Playtest: The Druid (merged)

[Cadfan]

That would be tough to do, because your beast form wouldn't be able to access any of your regular powers, and at the time you initially took the multiclass feat, would have zero beast powers unless the feat itself granted you one. And if it did that, it would grant it per encounter since that's the usual pattern.

I think its more likely that druid multiclassing will focus on the non beast form powers.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I would expect a multiclass Druid to either get Wildshape At-Will for one combat per day(similar to how the Swordmage multiclass gets the AC bonus for one combat) and an At-Will beast power to use during it, or to get a non-beast Druid At-Will as an encounter power similar to what the Wizard and Warlock get.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I would expect a multiclass Druid to either get Wildshape At-Will for one combat per day(similar to how the Swordmage multiclass gets the AC bonus for one combat) and an At-Will beast power to use during it, or to get a non-beast Druid At-Will as an encounter power similar to what the Wizard and Warlock get.

Except the Swordmage doesn't have powers a multi-classer might pick up later that are based on the AC bonus. If Wildshape were limited to one encounter, then any other At-Will and Encounter Beast Form powers the character selects will be limited as well. You'd essentially turn any such Enounter power into a Daily. A wimpy Daily.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Except the Swordmage doesn't have powers a multi-classer might pick up later that are based on the AC bonus. If Wildshape were limited to one encounter, then any other At-Will and Encounter Beast Form powers the character selects will be limited as well. You'd essentially turn any such Enounter power into a Daily. A wimpy Daily.

The only other way to do it would to give multiclass Druids a Beast at-will and Wildshape until the end of your next turn 1/encounter.

 

[Rechan]

Maybe not the AC or HP, but Call of the Beast makes Divine Challenge look like a child's petulant pout of marking.

It forces the target(s) to melee attack the closest one. That's not really defendering, so much as it is borking the ranged guys. Besides, only the Swordmage gets to do marks at a distance and let it stay at a distance.

Not to mention that Call of the Beast is an area attack, which is causing OAs if you cast it in melee.

Call of the Beast is very situational.

And a dwarf druid with a 20 Con could have pretty darn respectable HP and AC, too.

Getting 20 con (even with a dwarf) is going to hurt all your other stats, unless you rolled a nat 18. And then you're putting that nat 18 in your CON instead of WISDOM, which is what you're using to hit everything with. So, a 20 con just isn't realistically achievable.

EDIT: Dwarf druid with a 20 Con in Beast Form with the Staff Fighting feat starts with a 19 AC/quote]
Flaw with your logic. This assumes that you're allowed to benefit from a double weapon when you're in beast form. The text of wildshape says your equipment is sucked into your body. So you don't really have an off hand to facilitate the defensive nature of the double weapon, and nor are you really "wielding" your staff.

It's a serious questionable notion. I can't imagine a DM letting you get away with that. You might, when not in Beast form, but not while in it.

 

[Ximenes088]

As I recall, it specifically states that you can't use the properties or powers of weapons when you're in beast form, and your equipment becomes part of your body when you merge, except that you drop everything except implements you can use. One could try to argue that staves are an implement you can use, but using it a _weapon_ is pretty clearly forbidden to me in a RAW sense. And in a RAI sense, trying to claim defensive bonii for a combat style for a weapon that doesn't even exist when you're in beast form... that seems pretty silly to me.

 

[Rechan]

Actually, can someone tell me the usefulness of 'Call of the Beast'? I don't really 'get' its purpose.

 

[tuxgeo]

Actually, can someone tell me the usefulness of 'Call of the Beast'? I don't really 'get' its purpose.

My guesses as to the purpose of "Call of the Beast":
1. It targets the WILL defense, which the other 7 Druid At-Will Attacks do not; so it's more useful against Zombies and other low-will attackers.
2. It deprives any targets it hits of the ability to gain Combat Advantage; this is a salient part of the Controller role, because it reduces the combat effectiveness of the enemy.
3. It imposes a penalty that the enemies know about, which only takes effect on hit targets that do not attack the nearest of your allies; this also reduces the combat effectiveness of the enemy, because they now take damage if they do not attack the nearest Fighter or Paladin or Ranger or Rogue or Warlord instead of surging en masse to attack the Cleric or the Druid or the Wizard -- i.e. the notably squishy Leaders and Controllers. (If you can dull the tactical edge that the enemy gets from swarming toward the softest targets, go for it!)
Any damage this attack does is entirely secondary. The point of this evocation appears to be doing crowd-control instead of doing damage. (Area burst 1 against massed enemies won't control a very BIG crowd, but it's probably enough for an At-Will.)

 

[Rechan]

My guesses as to the purpose of "Call of the Beast":
1. It targets the WILL defense, which the other 7 Druid At-Will Attacks do not; so it's more useful against Zombies and other low-will attackers.

That I pegged.

2. It deprives any targets it hits of the ability to gain Combat Advantage; this is a salient part of the Controller role, because it reduces the combat effectiveness of the enemy.

This is a bit of a mixed bag for me.

Call of the Beast hits all creatures in the area. So if you don't want to zap your allies, this means you use it when the enemies are Over There, not Over Here next to your friends. So, the only chance the guys Over There will have combat advantage against your friends Over Here is if it's a surprise round (which isn't useful for the power), the enemy is hidden (good luck hitting them), or your friends are down on the ground (under a status condition, prone, etc). So that limits the usefulness of it right there.

The only other instance that comes to mind is in melee with your allies, such as flanks, or again, status effect + melee. Which means that you're going to have to hit your friends in order to stop the monsters from getting CA. And if your friends can't attack their nearest enemy (for whatever reason), then they're taking damage.

Not to mention that the only monsters where CA is all that significant is the lurker and skirmisher. For other monster roles, the CA is just giving a +2 to hit.

It's far too situational for my tastes, for an At-Will. I can't see even using it every fight, because its usefulness depends on the makeup of the monsters you're fighting and their place on the battlefield, and your allies positions. It's a headache.

3. It imposes a penalty that the enemies know about, which only takes effect on hit targets that do not attack the nearest of your allies; this also reduces the combat effectiveness of the enemy, because they now take damage if they do not attack the nearest Fighter or Paladin or Ranger or Rogue or Warlord instead of surging en masse to attack the Cleric or the Druid or the Wizard -- i.e. the notably squishy Leaders and Controllers.

Of course, to do that they have to rush past the defensive line. If they're at your flank, or the nearest allies are not your defensive line, then you're even encouraging the enemy to go after the squishies. (Also, I think the strikers are squishier than leaders; the latter has better armor).

 

[Vael]

I'd have to agree, Call of the Wild seems too situational ... I'd sooner use the other AoE attacks. Chill Wind is solid, although attacking Fort makes it harder to land, and Flame Seed is really good.

Overall though, the Druid has some really solid at-wills. I can't wait to see the whole class.