Is this UA Druid variant overpowered?

[Callista]

To be clear: I'm asking, is it overpowered in relation to the PHB druid.

This is from Unearthed Arcana. I wanted to try it in an attempt to take the druid down a tier to fit into a party with the most powerful characters being sorcerers and the least powerful being (well-optimized) fighters.

Druid Variant:
Gain: WIS bonus to armor class when unarmored, fast movement (as monk); favored enemy, swift tracker, and Track feat (as ranger).
Lose: Armor and shield proficiency, wildshape (all versions).

My DM and I disagreed over this and I still think it's not overpowered, but then, I may be wrong. What do you guys think?

[Coidzor]

It is not overpowered. It is weaker than standard druid. It loses the druid's best long duration buff, Wildshape in exchange for wisdom to AC when the druid can just buy an item that does that. And if you're going to stay in squishy human form, then you're better off grabbing a decent set of armor and riding one's animal companion if one is going to fight. And if one is going to hang back and cast, well...

Fast movement is a joke in comparison with flight speeds and burrow speeds and good land speeds from wildshape.

Swift Tracker and the Track feat are a railroading tool disguised as a worthwhile thing to spend character resources on.

Favored Enemy is underpowered unless you spend feats on it for things like Nemesis, and then you need either Favored Enemy: Evil from that one PrC or Favored Enemy: Arcanists from the Ranger ACF. And even then it's still not beans in comparison with Wildshape.

[NOhara24]

I don't know how your DM can think that the UA variant of the Druid is overpowered. Are you sure he's, you know, literate?

In the next game I DM I'm ONLY allowing the UA druid.

[Callista]

I don't know how your DM can think that the UA variant of the Druid is overpowered. Are you sure he's, you know, literate?Yes, he is; and he's not stupid, either. But he is quite focused on RP and world-building, and anyway, we are all full-time students, some with jobs; so it's not like we can spend 24/7 studying D&D sourcebooks...

[Shadowleaf]

It's not overpowered because of the Natural Spell feat. Wildshape + Natural Spell (and a great spell list) is what makes Druid so damn good.

[Manateee]

Levels 1-4: It's strictly a power boost over the core Druid. Most of the exchange is based on giving up abilities you still don't have.

Levels 5-14: No Wild Shape is a pretty harsh loss. The variant loses (it does still have a couple polymorph-related spells for utility - they're nowhere near as powerful as WS, but if you use the variant, use them).

Levels 15+: Animal Shapes comes online for a party-wide Wild Shape. Then Shapechange, so you can bend the rules over your head. It doesn't matter anymore that you lack the class ability; you have better alternatives anyway. The variant wins out.

So for half of the available levels, the Variant is more powerful than the core options, and for half it's at a disadvantage. The power lost in levels {5:14} is going to hurt more than the power gained in levels {1:4, 15+} is going to help, but it won't be crippling (and likewise, the variant's advantage will hardly be the gamebreaking aspect of the Druid in the other levels).

edit:
Because I know Natural Spell is going to be called up as a counterpoint, I'm just going to gesture vaguely at Surrogate Spellcasting, which is basically the same thing, but not WS-specific.

{{Scrubbed}}

[Callista]

Starting at level 3, probably never going to be getting past level 15... so, yeah, it probably would've done what I wanted it to do. (I decided against playing a druid, in the end; games are supposed to be "have fun with your friends", not "argue about things that don't matter in the long run", amirite?)

So would that variant be enough to put the Druid on a par with, say, a sorcerer; or still too powerful?

[Manateee]

Enough to put the Druid on a par with, say, a sorcerer; or still too powerful?
The Druid is a prepared spellcaster with a deep spell list. It's always going to have more answers to more problems than the Sorcerer (though even without a nerf, it might not be able to match the Sorcerer for brute force).

[Coidzor]

Even with the roughly weaker total spell list available to it, the druid still is a prepared caster and knows all of its spells. You could play with the sorcerer, but you still would have an edge on it.

[Shadowleaf]

I honestly don't think you would feel too much of a power difference between a standard Druid and a Sorcerer. Sure the Druid is tier 1 while the Sorcerer is tier 2, but unless they vary wildly in optimization level, they are basicly on par. The only difference is the Druid has more utility.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Compare it to a PHB Druid wearing a Monk's Belt, with (Lesser Rod of Extended) Longstrider cast on himself. Now consider that this character can still use Wild Shape to turn into a damn nature, you scary! and consider which one is more powerful.

[Urpriest]

Let's think about numbers, just to get as clear as possible:

You gain: Wis to AC. You lose: Wild Shape. Your Wis bonus is around the 3-9 range. Natural Armor from your new form is often higher than this, if you add in the frequently higher Dex it's no contest. Also, Wild Armor.

You gain: Favored Enemy. You lose: Wild Shape. Favored Enemy will grant a maximum of +10 damage to very specific monsters. At that level your Wild Shape form's Strength will be higher. Again, no contest.

You gain: Fast Movement. You lose: Wild Shape. Your Wild Shape forms will frequently have a speed greater than yours, indeed often higher than that granted by Fast Movement. Oh, and some of them can fly. Does Fast Movement let you fly? Didn't think so.

You gain: Track, Swift Tracker. You lose: Wild Shape. You lose access to Scent, Blindsight, etc. No contest again.

Not only are none of these things overpowered compared to what you're giving up, or even comparable, they're not even things that appear on first glance to be more powerful. I think either your DM misunderstood the variant or you're misunderstanding his response. Could you clarify what he objected to?

[Callista]

Could you clarify what he objected to?The WIS to AC, because Wisdom is a druid's best stat; and the Favored Enemy, which he believes is overpowered to begin with.

[MeeposFire]

Wisdom to AC can be attained by an item in core so it is not that big of a deal.

Favored enemy is not that great unless

1) You fight that type of monster A LOT.

2) You pick up favored enemy (evil) and you fight evil a lot since that is so very common.

In those situations it is good (and they are really the same benefit just one is more likely than the other). Otherwise it is just too niche to be a good ability.

[Hirax]

The WIS to AC, because Wisdom is a druid's best stat; and the Favored Enemy, which he believes is overpowered to begin with.

Wildshape gets you more AC and more damage by a long shot. I don't think your DM has ever seen anyone use wildshape before.

