Druid Fixes/Nerfs

[willpell]

Most players will agree that the Druid is one of the most overpowered of classes. For the moment, I've played that straight in my game, but I'm interested in figuring out how to bring them down to a more reasonable power level; if you decide you want to play a character who turns into an animal and has an animal companion, you shouldn't accidentally also be ridiculously more powerful than any other character in the party. So I've come up with various ideas for different plugins that might help bring the druid down to a more manageable level. It's unlikely that all of these would be applied at once, but I don't know which ones are best.

1. Reduce BAB to poor progression (as wizard). I don't see Druids in the original sense (the Celtic priests of the land) as being especially combative; solving your problems with summoning or weather control or the like seems more in-flavor than turning into a bear and being as deadly as an actual bear.

2. Require a druid to pay XP to learn Wild Shape forms, much as an Erudite pays XP to learn powers.

3. Massively nerf Natural Spell; instead of "you can cast all spells effortlessly in wild shape", it becomes "you can cast X total spell levels per day while in wild shape, where X is your Wisdom modifier and can be increased by +4 by taking the Extra Natural Spell feat". (I'm basing Extra Natural Spell's output off of Extra Turning and Extra Bardic Music, both of which seem overpowered to me but I might just be being paranoid there.)

[eggs]

Strictly nerf/limit the spell list. The other bits are footnotes.

[Gavinfoxx]

Apply as many of these as possible:

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)
Spontaneous Affliction Variant (Exemplars of Evil)
Spontaneous Rejuvenation (Player's Handbook II)

And limit the particular spells that can be learned to not the most powerful on the list, via DM Fiat.

[Tvtyrant]

Give it casting up to 6th level of its own spells (so Bard progression), leave everything else the same. It is now Tier 3, with the worst 1st level ever.

[Invader]

Yeah nerfing BaB doesn't really do anything because you don't use your own BaB while wildshaped anyway and unless you make the xp cost ridiculous for learning wildshapes all the player is going to do is pick the few that are most efficient and not learn anything else.

And if I understand #3 correctly, you're only going to allow a druid to cast an average of 4 (assuming an 18 Wis) spells a day?

That makes it very prohibitive at early levels when all you have is spell casting because you don't have wildshape/natural spell yet. It's not quite so bad at later levels once you get your other guns to play with though just assume that until level 6 you're going to feel pretty worthless (barring greenbound summoning shenanigans).

[Gavinfoxx]

Uh, ya you do use your BAB while Wildshaped?

[Invader]

Hmm you might be right. I just always used the stat block for the animal I was wildshaped into because that makes more sense to me and as far as I know there's no rule that says to do it one way or the other.

[Gavinfoxx]

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3479.0

[willpell]

Give it casting up to 6th level of its own spells (so Bard progression), leave everything else the same. It is now Tier 3, with the worst 1st level ever.

I did notice that the level 1 spells seem pretty pathetic. I haven't studied the higher levels much as yet, so I'm just taking people's word for it that the druid is borked; I won't understand why until I build a high-level druid, and the strongest one I have so far is a 5.



And if I understand #3 correctly, you're only going to allow a druid to cast an average of 4 (assuming an 18 Wis) spells a day?

While in Wild shape, yes. Their spellcasting will work fine as long as they're in human form. Also it's not "spells", it's "spell levels"; one 4, or two 2s, or four 1s, or a 3 and a 1, or a 2 and two 1s. So very little spellcasting while wildshaped.

[Greyfeld85]

Wildshape isn't strong because of the damage you can do with it (actually, it's pretty mediocre unless you invest feats in improving your melee combat), it's strong because of the swiss-army knife of utility it grants.

And even then, a Druid would still be tier 1 if you took away every class feature and let it keep full spell progression.

[Invader]

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3479.0

But whats his basis for that interpretation other than his opinion?

[Gavinfoxx]

Uh... the rules of the abilities? The errata?

The description of Polymorph, Alter Self, Shapechange, Alternate form, etc. etc.??

The most recent versions of all of the above are in the SRD... and in the PHB and Monster Manual...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterSelf.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm

There has been errata for the PHB and MM, as well (which is shown in the SRD, make sure you reread the relevant abilities and take into account the errata)..

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/PHBErrata02062006.zip
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/MM_Errata02062006.zip

Also I believe Spell Compendium and several later books talk about Polymorph Subschool and similar spells.

Also, there are several wotc articles about the topic...

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040511a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040518a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040601a

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060502a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060509a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060516a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060523a

Also, the Rules Compendium talks about these things as well.

[Invader]

Uh... the rules of the abilities? The errata?

The description of Polymorph, Alter Self, Shapechange, Alternate form, etc. etc.??

The most recent versions of all of the above are in the SRD... and in the PHB and Monster Manual...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterSelf.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm

There has been errata for the PHB and MM, as well (which is shown in the SRD, make sure you reread the relevant abilities and take into account the errata)..

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/PHBErrata02062006.zip
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/MM_Errata02062006.zip

Also I believe Spell Compendium and several later books talk about Polymorph Subschool and similar spells.

Also, there are several wotc articles about the topic...

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040511a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040518a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040601a

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060502a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060509a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060516a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060523a

Also, the Rules Compendium talks about these things as well.

The simple errata for wildshape would have sufficed. In the PHB is says it acts the same as polymorph and that doesn't address BaB. I apologize for not having all errata memorized :smallamused:

[willpell]

The simple errata for wildshape would have sufficed. In the PHB is says it acts the same as polymorph and that doesn't address BaB. I apologize for not having all errata memorized :smallamused:

Most people don't have all errata memorized, which is why it would be really nice if Wotco would collect it all into a single "3.6" edition and publish it, specifically stating "this complete collection of all 3.6 rules overrides any older 3rd edition source".

[Godskook]

The easiest way to handle a Druid nerf is to strip wildshape from it and leave it at that. Then, allow Wildshape Rangers in your game for people who liked that feature.

Any nerf stronger than that, and you simply push Druid-players into Wizard/Cleric/Sorcerer or some-such. If you want to nerf all casters together, just ban tier 1 and 2 entirely, leaving you some great class diversity in tiers 3 and 4.

[willpell]

Any nerf stronger than that, and you simply push Druid-players into Wizard/Cleric/Sorcerer or some-such.

Players who want to play "the most powerful class" are not welcome in my game. If someone is playing a Druid, I expect it's because they want to play a character who draws upon the power of nature, and would do so regardless of whether the class in question was tier 1, 3, or 5. People still play Truenamers and monks and such, knowing they're weak, because that's the character they want to play. That should always be encouraged, and munchkinism discouraged.

[Ranting Fool]

Players who want to play "the most powerful class" are not welcome in my game. If someone is playing a Druid, I expect it's because they want to play a character who draws upon the power of nature, and would do so regardless of whether the class in question was tier 1, 3, or 5. People still play Truenamers and monks and such, knowing they're weak, because that's the character they want to play. That should always be encouraged, and munchkinism discouraged.

+1
Though the problem arrises when one PC makes a low op character vs the rest of the party who are all "Playground inspired builds" :smalltongue:

[Kavurcen]

What do you guys think would be a way to balance Druids (at around tier 3) if you were to eliminate their spellcasting completely?


Most people don't have all errata memorized, which is why it would be really nice if Wotco would collect it all into a single "3.6" edition and publish it, specifically stating "this complete collection of all 3.6 rules overrides any older 3rd edition source".
The reprinting of the 3.5 core books includes all errata. Plus a prettier cover, at about original retail. It's something, I guess.

[molten_dragon]

The shapeshift variant out of PHB2 nerfs druid pretty well on its own. You lose your animal companion, and the ability to cast spells while wildshaped, to gain a new version of wildshape that is inferior to the original. It probably still leaves them Tier 1 though.

Add that to the idea about changing their spellcasting progression to that of a bard, and they'd probably drop to Tier 2.

I will say though, if you're nerfing druid, you need to nerf wizards and clerics too. It's not fair to just pick on the druid.

[molten_dragon]

Players who want to play "the most powerful class" are not welcome in my game. If someone is playing a Druid, I expect it's because they want to play a character who draws upon the power of nature, and would do so regardless of whether the class in question was tier 1, 3, or 5.

It would be nice if that was true, but it often won't be. And it may not even have anything to do with wanting to play 'the most powerful class'. It may just be that they like druid as written, and you've taken away the part they like, so they decide to play something else.

And if you're doing this for balance reasons, it's silly to nerf the druid, and leave the cleric and wizard alone. It's not like they're significantly less powerful.

Personally, I think nerfing things because they have the potential to be overpowered is stupid. I went through a phase where I was doing it as a DM, and it seems like most DMs do to, but in the end, it's really not necessary.

Class power tiers and things like that are all theoretical. Whether a class is actually overpowered or underpowered, or right on par depends FAR more on the player and the DM than it does on anything else. A well built and well played fighter can disrupt a game much more than a poorly built and poorly played druid.

[GenghisDon]

some good ideas guys

on natural spell...I'd remove it from the game, not limit it.

[Amphetryon]

Wildshape/Animal Companion/Spellcasting: Pick 2 of the 3, and lose the remaining 1.

[willpell]

The shapeshift variant out of PHB2 nerfs druid pretty well on its own. You lose your animal companion, and the ability to cast spells while wildshaped, to gain a new version of wildshape that is inferior to the original. It probably still leaves them Tier 1 though.

So it's a strictly optional variant, which nobody will ever use unless forced to, and it still doesn't really solve the problem? Lovely.


I will say though, if you're nerfing druid, you need to nerf wizards and clerics too. It's not fair to just pick on the druid.

This is true. I just have fewer ideas how to fix those two. Plus they at least have a lot of different build paths to make them interesting. All druids cast the same spells, get the same wildshapes, their armor choices are limited, and they can only pick among five alignments. It's a bit easier to wean myself off of them than to give up the variety among cleric domains and wizard variant specialists.


It would be nice if that was true, but it often won't be. And it may not even have anything to do with wanting to play 'the most powerful class'. It may just be that they like druid as written, and you've taken away the part they like, so they decide to play something else.

Point.


Personally, I think nerfing things because they have the potential to be overpowered is stupid. I went through a phase where I was doing it as a DM, and it seems like most DMs do to, but in the end, it's really not necessary.

Nerfing may not be exactly what's necessary, but something is.


A well built and well played fighter can disrupt a game much more than a poorly built and poorly played druid.

