are druids actually good for noobs?

[Zanos]

vancian casting? Really? I've trained 7-year-olds to play 3e, I've gamed with college-educated adults who couldn't remember how THAC0 worked / whether they needed to roll high or low or high without going over for a particular roll in 2e… yet none of them have ever had trouble understanding vancian casting. Make list, check off when used.

I may not *like* Vancian casting, but it's super easy - easier than HP, even.

I don't know what you want me to tell you. I've had adults struggle with it who are used to MP or whatever, and it's not like they're stupid people.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Zanos
I know they're not considered good but you shouldn't be forcing people who just picked up the game to optimize.

I don’t see how a player choosing a druid is being “forced” to do anything, let alone optimize. I certainly wasn’t “forced” to choose a druid as my first 3.5 character, and I can guarantee you I didn’t optimize, since mercifully I didn’t know the meaning of the term.

And yet I enjoyed myself, held my own in the party, and didn’t have any of these big scary bugaboo moments people keep saying I should have.

Originally Posted by Zanos
The Druid interacts with pretty much every 3.5 mechanic, and some of the more confusing ones for new players, like vancian casting and polymorph effects.

Vancian wasn’t an issue for me, either. You get so many spells of each level, neatly summarized in a handy table. I’m not seeing the problem.

[Remuko]

I don't know what you want me to tell you. I've had adults struggle with it who are used to MP or whatever, and it's not like they're stupid people.

this. ive been playing since 3.0. im 34 now and vancian still hurts my brain. i can work it but i get super lazy with it and dont optimize cuz its too hard. i wish all casters worked like psionics.

[Zanos]

I don’t see how a player choosing a druid is being “forced” to do anything, let alone optimize. I certainly wasn’t “forced” to choose a druid as my first 3.5 character, and I can guarantee you I didn’t optimize, since mercifully I didn’t know the meaning of the term.

The point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't balance a game that a new player is picking up around them playing a druid well. If it's a first time a vanilla fighter should be relatively viable while they pick up the mechanics.

[Gnaeus]

The point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't balance a game that a new player is picking up around them playing a druid well. If it's a first time a vanilla fighter should be relatively viable while they pick up the mechanics.

And the point we’re trying to make is that a first time Druid, using a wolf AC, memorizing nothing but heals, and using WS only for scouting, will contribute more both in and out of combat than will a vanilla fighter at a similar optimization level. AND will have an easier time upshifting tactics as system mastery grows or if he reads a guide halfway through the game. No one expects them to play a Druid well. And any aid given to the fighter (don’t take toughness, it’s a trap) is easily matched on Druid (don’t take wolf, take riding dog and give it some leather barding).

So, I'm biased, as I've trained multiple 7-year-olds to play 3e with mechanical (if not always tactical) competence. Even playing multiple characters hasn't been an issue for kids, so I struggle to see why adults should have problems with it, or with most any component of playing a Druid (Polymorph effects, I'll grant, are nontrivial)..

This matches my experience with my kids. The math might be a bit harder (although helping math skills is a +), but when Dorothy wanted to turn into a bear I just handed her a bear sheet. It’s not like she had trouble understanding why she would want to be a bear or the relative benefits between a bear, a shark and an eagle.

[Asmotherion]

CoDzilla is very hard to get wrong. That said, I would not suggest a Spellcasting Class 'till you're at least Intermediate, as a complete newbe will get confused on the whole spellcasting mechanics.

The best class for someone who just started IMO would be Fighter or Barbarian, as he has a lot less to keep track of. Or, if they're particularly fond of Magic Users, Warlock or Dragonfire Adept. Invocation using classes have very simple mechanics, and can be usefull for the full game.

[King of Nowhere]

will contribute more both in and out of combat than will a vanilla fighter at a similar optimization level.

i think this is the main point of contention here: namely, what is a "similar optimization level"?
because when you make that claim, you are probably thinking of a sword-and-board fighter (and not one optimized for shield bash; one who deals 1d8+2 on hit), while i am thinking someone with a greatsword using power attack effectively.
and the reason for it is, i find it easy to optimize a fighter to that point. much more easy than optimizing a druid past the point where you pick only healing.
perhaps you, and other on your side of the argument, adapted better to a druid, or you had someone who could explain it better. perhaps the difference is that at my table nobody learned to use a druid while we learned how to use the other classes, so that our comparison is between decently optimized anything else and badly optimized druid - but for us they are both equally optimized, because they are both optimized to the best of our capacities.

still, i've seen complete noobs pick up a wizard or fighter pretty quickly, getting to a point where they could contribute to the party, with just a few tips (use a double-handed weapon and power attack whenever possible). i've seen players with already some experience pick up a druid and struggle to contribute meaningfully, despite getting tips (you should come to combat already in animal form and pre-buffed. you must buff you animal companion if you want it to be effective. i'm surprised how many times i had to repeat that before people stopped entering combat with no buffs, start combat by buffing themselves, and have the combat end before they are ready to do anything).
the druid has a higher floor than most classes, and a higher ceiling. but getting up from that floor is more complicated than with those other classes.

Sounds like no one at your table read the polymorph spell to find out how it actually works.

The third sentence of the Wild Shape class feature states that “This ability functions like the polymorph spell, except as noted here.” That would suggest, at a bare minimum, that it might be prudent to reference the spell before using the class ability.

looking in retrospect, it looks kinda bad on me and my table. i wonder how it could have come to that.
but the text there is difficult to understand - and the italian version in our manual was written in an even more complicated way. and it keeps referencing technical terms and other spells.so, i'm just trying to guess how we got confused about it, but maybe we started reading it, decided (more or less consciously) it was too complicated and that we would rather just not use that mechanic entirely. or maybe someone got it wrong, and explained it wrong to everyone else. i really don't remember.

And I say this having taught 3e to numerous 7-year-olds.

did you manage to teach those 7-yo how to calculate their stats when polymorphed? because if you did, my job is a teacher, i should probably resign and call you to do it in my place.
perhaps the difference is just having someone who understood the class. at my table, we had someone who understood all other classes, but we had nobody understanding how to play druid.

CoDzilla is very hard to get wrong. That said, I would not suggest a Spellcasting Class 'till you're at least Intermediate, as a complete newbe will get confused on the whole spellcasting mechanics.

The best class for someone who just started IMO would be Fighter or Barbarian, as he has a lot less to keep track of. Or, if they're particularly fond of Magic Users, Warlock or Dragonfire Adept. Invocation using classes have very simple mechanics, and can be usefull for the full game.

I've never seen anyone struggle with clerics. sure, they were unoptimized for melee, most were wery weak at dealing damage. but they were tanky and would hold the line pretty well, plus their magic is straightforward to use: buff and heal. every new player i've seen pick up cleric has become a decent healer-buffer-tank in no time. in fact, i would recommend clerics to new players, as i find them hard to get wrong. with full plate and shield you easily get AC 20, you get plenty of spells and they are easy to use.
even wizards are fine for new players. all they have to learn is to stay out of melee, and they can throw damage spells and be decently effective, if nowhere close to the full tier1 potential. if you need to give them a help, toss them a metamagic rod.
sorceror is also fine for new players, as long as you are lenient with swapping spells for the first few levels.
no, i've never seen people struggle to pick up magic users and contribute. i've seen people struggle to pick up druid, specifically

[Elkad]

And the point we’re trying to make is that a first time Druid, using a wolf AC, memorizing nothing but heals, and using WS only for scouting, will contribute more both in and out of combat than will a vanilla fighter at a similar optimization level. AND will have an easier time upshifting tactics as system mastery grows or if he reads a guide halfway through the game. No one expects them to play a Druid well. And any aid given to the fighter (don’t take toughness, it’s a trap) is easily matched on Druid (don’t take wolf, take riding dog and give it some leather barding).

You can go even worse than that.
I don't care if you take a camel for an AC, wade into melee combat with a club, and convert all your spell slots directly into a bag of Goodberries each morning. You still beat a fighter at 1st level. And you'll get better every session, even without advice from the DM or party members.

Barbarian? I've got a player in my current party who has never used Rage on her barb. Yet was very effective on her first character ever. A druid. She'd not only never played any version of D&D or any other ttrpg, she'd never so much as played a fantasy-type video game.

[Asmotherion]

i think this is the main point of contention here: namely, what is a "similar optimization level"?
because when you make that claim, you are probably thinking of a sword-and-board fighter (and not one optimized for shield bash; one who deals 1d8+2 on hit), while i am thinking someone with a greatsword using power attack effectively.
and the reason for it is, i find it easy to optimize a fighter to that point. much more easy than optimizing a druid past the point where you pick only healing.
perhaps you, and other on your side of the argument, adapted better to a druid, or you had someone who could explain it better. perhaps the difference is that at my table nobody learned to use a druid while we learned how to use the other classes, so that our comparison is between decently optimized anything else and badly optimized druid - but for us they are both equally optimized, because they are both optimized to the best of our capacities.

still, i've seen complete noobs pick up a wizard or fighter pretty quickly, getting to a point where they could contribute to the party, with just a few tips (use a double-handed weapon and power attack whenever possible). i've seen players with already some experience pick up a druid and struggle to contribute meaningfully, despite getting tips (you should come to combat already in animal form and pre-buffed. you must buff you animal companion if you want it to be effective. i'm surprised how many times i had to repeat that before people stopped entering combat with no buffs, start combat by buffing themselves, and have the combat end before they are ready to do anything).
the druid has a higher floor than most classes, and a higher ceiling. but getting up from that floor is more complicated than with those other classes.



looking in retrospect, it looks kinda bad on me and my table. i wonder how it could have come to that.
but the text there is difficult to understand - and the italian version in our manual was written in an even more complicated way. and it keeps referencing technical terms and other spells.so, i'm just trying to guess how we got confused about it, but maybe we started reading it, decided (more or less consciously) it was too complicated and that we would rather just not use that mechanic entirely. or maybe someone got it wrong, and explained it wrong to everyone else. i really don't remember.


did you manage to teach those 7-yo how to calculate their stats when polymorphed? because if you did, my job is a teacher, i should probably resign and call you to do it in my place.
perhaps the difference is just having someone who understood the class. at my table, we had someone who understood all other classes, but we had nobody understanding how to play druid.



I've never seen anyone struggle with clerics. sure, they were unoptimized for melee, most were wery weak at dealing damage. but they were tanky and would hold the line pretty well, plus their magic is straightforward to use: buff and heal. every new player i've seen pick up cleric has become a decent healer-buffer-tank in no time. in fact, i would recommend clerics to new players, as i find them hard to get wrong. with full plate and shield you easily get AC 20, you get plenty of spells and they are easy to use.
even wizards are fine for new players. all they have to learn is to stay out of melee, and they can throw damage spells and be decently effective, if nowhere close to the full tier1 potential. if you need to give them a help, toss them a metamagic rod.
sorceror is also fine for new players, as long as you are lenient with swapping spells for the first few levels.
no, i've never seen people struggle to pick up magic users and contribute. i've seen people struggle to pick up druid, specifically

Tell that to me, +/- 10 years ago, were I would pick only phb Blasting Spells on my Sorcerer, and see half my spells resisted or blocked by imunity.

