D&D 5E So what are the other druid subclasses?

[mellored]

For shaman, paticularly the 4e kind, I would say you could summon a spirit by using your wildshape. Then you could attack though it, give it a nice OA, and some extra effects based on which spirit animal you pick.

Also, swarm druid.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

So "Blood of a Dragon" doesn't at all sound like it should have something to do with Con?

No, it really doesn't. No more than an Italian saying he's got the "blood of the Caesars" means his heritage is somehow diminished when he has a bout of anemia. The phrase "blood of" means you're descended from someone, you've inherited qualities from them. It's not referring to the literal red liquid in your circulatory system.

Note that dragons themselves use Charisma when they cast spells innately, as do most other magical creatures. Someone who has inherited that power would logically use it the same way.

And many sorcerers have nothing to do with dragons or the blood thereof, to boot.

But it makes complete sense for a Sorc to bargain for their abilities like the Warlock?

Saying sorcerers bargain for their abilities because they use Charisma is like saying wizards solve crossword puzzles for their abilities because they use Intelligence. Charisma is force of personality. Creative spark. Inner fire. Mana. The game of Dungeons & Dragons is hardly the first time in human cultural history that this quality has been attributed supernatural power, or even conceptualized as supernatural power in itself.

I'd actually defend Charisma-based casting more strongly for the sorcerer than the warlock. Hell, I might defend it more strongly for the sorcerer than the bard. Warlocks can be characterized as studying magic under their patrons, or channeling it through devotion. And bards can be characterized as picking up magical lore as part of their encyclopedic knowledge of everything (and actually were so, for two whole editions). For no other class is the idea of magic as self-expression so important as it is for the sorcerer.

 

[Lanliss]

No, it really doesn't. No more than an Italian saying he's got the "blood of the Caesars" means his heritage is somehow diminished when he has a bout of anemia. The phrase "blood of" means you're descended from someone, you've inherited qualities from them. It's not referring to the literal red liquid in your circulatory system.

Note that dragons themselves use Charisma when they cast spells innately, as do most other magical creatures. Someone who has inherited that power would logically use it the same way.

And many sorcerers have nothing to do with dragons or the blood thereof, to boot.

Saying sorcerers bargain for their abilities because they use Charisma is like saying wizards solve crossword puzzles for their abilities because they use Intelligence. Charisma is force of personality. Creative spark. Inner fire. Mana. The game of Dungeons & Dragons is hardly the first time in human cultural history that this quality has been attributed supernatural power, or even conceptualized as supernatural power in itself.

I'd actually defend Charisma-based casting more strongly for the sorcerer than the warlock. Hell, I might defend it more strongly for the sorcerer than the bard. Warlocks can be characterized as studying magic under their patrons, or channeling it through devotion. And bards can be characterized as picking up magical lore as part of their encyclopedic knowledge of everything (and actually were, for two whole editions). For no other class is the idea of magic as self-expression so important as it is for the sorcerer.

I guess it is just a matter of interpreting the stats differently. To me, Charisma is not ones idea of oneself, but is how one projects themselves outward. Much like the real world, my idea of what is "Oneself" is that it is vague, and nearly unanswerable, something beyond simple personality or memories.

When I look at the Sorcerer I see a being of magic, where magic runs from their skin to their core, and where magic is innately tied to their body, rather than their mind as it is in the wizard. So, by my interpretation, Con works best for the Sorcerer.

Also, for what it's worth, I would allow Warlocks to choose either Charisma or Wisdom, to show whether they simply made a good deal, or if they saw through a bad one.

 

[steeldragons]

It just occurred to me, looking over some of the posts (including my initial one)...that several of the circles we are talking about could be a single subclass...with the addition of a secondary warlock-pact-like choice point built into IT.

We have the Circle of the Land: druids who are tied to a particular terrain choice/region of origin/speciality. And the Circle of the Moon that is for druids who are predominantly shapeshifters. The druid BASE class is still a full caster. Spells and magic are still the druid's primary power in either case.

So you COULD simply add:
Circle of the Touch [or whatever, working title]...actually, Circle of the SHAMAN works for any of these, as well:
Druids who are predominantly dependent on a particular aspect or facet of the natural world. These are druids who -through years of concentrated meditation, specialized training, or some innate ability- connect to, have an affinity for, and exert power over a specific PIECE of the natural world moreso than any others.

Aspect of Nature
At second level, when you choose this archetype, you must select one of the following areas in which to focus your meditations, knowledge, and magics. Once chosen this, Aspect of Nature can not be changed:
Aspect of the Elements: You have an affinity for and command over one or more of the following: air, earth, fire, water, or via combinations of them, weather.
Aspect of the Spirit: Spirit shaman, per normal, as discussed.
Aspect of the Beast: Animal communicator/controller/summoner, as discussed.
Aspect of the Green: Plant communicator/controller/summoner, as discussed.

Come to think of it...this kind of thing would work REALLY well for a break down of Witch archetypes as well. Though I've long considered the Witch -as a class- more aptly constructed as an offshoot of Druids than Wizards.

Here, in this single subclass of "controller/summoner/dependent and focused on some piece of the natural world," you could make your Elsa/Iceman, Storm from the X-Men, your Last Avatar Air/Earth/Water/Fire "Benders," Poison Ivy/Swamp Thing/Hedge mages [maybe even Groot?], your Game of Thrones' Worgs, Beastmasters [of film], even Tarzan!

It certainly has the scan and scope to generate as an independent class with its own subclasses...but since they are all, already, Druid offshoots or [at least] Nature-themed archetypes, why bother? The Druid already exists. All of these could easily be types of druid...within a single subclass.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I did the same thing with Sorc in my games. No one has gone for Sorc yet, but when they do the stat will be Con, because that actually makes sense. Seriously, how is "magic in your blood and bones" translated to charisma?

I agree. With all the emphasis on concentration in 5e, it might have been a neat gimmick to make the sorcerer the con caster with a spell list mostly made up of concentration spells, then any class (that could cast spells) could cast concentration spells, but the sorcerer would do it best (would have worked even better if there was no warcaster feat).

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I guess it is just a matter of interpreting the stats differently. To me, Charisma is not ones idea of oneself, but is how one projects themselves outward.

Much one projects one's magical power outward, perhaps?

When I look at the Sorcerer I see a being of magic, where magic runs from their skin to their core, and where magic is innately tied to their body, rather than their mind as it is in the wizard. So, by my interpretation, Con works best for the Sorcerer.

Again: D&D is pretty consistent that Charisma is the key ability for "beings of magic". It's probably better for you to expand your definition of Charisma to take this into account, because I suspect the game is going to continue to use it this way for the foreseeable future.

I agree. With all the emphasis on concentration in 5e, it might have been a neat gimmick to make the sorcerer the con caster with a spell list mostly made up of concentration spells, then any class (that could cast spells) could cast concentration spells, but the sorcerer would do it best (would have worked even better if there was no warcaster feat).

This theme is there already. Sorcerers are the only primary caster with Con save proficiency. After them, you have to go all the way down to the eldritch knight to find another (because the ranger isn't Con proficient for some bizarre reason). And feats are optional.