D&D 5E (2014) [poll] Druid Satisfaction Survey

[Sacrosanct]

Yesterday was the Cleric, today is the Druid.

Once a year or so, I think it would be interesting to get a pulse on the satisfaction of the various classes. The game's been out for a few years now, and that's plenty of time to get a good experience on how each plays out.

For the purpose of this poll, I am keeping the answers to a minimum intentionally. When you have too many options, it's harder to really evaluate the results. And for the purposes of this, a general feeling is more than adequate.

Long term goal: Have a survey of each class, then compiled results to be easily referenced for future discussions that may want said information.

Current previous results:
Barbarian: 92% satisfied, 3% dissatisfied
Bard: 83% satisfied, 11% dissatisfied
Cleric: 86% satisfied, 6% dissatisfied

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ah, a fairly contentious class I don't have a problem with wildshape being OP at level 2. I know a lot of people do, but you advance pretty quickly at those low levels, and more often than not there are in game limitations that keep the druid from being OP (like not being able to speak, interact with objects well, etc).

That said, I'd like to see something more with land druid. Maybe incorporate some pet mechanics as there is currently no real pet druid, and that seems like a fairly common archetype.

 

[Aldarc]

The subclasses and their relation to the core class were not designed well, resulting in a sort of schizophrenic discussion about what the druid's emphasis should be. It leaves both the nature mages and shape-shifters unhappy, when the class has been successfully both in the past.

 

[Charles Rampant]

The current subclass options lack... flavour. I mean, they're good and obvious choices - Druid as Caster and Druid as Bearmonster - but they are not particularly evocative. It's a bit like the Fighter - the current subclasses are good but flavourless, meaning that future subclasses struggle to stand apart from them. I'd like to see some new Druid subclasses that get past that problem though, and do something cool and different with the class.

Otherwise, it's a class I have very little experience with. The one Druid that I've seen - out of perhaps 30 characters that I've run for in 5e - was played by a player who was terrible at remembering things, and so every time he turned into a bear he asked what it did. Maddening. Otherwise it seemed like a Fighter that could heal between battles. But there was that one time he turned into a series of animals to take out a Polar Bear by himself, and everyone present agreed that it was totally awesome, so he had that going for him.

 

[happyhermit]

I think these surveys are a great idea but by lumping options one and two together you are losing most of the information to be gained and putting too much focus on a small number of votes.

Bard 51% very satisfied
Cleric 38% very satisfied
Barbarian 28% very satisfied

At the very least is as interesting as the fact that 8 people were dissatisfied with the Bard vs. 4 people with the Cleric.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think these surveys are a great idea but by lumping options one and two together you are losing most of the information to be gained and putting too much focus on a small number of votes.

Bard 51% very satisfied
Cleric 38% very satisfied
Barbarian 28% very satisfied

At the very least is as interesting as the fact that 8 people were dissatisfied with the Bard vs. 4 people with the Cleric.

OH, I agree. For the rolling results, I was just lumping them up in general. But for the final talley, they would be broken up again into the categories, for exactly the reason you say. I.e., the druid may have an overall high satisfaction rate, but nearly everyone thinks it needs to be tweaked. That's an important distinction from say, the bard that should, and will, be called out.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I realized that I voted Very Satisfied, but only because I tend to forget the Land Druid even exists. I've never seen a non-Moon Druid in play that I can recall; Land Druids seem almost entirely redundant. So, the design of that subclass could be improved considerably.

Or you could just pretend Land Druids don't exist.

 

[Triumph_Fork]

The Druid is obviously it's own class... But still has too much book keeping

I remember in Pathfinder, there was tons to do with the Druid. Monster stat blocks, knowledge of their power, spells to keep track of and bonus spells etc.

In 5th edition, they really cut the spells down - which is nice to be honest - and that really helps some of my beginner players or intermediate Pathfinder players transition to 5e. But the problem still remains: Monster stats. I've had players not prepared for their Druid as high level, and it's hard to figure out which monster to use for your transformation. I wish they had stat blocks handy in the players manual in the Druid section, especially when we're mid combat and I'm using the Monster Manual but the player has to "See it for a sec".

 

[Dionysos]

I'm dissatisfied with the class as written, but two (fairly significant) tweaks get it where I want it.

First, after you transform into a different form, whether willingly or unwillingly, you cannot transform again for one minute. This is mostly to avoid unkillable level 20 shenanigans.

Second, I've made Druids have a number of Spells Known equal to the Bard. The Circle of the Land spells are in addition to this. There isn't a balance need for Druids to know their entire lists, in my opinion. With this easy change, Corcle of the Land becomes much more competitive with Circle of the Moon, as the added spells known make a huge difference.

 

[Xeviat]

Compared to the Cleric, the Druid is lacking abilities. Wild Shape is overvalued for the Land Druid, and the Balance is wonky for Moon Druids. I don't like how Wild Shape (or Polymorph for that matter) works; it's nice and simple at the table, but I think it leads to weird decisions at the table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk