Druid spells need to be improved.

[Hoo]

Hello, I suggest some improvements for druid spells.

 

Even if I know that solo playing of druid is not general, I felt that he doesn't have enough spell to use in the realy of game during playing.

 

As you know, he doesn't have any AOE mazz spells like Sleep and Color Spray. Of course, I know, he has some self or team buff spells instead of it. However, it was not so effective at low level.

 

Even though he uses all of the 1st and 2nd level buff spells to himself, he never be stronger than fighter (even cleric) because of his number of attacks and Thac0.

 

Actually, I think some of his self buff spells such as Shillelagh and Flame Blade should provide a bonus of number of attacks by fixing the bonus to 2 or 3 not plus. If the spell gives additional number of attacks bonus to druid, druid/fighter dual or multi class may be immoderately strong. So I suggest fixed number of attacks bonus.

 

 

Secondly, I describe about my opinion of each spell detaily.

 

Above all, almost druid spells requires long casting time. So he hardly cast during a combat. I hope that the time is a bit decreased.

 

Next, at 1st level spells, Doom, Faerie Fire, and Strengh of Stone need to be improved slightly especially Faerie Fire. It is too weak compared with Sleep or Color Spray. I feel that some more effect should be added such as Thac0 penalty (The fire is so dazzling, so it is considerable).

 

Thirdly, I discover some bug occured when I used Charm Person or Animal while spirit animal is exist. A spirit animal became enemy when the spell was succeed. I hope that you check it.

 

Finally, I recommend the Animal Summoning I should be move to lower level spell. I can't understand why Animal Summoning and Call Woodland Beings exist at same level.

 

Though Nymph is fixed level regardless of druid's level, the merit of Animal Summoning I what the number of creatures is increased by caster level is not true merit. Why druid cast this spell at high level to get useless 4D dire wolves? Even if it is 3rd level spell, I think it is not useful compared with Animate Dead. Because of the limitation of number of summoned creatures, Summoning with many weak creatures is useless.

 

I don't have good idea for changing Animal Summoning yet, but I feel the spells should be modified one more time.

 

Edit: sorry, I couldn't resist editing the title to remove typos.

[Kalindor]

Above all, almost druid spells requires long casting time. So he hardly cast during a combat. I hope that the time is a bit decreased.

 

This point I do agree on. A wizard can rattle off a Lightning Bolt, Flame Arrow, or Fireball with a casting time of 3 whereas it takes a druid a whole round to cast the also-level-3 Call Lightning, Summon Insects, Fire Trap, and the like. I understand that the Druid possesses somewhat competent fighting prowess and it would be unbalanced to give him as much firepower as the physically-pitiable wizard, but the increased casting time compared to wizard spells couple with his inability to wear metal armor makes his spells much more likely to be interrupted than his clerical brother. A casting time 3 Fire Trap or Call Lightning would still not be the equivalent of a Fireball in the midst of combat, but it would at least make them more resistant to interruption.

[Demivrgvs]

Druid's "role"

Even though he uses all of the 1st and 2nd level buff spells to himself, he never be stronger than fighter (even cleric) because of his number of attacks and Thac0.

Druids don't focus on buffs, but on invocations and conjurations. That's intended.

 

Casting Time

Above all, almost druid spells requires long casting time. So he hardly cast during a combat. I hope that the time is a bit decreased.

This point I do agree on. A wizard can rattle off a Lightning Bolt, Flame Arrow, or Fireball with a casting time of 3 whereas it takes a druid a whole round to cast the also-level-3 Call Lightning, Summon Insects, Fire Trap, and the like. I understand that the Druid possesses somewhat competent fighting prowess and it would be unbalanced to give him as much firepower as the physically-pitiable wizard, but the increased casting time compared to wizard spells couple with his inability to wear metal armor makes his spells much more likely to be interrupted than his clerical brother. A casting time 3 Fire Trap or Call Lightning would still not be the equivalent of a Fireball in the midst of combat, but it would at least make them more resistant to interruption.

Well the "problem" is that the spells you mention are actually more powerful than those cast by wizards of similar level.

 

Call Lightning does up to 30d6 points of damage, while wizard's Lightning Bolt "only" up to 10d8. Fire Trap in one lvl lower than Fireball, it's party-friendly (which is a huge advantage) and can be used as a trap. Summon Insect is an outstandingly useful spell which works in almost every occassion against any type of target.

 

Regarding the "inability to wear metal armor makes druid's spells much more likely to be interrupted than his clerical brother" you're only partially right, because druid's Stoneskin is the most effective way to avoid that, and clerics don't have it. That being said druids can wear Ankheg Plate, which is almost the best BG1 armor (only Full Plate can compete), and with IR installed they can wear few more medium and heavy armors too.

 

 

Magically created weapons

Actually, I think some of his self buff spells such as Shillelagh and Flame Blade should provide a bonus of number of attacks by fixing the bonus to 2 or 3 not plus. If the spell gives additional number of attacks bonus to druid, druid/fighter dual or multi class may be immoderately strong. So I suggest fixed number of attacks bonus.

These spells are indeed a pain to handle, and I can probably agree they may be not so appealing. Right now only a fighter-druid can fully benefit from them, while they are average spells for a plain druid.

 

Other players have suggested to improve THAC0 (which makes more sense than increased apr imo), but I'm not sure a 1st or 2nd lvl spell should allow a druid to fight like a fighter. I'll think about it.

 

 

Doom, Faerie Fire & Strength of Stone

Next, at 1st level spells, Doom, Faerie Fire, and Strengh of Stone need to be improved slightly especially Faerie Fire. It is too weak compared with Sleep or Color Spray. I feel that some more effect should be added such as Thac0 penalty (The fire is so dazzling, so it is considerable).

Doom is already more powerful than its PnP version, but I may "study" it again. Not allowing a save as per vanilla BG2 is the only possible "improvement", but on paper it seems too much, as it's almost an Enervation spell. Suffering -2 to hit/dmg and saves is almost like losing 2 levels and it can be quite OP in BG1 imo. Mmm...

 

Faerie Fire is a multi-purpose spell, and it shouldn't be compared to disabling spells such as Sleep. It's main function is to detect invisibility, and it excels at that for a 1st lvl slot. The only doubt I had was about "allowing or not a save", but SCS and RR authors considered it too powerful without it.

 

Strength of Stone is as like Wizard's 2nd lvl spell, and it uses a lower lvl slot...why do you onsider it weak?

 

Charm Person or Animal

Thirdly, I discover some bug occured when I used Charm Person or Animal while spirit animal is exist. A spirit animal became enemy when the spell was succeed. I hope that you check it.

I'm not sure I understand, have you tried to charm your own spirit animals? Anyway, SR doesn't touch spirit animals, and in vanilla casting offensive spells on summoned creatures causes them to turn hostile.

 

 

Animal Summoning

Finally, I recommend the Animal Summoning I should be move to lower level spell. I can't understand why Animal Summoning and Call Woodland Beings exist at same level.

 

Though Nymph is fixed level regardless of druid's level, the merit of Animal Summoning I what the number of creatures is increased by caster level is not true merit. Why druid cast this spell at high level to get useless 4D dire wolves? Even if it is 3rd level spell, I think it is not useful compared with Animate Dead. Because of the limitation of number of summoned creatures, Summoning with many weak creatures is useless.

I was thinking to do something about this serie of spells, but don't expect them to be much more powerful, because they seem really fine compared to the Monster Summoning spells...aren't they?

 

Unfortunately Animate Dead's power is misleading for many players, but the Skeleton Warrior is quite overpowered for a 3rd lvl spell, because in terms of power it can compete with 6th lvl summons.

[Hoo]

Druid's "role"

Even though he uses all of the 1st and 2nd level buff spells to himself, he never be stronger than fighter (even cleric) because of his number of attacks and Thac0.

Druids don't focus on buffs, but on invocations and conjurations. That's intended.

 

Casting Time

Above all, almost druid spells requires long casting time. So he hardly cast during a combat. I hope that the time is a bit decreased.

This point I do agree on. A wizard can rattle off a Lightning Bolt, Flame Arrow, or Fireball with a casting time of 3 whereas it takes a druid a whole round to cast the also-level-3 Call Lightning, Summon Insects, Fire Trap, and the like. I understand that the Druid possesses somewhat competent fighting prowess and it would be unbalanced to give him as much firepower as the physically-pitiable wizard, but the increased casting time compared to wizard spells couple with his inability to wear metal armor makes his spells much more likely to be interrupted than his clerical brother. A casting time 3 Fire Trap or Call Lightning would still not be the equivalent of a Fireball in the midst of combat, but it would at least make them more resistant to interruption.

