I would go controller style with entanglement and summon nature allies. summon swarm, call lightning, flame strike... all good aoe. Changing into a dire bear or elemental would also be cool if things get personal
what do you guys think?
Area affect spells like entangle and stuff can easily fit into the controller, but if the Druid can transfom into different animals or elementals they could be a striker or even a defender.
I think the Druid will be the first real hybrid role character class. That is of course they make the druid capable of using all these types of abilites.
I think the Druid will be the first real hybrid role character class. That is of course they make the druid capable of using all these types of abilites.
They have said that they won't be doing hybrid roles.
The first piece of info that we got was that the first draft of the druid that was written was a hybrid that used wildshape and used weather magic when it wasn't wildshaped. We later got word that they had been playtesting a hybrid Striker/Controller, but that it felt like flipping a switch in going between the roles which they didn't like so they got rid of the idea of hybrid roles.
That is really all that has been said on what the Druid will be doing. My peronal guess is that it has been refocused to weather magic with some wildshaping for utility powers.
They have said that they won't be doing hybrid roles.
Oh, praise be. That's a relief.
The interesting question is what the last primal class will be. Assuming that most people's guesstimates that Theurge and Inquisitor are indeed the last two divine classes that leaves a class starting with W (for details check this thread: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1071100). Will they actually make a were-something class? And how on earth (or Toril, or Eberron, or whateever) are they gonna fit that into the Eberron campaign setting?
The interesting question is what the last primal class will be.
Remember, grid-filling isn't SOP in 4th. There won't necessarily be one controller, one striker, one defender, and one leader for each power source. there may only be three Primal classes. The fourth one may repeat a role (as rangers and rogues do for Martial).
They have said that they won't be doing hybrid roles.
Oh, praise be. That's a relief.
Why would hybrid roles be so bad?
Why would hybrid roles be so bad?
It risks the return of CoDZilla, a character who can do everything and thus renders other classes obsolete.
Remember, grid-filling isn't SOP in 4th. There won't necessarily be one controller, one striker, one defender, and one leader for each power source. there may only be three Primal classes. The fourth one may repeat a role (as rangers and rogues do for Martial).
Well, he didn't say he was expecting the last role to be filled. I think a more interesting question than "Will they fill all the roles?" would be "What will they double up on?" Do they continue to make Strikers the majority, do they do two Controllers to balance out the wizard issue, or something else?
I definitely think we need more controllers. I would like a bit more choice.
There will be either two or three new controllers in PH2: Sorcerer (Arcane Controller; confirmed), an as-yet-unrevealed Divine Controller (confirmed), and potentially a Primal Controller (widely speculated).
In this instance, symmetry may be more incidental than forced. Or there could be two strikers, a leader, and a controller.
Warden
Ah, of course. I had been wondering what the W could stand for. Warden is an obvious answer. I'm looking forward to the Divine Controller as well. Sounds interesting.
Ah, of course. I had been wondering what the W could stand for. Warden is an obvious answer. I'm looking forward to the Divine Controller as well. Sounds interesting.
I'm not buying it. Warden has been used as an alternate name or a title for rangers in D&D's past. I doubt they will echo the Ranger in a primal class. I'm guessing you're looking at Witch, though there are other possibilities as well. Windwright, for instance, strikes me as a potential primal controller that would fit well into Eberron (they could call the same character a Weathersomething, such as a Weathermage, but it sounds more clunky).
Wolf Form
Level 1 Daily
Requirement: You must have choosen the Shapeshifter class path.
Special: You change shape into a Wolf . [Fill in relevant rules for shapechanging at some point] This lasts until the end of the encounter.
Target: One creature in melee
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: X[W] + Strength damage (or whatever they want to do).
Clever name attack
At-Will
Target: One creature in melee
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1W + Strength.
Special: If you are in an animal form, increase damage by +1D6 (or do something defenderish, you get the point).
Entangle
Level 1 Daily (maybe shouldn't be Daily but this is just an example)
Target: All creatures in area burst 2 within 10 squares
Attack: Wisdom vs. Reflex
Hit: The target is immobilized. Require some kind of check to get out. Maybe penalities to attacks too. Any creature who starts their turn or enters the zone is subject to another attack.
