PHBII: big problem - druids lack healing at low levels!
- Thread starter Silverblade The Ench
- Start date
I'd keep the shapechanging and skittrering sneak stuff, but move combat forms into a paragon pathBut I like my druid turning into a bear and ripping off some dude's head.
. However, I don't see why the druid couldn't have a class ability to heal at first level and have to choose whether to focus on combat beast form or upon healing (keeping non-combat forms available to both).
I don't think they should have to. I think there should be paths/options built into the class to allow the option for those settings where it would be appropriate.
Fanaelialae
Legend
Love it or hate it, the 4E designers stated that backwards compatibility was not one of their design goals.
Silverblade The Ench
First Post
Henry
would it be that bad a problem, really, if druids got, as said minor/lesser healing abilities, as they are a secondary leader?
Druids do get heals, folk cannot just say "but they shouldn't!" as they do get heal spells, they are in the PHBII!
Sorry for emphasis, but it's hard fact most posters have not seemingly grasped
I'm pointing out the number of healing spells so damn patchy it's almost useless for too many levels, as if either the devs forgot to remove the heals completely due to deisgn changes, OR, they ran out of room but do allow druids to heal.
A druid currently can chose to take heal (at a few levels) or crowd control or damage spells, thus, leader or striker
The spell that damages enemies and give a small heal for each enemy who dies, or tiny heal if they make a save...is that game breaking? I think it's great, but it's only one single level 1 spell.
That's a good line to continue. It is both controller (it's an AOE damage spell), and leader (small heal).
I've long preffered druids to do regeneration effects, like the "Cocoon" and "invigorate" spells in 3.5.
As folk note, there are many ways now to improve out of combat healing, such as alchemical items, and also feats IIRC
I just cannot accept that you have ot have a ghostly animal to be a "Nature healer"
Shamans != Druids.
I don't mind shamans being better healers than druids, cause they ain't the same.
Further refinement of my earlier idea, maybe bit too weak, in terms of hit points, but I think it's a good idea.Maybe should be regen 3 hp/tier?
works for me, if not for others
oh and druids, IMHO are better controllers than wizards are. Or least it seems so.
As part of all this, I am rather fed up with 4th ed's lack of fluff, and determination that crunch is far more important than fluff :/
would it be that bad a problem, really, if druids got, as said minor/lesser healing abilities, as they are a secondary leader?
Druids do get heals, folk cannot just say "but they shouldn't!" as they do get heal spells, they are in the PHBII!
Sorry for emphasis, but it's hard fact most posters have not seemingly grasped
I'm pointing out the number of healing spells so damn patchy it's almost useless for too many levels, as if either the devs forgot to remove the heals completely due to deisgn changes, OR, they ran out of room but do allow druids to heal.
A druid currently can chose to take heal (at a few levels) or crowd control or damage spells, thus, leader or striker
The spell that damages enemies and give a small heal for each enemy who dies, or tiny heal if they make a save...is that game breaking? I think it's great, but it's only one single level 1 spell.
That's a good line to continue. It is both controller (it's an AOE damage spell), and leader (small heal).
I've long preffered druids to do regeneration effects, like the "Cocoon" and "invigorate" spells in 3.5.
As folk note, there are many ways now to improve out of combat healing, such as alchemical items, and also feats IIRC
I just cannot accept that you have ot have a ghostly animal to be a "Nature healer"
Shamans != Druids.
I don't mind shamans being better healers than druids, cause they ain't the same.
Further refinement of my earlier idea, maybe bit too weak, in terms of hit points, but I think it's a good idea.Maybe should be regen 3 hp/tier?
works for me, if not for others
oh and druids, IMHO are better controllers than wizards are. Or least it seems so.
As part of all this, I am rather fed up with 4th ed's lack of fluff, and determination that crunch is far more important than fluff :/
Tectuktitlay
Explorer
*snip all the stuff that has been rehashed repeatedly*
4E doesn't lack fluff. 4E divides fluff and crunch more than previous editions. That is a big difference from a lack of fluff. The crunchy books, such as the Core books, Player's Handbook 2, and so on, are light on fluff, and high on crunch. On purpose. The fluff-centric books, such as the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, are heavy on fluff, and extremely light on crunch. On purpose. This allows anyone to tailor any of the cruch as readily as possible to any fluff, yet not alter the mechanics themselves of said crunch at all, or very minimally at most.