Well the "problem" is that the spells you mention are actually more powerful than those cast by wizards of similar level.

 

Call Lightning does up to 30d6 points of damage, while wizard's Lightning Bolt "only" up to 10d8. Fire Trap in one lvl lower than Fireball, it's party-friendly (which is a huge advantage) and can be used as a trap. Summon Insect is an outstandingly useful spell which works in almost every occassion against any type of target.

Fire Trap can't use as Fireball because its effect area is quite small and casting range is so short. Although Fireball has some demerit such as hiting player characters I think that Fireball is useful at the most situation of combat even if Casting time of Fire Trap is reduced.

 

And you should consider the difference between wizard and cleric/druid. While wizard spells are total 9 level, cleric/druid is just 7 level. It means that same level spells of druid and wizard is NOT same. In other words, druid/cleric spells should be more powerful than wizard at same level spell. I think it is reasonable that Call Lighting is better than Lighting Bolt.

 

Regarding the "inability to wear metal armor makes druid's spells much more likely to be interrupted than his clerical brother" you're only partially right, because druid's Stoneskin is the most effective way to avoid that, and clerics don't have it. That being said druids can wear Ankheg Plate, which is almost the best BG1 armor (only Full Plate can compete), and with IR installed they can wear few more medium and heavy armors too.

 

Magically created weapons

Actually, I think some of his self buff spells such as Shillelagh and Flame Blade should provide a bonus of number of attacks by fixing the bonus to 2 or 3 not plus. If the spell gives additional number of attacks bonus to druid, druid/fighter dual or multi class may be immoderately strong. So I suggest fixed number of attacks bonus.

These spells are indeed a pain to handle, and I can probably agree they may be not so appealing. Right now only a fighter-druid can fully benefit from them, while they are average spells for a plain druid.

 

Other players have suggested to improve THAC0 (which makes more sense than increased apr imo), but I'm not sure a 1st or 2nd lvl spell should allow a druid to fight like a fighter. I'll think about it.

 

You don't need to worry about it. Even if the spells are improved he can't fight as fighter because of the enchantment limination (The maximum is just +3). I think it is just helpful to kill many weak creatures such as gnoll. As you know, druid has little damage spell of AOE. So it is too difficult to kill each of them. By improving the spells, he will be able to do that.

 

Doom, Faerie Fire & Strength of Stone

Next, at 1st level spells, Doom, Faerie Fire, and Strengh of Stone need to be improved slightly especially Faerie Fire. It is too weak compared with Sleep or Color Spray. I feel that some more effect should be added such as Thac0 penalty (The fire is so dazzling, so it is considerable).

Doom is already more powerful than its PnP version, but I may "study" it again. Not allowing a save as per vanilla BG2 is the only possible "improvement", but on paper it seems too much, as it's almost an Enervation spell. Suffering -2 to hit/dmg and saves is almost like losing 2 levels and it can be quite OP in BG1 imo. Mmm...

 

Faerie Fire is a multi-purpose spell, and it shouldn't be compared to disabling spells such as Sleep. It's main function is to detect invisibility, and it excels at that for a 1st lvl slot. The only doubt I had was about "allowing or not a save", but SCS and RR authors considered it too powerful without it.

 

Strength of Stone is as like Wizard's 2nd lvl spell, and it uses a lower lvl slot...why do you onsider it weak?

 

I mean that the disadvantage of Strength of Stone, which is decrease of movement speed, is too annoying to play game joyfully. Because the duration of this spell is fairly long, the demrit bothers me.

 

Charm Person or Animal

Thirdly, I discover some bug occured when I used Charm Person or Animal while spirit animal is exist. A spirit animal became enemy when the spell was succeed. I hope that you check it.

I'm not sure I understand, have you tried to charm your own spirit animals? Anyway, SR doesn't touch spirit animals, and in vanilla casting offensive spells on summoned creatures causes them to turn hostile.

 

I never did like that. I just casted Charm Person or Animal to Goblin when I summoned Spirit animal. After the casting, my sprit animal became to enemy... I did nothing to it.

 

Animal Summoning

Finally, I recommend the Animal Summoning I should be move to lower level spell. I can't understand why Animal Summoning and Call Woodland Beings exist at same level.

