PDA

View Full Version : [4e] PHB II



Jarlax
2008-07-09, 08:23 AM
so there is a image up on wizards for the new PHB II over here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/9780786950164)

and its actually got me thinking about the druid. and im worried that it wont meet the expectations some might have from 3.5.

in 3.5 a druid was a striker and defender and healer or a controller or several at the same time if they were a wildshaped black bear with entangling roots on several opponents while casting cure on themselves or others.

in 4e the druid must inevitably be pigeonholed into one of these roles as its primary role. and much in the same way as the mage regressed into the blaster mage (not something i mind personally but perhaps one of the strongest criticisms about the classes) the druid is going to either regress into the 3.5 PHBII class variant striker druid, a vine summoning weather manipulating controller druid, or a natural remedy dispensing leader druid.

again this is something i personally can accept. i have zero expectation to open the PHBII next year to find any mention of the word "wildshape" for two reasons, the first is obvious if you ever tried using polymorph/wildshape in a "sanctioned" game, the second is barbarian has about a 50/50 chance of filling the striker role. but i wondered what everyone else thinks about this?

Kizara
2008-07-09, 08:29 AM
so there is a image up on wizards for the new PHB II over here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/9780786950164)

and its actually got me thinking about the druid. and im worried that it wont meet the expectations some might have from 3.5.

in 3.5 a druid was a striker and defender and healer or a controller or several at the same time if they were a wildshaped black bear with entangling roots on several opponents while casting cure on themselves or others.

in 4e the druid must inevitably be pigeonholed into one of these roles as its primary role. and much in the same way as the mage regressed into the blaster mage (not something i mind personally but perhaps one of the strongest criticisms about the classes) the druid is going to either regress into the 3.5 PHBII class variant striker druid, a vine summoning weather manipulating controller druid, or a natural remedy dispensing leader druid.

again this is something i personally can accept. i have zero expectation to open the PHBII next year to find any mention of the word "wildshape" but i wondered what everyone else thinks about this?


Obviously they are going to nerf the class from 3.5 since 1) Everything in 4ed sucks compared to 3.5 in the first place and 2) It was one of the most overpowered classes in the game even for 3.5.

The 3 iconic 'druidic' things that druid has to do are:

1) Use nature magic that can heal, control nature and work with animals.

2) Ethier have an animal friend or be able to become one (depending on the trope you are going for).

3) Be unhindered by the ravages of the wilds and have a noted 'home field advantage' in his chosen environment.


Of all these, I expect the 4e druid to only have #1 with MAYBE some striker-style powers that are flavored like "you grow animal claws and slash them" which isn't the same thing at all, but would be typical 4e.

Kinda like "Fly" isn't the same thing as "hover slightly for a brief period". Nor is "Blind" the same thing as "cause minor eye irritation for a round or 2". You get the idea.

hamishspence
2008-07-09, 08:38 AM
Some of the 3rd ed Spell Compendium Spells worked like that for druids: werebeast type forms, but not a full shapechange.

They might do it that way. Or it might resemble the Diablo 2 druid: very few minions, wind, cold, volcanic powers, etc.

mcv
2008-07-09, 08:42 AM
in 3.5 a druid was a striker and defender and healer or a controller or several at the same time if they were a wildshaped black bear with entangling roots on several opponents while casting cure on themselves or others.

But that's not something we want to keep, right? The 3.5 Druid was an entire party on its own. I suspect it'll be toned down a bit.


in 4e the druid must inevitably be pigeonholed into one of these roles as its primary role. and much in the same way as the mage regressed into the blaster mage (not something i mind personally but perhaps one of the strongest criticisms about the classes)

I thought the Wizard was a Controller, not a Striker. The Warlock is basically the blaster mage (although the Wizard has some damage spells too, obviously).


the druid is going to either regress into the 3.5 PHBII class variant striker druid, a vine summoning weather manipulating controller druid, or a natural remedy dispensing leader druid.

I don't think the roles are quite that restrictive. The three different strikers are pretty different (and the ranger can take more damage than the others). And I'm not quite sure, but doesn't the paladin also have some healing abilities, despite being a Defender instead of Leader?

I expect the Druid to be toned down a lot, but that doesn't mean it won't be flexible. I think it'll be a different kind of Controller. Compare him to the Wizard, who has ranged damage, close damage, area damage, and lots of funky battlefield manipulation. Similarly, the Druid can no doubt do cool stuff with vines grabbing people and slowing them down, can summon animals, but can also change himself into an animal and do some damage.

I see him as a versatile controller who, unlike the Wizard, can survive on the front line -- if he takes a good shapeshift power.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the shapeshift powers would be extremely limited. Like a power that changes you into a rhino, you perform a single charge with a big load of damage, and then you change back again. Basically just a load of damage with a funky side effect (which is essentially what all powers seem to do), and the turning into a rhino is just cosmetic.

(Yeah, that would be lame, but we're talking 4e here. Everything has to fit into a single, well-defined, single-turn power.)

hamishspence
2008-07-09, 08:47 AM
I suspect that, going by Spell Compendium, Bear and Wolf will be the signature animals, mostly.

If shaman is leader, that does free up Druid to be controller. Big if. But it would be nice to see some area control: vines, earthquakes, lava, wind.

Person_Man
2008-07-09, 08:49 AM
I'm guessing they'll handle the Druid the same way they handled everything else, by turning Wildshape and spells into a number of discrete powers. I assume that the animal companion (way too powerful at low levels, way too weak at high levels) and summons will be gone.

I'm actually hoping that they make a Summoner class similar to what you see in Final Fantasy, and that your summon monster basically replaces you in combat (ie, you have to spend a Standard Action every round to maintain it).

