raditz: When have you ever seen a druid strike someone with that shaky old piece of wood they call a staff? And let's face it, if they did the damage they would do with that lump of wood is something that is going to cause damage very small similar to the poor damage they do now anyway.

So let's fix it, a druid is a spell caster, instead of attacks, the druid would now cast 6 spells and have no attack function.

This would undoubtable make lower levels ad a druid a lot harder and make them an expensive class to play needing many pots but from the level 60+ range would give them a
Better chance of actually putting up a fight.

On top of this it also adds individuality to the class, they would finally become the spell masters they claim to be. High resisitance mobs would actually take some damage and barbs may lose a little of that insane damage they can cause against them as druids would be able to cast weakness and stoneskin first round ands still have a chance of dealing damage.

celistia: I love this.

-uki-: I do not agree about using 6 spells. Thats selfish.

if dreamer confirmed this idea, a barb should do 6 physical damage also to balance it.

raditz: If a barb attacked 6 times it would not have bloodlust. Or whirlwind. I think you have missed my point. A barb can do a lot more damage with bloodlust whirlwind and 3 attacks.

The druid would have no attack at all, only spells. The extra 3 spells would be to replace the currently useless attack option.

ili: Lets see.what do paladins have? Their physical damage is lesser than the others and their magic is weaker too

the_imouth: I like this..good..