"Dungeons and Dragons is a cooperative game. If something isn't fun for a player, then that should be avoided. "
Unless that fun impinges on another players fun. You're literally talking about one player maybe not liking the choice of another, and clearly taking the side of one of them. Are you just really biased towards the original player such to the point that their fun is more important than the other players fun? Again, players don't own classes, and DM's shouldn't be biased to sacrifice the fun of one player for the player they like better. This highlights my point about questionable adjudication.
" as long as I determine that they're balanced" Yeah this is where I would be concerned if I were a player at that table. So far the logic is not sound.
"So what, am I supposed to perform playtests on all material before allowing it in my game? Also, the other druid not liking it is a guaranteed. They have said as much." This is a logic issue. What was the qualification to allow any class at your table? Did you play test all of them but then permit them anyway? No. So this new druid should fall under the same adjudication as you did with the other classes that you did not test. Unless, at your table you don't permit classes that you haven't personally tested, then it would make sense.
All classes have already been extensively play tested so you don't have to. Your arbitrary feeling about a class is not as valid as the extensive play testing that the designers did when they created the class. If you can't see that the class is balanced, then this is a you issue, not a player or balance issue, and the player shouldn't be punished for simply choosing a class.
Your rationale for claiming this class is too powerful seems rather arbitrary, which is again, a concerning trend.
"Combating one powerful player without the others falling behind is that difficult."
Possibly. But then, again this is predicated on your interpretation of what 'powerful is'. Is this a DM issue or a class issue? I suspect this is a DM issue externalizing it as a player issue.
Are you being unreasonable? Yes you're favoring one player over another to determine what the other can play and then banning a class that you don't have an understanding of without reason. That to me, is not reasonable.
You don't need to min-max or power-game to use a shepherd druid's abilities. It's just plop down an op totem and use a summon spell
False. Shepherd requires a lot of skill to play powerfully. Only one totem is 'op' the unicorn one, the rest are very weak. Similarly summon spells are only as powerful as the creature you choose to summon if using 2014 rules and they vary considerably - Velociraptors, Elk, Giant Owls, Giant Octopi, and Giant Constrictor Snake are much more powerful than anything else, if using 2024 rules then none of the Shepherd's summon buffing features do anything, and their summon spells are no different than the summon spells of your other druid.
I've always played that "move" refers to making it appear in the new space rather than actually go through all the spaces in between. I could be wrong though.
Cloud of Daggers specifically says the AoE "teleports", vs Moonbeam that says you "move" it. That distinction suggests to me the intention is Moonbeam is a constant continousous space-laser that is dragged around hitting everything in its path, whereas Cloud of Daggers vanishes and reappears in the new location. [Aside: I personally don't like this as it makes casters even more OP but it seems to be the correct interpretation]
Summon Fey - is just flat worse than Conjure Animals - less damage, can be killed, damage type that's more easily resisted.
Blight - is GARBAGE! Single target, single instance of damage for a 4th level slot and it only deals 8d8 (36 avg) damage if the fail which because its a CON save they probably won't fail. An upcast Fireball deals 10d6 (35 avg) damage to a 20 ft area with a DEX save.
Grasping Vine - is double GARBAGE! 4d8 damage to one target as a Bonus Action for a 4th level spell + your concentration! (identical to an upcast Spiritual Weapon) And the vine can't even be moved!!! Plus it doesn't even scale when up casting. The only half-way decent aspect of it is the Grapple. Which is decent I suppose since it doesn't have a save at least.
Call Lightning vs Spirit Guardians:
Call Lightning does LESS damage than Spirit Guardians because it uses you Action and hits fewer enemies. Against a single-target Spirit Guardians does 3d8 (SG) + 2d8/2d12 (cantrip for your action) against multiple targets Spirit Guardians can usually hit 2 enemies, whereas Call Lightning almost never can without also hitting one of your allies. Either you are easily reachable when using Call Lightning because you are also within the 60 ft area and Call Lightning doesn't affect enemy move speed, or enemies can easily leave the area of your Call Lightning if you are outside of its range and now your concentration spell does nothing.