Special: If you chose the controller path, this power lasts until the end of your next turn and you can sustain it as a minor.
It would not be hard for one path to have controller powers and one path to have defender/striker (i.e. shapeshifting) powers.
I think they could do Druid as a hybrid.
But they're not, so, so far we're looking at:
Druid: either a shape-shifter (defender or striker) or weather boy (controller).
The W class: possibly Warden (defender or striker) or Witch (controller) or Wildshaper (defender or striker).
Any other speculation I'm missing?
So my (metaphorical) money is now on 'witch' being the primal controller class and 'druid' being either a wildshaping defender or a second controller (or, less likely, leader) class.
An alternative possibility, of course, is that 'witch' won't be a class at all and that Rashemi 'witches' are actually just druids and shamans in class terms.
So my (metaphorical) money is now on 'witch' being the primal controller class and 'druid' being either a wildshaping defender
That's what I would like to see:
Druid as a Defender that change into critters to protect his buddies.
Witch as a weather spell-casting, woodsy dweller.
I'm not buying it. Warden has been used as an alternate name or a title for rangers in D&D's past. I doubt they will echo the Ranger in a primal class. I'm guessing you're looking at Witch, though there are other possibilities as well. Windwright, for instance, strikes me as a potential primal controller that would fit well into Eberron (they could call the same character a Weathersomething, such as a Weathermage, but it sounds more clunky).
Perhaps a Wildshaper or maybe even Wereshaper.
But they're not, so, so far we're looking at:
I hope they reconsider. A dual class could be cool if done properly. Then again, we are talking about WotC...
I hope they reconsider. A dual class could be cool if done properly. Then again, we are talking about WotC...
They tried it and found that it actually wasn't interesting when you played it, so they dropped it. I don't see them reconsidering that decision unless someone can come up with a better way to make it work that is still balanced.
They tried it and found that it actually wasn't interesting when you played it, so they dropped it. I don't see them reconsidering that decision unless someone can come up with a better way to make it work that is still balanced.
I suppose that is fair enough. Sad, but fair.
Also, at low levels it would be very difficult to ensure a dual-role character actually had sufficient powers to fulfil each role. A controller/defender character would have to have one controller at-will and one defender at-will, which means either the class needs twice as many at-will powers to choose from as anyone else or you've effectively halved your player's choices at character creation. Class features would also need to cover both roles (which again takes us back to the overpowered/underpowered dilemma).
The problem with dual-role classes is that you'll always be either overpowered or underpowered.
I completely disagree, and I am the Lead Designer of a major CCG, so I know a few things about designing. It could be done where one class path (and its powers) are equal to Wizard in controller power, while the other path (and its powers) are equal to Fighter in defender power. It would fracture their powers a bit, making a lot of them only available to one path or another, but that is already being done with fighter and their weapon-based powers. I am confident this could be done.
EDIT: Wow, my first sentence sounds really pompous and condescending. Sorry about that, it was not my intent.
They have said that they won't be doing hybrid roles.
The first piece of info that we got was that the first draft of the druid that was written was a hybrid that used wildshape and used weather magic when it wasn't wildshaped. We later got word that they had been playtesting a hybrid Striker/Controller, but that it felt like flipping a switch in going between the roles which they didn't like so they got rid of the idea of hybrid roles.
So there will be no Diablo II influence then? None of that, "you can cast elemental controler evocations, but not while using a wildshape stance."
I completely disagree, and I am the Lead Designer of a major CCG, so I know a few things about designing. It could be done where one class path (and its powers) are equal to Wizard in controller power, while the other path (and its powers) are equal to Fighter in defender power. It would fracture their powers a bit, making a lot of them only available to one path or another, but that is already being done with fighter and their weapon-based powers. I am confident this could be done.
EDIT: Wow, my first sentence sounds really pompous and condescending. Sorry about that, it was not my intent.
But the problem there is that you would basically be forced into one path or the other in order to remain relevent. At that point the class just ends up being two half classes stuck together, so in the end you sacrifice half of your options for options that you can't take without self-nerfing to some degree. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but making one that would actually work is a lot more complicated then simply giving a class two paths that focus in different directions.
