Splitting the druid into two classes.

[Devronq]

Ive heard lots of people mention how the druid is soo good and has soo many class features that he would still be great if his abilties were split into two classes instead of just one.
I assume that this means one class has the druids wildshape and animal companion and the other has the casting and other class features? or how would you divide the two parts up in detail? This is for the purpose of balance and a rewrite.
As a second thought though if you think this is just a bad idea and maybe i should keep it as one class and maybe weaker other features or something let me know. Thank you guys :)

[Devronq]

also on a realated note i was looking at the feat, fast wild shape, and it says as a prereq that you need the ability to turn into a dire animal. It doesnt look like the druid grants that on its own so how to you qualify for this?

http://dndtools.eu/feats/masters-of-the-wild-a-guidebook-to-barbarians-druids-and-rangers--44/fast-wild-shape--1083/

link

[eggynack]

You're looking at the 3.0 version of the feat. The 3.5 version is in complete divine, and its prerequisites are just a dexterity of 13, and the ability to wild shape. I'd just skip both and pick up a mantle of the beast (CC, 140). For 18,000 GP, it lets you wild shape as a swift action, and gives your natural weapons a +1 to attack and damage while wild shape'd.

As for your main question, druid casting could easily be its own class, as could the wild shape, and effectively the animal companion as well. I'd split the class into three. There would be spell casting as one class, a class with wild shape, perhaps with its progression extended to level one as the second class, and a ranger with a druid's animal companion as the third class. They'd all be pretty reasonable classes in general.

Edit: Also, the mantle sticks around in a wild shape, which is cool. You can stick some abilities on it, and you don't need wilding clasp to keep those abilities.

[Crasical]

The druid has 3 main factors that make it good: Wild Shape, Casting, and Animal Companion. The rest is so negligible for this exercise we can ignore it.

The problem is that if you leave Druid casting on it's own you suddenly have a weird specialist cleric. If you add animal companion or wild shape to that, you don't have enough left for a compelling single class with the sole remaining feature.

[Devronq]

You're looking at the 3.0 version of the feat. The 3.5 version is in complete divine, and its prerequisites are just a dexterity of 13, and the ability to wild shape. I'd just skip both and pick up a mantle of the beast (CC, 140). For 18,000 GP, it lets you wild shape as a swift action, and gives your natural weapons a +1 to attack and damage while wild shape'd.

As for your main question, druid casting could easily be its own class, as could the wild shape, and effectively the animal companion as well. I'd split the class into three. There would be spell casting as one class, a class with wild shape, perhaps with its progression extended to level one as the second class, and a ranger with a druid's animal companion as the third class. They'd all be pretty reasonable classes in general.

Edit: Also, the mantle sticks around in a wild shape, which is cool. You can stick some abilities on it, and you don't need wilding clasp to keep those abilities.

Hmm thank you for your advice, but id like to try and keep them as two classes. Which would you say is the weakest of these 3 features? (spellcasting, wildshape, companion) maybe do something like spellcasting+companion and wildshape+companion?

[MonochromeTiger]

Ive heard lots of people mention how the druid is soo good and has soo many class features that he would still be great if his abilties were split into two classes instead of just one.
I assume that this means one class has the druids wildshape and animal companion and the other has the casting and other class features? or how would you divide the two parts up in detail? This is for the purpose of balance and a rewrite.
As a second thought though if you think this is just a bad idea and maybe i should keep it as one class and maybe weaker other features or something let me know. Thank you guys :)

I've kind of heard that too but then at the same time whenever all the class features are brought up I keep hearing a very clear "well they're useless without spells so just don't let them use natural spell", it's disturbing really that people feel spells make the class so powerful that they will just laugh off wildshape and thousand faces (which I personally LOVE to use for combat and social encounters) because druids get a bit of generalized divine casting. but anyway I'll attempt to be slightly helpful at least, the druid class features I'm used to are from pathfinder in which wild shape has set values of stat changes by size category and you're forced to choose between animal companion or domain spells (if someone chooses domain spells they disappoint me on a personal level), combat features for the class seem to be spells, wild shape, and some immunities/saving throw bonuses to certain effects. non combat features seem to be wild shape, spells (both are dependent on how you use them), thousand faces, and wild empathy. if you're going to split the class that really isn't an astounding amount to work with.

personally if you really intend to I'd agree split by casting and wild shape, remove the wild shape like spells from the spell list including shape change and put those instead as spell like abilities on wild shape druid progression to make sure it doesn't end its usefulness in keeping up with the rest of the group too quickly, give the spell casting druid a bit more of a natural spell slant than it has (for instance it doesn't have chain lightning for whatever reason even though it has spells to use lightning), give spell druid domains (excluding animal ones) and wild shape druid animal companion, keep the other features between both and change stat weighting appropriately for wild shape druid to focus on str/dex over wis. that way you have the often called for split of "they can cast spells or they can turn into big animals and dragons and things" without wild shape druids becoming yet another trivialized flavorless melee. fluff wise it would simply be the split between those tied to nature in general or those tied to animals.