Barkskin
The 2024 Barkskin is cast-able, but it's not good. Because let me run down how it works for different targets: - If the target can wear Heavy Armour they have AC 16-20 from level 1, so the MAX benefit of Barkskin is +1 AC, and most of the time it will do nothing at all because they will have AC 18 already (if they take the Protection Fighting Style they have AC 17 at level 1). - If the target is a Monk they have AC 15-16 from level 1 using Unarmoured Defense, and will have AC 16 by level 4, again meaning Barkskin gives them a whopping +1 AC for a few levels but by level 8 they have a baseline AC of 17. - If the target can wear Medium Armour they have AC 15-17 from level 1, and will easily achieve AC 16-19 once they can afford to buy better armour than their starting equipment. Again you'll be lucky if Barkskin gives them +2 AC for a few levels before it becomes obsolete. - If the target can wear Light Armour and is DEX-based they have AC 15 as soon as they get Studded Leather, and AC 16 at level 4, and AC 17 by level 8, again Barkskin gives them maybe +1 AC. - If they have no armour, they are probably a Sorcerer or Wizard which means they get Mage Armour which gives them an AC of 15, and they have Shield which raises that to AC 20. Shield cannot stack on top of Barkskin, whereas it could for Shield of Faith. - This leaves exactly 2 classes that might have AC below 16 for most of the campaign: Bard and Warlock who usually have AC 14-15. Neither of them usually play in melee, so the ONLY time Barkskin is decent is if you have a Bard who plays in melee but isn't a swords bard, or a Pact-of-the-Blade Warlock.
I'd point out that Clerics also get "Warding Bond" which also gives out a +1 AC with no concentration for 1 hour as a 2nd level slot, but it: also gives +1 to all saves, and does damage splitting, and stacks with any underlying AC so can be used on any target with the same efficacy (except a Barbarian).
Yeah - the vibe of this whole argument is off. If its a class is in published WoTC content it should be allowed, if its a subclass in WoTC content it should be allowed, same for races and magic items. The lack of that freedom is primarily why I will never play or DM AL games. When you wall off content your basically saying yeah sure here lets play 1/2 the game.
However every DM can run their table however they want and if you find enough like minded players and everyone is having fun then its a win.
That said the op broken class argument is pervasive on these forums and totally false. Some classes do have a higher power budget than others - golly gee what am I to do as a DM - IDK slightly tune the encounters? Even a basic understanding of mechanics lets you slightly tune encounters on the fly. Doing otherwise just smacks to me of lazy DM'ing.
$.02
Edit - I just ran an Epic game yesterday (The campaign uses the 2cGaming Epic Ruleset) the party is l22 (Going to 30 over 40 sessions) - on the boss fight they dropped multiple hallows, used multiple wish spells, used multiple Epic Feats and Spells and and it was a fantastic session - my having to match the groups creativity and tactics on the fly made that session so much more fun for for everyone at the table myself included.
I don’t think you’re being unreasonable-I would probably talk with the player that is needing the new character, and see if they really want to play that subclass, and have them provide some good reasons for playing the subclass. Ultimately, it is up to you, so choose whatever would be best for your campaign and what would run most smoothly with the rest of the PCs and the game NPCs, monsters, ect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have traversed all the outer planes- I have traversed all the inner planes- now I travel to the land of earth to ride an airplane.
-They/Them Pronouns-
If you need lore, spells, heaps of information, come my way!!
Summon Fey - is just flat worse than Conjure Animals - less damage, can be killed, damage type that's more easily resisted.
Blight - is GARBAGE! Single target, single instance of damage for a 4th level slot and it only deals 8d8 (36 avg) damage if the fail which because its a CON save they probably won't fail. An upcast Fireball deals 10d6 (35 avg) damage to a 20 ft area with a DEX save.
Fireball does 9d6 upcasted. That makes blight do 4.5 more average damage. Also, if there's a boss surrounded by the part, you don't want to cast fireball and hit the party too.
Grasping Vine - is double GARBAGE! 4d8 damage to one target as a Bonus Action for a 4th level spell + your concentration! (identical to an upcast Spiritual Weapon) And the vine can't even be moved!!! Plus it doesn't even scale when up casting. The only half-way decent aspect of it is the Grapple. Which is decent I suppose since it doesn't have a save at least.
Half-way decent? The target is pulled 30 feet, can't move back, and has disadvantage on attacks. This lasts until the caster's concentration is broken, or until the target wastes its action trying to escape and succeeds. And then, you can use it again!
Call Lightning vs Spirit Guardians:
Call Lightning does LESS damage than Spirit Guardians because it uses you Action and hits fewer enemies. Against a single-target Spirit Guardians does 3d8 (SG) + 2d8/2d12 (cantrip for your action) against multiple targets Spirit Guardians can usually hit 2 enemies, whereas Call Lightning almost never can without also hitting one of your allies. Either you are easily reachable when using Call Lightning because you are also within the 60 ft area and Call Lightning doesn't affect enemy move speed, or enemies can easily leave the area of your Call Lightning if you are outside of its range and now your concentration spell does nothing.
