|
8 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 9:56PM
#31
|
|
|
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.
I think this sums up my feelings pretty well. (though I usually fulfill my furry concepts in the race department.) Cept add in the fact that 4e Druid and its Wild Shape rules was a refluffing heaven for all sorts of ideas. Honestly, it's where I would probably go to make a Wilder in 4e. Really stretches my definition of Wilder and the Druid's definition of Wild Shape (still human with finger claws and going CAWAZY) but hey, gotta do what you gotta do.
Turning into a wretched being + swarm of bugs was pretty flapping awesome too. (I kind of had to hybrid and MC and Theme things up to get what I really wanted. But hey, it worked.)
I think I'd be cool with Shaman coming back and filling the Primal caster role more than the druid though. Again, spirit animal thingy was a great place for refluffing… I think Primal might be my favorite power source in 4e, for reasons that all have nothing to do with primal characters. :P
What I think the Wilder Design Goals should be. Psionic Homebrew Mk2! Changed core, Focus Points, Psionic Potentials, stuff! Very basic core stuff. :P Homebrew Psionics blog posts archive: Spoiler:
Show
UPDATED Dec/18/2012: BAMN! Random update with a modest amount of hard rules for Animal Affinity, Telepathy, and Telekinesis. ADDED: Discipline Burn and more "soft" ideas.
Dec/13/2012: Small Psionics Homebrew Update, now that I'm done with Finals.
Really old.
Nov/02/2012:
I'm working on a homebrew Wilder, and so a homebrew Psionics system. Here's a 3 part post with info on where I am in the design process.
Part 1, Hard rules/example soulknife discipline: Link.
Part 2, Basic ideas/goals on basic numbers and classes: Link.
Part 3, Direction/ideas I want to take with specific disciplines: Link.:3
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 10:52PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
So, you're sticking your head in the sand regarding the last fifteen years of Druids?
On what grounds do you justify denying us that which we find cool? We can't force you to play them, but you're wanting to force us not to?
Sorry, no.
And here I thought the question asked was "what's a druid to you". Maybe I mis-read the title?
Well, I've told you what a druid is to me.
And I've told you what a druid isn't to me.
If you've a problem with that? I don't care.
As for the last 15 years of Druids? I dislike the heavy shape-shifting/super animal companion direction they went. ALOT. It's mostly an MMO fueled travesty IMO. So why shouldn't I ignore/reject it?
Now as to denying you....
Unfortunately, unless you're trying to play it in a game I'm DMing, I can't deny you "that wich you find cool".
And unlike the rest of you? My not liking something is not the same as me arguing that that thing shouldn't be an option in the books.
My hope is that whatever sees print allows for multiple aproaches of how to play (Druids).
That way? I'll keep playing my (mostly) Celtic flavoured, nature based, priests. And you'll keep playing your version of the class.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 11:06PM
#33
|
|
|
I think I'd be cool with Shaman coming back and filling the Primal caster role more than the druid though.
Now we're getting into a question of nomenclature, but based on the D&D game's history, I'd keep the "druid" as the core nature-caster class. At its heart, the druid class has always been a caster. While it has been inordinately effective as a shapeshifter and petmaster as well, those have only been capabilities of the class, not its conceptual essence. Wild shape in particular was just an incidental class feature until players started realizing how ungodly powerful it was in 3E. Making shapeshifting the defining feature of the druid would be like making righteous might the defining feature of the cleric.
Of course, it's perfectly fine if WotC decides to spin this ability off into a class that specializes in it. But that wouldn't be a druid. It'd be a "skin-changer" or "totemist" or something. Calling it a "druid" would be doing a disservice to all the players who played their druids in a different way in previous editions - just as calling Mearls' proposed warrior/mage class a "sorcerer" would be doing a disservice to all the players who played their sorcerers differently.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 11:16PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
to me the image of a druid comes from the 1980's tv series robin of sherwood.
and the character herne the huner in that series who wears a stag head as helmet.
it doesen't realy show herne using magic, more herbalism and things like that.
But he seems to know everything that happens in herwood forest.
also when inportant things happen in the forest there always seems to be a stag to witness it, and many of the common people think herne can change into a stag though he never sais he can
the mysterous protecter of the forest.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 11:18PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
I think I'd be cool with Shaman coming back and filling the Primal caster role more than the druid though.
Now we're getting into a question of nomenclature, but based on the D&D game's history, I'd keep the "druid" as the core nature-caster class. At its heart, the druid class has always been a caster. While it has been inordinately effective as a shapeshifter and petmaster as well, those have only been capabilities of the class, not its conceptual essence. Wild shape in particular was just an incidental class feature until players started realizing how ungodly powerful it was in 3E. Making shapeshifting the defining feature of the druid would be like making righteous might the defining feature of the cleric.
Of course, it's perfectly fine if WotC decides to spin this ability off into a class that specializes in it. But that wouldn't be a druid. It'd be a "skin-changer" or "totemist" or something. Calling it a "druid" would be doing a disservice to all the players who played their druids in a different way in previous editions - just as calling Mearls' proposed warrior/mage class a "sorcerer" would be doing a disservice to all the players who played their sorcerers differently.
