D&D General Nature Clerics vs. Druids?

[Zardnaar]

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.

This. We had shadow wizards in 2E. They were still arcane, you could make them shadow I suppose but no real point.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

...the dual-wielding rules for 4e are also a few sentences. As is the Tempest Training feature.

4e's dual-wielding rules, directly quoted from my copy of the book:
"Off-hand: An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and effectively attack with it while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can't attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless you have a power that lets you do so, but you can attack with either weapon."

Note that 5e...isn't meaningfully different here. You don't get to attack with both weapons in the same Attack action. You get to attack with one weapon or the other. Wielding a weapon in your off-hand simply lets you make a bonus-action attack with it--something that has left many people dissatisfied with how 5e implemented dual-wielding, especially if they have other uses for their bonus action.

The text, for those who care, is:
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it."

As for the Tempest Fighter, it is, again, literally just four sentences:
"When you wield two melee weapons, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with weapons that have the off-hand property. You gain Two-Weapon Defense as a bonus feat, even if you don't meet the prerequisites. When wearing light armor or chainmail, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with melee and close weapon attacks when you are wielding two weapons. This bonus increases to +2 with weapons that have the off-hand property."

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.

Well, uh...you may be surprised to know that there were only five "regular" power sources in 4e, so it wasn't too far off your list. Divine, Arcane, Psionic, Primal, and Martial. Others have articulated why having Druids/Rangers/etc. be actually different from Divine stuff, instead of "well it's Divine magic but completely different from all the OTHER Divine magic you see," was super helpful to them both mechanically and narratively....which means Martial is really the only one with no justification beyond, well, that it's the category for all the people who don't use some kind of mystic mumbo-jumbo hand-jive, which seems a pretty useful category to me. After all, we do refer to Fighters and Rogues as "martial" characters, with EKs and ATs as notable exceptions, don't we?

This. We had shadow wizards in 2E. They were still arcane, you could make them shadow I suppose but no real point.

...there were also shadow wizards in 4e. They used "nethermancy," literally shadow-magic. Admittedly, that one took longer (Heroes of Shadow, April 2011), but it still happened--and it's not like shadow wizards were an at-launch thing for 2e, I'm sure. Are there any other examples you'd like to cite of stuff 4e (allegedly) prevented people from doing? Perhaps I can demonstrate that 4e covered more ground than you think it did.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Edit: Sorry for the double post. I meant to delete it but, uh, apparently I'm not allowed to delete my own posts? That's...not something I ever knew before.

 

[Zardnaar]

...the dual-wielding rules for 4e are also a few sentences. As is the Tempest Training feature.

4e's dual-wielding rules, directly quoted from my copy of the book:
"Off-hand: An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and effectively attack with it while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can't attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless you have a power that lets you do so, but you can attack with either weapon."

Note that 5e...isn't meaningfully different here. You don't get to attack with both weapons in the same Attack action. You get to attack with one weapon or the other. Wielding a weapon in your off-hand simply lets you make a bonus-action attack with it--something that has left many people dissatisfied with how 5e implemented dual-wielding, especially if they have other uses for their bonus action.

The text, for those who care, is:
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it."

As for the Tempest Fighter, it is, again, literally just four sentences:
"When you wield two melee weapons, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with weapons that have the off-hand property. You gain Two-Weapon Defense as a bonus feat, even if you don't meet the prerequisites. When wearing light armor or chainmail, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with melee and close weapon attacks when you are wielding two weapons. This bonus increases to +2 with weapons that have the off-hand property."

Except to not suck you have to design powers to go along with it.

PHB Ranger OP and they had to design a heap of powers to make the fight competitive.

...the dual-wielding rules for 4e are also a few sentences. As is the Tempest Training feature.

4e's dual-wielding rules, directly quoted from my copy of the book:
"Off-hand: An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and effectively attack with it while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can't attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless you have a power that lets you do so, but you can attack with either weapon."

Note that 5e...isn't meaningfully different here. You don't get to attack with both weapons in the same Attack action. You get to attack with one weapon or the other. Wielding a weapon in your off-hand simply lets you make a bonus-action attack with it--something that has left many people dissatisfied with how 5e implemented dual-wielding, especially if they have other uses for their bonus action.