So there will be no Diablo II influence then? None of that, "you can cast elemental controler evocations, but not while using a wildshape stance."
That was actually the basic idea when they were working on the Druid hybrid(well replace elemental with weather), so I would say no.
EDIT: Wow, my first sentence sounds really pompous and condescending. Sorry about that, it was not my intent.
Don't worry, we didn't believe you anyway.
Class features would be more tricky.
(I'm aware of the Druid's non-hybrid role)
It could be done where one class path (and its powers) are equal to Wizard in controller power, while the other path (and its powers) are equal to Fighter in defender power.
But that wouldn't be a dual-role class. It would be two separate classes, each with only half the usual amount of options, shoehorned together into a single class entry. It's a terrible idea.
Even if you could somehow make it work, it would be functionally indistinguishable from a regular multiclass character (wizard/swordmage or swordmage/wizard for example). Which is actually another good reason for junking dual-role classes: 4th edition's multiclassing system makes them redundant.
Don't worry, we didn't believe you anyway.
I see no reason to doubt him. He wouldn't be the only game designer posting in this thread.
But that wouldn't be a dual-role class. It would be two separate classes, each with only half the usual amount of options, shoehorned together into a single class entry. It's a terrible idea.
Even if you could somehow make it work, it would be functionally indistinguishable from a regular multiclass character (wizard/swordmage or swordmage/wizard for example). Which is actually another good reason for junking dual-role classes: 4th edition's multiclassing system makes them redundant.
I am not sure I agree, but that is ok. It sounds like WotC has decided against it anyway.
I see no reason to doubt him. He wouldn't be the only game designer posting in this thread.
Yeah, I am not lying, but that is fine. If some wish not to believe me, it is no skin off my back.
If some wish not to believe me, it is no skin off my back.
But what about your sac?!
It's just that everyone and their mother lately (i.e. since 4th Ed hit the streets) on these boards seems to claim to be some sort of professional designer…
But what about your sac?!
It's just that everyone and their mother lately (i.e. since 4th Ed hit the streets) on these boards seems to claim to be some sort of professional designer…
Well, I am the Lead Designer of the L5R CCG (2nd longest running CCG in existence. 2nd only to M:TG). If you really want proof, go to the L5R forums and PM the Lead Designer.
Anyway, I wasn't bringing it up to try and show off or anything, just to give myself some credentials as I am pretty new to posting over here and my opinion might just be dismissed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duskweaver
The problem with dual-role classes is that you'll always be either overpowered or underpowered.
I completely disagree, and I am the Lead Designer of a major CCG, so I know a few things about designing. It could be done where one class path (and its powers) are equal to Wizard in controller power, while the other path (and its powers) are equal to Fighter in defender power. It would fracture their powers a bit, making a lot of them only available to one path or another, but that is already being done with fighter and their weapon-based powers. I am confident this could be done.
EDIT: Wow, my first sentence sounds really pompous and condescending. Sorry about that, it was not my intent.
I disagree too, but I would make a different approach to design a dual-role class.
1.) All powers should work like "facet spells"´, having a different effect if you are in caster form or wildshape form. Examples: a druidic healing spell grants you an armor class buff when you use that power in your animal shape. Or a spell that summons a swarm of ravens to attack a group of enemy monsters sharpens your wildshape claws to more dangerous talons. A whildwind spell could make you jump over a huge distance in your animal form, and a nature spell that let roots grow to grapple your foes, increases your strength in wildshape form as you grow in size.
2.) Some core powers work like a "specialization". A very important power to give your animal form 100% warrior like surviability or a powerful wizard-like spell will work as an hindrance for, say, 3 rounds, forcing you in one shape. Whan you tap too deep in the feral rage, your mind will not be able too remember its human existence, so you have to stay in your animal form for this time. And if you use the most powerful nature spells, your body will be too exhausted to undergo a tranformation into a beast.
This is just a raw idea, but if balanced correctly, you would have a class that doesnt give up its role switching capability when it reaches higher levels but that can instead specialize itself into one role if the pace of the battle forces it to do so.
To be honest, I think the "hybrid class design" discussion ist really, really interesting and I dont have the opinion that I am just right and know it better than anyone else, I am just curious and eager to keep a instructive talk about that issue, especially when experienced desingers are around.