[JoshuaZ]

Druid casting by itself would still be T1, but it would be a clearly weaker T1 than either the cleric or the wizard.

A druid with just wildshape and an animal companion would function effectively as a low T4 focused on combat. The main thing that pushes it up from T5 to T4 is that one can easily get another animal companion if it dies, so one can be substantially riskier with it, and given time you can even change the companion based on specific goals of a situation. There's an argument that wildshape is enough to push it up to T3 since one has so many creatures to choose from. I'm not sure if I buy that, and this might turn out to be one of those situations where the tier system is an imperfect classification.

But even a low T1 by itself with a T4 grafted on is a lot.

Note that this analysis completely ignores the other minor goodies a druid gets, since they don't do much, but they could if thrown on to the wildshape half help push it up to T3.

[eggynack]

Hmm thank you for your advice, but id like to try and keep them as two classes. Which would you say is the weakest of these 3 features? (spellcasting, wildshape, companion) maybe do something like spellcasting+companion and wildshape+companion?
That's pretty easy. Spell casting is a tier one ability, with the wild shape as a tier three ability, and the companion as a tier five ability. Pair off the wild shape and companion if you really need to have two classes. You could even toss all of the random druid class features onto the wild shape/companion druid, and it still wouldn't even be close.

[Deophaun]

Basically, if you want a wild shape focused class, you take Ranger and pick up with Wild Shape ACF

If you want to focus the druid more on spell casting, you take the Shapeshift ACF from PHBII.

[MonochromeTiger]

Hmm thank you for your advice, but id like to try and keep them as two classes. Which would you say is the weakest of these 3 features? (spellcasting, wildshape, companion) maybe do something like spellcasting+companion and wildshape+companion?

spellcasting + companion winds up with a spellcaster who has a built in tank following them around, wildshape + companion winds up with 2 animal based melee at equal risk in the fight, animal companion on its own = "well I could've been a ranger but I decided I didn't want any of those silly 'useful' things I keep hearing about". animal companion is pretty much the least versatile while still being part of the druid class' flavor as there's very little you can do with it aside from combat.

[demigodus]

Basically, if you want a wild shape focused class, you take Ranger and pick up with Wild Shape ACF

If you want to focus the druid more on spell casting, you take the Shapeshift ACF from PHBII.

Actually wildshape ranger has worse wildshaping than druid. And worse animal companion.

Unless you are PrC'ing out into Master of Many Forms or something, druid > ranger for wildshap focus

[MonochromeTiger]

Basically, if you want a wild shape focused class, you take Ranger and pick up with Wild Shape ACF

If you want to focus the druid more on spell casting, you take the Shapeshift ACF from PHBII.

........your loyalty to ranger disturbs me.

[JoshuaZ]

Basically, if you want a wild shape focused class, you take Ranger and pick up with Wild Shape ACF


Are you making a fluff comment here? From an optimization standpoint, ranger with wild shape seems substantially less optimal than a regular druid. The only major advantage is the lack of alignment restriction.

[Harbinger]

The class with the wildshape and animal companion would be called "the ranger". It would be like the wildshape ranger except no restriction and you get combat style.

[MonochromeTiger]

The class with the wildshape and animal companion would be called "the ranger". It would be like the wildshape ranger except no restriction and you get combat style.

please stop getting your ranger germs in my wildshape druid, people can have animal companions without being a ranger and it's really annoying that ranger always seems to take things druids have as unique in just about every game and say "nope, ours".

[Deophaun]

Are you making a fluff comment here? From an optimization standpoint, ranger with wild shape seems substantially less optimal than a regular druid. The only major advantage is the lack of alignment restriction.
I thought that was the point? Break up the druid for the sake of balance. So, you get rid of the druid in the PHB, and direct people who want to play with wild shape to the wild shape ranger variant. It's not as optimal as the straight druid because it's not supposed to be.

