[3.5] Revision Spotlight - Druid class

[Dr_Rictus]

If this was in any way representative of the wider game playing public it is no surprise that the druids were given some additional "interest".

Sure, but does a skewed population indicate differences in effectiveness, or, as you say, interest? It seems to me that I see this with bards and clerics as well. Everybody wants to score baskets, and nobody wants to score the assist (i.e., play a support-oriented class).

But in that case, is bribing people with extra power to play a class they're not interested in really the right approach? And isn't it somehow demeaning to people who play those classes because they're geniunely interested in being helpful?

Of course, one could argue that the bribery strategy is already what they were doing with clerics, which makes it kind of a lost cause already.

 

[jasamcarl]

Sure, but does a skewed population indicate differences in effectiveness, or, as you say, interest? It seems to me that I see this with bards and clerics as well. Everybody wants to score baskets, and nobody wants to score the assist (i.e., play a support-oriented class).

But in that case, is bribing people with extra power to play a class they're not interested in really the right approach? And isn't it somehow demeaning to people who play those classes because they're geniunely interested in being helpful?

Of course, one could argue that the bribery strategy is already what they were doing with clerics, which makes it kind of a lost cause already.

But I haven't heard anything that makes me believe the druid was a great class to begin with, let alone that the revision is overpowered. It certainly wasn't balanced in the Dungeon.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

But I haven't heard anything that makes me believe the druid was a great class to begin with, let alone that the revision is overpowered. It certainly wasn't balanced in the Dungeon.

If the proposition is "the druid needed to be improved," then
nobody has to prove that the druid is (or was) "a great class." Rather, the side supporting the proposition has to prove it's called for. I was calling PlaneSailing's argument to that effect (that boosting the druid was justified due to a lack of player participation) into question.

As to your point, about druids and the dungeon, I think there are two issues. First, is it a bad thing if there's a class that is best balanced for wilderness adventures? Does every player option in D&D have to be geared for the same standard experience (at least in the core rulebooks)?

Second, if the druid really isn't suited to dungeons, do you bring the mountain to Mohammed or vice-versa? Is the right approach to change the class, or to focus dungeon adventures more on the sorts of things that druids do well (which is what the 3.0 DMG and Dungeon Magazine guidelines attempted to do)? In short, is it WotC's responsibility if people don't write good adventures for their classes? The answer to that one is actually probably "yes" from a pragmatic standpoint, but if so, it is a pity, isn't it?

 

[jasamcarl]

If the proposition is "the druid needed to be improved," then
nobody has to prove that the druid is (or was) "a great class." Rather, the side supporting the proposition has to prove it's called for. I was calling PlaneSailing's argument to that effect (that boosting the druid was justified due to a lack of player participation) into question.

As to your point, about druids and the dungeon, I think there are two issues. First, is it a bad thing if there's a class that is best balanced for wilderness adventures? Does every player option in D&D have to be geared for the same standard experience (at least in the core rulebooks)?

Second, if the druid really isn't suited to dungeons, do you bring the mountain to Mohammed or vice-versa? Is the right approach to change the class, or to focus dungeon adventures more on the sorts of things that druids do well (which is what the 3.0 DMG and Dungeon Magazine guidelines attempted to do)? In short, is it WotC's responsibility if people don't write good adventures for their classes? The answer to that one is actually probably "yes" from a pragmatic standpoint, but if so, it is a pity, isn't it?

Not really. People enjoy dungeon adventures and they are intrinsically easier to balance and stat on a tactical level. Its not a pity, just efficient. Supply and Demand meet.

Unlike other classes, the 3.0 Druid and Ranger were particularly incompatible with a dungeoneering campaign. If players' aren't taking the class, then it isn't contributing much fun to the gaming community as a whole, is it? Balance and player participation usually go hand in hand.

Read the thread. The proposition was 'the new druid is overpowered.' I asked for proof. No fallacy there.

 

[Felon]

Eh. I've said it once and I'll say it again. Classes don't necessarily need power, they need a role. Opening locks, disarming traps, gathering information, and tracking have nothing to do with power, but characters with these abilities serve important roles in a party. Don't just bribe players with raw power; figure out what type of player a druid is supposed to appeal to.

 

[Argent Silvermage]

As a player of a Druid for over a year now I have to say that my Druid is the most fun character I have played. I've never been a "Power Gamer" so the min/max garbage never ment anything to me. I played a druid for the feel of it. It made sence and it was what the party was lacking at the time I joined.
Since then the class has grown on me. The weak points and strong points were fairly ballanced to me but I'm a role player not a Roll player. the character is important not what he can do but who he is.

 

[John Crichton]

a little late

The Cardinal jived
I've just found my new favorite class!
Druid 3.5 + Verdant Lord = one badass treehuggin' mutha******

Number47 quipped
Shut your mouth

Jus' talkin' bout Druids...

 

[jasamcarl]

Eh. I've said it once and I'll say it again. Classes don't necessarily need power, they need a role. Opening locks, disarming traps, gathering information, and tracking have nothing to do with power, but characters with these abilities serve important roles in a party. Don't just bribe players with raw power; figure out what type of player a druid is supposed to appeal to.

Symantics. Power and role are not mutually exclusive. A powerful character inherently has a role with the party and vice versa. The question one has to ask is, with a limited amount of development time and page space, does it make sense to create a class whose only role is a weak one and comes up a rarely in a campaign. The only way to balance a limited role is to give a great degree of power, or, the better option, makes sure its capabilities work for different roles.

How is the new build of the druid unbalanced? How do the revisions to the class compromise the 'flavor' or role that you allude to?

 

[woodelf]

AARGH !! Why the heck this stupid reference to Polymorph for Wildshape again?! The WS version in MotW was pretty clear, why not simply taking it into the core book?

Agreed. It takes as many or more words to describe the differences from Polymorph as to just describe it as its own power.

 

[Number47]

I actually thought part of the goal of 3E (and improved upon in 3.5) was that a character class does not define your role. Sure, within a broad sense, fighters beat things up and wizards sling spells. But how you define your role within that is highly variable. I like the fact that the changes in the druid help you create your character the way you want and not have "wilderness adventurer only" thrust upon you.