Druid or Cleric?

[Remathilis]

Well, every other class is doing it!

Does the druid still need to be its own class? With the domain system making all clerics "different", I could see a druid being nothing more than a "Nature" domain and a theme. Coupled with a natural background, and viola; instant druid!

Nature Domain:

You begin with the spells Entangle, Barkskin, and Produce Fire.
Channel Divinity: You gain Wild Step Divinity Power. You are uninhibited from effects that slow your movement (excluding armor) for 1 hour.
At 3rd level: you can use your channel divinity to wild shape into a small natural animal. You gain that creature's attacks, AC and physical scores while retaining your own HP and mental scores.

 

[Yora]

The druid class is not great. But I think the D&D cleric is a bad idea in its very concept.

If there's a good generic priest class that through domains and feats can be made into a shaman, a parish priest, or a warpriest, then the need for druids does become difuse.

The druid class has it's very own destinctive traits, but it's not neccessarily the best way to present a nature priest. Shapeshifting and animal companions are cool, but not part of any generic shaman. But still much better than a cleric with the plant and animal domains.

 

[Mengu]

I can see vastly different mechanics for a druid vs a cleric, different weapon proficiency, different armor proficiency, not to mention different fatures and powers. As such, I don't think they should build off the same chassis.

 

[Lwaxy]

I think the druid is a cool class to play. Definitely keep. Druids have not much in common with priests though, so I'd not compare them.

 

[Remathilis]

I can see vastly different mechanics for a druid vs a cleric, different weapon proficiency, different armor proficiency, not to mention different fatures and powers. As such, I don't think they should build off the same chassis.

A cleric is proficient in simple weapons and medium armor. A simple restriction in the nature domain could fix the armor/weapon proficiency. (Perhaps a "Druid" theme?)

Channel Divinity ability could easily replicate wild shape, trackless step, poison resistance, resist nature charms, etc.

Cleric + Nature Domain + Survivalist Theme = Druid, right?

 

[Remathilis]

I think the druid is a cool class to play. Definitely keep. Druids have not much in common with priests though, so I'd not compare them.

You know that a druid is a Celtic PRIEST in history, right? They were formerly a CLERIC subclass in AD&D as well...

 

[Steely_Dan]

I'd be happy with the 4 core, and everything else Themes and what-have-you, but I also would be perfectly fine with the every class from a PHB 1 deal.

in 2nd Ed Druids were a subclass of Priest, the other 2 being Cleric and Specialty Priest.

 

[DDogwood]

I could see it going either way, honestly. Maybe even both ways, over time - a Druid could be a Cleric with a Wild Guardian theme and a Barbarian Priest background easily enough. It really depends on how closely you want the Druid to cleave to the traditional 2e/3e Druids.

The biggest challenge for a Druid class, IMO, is how tightly the theme and background are tied into the class. The variant Druids from D&D and Pathfinder all feel very same-y to me, at least in comparison to variant fighters, clerics, and so on.

 

[Lwaxy]

Yes but it doesn't make much sense to me in regards to the concept of CLERIC

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'd rather not have Druids in the core, at least as a separate class. First of all, it's such a setting-specific thing: Every setting has Fighters and Rogues, and nearly every setting has Wizards. But how many settings have this specific religion with specific tenets that restrict them in specific ways? Also, they're one of the classes that falls entirely within the definition of another class (Paladin and Ranger are debatable, but Druid is literally nothing more than a very specific kind of Cleric).

And as long as I'm wishing for things that won't happen, I'd like to win the lottery too.