And to say some last thing: Im sorry for my bad English. I hope you could read it.
The Druid is going to be a shapeshifter.
Now some have said this has changed, that the developers dabbled in hybrid theories, and change up what they thought to do.
I don't believe the hybrid theory and think it is more likely that the Druid is still the shape shifter, and that the trouble was between which forms could do what and how they would clash with the role that has been chosen.
The Shaman is historically the better fit for the weather powers in my mind, I talk here of the generic shamans seen in history and film, not a D&D staple here.
I am going on what has been seen before.
The Druid is going to be a shapeshifter.
Now some have said this has changed, that the developers dabbled in hybrid theories, and change up what they thought to do.
I don't believe the hybrid theory and think it is more likely that the Druid is still the shape shifter, and that the trouble was between which forms could do what and how they would clash with the role that has been chosen.
The Shaman is historically the better fit for the weather powers in my mind, I talk here of the generic shamans seen in history and film, not a D&D staple here.
.....But we have it on record that the first draft of the Druid was a hybrid shapeshifter/weather mage. How the heck is a admission by the guy who wrote the class a theory?
Also the shaman is confirmed as a leader, not exactly the best fit for weather magic.
.....But we have it on record that the first draft of the Druid was a hybrid shapeshifter/weather mage. How the heck is a admission by the guy who wrote the class a theory?
Also the shaman is confirmed as a leader, not exactly the best fit for weather magic.
Perhaps they were trying to figure out how to temper the shapeshifting with the magical flux... know what, I just don't know. I just think any though of a Hybrid in this edition is not in tune with the rest of the structure of the rules.
Leader... hmm.. Spirit summoner maybe? I don't think it will be shapeshifting.
Well, I am the Lead Designer of the L5R CCG (2nd longest running CCG in existence. 2nd only to M:TG). If you really want proof, go to the L5R forums and PM the Lead Designer.
Anyway, I wasn't bringing it up to try and show off or anything, just to give myself some credentials as I am pretty new to posting over here and my opinion might just be dismissed.
Please don't post things like this when I'm eating…hard on the digestion.
Please don't post things like this when I'm eating…hard on the digestion.
Whatever...
If Dan is done de-railing this thread maybe we can get it back on track.
That said, most of the classes have 'sub-roles' as it is. Paladins are defenders with a splash of leader from Lay on Hands. Clerics are leaders with a splash of controller, with AE blasts and walls.
Sadly, the devs have stated that druids will revolve around wildshape, which means I'll never play one. My personal druid would be primarily a controller, blasting the field with lightning and wind and controlling the battlefield with impromptu mudslides and the like, with the 'sub-role' of leader, with a bit of healing.
Sadly, the devs have stated that druids will revolve around wildshape, which means I'll never play one. My personal druid would be primarily a controller, blasting the field with lightning and wind and controlling the battlefield with impromptu mudslides and the like, with the 'sub-role' of leader, with a bit of healing.
That has never been said. It was a wildshape/weather magic hybrid, and one of the two aspects was axed. They've never said which.
That has never been said. It was a wildshape/weather magic hybrid, and one of the two aspects was axed. They've never said which.
If I recall correctly, they did make a comment or two about the Druid having a wildshape focus with no mention of weather magic....about half a year before the first draft was written(which had it as a hybrid wildshaper/weather mage).
Additionally, they have never stated that they got rid of one of the two aspects. It just isn't a hybrid anymore. However that still leaves the possibility that they somehow kept both wildshaping and weather magic.
My personal thought on the issue is that we already have a bunch of hybrids running around: Paladin = Defender with a minor in leader. Fighter: Defender with a minor in Striker. Swordmage: Defender with a minor in controller. Cleric: Leader with a minor in controller. Warlock: Striker with a minor in controller.
By all rights the Barbarian that we've seen so far seems to be a Striker with a minor in defender.
