[3.5] Revision Spotlight - Druid class

[Psion]

And yes, a core class should want to be played by as many people as possible, because it feeds into the general quality of the game. The more popular all the classes are, the more popular the game, the more people play.

So, are you suggesting that a better druid would mean more players overall? I find that really dubious. The players who aren't playing druids are just playiing other classes that fit their concepts and desires better, not "not playing."

I think a major part of the popularity problem of both the bard and the druid is their specificness as much or more as any rules issue. I think they need to be more general so more people can see their character concepts in the bard or druid and not feel like they are shoehorning it. For example, a druid could really be terrain neutral and facilitate more options on what their faith might be like, and the bard could facilitate other "lorekeeper" or "people person" archetypes instead of just the "celtic spellsinger" archtype. I don't think attempts to stack up more cool powers is going to give these classes much more in the way of popularity... at least not without giving them TOO much.

 

[Psion]

But....but....but what about "Back to the Dungeon?"

Don't get me started. I prefer an attitude of "back into the world" (dungeon or otherwise.)

Dungeons are good. They are fun. They are a D&D staple. They should be supported, and too much pandering was done to the "I hate dungeons crowd" in 2e.

But they aren't the only thing about D&D and I think that they might have overcompensated a bit. Making the dungeon too much of a balance point throws the game out of whack and makes the D&D bashers right about it being "just about dungeon crawls."

I like dungeon crawls. But I like other things in fantasy too, and D&D should be more than just about dungeons.

 

[jasamcarl]

So, are you suggesting that a better druid would mean more players overall? I find that really dubious. The players who aren't playing druids are just playiing other classes that fit their concepts and desires better, not "not playing."

I think a major part of the popularity problem of both the bard and the druid is their specificness as much or more as any rules issue. I think they need to be more general so more people can see their character concepts in the bard or druid and not feel like they are shoehorning it. For example, a druid could really be terrain neutral and facilitate more options on what their faith might be like, and the bard could facilitate other "lorekeeper" or "people person" archetypes instead of just the "celtic spellsinger" archtype. I don't think attempts to stack up more cool powers is going to give these classes much more in the way of popularity... at least not without giving them TOO much.

Look, my logic is simple. If one archetype is not as popular as others, then they are using the wrong archetype, true. But the mechanical end also has to be considered. Are you suggesting that no one chooses not to play a class because they are underpowered? Or if the viable combat options aren't tactically interesting? To generalize by saying that any attempted tweak will be 'giving them TOO much' is simplistic; many people play this game as GAME. When I look at a class, I look at how much fun it is to play over the large series of combats that will await me. A DM can integrate utility stuff for any class, and utility powers tend to be very binary. Combat is where the game is at its best, and I think many others would agree with me.

And yes, the more popular the core classes, the more popular the game, because, as options, they account for an intrinsic part of what constitutes a games 'quality'. To say otherwise looses sight of the big picture, i.e. the game as product.

 

[Psion]

Look, my logic is simple. If one archetype is not as popular as others, then they are using the wrong archetype, true.

Huh? This sentence is not too clear to me. Is "they" the players or the designers?

At any rate, I haven't touched much on this point, but since you bring up archetypes, have you ever considered that the archetype itself (not just the implementation itself) is just not as popular? I mean making it more appealing on a power/contribution basis and making it broader would make it more appealing, but without making the druid clearly preferable to otehr classes, are they ever going to be as popular as fighters as wizards or rogues? I don't think so.

But the mechanical end also has to be considered. Are you suggesting that no one chooses not to play a class because they are underpowered?

I don't think I have ever said anything contrary to that trivial conclusion.

To generalize by saying that any attempted tweak will be 'giving them TOO much' is simplistic;

I don't think I have said that either. In fact, I said it is premature to conclude that has happened, in a post that you were specifically responding too (not some "other post" you didn't read, which you flagged me on.)

My concern is the philosophy being espoused here. If the druids role is stengthened to to 100% on par with all other classes in the dungeon, and it has a stronger role out of the dungeon, then it is too much for any campaign that is not predominantly about the dungeon.

Not saying they did that, but people have cited a design philosophy similar to this, and I am just pointing out that designing just around the dungeon is suboptimal.

