Big HP and shield use is nice. And I really like how the daily powers appear to function.
The only thing Im worried about is its difficulty for marking as the enemies need to be adjacent but it seems to have no way to keep them nice and close.
Any other thoughts?
Also, love the transformations. I can't wait to see the higher level ones.
Doesnt druid do something VERY similiar to this? Why not combine these clases and make them distinct builds like the Fighter does now (Fighter has four builds now with MP)?
This is really splitting hairs.
Much like Invoker is a little redundant on the fluff side for Paladins and Clerics...but has the controls mechanics wise of a Wizard.
I mean...why play a Wizard now? Invokers can heal themselves and have better armor.
I love the new game, dont gete me wrong. But I think they need a greater variance in their classes.
I am looking forward to Bard for example...because it feels and plays Different from other classes.
But its not always about mechanics either, sometimes 'theme' is important to people and just as important as mechanics to others.
It we want to talk about splitting hairs, Wizard and Sorceror is where its at, do we really need two arcane controllers?
Either way Im sure the class isnt for everyone, but it 'feels' unique to me despite any mechanical similarities, and thats all I need in the end.
Seems a little redundant to me.
Doesnt druid do something VERY similiar to this? Why not combine these clases and make them distinct builds like the Fighter does now (Fighter has four builds now with MP)?
This is really splitting hairs.
Much like Invoker is a little redundant on the fluff side for Paladins and Clerics...but has the controls mechanics wise of a Wizard.
I mean...why play a Wizard now? Invokers can heal themselves and have better armor.
I love the new game, dont gete me wrong. But I think they need a greater variance in their classes.
I am looking forward to Bard for example...because it feels and plays Different from other classes.
De ja vu!
Do there powers function better in light armor or maybe a class feature that make the lighter armor worth it some how?
I mean...why play a Wizard now? Invokers can heal themselves and have better armor.
Anyone want to predict how many complaints there will be about the Wizard sucking once we see the Sorcerer preview?
It we want to talk about splitting hairs, Wizard and Sorceror is where its at, do we really need two arcane controllers?
The Ranger and Rogue would like to have a word with you. ;)
EDIT: Just to make sure I made my point clear, what I'm trying to get across is that an overlapping of power source and party role is perfectly acceptable. After all, the Ranger and Rogue are both Martial Strikers, and I don't think anybody will argue that they are redundant.
Doesnt druid do something VERY similiar to this? Why not combine these clases and make them distinct builds like the Fighter does now (Fighter has four builds now with MP)?
Because then you'd have one class able to fill two roles, which is not a good thing.
Much like Invoker is a little redundant on the fluff side for Paladins and Clerics...but has the controls mechanics wise of a Wizard.
I mean...why play a Wizard now? Invokers can heal themselves and have better armor.
They can heal themselves? How? Because I've gone through every single ability they have in the preview and not a single one of them grants any sort of healing whatsoever. They don't even have access to the Heal skill.
I love the new game, dont gete me wrong. But I think they need a greater variance in their classes.
While I haven't seen the Warden, yet, the rest of the classes seem pretty variable to me. There're certainly enough differences between the Wizard and the Invoker that they warrant being separate classes. And of course, there're plenty of differences between those two and the Druid.
I supposed what I am pointing out is the fact that wouldnt it be wiser for them to make these redundancies into alternate builds for already existing classes...like say the Tempest Build for the Fighter class?
No, because the Tempest build for the Fighter is still a Defender. What you're talking about is mixing a Controller and Defender into one class, or a Controller and a Leader, which goes against their entire design concept for keeping the classes balanced.
I supposed what I am pointing out is the fact that wouldnt it be wiser for them to make these redundancies into alternate builds for already existing classes...like say the Tempest Build for the Fighter class?
The Tempest Fighter is still a defender.
No, it would not in any way be better to have one class able to fill two roles. I cannot fathom why you think that.
EDIT: Damn, ninja'd by Green Knight. :P
The Ranger and Rogue would like to have a word with you. ;)
Yeah, I figured someone might bring that up. Thematically Ranger and Rogue really do seperate themselves in mechanics and theme and their party function does the same thing in widely different ways. While I havent seen the 4.0 Sorc yet, I have a hard time fathoming how it can be significantly different from the wizard. I mean they were essentially the same class in 3.x other than deviating on preparedness and flavouring of how powers are obtained.
Heck the odds are the Wiz and Sorc will use the same dailies in which case the wizard might be able to take Sorc dailies/uts as well. Which I dont have a problem with as it extends the Wizards powers.
Ranger and Rogue have the same source and role, but IMO they have different identities that make each one special and warrented. I have a feeling that Wizard and Sorcerer are going to be the same case as Ranger and Rogue
Druid and Warden have the same source but different roles, that does not mean they have diffferent identities, It's hard to say whether or not they do. take a look at Cleric and Paladin, they're in the same position, is it their role or their identities that set them apart?
Now do you believe that having a different role warrents a new class? I for one think creating classes simply for new powers is a slippery slope (remember Dragon Shaman?)
So keep in mind that people measure differences in different terms
So for the sake of Rangers and Rogues, let's put role aside (because we all know how roles are different) and lets talk about how the Identities of Warden and Druid are different and if it's enough to warrent a new class
While I havent seen the 4.0 Sorc yet, I have a hard time fathoming how it can be significantly different from the wizard.
The same way that the Invoker and Druid are significantly different from the Wizard. They're have different class features and different powers, silly. That and Sorcerers will likely be the only controller that uses CHA to attack. :P
Heck the odds are the Wiz and Sorc will use the same dailies...
Whoa, whoa, whoa, stop right there. Where did you hear this mess?
Now do you believe that having a different role warrents a new class? I for one think thats a slippery slope (remember Dragon Shaman?)
What's the Dragon Shaman have to do with anything?
So for the sake of Rangers and Rogues, let's put role aside (because we all know how roles are different) and lets talk about how the Identities of Warden and Druid are different and if it's enough to warrent a new class
The fact alone that they fulfill a different role is enough to me to warrant a new class. In flavor, they seem about as similar as the Cleric and the Paladin or the Wizard and the Swordmage. Yeah, they definitely go together conceptually, but that's pretty much what power source means. If you want any more than that, Wardens are melee and physical while Druids are ranged and mental.
If you want any more than that, Wardens are melee and physical while Druids are ranged and mental.
'sigh'... I don't want anything from you crimson
I'll wait for the power series to come out for all sources before I judge a class
yeah but i don't like complaining about things that already happened because then I can't say "I told you so!"
Is that a good counter argument?
edit: I imagine the Sorc and Wizard "identities" will be jsut as different as they were in 3rd ed. Fluff wise and everything, they were very different.
2. The Warden is very mechanically distinct from the Druid. He is far closer to the Barbarian, but even there he's very mechanically distinct. Arguably, he's more mechanically distinct from the Barbarian than the two weapon Fighter is distinct from the two weapon Ranger.
But that's the problem with these bare minimum class writeups. More pages are spent with their class abilities rather than their fluff, and I'm having a hard time imagining what archetype these new classes represent. The Invoker representing Prophets works for me, but the Warden seems tightly nestled between the Barbarian and the Druid conceptually that I'm asking myself "why".
Mechanically, though, I'm very impressed by the Warden. PHB2 is going to define what a controller is better than PHB1 did (Invoker, Druid, Sorcerer, now the Warden can be a sub-controller). I'd now like to see them define the PHB1's classes' secondary roles: I believe I can mostly figure them out, but I'd like to know what the designers feel.
The Warden, from what I've seen (very little, I'm not a subscriber) is a bit harder to grok in terms of theme. It seems like it is basically a gish class like the Swordmage, a sort of primal warrior who is more physical than the Druid and more magical than the Barbarian. Which is fine, except that Fighter/Mages have a long history in D&D and druid hybrids don't.
The Druid has always been sort of a do-everything class, even in the versions that weren't blatantly overpowered, so having it split up into 3 classes is going to be difficult to get used to. So looking at what we know about the Primal classes so far...
Primal General Primal power is linked to the power of the world itself, and the spirits (both mighty and modest) that dwell there. These spirits are mostly interested in the preservation of the mortal world, and to a lesser extent, the feywild, and stand in opposition to extreme action from both the Primordials and the Gods.
Primal Classes are generally close to nature, wear light armor, and their guardian spirits infuse them with supernatural toughness and vitality. (All primal classes are tougher than their role would suggest) Primal powers are called evocations and often manifest themselves through transformations and other sustained effects--the spirits are more likely to stregthen their user over time instead of blowing away enemies in a single flashy explosion.
Barbarian The Barbarian has the strongest niche of the 4. He's the howling, blood-crazed beserker who calls upon the spirits to infuse him with insane strength and ferocity to slay his enemies.
Druid This is where things start to get complicated. In my opinion, the Shaman, Warden, and Druid all have aspects of the original Druid class. The Druid class itself is the most magical primal class, able to transform into wild beasts and blast enemies with fire and lightning.
Shaman The Shaman has existed as an alternate class in most versions of D&D, but in 4th edition will take up the leader mantle, taking over the healing powers of the Druid and probably calling upon the spirits to inspire and strengthen his allies.
Warden This is the Defender, essentially taking the role of the front-line Druid (sans total transformation) and using evocations to defend his allies and bolster his fighting skills.
The Primal classes are all distinct mechanically, the question from a world building standpoint is to explain the 3. Are Shamans the community leaders, and Druids the reclusive sages? Wardens are described as champions of nature, who sometimes serves as champions of their tribe as well. I suppose that makes them sort of Primal Paladins, but fitting the classes together may still take some work.
I'm going to go take another look at the Druid and see what the fluff write-up was for it.
I like looking at the divine classes as different types of "priests," hearkening back somewhat to the 2e Complete Priest's Handbook. Priests of the war god will likely be paladins or clerics who emphasize combat. That latter has some overlap, yes, but stays within the leader role mechanically (keeping game rules afloat & affirming space for difference between individual clerics). Conversely, priests of the god of magic will rarely be paladins and more often will be clerics or invokers.
If you want to play a "druid," you can pick first what type of "druid" you want: The mysterious wilderness mystic (4e Druid), the staunch and mighty defender of the woods (4e Warden), or the tribal/clan guide (4e Shaman).
Edit: Heh...Somewhat ninja'd by Mad Miso there! :P
Which is fine, except that Fighter/Mages have a long history in D&D and druid hybrids don't.
Well, except for the Ranger - it sounds to me that the Warden represents a lot of the old (pre-3.5e) Ranger bits that didn't make it into the 4e Ranger.
Well, except for the Ranger - it sounds to me that the Warden represents a lot of the old (pre-3.5e) Ranger bits that didn't make it into the 4e Ranger.
That's a good way to look at it. The 4th edition Ranger doesn't have the "Guardian of Nature" role anymore, so you could say Warden's are most often found guarding a location or tribe or whatever. Except that instead of silently tracking the goblins and sniping them from a tree, he'll just shout "Get of my lawn, you durned goblin kids!" and then start punching them in the face until they get the message. Kind of like Smokey the Bear if he actually mauled people who didn't prevent forest fires. Heh.
The more I think about it, the more I like it. A tough defender type actually works well for this role. Tough enough to handle multiple weak opponents by himself, and can take the front line in a larger engagement to keep opponents off the weaker members of his tribe/allies.
They get nature and perception, so they can still be good trackers and wilderness survivalists, just not guerilla fighters.
Good point on the identity vs. role thing. Is "archetype" different from "identity" here? Just curious.
I only said identity instead of archetype because archetypes are only important when you're trying to emulate something. When you're creating something new in a fictional world, it doesn't need to match an archetype (the dragonshaman, for example, didn't really have an archetype).
Well, except for the Ranger - it sounds to me that the Warden represents a lot of the old (pre-3.5e) Ranger bits that didn't make it into the 4e Ranger.
Eh ... that's stretching things. The Ranger did have druid spells and a pet, and I do think the Ranger should have been primal, but I'm not familiar with Rangers taking on aspects of elements or animals (aside from a few spells, like Claws of the Beast in 2E). The Ranger would have been more of a Primal Striker if I had my way, and while Rangers are known for "defending the forests", they don't really do that in a defendery sort of way.
They can heal themselves? How? Because I've gone through every single ability they have in the preview and not a single one of them grants any sort of healing whatsoever. They don't even have access to the Heal skill.
While the original claim may have been a misinterpreations, I believe an Invoker with the right diety could take a Channel Divinity feat that allows them to heal.
IEh ... that's stretching things. The Ranger did have druid spells and a pet, and I do think the Ranger should have been primal, but I'm not familiar with Rangers taking on aspects of elements or animals (aside from a few spells, like Claws of the Beast in 2E). The Ranger would have been more of a Primal Striker if I had my way, and while Rangers are known for "defending the forests", they don't really do that in a defendery sort of way.
The 3.5e Ranger was a lot different from previous versions, but all standard pre-4e Rangers had access to nature-based magical abilities, and had some means of taking on animal-like or elemental aspects. 1e Rangers didn't dual-wield or have pets, and before 3.5e, the Ranger was closer to the 4e Defender role than the Striker role.
The 4e Ranger is almost completely bereft of the "warrior of nature" stuff that distinguished the class from Fighter in previous editions. About the only things left are the focus on nature knowledge and (with Martial Power) the ability to get an animal companion. And, honestly, there's no reason to think that the Warden couldn't get an animal companion in Primal Power or some other future book.
Anyways, based on what I've read, the Warden sounds more like a 1e Ranger to me than anything else.
Eh ... that's stretching things. The Ranger did have druid spells and a pet, and I do think the Ranger should have been primal, but I'm not familiar with Rangers taking on aspects of elements or animals (aside from a few spells, like Claws of the Beast in 2E). The Ranger would have been more of a Primal Striker if I had my way, and while Rangers are known for "defending the forests", they don't really do that in a defendery sort of way.
Reply With Quote
Well...yes. I didn't take it to mean Warden=3ed Ranger, just the "defender of nature" aspect, and the magical abilities as a result.
Or to try looking at it in a different light, lets say we have a community (Or heck, a campaign) where Primal classes replace Divine classes, and then try to describe it.
Shamans=Clerics Almost every village (or tribe) has a local Shaman to beseech the spirits on behalf of the village, heal the injured and provide spritual guidance. Not all Shamans have real power, but many do. In times of battle, Shamans stay in the back ranks and call upon spirits to empower the tribes warriors.
Druid=Invokers No, really work with me here. Lets say that Druids are eccentric loners and hermits, strange mystics who attain a level of communion with nature that is beyond any other primal character. Druids are very rare and follow their own inscrutable agenda, but are deeply respected (if sometimes mistrusted) by other primal types.
Wardens=Paladins While Wardens can arise from a variety of backgrounds, many shamans will choose the strongest and wisest warrior in the village to become inducted as a Warden through rituals and training. Like Paladins in civilized areas, Wardens are the shield of the faithful, the greatest champions of the spirits who are brave enough to stand face to face against any enemy.
I know I skipped barbarians, but I don't think they need any additional justifying. After thinking about it, comparing Primal classes to Divine classes made the most sense, as Primal is essentially a different take on religion.
They are very unique. They took the Druid's old wildshape and did something with it to give them a transforming defender persona. Personally, I think the Warden is tailored for those of us who played druids for wildshape synergies and to turn into nature's warriors (as the new wildshape is more of a mode switch for the druid and not a power up in and of itself).
You can talk about the similarities between Druid and Warden (as they were one class that got split due to development problems), but you are shortchanging both to consider them equivalent. The crossovers are there, sure. But, I'll be damned before I let a Druid sit at my table and tell me he'll be the defender. Meanwhile, Wardens, any time you want to put that bucket of hitpoints and sweet marking mechanic on my table, you will come with a big thank you.
Besides, for flavor purposes all power sources have these crossovers. Is there really a big difference between stabbing someone twice as a fighter and stabbing someone twice as a ranger or rogue. Different role, same idea. Same thing happens with arcane classes and divine classes, as already mentioned. The real question is are they thematically different than other defenders. Answer: Yes. Theme: Transformation. Got another defender with that theme throughout all its abilities?
P.S. The Tree thing is a great change, always wished there were more plant synergies with my 3.5 druid.
Also, love the transformations. I can't wait to see the higher level ones.
same here!
I am fairly excited about the Warden's identity. I don't think they should be pidgeon-holed into being considered Nature Paladins.
They are very unique. They took the Druid's old wildshape and did something with it to give them a transforming defender persona. Personally, I think the Warden is tailored for those of us who played druids for wildshape synergies and to turn into nature's warriors (as the new wildshape is more of a mode switch for the druid and not a power up in and of itself).
Oh of course. I'm not trying to pigeon hole them, just make it easier for people who are still trying to understand the class. (Myself included)
They may both be defenders, but at the end of the day, your typical Paladin is a Knight in Shining Armor complete with radiant healing goodness, while the Warden is a savage, shapeshifting, scary bastard who can command the roots underneath your feet to hold you in place just so he can stab you better. In terms of style they are completely different.
the relationship between Warden and Druid is very similar to Paladin and Cleric. I don't know the history but when the Paladin (or whichever one came after) was intoduced it was because there was a great enough call for it, now they are on a grandfather clause and have a lot more broader identities and we find ourselves noticing the overlap that was not there before. And now we have a new class being introduced and some of us are wondering if there is great enough call for it
On a related note isn't multiclassing supposed to fill in the gaps for us when we want something just a little different, this is a whole nother topic though
I'm not gonna say I don't like it (because I'd actually play it), or we didn't need it.
But I'm gonna say they really, really didn't spend a lot of brain-cycles on this. That's for sure.
I mean, it's ok: primal is about nature, the living spirit of the planet, all things green and brown and is eventually about taking aspects of animals and so on. So I don't want to say they should have given these things to the Druid ONLY and invent completely new things for the rest of the "green party". But an interrupt that clings monster with roots and vines??? What if we're battling a horde of slaads in the Elemental Chaos, flying around clouds of flames and mountains of water while walking through the air. Where the hell are those vines going to sprout out from? Are they going to reach out from the nearest earth-mote??
Then I read better and I see the words "Spectral vines". Oh, that's a lot better. Come on...
To be clearer: why didn't they spend some more time brainstorming about some possibilities for these cool guys? When I saw the dailies I was relieved in some way, at least by some. "Form of Winter's Herald". That sounds nice! That sounds like a good theme, why not expand on it. An example. Seasons. Seasons are very primal. Expand on seasons: time cycle. What about a warrior whose spirited nature gives him subtle but strong powers over time, with a primal flavor at it?
And Primal is connected to the material world, just as Divine is connected to astral beings. Expect the fluff to reflect it.
As a player/DM I care more about the character concept. If you want your tree hugger to get up in peoples face like a defender (warden). Then tell them to pick up their trash because you said so, all while calling yourself a druid that's fine by me.
I'm loving the preveiws so far. They have all been cool, even the ones I don't want to play. Just love all the options. Hey, ever played a cleric and had someone in the party ask you for healing? Ever heard this reply "Sorry not that kinda cleric."? Oh ya INVOKER! Now it is easier then ever to make those kind of characters. Nature class have always been my favorites and now they don't SUCK. Rangers in our game would generally trade their animal companions for a feat.
If I didn't mention it the Warden is awesome. This is the MC ranger/druid I've invisioned from earlier editions that just didn't work.
2 words: Primal Power. Judging from Martial power, each lass should get at least 2-3 more at-wills.
And Primal is connected to the material world, just as Divine is connected to astral beings. Expect the fluff to reflect it.
2 words: spectral vines
I'm sorry, I have been compairing Warden to all the other classes, and it is by far the most half-a** dribble i have ever heard. they come up with a bunch of fancy new powers then sh** out some random nonsensical fluff and throw it on top of the mechanics and act like it's something D&D's been missing all these years
the powers are good, but Spectral vines is what happens when you theme around mechanics, what they should be doing is mechanizing a theme
2 words: spectral vines
...and?
Though I have to say, it looks like your first reaction to anything new is immediate unrelenting negativity, no matter how contradictory or nonsensical your complaints may be (like complaining about non-existent Invoker healing or complaining about its similarity to the Cleric while running off a list demonstrating how different they are). So suffice to say, I'm taking all your complaints with a huge pinch of salt.
Spectral vines. Yeah, cause an ectoplasmic hand appearing out of nowhere is creative genius.
...and?
Though I have to say, it looks like your first reaction to anything new is immediate unrelenting negativity, no matter how contradictory or nonsensical your complaints may be (like complaining about non-existent Invoker healing or complaining about its similarity to the Cleric while running off a list demonstrating how different they are). So suffice to say, I'm taking all your complaints with a huge pinch of salt.
Spectral vines. Yeah, cause an ectoplasmic hand appearing out of nowhere is creative genius.
Well, he hadn't read well the Invoker, even admitted it in the correspondent thread, but his complaints now are entirely consistant.
We're seeing spectral vines hard-wired (literally) into class features. It's to say spectral vines are fundamental to this Warden as the spellbook to the Wizard.
Yes, we have spectral hands for all wizards, but it's a theme that has been given a mechanic, to use Mcnancy correct terms.
We have the wizard theme in our minds and we then decide which role is prominent and how to manifest it through the iconic powers. This is how the 4e wizard class was born, with SUCCESS we can all tell.