Yes, it is so much more difficult to avoid hitting an ally with call lightning's smaller aoe. You also appear to have misread call lightning. It has a 120 foot range. You make a 60 foot radius cylinder within that range. It therefore has an efffective maximum range of 180 feet.
Barkskin
The 2024 Barkskin is cast-able, but it's not good. Because let me run down how it works for different targets: - If the target can wear Heavy Armour they have AC 16-20 from level 1, so the MAX benefit of Barkskin is +1 AC, and most of the time it will do nothing at all because they will have AC 18 already (if they take the Protection Fighting Style they have AC 17 at level 1). - If the target is a Monk they have AC 15-16 from level 1 using Unarmoured Defense, and will have AC 16 by level 4, again meaning Barkskin gives them a whopping +1 AC for a few levels but by level 8 they have a baseline AC of 17. - If the target can wear Medium Armour they have AC 15-17 from level 1, and will easily achieve AC 16-19 once they can afford to buy better armour than their starting equipment. Again you'll be lucky if Barkskin gives them +2 AC for a few levels before it becomes obsolete. - If the target can wear Light Armour and is DEX-based they have AC 15 as soon as they get Studded Leather, and AC 16 at level 4, and AC 17 by level 8, again Barkskin gives them maybe +1 AC. - If they have no armour, they are probably a Sorcerer or Wizard which means they get Mage Armour which gives them an AC of 15, and they have Shield which raises that to AC 20. Shield cannot stack on top of Barkskin, whereas it could for Shield of Faith. - This leaves exactly 2 classes that might have AC below 16 for most of the campaign: Bard and Warlock who usually have AC 14-15. Neither of them usually play in melee, so the ONLY time Barkskin is decent is if you have a Bard who plays in melee but isn't a swords bard, or a Pact-of-the-Blade Warlock.
I'd point out that Clerics also get "Warding Bond" which also gives out a +1 AC with no concentration for 1 hour as a 2nd level slot, but it: also gives +1 to all saves, and does damage splitting, and stacks with any underlying AC so can be used on any target with the same efficacy (except a Barbarian).
You cast it on yourself. That allows you to take magician for the minor bonuses and dump dexterity. You have bad AC for the first two levels (if you're playing them), but then you have high AC that you can use more and more often as you level up.
You don't need to min-max or power-game to use a shepherd druid's abilities. It's just plop down an op totem and use a summon spell
False. Shepherd requires a lot of skill to play powerfully. Only one totem is 'op' the unicorn one, the rest are very weak. Similarly summon spells are only as powerful as the creature you choose to summon if using 2014 rules and they vary considerably - Velociraptors, Elk, Giant Owls, Giant Octopi, and Giant Constrictor Snake are much more powerful than anything else, if using 2024 rules then none of the Shepherd's summon buffing features do anything, and their summon spells are no different than the summon spells of your other druid.
The bear spirit gives 5 + level temp. hit points as a bonus action every short rest to the whole party and whatever creatures you have summoned.
"Dungeons and Dragons is a cooperative game. If something isn't fun for a player, then that should be avoided. "
Unless that fun impinges on another players fun. You're literally talking about one player maybe not liking the choice of another, and clearly taking the side of one of them. Are you just really biased towards the original player such to the point that their fun is more important than the other players fun? Again, players don't own classes, and DM's shouldn't be biased to sacrifice the fun of one player for the player they like better. This highlights my point about questionable adjudication.
Remember that this wasn't even the player who would be playing the druid talking. This is the other player saying the pc would be fun. (the situation is kind of ridiculous, I think I'll just make a basic character for the player)
" as long as I determine that they're balanced" Yeah this is where I would be concerned if I were a player at that table. So far the logic is not sound.
"So what, am I supposed to perform playtests on all material before allowing it in my game? Also, the other druid not liking it is a guaranteed. They have said as much." This is a logic issue. What was the qualification to allow any class at your table? Did you play test all of them but then permit them anyway? No. So this new druid should fall under the same adjudication as you did with the other classes that you did not test. Unless, at your table you don't permit classes that you haven't personally tested, then it would make sense.
All classes have already been extensively play tested so you don't have to. Your arbitrary feeling about a class is not as valid as the extensive play testing that the designers did when they created the class. If you can't see that the class is balanced, then this is a you issue, not a player or balance issue, and the player shouldn't be punished for simply choosing a class.
Your rationale for claiming this class is too powerful seems rather arbitrary, which is again, a concerning trend.
