PF Druid Fix

[Myrddin0001]

would it make the PF druid OP if I ruled they use the D&D 3.5 "polymorph" based wild shape instead of the lame PF "beast shape" based wild shaping? I really REALLY love druids and I was very sad to see that they got nerfed while all the other classes were improved by PF. But one of my players said because of all the other upgrades house ruling wild shape to 3.5 rules might unbalance the PF druid class. Thoughts?

[Khatoblepas]

It would make them incredibly powerful. Druids were already the most powerful class in 3.5, because they had 9th level spells, an animal companion, AND wildshape.

I expect having Wildshape on it's own as a class would be balanced enough, but not on a druid chassis. Heck, Master of Many Forms is good enough for a nonspellcaster, IMO.

[Myrddin0001]

would it make them TOO powerful is what I'm wondering. They are already very badass to the competent player, but would that house rule be like "ok why even bother playing with this guy?"

[Andreaz]

What do you define as too powerful?
Because if it's "more powerful than most classes in the game", they're already "too powerful". Only clerics and wizards (and their equivalents) tie or beat it.

If it's "more powerful than clerics and wizards", yeah, it'd make it too powerful.

[Ashtagon]

would it make them TOO powerful is what I'm wondering. They are already very badass to the competent player, but would that house rule be like "ok why even bother playing with this guy?"

It would raise them a tier. And iirc, they are already tier 1.

[Myrddin0001]

that's what I figured :( well I'l probably play it both ways starting with the PF and see how it pans out.

[Andreaz]

I wouldn't worry about it. Even the current wildshape is pretty good on its own.

[Matticussama]

I wouldn't call the PF changes to Druid a "nerf" so much as "making them less overpowered so they can't make every other class obsolete." They're still a full caster class with shapeshifting, and even in PF are objectively better than any non-caster class by far.

[Edenbeast]

I don't see the PF changes to the druid as a negative, and in my opinion was fully justified. I like these changes and gives the player a reason to think about how he wants to play his druid. Focus more on wildshaping and physical stats, or focus on spellcasting and wisdom. Or maybe dexiterity and wisdom and then wildshape to a spellcasting parrot.
The only thing is that your player needs to understand this too. If he makes a druid with 3.5 in his mind; trying to be good at everything, then he'll end up being average at everything..

[AttilaTheGeek]

Why would you ever give the druid more buffs? Even in Pathfinder, druids are still tier 1.

[eggynack]

It would raise them a tier. And iirc, they are already tier 1.
It would make the class more powerful, but only up to the level of the currently existing druid which is tier one. When it comes to 3.5 druids, you basically have a tier five class in the animal companion, stapled to a tier three class in the wildshape, stapled to a tier one class in the casting aspect. However, the addition of a tier five class to the capabilities of a tier three class doesn't raise it to tier two, and adding the capabilities of a tier three class to a tier one class doesn't make it a tier zero class.
Thus, in answer to the OP's question, wildshape has a meaningful impact on druidic power level, but the druid with regular wildshape is about as powerful as the druid with PF wildshape relatively speaking. If a druid is overpowered in your campaign, then it'll be overpowered no matter what type of wildshape it has.

[Spuddles]

Old school wild shaping will mean your druid will go from mediocre combatant back to fights as well as a fighter, has a pet fighter, summons more fighters, and can cast spells.

If you really want to make martial classes feel inconsequential, sure buff wildshape. But as it is, it merely makes the druid "great" not "stupidly great".

Also, I would be careful with how old wildshape interacts with the new universal monster rules.

[Gnaeus]

Honestly, if you gave me a Pathfinder druid and gave me a choice of which 1 3.5 rule I wanted to use for maximum character awesomeness, I would say:
1 (favorite): The 3.5 Summon Natures Ally table. In 3.5 SNA is better for some purposes than the same level SM, in PF it is almost always much worse.
2: The 3.5 share spell rules. The PF rules are much weaker, and even the Improved Share Spells feat that you can take at 10th level is still weaker than the 3.5 rules.
3 (least favorite). 3.5 wildshape.

In pretty much that order.

[Urpriest]

While 3.5 wasn't good at this either, Pathfinder monsters are definitely not built with the idea that any of their abilities can be hijacked by PCs. You'd have to vet every monster, and every new one when a book comes out.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think that since PF did not design their monsters with the assumption that players could literally turn into them (and paizo's shoddy...nay, terrible ability to comprehend game balance anyway), that it would possibly be broken just because it wasn't considered and the numbers of monster str, nat armor, etc... likely have even less of a rhyme or reason than 3E's did.

I did make a Ranger "Master of Many Forms" archetype (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=5591.0) that gets 3E style wildshape, but....that's on a ranger chasis. A ranger chasis that also loses much of its class features for it.

[sonofzeal]

I recently played a PF Druid in a low level game, and.....

- Wildshape was not worth using in combat. I went with high physical stats with precisely that in mind, but found that wildshape significantly reduced both my offence and defence. It got a little better with Beast Shape II and III, but I'd have to make a major feat investment to make it worthwhile.

- Summon Nature's Ally was horrid. I tried looking online for help in choosing viable summons, but Treantmonk's guide (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/treatmonks-lab/druid-handbook-part-3) is full of inaccuracies, with virtually all the options worth using not actually being legal. He has Riding Dogs when it should be regular dogs, and Giant Ant Drones when it should be Giant Ant Workers. The remainders offer some minor utility, but severely limited combat power. Given that the whole difference between SM and SNA in 3.5 was that the former had more utility and the latter had more brute force, removing the brute force from the equation leaves SNA generally not worth the actions to use it.

- I ended up doing alright, mostly because I was a half-orc with Greataxe proficiency, the "Growth" subdomain, and 18 strength at lvl 1. Up to lvl 4 or so, I was one-shotting almost everything, but I could have done that with almost any class. Druid toys were nice to have around, but I could have done better as a Cleric or Ranger or Barbarian. Maybe it changes at higher level, but nothing I saw encouraged me about potential Druid power in PF.


Conclusion: I have to agree with those who say it got "over-nerfed". However, Wildshape isn't the main offender, SNA is. I'd be far happier to see their SNA list returned to its former glory. That's just as fundamental a Druid skill, and is far less build-intensive to use. The PF take on Wildshape may be a bit nerf, but it's also more reasonable. The only change I'd make might be allowing defensive magic items to work in Wildshape form. But SNA takes priority, imo.

[navar100]

It would be overpowered by default not because of "Druid! Aaah! Tier 1! Game Broken!" but precisely because Pathfinder reworked the entirety of how polymorphing is done. Pathfinder purposely made all polymorphing into gaining specific stat score boosts and abilities depending upon the level of the spell used or the class ability equivalent referencing it. With everyone following those rules but you having the druid ignore them to get any stat score and any ability willy nilly, you give the druid an unfair advantage.

It is a feature, not a bug, the Pathfinder made druid a bit less powerful than 3E druid due to how wildshape works. The druid has not become pathetic because of it. The wildshaping druid can still be a formidable combatant. What wildshaping does is give the druid comparable physical ability scores to the warrior classes rather than far superior. If a druid character has a natural 18 Strength already before wildshaping, hooray.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Sonofzeal is absolutely correct on SNA, it is horrifically nerfed and I don't know why. It's especially odd because of how much SM was buffed (side effect of the huge buff to smite evil; also note how the levels changed on things - lantern archons are SM TWO in pathfinder!).

I also think animal companion was seriously over-nerfed. Which, again, is odd given how the PF eidolon is MASSIVELY more powerful than a 3E animal companion was.

Wildshape....yes, it's nerfed. Though it does also have some advantages. Having items continue to function is a nice buff and saves a ton of wilding clasp costs. You also get elemental forms much earlier and more often than in 3E - Huge elemental is available at 12th level! Yeah, you don't get the actual stats.... you still get a 120 ft fly speed as an air elemental and so forth, and the size and reach. Not a bad deal, all in all. You also get Wildshape 1 level earlier and Natural Spell 1 level earlier, and large pouncing cat forms levels earlier. That really is a helpful boost for getting through the low levels.

I don't think giving them 3E wildshape back in and of itself would break druid.... they really are the weakest tier 1 in PF; being better at replacing the fighter wouldn't suddenly make the wizard look like dog crap. I do think the fact it wasn't planned for could be abused, though. And while druid is a weak tier 1....it's still tier 1. Not terribly inclined to buff them.

[sonofzeal]

And while druid is a weak tier 1....it's still tier 1. Not terribly inclined to buff them.
I dunno. Of the four signature Druid abilities (summons, Wildshape, Companion, general spellcasting), all four got hit pretty hard. Summons and Companion got nerfed into nigh-uselessness except as secondary utility, Wildshape is much less useful at most levels and requires a lot more resources to make viable, and the spell list suffers too with the loss of many of the longer-duration buffs as well as the big combat buffs like Bite of the XYZ or Brambles.

