D&D General Nature Clerics vs. Druids?

[Chaosmancer]

In 4e, the elements weren't a direct part of the primal power source, it was separate and tapped into by different power sources. Primal was just the spirits of the prime plane.

Was it? I guess I missed that part.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debating Zardnaar about anything 4e-related is pointless, as Chaosmancer said. Zardnaar fervently dislikes nearly everything 4e. As for my own two* coppers:

I hated mixed-source classes. Still do. "Power source" is descriptive so it can be useful. Some difference exists between Cleric and Wizard beyond names. That matters for both design (e.g. effects balanced for Divine chars generally, but not for ALL CHARS EVAR) and for player aids (e.g. Primal-focused picks should be better than generic ones for Primal classes). Casually discarding those benefits is foolish!

A main beef with sources was the insulting term "grid filling." E.g., accusing the designers of creating classes ONLY to "fill spots on the grid," lacking other reason or merit. But this never happened. Consider the (aforementioned) Shaman, or the Avenger, personal favorites, which did new, interesting, and flavorful things beyond "grid filling."

Shamans existed in 3.x, but 4e's version is pretty distinct. It followed Druid by being Primal; however, but was far more spiritual, arguably the most spiritual 4e class. It even summoned a spirit-ally, but spirits saturate its fluff AND crunch. Many Shaman actions conjure temporary ally spirits, or employ the Shaman's spirit companion. The flavor of both the class and the world developed this further.

The other main Primal classes all take at least a somewhat instrumental view of the Primal Spirits. All Primal classes revere them, sure. But Warden, Barbarian, and Druid were using that power, not for the spirits, but for something else. Wardens channeled spirits into their bodies, Barbarians entered altered states of consciousness. Both achieved a kind of transcendental union with the spirits to do things. Druids could clothe themselves with animal form, again for some other goal. But the Shaman asked the spirits themselves to join in. Not to donate some of their power for personal use, merge with the Shaman, nor permit mind or body emulation thereof. Shamans treat spirits as equals, walking with one foot always in their world. That's huge for me, and something I've relied on since. That Druids are about the Eternal Now and the Living Cycle, and Shamans are about the Moments of Transition and Unending Journey. Two sides, one coin.

As for the Avenger? Just need one name to justify it: Assassin's Creed. The "holy killer" is not new, and fits well into pseudo-medievalism, especially as we expand that to include the influence of Golden Age Islam on the Medieval Period. We've just been blind to it because "divine magic is for healing and support." AKA: designers were blind to a (narrative and historical!) archetype purely because a box didn't exist for it! The Avenger also had the trial run for Advantage as its key damage benefit. And it did so while covering a very real, and very long-neglected, narrative hole in the relationship between the gods and their mortal agents: how the gods deal with betrayal.

Mortal betrayal of godly trust is hardly new (we've had the Blackguard since, what, 2e?) But the only tool to address such behavior was a naughty word one: pulling the plug. In the wake of 3.x, most agreed plug pulling had...flaws. It tacitly encouraged unhealthy DM/player relationships, and made many interesting plots (like gods changing their minds or internecine warfare) nearly impossible. 4e's Investiture idea fixed these problems, but left a hole. (5e's silence on the subject is...well, I guess a "solution," in the sense that "I dunno, you figure it out" is a solution to anything...)

The Avenger fills the remaining gap, by articulating what the gods do when someone betrays their trust. They send in the hit squad, the divine Internal Affairs. That's such a cool idea! It says a great deal about the gods (that they must be very cautious with who they give their powers to, that they seek high loyalty in general and especially high loyalty from their Avengers, that they consider the possibility of betrayal and plan accordingly, etc.), it creates new and interesting scenarios for both player-fuelled stories (hunting down heretics or BEING the hunted heretic!) and for DM-provided ones ("a traitor to the faith of Lolth wants your help fighting off Lolthian Avengers come to kill him!" or the like).