Unicorn spirit gives nigh unlimited healing via goodberry, and bear spirit gives the whole party a large amount of temporary hit points as a bonus action.
Yes, it is so much more difficult to avoid hitting an ally with call lightning's smaller aoe. You also appear to have misread call lightning. It has a 120 foot range. You make a 60 foot radius cylinder within that range. It therefore has an efffective maximum range of 180 feet.
No I didn't. Yes, you can hit once at a range of 180 feet, but if you do so that enemy can then walk 5 ft away and you cannot hit them anymore. Nice job spending a 3rd level spell to deal 3d10 damage total!
You cast it on yourself.
You are a Druid, you can wear medium armour and use a shield while still having a hand free for casting, you can easily have a +2 Dex without compromizing your casting ability, which means you have an AC = 13-15 + 2 (DEX) + 2 (shield) = 17-19. Barkskin does absolutely nothing for you. PS AC 17 is not "high" it's very solidly average.
Why would you ever dump DEX as a Druid? Dex gives you higher initiative which is SUPER important for a druid because you have tons of AoE spells that do not discriminate friend or foe and who's main benefit is restricting movement - these are all useless if the enemies go before you do! Not to mention avoiding damage from dex-save based enemy abilities, or super useful dex-based skills like Stealth (to get Adv on your initiative see previous about how important that is) or Acrobatics (to escape / avoid tons of obstacles).
Also, if there's a boss surrounded by the part, you don't want to cast fireball and hit the party too.
How many people are in your party? I've never seen a D&D party with more than 3 melee characters in it, so 99% of the time there is one corner of the BBEG free where you can put a fireball. Fireball isn't even very good single-target damage, a martial is dealing substantially more than that.
Recently in the campaign I DM a player PC died. Another player in the campaign is helping them make a new character, and they texted to ask if the player could use the old circle of the shepherd subclass (by default, only core rules are allowed and the players need to ask if they want to use something else). I looked it up, then told them no. I have a few reasons:
There's already a druid in the party.
The subclass seems overpowered.
Additionally, the only reason they could give for using the subclass is that it looks fun, but they won't even be playing the character themselves! I think they were pretty annoyed with this, but I don't think I'm being very unreasonable. What do you think?
I'm kinda in the same boat as you, Jurmondur. I just finished session 0, and they ALL wanted to be wizards. (6 people, by the way, which means that there are going to be duplicate subclasses.)
Recently in the campaign I DM a player PC died. Another player in the campaign is helping them make a new character, and they texted to ask if the player could use the old circle of the shepherd subclass (by default, only core rules are allowed and the players need to ask if they want to use something else). I looked it up, then told them no. I have a few reasons:
There's already a druid in the party.
The subclass seems overpowered.
Additionally, the only reason they could give for using the subclass is that it looks fun, but they won't even be playing the character themselves! I think they were pretty annoyed with this, but I don't think I'm being very unreasonable. What do you think?
I'm kinda in the same boat as you, Jurmondur. I just finished session 0, and they ALL wanted to be wizards. (6 people, by the way, which means that there are going to be duplicate subclasses.)
For the good of the party, do not allow that. there are literally 3 different spellcasting classes all with 4 subclasses, not even including druid, clerics, and paladins, and they ALL want to be Wizards! There is party synergy for a reason, one Anti-Magic Field and they are the equivalent of commoners.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Uh, I have Illusory Script. I think I can read that."
For the good of the party, do not allow that. there are literally 3 different spellcasting classes all with 4 subclasses, not even including druid, clerics, and paladins, and they ALL want to be Wizards! There is party synergy for a reason, one Anti-Magic Field and they are the equivalent of commoners.
Counterpoint: Let them play what seems fun to them and throw occasional curveballs like this as challenges. A campaign full of antimagic fields would suck, but one combat or even one dungeon that's a hard counter to mages isn't going to ruin the game. Variety is the spice of life.
For the good of the party, do not allow that. there are literally 3 different spellcasting classes all with 4 subclasses, not even including druid, clerics, and paladins, and they ALL want to be Wizards! There is party synergy for a reason, one Anti-Magic Field and they are the equivalent of commoners.
Counterpoint: Let them play what seems fun to them and throw occasional curveballs like this as challenges. A campaign full of antimagic fields would suck, but one combat or even one dungeon that's a hard counter to mages isn't going to ruin the game. Variety is the spice of life.
