| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Druid is a relatively polarizing caster in PF2e: although some do love the class's flavor and some of the builds that can be achieved, they also have a reputation for lacking "wow" features on the same scale as, say, the Cleric's divine font slots or the Bard's compositions. They're not the weakest caster around, but they also often underwhelm due to a perceived lack of standout features. My opinion has always been that the Druid is equipped to do their job as a primal caster: they have the HP, armor proficiency, Shield Block feat, and ability to build Strength to get up close and personal, which means they can do stuff other casters can't always do as well, like use gouging claw without exposing themselves as much as a 6 HP/level cloth caster, and their starting package is solid enough for the class to feel substantial. However, playing a Druid at high level has changed my opinion of the class somewhat, and after giving it some though, I think I've figured out why.
Essentially, a lot of the Druid's "unique" power can be obtained through general or class feats at a very early level, and these feats tend to be at their most effective at early to mid levels. Just to explain where I'm coming from, let's do a comparison between the Druid and the most obvious alternative, the Cloistered Cleric.
Just to highlight the commonalities: both are 8 HP/level Wisdom prepared casters. Both have similar proficiency tracks, including fairly early Fortitude expertise at 3rd level, who can prepare from all the common spells in their spell lists, so those benefits can be crossed out on either side of the equation (though the spell list makes a difference and I'll get to that). Both also get at least one focus spell to start with (though I'll talk a bit about those too). The main asset the Cloistered Cleric has is therefore their 4-to-6 divine font slots, a notably powerful feature. How does the Druid compare?
So if we tally this all up, the Druid's benefits compared to a Cloistered Cleric come down to: three 1st-level general feats, two 1st-level class feats (one of which is more of a ribbon ability), and a minor ribbon feature, with perhaps a slight advantage in spell list, focus spells, and front-loaded proficiencies. This is a whole bunch of stuff, and it does make a difference at early levels when you're wading into melee and putting yourself at more risk, but at high level most of these benefits vanish: you end up with the same AC as a Cloistered Cleric, your Perception and defense end up being the same as well, and focus spells become less important when you have lots of actual spell slots to use... but the Cleric gets 6 max-rank slots to cast heal with.
All of this raises the question: is four 1st-rank heal slots at level 1 worth five, maybe six 1st-level feats? At that stage, perhaps yes, and so the Druid gets to perform well at early levels. Are those same six 1st-level feats worth six 10th-rank heal slots at level 20? In my opinion, absolutely not. I'd even go as far as to say that from 15th level onwards, the Druid has nothing in their class features to really distinguish them from any other caster. Although they have flavorful feats and a good amount of build diversity within their own class, in terms of features they ultimately end up as generic as they come.
As for what to do about this: I personally don't think the Druid needs a huge amount at early levels, necessarily, because that's when they're at their most unique. Perhaps they could start trained in martial weapons to complement their melee playstyle, but in my opinion it's at later levels that they need some kind of boost: in my opinion, what I think could do them the most good is if they broke the mold of other casters and got master Fort saves, but also potentially even master attacks at a very high level, such as 17th or even 19th level. Not only would this guarantee that the Druid's above-average survivability for a caster would remain a feature at all levels, it would also make them unique in a way that could complement their abilities a bit better, particularly their battle form spells. The Druid would still obviously not hit as hard as the average martial, as they'd be behind on their physical attributes and would lack the damage-boosting features that set martials apart, but they'd stand out by having comparable survivability, and the ability to become much better at Striking with the right spells.
The Bard does have the incredibly powerful Maestro muse, though, such that their boosted compositions tend to be a lot more generally effective than the Druid's focus spells all the way through to high level. The Druid for sure gets some good feats, but then so do the Cleric and the Bard now post-remaster, so "has good feats" is no longer the same distinguishing characteristic as it was among premaster spellcasters.
I suppose an underlying theme to a lot of this is that a lot of what used to make the Druid a more standout class isn't so special anymore: it used to be that the divine list was a lot weaker than the primal list, but the gap has shortened by a lot now that the divine list got more spells and spirit damage. Domain spells used to be pretty weak compared to order spells, but they received buffs too, so they're not all that far behind anymore. Casters as a whole used to be really starved for good feats (and I'd argue even the Druid had a bit of this problem premaster), but now caster classes tend to have many more feats worth picking, so the casters with no good feats are more the exception than the rule. With the Cleric specifically, the class's divine font got massively buffed in the remaster and they became a lot less MAD as a result, so that too helped push them as the gold standard for caster balance in my opinion. It's not that the Druid got nerfed or anything, so much that they ended up in an environment where having a good spell list and being statistically strong at early level doesn't cut it the same way it used to.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the order spells, especially the advanced ones, are a lot better.
Primal spell list is a bit better as well, but the heal spells of a cleric are really strong.
Still, i don't see that big of a difference, and surviving the early levels is also worth something.
I do still think that counterbalancing argument goes both ways at higher level: those high-rank spell slots you're spending to heal competently are spell slots you're not spending on other powerful spells, so having an extra reserve of maximally-strong heals is still a massive advantage. The Druid can get focus spells like tempest surge that help make them less reliant on spell slots for sure, but then the Cleric also gets excellent spells like fire ray that have at least equal scaling and thus stay equally relevant at higher levels.
Again, the argument in favor of the Druid's focus spells or feats isn't as strong as it used to be now that many casters have caught up in the remaster: moreover, the consistent issue here is that unlike the cleric's divine font, most of the Druid's strengths are entirely poachable through archetyping: anyone can access those order spells, but many classes simply choose not to, despite the Psychic multiclass being overpicked specifically due to their amps. For this reason, I suspect that the power of the Druid's focus spells is being somewhat overstated here, as they would be poached far more often if they were as strong as they were made out to be.
It's because the Druid cheats - Untamed Shape needs feats to scale past 5th, your Animal Companion needs feats to scale, Tempest Surge has a few late feats that drive it's value up (which is why the other elemental orders need some help). Fire Ray will never be able to be used as a reaction, for instance.
I don't think that's really cheating in the Druid's favor. Animal companions aren't exclusive to Druids (Beastmasters get all the milestone feats at the same levels, plus more companion feats to choose from), and if you're an Animal Order Druid, you'll need to pay those feat taxes for your companion to stay relevant. Untamed Shape, again, needs feat investment to not fall off, and while there is certainly a benefit to be able to enter battle forms at no resource cost, the Druid is by no means the best at using battle forms, certainly not at higher level -- even the Cleric, who isn't known for polymorphing, has access to many battle forms from the Outer Planes from 11th level onwards, just as they also get access to great blasting with spells like spirit blast. Even the focus spell on a reaction, which is itself poachable, isn't exceptional at its level: while the Druid can pick that feat at 6th level to retaliate when critically hit, a Cleric can pick up Divine Rebuttal at that same level for a pseudo-Reactive Strike with a multi-ally save bonus, or Cast Down to have their plentiful divine font spells knock a target prone. What you've described are all things the Druid can do, but none of these describe things the Druid can do better than anyone else -- at the end of the day, the Druid's feats, while fun and interesting, aren't so above the curve that they make up for their lack of features at higher level (and at higher level specifically), whereas other casters do get features that stay relevant at all levels, along with equally fun, interesting, and strong feats.
you missed my point:
my point is that you are NOT using high rank spells for Heals. If you are able to use 7th rank spells, you use 5th rank for heals.
