Adding a Druid to an un-optimized party

[thejibboo]

I'm a fairly inexperienced DM running a campaign in a homebrew setting. My players are, for the most part, not interested in optimizing/power-gaming. This campaign started with an unarmed Fighter, a Rogue who never sneak-attacked anyone, and a Ranger/Bard (i warned you.) The Rogue died last session, and expressed interest in rolling up a Druid. The party is at level 7.
In short, my question is, how worried should i be about adding a Druid to this mix? Do the huge differences in potential power between full-casters and non-casters come out even in a group like mine, or is it only a problem with optimizers?
I'd really appreciate any tips from more experienced players and DMs about any snags to look out for with a party of one tier 1 character and the rest much lower. The homebrew setting we're in contains very few fantastic animals for him to shift into, so he'll be limited to bears and wolves and the like, and he understands that i'll enforce the limitation of animals to those he's "familiar" with, but looking at the spell list i can't really anticipate which ones will be problems.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

With a Druid, it's extremely easy for him to be accidentally good, even over the top in comparison to the rest of the group. You may want to tell him to use the Shapeshift variant in PH2, you may need to design encounters around something to keep him busy and then something for the rest of the group to fight. If he sticks to mostly buffing the rest of the party (Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Barkskin, Greater Magic Fang on the unarmed Fighter's fist(s), etc.) and crowd controls (Ice Storm, Sleet Storm, Heat Metal on a big opponent's weapon so he drops it, etc.) then you can probably just increase the encounter difficulty slightly and everything should be fine. If he goes for direct damage spells (Extended Creeping Cold, Splinterbolt, Ice Lance) and self-buffs with Wild Shape (Bite of the Werecreature, Produce Flame to add fire to his natural attacks) then you may have to pull him aside and talk to him about what needs to change.

[skycycle blues]

If he never used sneak attacks, then it seems like he probably won't use Druid features either. If he does something like sit back and let his Animal Companion fight while barely casting spells, it might be fairly even.

However, if he does use class features, he will outclass everyone even without optimization. His animal companion should be a better Fighter than the Fighter. If he's using Wildshape, he is also a better combatant than both the Fighter and Ranger/Bard. His spells would wildly turn the tide of fights.

A Druid that uses, and doesn't abuse, features is as good as any other Tier 1 that does about the same thing. But if he doesn't use them, he's as powerful as he wants to play it.

[legomaster00156]

Seeing as just a few hours ago, I witnessed one of the many tricks a level 7 Druid can pull out (Widened Entangle to entangle everything in a 16x16 square area), I would be wary of this.
A bit of an increase in difficulty is definitely accounted for. Get a feel for what his focus is (Buffing? Crowd control? Healing? Outright damage?) and plan your encounters to keep him busy, while also giving the rest of the players plenty of stuff to do. Overall, he shouldn't cause too much trouble to your game, so let him play a Druid and have fun with it.

[Thespianus]

Another aspect of this is that, if the others in the party are simply not interested in optimizing, maybe they just won't care if the Druid outshine them on the battlefield? Maybe it'll just become a natural part of the game?

When the efficiency-in-battle factor is factored out through the way players are playing the game, stranger things can happen. :)


And it strikes me that if the Rogue player didn't make full use of the Rogue abilities, measly as they may be, it seems unlikely that the same player would change that drastically when playing a Druid.

To the OP: Go for it. Just let him have fun with the Druid, and if the first two sessions gets out of control due to the new power level, then ask him to dial it down a notch.

[Tibbaerrohwen]

Druids can be a handful. They have so much power floating around that comparing them and wizards/clerics to fighters and rogues makes me wonder what the PHB writers were thinking.

The overwhelming opinion seems to be let him try ti out and, if it's too much, ask him to take a chill pill. If he starts out-shinning your other players all the time, it's a problem. I don't know anyone who plays a fantasy game cause they enjoy taking the backseat all the time.

Also, design some puzzles and encounter that are specifically for your other players. There are things other classes can do that Druids can't (not much though), so let them. You may need to remind your other players how cool their characters can be sometimes.

[DeAnno]

I get the feeling he may end up using one of his three main abilities fairly competently (spells, wild shape, companion) and mostly ignore the other two, and barely use the one he picks effectively at that. I wouldn't worry about it until it becomes a problem.

[mint]

The way you describe your party, it will be a non-issue.
Summoning, melee powerhousin' with wildshape, having an up to date and select animal companion, casting of choice spells; like two of those need to line up for the druid fear to hit people.
If you don't make an effort to line them up, the druid will just be good at things, one at a time.
I suggest a hands off approach. See what happens.

All that said, here are a few things to to think about:

A wildshaped druid + animal companion potentially has a strong melee presence. Other melee characters might feel overshadowed if said melee characters do poorly.
There is some bookkeeping involved in playing a druid. Spell information, stats for summoned creatures, animal companion and the druid both in and out of various shapes. If the player is unprepared, this will grind combat down to a halt. For everyone's sake, make sure he preps. It is nice for everyone if looking something up takes less than 15 seconds or so.

[Feytalist]

I actually like the shapeshift variant suggestion. That way, he's restricted to three or four (still relatively strong) forms, and can't cast while shifted (shapeshift expressly prohibits the use of Natural Spell). That way, he's either a buff-stick or a melee combatant, not both. Might work.

[LordBlades]

Druids can be a handful. They have so much power floating around that comparing them and wizards/clerics to fighters and rogues makes me wonder what the PHB writers were thinking.



They imagined clerics would heal, and wizards would blast. I'm not entirely sure what they imagined a Druoid would do that's not completely on a different level than most of the other PHB classes.

[NOhara24]

It can be done. Ban the "Natural Spell" feat from him. That way he can't turn into a Big Cat and then start throwing Arcs of Lightning on turn and pouncing the next.

Like it's been said, force him to pick one or the other.

[NOhara24]

I'm not entirely sure what they imagined a Druoid would do that's not completely on a different level than most of the other PHB classes.

The problem is that they gave the Druid EVERYTHING good. Full Spellcasting, medium BAB, Wildshape, an animal companion with it's own OP rules to leveling, and it's own feat that well and truly breaks the class into pieces.

Whereas other classes that aren't MAD need one good roll to be good at their role (Clerics need WIS, Sorcerers need CHA...etc.) Druids need one roll to be good at EVERYTHING. Did you get a good wisdom roll? Nice. All of your Druid spells are open to you, that includes summoning. Are you out of spells for the day? Turn into a Dire Bear and be the party tank for awhile. Barabiarian/Crusader/Fighter/Paladin be damned.

I don't like druids, I ban them in my games. I like my players to specialize, my campaigns don't have an "easy" mode.

[LordBlades]

I don't like druids, I ban them in my games. I like my players to specialize, my campaigns don't have an "easy" mode.

Well, I love druids:smallbiggrin: My own experience with them has taught me that in a campaign built to accommodate them (enough power level) they're not that much of an easy mode. Actually, they're slightly behind wizards and clerics in power and versatility (druid divinations are very limited, druids can't really teleport or do plane hopping, druids lack celerity and stuff like that). What I personally find fun about druids is their sheer number of completely different things they can do. I can probably build a wizard that can solve any problem more effectively than a druid but he's going to solve everything by casting spells. If I'm bored of casting spells today, I'm out of luck. On a druid on the other hand, if I'm bored of casting spells, I can just turn into a bear and ride my bear animal companion into battle.

What makes druids stand out so much is a higher base power level. Unlike a wizard (and to lesser extent cleric) you can't really screw up a druid unless you're trying it on purpose.

[Gnaeus]

I actually like the shapeshift variant suggestion. That way, he's restricted to three or four (still relatively strong) forms, and can't cast while shifted (shapeshift expressly prohibits the use of Natural Spell). That way, he's either a buff-stick or a melee combatant, not both. Might work.

Personally, I don't like shapeshift variant. I think it strips too much of the utility from wildshape while keeping it as a combat buff, when it should be the other way around.

Instead, I would suggest looking up the Pathfinder wildshape rules on the PFSRD, or one of the other nerfs which limit wildshape to certain stat bonuses. Wildshape is only really a problem when a Str 6, dex 8 gnome is using it to completely replace his physical stats.

[Leon]

I'm a fairly inexperienced DM running a campaign in a homebrew setting. My players are, for the most part, not interested in optimizing/power-gaming. This campaign started with an unarmed Fighter, a Rogue who never sneak-attacked anyone, and a Ranger/Bard (i warned you.) The Rogue died last session, and expressed interest in rolling up a Druid. The party is at level 7.
In short, my question is, how worried should i be about adding a Druid to this mix? Do the huge differences in potential power between full-casters and non-casters come out even in a group like mine, or is it only a problem with optimizers?
I'd really appreciate any tips from more experienced players and DMs about any snags to look out for with a party of one tier 1 character and the rest much lower. The homebrew setting we're in contains very few fantastic animals for him to shift into, so he'll be limited to bears and wolves and the like, and he understands that i'll enforce the limitation of animals to those he's "familiar" with, but looking at the spell list i can't really anticipate which ones will be problems.

The Druid like any other class is not inherently more powerful than another unless played that way (yes some classes can be easier to do this with but its not the ground state that they exist in).
While you may read about the many ways that a Druid can break a game it does not necessary mean that all Druids will be played the same way.

A good group will work well with any combination of classes.

[NOhara24]

in a campaign built to accommodate them (enough power level) they're not that much of an easy mode.

The fact that I have to go out of my way as a DM to accomodate an entirely average druid (not even an optimized one) is enough for me. Otherwise all my monsters would get stomped on. The campaign i'm playing in now, the Druid one-shotted a "chapter-ending" boss by turning into a fleshraker and dealing DEX damage. Did I mention we were level 7(IIRC) at the time?

I'm not making this into an argument. Saying that they're "less versatile" than a wizard and then turning around and saying how much you love the sheer number of different things they can do doesn't really make much of a point.

I'll let all the non-broken druid variants, the PF changes, and all the threads on this board about "how to nerf the druid" speak for themselves.

[Gnaeus]

I'll let all the non-broken druid variants, the PF changes, and all the threads on this board about "how to nerf the druid" speak for themselves.

Just to clarify. Druid isn't broken. Truenamer is broken because it doesn't work. Druid is a class that is entirely playable, and is in fact very well balanced when considering the strongest 8-10 classes in the game. It is much stronger than monk or fighter.

Similarly, monk or fighter are not broken. What they are is a lot weaker than a druid. They are also well balanced, if one is looking at the weakest 6-10 classes in the game.

Where a particular game sets its power level is personal preference. For a certain group, a druid nerf, or a fighter buff, may be appropriate. That is less a flaw for the unfortunate Druid than it is a reflection of the fact that 3.5 has really bad balance overall.

[1stEd.Thief]

If a player isn't going to use their PCs power, it doesn't matter what they're playing.

I'm running a low level game with one of the PCs playing a gestalt Druid // Ranger. Last time we played he shot critters with his bow.

[Gavinfoxx]

Add one or more or all of these nerfs, as needed:
Shapeshift Variant (Player's Handbook II)
Deadly Hunter Variant (Unearthed Arcana, SRD)
Druidic Avenger Variant (Unearthed Arcana, SRD)
Spontaneous Divine Caster Variant (Unearthed Arcana, SRD)

Also note the PrC's that, with Druid entry, lower them one or two tiers, here:
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0

[NOhara24]

Just to clarify. Druid isn't broken. Truenamer is broken because it doesn't work. Druid is a class that is entirely playable, and is in fact very well balanced when considering the strongest 8-10 classes in the game. It is much stronger than monk or fighter.

Similarly, monk or fighter are not broken. What they are is a lot weaker than a druid. They are also well balanced, if one is looking at the weakest 6-10 classes in the game.

Where a particular game sets its power level is personal preference. For a certain group, a druid nerf, or a fighter buff, may be appropriate. That is less a flaw for the unfortunate Druid than it is a reflection of the fact that 3.5 has really bad balance overall.

The word "Broken" can refer to a class being over or under powered. And of course druid is "balanced" when looking at the strongest classes in the game. If you pick-and-choose what you're comparing it to, you can make anything look "balanced."

Even in an all Tier 1 party, the Druid will more than hold his own, because he can do EVERYTHING, like it's been said on this board: Full Divine Spellcasting alone is Tier 1. Throw in the fact that it's the best melee class in the game, and it becomes easy mode. You're low on HP/Out of spells for the day? No problem, become a Dire "X". When the battle is over and you come out of wildshape, all your HP is restored.

In a Low-op (in this case, no-op) party, with the highest tier class in-game being a bard, playing a Druid is a bad idea. Because that class doesn't need any sort of serious optimization to be powerful.

I do agree with you, 3.5 balance is horrible. But balance is the cost that comes with diversity, it seems.

[Gnaeus]

The word "Broken" can refer to a class being over or under powered. And of course druid is "balanced" when looking at the strongest classes in the game.

In which case, every class in the game is "Broken". Because every class in the game is over or under-powered compared with some other class.


If you pick-and-choose what you're comparing it to, you can make anything look "balanced."

False. If you pick and choose what you're comparing it to, you can make everything actually be balanced.


Even in an all Tier 1 party, the Druid will more than hold his own, because he can do EVERYTHING, like it's been said on this board: Full Divine Spellcasting alone is Tier 1. Throw in the fact that it's the best melee class in the game, and it becomes easy mode. You're low on HP/Out of spells for the day? No problem, become a Dire "X". When the battle is over and you come out of wildshape, all your HP is restored.

This is really, really wrong, in an amazingly wrong way.

Druid is a Tier 1 caster, but their spell list is usually considered the weakest of the T1s. Of the "big 3" wizards pretty clearly have the strongest list, especially at high levels, with broken abilities that far surpass what a druid can do. Clerics have a list that is at least as good as and usually considered better than a druid, coupled with turn undead attempts for free metamagic or domain feats.

Outside the "big 3" Archivists have the most diverse spell list of any level 9 caster in game, Artificers can copy any trick any of the other T1s can do, a couple of levels before they can do it, and Erudite is basically a superwizard. Also, with the single exception of Planar Shepherd, druids have far weaker PRC options than most of those other classes.

In a tier 1 party (or heck, a tier 3 party) hit point healing is not a major achievement. When the battle is over, everyone's hit points are restored, at least by the time wildshape becomes an issue.

Druid is not above average in strength in a group of T1s. At high levels, they are actually toward the bottom of the group. The only thing that may make them look that way is they are very, very easy to optimize.

As an aside, it isn't a fact that druids are the best melee class in the game. Certainly they are in the running, but I can easily make tier 1-3 builds with other classes that can compete with the druid in melee, sometimes beat them. It is called CoDzilla, not Dzilla, for a reason.


In a Low-op (in this case, no-op) party, with the highest tier class in-game being a bard, playing a Druid is a bad idea. Because that class doesn't need any sort of serious optimization to be powerful.

That is a more defensible statement. That doesn't make it true. A druid who picks a hawk for a pet and sees his combat role as doing a lot of healing, for example, would not be out of line at all in that group.

[MukkTB]

Why don't you let that guy play a druid so the party CAN learn about relative class levels and optimization? Don't babysit the players. Either educate them or let them educate themselves by touching things, feeling them, and putting them in their mouth.

Even if the Druid is eventually going to break the game it will take a bit of time.

[NOhara24]

In which case, every class in the game is "Broken". Because every class in the game is over or under-powered compared with some other class.

I never said anything about comparing it to anything in the statement. I was stating how the word "broken" can be used in a sentence.




False. If you pick and choose what you're comparing it to, you can make everything actually be balanced.

Semantics.




This is really, really wrong, in an amazingly wrong way.

I was trying to maintain an air of civility. Thanks for ruling that option out.


Druid is a Tier 1 caster, but their spell list is usually considered the weakest of the T1s. Of the "big 3" wizards pretty clearly have the strongest list, especially at high levels, with broken abilities that far surpass what a druid can do. Clerics have a list that is at least as good as and usually considered better than a druid, coupled with turn undead attempts for free metamagic or domain feats.

Outside the "big 3" Archivists have the most diverse spell list of any level 9 caster in game, Artificers can copy any trick any of the other T1s can do, a couple of levels before they can do it, and Erudite is basically a superwizard. Also, with the single exception of Planar Shepherd, druids have far weaker PRC options than most of those other classes.

In a tier 1 party (or heck, a tier 3 party) hit point healing is not a major achievement. When the battle is over, everyone's hit points are restored, at least by the time wildshape becomes an issue.

Druid is not above average in strength in a group of T1s. At high levels, they are actually toward the bottom of the group. The only thing that may make them look that way is they are very, very easy to optimize.

I never said anything about them being above the average power level in a Tier 1 party. I said they could "more than hold their own." I didn't say "break the game better than every other Tier 1 class." Everyone knows that Druids aren't the MOST powerful Tier 1. I never claimed that.

My argument was centered around the fact that Druids have Full Divine Spellcasting, and that alone makes them Tier 1. WotC saw it fit to throw more abilities on top of that, which will always make them (at absolute MINIMUM) a solid addition to any party.

The notion that a Druid can be rendered ENTIRELY useless, is simply untrue. No one who has ever played 3.5 for an extended period of time has ever said "Well, the Druid isn't really pulling his weight anymore."



That is a more defensible statement. That doesn't make it true. A druid who picks a hawk for a pet and sees his combat role as doing a lot of healing, for example, would not be out of line at all in that group.

Any player who chooses to play that build for a Druid should have their dice confiscated. That's not low-op, or even no-op. That's going out of your way to be weak. Playing a Druid for healing is like playing a Paladin for it's spellcasting abilities.

[Gnaeus]

I never said anything about comparing it to anything in the statement. I was stating how the word "broken" can be used in a sentence.


And it can be used that way if you wish for it to be devoid of meaning.



The notion that a Druid can be rendered ENTIRELY useless, is simply untrue. No one who has ever played 3.5 for an extended period of time has ever said "Well, the Druid isn't really pulling his weight anymore."

So? The same thing could be said for most T1s, and almost all of T3. That is actually a good thing in a class.




Any player who chooses to play that build for a Druid should have their dice confiscated. That's not low-op, or even no-op. That's going out of your way to be weak. Playing a Druid for healing is like playing a Paladin for it's spellcasting abilities.

Or like playing a rogue who never used his sneak attack? You know, like the exact player we are talking about playing a druid in this thread?

Heck, I have a druid like that playing in my game now. She picked a panther over a hawk, true, but it may as well have been a hawk since it never enters combat because she is terrified that "kitteh" could be hurt. That character has never at any point remotely threatened to steal the game from the Barbarian or Rogue. Certainly, her class would allow her to if she decided tomorrow to take up powergaming, but at the moment it is not remotely an issue.

[NOhara24]

And it can be used that way if you wish for it to be devoid of meaning.

Not true. "Broken" will always mean over or under-powered, to an extreme. Much explanation would be required for someone to say "Tier 3 is so broken." and be taken seriously.




So? The same thing could be said for most T1s, and almost all of T3. That is actually a good thing in a class.

I never said it wasn't. I was making the point that in a party of the most powerful classes, the Druid will still be very, very relevant after you started comparing it to the Erudite, etc.






Or like playing a rogue who never used his sneak attack? You know, like the exact player we are talking about playing a druid in this thread?

Sneak Attack is actually a moderately intrinsic mechanic. Two conditions need to be met for a successful sneak attack. It's not entirely unfeasible that a low/no-op rogue simply doesn't understand how to make it happen.


Heck, I have a druid like that playing in my game now. She picked a panther over a hawk, true, but it may as well as been a hawk since it never enters combat because she is terrified that "kitteh" could be hurt.

Facepalm. Does she have any idea how strong the Druid's animal companion actually is?


That character has never at any point remotely threatened to steal the game from the Barbarian or Rogue. Certainly, her class would allow her to if she decided tomorrow to take up powergaming, but at the moment it is not remotely an issue.

The fact that she has the CHOICE to just suddenly redirect the game at any point, is too much power in my mind. Then again, my opinion is far from absolute.

[Gnaeus]

Not true. "Broken" will always mean over or under-powered, to an extreme. Much explanation would be required for someone to say "Tier 3 is so broken." and be taken seriously.

Not really. Over or under powered requires a base level. In a tier 1 group with a druid, MoMF ranger is broken (too weak). In a tier 5 group with a monk, Swordsage is broken (too strong).




Sneak Attack is actually a moderately intrinsic mechanic. Two conditions need to be met for a successful sneak attack. It's not entirely unfeasible that a low/no-op rogue simply doesn't understand how to make it happen.

Its not entirely unfeasible that that same player could make bad spell choices and use them badly.


Facepalm. Does she have any idea how strong the Druid's animal companion actually is?

I'm actually not sure. Game is played on D20 pro, and I've never met her face-to-face. We certainly keep encouraging her to use her class features...


The fact that she has the CHOICE to just suddenly redirect the game at any point, is too much power in my mind. Then again, my opinion is far from absolute.

Meh. Any player always has the choice to be a jerk and break a game. Responsible players don't. Nerfs or tier restrictions are only necessary in a game in which a rule like "Please play responsibly and don't break the game" doesn't work.

[NOhara24]

Not really. Over or under powered requires a base level. In a tier 1 group with a druid, MoMF ranger is broken (too weak). In a tier 5 group with a monk, Swordsage is broken (too strong).

Correct, describing something as over or under powered can be applied in a party-to-party scenario. But even then, it would be a stretch to say that in a tier 5 party, the player playing the rogue is "overpowered."

Describing something as broken is reserved for special instances. Playing a comparatively weak class in the scenario you're describing doesn't make it broken. It makes it weak. In fact, you cited the Truenamer in your original argument for when broken as a descriptor can be used; on the grounds that it is unplayable. Ranger is still a very playable class.

Party-to party comparisons does not a broken class make. Broken sits on both extremes of D&D 3.5 as a whole.


Its not entirely unfeasible that that same player could make bad spell choices and use them badly.

Alright, so I picked some bad spells for the day. I can still turn into a bear/dinosaur/elemental multiple times a day to make up for it.

That being said, all players understand the concept of "This spell deals more damage than that spell."


I'm actually not sure. Game is played on D20 pro, and I've never met her face-to-face. We certainly keep encouraging her to use her class features...

I think she's just being ridiculous. She sought out a game online. She knows exactly what she's doing.


Meh. Any player always has the choice to be a jerk and break a game. Responsible players don't. Nerfs or tier restrictions are only necessary in a game in which a rule like "Please play responsibly and don't break the game" doesn't work.

Asking players to be responsible and play so everyone gets their fair share of the spotlight is unfair. The wizard shouldn't feel obligated to cast lower-level spells so the fighter can still feel useful. At least with nerfs/buffs everyone can play to their maximum ability and share the spotlight, if done correctly.

