Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 tehsquirrely Aug 08, 2014 16:35:25	So I just got my phb a few hours ago and after looking it over I gotta say I love most of it. However the druid, as always, leaves something to be desired. I've never seen any druid in any edition of D&D really do what I want a druid to do. It's always all about wild shape, and that's fine sometimes, but sometimes I just want to play a druid who focuses on spell casting and manipulating nature, instead of just turning into animals and incidentally having some magic. I also feel like their subclasses have the least "wow" factor. The circle of the moon is just wildshape+ and circle of the land has a lot of stuff that seems incredibly situtaional and in many campaigns that I've played would have never ever come up. How circle spell is written (always prepared for you) seems to imply that you can cast those spells like cantrips, but I really doubt that's the intention.   My point being is we now have a fighter that can use magic, a rogue that can use magic, monks that are Avatar style benders, and warlocks in the PHB. Can we move away from wildshape for a while and have at least one druid build that drops it altogether for something else?
#2 GhostStepper Aug 08, 2014 16:42:50	If a spell is prepared, it just means it's available for you to use spell slots to cast it.
#3 Saelorn Aug 08, 2014 16:54:50	Circle of the Land really is supposed to be the Druid that doesn't use wildshape for anything important, but still has access to it just in case. Think of it like a Wizard's proficiency with daggers.
#4 Ashrym Aug 08, 2014 17:19:53	I like the versatility in wildshape, even for land circle druids. If wildshape is a concern then nature domain clerics might be an alternative.
(Reply to #3) tehsquirrely	Saelorn wrote:
#6 Saelorn Aug 08, 2014 17:49:45	tehsquirrely wrote:
(Reply to #5) Marandahir	tehsquirrely wrote:
#8 Xeviat-DM Aug 09, 2014 1:37:56	How well would a Beastmaster Ranger/Circle of the Land Druid multiclass? Is the animal companion HP still "X*your ranger level"?   Sentinal Druid is next on my list of subclasses to write ...
#9 Lokiron Aug 09, 2014 1:39:26	If they're (basically) the same as in the playtest Land druids get some extra oomph to their casting via extra cantrip, spell recovery, and bonus prepared spells (and they look like good spells). Those are features that are always relevant. The other abilities, stride and nature's ward may be more circumstantial, but seem pretty cool to me. Stride has a lot of little things it does, so one of those things might come up. It's broad, like feats are supposed to be. It's ability to wildshape is kept neatly in utility territory, and is only really a combat feature if you choose Circle of the Moon.
#10 Lokiron Aug 09, 2014 1:56:58	At the other end of the spectrum, I would actually love to see a druid who could wildshape at will and stay in the form indefinitely (from level 1, preferably). I have a character from a 3.5 variant that I'd like to see again. It was rather weak, by comparison, then, but the druid could live with the nerf. I realize this will not happen with the current subclass system, but might happen if they ever make alternative class features that mess with the class backbones.
#11 Tony_Vargas Aug 09, 2014 12:06:01	Marandahir wrote:
#12 masterfat78 Aug 09, 2014 12:36:04	I much prefer animal companions too be an optional thing like wizards claimed it was going too be. Im disappointed in the beastmaster ranger. Using your companion to attack sees weaker than just attacking with a bow and I feel it could end up being a trap option(will wait for some actual gaming before I commit to that). I like animal companions and henchmen too be a option for smaller groups to fill out their ranks and making them 4th edition style doesnt feel that  need.