The designers DO have to make a call as to how strong a role a character class should be given where. That criteria won't fit all campaigns perfectly, and I can't state for certain what the "right" criterion is, but "it's all about the dungeon" is the wrong one.

many people play this game as GAME. When I look at a class, I look at how much fun it is to play over the large series of combats that will await me. A DM can integrate utility stuff for any class, and utility powers tend to be very binary. Combat is where the game is at its best, and I think many others would agree with me.

I think that utility is not worth ignoring, otherwise we would make rogues just as good as fighters in combat. That said, I don't think that there is a big dichotomy here. The druid is more potent both in and out of combat in the outdoors.

And yes, the more popular the core classes, the more popular the game, because, as options, they account for an intrinsic part of what constitutes a games 'quality'. To say otherwise looses sight of the big picture, i.e. the game as product.

I consider this such an insignificant point that I won't debate it any more. I'll just stand on the notion that unless you do something drastically wrong balance, there is not much impact from an individual class on the sales or participation of a game. The differences we are speaking about here simply aren't on that scale.

 

[RigaMortus]

I don't either. But then again, I never understood why they get to use scimitars. Who really knows?!

It's about "symbolism". Druids are all about nature. IIRC, a Scimitar is supposed to be the symbol of a crescent moon for a Druid. Since the blade of the scimitar is curved and so is a crescent moon. Kind of cool excuse for why Druids can use Scimitars if you ask me.

 

[woodelf]

I don't know about you, but I've seen more clerics in play now than before. I would guess that they are following that logic through with druids (and to a certain extent bards, perhaps?)

Not been my experience, for one very specific reason: the Knights Templar archetype doesn't seem to have all that much appeal in the gaming groups i've been in. An over-poweerd Knight Templar is no more appealing than a balanced one, if you just don't like the archetype.

Most of the gamers who want to play a holy person, IME, have a conception of what that means that doesn't include significant combat abilites or turning undead. Frex, last person to join the game came to the game with the concept of playing a priest--by which she meant someone with societal connections, faith, learning, and maybe some medicinal/healing abilities. In fact, her inspiration was the priest in the recent Romeo + Juliet. And that's been my general experience: those who aren't already brainwashed by the D&D classes have a *very* different conception of "holy person" than the D&D3E cleric provides. At least with specialty priests AD&D2 had a built-in mechanism for accomodating them.

 

[Psion]

t's about "symbolism". Druids are all about nature. IIRC, a Scimitar is supposed to be the symbol of a crescent moon for a Druid. Since the blade of the scimitar is curved and so is a crescent moon. Kind of cool excuse for why Druids can use Scimitars if you ask me.

That still seems odd to me, especially in the context the player's handbook puts the druid in.

In 3e, the druid is all about nature. They do not have knowledge (relgion) and follow nature as a force, not as an abstract deity. So why would the moon have any more special significance over a pond or a tree?

Now I can see if there WAS a specific religion attached, with it's own rites, conventions, and symbology. Of course, this is the way I play it, and rather think in 2e they were onto something when the made the druid merely a type of specialty priests. These 3e attempts to be the "un-cleric" strike me as artificial and handwaved.

 

[jasamcarl]

Huh? This sentence is not too clear to me. Is "they" the players or the designers?

At any rate, I haven't touched much on this point, but since you bring up archetypes, have you ever considered that the archetype itself (not just the implementation itself) is just not as popular? I mean making it more appealing on a power/contribution basis and making it broader would make it more appealing, but without making the druid clearly preferable to otehr classes, are they ever going to be as popular as fighters as wizards or rogues? I don't think so.



R:Actually, that is exactly what I was saying. I got that from your earlier post, and I agree. And I'm saying that if the class isn't popular because of the 'fluff' surrounding it, they should change the fluff, 'broaden' it as you put it.



I don't think I have ever said anything contrary to that trivial conclusion.



I don't think I have said that either. In fact, I said it is premature to conclude that has happened, in a post that you were specifically responding too (not some "other post" you didn't read, which you flagged me on.)



R:That quote came in the context of your claim that giving a class greater mechanical balances in order to increase its popularity could only overpower the class. Your assumption seemed to be that it was only the druid's archetype which was at fault. I think is weak on a number of levels in overcoming challenges that actually provide xp/gp under the core rules.



