WotC_Dave: Druid!

[HeinorNY]

Turning into a bird is going to have the same effect as a fly spell, so don’t expect that for many levels.

Ýou can't cast spells in bird form.

 

[D_E]

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

onset of Sleep/Death

 

[Terramotus]

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.

Part of that is a problem with the leadership feat, and that's probably the most egregious example. I'm not personally a big fan of leadership. Also, a slow player can bring the game to a halt regardless. I've had an experienced player who was a barbarian be paralyzed with his option of raging or not raging. If the stats are all prepared and the critters are held to what they can reasonably be directed to do without speak with animals up, it's not that hard. I don't think there should be any problem with some classes being harder to play than others, especially if it's not in the main PHB.

See I don't get these comments at all. Wildshape was always the Druids signature ability. Summoning was never his emphasis until 3ed. He was the old ways sort of priest/mage with weather and nature magic.

I'll grant you I'd hate to see him stop being a spell caster but I'd much rather see them lose summoning than Wildshape.

When I think of the Druid signature abilities and spells?

Wildshape
Call lightning
Control weather
Creeping doom
produce flame
good berry
Entangle
Reincarnation

Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but the most memorable druid moments I recall from my second edition games years ago involve summoned things like dust devils. Though, admittedly, we never played with a high level druid. But going further than that, major wild shaping seems out of place when I think of a nature priest who can unleash the fury of nature on you. I think of gale force winds and driving rain, lightning strikes, grasping plants, and the creatures of the forest turning against his enemies, red in tooth and claw. And when all is finished and calm, he turns into a hawk and flies away, leaving the corpse for nature to dispose of.

What I don't think of is some guy turning into a bear and grappling the hell out of his foes or a T-Rex and eating him. While that certainly has an archetype, it seems to have more of a life of its own separate from the druid. One is Beast Boy, the other is almost a nature spirit, striking without warning or mercy, an Odin-like wanderer.

 

[MaelStorm]

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.

Cool, whenever Necromancer's Advanced Player's Guide release will be imminent, drop a line on the board please.

 

[CleverNickName]

This is why I'm thinking a striker/controller hybrid is likely. Controllers are probably the most expendable role in 4e (at least judging by the fact that WOTC saw fit to only include one in the first PHB, thus ensuring that a lot of parties don't have 'em), and more strikers are always nice, so it makes sense to have a controller who can lay down the damage in melee when necessary. (After all, let's face it; even the wizard ends up doing single-target damage like a striker a lot of the time. He's just not as good at it.)

CoDzilla Lives!

Okay, maybe not...but all this talk about the hybridization of the roles, and striker/controller combos getting thrown around, is starting to worry me. From what I've seen, blurring the lines between roles only leads to (a) boring characters, or (b) overpowered characters. I'd much rather see a pure striker, or a pure controller, or even a pure leader, than some sort of cocktail.

On the other hand, I haven't seen 4E yet. Maybe the new 4E druid is funcake with awesomesauce topping, and I'm just being paranoid. Time will tell, I suppose.

 

[MaelStorm]

Personally, I hope some mechanic for animal companions makes it back in the druid. That was one of the things when opening the 3.0 PHB that made me go *cool* was the druid having a companion at 1st level. They need to revise the mechanics, obviously, so it isn't as if the player suddenly has 2 PCs (maybe a mechanic where the druid can split his normal actions between the main character and companion), but I'd still like an option for a beastmaster-type druid (with or without wild shape).

Yes, this is one aspect of the druid I liked very much. I'm pretty sure that animal companion and Druids will be in the PHB II, but will they still be linked together? That I'm less sure.

 

[Zinegata]

• 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.[/COLOR]

If he's talking about shapeshift in particular, then "Hell Yeah!"

Personally speaking, PHB II was worth the price of admission for this single, class-defining variant alone.

 

[DandD]

Ýou can't cast spells in bird form.

Well, unless he took the natural spell feat... But perhaps in 4th edition, this feat won't exist at all, hopefully...

 

[Imp]

CoDzilla Lives!

Okay, maybe not...but all this talk about the hybridization of the roles, and striker/controller combos getting thrown around, is starting to worry me. From what I've seen, blurring the lines between roles only leads to (a) boring characters, or (b) overpowered characters. I'd much rather see a pure striker, or a pure controller, or even a pure leader, than some sort of cocktail.

I agree with this. It's why I really wanted the druid to get split up into shapeshifter (defender or striker) and caster (controller or leader) classes; and of the problems people have with 3e, CoDzilla is high up there (plus it's one I agree with) so I'm irritated with this initial peek into the druid, and hope it changes somewhere down the line.

Re sending summons to their death, I am not a fan of "treehugger" druids, because it's generally anachronistic, and especially in a points-of-light-setting where the forests are very much not at mankind's mercy it makes more sense for druids to be conduits to nature, so that the wilderness works for (some) people for a change, at the price of being sacrificed to and worshipped, etc. Even in a Princess Mononoke scenario nature isn't some hapless princess waiting for a druid to save it, it's not afraid to send its animals to their deaths.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Gonna post what I wrote from my above post:

Also with summoning, I didn't read anything that said out-right not summoning, it was simply; "Not a lot of animal summoning. Plenty of wild shape." Which to says there may be some but it isn't the focus of the Druid.

I think we are jumping the gun when it comes to the death of summoning. It seems more logical to assume it simply won't be the focus of the class. Hell, this could also be one of the reasons it won't be in the PHB I is that they want to work out the knots of summoning to a larger degree.