I'm conscious that without the charismatic and historic figure of the D&D Wizard, this Warden couldn't have the same luck, but it's also very clear, again as Mcnancy points out, that we are clearly watching, right in real time while reading through the class, how fixed abstract mechanics get a paint-job of a theme, instead of the much more artful and successful opposite process, of inventing mechanics over a theme. First they should have figured out what kind of figure this Warden had to be. And not by the most general lines like "the tribe defender, which manifest aspects of nature to do its job", because in that case I can tell you three other classes that can do it being much more clearly defined than the Warden: Barbarian, Druid, and Shaman (yes, I already know it's more clearly defined than the Warden, we all can guess), I mean, one thing is to say defender in the English language, another to say it in the 4e language. And they blurred the line themselves, the designers, in a way that causes much suspicion. Suspicion of FORCED SYMMETRY. [It sounds like heresy now, and rightly so IMO]
Let's talk about it. A tribe of animists, a tribe where primal forces are revered and many of the important figures actually know how to channel that power. Let's accept the fact that speaking of their battle-force, they can't have a regular fighter do the COMBAT ROLE of the defender. Something which is already a bit stretching. But let's say we want a primal defender at all costs. So between a Con Barbarian with lots of staying power, maybe multiclassed to fighter, and a Con Druid with lots of terrain control and maybe again with some multiclassing, wouldn't they have efficient Primal defenders in their militia? No, ok, you want a primal class that has a mark ability, don't you? Multiclassing isn't enough. Then start figuring out something that doesn't look like a druid and/or a barbarian with a mark ability glued hastily to it. Because you know, everybody is capable then of taking the druid, giving him defender basic stats (they're all standards) and the fighter's mark instead of wild shaping or another feature. Everyone can do it. And you know what they'll figure out after some minutes?? That the mark should be represented as vines slowing the target!! And after some more minutes?? That they'll have to be spectral, so that terrain doesn't really influence that awesome homebrew feature!!
Come on... One guy had already predicted this feature in a two-lines post that he must have come out with in a matter of minutes from concept to posting. And they take months and a super-core book to do the same. I'm completely agreeing with Mcnancy here about the half-X nature of the Warden. It's nothing more than a gap-filling class taking something from here and something from there. A 10 years old with the 4e books and the Barbarian and Druid preview could have predicted, wanted, and designed this very same Warden.
I don't want to be destructive, though, let's be constructive...
2 words: Primal Power. Judging from Martial power, each lass should get at least 2-3 more at-wills.
And Primal is connected to the material world, just as Divine is connected to astral beings. Expect the fluff to reflect it.
... And hope they'll come out with more original builds for it with the Primal Power book. Or this class will rapidly become the 4e version of the Samurai from Complete Warrior.
it looks like your first reaction to anything new is immediate unrelenting negativity
I relent, if you read the later post in my Invoker thread I admited to being shortsighted and now I see that the Invoker can bring something new to the table (with a little tweaking). Granted my first reaction to anything is immediate negativity, we're called pessimists and the world would not function without us, and those that ignore us are called tools.
complaining about its similarity to the Cleric while running off a list demonstrating how different they are
did you miss all the parts of any of these threads where we talked about the difference between theme and mechanics?
For LordArchaon's sake I will try to be constructive for now on (in this thread)
LordArchaon I think I feel a Bromance coming on, you are my hero.
I relent, if you read the later post in my Invoker thread I admited to being shortsighted and now I see that the Invoker can bring something new to the table (with a little tweaking). Granted my first reaction to anything is immediate negativity, we're called pessimists and the world would not function without us, and those that ignore us are called tools.
For LordArchaon's sake I will try to be constructive for now on (in this thread)
Haha! :D
No really, I'm an optimist, I liked every bit of 4e till now. The Invoker caught me immediately, the Bard is keeping me teased as hell (but I REALLY want a weapon at-will in the Con build....), and I always liked the concept of a primal source, ever since it was an implicitly weird cousin of divine magic. And 4e has done a fantastic job with it. Till now. Now I simply, plainly, saw a drop in the quality standard. Originality in first place.
You know, speaking of constructiveness, I've been thinking how I would have done the Warden. How it could have been a Primal Defender without being so similar to so many things at the same time.
And these are the concepts, ordered as a stream of thoughts directed towards the understanding of what the warden should be.
- Tough guy: here they did it well: the Warden should be the toughest of all the selection. Because it must represent a protector of what already is protecting by itself, the spirits of the world. So it must be Con based. This could also very well extend to some powers. And this has to make him some kind of passive counterpart of the Barbarian.
The Warden must be the bulwark that seldom if ever moves. It must be a black hole in the battlefield. He defends because he's so big that it's difficult not to give him attention. If the Barbarian is an all-muscle guy, strong as a lion, the warden is simply BIGGER. not so scary but bigger. - Armor and spirits: If this archetype is that of the tough big guy, the "good giant" who is gifted by the earth itself with resilience and protective capabilities, why not give it impressive armor? ok, one way is to leave him in hide adding Con bonus. But to make it different from the Barbarian and Druid (note that it has been announced that also the Barbarian will see this kind of feature to let him stay light armored), why not think about an alternative? And given that we're talking about a Primal character, dealing with Spirits, I thought this: a living totem. A walking bestial totem. So a totemic armor. Give him a class feature like special rituals that let him change the properties of his armor depending on what pelts he adds, what totemic animals he chooses. The bear-armor, the eagle-armor and so on. You could also have him wearing plate but looking natural this way. And an armor that big fashioned that way would make this BIG guy even more imposing. Many of these options should focus on adding his Con bonus as AC to ALLIES, or channeling the attention of the enemy. You're having an attractive character feature that everyone would have liked in their tough-ass warriors before, and you're making it a defenderish and at the same time primal and ritualistic thing. This guy would need Wisdom for his rituals of course, but maybe Charisma in at least one build, to accentuate this "look at me, challenge me first if you dare!" feature.
- Passive powers: Some of his powers should be Con, and they should really be him interposing between his enemies and his allies to absorb blows. Much like some Paladin powers. But here we want him to be passively like this. He could have a feature that makes him count like a large creature. It would look ridiculous for small creatures though, who could really be ruled out of this and be forced to take "the other build", which could emphasize Charisma instead, which is common in all small races by the way.
Combat powers could make use of his unique enhanced armor that makes him some sort of living weapon. Enemies who attack him take damage. If he moves he nearly tramples his enemies. When he attacks with his weapon, part of the attack is done with the totemic armor and shield. - The signature powers: So we're fairly sure about his at-wills, let's talk about something bigger. A little polymorphing is ok. But as I pointed out before, some of the forms are good, some not. Let's not animalize this guy to the point he just seems to use wildshaping. He should take aspects. He's rather possessed by spirits, he doesn't necessarily display anything. A better thing could be insisting on his totemic nature and let him have a daily based on the totem he manifests. This could actually lead to a spellbook approach, in which depending on the daily ritual performed at dawn, he selects along with his "totemic armor tuning", an associated daily power. It would surely be a most versatile defender, like a Swordmage when it takes the feat for having a spellbook.
- When does the magic come in? This kind of approach is very martial till now, at least for being a Primal. We should see some true magic at some point. And that should be different from the elemental rages of the barbarian, the weather stuff of the Druid and the summoned spirits of the Shaman. What should it be? Well we already got this alternative polymorph. And plenty of it since it must have a broad selection if it has to have the option to change day by day or even more his totems.
Well, I'm seeing some resemblance with the Artificer's approach to arcane here, so I think we could give this Warden some material type of Primal magic. All centered upon fetishes and totems. He could throw a haunted animal skull to produce a magical effect (and so we get ranged powers) and maybe even giving serious ranged weapon powers, but with the same approach, like "voodoo arrows" and other called/cursed-shots of sorts, swings of weapon that leave a trail of wailing dryad spirits behind causing massive fear, and finally some VINES!! But not spectral vines out of nowhere. You hit the enemy with the haft, which then sprouts out real barbed vines, caging the foe. - Summary: We got a melee/ranged defender who uses primal magic basically to enhance his resilience, stamina, actual size, and especially his material armor, shield and to a lesser extent weapons. We got an artificer like approach to primal magic, with things like animal bones infused with spirits, thrown to aid in the defense of the allies. We got a build which makes you grow bigger and a build which makes you grow more empathic, scary, and convincing, small races being forced to choose the latter. We got a good use for wisdom and out of battle time, with a good portion of the class being centered on special rituals. Also making this guy a potential resurrector out of combat. We got a use of probably both Wisdom and Constitution as primary stats for melee and ranged weapon (and "artifice") powers. We got versatility on the dailies side, since they can be changed like the Wizard ones, but in this case also depending on the type of totem chosen, which is a class feature tied to armor.
Haha! :D
No really, I'm an optimist, I liked every bit of 4e till now. The Invoker caught me immediately, the Bard is keeping me teased as hell (but I REALLY want a weapon at-will in the Con build....), and I always liked the concept of a primal source, ever since it was an implicitly weird cousin of divine magic. And 4e has done a fantastic job with it. Till now. Now I simply, plainly, saw a drop in the quality standard. Originality in first place.
You know, speaking of constructiveness, I've been thinking how I would have done the Warden. How it could have been a Primal Defender without being so similar to so many things at the same time.
And these are the concepts, ordered as a stream of thoughts directed towards the understanding of what the warden should be.
WotC's Warden is better than yours IMO.
The Geomancer.
http://www.cavesofnarshe.com/fft/jobs.php?job=Geomancer
http://www.creativeuncut.com/gallery-04/fft-geomancer-male.html
For those who never played FFT, the Geomancer was basically a high HP/medium armor job that tended to use big weapons like axes. They could gain abilities to walk over water or lava or otherwise bypass terrain, and use various "At will" attacks based on what sort of terrain they were standing on.
They didn't do much damage but had some nasty status effects, and could hit multiple opponents easily. It's actually a very good fit for what I've seen of the Warden. Oh, and entangling vines were one of it's basic attacks, since it was activated by the very common grass terrain...
For the Warden, while I will have to go through each Power later on and change fluff around. The general concept I am going for will be; "the Warden is the vessel and will of the Spirits bound to a region. She listens to their wishes but they answer to her call. Her connection gives them the strength to interact and influence the material and living."
Some of my initial ideas for Powers:
Warden's Grasp: Replace the spectral vines with spectral hands and limbs and you got that covered.
Weight of Earth: Spirits grasp and claw at the enemy like an angry mob. While your blade strikes home.
Earth Spikes: Solitary spirits rise silently from the ground like ancient guards awaiting those that cross their path.
Forms: Basically all the forms stay pretty well the same, if only less obviously animal and more simply bizarre and such. However a phantom image of the spirit that is now riding the Warden can be seen as he moves about the battlefield.
WotC's Warden is better than yours IMO.
Seconded.
Seriously, is not that your Warden is plain bad, is just that... it doesn't fit 4e's standards. I mean, all this fluff you came up with is great, but nothing stops you from applying this stuff to the current Warden without changing his mechanics.
Now, about your mechanics... some ideas just wouldn't work. You talked about one of the builds being ''forbidden for small races''... this is totally contrary to 4e's ''no exceptions to the rules'' design. You would be setting a parameter that is best left untouched.
Just my two cents anyway. I liked the class the way it is and wouldn't change it. Well, maybe would work something up for Font of Life, which really is overpowered IMHO.
Now, somebody is up to discuss the mechanics of the class, specially Font of Life and the mark? I got some problems with the former but am OK with the latter... now, people on my group are claiming the Warden's mark to be extremely overpowered as well. What do you guys think?
to sigil_beguiler for the fastest way to give some originality to the class.Now, somebody is up to discuss the mechanics of the class, specially Font of Life and the mark? I got some problems with the former but am OK with the latter... now, people on my group are claiming the Warden's mark to be extremely overpowered as well. What do you guys think?
Font of Life looks pretty powerful to me, but not game breaking. It goes a long way to help define the warden's tough guy image, and is a good incentive to take the class. In combination with channel divinity or a hobgoblin, it's going to make wardens almost unstoppable, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
As for the mark, I think it's fine. The fighter and swordmage marks are better, IMO, but I think the warden's is better than the paladin's. The real tricky part about the warden's mark is that you have to be adjacent for a decent effect, even when the mark is triggered. Warden's Grasp isn't particularly spectacular, since as a reaction it won't allow you to prevent the attack, just move them a square after they make it.
Regarding the armor class and hit points: If you use a two handed weapon, your AC will be a base 15 or so. That's unviably low. So you're undoubtedly going to use a shield. With a shield and a 14 con or wis, you have 17 AC, the same as a two handed weapon fighter, but without the damage of a two handed weapon. Meanwhile you have higher hit points, but honestly not that much higher. At level 8, you will have 9 extra hit points, the same as if you took the Toughness feat, and less than your typical foe will deal with a single attack. The hit points are nice, but they aren't going to be as big of an effect in-game as people think. The real salvation is the temporary hit point attack. Verdict: with a heavy shield, as durable as a Fighter. Otherwise, less.
Font of Life: Really nice. Basically forces enemies to kill you through your AC and HP instead of bypassing it with dehabilitating effects. I don't think it unbalances the character, but it will be very appreciated by players.
"Identity": I don't think this guy has an Identity problem. I think it has a "new" problem. Its a class for people who want to play a big, primitive giant of a man who can call nature spirits to serve him, and who transforms himself into various Avatars of nature when he fights. That is at least TWICE the "identity" of "guy who fights with a sword and also casts spells," which everyone accepts. Its newer, yes, but its got way more going for it in terms of hooks onto which an identity can be attached. Verdict: people will complain about the theme and identity for a little while, then different people will play the class, and everyone will start to accept "giant avatar of nature" as an identity and an archetype.
I only said identity instead of archetype because archetypes are only important when you're trying to emulate something. When you're creating something new in a fictional world, it doesn't need to match an archetype (the dragonshaman, for example, didn't really have an archetype).
Okay, I think I see the distinction now. However, upon reflection, I actually think maybe what this class NEEDS is more emulation. The issue many people (or maybe just "I" :embarrass) have seems to be relating to what this Warden character is supposed to be. I think in order to get verisimilitude(sp?) in fiction, it usually needs to have some truth in it. Powerful fantasy draws on archetypes from the real (in a manner of speaking) world. /soapbox :P
Continuing with the constructive bent, I have two highly subjective criticisms/suggestions:
1) I think the class quote needs work. I like the mountain thing, but IMHO x3 with just that alone the quote lacks character and emphasizes the mechanics of the class over cool flavor. The quote as is could easily come from a verbose body guard at the entrance to a merchant's vault--nothing wildernessy about that. If the Rogue (who has an awesome quote) had a quote like the Warden's he'd say, "You can't catch me cause I'm so quick and stealthy!"
Something that evokes more of the primal, one-with-nature feel might set a better tone for the class description. (Apologies & respect to the quote-chooser, btw!)2) The "tribal defender" character example in the second descriptive paragraph conflicts with common sense; it should either go away completely or be moved to the end of the paragraph. The typical champion of the tribe is a big warrior dude (read: fighter or barbarian), not a guy who turns into trees and summons spectral vines. Granted, some tribes might have that, but the Warden is too magicy to be THE archetypal champion of THE primal tribe. The other two character examples are much more evocative without stepping on the toes of common sense and other classes. Maybe they could replace "staunch defender" with "once in a generation mystical guardian" or something. Playing the Warden sounds like getting to play a forestmaster character or something, which is cool...So let's not bill him or her as your typical tribal warrior.
[indent]
Fluff wise, well like I always do when it comes to magical classes there will be refluffing. Specifically when it comes to Primal the theme has been emphasizing the spirits and deemphasizing the nature connection.
I've noticed the "spirit" focus of the [Primal] classes also.
It rubbed me the wrong way, until I read the January and Beyond article:[indent]
EDIT: I keep forgetting I can't copy-paste the darn subscription material!
[/indent]I believe that a distinction, although slight, is thoughtfully being made between "nature" and "nature's sentience". Perhaps as a means of defining/further delineating the [Elemental] and [Primal] power sources?
It seems that [Primal] heroes are fueled by the sentient expression of the natural world and/or ancestors who have traveled beyond death to be counted among such sentience. I can only assume that [Elemental] heroes will be fueled by nature's physical body itself, such as air, ice, water, wood, fire, etc.
Only time will tell. I trust it will all prove interesting.[/indent]
Regarding the Mark: The mark looks fancy, but its easy for an adjacent enemy to shift one space away and attack the Warden's ally. The Warden can drag the enemy back against its will, but only after its too late. Most other defenders either completely prevent that, or inflict punishing damage. At least you have attacks that create difficult terrain around you, preventing shifting, but those attacks are limited use. Still, its something. Verdict: balanced with the other defenders, but only because the Warden can easily mark multiple enemies. The other marks are more powerful, but affect fewer foes.
Regarding the armor class and hit points: If you use a two handed weapon, your AC will be a base 15 or so. That's unviably low. So you're undoubtedly going to use a shield. With a shield and a 14 con or wis, you have 17 AC, the same as a two handed weapon fighter, but without the damage of a two handed weapon. Meanwhile you have higher hit points, but honestly not that much higher. At level 8, you will have 9 extra hit points, the same as if you took the Toughness feat, and less than your typical foe will deal with a single attack. The hit points are nice, but they aren't going to be as big of an effect in-game as people think. The real salvation is the temporary hit point attack. Verdict: with a heavy shield, as durable as a Fighter. Otherwise, less.
Font of Life: Really nice. Basically forces enemies to kill you through your AC and HP instead of bypassing it with dehabilitating effects. I don't think it unbalances the character, but it will be very appreciated by players.
"Identity": I don't think this guy has an Identity problem. I think it has a "new" problem. Its a class for people who want to play a big, primitive giant of a man who can call nature spirits to serve him, and who transforms himself into various Avatars of nature when he fights. That is at least TWICE the "identity" of "guy who fights with a sword and also casts spells," which everyone accepts. Its newer, yes, but its got way more going for it in terms of hooks onto which an identity can be attached. Verdict: people will complain about the theme and identity for a little while, then different people will play the class, and everyone will start to accept "giant avatar of nature" as an identity and an archetype.
I'm pretty fine with that identity, the problem is just that as marius4 correctly (another
here by me) points out, and me and Mcnancy also complain, even if pointing our finger at different things, the authors didn't do a good job in presenting this identity. I love the concept underneath the Warden, and I digg the mechanics. But it's how they wove the two together that fails, charismatically speaking. Like I said before, it's a matter of quality. It's the kind of shame you feel when you see a good car, with great engines and even character, being ruined by a cheesy looking paint-job. Imagine a new camaro. Yes, it changed the schemes, it's very different from its predecessors, it's new and some people found it difficult to accept it, but in the end they liked it. Now picture it with a cow-mottle paint job and "GOT MILK" written big on it with a chubby font. You're gonna say "****ing waste of money, they ****ed the car up completely, get this thing off of my face".I'm pretty fine with that identity, the problem is just that as marius4 correctly (another
THAT might actually make a camaro worthwhile.
Sigil Beguiler:
[indent]I've noticed the "spirit" focus of the [Primal] classes also.
It rubbed me the wrong way, until I read the January and Beyond article:[indent]In the last days of the war, a new force made itself known in the cosmos: the spiritual expression of the world itself. These primal spirits declared an end to the conflict, asserting that the world would no longer be a battleground for the two opposing forces. The gods and the primordials were banished to their home planes, and the primal spirits of the world decreed a balance: world would remain a place where matter and spirit mingled freely, where life and death proceeded in an orderly cycle, where the seasons changed in their unending wheel without interference. The gods and the primordials could still influence the world, but they could not rule it.
These primal spirits are beyond number, ranging from spirits too weak to have proper names to the mightiest incarnations of nature’s power: the Primal Beast, the Fate Weaver, the Great Bear, the World Serpent, and others. They are spirits of winds and weather, of predators and prey, of plains and forests, of mountains and swamps. As the people of the world have come to know these primal spirits and live in harmony with them, some mortal spirits have joined their number after death, just as some mortal souls pass to the dominions of their gods. These great ancestors are among the most potent of the primal spirits.[/indent]I believe that a distinction, although slight, is thoughtfully being made between "nature" and "nature's sentience". Perhaps as a means of defining/further delineating the [Elemental] and [Primal] power sources?
It seems that [Primal] heroes are fueled by the sentient expression of the natural world and/or ancestors who have traveled beyond death to be counted among such sentience. I can only assume that [Elemental] heroes will be fueled by nature's physical body itself, such as air, ice, water, wood, fire, etc.
Only time will tell. I trust it will all prove interesting.[/indent]
That January & Beyond text is awesomeness. Boy, they really try to keep us on our toes here putting info in bits and pieces everywhere. I missed that one. That helps flesh out a context for the Warden a little more, though it hasn't changed my two opinions above.
In general, the story of the Primal spirits taking a stand is just cool and makes me kinda dig the core world. Heh. Also, though, I must continue to say that D&D 4e gets more and more like DragonLance every day!
THAT might actually make a camaro worthwhile.
I GIVE UP! ...:D
[indent]
In general, the story of the Primal spirits taking a stand is just cool and makes me kinda dig the core world. Heh. Also, though, I must continue to say that D&D 4e gets more and more like DragonLance every day!
I thought the story was pretty sweet myself![/indent]
It seems to me that, since creatures must remain adjacent to maintain the mark, it encourages the warden to move about a bit. In contrast to the fighter, which is so sticky that once planted in an advantageous position they can remain there safely for a few rounds, this means a warden is going to be making use of that move action more often. This in turn might make the warden more fun to play at the table even if the fighter is the more potent defender.
Does that make sense to anyone else? It's actually making me quite eager to play the class.
I supposed what I am pointing out is the fact that wouldnt it be wiser for them to make these redundancies into alternate builds for already existing classes...like say the Tempest Build for the Fighter class?
I realize I'm a little late to the thread to reply to several of these comments, but here I go anyway:
The same as we discussed in Mcnancy's Invoker thread, the idea behind making the Warden separate from the Druid (and the Invoker separate from the Cleric) has less to do with replicating a specific archetype from previous editions, and more to do with dividing up the Druid's (and Cleric's) role ambiguity and overlap in those previous editions. (For example, in 3.5E, you could be a pretty damn good "Defender-type character" and "Controller-type character" at the same time, as a Druid.)
In 4E, we now have new classes to carry some of the old classes' extra archetypes.
I GIVE UP!
Archaon, considering that you spent about as much time on it as WotC did on writing that up, it's not bad. The problem is your trying to do what they did, paint on a theme after the mechanics are there. IMO your's is a little better, Beguiler's sounded like a melee Shaman which is a little better than a melee druid. Cookies for both of you.