Oh no, I understood your point perfectly fine, I just don't think it makes any sense when stretched to this extent. Using a 5th-rank heal instead of a 10th-rank heal is literally half the healing: fine I guess if you have nothing better to do on your turn except top up an ally and maybe stop persistent bleed damage that hasn't yet hit them, not so great when an ally gets chunked and needs healing to get out of the danger zone, or when your party ate an AoE and needs to be brought back up a meaningful amount. I would generally not blast with spells 5 ranks below the maximum unless I'm trying to finish someone off with a pocket force barrage, and I don't think healing is a consistent enough exception to that principle. Having seen and played Clerics at high level, their heal font stays just as relevant as at early levels; having the best healing in the game on-tap is just that good.
The poaching issue is something separate, that can point to not feeling "unique enough" but has no merit in "how strong it is". In fact, if they are features strong enough to poach, that only points out that they are actually good things to have as default.
It absolutely does, and I'd say you're the one missing my point here. If power is poachable through feats, that power is neither unique nor by definition exclusive to the class -- if it truly is that strong, everyone can and will pick it. The fact that the Druid's feats are not heavily poached, especially not when other casters like the Oracle or Psychic find their own power poached frequently, indicates that they are not in fact single-handedly good enough to redeem the class's lack of unique features as you've argued, certainly not at high level.
And again, to be clear: the point here isn't that the Druid lacks benefits at all levels. As the OP mentions, the Druid is actually quite a good caster at early levels thanks to all of those free feats they get. The trouble is that most of those feats are especially strong early on and then fall off at later levels: medium armor proficiency isn't an advantage at level 15 when you end up with just as much AC as a Wizard, and as Ryangwy points out, several of the Druid's free feats at 1st level need continuous feat support to not fall off. This is, in many ways, an inverse of the Wizard discussion: whereas the Wizard is a class that starts off super-weak and then gets a fair bit better at the levels past which most APs end, the Druid is a class that starts off capably strong at those early levels and then runs out of unique benefits to offer compared to, say, a Cleric or even a primal Witch. It's not a burning issue for that same reason, but it still bears mentioning.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, you seem to be assuming that the primal and divine spells are identical and that clerics and druids fill the same role in the group.
If I want to play a blaster I'm playing a druid and all your analysis above is kinda off the point.
If I want to play a healer I'm playing a cleric and all your analysis above is kinda off the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The druid is great because of its entire package. If you don't use the entire package available to you, the druid will feel underwhelming. If you use all the tools in the druid's arsenal, it's one of the strongest casters in the game.
I would say the main druid issues are similar to the barbarian issues: narrow number of useful builds. Storm, Wild, and Animal are the only powerful builds for the druid. Every other build is a "meh." You can try them, but you'll be underwhelmed.
If you build storm, untamed, and animal in any combination, you'll do great. The orders are not close to balanced against each other. I've tried to build other types of druids and they turn out underwhelming.
Animal is mainly good the first 10 levels. The last 10 levels should be all untamed and storm if you want to be as strong a druid as possible.
If you go storm and wild, you'll feel like one of the more powerful and versatile casters in the game.
Narrow focus for power is the only issue with the druid. It's also the same for a lot of classes like the rogue, barbarian, and champion. Probably most classes have a pretty narrow group of feats or class features that set them apart.
Uh, you seem to be assuming that the primal and divine spells are identical and that clerics and druids fill the same role in the group.
Uh, no I'm not?
The primal spell list is arguably a bit stronger than the divine spell list even when factoring in Cleric spells granted by deities, though this gap has significantly lessened post-remaster.
Literally right there in the OP; the two spell lists are different, and it is in fact the primal spell list that I consider stronger than the divine list, though not by much. Also:
even the Cleric, who isn't known for polymorphing, has access to many battle forms from the Outer Planes from 11th level onwards, just as they also get access to great blasting with spells like spirit blast.
Not exactly the kind of thing that would be said if the assumption was that these two spell lists were identical.
If I want to play a blaster I'm playing a druid and all your analysis above is kinda off the point.
If I want to play a healer I'm playing a cleric and all your analysis above is kinda off the point.
It's a bit weird that you'd accuse me of holding two spell lists to narrow and false generalizations when you're reducing these two classes down to incredibly blinkered stereotypes. The Cleric can be a great blaster even from early levels with the right domains, just as the Druid can be a capable healer when built for it. In fact, in the Cleric's case their heal font is what allows them to not limit themselves to being "the healer", because they can prepare tons of non-healing spells and still have incredibly powerful healing on-tap. Meanwhile, the Druid very much does have heal in their spell list, and can even access resourceless healing with cornucopia. Stating your personal preference as objective fact is what's "off the point" in this discussion, and nothing you've stated has any relevance to the actual topic of discussion, which is the Druid's performance at high level compared to other casters.
The druid is great because of its entire package. If you don't use the entire package available to you, the druid will feel underwhelming. If you use all the tools in the druid's arsenal, it's one of the strongest casters in the game.
I'm not sure that's really here nor there. The Druid's "package" was brought up as a positive here from the OP onwards -- just as was the observation that the unique benefits that constitute this package fall off at higher levels. At 15th level, your AC in medium armor will be the same as the unarmored Cloistered Cleric's, for example, and your earlier-ranked Perception and save proficiencies will be the exact same as well. You will certainly have power from your focus spells and feats -- but then again, so will the Cloistered Cleric, and they get their divine font to boot. The Druid is fine at early levels, but lacks unique benefits from their features at high levels compared to other classes, is the point being made.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, you seem to be assuming that the primal and divine spells are identical and that clerics and druids fill the same role in the group.Uh, no I'm not?
The primal spell list is arguably a bit stronger than the divine spell list even when factoring in Cleric spells granted by deities, though this gap has significantly lessened post-remaster.Literally right there in the OP; the two spell lists are different, and it is in fact the primal spell list that I consider stronger than the divine list, though not by much. Also:
even the Cleric, who isn't known for polymorphing, has access to many battle forms from the Outer Planes from 11th level onwards, just as they also get access to great blasting with spells like spirit blast.Not exactly the kind of thing that would be said if the assumption was that these two spell lists were identical.
It's a bit weird that you'd accuse me of holding two spell lists to narrow and false generalizations when you're reducing these two classes down to incredibly blinkered stereotypes. The Cleric can be a great blaster even from early levels with the right domains, just as the Druid can be a capable healer when built for it. In fact, in the Cleric's case their heal font is what allows them to not limit themselves to being "the healer", because they can prepare tons of non-healing spells and still have incredibly powerful healing on-tap. Meanwhile, the Druid very much does have heal in their spell list, and can even access resourceless healing with cornucopia. Stating your personal preference as objective fact is what's "off the point" in this discussion, and nothing you've stated has any relevance to the actual topic of...If I want to play a blaster I'm playing a druid and all your analysis above is kinda off the point.
If I want to play a healer I'm playing a cleric and all your analysis above is kinda off the point.
The druid is a damage machine. If you're not playing them as a damage source inflicting multiple forms of damage, then you will feel underwhelming.
Even at higher level, the druids I have played are outdamaging martials over the course of fights.
I'm not sure how you are building if you are disappointed by the druid at higher level. I'm not sure what you're doing.
I know with 100 percent certainty, the druid can be built to hammer very, very hard while providing healing. It is far stronger than the cleric at doing this.
The high level feats for the druid are much better than the cleric.
What are you doing to make the high level druid perform so badly? Do you want to provide specific evidence?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really hard to call the druid bad or underwhelming in general imo. As a caster it works pretty well, being wis focused and running off a reasonable versatile spell list is nice.