Foxtale
2008-07-09, 09:25 AM
I'm guessing they'll handle the Druid the same way they handled everything else, by turning Wildshape and spells into a number of discrete powers. I assume that the animal companion (way too powerful at low levels, way too weak at high levels) and summons will be gone.

I remember hearing somewhere that the 4e Martial Handbook will have some kind of Animal Companion for the Rangers. If that's so, maybe Druids won't have that.

I don't know what role a druid might fulfil. They have healing, and nature spells, and can turn into animals. I'd like to see the shapeshifting play a big part in their role. Though perhaps (like with pacts, styles etc) they will have a choice between types of shapes.

kamikasei
2008-07-09, 09:27 AM
They've said that shapeshifting will be the chief feature of druids, haven't they?

There are a few ways they can take it, but I would expect to see something like a Primal Leader or Striker with some Leader abilities for healing, with Ritual Casting tacked on to handle the communing-with-nature magic side of things.

Tallis
2008-07-09, 09:43 AM
Well if it's true that shapeshifting will be the chief feature then I'd expect defender or striker with some leader abilities like the paladin. If not I was thinking druid could make a good controller (again with some leader abilities thrown in).

Tormsskull
2008-07-09, 09:51 AM
They could just build them like WOW, and make it where based on the powers you pick (your spec), you can excel at whatever. So if they want to be a controller, they choose to be an Enviromental Druid, if they want to be a defender, they go Bestial Druid. Maybe Bestial Druid would have a subset of powers that even let them be a striker. And Enviromental Druid could have a subset of powers that let them be a Leader.

Because the system is based on having high ability score in the stats you are going to use a lot, by simply spreading out each stat to favor a different spec, they can make it where the Druid can be really good at 1 or 2 things, but not 3. And if a Druid decides to spread his points around, he can probably make a decent everything.

Sounds a lot like the WOW Druid, actually.

JackMage666
2008-07-09, 09:57 AM
I'm hoping they simply make them a Nature-based Controller. Really, Wizards being the only controller is kinda restricting for any party that wants all the roles covered. Personally, I dislike Wizards (no reason, other than the fluff of it doesn't do anything for me), so I won't likely be playing a controller. However, if Druids cover that role in the future, I'll be all over that.

Of course, it'll likely have some branching power, much like how the Warlock is a Striker with a bit of Controller Power, or how a Paladin is a Defender with a minor in Leader, but so long as the primary role is Controller, I'll be happy.

hamishspence
2008-07-09, 09:58 AM
maybe look at existing classes. Warlock has 3 build options and tightly focussed paragon paths: maybe it will follow that route, if they wish to avoid the overgeneralised druid.

Buth then, the Warlock route has problems for multiclassers.

wodan46
2008-07-09, 10:17 AM
Druids will have Wildshape as their primary feature, but will also have regular spells, generally damage oriented ones.

Keep in mind that the first PHB featured the simple classes who stay by the rules, in order to establish the rules clearly. In PHB2, classes are going to start bending and breaking the rules we saw earlier. Druid's Wildshape and Barbarian's Rage do not fall into the traditional class features that the roles have been defined by so far, that of Marking(Defender), Bonus Damage(Striker), Surging Words(Leader), and AOE/Debuffs(Controller).

So don't say that the PHB2 classes are going to be more shallow 2W+Effect attacks replacing dynamic abilities. The PHB was specifically minimizing dynamic abilities in order to ease people into the system. The PHB2 will not.

Person_Man
2008-07-09, 10:47 AM
I remember hearing somewhere that the 4e Martial Handbook will have some kind of Animal Companion for the Rangers. If that's so, maybe Druids won't have that.

That's certainly possible, but I hope not. Anything that leads to an "Action Advantage" - more time to do stuff then other players - is inherently game breaking. Animal Companions, Mounts, Cohorts, Summoned Monsters, Time Stop, Celerity, AoO abuse, Quickened/Swift actions, etc. Balance between players becomes ridiculously difficult (if not impossible) when Player A can essentially Move and Do Something, but Player B can Move, Do Something, Quicken Something, and have his companion Move and Do Something. It was broken in 3.5, and they've done a half decent job of keeping Action Advantage out of 4E (for characters at least - monsters break all the rules).

wodan46
2008-07-09, 10:50 AM
My presumption is that sustain actions will be needed. For example, you might have a summoner who has to sustain minor for each level appropriate minion he creates, and sustain standard for a level appropriate standard monster he creates.

Tengu
2008-07-09, 10:51 AM
I remember hearing somewhere that the 4e Martial Handbook will have some kind of Animal Companion for the Rangers. If that's so, maybe Druids won't have that.


Like in WoW?

Roderick_BR
2008-07-09, 11:33 AM
I'm really hoping the druid to be a divine controler, with leader as secondary role, in the same way cleric is a divine leader, with defender as secondary role.

Shapeshifting could work as it was intended to work in 3.0: The ability to temporarily become a striker (and losing the defender/leader abilities meanwhile), or gain additional utilitary abilities.

I could see animal companion as something like a daily power, "using up" that slot all day long, but that's just a guess.

And I have no idea how summon will work :smalltongue:

tumble check
2008-07-09, 11:45 AM
Isn't it pretty clear what the Druid will be?

Pick your average Wizard Power, replace the INT mod with some other stat, and perhaps a slightly different additional effect, which of course lasts for 1 round.

There's your brand new Druid controller.

skywalker
2008-07-09, 11:52 AM
Wizards are controller/strikers, paladins are defender/leaders, and everything else has some level of hybridization. I foresee druids being another hybrid, altho which roles is up for grabs. In the preview, they specifically indicate that wild shape will be the primary feature of the class, while healing and summoning are "expected of other classes." Combined with the language indicating barbarians are strikers, and highly doubting that Wizards would put two primal strikers in the same book(altho there are two martial strikers in the PHB), I would tend toward the druid's combat role being defender.

