posted over on ENworld
basically, 4th ed druids arne't druids...they lack healing powers!
it's weird, they do have one, very damn obvious heal ability, but only at level 16, and bar a handful with minor healing as a secondary effects, that's it!
Meh, doesn't make sense.
they are now "controllers" and only "leaders" get healing.
I dunno if they gave druids the Primal Restoration spell by accident, or forgot to add in more heals at other levels.
Most odd.
I don't see Athasia druids split into "druids, shamans and wardens"
I just see 'em as DRUIDS!
Shamans go aorund with spirits...while Athas has "spirits of the land", such things aren't common at all, compared to normal D&D settings, due ot the Grey etc.
Shamans are the "Healers" of the PHB II classes (along with bards, who are definatley not ok for Athas, being arcane healer/tricksters)
Wardens are sort of like "defenders of nature". Interesting, can definately see that for folk driving off defilers etc.
So think I'm gonna give Athasian "druids" an innate regen, or a heal, ala clerics, for now.
The most wonderful aspect of 4th edition is that since it is power based, there is no problem with swapping out powers from another class. Now one should be a little careful and not go over board but to insert a minor healing power would not be game breaking.
*throws on his "I love 4th Edition" t-shirt*
Dark Sun druids, that is to say, characters who in-game call themselves "druids", are mechanically going to be either a Druid, a Shaman, a Warden, or a combination of two of those via multiclassing. Druids are the shapeshifting types who also control the battlefield. Shamans are the healer types you mention above, and their spirit companion can very easily be reflavored to be an aspect of a Spirit of the Land rather than a totem animal. Wardens are the most combat-oriented defenders of the wilds, manifesting raw elemental power, and taking it straight to the opponent. The Shaman and the Warden can take the Druid multiclass feat, and voila, you can shapeshift, gaining one of the major Druid roleplay-centric class features.
The one hick I see is that barbarians now use the Primordial power source, meaning that nature is giving it to them. So barbarians are now quite different from 3e's barbarians, which raged for no good reason. So outside of their name, 4e's barbarians are now another thematic offshoot of the druid. So that's druid, shaman, warden, and barbarian.
1) Shamans have been around from 2ned ed, so you cannot say they are a "facet of druids", easily. They are most definately not druids.
Druids deal with the living world at a basic level, shamans deal with spirits and visions.
2) Druids always could heal, though not as good as clerics, for past 30 odd years of (A)D&D!
3) The Guaridna Druid has a Leader secondary role'...yet doesn't have the heals to help bakc it up in a party that needs such.
4) Druids have long bene the "healers" in ranger/barbarian cmapaigns or settings.
5) They do have a very conscpicous heal, as I noted, at lvl 16, yet get no other such thing at any other time
that is a massively glaring inconsistancy.
Either the deisgners forgot to take it out, or forgot to add more in.
it's about the equivlaent of a lvl 10 cleric spell (a burst group heal).
So you cannot say "druids are not healers!" when they obviously are...for one spell.
Very odd.
6) Have you read DS Or other D&D stuff where the druid goes aorund with a ghoslty spirit? No, that's what shamans do.
An Athasian "Spirit of the Land" is most definately not a "ghost, wraith, insubstantial thing", please note.
7) Wild Shape is almost useless in 4th ed, bar for RP issues or for any half decent DM, scouting missions/stealth. Please read up on it, it's nothing liek it was before.
Basically, you get a Shift 1 when you trigger the ability, get to use "wild shape only powers" (which you couldn't use otherwise so there' sno benefit/loss to WIld Shape); can't use Implements (so that's a loss)
Your stats don't change at all.
The non-stat change is cool, stops abuse etc, but...it's, meh , only good for scouting as an animal, and that's not even noted in the rules and it's a Medium animal, no size changes.
I'm not saying druids should be "super dooper healers", as they weren't super healers in 1st, 2nd or tightly run 3rd ed.
They were less effective healers than clerics by design, but were most definatley healers.
So, IMHO, they should have heals in their Utility lines. or mayb a regen power, as regeneration definatley seems approporiate to them (see the Invigorate line form 3rd ed)
I'm a DM, I have no wish to see munchkinized uber-dr00ds in any of my games, no matter the edition, neither do I want druids to make no sense either!
Controller druid is fine, with secodnary leader or striker, makes sense. But still needs some heals.