... But it is kind of odd that the Druid lacks an obvious core class feature. Literally every caster has some kind of unique feature and it's really striking the druid just... doesn't. No font, no subclass mechanic, no unique cantrip, no damage bonus, nothing.
Uh, you seem to be assuming that the primal and divine spells are identical and that clerics and druids fill the same role in the group.
If I want to play a blaster I'm playing a druid and all your analysis above is kinda off the point.
If I want to play a healer I'm playing a cleric and all your analysis above is kinda off the point.
I don't feel like that really addresses anything in the OP though. Like, yeah if you don't want to play a cleric you won't play a cleric, but that doesn't mean the Druid's core features are good or interesting either.
I kind of despise posts like this. You're both acknowledging you haven't read the OP (because he literally says that the spell lists are different and he's mostly comparing them because their cores are so similar) and arguing a point that completely sidesteps any of their actual criticisms while still pretending to refute them.
It's a waste of everyone's time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druid talk good to animal
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And some druid talk good to plant
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... But it is kind of odd that the Druid lacks an obvious core class feature. Literally every caster has some kind of unique feature and it's really striking the druid just... doesn't. No font, no subclass mechanic, no unique cantrip, no damage bonus, nothing.
No, they essentially have subclasses. Animal, wild shape, storm, etc.
You can pick 2 and be very good at them or more and be decent.
They're not quite subclasses but they pretty much fill the same design space,
I kind of despise posts like this.
I admit that I skimmed the original quite long post and didn't catch all the details. For that I apologize.
But in my defence it was quite a long post and his vague comments on spell lists was very close to the end.
And I just totally disagree with the conclusion. I think it is SO completely wrong that I didn't pay as much attention to all the details of his argument as I should have.
In my opinion, even post remaster, the Cleric and Druid fill different roles. And they both fill their role well. At pretty much all levels.
You certainly can NOT just dismiss two of the largest differences (the quality of the Primal vs Divine spell lists and the quality of Druid vs Cleric focus spells with a breezy
The primal spell list is arguably a bit stronger than the divine spell list even when factoring in Cleric spells granted by deities, though this gap has significantly lessened post-remaster. The Druid's focus spells are also arguably a bit better than domain spells, though that gap has also lessened following the remaster's buffs to the latter.
I fully agree that the remaster has significantly improved the Divine spell list and Cleric focus spells, but they are still inferior to the Primal and Druid focus spells for the kinds of things that a druid concentrates on . The cleric definitely wins out in the things that it usually concentrates on
Druid talk good to animal
And some druid talk good to plant
And some druid not talk good to people
Feel pointless
Like favorite stick used as club
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... But it is kind of odd that the Druid lacks an obvious core class feature. Literally every caster has some kind of unique feature and it's really striking the druid just... doesn't. No font, no subclass mechanic, no unique cantrip, no damage bonus, nothing.
No, they essentially have subclasses. Animal, wild shape, storm, etc.
You can pick 2 and be very good at them or more and be decent.
They're not quite subclasses but they pretty much fill the same design space,
Druids have subclasses, via Orders, but those orders just define one of your skills, your focus spell, and your first level feat. The odd thing about the druid is there's no actual casting feature. There's nothing comparable to apparitions, or courageous anthem, or font, or psi cantrips/unleash, or blood magic/potency, or hex cantrips and familiar powers, or thesis.
These abilities aren't all even remotely the same, but note how almost every single caster has at least one unique feature like this.
The only other class that doesn't is the Oracle... which gets trashed for its identity problems, so it's interesting seeing Druid in a similar space getting so aggressively defended for it instead.
You certainly can NOT just dismiss two of the largest differences (the quality of the Primal vs Divine spell lists and the quality of Druid vs Cleric focus spells with a breezy
Sure you can, when it's not really the point of discussion. Paizo's own statements have been that each spell list is treated equally anyways, so it wouldn't be a point of balance for class design anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... But it is kind of odd that the Druid lacks an obvious core class feature. Literally every caster has some kind of unique feature and it's really striking the druid just... doesn't. No font, no subclass mechanic, no unique cantrip, no damage bonus, nothing.
No, they essentially have subclasses. Animal, wild shape, storm, etc.
You can pick 2 and be very good at them or more and be decent.
They're not quite subclasses but they pretty much fill the same design space,
Druids have subclasses, via Orders, but those orders just define one of your skills, your focus spell, and your first level feat. The odd thing about the druid is there's no actual casting feature. There's nothing comparable to apparitions, or courageous anthem, or font, or psi cantrips/unleash, or blood magic/potency, or hex cantrips and familiar powers, or thesis.
These abilities aren't all even remotely the same, but note how almost every single caster has at least one unique feature like this.
The only other class that doesn't is the Oracle... which gets trashed for its identity problems, so it's interesting seeing Druid in a similar space getting so aggressively defended for it instead.
You certainly can NOT just dismiss two of the largest differences (the quality of the Primal vs Divine spell lists and the quality of Druid vs Cleric focus spells with a breezySure you can, when it's not really the point of discussion. Paizo's own statements have been that each spell list is treated equally anyways, so it wouldn't be a point of balance for class design anyways.
The druid has feats no one else can access to make Untamed Form very good.
It has good weapons, armor, free shield block, 8 hit points, wisdom as a base spellcasting stat, legendary casting, it's the only wisdom caster that gets Effortless concentration.
Druid can do physical weapon damage, blaster damage, heal, lots of condition removal.
The druid may not have a specific specialty like divine font for healing or a bard's buffing, but the overall package has a ton stuffed into it that makes its stand out on its own.
No other class can really do what a druid can do all in the same class.
Every stat boost can be focused on Str, Dex, Con, and Wis for every save boosted and decent melee capability for a caster.
I feel like the designers looked at the total druid package and felt it had enough packed into the feats and overall chassis it didn't really need something specific. Druids have always been this jack of all trades class and PF2 keeps that going.
You can make them for so many roles and fit them into any party. That in itself is a unique ability.
This is why I say the main issue with the druid is a narrow focus. If you are not doing storm, wild, or animal, you will be inferior. Though wild can make the other ones decent too.
Wild is the main path for every druid to standout and be the versatile, crazy combat machine they are.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's some rough edges on the druid that could use improvement, but I think at the core it's a really solid class;
- good spell list
- armor proficiency at level 1, which really helps you over a hump
- solid durability through the rest of the game: decent HP, saves, armor proficiency, can now use metal shields & reinforcement runes are a thing. Also, your key ability requirements are very compatible with keeping wis/con/dex high.
- battle form allows you to not worry too much about strength or spending on weapons (for those fights where melee seems better than spells).
Things I'm not that wild (pun intended) about:
- not all of the orders are exciting. The elemental ones feel a bit like a "ok we now have to write stuff for every element and there are sooo many elements now".
- companion creatures require a LOT of feat upkeep and the endgame is not that great. Late game companions should be more durable and probably also more mobile. Just getting them into the fray can be tricky in the higher mobility late game environment. If you have to spend too much time fixing your companion's problems, they end up left behind.
- abilities like talking to plants and animals nudge you a little bit in the direction of charisma and social skills, but there's not quite enough there for a social druid to really take off as a build.
It's really hard to call the druid bad or underwhelming in general imo. As a caster it works pretty well, being wis focused and running off a reasonable versatile spell list is nice.
... But it is kind of odd that the Druid lacks an obvious core class feature. Literally every caster has some kind of unique feature and it's really striking the druid just... doesn't. No font, no subclass mechanic, no unique cantrip, no damage bonus, nothing.
