|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 11:39PM
#111
|
|
|
I guess I'm confused as to why the animal forms have to be as good as fighters, what high level fighter can't take on a boar, bear, or a wolf?
I like the base level Druid as a utility shape changer, (turns into a cat to sneak past the guards, a bird to scout ahead, a wolf to track, etc) and while many of these shapes might be better in combat than the wizened old druid in coarse brown robes, I still think he should be on par with the cleric rather than the fighter.
I don't know what they have in mind for prestige classes/paragon paths but I think that would be better space to make a druid of a certain level have access to a raging bear option that makes him a monster in melee, but the idea that melee capabilities means he has to equal fighter . . . I don't follow.
I agree with this. Which is why I suggested somewhere earlier in the thread that they allow you to choose to focus on spellcasting, and shapeshifting. It allows you to have the other as a backup, but allows the main choice to be powerful because you don't have both at a crazy level.
EG. Spellcaster druid gets 10 levels of spells, but more utility like shifting as mentioned above. Birds, cats, etc.
Shapeshifter might get 4-5 levels of spells, but can shift into medium and up sized creatures, as well as gain sweet bonuses to natural attacks and what have you.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 11:41PM
#112
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I guess I'm confused as to why the animal forms have to be as good as fighters, what high level fighter can't take on a boar, bear, or a wolf?
High level fighters can. But high level druids won't be turning into a boar, bear, or wolf, they'll be turning into dire boar, dire bear, and dire wolf.
And the point of this is to allow for multiple thematic expressions of similar functional roles. If I want to play a defensive, frontline combatant that's tough as hell and protects his allies, my only option is Fighter. Maybe Paladin. But what if I want to have more of a significant connection to nature than simply fluffing my Fighter as a treehugger?
There shouldn't be only one mechanical pathway to a particular function. Other games do it, including 3e and 4e. 4e did it rather well, actually, with the defensive characters as particular high points. They're all good, but wholly different, yet they accomplish the same function in a party.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 11:44PM
#113
|
|
|
Needs more shifting into a Dire Shark imo.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 11:57PM
#114
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I once wildshaped my 4e druid into a 40' land speed Medium rainbow trout with Grasping Claws.
Rawr.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 03, 2012 - 2:50AM
#115
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
|
I guess I'm confused as to why the animal forms have to be as good as fighters, what high level fighter can't take on a boar, bear, or a wolf?
High level fighters can. But high level druids won't be turning into a boar, bear, or wolf, they'll be turning into dire boar, dire bear, and dire wolf.
And the point of this is to allow for multiple thematic expressions of similar functional roles. If I want to play a defensive, frontline combatant that's tough as hell and protects his allies, my only option is Fighter. Maybe Paladin. But what if I want to have more of a significant connection to nature than simply fluffing my Fighter as a treehugger?
There shouldn't be only one mechanical pathway to a particular function. Other games do it, including 3e and 4e. 4e did it rather well, actually, with the defensive characters as particular high points. They're all good, but wholly different, yet they accomplish the same function in a party.
A big +1 to this.
I want (at least) one Druid type that's a tough frontliner. A were wolf/bear/boar type, maybe an elemental or treant type, and maybe just a Druid who Stoneskins and heals himself while tremoring and entangling foes to the ground.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 03, 2012 - 9:39PM
#116
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2010
|
Druids should maintain their own spell list of course (in fact certain kinds of druids should have unique spells). But we can't go around doling out extra goodies to the classes already in danger of being OP just because the old games didn't employ sound class design.
Why not? balance isn't considered important in next is it?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 03, 2012 - 9:41PM
#117
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2010
|
I agree with this. Which is why I suggested somewhere earlier in the thread that they allow you to choose to focus on spellcasting, and shapeshifting. It allows you to have the other as a backup, but allows the main choice to be powerful because you don't have both at a crazy level.
EG. Spellcaster druid gets 10 levels of spells, but more utility like shifting as mentioned above. Birds, cats, etc.
Shapeshifter might get 4-5 levels of spells, but can shift into medium and up sized creatures, as well as gain sweet bonuses to natural attacks and what have you.
D&D uses spells for all sorts of magical abilities why have separate shapeshifting and spellcasting when you can just have a variety of polymorph spells that a given druid can use or not based on how much shapechanging he wants to d?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 03, 2012 - 9:47PM
#118
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2010
|
Shapeshifting powers as availiable to humans are generally associated with another class rather than shape-shifitng as an independent power.
Shapeshifting deserves its own class, it's just not got a lot of precedent as a class.
The berserker was a class that shapechanged at higher level originally a long long time ago originally. The druid shapechanged into animals 3/day thats not something to build the whole class around it was cool it was aproprite th the mythology of the Druid but its nt the whole story. sure a changer class could be a good thing to add to the game much later but rightnow theyre doing existing classes and the druid is such a class one that does a lot of things besides shapechange while still being able to shapechange don't go breaking it up like 4e did.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 03, 2012 - 9:50PM
#119
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
When the jack of all trades .. is actually a master of each ... all reason fades.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 8:01PM
#120
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2012
|
I like this discussion. A few things I'd like:
Some regeneration/healing spells: I like the idea of having a different style healing spell in the druid's arsenal and why not have some spells that regenerate health over a number of turns.
Stoneskin: a mainstay damage reduction spell traditionally of the druid's arsenal
A greater damaging entangle spell: a thorny spell that stops foes dead in their tracks
To the point of the elemental forms listed in the original post: Can't say I'd fully support this elemental version in core. Maybe a variant/prestige class on the druid would convey this. Otherwise I'd advocate traditional animal forms as the druid's base and elemental forms as a variant class/prestige class in a secondary book or allow a specialization of the druid class emphasizing shapeshifting. I'd be more inclined to recommend the former rather than the latter though...
|
|
|
