I lean toward Druid-type classes in the sword and sorcery games I play. Whether online or on paper, the class has a certain something that draws me to it. However, I don't think that most game systems get the druid "right."
When Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 was first released, the Druid class was the second least made/used class after the Bard. They both suffered from the same problem-- good at a lot of things but not really great at anything. In the case of the Druid, they had created a class that had good, but not great, offensive spells. They gave it good, but not great defensive spells. It had the ability to transform, but the rules were less than clear how it worked and it had some very serious drawbacks. On top of this, the class had some serious armor and weapon issues, low hit points, and a slow progression on most saving throws. Its one bright spot was that they got an animal companion to start. However, by about level 8, the companion was already lagging behind and becoming a liability (and a pain to roleplay).
Version 3.5 and the Player's Handbook II resolved some of these issues and helped to make it more powerful and more accepted by players. However, the inherent problem still existed-- should you be a spell caster? Should you be a shape changer? Should you focus on your companion and your own abilities?
If you focus your Feat selection and even your spell casting toward any one thing, you wind up being poor at the rest. And it takes a very strong focus with your Feat selection to "keep up" with the other classes. Even still, you will always be more of a support character. And if you design your character one way and then find you need to change that focus, you are screwed (unless the DM allows you a respecification, whether in game or out). So, in the end, even a really focused player may wind up with a class that is not as effective as he would like at the best of times. At the worst, it is a mess of paper work as you shuffle between your stacks of spells, your notes and character sheet on your animal companion, and flip through your sheets or the Monster Manual for the abilities of the animal forms you can shape shift into. And don't forget all the feats that could affect and alter each one of those abilities.
What I find interesting is that this lack of focus can be solved by making two classes (or even three). If you separate the Druid class into a "Shaman" (I put that in quotes because D&D has some classes that use 'shaman' in their titles) as a nature-based spell caster and a "Beast master" as a shape changer and beast handler. If you are separating into three, then you have the Shaman, Beast master (focusing on companion abilities and affecting animals), and "Shifter" focusing on the shape change aspects only. Each of these aspects would focus here only, and would not have access to the abilities of the other versions. So, for example, a Shaman would not have an animal companion (but, likely, would have a familiar) or the ability to change shape. I think that "beast master" is close enough-- all animal related abilities would be in one class (handling and shape changing).
Having this separation allows a person to select the class that is closest to what they want to play or that fits with the group the best. The Shaman would focus on the spell casting and would allow the player to focus on feats, skills, and abilities that would allow him to be a better caster. And, as anyone who has played a spell caster to high levels can tell you, having all those spells (and feats that can change the spells' damage, time, distance, etc.) can be intimidating and is a lot of paper work to focus on. You don't need to add the complications of having an animal companion (and all of its abilities) and shape changing skills to the mix.
The Beast master would focus on the shape changing and beast handling/animal companion skills inherent in the Druid class. For the same reasons above, the player wouldn't need to waste energy on remembering all the spells and abilities, nor worry about using any or some of his precious Feats on spell casting abilities. Instead, he could focus on feats, skills, and abilities that allow him to be the best shape changer and beast handler possible. Unless new feats were created to help this class, the shape changer would likely never be the best fighter in the group, but the abilities that open up with the variety of shapes they can take make them a great supporting character. And any time you focus a character in D&D, it is a good thing.
It is interesting to note that the PHB2 has the alternate way of doing the shape change aspect of the class which, according to the boards I read online, many people prefer. It simplifies the rules for the polymorph/alternate form aspects of the change. It makes the Druid a better fighter class, at the expense of some of the versatility inherent in the actual forms they could use.
I find the same issue in WoW. My Druid is my favorite character, but I have limited resources to empower the character and have had to focus on one ability "tree" in order to be good. I picked the shape changing tree. As long as I am teamed with a group who needs me as a rogue (cat form) or as a tank (bear form), I'm fine. But if I get in a group that needs me to cast spells, most of my spells are underpowered for my level and I go through mana like it's water. On top of this, there are really two paths for casting as well; offensive or defensive. My character is not all that good at either. This game could use the same separation between some of the abilities to allow people to focus on what they want.
Wizards of the Coast have announced Dungeons & Dragons 4.0 (May 2008), and the company says it has reimagined the classes in such a way that each is more "focused." So you, as the player, have a better understanding of what your role is with that character in the group. They have also created ways in which each class is more unique and more "powerful" in its specific role (for example, a fighter can do things with weapons that no other class can do with the same weapon). My hope is that they have either a) separated the Druid class abilities among multiple classes as suggested here or b) limited the powers so that the class has fewer spells and more focused abilities for the shape changing and beast handling abilities.
"Take something you love, tell people about it, bring together people who share your love, and help make it better. Ultimately, you'll have more of whatever you love for yourself and for the world." - Julius Schwartz, DC Comics pioneer, 1915-2004
Copyright
All blog posts, unless otherwise noted, are copyrighted to the Author (that's me) and may not be used without written permission.
-
I have played both State of Decay and State of Decay 2: Juggernaut Edition , both zombie survival games, for many years and enjoy the titles...
-
Well over a week ago (probably closer to two weeks, now), I did something to cause my lower back to give me pain. Now, due to RA, I'm in...
-
When I was visiting Costco a while back, one of the trial people had a refreshing new product from Minute Maid: pomegranate lemonade. I like...
August 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I play a Druid character in the D&D game I am currently in. I opted for the shapeshift ability instead of the animal companion. It makes life much more interesting, especially now that I have the ability to shift into either a predator form or aerial form. ^_^ Druids seem to start off slow, but some of the spells you gain later on make it worth the wait. Bad guys are going to be in for a surprise when I can summon a T-Rex! :-P
ReplyDeleteI played one to level 24. Unfortunately, as I gained levels, each of the other members of the party were more focused and, subsequently, much better at what they did. For example, the Wizard could summon in much more powerful creatures with Summon Monster even at the same levels as my Summon Nature's Ally-- because monsters are inherently more powerful (even with a feat to boost my summoned creatures).
ReplyDeleteThe shapeshift abilities start out strong, but then quickly become weak and the role you have early changes as the other group members become stronger. The PHB2 variant, which it sounds like you are using, will allow you to be more effective as a fighter long-term, but you lose some of the other bonuses (like travel powers or innate alternate attack methods) of creatures you could take using the standard shapeshift abilities. Also, unless you house-rule it, that does not allow you to cast while shifted (which there is a feat for in the standard shifting). However, not having a an animal companion will allow you to be more focused.
Also, many DMs don't allow dinosaurs (both in spell casting and shapeshifting). If yours does, great! Those are some of the better SNA creatures you can spell into a fight.
From what I understand there are a lot of house rules int he game that Lisa is playing. :)
ReplyDeleteIn our current game, Kevin is playing a druid, but I'm not sure what path he's taking. There's a lot to be said for the support role though.
Much like in EQ (the bulk of my druid experience), what you're describing seems to reflect the druid role there. Druids were good and getting you back to normal after a fight, while the clerics were keeping you alive during the fight.
In EQ though, druid defensive buffs were constantly sought after, and their offense was pretty good (as long as you were willing to wait for something to die).