A Fighter is not ACTUALLY called a "Fighter" in the game-world itself. They are called Thog, Warrior of the Eleventh Tribe of An'tel, or just, "warrior". They are Sir Balthar Truefate, Exalted Knight of the Golden Vine, or just, "knight". They are Sharanna Giltleaf, Swordmistress of the Sacred Vale, or simply, "swordmistress". They are Grell Frostbeard, Soldier of the House of Frostbeard, Scion of the Mithril Anvil, or simply, "soldier". They are not Thog, Sir Balthar, Sharanna, or Grell, "fighter".
On Athas, for a more direct example, Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and (if allowed to be present by a DM) Artificers are ALL either a preserver, or a defiler, depending on how they choose to draw their arcane magic from the world. Rather, those are all different mechanics representing different paths taken by characters who, in-game, would be considered ONLY a "preserver", or a "defiler". They would not be called "wizard", or "sorcerer", or "warlock", or "artificer" by the residents of the world, except in the vague sense (i.e., "I despise all of you d***ed sorcerers, be you preserver or defiler."; That statement could very well be directed towards a character of the Wizard class.) The actual act of defiling, with the way 4E is set up, is more likely to be a series of feats that allow anyone from an arcane class to gain extra power in exchange for destroying part of the world each time they do so. There is absolutely no reason why there should be a need to, and plenty of fluff-reasons NOT to make a distinct class called, "defiler", or to make a preserver and defiler version of each of the arcane classes, or, worse, to ban all arcane classes that aren't either Preserver (Wizard?) or Defiler. Anyone who draws magic, arcane magic on Athas, from the lifeforce of living things (primarily plants), must choose how they draw said power.
Psionics, too, are far more likely to have crossover fluff-wise. Members of the Order aren't all going to be Psions. Some will be Psions, others Psychic Warriors, others Mindblades, or Erudites, or Ardents, or whatever names are chosen for the 4E psionic classes. The same holds true for all of the academies of the Will and the Way located in each city-state, or present in each village or slave tribe, and so on. None of them, however, will be addressed by those class titles. Rather, they will ALL be powerful users of the Way, and addressed as such in-game, even though they come from a wide variety of classes. They will be referred to as masters, novices, apprentices, adepts of the Way, as telepaths, and so on.
Expanding that such that most of the primal classes are likely to be addressed by the populace as "druid", and tied in to the primal Spirits of the Land, meshes very well indeed with Athasian lore. Even within the lore, some druids are more likely to focus on air (control?), or fire (damage?), or water (healing?), or earth (buffing?), or some combination thereof. However, you will not have a character who is at the top-end of skill and power in all four elements, save perhaps at the epic tier. How each such person manifests their mastery of the elements will not be in precisely the same manner. Two air/fire "druids" could very easily focus on QUITE different uses for just those two elements. On top of that, you have their ties to the Spirits of the Land, and those ties too will differ for each and every character in the game world, each focusing on their own unique combination of specific manifestations of that link.
A "Shaman" doesn't need to have a "ghost, wraith, insubstantial thing" for a companion. There is zero compelling mechanical reason for it to be required to be such a thing. It is nothing more than fluff, and is entirely mutable. It might be a wisp of air, or the earth rising up into a humanoid shape awash with roots and moss and plants and so on, or thousands of insects swarming, small animals from all around tying up key areas, a blazing ball of fire like a miniature version of the dark sun itself, a being composted of air, earth, fire and water in an ever-shifting variety, or any variety of window dressing to describe what is mechanically the Shaman's "Spirit Companion".
Having come from an extensive background in HERO System (in addition to D&D since BD&D), it distresses me greatly to see so many folks allowing themselves to get so hung up on particular fluff, when that is the single least important aspect of the system itself. The fluff for a given world is certainly important to the FLUFF of that world. In that regard, 4E fumbles, not in the mechanical structure itself. They have still tied, at the very least in the minds of a multitude of players, mechanics and fluff too intimately. Mechanics are mechanics, and should be mechanically balanced. Fluff, flavor, campaign information, however? No. No way. Just because Wizards of the Coast calls a Cleric a "cleric", does NOT mean that in a given campaign that any and all characters who likewise choose the Cleric class should follow even a fraction of the fluff WotC placed in the Cleric entry. Fluff they placed to make their specific game worlds, be it the Points of Light setting, the Forgotten Realms setting, the Eberron setting, or whatever other world(s) they release, interesting worlds to play in. Nothing more, nothing less. They've even explicitly said so, repeatedly, in both the PHB and the DMG, strongly encouraging not only changing fluff around at-will, radically altering entire descriptions of any and all powers to suit a given theme, they've even gone so far as to say that changing actual DAMAGE TYPES on powers is perfectly acceptable, yet will not decay the system's integrity.