What you're left with is, in my limited experience, a whole lot closer to T2. A lvl 20 Druid can still shatter your campaign, but so can a Healer or Truenamer, and at the levels I saw the Druid chassis was contributing more like a T3 Factotum than anything else.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's possible they're tier 2. I thought if you could change your spells each day and your list didn't suck, you were automatically tier 1. I personally think distinguishing between tier 1 and 2 is pointless as both can easily destroy a game and at that point, the number of ways doesn't really matter. The tier distinction assumes a game where a DM is desperately playing whack-a-mole with the prepared caster's new broken trick, which...is not terribly realistic in actual games.

Aaaaanyway.... tier 1 or 2, I still am hesitant to buff them at all. IMO, anything in the top tiers shouldn't get any help at all, and what should be done is nerfing all the other casters down back to the druid's level. Of course, PF actually buffed the wizard and sorcerer significantly, and buffed the cleric slightly, then added more broken casters to the mix in the form of Witch, Summoner, and Oracle...

I have also played a PF Druid, though it was a) high levels b) with 3E material allowed and c) gestalt, so I can't really claim it as representative of the class. But wildshape seemed fairly fine to me. Obviously much weaker than in 3E, but the stat buffs and special abilities still were better than a Barbarian's rage and lasted all day w/o having to worry about negative after effects. I think in PF, you have to build your druid based on the levels the game is being played at. If sticking to low-mid levels, build around natural attacks and go with the beast shapes and pounce. If going mid-high levels, you should focus on the elemental shapes and fight with weaponry, treating wildshape strictly as a means to get big stat buffs and other perks like flight. Again, you max out on elemental form at only level 12, so it's not a long wait if starting beyond the low levels.

[Spuddles]

I'm playing with a PF druid that uses 3x spells and feats, from level 1 to 6. Between a wolf with barding, flame sphere, and a long bow, she contributes as much to combat as anyone else. Entangle is still amazing. Turning into an eagle that casts spells is pretty unfair. Metamagic rod empower and produce flame is very solid, reliable damage to things being rolled over by entangle. Oh and sleet storm is also fantastic.

Survival, knowledge nature, perception, and an AC with scent and the new track rules has been very valuable for overlanding.

Of all the characters in our game, the druid is most soundly using only PF material, and she easily contributes as much as our cleric or sorcerer, and far far more than the rogue or paladin.

It's definitely not a 3.5 druid with fleshraker, etc, but still very respectable. Definitely top of the pile.

Oh and I would like to point out that the marginal buffs sorc/wiz recieve are mostly made up by the huge nerfs alter self, web, grease, and glitterdust took. Havent played above 6th level in PF, and calling still looks busted, but the virtual loss of those spells is quite noticeable.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Bull***. They weren't marginal buffs, and there are still win spells at every level. Less choices, but still plenty. Dazing Spell feat turns any damage spell into a save or lose, too.

Wizards being able to cast prohibited schools, prohibit divination, and take a feat to un-prohibit a school on its own is a pretty hefty buff and increase in versatility.

Also? Web was barely nerfed at all, and Grease was buffed. Your own examples aren't terribly convincing.

[Psyren]

No, Grease was actually nerfed if you take the Balance changes into account. Also, they don't have to repeat the save or make any checks at all if they don't move even if they stay in the area, unlike 3.5 Grease, making it weaker for the caster in PF.

Also, the nerfs to Druid are acceptable. I agree that SNA isn't what it was, but for the rest, casters should have to work harder than they did in 3.5 to be able to replace the Fighter, and that was a goal PF did accomplish. Your physical stats actually matter, and it's a lot harder to turn into something that has Fast Healing or Regeneration handy to keep you patched up in a fight.

[Spuddles]

Bull***. They weren't marginal buffs, and there are still win spells at every level. Less choices, but still plenty. Dazing Spell feat turns any damage spell into a save or lose, too.

there is no win spell at first, other than maybe entangle, which is situational at best. Well sleep and color spray, but again limitations, and not much changed.

Second has create pit, that's it.

Dazing spell requires 4th level spells to get off (unless using wayang spell hunter/magical lineage), and even then, it'll be capped at 5 damage dice and daze for one round. Sounds identical to wings of flurry, except worse. Soooo, complete wash. Pretty sure we can find somewhere in 3.5 a low damage spell that denies actions on a failed save on everyone's list. Pretty sure cleric gets like unholy blight or something.


Wizards being able to cast prohibited schools, prohibit divination, and take a feat to un-prohibit a school on its own is a pretty hefty buff and increase in versatility.

absolutely, but more bad spells isn't worth the trade off imo.


Also? Web was barely nerfed at all, and Grease was buffed. Your own examples aren't terribly convincing.

Using CMB to escape from stuff gives monsters a MUCH higher chance of escape at low levels. A flat str check meant even hill giants had problems. 3.5, hill giant broke free 35% of the time. Now they break out 75%.

With rolling balance into acrobatics and expansion of skills, many more monsters have ranks in acrobatics. Which means grease no longer autoshuts down most monsters. It also doesn't force a reflex vs prone every round. You can stand and fight in pf grease without penalty, unlike 3.5 grease which made you flat footed.

[StreamOfTheSky]

there is no win spell at first...Well sleep and color spray

Right....moving on, then.


Second has create pit, that's it.

Pyrotechnics. Hideous Laughter. Unnatural Lust (have the monster run up to kiss the Fighter). Darkness (in PF darkvision sees in it; so foes w/o darkvision auto-lose). Command Undead. Skinsend + Touch Injection (Alchemists only).


Dazing spell requires 4th level spells to get off (unless using wayang spell hunter/magical lineage), and even then, it'll be capped at 5 damage dice and daze for one round. Sounds identical to wings of flurry, except worse. Soooo, complete wash. Pretty sure we can find somewhere in 3.5 a low damage spell that denies actions on a failed save on everyone's list. Pretty sure cleric gets like unholy blight or something.

Why would a caster *not* use those traits if they plan to use dazing spell? And there are also metamagic rods. Wings of Flurry was an overpowered spell as well, but at least it was a single spell (and one available only to sorcerors and not every caster in the game, at that), and one that required getting relatively close to the victims to use. PF lets any damage spell become wings of flurry, you can even customize the save it applies to (though Reflex-based is the best choice; fort and will are already pretty covered by other spells). You don't have to just use instant damage spells; my favorite target for Dazing is Ball Lightning or Aqueous Orb. BFC spells that do damage each round arguably trigger the daze effect each round, too.
If you cannot see the massive amount of save-or-die versatility this one feat added to every caster's repertoire, I really don't know what to say...



absolutely, but more bad spells isn't worth the trade off imo.
I don't even know what your counterpoint here is.... You prohibit divination and something else.... You use off-days to do your divining just fine. Level 10, you cross the other school off your list of prohibited schools. Or you do the elemental school specialization ot only have *one* opposed school, then buy it off at 10th and have none at all.
Every school has good spells that are painful to never be able to cast. Even evocation. A PF wizard never has to know this pain.


Using CMB to escape from stuff gives monsters a MUCH higher chance of escape at low levels. A flat str check meant even hill giants had problems. 3.5, hill giant broke free 35% of the time. Now they break out 75%.

Web's useful shelf life is certainly much shorter in PF than 3E, no question. I think youre picking out an outlier, in general the chance of escape isn't much different for most creatures at low levels. I said PF's Web is arguably stronger because despite the easier escape, it does have one major leg up: in PF those that fail the save become grappled. Which in PF means casting spells becomes nearly impossible (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), so the spell is useful both for halting melee guys and shutting down casters (well, other than wizards, who will tend to be Teleport conjurors...). Again, *arguably* stronger, I'm not sure if it is or not.


Grease: Before I dive in, I feel the need to point out the buff mentioned. The duration is min/level, so it is a great spell and worth preparing/knowing at all times, right from 1st level. Maybe it's me, but I place much higher weight on how well an offensive low level spell works at low levels than I do at higher levels.


With rolling balance into acrobatics and expansion of skills, many more monsters have ranks in acrobatics. Which means grease no longer autoshuts down most monsters.

Some more, not many. And DC 10 seriously wasn't that hard for anyone that gave a damn about not being crippled by grease. Grease in PF will still work well at low levels against anything, and at higher levels... if a grease can ruin their day, it's a joke encounter anyway, because ground-pounder melee monsters cease being a threat by mid levels other than in confined spaces. And even then, you have lots of other options to neuter them.


It also doesn't force a reflex vs prone every round.

Maybe it's just my experience, but.... in 3E if a monster *doesn't* fall down immediately, he makes a point of getting out of the grease right away anyway. *shrug*


You can stand and fight in pf grease without penalty, unlike 3.5 grease which made you flat footed.

Right, and this - like many things in PF - is a severe nerf to the rogue. The wizard doesn't care. The argument was that spells were nerfed such that casters were weakened, right?