So yeah. TL;DR: "Grid filling" is not only false, but the only thing even like it actually resulted in really cool new ideas. And mixed-source classes sacrifice a clear benefit from both design AND play-experience...typically for meta-aesthetic reasons that do not actually help make a better game.

*In this case, two coppers buys you a lot of words. I'm generous like that.

I love and agree with 99% of this. I have a criticism that, while it doesn't disprove your point, does show that the approach can also be flawed.

The Seeker.

The Seeker was a Primal Controller, and it was designed to be that (poorly), and I think the lore was worse for it. It is the example I always think of when I think of grid-filling. It was just... not a great class.


But, countering my own point, things like the Arcane Defending Sword Mage, or the various Psions, or as you pointed out the Avenger and the Shaman, were all amazing.

I think it gets into "grid-filling" for the sake of a cool story or mechanic, and grid-filling for the sake of grid-filling. I feel like the seeker was the latter, and that is the one people didn't like.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think it gets into "grid-filling" for the sake of a cool story or mechanic, and grid-filling for the sake of grid-filling. I feel like the seeker was the latter, and that is the one people didn't like.

I agree. Grid-filling can be good when done for a story or mechanical purpose, but when done just because of the lack of a thing that there's no real purpose for other than existing, like the Seeker, it is generally not a good idea. I would love a swordmage/arcane-gish class in 5e, basically the arcane equivalent of the paladin or ranger, and that came about through grid-filling in earlier editions.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As an entirely separate note from the above:
4e roles and power sources were never straightjackets. Ever. Having a role in 4e just means, "This is what you're automatically good at." To lack a role would mean you were good at nothing inherently, and had to claw your way into being good at something, which...I sincerely hope I don't have to say why that would be bad. Even from PHB1, it was always possible to mix roles, and to take powers, feats, PPs, etc. that made you good at things outside your role. Some classes were hard to shape into certain roles, but it was rarely impossible to do--e.g., Paladins don't have a lot of Control effects, but multiclassing with a controller class and picking your powers wisely would let you grow in that direction, as could taking a useful PP.

Likewise, power sources weren't a straightjacket. They simply said what you definitely could draw on for power. Being a Wizard with Divine powers could be as easy as playing a half-elf, or multiclassing Cleric, or whatever. Choosing to mix your power sources was perfectly valid--some options even required it. And, as others have noted, this was perfectly supported by 4e Dark Sun, where the Divine power source doesn't exist, and the old 2e "elemental clerics" were an obvious, kludgy patch.

It is so infuriating to hear people still repeat--even a decade on--how "stifling" etc. 4e's roles and power sources were. They straight-up, flat-out were not. They gave you a floor to stand on, not a ceiling to hold you down. I will never understand why telling some people, "You're good at taking hits and holding an enemy's attention!" translates for them into "You are NEVER allowed to do ANYTHING but take hits and hold enemy attention! HOW DARE YOU EVEN ASK!!!!!" Nothing--not one thing--in roles or power sources says what you CANNOT do.

I love and agree with 99% of this. I have a criticism that, while it doesn't disprove your point, does show that the approach can also be flawed.

The Seeker.

The Seeker was a Primal Controller, and it was designed to be that (poorly), and I think the lore was worse for it. It is the example I always think of when I think of grid-filling. It was just... not a great class.
[...]
I think it gets into "grid-filling" for the sake of a cool story or mechanic, and grid-filling for the sake of grid-filling. I feel like the seeker was the latter, and that is the one people didn't like.

People made the accusations long before the Seeker existed, though, so I'm not sure how much it applies. I do totally agree that it fell really flat though! The Seeker, and the Binder Warlock, were both...reasonable ideas that manifested poorly.

It doesn't help, of course, that the Seeker was part of WotC's attempt to salvage the kinda-sorta terribly racist Ki power source, as was the Runepriest (originally a Ki Leader--it used ofuda rather than runes, more or less). I don't think we ever saw...whatever thing they intended as a Ki Defender. AKA, I kinda feel like the Seeker was doomed to fail regardless.