If he disrupts the game, he's not built "well". He is in fact built "wrong". What I want to learn to do is communicate to the player what he is not allowed to do because it would be "wrong" in this way, but it's a work in progress. The negotiating I've had to do with my Wizard/Psion player, even though he's intentionally NOT optomizing (he says the group he was in before made it kind of reflexive for him and that he's had to fight the instinct for my benefit) has been aggravating to both of us, but it's been necessary; players can already derail my plot six ways from Sunday, I need to have some kind of a check on the players who get five additional methods by virtue of their character class.


on natural spell...I'd remove it from the game, not limit it.

It's a cool enough idea that I don't want it gone, but one feat is way too low a cost for unlimited spellcasting in wild shape, which eventually leaves you able to stay in wild shape all the time with no drawback. Making it weak enough to be optional sounds like a good plan to me.

[Dragonborn]

What do you guys think would be a way to balance Druids (at around tier 3) if you were to eliminate their spellcasting completely?

Not sure what tier it would be but I've been thinking of taking the wildshape ranger and trading the spellcasting for full druid wildshape and maybe animal companion progression.

[Menteith]

Limit the Druid's spellcasting to the progression of a Bard, limit the Animal Companion progression that of a Ranger's animal companion (and give the Ranger the decent AC while you're at it), and limit the number of forms a Druid can Wildshape into (or just actually enforce the "You need to be familiar with the creature", and don't throw any Fleshrakers at the party). It keeps all of the Druid's features, but just tones them down.

Oh, and disallow Venomfire and Greenbound Summoning - those two are big ones.

[Godskook]

Players who want to play "the most powerful class" are not welcome in my game. If someone is playing a Druid, I expect it's because they want to play a character who draws upon the power of nature, and would do so regardless of whether the class in question was tier 1, 3, or 5. People still play Truenamers and monks and such, knowing they're weak, because that's the character they want to play. That should always be encouraged, and munchkinism discouraged.

First, stormwind fallacy. Want to play a powerful class and wanting to roleplay and/or fit the character are not mutually exclusive goals.

Second, I can tell you from experience, DMing for a group that doesn't really seek out power-gaming, that mechanical choices affect how a character's player(and the rest of the group) perceives that character. Examples:

Jeebus Jones started as a Rogue/Druid that the party treated much like Superman would treat Lois Lane. He wasn't very useful, but they liked having him around anyway. Personally, I could tell that the player wasn't enjoying 'not contirbuting' at the group level, but this was defining for that character until a combination of prestiging and spell selection allowed him to come up to group par.

Lothar started as a vanilla monk, but with all the MAD and the player's strict desire to seek out fluff before mechanics, his character was both boring and useless in what situations he was played in. At that point, my only option as DM was to find a rework that was close enough fluff-wise to still seem like a monk, despite increasing the power.

Third, you keep using that word Munchkin. It doesn't mean what you think it means. A muchkin would bring pun-pun to your table, and you'd be right to have a distaste for an individual who thinks that's a good idea. Simply selecting a different class of a similar power level once the one you wanted to play was nerfed into the ground is barely even optimization, let alone power-gaming.

Fourth, your own thread betrays your group for being something other than you're representing. If, as you say, your group is roleplay based, you wouldn't have noticed(or maybe just not cared about) the Druid's power level in the first place because it wouldn't be an issue in your game. You'll have people picking camels for animal companions, not picking up Natural Spell, and preparing only healing and damage based spells(such as Flame Sphere and Cure Light Wounds). But clearly, you're hear, asking us, for help on how to fix mechanics on a Druid.

[Kuulvheysoon]

So it's a strictly optional variant, which nobody will ever use unless forced to, and it still doesn't really solve the problem? Lovely.

Shapeshift variant druid is a better balanced (AKA less powerful) build, and more likely to be accepted BECAUSE it is official. And of course it doesn't reduce it's tier; have you SEEN the druid spell list?

Doing something to their spellcasting in addition to enforcing shapeshift druids will go a long way towards nerfing the druid.


It's a cool enough idea that I don't want it gone, but one feat is way too low a cost for unlimited spellcasting in wild shape, which eventually leaves you able to stay in wild shape all the time with no drawback. Making it weak enough to be optional sounds like a good plan to me.

...So you have no problem tweaking feats, but look down on official material? Lovely.

[Tvtyrant]

Okay, I would like to point out that Wildshape isn't the problem here. Nerfing or banning it, and the animal companion, removes the more interesting and unique Druid factors and leaves it the boring full casting that every full caster has.

In essence, you have defluffed and left mechanically identical one of the strongest classes in the game. What you want to do is slam the spell casting, because without it wildshape is pretty weak in combat (no, seriously, you are a giant target without buffs). Limiting it to a Bardic progression but using the Druid list pulls it into tier 3 (albeit high on that list), and leaves its fluff in place.

If you want to pull the others down as well, you have to remove 8th and 9th level spells from the game entirely (including as items/SLAs), have the wizard and sorcerer have a 7th spell level progression, have the Cleric follow the Druids casting but with all Cleric spells, etc.

Basically you cut out the upper spell levels entirely, leaving the characters with mid level casting (which is already good enough).

[eggs]

I think it would be useful to start by identifying the problems.

Wild Shaping alone is powerful, but not automatically gamebreaking. Leaving Venomfire aside, a shaping druid will usually fight about as well as a fighter who knows what he's doing. It has utility options to fall back on that the Fighter can't match, but that's more the Fighter's problem.

The animal companion is similar. It's usually a slightly worse melee character than the fighter, but it comes for free on top of full spellcasting and with its own set of actions.

Either would be acceptable alone on a weaker class (the Paladin's Griffon doesn't break the game; animal forms don't break the game), but together, it's almost two fighters for one class's levels. There should be a choice.

Regarding problems with the Druid's balance, the first and most apparent is the Druid's casting. It can drop battlefield control to isolate targets, then throw in summons to tear them apart, then mass buffs to make the summons tear the isolated targets apart easily. And when it's done, it can drop some divinations to find the macguffin, earth-teleport/wind walk/tree stride to the thing without running into anywhere near the problems a Fighter, Swordsage or even Beguiler would have. The spells are what needs severe nerfing.

The obvious start is stripping the spells and effects that are downright gamebreaking.

Blinding Spittle, Venomfire, Greenbound... those are basically irredeemable, and should be sacked.
Enhance Wild Shape should probably have an explicit list of special qualities that it can grant (it's cool to use for Scent or Superior Low-light vision; it's not cool to use for making fungus zombies).
SNA could also use some changes: as despised as the Astral Construct nerf was, a similar limitation on all summons wouldn't be unjustified; also, the Oread should really be taken back off the summon list.
I don't think shapeshifting spells need to be eliminated, but replacing Shapechange with single-form polymorph-subschool effects along the lines of Dragonshape would be a good call.


But after hashing up the most problematic spells, the Druid list can be split into several Beguiler/Dread Necro/Warmage/Healer-styled theme lists. I'd go with:

Animal (animal-themed spells+generic buffs; not summons)
Plants (plant-themed spells, including all the staff bits; that would include a mashup of battlefield control, buffs, creature creation and a bit of blasting/healing)
Weather (all the fogs and wind effects; probably throw some of the abjurations in to round this out as a controller aspect).
Earth (all the effects pertaining to earth/stone effects and route-finding)
Summoning (just what it sounds like)
Healing (also straightforward, but reduce the spells to the normal cleric levels)

Make every Druid choose one. Or two, if they turn down both the animal companion and wild shape. And spell each list out explicitly, so the players don't bring some broken surprise to the table.

You might also want to work a polymorph/wild shape fix into the deal. I don't care enough to deal with that, but the previously-mentioned Shapeshift ACF is a much better-balanced model.

EDIT:
I'm assuming the Dread Necromancer is a desirable balance point. An un-ACFed Monk is still not going to be playing the same game.

[molten_dragon]

So it's a strictly optional variant, which nobody will ever use unless forced to, and it still doesn't really solve the problem? Lovely.

You're the DM aren't you? Change it so all druids work that way all the time. Don't leave it as an option.

The thing with nerfing druids is that they just have too much going for them. Take away the animal companion and wild shape? They're still probably Tier 1 or 2 just on the merit of spellcasting. Take away spellcasting and they're still probably Tier 2 or 3 just on the merit of animal companion and wild shape. To bring them down, you have to seriously gut the class. Which is why for the most part, it isn't worth it. It's easier to just deal with a particular player who's causing a problem with a particular character.


This is true. I just have fewer ideas how to fix those two. Plus they at least have a lot of different build paths to make them interesting. All druids cast the same spells, get the same wildshapes, their armor choices are limited, and they can only pick among five alignments. It's a bit easier to wean myself off of them than to give up the variety among cleric domains and wizard variant specialists.

Wizards and Clerics are more interesting than Druids? How so? They have no class features? They don't have more build paths, people just prestige class out most of the time because they have no significant class features that make it worth staying in the base class for. Druids do, so a lot more people will go straight druid.

And you're pretty much in the same boat on nerfing other spellcasters as you are with nerfing druids. It can't be done without gutting the class.


Nerfing may not be exactly what's necessary, but something is.

As I've pointed out, the best way to handle it is individually.


If he disrupts the game, he's not built "well". He is in fact built "wrong".

I would strongly disagree. He is in fact built TOO well. Though I would agree that he is built wrong, with the added caveat that he is built wrong only for that particular game. In other games that build might be perfectly acceptable.


What I want to learn to do is communicate to the player what he is not allowed to do because it would be "wrong" in this way, but it's a work in progress. The negotiating I've had to do with my Wizard/Psion player, even though he's intentionally NOT optomizing (he says the group he was in before made it kind of reflexive for him and that he's had to fight the instinct for my benefit) has been aggravating to both of us, but it's been necessary; players can already derail my plot six ways from Sunday, I need to have some kind of a check on the players who get five additional methods by virtue of their character class.

It can indeed be frustrating having some players in a group who like to min/max, and others who either have no interest in it whatsoever, or who actively dislike the idea. I've had to deal with both several times.

I've found that it helps to sit down with all your players before the game starts and discuss what power level they want the game to run at. They may want to run a low-powered game (say T4 and below), or they may want to run an extremely high powered game (optimized T1s), or anything in between. After that, it's a matter of just making them hold to their decision. And that goes for both ends of the spectrum. If your players want to play a high-powered game, then let them (as long as you aren't against it for some reason), but realize that it might mean you (or someone else) may have to help the players who aren't interested in optimizing in making powerful characters. Or if they decide to go the other route and want to play a low-powered game, you'll have to keep a tight lid on the optimizers in the group. Encourage them to play lower-powered classes, and don't be afraid to break out the nerf bat if necessary for individually broken things (that doesn't include entire classes), after all, they agreed to play a low powered game.