Druids are much easier to play. You have a buff animal companion, and can easily turn yourself into a heavy hitter as well. Sure, you don't really know what spells to use, but you don't have that many useless options to pick from, and as a Divine Caster, you can swap spells from your ENTIRE spell list every day.

[Gnaeus]

i think this is the main point of contention here: namely, what is a "similar optimization level"?
because when you make that claim, you are probably thinking of a sword-and-board fighter (and not one optimized for shield bash; one who deals 1d8+2 on hit), while i am thinking someone with a greatsword using power attack effectively.
and the reason for it is, i find it easy to optimize a fighter to that point. much more easy than optimizing a druid past the point where you pick only healing.
perhaps you, and other on your side of the argument, adapted better to a druid, or you had someone who could explain it better. perhaps the difference is that at my table nobody learned to use a druid while we learned how to use the other classes, so that our comparison is between decently optimized anything else and badly optimized druid - but for us they are both equally optimized, because they are both optimized to the best of our capacities

Yeah, we are never remotely going to agree there. By the time you reach 2h power attack you are going to get a Druid who is quite capable.

To reach 2H Power attack you need to crunch a ton of numbers. Need to recognize that offense>defense in 3.5 combat. Need to realize (and this requires reading the DMG & MM) that TWF<THF (because the 2 main reasons it does, interaction with DR and the cost of funding 2vs 1 magical weapon are not at all apparent to someone with only PHB). Need to abandon being Lancelot or similar knight concept, Drax or similar dual wielder, legolas or similar archer. Need to read over a dozen core feats, mechanically separate the wheat from the chaff, and arrive at the core feat we play grounders think is best. Before the game begins and they have rolled anything but some 3d6s. That’s actually a fair multi step piece of opti-fu boyo. Or you could just get lucky picking randomly off a list, but the Druid can do that too, and change tactics if they chose poorly. And repeat until they have workable choices.

The Druid, on the other hand, doesn’t need a single piece of forum lore or equation. Hey, I’m still going to take cure light wounds, but I’ll take another spell for my other one. The applications of most Druid spells don’t require a lot of work (and I’ll disagree with Quertus, polymorph is easy, summoning is hard). If I make a fog they can’t shoot me or I could escape is a concept graspable by most anyone. If he does go in for reading and game math, figuring out that riding dog>wolf is pretty obviously easier, from a comparing apples to bigger apples standpoint, than realizing that power attack>weapon focus or dodge. And a riding dog alone will outfight a badly built ranger or monk, even without the healbot standing behind it. More HP/better attack/auto trip. And of course if you screw up and it dies, you aren’t rolling a new character. And this assumes that your nature character with his handle animal can’t read the PHB and ask “could I just buy a second riding dog?”

And if you think those things are obvious without understanding system math, I will direct you to my hackmaster game, in which the pixie fairy with her tiny toothpick bow, and the halfling rogue with her dagger, consistently score more kills than do the THFers. Because THAT system rewards crits with a roll on a crit table, the fast weapons score more crits, and the better attack bonuses from their dex feed into the table to reward them with regular kills. The heart of optimization is system math.

did you manage to teach those 7-yo how to calculate their stats when polymorphed? because if you did, my job is a teacher, i should probably resign and call you to do it in my place.
perhaps the difference is just having someone who understood the class. at my table, we had someone who understood all other classes, but we had nobody understanding how to play druid.y

So, are we comparing a new player at a game with experienced players or a new player in a table of new players? Leaving aside that his kid was 7, (Kudos Quertus I waited til 8) if you have a new player and an experienced DM who wants to make the game run, it takes way less time than I usually spend in game prep to ask what animals they plan to use (maybe with suggestions) copypaste the relevant SRD entry, and make the relevant changes, print out the sheet. Even at 12 I had to regularly help Dorothy with table math, but it was almost all stuff I would have needed for a fighter too (ok, so the bard song gives you +1/+1, and the wizards magic weapon does too, but it doesn’t stack with your masterwork weapon etc).

Honestly, IN PLAY her PF Goliath Druid was easier than a 3.5 fighter. Less math and system mastery needed to determine how much to power attack for.

Leaving aside my daughter, the last low op Druid I played with was a standard low rules DM girlfriend type. Was she a million miles below my sorcerer I was playing or the Druid I would have made? Oh yes. Was she still as good a party member as the rogue and barbarian? Also yes. Did I spend from my WBL making items to help her, and make suggestions to fix major flaws? Yes. About as much as I did the Barbarian and Rogue. I think we (DM and I) guided her to a companion centric build, for ease of play. But really, she was the weakest player from a rules/math sense and she did fine. (And that was a PF Druid, significantly weaker than a 3.5 one).

[Quertus]

That said, I would not suggest a Spellcasting Class 'till you're at least Intermediate, as a complete newbe will get confused on the whole spellcasting mechanics.

I have numerous 7-year-olds who prove you wrong.

I don't know what you want me to tell you. I've had adults struggle with it who are used to MP or whatever, and it's not like they're stupid people.

this. ive been playing since 3.0. im 34 now and vancian still hurts my brain. i can work it but i get super lazy with it and dont optimize cuz its too hard. i wish all casters worked like psionics.

… how? How is, "do we still have milk, or did you drink it?" a difficult question? How is packing 5 shirts and 5 pairs of pants too complex? What part of slots do people struggle with?

