Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="thecasualoblivion" data-source="post: 4536824" data-attributes="member: 59096">Personally, I'm not surprised Druids didn't make the cut this time around, and I think it was the right decision. First off, Druids had were a bit infamous for being overpowered. A lot of people have expectations of what a Druid is supposed to do, and I think the Druid will be better accepted within the changes 4E brought after a period of time than they would have been at launch. Think of all the &quot;Wizards suck balls&quot; comments that the Wizard class has gotten. A Druid class at launch built within 4E balance and design philosophies would have put the Wizard complaints to shame. In addition, the decision was made for there to be fewer classes in the PHB. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard are automatic. As beloved as the Druid may be, Ranger and Paladin are #5 and #6 on the iconic D&amp;D scale. This leaves two choices, one being Warlock, which was probably the most beloved class 3E introduced to the world and deserving of the PHB slot for that, and Warlord, a class brand new for 4E, and the 4E PHB needed a brand new shiny class, and the best healer alternative to the Cleric D&amp;D has ever seen. If there was going to be eight classes, Druid just misses the cut. Combine this with the Druid using the Primal power source, different from the 8 classes in the PHB, the Druid being delayed until PHB II was a no-brainer.People may lament that the Druid missed out on the core PHB, but I don't see that as being as big a problem as it was in 3E. The 3E system was devilishly complex, and the more splats you added the bigger the mess of rules you played with. The 4E rules are very sturdy, and mess resistant. I don't see adding new material as being anywhere near as disruptive as it was in 3E, and I anticipate there will be less stigma for later material.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="thecasualoblivion, post: 4536824, member: 59096"] Personally, I'm not surprised Druids didn't make the cut this time around, and I think it was the right decision. First off, Druids had were a bit infamous for being overpowered. A lot of people have expectations of what a Druid is supposed to do, and I think the Druid will be better accepted within the changes 4E brought after a period of time than they would have been at launch. Think of all the "Wizards suck balls" comments that the Wizard class has gotten. A Druid class at launch built within 4E balance and design philosophies would have put the Wizard complaints to shame. In addition, the decision was made for there to be fewer classes in the PHB. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard are automatic. As beloved as the Druid may be, Ranger and Paladin are #5 and #6 on the iconic D&D scale. This leaves two choices, one being Warlock, which was probably the most beloved class 3E introduced to the world and deserving of the PHB slot for that, and Warlord, a class brand new for 4E, and the 4E PHB needed a brand new shiny class, and the best healer alternative to the Cleric D&D has ever seen. If there was going to be eight classes, Druid just misses the cut. Combine this with the Druid using the Primal power source, different from the 8 classes in the PHB, the Druid being delayed until PHB II was a no-brainer. People may lament that the Druid missed out on the core PHB, but I don't see that as being as big a problem as it was in 3E. The 3E system was devilishly complex, and the more splats you added the bigger the mess of rules you played with. The 4E rules are very sturdy, and mess resistant. I don't see adding new material as being anywhere near as disruptive as it was in 3E, and I anticipate there will be less stigma for later material. [/QUOTE]

Verification