WotC_Dave: Druid!

[RigaMortus2]

I was hoping that you could have a Druid that covers 3 basic paths, based of talent selection. A weather-based Druid, a plant-based druid, and a wildshaping druid. Call the weather based a Druid a Fury (or Fury Talent tree), plant could be the Green path or Green talent tree (or something else appropriate) and then the shapeshifting druid.

 

[Benben]

This all sounds good to me, except I don't see any mention of plant or terrain magic, which is my favorite style of Druid. I hope some form of entangle, balanced for a proper spell level, is kept in the 4.0 druid.

 

[CleverNickName]

Oh please GOD i hope they take out spellcasting while you're a dire bear/hawk/lion. Maybe a self healing or something like that, but no raining down lightning.

This was one of the first things we houseruled away in 3.5E just because of the cheese factor. I mean, seriously...spellcasting dinosaurs? I don't think so.

 

[Benben]

And just to add. I am eagerly awaiting to see what 4e does to druids. They were until 3.0/3.5 my favorite class. I never understood why 3.0 made shape shifting so important to druids. I always thought that their spell list and hierarchy is what made them interesting.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I hope they have two seperate builds for the druid like they did for the rogue with trickster rogue/brawny rogue builds. Maybe something like shifter druid/mystic druid, where the former relies on shapeshifting while the latter relies on nature spells relating to weather, elements, and animals.

Going to toot my own horn just a little here...

Precisely because we'd heard that WotC was designing the druid to be primarily a shapeshifter (as per Races and Classes), I designed the version of the druid to be included in Necromancer Games' Advanced Player's Guide to be much more of a nature-oriented spellcaster, with minimal shifting.

This was done partly because, well, to be honest the system's too new for me to be confident in how to balance shapeshifting abilities. But it was also done in order to

A) Make Necromancer's druid feel more like its early edition counterparts (that is the company's schtick, after all), and

B) To design a class that would be usable even after WotC's own version came out; one that would complement, rather than compete. I'd be overjoyed to see campaigns including both versions of the druid (or the other classes) long after both books are out.

So, bottom line? Even if the "official" druid is less of a pure caster than you want, you're covered.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

* A single tear for the loss of animal companions, but if Rodney's Economy of Actions says something, I doubt any 4e classes will have tangible buddies to accompany them (familiars, animals, mounts, homoculi, etc).

Unless they changed it during playtesting, I know there has been reference to wizard familiars in at least one of the playtest reports. Of course I also think it likely that familiars will have changed. My first guess would be that your familiar can take a minor action on your turn, using your minor action.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I never understood why 3.0 made shape shifting so important to druids. I always thought that their spell list and hierarchy is what made them interesting.

Mostly because otherwise it's a cleric. Sure, he lives in the woods, can't wear metal armor, and has to kill his supervisor in order to advance in level, so he feels a little different. But mechanically, he's not terribly differentiable from a cleric.

Brad

 

[Wolfwood2]

I do like the notion that druids will use a lot of weather-based magic. It fits the theme I've played with a couple of my druid PCs. They're a natural fit for summoning clouds of fog or freezing enemies with blinding sleet or calling down bolts of lightning. To me those things have always said 'nature' a lot more than controlling plants and animals.

Regarding shapeshifting, I am curious what 'tier' folks think it should go at. in 3rd edition, druids didn't get shapeshifting until 5th level, and I'm fairly sure it came in later than that in prior editions. Is shapeshifting a power that should be reserved for paragon tier, or do you think they'll go with the PHBII example and make it available from level 1?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Time and time again, I'm realizing that if I'm going to 4e, I'm going because of Necromancer.

Way to sell WotC's books, there, guys!



(this is entirely a good thing, btw)

 

[Firevalkyrie]

Not necessarily. Dave doesn't say so but being "prototype lad", it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't come up with quite a few extra abilities, knowing that some will be removed/merged/folded/spindled/mutilated during the overall design sequence for various reasons (flavor, rules balance, complex mechanics, panda attack, etc).

80 powers/30 levels = an average of 2 2/3 powers per level. Assuming that, as they've said, some levels don't have corresponding powers ("You can only slice the cake so thin"), say every third level, that's still 80 powers/20 levels for 4 powers per level (and probably still a higher number at the low/Heroic levels and a smaller number at the high/Epic levels).