 

Though Nymph is fixed level regardless of druid's level, the merit of Animal Summoning I what the number of creatures is increased by caster level is not true merit. Why druid cast this spell at high level to get useless 4D dire wolves? Even if it is 3rd level spell, I think it is not useful compared with Animate Dead. Because of the limitation of number of summoned creatures, Summoning with many weak creatures is useless.

I was thinking to do something about this serie of spells, but don't expect them to be much more powerful, because they seem really fine compared to the Monster Summoning spells...aren't they?

 

Sure, I agree with you about what the Monster Summoning Spells are not so useful. I think that the spells and Animal Summoning spells should be integrated to one as Animate dead. Or the Animate dead has to be separated like Animal or Monster Summoning.

 

 

Unfortunately Animate Dead's power is misleading for many players, but the Skeleton Warrior is quite overpowered for a 3rd lvl spell, because in terms of power it can compete with 6th lvl summons.

[Shaitan]

Would you mind posting your Weidu.log?

[Demivrgvs]

Fire Trap

Fire Trap can't use as Fireball because its effect area is quite small and casting range is so short. Although Fireball has some demerit such as hiting player characters I think that Fireball is useful at the most situation of combat even if Casting time of Fire Trap is reduced.

Well, if the problem is the range I may think about raising a little the short range of Fire Trap and Glyph of Warding...after all Symbol spells have long range. That being said, I wasn't saying Fire Trap was better than Fireball, because it actually has to be quite weaker.

 

 

Priests vs Mages

And you should consider the difference between wizard and cleric/druid. While wizard spells are total 9 level, cleric/druid is just 7 level. It means that same level spells of druid and wizard is NOT same. In other words, druid/cleric spells should be more powerful than wizard at same level spell. I think it is reasonable that Call Lighting is better than Lighting Bolt.

On this we can't really agree, because your logic here is seriously faulty sorry.

 

Priests get tons of advantages over mages:

- almost twice as much hit point

- can wear armors

- much better thac0 progression

- can use much more weapons

Those advantages are huge, and they are the very reason priests spellcasting power was more limited in AD&D. If you ask to 3rd edition players they'll tell you that clerics with 9th lvl spells in heavy armor are simply overpowered.

 

Actually if we really want to be "fair" a wizard's spell should be more powerful than a priest's spell of the same level. The easiest example is to compare a BG1 mage and a priest:

---> after casting a couple of spells the mage can't do anything else

---> after casting a couple of spells the priest can fight even in melee

Now, how can you think that priest's spells should be more powerful than wizard's ones? Not to mention that priests would get those spells before mages do, making them more powerful than mages even as pure spellcasters (till mages get 8th lvl spells, which is looong way).

 

 

Magically created weapons

You don't need to worry about it. Even if the spells are improved he can't fight as fighter because of the enchantment limination (The maximum is just +3). I think it is just helpful to kill many weak creatures such as gnoll. As you know, druid has little damage spell of AOE. So it is too difficult to kill each of them. By improving the spells, he will be able to do that.

A +3 weapon is good only agaisnt a gnoll? I don't know why so many players think +3 is pathetic. Just so you know +3 enchantment can hit 99,99% of your enemies. Only a couple of demiliches, and 2 or 3 unique beings in the entire saga need a +4 enchantment!

 

Charm Person or Animal

Thirdly, I discover some bug occured when I used Charm Person or Animal while spirit animal is exist. A spirit animal became enemy when the spell was succeed. I hope that you check it.

I'm not sure I understand, have you tried to charm your own spirit animals? Anyway, SR doesn't touch spirit animals, and in vanilla casting offensive spells on summoned creatures causes them to turn hostile.

I never did like that. I just casted Charm Person or Animal to Goblin when I summoned Spirit animal. After the casting, my sprit animal became to enemy... I did nothing to it.

Considering Charm Person or Animal hasn't an AoE I really can't imagine it causing such issue...

 

 

Animal Summoning

Sure, I agree with you about what the Monster Summoning Spells are not so useful. I think that the spells and Animal Summoning spells should be integrated to one as Animate dead. Or the Animate dead has to be separated like Animal or Monster Summoning.

That's really not what I was saying, Monster Summoning spells are quite powerful instead for their lvl (I made them hugely more powerful than in PnP).