I think there's actually a shortage of interesting defenders in the PHB, and Wizards should move to include more options for the role you "should double up on first."

MammonAzrael
2008-07-09, 11:57 AM
WotC has already said that Druids will focus primarily on their Wild Shaping ability, since that was the most unique thing about the class in 3rd.

To me this says that the Druid will be the Primal Defender, while the Barbarian will be the Primal Striker, with a Summoner in the Controller roll, and maybe a Shaman or something in the Leader roll.

Blackfang108
2008-07-09, 12:10 PM
WotC has already said that Druids will focus primarily on their Wild Shaping ability, since that was the most unique thing about the class in 3rd.

To me this says that the Druid will be the Primal Defender, while the Barbarian will be the Primal Striker, with a Summoner in the Controller roll, and maybe a Shaman or something in the Leader roll.

I disagree.

To me it says that Druid will most likely be a striker.
While I can see ways for WildShape to be a defender ability, it has always seemed more of a striker's role.

Also, I figure that the Barbarian will be in the defender's role. Barbarians are more likely to use heavy armor than a Druid (especially if they keep the "no metal" clause that 3.x had), which is why I believe this to be the case.

But, who knows? we're not going to have the class powers until, what, next June. Maybe you're right, maybe I am, and maybe we're both wrong.

Only time will tell.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-09, 12:15 PM
I'm really hoping the druid to be a divine controler, with leader as secondary role, in the same way cleric is a divine leader, with defender as secondary role.

I could also see it flipped from that, primarily leader with controller as secondary role. I think controller is the most likley though.


Shapeshifting could work as it was intended to work in 3.0: The ability to temporarily become a striker (and losing the defender/leader abilities meanwhile), or gain additional utilitary abilities.

This could be problematic unless done extremely carefully. There would need to be some sort of equivalency between the two in order to ensure that the shapeshift doesn't effectivley grant a druid double the encounter/daily powers.

MammonAzrael
2008-07-09, 12:18 PM
I disagree.

To me it says that Druid will most likely be a striker.
While I can see ways for WildShape to be a defender ability, it has always seemed more of a striker's role.

Also, I figure that the Barbarian will be in the defender's role. Barbarians are more likely to use heavy armor than a Druid (especially if they keep the "no metal" clause that 3.x had), which is why I believe this to be the case.

But, who knows? we're not going to have the class powers until, what, next June. Maybe you're right, maybe I am, and maybe we're both wrong.

Only time will tell.

Possible. Though the Barbarian doesn't really seem to be the armor wearing type, to me, and Rage focuses on damage more than defense. And I guess I just can't get the idea of a Druid going Dire Bear and soaking damage out of my head. (Damn you Blizzard and Diablo 2 for sucking me back in!)

Though, oddly enough, I could almost see the Barbarian in a Leader roll, albeit a far more front-lines leader. Like a Warlord on crack.

skywalker
2008-07-09, 12:21 PM
Also, I figure that the Barbarian will be in the defender's role. Barbarians are more likely to use heavy armor than a Druid (especially if they keep the "no metal" clause that 3.x had), which is why I believe this to be the case. The barbarian preview article seems to go both ways. On the one hand, they speak of tying the barbarian more closely to the druid, a la cleric & paladin, and also of separating the barbarian more fully from the fighter. While I don't think we should take this to mean the druid is a leader(like the cleric), it is some evidence to suggest the barbarian is a defender. However, other language in the preview article(a major focus on damage and rage, description of a power that involves dealing damage while mobile), indicates that the barbarian is a striker. Maybe Wizards doesn't think this way, but I doubt they would talk about separating the barbarian from the fighter, and then stick them in the exact same role (defender/striker.) Perhaps the best bet for the barbarian's role is striker/defender, one we haven't seen yet.

EDIT: Mammon, your image of the druid seems to be the one shared by WOTC. I've got the book I've been talking about in my hands as I type(well, not literally, typing would be impossible. I've got it about 6 inches from my hands :smallbiggrin:).

Person_Man
2008-07-09, 12:46 PM
Also, has anyone thought of how the Druid will play into multi-classing?

I assume each Wildshape form will give you a boost to one (or more) physical stats, and some secondary benefit (different movement, a special attack, scent, AC bonus, etc).

Considering how everything in 4E is d20 + 1/2 your level + Stat bonuses (that you often put all of your eggs into), I assume that everyone who relies on Str, Dex, or Con will want to multiclass into Druid in order to pick up the stat bonus from a particular Wildshape power. They'll walk around in that form all day (or turn into it at the start of each combat, if its an Encounter Power), making parties composed mostly or entirely of were-like-animals common. Hows that for interesting party fluff?

Burley
2008-07-09, 01:03 PM
I disagree.

To me it says that Druid will most likely be a striker.
While I can see ways for WildShape to be a defender ability, it has always seemed more of a striker's role.

Also, I figure that the Barbarian will be in the defender's role. Barbarians are more likely to use heavy armor than a Druid (especially if they keep the "no metal" clause that 3.x had), which is why I believe this to be the case.

But, who knows? we're not going to have the class powers until, what, next June. Maybe you're right, maybe I am, and maybe we're both wrong.

Only time will tell.


You do know that Barbarians and Druids both wear light or medium in 3.5, yeah? Barbarians don't get heavy. And, seeing as how 4e is going to make the Barbarian more primal, rather than 3.5's angry guy Barbarian, they'll probably have the same armor list as the Druid.

My guess is that the Barbarian will be a hit-and-run sorta guy, much like the Scout. The Druid will probably be a controller, and might be given the option between a daily Wild Shape or daily Summon spells. Maybe encounter, but probably daily. Vines grappling, brables blocking and tornadoes throwing is just too much Controllery stuff to not let the druid have.

wodan46
2008-07-09, 01:11 PM
Wildshaping will likely severely limit most class's ability to use equipment that they rely on, such as armor, weapons, and implements. Assuming its even available for those multiclassing.