The text, for those who care, is:
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it."

As for the Tempest Fighter, it is, again, literally just four sentences:
"When you wield two melee weapons, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with weapons that have the off-hand property. You gain Two-Weapon Defense as a bonus feat, even if you don't meet the prerequisites. When wearing light armor or chainmail, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with melee and close weapon attacks when you are wielding two weapons. This bonus increases to +2 with weapons that have the off-hand property."


Well, uh...you may be surprised to know that there were only five "regular" power sources in 4e, so it wasn't too far off your list. Divine, Arcane, Psionic, Primal, and Martial. Others have articulated why having Druids/Rangers/etc. be actually different from Divine stuff, instead of "well it's Divine magic but completely different from all the OTHER Divine magic you see," was super helpful to them both mechanically and narratively....which means Martial is really the only one with no justification beyond, well, that it's the category for all the people who don't use some kind of mystic mumbo-jumbo hand-jive, which seems a pretty useful category to me. After all, we do refer to Fighters and Rogues as "martial" characters, with EKs and ATs as notable exceptions, don't we?


...there were also shadow wizards in 4e. They used "nethermancy," literally shadow-magic. Admittedly, that one took longer (Heroes of Shadow, April 2011), but it still happened--and it's not like shadow wizards were an at-launch thing for 2e, I'm sure. Are there any other examples you'd like to cite of stuff 4e (allegedly) prevented people from doing? Perhaps I can demonstrate that 4e covered more ground than you think it did.

Not the point the shado wizard was a few paragraphs.

What I'm saying is it's more work in 4E to do it not that is can't be done.

4E you had to make a power source and they kind of grid filled it. IDK what the shadow classes were in 4E it's after I bailed.

The 2E shadow wizard is still a wizard, still arcane in 4E terms and it's a crap ton easier to design than a 4E class.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Except to not suck you have to design powers to go along with it.

PHB Ranger OP and they had to design a heap of powers to make the fight competitive.

Um...no. To not suck, you simply had to do the thing. That was one of 4e's design goals. If you want to be an AWESOME two-weapon attacker, sure, it benefits you to choose a class that does better at that. But that's true of everything--including 2e, 3e, and, yes, 5e. Two-weapon fighting sucks for most 5e Fighter-like classes! That is, Fighter and Barbarian usually avoid it (the former because 1 extra attack isn't worth after the early levels, once you can attack multiple times with a two-hand weapon; the latter because Brutal Critical wants big dice), and while Paladin doesn't mind it, neither it nor Barbarian gets Two-Weapon Fighting style so it's heavily weakened. Only Ranger is in "not suck" territory. Interesting, no?

If you make "be the BEST [foo] user" your requirement, that's on you. 4e isn't at fault if you decide that the minimum floor of acceptability isn't "competence" but rather "excellence." Using two weapons is entirely competent in 4e, and can add some useful versatility. Getting something like Tempest Fighter or Twin Strike rises above competence, but being able to get better than "reasonably effective" doesn't suddenly make "reasonably effective" mean "trash."

Not the point the shado wizard was a few paragraphs.

What I'm saying is it's more work in 4E to do it not that is can't be done.

4E you had to make a power source and they kind of grid filled it. IDK what the shadow classes were in 4E it's after I bailed.

The 2E shadow wizard is still a wizard, still arcane in 4E terms and it's a crap ton easier to design than a 4E class.

Doesn't adding shadow magic mean adding a bunch of new spells that are about shadow? How is that different from designing a new build or subclass (which is usually just a single feature in 4e!) and then putting some extra Wizard shadow spells in?

 

[Zardnaar]

Um...no. To not suck, you simply had to do the thing. That was one of 4e's design goals. If you want to be an AWESOME two-weapon attacker, sure, it benefits you to choose a class that does better at that. But that's true of everything--including 2e, 3e, and, yes, 5e. Two-weapon fighting sucks for most 5e Fighter-like classes! That is, Fighter and Barbarian usually avoid it (the former because 1 extra attack isn't worth after the early levels, once you can attack multiple times with a two-hand weapon; the latter because Brutal Critical wants big dice), and while Paladin doesn't mind it, neither it nor Barbarian gets Two-Weapon Fighting style so it's heavily weakened. Only Ranger is in "not suck" territory. Interesting, no?