However, if you're insistent on dealing with it in broad strokes rather than individually, here's what I'd do.

Ban all classes that are T2 or above.

To allow the flavor of a wizard without the power level, create (or find, several already exist) more classes devoted to a particular school of magic, similar to the warmage, dread necromancer, and beguiler.

For clerics, only give them full spellcasting up to 9th level out of their deity's domains. And cut back drastically on their spells per day. Something like 1 or 2 per spell level. And then give them either a bard or a paladin/ranger progression that they can cast off the rest of the cleric list.

For druid, break the class into several parts. Create one class that works similarly to the cleric, with limited progression off the full druid list, and full 9th level progression off of a limited list. You might be able to make themes, like an animal focused druid, or a plant focused druid, or an elemental focused druid.

For the shapeshifting part, expand Master of Many Forms into a full 20-level class, and take away the final ability where they get exceptional special abilities.

For the animal companion part, just give rangers the druid's animal companion progression, it won't break the ranger.

If you want to balance things at a lower tier, that's the amount of work you're going to have to put into it, and you'll STILL have problems with the optimizers outshining the non-optimizers. Which is why I keep suggesting dealing with it on an individual basis.

[maysarahs]

Wildshape/Animal Companion/Spellcasting: Pick 2 of the 3, and lose the remaining 1.

I second this notion, though I usually suggest lowering spell progression to that of a bards. On a more extreme note, I sometimes drop the animal companion, (give that to a ranger full progression as well as 2/3 casting (that goes to a paladin too)) and make a Druid choose either full wildshape OR full casting only

[demigodus]

What makes druids broken is the same thing that makes all Tier 1 broken: spells.

Personally I would split the Druid into 4 classes (in case someone is playing the druid for a theme, rather then raw power). All three of these sub-druids would have all druid class features other then animal companion/wildshape/spell casting:

a) The Changer: drop spell casting entirely, give high BAB. You have a character that runs around turning into animals, and beating up others.

b) The Caster: drop animal companion and wildshape. Remove Spontaneous SNA. This is a druid that uses the power of nature to create storms, and wields trees/forests as his weapons.

c) The Animal Mage: drop animal companion, remove spontaneous SNA, decrease spell progression to bard casting. You have a druid that can turn into animals, and use spells for some buffs, but spells are received slow enough to hopefully not break the game

d) The Beast Master: remove wild shape, only spells you get are SNA, animal buffs, buffs for allies, and heals. You sit in the back making an army, and enhancing an army. You get to keep buffs for allies, and heals, because even if it makes you more powerful, in my opinion that kind of broken isn't problematic.

[Kuulvheysoon]

What makes druids broken is the same thing that makes all Tier 1 broken: spells.

Personally I would split the Druid into 4 classes (in case someone is playing the druid for a theme, rather then raw power). All three of these sub-druids would have all druid class features other then animal companion/wildshape/spell casting:

a) The Changer: drop spell casting entirely, give high BAB. You have a character that runs around turning into animals, and beating up others.

b) The Caster: drop animal companion and wildshape. Remove Spontaneous SNA. This is a druid that uses the power of nature to create storms, and wields trees/forests as his weapons.

c) The Animal Mage: drop animal companion, remove spontaneous SNA, decrease spell progression to bard casting. You have a druid that can turn into animals, and use spells for some buffs, but spells are received slow enough to hopefully not break the game

d) The Beast Master: remove wild shape, only spells you get are SNA, animal buffs, buffs for allies, and heals. You sit in the back making an army, and enhancing an army. You get to keep buffs for allies, and heals, because even if it makes you more powerful, in my opinion that kind of broken isn't problematic.

A) pretty much sounds like a wildshape ranger (with an increase in maximum size and an added elemental shape).

[willpell]

Spells are de facto limited in my game by the fact that I haven't had time to read them all. I'm working my way up the list, and have looked at almost nothing above 3rd level, and even more almost nothing (you know what I mean) outside of the corebook. When a player asks for a spell I'm not acquainted with, he's running uphill; my Cerebremancer player argued in favor of about 10 such spells and managed to get like 3 of them approved, with me vetoing the others for various reasons. The vetoed spells won't exist in my game until and unless I decide they're acceptible, which will probably be signalled by having them turn up on an NPC or in treasure.

[molten_dragon]

Spells are de facto limited in my game by the fact that I haven't had time to read them all. I'm working my way up the list, and have looked at almost nothing above 3rd level, and even more almost nothing (you know what I mean) outside of the corebook. When a player asks for a spell I'm not acquainted with, he's running uphill; my Cerebremancer player argued in favor of about 10 such spells and managed to get like 3 of them approved, with me vetoing the others for various reasons. The vetoed spells won't exist in my game until and unless I decide they're acceptible, which will probably be signalled by having them turn up on an NPC or in treasure.

If you're already doing that, I honestly don't see the need to do anything else. Take away powerful spells, you've taken away the power of spellcasters.

[Frosty]

You need to change Wildshape fundundmentally. Make it so the druid's physical ability scores are no longer replaced by the scores of the animal. Instead, define some generic categories (like cat-form might include the likes of Tigers, Lions, etc) which give specific stat BOOSTS (and a few pre-defined Ex abilities), wth the more powerful forms being unlocked later (and maybe some existing forms get better stats).

You also need to standardize the abilities of the animal companion (again with broad categories. All horse-like companions of Large size ought to get X stats, and these special abilities gained at these levels), so that the druid can't just cheery-pick the most powerful forms. Basically, all this standardization makes it so the druid doesn't get 2x better with each new Monster Manual written.

Look at how Pathfinder handles the druid.

[willpell]

Look at how Pathfinder handles the druid.

If I wanted to play Pathfinder, I'd play Pathfinder.

[Kuulvheysoon]

You need to change Wildshape fundundmentally. Make it so the druid's physical ability scores are no longer replaced by the scores of the animal. Instead, define some generic categories (like cat-form might include the likes of Tigers, Lions, etc) which give specific stat BOOSTS (and a few pre-defined Ex abilities), wth the more powerful forms being unlocked later (and maybe some existing forms get better stats).

You also need to standardize the abilities of the animal companion (again with broad categories. All horse-like companions of Large size ought to get X stats, and these special abilities gained at these levels), so that the druid can't just cheery-pick the most powerful forms. Basically, all this standardization makes it so the druid doesn't get 2x better with each new Monster Manual written.

Look at how Pathfinder handles the druid.

This is pretty much exactly how the PHB2 handles it (via the shapeshift druid ACF).

[Gavinfoxx]

If I wanted to play Pathfinder, I'd play Pathfinder.

Then look at how Trailblazer handles the Druid.

[Kavurcen]

If I wanted to play Pathfinder, I'd play Pathfinder.
I see this a lot in threads asking with how to modify 3.5 classes for one reason or another. Usually at the end is tacked on something like "YES, I know what Pathfinder is. That's not what I'm looking for."
The thing is, you're messing with 3.5. Pathfinder is an entire game basically derived from messing with 3.5. Pretending that it, and the information it contains, couldn't prove useful in that situation is silly.

Not to mention you're hardly playing Pathfinder by reading the Druid entry.

[MrRigger]

Spells are de facto limited in my game by the fact that I haven't had time to read them all. I'm working my way up the list, and have looked at almost nothing above 3rd level, and even more almost nothing (you know what I mean) outside of the corebook. When a player asks for a spell I'm not acquainted with, he's running uphill; my Cerebremancer player argued in favor of about 10 such spells and managed to get like 3 of them approved, with me vetoing the others for various reasons. The vetoed spells won't exist in my game until and unless I decide they're acceptible, which will probably be signalled by having them turn up on an NPC or in treasure.

Druids aren't broken because of their Wildshape or their Animal Companion. Those contribute, but they aren't why they're Tier 1 and one of the Big Three. If you're already micromanaging the player's spells like you describe, you don't have to do anything to nerf the Druid any more than you already are. By limiting their spell selection, you're taking away the big guns in the arsenal. Yes, Wildshaping into a Fleshraker and Fleshraker companions with Venomfire shared between the two of you are absurd, but since you likely aren't going to allow Venomfire in the first place, you're okay. Fleshrakers are great companions, but if you aren't allowing the best buffs, they're a lot more fragile than the internet says they are.

MrRigger

[willpell]

Then look at how Trailblazer handles the Druid.

What? Now you're just messing with me aren't you.


I see this a lot in threads asking with how to modify 3.5 classes for one reason or another. Usually at the end is tacked on something like "YES, I know what Pathfinder is. That's not what I'm looking for."
The thing is, you're messing with 3.5. Pathfinder is an entire game basically derived from messing with 3.5. Pretending that it, and the information it contains, couldn't prove useful in that situation is silly.

Pathfinder is a specific set of modifications to 3.5, of which I know of three by reputation. They give Gnomes extra Charisma, and I agree with that (though not enough to institute it in my game). They change the Feat progression from "everyone gets a feat at every 3rd level, Fighters get bonus feats at 1 and at every subsequent even-numbered level" to "fighters get a feat every level, other characters get a feat every other level"; I don't yet have an opinion on that one. And they combine the Hide and Move Silently skills into Stealth, and Listen and Spot into Perception. That one I don't agree with, at all, and therefore Pathfinder is not the game for me.


Not to mention you're hardly playing Pathfinder by reading the Druid entry.

Because I have chosen not to speak Pathfinder's language, I cannot read tomes written in it.


Fleshrakers are great companions, but if you aren't allowing the best buffs, they're a lot more fragile than the internet says they are.

I'm probably not allowing them anyway; I used one in a test battle and they are absurd, conceptually speaking. Absurdity is something I avoid like the plague in my game world; it probably doesn't have dinosaurs at all, except in the past or in the Realm of Nature (from which druids could theoretically retrieve them, but it's a stretch), and if it does have them, they'll almost certainly be real dinosaurs, not the weird imaginary mash-up dinosaurs from MM3.

[Augmental]

Because I have chosen not to speak Pathfinder's language, I cannot read tomes written in it.

You're making it sound like the Pathfinder rules are written in another language. And do you have to call them tomes? :smallsigh:

[demigodus]

Spells are de facto limited in my game by the fact that I haven't had time to read them all. I'm working my way up the list, and have looked at almost nothing above 3rd level, and even more almost nothing (you know what I mean) outside of the corebook. When a player asks for a spell I'm not acquainted with, he's running uphill; my Cerebremancer player argued in favor of about 10 such spells and managed to get like 3 of them approved, with me vetoing the others for various reasons. The vetoed spells won't exist in my game until and unless I decide they're acceptible, which will probably be signalled by having them turn up on an NPC or in treasure.

Generally, spellcasters aren't broken because they have spells. They are broken because their spell lists contain broken spells that they can cherry pick. Everything people are offering here are essentially quick fixes, to get around the issue of having to painstakingly go through each spell, one at a time. If you are willing to go through the spells one at a time, odds are that druids are not going to be broken in your game. At worse, you will have a knee jerk reaction thinking something is broken, or you will happen to miss a spell. So long as you are willing to sit back and think whether something is actually broken, or your players got clever, and your players are okay with you going "actually, I messed up. I know I ok'd that spell, but I take it back. Could you no longer use that?", you should be fine without nerfing the druid class. Or even the wizard or cleric class.


Pathfinder is a specific set of modifications to 3.5, of which I know of three by reputation. They give Gnomes extra Charisma, and I agree with that (though not enough to institute it in my game). They change the Feat progression from "everyone gets a feat at every 3rd level, Fighters get bonus feats at 1 and at every subsequent even-numbered level" to "fighters get a feat every level, other characters get a feat every other level"; I don't yet have an opinion on that one. And they combine the Hide and Move Silently skills into Stealth, and Listen and Spot into Perception. That one I don't agree with, at all, and therefore Pathfinder is not the game for me.

Because I have chosen not to speak Pathfinder's language, I cannot read tomes written in it.

Deciding not to play pathfinder is a reasonable choice. However, they have made some good decisions. Odds are, they have made some decisions you would agree are good decisions. It still would be a good idea for you to read up on how pathfinder handles stuff. Maybe you will find one or two pieces that you like, and either use as inspiration, or copy word for word. While ignoring the rest of the system.


I'm probably not allowing them anyway; I used one in a test battle and they are absurd, conceptually speaking. Absurdity is something I avoid like the plague in my game world; it probably doesn't have dinosaurs at all, except in the past or in the Realm of Nature (from which druids could theoretically retrieve them, but it's a stretch), and if it does have them, they'll almost certainly be real dinosaurs, not the weird imaginary mash-up dinosaurs from MM3.

Generally, if you find something absurd, refluffing it is always an option. Though honestly, fleshrakers are just velociraptors with poison, and without the feathers. Just remove the poison, and call them velociraptors if you have issue with imaginary dinosaurs. If you just don't want dinosaurs in your game in general, then yeah, removing them as a whole might be a good idea.

[willpell]

Everything people are offering here are essentially quick fixes, to get around the issue of having to painstakingly go through each spell, one at a time.

The way I see it, there really isn't any getting around that nigh-impossible task. Probably this is the biggest single reason why some people would rather just stick with RAW, no matter how insane it sometimes is.


At worse, you will have a knee jerk reaction thinking something is broken

One of the wizard spells my cerebremancer player wanted was Backbiter, which makes an opponent's own weapon hit him with no attack roll, and I thought that was overpowered. Another one he wanted was Blade of Blood, which sounded like it gave a rather large bonus to damage, and I said he couldn't have that one until and unless I got around to testing it versus other comparable damage sources.


and your players are okay with you going "actually, I messed up. I know I ok'd that spell, but I take it back. Could you no longer use that?"

Hm. Well I can try, but it seems like they would regard this as a Richard move to do in the middle of a climactic encounter where they were planning on using this as their trump card. If I say 'no' to them and they don't have a plan B, they can always default to kvetching.


Deciding not to play pathfinder is a reasonable choice. However, they have made some good decisions. Odds are, they have made some decisions you would agree are good decisions. It still would be a good idea for you to read up on how pathfinder handles stuff. Maybe you will find one or two pieces that you like, and either use as inspiration, or copy word for word. While ignoring the rest of the system.

This is what I meant about language. In order to find out whether or not I like the system, I would have to learn the system, and if I don't like it, too late, I've already gone to the effort of learning it, and it's soaked into my brain along with everything else, where it will mix with the rest of my pool of knowledge and confuse me at inopportune times. Learning anything is always risky, because it always changes you, and I don't believe I want these changes. I'm not even done learning D&D.


Generally, if you find something absurd, refluffing it is always an option. Though honestly, fleshrakers are just velociraptors with poison, and without the feathers. Just remove the poison, and call them velociraptors if you have issue with imaginary dinosaurs.

There are actual velociraptors aren't there? If not, then yeah, refluffing fleshrakers into them would probably work. But if they're like velociraptors only stronger, I want to use the real velociraptors (perhaps the poisonless fleshraker could be a "dire" velociraptor, but it still wouldn't look like it does in the book).


If you just don't want dinosaurs in your game in general, then yeah, removing them as a whole might be a good idea.

They are exactly what they are in the real world, extinct (unless there's a Lost World somewhere). The druids can access them through the memories of the land, but their actual presence in the modern world would disrupt the balance of nature, or so the druids believed. Having gone extinct, they're assumed to have "blown it", and to bring them to life again would be to question Nature's wisdom. (This was actually kind of a plot point in the Jurassic Park / Lost World novels, I forget which one; when a species has died out, you can't just wish them back to life as if nothing had happened, you're starting over from scratch and it's likely to turn out different this time.)


First, stormwind fallacy. Want to play a powerful class and wanting to roleplay and/or fit the character are not mutually exclusive goals.

I have gone on-record before contradicting the fallaciousness of Stormwind; the two are indeed mutually exclusive in at least some situations, since there will inevitably be occasions where optomization and characterization are contradictory, forcing you to choose between them. Certain characters will make it more or less likely that the two goals align, but they are separate goals, and at least sometimes they will diverge irreconcileably, so Stormwind's perspective is at worst overstated, not actually wrong.

I will amend these earlier comments to include one new insight: a character is most appropriate to optomize if they are legitimately supposed to be one of the most powerful beings in the world, and that's their entire shtick as a character. But such individuals generally shouldn't be PCs, unless that's the entire point of the campaign. Expecting that you have a right to play, for example, the best sneak-thief in the world, just because you're a PC, is going too far. Sometimes the GM will allow it, and even build a world around you which he populates with less competent sneak-thieves; other times, however, he has a specific plot role set aside for a particularly powerful NPC, whom the PC is not welcome to outperform. Imagine showing up in the Forgotten Realms with a character that, despite being a level 4 Wizard, is somehow better at spellcasting than Elminster. What gives you the right to show up at a random GM's table and expect to be allowed to play such a character?

The skill of knowing how to build such characters is more likely to be useful to a DM when building the Elminsters and Drizzts and Deekins of his world; I've got an NPC bard who's meant to be optomized and will have trouble actually building him, but I've also got other NPC bards who are intended to be "typical", and I would expect a character to be more in line with those than with the legend. It's true that the characters are the stars of the story, but that status will be more meaningful to them if they start out seeing the VIPs of the campaign world around them, and have to work their way up to that level of accomplishment. Reading a manual on the Internet IRL which tells them how to bypass the process of earning their competence in-game is missing the point.

[Augmental]

One of the wizard spells my cerebremancer player wanted was Backbiter, which makes an opponent's own weapon hit him with no attack roll, and I thought that was overpowered. Another one he wanted was Blade of Blood, which sounded like it gave a rather large bonus to damage, and I said he couldn't have that one until and unless I got around to testing it versus other comparable damage sources.

Backbiter only affects one target and only works with one attack, and it's a standard action. Blade of Blood seems like it would scale poorly with level. They aren't all that powerful.


This is what I meant about language. In order to find out whether or not I like the system, I would have to learn the system, and if I don't like it, too late, I've already gone to the effort of learning it, and it's soaked into my brain along with everything else, where it will mix with the rest of my pool of knowledge and confuse me at inopportune times. Learning anything is always risky, because it always changes you, and I don't believe I want these changes. I'm not even done learning D&D.

Have you given the druid so much as a cursory glance? You may be surprised. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid)

[willpell]

Have you given the druid so much as a cursory glance? You may be surprised. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid)

Done. My prejudgment is confirmed.

[Kavurcen]

Willpell, I feel like there are some fundamental misunderstandings afoot. Firstly, I don't think you understood exactly the meaning of my post. Secondly, nothing good comes from making assumptions about something that you have no experience with (something I've learned difficultly and often in the past).

To address just the gaps in understanding arising from my post, my point was that regardless of whether or not you like the whole of Pathfinder, as a work, you will agree with some of it. It is, after all, a list of modifications for D&D 3.5. This thread is about modifications for D&D 3.5. There are bound to be places where both you and the Pathfinder system would agree.

Let's take the example of extra Charisma for Gnomes that you mentioned, and make a thread out of it, similar to this one..
The thread's title is: [3.5] Gnome Fixes/Modifications
So off the bat we've established that the purpose of the thread is to modify D&D 3.5's Gnomes.
Let's say the first reply is as follows:
"Have you checked out Pathfinder's version of Gnomes?"
If you were to respond with a knee-jerk "I don't want to play Pathfinder so I don't care what Pathfinder does to Gnomes", then we'd be in the situation we are here. However, if you were to indeed check out Pathfinder's version of Gnomes, you might find you like it. That doesn't mean you're going to play Pathfinder now, but you can use it in your 3.5 game due to the design of both systems. Just like how you would if this scenario was about Druids.
[Yes, this is a bit flawed because of how Pathfinder balances races. Hush.]

But in the interest of not derailing this thread too badly, I think the Druid class could do with a fundamental refocusing. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of a Druid as a class without spellcasting, focused primarily on wild shaping, and maybe adding a bit more goodies for their animal companion.
A few questions and ideas popped up. One of them was, what if you allowed Druids to wild shape at will from level one? You could just lump some restrictions on it that are gradually overcome as the class progresses. Let's say you gain access to different types of creatures you can shape into as you gain levels. I was thinking it might work to give it a duration that can be extended maybe with concentration checks, or to have penalties once you're done like rage. I'm literally just typing whatever comes to mind right now, so half of this is probably awful. How would you guys do it?

[molten_dragon]

I'm probably not allowing them anyway; I used one in a test battle and they are absurd, conceptually speaking. Absurdity is something I avoid like the plague in my game world; it probably doesn't have dinosaurs at all, except in the past or in the Realm of Nature (from which druids could theoretically retrieve them, but it's a stretch), and if it does have them, they'll almost certainly be real dinosaurs, not the weird imaginary mash-up dinosaurs from MM3.

If you're already micromanaging what spells people have access to, and what monsters druids can wildshape into, and have as their animal companions, I'm not sure why you think the druid needs nerfed any further beyond that.

You're really not making it clear what you want here. Or are you just looking for an easier way to nerf the druid? Because it really doesn't exist.

[willpell]

You're really not making it clear what you want here. Or are you just looking for an easier way to nerf the druid? Because it really doesn't exist.

