2 sentences. Please explain to me how "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what other expect" is unable to perform one of the following:

"Don't like or cheat. Let your word be your promise."

"Never fear to act, though caution is wise."

"Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom."

"Treat other with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm."

"Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you."

 

[Mouseferatu]

Alignment is VERY broadly defined in the PHB (pg. 122), existing only as pretty much as only 1-2 sentences. Please explain to me how "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what other expect" is unable to perform one of the following:

Sure, a Chaotic Good character could act that way, some or even most of the time. But the code makes references to not lying, and to obeying "just authority." Someone who lives by those tenets even if their conscience might permit otherwise under certain conditions, or when doing so is not the most direct way to the greatest good, seems to me to be a lot more lawful than chaotic.

 

[Staffan]

As far as hallow being a religious spell, druids are based on the Celtic version of a cleric. Religious leaders of an entire culture. Are they supposed to be something different in 5e? Are you just supposed to play a Nature Cleric? What's the point of a druid, then, if they are removing the flavour that made the class what it is?

I suppose it's easy to just add Hallow to their list. But then you have to have a conversation with your DM. Which rubs me the wrong way.

5e druids are nature priests/shamans, not overly concerned with things that are holy/unholy. They generally don't muck about with planar stuff that's beyond the Elemental planes and the Feywild. If you're more concerned with worship of a particular deity that happens to be associated with nature - then, yes, the Nature Cleric is probably a better choice. I do not find that to be particularly strange - otherwise, what would be the point of having both the Druid and Nature Cleric in the game?

That said, Xanathar's Guide to Everything does add druid grove to their spell list as a 6th level spell. It's more akin to guards and wards though.

I remember a druid ability to travel quickly by entering a tree and appearing out of the same type of tree elsewhere... 2nd ed I think. Sure were a different flavor of druid back then.

Tree stride, a 5th level spell that lets you teleport from one tree to another of the same sort up to 500 ft away, once per round for one minute. You also have transport via plants at 6th level which creates a gate from one tree to another on the same plane for one round, which is enough for the whole party to use.

 

[Shiroiken]

Sure, a Chaotic Good character could act that way, some or even most of the time. But the code makes references to not lying, and to obeying "just authority." Someone who lives by those tenets even if their conscience might permit otherwise under certain conditions, or when doing so is not the most direct way to the greatest good, seems to me to be a lot more lawful than chaotic.

So it in no way restricts a CG character from be a Paladin of Devotion, nor a NG or LN one. Thus, even the most old school type paladin is nothing like it was in AD&D, which was my point (sort of... the point was actually about the Druid, but we've wandered WAY off topic here).

 

[gyor]

I've been really excited to play a druid in 5e. Especially circle. I know most people gush over moon druids but, from 3.5, druids had some of the coolest rp and utility spells.

Then I looked at their spells list:

-No warp wood
-No shape wood
-Stone Shape is 4th(!) now and only does 1- 5 foot cube????
-Hallow is no longer a druid spell?
(I guess the Archdruid hired a cleric to sanctify Stonehenge.)
-Control weather is now 8th instead of 7th.

They still get plant growth which is nice.

Most of these spell had very little combat utility but were very useful (although situational) for long campaigns. Like hollowing out a cliff side to give the village protection from the marauding dragon, for example.

Stone shape, for example. They should have kept it as is but raised the level to 4th or, changed it to (almost useless) but kept it at 3rd. Am I the only one disappointed by this? Would you allow these spells back in your campaigns?

Actually my favourite Druid Circle is the Circle of the Shepherd.

 

[cmad1977]

I’ve always felt like the land Druid was rather powerful

 

[Mouseferatu]

Thus, even the most old school type paladin is nothing like it was in AD&D, which was my point (sort of... the point was actually about the Druid, but we've wandered WAY off topic here).

Isn't it?

I mean, let's say you're right in your interpretation of 5E alignments. The behavioral requirements of the paladin (at least the Devotion paladin) haven't changed. The tenets of the Oath pretty firmly match what LG was in prior editions. What's changed, then, is not the paladin, but that the alignment definitions have gotten broader.