[Coidzor]

The WIS to AC, because Wisdom is a druid's best stat

Which can be either purchased or superceded by armor which is just as good or better for a good portion of the career and is a way to carry around magical armor properties which are better than straight AC bonuses. That monks can't wear armor and are discouraged from using decent weapons, thus locking them out of proper magical gear is part of their weakness as a class. And if they do ignore their class features they're basically fighters with a weaker chassis and few bonus feats.


the Favored Enemy, which he believes is overpowered to begin with.

...How? :smallconfused:

Does he think that Power Attack is overpowered? Because a 5th level fighter can replicate the bonus damage of favored enemy that a high level ranger gets and do so against everyone .

Does he think that Bards are overpowered since they can give comparable bonuses to hit and damage to everyone and summons?

[HunterOfJello]

Wildshape is more powerful than the entire lists of abilities that many other classes get. A non-spellcasting, companion-less Druid who can only use Wildshape is still more powerful than many other classes.

The sacrifice of Wildshape is a serious penalty for the small benefits that the given variant gains. That variant is nowhere near overpowered, is not underpowered, and is in fact negatively powered. It makes a character weaker.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing (since Druids are over the top in the first place) and can be a great variant to put druids more on par with other classes. It turns a Druid into a naked hippie ranger without bonus combat abilities.

[Gavinfoxx]

If you want to weaken Druids, there are several easily available nerfs!

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)

So, yes, the UA / SRD ACF's are very good at lowering a Druid's power from their default power level (as they are presented in the PHB) of 'obscene'.

[Prime32]

On top of the Wis to AC issue, with a standard druid you can play an insanely wise cripple and still have more brute strength than everyone else, since Wild Shape replaces your physical ability scores. A druid gains no benefit from having high Str and Dex at all.

Without wildshape the druid will need to invest in Str or Dex if he wants to fight, meaning his Wis will be lower. Plus he has to fight as a human instead of a giant bear that spits acid.


In short:


High Str, Dex and Wis
Gets Wis to AC from an item
Skin thicker than plate armor


Medium Str, Dex and Wis
Gets Wis to AC from a class feature
Human skin

[Silva Stormrage]

Ya... I used this as a NERF to one of my druids in a campaign... Not sure how it could be considered over powered. Does your DM ban Natural Spell?

[Chronos]

It is overpowered, since all variants of the druid (including the core one) are overpowered. It is, however, less overpowered than the core druid, which is at least a step in the right direction.

[Callista]

It is overpowered, since all variants of the druid (including the core one) are overpowered. It is, however, less overpowered than the core druid, which is at least a step in the right direction.Depends on the power level of your game. "Overpowered" is a comparative term. In a party of commoners, a rogue is overpowered. In a party of sorcerers, he's underpowered. The core druid is underpowered only compared to some of the truly broken builds, because it's one of the most powerful classes; but it fits right in with a party full of other powerful classes. I've done that, in fact; it's quite fun to play nothing but very powerful characters, and take on the Nine Hells at level 13. But it's only fun if everybody is playing at that power level.

Except for in theoretical optimization (which is fun, but nobody's going to actually play that crazy stuff in anything but a one-shot game), the aim of optimization has never been to get the most powerful character possible. What you're trying to do is get a character that's fun to play, and will fit into your party and into your game without either turning it into a cakewalk, getting killed immediately, or just being useless and holding everybody else back.

...hmm, that was pedantic. Oh, well, whatever. :smalltongue:

[Gavinfoxx]

Well, we've answered your question: Several ACF's De-power the PHB Druid.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

{{scrubbed}}

[Callista]

2) You pick up favored enemy (evil) and you fight evil a lot since that is so very common. Wait... that's allowed? I thought you had to pick a specific type of monster--you know, like demons or devils or dragons or something. "Everything with the evil subtype" is some serious cheese.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wait... that's allowed? I thought you had to pick a specific type of monster--you know, like demons or devils or dragons or something. "Everything with the evil subtype" is some serious cheese.

...It's like a Weapon Spec that scales with level. Weapon Spec is subpar. Therefore, this would be decent.

And he's talking about favored enemy (evil), not favored enemy ([evil]). Favored enemy ([evil]) is still very subpar.

[Ashtagon]

Wisdom to AC can be attained by an item in core so it is not that big of a deal.

Favored enemy is not that great unless

1) You fight that type of monster A LOT.

2) You pick up favored enemy (evil) and you fight evil a lot since that is so very common.

In those situations it is good (and they are really the same benefit just one is more likely than the other). Otherwise it is just too niche to be a good ability.

The nearest thing to that is favoured enemy: Outsider (evil). While nice, it only covers outsiders (demons and devils and all things in between). It has no bonus against orcs or goblins or bugbears.

[Draz74]

So would that variant be enough to put the Druid on a par with, say, a sorcerer; or still too powerful?
IMO, it depends on what books you're using. Since the Cleric and Druid "know" all of the spells on their lists, their power varies directly with how many books they can fish spells from. (The Sorcerer, on the other hand, can fill up all of her "spells known" with good spells using just Core.)

Spell Compendium and Complete Mage, for example, are huge boosts to Druids.


Favored enemy is not that great unless

1) You fight that type of monster A LOT.
To give her DM the benefit of the doubt, this could very well be the case. Maybe a campaign was planned where all of the enemies are Undead, or something. In that case, Favored Enemy truly could be overpowered.


Wildshape gets you more AC and more damage by a long shot. I don't think your DM has ever seen anyone use wildshape well, including splatbook-diving for things like Fleshrakers before.
Fixed that for you. (Wildshape sometimes isn't overpowered when it's used by non-optimizers who just pick an animal that seems cool, especially from Core. Even if they pick Bears, their AC will tank unless they're using some specific non-Core tactics.)


Wait... that's allowed? I thought you had to pick a specific type of monster--you know, like demons or devils or dragons or something. "Everything with the evil subtype" is some serious cheese.

Normally it's not allowed, no. But there are options to do it specifically in Book of Exalted Deeds. And no, it doesn't require the evil subtype -- just evil alignment.

IIRC, though, it's only for prestige classes, not for ordinary Rangers.

[Coidzor]

Wait... that's allowed? I thought you had to pick a specific type of monster--you know, like demons or devils or dragons or something. "Everything with the evil subtype" is some serious cheese.

No, it really, really isn't. You're buying into your DM's flawed worldview there.

It takes a bad class feature and makes it apply in a way as to make it more useful, and there's only one PrC that grants it and one has to qualify for it. I think it's Stalker of Kharesh. And even then, one can't get a maxed favored enemy bonus out of it due to when one enters it, IIRC.