Blackfang108
2008-07-09, 01:19 PM
Possible. Though the Barbarian doesn't really seem to be the armor wearing type, to me, and Rage focuses on damage more than defense. And I guess I just can't get the idea of a Druid going Dire Bear and soaking damage out of my head. (Damn you Blizzard and Diablo 2 for sucking me back in!)

Though, oddly enough, I could almost see the Barbarian in a Leader roll, albeit a far more front-lines leader. Like a Warlord on crack.

To part one: I'd become a dire bear to rip the head off a Kobold/Vampire/whatever is trying to kill us. I just don't see a bear "taking one for the team. And aside from Bears, Pachyderms, armadilos, and turtles, I can't think of many "defensive" animal forms. I see where you're coming from, though.

To part 2: I'd so play that. I haven't ben a Barbarian for a couple of years. This'd bring me back.


You do know that Barbarians and Druids both wear light or medium in 3.5, yeah? Barbarians don't get heavy. And, seeing as how 4e is going to make the Barbarian more primal, rather than 3.5's angry guy Barbarian, they'll probably have the same armor list as the Druid.

My guess is that the Barbarian will be a hit-and-run sorta guy, much like the Scout.

As stated above, It's been a while. Personally, I never used Heavy armor in 3.5 b/c my DM liked Krakens too much, and my swim checks were bad enough to begin with.

Probably is not will, first off. And I have a feeling that Barbarian will get Chainmail in 4e, but Druid won't. (again, assuming the no metal clause.)

Don't forget, also, Damage Reduction was a class feature of the Barbarian as well. I can see this playing well into the defender role, as well as the extra HP you got from Rage. I see them as being a "line blur" of Defender/Striker or Leader/Striker.

skywalker
2008-07-09, 01:24 PM
And, seeing as how 4e is going to make the Barbarian more primal, rather than 3.5's angry guy Barbarian,From Races and Classes: "barbarians are more feral, and, well, angrier, than ever."


My guess is that the Barbarian will be a hit-and-run sorta guy, much like the Scout.Same source, two lines further down: "My playtest barbarian used a rage ability[...] to move across a dungeon chamber and chop down five skeletons in one round."
The Druid will probably be a controller, and might be given the option between a daily Wild Shape or daily Summon spells. Maybe encounter, but probably daily. Vines grappling, brables blocking and tornadoes throwing is just too much Controllery stuff to not let the druid have. According to the preview article, wildshape is "the foundation on which the druid is built." Which makes me think it's not a daily. I seriously doubt there will be any summoning for the druid at all. Each specific shape is a power, and the druid is specifically described as switching from one shape to another. I'd say each shape is an encounter power, but you don't get a shape at every new power level, because the article also says druids get ranged and utility spells(like you mentioned, brambles and vines?) to give an incentive for spending time in human form. I'd imagine a hawk or bird form would be a utility power, because why would you want to be a hawk in combat(natural spell is dead. Long live natural spell!).

Person_Man, maybe they specify an implement you need to wildshape that other classes can't get? Maybe the multi-class feat specifically omits the ability to use that implement? What you're suggesting seems like the type of thing Wizards would be trying to prevent. It would be cool, tho.

Awesomologist
2008-07-09, 02:15 PM
Just to add to the pure speculation, did anyone else notice that the power sources on the cover of the PHB2 are "Arcane, Divine, and Primal..."?

Looks like the only new power source we're getting is Primal. Safe to assume that includes our barbarian and druid. Maybe we'll see a shaman like character that will take some of the powers the 4e druid will have to shed.

As for arcane, I'll make the safe assumption that at least includes the Bard many of us are waiting for. The Swordmage is already included in the FR players guide. I'm going to take a safe guess that we'll see maybe see a wizard subtype such as Necromancer (although I thought that would be under some sort of Necrotic power source), Illusionist, Summoner, etc.

Divine is where I'm stumped. Besides adding some cleric subtypes (maybe the route they want to take the Necromancer or Shaman) I don't really see the calling for another Divine class. If they're just going to add a chapter of extra powers and prestige classes for the Paladin and Cleric, great, but I'd rather see that in a smaller (cheaper? :smallwink:) splat book.

I dunno... Like I said this is all speculation. Hopefully we'll know more before march.

tumble check
2008-07-09, 02:44 PM
I assume each Wildshape form will give you a boost to one (or more) physical stats, and some secondary benefit (different movement, a special attack, scent, AC bonus, etc).



Think again about how streamlined the new system is. I really doubt that they'd add something so housekeeping-heavy as temporary ability scores.

mikeejimbo
2008-07-09, 03:57 PM
Just to add to the pure speculation, did anyone else notice that the power sources on the cover of the PHB2 are "Arcane, Divine, and Primal..."?

Looks like the only new power source we're getting is Primal. Safe to assume that includes our barbarian and druid. Maybe we'll see a shaman like character that will take some of the powers the 4e druid will have to shed.

As for arcane, I'll make the safe assumption that at least includes the Bard many of us are waiting for. The Swordmage is already included in the FR players guide. I'm going to take a safe guess that we'll see maybe see a wizard subtype such as Necromancer (although I thought that would be under some sort of Necrotic power source), Illusionist, Summoner, etc.

Divine is where I'm stumped. Besides adding some cleric subtypes (maybe the route they want to take the Necromancer or Shaman) I don't really see the calling for another Divine class. If they're just going to add a chapter of extra powers and prestige classes for the Paladin and Cleric, great, but I'd rather see that in a smaller (cheaper? :smallwink:) splat book.