My concern is the philosophy being espoused here. If the druids role is stengthened to to 100% on par with all other classes in the dungeon, and it has a stronger role out of the dungeon, then it is too much for any campaign that is not predominantly about the dungeon.

Not saying they did that, but people have cited a design philosophy similar to this, and I am just pointing out that designing just around the dungeon is suboptimal.

The designers DO have to make a call as to how strong a role a character class should be given where. That criteria won't fit all campaigns perfectly, and I can't state for certain what the "right" criterion is, but "it's all about the dungeon" is the wrong one.





R:I wasn't saying utiltiy shouldn't be given 0 consideration, but, yes, the druid should by 95-100% as effective in overcoming monsters in the dungeion. Utility in the outdoors is simply not that great of an advantage in most campaigns, and in my experience is little more than fluff. It rarely impacts PC survival or resources in any serious way.



I think that utility is not worth ignoring, otherwise we would make rogues just as good as fighters in combat. That said, I don't think that there is a big dichotomy here. The druid is more potent both in and out of combat in the outdoors.



R:I see very little that gives it much of an advantage in combat, even in the outdoors. Rogues off course have sneak attack, the option of bonus feats, etc...but i digress...



I consider this such an insignificant point that I won't debate it any more. I'll just stand on the notion that unless you do something drastically wrong balance, there is not much impact from an individual class on the sales or participation of a game. The differences we are speaking about here simply aren't on that scale.

R:You brought in the term 'suboptimum'. It doesn't matter how much of an impact it would have, as long as the impact of the revision is positive and all classes are as compelling as they can be.

 

[Psion]

Utility in the outdoors is simply not that great of an advantage in most campaigns, and in my experience is little more than fluff. It rarely impacts PC survival or resources in any serious way.

That is not my perception. IME, Most campaigns have some dungeon challenges, but very few are mostly dungeon. There are many pivotal wilderness encounters and situations that occur in D&D. Tracking, scouting, transportation, and pursuit scenarios are very common activities. Military and bandit scenarios also usually have at least their initial stages and often their climax in the outdoors. Survival scenarios occur primarily outdoors.

R:I see very little that gives it much of an advantage in combat, even in the outdoors.

Call lightining anyone? The numerous druid combat and mobility spells that rely on plants. And so on.

R:You brought in the term 'suboptimum'. It doesn't matter how much of an impact it would have, as long as the impact of the revision is positive and all classes are as compelling as they can be.

Ah, but making a class that hogs the spotlight by being AS GOOD as the other classes in some situations and better in the rest is not what I consider a positive impact. Quite the opposite. (Again, not saying that is the case until I have book in hand, but I am saying that is where that philosophy leads.)

 

[jasamcarl]

That is not my perception. IME, Most campaigns have some dungeon challenges, but very few are mostly dungeon. There are many pivotal wilderness encounters and situations that occur in D&D. Tracking, scouting, transportation, and pursuit scenarios are very common activities. Military and bandit scenarios also usually have at least their initial stages and often their climax in the outdoors. Survival scenarios occur primarily outdoors.

R:I will agree to disagree on this. But the things you sight as intrinsic to the wilderness don't have much of an impact on the tactical challenges that provide xp and gp. A monster is a monster regardless of where its battled, with the possible exception of flight, but i see little in the ranger or druid's rep that gives special advantage in tackling flying creatures. I also tend to think that the possibility of escape by many enemies in the wilderness throws off CRs because of DM fiat, but that doesn't apply to all games.



Call lightining anyone? The numerous druid combat and mobility spells that rely on plants. And so on.

R: Oh, i will admit the Druid as stands is better in the outdoors than in relative to itself. I'm just not seeing any absolute advantage against other classes, especially spellcasters, even in the optimum environment.



Ah, but making a class that hogs the spotlight by being AS GOOD as the other classes in some situations and better in the rest is not what I consider a positive impact. Quite the opposite. (Again, not saying that is the case until I have book in hand, but I am saying that is where that philosophy leads.)

No, you are right, balance also feeds into quality. The philosophy i am espousing is one in which classes have equal time, and I think balance is the major factor that feeds into that. I am willing to bet that most players look at mechanics first and archtype second.