Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 3712388" data-attributes="member: 7635">Druid might work as a prestige class, like it was BEMCI. However, what can a druid REALLY add as a base class*?* Nature Priest: A cleric of Obad-Hai or Ehlonna can fill a similar role.* Animal Companion: As stated above, I doubt animal allies will be in the game the way they are now, including warmounts, familiars, and companions. * Wild Shape: Difficult to use, requires the player to dive into the MM constantly, and way easy to cheese out and break. * Spell Selection: Druids excel at three things: healing (cleric), blaster (wizard), and nature/survival magic (they alone). That last category is highly specific and not entirely useful all the time. If the third category was divided between the cleric and wizard, you could easily ditch their spellcasting. * Nature Sense, Resist Nature' Lure, 1,000 faces, Venom Immunity, Timeless Body: All flavor abilities, but none of these DEFINE a druid.* Wild Empathy: A Ranger can do this job just as well. The archetype of a nature/animist priest is a famous enough one though, so maybe something will come and replace the druid (My bet is on dragon shaman). However, in the core rules a druid REALLY doesn't add something a cleric or wizard can't already do.* Ok, that line of logic can be used to justify the removal of ANY core class. True, but bear with me the idea that a ranger, barbarian, paladin, warlord, and sorcerer has a legitimate role in 4e that may be different than the one in 3.5.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 3712388, member: 7635"] Druid might work as a prestige class, like it was BEMCI. However, what can a druid REALLY add as a base class*? * Nature Priest: A cleric of Obad-Hai or Ehlonna can fill a similar role. * Animal Companion: As stated above, I doubt animal allies will be in the game the way they are now, including warmounts, familiars, and companions. * Wild Shape: Difficult to use, requires the player to dive into the MM constantly, and way easy to cheese out and break. * Spell Selection: Druids excel at three things: healing (cleric), blaster (wizard), and nature/survival magic (they alone). That last category is highly specific and not entirely useful all the time. If the third category was divided between the cleric and wizard, you could easily ditch their spellcasting. * Nature Sense, Resist Nature' Lure, 1,000 faces, Venom Immunity, Timeless Body: All flavor abilities, but none of these DEFINE a druid. * Wild Empathy: A Ranger can do this job just as well. The archetype of a nature/animist priest is a famous enough one though, so maybe something will come and replace the druid (My bet is on dragon shaman). However, in the core rules a druid REALLY doesn't add something a cleric or wizard can't already do. * Ok, that line of logic can be used to justify the removal of ANY core class. True, but bear with me the idea that a ranger, barbarian, paladin, warlord, and sorcerer has a legitimate role in 4e that may be different than the one in 3.5. [/QUOTE]

Verification