Druid or Cleric?

Do we still need a base druid class

  • No, a nature domain cleric is effectively a druid

    Votes: 14 13.6%
  • Yes, a druid is different than a cleric, domain be damned!

    Votes: 83 80.6%
  • Lemon Druid

    Votes: 6 5.8%

Druids are kind of odd ducks. From a story point of view, casting them as a specific order of priests seems perfectly reasonable. Mechanically, though, they've always been somewhat different from clerics, and at least in 3.x had picked up so many abilities that they basically got chopped into three in the first spin on 4e druids (and while the Sentinel and Protector picked up some of the things that were spun out into the Shaman and Warden, they didn't get everything).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I voted that Druid should be a separate class. In fact, I would go a step further and make Druids the defacto Divine spell caster/healer, because it's flavor makes more sense to me in a classical fantasy world. I know that's never going to happen, but it makes sense my my brain.
 

Druid : Cleric as Barbarian : Fighter

Make of that what you will.

- Marty Lund

"Barbarian" is a background, not a class. Rage-based fighting is a theme, not a class. The traditional barbarian should appear in the Core as a kit out of the Fighter - Great Weapon Fighter + Barbarian Background + Berserker theme.

Likewise they better not trot out Illusionist as a stand-alone class instead of a specialist form of Wizard. That would just be disappointing and awkward.

So no Barbarian, Druid or Illusionist I wager?
 


Put me in "the druid is different" category -- but there can be many kinds of druids.

One, the nature caster, is probably fine as a cleric variant.

Then there's the elemental caster, who might be better as a wizard variant.

The shapeshifter and beastmaster probably deserve classes or at least themes of their own.

And the quintessential druid is a mix of all of the above.
 

From a game mechanic standpoint, the druid has loads of stuff no cleric has and even domains and themes wouldn't suffice to put it all on a cleric. Simmilarly, druids have a lack a lot of stuff the cleric has.

From a flavor standpoint, many groups and published settings place druids very far apart from the cleric or even generic priests. I don't think a cleric or generic priest would do any Eberron druid justice, for example.

To me, the druid is a definite keeper for the core book. Like every class, it should be easy to remove from the class roster, if so desired.

What does a druid have that a cleric can't replicate with the right tweaks? I mean, we can replicate a paladin or barbarian or ranger with a theme, why not a druid with a domain + theme? ;)
 


Someone who uses divine magic without worshiping a god shouldn't be just another spellcaster, manipulating magical energies through a little bit of good old-fashioned know-how. That is, according to the fluff, not how Divine magic works. Divine magic should depend on divinity... a character using Divine magic without worshiping a god should be an aberration, something truly unusual, like an Ur-Priest or a larval godling starting to express itself.

Not at all.

Many Buddhists would argue the point that divinity implies a deity (depending on what subset of Buddhism). Such a cleric would be tapping into the divine energy or nature of the cosmos itself. A quick tour of Wikipedia reveals:

Atheism said:
Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Neopagan movements[16] such as Wicca,[17] and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[18] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but difficult to follow spiritually.[19]
 

A druid is not a nature-cleric, for a list of reasons that is simply too long to write out.

Their inherent outlook on life is different, their way of learning, life is different, their spells should be different(thought in few editions does this happen).
 


Remove ads

Top