I dunno... Like I said this is all speculation. Hopefully we'll know more before march.

Are we able to get the FR player's guide? Or is the Swordmage in Dragon or something? I've heard some stuff about it already and was wondering where all this information was coming from.

Moak
2008-07-09, 04:53 PM
Divine is where I'm stumped. Besides adding some cleric subtypes (maybe the route they want to take the Necromancer or Shaman) I don't really see the calling for another Divine class. If they're just going to add a chapter of extra powers and prestige classes for the Paladin and Cleric, great, but I'd rather see that in a smaller (cheaper? :smallwink:) splat book.

I dunno... Like I said this is all speculation. Hopefully we'll know more before march.

Well...there isn't a Divine Controller nor a Divine Striker,right?

I've got no idea about a Divine Controller...but a Favoured Soul in a striker role...why not?
Or the class of the Divine something...or the Inquisitor,the Exorcist...the Priest...I'm speculating...

Ah! Idea! the Imagist as Divine Controller :smallbiggrin:

Foxtale
2008-07-09, 09:06 PM
It would be good to see the Druid as a Divine Controller/Defender, using Wildshape to boost defences, and using summons to hold enemies in place (via AoOs) and control the field.

Daracaex
2008-07-09, 09:43 PM
I believe the quote that said there were going to be animal companions in the Martial Power book was something along the lines of, "And for those of you ranger who miss their animal companion, check out Martial Power." This leads me to believe that the animal companions won't be limited to only ranger and druid any longer, but will instead be tied to a feat tree or some other form of attaining the companion. This would include giving the paladin his mount back and possibly giving wizards their familiars, though I have a feeling that will come in Arcane Power instead.

On the subject of the PHBII's content, it makes sense. The PHBI had 2 divine, 2 arcane, and 4 martial classes. The PHBII will probably fill in some of the missing space in arcane and divine and introduce two or three new primal classes, including the barbarian, druid (wildshape-style), and I'm gonna take a guess at some form of "shaman" or some other name for a class that is the spell-casting, animal-summoning part of the druid. To remake a form of the old druid, you would multiclass the new druid with this other class and then take the animal companion feats I theorzed about.

Granted, this is all speculation, but adding all the clues up in my mind brought me to this conclusion.

Grynning
2008-07-09, 10:42 PM
I think Daracaex's assessment is pretty accurate as to how the PHBII will shape up. As for the animal companion/familiar/mount thing as feats, I hope to Banjo he's right about that one. A consistent "animal buddy" system that anyone would have access to would be perfect for 4th edition (just like rituals being available to anyone with the right feats).

One thing about PHBII though, I remember hearing a rumor somewhere that the Bard was not going to be in it (something about a list of the first letters of the classes with only one "B"). Can anyone confirm/deny that?

TheEmerged
2008-07-09, 10:45 PM
I think Daracaex's assessment is pretty accurate as to how the PHBII will shape up. As for the animal companion/familiar/mount thing as feats, I hope to Banjo he's right about that one. A consistent "animal buddy" system that anyone would have access to would be perfect for 4th edition (just like rituals being available to anyone with the right feats).

One thing about PHBII though, I remember hearing a rumor somewhere that the Bard was not going to be in it (something about a list of the first letters of the classes with only one "B"). Can anyone confirm/deny that?

There are two B's. It was a mistake, the person dropping the clue in the interview posted later that the class reported as starting with the letter R actually began with the letter B.

HOWEVER, it was also said that only 3 of the classes in the PHB were classes in 3.0 (although weasel-worded enough that a subclass like Illusionist wouldn't count). I'm betting that Bard gets renamed as something else myself.

Grynning
2008-07-09, 10:55 PM
HOWEVER, it was also said that only 3 of the classes in the PHB were classes in 3.0 (although weasel-worded enough that a subclass like Illusionist wouldn't count). I'm betting that Bard gets renamed as something else myself.

Well, since we know that we're not getting monks (unless they make them Divine sourced instead of Ki like they've been hinting), Druid, Bard, and Barbarian would be 3 classes from 3.x. I imagine that the "new" classes will be blends or distilled versions of old ones from 3.5 splatbooks - maybe a new take on the Beguiler/Illusionist or the Hexblade/Duskblade/Gish classes for Arcane, and something resembling Favored Souls (or Crusaders?)for Divine.

Tallis
2008-07-09, 11:18 PM
I'm hoping they simply make them a Nature-based Controller. Really, Wizards being the only controller is kinda restricting for any party that wants all the roles covered. Personally, I dislike Wizards (no reason, other than the fluff of it doesn't do anything for me), so I won't likely be playing a controller. However, if Druids cover that role in the future, I'll be all over that.

Anyone else find it ironic that someone named JackMage doesn't like wizards....:smallconfused:

mikeejimbo
2008-07-09, 11:20 PM
Anyone else find it ironic that someone named JackMage doesn't like wizards....:smallconfused:

And is avatar is a wizard, too!

CockroachTeaParty
2008-07-09, 11:38 PM
I was thinking the same thing too. HA!

We couldn't possibly live in a world where one's avatar does not match one's preferences! With Pelor as my witness, you can look at my username and avatar and rest assured that I do indeed love tea, and cockroaches!

Gamgee
2008-07-09, 11:47 PM
The talk about this new book depresses me... it seems so simple... it is like going from reading dune to looking at something say... Harry Potter. While they are both good in their own ways and CAN be entertaining I just don't get the complex need that I... need from Harry Potter. The way you guys make it sound so simple is... kind of saddening really :'( this is nothing against 4th... I just find it depressing things can be simplified so much... you practically KNOW the class before it is out, why bother speculate? Anyways I am off to play some WoD (Have a good game going :) ).

mikeejimbo
2008-07-09, 11:52 PM
Anyways I am off to play some WoD (Have a good game going :) ).

