Druid balance question

[Deathcow]

If you disallowed the Natural Spell feat, does that completely nerf Druids or does it just cut them down to about the level of the other classes? I haven't played Druids that much, so I don't know, but I'm wondering about game balance etc.

[Gamebird]

Imagine a primary caster:
d4 hit points (druids get d8)
2+INT skills (druids get 4+INT)
Animal companion limited to Tiny and Diminutive (druids get Medium and Large)
Losing animal companion might cost you 100s of xp (druids have no penalty)
Your animal companion changes to a magical beast so none of the animal-affecting spells work on it (druid's spell lists are tailored to enhance their companions)
Your class abilities consist of one feat every five levels (druids have something most levels and it's usually powerful)
You are limited to casting only the spells in your spell book (druids can cast any druid spell)
If you lose your spell book, you're toast (druids don't use spell books)
It's very expensive to learn new spells and you have a chance of failing (no such situation for a druid)

And **then** the druid gets Wild Shape.

What do you think? Do you think the poor wah-wah druid will be nerfed if he loses Natural Spell feat?

[TheOOB]

Under 3.5 rules full-spellcasters will never be "balanced". Even without natural spell druids are still incredibally powerful, they have one of the most versitile spell lists in the game, a boat load of skills and special abilities, they can fight decently in normal form, and really really well in wild shape form.

Taking away Natural Spell isn't enough. The "Shapeshift" varient from PHBII takes away wild shape entirely as well as animal compainion and replaces it with the ability to assume various pre-set combat forms as a swift action at will. Most DMs I know who have access to the PHBII require all druids in their campaign to use this varient.

[Fax Celestis]

"Druid" and "balance" don't belong in the same sentence unless "un-" is appended to the front of the latter.

[Fhaolan]

I didn't eliminate the feat entirely, but I did nerf it somewhat.

1) Natural Spell can be taken multiple times. Each time applies to one form, and only one form. For example: Natural Spell: Wolf, Natural Spell: Hawk, etc.
2) To cast spells while in a 'Natural Spell' form, the spell had to be prepared for that use. Once prepared, it can't be cast in any other form. For example: The druid wildshapes into a Dire Bear, and has Natural Spell: Dire Bear. The druid can only cast spells he prepared for casting as a Dire Bear. Any spells prepared for casting as his normal race (say, Human) can only be cast while Human. Also, and spells prepared for casting as a Dire Bear can only be cast as a Dire Bear.

I've only dealt with one person taking the feat, and in that case it did reduce the power of the Druid enough that he didn't 'own' the rest of the party. Of course, that might be just due to the player himself. One playtest does not proof make. :smallsmile:

[FdL]

The playing style of a certain kind of players is what makes the wildshape feature of a druid "unbalanced" or "overpowered". Some people call them "powergamers", "munchkins" or "minmaxers".

"Natural Spell" is not bad or unbalanced in itself. Neither is Wild Shape. But they are features that are vulnerable to being misused.

I've read about the kinds of things people do with druids and their abilities and as a druid player I feel embarassed for them.

A nice welcome change is given with the alternative shapechanging feature in the PHB II. I played that and it's easier, more balanced and as it's expressly not compatible with wild shape, all the potential of misuse is out of the question.

So there's an interesting option. Natural Spell? What for, when you can shift infinite times per day, as a swift action?

[Bears With Lasers]

The playing style of a certain kind of players is what makes the wildshape feature of a druid "unbalanced" or "overpowered". Some people call them "powergamers", "munchkins" or "minmaxers".

"Natural Spell" is not bad or unbalanced in itself. Neither is Wild Shape. But they are features that are vulnerable to being misused.
Sorry, but you're totally wrong.
It doesn't take a powergamer to unbalance Wild Shape and Natural Spell. It takes a totally normal druid player, who turns into a bear and still casts spells, being a fighter AND a spellcaster at the same time.

Natural Spell and Wild Shape ARE bad and unbalanced. Druids are like better fighters that can also cast spells. Oh, and they get an animal companion, which is almost as good as a fighter on its own, especially when buffed.

If you studiously ignore the Druid's ridiculous capabilities so as not to outshine the rest of your party, great... but that doesn't mean that the class is balanced.

[Fax Celestis]

This is why the PHB-II Shapeshift variant is much better than Wildshape.

[Thomas]

Ditch Natural Spell, use the shapeshifter variant. Re-balancing done, insofar as it's possible.

[FdL]

Sorry, but you're totally wrong.
It doesn't take a powergamer to unbalance Wild Shape and Natural Spell. It takes a totally normal druid player, who turns into a bear and still casts spells, being a fighter AND a spellcaster at the same time.


Wild Shape has a limitation to its duration and frequency, and if not, roleplaying-wise no character would spend all of his time in animal form. That aside, I grant you that Natural Spell does more wrong than right by its own existance. I know I'd ban it, anyway. But since I encourage my players to use the PHB II variant and use it myself, it's no problem.

Now, regarding the concept of "balance", personally I don't really believe in balance among the classes when we're talking about a cooperative group game. But that's just me :P

[ImperiousLeader]

Another option is to make Natural Spell a +1 metamagic than can only be cast while wildshaped, so the Druid has to plan their spell selection.

I prefer the Shapeshift variant anyway, it's simpler than managing an animal companion and memorizing the various shapeshift forms, and it has unlimited usage.

[Bears With Lasers]

Wild Shape has a limitation to its duration and frequency, and if not, roleplaying-wise no character would spend all of his time in animal form. That aside, I grant you that Natural Spell does more wrong than right by its own existance. I know I'd ban it, anyway. But since I encourage my players to use the PHB II variant and use it myself, it's no problem.
The PHB II variant is much better than the core druid, yes.
WIld Shape lasts hours/level, and can be used often enough to stay in it all day--or all day when travelling.
Are you kidding? It's perfectly easy to justify a druid spending most of his time in an animal form.
Wild Shape makes the Druid into a better Fighter than the Fighter. That shouldn't happen.


Now, regarding the concept of "balance", personally I don't really believe in balance among the classes when we're talking about a cooperative group game. But that's just me :P
Yeah, tell that to the fighter who's not having fun because he's useless at fighting compared to the cleric and druid, despite fighting being, well, his thing.
Nobody wants to suck and not contribute.

[SpiderBrigade]

Now, regarding the concept of "balance", personally I don't really believe in balance among the classes when we're talking about a cooperative group game. But that's just me :P

100% perfect balance is less important when you're working together, yes. But when one class can outdo the others without really trying, it can make the game a lot less fun for the other players. For instance, if you were in a group where 4 of the players had level 1 commoners with all 10s for stats, and one player is a paladin with all 20s for stats, the commoners are going to feel useless and frustrated while the paladin easily handles every encounter.

Now, the difference between a druid and, say, fighter isn't quite that drastic, but it's definitely tending in that direction.

[MrNexx]

"Druid" and "balance" don't belong in the same sentence unless "un-" is appended to the front of the latter.

On the contrary, Druids are maintainers of the balance. Therefore, they must be above it, so they can kick its butt if they have to. :smallbiggrin:

Isn't that how it works?

[Fax Celestis]

On the contrary, Druids are maintainers of the balance. Therefore, they must be above it, so they can kick its butt if they have to. :smallbiggrin:

Isn't that how it works?

That's how it is, yes. On a tangental note: I find a certain irony in a smiley entitled "smallbiggrin".

[FdL]

Are you kidding? It's perfectly easy to justify a druid spending most of his time in an animal form.
Wild Shape makes the Druid into a better Fighter than the Fighter. That shouldn't happen.

You're justifying it from the fighting capability alone. I meant from a roleplaying view, from what a person would do in the course of a varied adventure. It's ok, I think it's just that we're on opposite sides of the Fluff/Crunch divide. :)



Yeah, tell that to the fighter who's not having fun because he's useless at fighting compared to the cleric and druid, despite fighting being, well, his thing.
Nobody wants to suck and not contribute.

I know how it works, but in a well managed encounter no one character is going to do everything, especially in combat. Unless they can multiply themselves and be everywhere at once. :)

In the end it all depends on the particular players in a particular gaming situation, so nothing is written in stone.

[Bears With Lasers]

You're justifying it from the fighting capability alone. I meant from a roleplaying view, from what a person would do in the course of a varied adventure. It's ok, I think it's just that we're on opposite sides of the Fluff/Crunch divide. :)
No, I'm most certainly not. It's a druid. He's got a deep connection to nature. Is it really so hard to imagine him spending his time as a bird, or as a bear?
Oh, and personally, I like pretty, story-based, crunch-light, numinous games. Like, say, Nobilis.
D&D isn't one of those games. D&D is designed to be crunchy. Playing D&D and ignoring the crunch is like... um... I don't know, like not playing the best game for the kind of gaming you like, I guess.


I know how it works, but in a well managed encounter no one character is going to do everything, especially in combat. Unless they can multiply themselves and be everywhere at once. :)They don't need to do it at once to be Teh Uber.


In the end it all depends on the particular players in a particular gaming situation, so nothing is written in stone.No, but the point stands: class balance is important. It's important for a reason.
If it weren't, why bother with it at all?

[Fax Celestis]

You're justifying it from the fighting capability alone. I meant from a roleplaying view, from what a person would do in the course of a varied adventure. It's ok, I think it's just that we're on opposite sides of the Fluff/Crunch divide. :)

"I find it refreshing to be in a form closer to Mother Nature. Some of my ilk even find it to be a transcendental experience and pride themselves for their ability to mesh with natural society through the Gift. I personally find Wild Shape to be preferable to that of Man Shape, though I will...condescend to use it when the situation warrants."

[Athenodorus]

I wish I had the PHB2. As it is, I am just going to make them have to burn +1 slots for Wild-Shape spells, I think.

[PinkysBrain]

Wild Shape has a limitation to its duration and frequency
By the time you get natural spell the duration isn't much a problem.

if not, roleplaying-wise no character would spend all of his time in animal form.
Depends, not in town ... but during adventuring in dangerous surroundings and if your life is on the line? Trying to stay alive is a wise decision, and druids tend to be wise. Also with fast wild shape you don't even have to sacrifice a standard action.

Now, regarding the concept of "balance", personally I don't really believe in balance among the classes when we're talking about a cooperative group game. But that's just me :P
Whether you are cooperating or not, you can still get outclassed ... and that is never fun.

[MandibleBones]

Yeah, tell that to the fighter who's not having fun because he's useless at fighting compared to the cleric and druid, despite fighting being, well, his thing.

I do tell that to the fighter, and then I wave ToB in his face and tell him to fix his problem. An hour or so of geeking out later, and he's useful in battle again.

[JaronK]

Wait, you think it doesn't make sense for a druid to be in animal form most of the time? As in, the super animalistic class?

I'm right now playing a character that's more wolfish than human, so he spends his time in wolf form almost all the time, only taking on other forms when he needs (and even then he's as likely to chose ape as human when he needs hands). It's certainly a roleplayed character. Is he strong? Well yes, he's a druid, and I certainly didn't optomize him. He's just a druid, and as such can outfight most fighters without me having to worry about that too much.

The simple fact is that a base class all the special abilities of a druid but none of the spells would be an awesome melee fighter, and probably be balanced. Adding in spells is just insane.

JaronK

[Divides]

D&D isn't one of those games. D&D is designed to be crunchy. Playing D&D and ignoring the crunch is like... um... I don't know, like not playing the best game for the kind of gaming you like, I guess.

I disagree. IMNERHO, D&D is actually one of the more flexible RPGs out their in terms of how it's handled in overall feel (and "crunch VS fluff"), it certainly CAN be played with allot of "crunch," but I think it's perfectly "fluff" friendly as well. Telling people that playing D&D without the crunch is doing something wrong strikes me as a bit of an attempt to force a subjective opinion on other people...


Anyway, I've always felt that if a campaign is being "done right," and if players arn't being "overly-sensitive" (and yes, "done right" and "overly-sensitive" are in quotes for a reason, as I fully acknowledge that they're somewhat subjective deffinitions), then the level of power between characters needs to be seriously scewed before it really ruins the game for people, aslong as the characters arn't getting into direct conflict with eachother (and this viewpoint IS backed up by personal experience. I've seen a party with three over-powered characters and one "balanced" character. The "balanced" character was able to have plenty of fun). Sure, it can still be done, but I don't think a non-twinked out druid quite makes the cut (a fully twinked out druid is another story... as is one that's skipping out on role-play). But that's just my opinion on the matter.

That said, I can't really see much point to natural spell OTHER than to specifically twink out a druid... so yeah, I'm somewhat against it. Besides, it doesn't even strike me as making sense from an IG standpoint... if a druid wants to cast spells as an animal, that's what silent spell and still spell are for.

I mean yeesh, people :P.

[Matthew]

I would go along with that. D&D is a very flexible game.

However, the default game does assume a high incidence of combat, which tends to highlight relative Character power levels.

[Stephen_E]

I remember an almost pure combat campaign I was in. Arcane casters weren't allowed. 3 of the 4 PCs were Druids. The 4th was a Cleric. One of the Druids was in animal form so often my standing joke was that his actual race was the small veloceraptor dino, and he was wildshaping into human briefly every now and then.

The only straight fighter type played was an Orc Chainfighter I played for a while, before the party level got high enough to really get the Druidic cheese kicking in.

Stephen

[Saph]

I disagree. IMNERHO, D&D is actually one of the more flexible RPGs out their in terms of how it's handled in overall feel (and "crunch VS fluff"), it certainly CAN be played with allot of "crunch," but I think it's perfectly "fluff" friendly as well. Telling people that playing D&D without the crunch is doing something wrong strikes me as a bit of an attempt to force a subjective opinion on other people...

Yup, I'd second that. I've played fluffy games of D&D and crunchy ones too. On the whole I had more fun with the crunchy ones, but that's because I generally like crunchy games better - I didn't find that fluffy games using other systems were all that much more fun than fluffy D&D ones. YMMV, obviously.

And Bears, honestly, it really is possible to have fairly crunchy D&D games where there's a high power differential but all the players are having fun. I've played in them. From your posts you give the impression that you don't think this is possible, so I guess it doesn't work for your gaming group, but I've seen it work for others, and done it myself, too.

As for Natural Spell, yeah, it's too good. Not so good that I'd feel guilty about taking it for my own Druid character, though. :P

- Saph

[Roderick_BR]

Let's say that druids didn't need it before, and it won't hurt them to don't have it now.

[Person_Man]

Yeah, Gamebird is right on the money with this one. The lack of arcane casters vs. divine casters balance is even more transparent when you look at the Archivist (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3), who gets every divine spell (and thus tons of arcane spells as well from domain spells as well) and still has d6 hit points, 4 Skill points, 2 good saves, and medium armor.

[Divides]

I would go along with that. D&D is a very flexible game.

However, the default game does assume a high incidence of combat, which tends to highlight relative Character power levels.

Ok, that sounds like a fair enough point.



I remember an almost pure combat campaign I was in. Arcane casters weren't allowed. 3 of the 4 PCs were Druids. The 4th was a Cleric. One of the Druids was in animal form so often my standing joke was that his actual race was the small veloceraptor dino, and he was wildshaping into human briefly every now and then.

That's interseting... I actually have a similar (and perhaps somewhat more extreme) example. In an epic campaign I'm playing in, we've got a somewhat insane druid who spends so much in silver dragon form (aquired using epic feats) that she actually thinks she's a dragon. Infact, when she wants to take on a humanoid form, she just uses the silver dragon polymorph ability, rather than releasing her wild-shape... which is kind of amusing.



Yeah, Gamebird is right on the money with this one. The lack of arcane casters vs. divine casters balance is even more transparent when you look at the Archivist (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3), who gets every divine spell (and thus tons of arcane spells as well from domain spells as well) and still has d6 hit points, 4 Skill points, 2 good saves, and medium armor.

Well, to be fair, they have to jump through a bit of a hoop each time they want to get a spell that isn't on the core-cleric list. I agree that they're still somewhat overpowered VS arcane casters... but they're only TRULY broken if A: The DM is failing at maintaining realistic continuity (for example, the PCs are starting out at high levels and the DM isn't asking the PCs where they got access to every scroll they're buying), or B: Some sort of SERIOUS fluke occurred (the PCs defeated a high level/high treasure monster that keeps all it's treasure in the form of divine scrolls, etc.).

Just be careful about allowing archivists and a certain made-for-adepts 3.0 prestige class in your campaigns...

[Telonius]

I remember an almost pure combat campaign I was in. Arcane casters weren't allowed. 3 of the 4 PCs were Druids. The 4th was a Cleric. One of the Druids was in animal form so often my standing joke was that his actual race was the small veloceraptor dino, and he was wildshaping into human briefly every now and then.

The only straight fighter type played was an Orc Chainfighter I played for a while, before the party level got high enough to really get the Druidic cheese kicking in.

Stephen

Maybe a brainfart, but that might be another way of adding some balance to the mighty druid - a chance that they could get "stuck" in animal form. It would definitely have precedent in fantasy literature and mythology. I seem to remember some story about a woman who changed into a bear, got stuck there, and killed her kid; and Ged almost got stuck in bird form in the Earthsea trilogy. There may have been offhand mention of something like it in the Hobbit when they're visiting Beorn, though it's been awhile since I've read that one.

[Bears With Lasers]

DM isn't asking the PCs where they got access to every scroll they're buying)

Presumably any decent-level archivist would have made a point of going around and finding different spellcasters and paying them to write down their domain spells, etc.

[Divides]

Presumably any decent-level archivist would have made a point of going around and finding different spellcasters and paying them to write down their domain spells, etc.

The problem is finding a spellcaster with the corresponding spell access that would be willing to A:share their spells with you (keep in mind that allot of domains tend to lean towards certain allignments... which can make it hard for a archivist to be friendly with all of them), and B: Is in the scroll crafting bussiness (this is far less common for divine spellcasters than arcane spellcasters... if nothing else than on account that wizards are arcane :-p). Certainly an archivist can, by shelling out enough cash, get access to allot of spells (probably more than any other divine spellcaster)... I'd question if they can always get access to the specific spells they want, though (especially if they're a predominately arcane spell that's simply shared by one or two domains).

[TheOOB]

It's amazing how one of the most rules intensive PnP system in existance, D&D, in which the system, classes, feats, spells, ect is almost entirely based on effectiveness in combat, is so unbalanced and biased in favor of some characters.

[Bears With Lasers]

Certainly an archivist can, by shelling out enough cash, get access to allot of spells (probably more than any other divine spellcaster)... I'd question if they can always get access to the specific spells they want, though (especially if they're a predominately arcane spell that's simply shared by one or two domains).

Yeah, they pretty much can--just like wizards starting at level X can buy scrolls of obscure spells with their starting gold.
It's PC Privilege.

[Matthew]

It's amazing how one of the most rules intensive PnP system in existance, D&D, in which the system, classes, feats, spells, ect is almost entirely based on effectiveness in combat, is so unbalanced and biased in favor of some characters.

It was always that way, but you have to remember that even in 3.x at Low Levels Casters aren't all that.

[Bears With Lasers]

At low levels, casters are just fine. With their animal companion and spells (Entangle, whee!), Druids are really good right from level 1. Level 1 clerics heal, which keeps them (and everyone else) going for way longer than they otherwise could a that level. At low level, Wizards are very effective with Sleep.

So they're just fine--just not overwhelming.

[MrNexx]

The problem is finding a spellcaster with the corresponding spell access that would be willing to A:share their spells with you (keep in mind that allot of domains tend to lean towards certain allignments... which can make it hard for a archivist to be friendly with all of them)

Archivist of Boccob may replace Cloistered Cleric of Boccob as my favorite character ever.

"Share your scroll with me, and I will write three of them in return if I learn it, or of your choice if I don't."

Who needs cash?

[FdL]

It's ok for combat, of course, but I still don't think a druid would spend all of its time in animal form. The way I play at least. What about interacting with other players, say, speaking?? What about going to a town, sitting in a tavern with the rest of the party, buying and selling stuff, holding a meeting with someone?

Being wildshaped all the time does make for interesting approaches to roleplaying, there were some nice examples from the posts here. But from my personal opinion, you don't have to turn into a bear 24-7 to love nature. That is an extreme. Otherwise I'd just play an animal PC :)

Then, as someone said, the impact of crunch-maxed characters vs. non-twinked ones in a given game of D&D is highly relative, not an absolute.

[krossbow]

How about all the telepathic items? Or just take a level of master of many forms. BAM!



Yeah, the shifter is much more balanced, and, Better yet, simpler.

I miss the animal companion though, but, meh, its definitely better this way.


Off course, if the person actually understands what the change is, good luck getting them to take it.

"So, now I can turn into the same form, just it's crappier? and I lose fido, my pet T-rex?"



Thats what I hate about the druid: Unlike the other variants in PHB II (which has the quote "make your characters the best they can be"), this one makes the druid WORSE. It's needed, but it should of been errated in for the wildshape instead.

Hell, even if they still had their animal companion, the shifter is a lot more balanced.

[Stephen_E]

To be honest I've played Druids who didn't Wildshape. I just didn't bother. It wasn't part of what that character did and he was quite powerful enough with his Animal Companion and Spells. Of course that meant he wasn't CoDzilla, but so what.

I actually really like Druids because of all the things you can do with them, but becuase you can do ALL those options at the same time they can be a tad godlike.

Now if you had to choose 2 out of the 3 paths (spellcasting, Animal Companions and Wildshaping) they'd be much better. Actually they'd be fine if you had to choose 1 1/2 paths - 1 strong, 1 weak, 1 missed. But I wouldn't do that unless you were doing something to pull Arcane casters and Clerics back.

Stephen

[FdL]

Sadly, Master of Many form follows the same vein of Wildshape abuse in which Natural Spell lives. And it's a shame, because fluff-wise it's a great class, but doesn't come very well in practice.

First, the mechanics of the class soon turn into a desperate offgame hunt for strange creatures with clear advantages. Problem is those creatures weren't designed to be played, so = broken.
The solution would be a hard implementation of the rule of familiarity, and maybe a limit to the known forms. Maybe something could be done in the style of the PHB II druid variant (ie, semi-templates drawn out of actual forms.)

I don't know, IMHO shapechanging it hasn't bee very well implemented in D&D. Maybe because it's a way of crossing the boundary between what is a PC and what is a monster. A distinction that is only one of the key concepts of D&D.

[Desaril]

I know there have been revisions to wild shape, but looking at the SRD, I don't get how changing into an animal is that great of a bonus.

First, At 5th level, a druid can only choose a Medium animal with which they are familar. They get larger sizes at higher levels, but they can never have more Hit Dice than levels, so the druid in animal form is never tougher (by HD) than their normal level. And they still must have encountered the creature.

Second, the SRD says you keep your original HP, BAB, Save bonus, and feats. Therefore, an 8th level druid becoming a bear (as someone suggested above) gives you the natural weapons (1d8+8), but not multi-attack feat- so no multiple attacks, +5 AC, +10' movement, improved grab low-light vision and scent. Hopefully, by 8th level you already have something to provide +5 armor (if not better).

The big bonus is STR, which the druid (or the cleric) could already do with Bull's Strength, and the size difference (which a 1st level wiz/sor could do). I guess I just don 't see the big deal at 8th level, bear is not much of a combatant, definitely not on par with an 8th level fighter.

[Bears With Lasers]

Um, you realize that Multiattack just reduces the penalties for secondary natural attacks, right? (And you can take it as a normal feat; it'll apply when in Wild Shape.) The bear is stronger (you can cast Bull's Strength on yourself, you know), larger, gets Improved Grab, and is more buffable than the Fighter. Plus there's an animal companion.

Plus, bear's an okay form. Something like the Fleshraker Dinosaur--well.

[FdL]

I'll pass on this answer, but I'll gladly point you to contrast it with the PHB II variant.

[Bears With Lasers]

You can't Animal Growth yourself anymore--but you can Animal Growth your animal companion.
You can Barkskin and Bull's Strength yourself.
Greater Magic Fang? Check.
Freedom of movement? Yep. Longstrider? Yep.

Spell Compendium useable? Bite of the Were[creature] for major bonuses. A Dire Bear druid with Bite of the Werebear is ridiculous.

[Maclav]

I know there have been revisions to wild shape, but looking at the SRD, I don't get how changing into an animal is that great of a bonus.

First, At 5th level, a druid can only choose a Medium animal with which they are familar. They get larger sizes at higher levels, but they can never have more Hit Dice than levels, so the druid in animal form is never tougher (by HD) than their normal level. And they still must have encountered the creature.

Second, the SRD says you keep your original HP, BAB, Save bonus, and feats. Therefore, an 8th level druid becoming a bear (as someone suggested above) gives you the natural weapons (1d8+8), but not multi-attack feat- so no multiple attacks, +5 AC, +10' movement, improved grab low-light vision and scent. Hopefully, by 8th level you already have something to provide +5 armor (if not better).

The big bonus is STR, which the druid (or the cleric) could already do with Bull's Strength, and the size difference (which a 1st level wiz/sor could do). I guess I just don 't see the big deal at 8th level, bear is not much of a combatant, definitely not on par with an 8th level fighter.

Actually, he gets the listed attacks. Bears don't have multi-attack ether, they have secondary attacks. Multi-attack just lessens the attack penalty on secondary attacks. Also, that is +5 natural AC, which stacks with wild armour. They also get the 40 movement and improved grab being a ex attack and not a special ability (which he doesn't get).

And he can cast spells.

And he still has a flanking buddy in the form of a t-rex.

And if he really wants he cant take feats like power attack, and apply these in the new form.

[Desaril]

@ FDL I don't have PHBII, so I don't know what you're talking about.

@ BWL- Yeah, I should have written my multiattack statement clearer...

I don't know what the Fleshraker can do, but I think the solution is for GMs to recognize that turnabout is fairplay and if the druid survives an encounter with an animal, he can become that animal (I assume "familiarity" means encounter, perhaps you have to study the animal like Jane Goodall).

Also, don't forget while in wild shape, the 5th level (or higher) druid forgoes all the cool gear they've acquired while adventuring. If the Druid (8th) uses a feat for natural spell, they've only two other (three if human) compared with the fighter's 7 (or 8) feats, iterative attacks, ranged attacks, hopefully higher armor (what Fighter 8 only has a 15 AC?), and magic equipment. If the druid uses his spells for buffing, then he might just catch up, but then he's not the fighter/spellcaster you described. And he better buff in advance otherwise, I'm sure the giant bear in the party is going to draw attacks making it difficult to cast spells in combat.

To me the best use of natural spell and wild shape is to go Tiny and stealthy- casting spells and hiding so you can't be found.

[Desaril]

@ maclav- Yes, but since the Bear doesn't have multi-attack, isn't the druid is stuck with their iterative attacks, i.e. +6/+1? If not, what is the routine?

Also, we have to identify a level for comparison, a t-rex isn't available until you have a 16th level druid, but at 7 you can have a brown bear, so there is another powerful buddy for flanking. But wait, can you teach bear to flank? You don't have telepathic control and the creature only has animal intelligence.

As for the feats- He does have 3 (or 4) feats at 8th level, but he used one on natural spell (probably his most recent at 6th) and probably didn't choose power attack at first level, but it could happen.

I mentioned the improved grab and movement, but those cancel each other out. And improved grab cancels out spellcasting. If you're grabbing, you're not casting or moving, so you only get the casting or the grabbing. You do have options, but it's not overbalancing- a Sor 3 can cast Web and grab everyone in a 20' radius.

[FdL]

I have to tell you that when it comes to familiars and forms I'm all for familiarity rules. Otherwise it's just you browsing through monster manuals (I call it meta gaming) And I thought Fleshrakers were common only in certain latitudes & climates, I never found a single one in any game I played. But then again I'm not the most experienced D&D player, they could be all over Faerun for all I know. :)

[Maclav]

But wait, can you teach bear to flank? You don't have telepathic control and the creature only has animal intelligence.

Totally. Mr Druid has max ranks in handle animal and push animal is only a DC 20 move action. Besides, how hard would it be to teach "flanking" as one of the many tricks your pet gets? But that is wandering into DM Fiat territory.

Well, we also already covered that a bear is a less than ideal form. As for loosing magical items...

We could take VoP
We could shift into something that can wear items
We could manufacture slot less items that a shape shift can wear which doesn't put you to far back from what the fighter is wearing thanks to geometric price increases.

Oh, did I mention this guy who is now about as tough as the fighter can cast a huge pile of great spells?

[Desaril]

First, the SRD says "Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional." This has nothing to do with slots. Also, I assume your discussion of price increases has to do with wealth/treasure by level rules, but I've never used them. I just assume that the fighter will have access to his equipment and the druid will not.

I assume VOP is Vow of Poverty- I have no idea what that does, but we're not talking about whether you "can" break a druid, we're talking about wild shape and natural spell. Of course, if you add other stuff the analysis starts to fall apart.

The rules say the objects you carry or wear merge into the druid. You could theoretically take stuff off and then have someone put it back on. I can almost imagine a bear wearing a magic cloak (kind of like Underdog), but then I remember that the bear is a Large creature and it won't fit.

As for "guy as tough as the fighter", the bear is among the tougher animals in the MM and the druid is not likely to be familiar with the more dangerous animals. He doesn't have the fighters AC, HP, BAB, feat selection or weapon selection (+ 8 levels of magic). I don't think the Large animals are tougher than 8 levels of fighter.

As to spells- I don't think the druids spell list is that tough. There are some great buffs (barkskin, Bear's Strength, longstrider and magic fang), but you've got to cast those in advance. And the druid can cast those anyway, so are you saying wildshape just takes it too far?

I think the druid is a tough class, it combines some spellcasting with some fighting and some skills, but it's diversity does not blow away the straight casters, fighters, or rogues. And wild shape (even with natural spell) doesn't make that big a difference.

As to teaching an animal to "flank"- the Handle Animal skill says you can teach an animal to attack some creature (attacking all creatures is two tricks), but it doesn't say you can teach it tactics. Its reasonable that you can perform a flank, by waiting until your companion attacks and then you flank the creature, but I don't think you can teach an animal to cooperate with a flank.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

The only way to balance the druid would be to... well, stop playing a druid.

[Hyrael]

Under 3.5 rules full-spellcasters will never be "balanced". Even without natural spell druids are still incredibally powerful, they have one of the most versitile spell lists in the game, a boat load of skills and special abilities, they can fight decently in normal form, and really really well in wild shape form.

Taking away Natural Spell isn't enough. The "Shapeshift" varient from PHBII takes away wild shape entirely as well as animal compainion and replaces it with the ability to assume various pre-set combat forms as a swift action at will. Most DMs I know who have access to the PHBII require all druids in their campaign to use this varient.

The only drawback with that is that, in an eberron campaign, if you want to play a warforged druid with that class feature, the jokes never stop.
As a shameless fan of druids, I happen to like the shapeshift variant much more than the animal companion and wildshape abilities. its so much more streamlined, and you dont have to keep track of some annoying moronic animal. the only drawback is that the druid can no longer qualify for the Arcane Heirophant PrC (my favorite PrC).

[Desaril]

@Viscount E- what do you mean?

At low levels the druid has less armor, spells, and weapon selection than the cleric. His animal companion is still just an animal, not a familiar, not a cohort, the wolf is an exceptionally loyal wolf, nothing more. The Cleric even has access to healing spells

The fighter has access to more hp, higher BAB, more armor, better weapons and feats to maximize his combat ability.

The ranger has just as many hit points and skills, better combat feats, higher BAB, and pretty soon picks up the animal companion and spell ability.

I think the druid (like the cleric and ranger) is a combo character. He does a little bit of everything, but doesn't focus on anything. That flexibility means a druid can help out a little in every situation, but doesn't master any of them.

[krossbow]

The only drawback with that is that, in an eberron campaign, if you want to play a warforged druid with that class feature, the jokes never stop.
As a shameless fan of druids, I happen to like the shapeshift variant much more than the animal companion and wildshape abilities. its so much more streamlined, and you dont have to keep track of some annoying moronic animal. the only drawback is that the druid can no longer qualify for the Arcane Heirophant PrC (my favorite PrC).




Eh; if your using the shifter variant it's awsome. Since the predator form can look like anything and jsut gives a set bonus, it's great to turn into a firetruck and try to beat people to death with your ladder.


Yes, thats stupid; it's also FUN. :smallwink:




But anyways: the main problem with the current setup is that it REPLACES the stats, so you can totally just pimp the others; with the shifter setup, its a bonus, so it's not a problem.

the REAL problem comes in that IT'S FREAKING BETTER THAN THE BARBARIANS.


I'm raging! +8 to strength and con! -2 to AC!

Large form! +16 to Strength! minus nothing to AC!

barbarian: cries.
________
RHODE ISLAND MEDICAL MARIJUANA (http://rhodeisland.dispensaries.org/)

[Suzaku]

@Viscount E- what do you mean?


I think he means once you start nerfing druid you might as well just get rid of druids from class list.

[Divides]

Yeah, they pretty much can--just like wizards starting at level X can buy scrolls of obscure spells with their starting gold.
It's PC Privilege.

I'm sorry, did you just say "it's PC privilege?"

Dude... the PCs' privileges are completely contingent on the DM and the campaign... and IMHO, any sane DM will ask that all characters of a certain level should be designed so that someone could believably have gotten there starting from level 1 (well, after you remove the factor of time it would require... I doubt anyone's actually gone from Lv 1 to Lv 50 without skipping levels or recieving unbelievably oversized XP bonuses... doesn't mean that the occasionally high-epic campaign should be considered a strict no-no :P). A spell your PC could not feesibly have come across... or a whole strain of "once in a life-time" encounters (IE: like the lawful good archivist running into one after another after another demon-worshipers all willing to make them scrolls of their obscure domain spells for standard price), does not qualify.

Frankly, this should go without saying... otherwise there's a certain rule in PHBII that would be... kind of non-usable. (Not that I'm in love with it anyway, but neh.)

And yes, when I say "any sane" what I really mean is "anal retentive to an extent that few other than myself are crazy enough to achieve." Deal with it :P.

[Suzaku]

Large form! +16 to Strength! minus large amount of AC!

barbarian: cries.
Fixed for you

[krossbow]

I'm assuming that wild armor still works in shifted form here. In which case, it's only a -1 to AC from size.

[FdL]

Excellent, excellent point, Divides. Exactly what I think.

With Archivist, as with Master of Many Forms, if not played right the class turns into an all-out shopping for power. And not inside of the game, with the rules of a living, playing world, but among all the books and manuals you own.

At least that's not the way I like to play my D&D.

[Jack_Simth]

As to teaching an animal to "flank"- the Handle Animal skill says you can teach an animal to attack some creature (attacking all creatures is two tricks), but it doesn't say you can teach it tactics. Its reasonable that you can perform a flank, by waiting until your companion attacks and then you flank the creature, but I don't think you can teach an animal to cooperate with a flank.

One of the reasons wolves make popular animal companions....


A favorite tactic is to send a few individuals against the foe’s front while the rest of the pack circles and attacks from the flanks or rear.Wolves do it naturally. No training needed.

[Stephen_E]

As to teaching an animal to "flank"- the Handle Animal skill says you can teach an animal to attack some creature (attacking all creatures is two tricks), but it doesn't say you can teach it tactics. Its reasonable that you can perform a flank, by waiting until your companion attacks and then you flank the creature, but I don't think you can teach an animal to cooperate with a flank.

TTBOMK all pack animals flank. In fact I'd go further and say all predadtors have tactical skills. The ones that did either get taught by their parents or taught themselves die from starvation. Hunting food is easy. If you aren't tactical about it your prey gets away.

Teaching even a normally solo predator to flank when it's working with a companion is so low down on the difficulty list I wouldn't even qualify it as requiring a Trick slot.

Stephen

[Wehrkind]

Also, there is nothing saying your pet can't attack while you go around the side and flank. So even if you have the Ray Finkle of pets, you can be as clever as you want while the pet goes to town.
Also, it isn't a matter of whether gear removed and then put back on after changing sizes fits; magic gear resizes.

[Desaril]

Animal flanking- I think there is a big difference between pack attacks and the specifics of flanking as a d20 combat maneuver. If flanking were more intuitive, than it would make sense. I don't think you can communicate that your animal companion should attack from the exact opposite side from you without serious training. Considering that teaching an animal to attack at all is a trick, teaching it to flank on command is pretty serious. I do think you can wait until your animal companion starts to fight and then move into flanking position

The SRD says- When an article of magic clothing or jewelry is discovered, most of the time size shouldn’t be an issue. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items.

Reading the rule in context it seems to allows the DM to give out magic without regard to the size of the PCs. It does not appear to be intended to make the items one size fits all for the entire game and therefore get around the use of wild shape. Can a DM rule that your wild shaped druid can put back on a cloak, belt, or bracer in bear form? Sure. Should your DM do so? Absolutely not! And definitely not by relying on the magical resizing rule.

[FdL]

Pleaaaaase!! :D A bear with a cloack, belt or bracers. Casting spells. Wildshaped 24/7.

And then they say the druid class is broken/overpowered. D-zilla. Yeah right.

[JaronK]

It's worth noting that one command you can teach an animal by RAW is "Flank Attack." Check the SRD. It does pretty much what you'd think.

JaronK

[Divides]

Pleaaaaase!! :D A bear with a cloack, belt or bracers. Casting spells. Wildshaped 24/7.

And then they say the druid class is broken/overpowered. D-zilla. Yeah right.

Come to think of it, doesn't the notion of wearing a cloak while wild-shaped kinda go at odds with the above mentioned justification for why a druid would be wild-shaped all the time in the first place?

"I preffer being wild-shaped, it puts me more in tune with nature... but I have NOOO issues with animals wearing clothes."

I know, it's not much of a point, but still amusing to point out.

[Desaril]

I need a reference for that. I don't see it under the Handle Animal skill or the animal companion description. Also, I'm not saying you cannot train an animal to flank, I'm saying that it's not a given, and in comparison to the tricks described in the Handle Animal skill, it would be difficult. Attack is a DC20 trick, attack by flank on command has got to be harder.

[Divides]

I need a reference for that. I don't see it under the Handle Animal skill or the animal companion description. Also, I'm not saying you cannot train an animal to flank, I'm saying that it's not a given, and in comparison to the tricks described in the Handle Animal skill, it would be difficult. Attack is a DC20 trick, attack by flank on command has got to be harder.

I think the fairest ruling would be that you'd have to first teach them attack as a trick, and then teach them flank as a separate trick.

Just speaking off the cuff, mind you :-p.

[JaronK]

I need a reference for that. I don't see it under the Handle Animal skill or the animal companion description. Also, I'm not saying you cannot train an animal to flank, I'm saying that it's not a given, and in comparison to the tricks described in the Handle Animal skill, it would be difficult. Attack is a DC20 trick, attack by flank on command has got to be harder.