Now, if it's "being Batman", planning well & making good choices, sure, I'll believe that. But that's not struggling with Vancian mechanics, that's struggling with planning and thinking.

did you manage to teach those 7-yo how to calculate their stats when polymorphed? because if you did, my job is a teacher, i should probably resign and call you to do it in my place.
perhaps the difference is just having someone who understood the class. at my table, we had someone who understood all other classes, but we had nobody understanding how to play druid.

… mu? Nobody used much in the way of Polymorph effects. They were probably 10 or so by the time they tried a Polymorph, and I didn't check their math.

Yeah, we are never remotely going to agree there. By the time you reach 2h power attack you are going to get a Druid who is quite capable.

To reach 2H Power attack you need to crunch a ton of numbers. Need to recognize that offense>defense in 3.5 combat. Need to realize (and this requires reading the DMG & MM) that TWF<THF (because the 2 main reasons it does, interaction with DR and the cost of funding 2vs 1 magical weapon are not at all apparent to someone with only PHB). Need to abandon being Lancelot or similar knight concept, Drax or similar dual wielder, legolas or similar archer. Need to read over a dozen core feats, mechanically separate the wheat from the chaff, and arrive at the core feat we play grounders think is best. Before the game begins and they have rolled anything but some 3d6s. That’s actually a fair multi step piece of opti-fu boyo.

Or, you could just look at Power Attack, and decide, "I want to do that", see that it had synergy with 2-handed weapons, and build that. Done. Or see big numbers on a 2-handed weapon, big numbers on Power Attack 2-handed, and be a Timmy. Done. It doesn't require understanding all of what you just said to build that Fighter.

The Druid, on the other hand, doesn’t need a single piece of forum lore or equation. Hey, I’m still going to take cure light wounds, but I’ll take another spell for my other one. The applications of most Druid spells don’t require a lot of work (and I’ll disagree with Quertus, polymorph is easy, summoning is hard).

… how you figure? Summoning, you use the stats straight from the book; Polymorph, you need to "mix and match".

If I make a fog they can’t shoot me or I could escape is a concept graspable by most anyone. If he does go in for reading and game math, figuring out that riding dog>wolf is pretty obviously easier, from a comparing apples to bigger apples standpoint, than realizing that power attack>weapon focus or dodge. And a riding dog alone will outfight a badly built ranger or monk, even without the healbot standing behind it. More HP/better attack/auto trip.

I have yet to meet a Druid player who cared about numbers on their Animal Companion - it's always a matter of personal preference for a particular animal.

So, are we comparing a new player at a game with experienced players or a new player in a table of new players? Leaving aside that his kid was 7, (Kudos Quertus I waited til 8)

Lol. I've trained numerous 7-year-olds. Glad to hear you're starting then young, too.

[Remuko]

… how? How is, "do we still have milk, or did you drink it?" a difficult question? How is packing 5 shirts and 5 pairs of pants too complex? What part of slots do people struggle with?

Now, if it's "being Batman", planning well & making good choices, sure, I'll believe that. But that's not struggling with Vancian mechanics, that's struggling with planning and thinking.

I have trouble with that too. ADHD, executive dysfunction, choice paralysis. Stuff like that. The very idea that classes in D&D have slots and can "equip" any spell they know into them each day breaks my brain. I can't fathom it, even just in PHB its too much. Maybe if the PHB had 1/20th the spells the mechanics wouldnt have been as overwhelming for me, but it is what it is.

[Gnaeus]

Or, you could just look at Power Attack, and decide, "I want to do that", see that it had synergy with 2-handed weapons, and build that. Done. Or see big numbers on a 2-handed weapon, big numbers on Power Attack 2-handed, and be a Timmy. Done. It doesn't require understanding all of what you just said to build that Fighter

That’s essentially a random choice. They could just as easily look at Two Weapon Fighting or Improved Shield Bash and build that. Or realize they could have 22 AC and do that. You CAN absolutely randomly decide on power attack/THF. But you can just as easily randomly decide on entangle or other good Druid options. In order to realize it is the best choice, you have to do what I described.

… how you figure? Summoning, you use the stats straight from the book; Polymorph, you need to "mix and match"

Because low op summoning at low levels is trappy. Full round casting is easy to interrupt. You need a lot of animal stats on hand. Some have problems with stuff like reach, or secondary spell likes or things like Mephits you have to understand. And then it only lasts for a round or 2. It’s usually only good in corner cases, like needing a flier or swimmer. Or as an emergency conversion because the spell you prepared doesn’t apply and you can’t swing your scimitar.

Usually wildshape there’s a flight form and a fight form, and everyone knows what a bear or eagle is. Maybe also swim and stealth forms, but until high levels everything is self explanatory from the what does it do perspective. So prepare a few Stat blocks and you are golden. Maybe you get the second or third best combat form. But when an 8 year old turns into a tiger or bear, it’s to rip someone’s face off, and when you want to rip someone’s face off, the obvious choices are all ok. Not venomfire Fleshraker good. But at least “I’m still better than the low op monk but I also have a pet and can drop some heals or utility after the fight” good.

…I have yet to meet a Druid player who cared about numbers on their Animal Companion - it's always a matter of personal preference for a particular animal

That’s a viable method of choice of course. But it is the exact same optimization level as “I want to play Legolas” or “I want to play Drax”. If we are to assume the fighter is reading dozens of options and choosing the best mechanical one, we should give the same to the Druid. Because again, the difference between wolf and riding dog is clearer, looking at the numbers, than the difference between power attack, weapon focus and dodge. Or sword and board and THF. One requires knowing or guessing that attack >defense and damage > to hit, the other requires knowing or guessing that 2d8 hp +1 bab is bigger numbers than 1d8 hp +0 bab.