The mechanics are strong, and they sound like fun in a stategy sort of way. and as some you say flavor can be reflavored, I'm a creative guy I could just rewrite the class to be what I want. No thank you, I do not want to play a system where I have to take a pile of mechanics and then use make-believe describe to everyone what it looks like.
Its a class for people who want to play a big, primitive giant of a man who can call nature spirits to serve him, and who transforms himself into various Avatars of nature when he fights.
you just basically described Barbarian, Shaman and Druid (in that order), no I think this is a class for people who want to play a primal Defender. If you were interested in the Identity you could just play a Barbarian/Druid, so you must be attached to the Role.
I only said identity instead of archetype because archetypes are only important when you're trying to emulate something.
It's up to us, the people making the characters, to create new identities, its up to them to mechanically emulate those identities not make up an identity to cover up a mechanic.
Oh whoops, I said i was going to be constructive didn't I?
Ok you want a Primal Defender that bad, here's what i would do if I was WotC:
the key is making each Primal class stand out from the other both in flavor and task, I think the problem lies in the Druid's past.
Barbarian is fine, they don't need spirits, changing forms or the forces of nature to prove the power of a living thing goes beyond what we expect.
We don't know much about the Shaman, but it's rumored they're the spirtualists who communes with the very essences of living things to aid his allies, sounds like a classic archetype to me, and it stands out both in flavor and role.
Now the Druid was the first class to wield the power of nature, and like a boy who's about to get a little brother, he will have to give up some of his toys. I think the Druid needs to part with wildshape, not that a class shouldn't be able to do different things, but the druid has a role now and it's not versatility. The druid should focus more on controlling plants, animals, the weather, the environment and be able to rust metal and summon spore clouds; using nature in a direct and phisical way.
So with wildshape up in the air and primal lacking a defender, a class that truely focuses on transformation is a no brainer for me. I think wildshape and defender go pefect together, give em powers that apply the grabbed condition some utilities that grant temp HP and other buffs. in the fluff talk about how some just have one totem shape, others have many forms and some do partial transformations.
then you let multiclassing do the rest; you want the Warden? take the wildshaper and MC with Barbarian or Fighter, you want the old Druid then MC with the wildshaper, or go the other way around on either to switch roles.
This takes care those of us who want a Primal Defender and those of us who focus more on creativity. More bases are fully covered this way which means more people happy.
That's why then you get a Druid who has wildshaping and elemental magic, and Warden who has minor wildshaping and minor elemental magic in order to mix it all up with weapons and defender abilities. A barbarian or druid with secondary roles is sound, but if you give secondary roles to 4 out of 4 classes in the same power source, of course you'll gonna have overlapping.
However guys, no more whining, we're not going to change things now, Let's just hope that the rest is good, and that reflavoring will eventually not be so necessary.
At least we have good mechanics.
you just basically described Barbarian, Shaman and Druid (in that order), no I think this is a class for people who want to play a primal Defender. If you were interested in the Identity you could just play a Barbarian/Druid, so you must be attached to the Role.
If I said that the Fighter is a class for people who want to play a master of martial weaponry who relies on his personal strength and cunning to lead his allies to victory, would you tell me that I basically just described the Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord (in that order) and that it's just a class for people who want to play a martial defender? Yeah, flavor overlaps a lot within a power source sometimes. That doesn't mean a class does or does not have some kind of identity crisis. The Warden is to the Druid and Shaman what the Paladin is to the Cleric. They're close, yes, and definitely related, but I would say they're still distinct in identity.
a master of martial weaponry who relies on his personal strength and cunning to lead his allies to victory
If you're so interested in my opinion, I would say that any martial class could meet that extremely veg description. In fact I would go so far to say that is a definition of a martial character, and the Fighter has more identities than that. I already spoke about why the older classes shouldn't be used as paradigms of disinction, they are from a more restrictive time.
you just basically described Barbarian, Shaman and Druid (in that order), no I think this is a class for people who want to play a primal Defender. If you were interested in the Identity you could just play a Barbarian/Druid, so you must be attached to the Role.
I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Party role is a mechanical consideration, not a matter of identity. If I say my character focuses on a ranged weapon, I'd consider it a bad thing that you automatically know it's a ranger, and more definitely, a striker.
It's up to us, the people making the characters, to create new identities, its up to them to mechanically emulate those identities not make up an identity to cover up a mechanic.
Oh whoops, I said i was going to be constructive didn't I?
Ok you want a Primal Defender that bad, here's what i would do if I was WotC:
the key is making each Primal class stand out from the other both in flavor and task, I think the problem lies in the Druid's past.
Barbarian is fine, they don't need spirits, changing forms or the forces of nature to prove the power of a living thing goes beyond what we expect.
We don't know much about the Shaman, but it's rumored they're the spirtualists who communes with the very essences of living things to aid his allies, sounds like a classic archetype to me, and it stands out both in flavor and role.
Now the Druid was the first class to wield the power of nature, and like a boy who's about to get a little brother, he will have to give up some of his toys. I think the Druid needs to part with wildshape, not that a class shouldn't be able to do different things, but the druid has a role now and it's not versatility. The druid should focus more on controlling plants, animals, the weather, the environment and be able to rust metal and summon spore clouds; using nature in a direct and phisical way.
So with wildshape up in the air and primal lacking a defender, a class that truely focuses on transformation is a no brainer for me. I think wildshape and defender go pefect together, give em powers that apply the grabbed condition some utilities that grant temp HP and other buffs. in the fluff talk about how some just have one totem shape, others have many forms and some do partial transformations.
then you let multiclassing do the rest; you want the Warden? take the wildshaper and MC with Barbarian or Fighter, you want the old Druid then MC with the wildshaper, or go the other way around on either to switch roles.
This takes care those of us who want a Primal Defender and those of us who focus more on creativity. More bases are fully covered this way which means more people happy.
I do like the identity that a wildshaping class would have, but it runs into too many problems for me to have prefered that method. The problem that has to be accounted for in the wildshaper is that it can't be done like the Druid's wildshape has been. It'd have to be like the warden and barbarian are now, with it being the effects of a daily power. A class based only on the Druid's form-switch kind of wild shape would result in a very un-multiclassable class, as well as one which broke down the flavor of the character's race, since everything would be done from wild shape. It'd be unique, but it wouldn't fit into 4e's philosophy well. The only way to do permanent wildshaping with a class is as the druid has it. It has wild shape powers, but also has non-wild shape powers to keep it from being one-dimensional. The result would be a defender who has a transformative theme to his powers, probably in the fluff, but doesn't actually represent an animal formed character like the druid's version does.
I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Party role is a mechanical consideration, not a matter of identity. If I say my character focuses on a ranged weapon, I'd consider it a bad thing that you automatically know it's a ranger, and more definitely, a striker.
I do like the identity that a wildshaping class would have, but it runs into too many problems for me to have prefered that method. The problem that has to be accounted for in the wildshaper is that it can't be done like the Druid's wildshape has been. It'd have to be like the warden and barbarian are now, with it being the effects of a daily power. A class based only on the Druid's form-switch kind of wild shape would result in a very un-multiclassable class, as well as one which broke down the flavor of the character's race, since everything would be done from wild shape. It'd be unique, but it wouldn't fit into 4e's philosophy well. The only way to do permanent wildshaping with a class is as the druid has it. It has wild shape powers, but also has non-wild shape powers to keep it from being one-dimensional. The result would be a defender who has a transformative theme to his powers, probably in the fluff, but doesn't actually represent an animal formed character like the druid's version does.
Well done, these are good thoughts I hadn't been considering.
Druid, Warden, Babarian play and feel completely different from each other. While they have similarities, how they accomplish their role is done in different ways.
And I don't think it has to take away from your race, In fact you could flavor it that their transformation can be a sort of paragoning; a dragonborn tapping into the primal creature inside and becoming more dragonlike, or an Elf who embraces the connection between thier feyblood and the woodlands and becomes physically akin to the trees
one-dimensional is a good thing, that way we can pick and choose what kind of powers are characters have and don't have, as opposed to Warden and Druid who have multible kinds of powers and try to be four different people at the same time.
Druid, Warden, Babarian play and feel completely different from each other. While they have similarities, how they accomplish their role is done in different ways.
Ugh... Ok nevermind, I give up too
It's the same with the cleric. Seriously clerics have always annoyed me. Who ever heard of a holy warrior running around healing people in full plate? Oh wait they're called Paladins. I'm fine with them designing new mechanics for the roles they want available for archetypes.
With that philosophy in mind I'd love to see a Martial controller and maybe even a martial defender Ranger. Maybe call him a Trapper a Hunter, or a Woodsman.
Also an actual cloth wearing miracle working priest would be sweet. (part of what was ***** slapped into the present day cleric)
Back on topic: The Warden is just a Druid in Defender gear. Get over it.
The Warden is just a Druid in Defender gear.
I don't think i could have said it better myself, 100% agree!
Get over it.
No.
With that philosophy in mind I'd love to see a Martial controller and maybe even a martial defender Ranger. Maybe call him a Trapper a Hunter, or a Woodsman.
While we're at it, lets make a leader ranger called Camp Counseler and a controller called Wrangler. then we can do the same thing to all the classes AND THEN DO IT AGAIN DO THOSE CLASSES!
On the other hand, D&D has had a major part in creating fantasy archetypes. Wild shaping druids, bards giving stat buffs through song, holy knights that heal with a touch...pretty much all D&D there. I bet that, given time, the Warden will start to seem natural and may even filter into other fantasy sources.
On the other hand, I have a character of my own that fits the warden archetype PERFECTLY, and it's totally unrelated to D&D. A grizzled old prospector in the 1800s, he is also the spirit of the Earth, and fights with a giant pickaxe that he uses to control the earth with minor earthquakes, rifts in the ground, etc. May play him in a D&D setting now though the thought never crossed my mind before.
On still the other hand, I think I should be worried about that glowing spider that bit me.
I consider it as a promising class.
It's pity I don't have the same view for Invoker... he is way too confusing to rp him. He is too mechanicaly oriented than rp... Or it is a poor visualization.
Vulcan Raven.
Those are the two that come to mind immediately. I'm sure there are others.
The truth is while reading the forum i was really scared of what will be the warden. i am by nature very suspicious and the messages that i got from community wasn't very good. However, after reading the preview i was suprised in a good way. I understood his conceptual role as something between the old concept of ranger and a militant druid. Nature protectors. It suits me. You can see it as the paladins of the wild, or a special kind of druids with elemental and wildshaping abilities.
I consider it as a promising class.
It's pity I don't have the same view for Invoker... he is way too confusing to rp him. He is too mechanicaly oriented than rp... Or it is a poor visualization.
As you can see, problem is there's nearly no news: a marking paragon path for Druid would practically make a Warden. Only difference is HP and weapon attacks.
So more than Paladins we're seeing Swordmages. But given that we already have Swordmages, having just an equivalent but of Primal source, doesn't seem enough.
The complaint, again in different words, is that they didn't invent enough. They just made an alternative Swordmage. A Swordruid. See my above post for ideas of what could have been changed, very simply.
The Invoker to me is much more original. Or better, it covers old things that were eliminated from the game. Example: think about the 4e Wizard as a wizard with access to schools of magic A, B, and C. Well, Invoker would have access to schools of magic D, F, and G, and be divine at it. I called it an arcanist who uses divine matter to forge its spells.
It's funny, but as soon as I started thinking of the Warden as a Geomancer, I was fine with it. (Then again, I really really love Geomancers) I think most people will be ok with the Warden as long as they can connect it to something they like.
Problem is that the Druid is a Geomancer too, I also connect the Warden to somethingS I like, the problem is that plural, that mustn't be. Don't get me wrong, nothing bad at being plural, as long as those many things are not so similar to things already present in other classes. Because at that point, you're just giving me a multiclass made single.
Thanks to forms, some mechanics, and the ability of the CJs (Class Jockeys.....) at WotC, I don't feel really BAD about the Warden. But as of now it surely is the worst class overall in terms of uniqueness. With the rest of my chart going from Paladin (low uniqueness: a little too much Fighter-Cleric feeling) to Bard and Barbarian (high uniqueness for being "special" classes of sorts). If this "uniqueness" parameter is not an issue for you, the Warden could very well be among the top-notch classes. Unfortunately, it's very important to me, and I feel it's VERY low, even compared to Paladin.
Speaking of archetypes, I don't see problems with what the Warden may represent. The problem is that everything I picture could also be represented by a multiclass Druid - Barbarian, Druid - Fighter, Druid - Paladin and so on.
What are we supposed to say to people who played those characters- tough luck? Screw you? I'm cool with classes existing that have relatively similar themes to other, existing classes, but which have divergent combat styles.
Even if the only difference at all between the Cleric and the Invoker, just to use an example, was that one was the healing and protecting priest and another was the explosion and summoning priest, I'd be ok with that- by making two different classes, one for each combat style, you can manage to make each combat style especially well designed and especially well customized.
As you can see, problem is there's nearly no news: a marking paragon path for Druid would practically make a Warden. Only difference is HP and weapon attacks.
So more than Paladins we're seeing Swordmages. But given that we already have Swordmages, having just an equivalent but of Primal source, doesn't seem enough.
The complaint, again in different words, is that they didn't invent enough. They just made an alternative Swordmage. A Swordruid. See my above post for ideas of what could have been changed, very simply.
The Invoker to me is much more original. Or better, it covers old things that were eliminated from the game. Example: think about the 4e Wizard as a wizard with access to schools of magic A, B, and C. Well, Invoker would have access to schools of magic D, F, and G, and be divine at it. I called it an arcanist who uses divine matter to forge its spells.
So what is the big difference between rogues and rangers then?
I don't see it.
Warden, Fighter, Paladin, and Swordmage are all Defenders. How they 'defend' is different from each other.
Each class based on a source are supposed to be similar to each other.
What I am seeing is people have seen Fighters, Rangers and Rogues long enough that they accept their differences between them and down play their similarities.
A Warden and Druid play completely different from each other, while being part of the same power source.
Problem is that the Druid is a Geomancer too, I also connect the Warden to somethingS I like, the problem is that plural, that mustn't be. Don't get me wrong, nothing bad at being plural, as long as those many things are not so similar to things already present in other classes. Because at that point, you're just giving me a multiclass made single.
Thanks to forms, some mechanics, and the ability of the CJs (Class Jockeys.....) at WotC, I don't feel really BAD about the Warden. But as of now it surely is the worst class overall in terms of uniqueness. With the rest of my chart going from Paladin (low uniqueness: a little too much Fighter-Cleric feeling) to Bard and Barbarian (high uniqueness for being "special" classes of sorts). If this "uniqueness" parameter is not an issue for you, the Warden could very well be among the top-notch classes. Unfortunately, it's very important to me, and I feel it's VERY low, even compared to Paladin.
Speaking of archetypes, I don't see problems with what the Warden may represent. The problem is that everything I picture could also be represented by a multiclass Druid - Barbarian, Druid - Fighter, Druid - Paladin and so on.
Each source has a theme being seen through the various roles.
Arcane has control
Martial has damage
Primal hasn't been completely defined yet
Divine hasn't been completely defined yet
This also allows groups to play with themes much more so than in any previous additions. Now when I play Groknor, a barbaric type person, I am no longer stuck playing him as a 'savage' Fighter or Paladin, I can choose to be a Warden to better reflect his more "primal" nature.
(For example, in 3.5E, you could be a pretty damn good "Defender-type character" and "Controller-type character" at the same time, as a Druid.).
I think that lies the problem. Since we have the 3.5 idea of the druid (wich basically was a primal controler, defender, striker and leader) any class with fluff that has something to do with nature will be stepping on the druid's toes. We have to forget CoDzilla and reflavor the druid
Martial types hit things with weapons, they have a slightly different style depending on their role and specialty, but ultimately their power comes down to perfecting the human's training in hitting things with specialized sticks and advanced rock propulsion. The closest to something different would be the warlord.
Arcane types all blast things with various different magical effects, there are fire abilities, psychic abilities, ect in all four of the current arcane classes and roles, no exceptions, they are all obviously drawing from the same source but using it to a different more specialized effect.
Divine classes, need I really go into the whole obsession with divine fire and brimstone ect... really all the same source source specialized...
And now we're at primal and suddenly, every role seems to require it's own power source for people to be happy with it... come on people get real here. If the different classes weren't similar at all then may I ask a question: WHAT THE HECK IS A POWER SOURCE?
It has to be similar, at least a little. They should all have some kind of feel connecting them, something to tie the primal power source together and say, ok so that's primal, and primal classes are going to have these kind of things.
What separates a fighter from a rogue?
They both trained themselves to fight differently with sticks and rocks, one is more solid and upfront, the other relies on trickery and deception to provide better opportunities to poke you with their sharp stick. Other than that, they are defined by the lack of blatant mystical effects, they are mostly mundane. When I play a fighter or a rogue I get the feeling of this is a person relying upon their skill with blade, body and cunning and nothing else.
What may I ask is overlap with primal? I'll tell you what, honestly the barbarian is kinda the odd man out, he doesn't feel primal enough for me, he seems too mundane.
The warden seems similar to the druid, except his role is different and like the fighter and the rogue, they use similar concepts in different ways for different effects. That's how it should be, otherwise, there's no point to power sources if not to provide some kind of overlapping theme. Or should primal be different somehow, no theme, each role needs to be completely separate in feel and have no similarities with the other?
I just don't get it...
So what is the big difference between rogues and rangers then?
I don't see it.
[...]
A Warden and Druid play completely different from each other, while being part of the same power source.
You are talking about mechanics, I am not. It's clear that to remain mechanically balanced, the game has to force certain things, like extra damage feature for Strikers and mark for Defenders. I'm totally fine with the Warden's mechanics. To be more specific, I'm saying that its fluff is very poor in quality and character, because it recycles the druid too much.
The rogue, in a way, is completely opposite to the ranger: the first is clearly more adapted to civilized world, the second clearly better in the wilderness. It's not crystal-clear in the numbers of their mechanics, but from a wide perspective of fluff, mechanics, and fluff+mechanics, this and other differences are much clearer
One other example? Their difference in striking. One is based on combat advantage, the other on plain focusing. This is huge, and thematically eloquent: one is the dirty fighter, the other the focused fighter. Trickster mind VS keen senses.
It's the subtle things sometimes that make one product more convincing. You can see it in the daily things.
And I say that even a minor detail like the "ghostly vines" that grab and move foes, along with low level (no, FIRST level) powers that do nothing less than raising earth spikes, and an at-will that is a COPY of a druid's one (Thorn Strike) with just different range, but without even the slightest visual and conceptual difference... All of this is just lazy and poor design.
You know, I noticed the supposed thematic difference. They said "let's give the weather to the druid and leave earthly things to the warden". But that alone is not enough! It's only the start!
And then another thing I already talk about. If we're talking about playing the "green giant" that draws powers from the earth, was there a better chance to make a "Hulk" or "The Thing" type of defender? I know that size-increase as a mechanic poses a problem with the seriousness of small races using them, but then again, I'm not a professional game designer, I'm sure that with these little ideas in mind they could have come up with much NICER things rather than vines. They really didn't think about planar adventuring, because if seeing a gnome becoming the hulk of the situation (my take on what the Warden could have been) may seem hilarious, seeing vines slide people in the Elemental Chaos or Astral Sea is plainly LAME...
I think I'm being repetitive now, and I've written so much about the subject already, I find it a little strange that nobody seems to understand what I'm talking about, but I think I talked exhaustively enough.
Each source has a theme being seen through the various roles.
Arcane has control
Martial has damage
Primal hasn't been completely defined yet
Divine hasn't been completely defined yet
This is called needless symmetry and 4e designers wanted to avoid it. It's very alluring as a concept, because makes everything so square and clear, but it's a signal, again, of poor game design and lack of original ideas. If you want my take however on the Primal's shtick, it's "strong secondary roles". Something that if you give to more than 2 classes in a power source INEVITABLY causes overlap in some ways. And if it's noticeable even from the first 3 levels, it means it's a big problem. With a Druid and a Warden in a party an observer wouldn't be able to tell whose magical effects are those who can be seen on the battlefield. They're incredibly similar, but the Druid causes them from a distance, while the Warden from melee and close range. You will tell me that Swordmage and Wizard suffer the same problem and I'll answer maybe YES, but right because of this there was really NO NEED of repeating the error. Also because it then makes the parallel between Swordmage and Warden incredibly strong, causing that feeling of needless symmetry.
Sorry if I feel the need to summarize again my view, but here I go.
I don't criticize the uniqueness of Warden's mechanics or the need of a Warden class. I totally want a Warden and I find what we've seen fairly good mechanically speaking.
I criticize what I see as a lack of effort in making these mechanics look, sound and feel "good". And by good I mean original, adaptable to different campaigns (and TERRAINS), and mature enough for what is a teenage+ game, besides played mostly by twenty+ people.
Solutions? More thought-out and well written fluff, and by fluff I mean ANYthing not numerical and not playing terms. Read about the Primal source fluff in the January previews. You'll find that there were a lot of themes that could be exploited to make the Warden good with its same mechanics. Without going too far, a very teen-appealing thing like the tattoos the Warden sample portrait shows could have been exploited very well. Make different geo-friendly patterns ("tattoos") appear on the Warden by crawling from the soil through its skin and have some effects, and you made something very primal and very original. It's a random two-seconds idea that can be developed into something GOOD. Why didn0t they have this kind of brain-storming before making the Warden?
*wonders how many GC readers frequent these forums*
Warden: half-wildshaping melee fighter that fights with elemental powers and plant/beast attacks. Protector of the Forests.
I see what you are thinking right there. Though, really, I can see a difference (even if I cannot name it) and I'm sure I could fit each character in the two categories without even thinking twice.
I think it is partly because I can see a fine Warden example in my mind and a clear Druid example in my mind, and they are different.
Warden is the Defender: he protects and faces foes toe-to-toe with the wrath of the forests and the resilience of the mountains.
