What is the *niche* of the Druidic spell list?

[Schwann145]

The conversation about Conjure Animals got me wondering:
What sort of gameplay exactly is the Druid spell list supposed to reinforce?

If summoning/minionmancy is bad for the game (as many have made the argument), that really just leaves low level battlefield control (easily outpaced by the Arcane spell list) and minor restoration effects (easily outpaced by the Divine spell list).

If one plays a Druid as a primary spellcaster, what is their strategy supposed to be, spell-wise? And how is it supposed to maintain through the tiers of play as said Druid reaches higher levels?

[Unoriginal]

The conversation about Conjure Animals got me wondering:
What sort of gameplay exactly is the Druid spell list supposed to reinforce?

If summoning/minionmancy is bad for the game (as many have made the argument), that really just leaves low level battlefield control (easily outpaced by the Arcane spell list) and minor restoration effects (easily outpaced by the Divine spell list).

If one plays a Druid as a primary spellcaster, what is their strategy supposed to be, spell-wise? And how is it supposed to maintain through the tiers of play as said Druid reaches higher levels?

Druids got better restoration effects than the Arcane spell list and better battlefield control than the Divine spell list. Jack of All Trades will be useful in more situations than the Master of One, even if they can't beat the Master of One in their one specialty.

Also, it's not because some people consider summoning bad that it is not a part of the options the game give.

Furthermore, a Druid's gameplay change a lot depending on their subclass The Moon Druid does not have the same strategies as Land Druid or Wildfire Druid or Star Druid. Because Druids have impactful class and subclass features beyond their spells.

All in all a Druid can do decent damage (especially AoE), decent healing, decent summoning, decent transformation, decent crowd control and a bunch of other stuff depending on their subclass. It's not really a niche, but being good in general means it's hard to have a situation where they're not useful one way or another.

[Schwann145]

But I'm not really talking about how subclasses alter/give options/etc, because you can make that same argument about every class.

I'm talking about the Druid spell list, as it exists as it's own entity.

[JNAProductions]

But I'm not really talking about how subclasses alter/give options/etc, because you can make that same argument about every class.

I'm talking about the Druid spell list, as it exists as it's own entity.

The Druid spell list doesn't exist as its own entity.

You're never going to have general access to it without being a Druid, which means you'll have a subclass that modifies how much various spells might be worth.

[Schwann145]

The Druid spell list doesn't exist as its own entity.

That's true, but irrelevant.
The Divine spell list will always have a Cleric attached to it, but I can tell you that it is very strong with buff/debuff and restoration options and very weak at damage and crowd control.
The Arcane spell will always have a Wizard or Sorcerer attached to it, but I can tell you that it is very strong at, basically, everything that isn't restoration.
The Bard spell list will always have a Bard attached to it, but I can still tell you it's going to be very strong at crowd control, illusion, and minor restoration effects and be bad at direct damage and battlefield control.

If what the Druid spell list offers is, "I can do everything poorly," then that is a huge disappointment, but I'm wondering if that's what it's supposed to be, or if that's just an unfortunate consequence of publishing?

[J-H]

CC Switch-hitter:
-Concentration-based crowd control. Very few non-concentration CC spells.
-It can heal, but not as well as a cleric.
-It can blast, but not as well as an arcanist, and its spells are limited to natural forces (fire, cold, lightning, etc.)
-It can summon, but not with as much versatility as a wizard or cleric.
-Plus plants and weather stuff.

At low level, druids are your wolf-and-vine caster. There's a transition point somewhere around 5th level spells where mere plants and animals drop out of focus and their thematics change. At high levels, they're tapped into primal natural forces and are unleashing earthquakes, tornadoes, and firestorms.

[da newt]

They are the more interesting caster. They have flavor and options. They also wild shape, and heal, and control, and restore, and make terrain, and zorch folks, and summon, and ... They don't really niche, they adapt (which is a very healthy survival tactic).

I'd rather play a druid than any of the other full casters. They are fun and weird.