[Gnaeus]

Alright, so I picked some bad spells for the day. I can still turn into a bear/dinosaur/elemental multiple times a day to make up for it.

That being said, all players understand the concept of "This spell deals more damage than that spell."

But lots of players do not understand how powerful wildshape is. We shouldn't be too hard on them for this, since the DEVELOPERS did not understand how powerful wildshape is when they built the game. Yes, you and I both know that using a divine caster as a combat healer is woefully underpowered, but healbots live in low-op games all over the place. So do druids that use wildshape or pets for scouting, not combat.



I think she's just being ridiculous. She sought out a game online. She knows exactly what she's doing.

I can see where you got that from what I said, but it isn't correct. She is a new player. The DM for that game knows all the players personally, and set up the game. We just happen to be playing in 3 different physical locations, and not all the players know each other outside the game.


Asking players to be responsible and play so everyone gets their fair share of the spotlight is unfair. The wizard shouldn't feel obligated to cast lower-level spells so the fighter can still feel useful. At least with nerfs/buffs everyone can play to their maximum ability and share the spotlight, if done correctly.

It isn't unfair at all. It is, in fact extremely fair. Personally, I would rather choose my nerfs myself (in the form of spell selection, form selection, item crafting for weaker party members, or in extreme cases even weakening my build by picking weak but flavorful feats or PRCs) rather than have my DM nerf my character for me. Asking players to be responsible and play so everyone gets their fair share of the spotlight is, in my opinion, courteous play. Even if everyone is the same tier.

[NOhara24]

But lots of players do not understand how powerful wildshape is. We shouldn't be too hard on them for this, since the DEVELOPERS did not understand how powerful wildshape is when they built the game. Yes, you and I both know that using a divine caster as a combat healer is woefully underpowered, but healbots live in low-op games all over the place. So do druids that use wildshape or pets for scouting, not combat.

I can see how the developers didn't understand how powerful wildshape was going to be when they made it. I doubt they went through every. Single. Monster. That could ever be turned in to throughout the level progression from 1-20.

Maybe I'm just a hard ***, but from a player's perspective, I find it hard to believe that someone doesn't see turning into a freaking bear as powerful.


I can see where you got that from what I said, but it isn't correct. She is a new player. The DM for that game knows all the players personally, and set up the game. We just happen to be playing in 3 different physical locations, and not all the players know each other outside the game.

Ah. No harm no foul then.


It isn't unfair at all. It is, in fact extremely fair. Personally, I would rather choose my nerfs myself (in the form of spell selection, form selection, item crafting for weaker party members, or in extreme cases even weakening my build by picking weak but flavorful feats or PRCs) rather than have my DM nerf my character for me. Asking players to be responsible and play so everyone gets their fair share of the spotlight is, in my opinion, courteous play. Even if everyone is the same tier.

Of course a player would rather pick his own nerfs :smalltongue: but it seems that we've gone from mechanics, to debating play styles. And no one will ever win that debate unless they're willing to accept a solution to a problem that they don't think they have.

Riveting debate, old chap. +1 internet to you.

[Gnaeus]

I can see how the developers didn't understand how powerful wildshape was going to be when they made it. I doubt they went through every. Single. Monster. That could ever be turned in to throughout the level progression from 1-20.

Maybe I'm just a hard ***, but from a player's perspective, I find it hard to believe that someone doesn't see turning into a freaking bear as powerful.

Indeed. It boggles my mind that the developers didn't look at it. I mean, how can you not, right? You don't have to look at all of them, just looking at a few of the big ones would seem to be enough...

Other justifications I have heard for the under-use of wildshape include "it doesn't fit my character" and "it is too complicated to pick out a form and change all those stats". Whatever.

At equal optimization levels, does a well played druid have a lot more tools at his disposal than (for example) a fighter or a ranger/bard? Totally. Does that mean that in this game with this player that playing an unmodified druid will be a problem? No. Assuming a good relationship with mature players, I wouldn't automatically assume the worst.