Oooh! Take me with you! I haven't played any WoD in a while. Heck, I only ever played once, and it was Mage. Is it Mage? I like Mage, but I'm open to trying Vampire or Werewolf or Changeling or, or...what else was there??

Jarlax
2008-07-10, 12:17 AM
Are we able to get the FR player's guide? Or is the Swordmage in Dragon or something? I've heard some stuff about it already and was wondering where all this information was coming from.

he appears as one of the pregenerated character sheets available for play in "return to the moathouse" a 4e adventure being run at conventions. he is an arcane defender with a little bit of controller thrown in. currently the only available information is what appears on his sheet (he is a 5th level PC) you can google it much the same way you could for the sheets from games day before 4e come out.

im with Daracaex on classes here. i say we will get maybe 6 base classes. 3-4 primals(probably defender, 1-2 leaders, striker), 1 arcane(bard, who is a leader) and maybe 2 divine(a controller and a striker). so we get a new defender 2 new strikers 2 new leaders and a controller. with the "clue" about 3, 3.x classes being bard, barbarian and druid. much like PhB 1 front loaded martial classes PhB 2 will likely front load primal classes.

if the druid has wildshape my interpretation would be something like cantrips for wizards. additional at-will powers granted aside from regular powers. in this case altering the form of the druid much like PHB2 variant. cat form at 1st, bear form at 10th, flight form at 20th, etc. with powers that play on these forms such as claw swipe (which cleaves) or bite and drag (which trips)

the cover pretty much tells us were getting new races(at least 1) which is good to know as well.

Titanium Dragon
2008-07-10, 12:24 AM
I actually expect to see the druid split up into 2-3 classes; a shapeshifting class (of the One Power, One Form variety, probably a striker/defender), a spellcasting controller class, and a healery class, along with the Barbarian (or whatever it is called now). I'm assuming one of the classes will be called the Shaman.

I rather doubt the shapeshifter is a defender, mostly becaues I suspect the barbarian (or some other form of rager class) will in the PHB II and I suspect it will be the defender.


I'm actually hoping that they make a Summoner class similar to what you see in Final Fantasy, and that your summon monster basically replaces you in combat (ie, you have to spend a Standard Action every round to maintain it).

I suspect this is going to exist in some form or another, but I'm not sure that it will be in the PHB II. That said, its certainly plausible.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-07-10, 01:39 AM
Well...there isn't a Divine Controller nor a Divine Striker,right?

I've got no idea about a Divine Controller...but a Favoured Soul in a striker role...why not?
Or the class of the Divine something...or the Inquisitor,the Exorcist...the Priest...I'm speculating...

Ah! Idea! the Imagist as Divine Controller :smallbiggrin:

For Divine Controller, I'm thinking something more like the Cloistered Cleric from 3.0. It'll be like a Divine Wizard, but probably with Radiant instead of Elemental damage types... I'm not sure if they'd allow a Spellbook too (I hope not!) but I imagine the Divine Controller will focus more on Immobilizes/Dazes/etc. than Shifts.

@Gamgee: How about we get a fun game of Wraith going on? Or maybe Mummy? Those were both high quality WoD games - I particularly like how Wraiths actually ran on angst :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Oh, druids! I see them more as Primal Leaders, since that means they can have some of the neat Cleric-like summons and still do their "masters of nature" schtick with Entangles and such. That was how druids were back in 2e, BTW - they had a few, rare, damage powers, but mostly had fun utility abilities to play with. I hope they bring back old school Call Lightning :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2008-07-10, 04:23 AM
Also, has anyone thought of how the Druid will play into multi-classing?

I assume each Wildshape form will give you a boost to one (or more) physical stats, and some secondary benefit (different movement, a special attack, scent, AC bonus, etc).
I assume it won't.

Buffs don't exist in 4E. Druid shapes will likely either work like stances, or simply go "you [shift into bear form for three seconds] to hit somebody, attack [str] vs [fort] for [3d6] damage and [stun] (save ends)", filling in the blanks at need.

SamTheCleric
2008-07-10, 06:36 AM
I assume it won't.

Buffs don't exist in 4E. .

Boy, then it sure sucks that I have Shield of Faith that grants +2 AC for the encounter. Or that other power that gives my allies +2 power bonus to attack rolls.

Or did you mean Attribute Buffs? Because Wild Shaping into a bear and gaining +2 attack and +2 damage is the same as gaining +4 strength (without gaining the carrying capacity)

The Mormegil
2008-07-10, 08:16 AM
They aren't going to make shapeshifting give a stat boost as it would be unbalanced for many reasons. They MAY give attack and damage boosts as suggested by STC, but I think they will be mainly strikes of some kind with claws/jaws etc.
Much as KG said, only I do indeed like that. The variety I need is not in the damage and effects, but in the description I make of the attack.

ImperiousLeader
2008-07-10, 10:40 AM
Based on what I've heard, Druids are going to be a base hybrid class, meaning they aren't going to be pigeonholed into a leader/defender/controller/striker role, they can cover a few of them, depending on chosen powers. Races and classes identified them as primarily wildshapers, with a more weather-based magics, less elemental stuff.

My main hope for PH2 is that there will be a few controllers, just to give us a few more options in party design. I know Sorcerers will be there, but they're still an Arcane class, I'm hoping for a Divine and/or Primal Controller.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-07-10, 10:43 AM
Based on what I've heard, Druids are going to be a base hybrid class, meaning they aren't going to be pigeonholed into a leader/defender/controller/striker role, they can cover a few of them, depending on chosen powers. Races and classes identified them as primarily wildshapers, with a more weather-based magics, less elemental stuff.

:smallyuk: I hope not. It'd be just like WotC to spend all this time constructing a system to balance party roles, and then immediately release a class that is equally good at doing several of them (or all of them, as it sounds here).

