Would a druid without spells be a viable class?

[Empedocles]

This just occurred to me. If you took away all of the druid's spells, but changed nothing else, would it still be a decent (tier3/4) class?

[Greyfeld85]

If you took away all his spells, he'd be a wildshape ranger with a better pet, less skill points, and a lower BAB.

He'd also be about worthless before level 4.

[Empedocles]

If you took away all his spells, he'd be a wildshape ranger with a better pet, less skill points, and a lower BAB.

He'd also be about worthless before level 4.

Say...full BAB and 4 skill points? And shapeshift from level 1 in addition to wild shape? (which comes in at the normal progression)

[Greyfeld85]

It's still just a Wildshape Ranger with a better pet.

You'd probably have to give it 6 skill points and expand its list a little bit to set it comfortably at T3/T4. You lose a lot of power and flexibility when you give up spellcasting.

But i don't really understand why you wouldn't just play a Wildshape Ranger instead. All you're doing is adding an ACF instead of gutting an entire class.

[Doug Lampert]

If you took away all his spells, he'd be a wildshape ranger with a better pet, less skill points, and a lower BAB.

He'd also be about worthless before level 4.
Till level four the animal companion has a pet druid, which is roughly how it works now if the DM requires that entangle needs to have substantial ground cover to work.

And that still works fine as a fighter replacement. The pet probably raises the combination to low teir 4, it isn't useless.

[Greyfeld85]

Till level four the animal companion has a pet druid, which is roughly how it works now if the DM requires that entangle needs to have substantial ground cover to work.

And that still works fine as a fighter replacement. The pet probably raises the combination to low teir 4, it isn't useless.

Before level 4, all a spell-less druid is, is a commoner with ranks in Handle Animal. The animal companion, while a nice feature when properly optimized, doesn't give any outstanding power that having simply trained your own war hound doesn't give.

A Fighter could have a trained animal and at least have full BAB to hit things with before level 4. A druid without spells can't boast the same thing.

[Tvtyrant]

This just occurred to me. If you took away all of the druid's spells, but changed nothing else, would it still be a decent (tier3/4) class?

It would be a straight tier 3, with some uncomfortable weaknesses in its early days. If you wanted to make it more interesting I would suggest rolling MoMFs abilities into it, and give it the ability to take the same form as its familiar starting at level 1 (so it can't snap the system in half, but it isn't totally awful).

[Empedocles]

It would be a straight tier 3, with some uncomfortable weaknesses in its early days. If you wanted to make it more interesting I would suggest rolling MoMFs abilities into it, and give it the ability to take the same form as its familiar starting at level 1 (so it can't snap the system in half, but it isn't totally awful).

MoMF? And the totem ability is a good one :smallwink:

[Invader]

Give the Druid wildshape from 1st level and allow him to change into animals HD = his level +1 and as long as he gets bonus feats or increased wildshape utility throughout his progression and he could be a high tier 3.

I think if you strip all spell casting he's going to be sub 4 till 8+ at which point he's be mid-high tier 4

[Tvtyrant]

MoMF? And the totem ability is a good one :smallwink:

Master of Many Forms. Gives you more types of things to shift into, such as Aberrations, Dragons, Monstrous Humanoids, etc. Also allows up to gargantuan size by level 10.

Or you could concentrate on the nature aspect, and allow them to increase the size of the animal they shift into. Being able to create an oversized elephant would also be pretty cool.

[Spuddles]

Before level 4, all a spell-less druid is, is a commoner with ranks in Handle Animal. The animal companion, while a nice feature when properly optimized, doesn't give any outstanding power that having simply trained your own war hound doesn't give.

A Fighter could have a trained animal and at least have full BAB to hit things with before level 4. A druid without spells can't boast the same thing.

4 skill points per level, 2 good saves, and a d8 HD is a lot better than a commoner. It's on par with a rogue. Solidly T4, especially if you play smart with a warbeast wolf in barding.

[Empedocles]

Oh yeah...that makes sense. Otherwise every single druid with this variant would multiclass out as a MoMF ASAP.

[Amphetryon]

This just occurred to me. If you took away all of the druid's spells, but changed nothing else, would it still be a decent (tier3/4) class?

A not-uncommon "fix/nerf" I see bandied about for Druid is "Spellcasting, Wildshape, Animal Companion: Pick 2." I'd play your spell-less Druid in a campaign without other Tier 1s, and probably do just fine.

[Greyfeld85]

4 skill points per level, 2 good saves, and a d8 HD is a lot better than a commoner. It's on par with a rogue. Solidly T4, especially if you play smart with a warbeast wolf in barding.

Thank you for being pedantic instead of actually acknowledging my point.

[NeoSeraphi]

A druid without spellcasting is not a druid. Whether it's a viable class or not is not the issue. A druid is a shamanic priest of nature, and in pretty much every example of a druid in lore, you will find he is able to produce magic. Druids who are unable to control plants, speak to animals, or bring trees to life are not druids at all. They are some kind of nature-based warrior with the ability to change form for some reason (aka, wildshape ranger).

Which begs the question...why would you play a druid that couldn't cast spells? If you're only interested in playing a shapeshifter, a wildshape ranger/Master of Many Forms (Complete Adventurer) is the classic. You can also play a shifter (Races of Eberron) or a lycanthrope. Or hell, just play a wizard with polymorph.

[Greyfeld85]

A druid without spellcasting is not a druid. Whether it's a viable class or not is not the issue. A druid is a shamanic priest of nature, and in pretty much every example of a druid in lore, you will find he is able to produce magic. Druids who are unable to control plants, speak to animals, or bring trees to life are not druids at all. They are some kind of nature-based warrior with the ability to change form for some reason (aka, wildshape ranger).

Which begs the question...why would you play a druid that couldn't cast spells? If you're only interested in playing a shapeshifter, a wildshape ranger/Master of Many Forms (Complete Adventurer) is the classic. You can also play a shifter (Races of Eberron) or a lycanthrope. Or hell, just play a wizard with polymorph.

Yeah, I asked this too, and nobody answered me.

It's not a matter of power level. It's just that making this change is a houserule change to mimic an ACF that's already RAW-legal. And in the SRD, for that matter.

[Empedocles]

I just asked out of curiosity...geez. It struck me as funny that there was a possibility that you could take away a class's primary function and have it then be well balanced...

[Greyfeld85]

I just asked out of curiosity...geez. It struck me as funny that there was a possibility that you could take away a class's primary function and have it then be well balanced...

No need to be defensive, nobody's attacking you. We're just asking "why" you would do it when there is a RAW alternative that is almost exactly the same thing. It's a legitimate question.

[ngilop]

I just asked out of curiosity...geez. It struck me as funny that there was a possibility that you could take away a class's primary function and have it then be well balanced...

its allright.

a druid sans-spellcasting ( or just wildshaping alone really) is solid 'Tier 3'.

and that is backed up by jaronK himself on his own 'Tier' explnations Here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293)

so I am not just saying this out of my owjn personal opinion

that is just how powerful the druid is LOL

take away teh other 2 tier 1 classes'(wizard/cleric) main atribute and they DO become all but worthless ( cleric still has d8 2 good saves and 3/4 BAB and so not totally useless)

[Greyfeld85]

its allright.

a druid sans-spellcasting ( or just wildshaping alone really) is solid 'Tier 3'.

and that is backed up by jaronK himself on his own 'Tier' explnations Here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293)

so I am not just saying this out of my owjn personal opinion

that is just how powerful the druid is LOL

take away teh other 2 tier 1 classes'(wizard/cleric) main atribute and they DO become all but worthless ( cleric still has d8 2 good saves and 3/4 BAB and so not totally useless)

I feel I should point out that HD, BAB and Saves don't mean much in the way of a class's viability. "Not totally useless" only goes so far, or people wouldn't hate the Monk so much.

[dspeyer]

I'd call it Tier 4, and probably on the weaker side of it. Animals aren't all that great. Or versatile. And there are some situations (in very civilized environments) where he'd be useless.

If it had the entire monster manual, that would be another matter. Master of Many Forms is generally considered tier 3 (I think).

Incidentally, I [[http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228599 wrote a base class]] along these lines.

[Fitz10019]

I feel I should point out that HD, BAB and Saves don't mean much in the way of a class's viability. "Not totally useless" only goes so far, or people wouldn't hate the Monk so much.

How about useful, even versatile? In wildshaping, they get the natural attacks, movement modes and racial skill bonuses of whatever they turn into, right? That adds versatility: trip as a wolf, pounce/rake as a leopard, climb as a baboon, burrow as a badger, +8 to spot checks as an eagle (that's just MM1 small and medium animals). Many animals get bonuses to Hide in certain environments. In an urban environment, you wouldn't even need a Hide roll as a dog, pony or donkey.

And don't forget being your own extra-dimensional storage space, and the benefit of increased carrying capacity of some forms.

[Note, you don't need a houserule for this, just a druid with Wis 10 or less.]

[candycorn]

It would be in the Tier 4 range, though I'd put it at tier 5 until level 5.

[Greyfeld85]

How about useful, even versatile? In wildshaping, they get the natural attacks, movement modes and racial skill bonuses of whatever they turn into, right? That adds versatility: trip as a wolf, pounce/rake as a leopard, climb as a baboon, burrow as a badger, +8 to spot checks as an eagle (that's just MM1 small and medium animals). Many animals get bonuses to Hide in certain environments. In an urban environment, you wouldn't even need a Hide roll as a dog, pony or donkey.

And don't forget being your own extra-dimensional storage space, and the benefit of increased carrying capacity of some forms.

[Note, you don't need a houserule for this, just a druid with Wis 10 or less.]

This is still a Wildshape Ranger, which is already tier 3.

My original point was that druid sans spellcasting makes him more worthless than the monk and fighter for the first four levels. And extending wildshape to first level just turns him into a Wildshape Ranger, which makes the entire exercise pointless.

[candycorn]

This is still a Wildshape Ranger, which is already tier 3.

My original point was that druid sans spellcasting makes him more worthless than the monk and fighter for the first four levels. And extending wildshape to first level just turns him into a Wildshape Ranger, which makes the entire exercise pointless.

Not more worthless. You could easily work with mounted combat for level 1-4. Use a combat trained light horse or riding dog, and you could easily keep pace with a monk, using feats and class-granted features. You'd be a bit behind a mounted fighter, but sticking to ranged combat, and skirmishing with slings, you'd be fairly survivable.

[Acanous]

Yup. Druid sans spellcasting is T3.

Unless you're in a city, then you're low T4.

[Fitz10019]

This is still a Wildshape Ranger, which is already tier 3.

My original point was that druid sans spellcasting makes him more worthless than the monk and fighter for the first four levels. And extending wildshape to first level just turns him into a Wildshape Ranger, which makes the entire exercise pointless.

But you keep missing the OP's point, which is that this is not a suggestion. It's a comment on the druid class, not the ranger class.

[Greyfeld85]

Not more worthless. You could easily work with mounted combat for level 1-4. Use a combat trained light horse or riding dog, and you could easily keep pace with a monk, using feats and class-granted features. You'd be a bit behind a mounted fighter, but sticking to ranged combat, and skirmishing with slings, you'd be fairly survivable.

You're missing the point. Fighters and Monks are two of the most infamously bad classes for optimization purposes. A druid without spellcasting will be worse than both of them for the first four levels.

This isn't about, "Oh, well he can survive until he gets his class features," this is about being bad enough to be marked as a T5 until you pass level four.

Honestly, I don't know anybody that would willingly play a class with no class features for the first four levels. And no, "animal companion" is not a class feature, it's a glorified Handle Animal check.

[Greyfeld85]

But you keep missing the OP's point, which is that this is not a suggestion. It's a comment on the druid class, not the ranger class.

It's not a comment on the druid class, it's a houserule question. And as a houserule question, it should be pointed out that it's completely unnecessary because there's already an ACF that does exactly the same thing, and doesn't require gutting a class to do it.

Now, if the OP had meant it as a social commentary, he should have said so to begin with.

[Ceaon]

You're missing the point. Fighters and Monks are two of the most infamously bad classes for optimization purposes. A druid without spellcasting will be worse than both of them for the first four levels.

This isn't about, "Oh, well he can survive until he gets his class features," this is about being bad enough to be marked as a T5 until you pass level four.

Honestly, I don't know anybody that would willingly play a class with no class features for the first four levels. And no, "animal companion" is not a class feature, it's a glorified Handle Animal check.

I asked a question similar to the OP some time ago here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230288). Most people agreed that I could play this, I would have fun with it, and it was entirely viable (although many posters mentioned the Wildshape Ranger in that topic as well).

Animal companion IS a class feature, a major one. Many class features are "glorified X". In fact, spells can be seen as just glorified UMD checks, can't they? Besides that, druid has some flavorful class features from level 1-4. Is it less powerful than a druid that casts spells? Of course it is. Is it less powerful than a fighter of the same level? Maybe, but I could argue it isn't. Is it a useless addition to the party? No.

In short, yes, people would be willing to play this. A druid that doesn't cast magic but is still in tune with nature is very interesting to me.

[Killer Angel]

Honestly, I don't know anybody that would willingly play a class with no class features for the first four levels.

DM: "the campaign will start at character lev. 5". :smalltongue:

[candycorn]

You're missing the point. Fighters and Monks are two of the most infamously bad classes for optimization purposes. A druid without spellcasting will be worse than both of them for the first four levels.I got that point. But I think you're missing that it is able to survive and contribute for 4 levels. It is able to be effective for 4 levels. And, incidentally? The first 4 levels are where fighter and monk shine brightest.


This isn't about, "Oh, well he can survive until he gets his class features," this is about being bad enough to be marked as a T5 until you pass level four.And I agree that it's T5 until level 5. But a T5 isn't that bad at low levels. It's being T5 at level 9 that really starts to suck.


Honestly, I don't know anybody that would willingly play a class with no class features for the first four levels. And no, "animal companion" is not a class feature, it's a glorified Handle Animal check.That "glorified Handle Animal check" is able to contribute on par with an equivalent level monk. Yes, it must be directed, but it's more effective than a regular animal of its type, and more flexible.

Honestly, calling an Animal Companion a glorified handle animal check is like calling spellcasting glorified finger waggling.

[Togo]

If you want to get a spell-less druid, you may need more class features. Try raiding some of the old 3.0 material that never made it into 3.5, like the verdant lord prestige class.

A ranger5/MoMFs is Tier2. It's both more powerful and more flexible than a spell-less druid (Tier 3), and at higher levels it is more flexible than a spellcaster of the same level, up until the spellcasters get shapechange.

[candycorn]

If you want to get a spell-less druid, you may need more class features. Try raiding some of the old 3.0 material that never made it into 3.5, like the verdant lord prestige class.

A ranger5/MoMFs is Tier2. It's both more powerful and more flexible than a spell-less druid (Tier 3), and at higher levels it is more flexible than a spellcaster of the same level, up until the spellcasters get shapechange.

It is not Tier 2. Tier 2's definition requires it be able to break the game. It is, perhaps, a more powerful tier 3, but it is not Tier 2.

It is not more flexible than a spellcaster at any level beyond 7. At this point, spellcasters can blind foes, control the battlefield, buff allies, and damage enemies.

A MoMF can damage enemies and use AoO's. It may have flexibility in where and how it does these things, but at the end of the day, that's all it does. Yes, at level 12, it will have extraordinary qualities, which opens up passive senses, and other useful defenses. But that doesn't overcome the power and versatility of full casting. At the end of the day, a MoMF is a melee fighting character, and no melee fighting character will have more flexibility than an equal level full caster.

[hushblade]

WS Ranger5/MoMF10/Warshaper5 with a wildshape amulet is basically a class with a 24/7, slightly nerfed shapechange at 19HD, sounds pretty tier two to me with very minor optimization.
Without the wildshape amulet, its at 15 HD, probably a pretty high tier 3.
Without the warshaper levels, you lose you constantly shifting form, but could cap at 24HD monsters of tons of types, also solidly a high tier 3
Without either, still a mid-high teir 3.

[Togo]

A MoMF can damage enemies and use AoO's. It may have flexibility in where and how it does these things, but at the end of the day, that's all it does. Yes, at level 12, it will have extraordinary qualities, which opens up passive senses, and other useful defenses. But that doesn't overcome the power and versatility of full casting. At the end of the day, a MoMF is a melee fighting character, and no melee fighting character will have more flexibility than an equal level full caster.

Ah... you've not seen a well-played MoMFs.

Ironically enough, one of the things they fair quite poorly at is damaging enemies, particularly at high level. They can do ok, but they're just not very good at it. Claiming that's all they can do is ignoring their best abilities.

A 12th level sorceror has 20 spells known, and only 6 above 3rd level. A MoMFs of the same level can turn into half the monsters in the game. In practice, the latter is more flexible.

As for breaking the game, what would you call dropping the entire dungeon complex down a 500' foot shaft?

[danzibr]

This thread makes me want to see a MoMF base class.

EDIT: Ah-ha, there is one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120125).