No you don't get it. It would literally render them completely useless. Also that's not the only reason a bunch of wizards would not work. Having a bunch of wizards casting the same spells is very monotonous. Until about level 7, Offensive wizards are pretty much all casting the same spells (Magic Missile, Fireball, Cloud of Daggers) It also makes encounters difficult to balance for the DM and ultimately makes combat much less fun for all the players. Also It limits the roleplaying ability at the table, everyone's primary ability is Intelligence, meaning that wisdom, and charisma, dex and strength saves are usually weaker. And honestly you've seen one wizard personality you've seen at least 1/4 of them. When ambushed, the enemies have no priority because they are all mages, and high damage dealing AOEs will one shot a lot of them because of their low HP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Uh, I have Illusory Script. I think I can read that."
I'm kinda in the same boat as you, Jurmondur. I just finished session 0, and they ALL wanted to be wizards. (6 people, by the way, which means that there are going to be duplicate subclasses.)
You need to be a very experienced DM to have that work, but it is doable in the right campaign and can be plenty fun. But it is challenging to build and balance encounters.
For the good of the party, do not allow that. there are literally 3 different spellcasting classes all with 4 subclasses, not even including druid, clerics, and paladins, and they ALL want to be Wizards! There is party synergy for a reason, one Anti-Magic Field and they are the equivalent of commoners.
Counterpoint: Let them play what seems fun to them and throw occasional curveballs like this as challenges. A campaign full of antimagic fields would suck, but one combat or even one dungeon that's a hard counter to mages isn't going to ruin the game. Variety is the spice of life.
No you don't get it. It would literally render them completely useless. Also that's not the only reason a bunch of wizards would not work. Having a bunch of wizards casting the same spells is very monotonous. Until about level 7, Offensive wizards are pretty much all casting the same spells (Magic Missile, Fireball, Cloud of Daggers) It also makes encounters difficult to balance for the DM and ultimately makes combat much less fun for all the players. Also It limits the roleplaying ability at the table, everyone's primary ability is Intelligence, meaning that wisdom, and charisma, dex and strength saves are usually weaker. And honestly you've seen one wizard personality you've seen at least 1/4 of them. When ambushed, the enemies have no priority because they are all mages, and high damage dealing AOEs will one shot a lot of them because of their low HP.
I've successfully DMed this scenario, so I think I'm fairly qualified to say it can work. I do agree, though, that it's a lot for someone new to DMing to handle long-term.
The notion, however, that "you've seen one wizard personality you've seen at least 1/4 of them" is bogus, however, as is the assertion that roleplaying is limited by class. My players' party face is an alchemist with social anxiety and +0 to charisma. Their bard acts more like a rogue and flavors all his spells as non-magical interventions. Their wizard is quiet, gentle, and deeply empathetic. Their monk would rather run away from fights than throw a punch because he doesn't like getting hit or hurting others. Class can certainly inform roleplay, but it by no means has to restrict the creativity someone brings to a character.
I will also admit to slightly derailing this thread, though in my defense we've strayed somewhat from OP's original question and into general opinions about the viability of certain party compositions. And honestly, I think that's a question that can only really be resolved from table to table (which in OP's case is solidly "one druid only" because the original druid isn't comfy with there being another). What I tend to object to is wholesale dismissal of certain party lineups just because I've been around the block enough times to know from experience that any configuration of characters with the right players can be fun.
For the good of the party, do not allow that. there are literally 3 different spellcasting classes all with 4 subclasses, not even including druid, clerics, and paladins, and they ALL want to be Wizards! There is party synergy for a reason, one Anti-Magic Field and they are the equivalent of commoners.
Counterpoint: Let them play what seems fun to them and throw occasional curveballs like this as challenges. A campaign full of antimagic fields would suck, but one combat or even one dungeon that's a hard counter to mages isn't going to ruin the game. Variety is the spice of life.
No you don't get it. It would literally render them completely useless. Also that's not the only reason a bunch of wizards would not work. Having a bunch of wizards casting the same spells is very monotonous. Until about level 7, Offensive wizards are pretty much all casting the same spells (Magic Missile, Fireball, Cloud of Daggers) It also makes encounters difficult to balance for the DM and ultimately makes combat much less fun for all the players. Also It limits the roleplaying ability at the table, everyone's primary ability is Intelligence, meaning that wisdom, and charisma, dex and strength saves are usually weaker. And honestly you've seen one wizard personality you've seen at least 1/4 of them. When ambushed, the enemies have no priority because they are all mages, and high damage dealing AOEs will one shot a lot of them because of their low HP.
I've successfully DMed this scenario, so I think I'm fairly qualified to say it can work. I do agree, though, that it's a lot for someone new to DMing to handle long-term.