To me these are all hybrids, some of them more than others (I'm looking at you Mr. Paladin). That having been said, to compare them to the hybrids of say, WoW would be a flawed comparison. 4e is very carefully balanced around characters being focused and limited to their roles - thus each character is given full abilities to cover their main role and some minor abilities to cover another role, usually at the expense of something that is nice but not necessary to either role. The Paladin for example, sacrifices damage for his minor leading abilities. The Warlock likewise sacrifices some damage for his ability to control or take a lot of hits depending on the build, with fey pact and star pact being more controllery and Infernal pact being a lot more durable. While the Warlock still does enough damage to make a great striker, usually they find themselves out damaged by rangers and rogues. In return they tend to have a lot more status effects and debuffs, much like a controller.
By all rights the Barbarian that we've seen so far seems to be a Striker with a minor in HOLY **** HE JUST LOPPED OFF THAT GUY'S HEAD. WHY IS HE RUNNING TOWARDS ME N--
Edited for correctness.
Edited for correctness.
I thought you said you wanted to get this thread back on track, so why post this kind of "humour"...?
So to get back to the druid, in light of this recent Warden business, I'm currently speculating:
As we already have the Barbarian (Primal Striker) and Shaman (Primal Leader), that leaves two more Primal classes: Druid and Warden.
At this point I have no idea which roles they will cover; the druid could be a pure wild-shaping defending maniac, or a weather magic control-boy, I guess, but I don't have any concrete ideas for the Warden (maybe a defender with animal spirits like that picture from the cover, or maybe another striker as they said they are not obsessing about filling out the power source/role grid?).
Barbarian (Striker): Primal warrior that uses rage to grant him strength.
Shaman (Leader): Tribal healer with power over spirits that buff nearby allies.
Druid (Controller): Nature caster with power over plants, animals, and the weather. Can also transform into some animal (or elemental) shapes as utility skills.
Warden (Defender): Savage warrior raised in the wild, who can transform into a specific totem animal.
Why would hybrid roles be so bad?
Others have explained this, but I will add my voice to the chorus: hybrid classes either divide one character's allotment of power across two classes, resulting in ineffectiveness, or they have more than one character's allotment of power, resulting in over-effectiveness. It is a recipe for failure. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying I don't trust Wizards to do it.
I'm not buying it. Warden has been used as an alternate name or a title for rangers in D&D's past. I doubt they will echo the Ranger in a primal class.
That's interesting. The ranger in previous editions had a lot of primal flavor that has been excised (although insufficiently) from the D&D4 ranger. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see that shed fluff arise as the basis for a primal class.
Others have explained this, but I will add my voice to the chorus: hybrid classes either divide one character's allotment of power across two classes, resulting in ineffectiveness, or they have more than one character's allotment of power, resulting in over-effectiveness. It is a recipe for failure. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying I don't trust Wizards to do it.
I don't trust anyone to do it, which is why I don't think it should be done at all. Hybrid roles (in any capacity beyond the one they already exist in) are a very slippery slope for 4E's design philosophy.
Though it will be interesting, and I'm very interested to see what they actually do with it. Historically it would be more accurate to make the Druid a Leader, a cleric-like class based in Primal elements. Fantasy wise it would be amazing to have them as strikers. Realistically they'll probably go for the inbetween, the neutral ground between those two roles, that the controller offers. Whichever way they go, I'll probably end up playing a Druid myself to give it a shot before I offer too many critiques on it, I would love to do a Primal-based adventure, and I'm hoping the PHB2 gives me enough to do that.
My guess for primal classes:
Barbarian (Striker): Primal warrior that uses rage to grant him strength.
Shaman (Leader): Tribal healer with power over spirits that buff nearby allies.
Druid (Controller): Nature caster with power over plants, animals, and the weather. Can also transform into some animal (or elemental) shapes as utility skills.
Warden (Defender): Savage warrior raised in the wild, who can transform into a specific totem animal.
My guess on the roles is the same. I think the shaman probably will have a bit of weather type magic, but not nearly on the level with the druid. I see the druid having lots of weather/plant/animal powers, but possibly not being able to shape change anymore. I see that mostly in the camp of the warden.