[Psyren]

If summoning/minionmancy is bad for the game (as many have made the argument),

Summoning a minion is fine. Summoning squads/armies of minions is not.

If D&D were a video game where the druid player could outsource the control of their summons to some kind of efficient AI, as well as all the off-turn baggage that comes with them like reactions, saving throws, opposed checks etc - that would at least help offset the effect these spells have of ballooning their turns. But we don't really have that in a tabletop setting, so spells that dump a bunch of minions onto the board tend to be annoying in play. But there are plenty of summon spells that don't do that.



If one plays a Druid as a primary spellcaster, what is their strategy supposed to be, spell-wise? And how is it supposed to maintain through the tiers of play as said Druid reaches higher levels?

I don't get why you're dismissing Druid control as "low-level." Spike Growth, Wall of Fire/Stone/Thorns, Transmute Rock, Maelstrom, Reverse Gravity, Sunburst... they get plenty of solid control options even past low levels. And while the Arcane list might be better, that doesn't make the Primal list bad, plus the Arcane list doesn't have things like Heal or Heroes' Feast.

[tKUUNK]

If they have a niche, it's battlefield control focused largely on limiting enemy movement. The druid remains impactful & relevant across tiers here.

But looking for the niche may be missing the point because- as others have said- the druid spell list is pretty darn flexible.

Playing one in a party, my strategy would be to cover any obvious gaps left by the other casters, with likely emphasis on control. Then help them out with a little redundancy in healing and evocation. With druids especially, if your strategy doesn't change a little depending on what you expect to face each day (and where you expect to face it) you're doing it wrong. So if you're having a tough time nailing down their niche, you're on the right track!

[Rynjin]

The Druid spell list has always had the (mechanical) niche of "big strong for big long".

Druid spells typically have HUGE areas and LONG durations so they can point and laugh at PUNY BABY MEN who think they can win a war of attrition with the all-encompassing power of NATURE.

Do the spells do a ton of burst damage? No. But over the course of a long fight a Druid has more theoretical damage output and lockdown duration than any other class in the game*.

*Historically. Iunno about 5e specifically. But MOONBEAM BEST BEAM WOOOOO

Thematically, their niche is, as a wise Druid once said "Nature will RISE against you! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwAf9mx3GCU)".

In a (Pathfinder) campaign of mine, a single similarly-leveled Druid was able to lock down the entire party, alone, for a long time. Because that's just what Druids do. Not many people have much recourse to being hemmed in by Wall of Thorns and repeatedly slammed into the ground by Sirocco, etc.

[JellyPooga]

For me, the "niche" of the Druid list is being thematically coherent. The Bard list has a similarly satisfying focus. The failing of the Wizard and Cleric lists are that they are too braod and too narrow, respectively.

The Cleric gets away with an over-tight list because they have a couple of really clutch spells that edge out just about every other spell of their level. There's virtually zero versatility because there's very little incentive to stray outside of those few spells; most Clerics are going to prepare and cast lvl.1 Bless/Healing Word, lvl.2 Spiritual Weapon, lvl.3 Spirit Guardians, etc. It's solid, but formulaic because there's nothing on their list that really does anything outside of those that someone else doesn't do equally or better. They're kind of the Fighter of the spellcasting tree; good at what they do, but a bit basic.

The Wizard, on the other hand, has the opposite problem. They have zero focus. There's something like three, maybe four subclass features that actually encourage a specialist wizard to cast spells of their school, but aside from that, they just have the run of the playground. The Wizard list is the bane of anyone with analysis paralysis; too many options, no incentive to be thematic and very few significant outliers to narrow the search. They're the Rogue of the spellcasters; in theory and in the right hands, they're super versatile and a real powerhouse in combat, but in practice they're probably just spamming a bunch of damage.