GG WotC, it took you less than a year to violate your own design rules :smallsigh:

(I still hope Druid is just a Primal Controller. I think they'd fit it really well)

AKA_Bait
2008-07-10, 10:54 AM
(I still hope Druid is just a Primal Controller. I think they'd fit it really well)

Me too. If they really are a do-it-all class again in 4e, I'm going to start writing letters suggesting thay the company change it's name to DotC.

Starbuck_II
2008-07-10, 10:55 AM
:smallyuk: I hope not. It'd be just like WotC to spend all this time constructing a system to balance party roles, and then immediately release a class that is equally good at doing several of them (or all of them, as it sounds here).

GG WotC, it took you less than a year to violate your own design rules :smallsigh:

(I still hope Druid is just a Primal Controller. I think they'd fit it really well)

What, the 3.5 Druid was a hybrid role as well, right?

Remember, 4.0 one won't be as good since Divine casters lose (know all spells on spell list), maybe animal Companion (Martial splatbook will let us know), and can't become a animal to get its stats like Str, etc.

a. Was a decent benefit in 3.5.
b. Is for all now possibly.
c. No more Dump stats if want to be a melee God.

So, no matter what a 3.5 Druid in 4.0 would be balanced (more balanced) with these ideas in effect.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-07-10, 11:04 AM
What, the 3.5 Druid was a hybrid role as well, right?

Remember, 4.0 one won't be as good since Divine casters lose (know all spells on spell list), maybe animal Companion (Martial splatbook will let us know), and can't become a animal to get its stats like Str, etc.

a. Was a decent benefit in 3.5.
b. Is for all now possibly.
c. No more Dump stats if want to be a melee God.

So, no matter what a 3.5 Druid in 4.0 would be balanced (more balanced) with these ideas in effect.

No, no, you miss the essential point of the Role System.

In 3e you often ran into the situation where a given class was pointless because another class could do its job as well, as well as its own. CoDzillas and Batman Wizards are only the most extreme example of this problem. Fighters suffered hugely from this because by taking a single dip (or not even) any other class could use a combination of feats and class features to handle a melee as well as a fighter, making them obsolete.

In 4e they avoided this by making sure that every class had a highly defined role in a party. Defenders don't dish it out as well as Strikers, and Strikers can't take it as well as Defenders. Controllers can debuff pretty well, but they can't buff as well as Leaders. If you want to try to do multiple roles, you have to start using Multiclass Feats, and none of the multiclass powers are even roughly as good as the base class (Inspiring Word 1/day versus 2/encounter!) while still being somewhat useful.

If you then make a do-it-all class (or even do-two-things) class, then you're going to start squeezing out one or the other class. Maybe if you make a Druid that has to take a "specialty" which makes it only good at one or the other, you'll be OK, but you might as well make two different classes if you want to do that.

skywalker
2008-07-10, 11:08 AM
Wizards specifically said(again, I'm going off the preview book here) that druids and clerics were capable of too much in 3.5, so they're going away from that in 4th. It's just that some people like that about the druid, and other people like the other stuff(besides wildshape) that the druid could do. So despite the fact that the book says druids will be primarily wildshapers with a few utilities and ranged spells, people are still trying to say they could be leaders and controllers. Wizards has said nothing to indicate that druids will be leaders or be capable of healing other classes. Likewise, they've said very little about druids being able to control the battlefield. Besides "a few utility and ranged spells," there's nothing to indicate that about the druid.

I think there's clear evidence that the druid will either a striker, a defender, or a hybrid of those two, depending on how wildshape pans out.

I'd say the preview book was pretty right about the design goal for the classes we've seen so far.

Someone mentioned the duskblade. To me, the 3.5 duskblade was primarily a striker. Since we already have one arcane striker, what does everyone else think about this? I know I love duskblades, but right now it looks like the swordmage is the only arcane melee character we're gonna get for a while. This makes me sad.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-07-10, 11:14 AM
Y'know what would be good. Splitting the "nature mage" and the "shifter" portions of the Druid. "Nature Mage" can be a Controller, and the "Shifter" can be a Striker, with the various morphs counting as Stance Powers.

I think that'd work pretty well, actually.

Learnedguy
2008-07-10, 11:57 AM
Also, has anyone thought of how the Druid will play into multi-classing?

I assume each Wildshape form will give you a boost to one (or more) physical stats, and some secondary benefit (different movement, a special attack, scent, AC bonus, etc).

Considering how everything in 4E is d20 + 1/2 your level + Stat bonuses (that you often put all of your eggs into), I assume that everyone who relies on Str, Dex, or Con will want to multiclass into Druid in order to pick up the stat bonus from a particular Wildshape power. They'll walk around in that form all day (or turn into it at the start of each combat, if its an Encounter Power), making parties composed mostly or entirely of were-like-animals common. Hows that for interesting party fluff?

Well, I think you'll have a hard time using weapons or casting spells while you're a bear <.<;;

ImperiousLeader
2008-07-10, 12:25 PM
:smallyuk: I hope not. It'd be just like WotC to spend all this time constructing a system to balance party roles, and then immediately release a class that is equally good at doing several of them (or all of them, as it sounds here).

GG WotC, it took you less than a year to violate your own design rules :smallsigh:

(I still hope Druid is just a Primal Controller. I think they'd fit it really well)

I'm less concerned about Hybrid classes, because of the existing class power structure. A Druid is that has 1 defender encounter power, 1 striker encounter power and 1 controller encounter power is hardly replacing the striker, controller and defender. It's more like the Druid has built-in multiclassing. Hybrid classes are going to be trickier to design and balance, but I don't think they're going to break the role system.


