Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="phloog" data-source="post: 4132950" data-attributes="member: 59219">I absolutely don't want to turn this into a 4E pros/cons thread, but keeping to this subject, this poll and the article point out what I see as a flaw in the 4E egalitarian approach that makes MY favorite kind of druid (which would be a combination of many of the above - - all things natural is his bag, daddy-O) no longer an option.Note that with the introduction of roles, the current belief is that much of the WIZARDS abilities related to charms and such will be lost to provide space for the psionic 'role'.  So wizards won't have as much (or perhaps more accurately THE SAME) variety that I'm used to.So I can't imagine that they ever will create the druid I've known and loved, because it would cover too many roles.  It's either got to be the 'animal shapes role', or the "Hey! The new druid is a striker - he fires little berries at people!'...okay, it won't be that silly.But the point is that for me the druid draws power from nature, and shapes that power to achieve their goals.  Druids can change shape to animal forms, have spells related to nature, and can control weather, manipulate elements, etc.  They can even do a good job of sneaking (when in the woods or grasslands), etc.etc.etc.I guess I'm just against heavily-dictated roles....for me the druid could do about anything, so long as it related to nature.  Not in an overly powerful way - but incredibly good in his element(s).</blockquote>

Verification