Also, the irony with the Seeker (and the Runepriest and Binder!) is that they weren't even grid-filling! Because those boxes on the grid already had something in them. Druid was already a (the?) Primal Controller, Cleric was the Divine Leader, Wizard was the Arcane Controller. They weren't empty checkboxes getting a perfunctory submission to ensure every box was checked. They were, instead, trying to over-load existing boxes with more things. And I totally agree that trying to wedge multiple classes into the same niche is difficult and not likely to work very well. If that were what was typically meant by "grid-filling," I'd have no problem with the term.

On Elemental vs Primal: yeah, Elemental was a bit like Shadow (except that Shadow did have one class to its name, the Assassin). That is, you had things like the Elementalist Sorcerer or the like, but no Elemental classes. The Primal Spirits were, more or less, the "emergent" magic of the material world itself, an unexpected bonus from the efforts that the Primordials (= Elemental power) and Deities (= Divine power) put into making it. Primal magic isn't so much "elemental" per se as it is animistic and holistic: it's not that you tap into the raw power of pure fire, but rather that you call upon the spirit of the First Flame for her guidance or power; it's not that you bring a rock-berg in from the Elemental Chaos, but that you channel Grandfather Mountain to weigh down on your foes as though he himself had fallen upon them. (The former is a Shaman's way of looking at it, while the latter is closer to a Warden's.)

 

[Zardnaar]

As an entirely separate note from the above:
4e roles and power sources were never straightjackets. Ever. Having a role in 4e just means, "This is what you're automatically good at." To lack a role would mean you were good at nothing inherently, and had to claw your way into being good at something, which...I sincerely hope I don't have to say why that would be bad. Even from PHB1, it was always possible to mix roles, and to take powers, feats, PPs, etc. that made you good at things outside your role. Some classes were hard to shape into certain roles, but it was rarely impossible to do--e.g., Paladins don't have a lot of Control effects, but multiclassing with a controller class and picking your powers wisely would let you grow in that direction, as could taking a useful PP.

Likewise, power sources weren't a straightjacket. They simply said what you definitely could draw on for power. Being a Wizard with Divine powers could be as easy as playing a half-elf, or multiclassing Cleric, or whatever. Choosing to mix your power sources was perfectly valid--some options even required it. And, as others have noted, this was perfectly supported by 4e Dark Sun, where the Divine power source doesn't exist, and the old 2e "elemental clerics" were an obvious, kludgy patch.

It is so infuriating to hear people still repeat--even a decade on--how "stifling" etc. 4e's roles and power sources were. They straight-up, flat-out were not. They gave you a floor to stand on, not a ceiling to hold you down. I will never understand why telling some people, "You're good at taking hits and holding an enemy's attention!" translates for them into "You are NEVER allowed to do ANYTHING but take hits and hold enemy attention! HOW DARE YOU EVEN ASK!!!!!" Nothing--not one thing--in roles or power sources says what you CANNOT do.


People made the accusations long before the Seeker existed, though, so I'm not sure how much it applies. I do totally agree that it fell really flat though! The Seeker, and the Binder Warlock, were both...reasonable ideas that manifested poorly.

It doesn't help, of course, that the Seeker was part of WotC's attempt to salvage the kinda-sorta terribly racist Ki power source, as was the Runepriest (originally a Ki Leader--it used ofuda rather than runes, more or less). I don't think we ever saw...whatever thing they intended as a Ki Defender. AKA, I kinda feel like the Seeker was doomed to fail regardless.

Also, the irony with the Seeker (and the Runepriest and Binder!) is that they weren't even grid-filling! Because those boxes on the grid already had something in them. Druid was already a (the?) Primal Controller, Cleric was the Divine Leader, Wizard was the Arcane Controller. They weren't empty checkboxes getting a perfunctory submission to ensure every box was checked. They were, instead, trying to over-load existing boxes with more things. And I totally agree that trying to wedge multiple classes into the same niche is difficult and not likely to work very well. If that were what was typically meant by "grid-filling," I'd have no problem with the term.

On Elemental vs Primal: yeah, Elemental was a bit like Shadow (except that Shadow did have one class to its name, the Assassin). That is, you had things like the Elementalist Sorcerer or the like, but no Elemental classes. The Primal Spirits were, more or less, the "emergent" magic of the material world itself, an unexpected bonus from the efforts that the Primordials (= Elemental power) and Deities (= Divine power) put into making it. Primal magic isn't so much "elemental" per se as it is animistic and holistic: it's not that you tap into the raw power of pure fire, but rather that you call upon the spirit of the First Flame for her guidance or power; it's not that you bring a rock-berg in from the Elemental Chaos, but that you channel Grandfather Mountain to weigh down on your foes as though he himself had fallen upon them. (The former is a Shaman's way of looking at it, while the latter is closer to a Warden's.)

It's easier to create a new subclass in 5E than 4E where you needed to design a new class just to do something as basic as a duel wielding fighter.

Why 4E is a straight jacket was they had to remove a class from Darksun because they were moronic enough to tie clerics to the divine power source.

He'll Druids were also divine in 2E and 1E or at least could be.

4E tied mechanics to power sources, it's not needed and just makes things harder. In 2E you just changed the fluff and switched out spheres boom done.

Makes class design a lot easier. Same in 5E. They don't really use power sources and I suppose it would vary based on subclass.

4E also said this class is a striker or whatever, 5Evthat varies by subclass.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's easier to create a new subclass in 5E than 4E where you needed to design a new class just to do something as basic as a duel wielding fighter.

Um...what about the Tempest Technique Fighter? That's literally a dual-wielding Fighter from 4e. (Martial Power, published Nov 2008.) No need to invent a whole new class. Just a new baseline feature (replacing Fighter Weapon Talent feature), a couple new at-wills, and an extra power or two for those levels that get some. It's not that big a deal.

Like, I get your point here, designing classes in 4e is far from trivial. But you really could've picked several other examples, and not done so in a way that implies you don't actually know what you're talking about. (Edit: And, it's worth noting? You could totally still be a dual-wielding Fighter even before MP was published, you just didn't get anything special for being one. Tempest Technique made it so there were bonuses for dual-wielding, it didn't make it possible to dual-wield because anyone can choose to dual-wield.)

A much better example would have been, say, a Ranger who uses a shield. I'm pretty sure 4e never actually gave any bonuses for Rangers who use shields--not anything that wasn't generically available, I mean--and they weren't automatically proficient with them, either. So you'd have to spend multiple feats to get basic shield stuff. You could still do it because, as stated, your role does not tell you what you can't do. You just wouldn't do anything special with a shield other than, y'know, having some extra AC and Reflex defense.

Why 4E is a straight jacket was they had to remove a class from Darksun because they were moronic enough to tie clerics to the divine power source.

He'll Druids were also divine in 2E and 1E or at least could be.

Dark Sun is, quite literally, the best evidence for why power sources can have value, and the fact that you see it as "moronic" (without any justification, just a bald assertion) is ample demonstration that you have no interest in actually debating any merits, exactly as I and Chaosmancer have said.

4E tied mechanics to power sources, it's not needed and just makes things harder. In 2E you just changed the fluff and switched out spheres boom done.

It does not "just make things harder." You keep baldly asserting these things with zero justification. You're not interested in discussion, so neither am I.

Makes class design a lot easier. Same in 5E. They don't really use power sources and I suppose it would vary based on subclass.

4E also said this class is a striker or whatever, 5Evthat varies by subclass.

It legitimately does not make class design any easier. It may remove certain obstacles, but it definitely adds others. That's the whole point of my argment, which you soundly ignored to continue your crusade.

 

[Guest User]

A Druid can be a Trickster. Loki turned into a Salmon, and a Mare.
Charm Person is a Druid spell.