[Swok]

The nearest thing to that is favoured enemy: Outsider (evil). While nice, it only covers outsiders (demons and devils and all things in between). It has no bonus against orcs or goblins or bugbears. No, He's talking Favored Enemy (Evil) from iirc Stalker of Kharash. It grants exactly that: super special favored enemy against anything Evil. Out of Book of Exalted Deeds. I could be hilariously wrong though.

[Callista]

Yeah, Stalker of Kharash, a +1 bonus that stacks with a ranger's Favored Enemy. I can see how you could add a lot of feats to that to make it much stronger.

I hadn't actually decided on a favored enemy; I'd probably have gone for something relevant to my character's backstory, possibly Animal (which might sound odd for a druid, but not if the druid's past includes a long stint as a hunter in a nomadic society).

Favored Enemy on all Evil creatures... yowch. I was thinking Evil subtype was pretty powerful, because it applies to anything from the Evil-aligned outer planes, including lots of summoned stuff... but anything with an evil alignment--that's practically everything you fight, if you're Good-aligned and capable of talking down Neutral animals and eventually magical beasts.

I wonder if maybe my DM saw somebody taking advantage of that, and that's why.

[Coidzor]

Yeah, Stalker of Kharash, a +1 bonus that stacks with a ranger's Favored Enemy. I can see how you could add a lot of feats to that to make it much stronger.

The Nemesis feat doesn't make it so much stronger as really useful for infiltration and making sure you eliminate all of the opposition. The most strength is the ability to not be snuck up on within 60 feet by either Evil creatures, Arcane Spellcasters, or Favored Enemy X. But arcane spellcasters really don't need to sneak up within 60 feet of you.

And the Nemesis feat is one of the better ones. Only other one is Favored Power Attack that I can think of offhand. But if you go that route you might as well just be a mounted charger with shock trooper.


I hadn't actually decided on a favored enemy; I'd probably have gone for something relevant to my character's backstory, possibly Animal (which might sound odd for a druid, but not if the druid's past includes a long stint as a hunter in a nomadic society).

I'd recommend rethinking that after discussing favored enemy selection and what level range the game is going to cover with the DM. Low levels FE Animal can work. Higher levels, well, not so much.


Favored Enemy on all Evil creatures... yowch. I was thinking Evil subtype was pretty powerful, because it applies to anything from the Evil-aligned outer planes, including lots of summoned stuff... but anything with an evil alignment--that's practically everything you fight, if you're Good-aligned and capable of talking down Neutral animals and eventually magical beasts.

Yes, meaning FE becomes marginally useful rather than a cop-out.


I wonder if maybe my DM saw somebody taking advantage of that, and that's why.

Probably not, no. Seeing as how you said you all don't have much time to read through the books and it's rather obscure except in online discussions specifically about such things.

[Manateee]

Favored Enemy: Evil has nothing to do with the UA variant.

[Eisenfavl]

No, the UA druid is not more powerful. Like many other have stated that bonus is pathetic.
Wildshape already gives far bigger bonuses. Like Urpriest said, the Str bonus alone will far outstrip any favoured enemy bonus.
And getting the Favoured Enemy (evil) requires a prestige class dip.
Into a non-casting prestige class, IIRC. What this means, is the insanely powerful wildshape and spellcasting and animal companion that explosively propel druid to tier 1 are all weakened.

[Gavinfoxx]

Wait... that's allowed? I thought you had to pick a specific type of monster--you know, like demons or devils or dragons or something. "Everything with the evil subtype" is some serious cheese.

I don't think you can do FE Evil with Standard Ranger. I think you need a prestige class or somesuch to do that. The best you can get with a standard ranger is Favored Enemy: Arcanists, which includes everything with spell like abilities.

[Rubik]

The only time I've seen this variant be BETTER than a standard druid (barring Shapechange) was in a near-epic gestalt game where the player had an absolutely awesome race with awesome stats and tons of LA that overlapped with the druid levels.

And that's it.

[Prime32]

I don't think you can do FE Evil with Standard Ranger. I think you need a prestige class or somesuch to do that. The best you can get with a standard ranger is Favored Enemy: Arcanists, which includes everything with spell like abilities.And that can only be selected as your first FE, via an ACF.

[Chronos]

If you're picking a favored enemy, your DM really should give you some feedback on what good choices might be. This might be as little as "I don't think that's a very good idea", or might be as much as "The dragonlord Kazthus is gathering his goblin armies to crush the land, and bands of heroes are arising to challenge him", but the DM shouldn't leave the player completely in the dark.

[Ashtagon]

No, He's talking Favored Enemy (Evil) from iirc Stalker of Kharash. It grants exactly that: super special favored enemy against anything Evil. Out of Book of Exalted Deeds. I could be hilariously wrong though.

Yep, Book of Nice People. You can get that ability by 7th level if you design your build for it (human ranger).

However, although it stacks with favoured enemy bonuses from the ranger (and others) class, it does not build on itself, unlike other favoured energy bonuses. That is, there isn't a class level where the bonus goes up from +1. If it could eventually reach +8, as the regular favoured enemy bonus does, I'd be worried. +1 is merely incidental.

So yeah. It is a very broad bonus. But the actual size of that bonus is underwhelming.

[Manateee]

The bonus doesn't matter as much as Favored Power Attack does.
But I think we're moving a bit away from the point.

I'm away from books, so I'm just going to ask a couple things that cross my mind here:

Can Favored Enemy use Druid level in place of Ranger levels for any of the multiclass feats? It might be fun to abuse polymorph, splatbook-dives and ghost levels to get something like full skirmish or unarmed strike damage onto a straight-class Druid.

Does anything interesting for Druids require Swift Hunter as a prereq?

[Alienist]

Wildshape gets you more AC and more damage by a long shot. I don't think your DM has ever seen anyone use wildshape before.

As an alternative explanation to the popular opinion that the DM is an idiot. He could simply be interpreting this



The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.


In a strict rather than loose fashion.

I've seen claims (for instance) that you can turn yourself into any animal (ie from any splatbook) simply by making a moderate DC knowledge(nature) roll.

In this case, I think it is one of those things where the rules lawyers either love to ignore what is written, or they go to town bending what is written into something unrecognisable.

Eg
Player "I turn into a fleshraker"
DM "lolwut???"
Player "it's in monster manual 3"
DM (after looking it up) "dude, it's a dinosaur, you can't turn into a dinosaur"
Player "sure I can, see it has the 'animal' type"
DM "but there are no dinosaurs in this world?!"
Player "doesn't matter, I roll knowledge nature"
DM "how would that help? You need familiarity and if there aren't any, you can't be familiar with them!!"
Player "doesn't matter, I roll knowledge nature"
DM "nope"
Player "stop oppressing my individuality!!!!"
DM "rocks fall, everyone dies"

[Hiro Protagonest]

As an alternative explanation to the popular opinion that the DM is an idiot. He could simply be interpreting this



In a strict rather than loose fashion.

I've seen claims (for instance) that you can turn yourself into any animal (ie from any splatbook) simply by making a moderate DC knowledge(nature) roll.

In this case, I think it is one of those things where the rules lawyers either love to ignore what is written, or they go to town bending what is written into something unrecognisable.

Eg
Player "I turn into a fleshraker"
DM "lolwut???"
Player "it's in monster manual 3"
DM (after looking it up) "dude, it's a dinosaur, you can't turn into a dinosaur"
Player "sure I can, see it has the 'animal' type"
DM "but there are no dinosaurs in this world?!"
Player "doesn't matter, I roll knowledge nature"
DM "how would that help? You need familiarity and if there aren't any, you can't be familiar with them!!"
Player "doesn't matter, I roll knowledge nature"
DM "nope"
Player "stop oppressing my individuality!!!!"
DM "rocks fall, everyone dies"

If there isn't a fleshraker in the entire multiverse, then you can't learn about it. Simple.

If dinosaur fossils are relics of a bygone era and we know their rough anatomy, though, a DC 25 knowledge check should do it.

[Coidzor]

As an alternative explanation to the popular opinion that the DM is an idiot. He could simply be interpreting this


Eh, between the DM being a hardass and not letting druids actually use wildshape and the DM not understanding that wisdom to AC and track are pretty weaksauce, I figure that Callista would've already filled us in on things if the first case were true, as otherwise Callista wouldn't have tried to trade away wildshape in order to make the character less OP compared to the other PCs.

[Thurbane]

If you can get all evil creatures or arcanists as FE, might be worth grabbing the Wise to Your Ways feat from Ghostwalk - basically, adds your FE bonus to saves against special attacks (Ex, Sp and Su) by the enemy selected.

[Alienist]

If there isn't a fleshraker in the entire multiverse, then you can't learn about it. Simple.

If dinosaur fossils are relics of a bygone era and we know their rough anatomy, though, a DC 25 knowledge check should do it.

Is that RAW (rules as written) or RAWM? (a reasonable assumption we make)

But that proves my point. Lets say the DM says that familiarity with an animal means that you've spent a considerable amount of time around that sort of animal, interacting with it, observing its habits etc. A not entirely unreasonable interpretation of 'familiar'. Under that interpretation no DC role is going to substitute for the actual experience.

Based on what I saw of Knowledge Nature in the SRD if you saw a fleshraker it would be something like:
dc info
14 its a fleshraker
19 its a dinosaur
24 its carnivorous
29 its poisonous
34 looks like a jumper
etc

That strikes me not as familiarity (knowing a topic well) but passing familiarity (almost the complete opposite)

Forgive me if I got the RAW wrong.

Now I know that attitudes about how awesome wildshape is are pretty strongly entrenched. So don't get me wrong. I'm not attacking anyone's favourite toy here, I'm simply trying to play devils advocate and give an internally consistent answer to the question that was asked before - why would this DM not think that wildshape is particularly good?

I welcome corrections from anyone who can point to clear RAW about what familiarity with an animal means.

Other than that, I've got no horse in the race, so I don't care what other people's house-rules are. :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

Lets say the DM says that familiarity with an animal means that you've spent a considerable amount of time around that sort of animal, interacting with it, observing its habits etc. A not entirely unreasonable interpretation of 'familiar'.

Well, no, not entirely unreasonable, but pretty up there, as that kind of DM interpretation means that the druid is very easily just robbed of wildshape rather than forced to at least take a subpar ACF to sub it out.


Under that interpretation no DC role is going to substitute for the actual experience.

Roll.


Based on what I saw of Knowledge Nature in the SRD if you saw a fleshraker it would be something like:
dc info
14 its a fleshraker
19 its a dinosaur
24 its carnivorous
29 its poisonous
34 looks like a jumper
etc

That strikes me not as familiarity (knowing a topic well) but passing familiarity (almost the complete opposite)

How, exactly?


Now I know that attitudes about how awesome wildshape is are pretty strongly entrenched. So don't get me wrong. I'm not attacking anyone's favourite toy here, I'm simply trying to play devils advocate and give an internally consistent answer to the question that was asked before - why would this DM not think that wildshape is particularly good?

Already responded to that, and the more likely and simpler explanation is not that he has nerfed wildshape to the point that it is unusable or practically unusable but that he hasn't thought about its power and instead is still buying into the same mindset that thinks the Monk class is a good one.

[olentu]

Is that RAW (rules as written) or RAWM? (a reasonable assumption we make)

But that proves my point. Lets say the DM says that familiarity with an animal means that you've spent a considerable amount of time around that sort of animal, interacting with it, observing its habits etc. A not entirely unreasonable interpretation of 'familiar'. Under that interpretation no DC role is going to substitute for the actual experience.

Based on what I saw of Knowledge Nature in the SRD if you saw a fleshraker it would be something like:
dc info
14 its a fleshraker
19 its a dinosaur
24 its carnivorous
29 its poisonous
34 looks like a jumper
etc

That strikes me not as familiarity (knowing a topic well) but passing familiarity (almost the complete opposite)

Forgive me if I got the RAW wrong.

Now I know that attitudes about how awesome wildshape is are pretty strongly entrenched. So don't get me wrong. I'm not attacking anyone's favourite toy here, I'm simply trying to play devils advocate and give an internally consistent answer to the question that was asked before - why would this DM not think that wildshape is particularly good?

I welcome corrections from anyone who can point to clear RAW about what familiarity with an animal means.

Other than that, I've got no horse in the race, so I don't care what other people's house-rules are. :smalltongue:

Clearly the answer is using the rules compendium. Then it's anything you have seen or could reasonably know about.

[Alienist]

Clearly the answer is using the rules compendium. Then it's anything you have seen or could reasonably know about.

Thanks!

Unfortunately, this just shifts the blame from one fluffy word (familiar) to another (reasonable).

At least once the DM throws an animal at you, you can then turn into it later on.

[olentu]

Thanks!

Unfortunately, this just shifts the blame from one fluffy word (familiar) to another (reasonable).

At least once the DM throws an animal at you, you can then turn into it later on.

You are welcome.

[Boci]

Eg
Player "I turn into a fleshraker"
DM "lolwut???"
Player "it's in monster manual 3"
DM (after looking it up) "dude, it's a dinosaur, you can't turn into a dinosaur"
Player "sure I can, see it has the 'animal' type"
DM "but there are no dinosaurs in this world?!"
Player "doesn't matter, I roll knowledge nature"
DM "how would that help? You need familiarity and if there aren't any, you can't be familiar with them!!"
Player "doesn't matter, I roll knowledge nature"
DM "nope"
Player "stop oppressing my individuality!!!!"
DM "rocks fall, everyone dies"

Wait what? Why would a DM ever remove dinosaurs from their game? With D&D's level of bological detail they are just hulking lizards, and if that ever happend to me I would tell the DM to just be man enough to ask me to to use the fleshraker form rather than hiding behind "there's no dinosaurs".

[Ashtagon]

Wait what? Why would a DM ever remove dinosaurs from their game? With D&D's level of bological detail they are just hulking lizards, and if that ever happend to me I would tell the DM to just be man enough to ask me to to use the fleshraker form rather than hiding behind "there's no dinosaurs".

This is why the druid is tier 1.

[Leon]

In the next game I DM I'm ONLY allowing the UA druid.

Sounds like a good game, the need for wildshape is greatly overhyped, yes it has uses but its hardly the best thing a Druid has (the spell casting is that).

A Druid can lose both the Shape and the Pet and still be force to be reckoned with.



Wait what? Why would a DM ever remove dinosaurs from their game?

Because they don't always fit with the setting for the game in question.

[Ashtagon]

Regarding favoured enemy in general...

I house rule that you can retrain your choice of favoured enemy at any time. You must spend an hour in the morning practising weapon moves, reflecting on your favoured enemy, and so on. In addition, any enemy against which you increase your favoured enemy bonus must have been encountered on the previous day.

The above rule helps break the shell game that FE would otherwise be.

[Boci]

Because they don't always fit with the setting for the game in question.

Yeah because the presence of an subtype of animals really radically alters a game setting.


This is why the druid is tier 1.

No it isn't.

[Ashtagon]

No it isn't.

Oops. Forgot my [snark] tags. Sorry about that.

[Leon]

Yeah because the presence of an subtype of animals really radically alters a game setting.


It can. The setting of the campaign that i am playing in at the moment does not have them, they really don't fit in a magical Renaissance. Whether we could go looking for fossils to find out that there had been any at all is another matter.

In the Related post by Alienist, the DM has made a world building decision and is rightly sticking to it despite the particular player being sore that what critter they are wanting to use is unavailable.
It may shock some people but not everything in the myriad books of D&D 3.5 is useful to all DM and all settings.


What may make a powerful choice for a PC will sometimes have to wait till another time as the DM is the Word of Law in his/her game.

One of the things i find silly on here is the threads asking the forums to convince their DMs that they should do XYZ - if your DM has said no to something leave it or leave the game if you just cant bear to have your idea changed.


Sometimes DMs mellow to things over time, in the setting i mentioned the above DM was initially very strict about multiclassing but as time went on that has been much more relaxed and similarly the introduction of some new races as player options has chaffed me a little since i was denied one early on when it suited the character to be a Shifter (reasoned as a incomplete cure of lycanthropy)

[Callista]

No, my DM doesn't hate druids. No, he didn't nerf wildshape. He doesn't like animal companions, but only because role-playing them takes time away from role-playing the PCs.

My DM would likely have allowed a vanilla PHB druid; the UA variant was my idea. For the regular druid I would have made up a list of the animals my druid had had experience with, and simply had that as the list of things I could wildshape into, and add to it when my character had the chance to interact with a new animal. I just figured that dropping wildshape entirely would get rid of the problem altogether, let me focus on spellcasting instead, and drop me down a tier to match the rest of the party.

[Boci]

It can. The setting of the campaign that i am playing in at the moment does not have them, they really don't fit in a magical Renaissance. Whether we could go looking for fossils to find out that there had been any at all is another matter.

Unless there were no mythological creatures I really think oyu are overestimating the impact a couple of oversized lizards would have had on the game. Were their dragons?


In the Related post by Alienist, the DM has made a world building decision and is rightly sticking to it despite the particular player being sore that what critter they are wanting to use is unavailable.

Or the DM wanted to nerf the druid but was too cowardly to face up to it.


It may shock some people but not everything in the myriad books of D&D 3.5 is useful to all DM and all settings.

It doesn't as a general rule. It’s just annoying when the DM does it pointlessly or lies about their intentions.


What may make a powerful choice for a PC will sometimes have to wait till another time as the DM is the Word of Law in his/her game.

One of the things i find silly on here is the threads asking the forums to convince their DMs that they should do XYZ - if your DM has said no to something leave it or leave the game if you just cant bear to have your idea changed.

One thing I find silly is the people like you who seem to think trying to change a DMs mind is such a sin. A game is a group effort. Sure if a PC has a 20 item list of demands because they are a special snowflake he's being disrespectful, but approaching a DM and discussion a character that breaks his house rules? Doesn't strike me as silly, just practical.


No, my DM doesn't hate druids. No, he didn't nerf wildshape. He doesn't like animal companions, but only because role-playing them takes time away from role-playing the PCs.

Its a loyal wolf with barely any intelligence. What kind of roleplaying effort typically goes into it as your tables?


My DM would likely have allowed a vanilla PHB druid; the UA variant was my idea. For the regular druid I would have made up a list of the animals my druid had had experience with, and simply had that as the list of things I could wildshape into, and add to it when my character had the chance to interact with a new animal. I just figured that dropping wildshape entirely would get rid of the problem altogether, let me focus on spellcasting instead, and drop me down a tier to match the rest of the party.

You're right, the DM was wrong. The UA version is weaker, and your DMs unability to see that means he may be bad at analysing the games mechanics. However, this does not seem to be an issue in your group so everybody wins.

[Coidzor]

Just imagine that you're the person who "playtested" the Druid. You can conveniently just forget all about wildshape except for maybe using it once or twice to scout.

[Mystic Muse]

Based on what I saw of Knowledge Nature in the SRD if you saw a fleshraker it would be something like:
dc info
14 its a fleshraker
19 its a dinosaur
24 its carnivorous
29 its poisonous
34 looks like a jumper

24 and 29 are "Really tough questions" and 34 goes into downright obscure knowledge. Not what you have there.

[dextercorvia]

No, my DM doesn't hate druids. No, he didn't nerf wildshape. He doesn't like animal companions, but only because role-playing them takes time away from role-playing the PCs.

My DM would likely have allowed a vanilla PHB druid; the UA variant was my idea. For the regular druid I would have made up a list of the animals my druid had had experience with, and simply had that as the list of things I could wildshape into, and add to it when my character had the chance to interact with a new animal. I just figured that dropping wildshape entirely would get rid of the problem altogether, let me focus on spellcasting instead, and drop me down a tier to match the rest of the party.

Spirit Shaman will drop you a tier, and let you focus on casting. It is noticeably less powerful/versatile than a Druid, but it will still beat the pants off of a mundane. Average of the differing view points puts it at high T2. You have fewer options each day than a Sorcerer, and it's metamagic mechanic is weird, but you get to switch your tricks on a daily basis.

[Dr.Epic]

It is not overpowered. It is weaker than standard druid. It loses the druid's best long duration buff, Wildshape in exchange for wisdom to AC when the druid can just buy an item that does that. And if you're going to stay in squishy human form, then you're better off grabbing a decent set of armor and riding one's animal companion if one is going to fight. And if one is going to hang back and cast, well...

Fast movement is a joke in comparison with flight speeds and burrow speeds and good land speeds from wildshape.

Swift Tracker and the Track feat are a railroading tool disguised as a worthwhile thing to spend character resources on.

Favored Enemy is underpowered unless you spend feats on it for things like Nemesis, and then you need either Favored Enemy: Evil from that one PrC or Favored Enemy: Arcanists from the Ranger ACF. And even then it's still not beans in comparison with Wildshape.

Yeah, I agree. Wildshape is the best druid ability. I'd say it makes the druid not broken. Now, they're just a hardcore spellcaster with average combat abilities instead of a hardcore spellcaster that could later turn into awesome animals.

I wouldn't recommend this variant.

[Alienist]

24 and 29 are "Really tough questions" and 34 goes into downright obscure knowledge. Not what you have there.

Really?

I'd have thought the carnivorous one would be challenged as "too easy" on the grounds that you just look at its teeth. :smallbiggrin: I only included it in there because with dinosaurs figuring out whether its a plant eater or a PC eater is kind of a big deal :smalltongue:

The more I find out about D&D's skill system the less impressed I get. And yet there's some people who love 3.5s skills and can't get enough of them. WotC has a long uphill battle ahead of them for 5.0 I think!! Maybe they should just licence GURPS?!

[Rubik]

Really?

I'd have thought the carnivorous one would be challenged as "too easy" on the grounds that you just look at its teeth. :smallbiggrin: I only included it in there because with dinosaurs figuring out whether its a plant eater or a PC eater is kind of a big deal :smalltongue:I'm pretty sure he meant that the DCs you have listed are WAAAAY too high for the easy-peasy questions you've got there. DCs 20+ are quite difficult for 'normal' people to reach unless they have a ton of other modifiers (such as books that have the specific knowledge in question and a Take 10 or 20 to find it).

[Mystic Muse]

Really?

I'd have thought the carnivorous one would be challenged as "too easy" on the grounds that you just look at its teeth. :smallbiggrin: I only included it in there because with dinosaurs figuring out whether its a plant eater or a PC eater is kind of a big deal :smalltongue:

I meant that's what a DC 24 and 29 check are supposed to be. That's not really "It's a Carnivore."

DC 34 is extremely familiar.


The more I find out about D&D's skill system the less impressed I get. And yet there's some people who love 3.5s skills and can't get enough of them. WotC has a long uphill battle ahead of them for 5.0 I think!! Maybe they should just licence GURPS?!

Yeah. I'm not a particular fan of 3.5's skill system.

[Chronos]

Having a nasty reptilian monster doesn't warp a campaign. Having a nasty reptilian monster that druids are allowed to turn into or have as pets does warp a campaign. If you had a creature with the exact same statblock as a fleshraker but with "animal" replaced by "magical beast", it wouldn't be nearly as bad.

As for "familiar with an animal", one other place the rules use the concept of familiarity is with Teleport. You can gain familiarity with a location by actually visiting there, or to a lesser extent by scrying it, but I don't think anyone has ever claimed you can gain familiarity just from a knowledge check.

And really, a stricter definition of "familiarity" doesn't actually hurt the druid all that much. In the standard quasi-European quasi-medieval setting, for instance, the druid is almost certainly familiar with bears, eagles, wolves, some snakes, horses, etc., and in any plausible setting, there are going to be some local big nasty predators that will also work well. And if you want more variety, it's perfectly plausible that a druid might adventure to faraway lands with the purpose of becoming familiar with the fauna there.

[Callista]

It's got RP advantages, too. Your druid gets to seek out the wild animal they're interested in, cautiously make contact, observe it, learn about it... Doing the RP in an Australian accent is a bonus. :P

[Urpriest]

On the other hand, it incentivizes Druids to come from particular regions in the campaign setting, so even if you as DM have described some big druid circle in the northern forest, every PC Druid will be from the southern jungles. I'd prefer backstory to have as little effect on the mechanics as possible so players can be free to make a backstory that fits the campaign.

[Boci]

It's got RP advantages, too. Your druid gets to seek out the wild animal they're interested in, cautiously make contact, observe it, learn about it... Doing the RP in an Australian accent is a bonus. :P

With is great for a solo game, but can be problematic in group games Others share this problem, like artificer and a wizard researching new spells, but those are clearly spelled out. With the druid, the DM needs to consciously decide how long he is delaying the party.

[Gavinfoxx]

Based on what I saw of Knowledge Nature in the SRD if you saw a fleshraker it would be something like:
dc info
14 its a fleshraker
19 its a dinosaur
24 its carnivorous
29 its poisonous
34 looks like a jumper
etc

DC of knowing something about a creature is 10+HD knowledge for the minimum piece of useful information. For every 5 bits you exceed the DC, you get another useful piece of useful information. A Fleshraker is 4 HD creature, and not all that interesting... and I usually try to split the difference between that HD based stuff and the total knowledge nature DC's...

I would put, to keep a few useful bits, and also be somewhat relevant :
14 This is an animal, and by the teeth, it looks like a carnivore [know everything useful the animal type tells you -- usually 2 int, that spells that affect animals work on it, that wild empathy works on it, etc.]. Its anatomy seems to be similar in a few ways to a cat or lizard.

19 This is a dinosaur of some sort, it looks like it might be related to the Carver, Great Carver, or the Clawfoot -- those dinosaurs are known to leap onto their prey from afar, clawing them many times. You know for certain it has [pounce]. You know that some Druids have them as Animal Companions.

24 This Dinosaur is a Fleshraker, and it uses its poisonous claws after leaping and pouncing on its prey, raking them with the rear talons, then disengages, waiting for the poison to take effect to injure it's prey. Further, it hunts in packs, and the poison affects a person's dexterity, and is of moderate strength.

[Callista]

With is great for a solo game, but can be problematic in group games Others share this problem, like artificer and a wizard researching new spells, but those are clearly spelled out. With the druid, the DM needs to consciously decide how long he is delaying the party.Goes without saying. Everyone's going to be doing some things on their own, though. The rogue's probably going to go off and do some side jobs, the cleric will want to reconnect with the local church, the fighter's got to sleep off last night's drinking contest... Why not spend a few minutes on the druid's attempt to track down that beautiful grizzly bear that the villagers swear they saw last week?

[Boci]

Goes without saying. Everyone's going to be doing some things on their own, though. The rogue's probably going to go off and do some side jobs, the cleric will want to reconnect with the local church, the fighter's got to sleep off last night's drinking contest... Why not spend a few minutes on the druid's attempt to track down that beautiful grizzly bear that the villagers swear they saw last week?

I'd be more concerned about the time it takes IC, not OOC. If their isn't time for downtime than that could reflect badly of the DM, since they were the ones who chose to interpret the rules in such a way, and opens the can of worms regarding stealth nerfing.

[Leon]

Unless there were no mythological creatures I really think oyu are overestimating the impact a couple of oversized lizards would have had on the game. Were their dragons?

Yes there are dragons, which when played bad a just very big lizards but when done well can be diabolical masterminds or upstanding members of the business community (most metallic dragons in this game are the old banking families)

There is simply no need for dinosaurs in the game, no overestimating needed - just because one type of dinosaur makes for a good wildshape does not mean they should be in a setting at all.





Or the DM wanted to nerf the druid but was too cowardly to face up to it.


Could be but it also could be a the world building related option and a player to stubborn to accept a fact.



One thing I find silly is the people like you who seem to think trying to change a DMs mind is such a sin. A game is a group effort. Sure if a PC has a 20 item list of demands because they are a special snowflake he's being disrespectful, but approaching a DM and discussion a character that breaks his house rules? Doesn't strike me as silly, just practical.


A game maybe a group effort but coming running to the forums and trying to use the collective number and opinions on here to force the person in charge of a game to change their minds on a decision that a player does not like is indeed silly and happens all to often.
You can chat to your DM about your concerns without the need for the opinions of a bunch of random people on a forums,

[Coidzor]

Could be but it also could be a the world building related option and a player to stubborn to accept a fact.

Could be, but just isn't particularly likely.


I'd be more concerned about the time it takes IC, not OOC. If their isn't time for downtime than that could reflect badly of the DM, since they were the ones who chose to interpret the rules in such a way, and opens the can of worms regarding stealth nerfing.

I wouldn't say it was particularly stealthy, in fact, I'd say it was pretty bald-faced of the DM. Though, really, if the blighter isn't confident enough in his DMing to deal with wildshape, there's this variant and the shapeshift variant to choose from.


A game maybe a group effort but coming running to the forums and trying to use the collective number and opinions on here to force the person in charge of a game to change their minds on a decision that a player does not like is indeed silly and happens all to often.
You can chat to your DM about your concerns without the need for the opinions of a bunch of random people on a forums,

Oh? You think the DM is correct in thinking that this variant of druid is OP and shouldn't ever be allowed to be played because it outclasses normal druids? :smallconfused:

Please, elaborate, you've gotten me curious now.

[Leon]

Oh? You think the DM is correct in thinking that this variant of druid is OP and shouldn't ever be allowed to be played because it outclasses normal druids? :smallconfused:

Please, elaborate, you've gotten me curious now.

The part you are quoting is a reference to all the times i have seen the "please help convince my DM that i should be able to X on these forums"

However if a DM thinks that this variant of Druid is OP then they quite likely have a valid reason for that - whether anyone else thinks it is or not is not a matter for that game. If a player is not happy with a DMs ruling then they are free to leave and find one that will play it their way.

[Boci]

Yes there are dragons, which when played bad a just very big lizards but when done well can be diabolical masterminds or upstanding members of the business community (most metallic dragons in this game are the old banking families)

There is simply no need for dinosaurs in the game, no overestimating needed - just because one type of dinosaur makes for a good wildshape does not mean they should be in a setting at all.

You've changed your argument from dinosaurs "wouldn't fit" to them simply being not needed.



A game maybe a group effort but coming running to the forums and trying to use the collective number and opinions on here to force the person in charge of a game to change their minds on a decision that a player does not like is indeed silly and happens all to often.
You can chat to your DM about your concerns without the need for the opinions of a bunch of random people on a forums,

What's wrong with trying to find some more opinions and possibly find a well phrased argument for you case?



However if a DM thinks that this variant of Druid is OP then they quite likely have a valid reason for that -

Or they are having a knee-jerk reaction to some "not core" book/have little sense of balance.

[Callista]

What's wrong with trying to find some more opinions and possibly find a well phrased argument for you case?Er... guys? I'm not even trying to make a case to anybody here. Did you miss the part where I said I had decided to play another class rather than a druid? There wasn't any big argument. It was more like, "Hey, how about this Druid variant?" "Nah, it's overpowered." "Huh? Oh, well, never mind, I'll play something else."

This is a rules question, not an attempt to weasel a Druid out of a reluctant DM.

[Boci]

Er... guys? I'm not even trying to make a case to anybody here. Did you miss the part where I said I had decided to play another class rather than a druid?

No I didn't miss it. Its common for discussions to expand and cover broader or side topics, and Leon seemed to have moved on to the topic of players requesting help in convincing their DM, which is what I was responding too.

[Leon]

You've changed your argument from dinosaurs "wouldn't fit" to them simply being not needed.


Both apply, they don't fit with the world and are not need to fit due to one classes whim of ability options (a class that is already blessed with a over abundance of forms to choose from)




What's wrong with trying to find some more opinions and possibly find a well phrased argument for you case?