Some obvious fighter choices are actively bad. Like taking point blank shot and weapon focus long sword with a balanced str/dex. Because it seems reasonable that being able to shoot OR swing a sword is a good choice to have, not realizing that system math makes a generalist fighter an ineffective fighter.

Honestly, even fighter is throwing a bone. There’s no reason why a player with low system mastery wouldn’t choose even trappier options. Hand to heart I once played in a game with a grown man who knew the rules who decided samurai was too OP and rerolled a monk. Who was only a bit worse than the DMs girlfriend’s swashbuckler. I didn’t know what tiers were back then and hadn’t read any guides then but my Druid absolutely outperformed the two of them combined. Like, still I feel bad 15 years later about how much better I was just by reading my spells and forms and picking good ones level of outperformed. It was embarrassing.

[RexDart]

...

Conclusion:
We see the druid experiences multi facets of the game mechanics starting at level one via the role of the animal companion. At lvl 4 they can switch to a completely different aspect when they change forms, giving them insight to the monster manual and NPC side of the game (and more tactical combat). And they have the simplest magic system in the entire game.

This eases the player into tactical combat, stat manipulation, and magic all at once. Would you prefer they play a fighter or barbarian and next campaign introduce them into a new game mechanic based on watching other players from the current campaign? I have seen several replies that say never a caster or any caster for a noob is a bad idea. I disagree, how else will they learn unless they try it out? Druid isn't the healer, blaster, or face they can screw up their spells a bit and fix it tomorrow.

All of this lines up very well with my recent personal experience. I'm in two campaigns now (one where the characters have progressed from 1-4ish, one from 1-6ish, same DM.) Both parties have druids. In the 4th level campaign, most of the players are new or almost new, with me and another player probably in the "low-to-mid-op" range by forum standards? People who have played enough and are smart enough to find stuff that works well together, but don't scour obscure third-party sourcebooks to find the most broken possible combos, etc. The druid player is, I think, completely new to RPGs.

In the 6thish level campaign, the players are all in that low-mid category, but it's the first time the druid player has ever played a spell caster.

Anyway, both druid players have done well, and experienced the process of LEARNING the game and their class very well as they went along. Both have made what are evidently "stupid n00b" mistakes (yes, they both took wolf as animal companion, though the 6th level druid now has a bison who seems pretty awesome from my perspective anyway.) But they've always been useful, and they're getting good at figuring out the right things to summon in particular circumstances. I think maybe they each could be a little more adventurous with the druid spell list, but summoning more stuff is never a *bad* thing. And most important, they're having lots of fun with the class.

[Fouredged Sword]

The big advantage of Druids is that they are hard to mess up. You can play them badly, but any lasting choices you make are just an in game day or so away from being fixed for the most part. It's not like Wizard or Sorcerer who have to select spells to know or add to their sellbook. It's not like a Cleric where domains are a thing and god selection can influence how you feel you need to play. It's not like a fighter or ranger or barbarian where feat selection is paramount.

Druids have a low floor. At the worst you can entangle things, heal, and turn into a bear.

Item selection? Play around with it and buy what sounds good. You will be fine as long as you avoid metal armor.
Spell selection? You can pick anew each day and if you pick badly you can just turn into a bear and fight in melee.
Stat allocation? Doesn't matter outside of wisdom and maybe constitution.

Druid is a great class because it lets you not feel like you need to reroll your character every session just because you made a character creation mistake. Learning the class is all about what you do when, not how you build our character. You can learn the parts of the game you like and build your next character around that concept.

[Willie the Duck]

I do not think that a noob would have trouble figuring out a druid, or playing one to relative effect. I wouldn't suggest one for a new player mostly for everyone else in the playgroup because the issue I have seen come up is the new player having to read. through. every. option. available. to. them. before deciding which one to take, and druids sure do have a lot of options (most of which, as others have noted, can be swapped out frequently).

When it comes to ease of figuring out, I tend to go back to my experience with learning 3.0 when it first came out. My group at the time each bought our books and started reading. Before we had finished reading all the feats, we had figured out 1st level fighters with longspears, quickdraw, and combat reflexes. By the time we had started playing around with making characters, we had figured out that spiked chain/combat reflex/trip-or-disarm feat chains would be highly effective. By the time we started reading the spell sections, we figured out that clerics got a lot of combat boost spells, and boy if you could figure out how to not take 3 rounds casting them all that the clerics would compete with fighters for the fighter's role. It took until someone with a wizard figured out battlefield control's supremacy (web, or 3.0 darkness) before someone figured out 'hey, I bet entangle is as strong, someone should try a druid.' Once someone did that, and certainly after the druid/barbarian splat came out with Natural Spell feat, it was all over. So at least in personal experience, I've found that druids are not the first thing to discover, but it's pretty straightforward in figuring out.

- animal companion
"this is so broken! from level 1 you get a companion that is already stronger than a fighter, plus action economy"
not so much. ok, if you know to take a fleshraker and buff it with venomfire, you get a pretty effective companion. this is high op, though - and that specific combo is banned in many tables anyway.

There was a thread about this a few years ago, I believe it was Ur-Priest or Thurbane who started it. The breakdown was: Playing a Druid in a culturally iconic way makes them decent but not amazing, low levels you cast entangle as a person then natural shape you become a bird and be king of not dying as a caster. The Druid's Wildshape becomes much better out of core.