The Druid and Bard lists (the Paladin and Ranger of the spellcasters, respectively), however, have the benefit of blurring the lines between the Cleric and Wizard list, but doing so within the confines of their respective themes to a degree that doesn't limit, but rather expands their options because they have some of the clutch of the Cleric, giving some obvious pick-me's, but also a bit more variety and no really obvious "this is what I'm casting in every encounter". The most important thing, to my mind, however is that they're thematic. The Druid is the plants and animals guy (and later the storms and fey guy) and their spell list reflects this. You're the dude that can ritually cast Speak with Animals, so in practice you're the only one that will ever actually cast it and because it has such a low opportunity cost you're incentivised to do so. You haven't got Web (unless you're a Land Druid), so you're casting Entangle instead, which is a totally solid alternative. Wizards aren't casting Fog Cloud because Darkness is (debatably) the better spell, but Druids? Yeah, roll in the mist because it's super Druidic and it does basically the same thing as darkness, with larger area and longer duration.

Is the Druid list "a bit worse at everything, but with a broader scope"? Yeah, kind of...but at the same time a big resounding "no". On paper, that's sort of what it looks like, but in practice I've found that it plays more like having a bunch of fun and thematic options that I have an incentive to use rather than struggling to list-build the perfect MtG deck or just spamming the same tired options that I did in the last session.


(and if you're curious about the rest of the martial:caster comparisons:
Cleric - Fighter : One note wonder, but effective
Wizard - Rogue : Theoretically awesome but practically less so
Druid - Paladin : Tanky and thematic. More fun to play than you think because actual Class Features and actual roleplaying are fun.
Bard - Ranger : Skills! Magic! Combat! Not as good as you want it to be.
Sorcerer - Barbarian : Crippled by rules hell. Beatstick.
Warlock - Monk : 1-trick pony with some weird stuff going on.

[sithlordnergal]

So J-H hit the nail on the head, Druids are the game's CC Switch-hitter, and probably the best Minionmancer in the game. In fact, I'd be willing to go so far to say their spell list is as versatile as a Wizard's spell list. Yes, they lack the heavy hitters found on the wizard spell list, but they are just as versatile. Control? Healing? Damage? Utility? Divination? Transportation? Minions? Druids have it all. And because they are prepared casters, they have access to their entire spell list, and can change out spells after every long rest.

[stoutstien]

Wrath of nature is the theme and the list.

Druids are army killers. They have access to spells that can shut down just about any large force while also having enough support and utility to cover most situations.


You see a ton of talk about choke points and funneling enemies. Druid is how you actually do that reliably.

[Nagog]

The one big commonality I've noticed in the Druid Spell List is actually combat longevity. Things like Flame Blade (bad as it is), Call Lightning, Sunbeam, etc., are all spells you cast once and keep using throughout the combat. This was initially planned (I assume) to be used in conjunction with Wild Shape, particularly Moon Druids, who could use all the leftover spell slots to heal themselves.

That does leave a lot to be desired with full caster Druids though, as many of those combat spells are highly economical, and but the Druid spell list very much lacks non-combat utility to make use of all the other spell slots they can get.

Also it should be noted that the "cast a spell and use it all combat" dynamic works like a dream on the Pact Magic chassis, while the Full Spellcasting slot progression is not nearly so efficient.

[J-H]

Non-combat utility? Charm Person, Plant Growth, Stone Shape, Locate Animals/Plants/Objects/Creature, Pass Without Trace, Dispel, Speak with Plants, Divination, Commune with Nature, Control Winds, Restoration-line spells.... what exactly are you looking for in non-combat utility that this doesn't cover?

Their damage output is definitely sub-par, and they don't have any good ways to get +x to damage. The use of d10s means that the damage output is swingy... compare 3d10 vs 5d6. They are definitely a DOT vs burst damage caster... but their DOT spells mean they can't have most of their Concentration spells up.

[Nagog]

The Wizard, on the other hand, has the opposite problem. They have zero focus. There's something like three, maybe four subclass features that actually encourage a specialist wizard to cast spells of their school, but aside from that, they just have the run of the playground. The Wizard list is the bane of anyone with analysis paralysis; too many options, no incentive to be thematic and very few significant outliers to narrow the search. They're the Rogue of the spellcasters; in theory and in the right hands, they're super versatile and a real powerhouse in combat, but in practice they're probably just spamming a bunch of damage.


I gotta disagree on this one. The Wizard has tons of options, yes, because the spell list is literally the only class feature that carries any weight. That fact is also why Wizards are considered OP, despite their actual class and subclass features being (mostly) lackluster. That said, the focus of the class is whatever you make of it: If you want an elemental caster themed character, Wizard is probably your best bet. If you want a utility caster that has a solution for a dozen different issues? Wizard is again a solid choice. "Spamming a bunch of damage" is certainly one way to play a Wizard (specifically the Evoker), but minimizing the entire class to that is akin to claiming the Warlock is a melee gish class.

I love the Wizard class for much the same reasons Druid is near the bottom of my list: Wizards can have any flavor, any theming, and play almost any role in the party. Druid has the Nature theme shoved up it's backside so far you can taste it, and they only really have 2-3 things they do well. Pretty much any other focus beyond Wild Shape and Action Economy Collapse is done better by other builds.


You're the dude that can ritually cast Speak with Animals, so in practice you're the only one that will ever actually cast it and because it has such a low opportunity cost you're incentivised to do so. You haven't got Web (unless you're a Land Druid), so you're casting Entangle instead, which is a totally solid alternative. Wizards aren't casting Fog Cloud because Darkness is (debatably) the better spell, but Druids? Yeah, roll in the mist because it's super Druidic and it does basically the same thing as darkness, with larger area and longer duration.


More of a nitpick than anything, but in my experience I've seen far more Warlocks cast Speak with Animals than Druids via Beast Speech, primarily because it costs nothing through Beast Speech (especially the 10 minute casting time, which most of the party won't want to wait for to talk to a pig or to diffuse a beast combat encounter).
Secondly, Darkness is so much worse in every way compared to Fog Cloud, particularly for Wizards. Darkness is only good on classes that have the specific clause that you as a player can see through it: In every other circumstance Fog Cloud is superior due to it's negation of Devil's Sight and True Sight, as Fog Cloud is Conjured Obscurement rather than Illusory Darkness.




(and if you're curious about the rest of the martial:caster comparisons:
Cleric - Fighter : One note wonder, but effective
Wizard - Rogue : Theoretically awesome but practically less so
Druid - Paladin : Tanky and thematic. More fun to play than you think because actual Class Features and actual roleplaying are fun.
Bard - Ranger : Skills! Magic! Combat! Not as good as you want it to be.
Sorcerer - Barbarian : Crippled by rules hell. Beatstick.
Warlock - Monk : 1-trick pony with some weird stuff going on.

These are... Woefully misleading.
Wizard and Rogue are amazing both on paper and in practice. I can draw up a dozen or so scenarios for it, but that's paper and not practice. All I can quote for evidence is that Rogue is 100% the top martial pick, and beats out more than half of all the casting classes in popularity even among veteran players. Wizard is a very popular class as well for the same reasons: it's potent and versatile and (as I mentioned before) can be built a million different ways.

Druid is only tanky if you go Moon Druid, and even then it's effectiveness varies wildly depending on what tier of play you're in. All the other subclasses are casters with some spice, which (in the case of Stars and Wildfire) is some great spice, but not tanky.
Paladins are tanky and thematic, yes.
That said, citing "actual roleplaying" as a strength of 2 classes instead of a choice a player makes when playing any character makes it sound like you need your class to hand you your character traits on a silver platter in order for the character to have any depth.

Bard is literally in the top 3 classes of all. Similarly to Wizards, they can be built for pretty much any role (with the same "one playstyle is out" rule, for Bards it's Blasting, though MS can grant you everything you need anyway). "Not as fun as you want it to be" is pretty solid evidence that you're missing something with how you play a Bard.
Ranger is spot on though.

Sorcerer and Barbarian are decent classes, but their mechanics hardline them into specific roles: Blasting and Tanking, respectively. Sorcerer's spell list, limited spells known, and Metamagic are all clearly built with the "glass cannon" playstyle in mind, and their limits heavily discourage Utility or other niche spell picks. Barbarians aren't allowed to cast/concentrate while Raging, so that locks them out of doing a lot of things that Rage doesn't specifically provide. Luckily Rage provides some really solid tanking capabilities that are built upon by subclass choices.

[Pex]

The Druid spell list doesn't exist as its own entity.

You're never going to have general access to it without being a Druid, which means you'll have a subclass that modifies how much various spells might be worth.

Stars Druid is this in spades. You can be a blaster, a healer, or a buffer/debuffer. You're blasting with Guiding Bolt and a bonus action range attack. You're doubling up on healing. You can polymorph yourself into a Giant Ape at 7th level and go sparkly Dragon. You're not losing concentration when hit or maybe it's some other crucial concentration spell you want. In my opinion Stars Druid is the better caster druid than Land and equal in power to Moon. You can still wildshape into small animals if you need to the same as any other druid.

[sithlordnergal]

That does leave a lot to be desired with full caster Druids though, as many of those combat spells are highly economical, and but the Druid spell list very much lacks non-combat utility to make use of all the other spell slots they can get.


I'm...a bit curious about what you mean. I've played a few Clerics, Wizards, Bards, Sorcerers, and Druids. The only class that has more non-combat utility than the Druid is the Wizard. This is especially true when I was playing a game where I was the only full caster. More often then not we'd need some spell to do something, only to find that Clerics didn't have access to it. Now don't get me wrong, Clerics, Bards, and Sorcerers have fine spell lists. Its just the Cleric focuses way too much on divination, outsiders, and semi-niche buffs, while Bards and Sorcerers are heavily limited by spells known.

[Eldariel]

Summoning a minion is fine. Summoning squads/armies of minions is not.

There's little inherently wrong with mass summons. Especially in the digital era, macros fix basically all of the usability issues but even on PnP, mass rolling does most of it.

In this game, I think the biggest issue is that the mass summon options are disproportionately powerful compared to everything else due to bounded accuracy and the strength of the individual statblocks.

[Leon]

If one plays a Druid as a primary spellcaster, what is their strategy supposed to be, spell-wise? And how is it supposed to maintain through the tiers of play as said Druid reaches higher levels?

The Druid is always a Primary Spellcaster with extra roles it can play depending on what its subclass is and its "niche" has always been having a Nature orientated spell list that can do a variety of things that may overlap with other class options in some aspects. Really all its lacking in this iteration from older ones is the Pet as a Subclass function (alas the Giant book and its failure to release the Primal Subclass)

[Psyren]

There's little inherently wrong with mass summons. Especially in the digital era, macros fix basically all of the usability issues but even on PnP, mass rolling does most of it.

In this game, I think the biggest issue is that the mass summon options are disproportionately powerful compared to everything else due to bounded accuracy and the strength of the individual statblocks.

I'm not saying mass summons can't work in tabletop at all - but as you said and everything I've seen since playing, whether in online communities like this one, prevailing content creator sentiment, and even the actions of the designers themselves, suggests that they are a spectacularly bad fit for this game in particular and what it's trying to be. And ultimately, what works for 5e is more important to 5e design than what works in other games.

As an example - what was the last mass summon they created, and how long ago was that? Danse Macabre in Xanathar's maybe? If they made something newer than that, I'd like to look and see how it differs from CA.

[Theodoxus]

There's little inherently wrong with mass summons. Especially in the digital era, macros fix basically all of the usability issues but even on PnP, mass rolling does most of it.

In this game, I think the biggest issue is that the mass summon options are disproportionately powerful compared to everything else due to bounded accuracy and the strength of the individual statblocks.

It's not bounded accuracy that's affected. You could have a summons that gifts 100 critters with 8 AC, +0 to hit, 1 HP and deals a single point of damage on hit. It's action economy.

While a digital environment certainly <can> speed up the combat (talking about something closer to a real game with 1 to 8 added creatures), it still doesn't address the action economy issue.

A new classic example is a potential encounter you can run in BG3. There's a spot that will overrun you with lots (like, upwards of a hundred) rats. The first time I ran into it, I didn't know what to expect. My PCs were using small attacks instead of massive AOEs. After a round, I realized I needed to pop something better, and decided on Spirit Guardians. Unfortunately, I respec'd my Shart to Tempest and had an 8 Dex... my team was nearly eaten alive by rats before the SG went off. If those rats had been a smidge stronger (like, I assume they would be on Tactical), I seriously doubt I would have survived at all.

There's a pretty good rule of thumb, regardless of how powerful one side of a combat might be, if the other has more units, and more actions, there's a really good chance they'll win the combat, all things being equal. I'm sure that's one reason small squad D&D style games tend to provide more attacks (actions) or better AOE the higher you get - so you aren't swamped and killed off by a horde of 20 goblins. If your level 11 party of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard all had 1 attack a round and very limited AOE spells, it would be a TPK more often than not.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's not bounded accuracy that's affected. You could have a summons that gifts 100 critters with 8 AC, +0 to hit, 1 HP and deals a single point of damage on hit. It's action economy.

While a digital environment certainly <can> speed up the combat (talking about something closer to a real game with 1 to 8 added creatures), it still doesn't address the action economy issue.

A new classic example is a potential encounter you can run in BG3. There's a spot that will overrun you with lots (like, upwards of a hundred) rats. The first time I ran into it, I didn't know what to expect. My PCs were using small attacks instead of massive AOEs. After a round, I realized I needed to pop something better, and decided on Spirit Guardians. Unfortunately, I respec'd my Shart to Tempest and had an 8 Dex... my team was nearly eaten alive by rats before the SG went off. If those rats had been a smidge stronger (like, I assume they would be on Tactical), I seriously doubt I would have survived at all.

There's a pretty good rule of thumb, regardless of how powerful one side of a combat might be, if the other has more units, and more actions, there's a really good chance they'll win the combat, all things being equal. I'm sure that's one reason small squad D&D style games tend to provide more attacks (actions) or better AOE the higher you get - so you aren't swamped and killed off by a horde of 20 goblins. If your level 11 party of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard all had 1 attack a round and very limited AOE spells, it would be a TPK more often than not.

Agreed. Another thing that conjure animals, specifically, has is mobile area denial via bodies. A bunch of Medium creatures (ie wolves) block out anything that isn't Huge out of a huge, configurable, mobile area. You can use them as an incredibly effective screening element. Plus they grant cover.

Also, mass minionmancy hasn't been a core druid thing since 2e, as far as I can tell, at least without spending a crap-ton of slots.

3e's Summon Nature's Ally Y (Y>1) only summons 1d4+1 (2-5) lower-CR creatures, and generally the only effective uses were of the 1 of CR X or 1d3 of CR X-1 forms. 3e's best mass minionmancers were wizards or used things like planar binding + downtime. 3e's druid was way more defined by wildshape + animal companion.

4e, of course, didn't have mass minionmancy by anyone. It's key thing was...wait for it...wild shape (well, sorta-kinda, but not really).

The core distinguishing feature of druids in the last 20+ years has been shapeshifting (for better or worse), not summoning hordes of creatures.

[Witty Username]

My impression, the druid spell list is to convey someone with the ability to wield natural forces.
Elements, plants, animals and a little bit life and death.
It is more about astectics than game role. What they do have is they have alot of overlap with cleric, but a bit less support for a bit more utility and teeth, also they are expected to fight with spells where cleric tends to be better at armor and actually hitting things, at least these days.