Playing a Druid shouldn't mean you are forced into some Role Playing Straight Jacket.

Druids make a very scary Secret Police force. Hidden Informants, literally crawling underfoot, and you can't trust that any person, or creature is what they seem.

Nature Clerics do not get Polymorph.

 

[Zardnaar]

Um...what about the Tempest Technique Fighter? That's literally a dual-wielding Fighter from 4e. (Martial Power, published Nov 2008.) No need to invent a whole new class. Just a new baseline feature (replacing Fighter Weapon Talent feature), a couple new at-wills, and an extra power or two for those levels that get some. It's not that big a deal.

Like, I get your point here, designing classes in 4e is far from trivial. But you really could've picked several other examples, and not done so in a way that implies you don't actually know what you're talking about.


Dark Sun is, quite literally, the best evidence for why power sources can have value, and the fact that you see it as "moronic" (without any justification, just a bald assertion) is ample demonstration that you have no interest in actually debating any merits, exactly as I and Chaosmancer have said.


It does not "just make things harder." You keep baldly asserting these things with zero justification. You're not interested in discussion, so neither am I.


It legitimately does not make class design any easier. It may remove certain obstacles, but it definitely adds others. That's the whole point of my argment, which you soundly ignored to continue your crusade.

Sorry that's what I meant. Look how much space was requires for the tempest fighter vs 5E, 2E or 3E.

2E was a few paragraphs, 3E and 5E a few sentences.

That's not good design for something fairly basic.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sorry that's what I meant. Look how much space was requires for the tempest fighter vs 5E, 2E or 3E.

2E was a few paragraphs, 3E and 5E a few sentences.

That's not good design for something fairly basic.

A subclass is emphatically NOT "a few sentences." Even for Fighters, who are one of the most dirt-simple classes in the game, it is NOT "a few sentences." Not even close. The Battlemaster takes up very nearly a page and a half of text (maybe a page and a third?) The Eldritch Knight is just over a full page, though admittedly part of that is a table. Even the ultra-simple subclasses are at least multiple multi-sentence paragraphs apiece (Champion, Banneret). The Cavalier (XGtE) needs three paragraphs just for one feature.

Yes, a 4e class is bigger. You're talking about a game with 50% more playable levels, of course it will be bigger. That baseline feature, 1-2 at-wills, and an average of 1.5 powers per level that gives them is maybe, maybe three pages of text if you write the powers really big. It really, truly isn't this ENORMOUS difference like you paint it to be.

Edit: And, again, to be clear: you were always capable of dual-wielding. You just didn't get anything special if you chose to do that, until Tempest Training came along.

 

[Zardnaar]

A subclass is emphatically NOT "a few sentences." Even for Fighters, who are one of the most dirt-simple classes in the game, it is NOT "a few sentences." Not even close. The Battlemaster takes up very nearly a page and a half of text (maybe a page and a third?) The Eldritch Knight is just over a full page, though admittedly part of that is a table. Even the ultra-simple subclasses are at least multiple multi-sentence paragraphs apiece (Champion, Banneret). The Cavalier (XGtE) needs three paragraphs just for one feature.

Yes, a 4e class is bigger. You're talking about a game with 50% more playable levels, of course it will be bigger. That baseline feature, 1-2 at-wills, and an average of 1.5 powers per level that gives them is maybe, maybe three pages of text if you write the powers really big. It really, truly isn't this ENORMOUS difference like you paint it to be.

I was talking about dual wielding rules.

A 5E subclass tends to use a page or so. 4E was 10-15 pages.

Designing to level 30 also bad design since only 1% make it to 20. Mostly just wasted space.

 

[Maxperson]

I completely disagree. I never played any previous editions, but I love the power sources. It just makes sense to differentiate the classes.

They don't really do that, though. The spells and abilities of Druids, Clerics and Paladins do far more to differentiate the classes than the power sources. Divine, Arcane and perhaps Mental(if psionics ever comes back) are all you really need. More sources just dilutes what differences the power sources bring.