How will you handle this?

[Piratecat]

Steve, your best bet would be the book that Ari is writing for Necromancer. It's not Wotc, of course, but I believe it will have a druid class -- and Ari generally does good, solid work.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

"Suck it up and play something from the book, wouldja?"

 

[wedgeski]

It's not unreasonable to say to a player that her favourite combo isn't part of the new game yet, but that she might enjoy these alternatives... *cue shuffling of PHB pages*. To be honest, if money is so tight that you can't afford a frivolous purchase on 4e, and you're happy with 3ed... I think you know what you should do. Good luck either way.

This does remind me of endless WoW debates on the official forums before I finally had enough and swore off them. Posters would bemoan the nerfing of their class, and claim they had somehow been 'ripped off', that promises hadn't been kept, and that the game was ruined for them. All of this, while ignoring the existence of multiple other races and classes. It's funny the number of times different posters would claim their class was 'the only interesting class in WoW' and that the others weren't worth playing. Complaints about the lack of druids/gnomes/barbarians/etc. often sound very much like those threads.

 

[AlexS]

Maybe it's just me, but I honestly can't understand some people's insistence of having a specific class with a specific name- why couldn't a 'samurai' or a 'barbarian warrior' be statted up using the fighter class, for instance? Is having a rage class feature the only possible way to bring a character from an uncivilised background to the table?

Similarly, what is it about the 3.X druid class that really said 'druid' to people?

In Celtic polytheism, a druid was a member of the priestly and learned class in the pre-Christian, ancient Celtic societies. These societies existed through much of Western Europe, Britain and Ireland, until they were supplanted by the Roman government and, later, the arrival of Christianity. Druids were part of the cultures of the tribal peoples who were called "Keltoi" (Κέλτοι ) or "Keltai" (Κέλται ) and "Galatai" (Γαλάται ) by the Greeks and "Celtae" and "Galli" by the Romans. These words evolved into the modern English terms "Celtic", "Gaulish", and "Galatian". In the communities they served, druids combined the duties of priest, arbitrator, healer, scholar, and magistrate. Both men and women served as druids.

What exactly from that suggests that being able to turn into a dire tyrannosaurus rex is a central aspect of such a character? Frankly, I could see almost any 4E PHB class being used to emphasise various aspects of the 'druid' role, particularly one with a decent wisdom or charisma emphasis- 'druid' seems to me more of a description of a character's place in society than anything else.

Whilst I understand the legacy of the class has a certain nostalgia to people (Jaheira is one of the first things I think about when I hear the word, what with Baldur's Gate being my first exposure to the whole DnD experience), it just seems pointless to make such a fuss about it when the official 4e version is a year away and the (undoubtedly good) Necromancer Games version will be out in a few months.

 

[Jhaelen]

If you're really sure you absolutely want to play a nonexisting race-class combination, simply do what the WotC employees did during their playtests:

Select the closest available substitute and call it a gnome druid. If you're still playing the character once the rules for a 'real' gnome druid are released, convert the character. Should be easy enough.

 

[lutecius]

Maybe it's just me, but I honestly can't understand some people's insistence of having a specific class with a specific name- why couldn't a 'samurai' or a 'barbarian warrior' be statted up using the fighter class, for instance? Is having a rage class feature the only possible way to bring a character from an uncivilised background to the table?

Similarly, what is it about the 3.X druid class that really said 'druid' to people?

What exactly from that suggests that being able to turn into a dire tyrannosaurus rex is a central aspect of such a character? Frankly, I could see almost any 4E PHB class being used to emphasise various aspects of the 'druid' role, particularly one with a decent wisdom or charisma emphasis- 'druid' seems to me more of a description of a character's place in society than anything else.

I think the OP meant "druid" as "dnd druid". It's more about what the class did in every edition of the game than the name itself.

 

[Mercule]

OK, so let's assume that my group and I decide to buy 4e and run a new campaign.* I have a player who really has a fondness for playing her gnomish druids. I understand that I may be able to find playable stats for a gnome in the Monster Manual, but I think she's going to be SOL for anything on druids, right?

Good question. I've gotten really sick of the math in 3.5, so I'm hoping to be able to convert my 15th level game to 4e when it releases. So far, it looks like things will work pretty well.

Except for the gnomish druid. He's a summoning heal-monkey.

As you said, gnome is in the MM. The healing speaks to converting him to a cleric of nature. But, from the sound of things, summoning is seriously lacking -- if it's even present at all. If I have an issue, I think it'll be with that character. I did like the idea of using a fey-bound warlock. Maybe between the cleric and warlock, I can cobble together a passable multi-class.

Otherwise, it does pretty well suck that previously core concepts are gone. Another character (swashbuckling elf w/ a eldritch knight like PrC) would probably be best represented as a rogue/bard (martial striker/arcane leader) multi-class. Instead, she'll end up either a rogue/wizard or non-religious rogue/paladin. She's at least workable.

The exclusion of gnomes and retention of halflings is what really has me scratching my head. I get that gnomes aren't exactly the most interesting of races. But if gnomes are as flavorful as cheap beer, then halflings are like non-alcoholic beer.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Honestly the way I would handle it would be to not decide to run a 4e game for my group until I know everyone is OK with it.

If everyone is enjoying the game using the current edition, and one player really wants to run a Gnome Druid, I would keep running the current game and wait for books that will contain the Gnome and the Druid. I expect they will both show up within the first year.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Tell her she will have more fun if she broadens her horizons a little bit and tries something new until the druid comes around next year (or in October from a 3rd party). Ask her what she liked about her druid, point her to one or two things that are druish, have fun. This is what I'd do, personally, beacuse "players who only have one schtick" rank pretty high up there on my annoyance-o-meter.

Alternately, play 3.5/Pathfinder until the PHII comes out, and then consider. No one from the Wizards is going to come over to your house and make you switch at missile-point. If 4e doesn't meet your needs, screw 4e. Play something that does.

 

[lutecius]

The exclusion of gnomes and retention of halflings is what really has me scratching my head. I get that gnomes aren't exactly the most interesting of races. But if gnomes are as flavorful as cheap beer, then halflings are like non-alcoholic beer.

Ditto, except i would have used a less flattering image for the halfling, especially the new one.