[Blatant Beast]

Eldariel, has the right of it, I think.
3e did have some potent summoning options, but as one advanced into higher tiers of play, the stats of low CR animals and elementals could not keep up, as stats were unbound.

A +6 Hit Modifier against an AC of 42= LoL 😹

Spells and attacks advanced with character level, a Fireball that uses only a 3rd level slot but does 17d6 damage (59.5 average damage), is pretty good even against 5E’s CR 2 creatures which can have around 78 hp.

The same Fireball in 5e requires a 9th level slot. 3e Martials we’re also capable of dealing with throngs of foes through Whirlwind and Cleave feats, and if one used Tome of Battle, (and you should because it is awesome), then weak foes died even faster.

The Dragotha stat block from the Age of Worms Adventure path is a good example of the difference in philosophies for monster design between 3e and 5e.

3e books included modular options to help DMs power up and customized their creatures. 5e mainly just includes player options, or very limited ideas for creature enhancement. (Beholder with a Ray of Banishment for example…a totally balanced and well reasoned feature🤦).

Dragotha, had many of the feats featured in 3e’s Draconomicon, possibly including options like Quickened, Maximized, Clinging Breath that would stick to you and do damage round after round for 24d10 Necrotic damage, and also had an AC in the 40+ range, was as powerful as an Archmage in terms of spellcasting, and had bad ass physical attacks as well.

24 Summoned Elks are not helping against a foe like that.

5e lacks foes like this,(Mythic Creatures have tons of HP but not the same game options as 3e.), and 5e Martials suck, just plain suck, against hordes.

In addition, Area of Effect spells cost more in terms of one’s total resources due to the 5e Upcasting rules, player’s have a more restricted Action Economy in 5e, and it seems commonly reported that 5e games often give out less loot, (Attunement), than was expected in prior editions, including clutch items like scrolls and potions.

Add all of these elements up, and it is no wonder that summons are overwhelming in 5e, in a way that was not present in other editions.

[LibraryOgre]

The AD&D Druid role was basically cleric/magic-user... not quite as good at healing and support as a cleric, not quite as good at direct damage as a wizard, but better than either at the other.

With WD&D, I'd say they move more towards summoner/controller, but they lean more towards thematic than niche.

[Psyren]

The AD&D Druid role was basically cleric/magic-user... not quite as good at healing and support as a cleric, not quite as good at direct damage as a wizard, but better than either at the other.

This is a better-phrased way of what I was trying to convey earlier.


With WD&D, I'd say they move more towards summoner/controller, but they lean more towards thematic than niche.

"WD&D?"

[LibraryOgre]

"WD&D?"

Wizards D&D, as opposed to TD&D, which is TSR D&D.

[Nagog]

I'm...a bit curious about what you mean. I've played a few Clerics, Wizards, Bards, Sorcerers, and Druids. The only class that has more non-combat utility than the Druid is the Wizard. This is especially true when I was playing a game where I was the only full caster. More often then not we'd need some spell to do something, only to find that Clerics didn't have access to it. Now don't get me wrong, Clerics, Bards, and Sorcerers have fine spell lists. Its just the Cleric focuses way too much on divination, outsiders, and semi-niche buffs, while Bards and Sorcerers are heavily limited by spells known.

I mean stuff like what the Wizard and Artificer specialize in: Utility that doesn't have a direct combat focus. The Wizard and Artificer are capable of putting downtime to great use with extra spell slots (spells like Galder's Tower, Fabricate, and even more common spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut and Secret Chest). Druids lack spells like that: While they have some immediate problem solvers like Fog Cloud and Locate X, their spell lists are largely reactionary, by nature being "If x Happens then I'll cast this", whereas the utility I'm referring to is more of "I'm going to go out and do X to accomplish the goal of Y".

All in all perhaps Utility isn't quite the right word for it, but idk of another term that fits that proactive mindset that would allow Druids to actively make use of extra spell slots they have at the end of the day without the DM just throwing more problems at them.

