D&D General Nature Clerics vs. Druids?

[Zardnaar]

Power sources had a favor and a mechanical identity. However the desire to "fill out the spreadsheet" kinda ruined it.

Divine powers dealt radiant or necrotic damage and had slight leaders aspects.
Primal powers focused more on fire, cold, thunder, and lightning and had transformations and summons.

If the Nature Cleric was Divine with Martial, Arcane, Elemental, Shadow, or Primal options based on domain whereas the Druid was Divine, Primal or Both based on who they revered, there would be a clearer picture of how they differ.

4E class and role design was inherently flawed.

Pages of powers required for basic stuff.

 

[cbwjm]

I've sometimes thought that a druid could have been a cleric, channel divinity could have been used for their wild shape. It would be a lot more basic than the current druid since druid would be the subclass rather than the base class.

 

[Minigiant]

4E class and role design was inherently flawed.

Pages of powers required for basic stuff.

Not really. 4e had the same issue as 2e, 3e, and even 5e. The subsystems weregreat. The game just used them poorly.

A big part ofit is how D&D works top down in class design. The classes are designed how the designers and player want the classes to look and not how the classes would solidify based on the lore and flavor.

For example the cleric is a war priest. Clerics are military arms of their church. The weekly minister isn't a cleric. The cathedral librarian isn't a cleric. The church organist isn'ta cleric. The cardinal of the destignated area isn't a church. Clerics are trained warriors sent out to smash the enemies of their faith, find sacred relics in dangerous areas, and aid heroes in the quest against church foes. Therefore War and Protection clerics should be Martial and Divine. 4e was lazy and made them only martial. 5e and 2e did little better and only put Martial paint on a Divine PC.

Druids on the other hand are not roles in a church. A druid is a druid. You communed with nature and get the powers. Divine Druids get power from a god. Primal druids get power from nature spirts or nature itself. And some druids suck divine power throught nature and get both Divine and Primal energy. Again 4e went hardheaded whereas the other editions were wishywashy.

Here's hoping 6e grows some confidence and let the mechanics match the flavor and matter.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Problem was in 4E they decide to design a boring redundent class to make use of said power source.

The Sorcerer is an arcane caster but it's power can come from wherever.

Wizards anything not divine is probably fine and even that's debatable.

Barbarians don't need a power source. They're either tough or live in a magical world.

Druids could be divine, primal, spirit, whatever doesn't matter to much although it might on some world's.

Okay... but that still doesn't make Primal bad by itself. It seems you more have a problem with how 4e classes were designed in a very "fill in the boxes" method, than anything I've been saying. None of this is against Primal as a Power Source, it is just you saying you didn't like the Warden and the seeker.

If things are multi source it kinda obsoletes the idea of power source. You don't really need an in game reason. Magic works.

It's fluff for the most part and mostly irrelevant except for certain world's like DS.

Not really? I mean, a car can run on electricity and gas, having two different power sources doesn't make the idea a power source obsolete. In fact, it makes it more complex and nuanced to have multiple power sources working together, blending different elements.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've generally viewed Nature Clerics as those focused on agriculture, fishing, logging, and other civilized activities. Druids, however, are focused on nature in the wild, untamed by civilization. Both have a great respect for nature, but are opposite sides of the same coin.

I'm currently playing a dwarf nature cleric. He grew up as a farmer for the clan, living near the surface where he could tend to the crops. This meant his family was of low caste, as while dwarves should understand the necessity of agriculture (especially for turning it into alcohol), they prefer to ignore it unless required.

See, I always thought of Clerics like that as being more about Civilization and Law. I would see Life Clerics, Order Clerics, and Unity Clerics as being more fitting for that style, thematically.

Personal preference, again, because I can see that angle for Nature Clerics. I just don't think that it fits as presented as well.

 

[Zardnaar]

Okay... but that still doesn't make Primal bad by itself. It seems you more have a problem with how 4e classes were designed in a very "fill in the boxes" method, than anything I've been saying. None of this is against Primal as a Power Source, it is just you saying you didn't like the Warden and the seeker.




Not really? I mean, a car can run on electricity and gas, having two different power sources doesn't make the idea a power source obsolete. In fact, it makes it more complex and nuanced to have multiple power sources working together, blending different elements.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



See, I always thought of Clerics like that as being more about Civilization and Law. I would see Life Clerics, Order Clerics, and Unity Clerics as being more fitting for that style, thematically.

Personal preference, again, because I can see that angle for Nature Clerics. I just don't think that it fits as presented as well.

In game magic just works.

A sorcerer casts fireball. 8d6 damage. A cleric casts fireball. 8d6 damage. A wizard casts.....

Things like fire dragon sorcerer's deal more damage.

What powers that fireball mostly doesn't matter but you can easily make it relevant eg Darksun.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

4E class and role design was inherently flawed.

Pages of powers required for basic stuff.

And instead of sharing powers that were basically the same, they made powers with slight differences and printed them twice or more and you had to remember all the little differences. A solid power system could have worked and essentials proved that.

 

[Zardnaar]

And instead of sharing powers that were basically the same, they made powers with slight differences and printed them twice or more and you had to remember all the little differences. A solid power system could have worked and essentials proved that.

That was an added bonus. I suspect Kender helped design it. That's my theory.

 

[Minigiant]

And instead of sharing powers that were basically the same, they made powers with slight differences and printed them twice or more and you had to remember all the little differences. A solid power system could have worked and essentials proved that.

Had they started with an essentials model and had classes share powers, 4e would have been a lot more accepted.

The Nature Cleric would be a leader a controller twist with Divine, Martial, and Primal powers.

The Druid would be a Primal class of all 4 roles with some Divine and Elemental powers tossed in there.

It's becoming a trend of D&D designers coming up with good ideas but using them poorly at the start of an edition.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In game magic just works.

A sorcerer casts fireball. 8d6 damage. A cleric casts fireball. 8d6 damage. A wizard casts.....

Things like fire dragon sorcerer's deal more damage.

What powers that fireball mostly doesn't matter but you can easily make it relevant eg Darksun.

Then why declare Primal needs to die? You couldn't care less how things work, so why do you hate an explanation on how things work? It doesn't change anything for how you run things. Fireball still does 8d6 damage.

I'm just legitimately confused what your problem is with the term, especially given this almost militant level of disinterest in the rest of the power sources.

 

[Minigiant]

Then why declare Primal needs to die? You couldn't care less how things work, so why do you hate an explanation on how things work? It doesn't change anything for how you run things. Fireball still does 8d6 damage.

I'm just legitimately confused what your problem is with the term, especially given this almost militant level of disinterest in the rest of the power sources.

I can't speak for Zard but I do and did see pushback against power sources from DMs who want the classes very generic. This way they can reflavor anything as anything.

Which is good for DMs. But bad for players, designers, and game publishers.