[Daulmakan]

Priests get tons of advantages over mages:

- almost twice as much hit point

Which are easily rendered ineffective in and out of combat. Out of combat, the HP difference is practically meaningless. In combat, clerics lack the mages' physical protection spells and are clearly inferior to the fighters in durability (less HP, potentially less dexterity having to spend points in WIS and thus worse AC).

 

- can wear armors

Mages don't need to wear armor for what they do. A Cleric is neither the meat shield the fighter is nor can he equate the damaging output the mage has.

 

- much better thac0 progression

Cleric THAC0 SUCKS. For 2 levels it stays the same. I like the rogue's better, and he can backstab as well.

 

- can use much more weapons

Yeah, if you're considering only blunt weaponry. And again, mages don't need weapons, because they can rain death with magic. Clerics' damage-dealing spells are generally trash and are very limited in number.

 

In my 2E experience, other than bards (who most often than not aren't usually part of the "typical" adventuring company), priests are the weakest class by a long margin.

 

Sorry for the slight OT, carry on.

[Demivrgvs]

Well, I'll do the devil's advocate then.

 

Mages vs Priests

Priests get tons of advantages over mages:

- almost twice as much hit point

Which are easily rendered ineffective in and out of combat. Out of combat, the HP difference is practically meaningless. In combat, clerics lack the mages' physical protection spells and are clearly inferior to the fighters in durability (less HP, potentially less dexterity having to spend points in WIS and thus worse AC).

The difference is that a damage dealing spell can easily kill a mage, while a priest has twice as much chances to survive. A mage without protections such as Mirror Image or Stoneskin can be killed with very few hits, even by a couple of arrows, while priests can take quite a few hits even in melee.

 

When you do a comparison you should decide the two "competitors" and stick with them. It's not fair to use mages to say clerics spells are weak and then fighters to say clerics can't fight. Clerics can fight less effectively than fighters, and have less powerful spells than mages, but the point is that they can do both things! Do you want them to fight like fighters and cast like mages?

 

That being said, cast Armor of Faith and your cleric will have as much durability as a fighter. AC potential in theory is exactly the same, and even if you do have a point about DEX, a cheap 2nd lvl spell can raise DEX far beyond fighter's one (on top of other benefits).

 

- can wear armors

Mages don't need to wear armor for what they do. A Cleric is neither the meat shield the fighter is nor can he equate the damaging output the mage has.

Still, as I said above, clerics can walk around with a tower shield and heavy armor while the mage is outstandingly vulnerable even when he's not in the middle of the fight. And a buffed cleric can actually be much more powerful than a fighter even in melee (though temporarily).

 

- much better thac0 progression

Cleric THAC0 SUCKS. For 2 levels it stays the same. I like the rogue's better, and he can backstab as well.

The progression table sucks I gree (it should be more linear), but still clerics have better THAC0 than rogues in this game, and way better than mages.

 

- can use much more weapons

Yeah, if you're considering only blunt weaponry. And again, mages don't need weapons, because they can rain death with magic. Clerics' damage-dealing spells are generally trash and are very limited in number.

I don't like the blunt restriction myself, but it doesn't limit too much cleric's potential, especially in BG2 considering Flail of the Ages pratically is the best SoA weapon, and it's available almost at the start of the game.

 

In my 2E experience, other than bards (who most often than not aren't usually part of the "typical" adventuring company), priests are the weakest class by a long margin.

Clerics require considerable micromanagement, but they really can't be considered a weak class imo. You simply have to learn how to effectively use all the buffs...Armor of Faith, Divine Might, Blade Barrier are only few examples of their vast arsenal.

[Daulmakan]

The difference is that a damage dealing spell can easily kill a mage, while a priest has twice as much chances to survive. A mage without protections such as Mirror Image or Stoneskin can be killed with very few hits, even by a couple of arrows, while priests can take quite a few hits even in melee.

Correct, of course, but being in the back of the fray lessens the chance of such occurrances. Clerics, normally in the front, get to test their mettle more often.

 

When you do a comparison you should decide the two "competitors" and stick with them. It's not fair to use mages to say clerics spells are weak and then fighters to say clerics can't fight. Clerics can fight less effectively than fighters, and have less powerful spells than mages, but the point is that they can do both things! Do you want them to fight like fighters and cast like mages?