4E doesn't lack fluff. 4E divides fluff and crunch more than previous editions. That is a big difference from a lack of fluff. The crunchy books, such as the Core books, Player's Handbook 2, and so on, are light on fluff, and high on crunch. On purpose. The fluff-centric books, such as the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, are heavy on fluff, and extremely light on crunch. On purpose. This allows anyone to tailor any of the cruch as readily as possible to any fluff, yet not alter the mechanics themselves of said crunch at all, or very minimally at most.
I am not asking for backwards compatability. And, as for their design goals and implementation, the less said the better, imo
Last edited:
Fanaelialae
Legend
In all fairness, I did say "love it or hate it".
Compatibility with previously established (3.x) campaign settings is backwards compatibility. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you?
In all likelihood, the druid will get more options with the Primal Power book. Two "primary builds" is a standard initial setup for a class in 4E when it debuts, with more added in later sourcebooks. It's possible that some of the powers will be healing abilities.
Nonetheless, the role of controller was chosen for Druids (which I consider rather fitting based on how I've seen the majority of druids played over the years) so that will be their primary focus in 4E.
If I had to guess why druids weren't given some equivalent of Lay on Hands, it's because LoH is actually an effective defender tool for the Paladin. Using it upon himself allows him to soak up more damage (an inherent aspect of his role). Alternately, he can use it to cancel attacks from enemies who get past him (similar to what the Shielding Swordmage does). Adding healing to a Paladin contributes to his "defender-yness". I'm hard-pressed to see how adding more healing to a Druid would contribute to it's "controller-yness", hence why I suspect that their healing is downplayed to the extent that it is.
As someone else already pointed out, rangers could cast spells in previous editions but can't anymore. Fighters can't spam trip endlessly. High level mages can't rewrite history with a single spell (Wish). Rogues can't use wands (UMD). Druids have limited and sporadic healing abilities (at least for now). Things have changed between editions, and IMO druid healing is the least of these.
Keep in mind that in 4E, healing is no longer virtually necessary for a group to be successful because everyone has Second Wind, a successful Heal check can trigger another character's Second Wind, and PCs can also heal themselves to full outside of combat.
If you want to add healing back to the druid (assuming, as seems to be the case, that you don't care to have "healer druids" multiclass into bard, cleric or warlord) I would recommend looking at the healing utility abilities of of one of the leader classes and then weakening the powers and/or deferring them to a later utility level. Since you seem to like Fires of Life, you could also create higher level versions of that power to fill in any perceived "healing gaps".
I'm not all that certain that the Primal Conversion power would work that well. It gives druids the option to convert their controller dailies into a leader-type power for starters, which seems to me a crappy choice to have to make (I can use this super-cool ability that only my class can do and exemplifies my role, or give the ranger regeneration for this encounter...). Keep in mind that regeneration is somewhat limited in 4E since it no longer functions at 0 hp or below (making it useless for saving a dying companion). Also, while it is given very gradually (I have no experience thus far with PC regeneration in 4E, so I can't say how much would be too much or too little) even the basic numbers seem to be an enormous amount of healing over time (50 hp at heroic, 100 at paragon, and 150 at epic), without the expenditure of healing surges on anyone's part.
Most PC regeneration abilities that I can recall only work while bloodied though, so that might be a good place to start if your heart is set on druids as regenerative healers.
Fanaelialae
Legend
I just cannot accept that you have ot have a ghostly animal to be a "Nature healer"
Shamans != Druids.
Technically, you just have to have the ability to summon a spirit to be a "Nature healer". The Shaman's Healing Spirit ability doesn't have the Spirit keyword and can be used even when the spirit is not present (though if it is present, an ally near the spirit also gets a small amount of healing). Also, as others have pointed out, though the default is a ghostly animal your spirit can be something else entirely (PHB2 pg 4- Your Part in the Story). One possibility would be for a "spirit made flesh" that looks and acts like an ordinary animal companion (aside from the fact that it can be summoned/dismissed and can't be outright killed).
Last edited:
