Why did they make Druids so powerful?

[Tvtyrant]

This is going to seem weird, but I think its a valid question: What made WOTC make Druids so powerful? Up until recently I thought it was an accident, but then I was looking at the ACFs of Druids and its apparent that WOTC thought an equivalent balance to losing all of their none-casting features was to grant most of the Barbarian (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druidVariantDruidicAve nger)and Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druid)features, along with some Monk abilities. Giving out entire classes worth of abilities in return for 1/3 of a Druid's implies that WOTC knew how much more powerful they were and made them like that anyways.

[NikitaDarkstar]

You know what? I don't even think Wizards of the Coast can answer that one cause they make no sense and trying to make sense of them will give you headaches.

That said, I really have no idea, and I really doubt there was a specific reason behind it.

[BillyBobJoe]

What are you talking about? Druids are horribly weaksauce! Commoners are what WotC made OP.


On a serious note, I really have no idea.

[Zaq]

Yeah, that's always been a mystery to me, especially since the Druid doesn't fit in the Holy Quartet of iconic smashy/sneaky/healy/blasty characters. The Cleric I can at least understand . . . it was overcompensation for folks who (understandably) didn't want to be a box of bandages. The Druid, though? Yeah, you've got me.

[Sucrose]

First, because they dramatically overvalued full BAB. Compare Paladins to Clerics to get an idea of the difference that they thought full BAB wrought.

Second, I believe that one or another of the designers of 3.5 had a fixation on Druids from 2E. Would certainly explain why they're proficient with scimitars, in particular, when said weapons aren't any more related to nature than the scythe, which at least has harvest implications.

[Psyren]

They also overvalued weapon proficiency. They gave the Druid a gimp weapon list, then gave them the tools to never need to rely on that list past level 6.

But honestly you can explain most of the class imbalance with lack of playtesting. They thought most Wizards would spend their time blasting, and Clerics healing, too.

[marcielle]

Wizard is made up of closet hippies. Isn't it obvious?

[MeeposFire]

First, because they dramatically overvalued full BAB. Compare Paladins to Clerics to get an idea of the difference that they thought full BAB wrought.

Second, I believe that one or another of the designers of 3.5 had a fixation on Druids from 2E. Would certainly explain why they're proficient with scimitars, in particular, when said weapons aren't any more related to nature than the scythe, which at least has harvest implications.

Scimitar is a fluff choice from the 13th warrior and its moon shape and has been a druid weapon from 1st ed on.

[Psyren]

Wizard is made up of closet hippies. Isn't it obvious?

Except they borked the hell out of Artificer too, and Psionic Artificer even more. No hippie would do that :smalltongue:

[ffone]

This is going to seem weird, but I think its a valid question: What made WOTC make Druids so powerful? Up until recently I thought it was an accident, but then I was looking at the ACFs of Druids and its apparent that WOTC thought an equivalent balance to losing all of their none-casting features was to grant most of the Barbarian (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druidVariantDruidicAve nger)and Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druid)features, along with some Monk abilities. Giving out entire classes worth of abilities in return for 1/3 of a Druid's implies that WOTC knew how much more powerful they were and made them like that anyways.

Well, I'm not sure the Avenger is *most* of a barbarian's class features (no mighty/gr. rage, no DR or u-dodge etc.) but the basic answer is that WOTC appears to've rated the benefit of full BAB and high HP very highly; full BAB classes tend to get radically fewer (less?) class features than most others.

[Coidzor]

The Cleric I can at least understand . . . it was overcompensation for folks who (understandably) didn't want to be a box of bandages.

The really weird thing about that is that if they did that to make it so that they weren't playing a box of bandages, why did those same people who designed it only play them as if they were boxes of bandages?

[Big Fau]

Except they borked the hell out of Artificer too, and Psionic Artificer even more. No hippie would do that :smalltongue:

That's because they didn't understand how their own craft system worked.


As for Druids, it's a hold-over. In 2E, they were one of the hardest classes to take levels in, and kept a metric ton of abilities as a result. The Devs simply ported it and never realized the implications doing so would have.

[NNescio]

That's because they didn't understand how their own craft system worked.


As for Druids, it's a hold-over. In 2E, they were one of the hardest classes to take levels in, and kept a metric ton of abilities as a result. The Devs simply ported it and never realized the implications doing so would have.

It's a pity they decided to bork over the Paladin instead.

[MeeposFire]

That's because they didn't understand how their own craft system worked.


As for Druids, it's a hold-over. In 2E, they were one of the hardest classes to take levels in, and kept a metric ton of abilities as a result. The Devs simply ported it and never realized the implications doing so would have.

That and they did not realize that by giving animals full stats modified by the druids level would be so much better than 2e's replace most everything approach (which meant animal forms quickly became obsolete).

[NikitaDarkstar]

That's because they didn't understand how their own craft system worked.


As for Druids, it's a hold-over. In 2E, they were one of the hardest classes to take levels in, and kept a metric ton of abilities as a result. The Devs simply ported it and never realized the implications doing so would have.

You know, it's pretty depressing when a systems players understands the system far, far better than the systems developers.

[Gavinfoxx]

I think it has something to do with how they were playtested. The playtesters used scimitar, used wild shape primarily for scouting, kept wolves and eagles and such as animal companions and didn't use them in combat, etc. etc.

[Coidzor]

You know, it's pretty depressing when a systems players understands the system far, far better than the systems developers.

Well, there's a lot more time that the players have to play around with the system and look at it, and a lot more eyes on the player end, than on the designer end, so it's bound to happen eventually.

[Xefas]

This article (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) by Monte Cook seems related. It's not that Wizards didn't understand what they were doing. They understood perfectly. They specifically designed 3rd edition D&D to reward System Mastery - that is, they made it so that the options that look simple and fun are intentionally inferior, and the ones that look like they're a painful slog through a bookkeeping nightmare are the objectively superior ones. The whole Tier System is working as intended, for the most part. Monte Cook even specifically points out that Toughness is intentionally a terrible feat, that they intentionally suggest for new players.

Which, isn't a bad way to go about designing a competitive game, I guess.

No, seriously, go read the article.

[MeeposFire]

I think it has something to do with how they were playtested. The playtesters used scimitar, used wild shape primarily for scouting, kept wolves and eagles and such as animal companions and didn't use them in combat, etc. etc.

Essentially how you played in 2e. You did not have the uses of wild shape to make constant use of it and the forms quickly become less powerful so scouting is a common use for it. Due to a relative lack of spells weapon use was more important so the scimitar was useful.

[Gettles]

You know, it's pretty depressing when a systems players understands the system far, far better than the systems developers.

Not really, it's pretty much inevitable. You have a much larger amount of players who have totaled a lot more time with the system than the testers could possibly be given. Things that made perfect sense at creation (the value of AC) end up changing when enough people start to think around them.

[Shadowknight12]

This article (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) by Monte Cook seems related. It's not that Wizards didn't understand what they were doing. They understood perfectly. They specifically designed 3rd edition D&D to reward System Mastery - that is, they made it so that the options that look simple and fun are intentionally inferior, and the ones that look like they're a painful slog through a bookkeeping nightmare are the objectively superior ones. The whole Tier System is working as intended, for the most part. Monte Cook even specifically points out that Toughness is intentionally a terrible feat, that they intentionally suggest for new players.

Which, isn't a bad way to go about designing a competitive game, I guess.

No, seriously, go read the article.

Thank you for linking that. Now I have a solid piece of evidence to explain why I dislike that man so much.

[MeeposFire]

This article (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) by Monte Cook seems related. It's not that Wizards didn't understand what they were doing. They understood perfectly. They specifically designed 3rd edition D&D to reward System Mastery - that is, they made it so that the options that look simple and fun are intentionally inferior, and the ones that look like they're a painful slog through a bookkeeping nightmare are the objectively superior ones. The whole Tier System is working as intended, for the most part. Monte Cook even specifically points out that Toughness is intentionally a terrible feat, that they intentionally suggest for new players.

Which, isn't a bad way to go about designing a competitive game, I guess.

No, seriously, go read the article.

There are debates out there about whether this is actually true or if this was something that he made up later to cover his own ineptitude. Either way does not make e feel better about his design.

[Psyren]

You know, it's pretty depressing when a systems players understands the system far, far better than the systems developers.

It's not a problem when the designers/developers are willing to keep an open dialogue with the players, and make changes on the fly where necessary. WotC has unfortunately been notoriously bad at both jobs. By the time they developed a system that could do it well (DDI, for 4e) it was barely needed, because they had ironed almost all imbalance out of the game by giving classes far less mechanical differences.

[Zaq]

I always thought that article was crap made up after the fact to basically say "I meant to do that!" instead of owning up to the fact that the game is not even a little bit balanced.

I can't prove it, of course.

[*.*.*.*]

No, seriously, go read the article.

Mind=blown

That answered every damn question about 3E that I had. I can't believe Wizard's actually knew what they were doing~

[Hawk7915]

A combination of factors, most of what have already been addressed: a desire to reward system mastery, where the most complex character (from both a crunch and sometimes fluff standpoint) is also the strongest, a drastic overestimation of the importance/value of BAB and HD size and feats/racial traits that boosted attack, and inexperienced and insufficient playesting.

Some other factors I imagine also influenced it are that...

- They badly underestimated how well a druid could "master" other roles, especially with Natural Spell. The druid was meant to be a jack of all trades, master of none: instead he ended up being a master of all trades. One has to wonder, if natural spell was banned and wildshape lasted for minutes instead of hours, if Druid might at least feel less broken (while still being tier one or two due to its spell list).

- Related to above: failure to account for expansion of the game when designing the class in core. The druid benefits more from additional SPLAT books then any class in the game, because he gains feats, ACFs, and additional magic items (like everyone), but also gains spells (like all core casters) and gains new wildshape forms and animal companion choices with each new monster printed. Even taking out natural spell a druid probably owns in core...but add all those options, like Extended Creeping Cold and Venomfire and shapeshifting into Dire Tortoise and Warbeast Fleshraker Dinosaurs with magic items and it just gets to be a nightmare.

- Failure to create clear limits on what druid's spell list can and cannot do, which influenced the above. Wizards can basically do anything but heal but that's their only class feature; clerics have more passive abilities and class features but their spell list is pretty much buffs, debuffs, and healing spells with precious few competitive blasting and mass battlefield control options in core: even in Core (and especially as more splatbooks are added) Druid can blast, heal, buff, debuff, shape the battlefield, and summon like a demon to boot. They get all that while still being reasonable warriors without (and obviously especially with) Wildshape, AND they get a companion.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Not really, it's pretty much inevitable. You have a much larger amount of players who have totaled a lot more time with the system than the testers could possibly be given. Things that made perfect sense at creation (the value of AC) end up changing when enough people start to think around them.

Of course, but some imbalances and issues seem to big to have ever slipped through play testing. But Gavinfoxx is most likely right that they played the classes like they had played them in 2E and then it made sense.

(As for the value of AC... if you can push it high enough it's useful, but it's really just working in the completely wrong way to begin with.)

[Psyren]

I think he meant it for some cases (like Toughness, Dodge, Weapon Focus etc.), but there were genuine instances where he and the other devs just plain dropped the ball.

No amount of "Ivory Tower Design" can explain the Monk; They genuinely thought it was a good class to play, not that "system mastery" would make players feel good about discovering what a miserable pile of failure it really was for themselves.

[Coidzor]

Which, isn't a bad way to go about designing a competitive game, I guess.

Lying about the game's nature and making options that look fun be traps that just suck... has a way that this does not sound just plain bad to you?

Because it seems like if you want the game to be competitive, then you'd... I dunno, foster competition. Or at least have the game be honest about what it was.

[Bhaakon]

That's because they didn't understand how their own craft system worked.


As for Druids, it's a hold-over. In 2E, they were one of the hardest classes to take levels in, and kept a metric ton of abilities as a result. The Devs simply ported it and never realized the implications doing so would have.

This. A great deal of the difference between 2e and 3e was that WOTC went in and took a lot of the limitations off the casting classes without doing anything to improve mundane classes. And 2e class balance wasn't all that great to begin with.

I know why they did it, it was incredibly annoying to have to lose a point of Con to craft a magic item, or age your character a year to cast haste, or kill off higher ranking druids to advance beyond level 12. So annoying, in fact, that most people house-ruled those limits out of existence anyway. So in 3e they went through and took out all the annoying limitations that people ignored anyway (good), but didn't really do anything to replace them or re-balance the power of spell-casting as a whole (bad).

[supermonkeyjoe]

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that Cleric and Druid were intentionally made more powerful to get over the notion that nobody wants to play a healbot. It may be referring to something completely different but would certainly explain the CoDzilla status.

[KingofMadCows]

Maybe they were planning to cash in with a bunch of CRPG's where the casters don't have nearly as big of an advantage over the fighters.

If the relationship between Atari and Hasbro hadn't deteriorated after whatever the heck happened with Atari splitting from Hasbro, there would probably be a lot more D&D video games.

[Winterwind]

This article (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) by Monte Cook seems related. It's not that Wizards didn't understand what they were doing. They understood perfectly. They specifically designed 3rd edition D&D to reward System Mastery - that is, they made it so that the options that look simple and fun are intentionally inferior, and the ones that look like they're a painful slog through a bookkeeping nightmare are the objectively superior ones. The whole Tier System is working as intended, for the most part. Monte Cook even specifically points out that Toughness is intentionally a terrible feat, that they intentionally suggest for new players.

Which, isn't a bad way to go about designing a competitive game, I guess.

No, seriously, go read the article.What I find really, really shocking about this - assuming it's true - is that they would expect and reward players for looking for the mechanically most efficient choice, rather than the one most fitting with regards to fluff and background. In a roleplaying game. Rather than setting the system up in a way that "I envision my character to be such and such, so I should pick options that reflect this the best" would be the most rewarded way of thinking, so that optimisation and roleplaying would actually go hand in hand and compliment each other, they did the exact opposite and went with rewarding "these options are the best because system mastery tells me they are, even though they have nothing to do with how I envision the character" the most.

It's deliberately designing a roleplaying game in such a way that the focus is shifted from the roleplaying to number crunching. It... it simply boggles the mind why anybody would do such a thing. :smalleek:

[NNescio]

What I find really, really shocking about this - assuming it's true - is that they would expect and reward players for looking for the mechanically most efficient choice, rather than the one most fitting with regards to fluff and background. In a roleplaying game. Rather than setting the system up in a way that "I envision my character to be such and such, so I should pick options that reflect this the best" would be the most rewarded way of thinking, so that optimisation and roleplaying would actually go hand in hand and compliment each other, they did the exact opposite and went with rewarding "these options are the best because system mastery tells me they are, even though they have nothing to do with how I envision the character" the most.

It's deliberately designing a roleplaying game in such a way that the focus is shifted from the roleplaying to number crunching. It... it simply boggles the mind why anybody would do such a thing. :smalleek:

I prefer Zaq's assessment.

"Ha, I totally meant to do that!" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IMeantToDoThat)


I always thought that article was crap made up after the fact to basically say "I meant to do that!" instead of owning up to the fact that the game is not even a little bit balanced.

I can't prove it, of course.

[LansXero]

I prefer Zaq's assessment.

"Ha, I totally meant to do that!" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IMeantToDoThat)


Well, WotC does make Magic: The Gathering, and it works exactly that way. Thematic / "fun" decks suck, min-maxed decks rule.

[Winterwind]

Well, WotC does make Magic: The Gathering, and it works exactly that way. Thematic / "fun" decks suck, min-maxed decks rule.Which is a bit of a pity, but hey, M:TG is a competitive game. I can totally get behind that being designed this way.

D&D though should nominally be a roleplaying game first and foremost. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea somebody might take a roleplaying game, weigh "competitiveness" against "roleplaying", and decide that, yeah, supporting competitiveness is more important in this roleplaying game than supporting roleplaying! :smalleek:

[Ernir]

The Druid is a class designed for the DM's girlfriend. Seriously, this is the oldest explanation in the book, why hasn't it come up yet?

[Bob the DM]

It actually makes perfect sense. 3rd edition is all about streamlining the things that looked complicated and making DnD more accessable to the most amount of people. Good roleplaying is possibly the hardest aspect of this hobby to learn and do well so you can't make it the sole focus. You need to add in things that are the "best" weapon or simple feats like toughness. That makes it much easier for new people to join. Making a mechanicaly powerful character is also something that many people enjoy (look around this forum), and that's not something that can be roleplayed either, it has to be built directly into the game. While things for new players or mechanical optimizers need to be built into the game, there's nothing that can be built into the rules to improve or sideline roleplaying and so that's up to the players and dm. For someone who likes roleplaying, taking a "mechanicaly inferior" class is no issue most of the time. I just love the fighter and ninja. To me it doen't matter that the wizard, cleric or druid are a "higher tier", any character I play will be important to the party and usefull.
Designed this way, dnd is the most accessable to the most varied kinds of players and that's good.

[Winterwind]

While I agree that reaching out to as many people as possible is valuable, there are also plenty of people who happen to enjoy both. Personally, I value roleplaying much, much more and will always choose in the favour of reflecting how I imagine the character to be and what seems to make sense fluff-wise over what is mechanically the most effective - but nonetheless I do enjoy having as strong a character as I can within the confines of how fluff, story, roleplaying etc. have shaped him, and I'd find the knowledge that the system was basically designed to punish me for taking something other than pure efficiency into account to be frustrating in the extreme.

Especially since it wouldn't have to be that way - in fact, I'd argue that a system in which all choices were equally good would appeal to people interested primarily in mechanics and rules more than a system where there are obviously better and inferior choices. Because there would be a greater variety in viable combinations. You could choose a feat that makes a warrior more of a brutish brawler, or more of an agile fencer, or someone who uses magic to enhance their combat prowess, or any other such thing, and think what other feats and what not would focus you more in that direction - or expand into one direction you haven't taken yet to widen your spectrum - and you'd know that no matter what you did, you'd end up with something equally good, but totally different. People could be more explorative without having to worry about gimping themselves, and see what clever and creative combinations they could come up with. As is, though, people who care about power cannot explore the, say, agile fencer aspect, because they know the brutish brawler is simply better.

So, no, I don't think designing the system in such a way that there are mechanically superior and inferior choices makes it more accessible to more kinds of players. Quite the opposite, I think it cheapens it for those who care primarily about the roleplaying, cheapens it even more so for those who care about the mechanics and rules, and heavily punishes those who have the audacity to care about both.

[Kornilios]

I just love the fighter and ninja. To me it doen't matter that the wizard, cleric or druid are a "higher tier", any character I play will be important to the party and usefull.
Designed this way, dnd is the most accessable to the most varied kinds of players and that's good.

Yea,but if the other player's are 10xusefull than you are,you rarly get your moments to shine it start's getting annoying.Imagine how funnier would be,if you knew that you can make whatever character you want and be equal to others.

[FMArthur]

I get the feeling that animals were not considered to be that good. They are mostly simple creatures who only rely on getting lots of hit dice for their stuff. Unfortunately... some animals did in fact get really good special attacks, tricks that no melee class was even capable of for a long, long time.

Most likely, the Tiger Tsunami and Travelling Bear Circus type druids were not at all what WotC had in mind. They were thinking about "friend of all the little critters of the forest" Disney movie druids.

[Morty]

Yeah, that article really does reek of "We totally meant to do that!" Nothing I've ever seen in D&D 3rd edition material suggests that various options available for characters were supposed to be unequal. Otherwise, why would they, for instance, put guildelines about making new classes balanced in the DMG rather than say "go wild"?
The real reasons have already been thoroughly explained - the designers overestimated the value of high dice, full Base attack Bonus and weapon proficiencies and underestimated the punch behind druids' class abilities. Really, most of the class imbalance in 3rd edition D&D comes from underestimating some things and overestimating others, in my view.

[Larpus]

This article (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) by Monte Cook seems related. It's not that Wizards didn't understand what they were doing. They understood perfectly. They specifically designed 3rd edition D&D to reward System Mastery - that is, they made it so that the options that look simple and fun are intentionally inferior, and the ones that look like they're a painful slog through a bookkeeping nightmare are the objectively superior ones. The whole Tier System is working as intended, for the most part. Monte Cook even specifically points out that Toughness is intentionally a terrible feat, that they intentionally suggest for new players.

Which, isn't a bad way to go about designing a competitive game, I guess.

No, seriously, go read the article.
Intentional bad design is still bad design, especially when the "intentional" part isn't apparent enough (which is the case), so now it's badly designed intentional bad design.

[Person_Man]

I always thought that article was crap made up after the fact to basically say "I meant to do that!" instead of owning up to the fact that the game is not even a little bit balanced.

I can't prove it, of course.

I agree with this assessment. I think they wrote up some rules that they thought were fun, and assumed that any balance issues could be fixed by the DM. Then the internet and forums started to become popular, and nerds like us started to complain much more loudly, and in a much more organized fashion.

More importantly, I think WotC had a huge desire to expand their market share beyond hardcore table top gamers and into the more casual Halo video game player crowd. To do this, your rules need to be less complicated and more legalistic, with less vagueness and brokenness. Thus 4E was born.

[Psyren]

More importantly, I think WotC had a huge desire to expand their market share beyond hardcore table top gamers and into the more casual Halo video game player crowd. To do this, your rules need to be less complicated and more legalistic, with less vagueness and brokenness. Thus 4E was born.

Which is unfortunate, because even the video game crowd dislikes homogeneity. Just look at World of Warcraft, and how desperately their devs are scrabbling for a handhold on the class balance cliff.


I just love the fighter and ninja. To me it doen't matter that the wizard, cleric or druid are a "higher tier", any character I play will be important to the party and usefull.

The Ninja represents so much wasted potential for me. It, like the Monk, should have been psionic; the end.

[Bob the DM]

Yea,but if the other player's are 10xusefull than you are,you rarly get your moments to shine it start's getting annoying.Imagine how funnier would be,if you knew that you can make whatever character you want and be equal to others.

It's amazing that out of the TONS of mechanical problems with the game according to many on this forum, I've never been a pc or a dm for a campaign in which a person was useless because of the class they took and we have had an amazing spread of great roleplayers, min/maxers, optimizers and combinations of the three. We have had people who have been sidelined because of the real person's personality, but withing a few games or campaigns that too changes. It's interesting how some groups have tons of these problems and to others these issues are unheard of.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I agree with this assessment. I think they wrote up some rules that they thought were fun, and assumed that any balance issues could be fixed by the DM. Then the internet and forums started to become popular, and nerds like us started to complain much more loudly, and in a much more organized fashion.

I don't even think it was a case of "Throw the rules together, let the DM sort them out." It was a case of "If it worked in 2e, it'll work in 3e." The overarching design goal of 3e was to streamline and simplify things in 2e while leaving the overall feel, gameplay, etc. as similar as possible. They copied over tons of text, playtested characters played in a 2e style, and otherwise assumed that none of their changes would change the metagame at all...not realizing that removing many caster vulnerabilities, giving fighter goodies to everyone, changing monsters around, etc. would change it quite a bit.

If you play 3e in an AD&D style, with a sneaky/fighty/blasty/healy party, a random item distribution that favors martial types, plenty of highly-lethal traps, larger variance in encounter ECL tending towards more mooks and fewer boss types, and so forth, 3e works exceedingly well. The problem is that the devs were focused on ensuring that you could keep playing AD&D with the 3e rules and not on looking at how the 3e rules actually worked and tweaking them until the "best" 3e playstyle matched the AD&D playstyle.

[Razgriez]

There are debates out there about whether this is actually true or if this was something that he made up later to cover his own ineptitude. Either way does not make e feel better about his design.

Meepos, the answer to that, as to which is true.. I find the most simplest answer to that is "Yes", to both sides.

There is likely truth to both views. It's likely a combination of "We Didn't play test this properly" along with "But we designed this because we're just like you! And like creating extremely powerful combination of powers.

[Darth_Versity]

Thus 4E was born.

And thus D&D died!

But seriously, I think the main problem is that regardless of how hard the designers try, WotC just doesn't care. The execs set a date for books to be out and the designers must meet it, regardless of balance, because D&D is a source of income first and a creation of love second.

Many companies worry about the quality of their product over meeting demand. Look at companies like green ronin, they recently released a open playtest of their dragon age game because they know the best testers for balance are the people that play the game. This is the sort of thing WotC would never do as that would provide the rules for free, even if it would make a better product.

WotC just don't care about about the quality, only the quantity. The sheer amount of errata proves this, anyone can make mistakes, but the sheer amount is awful.

Basically the Druid is more powerful because they just don't care!

/rant

[PairO'Dice Lost]

But seriously, I think the main problem is that regardless of how hard the designers try, WotC just doesn't care.

Correction: the devs probably care about making balanced material--forum posts, blogs, and other sources of dev quotes show that most of them love the game as much as its players--they just don't know how to make balanced material. :smallwink: Over 3e's lifespan, the material that they put out explored new areas, were better-balanced (mostly), showed a growing understanding of the rules, and otherwise displayed a marked improvement in the devs' comprehension of the game and metagame. It just came too late to fix the problems 3e has. All of the errata likely came about not because they figured "Eh, whatever, we can fix it later," but because they actually had no clue what they were doing in many cases and had to patch things after the fact.

Sure, they screwed things up royally towards the end of 3e (ToB errata replaced with Complete Mage errata, declining editing quality, etc.), but that's because they were working on 4e behind the scenes and didn't have the time or inclination to keep up their (admittedly low) standards for 3e...but you can't just generalize their apathy at the end of 3e's lifespan to the rest of it.

[Zombimode]

That and they did not realize that by giving animals full stats modified by the druids level would be so much better than 2e's replace most everything approach (which meant animal forms quickly became obsolete).

Yeah, thats pretty much the deal.

The wizard, the cleric and the druid were all very powerful classes in 2e (even with just the PHB). But not many people realized their potential (well, execpt for the wizard, but only at higer levels). People always saying "oh, how bad was the cleric in 2e, only heal and nothing else" and "oh, the druid sucketh". So WotC tried to "fix" these classes:
Wizard:
- more spells
- almost no spells with drawbacks
- spells that allow saves much harder to resist

Cleric:
- even MORE powerfull combat spells
- VERY powerfull selfbuffs

Druid:
- much better wildshape
- add a way to enable the druid to cast while wildshaped
- adding a powerfull animal companion... wait, that makes me puzzled. Was the lack of an animal companion even a concern regarding the 2e druid?

[Engine]

So Monte Cook designed a feat useful just for the 1st level, and for a couple of classes. And he's proud he did that.:smallannoyed:

[ShriekingDrake]

I agree with this assessment. I think they wrote up some rules that they thought were fun, and assumed that any balance issues could be fixed by the DM. Then the internet and forums started to become popular, and nerds like us started to complain much more loudly, and in a much more organized fashion.

More importantly, I think WotC had a huge desire to expand their market share beyond hardcore table top gamers and into the more casual Halo video game player crowd. To do this, your rules need to be less complicated and more legalistic, with less vagueness and brokenness. Thus 4E was born.

+1
This is undoubtedly close to the mark. The game is quite complicated and was a vehicle for explore game designers' fantasies about fantasy. While I'm sure some attention was paid to balance, there really was not way to take it out for a substantive spin--at least not one you can compare to the aggregate view we can now give it. I'm also sure there was a croneyism (designers being a bit blind to the characters and concepts they themselves like).

It is obvious, at least to me, that the assertions of "that's exactly the way I wanted it to look" (read Carlin's cats running into glass doors) are inflated. The designers, even with the assistance of the public response, continued to struggle to find balance in the game as books and worlds (Eberron and Faerun) found their way into print. There are many examples of poor editing, poor game mechanics, poor consideration of how the new book would fit within the extant constructs, and poor play-testing. But, with something as complex and flexible as DnD, the only real drug-trials come with the release of the drug.

Granted, it's hard to do what we're asking them to do--put a few minds up against a bunch of game nerds like ourselves. We always bound to find their errors. They got a LOT wrong--don't mistake me--but they also got a lot right. I've played many, many hundreds hours of DND over the last 30 some years. It's been great fun. To my mind 3.X was the best of the lot (followed by 1E and to my mind 4E is not that much fun.) They counted on us to be inventive and to adjust for our groups. It's true they gave us a LOT of work to do, especially at the cost of those books.

Despite the fact that they are overpowered, I love playing druids and appreciate the concept. In our game we've revamped them to keep their flavor and people who play them, play them smart (most of the time) and our DMs adjust the campaigns and even the monsters/traps/situations so that each player has a good experience.

[LordBlades]

It's amazing that out of the TONS of mechanical problems with the game according to many on this forum, I've never been a pc or a dm for a campaign in which a person was useless because of the class they took and we have had an amazing spread of great roleplayers, min/maxers, optimizers and combinations of the three. We have had people who have been sidelined because of the real person's personality, but withing a few games or campaigns that too changes. It's interesting how some groups have tons of these problems and to others these issues are unheard of.

You were lucky. I've had quite a few experiences of this kind. Most extreme was something like this:

High powered tier 1 game, party comsists of: Druid, DMM Persist Cleric/Ordained Champion, Dominant Ideal blaster Ardent, Wizard/Incantatrix, Spellthief/Wizard/Unseen Seer/Incantatrix. New dude joins and comes up with a Ninja. We try to point him to something else but he's stubborn and insists that you can't really be a ninja(the archetype) without being a Ninja (the class).

What followed was a couple of very frustrating sessions both for players(the main focus of combat had to shift from defeating enemies to keeping ninja alive) and DM (he found it very hard to set up a challenge to give the ninja spotlight because everything he did, the spellthief/wizard did better). In the end we had to ask the guy to either change chars or leave.

[Rogue Shadows]

Ah...that article...

Monte Cook fails. But not for any reason listed so far.


Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game.

That is not what a Timmy card is!

Okay, back up. I'm going to approach this from the idea that most people here don't play Magic and so don't know what I'm on about. In Magic, most cards can be described as being liked by one of three archetypal players. Call these players the Iconics of Magic...or the alignments of Magic. Both work as descriptions.

One of these players is Timmy.

Timmy is the player who thinks big. Timmy like the big cards, the big effects. Timmy's iconic card is Craw Wurm, a 6/4 with Trample for 6 mana. It's bad - there are much better options at 6 mana. But Timmy likes it. Why? Because it's a 6/4 with Trample. Its pure beatdown goodness.

But Timmy also like big effects. Wrath of God, for example, is a Timmy card. Wrath of God destroys all creatures on the field. It is a staple of Magic and regularly sells individually for $15-$25. It's a chase rare - people want it. Why do so many people want it? Because it's a good card.

Timmy can also get surprisingly subtle. Timmy likes the card Path to Exile. Why? All it does is remove a single creature from the game ("exiles" it). But it removes a single creature from the game, period. It is incredibly difficult to bring creatures back after thy have been Exiled. So Path to Exile has potentially a huge effect.

Timmy is also the most likely player to build a cretureless, mono-Red, only-has-damage-dealing-spells deck, because while individual spells in that deck might be small, the deck itself has huge effects. Turn 1: Mountain, burn spell. Turn 2: Mountain, 2 burn spells. Turn 3: Mountain, I-draw-three-cards-unless-you-choose-to-take-damage-spell. Turn 4: 3 burn spells. Game. That's huge, and Timmy loves it.

(the other two iconic players are Johnny - who likes card interaction and combos, and his iconic card is probably Ancestral Recall - and Spike, who likes to win, and his iconic card is Necropotence. Also, Spike is an ass).

Monte Cook fundamentally didn't understand what Wizards does when they make Timmy cards. A Timmy card isn't bad, a Timmy card is big. It can be good or bad.

Yes, sometimes Wizards does intentially print bad cards. Chimney Imp is such an example - it was intentionally designed to be the worst card ever printed, and it succeeded gloriously. But it wasn't a Timmy card, because Timmy didn't play it, because it's not big. Neither did Johnny. And Spike began foaming at the mouth at the sight of it.

[MeeposFire]

And thus D&D died!

But seriously, I think the main problem is that regardless of how hard the designers try, WotC just doesn't care. The execs set a date for books to be out and the designers must meet it, regardless of balance, because D&D is a source of income first and a creation of love second.

Many companies worry about the quality of their product over meeting demand. Look at companies like green ronin, they recently released a open playtest of their dragon age game because they know the best testers for balance are the people that play the game. This is the sort of thing WotC would never do as that would provide the rules for free, even if it would make a better product.

WotC just don't care about about the quality, only the quantity. The sheer amount of errata proves this, anyone can make mistakes, but the sheer amount is awful.

Basically the Druid is more powerful because they just don't care!

/rant

Actually WotC has done several play tests for 4e classes. They did play tests for the barbarian, artificer, and currently the warlock and cleric (there may have been more but I have not been paying that much attention). From these play tests they have made changes to the classes though they never seem to make enough changes to please everybody (and if they did they probably would make other people upset).

[Big Fau]

(the other two iconic players are Johnny - who likes card interaction and combos, and his iconic card is probably Ancestral Recall - and Spike, who likes to win, and his iconic card is Necropotence. Also, Spike is an ass).

First, you've got it backwards. AR is a Spike card because it just draws cards. A Johnny card is something that requires you to build around it, such as Necropotence. Trust me on this, I am a Johnny.

And Spikes are not always asses. They just play to win. A good Spike can accept losing. A bad Spike will be a jerk about it.

Edit:


And Spike began foaming at the mouth at the sight of it.

No, they went and turned it into a Memetic Badass. Statistically speaking, that 7 mana 1/1 from Scourge was regarded as the worst creature ever printed. The worst card ever printed is widely agreed to be Mudhole.

[Rogue Shadows]

First, you've got it backwards. AR is a Spike card because it just draws cards. A Johnny card is something that requires you to build around it, such as Necropotence. Trust me on this, I am a Johnny.

And Spikes are not always asses. They just play to win. A good Spike can accept losing. A bad Spike will be a jerk about it.

Mmn...I was thinking Ancestral Recall because it gets you more cards which feed into the combo, whereas Necropotence is iconic of the idea that "must win no matter what."

Though I guess you're right.

Spikes are not always asses...but Spike is.

...

...Oh, people: there's a fourth player type, Vorthos. Vorthos likes cards because they connect to the story or flavor of Magic. He's flavor first, card effect second. Timmy builds big decks, Johnny builds combo decks, Spike build winning decks, Vorthos builds theme decks.

And then there's the lost, fifth archetype, Melvin. Melvin supposedly liked cards in isolation. But Melvin was beaten up by the other four for not being a real archetype because you can't build a deck out of a single card. You can build a deck around a single card, but the deck inevitably ends up being one of the other four.

[Haarkla]

This is going to seem weird, but I think its a valid question: What made WOTC make Druids so powerful? Up until recently I thought it was an accident, but then I was looking at the ACFs of Druids and its apparent that WOTC thought an equivalent balance to losing all of their none-casting features was to grant most of the Barbarian (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druidVariantDruidicAve nger)and Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druid)features, along with some Monk abilities. Giving out entire classes worth of abilities in return for 1/3 of a Druid's implies that WOTC knew how much more powerful they were and made them like that anyways.
In my opinion they purposely made the cleric more powerful than other classes, because a lot of their features, such as healing, benifit the entire party, and some people seem reluctant to play them due to the religious fluff.

When they designed the druid they designed them to measure up against the mechanically similar cleric, but made them without the disadvantages.

[Arbane]

The wizard, the cleric and the druid were all very powerful classes in 2e (even with just the PHB). But not many people realized their potential (well, execpt for the wizard, but only at higer levels). People always saying "oh, how bad was the cleric in 2e, only heal and nothing else" and "oh, the druid sucketh". So WotC tried to "fix" these classes:
Wizard:

Cleric:

Druid:



Don't forget also that in 3rd ed it's VASTLY easier to get wands and scrolls than it was in older editions. That gives casters a lot more staying power and versatility, even at low levels.

[hangedman1984]

...Oh, people: there's a fourth player type, Vorthos. Vorthos likes cards because they connect to the story or flavor of Magic. He's flavor first, card effect second. Timmy builds big decks, Johnny builds combo decks, Spike build winning decks, Vorthos builds theme decks.

yeah, i was always a Vorthos back when i played

[The Glyphstone]

Mmn...I was thinking Ancestral Recall because it gets you more cards which feed into the combo, whereas Necropotence is iconic of the idea that "must win no matter what."

Though I guess you're right.

Spikes are not always asses...but Spike is.

...

...Oh, people: there's a fourth player type, Vorthos. Vorthos likes cards because they connect to the story or flavor of Magic. He's flavor first, card effect second. Timmy builds big decks, Johnny builds combo decks, Spike build winning decks, Vorthos builds theme decks.

And then there's the lost, fifth archetype, Melvin. Melvin supposedly liked cards in isolation. But Melvin was beaten up by the other four for not being a real archetype because you can't build a deck out of a single card. You can build a deck around a single card, but the deck inevitably ends up being one of the other four.


So, Melvin's signature card was Ravenous Rats?

[Rogue Shadows]

So, Melvin's signature card was Ravenous Rats?

Maybe. But a Ravenous Rats deck ends up just being a Johnny or a Timmy. So like I said: he didn't really exist as a player archetype. WotC was just trying to create a new archetype for...something...I don't actually know what.

He's never caught on, though, and I think I'm the only person in a 5-site radius that remembers Melvin...

...anyway, my point is that Monte Cook seems to not actually understand how WotC makes Magic. And I'm not sure if he's completely aware of the fact that while Magic is competative...D&D is typically not.

[Anarion]

Jumping back to the original topic, I've been playing in three different campaigns that each had a druid, and the druid truly did have a tendency to dominate the game. I think there are a couple of reasons that people haven't drawn much attention to yet.

1. Monsters and spells are the easiest and most numerous things to write. This leads to the effect where druids (and wizards and clerics etc.) get stronger with every new book. Even in core, however, there are a lot of spells and a lot of monsters, which means druids get tons of options. This probably applies equally to wizards thanks to the polymorph spell line, but people tend to get upset with polymorph and yet be okay with the druid keeping wildshaping abilities.

2. There was an attempt to balance with in-game fluff: druids have an alignment restriction, an equipment restriction, a special code, and a unique language that they can't teach anybody. (Aside, how do you teach someone to become a druid without teaching druidic to a non-druid and falling?) The problem is that this kind of balancing simply discourages people from playing the class at all, it doesn't really reduce their power when they do get played.

3. Full spellcaster progression. Not specific to the druid by any means, but it's pretty clear in 3.X that anyone with a 9 level spell progression is doing pretty well for themselves. As people have been discussing, that seems to be a symptom of the conversion from 2e to 3e and a general design intent that was misguided in one way or another.

[Telonius]

Aside, how do you teach someone to become a druid without teaching druidic to a non-druid and falling?

You don't. You send them to Bob, the Ex-Druid with full ranks in Profession (Language Instructor). :smallbiggrin:

[Midnight_v]

just can't wrap my mind around the idea somebody might take a roleplaying game, weigh "competitiveness" against "roleplaying", and decide that, yeah, supporting competitiveness is more important in this roleplaying game than supporting roleplaying!

Buisness.
2580 thats the number in American dollars that I've spent on D&D books. In a long term.. having a skill testing system and slow releasing better options gets more books sold. $2580
I remember pooring over every book that came out looking for feats to make my Warriors better. Till cognitive function kicked in... I though the druid sucked. "Who'd want to play that, I thought?" When you can be the knight in shining armor, or rough mercenary type, we've been seeing as the main character of everything... since forever?
Making it really strong had the effect of making people WANT to play druid... like ever. People who never would otherwise

Roughly as mentioned Druid was a hard class to get into and basically a subclass of cleric. Clerics got buffed Druids by default would need to be at least as good.



in fact, I'd argue that a system in which all choices were equally good would appeal to people interested primarily in mechanics and rules more than a system where there are obviously better and inferior choices
See 4th edition. Wait you said equally good. Okay go and look up the Frank and K Tome series. Those are the two ends of the spectrum that you suggest. 4th made everyone equally bad/ The Tome made everyone roughly equally good to the Wizard CoDzilla.
While many people like both. Both are also reviled. (even though the tomes are good)
Also... you know certain options are going to be better than others. Keeping things equal is a very interesting thing but likely impossible to achieve. . .

[Urpriest]

What I find really, really shocking about this - assuming it's true - is that they would expect and reward players for looking for the mechanically most efficient choice, rather than the one most fitting with regards to fluff and background. In a roleplaying game. Rather than setting the system up in a way that "I envision my character to be such and such, so I should pick options that reflect this the best" would be the most rewarded way of thinking, so that optimisation and roleplaying would actually go hand in hand and compliment each other, they did the exact opposite and went with rewarding "these options are the best because system mastery tells me they are, even though they have nothing to do with how I envision the character" the most.

It's deliberately designing a roleplaying game in such a way that the focus is shifted from the roleplaying to number crunching. It... it simply boggles the mind why anybody would do such a thing. :smalleek:

This seems like a double standard: if mechanically minded people would be pleased by a game that penalizes superficially good looking choices (not saying this is true), then shouldn't the same be true of roleplaying-minded people? If System Mastery really should be rewarded, then shouldn't we reward people who come to the game envisioning a strong character instead of a weak one? Wouldn't roleplayers be just as hypothetically pleased as roll-players if certain choices are much much worse than others?

Monte Cook's appeal to system mastery says that he's rewarding players who choose the Druid class over those that choose Fighter. Isn't it equally coherent to say that he's rewarding people with the system mastery to choose the concept "Guy who turns into a bear, rides a bear, and summons bears" over "Guy with a pointy stick"?

Thinking about it another way: if a good mechanical gamer is one who avoids the rules the game punishes and seeks out those it rewards, then isn't a good roleplayer one who seeks out roleplay that the game rewards over roleplay it punishes? Otherwise, what is the standard for doing better or worse at roleplaying?

[randomhero00]

I think its the mindset from the older editions of the games where druids were insanely powerful on purpose and you had to be lucky to play one.

When making 3rd they just didn't change that paradigm in their head quickly enough.

Plus I think they think that no one optimizes even a little. I haven't looked at the original list in forever but there were plenty of animal companions for instance that were terrible at combat. Then I think they thought they'd use wildshape more for scouting or escaping. As for spells, I think they thought of them as mostly healers. So if played like that they wouldn't be OP.

[Optimator]

It's deliberately designing a roleplaying game in such a way that the focus is shifted from the roleplaying to number crunching. It... it simply boggles the mind why anybody would do such a thing. :smalleek:

Well, for one thing, D&D has always been a combat and crunch-heavy system. A group of four delving a dungeon, killing its inhabitants, and taking the phat lewts to be better prepared for the next dungeon doesn't exactly make for interesting role playing in itself.

I'm not saying I 100% agree with the design philosophy or that they did things right, but I guess my point is it's hardly mind-boggling when you look at what D&D is and isn't. D&D's heritage is the Chainmail war game modified to have a group of heroes clear a dungeon. All the role playing came after that (probably fairly soon after--role playing is fun).

One could've designed D&D to be even more "number-crunchy" but if groups prefer the role playing aspect then it changes nothing. Intricate plot hooks and intrigue and whatnot all still exist in 3.5, no matter how inferior the feat selection in the PHB is compared to say, Complete Champion.

[Logalmier]

This article (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) by Monte Cook seems related. It's not that Wizards didn't understand what they were doing. They understood perfectly. They specifically designed 3rd edition D&D to reward System Mastery - that is, they made it so that the options that look simple and fun are intentionally inferior, and the ones that look like they're a painful slog through a bookkeeping nightmare are the objectively superior ones. The whole Tier System is working as intended, for the most part. Monte Cook even specifically points out that Toughness is intentionally a terrible feat, that they intentionally suggest for new players.

Which, isn't a bad way to go about designing a competitive game, I guess.

No, seriously, go read the article.

This seems to me like Cook is actually trying to cover up his own ineptitude by saying "uh, I meant to do that all along," then actually admitting that he screwed up, which I think is more likely. If WotC was knowingly creating sub-par options all along, then they sure did a good job hiding it, with all the times they said seemingly insane things on their website. Remember the dead levels article, and how the monk is supposedly a shining example of class design? Or little tidbits on their web sight, such as when they claimed that a spellcaster without fireball would be severely unoptimized? It's things like that that make me dubious when WotC comes out later and says, "we knew what we were doing all along!"

[Taelas]

Those two options aren't mutually exclusive, y'know.

They could have designed Toughness as a trap for unskilled players, while believing that spellcasters without fireball were unoptimized. That is my personal belief, because in 2nd Edition, fireball was a good spell.

The main difference between 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition in this regard... are hit points.

At 10th level (9th for Warriors and Priests*), you stopped rolling dice for hit points and got a flat amount instead (which wasn't increased by your Constitution score). Hit point pools were simply lower, overall -- and damage and healing through spells have barely changed. A 20th level Wizard would have between 20-50 hit points before Constitution (which could add as much as 20 hit points total for the highest Constitution score they had available). Warriors fared a bit better; they could have between 44 and 133 hit points prior to Constitution (which could add up to 45 for a Dwarf with 19 Constitution - the highest a beginning character could have). If they somehow managed to increase their Constitution to 25 -- the maximum possible, period -- they could have up to 63 hit points more. That's a total of 196 hit points at level 20, if you rolled maximum every level and had a Constitution score normally reserved for deities. A dwarf with 20 Constitution in 3rd Edition at level 20 would have more -- on average (around 214 hit points).
*These are categories rather than classes; 'Warriors' covered Fighters, Paladins and Rangers, where 'Priests' covered Clerics and Druids. 'Wizards' covered the Mage class as well as its subclasses (Illusionists, Diviners, Evokers, Necromancers, etc.), and Thieves and Bards were under the 'Rogue' category.

It is no wonder that blasting spells were far better in the previous edition, and that healing spells were considered vital for Priests.

[MeeposFire]

I think its the mindset from the older editions of the games where druids were insanely powerful on purpose and you had to be lucky to play one.

When making 3rd they just didn't change that paradigm in their head quickly enough.

Plus I think they think that no one optimizes even a little. I haven't looked at the original list in forever but there were plenty of animal companions for instance that were terrible at combat. Then I think they thought they'd use wildshape more for scouting or escaping. As for spells, I think they thought of them as mostly healers. So if played like that they wouldn't be OP.

Druids weren't that powerful in 2e. They weren't bad but they weren't great. Especially considering the XP and level issues.

[Bhaakon]

Druids weren't that powerful in 2e. They weren't bad but they weren't great. Especially considering the XP and level issues.

Well that's another thing. They standardized the level progression in 3e and didn't really do anything to counterbalance the change.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I heard on another thread that one of the designers said he made the druid intentionally more powerful because it was his favorite class.

[Tvtyrant]

I heard on another thread that one of the designers said he made the druid intentionally more powerful because it was his favorite class.

And the game weeps for it, as the Druid is essentially three different classes stalked together.

[Moriato]

Making it really strong had the effect of making people WANT to play druid... like ever. People who never would otherwise


You mean you never would, otherwise. Hate to break it to you, but not everyone shares your opinion. Some people would actually like to play a nature-based spellcaster, regardless of its power level. Shocking, I know.

[MeeposFire]

You mean you never would, otherwise. Hate to break it to you, but not everyone shares your opinion. Some people would actually like to play a nature-based spellcaster, regardless of its power level. Shocking, I know.

I agree my aunt loved to play druids in 1e and 2e and she was never strong. She just liked healers and having a nature outlook.

[Togo]

I thought Druids got a boost in 3.5 because when they did that big RPGA survey for 3.0, druids were the least favoured and least chosen class. I remember doing the survey. Was I misinformed?

[Fitz10019]

First, because they dramatically overvalued full BAB. Compare Paladins to Clerics to get an idea of the difference that they thought full BAB wrought.

Note, animals' BAB progression is also usually 3/4.

[Midnight_v]

You mean you never would, otherwise. Hate to break it to you, but not everyone shares your opinion. Some people would actually like to play a nature-based spellcaster, regardless of its power level. Shocking, I know.
LOL, not that your brilliant bit of self analysis doesn't burn the senses. . . buuut, well, Duh.
I actually already said that it wasn't what I wanted.
You reiterating that "I" didn't want to play a nature based caster demonstrates a lack of reading of my post like at all. Saying more about you than about me, as I indeed said that IN the post you quoted.
Personal attacks aside. I wasn't trying to hurt anyones feelings... by saying "Who would want to play that" just that I bought into the idea that it was a "Nature-themed cleric w/o full plate" sounds like a bad deal and that things like Good Base Attack bonus actually meant something like "This defines a warrior class."

So you might want to re-read what you quoted. The key point is:
"People who never would otherwise."

When I stared looking and saw "Honestly the druid is a better front line combatant that the fighter, i just started making, the Rough and Tumble Fighter-y guy... a druid. Didn't matter what class only mattered what archtype. Defeating the traditional idea of the robed w/staff, and owl thing was key to me liking that class. I might not have tried it didn't have the capablility to do more than one thing.
It was my personal "Miko" moment.
So it helped a lot with my roleplaying experience, quite a bit.

Having a vast variety of what you can do with a class, adds to the classes playability, so that it doesn't just appeal to one person or another person.
In this case:
People who wanted to play, Nature Based casters.
People who wanted to play, a Frontline warrior.

it means as I said that more people might try the class that otherwise would not. "Go TEAM NATURE!"

[Hecuba]

Mind=blown

That answered every damn question about 3E that I had. I can't believe Wizard's actually knew what they were doing~

Let's not give them too much credit. Yes, they probably knew that a 2E wizard was more powerful than a 2E fighter after low levels, and yes, they probably intentionally preserved that gap. But It's quite unlikely they intended to expand the gap quite as much as they did. They admittedly intended to increase the offensive options of clerics, but it's not particularly clear whether they intended to trivialize healing.

Also keep in mind what exactly they needed to do when they snatched up the brand.

First, they needed legitimacy: they needed a design that could convince people that they weren't ruining the game with their new system-- that you could keep playing the same story in the same worlds with the same characters. As such, they needed to stick with certain mechanical elements-- casters are Vancian, druids are neutral, clerics can wear plate.

Second, they needed design elements that were desirable: they needed to provide a reason for people to play their D&D rather than TSR's D&D. So they made some things presented as quality of life changes (concentration checks, something for clerics to do other than heal, sneak attack over facing based backstab) for which they may or may not have fully considered the effects on mechanical power.

[Shadowknight12]

Maybe. But a Ravenous Rats deck ends up just being a Johnny or a Timmy. So like I said: he didn't really exist as a player archetype. WotC was just trying to create a new archetype for...something...I don't actually know what.

He's never caught on, though, and I think I'm the only person in a 5-site radius that remembers Melvin...

You got it wrong, actually. Vorthos/Melvin is another scale that qualifies the Johnny/Timmy/Spike dynamic. You can be a Vorthos Johnny or a Melvin Spike.

Vorthos is about the story, the theme, the feel of the deck. Melvin is about the mechanics of the cards. They're, ironically (considering the other thread we've been), fluff versus crunch. A Vorthos Johnny is basically "fluff meets combos," a Vorthos Timmy is "fluff meets big," and a Vorthos Spike is "I win with flair." Melvin replaces fluff with crunch. The difference between a Vorthos Spike and a Melvin Spike is that the Vorthos Spike wins with a thematic deck while the Melvin Spike wins with a disjointed, almost haphazard deck that has winning mechanics (an example would be that a Vorthos Spike focused around Necropotence would have other necromancy-related cards, while a Melvin Spike would have cards that gave him more life/draw, or that benefited from having a low life, regardless of whether they're thematic or not).

On topic: I think the point has been made here. Monte Cook has no idea what he's talking about, never has and probably never will. Also, WotC doesn't playtest nearly enough. Also, WotC is really bad at realising what its consumers want and how to give it to them.

[Fox Box Socks]

Because Monte Cook thought it would encourage people to buy books.

Seriously.

[MeeposFire]

I thought Druids got a boost in 3.5 because when they did that big RPGA survey for 3.0, druids were the least favoured and least chosen class. I remember doing the survey. Was I misinformed?

Druids did not get any real boost in 3.5 other than ease of use. The class is essentially the same as far as I remember. They changed how animal companions worked since having a horde of expendable animals was not what they wanted.

[Worira]

Ah, good old level 2 deinonychus.

[Fox Box Socks]

Hidden options in every book that were totally effing broken = people looking to power game buying the books so they could break their games = MAXIMUM PROFIT

[Rogue Shadows]

You got it wrong, actually. Vorthos/Melvin is another scale that qualifies the Johnny/Timmy/Spike dynamic. You can be a Vorthos Johnny or a Melvin Spike.

You can also be a Timmy/Spike or Johnny/Spike. There's always overlap.


Vorthos is about the story, the theme, the feel of the deck. Melvin is about the mechanics of the cards. They're, ironically (considering the other thread we've been), fluff versus crunch.

Not...exactly. Melvin likes how an individual card comes together to represent something; he's quite concerned about the flavor of a card in the process. Hence, the iconic card representing Melvin is Form of the Dragon, an expensive Red card with several abilities - one of which doesn't even make sense in Red normally - but which comes together towards a glorious flavor: You are now a Dragon.

The distinguishing feature between Vorthos and Melvin is that Vorthos wants the cards to support the story. Vorthos is furious that Vhati il-Dal is better than Greven il-Vec because in the story Greven outranks (and kills) Vhati.

Melvin, meanwhile, wants the mechanics to come together to represent an idea. Form of the Dragon, for example. Lich and Necropotence, too.

[Shadowknight12]

You can also be a Timmy/Spike or Johnny/Spike. There's always overlap.

Not...exactly. Melvin likes how an individual card comes together to represent something; he's quite concerned about the flavor of a card in the process. Hence, the iconic card representing Melvin is Form of the Dragon, an expensive Red card with several abilities - one of which doesn't even make sense in Red normally - but which comes together towards a glorious flavor: You are now a Dragon.

The distinguishing feature between Vorthos and Melvin is that Vorthos wants the cards to support the story. Vorthos is furious that Vhati il-Dal is better than Greven il-Vec because in the story Greven outranks (and kills) Vhati.

Melvin, meanwhile, wants the mechanics to come together to represent an idea. Form of the Dragon, for example. Lich and Necropotence, too.

Ah, I see. Not that far from what I had in mind, then.

[Fax Celestis]

This article (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) by Monte Cook seems related. It's not that Wizards didn't understand what they were doing. They understood perfectly. They specifically designed 3rd edition D&D to reward System Mastery - that is, they made it so that the options that look simple and fun are intentionally inferior, and the ones that look like they're a painful slog through a bookkeeping nightmare are the objectively superior ones. The whole Tier System is working as intended, for the most part. Monte Cook even specifically points out that Toughness is intentionally a terrible feat, that they intentionally suggest for new players.

Which, isn't a bad way to go about designing a competitive game, I guess.

No, seriously, go read the article.
That's...not exactly what the article says.


There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight do I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it.) This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.
What this means is that the designers just threw rules at the corebook until things stuck, and then used what stuck in further material. And, the very next paragraph:

Perhaps as is obvious from the name I've coined for this rules writing style, I no longer think this is entirely a good idea. I was just reading a passage from a recent book, and I found it rather obtuse. But it wasn't the writer's fault. He was just following the lead the core books offered him. Nevertheless, the whole thing would have been much better if the writer had just broken through the barrier this kind of design sets up between designer and player and just told the reader what the heck he was talking about.

[Hazzardevil]

More importantly, I think WotC had a huge desire to expand their market share beyond hardcore table top gamers and into the more casual Halo video game player crowd. To do this, your rules need to be less complicated and more legalistic, with less vagueness and brokenness. Thus 4E was born.

Halo, is much more serious than dnd, you wouldn't believe how serious.

Anyway, I think its partly to do with nobody thought tha players would be devious enough to search monster mnuals for wildshape forms and animal companions.
In fact I think that until higher levels, they planned simply druids would transform into what basically amounted to bears with more hit points and strength. And then animals that should have been magical beasts came along.

[Tvtyrant]

Halo, is much more serious than dnd, you wouldn't believe how serious.

Anyway, I think its partly to do with nobody thought tha players would be devious enough to search monster mnuals for wildshape forms and animal companions.
In fact I think that until higher levels, they planned simply druids would transform into what basically amounted to bears with more hit points and strength. And then animals that should have been magical beasts came along.

Which animals do you think should have been magical beasts? Frankly I am struck by the amount of "magical beasts" that should have been animals, and only aren't because they are fictional. Owlbear? Animal. Giant Owl? Animal. Razor Boar and Bulletes and Purple Worms and on and on; none of them have a trait that distinguishes them from the animals except arbitrarily high int (in some cases) and a fictional existence for the rest. Because Dire animals are real I tell you!

[Talya]

Because Dire animals are real I tell you!

Well, they were real. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dire_Wolf) One of them, anyway.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, they were real. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dire_Wolf) One of them, anyway.

And covered in bone spikes! Plus dire tigers! And Dire Tortoises!

[Starbuck_II]

Druids weren't that powerful in 2e. They weren't bad but they weren't great. Especially considering the XP and level issues.

Um, they were awesome. They got ironskin (2E divine stoneskin) which granted immunity to a number of attacks.

They were better if you were a multiclass 1/2 Elf Fighter/Druid (full BAb, armor wearing Druid).

[MeeposFire]

Um, they were awesome. They got ironskin (2E divine stoneskin) which granted immunity to a number of attacks.

They were better if you were a multiclass 1/2 Elf Fighter/Druid (full BAb, armor wearing Druid).

Going fighter/druid does help a lot since it fixes a lot of their issues such as low number of attacks and a their relatively low Thac0 (if you consider eventually how far behind they get). Iron skins are nice and there are a few other nice spells but that is nothing special. If I wanted use a spell like that I would go mage and do better. I will give you fighter/druid being very good though but straight druid is a bit meh.

[nyjastul69]

Monte Cook seems to be a villian in regard to 3.x game design here. For the record, Jonathan Tweet was the lead designer for 3.x and the onus falls moreso on him and Peter, not necessarilly on Cook or Williams.

[Leon]

They probably didn't think of the extremes that players would take the options given and turn them into - most releases by WotC are rather slap dash and you have to wonder if any through to how things interact went into anything.


The classes them selves are not powerful, its what a player does with them that can make it or break it (and most often people break it and assume that because they can means that they should)

[Hazzardevil]

By animals that should have been magical beasts, I meant animals that had spell like abilitys and otherthings that a normal human can't do.

[Saintheart]

Actually, reading that article it strikes me as a display of Fridge Brilliance: by basically putting dead ends for characters in there, purposely not balancing the system and wildly expanding spell lists, they basically created the Tomb of Horrors for game design. The entire system is the Tomb of Horrors for melee, thrown a tiny morsel in Tome of Battle right at the end of the edition's run. Gygax must be proud.

I mean, think on it.

Tomb of Horrors:
"I take a five foot step--"
"Fall through a trap, 100d6 damage, no save."

3.5e:
"I'm going to play a fighter--"
"Irrelevance by level 4 compared with men who wear silly robes and smoke too many illegal substances. Fail!"

That article stinks of smug history rewrites and sheer bastardry.

[Petrocorus]

I don't even think it was a case of "Throw the rules together, let the DM sort them out." It was a case of "If it worked in 2e, it'll work in 3e." The overarching design goal of 3e was to streamline and simplify things in 2e while leaving the overall feel, gameplay, etc. as similar as possible. They copied over tons of text, playtested characters played in a 2e style, and otherwise assumed that none of their changes would change the metagame at all...not realizing that removing many caster vulnerabilities, giving fighter goodies to everyone, changing monsters around, etc. would change it quite a bit.

I second this. i think they really have not for seen that importing class features from 2E in a game with different mechanics could make this features totally different.

Wildshape was not that powerful in 1E and 2E. It was good but not overpowered.

The same thing has happen to the monk, it's basically the same than the 1e monk. But the evolution of the game has made most of his class feature useless or underpowered. IIRC, it was not the case in 1E.

I remember that in 1E; the paladin was the elite class (yes, of course, still less powerful that the wizard). But the cleric and the druid had only 7 levels of spell, with a rather thin spell list compared to the wizard. They were no feats and less characters options that help caster to compensate their weakness. Less items, harder to create. Thieves' skill were for thieves only (and bard), a wizard or a cleric could not even try to walk silently. The classes were more specialized and there were less multiclassing.

All this limitation have disappeared, making automatically caster more powerful. Even more powerful since the spell lists have grown exponentially.

And the paladin haven't evolve a bit, and now it sucks. So did many other classes.



In my opinion they purposely made the cleric more powerful than other classes, because a lot of their features, such as healing, benifit the entire party, and some people seem reluctant to play them due to the religious fluff.

Do you mean that there are players that don't want to play cleric or druid due to RL religion stuff?

[druid91]

Yea,but if the other player's are 10xusefull than you are,you rarly get your moments to shine it start's getting annoying.Imagine how funnier would be,if you knew that you can make whatever character you want and be equal to others.

But... you can't.

Without completely and arbitrarily gimping magic, it is always going to crush the mundane into the dirt.

One person is capable of rewriting reality with mumbling and finger wiggles.

And the other? He swings a pointy metal stick. Really hard.

Who is going to win here? In any reasonable world it's the mage. Not all choices are equal. This is the way it should be. Now, I do believe that while not all choices should be equal to others, all choices should be useful in some way. Namely the fighter should be able to fight, without a golfball bag of magic weapons. A rogue should have greater invisibility as an Ex Ability. The paladin should be able to smite the hell out of people.


I think that on the whole the more mundane classes should be less versatile, and on the whole less powerful. However, they should not be capable of simply being replaced by summons or constructs. The other guys should not be able to take you in a head on fully rested spells prepped just for this match fight. However nor should they be entirely redundant.

[Big Fau]

The classes them selves are not powerful, its what a player does with them that can make it or break it (and most often people break it and assume that because they can means that they should)

That's just blatant lies. If you truly believe that then you have a veryw eak understanding of 3.5 as a whole.

[Gnaeus]

The same thing has happen to the monk, it's basically the same than the 1e monk. But the evolution of the game has made most of his class feature useless or underpowered. IIRC, it was not the case in 1E.

I remember that in 1E; the paladin was the elite class (yes, of course, still less powerful that the wizard). But the cleric and the druid had only 7 levels of spell, with a rather thin spell list compared to the wizard. They were no feats and less characters options that help caster to compensate their weakness. Less items, harder to create. Thieves' skill were for thieves only (and bard), a wizard or a cleric could not even try to walk silently. The classes were more specialized and there were less multiclassing.


Actually, monk already sucked in 1e. No armor, and no dex bonus meant that level 1 monk got owned in melee by a level 1 wizard with a decent dex and a staff even without spells. Fighters already consistently outfought them. And at high levels, you had to fight other monks of (your level +1) to advance, and if you lost, you effectively lost an entire level and had to do it again. There was a dragon magazine article (it was in one of the best of Dragons) that rewrote them and made them decent, because in 1e, the developers were not too proud to say "oops, that sucked, lets try again". That article actually pointed out that the only way a monk was even likely to make it to high level was if he got really lucky and wound up with a magic item that fixed one of his weaknesses, like bracers of armor or a ring of regen, or if he stood around the back of the party leaching xp for several levels.

[Doug Lampert]

This is going to seem weird, but I think its a valid question: What made WOTC make Druids so powerful? Up until recently I thought it was an accident, but then I was looking at the ACFs of Druids and its apparent that WOTC thought an equivalent balance to losing all of their none-casting features was to grant most of the Barbarian (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druidVariantDruidicAve nger)and Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druid)features, along with some Monk abilities. Giving out entire classes worth of abilities in return for 1/3 of a Druid's implies that WOTC knew how much more powerful they were and made them like that anyways.

Varient class features don't tell you much about the original intent, because they came out MUCH later. They tell you what people who'd been playing the game for several years thought the features were worth.

And Druids aren't all that powerful for Tier 1. The reason they're brought up as "overpowered" is because it's moderately HARD to show that a cleric or wizard is brokenly overpowered compared to a fighter to the extent that the fighter is effectively worthless. People will argue that you can't afford the spell slots (wrong) or that buffing takes too long (wrong) or that the fighter is still needed to finish stuff off (wrong) or that the fighter can keep going all day (wrong) or that eliminating splat books balances things (stupidly wrong) or that the problem is just a couple of spells (almost right, they just forgot the word hundred after the word couple).

But a Druid? A druid is stupidly obviously a full caster who can also do the fighter's job, better than the fighter can.


But... you can't.

Without completely and arbitrarily gimping magic, it is always going to crush the mundane into the dirt.

Except that in most of the fiction they allegedly based the system on it doesn't. So obviously it doesn't need to.

Further: I can alter reality by wiggling my fingers. I alter where my fingers are, based on Chaos theory there's a good chance I change the weather over the ENTIRE WORLD in ways that can't be predicted in detail a few weeks from now.

Strangely this doesn't obsolete hitting people with sharp bits of metal as a weapon. How strong magic is and how strong melee are are CHOICES.

A "realistic" fighter can kill dead, with one swing or arrow, someone who's standing arround waving his fingers. No fiction I'm familiar with has spells that are as fast to cast as a realistic single arrow or sword blow. Hence melee can totally dominate combat even if you give the casters full fictional level spells.

It took lots of REAL EFFORT to make spells obsolete melee. They didn't need to do this.

[druid91]

Except that in most of the fiction they allegedly based the system on it doesn't. So obviously it doesn't need to.

Further: I can alter reality by wiggling my fingers. I alter where my fingers are, based on Chaos theory there's a good chance I change the weather over the ENTIRE WORLD in ways that can't be predicted in detail a few weeks from now.

Strangely this doesn't obsolete hitting people with sharp bits of metal as a weapon. How strong magic is and how strong melee are are CHOICES.

A "realistic" fighter can kill dead, with one swing or arrow, someone who's standing arround waving his fingers. No fiction I'm familiar with has spells that are as fast to cast as a realistic single arrow or sword blow. Hence melee can totally dominate combat even if you give the casters full fictional level spells.

It took lots of REAL EFFORT to make spells obsolete melee. They didn't need to do this.

You and a friend get a stick and a book. Stand 30-ft apart. You take your stick and try to whack him with it, closing the distance between the two of you. He wiggles his fingers and says Gumption. Who is going to finish first?

Now imagine at the same time you are running at him he is running away at equal speed.

In fact most fiction I'm familiar with has magic kicking Mundane stabbery around Because it's faster. Point fingers, say word VS Draw sword, run up to opponent and swing. Usually while delivering a battlecry. And you really think that mundane methods are faster? According to game rules an attack is usually the same speedwise as a spell. And frequently slower.

Halfway through running to opponent the wizard has blown you back to the starting line. Or turned you into a newt.

Also strangely enough... I never said alter reality. I said rewrite reality. Two very different things. As one implies simple cause and effect and the other implies monumental control over how it is changed. Tell me when wiggling your fingers can simply and predictably shoot lightning across the room to fry some guy, then I might admit that being able to stab someone beats magic.

[Aharon]

I only read up to the middle of page 2, so I hope I don't state anything redundant:

The druid got a metric ton of his abilities in the conversion from 3 to 3.5.
Animal Companion, in 3.0, read:
Animal Companion: A 1st-level druid may begin play with an animal companion. This animal is one that the druid has
befriended with the spell animal friendship.


Instead of a class feature with specific, legal listed choices, it was a fluff thing that could be used for power only if your DM did provide you with animal encounters.

And Natural Spell didn't make its way into core before 3.5, it was from the Druid-centered splat book.

His armor choices were more limited, which, at levels before wild shape, actually does matter a bit.

So, two of his three pillars - animal companion and wild shape - were significantly weaker before 3.5.

(It was still a far better class than fighter, don't get me wrong... But the real power up came later)

[Gavinfoxx]

The thing is, there WERE some 3.0e-specific Druid Exploits, right? Like with getting multiple animal friendshipped creatures following you?

Also the 3.0 summon nature's ally list was a LOT worse.

[Doug Lampert]

You and a friend get a stick and a book. Stand 30-ft apart. You take your stick and try to whack him with it, closing the distance between the two of you. He wiggles his fingers and says Gumption. Who is going to finish first?

What fiction has spells that are one word?

Seriously, name ANY non-D&D based fiction with spells that easy.

And even if it is that easy, a single word won't be aimed, so he hits something else. And since I'm using a bow I don't need to chase you. ONE hunting arrow kills you dead in the real world.

[Togo]

What fiction has spells that are one word?

Seriously, name ANY non-D&D based fiction with spells that easy.

Belgariad, by David Eddings

But yeah, I think magic is more tricky than simply finger wiggling.

[Gnaeus]

Amber by Roger Zelazny (the second series of 5)

(Well technically, the spells were pre-cast ("hung") in the morning, but only took a word to discharge)

[Hiro Protagonest]

Belgariad, by David Eddings

But yeah, I think magic is more tricky than simply finger wiggling.

Yeah, you have to move your hand in a precise form while muttering the correct words of power.

[druid91]

What fiction has spells that are one word?

Seriously, name ANY non-D&D based fiction with spells that easy.

And even if it is that easy, a single word won't be aimed, so he hits something else. And since I'm using a bow I don't need to chase you. ONE hunting arrow kills you dead in the real world.

Tell that to the hundreds of people who have survived being shot with an arrow. It might be dangerous but just like a bullet, usually one arrow merely wounds you with a high chance of dying. Considering most wizards could, Oh I don't know, Quicken a wind wall... There goes your arrows.

And Legends of the Dragonrealm. By Dave A. Knaak. At one point a dragon was simply vanished into nothing without words or gestures at all.

Most magic is done with no words and the barest of gestures in that series. Furthermore is wizards at war. Where while yes magic is difficult, it can be set up to be in standby mode. Of course normally this takes the form of a magical plasma cannon.

In fact wizards at war has the best "fluff" for magic I've ever heard. Magic from scratch is hard. It's like building a machine gun from nothing, in the middle of a desert Island. But once you have figured out a spell? You have it built, all the pieces in place, everything working. All you have to do is "push the button" and out comes a fireball.


Belgariad, by David Eddings

But yeah, I think magic is more tricky than simply finger wiggling.

Advanced magic like summoning is. Combat magic is likely little more than point and word. Or gesture and word.

Otherwise we get mage battles looking like something out of DBZ.

[Tvtyrant]

Tell that to the hundreds of people who have survived being shot with an arrow. It might be dangerous but just like a bullet, usually one arrow merely wounds you with a high chance of dying. Considering most wizards could, Oh I don't know, Quicken a wind wall... There goes your arrows.

And Legends of the Dragonrealm. By Dave A. Knaak. At one point a dragon was simply vanished into nothing without words or gestures at all.

Most magic is done with no words and the barest of gestures in that series. Furthermore is wizards at war. Where while yes magic is difficult, it can be set up to be in standby mode. Of course normally this takes the form of a magical plasma cannon.



Advanced magic like summoning is. Combat magic is likely little more than point and word. Or gesture and word.

Otherwise we get mage battles looking like something out of DBZ.

And in some series Mages are little more than potion brewers; yes given a particular value of magic they are as you describe them but that doesn't mean they are inherently like that.

[druid91]

And in some series Mages are little more than potion brewers; yes given a particular value of magic they are as you describe them but that doesn't mean they are inherently like that.

That is an acceptable alternative. But in no D&D setting as I have heard it described are mages like that.

If this were designing a game from scratch, I'd say sure you want low magic? Go with potion brewing and Omen interpreting. Redwall style magic.

However this is Dungeons & Dragons, where hurling a ball of fire across the room is childsplay for a mage of nearly any persuasion.

This is not potion and omen land. And complaining because it is not that is counterproductive.

You know what, to avoid further Derail I'm starting another thread.

[FMArthur]

All the magic in the books I've read from L.E. Modesitt Jr. have been fast and readily combat applicable, and usually come with shields. Additionally the magic systems he makes for his worlds are some of the most consistent and logical that I've read as well.

[Lord.Sorasen]

What fiction has spells that are one word?

Seriously, name ANY non-D&D based fiction with spells that easy.

And even if it is that easy, a single word won't be aimed, so he hits something else. And since I'm using a bow I don't need to chase you. ONE hunting arrow kills you dead in the real world.

I know people will probably be really mad at me for saying this but Harry Potter tends to have 1 word spells with obvious gestures. Hell, infinite casting as well. And a no save killing spell.

[Tvtyrant]

I know people will probably be really mad at me for saying this but Harry Potter tends to have 1 word spells with obvious gestures. Hell, infinite casting as well. And a no save killing spell.

Not to keep a rather silly argument open, but can any of them say that word faster then a man can pull a trigger? The "Death Curse" is pointless against guns.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Not to keep a rather silly argument open, but can any of them say that word faster then a man can pull a trigger? The "Death Curse" is pointless against guns.

That always bothered me a lot, actually. But what does anyone even do when you have guns? Guns are really good at killing people.

Of course, a gun can't enable people to fly, or alter the landscape, or travel the planes. But there's something to be said for guns.

ANYWAY, BACK TO DRUIDS

I have to be honest: I really want to play a druid. I just love the idea of a druid. Awesome spellcasting, being lots of animals, animal friend at your side... People talk about how much harder it is to optimize a wizard or cleric... But it's more than that! When people begin they want their wizard to throw fireballs. Fireballs are awesome! But when people see a druid they want to be a bear with a dinosaur companion casting powerful spells. In other words, the coolest druid happens to be the most optimized druid as well. Naturally some will debate with me, saying that the optimized wizard is awesome as well. But it's not obvious how awesome it is. It's really obvious how cool a giant flashy lightning bolt is. And that's my point. The creators stated they intentionally built the system with "traps". But the druid has no traps. The druid has nice little path in a gated community with neon lights pointing the way.

There's a theory that the creators didn't choose the classes for balance. Rather, they made basic rules for balance, and proceeded to give the things they thought people would think was awesome and flavorful. Hence the druid. It just turned out what was awesome for a druid had way more practical advantage than what was awesome for a monk.

[Starbuck_II]

Not to keep a rather silly argument open, but can any of them say that word faster then a man can pull a trigger? The "Death Curse" is pointless against guns.

Yes, but all Harry Potter Spells are anti-technology fields. You can't use a gun anywhere close to a spell user.

So only a sniper has a chance vs a "wizard".
This is RAW.

[NNescio]

Yes, but all Harry Potter Spells are anti-technology fields. You can't use a gun anywhere close to a spell user.

So only a sniper has a chance vs a "wizard".
This is RAW.

What.

They work perfectly fine. Guns are mentioned in the news. Ron crashed a car (one that is freaking enchanted, to boot) into the Whomping Willow, and he got a driving license later in 2017. Hogwarts has a freaking train. And there's the Knight Bus. And various watches. Colin's muggle camera works perfectly fine in Hogwarts as well.

The only thing that is mentioned is that Hogwarts has an Anti Electronics Field of some sort that disrupts the operation of most electronic devices. Guns are generally far more simple than say, an internal combustion engine, or even a steam-powered one. Unless someone is carrying one of those fancy Glocks for some reason.

This is not "Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura".

[Fox Box Socks]

I'm 95% sure that the anti-electronics field shuts down things like cell phones. Guns (being early 18th century technology that's no more advanced than fireworks) work just fine.

[Starbuck_II]

What.

They work perfectly fine. Guns are mentioned in the news. Ron crashed a car (one that is freaking enchanted, to boot) into the Whomping Willow, and he got a driving license later in 2017. Hogwarts has a freaking train. And there's the Knight Bus. And various watches. Colin's muggle camera works perfectly fine in Hogwarts as well.

The only thing that is mentioned is that Hogwarts has an Anti Electronics Field of some sort that disrupts the operation of most electronic devices. Guns are generally far more simple than say, an internal combustion engine, or even a steam-powered one. Unless someone is carrying one of those fancy Glocks for some reason.

This is not "Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura".

Nope, the author said it works exactly like Arcanum.

Magic cars are (wait for it) magic!
Hogwarts uses a magic train.
Do we know for sure Collin's camera is muggle type?

[Tvtyrant]

Nope, the author said it works exactly like Arcanum.

Magic cars are (wait for it) magic!
Hogwarts uses a magic train.
Do we know for sure Collin's camera is muggle type?

And nooone of them made a magic gun? Or thought "I could blow something up at the edge of the magic field and the explosion would hit them?" In fact, if magic is anti-mechanical in nature then how did the muggles push them into the underground in the first place? Yeah, Harry Potter is an okay series but it cannot possibly hold up its plot.

[Ernir]

That always bothered me a lot, actually. But what does anyone even do when you have guns? Guns are really good at killing people.

The antiprojectilus spell. It's a simple, long-lasting protective charm, and one of the first things taught in muggle studies.

Yeah, I pulled that out of my ass. But my point is more that even if it isn't dealt with in the books, it isn't hard to imagine a reason for wizards' dismissive attitude towards the destructive powers of muggles.

In fact, if magic is anti-mechanical in nature then how did the muggles push them into the underground in the first place?
There are a few reasons mentioned and implied for the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy being in place. I don't remember overwhelming muggle firepower being one of them. Besides, it was implemented before the industrial revolution.

[FMArthur]

What about Arthur Weasley's hobby, then? How can he possibly have that?

[druid91]

The antiprojectilus spell. It's a simple, long-lasting protective charm, and one of the first things taught in muggle studies.

Yeah, I pulled that out of my ass. But my point is more that even if it isn't dealt with in the books, it isn't hard to imagine a reason for wizards' dismissive attitude towards the destructive powers of muggles.

There are a few reasons mentioned and implied for the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy being in place. I don't remember overwhelming muggle firepower being one of them. Besides, it was implemented before the industrial revolution.

They are dismissive of muggles because they

1) Have never had to face muggles in a straight up fight.

2) Are entirely populated by morons whose formal education ended in elementary school. If they had the good luck to be muggleborn.


Nope, the author said it works exactly like Arcanum.

Magic cars are (wait for it) magic!
Hogwarts uses a magic train.
Do we know for sure Collin's camera is muggle type?

Wrong. Book trumps word of god. And considering there are large magical institutions in the middle of london... St. mungos is at least near equal to Hogwarts since it's the only magical hospital in all of england, and the hogwarts anti-tech field extends over the grounds as well so wouldn't people notice if cars suddenly stopped working, and everthing technological simply stopped.

[Fox Box Socks]

Cracked did a video on this. Wizards look down on Muggles because they don't realize that a) there are waaaaaaaaaaaay more Muggles than Wizards and b) we have sniper rifles.

Yeah.

[NNescio]

Nope, the author said it works exactly like Arcanum.

Magic cars are (wait for it) magic!
Hogwarts uses a magic train.
Do we know for sure Collin's camera is muggle type?

And where are your citations?

Arthur's magic car was originally mundane. It was a Ford Anglia, and he was the one who enchanted it. He did not make the car itself. Obviously if you can enchant a technological device that was originally mundane then the statement "Spells are anti-technology fields." is obviously false. It's a freaking magitek device, which are outright impossible in Arcanum.

Note that it can also operate mundanely(except for the expanded storage), as seen in the earlier chapters of Chamber of Secrets, which is how Arthur skirted around the loophole he put in the law in the first place.

And while Colin's camera is not explicitly stated to be a muggle-type in HP2: CoS...


He was clutching what looked like an ordinary Muggle camera, and the moment Harry looked at him, he went bright red.

It is a tall order to have assumed that he had managed to buy a wizard camera since he is a muggle-born and have not heard of Magic prior to receiving his acceptance letter.

As for Colin's camera, Rowling has commented on it thus: (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=81)

Why did Colin Creevey's camera work etc?

As a vast number of people have pointed out to me in the last twenty four hours (some of them related to me by ties of blood) Colin DID develop a photograph from his camera in 'Chamber of Secrets' (my previous answer stated that he never did so).

Cameras, like radios (or, as the wizards call them 'wirelesses' – they're always a bit behind the times when it comes to Muggle technology) do exist in the wizarding world (there's a radio in the Weasleys' kitchen and we know there are cameras because of the moving photographs you see everywhere). Wizards do not need electricity to make these things work; they function by magic, but in the case of such objects the wizards liked the Muggle invention enough to appropriate the idea without adding cumbersome plugs/batteries.

I have an old notebook in which it says dev sol (potion) magic [indecipherable word] photos move. Adept as I am at interpreting my old scribbles, I can tell you that the original idea was that wizards would use a magical developing potion to make their photographs move.

SO... as Colin's batteries can't work in Hogwarts, clearly his camera is running off the magical atmosphere and he is then developing his photographs in the magical potion that causes the figures therein to move. All of which goes to show that Colin has a lot more initiative than I ever realised.

The poll question answer has also been queried, but I didn't get that one wrong – for details, see P.S.

I have learned something from this experience, which is that when you read through twenty chapters at a sitting, then decide to do some FAQs for the website in the early hours of the morning, you mess up. I'll make sure I'm a bit more alert for the next batch.

..implies that cameras are also another piece of technology appropriated from Muggles. it's only the film development solution that is magical, 'though technological cameras can run on a 'magic atmosphere' instead of batteries. Which, again, contradicts the "Spells are anti-technology fields." statement, since the 'magic atmosphere' is obviously powering these pieces of technology instead of shutting them off.

Really, I'll go with "Magic is EMP/EMF", but it should be readily apparent that they don't shut out the operation of all technology, unlike in Arcanum. A gun is simply a tube, some chemical propellant, a metallic projectile, plus some simple moving parts hardly more advanced than a doorknob. There's nothing for an EMF* to interfere with.

(*Unless we are talking about Magneto-scale abnormalities, which are obviously not the case since we don't see metallic objects flying all over the place.)

[Petrocorus]

I always pondered if a trained commando team using adapted combat tactics, rapid and heavy weapons and supported by snipers would have solve the Voldemort case far more quickly than the order of Phoenix and all other wizard.

Well, except for the horcruxes stuff.

After all, how many bullets an elite soldier using a MP5 or a P90 can fire during the time needed to say: "expelliarmus".

[NNescio]

I always pondered if a trained commando team using adapted combat tactics, rapid and heavy weapons and supported by snipers would have solve the Voldemort case far more quickly than the order of Phoenix and all other wizard.

Well, except for the horcruxes stuff.

After all, how many bullets an elite soldier using a MP5 or a P90 can fire during the time needed to say: "expelliarmus".

And the Time Turner stuff as well, but the less we go into that the better it is for our sanity.

[Midnight_v]

Why did they make Druids so powerful?

Because of the Aboleth (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/aboleth.htm)
Because of the Skeletal Ettin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/skeleton.htm)
Because of the shadows (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/shadow.htm)... man

Because of the Gauth beholder at Level 6. The Gauth, so terrible that Wotc will sue if you dare give the details of it. I'll say its CR6 and demolishes all but the most optimized.
Because the printing of an Ooze. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ooze.htm) Pretty much any ooze..

So when you look at those critters and think that they might be played with any acumen at all by a dm. It becomes apparent that the monsters are hardcore.
In the core enviorn someone needed to be able to deal with the more hardcore monsters and they Gave about 3 1/2 classes that work well to do this. Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer.
D&D has always contained powerful monsters and powerful magics, and the correct question is why did they make classes that DON'T partake in that game.

I.e. Why did they make the Melee's so weak. I believe the melee's were shackled by realism.

[Petrocorus]

And the Time Turner stuff as well, but the less we go into that the better it is for our sanity.

The Time Turner is the thing that can make you go back in time? that's it?

[ShriekingDrake]

The antiprojectilus spell. It's a simple, long-lasting protective charm, and one of the first things taught in muggle studies.

Yeah, I pulled that out of my ass. But my point is more that even if it isn't dealt with in the books, it isn't hard to imagine a reason for wizards' dismissive attitude towards the destructive powers of muggles.


In 3.X it's called "Friendly Fire" from EoE.

[OracleofSilence]

on top of all that. Hydrogen Bomb. woo. no more school. lets see if some magical shield can resist radioactive death...

[Big Fau]

on top of all that. Hydrogen Bomb. woo. no more school. lets see if some magical shield can resist radioactive death...

We've been over this before.

Wizards are like Batman: Given enough prep time and there's nothing a Wizard/Batman can't take down.

[Gavinfoxx]

*Growls* The thing about harry potter wizards is that if they don't want to be noticed by Muggles, than they WON'T BE NOTICED. They have a TON of wards that they can set up ahead of time to make it such that no muggles will notice them, their gear, anything. So a muggle with a gun (or a swat team) would just pass them right on by.

[Gnaeus]

on top of all that. Hydrogen Bomb. woo. no more school. lets see if some magical shield can resist radioactive death...

I'm really not seeing it.
1. Even the fight with Voldemort was predicted. I fail to see how the centaurs and wizards wouldn't notice omens of an event like nuking hogwarts.
2. Even if they did, most wizards would survive. Many/most wizards live in places like London (Ministry of Magic, Diagon Alley), which would be difficult to nuke.
3. After Hogwarts gets nuked, I would expect a response in which horrified wizards all over the world teleport to their national leaders and Imperio them into imposing rapid nuclear disarmament.

[Gavinfoxx]

Also, you know what hogwarts looks likes to muggles?

The ruined stones of what was once a castle, with a 'keep out, dangerous' sign.

[NNescio]

Also, you know what hogwarts looks likes to muggles?

The ruined stones of what was once a castle, with a 'keep out, dangerous' sign.

On a related note, how would it look like from orbit, through say, Google Earth? Does being Unplottable make it functionally invisible?

[FMArthur]

Also, you know what hogwarts looks likes to muggles?

The ruined stones of what was once a castle, with a 'keep out, dangerous' sign.

AKA "Please explore this, it must be interesting"

[ScrambledBrains]

AKA "Please explore this, it must be interesting"

While I generally keep my knowledge of HP to myself, I feel I should say that not only is Hogwarts Unplottable and appear like castle ruins to muggles, it's also completely covered in Muggle-Repelling Charms, which(and I'm paraphrasing here), make any muggle which approaches it suddenly remember they need to be somewhere else, even if no such other task or activity exists. The More You Know. :smallbiggrin:

[Winterwind]

Regarding that whole "the guy who's able to rewrite reality must be more powerful than the guy with a pointy stick"-argument, I have to say I always found this argument flawed, because it fails to acknowledge that the guy with the pointy stick... is in fact so much more. Past the very, very earliest levels (in which wizards are hardly people who "rewrite reality" themselves though), we are talking about strictly superhuman figures here. People who, when faced with a magical inferno, rather than being incinerated like a lesser mortal would, just shrug it off by sheer power of will. We're talking Heracles, Beowulf, Sun Wukong here - people whose virtue, willpower, etc., might well protect them from magic, whose prowess with their weapons is such that they are capable of feats themselves indistinguishable from magic with them. Let the mage cast the spells - it will do them little good when facing a warrior so powerful s/he can cut the threads of magic itself asunder.

Or so it could be, if the game was actually balanced. There was no reason not to give fighters all of the awesomeness a high level fighter could represent - see above examples - they just chose not to.

[TheCountAlucard]

Past the very, very earliest levels, we are talking about strictly superhuman figures here.Superhuman people who hit things.


We're talking Heracles, Beowulf, Sun Wukong here - people whose virtue, willpower, etc., might well protect them from magic, whose prowess with their weapons is such that they are capable of feats themselves indistinguishable from magic with them.Oh, my, he can hit three times in a round! We must bow down and offer worship to him!