Essentially my point is "Druid's spell economy is so good that they end up not needing a large percentage of their slots at higher levels"

[Zuras]

Damage over Time spells (as opposed to Wizards and other casters who get more damage up front). Crowd control spells that actually put stuff on the battlefield. Interacting with and controlling natural phenomena. Healing and debuff removal.

[sambojin]

The "niche"? Well, it's naturey.

The effects? Well, you can prepare a spell that can do many things. And many of them. But can also go niche AF.

Feed a person for a day? Done. Or is it bribe and heal for an animal or monstrosity? Done. Or a village, considering the woes betiding them? No worries, you can feed 40 people if you need to, regardless. And they may just carry over from yesterday.

Is a Tidal Wave an air proner, a lights-out, or an AoE small damage spell? Or even freakishly good "up-to" area targeting on whatever you need from the above, from a beam to an AoE to a pebble? It's all of them.

Precisely what will your lvl2 Summon Beast spell do, and will you ride on it? Or will it carry you, at 1/2 movement? Or scout, or tank a hit or two, or give advantage, or what? Yep.

How much fun will a Sleet Storm make things, if you very precisely "position it correctly"? It's very lopsided if you do, and take advantage of it.

Don't want to do much? A Flaming Sphere still lets you do stuff for a minute. So does a Spike Growth. Or a Moonbeam. There's all kinds of fun there. That sorta scales on higher-slots or party makeup, depending on spell and bonus/ actions.

Slow enemies to a crawl? Done. Random spell batteries (where there's no "bad" thing your DM can give you)? Done. Want to fly around on a Dragon? Done!


Honestly, it's not just nature'y, or long-lasting effects for 1 slot (1 or 2 slot encounters, or maybe for 2 encounters, are amazing though), it's the sheer versatility of some of the spells, either RP or use-wise, alongside a bit of damage. Just having familiars as action casts for WS charges is amazing, then it just scales on use from there.

So what's the Druid list's schtick? Ummm, resource conservation with good outcomes, and multiple use-case spells. This is even without minion-mancy. There's just a heap there, and a lot of it never gets old. Even the basic Faerie Fire or Entangle still always does its thing, and usually has specifically good use-cases, so never gets bad. Same with Enhance Ability, or Pass without Trace. And if it does, change it out on any given day, with a line-up of spells of any given level. For whatever you're doing, high level or not.

(You also have some freakishly useful rituals. Yeah, it takes a spell prep, but still totes worth them. Detect Magic, Speak with Animals, etc etc. But, Commune with Nature is "just a thing druids can do to annoy DMs", when riding around on a Dragon isn't fun enough. Spend an hour or two of mucking around in not-WS scouting, to fill that map up with stuff the DM just made up right then. It's pretty funny)

[sithlordnergal]

I mean stuff like what the Wizard and Artificer specialize in: Utility that doesn't have a direct combat focus. The Wizard and Artificer are capable of putting downtime to great use with extra spell slots (spells like Galder's Tower, Fabricate, and even more common spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut and Secret Chest). Druids lack spells like that: While they have some immediate problem solvers like Fog Cloud and Locate X, their spell lists are largely reactionary, by nature being "If x Happens then I'll cast this", whereas the utility I'm referring to is more of "I'm going to go out and do X to accomplish the goal of Y".

All in all perhaps Utility isn't quite the right word for it, but idk of another term that fits that proactive mindset that would allow Druids to actively make use of extra spell slots they have at the end of the day without the DM just throwing more problems at them.

Essentially my point is "Druid's spell economy is so good that they end up not needing a large percentage of their slots at higher levels"

Ohh, I'd say that falls under Downtime activities, outside of Tiny Hut and Secret Chest. I was thinking you meant things like transportation, curing things, identifying stuff, communication, and similar spells. Stuff that's still reactionary, but not related to Combat.

That said, Druids still have options for Downtime use of their spell slots. Druid Grove, Wall of Stone, and Awaken are what I can think of off the top of my head. Though I do agree Druids lack major spells for Downtime activities.