The notion, however, that "you've seen one wizard personality you've seen at least 1/4 of them" is bogus, however, as is the assertion that roleplaying is limited by class. My players' party face is an alchemist with social anxiety and +0 to charisma. Their bard acts more like a rogue and flavors all his spells as non-magical interventions. Their wizard is quiet, gentle, and deeply empathetic. Their monk would rather run away from fights than throw a punch because he doesn't like getting hit or hurting others. Class can certainly inform roleplay, but it by no means has to restrict the creativity someone brings to a character.
I will also admit to slightly derailing this thread, though in my defense we've strayed somewhat from OP's original question and into general opinions about the viability of certain party compositions. And honestly, I think that's a question that can only really be resolved from table to table (which in OP's case is solidly "one druid only" because the original druid isn't comfy with there being another). What I tend to object to is wholesale dismissal of certain party lineups just because I've been around the block enough times to know from experience that any configuration of characters with the right players can be fun.
Consider myself wrong then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Uh, I have Illusory Script. I think I can read that."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A few things,
"Dungeons and Dragons is a cooperative game. If something isn't fun for a player, then that should be avoided. "
Unless that fun impinges on another players fun. You're literally talking about one player maybe not liking the choice of another, and clearly taking the side of one of them. Are you just really biased towards the original player such to the point that their fun is more important than the other players fun? Again, players don't own classes, and DM's shouldn't be biased to sacrifice the fun of one player for the player they like better. This highlights my point about questionable adjudication.
" as long as I determine that they're balanced"
Yeah this is where I would be concerned if I were a player at that table. So far the logic is not sound.
"So what, am I supposed to perform playtests on all material before allowing it in my game? Also, the other druid not liking it is a guaranteed. They have said as much."
This is a logic issue. What was the qualification to allow any class at your table? Did you play test all of them but then permit them anyway? No. So this new druid should fall under the same adjudication as you did with the other classes that you did not test. Unless, at your table you don't permit classes that you haven't personally tested, then it would make sense.
All classes have already been extensively play tested so you don't have to. Your arbitrary feeling about a class is not as valid as the extensive play testing that the designers did when they created the class. If you can't see that the class is balanced, then this is a you issue, not a player or balance issue, and the player shouldn't be punished for simply choosing a class.
Your rationale for claiming this class is too powerful seems rather arbitrary, which is again, a concerning trend.
"Combating one powerful player without the others falling behind is that difficult."
Possibly. But then, again this is predicated on your interpretation of what 'powerful is'. Is this a DM issue or a class issue? I suspect this is a DM issue externalizing it as a player issue.
Are you being unreasonable? Yes you're favoring one player over another to determine what the other can play and then banning a class that you don't have an understanding of without reason. That to me, is not reasonable.
False. Shepherd requires a lot of skill to play powerfully. Only one totem is 'op' the unicorn one, the rest are very weak. Similarly summon spells are only as powerful as the creature you choose to summon if using 2014 rules and they vary considerably - Velociraptors, Elk, Giant Owls, Giant Octopi, and Giant Constrictor Snake are much more powerful than anything else, if using 2024 rules then none of the Shepherd's summon buffing features do anything, and their summon spells are no different than the summon spells of your other druid.
Cloud of Daggers specifically says the AoE "teleports", vs Moonbeam that says you "move" it. That distinction suggests to me the intention is Moonbeam is a constant continousous space-laser that is dragged around hitting everything in its path, whereas Cloud of Daggers vanishes and reappears in the new location. [Aside: I personally don't like this as it makes casters even more OP but it seems to be the correct interpretation]
Summon Fey - is just flat worse than Conjure Animals - less damage, can be killed, damage type that's more easily resisted.
Blight - is GARBAGE! Single target, single instance of damage for a 4th level slot and it only deals 8d8 (36 avg) damage if the fail which because its a CON save they probably won't fail. An upcast Fireball deals 10d6 (35 avg) damage to a 20 ft area with a DEX save.
Grasping Vine - is double GARBAGE! 4d8 damage to one target as a Bonus Action for a 4th level spell + your concentration! (identical to an upcast Spiritual Weapon) And the vine can't even be moved!!! Plus it doesn't even scale when up casting. The only half-way decent aspect of it is the Grapple. Which is decent I suppose since it doesn't have a save at least.
Call Lightning vs Spirit Guardians:
Call Lightning does LESS damage than Spirit Guardians because it uses you Action and hits fewer enemies. Against a single-target Spirit Guardians does 3d8 (SG) + 2d8/2d12 (cantrip for your action) against multiple targets Spirit Guardians can usually hit 2 enemies, whereas Call Lightning almost never can without also hitting one of your allies. Either you are easily reachable when using Call Lightning because you are also within the 60 ft area and Call Lightning doesn't affect enemy move speed, or enemies can easily leave the area of your Call Lightning if you are outside of its range and now your concentration spell does nothing.
