Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 936142" data-attributes="member: 1106">I think one of the problems with the druid, bard, monk and ranger is that perhaps, even if it was just subconciously, the designers designed them in such a way as if they're there to make the core classes look good by comparison.  It doesn't help that they're not considered specialist roles by the design team, as evidenced by the quotes of considering them "tweener" classes - what was that quote?  "Versatility just means more ways to suck."You only need look at the amount of design elegance and thought put into the cleric as opposed to the druid in the original 3E version to suggest that this class had less thought put into it, and was perhaps always designed to play second fiddle.  How much effort does it require to design the druid and ranger out of wilderness setting dependence, without obfuscating their archetypes?  If Diablo II can do it, then perhaps so should D&D...Finally, the spontaneous casting further emphasises WotC's vision of the druid as the amazing magical travelling menagerie show.  Spontaneously summon some animals, wildshape into a bear with your animal companion at your side - instant furries everywhere, and not nearly how I envision a druid's modus operandi.  I reckon swapping out spontaneous summons for spontaneous healing and reducing the level of healing spells to cleric levels is the go - druids could use the party support utility (it definitely fits the archetype - what's more natural than healing?), and clerics need the help.</blockquote>

Verification