To shamelessly rehash speculation from other threads, there is a legitimate reason to believe the Druid and a class starting with W will be the two Primal classes in addition to Shaman (leader) and Barbarian (striker). One will likely focus on weather magic and be a controller, the other will prominently feature shapeshifting and be either defender or striker. Since the Druid did both in previous editions, they could very easily be either the shapeshifter with Witch as a likely name for the controller, or the Druid could be the weather-based controller and something like Warden would take the other slot.
In this instance, symmetry may be more incidental than forced. Or there could be two strikers, a leader, and a controller.
now im not familler whith them but could the "w" be wu-jen?
now im not familler whith them but could the "w" be wu-jen?
Wu-jen, from my understanding, are basically elemental casters which doesn't fit in with Primal. However that is irrelevent now that we have Warden confirmed as a class.
now im not familler whith them but could the "w" be wu-jen?
No. The recent minotaur article seems to have confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that the mysterious "W" class is "Warden" (meaning I've been wrong twice on this issue). With a name like that, it couldn't sensibly be anything other than a defender class (since "warden" is a synonym for "defender"), which strongly implies that druids are now controllers.
EDIT: Aaugh! I've been ninja-ed!
I thought you said you wanted to get this thread back on track, so why post this kind of "humour"...?
What is with your hard-on for Sticks? Seriously, you going to attack the guy everytime he posts? He didn't do anything to you, why are you being such a jerk?
Anyway, to the topic at-hand, I would think it would be cool to see the Druid as a Hybrid class, but I can understand if that is not doable. Whilst the Warden will likely be the defender, I think the Druid would make a good controller who is just a bit tougher than other controllers while in wild-shape form. Maybe like a Melee controller? Still doesn't do a lot of damage to one guy like a striker, but does good AoE spells while sitting on the front line? Basically a Controller with a minor in Defender. It is pretty flavourful. Whatcha guys think?
What is with your hard-on for Sticks? Seriously, you going to attack the guy everytime he posts? He didn't do anything to you, why are you being such a jerk?
Anyway, to the topic at-hand, I would think it would be cool to see the Druid as a Hybrid class, but I can understand if that is not doable. Whilst the Warden will likely be the defender, I think the Druid would make a good controller who is just a bit tougher than other controllers while in wild-shape form. Maybe like a Melee controller? Still doesn't do a lot of damage to one guy like a striker, but does good AoE spells while sitting on the front line? Basically a Controller with a minor in Defender. It is pretty flavourful. Whatcha guys think?
I wouldn't be surprised if all of the Primal classes have a minor in Defender (except, of course, the defender). Just like the Martial classes tend to have a minor in Striker and the Divine with Leader and Arcane with Controller.
I wouldn't be surprised if all of the Primal classes have a minor in Defender (except, of course, the defender). Just like the Martial classes tend to have a minor in Striker and the Divine with Leader and Arcane with Controller.
I agree, this sounds reasonable.
As far hybridism goes, I would like to see the concepts behind 3.5E's Druid split into two separate classes for 4E. I'm specifically hoping that the Druid is a weather-magic Controller, and that the Warden is a wildshaping Defender rather than just a "nature-paladin".
My guess on the roles is the same. I think the shaman probably will have a bit of weather type magic, but not nearly on the level with the druid. I see the druid having lots of weather/plant/animal powers, but possibly not being able to shape change anymore. I see that mostly in the camp of the warden.
I can see the druid getting a few shapechanging skills (such as turning into a bird for flight), but they generally won't be his main form of combat. Wardens will be the ones who transform into a bear and maul the enemy. They might also get some powers that partially transform them, such as growing claws and swiping at the enemy, or biting an enemy with venomous fangs. The full transformations may be an effect of their daily powers (like the barbarian's rages) or a specific class feature.
I was kinda hoping we might see Scout as a Primal source, as they were woodsy, but I would settle for them being Martial. I just want to see them come back.
Didn't the ranger kill the scout and steal all his stuff?
Didn't the ranger kill the scout and steal all his stuff?
QFT. If anything, the 4E Ranger is more Scout than actual Ranger.
What is with your hard-on for Sticks? Seriously, you going to attack the guy everytime he posts? He didn't do anything to you, why are you being such a jerk?
My, my, aren't we fierce…relax, Francis.
Didn't the ranger kill the scout and steal all his stuff?
Yeah, it took a lot of his territory. But a man can dream.