Barkskin
The 2024 Barkskin is cast-able, but it's not good. Because let me run down how it works for different targets:
- If the target can wear Heavy Armour they have AC 16-20 from level 1, so the MAX benefit of Barkskin is +1 AC, and most of the time it will do nothing at all because they will have AC 18 already (if they take the Protection Fighting Style they have AC 17 at level 1).
- If the target is a Monk they have AC 15-16 from level 1 using Unarmoured Defense, and will have AC 16 by level 4, again meaning Barkskin gives them a whopping +1 AC for a few levels but by level 8 they have a baseline AC of 17.
- If the target can wear Medium Armour they have AC 15-17 from level 1, and will easily achieve AC 16-19 once they can afford to buy better armour than their starting equipment. Again you'll be lucky if Barkskin gives them +2 AC for a few levels before it becomes obsolete.
- If the target can wear Light Armour and is DEX-based they have AC 15 as soon as they get Studded Leather, and AC 16 at level 4, and AC 17 by level 8, again Barkskin gives them maybe +1 AC.
- If they have no armour, they are probably a Sorcerer or Wizard which means they get Mage Armour which gives them an AC of 15, and they have Shield which raises that to AC 20. Shield cannot stack on top of Barkskin, whereas it could for Shield of Faith.
- This leaves exactly 2 classes that might have AC below 16 for most of the campaign: Bard and Warlock who usually have AC 14-15. Neither of them usually play in melee, so the ONLY time Barkskin is decent is if you have a Bard who plays in melee but isn't a swords bard, or a Pact-of-the-Blade Warlock.
I'd point out that Clerics also get "Warding Bond" which also gives out a +1 AC with no concentration for 1 hour as a 2nd level slot, but it: also gives +1 to all saves, and does damage splitting, and stacks with any underlying AC so can be used on any target with the same efficacy (except a Barbarian).
Yeah - the vibe of this whole argument is off. If its a class is in published WoTC content it should be allowed, if its a subclass in WoTC content it should be allowed, same for races and magic items. The lack of that freedom is primarily why I will never play or DM AL games. When you wall off content your basically saying yeah sure here lets play 1/2 the game.
However every DM can run their table however they want and if you find enough like minded players and everyone is having fun then its a win.
That said the op broken class argument is pervasive on these forums and totally false. Some classes do have a higher power budget than others - golly gee what am I to do as a DM - IDK slightly tune the encounters? Even a basic understanding of mechanics lets you slightly tune encounters on the fly. Doing otherwise just smacks to me of lazy DM'ing.
$.02
Edit - I just ran an Epic game yesterday (The campaign uses the 2cGaming Epic Ruleset) the party is l22 (Going to 30 over 40 sessions) - on the boss fight they dropped multiple hallows, used multiple wish spells, used multiple Epic Feats and Spells and and it was a fantastic session - my having to match the groups creativity and tactics on the fly made that session so much more fun for for everyone at the table myself included.
I don’t think you’re being unreasonable-I would probably talk with the player that is needing the new character, and see if they really want to play that subclass, and have them provide some good reasons for playing the subclass. Ultimately, it is up to you, so choose whatever would be best for your campaign and what would run most smoothly with the rest of the PCs and the game NPCs, monsters, ect.
I have traversed all the outer planes- I have traversed all the inner planes- now I travel to the land of earth to ride an airplane.
-They/Them Pronouns-
If you need lore, spells, heaps of information, come my way!!
Fireball does 9d6 upcasted. That makes blight do 4.5 more average damage. Also, if there's a boss surrounded by the part, you don't want to cast fireball and hit the party too.
Half-way decent? The target is pulled 30 feet, can't move back, and has disadvantage on attacks. This lasts until the caster's concentration is broken, or until the target wastes its action trying to escape and succeeds. And then, you can use it again!
Yes, it is so much more difficult to avoid hitting an ally with call lightning's smaller aoe. You also appear to have misread call lightning. It has a 120 foot range. You make a 60 foot radius cylinder within that range. It therefore has an efffective maximum range of 180 feet.
You cast it on yourself. That allows you to take magician for the minor bonuses and dump dexterity. You have bad AC for the first two levels (if you're playing them), but then you have high AC that you can use more and more often as you level up.