[eggynack]

The class with the wildshape and animal companion would be called "the ranger". It would be like the wildshape ranger except no restriction and you get combat style.
Close, but not quite. I would advance the ranger's animal companion to equal that of the current druid, because the fact that the ranger gets the worse animal companion is absurd. Otherwise, yeah, the ranger is already a hell of a lot like a worse druid, so a weakened druid is often going to end up looking like a ranger.

[MonochromeTiger]

I thought that was the point? Break up the druid for the sake of balance. So, you get rid of the druid in the PHB, and direct people who want to play with wild shape to the wild shape ranger variant. It's not as optimal as the straight druid because it's not supposed to be.

it's already less optimal by taking the spells out, ranger has more combat specific features than a wild shape druid would but nerfing wild shape, the main point of flavor that makes druids anywhere near unique in most settings, just to further spite the already split off casting part just seems...eh..

[Deophaun]

it's already less optimal by taking the spells out, ranger has more combat specific features than a wild shape druid would but nerfing wild shape, the main point of flavor that makes druids anywhere near unique in most settings, just to further spite the already split off casting part just seems...eh..
It's a solid tier 3 class and already exists, so I don't really see the problem.

[Snowbluff]

It's a solid tier 3 class and already exists, so I don't really see the problem.

Well, other than being a nerfed druid in every way, you can also just play a Divine Minion Master of Many Forms.

[Devronq]

well i want to make the non casting half a solid tier 3. I want to give the casting side something, even just fluff wise i dont want him to be a divine caster with 20 dead levels, he needs something. But i want to make sure the other side is a strong tier 3, it seems you guys dont entirely agree it is, so what else should he get maybe on the non casting side?

[MonochromeTiger]

well i want to make the non casting half a solid tier 3. I want to give the casting side something, even just fluff wise i dont want him to be a divine caster with 20 dead levels, he needs something. But i want to make sure the other side is a strong tier 3, it seems you guys dont entirely agree it is, so what else should he get maybe on the non casting side?

I already gave the one idea I really had, think I should drop out of the thread since my very obvious wild shape bias is showing.

[JoshuaZ]

I thought that was the point? Break up the druid for the sake of balance. So, you get rid of the druid in the PHB, and direct people who want to play with wild shape to the wild shape ranger variant. It's not as optimal as the straight druid because it's not supposed to be.

It is possible that I misread what you wrote when you said "Basically, if you want a wild shape focused class, you take Ranger and pick up with Wild Shape ACF" I interpreted it as "you" being a player rather than "you" being a DM interested in having a balanced result. I take it this was a misinterpretation?

[eggynack]

It is possible that I misread what you wrote when you said "Basically, if you want a wild shape focused class, you take Ranger and pick up with Wild Shape ACF" I interpreted it as "you" being a player rather than "you" being a DM interested in having a balanced result. I take it this was a misinterpretation?
I think it was both. The DM, interested in having a balanced result, would guide the player, interested in playing a wild shape focused class, to the wild shape ranger.

[Devronq]

I already gave the one idea I really had, think I should drop out of the thread since my very obvious wild shape bias is showing.

You advice was quite useful thank you :)

Anyways so i was thinking something like this then?

Druid
Side 1
Full casting but no spells that are similar to wildshape
Give domains?
No thousand faces
Medium bab
Good will

Side 2
No spell casting but gains the wildshape type spells as SPL abilities
Wildshaping
Animal companion
Yes thousand faces
Full bab
Good fort and ref

Then both get all the other druid class features as they aren’t super amazing

What you guys think?

[eggynack]

I'd probably skip the part where you move the transformation spells onto the wild shape list, as well as the domain thing. It might be a good idea to split up the minor features somewhat too, just because the point of the features is basically game feel, so having that part of the classes be duplicates of each other makes little sense. The casting class should definitely get resist nature's lure and timeless body, and maybe woodland stride and nature sense. Wild empathy fits with the AC, venom immunity fits with general toughness, a thousand faces fits with wild shape, and trackless step kinda matches with the ranger-ness of the class, so those would go on that wild shape druid. That's probably how I'd break them down, but shifting is possible.

[DarkSonic1337]

If I had the Druid's wildshaping, master of many faces, and animal companion...that would make me happy. Mix in a little totemist and have a blast.

[Firechanter]

please stop getting your ranger germs in my wildshape druid, people can have animal companions without being a ranger and it's really annoying that ranger always seems to take things druids have as unique in just about every game and say "nope, ours".

I guess this was supposed to be in blue. Pets originally were a Ranger-only Feature, then 3e Druid came and stole it and 3.5 only left the Ranger with a half-assed useless toy.

ontopic, how I would do and rate it:

A) Spellcasting + half-level Pet = T1

B) Wild Shape alone = T3

and give Ranger a full-level pet.

[Devronq]

If I had the Druid's wildshaping, master of many faces, and animal companion...that would make me happy. Mix in a little totemist and have a blast.

whats good about master of many faces? Im not sure what that does.

[Devronq]

Another thought i already made a ranger change and i guess these 2 druids plus a ranger might be too much overlap so what if i only took away the wildshape and gave it to ranger and gave the ranger and druid a full animal companion? thoughts?

[MonochromeTiger]

Another thought i already made a ranger change and i guess these 2 druids plus a ranger might be too much overlap so what if i only took away the wildshape and gave it to ranger and gave the ranger and druid a full animal companion? thoughts?

just came back to say "blarg righteous indignant rage, I'm gonna go start a secret club with no rangers allowed *continues to act like a child*" carry on good sir.

[DarkSonic1337]

whats good about master of many faces? Im not sure what that does.

My bad it's called A Thousand Faces (Su).

It's at will supernatural non-illusion disguise self (as the spell). That's just nifty, and it makes sense on the guy who can already transform into a bunch of animals to be able to change how their humanoid form looks too.

[Phelix-Mu]

Alright, so I read the OP and a couple of other posts. Sorry if I cover old ground; apparently too lazy to read the whole thing.

Here's my take:

This is a good idea, but I'd do it slightly differently.

Class Concept 1: THE SUMMONER. The summoner has a subset of the druid spell list focused on summons and buffs to summons, the spontaneous summoning, and the Animal Companion. Loses Wild Shape, AoE stuff, shapechanging stuff, and other direct damage and save-or-die/suck and most BFC (might want to leave a few BFC to aid in supporting the summons). I'd probably drop the HD down to d6 to emphasize a non-front line caster.

Class Concept 2: THE DRUID. The Druid has access to almost all of the druid spell list except SNA and a few of the better buffs for summoned animals (animal growth, nature's avatar, etc), and Wild Shape. In this case, you might even add in a few wild shape perks...maybe move up the level (tiny) comes online, or something of the sort. Focuses on shapechanging and casting discreetly, or on direct combat (if desired). Loses Animal Companion, spontaneous summoning.

[Devronq]

just came back to say "blarg righteous indignant rage, I'm gonna go start a secret club with no rangers allowed *continues to act like a child*" carry on good sir.

Again man i like your idea i was just addressing all thoughts on the concept.

"My bad it's called A Thousand Faces (Su).

It's at will supernatural non-illusion disguise self (as the spell). That's just nifty, and it makes sense on the guy who can already transform into a bunch of animals to be able to change how their humanoid form looks too. "

Oh i thought there was a PRC called master of many faces and thats what you were talking about :P. (Isnt there? or maybe its master of many forms or something like that?

To Phelix-Mu

I like your idea as well but i have a feeling this would make the class very vulnerable to dispelling as his only form of "attack" would be summons as you would probably want the AC to be your body guard and stay close, maybe im over thinking it though.

[MonochromeTiger]

Again man i like your idea i was just addressing all thoughts on the concept.


I understand that, wasn't using it to yell at you. it was 90% joke and 10% barely restrained hatred of rangers due to previous experiences :P

[Deophaun]

I take it this was a misinterpretation?
Yup. It was directed at the OP who wants to split the class. But, he apparently doesn't like Rangers. Probably due to a bad experience with Chuck Norris.

[MonochromeTiger]

Yup. It was directed at the OP who wants to split the class. But, he apparently doesn't like Rangers. Probably due to a bad experience with Chuck Norris.

yes, because an army wash-out turned actor turned internet meme obviously completely defines the class that I've never managed to find a nice player of. it can't possibly be because every time I've played druid and someone has played ranger they've inevitably wound up going "well..I should be able to do that too" at whoever is DMing because they can't think of an inventive way to use what they have....and I'm off again so I don't drag down an otherwise perfectly good thread.

[Phelix-Mu]

To Phelix-Mu

I like your idea as well but i have a feeling this would make the class very vulnerable to dispelling as his only form of "attack" would be summons as you would probably want the AC to be your body guard and stay close, maybe im over thinking it though.