If you make "be the BEST [foo] user" your requirement, that's on you. 4e isn't at fault if you decide that the minimum floor of acceptability isn't "competence" but rather "excellence." Using two weapons is entirely competent in 4e, and can add some useful versatility. Getting something like Tempest Fighter or Twin Strike rises above competence, but being able to get better than "reasonably effective" doesn't suddenly make "reasonably effective" mean "trash."


Doesn't adding shadow magic mean adding a bunch of new spells that are about shadow? How is that different from designing a new build or subclass (which is usually just a single feature in 4e!) and then putting some extra Wizard shadow spells in?

2E had shadow magic spells in the PHB.

The class effected those type of spelks in the shadow school and made your magic stronger in shadows.

 

[Minigiant]

A bit back on track, the cleric druid and the shaman seem to focus on different levels of life.

The Cleric focuses on the lifestyles and spirits of the humaniods.

The Druid focuses on the lives of animals, plants, fungi, fey, and humaniods attuned with nature.

The Shaman focuses on the "lives" of the wild spirits and the ancestral spirits of the nature attuned.

What would be the difference between a Shepard Druid and a Shaman?

The shaman is more attuned with the spirits than all of nature and has more command over it. The druid cares about the plants and animals whereas the shaman is more concerned with the spirits surrounding the plants and animals.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What would be the difference between a Shepard Druid and a Shaman?

The shaman is more attuned with the spirits than all of nature and has more command over it. The druid cares about the plants and animals whereas the shaman is more concerned with the spirits surrounding the plants and animals.

Makes perfect sense to me. You wouldn't really see a Shaman acting as a conservationist the way a Shepherd Druid would; the Shepherd has strong views about what kinds of creatures "need" protection or "should" be left to live as they like. Likewise, you wouldn't see a Shepherd Druid acting as a guide or mediator--perhaps a teacher, but only insofar as that teaching leads to the protection of "vulnerable" wildlife.

The Shaman mediates between two worlds--that of the spirits in and around all things, and that of the physical, material world. The Druid doesn't so much mediate as intervene.

 

[wingsandsword]

Also, the name 'Druid' is very much tied to a single culture (Celtic) and thus often appears to be very out of place.

Paladins are just as tied to Charlemagne and the court of the 8th century Carolingian Empire, but we've accepted that they've become a genericized archetype of a holy warrior over time.

The D&D version of Wizard is firmly borrowed from Vance's Dying Earth novels, but we have accepted it as a generic archetype of arcane spellcasters in general and used it for things far removed from the works of Vance.

The D&D Cleric is based firmly on Western European warrior-priests from roughly the 8th century to the 14th century, specifically Archbishop Turpin from The Song of Roland through the Knights Hospitaller of the Crusades. . .but we use it as a generic priest class for all divine spellcasters.

If we can accept that those classes may have had very specific roots, but became more generic archetypes over time, why not the Druid?

 

[Aldarc]

Paladins are just as tied to Charlemagne and the court of the 8th century Carolingian Empire, but we've accepted that they've become a genericized archetype of a holy warrior over time.

The D&D version of Wizard is firmly borrowed from Vance's Dying Earth novels, but we have accepted it as a generic archetype of arcane spellcasters in general and used it for things far removed from the works of Vance.

The D&D Cleric is based firmly on Western European warrior-priests from roughly the 8th century to the 14th century, specifically Archbishop Turpin from The Song of Roland through the Knights Hospitaller of the Crusades. . .but we use it as a generic priest class for all divine spellcasters.

If we can accept that those classes may have had very specific roots, but became more generic archetypes over time, why not the Druid?

There are a lot of things wrong with these comparisons, but I'm not sure where to begin unpacking them. Maybe suffice to say that there are different historical circumstances at play - or none at all in your wizard example - between these cases and druids. This is not to say that a druid can't be a generic term, but I don't think that these are viable arguments towards that end.