The bear spirit gives 5 + level temp. hit points as a bonus action every short rest to the whole party and whatever creatures you have summoned.
Yes I know, and that is weak sauce, it's basically just the 2014 Inspiring Leader feat.
Remember that this wasn't even the player who would be playing the druid talking. This is the other player saying the pc would be fun. (the situation is kind of ridiculous, I think I'll just make a basic character for the player)
Unicorn spirit gives nigh unlimited healing via goodberry, and bear spirit gives the whole party a large amount of temporary hit points as a bonus action.
No I didn't. Yes, you can hit once at a range of 180 feet, but if you do so that enemy can then walk 5 ft away and you cannot hit them anymore. Nice job spending a 3rd level spell to deal 3d10 damage total!
You are a Druid, you can wear medium armour and use a shield while still having a hand free for casting, you can easily have a +2 Dex without compromizing your casting ability, which means you have an AC = 13-15 + 2 (DEX) + 2 (shield) = 17-19. Barkskin does absolutely nothing for you. PS AC 17 is not "high" it's very solidly average.
Why would you ever dump DEX as a Druid? Dex gives you higher initiative which is SUPER important for a druid because you have tons of AoE spells that do not discriminate friend or foe and who's main benefit is restricting movement - these are all useless if the enemies go before you do! Not to mention avoiding damage from dex-save based enemy abilities, or super useful dex-based skills like Stealth (to get Adv on your initiative see previous about how important that is) or Acrobatics (to escape / avoid tons of obstacles).
How many people are in your party? I've never seen a D&D party with more than 3 melee characters in it, so 99% of the time there is one corner of the BBEG free where you can put a fireball. Fireball isn't even very good single-target damage, a martial is dealing substantially more than that.
I'm kinda in the same boat as you, Jurmondur. I just finished session 0, and they ALL wanted to be wizards. (6 people, by the way, which means that there are going to be duplicate subclasses.)
For the good of the party, do not allow that. there are literally 3 different spellcasting classes all with 4 subclasses, not even including druid, clerics, and paladins, and they ALL want to be Wizards! There is party synergy for a reason, one Anti-Magic Field and they are the equivalent of commoners.
"Uh, I have Illusory Script. I think I can read that."
Okay. I'll tell them that they'll probably need variety if they want to actually play at their fullest.
Counterpoint: Let them play what seems fun to them and throw occasional curveballs like this as challenges. A campaign full of antimagic fields would suck, but one combat or even one dungeon that's a hard counter to mages isn't going to ruin the game. Variety is the spice of life.
No you don't get it. It would literally render them completely useless. Also that's not the only reason a bunch of wizards would not work. Having a bunch of wizards casting the same spells is very monotonous. Until about level 7, Offensive wizards are pretty much all casting the same spells (Magic Missile, Fireball, Cloud of Daggers) It also makes encounters difficult to balance for the DM and ultimately makes combat much less fun for all the players. Also It limits the roleplaying ability at the table, everyone's primary ability is Intelligence, meaning that wisdom, and charisma, dex and strength saves are usually weaker. And honestly you've seen one wizard personality you've seen at least 1/4 of them. When ambushed, the enemies have no priority because they are all mages, and high damage dealing AOEs will one shot a lot of them because of their low HP.
"Uh, I have Illusory Script. I think I can read that."
You need to be a very experienced DM to have that work, but it is doable in the right campaign and can be plenty fun. But it is challenging to build and balance encounters.
I've successfully DMed this scenario, so I think I'm fairly qualified to say it can work. I do agree, though, that it's a lot for someone new to DMing to handle long-term.
The notion, however, that "you've seen one wizard personality you've seen at least 1/4 of them" is bogus, however, as is the assertion that roleplaying is limited by class. My players' party face is an alchemist with social anxiety and +0 to charisma. Their bard acts more like a rogue and flavors all his spells as non-magical interventions. Their wizard is quiet, gentle, and deeply empathetic. Their monk would rather run away from fights than throw a punch because he doesn't like getting hit or hurting others. Class can certainly inform roleplay, but it by no means has to restrict the creativity someone brings to a character.
I will also admit to slightly derailing this thread, though in my defense we've strayed somewhat from OP's original question and into general opinions about the viability of certain party compositions. And honestly, I think that's a question that can only really be resolved from table to table (which in OP's case is solidly "one druid only" because the original druid isn't comfy with there being another). What I tend to object to is wholesale dismissal of certain party lineups just because I've been around the block enough times to know from experience that any configuration of characters with the right players can be fun.
Consider myself wrong then.
"Uh, I have Illusory Script. I think I can read that."