Druids are fairly susceptible to DM bans of key things (wildling clasps being another one). However, even without much of the non-core stuff, they are still powerful. It's not like a PrC that succeeds based on questionable early-entry exploits or similar (where a DM saying, 'nope, that's cheezy,' can just completely shut them down).

There are two main claims being made here. One is that druids aren't a great starter class, and the other is that they're ineffective. The first claim is arguable, since the Druid does have more paperwork, interaction with the monster manual, complicated actions (spells), and consistently controlling multiple actors in combat. The counter argument is that you want the player to be learning these things anyway, and learning by doing is the best way to go. I've seen noobs take to druids just fine, even if they tended to be one-note in their spell selection.

Pretty much my interpretation.

[King of Nowhere]

So, are we comparing a new player at a game with experienced players or a new player in a table of new players?

well, this whole post is inspired from my tabletop experience of nobody ever managing to make an effective druid, so i'm talking about any combination of new players up to moderately experienced players.
all the stuff you say is actually very sensible and you would probably persuade me if this was a purely theoretical argument. however, i have seen too often a druid summon something that never landed a single hit in the whole combat, a druid wading into combat wildshaped and being used to mop the floor, a druid being unable to use crowd control because everyone is flying, a druid animal companion becoming gradually the comedy relief of the table, to believe that using a druid is simple.
i've seen druids be very effective with high level spells (sunburst, firestorm), but that's to be expected for any primary caster.

[Quertus]

I have trouble with that too. ADHD, executive dysfunction, choice paralysis. Stuff like that. The very idea that classes in D&D have slots and can "equip" any spell they know into them each day breaks my brain. I can't fathom it, even just in PHB its too much. Maybe if the PHB had 1/20th the spells the mechanics wouldnt have been as overwhelming for me, but it is what it is.

Choice paralysis? Hmmm… I guess I don't have that (about elf games, at least), and haven't *noticed* anyone else having trouble with it. But that sounds like something that would be exacerbated by Vancian spell selection.

Hmmm… I suppose any class could be incompatible with an individual's flaws (after all, I hold that some "bad players" are fine, so long as they don't play X), but I still hold Vancian casting as trivially easy in the general case.

So there's at least one additional step of, "do you suffer from analysis paralysis" that must be answered before suggesting "Druid" as a good starting character.

[Thunder999]

If you can't contribute as a druid then you have no hope with other classes.
You need to actually pick useful feats to contribute in combat as a martial.
You need good ability scores as pretty much any other class, but you can waste your best score on charisma and still end up OK as a druid.
You need to pick good spells as any other caster, a druid can just turn them into summons or forget about them and just hit things with two characters.
Add in wildshape and just turning into the same creature as your companion and ganging up on something is probably going to be solid damage compared to a low op martial.

[mindstalk]

My last long Pathfinder game included a completely newbie playing a druid. It worked pretty well. Was she quick to pick up mechanics? Nope, kept asking "what do I roll?" for many, many, sessions. Did she get some help? Yeah, especially the GM helping her pick spells. Was she effective? Yeah -- decent combat, animal companion, figuring out on her own that the AC meant two tries per combat round. Spells like entangle, heat metal, some flame thing, call lightning, speak with animal, healing; also spider climb prepared for a break-and-enter job. Changing shape to a small animal for scouting, and at least once as a bear -- I think to lure away some other bear for quest reasons.

Her companion was a small/medium cat who became a larger cat with levels; I don't know the details.

Probably the second most effective PC, after my fairly optimized psion, who could do tons of damage while pretending to be a bard. (Even more effective before the GM corrected how I was using slumber. Way more fun as a standard action power :p )

Same game later added a player, who was quite experienced, but mostly in AD&D; he carried over that mindset, and "not wanting to overshadow the casters", making a super high AC fighter. I tried advising him that Things Had Changed Between Editions but it never took.

So, newbie druid player beats (wrong edition) experienced fighter player.

Unrelatedly, in a previous game my magus traumatized the party with Obscuring Mist. GM had had cultists drop some sort of magical darkness on us, that they could see through but we couldn't. We didn't have a direct counter, so I cast OM or Fog Cloud, figuring "if we can't see, no one can see". Tactically sound! And lots of whiffing all around.

[Elkad]

Her companion was a small/medium cat who became a larger cat with levels; I don't know the details.

I've done that for a druid in the past. Player wanted to have an "only pet" that advanced, but advanced in size as well.
So I modified a serval and leopard to serve as "tiger cub" and "tiger youth" as custom AC picks. As the druid leveled, the AC was flavor-replaced as "growing up".
Since it was an actual companion, it didn't get traded out, or treated like a slightly-more-valuable summon. Even got rezzed a couple times, and on one occasion the druid's last heal went to save the pet, and let another party member die. I still have the base sheets.

https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=587518
https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=587541
https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=587554

Unrelatedly, in a previous game my magus traumatized the party with Obscuring Mist. GM had had cultists drop some sort of magical darkness on us, that they could see through but we couldn't. We didn't have a direct counter, so I cast OM or Fog Cloud, figuring "if we can't see, no one can see". Tactically sound! And lots of whiffing all around.

That. Right there. That's why I love casters, especially Vancian ones. Bending the wrong spell to serve anyway, and making memorable gaming moments.

[mindstalk]

Not always good memories. :p Years later, if I say "obscuring mist" a friend who was in the game will shout "oh god no!"