Or did you mean something his gear could do? Because ordinary beatsticks? They don't really get anything like that. Maybe if they invest really heavily into certain skills, they can jump ridiculously-well or swim up a waterfall or something, but that's hardly "indistinguishable from magic."

But you know what is indistinguishable from magic? Magic. Just play a beatstick with magic - it solves all these problems and more!


Let the mage cast the spells - it will do them little good when facing a warrior so powerful s/he can cut the threads of magic itself asunder.Great! Though that'll probably have to wait 'til we're playing Exalted. :smallsigh: Y'know, that's a system where that sort of thing happens, like all the time.


There was no reason not to give fighters all of the awesomeness a high level fighter could represent - see above examples - they just chose not to.Though pretty much on any level, magic is going to beat magic - probably the best way to do it is to give the beatsticks their own variety of magic.

Oh, wait, but I already mentioned Exalted. :smalltongue:

[Karoht]

I always thought that Bard was the everyman DnD class. Can melee, can spell cast, can heal, can be sneaky, can be subtle and diplomatic, can be skill monkey, needs lots of almost every stat. I think the only features they can't get access to going straight Bard is Track and an Animal Companion. And even then I'm probably wrong, and at worst, it's a minor dip somewhere to pick them up.
*note* Can does not necessarily imply 'does well' in this context.

Then you read Druid. And Druid is an everyman DnD class. Only way better than Bard. I'd take 3 bards to equal 1 druid.

So my Tinfoil Hat WotC theory on Druids.
We'll break Druids into 3 major aspects of their class. Shape Shifting, Casting, Animal Companion. My personal theory is that a different person or group of persons worked on each aspect, and did so as though these would be the central focus of the character.
IE-Animal Companion team figured that this would be core to the Druid, and that Shape Shifting and Casting would be backup tools to compliment the Animal Companion. Then when it came time to approve the class, they put all 3 together.
And in standard WotC fashion, playtested absolutely nothing, assuming that the 3 teams had already verified the soundness of their individual accomplishments.

In reality, I think they just designed the class to make use of all 3 sets of mechanics, and allowed for specialization in one of the three without harming diversification in the other two. They just didn't realize that spell casting of that power level + melee capability of that level + animal companion really can and did add up to a very potent combination. They probably expected the player to focus on one element at a time per combat. Like directing the pet, or Shape Shifting, or spell casting. And then forgot about feats like Natural Spell which meant that someone could be (and as far as optimization goes, probably should be) utilizing all of the above in the same combat, sometimes in the same round of combat.

[FMArthur]

There are probably a million druid fixes on every D&D site on the internet already, but what does GitP think druids should have less of, spellcasting or melee? Or both reduced? What do you guys think might be a couple simple fixes without any in-depth rewriting required?

[TheCountAlucard]

...what does GitP think...?That's going to be a bit of a problem to answer; after all, GitP is a community, and chances are that its opinions on something are going to vary a week from now. :smallsigh:

[Talya]

I think the only features they can't get access to going straight Bard is Track and an Animal Companion. And even then I'm probably wrong, and at worst, it's a minor dip somewhere to pick them up.



Minor "dip" of sorts. variant class and a couple feats.

Savage Bard (UA variant, SRD) gets survival as a class skill. Also gets Fortitude instead of Reflex save, so it's a great trade. Add Track as a feat, and you've got tracking covered.

Animal Companions are easy for anyone, with Wild Cohort.

[Coidzor]

Minor "dip" of sorts. variant class and a couple feats.

Savage Bard (UA variant, SRD) gets survival as a class skill. Also gets Fortitude instead of Reflex save, so it's a great trade. Add Track as a feat, and you've got tracking covered.

Animal Companions are easy for anyone, with Wild Cohort.

And the variant class from Unearthed Arcana that's generally viewed as not worth it give Animal Companion as Druid and a couple of other minor things in exchange for the useful bardic music. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#bard) Although something like HeartFire Fanner or Warrior Skald would probably give the bardic music back so that the only thing one would be missing was bardic knowledge...

[Aquillion]

First, because they dramatically overvalued full BAB. Compare Paladins to Clerics to get an idea of the difference that they thought full BAB wrought.Full BAB and armor, too. You can also see this in early gish PRCs, which made casting-in-armor this big deal that was almost impossible to get. They slowly realized that armor (while nice) wasn't as big a deal as the other class features -- later on, casting in armor becomes increasingly easy to get, until most modern gish PRCs give it to you almost as an afterthought. A big part of the problem is that casters and the like get lots of class features that can 'grow' and become more powerful depending on how you use them or as you level up, while fighter-types get flat features that don't scale or which only scale to match your enemies, like armor and BAB.

The fact that Druids are limited to leather is supposed to be a big deal; as a practical matter, it hardly ever matters.

(Technically BAB actually scales worse than your enemies IMHO -- it keeps pace with AC, but the extra attacks it grants are only usable when you get a full attack, and you need those extra attacks to keep pace with monster HP, so the higher level you get as a fighter-type, the more dependent on getting off a full attack you become.)

[Talya]

And the variant class from Unearthed Arcana that's generally viewed as not worth it give Animal Companion as Druid and a couple of other minor things in exchange for the useful bardic music. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#bard) Although something like HeartFire Fanner or Warrior Skald would probably give the bardic music back so that the only thing one would be missing was bardic knowledge...

I'd stick with Wild Cohort, if I needed one, because Bardic Knowledge exists for the sole purpose of trading for Bardic Knack, which is a must have on my bards!

[tyckspoon]

The fact that Druids are limited to leather is supposed to be a big deal; as a practical matter, it hardly ever matters.


Especially because even Core offers a way around that one- if you really want it, you can wear a Dragonhide Breastplate (and quietly ignore that this technically requires a scale from a Colossal dragon to make one for a Medium creature, because then your DM will say no and it's kind of a ridiculous requirement.) Outside of core, you get all kinds of special materials and alternate-stuff-crafted armors that can let a Druid use that Medium proficiency if he wants. Although most of them are notable for the sake of 'this is a Medium armor a Druid can wear' and aren't as good as the breastplate.

[Talya]

Although most of them are notable for the sake of 'this is a Medium armor a Druid can wear' and aren't as good as the breastplate.

Lamellar leather is identical to a breastplate. There's even a non-metallic special material to reduce it to light, if you wish.

Edit: From the same book as lamellar (A&EG, although Lamellar is also in OA), are several relevant special materials for druids, actually. For instance:

Bronzewood (replaces metal, 10% lighter. Is actually wood.)
Chitin
Elukian Clay
Elven Darkleaf (you can actually make elven darkleaf full plate, and it is considered medium armor, like Mithral, except it's not metal.)

[Gavinfoxx]

Also, Druids automatically get magic +1, druid-specific breastplate after a certain level.

Says so right in the 'Wood Shape' and 'Ironwood' spells.

[Talya]

Thing is, most druids aren't going to bother. The "Wild" enhancement for armor is too damned expensive.

[TheCountAlucard]

Also, Druids automatically get magic +1, druid-specific breastplate after a certain level.

Says so right in the 'Wood Shape' and 'Ironwood' spells.Wood Shape won't get you breastplate, though; it specifies that fine detail is impossible - as such, getting all those little moving parts in working order seems unlikely. In other words, you use Wood Shape to get the general shape down for the big pieces, then you have to start whittling, probably with Craft checks, for the rest.

And since Ironwood uses the base wooden object as a material component instead of a focus, that means that when the duration on Ironwood runs out, you've gotta do it all over again. :smallsigh:

Not saying you couldn't make it work - just that it seems that sort of thing would get old. Fast. :smallannoyed:


Thing is, most druids aren't going to bother. The "Wild" enhancement for armor is too damned expensive.

Technically, if you're one of those "I took Natural Spell, so I can walk around all day as a bear" kind of people, you could make the armor sized for said bear form, assume said bear form, and then put on the armor.

'Cuz that's not silly or overly-complex or anything. :smalltongue:

[Midnight_v]

Because of the Aboleth (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/aboleth.htm)
Because of the Skeletal Ettin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/skeleton.htm)
Because of the shadows (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/shadow.htm)... man

Because of the Gauth beholder at Level 6. The Gauth, so terrible that Wotc will sue if you dare give the details of it. I'll say its CR6 and demolishes all but the most optimized.
Because the printing of an Ooze. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ooze.htm) Pretty much any ooze..

So when you look at those critters and think that they might be played with any acumen at all by a dm. It becomes apparent that the monsters are hardcore.
In the core enviorn someone needed to be able to deal with the more hardcore monsters and they Gave about 3 1/2 classes that work well to do this. Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer.
D&D has always contained powerful monsters and powerful magics, and the correct question is why did they make classes that DON'T partake in that game.

I.e. Why did they make the Melee's so weak. I believe the melee's were shackled by realism.

I went back and re-read this and I think that I'm on the right track here.
The more I look at the strength of the druid and other casters and the strength of the monsters the more it appears that, if played competently then most of the mosnters (that aren't meant to be mooks)
Are druid level in power.

Look at the aboleth for a second. I mean really permanent and persistent image at will? Dominate, that power that makes you into scum, AND its a melee powerhouse for its level.
It's really the Druid and the Gang that can really stand up to these types of challenges.

Too many monsters have the "awesome" tag missing from thier descriptor to NOT have a druid(etc) in the main book. I'm saddened that more people don't see that.

[tyckspoon]

Also by the time you can use Ironwood to make a breastplate, a + 1 breastplate is reallly lame- it's a level 6 spell, after all. If you care about acquiring an armor bonus at that point, you should be able to afford a Wild/Beastskin armor.. or just buy some Bracers of Armor and stick a Wilding Clasp on them. Most animal shapes have some recognizable forelimb they can go on.

[TheCountAlucard]

Also by the time you can use Ironwood to make a breastplate, a + 1 breastplate is reallly lame- it's a level 6 spell, after all. If you care about acquiring an armor bonus at that point, you should be able to afford a Wild/Beastskin armor.. or just buy some Bracers of Armor and stick a Wilding Clasp on them. Most animal shapes have some recognizable forelimb they can go on.Or you could have a set of clothing sized to fit a bear, and just have the party Cleric cast Magic Vestment on it. :smalltongue:

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa100/TheCountAlucard666/Pictures/LittleJohn.jpg

[Hazzardevil]

Lamellar leather is identical to a breastplate. There's even a non-metallic special material to reduce it to light, if you wish.

Edit: From the same book as lamellar (A&EG, although Lamellar is also in OA), are several relevant special materials for druids, actually. For instance:

Bronzewood (replaces metal, 10% lighter. Is actually wood.)
Chitin
Elukian Clay
Elven Darkleaf (you can actually make elven darkleaf full plate, and it is considered medium armor, like Mithral, except it's not metal.)

You forgot blue ice, which works pretty much as Mithral only less dex bonus and acp, and more expensive.

[Philistine]

There are probably a million druid fixes on every D&D site on the internet already, but what does GitP think druids should have less of, spellcasting or melee? Or both reduced? What do you guys think might be a couple simple fixes without any in-depth rewriting required?

Seems like combining published variants to get a Spontaneous Divine Casting (UA) Shapeshift (PHB2) Druid would bring the class down a lot closer to the T3 sweet spot.

[sreservoir]

Seems like combining published variants to get a Spontaneous Divine Casting (UA) Shapeshift (PHB2) Druid would bring the class down a lot closer to the T3 sweet spot.

eh, druid list casting alone is probably enough to be a low tier 2, even when spontaneous.

[Coidzor]

Wood Shape won't get you breastplate, though; it specifies that fine detail is impossible - as such, getting all those little moving parts in working order seems unlikely.

...What little moving parts? :smallconfused: This is a breastplate (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Breastplate) we're talking about here. The straps wouldn't be made of wood in this case or metal in the more general case anyway, but those are so simple that they're not really worth mentioning.

[TheCountAlucard]

...What little moving parts? :smallconfused: This is a breastplate (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Breastplate) we're talking about here.Blast, I seem to have mistaken it for one of the other armors. :smallsigh:

I blame that picture in the PHB. :smalltongue:

Anyway, still means you're burning two spells and probably making a Craft check, probably every couple of weeks, more often if your armor gets dispelled.

[LordBlades]

Blast, I seem to have mistaken it for one of the other armors. :smallsigh:

I blame that picture in the PHB. :smalltongue:

Anyway, still means you're burning two spells and probably making a Craft check, probably every couple of weeks, more often if your armor gets dispelled.

It's fully understantable, the picture in the PHB of the breastplate has very little connection to what a breastplate really is.