Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7094798" data-attributes="member: 5100">I was tempted to vote "pet" just because I want it removed from Ranger. Rangers are genocidal special ops border guards who also happen to make good bounty hunters. That's their schtick. Pets are a completely pointless wart on the class.IMO, Druids are:- Primarily casters -- this is what they do and what defines them. I treat them as psuedo-animists, who ally with the gods of the wilds for shared ends, more than just worshiping them. That separates them nicely from the nature Cleric (which is somewhat, but not completely, redundant w/ Druid).- Secondary pets -- I'm not a huge fan of pets, but don't hate them, either. If you're going to put them in the game, giving them to the guy who actually bonds with nature makes the most sense. Besides, AD&D Druids got summon animal I-VII, which seems like the precursor to having pets.- Tertiary shifters -- Oh, yeah. They can do that. Forgot all about it. Meh, go ahead and use it as a side perk.</blockquote>