[vasilidor]

as to whether or not a druid is good for a starting player, depends upon what the player wants. if the player wants to try a spell caster of some sort, then yes it is perfectly fine. it has a decent spell list, but you may have to help the player out a bit at the start. a wizard on the other hand would be harder for a new player, with it being a lot more fragile and having easier ways to entrap oneself into a bad build, with a sorcerer being worse. a cleric would be another good choice for a new player wanting to be a caster.
If the player does not want to play a spell caster, then no. not at all.
casters as to how i would rate them for new players:
1:casters such as bard and pathfinders alchemist.
2: the druid or cleric, followed up by other predetermined spell list casters.
3: fragile learned casters such as the Wizard
4: casters such as the sorcerer or pathfinder oracle.

[DeTess]

I'd say the druid is a good class for new players that intend to really get into the mechanical side of the game. It has access to just about every tool and mechanic in the game, so they can learn which bits they like and don't like, and it is highly configurable, so the player can change and improve their character as they learn to be better at the game without needing to actually rebuild anything.

If the new player is only really at the table to drink beer, eat pretzels and have fun with their friends, and have no intention to learn more about the game than they absolutely have to then the druid is indeed an awful choice, and they should probably play a barbarian or something like that instead.

[Gnaeus]

as to whether or not a druid is good for a starting player, depends upon what the player wants. if the player wants to try a spell caster of some sort, then yes it is perfectly fine. it has a decent spell list, but you may have to help the player out a bit at the start. a wizard on the other hand would be harder for a new player, with it being a lot more fragile and having easier ways to entrap oneself into a bad build, with a sorcerer being worse. a cleric would be another good choice for a new player wanting to be a caster.
If the player does not want to play a spell caster, then no. not at all.
casters as to how i would rate them for new players:
1:casters such as bard and pathfinders alchemist.
2: the druid or cleric, followed up by other predetermined spell list casters.
3: fragile learned casters such as the Wizard
4: casters such as the sorcerer or pathfinder oracle.

I’d put Druid above bard.

Bard starts out with 0 level spells and 6 hp. Wearing basically the same light armor as Druid. The companion alone will outdamage the bard. Given his weapon proficiencies, it’s reasonably likely that a bard 1 will sing (if he can, 1/day) then engage in melee with a long sword or rapier. The druids spells, even as CLW probably out-utility 2 extra skill points. And like the sorcerer the bard (when he gets spells) can’t change his choices. It’s pretty easy, for example, to imagine a well meaning bard taking CLW and Summon Monster, which is basically what we are proposing as minimal op Druid (And even easier imagining him taking Eagles Splendor at 4). And bards, like paladins, get a lot of love from later sources. Stuff like DFI and snowflake wardance, that I wouldn’t expect a new player to find. Not that Druid doesn’t of course. But at least the Druid has a basic reason to go looking for animal forms, as opposed to searching supplements.

It is a bit campaign dependent of course, based on the relative importance of social vs nature skills and exactly what the DM rules that social skills do on a role play vs roll play level. And of course how many party members will benefit from song.

If we are talking about PF of course, bard gets easier, Druid gets harder.

[DwarvenWarCorgi]

Not so, he's correct with that complaint. One of the commonly overlooked facts about Call Lightning is that it requires a standard action to call down the remaining bolts each round. Call Lightning is not a 5-round storm spell that zaps things with lightning. It's more like you're equipping your Druid with a storm cloud and can attack using it for five rounds.

Wow. Been playing that wrong for decades.

[King of Nowhere]

Druids are much easier to play. You have a buff animal companion, and can easily turn yourself into a heavy hitter as well.

that kind of forum advice is actually a large part of the reason i can't figure druids. after all, most of what i know of optimization i learned from the forum.

so, forum advice on how to optimize a fighter type:

get power attack, leap attack, shock trooper, so you deal a lot of damage on charges. keep putting multipliers on that; two options to seek are pounce and spirited charge

so, following this advice, even toning it down because we didn't want to go to that level of optimization, we have a fairly inexperienced player who still oneshots most targets in one round. you may call that high op, and it certainly is, but it is easy. you take a noob, write him one line of advice, and he's got a powerful character he can use.

on the other hand, forum advice for optimizing a druid is much less straightforward. it generally goes saying something nebulous about buffing yourself and your animal companion, which is much harder to do properly. tabletop gaming is not like a videogame where you have the door and you know there is an encounter on the other side; often you will be surprised without buffs, or you will cast your buffs preparing for an encounter and there will be no encounter. furthermore, buffing requires keeping track of which kind of bonus is everything. so often an inexperienced buffer will try to use buff spells that don't stack, or that are already covered by items. and even if you do a good job with that, your damage will still not be comparable to the other noob who built an ubercharger with forum help.

and this is exactly what happened in my table. i am comparing a high-op fighter druid to a mid-low op druid build because it's much easier to build a high op fighter than a mid op druid.
and all this is made worse by the expectation that the druid should be stronger and should be easy to use. like "i put so much effort figuring out how all this stuff works, and the guy who just took a bunch of suggested feats had it easier and is more effective. after he intentionally didn't pick some of the most powerful options!" (ok, this is compensated by the druid intentionally not picking a fleshraker).

