Nature Power Source

[Voss]

I could easily make an argument for sticking the druid in any role. Leader is hardest, of course, unless its buff-focused.
But shapeshifter with zapp magic and entangle magic? Depending on how exactly it leans in the wind, I could put it down for defender, striker or controller.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

In R&C it does say that Barbarians and Druids have a similar relationship as that between Paladins and Clerics, and follows that with that "If the paladin is the sword of the faith, the barbarian is nature's fury given physical form." It implies but does not state they they have the same power source.

I think this is the closest that WotC has come to mentioning a Nature power source - I've only ever seen it as fan speculation up to now.

 

[WhatGravitas]

d12 HD, bonuses to CON when raging, uncanny dodge, DR? Sure, he's really easy to hit, but he's going to soak up way more damage than any other character before he drops. I'd definitely say Defender; the "Glass Cannons" generally get the Striker role.

Well, it just makes a Striker with more beefiness, opposed to the rogue - and the Barbarian probably has to pay for that extra potential in terms of mobility and maximum damage.

A barbarian doesn't strike me as a defender: Sure, after all he has that many hit points because he doesn't care if he gets hit. And defenders have a way of hindering opponents from attacking allies, either through the paladinish smites and other abilities or the fighters "stickiness".

Cheers, LT.

 

[Intrope]

I think Barbarians are Defenders, but they are a different 'subrole' than pretty much any other Defender. Most Defenders are effectivley Soldiers--but Barbarians are Brutes (to borrow the Monster Role names).

Soldiers defend largely by being the Offensive Line (switching to Football terms)--Brute types are more Fullbacks (that rush forward and block the enemy 'out there' somewhere).

 

[Plane Sailing]

Wait- does it explicitly state that the barbarian won't be in the PH1??

No it doesn't - but they only get a couple of paragraphs and all the other evidence we've seen so far suggests that they are not in PHB1

 

[Irda Ranger]

No it doesn't - but they only get a couple of paragraphs and all the other evidence we've seen so far suggests that they are not in PHB1

Although nothing in R&C is set in stone ...

Mike probably shook things up the most when he designed a few classes that will be appearing in the 4th Edition Player's Handbook II. I looked at Mike's designs of the barbarian and the druid and thought "Oh, geez, this is the cool we need to be getting from all of our classes."

R&C - pg. 10

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I could easily make an argument for sticking the druid in any role. Leader is hardest, of course, unless its buff-focused.
But shapeshifter with zapp magic and entangle magic? Depending on how exactly it leans in the wind, I could put it down for defender, striker or controller.

Yes, that's true (at least for the 3E Druid). I assume that they will try to split up the Druid into multiple classes and each give them a distinct focus. (They could also go another route and explore a class that can basically fulfill both roles, but has to decide either at 1st level or each day which exact role it is to fulfill)

I think the usual Druid spells definitely focus on the Controller role, so one Druid-derived class would need to cover that. I don't know which name fits best (Shaman might work, but on the other hand, Shamans are often also seen as some kind of spiritual leader?)

The shapeshifting Druid can be either Striker (because you can assume forms that make you very mobile) or Defender. I tend to think the shapeshifter Druid better fits for Defender, overall, because I don't really see all the "mobile" variants of the Druid to be focusing on combat damage (aquatics/fishes and birds are usually the best for mobility, and neither really fits the "heavy hitter" rule). A large bear or lion certainly can defend your allies well, because most enemies will feel threatened by such a creature, and it's also large enough to block a lot of space and thus make it difficult to ignore.

The hardest part is the Leader rule - in 3E, Druids weren't as good at buffing and healing as Clerics (though 3.5 greatly improved their abilities in the buffing department at least).

 

[Cadfan]

1: Someone who "doesn't do defense" isn't forbidden from being a "defender." Its a game design term. If your character wades into the middle of the battle and chops everyone within reach into little pieces, while grabbing those who flee screaming by the ankles and dragging them back into the fray for more chopping, he's a defender. But in his mind, he's probably not "doing defense." He's attacking.

2: If what the "nature shaman" is supposed to be accomplishing mimics the cleric, then I hope that WOTC has the guts to just release an ability tree or something for the cleric, and tell off everyone who objects because they don't like the name "cleric" on their character sheet. I only want a separate nature shaman if it actually does something different from what we already have.

 

[Doug McCrae]

d12 HD, bonuses to CON when raging, uncanny dodge, DR? Sure, he's really easy to hit, but he's going to soak up way more damage than any other character before he drops. I'd definitely say Defender; the "Glass Cannons" generally get the Striker role.

None of that really does the job in D&D due to the mechanics. If you want to stay standing in combat it's all about armour class. For example if the monsters need a 19 to hit they will deal one fifth the damage they would've if they needed a 10. This effectively multiplies your hit point total by five. To rely on a hit point based defence, the barbarian needs a d20 or d30 for hit dice. At least.

 

[TwoSix]

I could see the idea of a beastmaster type class that was nature-powered as either a striker, a defender or a controller. But I suspect that 4e wants to stay away from effects that give a pc more attacks via more figures on the battlefield to keep track of, so I doubt whether we'll see one. .

Hmm...if you gave the beastmaster one large beast to control, and have it require a full-round or standard action to control it, it could be much more feasible.