D&D 5E Druid Spellcasting

[Sage Genesis]

Absolutely granted. I was just talking about the fact that martial capability wasnt built in in a raw form as it was for cleric.

To tell you the truth, I kind of like the way the Druid works. You have a baseline class that, depending on which choice you make, can either go a bit more heavy on the caster or the melee side. Clerics strike me as a very weird class in comparison. They're always assumed to use melee weapons and tend to have remarkably heavy armor, which gives them a strange sort of overlap with Paladins.

 

[BobTheNob]

I think WotC sort of agrees with you but decided to tackle it a different way. Currently in 5e, Wizards get to choose a specific type of caster they want to be. This can give them resistances, higher saving throw DCs, and so on. Mind you, it's still a far cry from what Clerics and Druids get, but I think Wizards won't get better spells as such, I think they'll just get extra toys on top of their spells just like the rest does.

This would make me very happy if they could make this work. To me, the sage is the best offered (compared to the evocation and illusion options) and even then it allows more spells in spell book where druid has access to all druid spells, therefore the only advantage the sage offers if more prepared spells (1 at each level)

IMO, if the spell schools is how the mage gets his "powa", they may may need a bit more "oomph".

 

[Sadrik]

One thing I trust... They will not get this right for everybody. They simply cannot.

 

[the Jester]

Having been playtesting a ton since Friday night, with one druid and one wizard (and a ranger), I have to say that the wizard spells did seem slightly more powerful in combat. Maybe it was just the fact that the wizard player was an old hand (going back to 1e and before), while the druid player just started gaming with us this year (and it's her first experience with roleplaying games).

 

[BobTheNob]

One thing I trust... They will not get this right for everybody. They simply cannot.

Agreed.

But still, alot of care is needed here. I get (and like) that there is more to caster classes than just their spells, but ultimately its icing on the cake. The Spells they have access to define the caster classes.

All Im saying is that in the current play packet, I actually (for the first time) think "wow, I would prefer a druid to a mage", and I have never thought that...Im a mage fanatic

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think the Druid is too good right now.

Druids are just as good at spellcasting as wizards are, and even have some advantages (imagine a wizard with Heal). They even got some of the best wizard spells added to their list, including Charm Person, Thunderwave, Hold Person, Web, Confusion, Dimension Door, Dominate Person, Feeblemind, Dominate Monster and even Wish! They never had any of these spells before, and their spell list wasn't exactly weak in 3.x. They also get spells at the same level clerics and wizards do, so no more level penalties on things like the Heal spell or Wall of Fire. With the exception of Thunderwave and Web, I don't think Druids should have any of the spells I just listed. They're supposed to be good at controlling plants and animals, not people.

And then there's the Oak Druid. At first glance, I thought, gee, these animal forms kinda suck. Then I noticed Shape of the Dire Beast. Good grief. With that feature, Wild Shape basically becomes "I turn into a fighter++" A Dire Behemoth does 15d6 +4 (19-94) damage at level 20. Seriously. And it's AC can be as high as 20. A fighter at level 20, using a two-handed weapon, is doing 5d12 + 5 (10-65) damage. Druids need to have the +[W] damage removed from dire form and just have deadly strike like clerics (up to 3[W] at 19th level). Then, not only can a druid use weapons if he wishes, his dire behemoth from would be doing 9d6 +4 (13-58) damage. That's more like it.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Two questions about Wild Shape:

1.

dire behemoth

Is there any reason for a behemoth not to be a dire behemoth? There's a bonus to AC, attack, and damage. It seems a dead possibility -- something that just would never emerge.

2. What's the thinking behind "Alternatively, you can transform as part of another action, provided that action doesn’t involve casting a spell or activating a magic item"? Is it just so you can change form and attack in the same round?

 

[Sage Genesis]

Is there any reason for a behemoth not to be a dire behemoth? There's a bonus to AC, attack, and damage. It seems a dead possibility -- something that just would never emerge.

Not at the moment but I think WotC is laying the groundwork for open-ended, plug-and-play design. In the future there may be a Druid who can become "Elemental" versions of animals, or maybe there's evil Druids who become "Blighted" versions of animals or something. So currently, all behemoths should be Dire. But in the future that can change.

This is also why you saw feats in the 4e PHB that required you to be both a tiefling and have the Infernal Wrath racial ability. What a strange idea, people said. All tieflings have Infernal Wrath! Except later on there came other feats which allowed tieflings to trade out that racial power for something else, so then it suddenly made sense.

 

[the Jester]

Two questions about Wild Shape:

1.

Is there any reason for a behemoth not to be a dire behemoth? There's a bonus to AC, attack, and damage. It seems a dead possibility -- something that just would never emerge.

IIRC (IDHTPIFOM), using the dire form requires an extra wild shape use.

2. What's the thinking behind "Alternatively, you can transform as part of another action, provided that action doesn’t involve casting a spell or activating a magic item"? Is it just so you can change form and attack in the same round?

Exactly. Basically, wild shape has the same activation time as a swift-casting-time spell.

 

[Blackwarder]

IIRC (IDHTPIFOM), using the dire form requires an extra wild shape use.

Nope, right now it's free of charge, should require an extra wildshape charge though.

Warder