Would having a druid class with the skin changer and totamist you mention and maybe also the shaman as buils options for the class be acceptable to you.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 11:30PM
#36
|
|
|
Would having a druid class with the skin changer and totamist you mention and maybe also the shaman as buils options for the class be acceptable to you.
It would in fact be ideal to me. After all, some players did play their druids as shapeshifting specialists, and it'd be regrettable if they got their characters shunted into a new class - DDN should strive for a goal of keeping every preexisting character in the same class if at all possible.
The caveat to this, though, is that I'm not sure this can be done and still justifiably be called a single class. If under the "Druid" heading are three "options" that are functionally three completely different classes, that's not good.
Also, the shaman was a separate class in 4E, so the question of whether it can continue to stand as a separate class needs to be considered carefully. To take a first stab at a possible distinction: the druid deals with natural forces, where the shaman deals with spirits. The druid directs, the shaman persuades. Think wizard vs. warlock, maybe.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 16, 2012 - 11:37PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Lots of interesting stuff here. Here's my take: Socially, I'd like to see druids as the primal philosopher. They seek balance and while that can mean that some druids are just happy to burn settlements and kill woodcutters, the bulk of them are actually trying to bridge the gap between urban and wild. Their attitudes are informed by the assumption that wild places are under threat from civilisation, but their ways of addressing that issue are quite varied. I think of their power as one that derives from contemplation and study - not bookish study, more observation and meditation. Mechanically, I'd like to see druids as a pure caster that employs spellcraft to channel effects that work with nature as a theme. I like shapeshifting as well but I'd like to see druids make choices about whether they will be a full caster or a shifter with some spells. I want them to be able to cast spells while shifted, but I want the relative power of their shapeshifting to have an impact on their spell selection. Or maybe they have both but their spells are more or less powerful depending on how powerful their current form is. I could totally see traditions achieving the balance between casting and shifting. Oh, and I totally see them as primal and not divine in terms of flavouring. I hope 5e retains power sources and lets that inform their class designs.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 17, 2012 - 2:55AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Dec 29, 2007
|
I haven't had a chance to read any of this thread yet - but maybe that's a good thing. I get to present my opinion without having to think about whatever anybody else has already said.
I see a druid as a magic-user that focuses on manipulation of weather, plants, terrain and to some extent animals. I've always been a little uncomfortable with the animal summoning aspect of the class since the animals must come from somewhere if they're natural, and they're almost always there to soak up damage. It never felt rightly "druidic" to me.
I see them as guardians of natural lore. Educated, but not necessarily in the same ways as those of a more urban bend.
I absolutely do not see them as being shape-shifters in general. In fact my prefered style of druid wouldn't use any wildshape mechanic at all. Save the shapeshifting for the were-creatures and doppelgangers in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 17, 2012 - 3:30AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Fun thread! 
MY DRUID:
- clad in green and leather
- armed with a sickle, scythe or staff
- wears little armor (light hide)
- sage of the unspoiled wilds
- reveres the natural world and honors its deities
- wields the magic of nature (life-giving, plants, the weather)
- speaks with plants and animals
- can take the form of natural beasts
MY DRUID too, with an animal companion as well as CCS! 
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 17, 2012 - 3:32AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
I think I'd be cool with Shaman coming back and filling the Primal caster role more than the druid though.
Now we're getting into a question of nomenclature, but based on the D&D game's history, I'd keep the "druid" as the core nature-caster class. At its heart, the druid class has always been a caster. While it has been inordinately effective as a shapeshifter and petmaster as well, those have only been capabilities of the class, not its conceptual essence. Wild shape in particular was just an incidental class feature until players started realizing how ungodly powerful it was in 3E. Making shapeshifting the defining feature of the druid would be like making righteous might the defining feature of the cleric.
Of course, it's perfectly fine if WotC decides to spin this ability off into a class that specializes in it. But that wouldn't be a druid. It'd be a "skin-changer" or "totemist" or something. Calling it a "druid" would be doing a disservice to all the players who played their druids in a different way in previous editions - just as calling Mearls' proposed warrior/mage class a "sorcerer" would be doing a disservice to all the players who played their sorcerers differently.
This. (Emphasis added.) I definitely like shapeshifting as a feature of the iconic druid, but I'm thinking turning into a squirrel, a raven, or a dog........not a tiger who leaps into battle! ; p While I *DO* think the tiger (et al) option is cool, I think it would be better as an ability unlocked through a specialty or a class build or something rather than a default abilitiy of the "iconic" druid.
To answer the original question, I guess I'd say to me a druid is a nature-based, knowledgable (but not necessarily bookish) sage of old ways who typically puts nature first before concerns of morality or philosophy. Primarily a caster class, though if this were scaled back a touch to balance other abilities it could possibly still feel like a druid. Scaling the spells back to something like a Next warlock might work, but scaling back to a warden (4e) would be too far to still be a "druid" imho.
|
|
|
