In Pathfinder we have Sorcerers, who are charisma based arcane casters. We have Oracles, who are charisma based divine casters. But we don't have a charisma based version of the Druid. Nature-oriented Oracles can come close, but still don't exactly hit the mark. Why are there no instinctive magic-users who cast Druid spells?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My houserule is that Nature oracles use the druid list.
an enlightened bloodrager casts druid spells and still uses cha and voice of the wild bards can cast druid spells while continuing to use cha.
I guess the part I'm confused about is how druid even fits into the question. Sorcerers are Spontaneous arcane casters who use cha and Oracles are Spontaneous divine casters who use cha. Druids are divine casters in the same way that Witches are arcane spell casters.
So, asking why isn't there a cha based druid makes as much sense as asking why isn't there a cha based witch class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides the feyspeaker druid there's also fey trickster mesmerists, gathlain bards using their alternate FCB, and hunt caller skalds. The answer to the OP's question is "there actually are, but they're kind of obscure".
Sure, there are archetypes and variants, but not a full class that is a charisma based Druid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was going to BS something with themes...
Cha is the stat using your force of will to move your own power onto the world. Sorcerers use their will to move the magic in their blood, and oracles are forces of nature themselves because divine power was shoved into their heads (and that entails all of the side effects you would expect when things are stabbed into your head). (it is also the stat for forcing your will upon others directly, as seen with bards, mesmerists, and any CHA check in the summoning stuff).
Wisdom is the stat typically used to commune with another power. It is the stat for feeling out the outside power and managing the flow of that power as it enters you. Thus, clerics take in the power of their god, and druids take in the power of nature.
Taking this kind of view- there is not enough of an distinct image to allow a full class with a cha focus. As I said- clerics and oracles are distinct. One gently lets power flow into them, while the other is power itself.
While you can play with fey related things to get cha based nature stuff (fey are whimsical and force their will upon others), it just doesn't seem distinct enough to be worth an entirely different class. It is "druid, but with a slight fey focus". That is only at the archetype level of distinct images. Heck- its niche is already filled in by the Sylvan sorcerer.
sidenote- just going to put in my BS for int to, for completion's sake: int is the stat for precisely calculated magic. I am a bit vague on possible sources for the power, but I'd imagine it is largely about using minimal magical potential and then figuring out ways to leverage it against forces around you to gain proper spell effects. Thus, it tends to need more prep, and there are few examples of spontaneous casting with int casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking further about class concepts, a comparison of the 'nature' classes might be useful:
Rangers are martial characters, and their ability to use channel nature's power is simply a side thing that comes from their gradual familiarity with nature (as they learn how to track and hunt their targets).
Druids are fully immersed in nature's power, allowing it to come in and even alter their bodies. Despite this focus on the flesh, they still have full spellcasting ability.
Hunters... it was a bit risky to do a hybrid class between ranger and druid (since it will be less martial than the ranger and less magic than the druid)... but it came into its own since it focused on a central concept of animal companions- it focuses its abilities on improving and training their pets, and learning how to better coordinate with their partners. So it worked out well enough.
But the shifter actually brings up the problem of creating ANOTHER nature class- it lacks a distinct core concept that differentiates it. It wildshapes, but it is not as skilled at it as the druid. It does melee, but it doesn't have really seem to have the high potential of the ranger. Even its minor aspects are just an imitation of a side mechanic from the hunters.
That is why you will have trouble making an entirely new nature class, rather than just a druid archetype. You will immediately become compared to druids- "it is just like a druid without wildshape", much like how the shifter is "a druid without spells".
I will note- part of the problem is that the druid and the ranger are too rich. Druids have spells, a companion, and wildshape (and a bit of melee ability as a result of its forms). Rangers have a companion, a bit of spells, martial prowess, and enough skill points/support abilities to be a bit of a skill monkey. They each cover a lot of ground.
Part of why oracles could stand out was because clerics had 'meh' side abilities usually, while oracles are really, really rich with those. Of course, clerics are still great because they can get their whole spell list on hand after a bit of notice.