Druid is the Striker: he charges and moves and bites and slashes and is too rapid and skirmishing to be hit and while not grasping and attacking with his claws he blasts with the power of elements.
The Warden can blast too, but... differently. More might, less agility, less cunning.
Looks like Warden took them all.
If we start making classes based on mechanics then we will quickly see 4E go down the drain with classes like Bladebreaker, Eyestealer, Spellthief, Playerkiller, DM-Confuser and Funsunderer. Then we will cry for 5E and the mess will sart all over again, because of WotC fanboys who say they can't wait to play every class that has some shiny new rules.
IMO the rules of D&D are simply there to referee and support the creativity, also for a fact thats why D&D was created in the first place, so people can be creative and have rules to help them do that and have fun.
So for all of you who think just because Warden is a defender it's original and a hearty addition to D&D; you're hurting my favorite game, and if you keep screaming huzzah everytime WotC poops out brainless rules, this game will suffer and the players will suffer.
Mechanics defining classes will ruin this game:
Umm should I be the one to point out that they've been basically doing that since the Paladin came out? All Paladin archetypes can be represented by either the cleric, fighter, or some multiclass of the two. So why has it been perfectly fine to only define classes by mechanics for the past three editions, but suddenly in 4th it isn't?So for all of you who think just because Warden is a defender it's original and a hearty addition to D&D; you're hurting my favorite game, and if you keep screaming huzzah everytime WotC poops out brainless rules, this game will suffer and the players will suffer.
Warden is neither hearty nor original. It's the necessary splitting of the "covers all bases" druid class into Druid Mark 1(new Druid), Druid Mark 2(Warden) and Druid Mark 3(Shaman). Fortunately, old Druid had enough concepts to be split into three parts and still retain enough flavor for all of them.
[indent]
Each source has a theme being seen through the various roles.
Arcane has control
Martial has damage
Primal hasn't been completely defined yet
Divine hasn't been completely defined yet
It has been stated by designers that the theme of the [Primal] power source is transformation.[/indent]
Lechteron:
[indent]
To every one complaining about the style of the Warden being too similar to the Druid I have a question: How many levels of each have we seen? 10% (If that) and with that we haven't seen paragon paths or feats or new equipment that'll show up in the PHB2 and other such things. In all reality we're probably looking at 3-5% (Admittedly a made up statistic) of the available material for both classes. That's not really enough to get a full perspective of their different feels, just a taste.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Logical/rational thought such as this is normally frowned upon in threads like these, though. As you may have noticed, we are among those who wish only to gripe, complain, whine, and generally spoil the newness of things with their insatiable desire for tradition, reference, and D&D "their way".[/indent]
Ranadiel:
[indent]
Umm should I be the one to point out that they've been basically doing that since the Paladin came out? All Paladin archetypes can be represented by either the cleric, fighter, or some multiclass of the two. So why has it been perfectly fine to only define classes by mechanics for the past three editions, but suddenly in 4th it isn't?
Good question.[/indent]
Mcnancy:
[indent]
Mechanics defining classes will ruin this game:
If we start making classes based on mechanics then we will quickly see 4E go down the drain with classes like Bladebreaker, Eyestealer, Spellthief, Playerkiller, DM-Confuser and Funsunderer. Then we will cry for 5E and the mess will sart all over again, because of WotC fanboys who say they can't wait to play every class that has some shiny new rules.
IMO the rules of D&D are simply there to referee and support the creativity, also for a fact thats why D&D was created in the first place, so people can be creative and have rules to help them do that and have fun.
So for all of you who think just because Warden is a defender it's original and a hearty addition to D&D; you're hurting my favorite game, and if you keep screaming huzzah everytime WotC poops out brainless rules, this game will suffer and the players will suffer.
The only thing players are suffering is your incessant spoiling, funsunderer.
So you don't like the Warden, we get it. Wether or not he's an "original and hearty addition to D&D" is irrelevant to me because I think he looks downright sick and I can't wait to tear up some baddies with him once PHB2 hits shelves.[/indent]
Lechteron:
[indent]I wholeheartedly agree.
Logical/rational thought such as this is normally frowned upon in threads like these, though. As you may have noticed, we are among those who wish only to gripe, complain, whine, and generally spoil the newness of things with their insatiable desire for tradition, reference, and D&D "their way".[/indent]
Just a reminder, here the ones who desire tradition and reference are those who are ok with the Warden being simply what it is. I claimed exactly the contrary, that I would have liked a split from tradition and needless reference. And if any of my examples was perceived as wanting it "my way", no, they were examples that had the purpose of stimulating constructive discussion of new things, maybe I was culprit of posting in the wrong thread.
Mcnancy:
[indent]The only thing players are suffering is your incessant spoiling, funsunderer.
So you don't like the Warden, we get it. Wether or not he's an "original and hearty addition to D&D" is irrelevant to me because I think he looks downright sick and I can't wait to tear up some baddies with him once PHB2 hits shelves.[/indent]
Speaking only for myself, don't get me wrong, the fact that I don't agree with flavor and high-level design choices doesn't mean that I downright dislike or hate the class, it's an archetype I always liked and probably want to play if I'll have occasion to.
Both me and Mcnancy wanted to discuss things that weren't even caught up in the discussion, so I don't think neither of us really spoiled anyone.
As for the 'spectral vines' remember that all the primal classes seem to be tied to the 'primal spirit' which seems to be related to the Feywild. They aren't neccessarily calling on the natural world to aid them which is good because otherwise they'd be useless in many of the planes and the Underdark. They're calling upon the essense of nature, the heart of the Feywild, to aid them.
This means they can be useful anywhere they may be because they don't need to have ravens, badgers, or kudzu nearby. This also allows the primal characters not to be tied to a climate or culture. Also you can't compalin about fluff because other than the mechanics of the power you (the player or DM) can choose to describe how the power manifests, it's not required to use the provided flavor text to use the power.
That's also why there's minimal fluff writeup for the classes. They give enough to give an idea of the theme of the class, and they provide the mechanics. It's left up to the player and the DM to flesh out the class (or preferably the character) for the campaign world. This is hinted at in the DMG when they talk about themed campaigns. My favorite example is for Wuxia campaigns and describing teleport powers as high leaps rather than blinking from spot to spot.
Also keep in mind that the class name we use on our character sheets don't have to (and most times shouldn't) reflect what the character and the inhabitants of the campaign world call the character. Joe the level 5 fighter shouldn't be called that by the townsfolk. If he's known as working for a mercanary group they'll likely call him Joe of the Skulldancer Mercenary Company. If at level 25 he leads a horde of tribesmen to conquer a couple of kingdoms they might call him Joe the Warlord, even though his class is still fighter not warlord.
Class names, roles, and power sources are mechanics placeholders to help the player organize and reference things, not to define the nature of the campaign world or the characters in form an in-game manner. This means that Wardens and Druids (and maybe even Shamans) are all called Druids in the campaign world. The reason three classes exist for the in-game profession is based on the specialization of the character (leader/healer, controller/blaster, or defender/warrior).
Umm should I be the one to point out that they've been basically doing that since the Paladin came out? All Paladin archetypes can be represented by either the cleric, fighter, or some multiclass of the two. So why has it been perfectly fine to only define classes by mechanics for the past three editions, but suddenly in 4th it isn't?
I don't recall ever saying it was fine, and the Paladin came out in first edition same as Cleric, it was a sub-class of fighter and back then they were very different thematically and there was no multiclassing (do we need a review on the grandfather clause again?)
It's left up to the player and the DM to flesh out the class (or preferably the character) for the campaign world.
So it's ok for them to hand out (edited) because it's our job to have it make sense? and if thats the case then why do we even need Warden when we could just reflavor Paladin or Fighter.
By that Logic they would have just given us four classes: Defender, Striker, Leader and Controller and then we would've had the "pleasure" of doing the rest.
Wether or not he's an "original and hearty addition to D&D" is irrelevant to me because I think he looks downright sick and I can't wait to tear up some baddies with him once PHB2 hits shelves.
There are two other threads about warden where they all agree how "sick" they are.
Yes, especially if thinking at it from a campaign world perspective where it isn't really so distingued from the Druid, the Warden is fine even in its slightest aspect.
As Renchard said, it was NECESSARY to make it this way, to cover the rest of the old Druid niche/clichè (nichè?..)
It means I'll eventually end up making a class of my own if nothing will describe what I would have envisioned as an innovative Primal Defender. Giving it different sub-role (leader, at this point), armor, mobility, and of course class features and powers, could make it worthy of existence even if theoretically doubled by the Warden.
Have you ever watched Pathfinder, the movie? Or the 13th Warrior? Both the Vikings in the first and the "bear-men" in the second could very well represent, especially if mixed and given some magic, what I'd like to see as a primal defender: someone who physically captures the essence/spirit of animals and who utilizes material fetishes of animal parts (imbued with spirits in this case) to scare the enemy. A darker take on the Warden concept if you want. Oh, and the more powerful he becomes, the more physically imposing given that he is gifted in life-force by the vital earth spirits. It would be focused on melee reach since the beginning, and sheer contact with it would be dangerous because of the primal augmentation of its figure and armor. As I said, it would have elements of the artificer, in the sense of using material focuses for his magic, and it would be a tank in the visual sense of the word. Again inspired by the feral, giant-looking vikings of Pathfinder and bear-warriors of the 13th Warrior. It would use Str, Con, and Cha.
I feel like I'm in Stepford. "hits shelves", how much are they paying you?
Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks
So it's ok for them to hand out (edited) because it's our job to have it make sense? and if thats the case then why do we even need Warden when we could just reflavor Paladin or Fighter.
By that Logic they would have just given us four classes: Defender, Striker, Leader and Controller and then we would've had the "pleasure" of doing the rest.
No they need to provide us with a class who's mechanics make it play differently than other classes, not totally different but distinct from the other classes in its role and power source.
I think the Warden has done that. It doesn't transform fully like the Druid, nor is it a rage like the barbarians when it comes to dailies. It is the first defender to come out that really isn't designed to use heavy armor. It's the only defender to transform in any physical sense.
That's the mechanics part of the class and all they need to provide. It shouldn't be their job to tell us how to play a character of that class, or fit it into our campaigns. As with all things D&D since the beginning: If you don't like it don't use it or change it. It IS your game after all.
Problem is that the Druid is a Geomancer too,
Nah, I'm referring to Geomancer in it's very strict FFT's sense, which was a strong melee fighter who used terrain to hinder his opponents. The Geomancer was a big tough dude with an axe, who couldn't shoot lightning or fire or turn into a bear, but he could use whatever kind of ground he was standing on to slow/restrain/weaken enemies. The 4th edition Druid is very different.
I also don't think every core class needs to conform to a single archtype or idea. I like the Invoker as a Prophet, but you could also style him as an Ur Priest or an Intellectual who wields divine power through greater knowledge of divine rituals, bindings, and so forth.
It's ok if you don't like the Warden, or don't think it has an identity, but that doesn't prevent other people from thinking otherwise.
No they need to provide us with a class who's mechanics make it play differently than other classes, not totally different but distinct from the other classes in its role and power source.
I think the Warden has done that. It doesn't transform fully like the Druid, nor is it a rage like the barbarians when it comes to dailies. It is the first defender to come out that really isn't designed to use heavy armor. It's the only defender to transform in any physical sense.
As long as the Warden has a strong identity in play, it will be easy enough to add the flavor. And I think it has plenty of flavor as well, it's just hard to describe. (But easy to visualize, at least for me. What do you call a class with a strong visual identity?)
It is the first defender to come out that really isn't designed to use heavy armor.
Swordmage. ;)
But I agree with the rest of what you posted.
As long as the Warden has a strong identity in play, it will be easy enough to add the flavor. And I think it has plenty of flavor as well, it's just hard to describe. (But easy to visualize, at least for me. What do you call a class with a strong visual identity?)
Is this the vision you have? does anybody have this vision?
IMO she represents ambiguity and vegness, I can see why you all like the mechanics of this class, because thats all it is.
Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Exactly.
Nah, I'm referring to Geomancer in it's very strict FFT's sense, which was a strong melee fighter who used terrain to hinder his opponents. The Geomancer was a big tough dude with an axe, who couldn't shoot lightning or fire or turn into a bear, but he could use whatever kind of ground he was standing on to slow/restrain/weaken enemies. The 4th edition Druid is very different.
Too bad that I never played seriously with the FFs. I see, at this point I think it was a consciously implanted resemblance: FF is pop rpg culture. You know I'm ok with it, I crticized the kind of "epic from the beginning" feeling of Earth Spikes. It should have started with something more down-to-earth literally...
I also don't think every core class needs to conform to a single archtype or idea. I like the Invoker as a Prophet, but you could also style him as an Ur Priest or an Intellectual who wields divine power through greater knowledge of divine rituals, bindings, and so forth.
The recent discussion in the thread is bringing forth a strong "anime girl" identity for the Invoker, citing Sailor Moon as the best Invoker ante-litteram along with 3.5 Warlock (who however was too dark for the job)
As long as the Warden has a strong identity in play, it will be easy enough to add the flavor. And I think it has plenty of flavor as well, it's just hard to describe. (But easy to visualize, at least for me. What do you call a class with a strong visual identity?)
Straightforward? Inspiring? "Picturable"? Yes, everyone can visualize the Warden, that's true. What I can't visualize right now is the powers of an epic warden given the already high visual impact of the effects in the first 3 levels...
As for the 'spectral vines' remember that all the primal classes seem to be tied to the 'primal spirit' which seems to be related to the Feywild.
Actually primal spirits come from the world, not the feywild.
I don't recall ever saying it was fine, and the Paladin came out in first edition same as Cleric, it was a sub-class of fighter and back then they were very different thematically and there was no multiclassing (do we need a review on the grandfather clause again?)
Alright then, let's just skip 1st edition then and go straight into 2nd and 3rd edition then since I actually know those(although I'm willing to bet that the same is true for 1st if we ignore multiclassing). In 2nd edition, the paladin was unnecasry because every single archetype that it could represent could be made through either a cleric, fighter, cleric/fighter multiclass, or a cleric/fighter dual class. Therefore it was mecahnically defined. The game did not die. In 3rd edition, the paladin was unneccesary becasue every single archetype that it could represent could be made through either a cleric, fighter, or cleric/fighter multiclass(or some other random multiclass combos, but I want to keep this somewhat simple). The game did not die. In 4th edition, the paladin is unneccary becasue every single archetype it can fill can be made through a fighter, cleric, or a fighter/cleric multiclass. The game has yet to die.
So why is it that when the warden does what the paladin has been doing for at least 3 editions, you claim the game is going to die despite the game having not died over the past three editions?
Is this the vision you have? does anybody have this vision?
I think this is more a case of bad art than anything else. I do have a vision of the warden, based on the fluff and mechanics in the preview, and it does not look like the woman in the picture.
Alright then, let's just skip 1st edition then and go straight into 2nd and 3rd edition then since I actually know those(although I'm willing to bet that the same is true for 1st if we ignore multiclassing). In 2nd edition, the paladin was unnecasry because every single archetype that it could represent could be made through either a cleric, fighter, cleric/fighter multiclass, or a cleric/fighter dual class. Therefore it was mecahnically defined. The game did not die. In 3rd edition, the paladin was unneccesary becasue every single archetype that it could represent could be made through either a cleric, fighter, or cleric/fighter multiclass(or some other random multiclass combos, but I want to keep this somewhat simple). The game did not die. In 4th edition, the paladin is unneccary becasue every single archetype it can fill can be made through a fighter, cleric, or a fighter/cleric multiclass. The game has yet to die.
So why is it that when the warden does what the paladin has been doing for at least 3 editions, you claim the game is going to die despite the game having not died over the past three editions?
First of all, I don't recall ever saying it would die (if i did, i meant 4E not all of d&d),and I meant that it would start to get too much new stuff that works in contrived ways. Secondly, the Paladin did not come into 2nd as a base class, it was not a base class until they started running out of books for us to buy so they made the Complete Guide to Paladins along with all the other new stuff that worked in contrived ways and when 3rd came along it was contrived from the get go. and I agree about the Paladin being unneccary (grandfather clause, remember).
And in a way all three of those past editions died, my ultimate point is that as far as new contrived things go the Warden takes the cake and it's happening pretty early on.
I think this is more a case of bad art than anything else. I do have a vision of the warden, based on the fluff and mechanics in the preview, and it does not look like the woman in the picture.
My point with picture is that even though some of us can come up with a strong identity, WotC can apparently not.
First of all, I don't recall ever saying it would die (if i did, i meant 4E not all of d&d),and I meant that it would start to get too much new stuff that works in contrived ways. Secondly, the Paladin did not come into 2nd as a base class, it was not a base class until they started running out of books for us to buy so they made the Complete Guide to Paladins along with all the other new stuff that worked in contrived ways and when 3rd came along it was contrived from the get go. and I agree about the Paladin being unneccary (grandfather clause, remember).
And in a way all three of those past editions died, my ultimate point is that as far as new contrived things go the Warden takes the cake and it's happening pretty early on.
My apologies, you said ruin, not kill, although in context I'd say they would mean roughly the same.
And really the Warden is no worse than the paladin, sorceror, ranger(of past editions), the warlord, the swordmage, the barbarian, or countless other classes of past editions(and I'm sure I'm missing one or two for fourth). Really all you need from an archetype point of view is a weapon master, a guy who can throw magic around, a guy that can heal, and possibly a couple more to represent some of the future power sources. Through those three, you can pretty much accomplish any archetype imaginable by adding in multiclassing. Anything beyond those are just a mechanically defined classes.
The only difference between the warden and all the other mechanically defined classes, which constitutes most of them, is that we have had only a couple of days with it. Given more time, the community and developers will manage to define their archetypes just as they have done with every other class.
the Warden is no worse than the paladin, sorceror, ranger(of past editions), the warlord, the swordmage, the barbarian, or countless other classes of past editions(and I'm sure I'm missing one or two for fourth). Really all you need from an archetype point of view is a weapon master, a guy who can throw magic around, a guy that can heal, and possibly a couple more to represent some of the future power sources. Through those three, you can pretty much accomplish any archetype imaginable by adding in multiclassing. Anything beyond those are just a mechanically defined classes.
Ok you have some very good points there, I personally feel that the Warden is worse. Thats really the foundation of my whining, that things are getting worse, I fear what is happening is that the company is going to get more and more lazy and let consumerism take over from here. Ironic enough Fighter, Magic-User and Cleric were the only classes in 1st edition, that would be the other side of the pendulum. I would like something in the middle, in between Magic-User and SpellThief.
I can see why you all like the mechanics of this class, because thats all it is.
If you hadn't noticed, we don't need flavor in the book. Is it so hard to make up your own flavor for a class? For instance, I can make a Longtooth Shifter Warden and say that his powers come from his lycanthropic blood, and it doesn't change a thrice-damned thing about the mechanics. Remember, flavor can be nice, but WotC doesn't need to put it in the books.
Secondly, the Paladin did not come into 2nd as a base class, it was not a base class until they started running out of books for us to buy so they made the Complete Guide to Paladins along with all the other new stuff that worked in contrived ways and when 3rd came along it was contrived from the get go.
Just FYI, the Paladin has been a core class since 1st edition. Here, I'll make it easy for you.
1st Edition core classes:
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
Cleric
Druid
Thief
Assassin
Magic-User
Illusionist
Monk
The Bard was in the appendix as a sort of proto-prestige class.
2nd edition core classes
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
Cleric
Druid
Thief
Bard
Magic-User
Yes, 2nd edition had fewer initial classes than 1st.
I'm sure you know 3rd edition, so I won't go there.
If you hadn't noticed, we don't need flavor in the book. Is it so hard to make up your own flavor for a class? For instance, I can make a Longtooth Shifter Warden and say that his powers come from his lycanthropic blood, and it doesn't change a thrice-damned thing about the mechanics. Remember, flavor can be nice, but WotC doesn't need to put it in the books.
allow me to expand on something I said before.
So it's ok for them to hand out (edited) because it's our job to have it make sense? and if thats the case then why do we even need Warden when we could just reflavor Paladin or Fighter.
By that Logic they would have just given us four classes: Defender, Striker, Leader and Controller and then we would've had the "pleasure" of doing the rest.
See, I think you would enjoy this system because then instead of all this flavor stuff you could just have all the raw mechanics, they would just take all the powers they made for Warden and add them to the Defender class, you wouldn't be slowed down by all those ideas and concepts, you would have the joy and responsability of desribing and explaining what your character is and how his powers work and where he got em and how it relates (or doesn't) to the world that someone else put alot of time into.
P.S. The Paladin was introduced in Supplement I - Greyhawk (1975).
the Paladin did not come into 2nd as a base class, it was not a base class until they started running out of books for us to buy so they made the Complete Guide to Paladins along with all the other new stuff that worked in contrived ways and when 3rd came along it was contrived from the get go. and I agree about the Paladin being unneccary (grandfather clause, remember).
.
1st Edition core classes:
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
Cleric
Druid
Thief
Assassin
Magic-User
Illusionist
Monk
The Bard was in the appendix as a sort of proto-prestige class.
2nd edition core classes
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
Cleric
Druid
Thief
Bard
Magic-User
The ranger was always the druid/fighter with a dash of theif
the paliden was always the cleric/fighter
in this new edition the Ranger took a new role...this is the replacement...
Is this the vision you have? does anybody have this vision?
IMO she represents ambiguity and vegness, I can see why you all like the mechanics of this class, because thats all it is.
In general I think that all of the images that have been chosen to represent the classes in the players handbook and in other materials have been weak. They really do feel vague. There are no distinguishing features (the cleric's holy symbol is cropped) and it doesn't inspire me to want to play the classes. I have to trudge through 10 pages of powers (that feel like Magic cards) to begin to understand the flavor of the class. Paizo's Pathfinder iconics (and previously the Dungeon Magazine final print Iconics) really make me feel the difference in the classes and made me consider playing them within seconds. But... this is off topic for the thread... so I'll stop.
(actually I like the Goliath Warden pic currently on the splash page, but maybe because in the Heroes of Stone book most of the images were awful.)