Someone mentioned the duskblade. To me, the 3.5 duskblade was primarily a striker. Since we already have one arcane striker, what does everyone else think about this? I know I love duskblades, but right now it looks like the swordmage is the only arcane melee character we're gonna get for a while. This makes me sad.

There are two Martial Strikers, and the Sorcerer will make for two Arcane Controllers, so I have no argument against the Duskblade. In fact, I'd like to see a melee-focused Arcane Striker, and the Duskblade fits the bill.

MammonAzrael
2008-07-10, 12:36 PM
There are two Martial Strikers, and the Sorcerer will make for two Arcane Controllers, so I have no argument against the Duskblade. In fact, I'd like to see a melee-focused Arcane Striker, and the Duskblade fits the bill.

Although, since Sorcerers are typically quite charismatic, and make good party faces, could they wind up being Arcane Leaders? WotC wants to really make the Wizard and Sorcerer different, and with some of the hints dropped, the Sorc may even be Elemental, instead of Arcane!

Unless there's some WotC announcement/hint/preview I haven't seen or am forgetting that contradicts this.

RukiTanuki
2008-07-10, 12:57 PM
I reread R&C last night. My understanding was that the Druid would be a Primal Leader with shapes as a primary power (the way smites are a primary Paladin power) and element/weather themed magic used in humanoid form. I'd wager that shapes would work like Channel Divinity, allowing access to a subset of powers while locking out others that lack a keyword.

Barbarians would become to Druids what Paladins are to Clerics: the warrior way of their philosophy. They were looking at totem powers, rage powers (again, like smites) and what seemed to be striker-like abilities. Though, it'd be interesting if a Barbarian managed to be a Defender with a side order of Controller while staying melee-only...

Bards worry me slightly only because they keep repeating this fluff where a bard's performance impresses otherworldly patrons so much that they are granted their unique abilities as a gesture of gratitude; once granted, these cannot be taken back. There's a chance bards will be a Divine class now.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-07-10, 12:58 PM
I'm less concerned about Hybrid classes, because of the existing class power structure. A Druid is that has 1 defender encounter power, 1 striker encounter power and 1 controller encounter power is hardly replacing the striker, controller and defender. It's more like the Druid has built-in multiclassing. Hybrid classes are going to be trickier to design and balance, but I don't think they're going to break the role system.

And why should you multiclass when you could just play a druid and get a free feat to boot? See, it's a slippery slope which can very easily break an excellent paradigm for keeping all classes relevant.

And it's not like WotC doesn't have a history of screwing this up. Scouts anyone?

mcv
2008-07-10, 02:46 PM
For Divine Controller, I'm thinking something more like the Cloistered Cleric from 3.0. It'll be like a Divine Wizard, but probably with Radiant instead of Elemental damage types... I'm not sure if they'd allow a Spellbook too (I hope not!) but I imagine the Divine Controller will focus more on Immobilizes/Dazes/etc. than Shifts.
Does it matter whether it's called Priest, Cloistered Cleric, or even Excorcist or whatever? (Personally I'd go for Priest, because it's a simple, recognisable name.) Content-wise I agree: a Divine controller with different kinds of damage and different kind of control sounds like the thing.


EDIT: Oh, druids! I see them more as Primal Leaders, since that means they can have some of the neat Cleric-like summons and still do their "masters of nature" schtick with Entangles and such. That was how druids were back in 2e, BTW - they had a few, rare, damage powers, but mostly had fun utility abilities to play with.
But does that make them Leaders? I thought Leader had buffs. Entangling and summoning sounds more like a Controller to me. At least entangling does (I'm not so sure how summoning would work in 4e).

mcv
2008-07-10, 02:54 PM
I reread R&C last night. My understanding was that the Druid would be a Primal Leader with shapes as a primary power (the way smites are a primary Paladin power) and element/weather themed magic used in humanoid form.
How would element/weather magic work for a Leader? It sounds more like something to annoy enemies with than to buff your own party.


Bards worry me slightly only because they keep repeating this fluff where a bard's performance impresses otherworldly patrons so much that they are granted their unique abilities as a gesture of gratitude; once granted, these cannot be taken back. There's a chance bards will be a Divine class now.
I was kinda hoping they'd be Primal. Not that I have any idea what Primal is really supposed to be, but I have this image in my head of primitive Celtic Bards (which is basically where bards come from, after all), or possibly Fafhrd (from Fritz Leiber), who is a Barbarian/Skald (kind of bard).

Person_Man
2008-07-10, 04:29 PM
Well, I think you'll have a hard time using weapons or casting spells while you're a bear <.<;;

You may not be able to use Fighter specific weapon abilities (ie, a bear can't hold an ax or spear). But presumably bears will have a bite and claw weapon. So they'll still be able to use any power that calls for X[W] + minor effect. And spells can be cast without implements, and don't have have verbal, somatic, or material components.

Little_Rudo
2008-07-10, 04:32 PM
Whenever I think about how a druid will work in 4E, I keep picturing them as using the Aspects of Nature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#wildShapeVariantAspectOfN ature) variant. Each at-will/encounter/daily power would briefly grant them an aspect; i.e. an at-will power might let them slash at an opponent with bear claws. I could see them having the Ritual Casting feat for free (waiving the Arcana/Religion requirement) and make the ability to take on the full shape of an animal a ritual, maybe a druid-only ritual.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-10, 04:33 PM
You may not be able to use Fighter specific weapon abilities (ie, a bear can't hold an ax or spear). But presumably bears will have a bite and claw weapon. So they'll still be able to use any power that calls for X[W] + minor effect. And spells can be cast without implements, and don't have have verbal, somatic, or material components.

On the other hand, if the intent was to make forms incompatible with other kinds of magic, it would be fairly straightforward to say "you cannot use powers with X keywords while in Animal Form".