What Kind of Druids Do You Like?

[Clavis]

Sounds good to me. But, how would you describe a Celtic Druid, in game terms?

A fusion of both Cleric and Wizard. Strong on Divination magic. The Druids in Irish legends are more like Wizards than anything else, but they have the social function of Priests. The 1st edition AD&D Druid wasn't actually that bad, although the weapon and armor restrictions were really arbitrary and unhistorical. The shape changing bit is good, but shouldn't be the class focus. More like a side ability. There should be a strong herbalistic component to Druidic magic. They should have to use certain herbs and "potions" to create magic. Druids are also mentioned as having the ability to influence minds, and change the weather.

In any event, what's been done recently to the Druid is just awful. But then I believe that classes shouldn't just be packages of kewl powerz, but actual archetypal roles from literature and legend.

 

[Surgoshan]

I guess I'm not seeing how it has to be one or the other - seems to be a continuation of the flawed logic that says that the fix for a balance problem is a complete redesign rather than addressing the root cause of the balance issue.

Say you have a hypothetical class that can do a little bit of everything. In the interest of balance, you make it so that it doesn't advance in all of those things as quickly as a specialist class (fighter or wizard). The simple analogy would be someone trying to keep all of his skills at the same level instead of just putting points into taunt, bluff, and climb. The end result is that although he can do a whole lot of stuff, he can't do any of it as well as people who have gone ahead and specialized. The cleric buffs and heals better, the fighter fights better, the wizard has much better offensive spells, etc. The result is a class that, after the first few levels, is completely outclassed in all areas, and is completely unfun to play.

So to make it fun you make it so that it can do things well. This means that it advances in power faster in all of its areas, because you still want a generalist. This means that his spells get better, his fighting gets better, etc. However, in order for it to not be consistently and completely outshone by the other members of the party your generalist has to be on a level with them. This means that you have a powerful caster who can also wade into melee.

That's really it; a true generalist who is balanced will suck, and if he doesn't suck then he isn't balanced and is way over powered.

Of course, it's reasonable to argue that all you have to do is make him just a little worse at everything. Except that he'll still be overpowered until you make him enough worse enough at everything that he's not outshining everyone. Because with vancian spellcasting, the generalist gets to choose only his best spells, cast them once per battle, and then wade into melee. The specialist, trying to cover his bases, will have to spread out his spells because that's all he can do. He can't fight, so his spell list has to be broad enough to cover the contingencies. So even though the generalist is a little less powerful, the fact that his magic is focused as a buttress to his fighting means that it's more effective. Similarly, the specialist fighter doesn't have the magical abilities and so although his fighting will be technically better, it will lack the support that the supposedly inferior generalist can rely on.

But once you make the generalist poor enough across the board that he seems equal... you'll find him being rapidly outstripped by his specialist companions. Keeping the generalist weaker involves finding a sweet spot of comparable ability related to the specialists.

The generalist will end up being on a par at some levels, overpowerful at others, and eventually outclassed. The druidzilla has avoided the final problem, but the result is that he starts out equal and then rapidly outpaces everyone else.

 

[MadBlue]

I picked animal/plant/nature/shaper/weather. Maybe with paths to emphasize shaping or spells.
I think of the Druid as having more of a connection to the "natural" world than to other planes.

I'd like to see an Elementalist class focusing on (Greek) elements, and a Shaman class focusing on spirits and (Wu-Jen) elements.

 

[Wormwood]

I like shapeshifting PCs, and if y'all want to call that a "Druid" then knock yourself out.

But Summoners? Wish them into the cornfield.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Animal, Shaper, and Weather here.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Hmm, from the looks of things it seems WoTC made the right choose for what to place more emphasis on.

 

[Lanefan]

Weather, nature (not fey), shapeshifter, and elementalist (classical). But call them Nature Clerics and give them gods just like other Clerics, even if the "god" is the planet they are standing on; Druid as a class name is a very rare thing - a sacred cow from older editions that I *would* like to see killed off.

I'm not a big fan of the animist angle, though I can see how it ties in.

Lanefan

 

[Falling Icicle]

Other. I don't like the druid and I don't think it needs to be a separate class in the D&D game. Nature priest = cleric. Elemental caster = wizard or warlock. Shapeshifter = monster.

The problem I have with this is that Clerics in D&D are based upon the knights templar. Thus they have "holy" powers, wear heavy armor and smite things to death, and the 4th edition sample cleric shows that the class is still that way. Even though there is a wide variety of religions out there, especially in the D&D universe, the game has never done a very good job of making different types of priests really different from each other. They all have the same basic holy knight style powers at their core and maybe get a domain or two added on to it for "diversity". This is certainly not how I want a Druid to be. Any Druid casting holy smite style spells is just not a Druid to me.

And yes, I'm aware that Druids were basically nature priests in 2nd edition. The difference was, they still got their own rightup and their own suite of powers. Bards were simply a subclass of rogues, and paladins and rangers were a subclass of fighter back then as well. But the way they were written, they basically were seperate classes. The way domains were divided back then, it actually was somewhat feasible to do it that way. But considering the very small amount of powers available to classes in 4th edition, I have serious doubts that there will be support for anything but a classic cleric until splatbooks come out.

Now, I would be overjoyed if Clerics really could be very different from each other, based upon their gods or belief systems. If egyptian-style priests could really feel egyptian rather than a typical cleric with the "sand" or "scarab" domain thrown on, and so on. In such a case, I may be more open to the idea of Druids being "nature priests." Just so long as they don't even remotely resemble traditional clerics. But really, since that would mean that clerics would be like a dozen classes in one, I really doubt they're going to go to all the work to do that. And as long as they aren't willing to, I will remain adamantly opposed to any effort to sweep druids under the cleric rug.

 

[pawsplay]

Sun-worshipping shamanic druid.

 

[phloog]

Say you have a hypothetical class that can do a little bit of everything. In the interest of balance, you make it so that it doesn't advance in all of those things as quickly as a specialist class (fighter or wizard). (SNIP) The result is a class that, after the first few levels, is completely outclassed in all areas, and is completely unfun to play. (SNIP2)

.

I guess that will have to just continue to be the source of our disagreement, perhaps.

First off, I have OFTEN played characters that did NOTHING better than other characters, and did just have a lot of 'decent' skills...I might be in the small minority, but I had a hoot - my enjoyment isn't based on my character's power.

Also, perhaps I misled you -- with respect to the druid I don't expect them to be able to do absolutely everything, but to do MANY things so long as they are related to nature. I will never go along with a scheme that turns the druid into just a shapeshifter, or just a berry gatherer, or takes ANY one or two elements from the druid I've known for years and tries to build the whole class from it.

And again, I have NO memory whatsoever of a druid character who was OVERpowered any moreso than another spellcasting class. But this might be because as noted I don't pay much attention to who's character is mas macho. (Lloyd Bridges es mas macho)