Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 7673698" data-attributes="member: 7635">2e psionics, for all its warts, was playable out of one handbook with only minimum rules reference form the PHB. I see no reason why a 5e version shouldn't be also. Because your &quot;perfectly workable options&quot; always are the path of least resistance. Your perfectly workable options is the same as saying &quot;We don't need a druid class; the nature domain for cleric's fills that role and is less redundant. All druid players will be nature clerics.&quot; Sounds fine, until you look at the differences between the two classes; no wild shape, no unique spells (save for 10 granted by the domain), no druidic language, proficiencies (refluff your mace as a scimitar!), or whatever. It doesn't fit. Its a lazy way of looking at it. But I guess it'd be better than no nature priest at all, and look how much space it'd save in the PHB. That might be fine to you since you don't like druids, you think previous versions of druids were broken, and druids don't play a roll in your campaign so cramming them under cleric and being done with it works. It doesn't work for people who love druids, want a druid like the 2e/3e druid (but better balanced) and don't want to see some two-bit impostor dancing around wearing the druid's name. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, its a damn spellcaster again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 7673698, member: 7635"] 2e psionics, for all its warts, was playable out of one handbook with only minimum rules reference form the PHB. I see no reason why a 5e version shouldn't be also. Because your "perfectly workable options" always are the path of least resistance. Your perfectly workable options is the same as saying "We don't need a druid class; the nature domain for cleric's fills that role and is less redundant. All druid players will be nature clerics." Sounds fine, until you look at the differences between the two classes; no wild shape, no unique spells (save for 10 granted by the domain), no druidic language, proficiencies (refluff your mace as a scimitar!), or whatever. It doesn't fit. Its a lazy way of looking at it. But I guess it'd be better than no nature priest at all, and look how much space it'd save in the PHB. That might be fine to you since you don't like druids, you think previous versions of druids were broken, and druids don't play a roll in your campaign so cramming them under cleric and being done with it works. It doesn't work for people who love druids, want a druid like the 2e/3e druid (but better balanced) and don't want to see some two-bit impostor dancing around wearing the druid's name. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, its a damn spellcaster again. [/QUOTE]

Verification