Fair enough; I'm just kicking ideas around. Nerfing the BAB is probably pointless and the Natural Spell change is fiddly at best, but I still like the idea of having to pay XP to learn an exotic Wild Shape form.

[molten_dragon]

Nerfing the BAB is probably pointless

I would agree with that. The small loss of attack bonus from switching to a poor BAB will be negligible next to what buff spells and wild shape add as bonuses.


and the Natural Spell change is fiddly at best,

Also agree. it would be much easier to just leave it alone, or remove it completely.


but I still like the idea of having to pay XP to learn an exotic Wild Shape form.

It's going to be really hard to balance. If you make the cost too high, people won't use the option, and you went to extra effort when you could have just banned those forms. If you make it too low, people will just cherry-pick a couple of the best exotic forms and use non-exotic ones for everything else.

The easiest thing to do with wild shape would simply be to say that the druid can't turn into anything he hasn't personally encountered. And then simply don't use monsters you think are broken. After all, it's only fair that if the players aren't allowed to use something, the DM shouldn't be either.

Other than that, the only thing that would really help is splitting the druid into multiple classes as I suggested earlier.

[MrRigger]

The easiest thing to do with wild shape would simply be to say that the druid can't turn into anything he hasn't personally encountered. And then simply don't use monsters you think are broken. After all, it's only fair that if the players aren't allowed to use something, the DM shouldn't be either.


This isn't a house rule. This is the actual rule. From the Druid entry in the Player's Handbook, page 37, Wild Shape, second paragraph.


The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with. For example, a druid who has never been outside a temperate forest could not become a polar bear.

So you control the types of Animal Companion available to the Druid, the Wild Shape Forms available to the Druid, and because you cherry-pick which spells are allowed on a case-by-case basis, you control what spells he has access to. The Druid is as nerfed as it could possibly be without altering the underlying chassis of the class. And if you've gone to all this trouble, you don't need to alter the underlying chassis.

And another thing I want to address is that you've mentioned banning things because you feel they will be broken, without having seen them in action, such as in the case of prohibiting the Backbiter spell. I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong for doing this, because if that's the way your group wants to play and all of you are happy with it, that's fine. But I'm just going to suggest that you don't always go with your first reaction to something. If you think something might be broken, tell the player that you have concerns, but allow them access to it. If, during the course of normal play, it does turn out to be broken, fine, ban it, and make the necessary adjustments. But I think you might be surprised by the number of things that appear broken that aren't.

MrRigger

[Gavinfoxx]

Consider the (animal) forms a Druid is familiar with are governed by the skill Knowledge Nature, which you can Take 10 on, and where the DC to know at least one thing about the animal is 10+ the hit dice of the animal...

[willpell]

Consider the (animal) forms a Druid is familiar with are governed by the skill Knowledge Nature, which you can Take 10 on, and where the DC to know at least one thing about the animal is 10+ the hit dice of the animal...

Er yeah, I play extremely loose with that rule; I'd rather regulate the character's knowledge of creatures by having them show up (or not) in the game, not by him rolling well on his dice.

Also I don't want to have to be limited in my choice of encounters by the risk of a character copying every deadly thing he manages to beat.

Fortunately I don't have a Druid player right now so this is all moot for my current campaign. Considering that one of my Psions is multiclassing with wizard, the other has a Level Adjustment, and the remaining characters are a Wilder, a Barbarian and a Warlock, I've probably got a nice weak party, and am throwing below-CR encounters at them until I'm certain they can handle something tough.

In other news I had a thought about bringing Wizards down a notch today (again purely speculative and not something I'm gonna slap my Cerebremancer player with, he's been through enough). You know how the Truenamer sucks because his DCs go up by 2 each level while his Truespeak skill can only gain 1 rank? It occurs to me that Wizards could use a bit of that kind of uphill battle (along with a little non-scaling help at the lower levels, making them more balanced throughout their careers instead of starting out fractional and increasing exponentially). I think the rules call for a Spellcraft check for each new spell they want to add to their spellbook, but that rule seems to be loosely enforced; making it stricter, and making the DC scale steeply by level, seems like a good way to deliver the flavor that being a wizard is hard and only the most brilliant of minds can achieve even basic competency in the arcane studies, while also keeping something of a cap on the potency of PC wizards (NPCs on the order of Elminster or pre-ascension Vecna, of course, will have been heavily optimized and have had good luck on those checks).

[Gavinfoxx]

So how do you interact with someone wanting to take Knowledge Devotion, and having a good int, and getting collector of stories, and putting lots of skill points in all of the creature based knowledge skills, and maybe having a class feature that lets them know about creatures (like bardic knowledge or one of the similar features)? What about a character who has abilities that are specifically described as lore regarding obscure creatures, like an Archivist's Lore, who takes the relevant feats so that they apply to more creature types?

Would you nerf ALL of those?

It is the same concept: Druids who max knowledge nature are sages regarding plants, animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, and vermin of all sorts. Even if they are in a dungeon their entire lives, the fact that they CAN max that skill means that something (say, their innate mystical connection to nature, perhaps) lets them know something about all of these things. Would you just change the Knowledge Nature DC, maybe? Would you still let them roll? Would you still let them Take 10?

[willpell]

So how do you interact with someone wanting to take Knowledge Devotion, and having a good int, and getting collector of stories, and putting lots of skill points in all of the creature based knowledge skills, and maybe having a class feature that lets them know about creatures (like bardic knowledge or one of the similar features)?

A character like that is obviously a special case, and a pretty good representative for a player who's read most of the monster manuals. In theory I could call for him to make checks to learn how I've modified creatures for use in my game (I literally have a list I've compiled which will eventually have every monster published for the game and its ok/modded/banned status for my campworld), but in practice I tend to be proud enough of my homebrewing work that I don't want to have to keep it secret just because the player failed a roll. If the player wants to have a know-it-all character badly enough to take a feat tax, I'll find some way to work with him, and bonus roleplaying XP, good magic items, or other such bribes are always a possibility.

[Gavinfoxx]

I edited my post a bit to talk more about druids, sorry. Reread it?

[Gavinfoxx]

The thing is, Druids ARE know it all, superhumanly competent sages regarding plants, animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, and vermin. As long as they keep knowledge nature up.

[willpell]

The thing is, Druids ARE know it all, superhumanly competent sages regarding plants, animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, and vermin. As long as they keep knowledge nature up.

The lumping of all those categories (particularly giants, who do not strike me as terribly natural, nor do some of the MoHus such as Doppelgangers and ritually-enhanced Hobgoblins) into Nature is an error on the game's part IMO. I tend to make judgment calls on an individual basis. Besides, it's boring if all druids are equally knowledgeable (assuming they all max K:Nature); it's more interesting to think about what specific subsets of nature are covered by the knowledge of any given druid and which are not. Granted detailing my CW to that extent is a work in progress.


I edited my post a bit to talk more about druids, sorry. Reread it?

I did; did you see my edit about six posts up?

[Gavinfoxx]

Yea, I read your posts..

Looking at knowledge skills...

Arcana: Constructs, Dragons, Magical Beasts
Architechture and Engineering: None
Dungeoneering: Oozes, Aberrations
Geography: None
History: None
Local: Humanoids
Nature: plants, animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, and vermin
Nobility and Royalty: None
Religion: Undead
The Planes: Outsiders, Elementals
Psionics: Astral Constructs, Psionic Monsters

How would you move things around? What should the DC to know of any one monster be?

Wasn't there an official article about knowledge checks and house rules for scarcity somewhere on giantitp?? Not the forums, I mean.

[demigodus]

Er yeah, I play extremely loose with that rule; I'd rather regulate the character's knowledge of creatures by having them show up (or not) in the game, not by him rolling well on his dice.

DC is 10+HD

You can wildshape into something with at most as much HD as your level. You can have lvl+3 ranks in knowledge nature, giving you lvl+13 with take 10, when at most the DC is lvl+10. I think the point was, druids don't even need to roll so long as they keep knowledge: nature maxed, not that they have to be lucky.


Also I don't want to have to be limited in my choice of encounters by the risk of a character copying every deadly thing he manages to beat.

In that case, use creatures druids can't wildshape into. So pretty much anything that isn't an animal, like, say, magical beasts.

Also, if it is too powerful for your players to use, you might consider it being too powerful for players to face. The first rule of adventuring is to take whatever your enemy used against you, and use it against your enemies until something better comes along.


I think the rules call for a Spellcraft check for each new spell they want to add to their spellbook, but that rule seems to be loosely enforced; making it stricter, and making the DC scale steeply by level, seems like a good way to deliver the flavor that being a wizard is hard and only the most brilliant of minds can achieve even basic competency in the arcane studies, while also keeping something of a cap on the potency of PC wizards (NPCs on the order of Elminster or pre-ascension Vecna, of course, will have been heavily optimized and have had good luck on those checks).

Depending on your group this can go over horribly. If PCs are limited from optimizing so as to keep game balance, and yet plot-centric NPCs can be optimized up the vazoo, with rules/chance bent in their favor... well, you know how people complain about DMPCs? This is the exact same formula, and can result in players being very upset.

As for the Truenaming DCs, those are EASY if you are good at optimizing. The problem with that, is it makes the class REQUIRE optimization. You want to encourage wizards to stay away from optimization, rather then make them learn all the tricks.

[Dsurion]

Probably not too helpful to you, but my favorite Druid "fix" was a homebrew that made the Druid more like a Warlock, with homebrew invocations to match. Never finished it though, because we only ever had one player interested in playing Druids who we never got to game with again.

[willpell]

In that case, use creatures druids can't wildshape into. So pretty much anything that isn't an animal, like, say, magical beasts.

Dude, you quoted me saying,


I don't want to have to be limited in my choice of encounters.


Also, if it is too powerful for your players to use, you might consider it being too powerful for players to face.

The issue is less 'powerful' than 'annoying'. A pixie can't kill the Tarrasque, but it can simply fly 500 feet up and watch the explosions while the Tarrasque destroys the homes that normal PCs have to actually live in, instead of having to actually fight it. Power I can deal with, but players throwing me a curveball that I had no idea even existed, right in the middle of an encounter...the very possibility this might happen makes me paranoid, and short of memorizing every spell and SP/SU ability in the game, there's not much I can do to avoid it.


Depending on your group this can go over horribly. If PCs are limited from optimizing so as to keep game balance, and yet plot-centric NPCs can be optimized up the vazoo, with rules/chance bent in their favor... well, you know how people complain about DMPCs? This is the exact same formula, and can result in players being very upset.