I agree. I think what got lost in translation, at least to a few commenters here, is that this isn't at thread about the Druid being bad in general or even at all: the Druid is absolutely fantastic at lower to mid levels, and does exactly what they're supposed to. The issue being pointed out is that The Druid's standout benefits fizzle out at high levels, such that past 15th level onwards the class has no unique features. The class thankfully has good feats and a fun spell list to play with, but that's neither here nor there: if you're playing at high level, you're not going to get that AC advantage from the Druid like you would at lower level, and you'll have so much room for general feats that you'd be able to get Shield Block too if you really wanted to fit that into your build. I get that most people don't really play at high level or care much about it, but the Druid I think could use a little something to help them stand out better at those stages.
There's some rough edges on the druid that could use improvement, but I think at the core it's a really solid class;
- good spell list
- armor proficiency at level 1, which really helps you over a hump
- solid durability through the rest of the game: decent HP, saves, armor proficiency, can now use metal shields & reinforcement runes are a thing. Also, your key ability requirements are very compatible with keeping wis/con/dex high.
- battle form allows you to not worry too much about strength or spending on weapons (for those fights where melee seems better than spells).Things I'm not that wild (pun intended) about:
- not all of the orders are exciting. The elemental ones feel a bit like a "ok we now have to write stuff for every element and there are sooo many elements now".
- companion creatures require a LOT of feat upkeep and the endgame is not that great. Late game companions should be more durable and probably also more mobile. Just getting them into the fray can be tricky in the higher mobility late game environment. If you have to spend too much time fixing your companion's problems, they end up left behind.
- abilities like talking to plants and animals nudge you a little bit in the direction of charisma and social skills, but there's not quite enough there for a social druid to really take off as a build.
I can agree that the Druid could use some sprucing up, so to speak, but to be clear: this isn't a "Druid bad" thread. I personally love the Druid, and I think the class is objectively very strong... at early levels. The criticism being made here relates to the benefits you cite, which fall off at high level: this isn't relevant for most Druid players in most APs, but if you're one of the handful of people who's playing a Druid at, say, 20th level, you're basically playing a generic primal caster with no standout class features. Fun feats and spells, don't get me wrong, but no standout class features. Meanwhile, other casters like the Bard, the Cleric, even the Wizard get to have the spells, the feats, and the standout features at that level, all at once.
I mean it cheats compared to the psychic/cleric/whoever else has poachable 1st and 2nd stuff in that the druid's good stuff needs investment, investment that is prohibitively expensive for a multiclass.
And like, generally, the druid just gets the stuff every caster wants faster, with less feat investment, using fewer spell slots than every other caster.
Right, but is this good stuff so much better than equivalent feats on other classes that it makes up for a lack of class features at very high level? The point I'm arguing is that no, it's not, in fact a lot of the "good stuff" on the Druid isn't even necessarily unique to the class, nor is it above the curve compared to other caster feats at similar levels.
For one, I think you're mixing up the warpriest and the cloistered cleric when describing the cleric in your analysis - the cloistered cleric has serious durability problems right up to the end of the game if they aren't blowing feats on armour (and then they have a speed problem) while the warpriest can't make full use of maxed Wis casting. The druid gets both, and that stays relevant up til like... 17? There's no one thing the druid excels in compared to other casters, but the druid can simultaneously be second best at everything and that's rare for PF2e classes.
I think you got your levels mixed up. Just to lay it out plainly:
So the Druid being "second best" at lots of things is certainly true at lower levels, but a myth at high levels. At high levels, the Druid is just a primal caster with feats that are about as good as any other caster's. Still fun, but lacking in standout features, as per the OP.
The druid is a damage machine. If you're not playing them as a damage source inflicting multiple forms of damage, then you will feel underwhelming.
I'm not quite sure where this is coming from, as I never once complained about the Druid's damage. In fact, I didn't even claim that the Druid performs badly, so I'm not sure which part of my posts your rebuttal is even meant to answer. I'd instead ask you to refer to the above and the analysis in the OP, which describes exactly what my issues with the Druid are: if you still think this is about damage or overall performance, let me know, but this is about the Druid's core class features at high level.
Aparently not.
Especially if you need hyperboles to drive your point.
If you are having 10th rank Font as the Cleric, you are using 7th-8th rank Heals as the Druid, not 5th.
Hang on, why are we moving the goalposts here? The point of comparison was the Cleric's 10th-rank divine font, so a 5th-rank heal is going to be quite literally half the healing. That's not hyperbole, and even if I had made the claim that the Druid were using 10th-rank slots to heal, which I didn't, then that would just be a false claim, not hyperbole either.
But also, speaking of false claims, you seem to be insisting on the assumption that the Druid will never be using 9th-rank slots to heal: why is that? Even compared to just 7th- or 8th-rank slots, casting a 5th-rank heal is substantially less effective already, but compared to a 9th-rank slot, which you have three of, that's only slightly over half the healing.
The math is pretty simple imo:
At easrly levels, the font is stronger because it's overall more spells compared to your slots. At later levels, it's weaker because it's less.
That's not really how spell slots work. Higher-rank spells are stronger than lower-rank spells, such that being able to cast lots of higher-rank spells remains a substantial benefit across all levels. I'm also not sure why you're abstracting this far when the benefits can be made much more concrete with a divine font: being able to heal a single target 125 HP on average in two actions, or the entire party 45 HP each, is a huge boon when the average party member will have around 270-310 max HP. That's between half and a third of a party member's max HP in one go with the two-action version, and a huge safety net. That you get six of these each day as a bonus to your spell slots is a huge boon.
At early levels, the druid features are stronger because no one has enough resources to pick up all the goodies he gets for free. At later levels it's weaker because you have those resources to pick up some of them.
This I think is what's actually missing the point: as already pointed out to you, the Druid's features don't just lessen in relative benefits over time, some of them disappear entirely. Again, medium armor expertise isn't a benefit over unarmored defense expertise at 15th level, because your AC will be literally the same as that of a Wizard or a Cloistered Cleric with +5 Dex. This isn't hyperbole, this is a verifiable statement of fact. At the end, you're trying to equivocate six 10th-rank spell slots with a bunch of 1st-level feats that at those levels are either extremely easy to include in your build (there's not exactly a huge number of great general feats to choose from), or that have ceased to provide additional benefits: that is hyperbole. That is arguing based on feelings over facts. Accusing me of not liking the Druid when I've stated in the OP that I think the class is strong early on and have played a Druid up to high level is wild: at best, you've skimmed the OP much like pauljathome; at worst you've deliberately tried to twist this conversation into something it's not as a bizarre form of revenge for past arguments we've had on these forums. In both cases, though, your replies here have been completely off-base.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's really hard to call the druid bad or underwhelming in general imo. As a caster it works pretty well, being wis focused and running off a reasonable versatile spell list is nice.
... But it is kind of odd that the Druid lacks an obvious core class feature. Literally every caster has some kind of unique feature and it's really striking the druid just... doesn't. No font, no subclass mechanic, no unique cantrip, no damage bonus, nothing.
I agree. I think what got lost in translation, at least to a few commenters here, is that this isn't at thread about the Druid being bad in general or even at all: the Druid is absolutely fantastic at lower to mid levels, and does exactly what they're supposed to. The issue being pointed out is that The Druid's standout benefits fizzle out at high levels, such that past 15th level onwards the class has no unique features. The class thankfully has good feats and a fun spell list to play with, but that's neither here nor there: if you're playing at high level, you're not going to get that AC advantage from the Druid like you would at lower level, and you'll have so much room for general feats that you'd be able to get Shield Block too if you really wanted to fit that into your build. I get that most people don't really play at high level or care much about it, but the Druid I think could use a little something to help them stand out better at those stages.
...There's some rough edges on the druid that could use improvement, but I think at the core it's a really solid class;
- good spell list
- armor proficiency at level 1, which really helps you over a hump
- solid durability through the rest of the game: decent HP, saves, armor proficiency, can now use metal shields & reinforcement runes are a thing. Also, your key ability requirements are very compatible with keeping wis/con/dex high.
- battle form allows you to not worry too much about strength or spending on weapons (for those fights where melee seems
As someone that played a druid, most casters don't get a huge number of unique features past 15th level, at least very few worth taking.
Most of the caster level 20 feats are similar.
The druid is a caster with a lot of martial ability tacked on to the chassis.
The druid is the only class that can use the battle form well. In my experience, that is its most unique feature. This gives it a huge amount of flexibility in many ears of the game.
Level 18 is perfect form which let's you stay in a battle form indefinitely. No other class can do this. This gives them very decent martial ability.
With Untamed Form, I've done tons of stuff:
1. Flanked in three dimensions flying creatures.
2. Pounded through a wall of force before other martials could with the 4d10+11 earth elemental battle form at level 13.
3. Tripped dragons and other flying creatures out of the air with dragon form with Legendary athletics.
4. Flown groups across hazards in dragon form.
It's a limited niche and very locked in, but Untamed Form is the unique power of the druid that offers a level of versatility and superiority with battle forms no one else has or can obtain.
Using class feats is how they carried over the shapechanging ability of the PF1 druid which made them very powerful in that game as well.
You could improve some of the other orders, but you'd still want to stack them with Untamed Form and none of them would equal what you can do with Untamed Form.
Untamed Form is the cornerstone, unique ability of the druid and no other class does it better. Everything else you stack with it is just more gravy on the meat and potatoes that is Untamed Form.
It's great at early levels and great at high levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Untamed Form is better than a high level font. More versatile and more useful at high levels.
Fonts are great at lower level, but kind of redundant at high level where you have so many hit points and wipe stuff out so fast you wait for between combat healing. You can usually get enough from an occasional heal than needing those 6 healing font heals which are super limited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even though at high levels someone wearing explorer clothing will have the same AC the real advantage that medium armor has is ability to have the fortification rune. It's why I wouldn't use light armor with a druid.
I mean it's, well, from my view of seeing players play them the druid just happens to be feat efficient enough at low levels that it feels very complete at high levels, especially if you aren't playing unlimited FA. They have three solid lines (AC, Untamed, Storm) that they get for less feat investment than other classes and Wis primary plus medium armour means they have a lot of flex in their stat allocation and all of that compounds.
But again, that's literally the opposite of the truth. All of these are lines of power that require more feat investment than things other classes can do with just one feat or feature, and several of these are things other classes can do just as well too. Similarly, classes like the Cleric or Animist are equally good at stat flex, and the latter gets medium armor proficiency as well on top of a heap of other benefits, including massively powerful and efficient feats along with auto-scaling battle form focus spells. While the Druid can certainly still feel fun to play at high level, they ultimately do end up as a generic caster, and lack the edge in durability they start out with over other casters.
As someone that played a druid, most casters don't get a huge number of unique features past 15th level, at least very few worth taking.
I don't think that's terribly relevant to the point being made here, which is that the Druid's features fall off at high levels while other caster classes' features stay relevant at high levels. Again, see how the AC gap between a Druid and a Cloistered Cleric lessens over time. The Druid can certainly do cool stuff at high level, but then so can most other casters, including through feats and focus spells, so that is not a unique characteristic of the Druid.
The suggestion made in the OP isn't to give the Druid custom-made new features either, but to bump up their Fort save proficiency to master at high level and perhaps even give them master Strikes at level 19: this isn't about making the Druid play like a completely different class, so much as retaining the advantages they have over most other casters at early levels in a manner that would benefit what they do, like shapeshifting. While the master Strikes could perhaps be contentious, several other casters do get extra bumps to their save proficiencies at high level, even if the precedent right now is to bump one save up to legendary (and usually Will saves, though the Necromancer will be doing the same with Fort saves). None of this would affect the Druid at low level either, because the class is already fantastic there.
I never moved any goalposts, you did.
I specifically said, in the post you quoted "if you have 7th rank spells, you use 5th rank heals".
So that's not quite what you've said. This is what you've actually said:
you missed my point:
my point is that you are NOT using high rank spells for Heals. If you are able to use 7th rank spells, you use 5th rank for heals.
And so as a follow-up response to this part of the OP:
All of this raises the question: is four 1st-rank heal slots at level 1 worth five, maybe six 1st-level feats? At that stage, perhaps yes, and so the Druid gets to perform well at early levels. Are those same six 1st-level feats worth six 10th-rank heal slots at level 20? In my opinion, absolutely not. I'd even go as far as to say that from 15th level onwards, the Druid has nothing in their class features to really distinguish them from any other caster. Although they have flavorful feats and a good amount of build diversity within their own class, in terms of features they ultimately end up as generic as they come.
Emphasis added for your convenience. I'd be happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you somehow missed this part of my post that you nonetheless directly responded to, but even so, you're spending an awful lot of time arguing on the letter of the discussion rather than the substance, so I'd ask you to spend a bit more time on the latter instead.
Even if we do generalize to using max rank-2 or max rank-3 slots to heal, once again, that is still substantially less healing. An 8th-rank heal will heal 20% less than a 10th-rank heal, and a 7th-rank heal will heal 30% less. Similarly a 5th-rank heal would also heal about 28% less than a 7th-rank heal, so choosing lower-level spell ranks makes it in fact even more evident that casting that same spell with a lower-rank slot will lead to substantially less healing. The Cleric's ability to heal six extra times at maximum effectiveness is a feature that is not only relevant at high levels, but extremely powerful, to say nothing of their ability to massively increase the effectiveness and versatility of their font spells through their feats.
I agree. "X can be modeled as a variant of Y, so it's not unique" analysis has a big 'so what' factor for me, because in a real game you will be unique - one of 4-5 characters, not all casters, and the casters are unlikely to spend Y resources over the first 10+ levels to look like your X. The fact that it's possible 'on paper' to create a cleric that looks kinda like a druid doesn't take away from the druid.
Though I'd add that it IS unique in being the only WIS-primal caster in the game. That's a strong combo - initiative/perception, will save, medic, plus a blaster list. And it's something no other caster has.
The big problem with this is that this doesn't lead to very solid design by itself -- if the Cleric had no distinguishing class features simply because being a Wisdom divine prepared caster was enough, they'd run into a lot of trouble with the release of the Animist. Of course a party is going to try to avoid picking two of the same kind of character, but that does mean that some choices get passed over in favor of others: if you're running a level 20 one-shot, picking a Druid isn't going to really give you all that much compared to, say, a primal Sorcerer or Witch, who wouldn't suffer terribly from poor AC at those levels but would instead be able to leverage the full might of the primal spell list as more than just a generic primal caster. Even at low levels, the Druid struggles to stand out to many players who just don't see the "wow" factor in the class. Even after explaining that they get armor proficiencies, Shield Block, and good HP that you don't all get in one go on any other class, that's still kind of a tough sell compared to "I get four extra spell slots at level 1", or even "I get a bonus to all my spell damage and healing". And to be clear: I'm fine with that, because at low levels the Druid genuinely does stand out positively from other classes. At high levels, however, those advantages fade, and that's specifically the bit I'd like to address.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like cleric and wizard have much the same malaise, at higher levels you don't get all that many class features. Just better numbers and bigger spells.
The general efficiency of the druid chassis isn't really flashy but it's very viable. Most of your abilities may be poachable but not as cheaply and as efficiently as you can pick them up.
There's also a "soft" dimension that's more based on how your campaign plays; do you spend a lot of time casting rituals to improve the harvest, communing with the forest, awakening animals etcetera? Meanwhile the cleric is off shepherding a congregation, communing with angels and all that. I think a lot of class identity is also supposed to be based on those kinds of things. But if you're mostly dungeon crawling those things don't have as much impact in making classes distinct.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wild is the main path for every druid to standout and be the versatile, crazy combat machine they are.
I love wild shaping druids but to be fair they DO have 2 huge issues
1) the mid to high level shapes need a lot of room. Wild shaping druids do much better in the wilderness than in cramped dungeons.
2) the usefulness of the combat forms drops off significantly at the highest levels.
Also, the remaster change to the monk archetype flurry have significantly weakened wild shape (I think it was a good change, mind, as poaching the monks defining ability was too good)
In my experience, Wild Shaping always remains a viable part of the druids kit, but it gets used less and less often past level 12 or so.
Also, the druid is no longer the clearly best wild shaper. Animists are also contenders in that role (there are tradeoffs and I think they're fairly balanced).
And, of course, there is still the fact that there are huge rules ambiguities around Battle Forms which means they're just better at some tables than others
I feel like cleric and wizard have much the same malaise, at higher levels you don't get all that many class features. Just better numbers and bigger spells.
The general efficiency of the druid chassis isn't really flashy but it's very viable. Most of your abilities may be poachable but not as cheaply and as efficiently as you can pick them up.
There's also a "soft" dimension that's more based on how your campaign plays; do you spend a lot of time casting rituals to improve the harvest, communing with the forest, awakening animals etcetera? Meanwhile the cleric is off shepherding a congregation, communing with angels and all that. I think a lot of class identity is also supposed to be based on those kinds of things. But if you're mostly dungeon crawling those things don't have as much impact in making classes distinct.
I can agree with a lot of this: the Druid is an inherently very flavorful class, because druids as an archetype have a rich history to them where they're community leaders involved in every aspect of day-to-day life, from farming to healing to child-rearing. Even with exactly the same features or more, a primal Sorcerer or Witch is going to feel different to a druid, because their relationship to nature and the archetype they embody is going to be fundamentally different. In this respect I'm a bit disappointed at having to constantly justify my liking for the Druid, because I really do love the class and what they represent in the fiction of Pathfinder. I'll also firmly stand by the fact that their chassis is extremely solid at early levels, and will readily advocate for the Druid whenever a player considers picking the class at level 1 and struggles to see what they bring to the table.
However, that same love for the Druid is also why I'm advocating for them getting a little something more at high level. The Cleric and Wizard may not necessarily receive brand-new features at high level (few casters do), but they still have the benefit of unique class features from level 1 that a) continue to stand out at high level, and b) are impossible to poach. Not difficult, impossible. You will never get a divine font if you're not a Cleric, and you will never get an arcane thesis if you're not a Wizard. However, your Cleric and Wizard can and eventually will reach the same AC as a Druid without even having to take feats, along with the same proficiency ranks in Perception and saves (though unlike the Cleric, the Wizard won't reach the same Perception and Will save modifiers). Your Druid may be full of flavor, but that in itself is not unique when the Cleric or Wizard will also be doing really flavorful things of their own, including casting rituals, communing with entities from beyond, even awakening animals in some cases too (for science!). Effectively, past a certain level, the caster meant to be exceptionally robust is no more robust than a priest of the cloth, and in fact that priest of the cloth will be even better at making certain Strikes thanks to their access to critical specialization effects, something the Druid doesn't get. That distinguishing benefit is lost, which makes a difference when choosing which characters to play when starting an adventure or one-shot at a high level.
And that's why I think the class could stand to benefit from essentially a couple of targeted proficiency bumps: if the Druid got master Fort saves at 17th level, that wouldn't break the bank in terms of power budget, but it would certainly cement the class's place as one of the most robust casters in the game. While not strictly necessary, master Strikes at 19th level would mean that you'd get to Strike at a -2 relative to martials rather than a -4, retaining the smaller difference found at earlier levels that makes the Druid exceptionally effective at using their many Strike-based primal spells. In neither case do I believe this would overpower the Druid, certainly not at earlier levels where these proficiency bumps would have no effect, but in both cases I think this would help the class feel truly unique from other casters at very high levels in ways that are directly relevant to their class identity.
In my experience, Wild Shaping always remains a viable part of the druids kit, but it gets used less and less often past level 12 or so.
Also, the druid is no longer the clearly best wild shaper. Animists are also contenders in that role (there are tradeoffs and I think they're fairly balanced).
I can agree with this too. While the Animist I think is several times more powerful than they ought to be, they do very much eat the Druid's lunch in many ways, whether it's their strong starting durability or their focus battle form spells. The two classes very much do not sit in the same balancing bracket. I also do think the Druid's wild shaping isn't quite as impressive at high level as it is early on, especially considering the feat investment that goes into using battle forms as a focus spell. To bring this back to the OP, a couple of proficiency bumps at very high level may be enough to address this.
Then why are you talking about 1st level class features?
It is simple enough to propose a L18 feat to beef up a class that has the problem you suggest.
Welcome to the point. I'm not sure why this has been such a struggle to convey, but my criticism of the Druid is very specifically targeted at their features at high level. I bring up their lower-level features and performance to first off explain that I personally think the Druid is a powerful class at early level (the OP alone makes this pretty clear), but also to point out how these benefits fall off over time, to the point where many of them cease to have a real impact. A class having about six bonus 1st-level feats is really powerful at level 1, much less so at level 20. By contrast, other casters do not suffer from this same problem, because their unique features stay relevant at all levels: four bonus 1st-rank spells at level 1 is really powerful, but then so is six bonus 10th-rank spells at level 20. The Druid is, in this respect, unique in that they're just about the only class that loses distinction from other classes at higher levels, and that in my opinion is a problem that could be easily solved with a proficiency bump or two at those high levels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what got lost in translation ... The issue being pointed out is that The Druid's standout benefits fizzle out at high levels, such that past 15th level onwards the class has no unique features.
Yeah, I totally didn't realize that was your primary issue.
I actually mostly agree with this. At the highest levels the druid is largely (not completely, but largely) "just" a very good spellcaster who can also mix it in melee if they were built that way and it seems a good idea.
But they are still by far the best chassis if you want a primal caster who can mix it in melee. And pretty much on par with other options if you just want a primal caster. 2 extra hit points a level (compared to other primal casters) may be boring but it is ALWAYS quite valuable.
I can live with that. I don't personally find the lack of a "gimmic" problematic.
One other thing to keep in mind. At high levels it is possible to use money or feats for a non druid to get a lot of what the druid gets (eg, wings of flying or ancestry feats instead of growing your own wings, getting armor proficiency, shield block, etc). But the druid gets to spend those resources elsewhere if they want. So, you can't just say " eh, I can get that as a high level cleric". Yeah, you can. But you missed out on SOMETHING else to get it.
I actually mostly agree with this. At the highest levels the druid is largely (not completely, but largely) "just" a very good spellcaster who can also mix it in melee if they were built that way and it seems a good idea.
But they are still by far the best chassis if you want a primal caster who can mix it in melee. And pretty much on par with other options if you just want a primal caster.
I can live with that. I don't personally find the lack of a "gimmic" problematic
That's fair. For me, the issue is that at high level, the Druid doesn't really have the best chassis as a caster in general -- they end up with pretty much the exact same chassis as any Wisdom caster. If the only thing going for them is that they're the only Wisdom primal caster around, that makes them extremely vulnerable to any newly-released class that attempts something similar, like the Animist: despite the class being a divine caster, they get to access a ton of spells and effects that are normally the Druid's "thing", including strong blasting from early on, effective Strikes, and battle forms, all through their focus spells to boot.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that if you want a gishy full caster, your best chassis for it will be not a Druid, but an Animist: they have the exact same starting HP, key attribute, and armor proficiencies as the Druid, and the exact same Fortitude expertise at 3rd level, but also two/three subclasses with significant benefits, several of which can be swapped out every day, and several of which provide not just one, but multiple battle forms that scale up to mid levels, with the high-level gap itself addressed by picking just one feat (that you can also swap out from day to day). The Druid is definitely not the most robust or versatile caster around in this respect, and even their defining contributions require more feat investment compared to the Animist. A lot of this is a problem of the Animist eating the Druid's lunch, along with that of many other classes, but the Druid's current design also really leaves itself wide open to this, if only at high level.
I mean, I won't mind if the druid gets something special at higher level that isn't 'I hope you took Untamed Order at one point', but your advocated change is kind of the opposite of a class identity - it's proficiency increases, and I don't think anyone is saying the monk's unique class identity is being able to choose which saves to boost.
The Monk being able to choose which saves to boost is very much a part of their identity. It's not the only component to their identity, because they have a lot of other features going for them, but it certainly is one of them.
I also do think that the Druid being good due to their stats is already what sets them apart now: the Druid is the ultimate "no frills" caster that just works at low level, because they have all of the starting proficiencies they need to wade into melee, Strike, and survive capably, certainly better than most other casters at those levels. Continuing this trend all the way through to high level would therefore in my opinion be an effective way of pushing the Druid's distinction, because they never needed a flashy feature to do what they do effectively so much as the right stats in the right amounts.
I'll also note that master Strikes wouldn't just benefit morph spells, they'd also benefit untamed form, because your attack modifier would be higher and you'd thus be able to use it with the +2 status bonus. It'd also have the benefit of boosting morph spells too and any other kind of Strike booster, which is why I think it would make sense as one of the capstone features of the class who's meant to make the best use of the entire primal spell list.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There might be something to tinkering with proficiencies to help keep up the class identity. On the one hand you could go wildshape, but you could also focus on shield block and feats like Pristine Weapon which are cool but it doesn't help if your to-hit doesn't keep up.
Maybe one of the orders should focus on keeping up with melee in a more war priest like fashion, perhaps at the cost of some feats. After all, wildshaping (the other melee path) also requires feats to keep going.
I also wonder if there's some wiggle room in the "absolute" wall between battle forms and spellcasting. Maybe as a moderately high level druid spellshape feat you could cast spells during wildshape? Basically, slapping an action tax on it, which has the side effect of making it not so easy to cast spells while staying totally airborne.
I'd still like the Animal Empathy/Plant Empathy feats to have more of a progression in later levels. Where having a druid in the party means some encounters just have completely different outcomes, like the druid talking down or even recruiting what were supposed to be beasts blocking you.
I don't love that these depend hard on Diplomacy; clerics no longer need Charisma for divine font and thaumaturges get a Charisma-based Esoteric Lore. I feel druids should either not depend on Charisma for this at all (why not use Nature?), or there should be a lot more Charisma oriented druidy things, so that this becomes a full-fledged build path to choose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're talking feats, I'm definitely in support of the Druid getting more of those (and any class for that matter, though some other casters may need some more than others). Having a Moment of Clarity-like feat at very high level that lets you cast spells while polymorphed could be a great way to let the Druid mix and match multiple strengths of the primal tradition, whereas more Charisma-based feats that let you command the forces of nature at increasingly large scales would open up more avenues for Charisma builds and build upon that free feat you get at 1st level. I still do think that's separate from the Druid needing a boost or two to their proficiencies in their core features, but the class definitely has such a rich array of themes to choose from that there's still a ton of room for more feats.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. For me, the issue is that at high level, the Druid doesn't really have the best chassis as a caster in general -- they end up with pretty much the exact same chassis as any Wisdom caster. If the only thing going for them is that they're the only Wisdom primal caster around, that makes them extremely vulnerable to any newly-released class that attempts something similar, like the Animist: despite the class being a divine caster, they get to access a ton of spells and effects that are normally the Druid's "thing", including strong blasting from early on, effective Strikes, and battle forms, all through their focus spells to boot.
While you are quite right that they are vulnerable to a new class coming out that is pretty much true for everybody. At the moment, they are definitely the best primal class if you want to mix it in melee and on par with all other primal classes as pure casters.
As to the Animist, I personally think it is more or less balanced with the druid up until L16 (which is as high as I have currently played it),
The Animist wild shape is great but the 1 action sustain hurts (even with the free movement on sustain). They don't get access to some of the best options (Plant Shape at specifically L10 and L12 being the clearest example).
And the Animist spell list is different from the primal and inferior if you really like blasting. My favourite blasting spell for quite a few levels is Chain Lightning. Many (certainly NOT all) of the spirit spells are pretty poor.
And the Animist is just finicky in play. It is easy to get analysis paralysis. It is easy to spend so much time sustaining your focus spells that you almost forget that you actually have high level spell slots, You just have too many resources to use them all effectively :-).
I LOVE my Animist. But I also love my druids. I think the Animist is somewhat overpowered compared to say a cleric. But, in the niche that my druids tend to fill, I think the Animist and Druid are on par.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like there's a design consensus to lock down casters quite a lot. The druid is pretty similar to the bard and cleric for proficiencies, and of course a lot ahead of the wizard/sorcerer/witch/psychic. I don't think there's really a whole lot more proficiency that you can give the druid.
But thinking about the way Divine Font continues to scale well at high level, more so than the druid's early start feat loadout; maybe the Font design is something that could be adapted to druids.
Another thing I think isn't quite working out for druids compared to 1E is that summoning critters is pretty underwhelming in 2E. But what do we really want from summoning critters? Is it 100% the critter, or do we just want a few specifics? The "incarnate" method of spell design allows you to design a critter-flavored spell that's still just clearly a spell.
What if druids had a font for incarnate spells?
Maybe paired with a couple of incarnates that slant towards either "hit my enemies with a stampede", "provide a temporary flanking buddy", or "put a lot of beast in between us and the monsters, buy us some breathing space".
While you are quite right that they are vulnerable to a new class coming out that is pretty much true for everybody. At the moment, they are definitely the best primal class if you want to mix it in melee and on par with all other primal classes as pure casters.
That's the thing, though, it's not. The Cleric didn't stop being special when another prepared Wisdom divine caster showed up with the Animist, because they have their divine font. Divine Sorcerers aren't invalidated by Oracles even after the latter got an extra spell slot per rank, because Sorcerers have sorcerous potency and blood magic. These are the kinds of things that protect a class from excessive overlap. By contrast, an Animist with darkened forest form can really tread on a Druid's toes even with the Sustain requirement, especially if they're a Liturgist and can just Tumble Through every time, just as they can out-blast a Druid even early on with earth's bile and Channeler's Stance. Just that little extra bit of extra scaling at high level could be enough to differentiate the two classes, in my opinion, especially if it cements the Druid's identity as the class that's the best-equipped to leverage all aspects of the primal tradition at once.
Pristine Weapon desperately needs a status bonus to hit far, far earlier than Master at 19th. Warpriest 'gets away' with it because they get bless then heroism for the 18 levels before that, druids don't. I really have no idea what that feat line is trying to do. Generally, master weapon at 19th is not very helpful if the idea is to keep the non-polymorphed druid hitting on par.
More fortitude feels like rogues randomly getting better saves postmaster, which I think most people still low-key disapprove of - druid is already very solid, it doesn't need the save boost.
I'm erring on the side of caution here with the suggestion at 19th level; if you feel the Druid needs better Strike accuracy earlier on, then you could very well advocate for that with an earlier proficiency bump. Hard disagree on Fort saves, though: the Rogue drew criticism because having improved degrees of success on literally every save was never a part of the class's identity. By contrast, being tough is part of the Druid's identity; it's one of the reasons why the class can get up close and personal at early levels when many other classes cannot. Being the only caster with master proficiency in two saves is something they could very well do without ruffling anyone else's feathers, particularly at a point where several other casters get legendary proficiency in one save instead. If you wanted to be a little bit naughty, you could even give the Druid Fort save expertise two levels ahead at 1st level, which would properly cement their identity as one of the game's tougher casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wild is the main path for every druid to standout and be the versatile, crazy combat machine they are.I love wild shaping druids but to be fair they DO have 2 huge issues
1) the mid to high level shapes need a lot of room. Wild shaping druids do much better in the wilderness than in cramped dungeons.
2) the usefulness of the combat forms drops off significantly at the highest levels.
Also, the remaster change to the monk archetype flurry have significantly weakened wild shape (I think it was a good change, mind, as poaching the monks defining ability was too good)
In my experience, Wild Shaping always remains a viable part of the druids kit, but it gets used less and less often past level 12 or so.
Also, the druid is no longer the clearly best wild shaper. Animists are also contenders in that role (there are tradeoffs and I think they're fairly balanced).
And, of course, there is still the fact that there are huge rules ambiguities around Battle Forms which means they're just better at some tables than others
The huge battle forms can be rough. That's a change I would support letting the druid wild shape to a smaller size with the same stats.
I don't know the animist. I know my druid could stay in untamed form indefinitely. It made travel, exploration, and the like absolutely awesome across levels. Walls, cliffs, mountains, ocean, rivers, they were all nothing to a druid.
Tempest Surge was one of the best damage focus spells in the game.
Primal list was the best list if you want to blast and heal with the same list.
I had great weapon choices to build off of for ancestry feats.
Shield block built in.
Up to medium armor.
Druids are easy mode in PF2 all the way up to 20 in my experience.
You're looking at the other players as they're "Should I use my spell to help Joe the Barbarian fly or save it for something else." While you turn into an air elemental, cruise around at 80 per move triggering no reactions, enjoying life.
I usually built up my strength and athletics real high. Turn into dragon form, fly, hammer things down from reach.
It was all good fun being a druid. First caster I played in PF2 where I went, "Wow. This caster feels really, really strong."
You literally posted my example of specifically saying "if you have 7th rank spells you use 5th rfank heals" and somehow still managed to try to twist my words to say that i said "if you have 10th rank heals and you use 5th rank spells".
I literally posted your example in context to show that you were originally addressing the discussion in the context of 10th-rank slots, and have been backpedaling ever since. Had you simply moved on, you would not have drawn as much attention to this ultimately minor bad take as you have by insisting on rewriting the narrative.
I'm still not sure you understood my argument...
But to make it more simple for you:
When you have 10th rank spells, the free feats that you got on level 1 are indeed worth less.
But so do the extra spells. When you get Font at level 1, you get 4 free spells to add to your arsenal of 3 spells. More than a 100% increase in slots. In level 20 you have an extra 6 spells compared to your arsenal of around 20 usable spells. Around 30% more slots.
So yes, the Druid features become less obvious as you level up, but so does the Font as well.
Just because I disagree with your argument doesn't mean I haven't understood it. The problem with your argument is that you are drawing a false equivalency between a benefit that in your opinion diminishes over time, but still exists, and a benefit that disappears over time, such as the Druid's AC advantage over that of an unarmored caster. This is the point you keep missing. At level 20, a Druid will have the same AC as a Cloistered Cleric, the same Perception as a Cloistered Cleric, the same saving throws as a Cloistered Cleric, and the same number of feats as a Cloisted Cleric, but the Cloistered Cleric will have six 10th-rank spell slots over the Druid. I do think your argument over the relative value of those slots early on critically misses how focus spells and cantrips are much more relatively powerful at those levels and will be your bread-and-butter much more than slot spells, but even if we were to humor your point, your point would still not be true.
As a high level Druid, you still have enough lower rank heals to both be impactful and not spend from your main thing. The practical difference is that you are healing around 20-30% less than a Cleric, NOT that you do not have enough slots for healing.
Similarily, the practical difference of Cleric is that he does 20-30% less damage than a Druid, NOT that he doesn't have enough slots for damage.So, basically, across all levels, they are equal.
If a high level Druid can prepare lower-rank heals, guess what: so can the Cleric. In fact, the Cleric will be even better at doing this, because they have far more feat support for boosting their heal spells, including by buffing their healing dice, healing more targets, attaching more benefits, or spending fewer actions. The two have the same basic access to heal, and the Cleric has the same amount of spell slots as the Druid even if for some extremely contrived reason you choose not to count their divine font, so in this respect as well the Cleric has the advantage.
And to be clear: this isn't a claim that the Druid is especially weak at high level, because simply being any kind of generic full caster at high level is going to be very powerful. This is a claim that at high level, the benefits that set the Druid apart from other casters at early level no longer exist, and the Druid finds themselves with the same basic statistics as other Wisdom casters who, on top of having the same spell slots and equally good feats, also have extremely powerful class features. This is, in my opinion, a problem that could be easily avoided by bumping up a couple of the Druid's proficiencies at very high level, such as their Fort saves or Strikes to master: not only would this not overpower a class that isn't even among the strongest casters at low level, it would let them continue to stand out over other casters in a way that would continue to leverage the most out of the primal list, in this particular case spells that put you in dangerous ranges and spells that benefit your Strikes. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding the basic observation being made here, as it's both independently verifiable and ultimately quite simple.
I don't know the animist. I know my druid could stay in untamed form indefinitely. It made travel, exploration, and the like absolutely awesome across levels. Walls, cliffs, mountains, ocean, rivers, they were all nothing to a druid.
I'm surprised; the Animist is a power gamer's dream. At high level, you get to Grapple and make Reactive Strikes from 30 feet away at about martial-grade accuracy, and that same feat can be retrained the next day to add one of the strongest battle form spells to a focus spell that already gives you three battle forms for free, which you can also swap out every day. You can cast falling stars, quandary, uncontrollable dance, wrathful storm, and canticle of everlasting grief all on the same class, while also having a repertoire of 36 signature spells that you can swap out each day and 3 Focus Points, and that's just your class features. I definitely recommend you give that class a try.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My wife played an untamed Druid in Ruby Phoenix and we didn't find the forms all that powerful at high level. Versatile, definitely. She could do a huge variety of things. But when it came down to combat, it tailed off at higher level as she just had no way to keep up with the actual martials accuracy wise. So it didn't feel great when she couldn't really keep up with the others except as a spellcaster, which was definitely effective.
I'd love to see a shifter class archetype that buffs up the forms and reduces spellcasting so that kind of build feels better, since it's not really a power problem (Druid is pretty good), just that specific fantasy isn't well-served right now.