Fluff is mutable anyway -- consider the fact that a large part of this community sent a message to the 4E designers that they didn't want too much core fluff tacked onto the classes; they would rather write their own. There is, of course, always a voice of dissent, and you can't please everyone.
As far as the mechanical existence of the class, I do think this is a class that the designers had to make. As one poster above points out, it was necessary that the 3.5 Druid's mojo be greatly reduced. By itself it could cover all of the 4E roles. IMO, the designers chose to fix the Druid issue by splitting that mojo up between different classes, so the 4E Druid got the control magic, and the 4E warden gets the animal form/melee butt kicking. The shaman, it seems, is going to get the healing and possibly the summoning aspects. Therefore, Warden isn't something they fabricated out of thin air and then slapped some generic nature warrior fluff onto -- it's a shard of the druid that they've worked to give a life of its own.
I just realized who the Warden strongly reminds me of -- Ysengrin, from Gunnerkrigg Court. http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/archive_page.php?comicID=272
Ooh-- good insight. I hadn't thought of him. "I applaud your powers of gardening." :D
*wonders how many GC readers frequent these forums*
At least one more!
The Ranger and Rogue would like to have a word with you. ;)
EDIT: Just to make sure I made my point clear, what I'm trying to get across is that an overlapping of power source and party role is perfectly acceptable. After all, the Ranger and Rogue are both Martial Strikers, and I don't think anybody will argue that they are redundant.
I would have liked it if they would have had the Ranger as a Primal Power class. But then, I'm coming at this from a former 1e/2e player who remembers the ranger getting spell abilities at a certain level. While the ranger in 4e is still fun to play, I kind of miss the spells.
IMO she represents ambiguity and vegness...
"Veg-ness?"
I suppose that, since we're discussing a nature-based class, the vegetable reference is amusing, but I think you mean "vague," not "Veg."
I will ban primal classes from my games. The treehugger flavor does not appeal to me at all.
Additionally, I don't think any classes beyond those detailed in the First 4th Edition Player's Handbook are necessary. Those cover all bases as far as I'm concerned; everything else is either just flavor or silly new rules that unnecessarily complicate play. I will not buy the PHB II. The first one was good enough. If some player wants a "nature-based" class, let him play a cleric of a nature deity or a fighter/ranger/rogue/etc. with some treehugger fluff included in the character's background.
I will ban primal classes from my games. The treehugger flavor does not appeal to me at all.
And what if it appeals one (or more) of your players?
And what if some of your players want to play a Barbarian, which is different in a mechanical and conceptual way (and fluff-wise, too)?
If your players are already satisfied with what they have, then it's cool. But I just don't see why you'd have to shut the door to a world of possibilities with no reason other than "I'm already fine, thanks".
Well, aside from "I don't want to spend money", sure. And while that could be a well-justified reason, that doesn't give you the right to judge every new book (even the ones we don't have any hints yet) like "silly new rules", just like I don't have the right to call every new book EPIC and AWESOME.
Forgive me for my blatant OTness, though.
"Veg-ness?"
I suppose that, since we're discussing a nature-based class, the vegetable reference is amusing, but I think you mean "vague," not "Veg."
I will ban primal classes from my games. The treehugger flavor does not appeal to me at all.
Additionally, I don't think any classes beyond those detailed in the First 4th Edition Player's Handbook are necessary. Those cover all bases as far as I'm concerned; everything else is either just flavor or silly new rules that unnecessarily complicate play. I will not buy the PHB II. The first one was good enough. If some player wants a "nature-based" class, let him play a cleric of a nature deity or a fighter/ranger/rogue/etc. with some treehugger fluff included in the character's background.
Are you entirely convinced that being this persnickety about a player's character class choice is in the long term best interests of your game?
Your position seems kind of like someone who is throwing a party, and intends to serve Coke. Another friend is willing to bring Pepsi, but no! You do not like Pepsi. You do not feel that Pepsi is necessary when there is already Coke. So you order him NOT to provide your party with free Pepsi. In fact, you ban Pepsi! Take that, redundant brand name colas!
I can see why you might not drink the Pepsi. That's cool. But banning the Pepsi might be going a little too far. Live and let live is a pretty good adage at the gaming table.
in 3-3.5 i loved the druid. I love the whole treehugger defender of the woods archetype but i NEVER once played a cleric. And using a cleric and calling it a druid? BALDERDASH! To me a druid shouldn't be in any sort of metal armor. If you want to be a cleric to a nature diety, thats fine, just don't say you are a druid.cleric uses the powers of the divine to aid him, the gods or god grant him powers.
mages (wizard, sorcerer, etc) tap into the raw energies of the elements and bend them to their will. They create something out of nothing, they change energy.
druids and nature casters reach into an energy thats essentially in every rock, tree, drop of water, etc. They don't change energy but they manipulate the environment around them. So while the wizard conjures up a lightning bolt from his fingertip the druid would summon a storm that delivers lightning bolts.
the destination is the same but the journeys are different.
Ooh-- good insight. I hadn't thought of him. "I applaud your powers of gardening." :D
At least one more!
Yay! Good to see GC isn't as obscure as I thought.
I will ban primal classes from my games. The treehugger flavor does not appeal to me at all.
Thankfully, with 4e, you can always just take the Warden and reflavor him into something else entirely different.
Additionally, I don't think any classes beyond those detailed in the First 4th Edition Player's Handbook are necessary. Those cover all bases as far as I'm concerned; everything else is either just flavor or silly new rules that unnecessarily complicate play. I will not buy the PHB II. The first one was good enough. If some player wants a "nature-based" class, let him play a cleric of a nature deity or a fighter/ranger/rogue/etc. with some treehugger fluff included in the character's background.
Sounds pretty harsh to me, but it's your prerogative. Though I find it odd that you'll accept 'treehugger' fluff in character backgrounds but not in character class choice... especially since classes' flavor is now as mutable as any other aspect of a character.
Your position seems kind of like someone who is throwing a party, and intends to serve Coke. Another friend is willing to bring Pepsi, but no! You do not like Pepsi. You do not feel that Pepsi is necessary when there is already Coke. So you order him NOT to provide your party with free Pepsi. In fact, you ban Pepsi! Take that, redundant brand name colas!
I can see why you might not drink the Pepsi. That's cool. But banning the Pepsi might be going a little too far. Live and let live is a pretty good adage at the gaming table.
Well whats to stop the person from just reflavoring the coke.
I would have liked it if they would have had the Ranger as a Primal Power class.
Then you would have had power source / role overlapping with the Barbarian: Primal Striker. :P
My argument therefore still stands.
Well whats to stop the person from just reflavoring the coke.
A) Reflavoring can only do so much.
B) Why should I need to reflavor one mechanic when I have another mechanic over here that fits a lot better anyways?
On a side note, Pepsi and Coke taste exactly the same to me. I don't understand what's wrong with every other human being alive...
See, I think you would enjoy this system because then instead of all this flavor stuff you could just have all the raw mechanics, they would just take all the powers they made for Warden and add them to the Defender class, you wouldn't be slowed down by all those ideas and concepts, you would have the joy and responsability of desribing and explaining what your character is and how his powers work and where he got em and how it relates (or doesn't) to the world that someone else put alot of time into.
Let me clarify: flavor is good, but not always necessary. Power Source flavor is nice so each class gets a defining theme to its powers and class features. Beyond a bit on how they get their powers, the books feature little class-specific flavor outside of the powers (except for stuff like warlock pacts). I greatly prefer this setup over 3.5 where flavor translated into stuff like alignment restrictions for non-divine classes.
On a side note, Pepsi and Coke taste exactly the same to me. I don't understand what's wrong with every other human being alive...
Pepsi always gives me a massive stomachache. Thus, I'm a Coke addict :P .
Pepsi is sweeter. Coke is more bitter.
Lies and more lies. They taste exactly the same, damn it! :P
The only difference is that Coke has something in it that maker your mouth feel dry after its left your mouth, making you want to drink more and giving the illusion that it's more refreshing.
The only difference is that Coke has something in it that maker your mouth feel dry after its left your mouth, making you want to drink more and giving the illusion that it's more refreshing.
Plus the lack of pain 5 minutes later ;) . Now let's just get back on topic.
Then you would have had power source / role overlapping with the Barbarian: Primal Striker.
My argument therefore still stands.
Yeah, thats almost as impossible as two martial strikers or two arcane controllers, oh wait, that's never been a problem.
Your argument therefore is what exactly?
Edit: I kinda had a bad hangover when I wote this and I came off a leettle bit jagoffy, I didn't think you were being sarcastic because he seemed to be agreeing with you.
Yeah, thats almost as impossible as two martial strikers or two arcane controllers, oh wait, that's never been a problem.
Your argument therefore is what exactly?
Follow the little blue arrows in the quotes back and see. ;)
I agree with you that power source / role overlapping is no problem. That is in fact the argument I was trying to get across. :P
Yeah, thats almost as impossible as two martial strikers or two arcane controllers, oh wait, that's never been a problem.
Your argument therefore is what exactly?
Mcnancy, I've tried reasoning with you a couple of times in at least two threads, and obviously so have several others. For a while, I thought we were making progress and having a constructive dialogue to help you understand what the intention of newer classes and mechanics seem to be. You even appeared to respond favourably to some explanations and suggestions. But apparently, this was all for naught.
You have reverted to merely complaining, mostly about anything new. You don't like the Warden, because we already had Fighters and Paladin and Druids. You don't see the point of the Invoker, because we already have Clerics. One suspects that you didn't see the purpose of Warlords either, given that the Bard concept already existed. Did we need Warlocks? No, we had Sorcerers, which we didn't need either because we had Wizards. One can extrapolate how this might regress all the way back to "Elf" being a class.
My point is this: This is the Future Releases board, where we speculate about things which will be released in the future. Mostly, you don't seem to like the things being released in the future, so why do you keep coming here?
On the otherhand, Please don't make it worse by speculating things about me that are not true. I will be more of a listener if you will be too.
Ok, here goes some constructive not so sassy whining.
The problem with the Warden being the other half of the Druid is that we are still attached to the druid having all the shapeshifting, all the plant control, all the terrain and weather powers so for balance sake we make Druid 1 and Druid 2; Yes they use them in different ways, but they should represent different things.
I have been asking myself why I'm starting with Warden, when as we have said the Paladin is basically if not close to the same thing. Well I have realized why the Paladin is ok with me and the Warden is not
Why do I think the Warden a so much worse than Paladin? because the Paladin represents someone different, they're not the same type of people as Clerics, they have different uses for their powers and a different role because of who they are, they do not wield or bring down the power of the gods because the power of the gods is a part of them, it's what they have become. When a Cleric has a problem, they just ask their god to take care of it but a Paladin has only themselves, but because of their Virtue and Dedication they have a Divine heart and thats all they need.
The Identity of the Paladin is what gives them their Role, and to en extent that the class has earned it's place in my heart. The Warden's Identity on the other hand is defined by their role because other than their role they are just Druid 2. I think the Warden could learn a thing or two from Paladin.
Thats why I like my Druid and Wildshaper idea, the Druid influences nature, the Wildshaper becomes nature. I think each of the four classes in a Power Source should follow a pattern, maybe one that looks a little like this, but worded much better, as an example: Hammers is the Power Source
The Wielder, "it is simply a means to an end": someone with the abiltiy to manipulate the Power directly, using it as a carpenter uses a selection of hammers. Warlock, Ranger
The Engineer, "you know nothing of my power": someone who understands the power and has something to offer it, influencing it as a hammermaker influences what a hammer can do. Wizard, Warlord
The Outsider, "that happens evvvery time": someone who communicates with the Power whether they know how to or not, as a song can empower or disrupt the rythm of hammer blows. Bard, Rogue, Cleric, Shaman
The Embodiment, "I don't know, I just do it": someone who is or has joined with the very power itself becoming one, becoming it as one becomes a hammer by driving nails with their fists. Sorcerer, Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian
one could use this pattern to minimize power source overlap
I would design my version of the Druid to fit the engineer, the Wildshaper as a wielder, my version of the Invoker would be engineer and then I would do Avenger as a wielder like how vampire hunters aren't always holy men but they use the symbols, holy water and reliquary anyways.
using my example, the Druid, Warden and the Invoker are so fickle in design that they don't stand out enough from the other classes in their source, and some of you may not see it but I think it makes it hard to imagine them or to even flavor them yourself.
Pepsi and Coke taste exactly the same to me.
Not remotely! *in the voice of Vizzini*
The Princess Bride
I'm not doing myself any favors by being glib
You've not been doing that.
Why do I think the Warden a so much worse than Paladin? because the Paladin represents someone different, they're not the same type of people as Clerics, they have different uses for their powers and a different role because of who they are, they do not wield or bring down the power of the gods because the power of the gods is a part of them, it's what they have become. When a Cleric has a problem, they just ask their god to take care of it but a Paladin has only themselves, but because of their Virtue and Dedication they have a Divine heart and thats all they need.
No not really. Paladins and clerics are pretty much the same with regard to how their power works. Paladins don't get their powers from some greater virtue or dedication than anyone else. They get it from a ritual just like a cleric.
Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins.
As a cleric, your deity does not directly grant you powers. Instead, your ordination or investiture as a cleric grants you the ability to wield divine powers.
Incidenly, the cleric and paladin are just as likely to ask their god for help, as both of them have an equal need for the assistance. What you are thinking of are 3rd edition clerics and paladins, which we aren't dealing with anymore.
Thats why I like my Druid and Wildshaper idea, the Druid influences nature, the Wildshaper becomes nature. I think each of the four classes in a Power Source should follow a pattern, maybe one that looks a little like this, but worded much better, as an example: Hammers is the Power Source
The Wielder, "it is simply a means to an end": someone with the abiltiy to manipulate the Power directly, using it as a carpenter uses a selection of hammers. Warlock, Ranger
The Engineer, "you know nothing of my power": someone who understands the power and has something to offer it, influencing it as a hammermaker influences what a hammer can do. Wizard, Warlord
The Outsider, "that happens evvvery time": someone who communicates with the Power whether they know how to or not, as a song can empower or disrupt the rythm of hammer blows. Bard, Rogue, Cleric, Shaman
The Embodiment, "I don't know, I just do it": someone who is or has joined with the very power itself becoming one, becoming it as one becomes a hammer by driving nails with their fists. Sorcerer, Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian
one could use this pattern to minimize power source overlap
I would design my version of the Druid to fit the engineer, the Wildshaper as a wielder, my version of the Invoker would be engineer and then I would do Avenger as a wielder like how vampire hunters aren't always holy men but they use the symbols, holy water and reliquary anyways.
using my example, the Druid, Warden and the Invoker are so fickle in design that they don't stand out enough from the other classes in their source, and some of you may not see it but I think it makes it hard to imagine them or to even flavor them yourself.
Ummm using your definitions, the cleric and paladin should both be "the outsider" and the invoker should be "the embodiment". Likewise the warden is "the embodiment" while the druid would be "the outsider". So why are those bad designs?
Lies and more lies. They taste exactly the same, damn it! :P
The only difference is that Coke has something in it that maker your mouth feel dry after its left your mouth, making you want to drink more and giving the illusion that it's more refreshing.
This is all I have to say on this subject...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHB
Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHB
As a cleric, your deity does not directly grant you powers. Instead, your ordination or investiture as a cleric grants you the ability to wield divine powers.
Incidenly, the cleric and paladin are just as likely to ask their god for help, as both of them have an equal need for the assistance. What you are thinking of are 3rd edition clerics and paladins, which we aren't dealing with anymore.
Ok, so 4E srewed up the new particular versions of the Cleric and Paladin, The point is that you wouldn't need to turn them into whole new classes just to make them stand apart, all they need is a slight tweak in the writing to have different meanings, Warden needs a complete reflavoring of features, powers, and all that to make them mean something important and having that particular Druid there does not make it easy.
I will go more into the pattern thing latter.
When I lok at the new druid, I don't see an engineer, I see an embodiment; they seem to be concentrating on the "Avatar of Nature" aspect more than a primal spellcaster.
Oh, for those of you looking for wardens in fiction, check out Kral from "The Banned and the Banished" by James Clemens.
Now onto important matters. Coca Cola is a tasty drink with a slightly cinnamony taste. Pepsi is sugar syrup in old sparkling water.
Coke Zero is the pus from an elder god's eye infection.
Ok, so 4E srewed up the new particular versions of the Cleric and Paladin, The point is that you wouldn't need to turn them into whole new classes just to make them stand apart, all they need is a slight tweak in the writing to have different meanings, Warden needs a complete reflavoring of features, powers, and all that to make them mean something important and having that particular Druid there does not make it easy.
I will go more into the pattern thing latter.
Screwed up? Not really. Different from what came before? Yeah. And I really don't see any overlap between the druid and the warden.....well not anymore then there is between any other two classes that share a power source. The warden is a protector of nature who recieves blessings from nature for its service. The druid is someone who has become one with nature itself.(Oh and after more careful thought, I'm reversing my position of where they fall in your pattern thing) Honestly that is a larger gap than there is between the paladin and cleric. The only similarities between the two are that they both deal with nature and they both have polymorphing abilities.
Do you remember Magic of Incarnum? Specifically, the totemist? That's a Warden. Partial shapeshift stacking monstrosity, channeling the primal forms to twist his own body into an unstoppable slaying machine. Sure, in the early levels, it's just a few scales here, some claws there, but by Epic tiers, the Warden should be transforming into a chimeric juggernaut, goring with antlers, swiping with claws, battering with clubbed tail, buffeting with wings, and deflecting attacks off of its ironwood hide, all in one very, very angry package.
Or not.
After all, you could be the tattooed tribal warrior, calling upon the spirits of ancestors long past. Similar to the shaman, you bring the souls of the living, the dead, and the yet-to-be to your side, adding their will to yours. The line of your people enhances every sweep of your weapon, their souls stretch out to pin your foes, and their harrying wrath inflicts suffering and torment upon all who stand in your way.
Or maybe you're just into the primal magics. You allow spirits to possess your body, to work through your physical form to accomplish superhuman feats. Trained in the mystical arts, your battle prowess comes from warding against witchcraft, the ability to mimic the miracles of great beings past, or take on the aspects of powerful essences.
Or, just maybe, you're just that good. You're tough as nails, you can split the ground and send rock shards flying, your flailing barrage of attacks pins down anyone within reach, you can shrug off supernatural effects like water off a roc's back. You don't even shapeshift, you don't need to shapeshift, you're as quick as a panther, as fierce as a bear, as strong as an ox. What others accomplish through disciplined training, you manage by getting back to the core principles: sheer primal strength.
Or maybe you do, in fact, have a green thumb. The rocks whisper as you pass, the trees lean in to brush you with their leaves in welcome. When you fight on stone, it rumbles and bucks around you to shake your foes, yet leaves you stable. In the woods, thorns lash and swipe, leaving you a calm center in a vortex of fury. A whirlwind in the sky, a waterspout in the sea, quicksand in the desert, all come to your aide with primal vigor. Wherever you go to war, a small hurricane surrounds you, nature lashing out at any who would oppose its chosen.
Or maybe you're just a man who met a nice girl, had a nice chat, a wonderful romance, a roll in the hay, and woke up the next morning wondering why you were itching everywhere and couldn't hold silverware. Your specialized use of lycanthropy, or any other supernatural stigma, allows you to develop greater and greater power. Your rampage across the battlefield in a bloodthirsty frenzy, tossing aside damage and danger and devastating anything in your path. As you grow stronger, your form grows in turn, becoming stronger, larger, more dire. Too bad about the fleas.
I mean, seriously. If spectral vines are enough to make someone hate a class, how did we get past the paladin's Lite-Bright-Doom or the Swordmage's Stickers? It's not that hard to think up something that suits you.
I must confess, I'm surprised so many people seem to have trouble flavoring the warden.
Do you remember Magic of Incarnum? Specifically, the totemist? That's a Warden. Partial shapeshift stacking monstrosity, channeling the primal forms to twist his own body into an unstoppable slaying machine. Sure, in the early levels, it's just a few scales here, some claws there, but by Epic tiers, the Warden should be transforming into a chimeric juggernaut, goring with antlers, swiping with claws, battering with clubbed tail, buffeting with wings, and deflecting attacks off of its ironwood hide, all in one very, very angry package.
Or not.
After all, you could be the tattooed tribal warrior, calling upon the spirits of ancestors long past. Similar to the shaman, you bring the souls of the living, the dead, and the yet-to-be to your side, adding their will to yours. The line of your people enhances every sweep of your weapon, their souls stretch out to pin your foes, and their harrying wrath inflicts suffering and torment upon all who stand in your way.
Or maybe you're just into the primal magics. You allow spirits to possess your body, to work through your physical form to accomplish superhuman feats. Trained in the mystical arts, your battle prowess comes from warding against witchcraft, the ability to mimic the miracles of great beings past, or take on the aspects of powerful essences.
Or, just maybe, you're just that good. You're tough as nails, you can split the ground and send rock shards flying, your flailing barrage of attacks pins down anyone within reach, you can shrug off supernatural effects like water off a roc's back. You don't even shapeshift, you don't need to shapeshift, you're as quick as a panther, as fierce as a bear, as strong as an ox. What others accomplish through disciplined training, you manage by getting back to the core principles: sheer primal strength.
Or maybe you do, in fact, have a green thumb. The rocks whisper as you pass, the trees lean in to brush you with their leaves in welcome. When you fight on stone, it rumbles and bucks around you to shake your foes, yet leaves you stable. In the woods, thorns lash and swipe, leaving you a calm center in a vortex of fury. A whirlwind in the sky, a waterspout in the sea, quicksand in the desert, all come to your aide with primal vigor. Wherever you go to war, a small hurricane surrounds you, nature lashing out at any who would oppose its chosen.
Or maybe you're just a man who met a nice girl, had a nice chat, a wonderful romance, a roll in the hay, and woke up the next morning wondering why you were itching everywhere couldn't hold silverware. Your specialized use of lycanthropy, or any other supernatural stigma, allows you to develop greater and greater power. Your rampage across the battlefield in a bloodthirsty frenzy, tossing aside damage and danger and devastating anything in your path. As you grow stronger, your form grows in turn, becoming stronger, larger, more dire. Too bad about the fleas.
I mean, seriously. If spectral vines are enough to make someone hate a class, how did we get past the paladin's Lite-Bright-Doom or the Swordmage's Stickers? It's not that hard to think up something that suits you.
I love this post. Thank you.
Now onto important matters. Coca Cola is a tasty drink with a slightly cinnamony taste. Pepsi is sugar syrup in old sparkling water.
Coke Zero is the pus from an elder god's eye infection.
Now, this is a wise man.
@Dragoncat: Dude(?), that is an awesome post. Hope some eyes open.
But my problem with the Warden is that, because IMO its trying to be too many things at once, if I wanted to play ANY one of those concepts, or say Bjorn for example, I would have to reflavor the class in a very some here some there kinda way (how much depending on which one I picked), granted some concepts are just going to need a lot no matter what, but IMO if some more thought went into making the Primal classes and and Divine classes many reflavor jobs would be a breeze and much easier to explain to the DM and other players.
I wanted to talk about the power source pattern a little more, talk about what sets them apart; I don't want to get in a fact war so I will just talk about how I would do Divine and Primal.
For Primal and Divine, let's say you want to intercept an enemy using the power of trees and Pelor:
Now an Engineer (Druid, Invoker) would use their understanding of the power of trees or Pelor and put it to use, they might draw a symbol in the air with their finger or speak a sacred word and then some trees or a wall of light would sprout out in the way of the enemy.
An Outsider (Shaman, Cleric) having no direct connection to the trees or Pelor would have to get their foot in the door, they might say "trees/Pelor grant me your resilience so i may stop these villians".
A Wielder (Wildshaper, Avenger) might not care too much about trees and/or Pelor they just know when they're useful, they could just stand in the way of the enemy and turn into a tree or use a warding candle.
The Embodyment (Barbarian, Paladin) don't really have to do much, they will not be moved because they are or at least close enough to being as resilient as trees or Pelor.
Now you could reflavor one class to fit into another style, so don't think it would be set in stone. The Pattern's purpose is only to make each class more consistent so you know what your getting, I just think it would be easier and more fulfilling to pick which class best suits your concept knowing that all of the classes mechanics are built around one idea, which means in order to reflavor it all you have to do is change that one idea and rest will follow.
Coke Zero is the pus from an elder god's eye infection.
Oh great. Thanks. Now that will be in my head every time I drink a Coke Zero. (stupid diet... can't drink real soda...)
I really don't see why you are so opposed to the invoker being the embodiment in your scheme. I mean that is basically their whole thing, they are an embodiment of their diety not just the table scraps that he throws to everyone else.Through rites of investiture, avengers, clerics, and paladins gain the ability to manifest echoes of that power, uttering careful prayers and channeling divine energy through their holy symbols. You, however, channel your god's power directly.
Although I do have to admit that your examples made me more confused about what you are going for then I was before.
Edit: Also the druid's thing is that it is nature, so I think it probably goes under embodiment as well.
What? This guy can teleport across the room as a free action? At first level? Huh? That sounds like a pretty high level effect to me. BTW- why can't he teleport across that 10ft pit after combat? He was bouncing around like Nightcrawler 5 minutes ago.
Now, the effect is mechanically balanced. But there are definitely certain effects that makes some classes feel more powerful at different levels, not because of a mechanical advantage, but because of how they appear to the game world.
I think the Warden has at least as strong of roots in the genre than the Swordmage. Now I know that the Swordmage is the gish, which has deep roots, but look at his implementation. Do the major powers of the Swordmage have a particular legacy? I find the Warden to be a great idea that needed to be done. I have no problem with Druid M2. I liked that druid in 3.5, and want to play him again. I don't mind that the different druid concepts had to be split up. In fact, they could all still be called Druids, and I wouldn't mind.
I would have Invokers be sort of like Ur Priests but they wouldn't always be stealing the power of the gods through their understanding of it they may have dedicated their lives to understanding a peticular god to point of being able to access it's power directly. And the Druid would have such an understanding of the laws of nature they could control the forces of nature which means a come back for the Anti-Druid (uses nature against it's will).
It seems to me that a lot of these debates get hung up on people confusing identity with role
While I agree that the two represent different things, I think we put too much emphasis on WotC giving us identity with a class. While no identity or fluff is a problem, I don't believe we truly need WotC to explain how our character should funtion in the world. This particular level of backstory is perfect for me.
I mean, this group (the one writing on this forum) is, supposedly, a creative group of people who love to tell stories. We pay WotC for the playtests, the numbers, the mechanics. I don't want to do that myself. Their adventures really aren't that amazing anyway. Do we want them to tell us how to make backstories for our characters too? I propose that no, we do not.
After all, if you wish, you may call the Warden a Druid in your game. Why not? The way I see it, the identity is yours. It always has been. Finally WotC is seeing that too and backing off from it. It shouldn't belong to them anyway. The argument regarding similar backstories is mostly rediculous because the backstories are only what you make them in your game.
I am, personally, glad that WotC is backing off from our class identities. They can take their opinions of my class and jam them into whatever orifice they choose. Luckily, it seems that they have already done this. Horrah for the Warden and Invoker leading the way!
Yours,
Lord Dreadman
Do we want them to tell us how to make backstories for our characters too? I propose that no, we do not.
I don't want any class to have such a strong identity that we can't be creative, I also enjoy a class with room for reinterpretation. I also don't want to have all the thematics and writing dumped onto the Players and their poor DM, If any of us wanted that we would be playing a different game. and because we are not limited to black or white we should all have a comfortable middle ground in mind, where each of us stand is going to be different.
In order for DMs and Players to understand eachother it's key to have a conceptual jumping off point so that they both have common ground, if a player said to me "my character is a fallen Paladin who is now an Inferlock, but I'm using Swordmage for the stats" I would know exactly what he means and understand who the character is, eventhough it has a lot of reflavoring.
No we don't want them to tell us how to make our backstories, and we don't want a complete lack of conventional concepts or classes to be too abstract.
I'm interested in where any of you draw the line; If not the Warden then when does something have too little direction or too strong of a identity in place, at what point would you say "I don't want that in my PH2"?
The Character Bernard commands an Earth Fury and a Wood fury, and his position as guardian of his steadholt lends him a wardenesque quality.
When you discuss a character from fiction and are trying to tie it to a class. Then you find a perfect match in mechanics for how that character operates, but reject the class because it "just doesn't FEEL right."
Classes don't feel. Characters feel. Honestly, there is no reason that a player couldn't come up to me and say that he wanted to play a Warlock, but he wants to, effectively, be the vengence of his god. If that doesn't FEEL right because the fluff tells you otherwise, but mechanically he is choosing appropriate spells, then there is a problem somewhere.
The point where there is not enough direction is the point where WotC is not giving a REASON for it using a certain power source and a REASON for it filling a certain role. Then I can decide if I agree with those reasons and, if I do, I can come up with a reason for my character to be that class.
I hope I don't sound confrontational. That isn't my point. I understand why you react this way. I did too, innitially. Then I thought about it and realized that my ideas are better than WotC's anyway, as far as story goes. For your game, your ideas will always be better. They shouldn't waste their time telling me how to build my character. I just want to show you why this is a good thing.
Yours,
Lord Dreadman
The point where there is not enough direction is the point where WotC is not giving a REASON for it using a certain power source and a REASON for it filling a certain role. Then I can decide if I agree with those reasons and, if I do, I can come up with a reason for my character to be that class.
I agree, and it is my opinion that some of the new classes' REASONs are very forced and thus inconsistent and vague with the Warden being the worst.
To make one thing clear, I don't dismiss Warden because I'm incapable of looking past it's flavor. I do think it would be easier to reflavor it if it's theme was more grounded though, and I think a power source pattern would help the designers keep the classes more focused.
Won't you break your lock and key
I said, warden, warden, warden
Won't ya break your lock and key
Yeah, come along here, mister
C'mon and let the poor boy be"
Sorry, but that song keeps running through my brain every time I read about this class. Just had to let it out. :P
... I think a power source pattern would help the designers keep the classes more focused.
I agree.
Power sources tend to be more divergent than I would have them be (with the exception of the divine power source. That seems to have many similar themes.).
I like you, Mcnancy. We think alike.
Yours,
Lord Dreadman
"I said, warden, warden, warden
Won't you break your lock and key
I said, warden, warden, warden
Won't ya break your lock and key
Yeah, come along here, mister
C'mon and let the poor boy be"
Sorry, but that song keeps running through my brain every time I read about this class. Just had to let it out. :P
Ol' Red, in my case :P .
I have to say that I like your ideas for the Warden much more then what was presented here.
I also have a hard time understanding the Warden... partial shapeshifting? So essentially he's a druid who failed his 'shapeshifting class', yet somehow that makes him a wholly different and equally powerful (if in a different role) class.
uh? 0_o
That being said, I do think you're splitting hairs and you've been shown you're gripe isn't much of one, but simply don't want to give it up.
Your main point seems to be that the Warden isn't visually distinctive enough to be a different class than the Druid, and that it's a shame because one could have made the fluff differently while keeping the exact same mechanism and made him much more distinctive... while I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, ultimately it doesn't have much weight. Because classes in the game are already extremely similar and are essentially just a variation of the same coin.
Take the difference between a paladin and a cleric... try to explain it to a brand new player who doesn't even understand the basic concept of a 'paladin' (Never played D&D or any computer rpg). 'They both worship a god, but one of them is a bit more hardcore about it and he wears plate' is essentially what it comes down to.
Rogues and (TWF) Rangers can be almost identical as well, both being high mobility melee strikers, doubly so if the Rogues takes all the TWF feats (And it's not a bad idea to take them either!).
What about a fighter and a warlord (especially if the warlord has scale or plate)? They're both in the frontline and fight it out, but one of them is a bit louder then the other. In fact, I've known many people who told me they felt the Warlord was redundent because he felt like just another type of fighter.
To the common people in the game world... a fighter and a warlord are the same. They're both warriors. A Ranger and a Rogue pretty much go the same way, and heck, a Ranger who goes into heavy armor (as many dwarf ranger do) is probably really hard to tell from a Fighter or even a Warlord for Bob the Blacksmith and Mary the Maid.
The term 'Warrior' can easily be applied to just about every Martial Class and even some of the Arcane (Swordmage), Divine (Str Cleric and Paladin) as well as primal (Warden and Barbarian)... and is in fact more likely to be used then the real class name by npc in the game world. Heck, calling someone a barbarian is an insult >_>.
Conceptually, the difference between a Warlord and a charismatic fighter is extremely thin. It's the mechanic that makes them classes.
So yeah... you can't tell the difference between a warden and a druid? Quite frankly, big deal... it's that way for many class pairing.
I also have a hard time understanding the Warden... partial shapeshifting? So essentially he's a druid who failed his 'shapeshifting class', yet somehow that makes him a wholly different and equally powerful (if in a different role) class.
Think a bit less "Trying to turn into a bull to gore someone" and more "I grow bull's horns and gore the lizardman."
So you grow bear claws, or a scorpion's tail, or eagle's wings, or porcupine quills, or serpent fangs, or turtle's shell, or bloodhound's nose, or deer's antlers, or hawk's eyes, or bat ears.....or all at once, getting the strengths of each. And looking absolutely psychotic. Wardens at epic levels, I suspect, will literally be able to Hulk Out. :D
Druid : I turn into a bear und use my beary powers to grapple him
Warden : I call forth the power of the mighty bear, enchancing my grapple qualities
Being able to turn into a bear or a giant scorpion oughta be a much more powerful magical effect in every way then growing a scorpion tale or gaining a bear's grappling ability - or why would the full shapeshifting bother doing it? He'd just flunk out of shapeshifting class once he can do partial transformation like the Warden (henceforth refered to as 'The no education bum' or TnEB)
Kinda like the guy who can create an element from nothing (say a wizard or a warlock) ought be more powerful than the guy who needs a torch to set fire to something.
To use a comic book analogy... Wolverine and Sabretooth essentially have the exact same power, except wolverine has adamantium claws and skeleton, making him an unstoppable killing machine while Sabretooth has over the years become nothing else than a glorified mook.
So here you have a game that gives you two classes:
Class 1: Fast Healing. Super Senses. Heightened Reflex and Strenght. Claws.
Class 2: Fast Healing. Super Senses. Heightened Reflex and Strenght. Claws that can cut throught anything. Skeletons that's unbreakable.
And while the game system makes them 'equal', it makes no sense for them to be.
Another comic book example... Iceman or the Human Torch vs Pyro...
That still doesn't make any real sense.
Being able to turn into a bear or a giant scorpion oughta be a much more powerful magical effect in every way then growing a scorpion tale or gaining a bear's grappling ability - or why would the full shapeshifting bother doing it? He'd just flunk out of shapeshifting class once he can do partial transformation like the Warden (henceforth refered to as 'The no education bum' or TnEB)
Having only partial shapeshifting means you can pick and choose what qualities you want for the occasion. Perhaps you need a bull's horns AND opposable thumbs? A scorpion tail and wings? And who says partial shapeshifting is necessarily easier than full shapeshifting? Especially if you're channeling the powers of more than one animal at a time.
It's more like a comparison between a guy that can set any one part of his body on fire and the guy who can only light his entire body. Sometimes you want to burn everything near you, and other times it's nice to be not totally on fire.
Druids can transform, wardens can gain useful features of animals or plants for a period of time. That's what they learned to do. What's the issue here?
I think the Warden is a very nice class mechanically and it sounds fun to play, but I have a hard time with the idea that a big part of his character concept is that he does something halfway, and somehow that makes him awesome.
Hence the 'flunk out of school' analogy.
He's basically a crappy shape shifter.
It's more like a comparison between a guy that can set any one part of his body on fire and the guy who can only light his entire body. Sometimes you want to burn everything near you, and other times it's nice to be not totally on fire.
Which pretty much covers my point here - if the Human Torch was to fight I-can-turn-my-hand-into-fire-man, the Human Torch would melt him to the floor. One of them is a living embodiment of the elemental fire... the other guy is a dude who can do parlor tricks. >_>
You gotta learn to walk before you learn to run... when you can turn yourself into a great cat, only turning your eyes into feline eyes to gain better night vision shouldn't be a problem and it's extremely mainstay as a concept in fantasy/-scifi games/litterature that someone who can do a full shapeshift, can also do a 'partial shapeshift'... because for all intent and purpose, partial shapeshifting is a lesser use of the ability.
They're essentially giving us two class who have the same 'power', except one of them is better at it... yet mechanically, they're equal. Which is what makes me go /boggle...
The idea that 'partial shapeshifting' is a power in its own right and that it's different and just as powerful as 'full shapeshifting' is a concept I have hard time absorbing - because it really goes against pretty much all the convention of the genre. Worse yet, the Warden could have kept the same mechanics, gotten a different fluff, and actually made a lot more sense.
Which is probably what I'll end up doing to him when I run him in my game. No harm done, everybody's happy.
Swordmages suck at casting in comparison to a Wizard but they are better at fighting.
Same for Warden / Druid. Druid has a F in fighting but A in Shaping. Wardens have a B in fighting and C in shaping.
Why does no one complain about the Swordmage beeing a weaker caster then the mage ?
He's basically a crappy shape shifter.
the funny part is I think he is a BETTER shape shifter then a druid...
You gotta learn to walk before you learn to run... when you can turn yourself into a great cat, only turning your eyes into feline eyes to gain better night vision shouldn't be a problem and it's extremely mainstay as a concept in fantasy/-scifi games/litterature that someone who can do a full shapeshift, can also do a 'partial shapeshift'... because for all intent and purpose, partial shapeshifting is a lesser use of the ability.
from most of what I am use to that is the oppasit...shifting your whole body is easier then pin point control...In WW the were wolves actuialy use to have to take a merit to do id...Mix Morph
They're essentially giving us two class who have the same 'power', except one of them is better at it... yet mechanically, they're equal. Which is what makes me go /boggle...
but they are diffrent...one has pinpoint control to pick and choose witch devestating parts to take, the other has full shift, but low powers...
Which pretty much covers my point here - if the Human Torch was to fight 'I can turn my hand on fire!' man, the Human Torch would melt him to the floor. One of them is a living embodiment of the elemental fire... the other guy is a dude who can do parlor tricks. >_>
It depends...Human torch can do BOTH...so bad example there...
lets take 2 new heros Flame man and Fire master (I just made them up)
Flame man can burst into flames, super heating things around him, and giving him a super blast of fire...every time he des it though he can ONLY throw fire, and everything around him is in toruble...
Fire master can light his hands on fire...throw a bolt of fire, or project a fire lance...but still keeps everything around him fine...
When they fight (as all heros do when they first meet) Flame man cus loose...fire master is introuble...but once they get working togather (Later in the team up) Fire master can blast, and still protect innocents...flame man can't...he really is only good at damage...
now notice all the ways that persision control matter
Clerics are better at healing then Palas
Swordmages suck at casting in comparison to a Wizard but they are better at fighting.
Same for Warden / Druid. Druid has a F in fighting but A in Shaping. Wardens have a B in fighting and C in shaping.
Why does no one complain about the Swordmage beeing a weaker caster then the mage ?
or to carry this further...why they can't fight like a fighter...
Clerics are better at healing then Palas
Swordmages suck at casting in comparison to a Wizard but they are better at fighting.
Same for Warden / Druid. Druid has a F in fighting but A in Shaping. Wardens have a B in fighting and C in shaping.
Why does no one complain about the Swordmage beeing a weaker caster then the mage ?
Because the Paladin isn't a healer really. Divine Class take the power of their god and apply it to something. The Cleric applies it to being a leader, the paladin applies it to being a defender.
You could turn it around just as easily and say the Cleric isn't as tough as the paladin or doesn't do as much damage, so that must mean the Cleric suck, right?
The swordmage gets teleportation abilities way faster then the wizard and essentially has his own gimmick going on - he might be a weaker spellcaster than the Wizard, but what he lack in power there he makes up in raw physicality, essentially being an hybrid between a wizard and a fighter.
MY ISSUE* with the Warden is that he litterally has the same gimmick the druid... except it's a weaker version.
The Swordmage's gimmick is that he's a fighter who uses magic to increase his fighting prowess... not that he's a crappy wizard.
the funny part is I think he is a BETTER shape shifter then a druid...
That just switch the problem around tho ;p
You can't have two shapeshifter that draw their power from the exact same place, and have one be better than the other 'fluff-wise' but have them be equal mechanic wise... that's what is the root of my problem.
Weither it's the Warden or the Druid that's more powerful, MY ISSUE* is still there.
Take the Wizard and Warlock for example... yes, they're both arcane caster who shape energy... But one of them draw his power from the knowledge of arcane energy and essentially how the world works... in pseudo-scientific term, a Wizard is a quantum-physic manipulator. The Warlock on the other, use the power given to him by an entity that is outside of this world. That one of them thus has more control over effect, and the other do more damage, is easy for me to accept and grasps. Neither one has as a concept 'I can only do a 50% arcane blast'.
from most of what I am use to that is the oppasit...shifting your whole body is easier then pin point control...In WW the were wolves actuialy use to have to take a merit to do id...Mix Morph
That depends on which edition you played, Mix Morph was a basic ability in some of them. Werewolves could also assume 'half form' (heck, their wolf-man form qualify, but so do their dire-wolf and cave-man form) from the get go.
Another example is in vampire... where the ability to grow claws (Protean 2 or vicissitude 3) or gain heightened animal senses (Protean 1) was a much lower ability then full shapeshifting (Protean 4, Vicissitude 4).
Most super-hero rpg allow partial-shapeshifting if you have the shapeshift power as well.
Etc.
Example in other media (comics mostly) also are numerous - Iceman, Human Torch, Plastic Man, etc are all shapeshifter in a fashion who can do full or partial transformation at will... and when they're pitted against 'partial shapeshifting only', they usually dominate them.
Which is again, furthering MY ISSUE* ... my suspension of disbelief as far as shapeshifting goes, doesn't understand why the guy who can do full shapeshift suddenly can't do partial shapeshift and why he's considering on part with the other guy who does what my perception consider a weaker version of the same power.
lets take 2 new heros Flame man and Fire master (I just made them up)
I understand the point you're making...
But my first question is 'Why can't flame man only turn his entire body into flame and not only his hand if he wants to?'.
Aside from the resounding 'Because'... There's a reason why Johnny can do both... because only being able to do a full transformation and not partial makes no sense, even in the comic book world >_>.
Also, as far as I know we haven't seen the playtest for the druid, right? So what's the explanation if the druid ends up having 'partial transformation' power as well? Say a utility ability that allow him to gain low-vision/darkvision/tremorsense/whatnot by simply changing a specific part of his body... what then?
*This is my issue. I'm not trying to convince people I'm right, nor do I think people who like him are somehow wrong. It's matter of conceptual tastes. Hell, I'd much rather look at the Warden and go 'Cool! That makes a lot of sense!' then be going 'Wait, what?' like I am right now ;p.
Which pretty much covers my point here - if the Human Torch was to fight I-can-turn-my-hand-into-fire-man, the Human Torch would melt him to the floor. One of them is a living embodiment of the elemental fire... the other guy is a dude who can do parlor tricks. >_>
Ah, but the second guy doesn't need new clothes whenever he uses his powers :P.
Perhaps you could approach it from the angle that, while it's easy to change your form into a whole 'nother being, it's hard to mix and match aspects because of any number of reasons, such as:
- It's difficult to fit the anatomy together. Such as attaching bull horns to a human head without squishing your brain in. Or growing a scorpion tail without unbalancing yourself.
- You shapeshift by channeling the 'spirit' of an animal, and you have to concentrate on that spirit, so it's immensely difficult to channel multiple spirits, or to channel a spirit while maintaining a human-like form.
