PHBII: big problem - druids lack healing at low levels!

Thasmodious
lol no, I don't mind 'em being controllers, but they definately, 100% need healing :/
Weaker than a cleric is fine, whether it be by saying they get a regen innate that's not too powerful, or heals only by utilities, I don't mind :)

For example: imagine in my DS games, my 2 player pals pick ranger and druid, perfectly fine combo of classes and allies.
But...the druid cannot keep the ranger alive as they could do for last near 20 years of gaming! That's borked.
Why shoud the druid HAVE ot take acleric multiclass feat just to heal?
Druids...heal, it's a long standing part of D&D. Removing that isn't useful.
Sigh.

I won't disagree with you on the overpowered dr00ds needing stomped (CODzilla is too nice a term for it, IMHO, lol). But ya see what I mean? :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Basically a lot of existing D&D campaigns won't transfer to 4e because of the changed assumptions. My old 1e/3e campaign moved to 3e OK, but I'd never have been able to move it to 4e - all the classes are so different.

it sounds as if you might be having the same problem.
 

The secret is that the Shaman, the Warden, and the Druid are all "druids" in the sense of what you know to be a druid. They just split it up into four classes that each focuses on being one type of druid really well, instead of three types of druids not as well.
 

The secret is that the Shaman, the Warden, and the Druid are all "druids" in the sense of what you know to be a druid. They just split it up into four classes that each focuses on being one type of druid really well, instead of three types of druids not as well.

And for the Shaman as a druid on Athas, you can reskin the spirit companion to be a manifestation of what a Dark Sun druid channels for power.

Another option might be to make a cleric and multiclass into shaman. That'd probably get you closer to a 3e druid.
 

For example: imagine in my DS games, my 2 player pals pick ranger and druid, perfectly fine combo of classes and allies.
But...the druid cannot keep the ranger alive as they could do for last near 20 years of gaming! That's borked.
Why shoud the druid HAVE ot take acleric multiclass feat just to heal?
Druids...heal, it's a long standing part of D&D. Removing that isn't useful.
Sigh.

Rename the Shaman class Druid. Done.

Seriously, over the last 20 years, Rangers have been able to cast spells, and that didn't seem to bother you.

Druids don't have much healing. If that's an Essential part of the Druid to you, then make the Shaman class the Druid. If it's essential that Druids have everything they do now in PHB2, AND they have healing, AND they don't spend any multiclass feats to do so, then I think your complaint is that you feel the Druid is really underpowered.

I haven't heard many people feeling it is underpowered or not flexible enough. I myself don't think that it is underpowered. Keeping all of the options they have now, plus adding healing seems to both make them too good, AND seems to remove the need for a primal leader class, and remove the difference between a druid and a shaman.

Perhaps you might want to create a new build for the Druid (the Lifegiver Druid, the way they created a new build for the Ranger). I think it would be easier to just multiclass into another class with healing, myself.
 



Does the shaman multiclass give access to the Healing power? If so, that would work, too.
Maybe in Primal Power... the mc feat in PHB2 just gives you the companion and one of the spirit OA powers. Seems a bit odd, since that gives you some controller-ish abilities for a leader multiclass feat.
 

Basically a lot of existing D&D campaigns won't transfer to 4e because of the changed assumptions. My old 1e/3e campaign moved to 3e OK, but I'd never have been able to move it to 4e - all the classes are so different.

The trick is to divorce the concept from the terminology for the mechanics of another edition. An old character, as a concept, isn't defined by his class title, but by his abilities. If you look to see what your character could do before, there is a very good chance that you can convert him to 4e with the options available, some reskinning (which is encouraged by the system), and maybe a bit of DM love here and there, but this last bit isn't often required in my experience.

By way of an example. My group is coverting our old 3e high level campaign (in which I play while another DMs) to 4e. My character in that game proved a bit problematic when he seemed like he would be the easy one of the group to convert. It's an evil campaign and the characters are -

My 17th level CE warmage
17th lvl Cleric of Nerull
17th lvl half-demon warblade
7th lvl rogue 10th lvl assassin

The cleric favored big battlefield control and necromancy, but with PHB2, we have this covered with the Invoker and the necromancy powers from Dragon. We all agree that the low-mid level undead army in tow is a good thing to move past, so that's not a sticking point at all.

The warblade will either go straight fighter or more likely swordmage, as he played up the magical side of the warblade before. He was somewhat tempted by warlord, as he is a general in the army of the evil emporer we serve, but that was him getting hung up on the name. By his abilities, either of the above defenders fit.

The assassin would be easy, but that player has moved on and a new player is considering an evil bard, which should be interesting. We will either eat him alive or he will quickly learn that my slightly unhinged caster enjoys songs composed of his foulest deeds and will find a good niche in the group.

As I said, I assumed with warlock and wizard in the game, mine would be an easy convert, but when I thought about what made him tick as a character, it proved a bit more tricky. He was CHA based and this wasn't just a stat, his ridiculously high CHA was central to the character. His social skill was legendary. He loved to go nova, utilizing the warmages big AoEs and liberal application of metamagic through feats and rods. He had peered beyond the stars and was rather unhinged for it and prone to wild bursts of barely controlled magic (he used his advanced learning to snag some more prismatic spells than the paltry pair on the warmage list, and constantly used a rod of wonder). He worshipped Erythnul.

For AoE the obvious choice was wizard, but the high Int undermined the concept. So warlock became obvious, but hardly any AoE. Star Pact would take care of the Old Ones vibe. And he loved big damage so striker was perfect, curses would fit even if he didn't do them before. But the only paths to AoE were wizard and cleric. Cleric seemed the better choice to cherry pick a couple of the decent AoE cleric powers, and wisdom was easier to justify in the character than intelligence (he had a decent wisdom anyway).

Then PHB2 came out and the sorcerer ended all that, chaos sorcerer - cha based, striker, decent AoE selection, has the wild magic covered obviously, Wild Mage paragon path, might multiclass warlock for a couple of Star Pact powers just for the flavor, not sure yet.

Point is, the sorcerer is perfect for the concept, even though it is called 'sorcerer' and not 'warmage'. Point is also that I had it worked out serviceably, before the PHB2, simply by divorcing the character concept from the 3e game mechanics and terminology.

Silverblade, what you are looking for is not a druid. You are looking for a nature based caster who can heal. In 4e, that is the shaman, not the druid. The shaman fits well with elements of Dark Sun as others mentioned, and it does what you want it to do, don't defeat yourself by getting stuck on semantics. He's a primal caster, with ample healing, nature based spells, and a druid pet.
 

Druids no longer heal. If you want to quasi-convert an existing 3e druid character to a 4e campaign, you will need to multilclass with something that does. If you want to play a 2e style druid, it's not out of the question to make a cleric and multiclass into druid.
 

Remove ads

Top