Should repost this on the original thread.
Tectuktitlay, nice way of putting it. And yay, Another HERO system player.
I didn't delete it all to protect anyone's tender sensibilities, I just didn't want to read all the resulting counter-rants since no one would heed my own words anyway.
It is the most foolish notion of all that a thing should continue being the way it is simply because it has been that way in the past. Druids are most characterized by powers that affect, and are affected by, nature. Healing is really hardly natural. Mother nature is a cold-hearted, uncaring, [female canine] and I like her that way. She won't heal jack-crap. She's annihilated entire ecosystems just because it wasn't doing what she wanted. So...no more healing for druids. I don't know that I care for shamans being healers...mother nature just DOESN'T do healing.
As for wild shape...it's a power that functions somewhat like an implement. It's not meant to be a stand-alone power. You're supposed to use the Beast Form powers through it, many of which can be quite devastating.
Now...after all I've said, I'm quite sure no reasonable person would want me to side with them, but I have to say that Tectuktitlay made a far better case for the matter than I have. It's obvious to me he has a great deal more patience for...certain points of view...than I do. So on both that and his wonderfully stated point, I commend him.
4th ed druid does have healing powers, but the "real" ones are BOTH at level 16, and not repeated anywhere else..to have two area effect heals at that level, but not a single other direct at all, never mind AOE heal, is bizarre!!
You cannot just ignore that.
Nor the other odd heal spell they get a daily at lvl 1 AOE, it damages and in return does minor healing to the party. And another utility spell that, iirc, stop forced movement and gives a small heal = to COn modifier.
This is all very odd, as if they ran out of room to add more such powers, or they had problems coming up with a coherent theme, or to remove them.
You cannot just ignore that.
Actually, yes we can. You cannot, but that is your personal issue.
In principle I like how the new Wildshape is handled, with a mutable base of fluff upon which powers are attached but it seems there are two camps and both are well entrenched and inconsolable: one side says the old ways were an anathema that can never be repeated while the other is disappointed that such an iconic feature is now toothless.
As Druids are now Controllers though, overall class balance needs to be weighed with special attention and thats where things get seriously tricky; Controllers I think most people will agree are the most difficult of the Roles to master and can on occasion be very situational.
In theory (at least) Rock-Paper-Scissors should ensure that each has strengths and weaknesses - the real problem the class faces is the prevalent fear that there might come 'one class to rule them all' - an over-reaction but arguably unavoidable.
It does look to me like the developers wanted to allow Druids more healing but likely in testing and debate had to keep it toned right down; A highly mobile controller built for melee with serious healing... would be an absolute monster - if they were doing all of that without restriction. Plenty of other classes can heal though, so even as a fan of the flexible Druid it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the investment in working out a very tricky balance that scales through 30 levels and all ranges of gear (which in 4e have an even more dramatic and integral effect on the game than ever before).
The features and balancing of the Druid could've been handled better... I have a hunch that it really came down to the wire for them in several areas and that only time constraints kept them from rounding things out better.
I suspect we'd have similar discussions if the Invoker (for example) had existed in previous editions; Arcane Power has shown Wizards have been listening to feedback about Wizards and waved a magic wand in their direction, general opinion seems to suggest that Paladins should expect some extra polish, it's just a matter of time for the rest.
Bring Dark Sun BACK!!!!
Need to be stronger than the other guy? Brown bear it is! (or whichever one gave the 27 Strength value)
A bonus to Fortitude defense in beast form would be nice. That would represent a boost to general strength from changing into a strong animal. It would make it more difficult for enemies to escape your Grab (unless they target Reflex with Acrobatics... but that's another story), make it more difficult to push you around with forced movement modes, and lastly make you resistant to Fort-based attacks.
For that matter, maybe allowing you to gain a boost on Fort or Reflex (depending on what animal it is) would be more fitting... and only for full druids (so multiclassers have to further weigh what their main class is).
