Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7141256" data-attributes="member: 92511">I agree that more circles would have been great. The few one's I've seen from UA do not impress me at all. &quot;Wildshape&quot;, my biggest peeve with the class, needs to go back to being called &quot;shape-shifting&quot; or &quot;shape-changing&quot; or even just &quot;bestial transformation&quot; or something. I despise the term &quot;wildshape.&quot;The ability itself is far too early in the level progression. I think it functions fine. But there is no reason it should be a 2nd level choice (other than for the people who mistaken believe that a D&amp;D &quot;Druid&quot; is supposed to be a WoW shapehangey &quot;Druid&quot; and that's what their shtick is &quot;supposed&quot; to be. feh.Make a subclass that focuses on it as a primary ability, fine. But no reason any/every druid needs to be altering their molecular structure into animal forms at 2nd level.Potential subclass circles should have entailed: &quot;Green&quot;: plant-focused, &quot;Spirit&quot;: for a simple shaman; &quot;Land&quot;: for the terrain speciality works fine for me; &quot;Hunt&quot;: for an animal companion/summoning speciality; I really like the berserker-inducing warrior idea and, sure, why not call it &quot;Warden&quot; and make it subclass of druid?; the diviner/seer idea is good, too, though how to differentiate it from a Knowledge cleric or a Diviner wizard might be tricky; and whatever you want to call a shapeshifter-focused druid. That's 7. Right in the neighborhood of the Cleric's and Wizard's subclass options.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 7141256, member: 92511"] I agree that more circles would have been great. The few one's I've seen from UA do not impress me at all. "Wildshape", my biggest peeve with the class, needs to go back to being called "shape-shifting" or "shape-changing" or even just "bestial transformation" or something. I despise the term "wildshape." The ability itself is far too early in the level progression. I think it functions fine. But there is no reason it should be a 2nd level choice (other than for the people who mistaken believe that a D&D "Druid" is supposed to be a WoW shapehangey "Druid" and that's what their shtick is "supposed" to be. feh. Make a subclass that focuses on it as a primary ability, fine. But no reason any/every druid needs to be altering their molecular structure into animal forms at 2nd level. Potential subclass circles should have entailed: "Green": plant-focused, "Spirit": for a simple shaman; "Land": for the terrain speciality works fine for me; "Hunt": for an animal companion/summoning speciality; I really like the berserker-inducing warrior idea and, sure, why not call it "Warden" and make it subclass of druid?; the diviner/seer idea is good, too, though how to differentiate it from a Knowledge cleric or a Diviner wizard might be tricky; and whatever you want to call a shapeshifter-focused druid. That's 7. Right in the neighborhood of the Cleric's and Wizard's subclass options. [/QUOTE]

Verification