-I forgot what my third idea was.
...orrr you could just go with the idea that Wardens are sub-par shifters and make up for it by being strong warriors. Which is probably true.
It isn't really an 'issue', I just don't like it.
I think the Warden is a very nice class mechanically and it sounds fun to play, but I have a hard time with the idea that a big part of his character concept is that he does something halfway, and somehow that makes him awesome.
*This is my issue. I'm not trying to convince people I'm right, nor do I think people who like him are somehow wrong. It's matter of conceptual tastes. Hell, I'd much rather look at the Warden and go 'Cool! That makes a lot of sense!' then be going 'Wait, what?' like I am right now ;p.
All I have to say about that is:
I do think you're splitting hairs and you've been shown you're gripe isn't much of one, but simply don't want to give it up.
that it's a shame because one could have made the fluff differently while keeping the exact same mechanism and made him much more distinctive... while I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, ultimately it doesn't have much weight. Because classes in the game are already extremely similar and are essentially just a variation of the same coin.
Quite frankly, big deal... it's that way for many class pairing.
Before you take a shot at another person's "gripe" you may want to take a look at what exactly gives your "gripe" so much "weight"
I'm fully aware that it's my problem. My issue.
In other word, I KNOW my problem has no weight and it's fickle matter of taste. Even going so far as saying has such in a previous post (I'm not going to quote myself, it's pedantic).
While we have the same issues, we're not landing the same 'weight' to them at all. I'm aware that this is a pet peeve, I don't try and claim it's something more than that.
So I'm not quite sure what you were hoping to accomplish with that last post. Since I agree fully with you.
but at the same time, you shrug off the Martial power source's theme of weapon mastery, or the divine sources theme of channel divinity?
Is this right? Because I'm not understanding it.
it's a sign of the creative degeneration
So if what your talking about is not a sign of creative degeneration then why is it a bad thing in your opinion?
I have a hard time with the concept that partial shapeshifting is equal in power to full shapeshifting, especially since in my view of thing, someone capable of full shapeshifting should be capable of partial shapeshifting as well. Leaving the warden with nothing unique - at least conceptually.
Someone early on said that the Warden is essentially a fighter, who use limited primal magic and shapeshifting to enhance his prowess... the difference between him and a druid is that while he might be a weaker 'primal caster', he is a much more skilled warrior. A similar line of thinking can be drawn between the Wizard and Swordmage. The idea is slowly starting to sink in and it's probably the closest I'll get to be happy with the concept of full shapeshifting vs partial shapeshifting.
So if what your talking about is not a sign of creative degeneration then why is it a bad thing in your opinion?
Because it goes directly against my personal paradigm of the subject (shapeshifting) and thus make me inherently not like it.
It doesn't mean it's a bad idea, poor writting or bad decision. It means whoever designed it obviously doesn't share my view on shapeshifting.
The identity of the warden is that it is called to protect something by the primal spirits of nature.
A Druid on the other had has no calling other than his own initiative to become one with the primal world until it's fully absorbed by it's essence becoming a part of it.
A warden is the boy who wandered to far from the settlement and drowned in a lake only to be saved by the spirit of the lake who nurtures him so that he will protect her and her friend against the forces of corruption against nature. When faced by aberrations and others that seek to harm the spirits of the lake he will be the channel through which they shall make themselves manifest.
A druid is the possibly insane dwarf with the messy beard who leaves his clan to become a hermit in the mountains over time he begins to become one with nature his mind and spirit changing until he is no longer a dwarf, he is nature incarnate he is the flying bird, the raging bull the primal beast, he serves no spirit he is their equal.
I can distinguish between the two classes and I think that any cries over a lack of identity are ill-founded.
Also the druid can partially shift and do a complete shapeshift because his power is his own, while the warden's power is a manifestation of the spirits that have called him to protect.
A druid is shapeshifting into a primal form generally in the shape of an animal. He's becoming primal nature.
A warden is taking on aspects of various natural spirits. Such as the north wind, the ram, ext.
When a druid shapeshifts he become a primal being that happens to resemble a bear.
When a warden he takes on the aspect of a primal spirit. He is himself enhanced, thus why he remains as he is, beefed up with representative changes of the spirit who's powers he is manifesting. Personally I think I find the warden's shapeshifting a lot more interesting. I'd actually rather he work like wizards for his dailies, and make a "spirit pact" of sorts every day with various spirits for the ability to take on their aspects, by channeling them into himself.
They are completely different things.
Druid: "I am a being of nature incarnate, as such I become as nature in all it's forms and fury."
Warden: I am a protector of nature, as I give of myself, so to does it give unto me."
Hybridization.
The Warden's shapeshifting is the art of blending. It is the ability to take a thousand different forms and combine them, rather than isolate oneself to a single form at a time. Where the druid must decide between growing gills to breath underwater or retaining thumbs to hold a weapon, the warden simply grows the features he desires, becoming something new, something stronger than the sum of its parts.
After all, which is mightier? An eagle, a lion, or a griffin?
Druids will fit into the natural order more easily, but don't discount the warden's ability to take on all the aspects of nature at once.
Nah, the problem isn't that it's 'not the same' but that it is the same, except weaker - fluffwise. Yet mechanic wise, they're both 'equal' classes if in different roles.
But the issue is that isn't a case of the same, but weaker. It's two different things. The warden doesn't shift part of the way to a lion, for example and then stop. He's taking the best elements of the lion, the ones that he can make use of, and fusing them to his already powerful form.
A warden's shapeshifting "augments", while a druid's shapeshifting "replaces". The shapeshifting isn't a continuum, it's two sides of the same coin.
The funny thing is that this time around, we're focusing on the "shapeshifting" problem, which is strange, since I thought it was the most distinctive feature, meaning the thing that differentiated it more from the Druid.
Why is that? Because it's really different, both mechanically and fluff-wise.
A Druid is a shapeshifter, who has an alternative shape always available. And powers that modify it and exploit it.
A Warden doesn't shapeshift at all, it just channels primal power in a way that may ligthly modify some of his external features, but mostly only affect its combat-style, like martial stances do.
It's different mechanic, different theme, different niche in terms of combat, different niche inside a hypothetical all-comprehensive Primal "power-sphere". It's more or less the same difference that in the martial "power-sphere" we have between Beastmaster powers and Warlord powers: both often refer and command external characters, but in one case the second character is yours and part of you. Plus, different roles in combat fulfilled.
What I criticized the most were the elemental control powers instead, because the Warden's ones are control-oriented just like the Druid's and the only difference is that they ontrol the earth instead of air, lightning and fire like Druid's. Oh, and the range of it all.
This made me think: "What stops the Druid from having the very same powers?". Logically, nothing. They have the same role, same nature (control of the elements, from a natural perspective), just different range.
I say: If you want to give us close range control powers, give us something different. Not only different element! Especially because the Druid is master of those natural forces, why the hell wouldn't he be able to control earth? It poses too many stupidity checks.
I proposed many other primal themes that could have been exploited for close range control: spectral manifestation of spirits (but that would have overlapped with Shaman, we all guess); artificer like approach like throwing skulls and totems imbued with primal power; physical control of sorts, to make it more like the many theorized martial controller, but with a good excuse to pull out those feats (the natural power that could make you grow bigger, become an area-damage yourself, these sort of things); and finally another more traditional thing could have been a more pervasive control over plants (which are least would leave the Druid with the elements, it's more logic) or animals (summoning them, which is a bit lame but we lived with it for 2 or 3 editions...), or eventually some alternative fey-magic.
I'm startled and amused by the total negligence shown by WotC for not having digged those general concepts a bit with their Warden, preferring to make it so thematically close to the Druid that it could just simply be a particularly militant druid order. Like the Paladin is for the Cleric, right, I cannot deny it. Problem is that with Paladin/Cleric I don't see many options they could have considered to differentiate them more, if not the one of eliminating the (IMHO problematic) Str-based Cleric in favor of something different.
With Warden/Druid instead, it's clear to me that the options were just completely neglected. And clearly to follow tradition, because it's all ok if you consider all Primals (except Barbarian, which I praise completely, save for bad surprises with the Cha build) to be only a splitted 3.x Druid.
His line of thinking should also translate to the police an the military both use weapons and stop other from doing what they deem wrong. Do you, LordArchaon, delieve that the police and military are the same or too closely related?
Warden got all the touch range and earth element spells, druid got all the ranged spells, and an at-will beast form.
There is no warden power I can see that has a range other than melee or close.
Nah, he's just blind due to unfulfilled expectations. I for myself have no problem delineating the differences between a druid and Warden (by the way the druid can also use his attacks at close ranged if he wants to (just be careful no to provoke OA's).
His line of thinking should also translate to the police an the military both use weapons and stop other from doing what they deem wrong. Do you, LordArchaon, delieve that the police and military are the same or too closely related?
First: never missed the fact that it's a defender. But had you missed the fact that it has a strong Controller secondary role?
Nobody has a problem delineating the differences, we all learned to play the spot the difference game when we were little. Problem is that there are many types of differences. Maybe you don't know what a thematic difference is, but it's a thematic difference that I critique for being weak (not absent, thanks to the well-built dailies).
With the police and military thing you demonstrate to have totally misunderstood the point yourself. What's more, you completely reversed it. There you have same role and different thematic. They are like Invokers and Wizards, Fighters and Wardens if you want.
But I for one always thought that Marines and navy SEALS were too closely related. Taken together, they fill out a spectrum of purposes and activities that has no empty spot, and partially overlaps.
For the partial overlap, no problem, every class in the same power source partially overlaps. The "problem" (which is not a problem as I state it, just a matter of personal aesthetic sense, something that with your replies referring to Defender role you seem really not to get) is that absence of empty spot in the spectrum. We get a range of classical nature themes and a total coverage, divided rationally between the two classes, with no-sense choices of primal-school-of-magic type like earth only to wardens, plants only to wardens.
I repeat, if you want to give control effects to the Warden and you're a careful designer, you try to avoid this blandness and introduce new means to apply control, given that the elements are clearly mastered by the Druid, even at close range as you very well reminded us.
But I for one always thought that Marines and navy SEALS were too closely related. Taken together, they fill out a spectrum of purposes and activities that has no empty spot, and partially overlaps.
I'm sorry but Eh? Seals are special forces. They more or less never do the same sort of stuff marines do. Not to mention the fact that there are about a bajillion more marines then there are seals.
Marines don't do covert stuff. They're basically assault infantry. To give an example, I have a brother in the air force. When he was in basic training, the fun thing to do was to challenge the marine recruits to paintball wars. This was because marine recruits wouldn't bother with stealth or defense, they'd just mass up in the middle and charge. Marines are trained to be highly aggressive because that is there role.
Seals are much more subtle. It's hard to give specific examples because most of their missions are classified, but dropping out of a plane, swimming through the ocean in the middle of the night and seizing an important beach objective (like taking out enemy communications or weapon systems) would be something Seals would do.
Granted, both Marines and Special Forces tend to be overused these days.
I'm sorry but Eh? Seals are special forces. They more or less never do the same sort of stuff marines do. Not to mention the fact that there are about a bajillion more marines then there are seals.
[...]
I'm not American, so I don't have a completely informed perspective, that's why you go "Eh?". It was meant to be an example of the problem, if it doesn't stand, I can break it into the fundamental things, so that we can also abandon the sub-subject and take the example for what it is: both are military (primal), and both are specialized in amphibious operations, or at least meant to be like that (elements).
As you can see though because of the difference of roles they "play differently" (defender-controller-striker VS controller-leader-striker), and SEALS can do many more different things (druid's complete shapeshifting), and can also drop out of planes and generally cover more terrain types (druid's mastery over more elements). The marines have other advantages that help them be good at what they do, namely their number (defender features of the warden).
But put one seal and one marine side by side and you're not going to find a visual difference. Plus, every marine will tell you that they can do more or less everything seals do, and vice-versa. More than that, they're gonna speak in the same specific language terms, and of the same things. That's because they cover a continuous spectrum of features, within one single power source, with no clear aesthetic difference and some only-officially-imposed differences (the different elements: no logic nor reasonable fantastic reason to explain it).
First: never missed the fact that it's a defender. But had you missed the fact that it has a strong Controller secondary role?
Nobody has a problem delineating the differences, we all learned to play the spot the difference game when we were little. Problem is that there are many types of differences. Maybe you don't know what a thematic difference is, but it's a thematic difference that I critique for being weak (not absent, thanks to the well-built dailies).
With the police and military thing you demonstrate to have totally misunderstood the point yourself. What's more, you completely reversed it. There you have same role and different thematic. They are like Invokers and Wizards, Fighters and Wardens if you want.
But I for one always thought that Marines and navy SEALS were too closely related. Taken together, they fill out a spectrum of purposes and activities that has no empty spot, and partially overlaps.
For the partial overlap, no problem, every class in the same power source partially overlaps. The "problem" (which is not a problem as I state it, just a matter of personal aesthetic sense, something that with your replies referring to Defender role you seem really not to get) is that absence of empty spot in the spectrum. We get a range of classical nature themes and a total coverage, divided rationally between the two classes, with no-sense choices of primal-school-of-magic type like earth only to wardens, plants only to wardens.
I repeat, if you want to give control effects to the Warden and you're a careful designer, you try to avoid this blandness and introduce new means to apply control, given that the elements are clearly mastered by the Druid, even at close range as you very well reminded us.
Well first of all I wasn't referring to the defender vs. Controller differences but rather to what you call thematic differences. I see no overlap. When someone says Druid I think a recluse who overtime became so attuned to the earth that he is a living manifestation of it.
When I think Warden I think a person under the service of the primal spirits.
Their transformation abilities manifest this. The druid becomes a representation of the beast while the Warden is possessed by the earth and enhanced. (he, unlike the warden, will never be the same as the primal spirits but merely a channel for them).
I guess I was a bit snarky when I called you out and i apologize. But I think that you are accusing WotC of shoddy work due to opinion and taste rather than actual shoddy worksmanship.
While not exactly a D&D character, I can easily picture a Warden doing something VERY similar.
Here is a viedo "tribute" to her on youtube. The music stinks, and alot of scenes just showing off her "bod" are featured too. But almost every instance of her kicking butt is in there as well...
Well first of all I wasn't referring to the defender vs. Controller differences but rather to what you call thematic differences. I see no overlap. When someone says Druid I think a recluse who overtime became so attuned to the earth that he is a living manifestation of it.
I see. It's interesting because you managed to "thematize" the Warden earth control much more than I could. For me it's like: Druid controls elements, it should control earth too, but earth is warden's...
When I think Warden I think a person under the service of the primal spirits.
Me too, and that's why I complain: the powers don't express this enough, except for the dailies.
Their transformation abilities manifest this. The druid becomes a representation of the beast while the Warden is possessed by the earth and enhanced.
Yes, I completely agree on this, plus, you again manged to link the material earth to the thing, giving more coherence to their material control of earth, even if I think it should have been more subtle, at least at first level... For logic's sake.
I guess I was a bit snarky when I called you out and i apologize. But I think that you are accusing WotC of shoddy work due to opinion and taste rather than actual shoddy worksmanship.
You are the first person I see in these boards to use the word "apologize"! You don't deserve
s, you deserve a crown for that 
Yes, it's more correct to say that they did a good work according to a common perspective, since the numbers on this thread clearly put me in a minority, so they objectively did a good work.
If I can make an objective critique, that is surely one of "virtual power creep": very few classes have powers that LOOK so powerful in the first levels. Raising earth is a powerful thing. I may be biased again since I study geology, but I think we can objectively agree that raising earth is something no class has ever done till low-mid/mid level. Ok, it's not at all a permanent effect or whatever, but making it a 1st level encounter power, and starting a class with a visual power-level this high... Kind of stands off and lowers the "seriousness" level of the game a bit. And another objective critique is that they didn't take the opportunity of a totally new class to bring out totally new powers, preferring to convert old things and recycle them a bit.
If I can make an objective critique, that is surely one of "virtual power creep": very few classes have powers that LOOK so powerful in the first levels. Raising earth is a powerful thing. I may be biased again since I study geology, but I think we can objectively agree that raising earth is something no class has ever done till low-mid/mid level.
It does make a defender look like a controler early on. Mechanically they're not much better than swinging your sword around fast, shooting 2 arrows at once, or calling down a shaft of burning light. BUT! I can totally see why people are going to see the Primals like the Warden in action and cry foul.
Also I kind of see the logic behind a Warden having more 'control" of wood and earth because they are the most common material in places likely to need Warding, I doubt a wind or rain spirit is gonna call a warden to protect it from goblins because they are unreachable and intangible, while the earth and forest are very easily destroyed.
To Lord Archaon
Would you have anyway of knowing what are the chances of a Puerto Rican being admitted into a Spanish University? I want to do my Master's degree there.
It would be ELADRIN. Yes, you heard well. It would be a CON based Warden, because making it WIS based, although more appropriate, would leave him with low Con.
It would be multiclass fighter and benefit of an "eldritch" combo: Fey Charge + Moon Elf Resilience: while bloodied, every time he charges (using Fey Step while doing so), he can use a healing surge for free. As long as he doesn't miss (in which case the power is expended and no more healing).
I envisioned him as an anomalous Eladrin... The PHb says they have the same range of complexions, so I pictured him very dark-skinned. A warm earth-like brown. And with green eyes and very light blond hair. The hair would be cut very very short (anomalous for an Eladrin, but after all he's a defender, can't allow enemies to take advantage of his long swooping hair), but with very long and thin tails or pseudo-dreadlocks hanging from the back.
Of course it would be extremely big and muscular for an Eladrin. The inspiration is that famous male model who was the icon of many fashion firms in the 90s, I can recall Kenzo. Of course I don't know the name of the model.
All his beauty however would be just an effect of his body and primal nature. No charisma at all, he's so close with the earth that he's silent like it, emotionless like it.
I was undecided for the weapon, between Greatspear (+3 prof and reach, and you get it with Eladrin Soldier), or something completely different. Maybe a heavy blade to take advantage of a 15 Dex sometime during paragon with HBO.
An earth fey. Wouldn't it be nice?
Nice one. Vixen from DC comics and the show is a great example. Animal Totems granting power, but not greatly physically changing you.
that would make a great revisualization of a class, although are you sure Warden is the right class for it? Only their dailys transform them and some of them are elemental shapes that have keywords that are hard to reflavor, the rest of their powers are plant and earth control which all would need some streching of the imagination, you would only want a minority of powers that would still need refluffing
If I was going to do Vixen, I would go Barbarian; I wouldn't have nearly as much reflavoring to do (if any at all), plus she seems like more of a striker to me.
I have heard many concepts for Warden that are based on famous fantasy characters, unfortunatly I only know one of them; Bjorn from The Hobbit, and I would even use a different class for him, either Barbarian or if I was bent on him being a defender then a Fighter w/MC because I would have more powers that didn't conflict mechanics wise to choose from, I wouldn't have cold powers or AOEs taking away my options.
[indent]
Not sure if this will help anyone at all, but when I think of the Warden, my first thought is to the super hero Vixen, mainly in the version seen in the Justice League Unlimited show. She is just this average kinda hero... until she gets imbued with the spirit of an animal. Then the butt whooping starts.
Awesome! I'm even a Justice League fan and I never made the connection. Nice![/indent]
brotherjgizmo:
[indent]
When someone says Druid I think a recluse who overtime became so attuned to the earth that he is a living manifestation of it.
When I think Warden I think a person under the service of the primal spirits.
Their transformation abilities manifest this. The druid becomes a representation of the beast while the Warden is possessed by the earth and enhanced. (he, unlike the warden, will never be the same as the primal spirits but merely a channel for them).
Couldn't have said it better myself.
[/indent]LordArchaon:
[indent]
If I can make an objective critique, that is surely one of "virtual power creep": very few classes have powers that LOOK so powerful in the first levels. Raising earth is a powerful thing. I may be biased again since I study geology, but I think we can objectively agree that raising earth is something no class has ever done till low-mid/mid level. Ok, it's not at all a permanent effect or whatever, but making it a 1st level encounter power, and starting a class with a visual power-level this high... Kind of stands off and lowers the "seriousness" level of the game a bit.
I like the idea that the [Primal] source will be one that inspires fear and awe in those who witness its power. It cements the idea that nature is wrathful, merciless, and of more breadth than any mortal or divine hand.And another objective critique is that they didn't take the opportunity of a totally new class to bring out totally new powers, preferring to convert old things and recycle them a bit.
I predict we will see more of this cannibalizing/recycling trend as various roles are filled across the power sources. The design team calls this "beating up and taking stuff," and they have not attempted to mislead us into thinking that this in fact is not taking place. The Warlord is straight up cannibalized/recycled Martial material and toyed-with Bard capabilities. Realistically, why should an effort be made to create something new, solely for the sake of creating something new? That action sort of cheapens the material, when what exists is solid and resonates with players.
[indent]
Of course it would be extremely big and muscular for an Eladrin. The inspiration is that famous male model who was the icon of many fashion firms in the 90s, I can recall Kenzo. Of course I don't know the name of the model.
Travis Fimmel?
Poor kid shaved his head and his career nose-dived. Hehe.[/indent]
Well, in a world where people can summon a ball of fire at first level, earth control isn't all that out of the norm, I think(much less when done by a spirit of the earth). I guess we see things differently, I don't mind that Warden gets Earth and Wood while Druid gets the rest because very likely on later levels we'll see that the druid and Warden have powers representative of nature as a whole.
Also I kind of see the logic behind a Warden having more 'control" of wood and earth because they are the most common material in places likely to need Warding, I doubt a wind or rain spirit is gonna call a warden to protect it from goblins because they are unreachable and intangible, while the earth and forest are very easily destroyed.
Good points.
To Lord Archaon
Would you have anyway of knowing what are the chances of a Puerto Rican being admitted into a Spanish University? I want to do my Master's degree there.
I'm not very informed, I'm here in Spain as a foreign student on exchange, but I think there would be approximately no problem. PM the details if you wish and I could be able to obtain details here myself!