[Gnaeus]

that kind of forum advice is actually a large part of the reason i can't figure druids. after all, most of what i know of optimization i learned from the forum.

so, forum advice on how to optimize a fighter type:

so, following this advice, even toning it down because we didn't want to go to that level of optimization, we have a fairly inexperienced player who still oneshots most targets in one round. you may call that high op, and it certainly is, but it is easy. you take a noob, write him one line of advice, and he's got a powerful character he can use.

on the other hand, forum advice for optimizing a druid is much less straightforward. it generally goes saying something nebulous about buffing yourself and your animal companion, which is much harder to do properly. tabletop gaming is not like a videogame where you have the door and you know there is an encounter on the other side; often you will be surprised without buffs, or you will cast your buffs preparing for an encounter and there will be no encounter. furthermore, buffing requires keeping track of which kind of bonus is everything. so often an inexperienced buffer will try to use buff spells that don't stack, or that are already covered by items. and even if you do a good job with that, your damage will still not be comparable to the other noob who built an ubercharger with forum help.

and this is exactly what happened in my table. i am comparing a high-op fighter druid to a mid-low op druid build because it's much easier to build a high op fighter than a mid op druid.
and all this is made worse by the expectation that the druid should be stronger and should be easy to use. like "i put so much effort figuring out how all this stuff works, and the guy who just took a bunch of suggested feats had it easier and is more effective. after he intentionally didn't pick some of the most powerful options!" (ok, this is compensated by the druid intentionally not picking a fleshraker).

Well, maybe.

If I were handing out level 7 pregens for a convention game, and you said “hey, my friend hasn’t played before, can he play?” Absolutely. Fighter is way, way, way easier.

How do you get to that point, though. Let’s ignore every previous argument I have made and still stand behind regarding choice of combat style.

No newb is ever going to reach shock trooper. Ever. It requires build planning multiple levels in advance. And if you picked bull rush at random, you’d probably retrain it. It’s a very situational feat.

The Druid advice, otoh, is completely build independent. I’d usually expect natural spell. It’s a core feat with obvious applications and the only clear Druid feat in core. But it isn’t required. No one is saying “hey, the Druid could be using Aberrant wildshape to be a wil o wisp or dharculus” because that is actually the same op as the fighter you posted (splat feats from different places with emerging synergy, requires advanced build planning with trash prerequisites). And that’s crazy strong.

If they start at level 1, though, Druid isn’t a newb by that point. He had 4 levels as a pet class+ healbot to freely experiment. If he swapped out one spell/day/level and kept the ones that were good, he’s not a healbot anymore. He could be packing mass snakes swiftness and kelpstrand. Then at level 5 he gets to play with wildshape without casting, so maybe scouting eagle. Maybe he experiments with bear and discovers that unbuffed it isn’t that strong. Maybe his pet died 3 times while he was figuring it out. If your fighter died once he probably just rerolled.

And if your fighter read a fighter guide before level 1 and made that build, and the Druid read a Druid guide at level 7 and his feats were toughness x3, natural spell, that Druid is suddenly more powerful than that fighter. Enhance wildshape, Desmodu Bat. Now I spend all day as a flying spellcasting super scout. That single, build independent trick will give more all day utility than fighter gets in his entire career.

And that ignores the OTHER low tier newb fighter problem. Which is that if he hasn’t become a forum regular, he is probably using mostly dropped gear. Druids are mostly gear independent, with innate ways to solve common problems. Fighters need specific usually bought gear to work. They are expected to be able to fight swarms, fliers etc. Druids can generally find workarounds for common problems on their list in 8 hours.

Also, Druid buffing isn’t usually that complicated. Because a lot of their buffs are long duration. Core I would just expect barkskin, longstrider and Greater magic fang to be up if we are in a dungeon. So in combat you cast a spell on round 1 (likely a touch attack spell in core, something like bite of the wereX otherwise) and then engage. It’s not a non-issue. It’s a balancing act between over and underbuffing. But again, you don’t hand a 7th level Druid to a noob. It’s a problem that players figure out over time.

TLDR
If the problem is handing the Druid to a noob, it’s a non issue. If the problem is handing the Druid to a player who just isn’t that smart or isn’t interested in more than a single simplistic play style, not so much. Those are different problems though.

[mindstalk]

Even if the druid doesn't do as much damage as the fighter, the druid has more options in general. Spells, more skill points (than fighter *or* the other Tier 1 or even Tier 2 casters (okay, wizard Int bonus probably makes up for that)), animal companion, Diplomacy as a class skill.

Reading spells is probably more attractive for the newbie than reading feats, and a bad choice can't stick them in a straitjacket for levels.

So half-assing the druid is probably more fun than half-assing the fighter.

[Firest Kathon]

I'm strongly in the camp that Druid and similar classes which combine multiple game styles (e.g. Pathfinder Bloodrager) are excellent classes for game beginners. My reason for that is that they allow the new players to experience multiple aspects of the game with the same character, and usually they are able to contribute in most, if not all, situations. I agree that a Fighter may be easier to build and comprehend than a druid, but unless you have a mostly dungeon-delving game with many encounters, the new player will experience many situations where there is nothing to fight and they have to sit back and watch the others play the game.

This of course holds only under certain conditions:

• There is an experienced player or GM who is helping with the build, in case of a player they can sit next to the new player and help in-game also (avoiding group advice/discussions).
• Low or Mid OP group
• The GM is willing and able to adapt the adventure to the group

I fully agree with those saying that *building* a druid is hard. Playing one, with assistance, not so much.

• Animal Companion: Tell them what to roll for attack and damage. The GM controls animals companions anyways (RAW), so they can take care about positioning, flanking etc. Once the player is more experienced, they can take over more control as it is played at most tables.
• Wildshape: Prepare a second character sheet with wildshaped stats.
• Spells: Help with selection, explain when to use which spell.

Don't expect the new player to always contribute to the best ability to the class. For me, it is more important that the new player has fun and can learn different aspects of the game.