True, but that's the problem. As they're in between, they take a backseat to both mages and fighters in the front and rear positions. For one or the other, a mage and a fighter will always be preferrable. A cleric works best as a buffer, heal bot, and so on, mostly party-related functions. On their own, their efficiency diminishes greatly.

 

That being said, cast Armor of Faith and your cleric will have as much durability as a fighter. AC potential in theory is exactly the same, and even if you do have a point about DEX, a cheap 2nd lvl spell can raise DEX far beyond fighter's one (on top of other benefits).

I disagree. Armor of Faith isn't enough to put you on that fighter's level when you're still getting pounded and outgunned in fighting capabilities (much less attacks per round, less damage dealt, while getting hit harder and more often). And they have less hit points to boot. Unless on some serious buffs (fighters can drink potions as well which can equate one or some minor protections), a cleric will get stomped by an equivalent power-level fighter everytime.

 

Still, as I said above, clerics can walk around with a tower shield and heavy armor while the mage is outstandingly vulnerable even when he's not in the middle of the fight.

Yeah, but still. For starting combat, I'll take Stoneskin over the best shield & armor 100% of the time. After that, the tools differ for each, and I like the mage's better.

 

And a buffed cleric can actually be much more powerful than a fighter even in melee (though temporarily).

Also true. But the same thing applies to mages, in even more ways, and for longer periods of time.

 

Clerics require considerable micromanagement, but they really can't be considered a weak class imo. You simply have to learn how to effectively use all the buffs...Armor of Faith, Divine Might, Blade Barrier are only few examples of their vast arsenal.

I don't mean to imply they're useless, but they do require micromanaging, which sets them behind, and their arsenal is really not vast once spheres and the "common" (AKA available to the player) spells come into play. This is of course speaking outside the box of the game.

 

 

Thanks for letting me rant on this, I don't wanna hijack your thread.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Let's see how well Demivgvs can calculate...

Just so you know +3 enchantment can hit 99,99% of your enemies. Only a couple of demiliches, and 2 or 3 unique beings in the entire saga need a +4 enchantment!

The problem there's just that I don't think there's 30000 to 50000 hostile creatures in the regular BGII game, even if you try to play it twice or summon half of them.

 

Mages vs Priests

Erhm, well, Priests are not Druids are they?

And when looking at the druid kits, most of them cannot even use armor, the shield they are restricted to is a Buckler +1... no +7 AC Tower Shields there, and the Stoneskin is just a temporary powerup that doesn't even have it's AD&D equivalents other power(or whatever rule system the Forgotten Realms books use)... as when the spell ends, all the physical damage should be released to a target, and if it's not directed to anyone else, then the spells wearer takes that damage instantly(and usually dies to them).

 

Edit: Hmm, sorry if the message sounds hostile to Demivgvs, I am half kidding the whole time, so ... don't take it with as a hostility.

 

Do you want them to fight like fighters and cast like mages?

No, I would prefer to have more than 24 really usable spells per spell level, depending on the situation of course. Yes, I am talking about a game with the ToB Extender's spell book extension installed. So, just like this:

I think the druid spells are fine as is, though bringing a few more in couldn't hurt.

But way over the top...

[Dermit]

I think the druid spells are fine as is, though bringing a few more in couldn't hurt.

 

I don't have BG installed right now so I can't check, what is the casting time for Entangle? IRC it is a little long, thus making it very impractical.

[Shaitan]

I have nothing to complain about concerning druid spells. I get many great spells: barkskin, stoneskin, insetcs and beauty of nature amongt others.

 

Regarding the mage priest discussion: you are forgetting the turn undead ability.

[Ardanis]

@Daulmakan:

No offense, but it seems to me you just don't like priests for whatever reason and try to justify your dislike of them.

 

Clerics, normally in the front, get to test their mettle more often.

Clerics are normally on flanks, to block off those who manage to breach the frontline, or when party is surrounded and fighters can't intercept everyone.

 

True, but that's the problem. As they're in between, they take a backseat to both mages and fighters in the front and rear positions. For one or the other, a mage and a fighter will always be preferrable. A cleric works best as a buffer, heal bot, and so on, mostly party-related functions. On their own, their efficiency diminishes greatly.

Actually, the same can be said about F/Ms. Yet I play them on a regular basis and they make a tremendious input in party's efficiency.