Hmm. Dispelling might be an issue. But, with spontaneous summoning, you really only have to worry about going up against lots of spellcasters or enemies with at will dispel SLAs. The AC is excellent backup, and I did mention that there would likely be one or two battlefield control spells in there, which could be used to ward attackers away from the summoner, or to block line of sight between the dispeller and the summons. Otherwise, I'd mainly suggest just summoning multiple creatures with the summoning and having them spread out. I think a dispel needs to hit each creature individually, so if you can keep them outside the radius of the AoE dispel, one or two should still be able to attack the target. And while that is going on, spam more summoning. Of course, earth elementals can be darn hard to dispel while they are earthgliding.

[Dread_Head]

Oh i thought there was a PRC called master of many faces and thats what you were talking about :P. (Isnt there? or maybe its master of many forms or something like that?



There is a prc called Master of Many Forms (Complete Adventurer) and while a little lacklustre on a druid as it loses casting it is very good on a wild shape ranger as it gives access to forms beyond the small and medium that WS Rangers normally get.

[Spore]

Shifter: Getting Animal Companion 2/3 casting and improved wildshaping (e.g. Druid level +2), getting wild enchantment for free on say, lv 8.

Guardian of Balance: Getting full casting, choose between companion and domain (see pathfinder), 1 minute/druid level wildshape (level -2).

[BBJimmy]

In our games, we don't use the druid or ranger as written. If the player wants to play druid, we ask them "What about them do you want to be, the nature-based spellcaster or the shape-shifting werebeast?"

If they want to be a caster, we direct them to the Spirit Shaman. If they want to be a shifter, they can play a Wildshape Ranger (our version loses fighting styles and spellcasting, but gains full druid wildshape and animal companion).

If they want to be a ranger (a la ranged nature stealth fighter), we direct them to fighter (who make surprisingly good ranged fighters!), scout, or wilderness rogue. Between those classes and their alternate class features, the core ranger is superfluous.

Obviously, this won't work for everyone, but it's made us happy for years! :smallbiggrin:

[AstralFire]

In our games, we don't use the druid or ranger as written. If the player wants to play druid, we ask them "What about them do you want to be, the nature-based spellcaster or the shape-shifting werebeast?"

If they want to be a caster, we direct them to the Spirit Shaman. If they want to be a shifter, they can play a Wildshape Ranger (our version loses fighting styles and spellcasting, but gains full druid wildshape and animal companion).

If they want to be a ranger (a la ranged nature stealth fighter), we direct them to fighter (who make surprisingly good ranged fighters!), scout, or wilderness rogue. Between those classes and their alternate class features, the core ranger is superfluous.

Obviously, this won't work for everyone, but it's made us happy for years! :smallbiggrin:

I do something very similar. And were it ever to come up that someone wants to do the mixture of stuff that the core druid does, my plan is to allow them to cast spontaneously as a bard with Druid Spells at Spell Level - 1 (roughly, adjust on a per spell ratio), with half wildshape and animal companion as a core ranger. I'm sure there are better finessed solutions, but I can't be arsed to homebrew solutions to hypothetical problems these days.

[wayfare]

I tried to make a class like that a while back. Here are my efforts, feel free to take or discard whatever you'd like:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10031421&postcount=1

Brew on, goodsir, brew on!

[Sgt. Cookie]

No love for Mystic Ranger?


Yes, it's Dragon Mag, but if we look past that, and then combine it with the Wildshape Ranger, we have a low-tier Druid right there.

[JoshuaZ]

No love for Mystic Ranger?



Which number is it in and can you summarize roughly what it does?

[Jlerpy]

Prestige Class. Problem solved. :P

[DarkSonic1337]

Which number is it in and can you summarize roughly what it does?

It's a variant in dragon magazine #336 page 105. You trade your animal companion and slow down your combat style feats (and endurance) for faster spellcasting. They also lose their melee martial weapon and shield proficiencies.

They start at level 0 spells and cap out at 5th level spells BY LEVEL 10!, but they get their combat style feats at 3rd, 7th, and 12th level. His 0th level spells are create water, cure minor wounds, flare, guidance, know direction, light, mending, purify food and drink, resistance, and virtue. His 5th level spells are awaken, baleful polymorph, cure critical wounds, control winds, summon nature's ally V, and wall of thorns. His 1st-4th level spells are just the ranger spells.

It's pretty cool.