Fortunately my players know that I'm pretty open to talking through such issues, and they are all Role-players at heart so they're pretty comfortable with the idea that what the story requires is not the same as what they want to do. More so than I am when playing in their White Wolf games, TBH.


As for the Truenaming DCs, those are EASY if you are good at optimizing.

I've read Zaq's FAQ; it didn't look "easy" by my standards of the word. (I am admittedly not "good at optimizing", but still.)


The problem with that, is it makes the class REQUIRE optimization.

This is true, but rather fitting to the fluff of both truenamers and wizards.


You want to encourage wizards to stay away from optimization, rather then make them learn all the tricks.

You have a point, but again, it's in-flavor for Wizards to face such a dilemma. Combined with the micromanaging I tend to do, it creates a paradigm where the universal scales are pretty much stacked against the wizard, so he has to be not only brilliant but irresistably awesome to have any chance of success...which I think is exactly where I feel like wizards ought to be. Why are Gandalf and Saruman central figures in LOTR, while their compatriot Radagast is a bit player? It might have something to do with Radagast being boring (at least as seen in the LOTR trilogy and/or the Hobbit; I haven't read the Silmarillion or anything, maybe he's cool there).


Probably not too helpful to you, but my favorite Druid "fix" was a homebrew that made the Druid more like a Warlock, with homebrew invocations to match. Never finished it though, because we only ever had one player interested in playing Druids who we never got to game with again.

Definitely not very helpful to me, as I'm really not a huge fan of the Warlock. Going from "three blasts a day" as a wizard or "five blasts a day" as a sorcerer to "potentially as many as 10 blasts per minute for 24 consecutive hours" as a Warlock strikes me as going a bit past the mark.

[Kavurcen]

]Definitely not very helpful to me, as I'm really not a huge fan of the Warlock. Going from "three blasts a day" as a wizard or "five blasts a day" as a sorcerer to "potentially as many as 10 blasts per minute for 24 consecutive hours" as a Warlock strikes me as going a bit past the mark.
Considering blasting as a wizard or sorcerer is a great way to squander your class's potential, warlock strikes me as a class that fits its role perfectly. A caster engineered to blast. It's basically just a magical archer.
Apologies if I have the wrong impression, but it also strikes me that it doesn't seem like you've let your players (or yourself) explore the various 3.5 source books a whole lot. You might want to get a little more experience with what the extents of the system are from a DMing perspective before you try and modify some of its core components yourself. I learned that lesson myself the hard way. Homebrewing, and DMing, without adequate knowledge of what's possible in D&D means you leave yourself open to exploitation of all shapes and sizes.

[molten_dragon]

This isn't a house rule. This is the actual rule. From the Druid entry in the Player's Handbook, page 37, Wild Shape, second paragraph.

IMO, there is a difference between having to be familiar with the animal, and having to actually encounter the animal. "Familiar with" is more vague and could mean that you just studied it in a book (or made a knowledge check).

[molten_dragon]

Also I don't want to have to be limited in my choice of encounters by the risk of a character copying every deadly thing he manages to beat.

This I have a real problem with. I cannot stand DMs who play the "You guys get to use all this weak stuff, while only I get to use all the cool powerful stuff to try to kill you" game. That's extremely unfair to your players.

[willpell]

This I have a real problem with. I cannot stand DMs who play the "You guys get to use all this weak stuff, while only I get to use all the cool powerful stuff to try to kill you" game. That's extremely unfair to your players.

The only time I'll be trying to kill my players is if I'm eager to run a story set in the afterlife (and it'd probably be a solo because only two of my five players share an alignment and both have very different takes on it). The game is not a contest for me to win; after all, I have all the gods in my back pocket, if I wanted to Conan Kill Everything this would be easy enough and I wouldn't need the players. They're there to have fun and to help me have fun; they would agree to do neither if I were a bonehead such as you describe (I say "bonehead" rather than "unfair" because I don't think the game needs to be "fair"; the GM and players have extremely different roles and require different tools, but they're ultimately working toward a mutual goal).

[willpell]

Looking at knowledge skills...

Arcana: Constructs, Dragons, Magical Beasts
Architechture and Engineering: None
Dungeoneering: Oozes, Aberrations
Geography: None
History: None
Local: Humanoids
Nature: plants, animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, and vermin
Nobility and Royalty: None
Religion: Undead
The Planes: Outsiders, Elementals
Psionics: Astral Constructs, Psionic Monsters

How would you move things around? What should the DC to know of any one monster be?

I'm not a huge fan of the idea in the first place, and I'm not even going to speculate about DCs, but as a general idea I have a few thoughts.
* Oozes and Aberrations under Dungeoneering is perfect, though I also feel that many Vermin fit well there, and a few animals such as bats probably could qualify though it (you're telling me Mr. Dwarf Caver, who has never seen a tree and thus doesn't want enough K:Nature to tell a pine from a spruce, consequently has no idea what a bat is?).
* Monstrous Humanoids are not necessarily any less civilized than regular ones, and so K:Local ought to encompass some of those (the distinction between Hu Lizardfolk and MoHu Blackscale Lizardfolk is particularly egregious); I'm also somewhat amenable to the idea that K:Geography ought to be able to tell you some information about any race that keeps something resembling territory or civilization, with a broader focus than the Local version of knowledge about the same creatures
* Arcana is mostly fine, although some Constructs seem to be light on the magic and heavy on the mechanism, so defining an alternative "Knowledge: Science" or even allowing it to fall under Architecture and Engineering (mostly the latter obviously) seems reasonable. Magical Beasts are also a bit too umbrellaish; I'm pretty sure some creatures I've seen in the MMs, notably those that were Beasts under 3.0 rules but seemed too exotic to become Animals instead, are not really fancy enough to seem like they should fit Arcana. It's puzzling to have zero knowledge of Elementals under Arcana considering how often a wizard may summon them; Planes is certainly a better fit, but there could perhaps be some overlap.
* K:Religion cannot identify Angels or Demons. This is a big problem. While Planes is necessary to know what those creatures are all about in their homeland, Religion ought to tell you at least something about what they're known to do in the Material realm.
* Giants don't seem to really fit in anywhere; they seem to have been shoehorned into Nature just for the sake of making it the "catch-all" category, but Fire and Cloud Giants don't strike me as especially natural creatures. Arcana or some variation thereof might fit, and I can imagine a campaign world where Nobility and Royalty gets it because the giants once ruled the world and are thought of as the pinaccle of leadership. Otherwise, I'm tempted to suggest Geography just because a human's county or barony is a giant's front lawn or golf course; this is partly a joke but short of defining a new Knowledge: Giants I don't really see a better option.

(As an addendum, I'm very into the idea of defining new Knowledge categories, even if the game won't inherently support them; some of the ones I've come up with so far include K: Espionage, K: Underworld, a player of mine came up with K: Law, and for one slightly offbeat character I even went so far as to define K: Humor, though I'll admit I have no idea how that would ever actually prove useful in a game.)

[Gamer Girl]

I've never had a problem with Druids. But a lot of it is just the way my game is 'house rule wise'.

1.Magic Consequences:I have lots and lots of tease. Use magic and there will be consequences.

2.No Rated Y World:Any thing in the 3X books that is all soft and user friendly is gone and replaced by a much harder, cruel and unforgiving set of rules. For example, taking on the shape of an animal runs the risk that you might loose your mind in that form and become the animal. And everything you own does not change shape with you. Turn into a bird and fly over behind the bad guy and when you change back to human...you will be naked.

3.God is Watching You:As with all divinely powered servants, a druid has a god sitting back and watching everything that they do 24/7...and judging them..and taking actions.

4.It's not a Nerfed Game(using nerf here as 'easy' as nerf combat is not real combat). For example, foes in my game will target animal companions and not do the lame DM thing of 'oh it would not be fair If I attacked Suzy's wolf'. anything is a target.

5.Killer GameI run an overall Killer Game. Your character can die at anytime. I don't use lame 'story plot armor' or anything like that.


So with all five of them, a druid is just like any other character....

[demigodus]

Dude, you quoted me saying

I know. I figured not wielding animals against them isn't too restrictive....


The issue is less 'powerful' than 'annoying'. A pixie can't kill the Tarrasque, but it can simply fly 500 feet up and watch the explosions while the Tarrasque destroys the homes that normal PCs have to actually live in, instead of having to actually fight it. Power I can deal with, but players throwing me a curveball that I had no idea even existed, right in the middle of an encounter...the very possibility this might happen makes me paranoid, and short of memorizing every spell and SP/SU ability in the game, there's not much I can do to avoid it.

A druid can, until they hit lvl 12, only wildshape into animals. You don't gain the SU/SP/EX abilities of the creature you turn into. The only thing you can gain from the creature is power (strength/AC/poison), and movement. At least not unless the druid starts taking feats that explicitly let him.

So, if power doesn't worry you, the only thing they could get from animals you throw at them, is a way to fly, swim, or burrow underground. And they have to first defeat a creature that flies, swims, or burrows, which, for the second two, means they probably already have ways to swim or burrow.

Or in short, if your players are using wildshape to throw a curve ball at you who's existence you didn't know of, they are either misreading the rules, or specifically took feats to pull off those curve balls. In either case, there are much simpler answers then fixing the class.


Fortunately my players know that I'm pretty open to talking through such issues, and they are all Role-players at heart so they're pretty comfortable with the idea that what the story requires is not the same as what they want to do. More so than I am when playing in their White Wolf games, TBH.

So you have a pretty good group then. :smallbiggrin:


I've read Zaq's FAQ; it didn't look "easy" by my standards of the word. (I am admittedly not "good at optimizing", but still.)

Honestly, I think most people don't find it easy. I only find it easy, because to play my Truenamer, I went through a bunch of tricks until I got a pretty good understanding of how to optimize that skill like nobody's business


You have a point, but again, it's in-flavor for Wizards to face such a dilemma. Combined with the micromanaging I tend to do, it creates a paradigm where the universal scales are pretty much stacked against the wizard, so he has to be not only brilliant but irresistably awesome to have any chance of success...which I think is exactly where I feel like wizards ought to be. Why are Gandalf and Saruman central figures in LOTR, while their compatriot Radagast is a bit player? It might have something to do with Radagast being boring (at least as seen in the LOTR trilogy and/or the Hobbit; I haven't read the Silmarillion or anything, maybe he's cool there).

Well, if that is your reasoning. I don't agree that giving the player a dilemma during character creation (that is never brought up in-game as that would be metagaming) isn't very interesting, but your group's opinion is all that really matters here.

[willpell]

I know. I figured not wielding animals against them isn't too restrictive....

It is to me. Animal encounters are a bit disappointing because there's no banter, but I still feel it's important to have every tool I'm proficient with at my disposal.


Or in short, if your players are using wildshape to throw a curve ball at you who's existence you didn't know of, they are either misreading the rules, or specifically took feats to pull off those curve balls. In either case, there are much simpler answers then fixing the class.

Huh. Interesting. I guess I overestimated the danger. Of course, there's still Level 12 to worry about, but not for a while.


So you have a pretty good group then. :smallbiggrin:

I do my best. I have not yet rejected a player, but I would probably frustrate a munchkin enough just in my initial game pitch that he wouldn't bother signing up in the first place.


Honestly, I think most people don't find it easy. I only find it easy, because to play my Truenamer, I went through a bunch of tricks until I got a pretty good understanding of how to optimize that skill like nobody's business

Well then it is "easy" in the sense that winning the Olympics is easy if you happen to be Michael Phelps....


Well, if that is your reasoning. I don't agree that giving the player a dilemma during character creation (that is never brought up in-game as that would be metagaming) isn't very interesting, but your group's opinion is all that really matters here.

Actually if anyone is allowed to metagame it's the wizards. :smallamused:

[MukkTB]

Spellcasting - Pet - Shapeshifting
Pick 2

You still get a high teir character but at least its not totally ridiculous.

[willpell]

Spellcasting - Pet - Shapeshifting
Pick 2

You still get a high teir character but at least its not totally ridiculous.

Others have suggested this already.

****

We stumbled on the topic of Warlocks, so here, have a spin-off thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251363).

[JKTrickster]

The issue is less 'powerful' than 'annoying'. A pixie can't kill the Tarrasque, but it can simply fly 500 feet up and watch the explosions while the Tarrasque destroys the homes that normal PCs have to actually live in, instead of having to actually fight it. Power I can deal with, but players throwing me a curveball that I had no idea even existed, right in the middle of an encounter...the very possibility this might happen makes me paranoid, and short of memorizing every spell and SP/SU ability in the game, there's not much I can do to avoid it.




Uhh...

Wait I actually disagree with this statement here (bolded part that bothered me).

Please clarify if I'm reading this wrong...but are you saying that you get paranoid when your players do actions that surprise you? Or use tactics in certain ways that you didn't foresee? :smallconfused:

[MukkTB]

Others have suggested this already.

Yeah but I was lazy and didn't feel like quoting and then typing "+1" below.

[willpell]

Uhh...Please clarify if I'm reading this wrong...but are you saying that you get paranoid when your players do actions that surprise you? Or use tactics in certain ways that you didn't foresee? :smallconfused:

To some extent yes. In general I'm trying to craft a plot and that requires me to do a fair bit of prediction of what the players will do. It'll never be 100%, as the saying goes no plot survives contact with the players, but they can certainly improve my mood by not going too overboard with the "gotchas" against me. At best, if they zag when I was certain they were going to zig, it's likely to delay my response; at worst it might leave me completely unable to figure out what should happen next. I've had cases where I've just had to pull the plug on an entire scenario because my original plans were too thoroughly scuppered for me to be able to salvage them with anything less than a DXM. That sort of thing only has to happen a few times before you start worrying that it might happen again.

[ShriekingDrake]

OK heck, if it ain't broken . . . don't fix it.

Actually--as is the case here--even if it is broken, put it on the front lawn and it will fix itself.

[Gavinfoxx]

To some extent yes. In general I'm trying to craft a plot and that requires me to do a fair bit of prediction of what the players will do. It'll never be 100%, as the saying goes no plot survives contact with the players, but they can certainly improve my mood by not going too overboard with the "gotchas" against me. At best, if they zag when I was certain they were going to zig, it's likely to delay my response; at worst it might leave me completely unable to figure out what should happen next. I've had cases where I've just had to pull the plug on an entire scenario because my original plans were too thoroughly scuppered for me to be able to salvage them with anything less than a DXM. That sort of thing only has to happen a few times before you start worrying that it might happen again.

Or you could... you know. Not have an overarching plot that has to happen a certain way? Just have a few different groups with their own goals and plans, that react plausibly? Make a threat to the things the characters care about, but don't plan for the characters to do any particular action in response to that threat?

[willpell]

Or you could... you know. Not have an overarching plot that has to happen a certain way? Just have a few different groups with their own goals and plans, that react plausibly? Make a threat to the things the characters care about, but don't plan for the characters to do any particular action in response to that threat?

Not how I roll. Aside from being a ton of work, this doesn't fit with the playstyle I enjoy, which tends to emulate movies and to a lesser extent novels, with the emphasis being on stories happening rather than just creatures milling about and bashing each other.

[Gavinfoxx]

I'm not saying don't have a plot, I am saying generate a plot as you run the game!

[willpell]

I'm not saying don't have a plot, I am saying generate a plot as you run the game!

Impossible. You have to know, at least vaguely, what every NPC (up to and including the gods) intends to do. You do this before the game, and you do your best to have those plots interact naturally during the game, but that requires you to include predictions of PC activity in the model.

Not, of course, that the plan doesn't change over time as I think of new ideas. But the PCs are usually not the instigators of that change; rather it's a new idea just popping into my head, or a new sourcebook that I read and belatedly retconned into my intentions.

And the old plans are usually not contradicted by the new ones, so they remain in effect. Up until the PCs bork them.

All this combines with incredibly poor organization on my part, which I am only barely making progress on improving.

[Augmental]

Impossible. You have to know, at least vaguely, what every NPC (up to and including the gods) intends to do. You do this before the game, and you do your best to have those plots interact naturally during the game, but that requires you to include predictions of PC activity in the model.

And why can't you have multiple ways the plot could go based on the PC's actions? You may not be able to know every action your players might take, but you can still plan for different courses of action - for instance, statting out important NPCs that you don't plan to have the PCs fight, in case they decide to attack him/her/it for whatever reason.

[Serafina]

You know why you should love the Pathfinder-druid?
Because it fixes the most broken thing about the Druid: Wildshape.

Okay, how and why is Wildshape broken?
Like Polymorph, it overrides your physical ability scores and allows you to cherrypick abilities. Since Druids get Wildshape early and can use it often and for a long time, they can totally ignore their Strenght and Dexterity beyond a certain level. They also have access to every single animal ever printed, which means that they have the perfect solution for every situation that can be solved with any of those animals abilities.

So how does Pathfinder change that?
By changing how Polymorph works.
Check out the Beast Shape (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/beast-shape) spell (Wildshape works just like it with a longer duration).
It doesn't replace attributes, it grants a bonus to them. That means that a Druid who neglected his Strength doesn't become just as strong as a Druid who has lots of Strenght when wildshaping.
It also limits you to a few select abilities. That means that it's no longer about choosing the perfect animal - because the abilities you get are not related to the specific animal.
And that fixes the two major problem with Wildshape. There are other, similar spells for other forms - such as dragons or elementals.

It also means - which is nice for roleplayers - that you can stick to one kind of animal you turn into. A druid can shift into the same - or maybe a large - wolf at 16th-level than he did at 6th-level. He just gets more abilities when he does so. He doesn't have to turn into a Dinosaur instead because the Dinosaur is so much better - he gets the same abilities anyway.

You don't have to take anything else from Pathfinder. But Druid Wildshape is definetly something that is much improved, both balance- and roleplaying-wise.

[PlusSixPelican]

I'm not the expertiest expert on druids (I've only seen them in a campaign once, and that was five years ago), but one way to nerf something that might not have been mentioned yet is a roleplaying nerf. Like, they *has* to act like a nature-lover would at all times, even if it would be a bad idea. It might not nerf them mechanically at all, buuuut it would basically play out like paladin falling. They have to stick to their alignment (Which is any of the neutral ones, although personally I don't get how a druid would be NE unless they're an eco-terrorist) or else they lose their powers until they atone. xD Does that help at all?

[willpell]

And why can't you have multiple ways the plot could go based on the PC's actions?

Because writing plotlines is a gigantic pile of work, and if the players ignore the plotline that work was completely wasted?


It doesn't replace attributes, it grants a bonus to them. That means that a Druid who neglected his Strength doesn't become just as strong as a Druid who has lots of Strenght when wildshaping.

This seems like it entirely misses the point of shapeshifting. If you turn into a bear, you are supposed to become as strong as a bear, not just slightly stronger than you normally are however much that is.


It also limits you to a few select abilities. That means that it's no longer about choosing the perfect animal - because the abilities you get are not related to the specific animal.

Booo-ring!


It also means - which is nice for roleplayers - that you can stick to one kind of animal you turn into.

That, on the other hand, I do kinda like.


A druid can shift into the same - or maybe a large - wolf at 16th-level than he did at 6th-level. He just gets more abilities when he does so. He doesn't have to turn into a Dinosaur instead because the Dinosaur is so much better - he gets the same abilities anyway.

This part I have mixed feelings about. You shouldn't be able to just sub one form for another with no differences, but you also shouldn't be completely incapable of reflavoring, or picking an option for non-mechanical reasons. Will have to think on how to compromise between these options; some feats or ACFs might be called for, some encouraging you to become a tyrannosaurus-sized bear instead, others rewarding you for mastery of all forms.


Like, they *has* to act like a nature-lover would at all times, even if it would be a bad idea.

This would encourage exactly the kind of bad roleplaying paladins are infamous for. Instead of "oh, you spit out your gum on the street, I kill you in the name of the Law, SMITE EVIL!" it'd be, "oh, you spit out your gum in the woods, I eat you in the name of Nature, HANDLE ANIMAL COMPANION: ATTACK!" Either way it wouldn't encourage players to roleplay, it would just force them to pretend they're roleplaying, even when they're not able/willing to do so, just to avoid being mechanically punished. This is why it's generally better to reward players when they do well, rather than punish them for doing what you don't like.


(Which is any of the neutral ones, although personally I don't get how a druid would be NE unless they're an eco-terrorist)

I have a deep love and fascination for evil druids, for some reason (I'm always fond of going against the class's grain, such as with Chaotic Good warlocks or Evil Monks, but for some reason I adopted the Evil and to a lesser extent Lawful Druids above all other such examples). Some Evil druids are just going to be typically selfish sorts who have simply stumbled upon Nature as a powersource and now protect it for the sake of staying powerful; "dis here forest power is our racket, see, and youse mugs isn't gonna get in on it". But a better idea, to me, is the idea of an "ultimate survivalist", someone who fully adopts the position of Man (or Elf or Gnome or whatever) as the Top of the Food Chain, the master predator upon the entire ecosystem, which is his property and his territory, which he defends through savagery and intimidation because that's what the law of the jungle demands. There are other options too, such as an undead druid who sees death as just the next stage in the evolution of life, or a vermin-and-ooze-loving dungeoneer-druid (probably using the Rootwalker ACF) who considers life to be most true and noble at the most primitive levels, upholding the disease bacterium or the ever-spreading green slime as the ultimate example of natural success.

(I've just decided I'm gonna do a druid/Cancer Mage based on this concept, along with a Good refutation of the idea whose ur-example of an evolutionary success story is domestic wheat, a plant which covers the globe specifically because humanity found it useful.)


Does that help at all?

Not really, other than that it touched off the above paragraph, but I'm glad to have had your input even if I didn't agree with or use it. It's always better to talk this stuff over more, time and energy permitting. :smallbiggrin:

[PlusSixPelican]

OMG I love those brainstorms for evil druids. xD I'm gonna start a thread and see if people want to build one with me~ (I like making characters, even if I wouldn't play them.)

[willpell]

OMG I love those brainstorms for evil druids. xD I'm gonna start a thread and see if people want to build one with me~ (I like making characters, even if I wouldn't play them.)

Same here. One of the things I like about 3.5, actually. Very focused on character-making.

[Augmental]

Because writing plotlines is a gigantic pile of work, and if the players ignore the plotline that work was completely wasted?

Well, that's what you signed up for when you became a DM. It's not supposed to be an easy job.


This seems like it entirely misses the point of shapeshifting. If you turn into a bear, you are supposed to become as strong as a bear, not just slightly stronger than you normally are however much that is.

Becoming as strong as whatever you turn into is a major part of what makes Wild Shape and shape changing so broken.


Booo-ring!

Cherry-picking the best animal is another part of why Wild Shape is "brooo-ken"!

[willpell]

Cherry-picking the best animal is another part of why Wild Shape is "brooo-ken"!

I'd rather have a broken game than a dull one...but really the answer is just to make Wild Shape harder to get into, to account for how powerful it's supposed to be. Place heavy restrictions on what you can get through it, or just have it show up later if you're lazy.

[Serafina]

Yeah, except that you can take ANY form you like.
It's just that you can only get certain abilities. Which means that you aren' vastly more powerful than the other players.
And that list of abilities gets quite long:

burrow 30 feet, climb 90 feet, fly 90 feet (good maneuverability), swim 90 feet, blindsense 30 feet, darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision, scent, constrict, ferocity, grab, jet, poison, pounce, rake, trample, trip, and web.Or in other words:
All forms of movement - swimming, flying, burrowing. Rapid forward movement via water jets while in water.
All forms of perception except Tremorsense.
The ability to coil around enemies and squish them. The ability to fight on when heavily (negative hitpoints) wounded. The ability to easily grapple and then rip enemies apart. Poisonous claws and bites. Pounce. Trampling over enemies and throwing them to the ground while charging. Ensnaring them in webs.

That - well, that seems to cover any ability an animal could have. So i fail to see how that is boring.

Now technically, you're still supposed to pick one animal form and then get all the abilities it has, as long as they are on the list. So a Wolf would get Trip, and a Tiger Pounce and Rake. But it's actually reasonable to modify that, and say be a wolf with pounce. It's certainly easy.

Oh, and you still get a +6 to Strength. That's a LOT, because it stacks with everything else. A Grizzly Bear only has a Strength of 21, a Dire Bear one of 25. A melee-oriented Druid can easily get that with some magic items. A non-melee druid doesn't need it.
So your complaint about not being as strong as the animal you turn into - is also invalid. Yeah, it's not a 1:1 copy you can get even if you normally have a Strength of 6, but so what?

[willpell]

Yeah, it's not a 1:1 copy you can get even if you normally have a Strength of 6, but so what?

So everything, as I already said. You will be less strong than a bear, so why turn into a bear?

[georgie_leech]

I dunno, I don't find writing multiple plot lines too vexxing. I follow the "Top-Down Zoom-In" Method. Basically, the plot, world, characters, and what not are designed only to an extent; the bare bones of a plot, basic descriptors of the world, a rough idea of who the movers and shakers are. Then, based on what the PC's end up doing, build more detail into the world as they go. The game I'm running started with an empire shattered into 5 city-states in a peaceful-but-tense relationship. The players largely gravitated to one of the cities in particular, so it's been considerably more fleshed out than the others. It's got more details on the ruling families, political intrigue, general cultural trends, and other such plot hooks(they've actually gotten involved in a plan for a coup at this point) and flavour. This way the PC's have the freedom to more or less do as they will, and I don't have to to spend weeks coming up with people and places they'll never see :smallwink:

[willpell]

I dunno, I don't find writing multiple plot lines too vexxing. I follow the "Top-Down Zoom-In" Method. Basically, the plot, world, characters, and what not are designed only to an extent; the bare bones of a plot, basic descriptors of the world, a rough idea of who the movers and shakers are.

I have been doing basically this in all my games, and have found it extremely dangerous. By not thinking in advance about the small details, I am unable to provide them when the players need them. I have to know what's behind the door before the door is opened, or else when the player blurts out "I open the door!", I just have to make him wait for about five days while I rack my brain trying to figure out the implications of having any particular person, place or thing behind the door. I can't just say "Okay, it's a mind flayer", because I might well have a plot point some time down the road which requires a player to hear a rumor about how mind flayers were exterminated by the Cerulean Sign, and although I've forgotten that plot point's existence for now, I have six other plot points attached to it which I can't risk destroying, so I have to put the game on hold until I can review my notes.

[Augmental]

I have been doing basically this in all my games, and have found it extremely dangerous. By not thinking in advance about the small details, I am unable to provide them when the players need them. I have to know what's behind the door before the door is opened, or else when the player blurts out "I open the door!", I just have to make him wait for about five days while I rack my brain trying to figure out the implications of having any particular person, place or thing behind the door. I can't just say "Okay, it's a mind flayer", because I might well have a plot point some time down the road which requires a player to hear a rumor about how mind flayers were exterminated by the Cerulean Sign, and although I've forgotten that plot point's existence for now, I have six other plot points attached to it which I can't risk destroying, so I have to put the game on hold until I can review my notes.

You aren't really good at improvisation, are you?

[willpell]

You aren't really good at improvisation, are you?

Huh. Which book is that in? :smallbiggrin:

[Marlowe]

The Art of the Theatre.

[Augmental]

Huh. Which book is that in? :smallbiggrin:

I was serious. Being good at thinking things up on the fly is an important skill for DMs to have. Besides, if the players are in a place where mind flayers would realistically be, they're probably in a dungeon and you should know what's in each room.

[willpell]

I was serious.

I wasn't, hence the smiley.


Being good at thinking things up on the fly is an important skill for DMs to have.

Existing is an even better one, so my players are stuck with me until someone else volunteers to do better than I'm capable of.


Besides, if the players are in a place where mind flayers would realistically be, they're probably in a dungeon and you should know what's in each room.

I have yet to make a single dungeon for my game, specifically because they require such an inordinate amount of effort (and I haven't seen one dungeon in a book that I felt was usable as-written for my gameworld; the published crawls and encounters are all either thick with cliches my setting rejects, or too out-there for my milieu at the current level of play - the neogi spider ship in Lords of Madness was one of the few I thought was cool, but the game is a long way from a level of uberness where I'd be willing to have space aliens becoming part of the plot).

[Augmental]

I have yet to make a single dungeon for my game, specifically because they require such an inordinate amount of effort (and I haven't seen one dungeon in a book that I felt was usable as-written for my gameworld; the published crawls and encounters are all either thick with cliches my setting rejects, or too out-there for my milieu at the current level of play - the neogi spider ship in Lords of Madness was one of the few I thought was cool, but the game is a long way from a level of uberness where I'd be willing to have space aliens becoming part of the plot).

Then why are you worried about having to decide what monster's behind a door on the fly if you don't have any dungeons?

Anyways, if your players, for whatever reason, remember and bring up that mind flayer that was behind that door when you tell them about this theoretical rumor, you can remind them that it's only a rumor.

[willpell]

Then why are you worried about having to decide what monster's behind a door on the fly if you don't have any dungeons?

That was just an example. The whole point of me not knowing what the players are going to pull is that I don't know what they're going to pull.


Anyways, if your players, for whatever reason, remember and bring up that mind flayer that was behind that door when you tell them about this theoretical rumor, you can remind them that it's only a rumor.

The point would be to make them believe the rumor as "possibly true", not instantly dismiss the rumorer as an idiot because they already know the truth.

[Augmental]

That was just an example. The whole point of me not knowing what the players are going to pull is that I don't know what they're going to pull.

Which is why I'd recommend trying to improve your on-the-fly thinking. Just because you're the only DM around doesn't mean you can't improve.


The point would be to make them believe the rumor as "possibly true", not instantly dismiss the rumorer as an idiot because they already know the truth.

Just because they fought a mind flayer once doesn't automatically disprove the rumor. Maybe a few mind flayers managed to hide from the Cerulean Sign.

[Leon]

So it's a strictly optional variant, which nobody will ever use unless forced to, and it still doesn't really solve the problem? Lovely.

Its a great variant for the druid, saves a lot on having to wade through many books to find the "ultimate" combat form by giving a solid fixed choice and the ability to freely get in and out of it when needed rather than be stuck in its shape for hours at a time. Reduces the bog down on turn action's as well with no pet to worry about. Frees up feat choices as well to allow for more flexibility.

All in all a very worthy option to the Druid class and my Go To choice when playing one or suggesting one to someone looking for advice.

[demigodus]

I have been doing basically this in all my games, and have found it extremely dangerous. By not thinking in advance about the small details, I am unable to provide them when the players need them. I have to know what's behind the door before the door is opened, or else when the player blurts out "I open the door!", I just have to make him wait for about five days while I rack my brain trying to figure out the implications of having any particular person, place or thing behind the door. I can't just say "Okay, it's a mind flayer", because I might well have a plot point some time down the road which requires a player to hear a rumor about how mind flayers were exterminated by the Cerulean Sign, and although I've forgotten that plot point's existence for now, I have six other plot points attached to it which I can't risk destroying, so I have to put the game on hold until I can review my notes.

Do your players have True Seeing? Very high spot/listen checks (that you should roll behind your DM screen, after learning the bonuses each of them has)?

It could have been an illusion, someone disguised as a mind flayer, etc.

From what you say of your game, your players don't tend to be very high level, so they should be running from mind flayers. In which case, they won't know that what they actually encountered wasn't a mind flayer.

Although, my approach tends to be in cases like this, to inform them next week that I f***ed up, a mind flayer wasn't supposed to be there.