LordArchaon:
[indent]Travis Fimmel?
Poor kid shaved his head and his career nose-dived. Hehe.[/indent]
Oh no, I'm talking of a dark skinned man, who was famous for having a strange mix of African, Asiatic and European traits. He had green eyes, but rather thick lips, and (artificial or not I don't know) blond hair. It's strange, I can't find photos.
EDIT: I even found a theme song for the character, it comes from The Witcher, enjoy!
[indent]
Oh no, I'm talking of a dark skinned man, who was famous for having a strange mix of African, Asiatic and European traits. He had green eyes, but rather thick lips, and (artificial or not I don't know) blond hair. It's strange, I can't find photos.
Ah, sorry. You said Eladrin, blonde, and nineties, and Travis F. just jumped right into my head.
Hmm... Of all the useless information that I'm full of, much of it pertains to models and fashion (I tried very hard to break into the industry). But I have no clue who you're talking about. He sounds like he has one interesting look though.[/indent]
Now onto important matters. Coca Cola is a tasty drink with a slightly cinnamony taste. Pepsi is sugar syrup in old sparkling water.
Coke Zero is the pus from an elder god's eye infection.
I lol'd. Hard.
LordArchaon:
[indent]Ah, sorry. You said Eladrin, blonde, and nineties, and Travis F. just jumped right into my head.
Hmm... Of all the useless information that I'm full of, much of it pertains to models and fashion (I tried very hard to break into the industry). But I have no clue who you're talking about. He sounds like he has one interesting look though.[/indent]
He was also somewhat recognized by having his brows and facial hair oxygenated like his hair. And all of his hair was particularly fine, giving it a very airy look. He almost looked like a fey or genasi, for real. I'm so pointless though when it comes to searching terms to find photos of him. I'm not even totally sure he worked for Kenzo, I'm just sure he didn't cross the 90s.
Make the ears pointed, add long and fine tails or mini-dreadlocks, make the eyes all green and you got my Eladrin Warden.
EDIT: Don't complain about facial hair, it's something that he got when he became Warden, it's called manifesting an aspect of nature! :D
FOUND HIM! Satya Oblet, Kenzo, 1998
Make the ears pointed, add long and fine tails or mini-dreadlocks, make the eyes all green and you got my Eladrin Warden.
There's a thread for that, over in Character Developement...
[indent]Dude... "famous for having a strange mix of African, Asiatic and European traits"?
Satya Oblet is of Indian descent.
And he certainly crossed the 90's, he's considered one of the very few male "Super Models".[/indent]
The funny thing is that this time around, we're focusing on the "shapeshifting" problem, which is strange, since I thought it was the most distinctive feature, meaning the thing that differentiated it more from the Druid.
Why is that? Because it's really different, both mechanically and fluff-wise.
A Druid is a shapeshifter, who has an alternative shape always available. And powers that modify it and exploit it.
A Warden doesn't shapeshift at all, it just channels primal power in a way that may ligthly modify some of his external features, but mostly only affect its combat-style, like martial stances do.
It's different mechanic, different theme, different niche in terms of combat, different niche inside a hypothetical all-comprehensive Primal "power-sphere".
In Werewolf RPG by whitewolf, werewolves shapeshift because they are half-spirit.
In old folklore (and older D&D edition) they shapeshift because they afflicted by a disease.
In 4e, they shapeshift because that's what they do - werwolves are essentially a race.
They're still all werewolves. Weither you shapeshift because you have total molecular control of your body or because you have a deal with spirits... the end result is you're still a shapeshifter.
And again, I just don't see why the dude that can turn into a great cat can't just grow great cat's claws. Make no sense to me.
Which results in 'I grow cat claws because I channel the spirit of the leopard!' vs 'I grow cat claws because I can'.
As I've said, my problem isn't so much the theme... but the end result.
This be the same thing as presenting a new martial class called 'Soldier' and his description would be 'He's like the fighter, but not as good' yet the mechanic makes him equal/valid.
The fact that the Warden can channel the essence of winter and mumbo jumbo like that does help thought. He's obviously not limited to only animals. Last I checked, the Druid can't do a full shapeshift into a blizzard...
What I criticized the most were the elemental control powers instead, because the Warden's ones are control-oriented just like the Druid's and the only difference is that they ontrol the earth instead of air, lightning and fire like Druid's. Oh, and the range of it all.
This made me think: "What stops the Druid from having the very same powers?". Logically, nothing. They have the same role, same nature (control of the elements, from a natural perspective), just different range.
I say: If you want to give us close range control powers, give us something different. Not only different element! Especially because the Druid is master of those natural forces, why the hell wouldn't he be able to control earth? It poses too many stupidity checks.
Bleh, thanks for adding to my issue.
You're right tho. The Warden can control the Earth... the Druid control everything else. So this is another case of the druid being more powerful fluff wise and being given no real reason as to why he can't control the earth. >_>
Nice one. Vixen from DC comics and the show is a great example. Animal Totems granting power, but not greatly physically changing you.
Except Vixen's totem do not change her physically at all. Nada changes. As Mcnancy said, Vixen's 'spirit channeling' would be better shown by a Barbarian's rage.
She's also no match for a real shapeshifter, like the Martian Manhunter.
I'm actually having a hard time with coming up with a super-hero or villain that has 'partial shapeshifting, but no full shapeshifting' has a power... quite possibly because it'd be terrible? >_>
I'm actually having a hard time with coming up with a super-hero or villain that has 'partial shapeshifting, but no full shapeshifting' has a power... quite possibly because it'd be terrible? >_>
A werewolf from Underworld. Doesn't turn into a full wolf, but instead gets much bigger, tougher, and stronger than any human or wolf.
Underworld is actually an awesome movie for failing idiot checks... the way werewolves are represented in there, it's a wonder the lycan/vampire war lasted more then 10 minute.
A warden, on the other hand, is GAINING things, growing, getting new flashy powers from their specific form.
Are the spirits of nature's selection process just random; they just hope the person uses their powers to protect nature?
Or maybe Wardens are more chosen by certain nature spirits as opposed to all of nature;
then a Warden could be picked out by evil nature spirits with evil goals, although that sounds alot like Warlock, are Wardens basically Primal Pact Warlocks?
A lion who win over leadership of pride usually kill the old lion he replaces, slaughter the cubs and take the alpha female as his mate. Even your common housecat enjoy playing with mouses/birds it has crippled before it finish them off and will often do so when not even hungry.
Perpetuated in a more civilized context, those acts would be seen as evil... in the animal kingdom, it just the way things are.
So good/evil really means squat for the primal source...
The real question is, can a Warden (or druid i guess) openly work toward harming/destroying nature? Can a barbarian strike out against the spiritual entity he channel when he's raging?
it just the way things are.
my friend Charles Darwin might have something to say about that statement.
I believe Darwin called it survival of the fittest.
I'm also unsure how developing a conscience would help lions in their role as apex predator... so it's not a likely evolution >_>.
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Although if you can use Darwin's thinking to justify a notion of good and evil within the animal kingdom, enlighten me.
I believe Darwin called it survival of the fittest.
yes, it's the process by which all things in nature occur; lions do not commit what you call "pure evil" acts because "it's just how things are", they do them to for the same reason nature does anything, to SURVIVE
nature is not evil, it's not good, it's not fickle, its mathematical; nature is utilitarian, if anything that's lawful neutral, and if lawful neutral tells you to kill another male's cubs then so be it.
Hard to define what evil and good are when applied to nature, no?
no, it's the same as applying them to a robot.
then a Warden could be picked out by evil nature spirits with evil goals, although that sounds alot like Warlock, are Wardens basically Primal Pact Warlocks?
And clerics, paladins, invokers, and avengers are all divine pact warlocks.
And clerics, paladins, invokers, and avengers are all divine pact warlocks.
My party has two Martial-pact Warlocks, one with a greatbow, the other with a pair of daggers.
The real question is, can a Warden (or druid i guess) openly work toward harming/destroying nature?
That actually sounds like a really cool idea. The Chaotic Evil Warden, an embodiment of the pure destructive aspect of nature, warden of hurricanes and cyclones, who goes out of his way to destroy the wildlife around him. I can definitely see a Warden (or Druid) choosing to represent very specific aspects of nature and try to bring them to the top.
Alternately an evil Warden would be one who puts nature over everything else, and is more than willing to kill anything that interferes. (Kinda like Ysengrin from GC!)
no, it's the same as applying them to a robot
I have a chaotic good robot I built in one of my adventures :P.
yes, it's the process by which all things in nature occur; lions do not commit what you call "pure evil" acts because "it's just how things are", they do them to for the same reason nature does anything, to SURVIVE
nature is not evil, it's not good, it's not fickle, its mathematical; nature is utilitarian, if anything that's lawful neutral, and if lawful neutral tells you to kill another male's cubs then so be it.
We have the same point, you're just choosing to present it in a confrontational way to make it sound like we disagree. It's the second time you do this in this thread.
Of course nature is utilitarian. Of course animals do what they do to survive... that's the way things are in the natural kingdom.
But feel free to quote only part of my sentence, apply them out of context and throw my point back at me, it seems to amuse you ;p.
Alternately an evil Warden would be one who puts nature over everything else, and is more than willing to kill anything that interferes. (Kinda like Ysengrin from GC!)
Indeed!
Protecting nature will often mean being at odds with humans and other 'good-like' being. A green dragon might be a vicious evil bastard... but he loves the forest. The human who cut trees a forest for the lumber might just be doing it because they have family to feed and need the money for it... but they are hurting the forest. They may not be taking a lot, they may be reasonable and wise in their practice, allowing the forest to recover between cuts... but the Warden may not care.
Seems to me a Warden is being told 'Protect Nature' and how he does it is totally up to him.
The Blair Witch (from the 1st movie) could be seen as a Warden who decided those kids were trespassing somewhere they shouldn't have and tried to scare them away, and eventually killed them. They got lost... they wanted to go away, but the Warden didn't care - they had gone too far in, they would die and be an example to all others.
This is the first time since we started this discussion that I'm actually using cool and Warden in the same line of thought.
The primal power source doesn't seem to be one that'd care for selecting 'good' or 'bad' people to do the job, it just picks able people (if it even 'choose' in a way we'd qualify as such). Hence why I said that good/evil really meant nothing to this power source. Heck, the Warden who keep people out of the heart of the forest may in fact be unaligned, but tell that to the nearby villager's he's scaring out of their mind.
That actually sounds like a really cool idea. The Chaotic Evil Warden, an embodiment of the pure destructive aspect of nature, warden of hurricanes and cyclones, who goes out of his way to destroy the wildlife around him. I can definitely see a Warden (or Druid) choosing to represent very specific aspects of nature and try to bring them to the top.
Except nature is never 'pure destruction'.
Hurricanes, Forest Fire, Volcanoes, Typhoon, etc - they destroy. But they also re-energise the land, making it fertile and creating a new cycle of life. The pure destruction point of view is purely from the human pov. The forest might burn down or be ripped asunder, but from the husk of the old trees, new life always grow.
No, pure destruction for the Primal power source would be the absorbtion of the life force of nature so that it is truly dead. They are such effects possible, in real life, Radiation and Toxic Waste certainly work, but in game as well - Blight Dragons do it, so we can assume other creature of the shadowfell can has well. Maybe opening a portal to one of the layer of the Abyss and turning the forest into a spawning ground for demons, etc.
Which is what I meant when I said 'Can a Warden go against nature'.
I mean, Paladin/Cleric are empowered by a ritual. Once empowered, they can directly go against the word of their gods, join other church/worship or even flat out be godless... and still retain their power. So can the Warden?
A good warden protects a given area, and helps wanderers who accidentally stumble into his land find their way home. He attacks only those who seek to destroy/desecrate his land, but no others.
A neutral/unaligned warden also protects a given area, but would simply ignore anyone who is not acting to destroy/desecrate the land.
An evil warden, however, protects a given piece of land, killing most anyone who enters it, whatever their intent. He may also set his sights on extending that territory, perhaps even to the point of raising a treant/animal/etc. army to destroy the nearby town that cuts down trees/clears land/etc. to build homes and plant farms.
Edit: In any case, they are fighting for nature, just in a different way. If they fell away from the natural path, I'm not sure what would happen in that case.
An unaligned Warden is lucky in that sense, because he'll pretty much do whatever needs to be done, regardless of it being good or evil.
The path to hell is paved with good intention - Good people may have totally valid motive to want to destroy a forest... maybe they'll all starve this winter because of a terrible summer that yielded almost no crop, so they have no choice but to go and over-hunt, but by doing so, they'll cripple the wild life population and cause a righteous mess in the eco-system... you can't expect them to just let themselves dies tho, and the winter is so bad they can't just move away and merchants can't get to this isolated village. And just 'hunting enough so the forest doesn't die from it' isn't an option - the people won't survive.
What's a good warden to do?
Coming up with an example where an evil warden would have to be good to protect the forest isn't coming as easily for me, but I'm sure it can be done.
Except nature is never 'pure destruction'.
Hurricanes, Forest Fire, Volcanoes, Typhoon, etc - they destroy. But they also re-energise the land, making it fertile and creating a new cycle of life. The pure destruction point of view is purely from the human pov. The forest might burn down or be ripped asunder, but from the husk of the old trees, new life always grow.
True indeed. Though I was concieving of the kind of character who might posess the goal of "destroy the world". It's a stupid idea to try to blow up the universe, but you see plenty of villians trying to do it anyway :P. An ignorant/crazy enough Warden might go out of his way to destroy in a way that ends up badly for nature. Such as a Warden of the desert who aims to expand the reaches of the desert to the ends of the earth. Or a Warden of the sea, aiming to drown the world. (Reminds me of Team Magma and Team Aqua from Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire... Yeah, I played 'em) Those are two goals that ignorantly promote a single aspect of 'nature' at the expense of the whole that I could see an unwise Warden holding.
An old elf druid of the woods is affected by the influence of the far realm, over time he begins to lose contact with the primal world and his body an soul re-attune themselves to the entities of the far realm unknowingly, his beast form doesn't represent the greatness of the animal realm but rather the depravation and madness of the far realm spreading chaos, destruction and madness wherever he steps.
Cool concept... but can he really said to be using the Primal power source? Sounds a lot like a Star Pact Warlock >_>
Except that Starlocks make a pact to begin with. My druid has just been 'altered" by far realm entities.
Except that Starlocks make a pact to begin with. My druid has just been 'altered" by far realm entities.
I just helped one of my players make a "Cleric" in the same vein. He's a member of the Cleric class, period, but for his "deity" we chose Caiphon (from the Star-pact Warlock article in Dragon). Similarly, we're flavouring all of his powers and abilities to be Far-Realm-sy; for example, when he uses Healing Word, rather than the target's wounds simply "knittng together", the wound appears to grow bizarre teeth and close itself like some horrible mouth. (Same mechanics as normal, just a totally different way to represent the character.)
The Sapper. He siphons away natural power, able to control nature against its will. He treats the natural world as a slave, forcing it through the power he gained by bloodline, by force of might, or long-broken vow. Perhaps he was once a great protector, but now he sees the world as a tool of his whims.
The Trophy-hunter. What he kills, he controls. By slaying an animal, he can take of its powers, its aspect, its abilities. His collection spans continents and kingdoms, and he seeks greater and more exotic beasts. Travel the globe, discover strange and fascinating creatures...and then butcher them.
The Fossil. In the battle of old versus new, he chooses the side of That Which Is Ancient, a poor looser to nature's game of natural selection. He channels extinct creatures, their power and their vengeance, and strikes back against the world that destroyed them. Ideally, he seeks to overturn the natural order, restoring an age long past, but he'll settle for making the present tremble in fear of times long gone.
The Packleader. Sometimes the scales tip. He cares not for the balance, only one race, one species, those who grant him power. Perhaps he seeks to flood the world or bury it all in sand and dust, or maybe he simply wants his pack to rampage across the lands. That, or he's just a plague, a blight, a disease festering upon the world. Nonetheless, his chosen side grants him totemic power, power which could one day brake the scales asunder.
Just so you don't start up another pointless argument with me, I want you to know this post is not an attack against you and I'm not trying to prove to you anything.
Concepts for anti-nature Wardens.
The Trophy-hunter. What he kills, he controls. By slaying an animal, he can take of its powers, its aspect, its abilities. His collection spans continents and kingdoms, and he seeks greater and more exotic beasts. Travel the globe, discover strange and fascinating creatures...and then butcher them.
That's an awesome concept.
<.< >.>
...I'm totally stealing it.
Concepts for anti-nature Wardens.
The Sapper. He siphons away natural power, able to control nature against its will. He treats the natural world as a slave, forcing it through the power he gained by bloodline, by force of might, or long-broken vow. Perhaps he was once a great protector, but now he sees the world as a tool of his whims.
The Trophy-hunter. What he kills, he controls. By slaying an animal, he can take of its powers, its aspect, its abilities. His collection spans continents and kingdoms, and he seeks greater and more exotic beasts. Travel the globe, discover strange and fascinating creatures...and then butcher them.
The Fossil. In the battle of old versus new, he chooses the side of That Which Is Ancient, a poor looser to nature's game of natural selection. He channels extinct creatures, their power and their vengeance, and strikes back against the world that destroyed them. Ideally, he seeks to overturn the natural order, restoring an age long past, but he'll settle for making the present tremble in fear of times long gone.
The Packleader. Sometimes the scales tip. He cares not for the balance, only one race, one species, those who grant him power. Perhaps he seeks to flood the world or bury it all in sand and dust, or maybe he simply wants his pack to rampage across the lands. That, or he's just a plague, a blight, a disease festering upon the world. Nonetheless, his chosen side grants him totemic power, power which could one day brake the scales asunder.
Incredibly cool all of them!! I particularly like The Fossil and The Sapper. What would an unaligned but malicious fey warden be like, instead? I was thinking something like bringing the unspoiled natural state of the feywild to the world, but maybe you have better ideas!
What would an unaligned but malicious fey warden be like, instead?
........The Irwin.
"And here we have the dragonborn in his natural habitat! Crickey, look at him run, beautiful, isn't it? Give me a moment, and --Ahh! Got 'im! He's a fierce bugger! Quick, give me the scroll, there we go. Got 'im tagged, so we'll be releasing him back into the wild, maybe we'll get to see him through the scrier interact with some of his own kind. Join me next time, we'll be studying half-elves and how they come about!"
God, I miss that man. May he rest in peace.
........The Irwin.
"And here we have the dragonborn in his natural habitat! Crickey, look at him run, beautiful, isn't it? Give me a moment, and --Ahh! Got 'im! He's a fierce bugger! Quick, give me the scroll, there we go. Got 'im tagged, so we'll be releasing him back into the wild, maybe we'll get to see him through the scrier interact with some of his own kind. Join me next time, we'll be studying half-elves and how they come about!"
God, I miss that man. May he rest in peace.
He was a hero of mine too. He said he wanted to be remembered for passion and enthusiasm.
So great concept, but not Irwin, he was a good fey, not a malicious one
Originally Posted by tyrandor
I'm actually having a hard time with coming up with a super-hero or villain that has 'partial shapeshifting, but no full shapeshifting' has a power... quite possibly because it'd be terrible? >_>
IMO, Slaine is the perfect representation of the warden in the comics culture :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaine_(comics)
And the Lord Weird Slough Fed (his nemesis) would be a perfect corrupted druid.
Both are worshippers of the Nature Godess in the comics ; well, the Lord Weird is his ex-archpriest, and Slaine is his new champion. IMO, Slaine fit perfectly in the warden theme.
Furthermore, in this comics, the human tribes are barbaric, they are led by druids, and their champion is close to what the warden appears to be ! Fit perfectly !
Personally I think the way people take the idea of survival of the fittest as almost a law is frankly quite silly for a couple reasons.
1. Non-limited breeding. While a better specimen will usually attract more mates that doesn't mean that the inferior specimen doesn't breed too so it's genes still get passed on in many cases.
2. Catastrophe. If a tree falls in the first and no one sees it does it really kill the best specimen? If something happens to be in the wrong place and happens to have the best genes if it dies it can't reproduce and the inferior specimen will.
While the theory holds up most of the time it is by far an incomplete look at how things actually work.
If a tree falls in the first and no one sees it does it really kill the best specimen? If something happens to be in the wrong place and happens to have the best genes if it dies it can't reproduce and the inferior specimen will.
well those specimen knew to get out of the way of the tree so they're not inferior after all.
Well, my point is that a druid may be able to turn into a creature freely... but they don't GAIN anything from it. a 120 pound druid becomes a 120 pound bear- not quite as intimidating as you'd hoped.
A warden, on the other hand, is GAINING things, growing, getting new flashy powers from their specific form.
Well then, I guess you could say the druid is better at a more limited form of shapeshifting- he can go all the way, but he's no better off than before. The warden only goes partial... but that partial is better than the druid's full transformation.
The It seems that Warden's shifting is focused. He can evoke primal power to take on aspects of nature, granting him some nice utility-like benefits. However, he can only do so for a short period and a limited number of times a day.
The Druid's shifting appears to be flexible. She can evoke primal power to change into almost whatever shape she may wish, back and forth, as often as desired. She can, if she chooses, maintain her altered forms indefinitely. It is mostly cosmetic in effect - though it does influence what powers she can use, it does not provide as much itself.
However, her shifting allows three class at-will attacks to be used, adding some versatility, and several of the best-form at-will attacks may be used to make attacks of opportunity and the like.
If a trait in one mutation is, all else considered, 1% better, then the population of that mutatuion will contribute 1% more offspring than a comparable population of those without the mutation.
1% compounded over even just 10 generations...
Show
1%+
1.01%+
1.0201+
1.030201+
1.04030201+
1.0504030201
1.060504030201
1.07060504030201
1.0807060504030201
1.090807060504030201=
10.403628211510060301%
1.01%+
1.0201+
1.030201+
1.04030201+
1.0504030201
1.060504030201
1.07060504030201
1.0807060504030201
1.090807060504030201=
10.403628211510060301%