For the healing; I was greatly upset as well. After reading the "Mother Nature doesn't give two squirts of ****" above, I am oddly calm about the matter. My bigger beef has become the way beast form is handled.
I think keeping it all in powers is fine and balanced... but what kind of powers they are could be re-evaluated. Many of the powers that are daily or encounter could be dropped down to encounter or at-will without affecting game balance (mostly talking about the utility powers).
I used to be a big nay-sayer of the Avenger class as well... but after seeing that in action, I stood corrected. I'll reserve final judgement on the Druid after watching it in action
I think it odd that Defense scores are unaltered in Beast form. That was the main use I got out of wild shape in 3.x
Need to be stronger than the other guy? Brown bear it is! (or whichever one gave the 27 Strength value)
A bonus to Fortitude defense in beast form would be nice. That would represent a boost to general strength from changing into a strong animal. It would make it more difficult for enemies to escape your Grab (unless they target Reflex with Acrobatics... but that's another story), make it more difficult to push you around with forced movement modes, and lastly make you resistant to Fort-based attacks.
For that matter, maybe allowing you to gain a boost on Fort or Reflex (depending on what animal it is) would be more fitting... and only for full druids (so multiclassers have to further weigh what their main class is).
For the healing; I was greatly upset as well. After reading the "Mother Nature doesn't give two squirts of ****" above, I am oddly calm about the matter. My bigger beef has become the way beast form is handled.
I think keeping it all in powers is fine and balanced... but what kind of powers they are could be re-evaluated. Many of the powers that are daily or encounter could be dropped down to encounter or at-will without affecting game balance (mostly talking about the utility powers).
I used to be a big nay-sayer of the Avenger class as well... but after seeing that in action, I stood corrected. I'll reserve final judgement on the Druid after watching it in action
I can see why they did the shape change rules for 4th ed, and messing with it would be bad, short of feats or paragon classes. It was too easily abused, and complicated, in 3.5
but definately a bit more healing if they want to have a secondary role' as leaders!
Mother nature is a cold-hearted, uncaring, [female canine] and I like her that way. She won't heal jack-crap. She's annihilated entire ecosystems just because it wasn't doing what she wanted. So...no more healing for druids. I don't know that I care for shamans being healers...mother nature just DOESN'T do healing.
I would probably agree with this argument if we were talking about previous editions. But in 4e we have warlords. Those great "humanitarians" warlords have healing powers. That would seem to indicate that caring is no longer a requirement for healing powers, and that nature could heal just as much as a the leader of a ravaging horde.
In any case, 4e druids are what they are. I wonder if a suggestion for Dark Sun could be a switching of titles of some of the classes. The "druids" of previous editions that worship Spirits of the Lands for their powers in 4e would take the cleric class. While the elemental "clerics" of previous editions that worshiped lords of the elemental take the druid class in 4e.
Would that capture the original flavor of the classes you are lokking for Silverblade?
I would probably agree with this argument if we were talking about previous editions. But in 4e we have warlords. Those great "humanitarians" warlords have healing powers. That would seem to indicate that caring is no longer a requirement for healing powers, and that nature could heal just as much as a the leader of a ravaging horde.
That is because hit points in D&D are not, I repeat not, nor have they EVER been a representation of purely physical damage. Never. From the time D&D first came out, and every edition since, formal or no, hit points have been an abstraction. They are a combination of physical damage, endurance, willpower, mental stability and well-being, inspiration and morale, and more. Thus, while a cleric actually physically heals you (those nifty abilities that heal without costing a surge), all of the leader classes also inspire you to continue the fight, or to tap your reserves of endurance and willpower, and so on.
A druid fits neither the physical healing, as Lucifer pointed out, nor inspiring others to greatness. They are, by and large, secretive, controlling loners who use subterfuge, knowledge, and violence to fight for mother nature or one or more Spirits of the Land, against the machinations of civilization's tightening grip. Thus, on either front, druids make little sense as healers, save preserving some sort of sacred cow that barely made sense to begin with.
Now, using the blood of the living to aid nature itself, to feed plants and animals? That's a whole other story.
