WotC_Dave: Druid!

[senna]

Timbalada??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

The first albuns, the ones with Carlinhos Brown, are prety good.

PS: This is from someone who hates axé and pagode

 

[Terramotus]

• Call his role “hybrid.” But don’t assume that he can cover all roles. Just a couple of ‘em.
• If you like what the 3.5 Player’s Handbook II did to the 3.5 druid, then you’ll probably like this guy, too.

Not as much fun as the core Druid from a player's perspective, but necessary for reasons of balance. Though something on the order of 6-8 forms would be far preferable to the three in the PHBII.

• He doesn’t do much with the classical Greek elements (air/fire/earth/water), but he’s got a lot of weather-related magic. Again, that’s the direction we were taking the class in latter-day 3.5 products.

Sounding good. Looks like it'll be a cool class...

• Not a lot of animal summoning. Plenty of wild shape.

Except for that. Count me totally unsold. And ticked off that, apparently, some designers at WotC have decided that summoning is somehow unworkable. I've been almost entirely positive about 4E, and I was perfectly OK with the idea that summoning isn't in the core rulebook but was coming later. I'm NOT OK with summoning not coming in 4E at all.

I think the idea of the need to balance the Economy of Actions put forth by WotC_Rodney is overly simplistic and a little bit lazy. Not all actions are created equally, especially as in 3.5 where summoning requires increasing numbers of actions to be used to make the summons effective. It also matters significantly what the classes can do. It seems to me to be more a refusal to balance on that axis because it's too difficult.

And if I'm overreacting and summoning is coming... If it's not the Druid, who is it? Why waste the Druid name on a shapeshifting class when there easily could have been a Shapeshifter class? I think the 3.5 druid strayed way too far into wild shape focus for any of the historical druid archetypes, especially at high levels. What's wrong with calling a shapeshifter a Shapeshifter rather than warping the druid?

I hope this isn't a sign of things to come where elements that were perhaps difficult to design in, such as enchanters, jacks of all trades, and summoners, that were left for later books are toned down into unrecognizability.

 

[Kzach]

I thought the idea of the ph2 wildhshape was a good idea, but I really liked having a animal companion. It wasn't worth the trade off.

All indications point to you being entirely right: animal companions are too powerful

From what has been said, nobody will have cohorts or animal companions as there is no real way to use them without breaking game balance.

I'm betting that the wizard familiar, for instance, won't be a permanent animal companion that follows you around all over the place, but rather adds some functionality to the wizard via a power that they can only get by having a familiar, ie. ranged touch attack or some sort of spying power.

As for the wildshape thing, this is something I've long added or changed of my druids any way as it reflects the historical roots of the druid far better. I am disappointed to hear that the druid won't have much elemental magic, however, as I felt this was also a strong point for the druids and was a major part of their flavour.

 

[SteveC]

Huh! This seems interesting. And a Druid as a hybrid class. The continued proliferation of Rolemaster terms into 4E makes me happy. Now all we need are some good crit rules...



Seriously: this looks good, and will make the druid a more distinct character.

--Steve

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think the idea of the need to balance the Economy of Actions put forth by WotC_Rodney is overly simplistic and a little bit lazy. Not all actions are created equally

4e already balances 'lopsided' actions in the form of minions, elites and boss monsters. Though to some extent a boss is balanced by giving it more actions.

The issue with summoning (and animal companions and the leadership feat) is not so much balancing actions, it's one player getting more table time. Much, much more in the case of a 3e druid. A 3e druid with the leadership feat and his cohort is also a druid? My God, his turns are going to take half an hour each.

 

[BarkingDeathSquirrel]

I am extremely wary of this. Wasn't preventing characters who were supposed to fill a role, but couldn't actually do enough of what they were used for, the reason that 4th edition gave classes defined roles in the first place? This kind of balancing act could easily break and overpower or underpower the class.

Well.... from what we've seen, most classes probably already dip into other roles enough as it is that is really shouldn't be a problem. As long as the Druid either has the choice to fill in a particular role (at 1st level, much like the two Rogue Tactics paths the rogue has) and specializes in that particular role, but can adapt in the middle of a battle to fill in the role of a missing comrade (just not as good as if had focused in that role in the first place), it shouldn't be a problem. Instead of the jack-of-all-trades, master of none, you get Good-at-one-particular-trade, decent at the rest type of class instead. Of course, it's probably a good idea that a Druid can't be able to fill more than one role at a time either...

WoW's Druid (from what I remember of it, anyway) is a good comparison to what I mean. Bear Form for Defending, Human form for Controlling/Leading, and Cat-Form for striking. You have to really focus your talent selections to be as good as a 'real' class at any of those roles, but even with your base abilities, you could still fill in another role in if your party is in a pinch.

 

[ferratus]

I would keep the elemental magic stuff as a paragon path for the druid and call it a "Hierophant" Druid. That would closely resemble the 2e druid anyway, who mostly got its elemental magic in the last 5 levels of the class.

I'm mostly okay with the druids losing their elemental magic, as this opens up a niche for spellcasting elementalist or alchemist classes. That would give you the tension of the gods vs. elemental forces, and leave the druid to be the spellcaster of the Feywild. Sure there is the fey-pact warlock, but really the warlock is about being an agent for a significant supernatural being rather than representing a type of magic.

Hmm... now that I think about it, I would probably instead of having elemental powers for "Heirophant" levels, I'd have them represent seasons instead. I could see an icy winter hierophant, a scorching summer hierophant, a water and greenery based hierophant for spring. Not sure what type of abilities a autumn hierophant would have though.

The Epic path for druids, since clerics are angels and what not, would be to become "The Green Man" or "The Horned God" or something. Becoming a animus of a particular geographical feature would be good too. For example, an epic druid could become similar to the river god Scamander in the Illiad.

 

[Gundark]

Well since the WoW comparison have already been made and will continue to be made, let me add that shapshifting druids are a lot of fun. The problem with the WoW druid is that he/she is a "jack of all trades, master of none" . By having the D&D druid cover multiple roles then you run into that same problem. I'd rather have the druid pick a role and stay in it.

 

[Fobok]

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.

This actually makes me look forward to that book even more than I was. I was worried about the official vs. Necromancer distinction once WotC caught up, but it sounds like that really won't be a problem.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not sure what type of abilities a autumn hierophant would have though.

He gets to hit opponents with falling elephants.

-Hyp.