Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Terramotus" data-source="post: 4129664" data-attributes="member: 7220">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.Sounding good.  Looks like it'll be a cool class...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.</blockquote>

Verification