In any case, 4e druids are what they are. I wonder if a suggestion for Dark Sun could be a switching of titles of some of the classes. The "druids" of previous editions that worship Spirits of the Lands for their powers in 4e would take the cleric class. While the elemental "clerics" of previous editions that worshiped lords of the elemental take the druid class in 4e.
Would that capture the original flavor of the classes you are lokking for Silverblade?
We've already mentioned that kind of association above. Quite literally all of the primal classes, with the possible exception of barbarians, and a number of builds of various divine classes WOULD be druids in Dark Sun. Wardens, Shamans, Druids, possibly barbarians, and more, would be called "druids" by the populace of Athas, in the same manner that ALL Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Artificers, and Swordmages, and possibly even Bards as they exist in 4E, would be called "sorcerers", else be called "defilers" or "preservers" (depending on their inclination) by the populace at large. They won't be called by their class name. Whereas the upcoming Assassin class would be called a "bard" or "assassin" or "hired killer", or whatever else their background warrants.
This holds true for all classes. Fighters aren't actually called "fighters". Paladins aren't actually called "paladins". Rogue's aren't actually called "rogues" save in a casual, "what a dashing rogue" sense. Rangers are rarely called "rangers", more often called "scouts" or merely one of many classes simply called "soldiers" by the populace.
Class names are metagame, out-of-character designations that very, very rarely actually apply in-game to a given character. People get stuck on these particular designations far too much, when they are just about the least important part of a given class, being little more than a placeholder, and, again, metagame designation intended for use by the players, not the characters.
That is because hit points in D&D are not, I repeat not, nor have they EVER been a representation of purely physical damage. Never. From the time D&D first came out, and every edition since, formal or no, hit points have been an abstraction. They are a combination of physical damage, endurance, willpower, mental stability and well-being, inspiration and morale, and more. Thus, while a cleric actually physically heals you (those nifty abilities that heal without costing a surge), all of the leader classes also inspire you to continue the fight, or to tap your reserves of endurance and willpower, and so on.
I did not think anyone one was arguing over what hit points were or were not. I believe the discussion was over where druids could be rationalized as healers. Lucifier's point was that mother-nature does not care therefore druid's should not heal. He also pointed out that his arguement applies to shamans that do have healing, and questions where they should.
A druid fits neither the physical healing, as Lucifer pointed out, nor inspiring others to greatness. They are, by and large, secretive, controlling loners who use subterfuge, knowledge, and violence to fight for mother nature or one or more Spirits of the Land, against the machinations of civilization's tightening grip. Thus, on either front, druids make little sense as healers, save preserving some sort of sacred cow that barely made sense to begin with.
But that is all Dark Sun fluff. 4e seems to go by the rule that fluff does not dictate abilities. All that is needed for abilities is a rational for the power source. Something like this:
Now, using the blood of the living to aid nature itself, to feed plants and animals? That's a whole other story.
nature is also about nurture, as well as killing.
But that's not healing in a direct major sense.
note druids in 4thed, as I 've repeatedly said, DO get healing powers, you cannot keep dismissing that in this question, like it or not ;)
But, they are all clumped into one narrow level area, bar a handful of oddities.
Druids in 4th ed ARE designed to be controllers, with leader or striker secondary function depending on build etc.
Leaders buff/heal allies, it's inescapable!! That's how 4th ed works.
To function in that as a secondary capacity, they need more healing/buffing powers cause they lack sufficient spells.
They do get heal powers, but as I said, all basically within a couple of levels (2 powers) and 3 or other very odd minor heal or heal like abilities, which is weird.
I'd expect Primal Power to fill this large gap in.
Now, me, I think druids would have regeneration, or "life steal" powers, with a minimum of direct heals.
Boosting creatures bodies' healing ability (regeneration), or stealing the vitality to give to others though not in same was undead, more like a swap, which is exaclty how their Fire of Life lvl 1 daily seems to work but they get no other such powers, ever, hence, an oversight? and they get Life Leech Thorns lvl 29 which can heal self only (and is pretty damned potent!)
Unyielding roots is close burst to help allies/self not get pushed/pulled etc, can also regain hps = to Con modiifer if bloodied and can be sustained.
Primal Restoration lvl 16 utility close burst2 , all can spend healing surge or make a save
Howl of the Wild lvl 16 close burst5 utility, you spend a healing surge, and all can regain 2d6hps.
The lack of continuation of those themes, is weird. Please go read the PHB2!