If the paladin's actual behavior has to be the same as it was, does it really matter what alignment's written on the sheet?

 

[Henry]

It was a spell, IIRC. And it's a spell that still exists in 5E.

Tree stride (the limited one) and Transport via Plants (the unlimited one). Both still in 5e. My halfling druid still uses them.

Edit: oops, Staffan beat me to it.

 

[Henry]

Isn't it?

I mean, let's say you're right in your interpretation of 5E alignments. The behavioral requirements of the paladin (at least the Devotion paladin) haven't changed. The tenets of the Oath pretty firmly match what LG was in prior editions. What's changed, then, is not the paladin, but that the alignment definitions have gotten broader.

If the paladin's actual behavior has to be the same as it was, does it really matter what alignment's written on the sheet?

I have to agree, a character acting on the Devotion oath would be pretty indistinguishable from a well-played AD&D paladin. (And a Vengeance oath Paladin would be pretty similar to the more crappily-played Paladins of AD&D To me, it’s still probably some of the best design work on Paladins in all of F20 to date; I’m still waiting to see what comes out of Pathfinder 2nd edition yet, but I still don't think it will top the D&D5 paladin for playability. (The PF1 paladin however was the KING of durability on the battlefield, though.)

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

So, lots of posts to respond to:

1. Regarding the comments around my not wanting to talk with the DM.

Why? In my experience the best games always involve conversations with the DM.

I dropped D&D a while back and I've spent the last few years playing games that involve cooperative story-telling, so I have no problems having conversations with the DM about narrative changes to the rules. In fact, my group has home brewed most of the D&D we've played - which has ranged from 1st ed to 5ed.

My problem with having a chat with the DM regarding Hallow isn't the actual conversation with the DM. It's the principal. It rubs me the wrong way that that I have to have this conversation because the developers of the game would assume that religions that don't have gods are, somehow, less 'holy' or 'divine'. "sure you can bless my house, but your pagan religion isn't really real, so it won't do anything." I won't get too philosophical here. Instead, I'll quote the PHB again:

PHB: "Druids revere nature above all, gaining ...powers either from the force of nature itself or from a nature deity. Many druids pursue a mystic spirituality of transcendent union with nature rather than devotion to a divine entity, while others serve gods of wild nature, animals, or elemental forces. The ancient druidic traditions are sometimes called the Old Faith, in contrast to the worship of gods in temples and shrines."

So, somehow the 'Old Faith' is inferior to the 'new faith'. What was it before the New Faith came around? Did it used to be able to make places 'hallowed' but now it can't? That's a cool premise for a campaign but, to me, it shouldn't be the bar. Fantasy is ripe with tropes of 'sacred spaces' that don't exist in temples: Sacred Groves, Ancient Burial Grounds, Protected Forests. Are these not Hallowed Ground? Are you telling me the Iconic Archetype, the one with a 'transcendent union with nature' is unable to protect these 'holy' places or create sacred places that undead or evil are unable to profane? And, even if your definition of 'holy' requires you to have some 'divine entity' that is not 'the earth' or nature itself, or the spirits of nature that are alive in all living things, or "elemental planes and the feywild", the phb specifically mentions that some druids gain their power from a nature deity - druids. Not nature Clerics. In fact, Nature Cleric is redundant, imo.

Therefore, in my humble opinion, Hallow should be on their list without needing to have a heart-to-heart with the DM. After writing all this, though, I realize this is just a pet peeve and probably falls in the category of 'I'll get over it".

I'd love to see a druid a bit more divorced from animal shapeshifting.

Plant shapeshifiting would be neat. Or more plant based abilities and no shapeshifting would be neat too.

Tree shape was a spell that no longer exists. You turn yourself into a tree for 8hrs. Great for spying or resting in dangerous territory

Regarding some of the other spells - like stone shape. They could have made it similar to Plant Growth. Have a '1 action' version that lets you do 5 feet of stone and then have a 10 minute casting time version that does more and allows you to upcast it to higher slots in order to increase the amount of stone you can affect. That would have solved the balance issues, probably. And I will have that discussion with my dm if I ever choose to play a druid.