|
9 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 4:13PM
#1
|
|
|
What defines the druid to you? I am asking for any form of definition. Maybe you define it by certain mechanics, or by a certain place in the world, or maybe a certain appearance, or behavior. What makes a druid a druid, in the context of D&D?
When 4e set out to handle the druid, it was clear they had to address the CoDzilla from 3e. They largely did this by splitting the class into 3 seperate classes (the 4e druid, the warden, and the shaman), more or less.
For me, the defining trait of a druid is a connection to nature. I've always associated druids with flora, rather than fauna, but I suppose that is because I always viewed a druid summoning a badger to be silly. I never connected strongly with the animal summoning aspect of the class, even if it mechanically very strong. Shapeshifting held more sway with me, but I still associate that with the legends and lore of animistic cultures like the Native American, Ainu, or Mesoamerican cultures.
Control of plant life, and the earth itself, was a much stronger image in my mind. The animal connection came about in talking to animal, or animal companions.
What about you?
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Roll dice, not cars.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 4:18PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
I'm really into the shapeshifting aspect of Druids, but the idea of a caster connected to nature is very appealing, as well. My ideal Druid is somewhere between the 4e Druid and the 3.5 shapeshifting variant from PHB2.
What can I say... I like furries.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 4:23PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I agree, it's mostly about the plants. Whenever the topic of shapeshifting comes up, I have to remind myself that druids have actually been doing it for most of their existence, but I still think there's a huge difference between turning into a bird so as to travel unseen and scout around, and turning into a giant bear who claws bad guys in half.
In D&D terms, a druid is like a cleric who can casts plant/animal/weather spells. Unlike the cleric, they don't wear heavy metal armor, and they aren't terribly averse to blood-shed; they wear un-treated hide, and wield a scimitar.
Druids are one with nature, and represent a balance between maintaining the natural world and utilizing its gifts (food, wood, medicine) for the benefits of society. They are harmonious, and neutral on the scale between lawful and chaotic.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 4:27PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
A druid is a defender of nature, and the balance of life. They are also a part of nature: shapeshifting is critical to the concept, and it is what separates the druid class from everyone else. While some may choose not to shapeshift, all are capable of it. As for what they shapeshift into...that can vary rather substantially. Many druids choose to live their lives almost exclusively in shapeshifted forms.
But caring for nature should not be interpreted to mean that druids are pacifists. The natural world is an intensely violent place, with death feeding the lives of others. They will respond strongly to efforts to disrupt natural areas, and have no qualms with killing in order to do it. They aren't overly aggressive, but will take offensive action toward those outside of nature. The undead and other aberrations of nature are particularly loathsome.
Mechanically, druids are a mix of melee prowess and casting. Balance, in all things. Spells are nature-influenced: plant growth, weather effects, basic elements. By shapeshifting, they're able to become quite significant melee combatants, whether that is the form of quick and agile predators, those who dominate through brute force, or the steadfastness of treants. While druids may prefer one style or the other, all are capable in both.
The summoning and animal companion aspects of prior editions don't hold much interest for me. There is precious little reason I can think of for a druid to put an innocent animal in harms' way intentionally. My druid's companion in a 3e game once got eaten by a dracolich: what the hell was my druid doing bringing his friend to fight a dracolich? He was incentivized to do so because of the class's structure, but it doesn't make any sense at all. Summoning is even worse: you just pull in a random woodland creature and make it fight something in your place? Who does that? I can't think of anything more un-druid than that, to be honest. I wouldn't mind at all if the animal companion was detatched from the druid entirely, and implemented as a non-class-tied specialty, but summoning really is objectionable to me rather completely.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 4:45PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
A D&D Druid for me is an ardent defender and friend of nature, to the exclusion of all other concerns, wether it's law or chaos, good or evil. My ideal druid is an elemental caster who wieldes the raw power of nature, not power granted to them by a god like a cleric. The druid has a strong friendship with the denizens of nature, and has a strong woodlands ally to accompany him, who's more of a close friend and probably chose the druid rather than the other way around.