 

Also true. But the same thing applies to mages, in even more ways, and for longer periods of time.

There's Tenser, and what else? Within SR priests can achieve precisely the same result for exaclty the same duration, while not suffering the inability to cast spells. Not to mention DUHM.

 

I don't mean to imply they're useless, but they do require micromanaging, which sets them behind

Wizards require more micromanagement.

 

 

Back to druids.

Their general lack of heavy armor is well compensated by the Barkskin spell. Coupled with Stoneskin, they can cast without a fear of interruption. Use this time to Entangle and Insect foes, and then Call Lightning them to death. Powerful summons too, namely elementals. Lastly, druids get thee shapeshifting, which, while not much effective in vanilla game, is hopefully something that can be rebalanced within KR.

[Kalindor]

I am not the greatest tactician in the world, but playing as a druid often times seems more like playing as a mage than as a cleric due to their inferior equipment choices. Yes, they get Barkskin and the cleric doesn't... that doesn't really make up for the whole no resurrection and no metal armor (there is, after all, only one suit of Ankheg Plate that Taerom will forge, and in SCS dispel is often used against you). And no helmet = critical hits, which are not amusing. I usually end up, at least with SCS, having to treat my druid as a backline mage-like caster to prevent him from getting eaten by fighters and even clerics sometimes.

If you want to mention druids in the same breath as clerics for melee purposes, perhaps their druid-exclusive melee buffing spells should be improved or perhaps their innate THAC0 progression should be slightly better than the cleric's. That would make them more of an offensive melee threat than clerics while leaving them less durable. Or improve their shapeshifting with levels so it is useful later in the game.

An alternative would be increasing the lethality of druid high-end offensive spells to mage-like levels. This would not necessarily be unbalanced because, even though they have more hit points, they would still not be able to cast spell deflections, spell protection removals, sequencers, and the like as mages can.

As I said, it's possible that I am overlooking the usefulness of druids due to tactical incompetence, but if I have to hide them like a mage to prevent them from getting their butts handed to them in melee, then it seems like they either need a melee or spell boost to define their role in the party.

[Daulmakan]

Regarding the mage priest discussion: you are forgetting the turn undead ability.

Indeed. That is a very good ability (though also limited in scope and use). Mages can use wands too. I think my point still stands.

 

@Daulmakan:

No offense, but it seems to me you just don't like priests for whatever reason and try to justify your dislike of them.

None taken, but I don't see why you got that impression, all my points are based on actual characteristics of the class. Plus you seem to imply that more power = more likeable, which I don't agree with. I play clerics & bards in the game, and I've played them in P&P, but that doesn't impede me from realizing that on most circumstamnces they're inferior to the other classes when measured head to head.

 

Clerics are normally on flanks, to block off those who manage to breach the frontline, or when party is surrounded and fighters can't intercept everyone.

In other words, meat shields of an inferior quality. I said that already.

 

Actually, the same can be said about F/Ms. Yet I play them on a regular basis and they make a tremendious input in party's efficiency.

Uh, no it can't. Fighters can't buff, mages can't heal.

 

There's Tenser, and what else? Within SR priests can achieve precisely the same result for exaclty the same duration, while not suffering the inability to cast spells. Not to mention DUHM.

There's plenty of alternatives. For example, Improved Haste+BBoD+Tenser's, Timestop or Stun allow for instant hits, Shapechange (in game and P&P versions are very susceptible of abuse), Melf's meteors give free hits between spells and plenty of attacks, and several others, all that could be coupled with Mirror Image, Stoneskin, Protection from magical weapons. etc. Your cleric can deal good damage under divine power and other buffs, but he has no real protection from damage. And once his attacks wane again he'll go down quickly. And while he is able to cast spells during that period, going melee without protections makes it much easier to interrupt him. And mages don't have to go physical to deal high damage to one or more creatures, that's the point. The fact that they can also do that makes them even more versatile.

 

But you seem to have missed that I'm not specifically speaking about SR.

 

Wizards require more micromanagement.

Just saying something doesn't make it true. You have no argument here. And no, they don't. A Stoneskined mage has no problem in going toe to toe with a fighter and then start spamming spells. A cleric will get outclassed if he goes melee as well, and probably get interrupted if he tries to buff. He'll need to incapacitate the fighter in some way (Hold Person, Sanctuary, etc.) before attempting much of anything.