That is a option but most times from i have seen its not, more on the use opinions of a bunch of people who have no information or bearing on a game bar what the poster imparts line of thought. (which will most often be shed in light of what is important to them and what they want to do)

While the Forum population may well think highly of its knowledge of a game system what it knows is not what is ultimately best for any given group playing with that system.
Most times a DM is going to have good reason to do the things the way they do - really if it doesn't float your boat adapt and keep going or leave and find another game



Or they are having a knee-jerk reaction to some "not core" book/have little sense of balance.

They could, but that is a choice they are able to have in being the DM.

Really its very Simple - if the DM Says no to something accept it and change what you wanted to do or Leave and find another group/Start your own that fits with what you want than to change someone else's choices because they don't suit your own view.

[Boci]

Both apply, they don't fit with the world

How, how do oversized lizards not fit in with the game, especially when winged, fire breathing oversized lizards do?


Most times a DM is going to have good reason to do the things the way they do - really if it doesn't float your boat adapt and keep going or leave and find another game

And sometimes they don't have good reasons and reading the post of unbiased gamers helps them see that. It happens.


They could, but that is a choice they are able to have in being the DM.

A DM can also nerrate a railroaded story to his PCs occasionally asking for a dice roll that might make some minor difference. Both are bad, although obvious a knee-jerk reaction isn't as bad as the former.


Really its very Simple - if the DM Says no to something accept it and change what you wanted to do or Leave and find another group/Start your own that fits with what you want than to change someone else's choices because they don't suit your own view.

OR you can talk with the DM and see if he can reconsider, possibly with the help of some forum posts.

[Callista]

It depends on how big an issue it is. Something as simple as banning dinosaurs isn't really something to get worked up over.

An interesting possibility would be if dinosaurs don't exist, but once did--like in the real world, leaving fossils and allowing the gathering of enough information to reconstruct them partially from the clues they left. That would mean that any dinosaur is automatically a druid in wildshape, or someone who's polymorphed, or similar magic. A dire bear may be just a tamed dire bear, but once you get out the dinosaurs, the enemy knows pretty much what you're doing.

[Boci]

It depends on how big an issue it is. Something as simple as banning dinosaurs isn't really something to get worked up over.

As I previously said, having no dinosaurs doesn't bothing me, its the stealth ban part of it. Its particularly obvious here because I am struggling to see a DM legitimatly go through all the monster books and decide everything is okay but dinosaurs will have to go.

[Leon]

How, how do oversized lizards not fit in with the game, especially when winged, fire breathing oversized lizards do?



As i mentioned the fire breathing type can be alot more than just large fire breathing flying lizards, that is what they can be if played simply but if played to what they are truly capable of they are manipulative masterminds and much more rather than just a large (or small) obstacle.




And sometimes they don't have good reasons and reading the post of unbiased gamers helps them see that. It happens.


That can but its not always a given, and Unbiased is a hard thing to come across in gaming.



A DM can also nerrate a railroaded story to his PCs occasionally asking for a dice roll that might make some minor difference. Both are bad, although obvious a knee-jerk reaction isn't as bad as the former.


They can and its the players choice to accept that and keep playing in something like that.




OR you can talk with the DM and see if he can reconsider, possibly with the help of some forum posts.

You can but the help of some forum posts are at best vague - these suggestions are coming from people who have no link to the game and what its variables may be outside of the input that the poster gives (which is likely to tinted in their favor)

If the DM has made the choice its for a reason, that it may not suit you is a shame but the reason (be it what ever) is still a valid choice and should be respected.

[Boci]

As i mentioned the fire breathing type can be alot more than just large fire breathing flying lizards, that is what they can be if played simply but if played to what they are truly capable of they are manipulative masterminds and much more rather than just a large (or small) obstacle.

What other creatures were banned, because as I previously said I find it hard to believe all the the creature types in D&D fit into the game, but dinosaures would have ruined the tone.


That can but its not always a given, and Unbiased is a hard thing to come across in gaming.

Its impossible, but their bias will be unrelated to that gaming group.


They can and its the players choice to accept that and keep playing in something like that.

Or explain to him that their are better ways of running a game.


If the DM has made the choice its for a reason, that it may not suit you is a shame but the reason (be it what ever) is still a valid choice and should be respected.

Not automatically. People make mistakes, they over-react, fail to see a side of the argument or are just stubborn. There is nothing wrong with politely discussing this with your DM.

[Prime32]

It depends on how big an issue it is. Something as simple as banning dinosaurs isn't really something to get worked up over.

An interesting possibility would be if dinosaurs don't exist, but once did--like in the real world, leaving fossils and allowing the gathering of enough information to reconstruct them partially from the clues they left. That would mean that any dinosaur is automatically a druid in wildshape, or someone who's polymorphed, or similar magic. A dire bear may be just a tamed dire bear, but once you get out the dinosaurs, the enemy knows pretty much what you're doing.Seems like a good route.

[Callista]

Some campaign worlds are just too new for fossils, of course. You don't need millions of years to petrify something, but fossilization is just rare enough that it doesn't happen every time something dies; and to get lots of fossils lying around like we've got, enough to reconstruct an extinct species, just takes time.

I do like the strategic implications. You're fighting an enemy party; you see a dinosaur; you know it's a druid or somebody polymorphed or something, and you can hit them with stuff that fights magic or fights shapechange. And your enemy can do the same to you.

The knowledge of dinosaurs might even be a closely guarded secret, considering how powerful they are to change into. You'd probably have to handle the fossils, get to know the vibe of the animal before you could wildshape it. Depending on how many druids there were, and how willing they were to fight for their nations, dinosaur bones could be just as powerful a weapon as swords. Maybe more so.

Or maybe it's the opposite. Maybe, in a war-torn country, the druids are the only ones who can keep their lands at peace, keep them from being invaded and trampled--because they're the only ones who know about dinosaurs, and everybody knows that if your army so much as thinks about trampling their forests and groves and meadows and the farming towns they protect, the druids will turn into nasty prehistoric lizards and shred you before you can say "But they're extinct!"

[Coidzor]

The part you are quoting is a reference to all the times i have seen the "please help convince my DM that i should be able to X on these forums"

Which is part of why this thread got made. What's unique is that the DM isn't letting Callista nerf herself rather than the more usual wanting to do something either "cool" or to buff one's self.


However if a DM thinks that this variant of Druid is OP then they quite likely have a valid reason for that - whether anyone else thinks it is or not is not a matter for that game. If a player is not happy with a DMs ruling then they are free to leave and find one that will play it their way.

So, basically, not even you can see what kind of logic the DM is using here, but you're obligated to defend the bad old days where DMs were unquestioned tyrants of the dining room table?