Mercule
Adventurer
I think the implication of the question, as well as the bizarre landslide in answers, bugs me. I'm just grumpy, but will get over it.
D&D 5E Mike Mearls Twitter Poll: "The druid gets one of the following: Spellcasting | Shapeshifting | Animal companions. Choose."
- Thread starter Prakriti
- Start date
I'll chime in to wholeheartedly agree.
The spell list have too much overlap IMHO. I would love to see a VERY expanded druid list with rituals: Ritual of the Wolf (turn into a wolf), etc. Ritual of the Storm (summon a massive - as in real sized - storm), Ritual of Growth (cause a plant or plants to grow), Ritual of Decay (Cause biomass to decay rapidly and compost into rich nutrients), etc.
In addition, Cooperative magic could be a thing. Multiple casters in the ritual, bigger effects. (All druids in the world perform the Fimbulwinter ritual plunging the world into an ice age)
So my vote: Spellcasting, with a better list!
QuietBrowser
First Post
In all honesty, I can understand where the huge array of votes for to "focus on shapeshifting" are coming from. The historical druid may be a spellcasting archetype, but the problem is that, really, a spellcasting-focused druid has no real "meat" to it to differentiate it from a Nature Domain cleric. It never has really stood apart from "Cleric with the Nature sphere/domain" in that field - and for the plain and simple reason that it isn't really anything but a specifically culturally-flavored form of Nature Cleric if you focus on the magic.
Shapeshifting is the only attribute druids have traditionally had to really distinguish them from ordinary clerics of nature. So, if you have to boil them back down to one attribute, if you're going to bother keeping them at all, shapeshifting is the attribute to focus on.
Shapeshifting is the only attribute druids have traditionally had to really distinguish them from ordinary clerics of nature. So, if you have to boil them back down to one attribute, if you're going to bother keeping them at all, shapeshifting is the attribute to focus on.
I agree that the 'Fantasy Cultural Image', if you will, of the Druid has changed. I personally never really saw Druid as primarily a shape shifter, but I'm probably closer to the old guard in that area. I also think this points to what others have mentioned as the proliferation of spell casting in 5e, which serves to differentiate the class less as well. I would add that in Traditional D&D, there where much tighter restrictions, and thus differentiation, between spell lists (as well as armor & weapon proficiency) that served to make classes feel more unique. Druids, Clerics, and Wizards seemed to have many more spells that were unique to them and gave them their own distinct flavor, now there seems to be a lot more overlap between spells used by the various classes in 5e, leading to a more polyglot spellcaster feel, no matter what the class. Every class has pew, pew, pew cantrips now; most classes have methods to raid other classes' spell lists with domain, land circle, magical secrets, patron, Book of Ancient Secrets, bloodline, etc. A cleric can feel very much like a 'White Mage', a Druid like a 'Green Mage', a Bard like an Enchanter/ whatever, even the Eldritch Knight is offered a few choices outside the two allowed schools of magic.
All of this puts more pressure on the other features granted by a Class to give it a unique feel and flavor, so I can see the new importance of shape changing, even if I do miss Chariot of the Sustarre.
All of this puts more pressure on the other features granted by a Class to give it a unique feel and flavor, so I can see the new importance of shape changing, even if I do miss Chariot of the Sustarre.
I'll comment that the Nature Cleric = Druid if the spell lists are similar. If the spell lists were more unique then the argument falls apart. IMHO, the problem is the druid spell list vs Nature Cleric Spell list.
D
dco
Guest
I'm not surprised, there are those "problems" inherent to the game:
- Someone else builds the archetype up to lvl 20. They won't please everybody.
- A lot of classes have different game rules but are somewhat similar, for example spellcasters, the wizard is one way, the sorcerer has less spells and metamagic, the warlock less spells, invocations and recovers slots with a short rest, but at the end all of them are full spellcasters.
- Spells are usually shared between various classes.
It is understandable why shape changing is the most defining characteristic of the Druid class and the most voted.
- Someone else builds the archetype up to lvl 20. They won't please everybody.
- A lot of classes have different game rules but are somewhat similar, for example spellcasters, the wizard is one way, the sorcerer has less spells and metamagic, the warlock less spells, invocations and recovers slots with a short rest, but at the end all of them are full spellcasters.
- Spells are usually shared between various classes.
It is understandable why shape changing is the most defining characteristic of the Druid class and the most voted.
Mercule
Adventurer
From a certain, very high-level, perspective, you're correct. A nature Cleric is still not the same thing as a Druid, though. If nothing else, the Nature Cleric gets to wear metal armor and wield metal weapons as well as turn undead.
Actually, looking at the Druid, again, I hadn't realized that they'd removed things like poison resistance that I'd consider much more "signature" from the 5E version. The Nature Cleric really does look a lot more like a Druid than a Druid does, anymore. I think I'm ready to just say, "To heck with it all," and let them do whatever they want with the Druid. I'd like to see a few tweaks to the Cleric, though:
1) Remove turn undead as a default feature. Leave channel divinity, just don't give, say, Tempest Clerics any particular affinity for dispatching undead. It never really made any sense, once they started doing anything to distinguish the abilities granted by different gods.
2) Add taboos/compulsions of some sort to each domain -- with an emphasis that they're defaults and specific deities/settings may alter them. So, Nature Clerics can't do the metal armor/weapon thing. Not sure what to do with the others, but they should be about the same level -- barely more than a ribbon. Make them optional, for all I care, but at least put the idea in the book.
Maybe the new Druid could have two kits: a shifter and a pet-master. Dunno. Beast speech seems like a shared ability, but I can't come up with a lot of others. Maybe give them some senses or even just merge them in with the Barbarian: pick your form of channeling nature: rage, totems, shape-shifting, or animal bond.
Patrick McGill
First Post
I find it hard to accept any argument that presents all magic as the same 'thing'. There's hundreds of different spells with different affects, uses, and 'feel'. A druid spell-list should feel and play very differently from a wizard's or a cleric's (nature or otherwise).
A good bit of the warlock's theme, for instance, is in the unique spell effects it has at it's disposal. Maybe I'm entirely off base, but I had no problem telling a druid from a cleric even in 2e.
A good bit of the warlock's theme, for instance, is in the unique spell effects it has at it's disposal. Maybe I'm entirely off base, but I had no problem telling a druid from a cleric even in 2e.
Kobold Avenger
Legend
If they're planning on bringing back the Shaman with it's spirit companion, they should just dump the Animal Companion Druid into that.
I always felt the Druid had too much when you factored in Animal Companions back in 3e, as you could have things like the Animal Companion, a bunch of summoned animals, and the Druid itself in animal form for a small army of animals.
I always felt the Druid had too much when you factored in Animal Companions back in 3e, as you could have things like the Animal Companion, a bunch of summoned animals, and the Druid itself in animal form for a small army of animals.
Similar Threads