Druids should be very knowledgeable of plants and animals, should be almost impossible to track while moving through familiar terrain, and should instinctively know wether certain plants or other vegetation is good to eat or not. Druids are probably often lone wolves, who don't pretend to get along well with other people, and aren't that interested in how people or society views them. They're more of a elemental force themselves in a way, beyond such concerns.
I've never been big on shapeshifting very much. To a degree I'd rather see shapeshifting moved to a beast warrior sort of class and remake druids into solely casters and pet masters, despite the long history of shapeshift.
As far as summons go, I can see how they may not make sense to people. I choose to see it this way. Any animal a Druid may summon has accepted that in order to protect nature, one has to be willing to fight and sometimes lay down one's life. Death shouldn't be considered a horrible thing to a Druid, as it's simply the final part of the wheel of life. You don't send an animal into combat needlessly or frivolously, and shouldn't treat them as "cannon fodder". A Druid is nature's "General" in a sense, and has the authority to ask animals to make that final sacrifice if the need is great. There's also the reciprocal side. If a Druid is expeted to fight for nature, then it's nature end of the bargain to fight for the druid.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 4:48PM
#6
|
|
|
To me? An overly specific and unnecessary class that would be better served as a cleric with nature domains.
My D&D Next Philosophy: In this age of user created content, Wizards needs to take a step toward embracing that. Modularity is certainly a start, but the best possible way for Wizards to encourage homebrew is to strip the mechanics of flavor, and to ensure that they are as balanced as possible. Players today should be able to start with a concept and build that character. They should not have to force it into narrowly-defined classes that restrict the ability to play the character you want.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 5:01PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
The druid has too much; spellcasting, wildshape, animal companions... and the line between durid and cleric of a nature diety isn't too clear (though admittedly clearer than the line between cleric of a war diety and a paladin).
Animal companions should be gained through a specialty -- call it "Beastmaster" or something -- much like how you gain a familiar from the Magic-User specialty. In fact, I would be surprised if this isn't the way how animal companions get handled in the final game.
That would leave the Druid to be a nature-based spellcaster who can wildshape. In my ideal world, a Druid could dabble in several forms or focus on just one type of animal and get enhanced abilities with it.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 5:12PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
The druid and barbarian are akin to the cleric and fighter, just different styles based on culture and means to an end. Although a shaman is more of a personal path, and seeking your inner self based on spirit guides, so it is different from the druid and cleric. They are all good concepts.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 5:17PM
#9
|
|
|
A druid is a defender of nature, and the balance of life. They are also a part of nature: shapeshifting is critical to the concept, and it is what separates the druid class from everyone else.
What about the wizard, with polymorph (self)? And stepping outside of D&D, magical shapeshifters in fantasy are more often mages and tricksters than nature-dudes.
The summoning and animal companion aspects of prior editions don't hold much interest for me. There is precious little reason I can think of for a druid to put an innocent animal in harms' way intentionally. My druid's companion in a 3e game once got eaten by a dracolich: what the hell was my druid doing bringing his friend to fight a dracolich? He was incentivized to do so because of the class's structure, but it doesn't make any sense at all. Summoning is even worse: you just pull in a random woodland creature and make it fight something in your place? Who does that? I can't think of anything more un-druid than that, to be honest. I wouldn't mind at all if the animal companion was detatched from the druid entirely, and implemented as a non-class-tied specialty, but summoning really is objectionable to me rather completely.
Friends and allies help each other in their struggles. I don't think you're giving the animals as much credit as an actual druid would. A wolf may not understand the finer points of grammar or fluid dynamics engineering, but it can understand friendship and danger. There is no fundamental difference, to a typical druid, between animal and human(oid), and in particular there's no fundamental difference between his loyal companion the wolf and his loyal companion the fighter. Both aid the druid out of mutual respect and common goals, and the druid aids both in turn.
Sure, if the player plays his druid as someone who treats his companion as a mindless and expendable slave, that might be a problem. But in all honesty, that's something I've rarely seen in druid players. They tend to like characterizing their companions and caring for them.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 5:19PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
To me? An overly specific and unnecessary class that would be better served as a cleric with nature domains.
You really, honestly think that the sorts of things we're talking about in our posts are adequately represented by a cleric with a mace and nature spells?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
