Wo only need the druid class!

[Prickly]

And it's why not all player Like 4e and go back to 3.X or PF

4E's druid can looked like a Bird but can only fly 6sec/5min
4E's druid can looked like a Fish but worse swim skill and would be drowned in the water
4E's druid can looked like a Bear but it's Strength like a sheep.
4E's druid can looked like a Panther but sneak like Rhinoceros
It's not the wildshape but the skinchange. it works like illusion, seems cool but do nothing.
Yes, it's balance. but balance aren't everything in role playing game

Sigh

I wasnt talking about balance but simplicity. It was a very simple way of doing shapechange that didnt involve looking up stats in a book.

 

[triqui]

And it's why not all player Like 4e and go back to 3.X or PF

4E's druid can looked like a Bird but can only fly 6sec/5min
4E's druid can looked like a Fish but worse swim skill and would be drowned in the water
4E's druid can looked like a Bear but it's Strength like a sheep.
4E's druid can looked like a Panther but sneak like Rhinoceros
It's not the wildshape but the skinchange. it works like illusion, seems cool but do nothing.
Yes, it's balance. but balance aren't everything in role playing game

Pathfinder went a similar route, only slightly more detailed. You can gain up to +X to stats with a given form, it doesn't matter which "skin" it has. You can gain up to Y feats or Ex features, limited by the spell/Class skill.

This solved most of the problems with wildshaping being "system-master-ey" (ie: you can go through several dozens of different animals, hunting for the best stats) and a bit of it's quadratic nature (the more Monsters Manuals are publishied, the stronger the class ability becomes)

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I liked 3.x's PH2 shapeshifting variant where the Druid had 5 generic forms that it could turn into. It kept things simple and quick to implement, allowed the player to describe the shapeshift however they like, and the PC's base stats were modified so the attributes of the shapeshifted forms made sense (i.e., the large bear-like form would have a high strength.)

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I like all these ideas.

Fighters have fighting styles, Rogues have schemes, Sorcerers have heritages, Warlocks have pacts, Clerics have domains, Wizards will have traditions... seems natural to me that at this point Druids should have something similar!

How would you call it? Druids' circles? Druidic societies? Or traditions (if Wizard ones go back to being called schools)?

Maybe call them Affinities or Natures or Circles... I don't know...

 

[tuxgeo]

I like all these ideas.

Fighters have fighting styles, Rogues have schemes, Sorcerers have heritages, Warlocks have pacts, Clerics have domains, Wizards will have traditions... seems natural to me that at this point Druids should have something similar!

How would you call it? Druids' circles? Druidic societies? Or traditions (if Wizard ones go back to being called schools)?

Druids traditionally had "groves" -- but the Groves of Academe were the places where druids taught and learned. Applying the same word to the different ways druids could fight might create some confusion.

"Variations," maybe, similar to "Theme and Variations?" Druids certainly vary themselves when they shape-change. (Bards had Bardic Circles, and the SCA still does, so the word "circle" has a traditional use of its own.)

 

[Steely_Dan]

I would also like the choice of playing a druid with not changing into a bear or being Grizzly Adams.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I would also like the choice of playing a druid with not changing into a bear or being Grizzly Adams.

That's funny. I'd like the choice of playing a druid who changes into a bear and is Grizzly Adams but with few magic spells.

 

[Steely_Dan]

That's funny. I'd like the choice of playing a druid who changes into a bear and is Grizzly Adams but with few magic spells.

Cool, as long as there's a choice.