Hmm, now I can't find it... only Assist Attack (in Crystal Keep, Skills Section, Page 26), which causes the animal to flank and then use an Aid Other action on your attacks. I can't find flank attack though... it might have been in Arms and Equipment Guide.

JaronK

[Yzorth]

I think a big part of this is misunderstanding or overlooking rules on the player's part.

First of all, I agree that a druid CAN fill the roll of many classes, but it doesn't do nearly as well in that "roll" unless it specializes, and that takes up resources, such as feats and such.

One of the first things I'd like to point out is that arcane casters have access to a VERY wide array of spells. Their spell selection is much broader and specific than a divine casters' such as a druid or cleric. Druids can cover certain areas of spellcasting such as damage fairly well, but no where near to the extent that an arcane caster can.

Another thing I find that people tend to overlook is the use of items, which become a more and more important part of a character's power as they level up. People often compare a druid to "close to the power of a fighter" in terms of melee. Druid CAN do melee, but they are no where near a fighter. Fighters gain feats after feats to help them in combat. Fighters have max BAB/level. Fighters have d10 HD. But, most importantly, fighters don't loose all their items' capabilities when they go into combat. You must remember. When druids fight in wildshape, they loose ALL of their item's powers. That means +4 hide armor, good bye. +3 Flaming, Keen Scimitar, good bye. That means ability score enhancements, good BYE. Because they loose ALL of their item a, this reduces them to using the creature's stats, AC, and attacks (non-extraordinary) to compensate for the fighters heavily specialized items that will pump AC, attack, damage, and health. Now, the druid can cast in wildshape assuming she takes the "Natural Spell" feat, but the druid will not have any sort of wisdom boost, and will no longer be able to use spells that require a divine focus or material components. Check out how many damage spells on the druid's spell list require only verbal and somatic components. I don't think many people actually look at that.

I'm just pointing a few things out that many people tend to forget when talking about a druid's power when compared to other classes.

[Desaril]

See, I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Thanks, Yzorth! However, natural spell also allows you to use material components/divine foci even when melded into your wild shape.

[Stephen_E]

I need a reference for that. I don't see it under the Handle Animal skill or the animal companion description. Also, I'm not saying you cannot train an animal to flank, I'm saying that it's not a given, and in comparison to the tricks described in the Handle Animal skill, it would be difficult. Attack is a DC20 trick, attack by flank on command has got to be harder.

Actually getting an animal to attack on comman, which is what this trick does, is quite difficult. Once he is attacking, getting them to use their tactical nouse isn't such a big deal.

As for Flanking been a difficult skill. Flanking isn't difficult, your 1st level Wiz can flank. DnD has precise rules for the purpose of deciding whether a flank situation can be set up to keep the game flowing, and saving the GM from having to decide what does and doesn't give a bonus each time. This is different from DnD Flanking been some complex difficult to learn move (You aren't telling me you think DnD combat is realistic!).

Charging also has very precise rules. Are you going to suggest that animals can't charge unless you teach them the Trick - Charge.

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

I don't know about others, but if I'm a Druid heavily into Wildshaping, my items are designed to be worn while in animal form.
Headband - no problem
Goggles - adjustableheadstrap to keep them on.
Amulet/Necklace - Collar
Vest - no problem. make laceable to allow adjustment for various sizes.
Robe/Armour - Robe = those coverings you saw on knight's horse, and sometimes on racehorses. Fairly adjustable. Armour = Barding and would be designed for a particular creature type.
Belt - no problem
Cloak/Cape/Mantle - Mantle is the easy getup. The other two are doable. May look stupid, but nothing says the clothing has to look good to work.
Bracers - no problem
Gloves - Need slots to let Claws out, and ties to hold them on feet/hands but this sort of thing was used on horses when you want them to move silently.
Rings - Single handcuffs style. Generally put on the thumb posistion, or ankles for hoofed creatures.
Boots/Shoes - See Gloves.

So your Druid has all his magical gear while in Animal form. Of course out of animal form is a problem. :-)

Stephen

[Wehrkind]

Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer.
Somehow you try and make that a reason why they won't adjust themselves magically to the wearer if he changes size...

Also, if you think teaching an animal to attack is difficult, you obviously don't own a cat or a dog. (Or my leopard gecko, for that matter.) Most predatory animals attack things on instinct, often things they have no business trying to eat (see the leopard gecko.) The trick with regards to a bear or wolf is keeping it from attacking just about anything it thinks might be edible, not encouraging it to. That's why the only predators humans usually keep as pets are ones easily trained to consider us master, such as dogs, or those too small to cause serious injury, such as cats and lizards. Even horses can be trained to rear and strike with hooves; this is basic training for a horse in a combat role.

As to flanking, it is pretty standard for predatory animals to get behind things when attacking. They have a strong desire to not get injured, and with few exceptions consider attacking a flank or rear necessary. This is why wolves and cats circle each other before going at it.

Animals may not be master tacticians, but they know their business when it comes to killing each other.

[Divides]

I don't know about others, but if I'm a Druid heavily into Wildshaping, my items are designed to be worn while in animal form.
Headband - no problem
Goggles - adjustableheadstrap to keep them on.
Amulet/Necklace - Collar
Vest - no problem. make laceable to allow adjustment for various sizes.
Robe/Armour - Robe = those coverings you saw on knight's horse, and sometimes on racehorses. Fairly adjustable. Armour = Barding and would be designed for a particular creature type.
Belt - no problem
Cloak/Cape/Mantle - Mantle is the easy getup. The other two are doable. May look stupid, but nothing says the clothing has to look good to work.
Bracers - no problem
Gloves - Need slots to let Claws out, and ties to hold them on feet/hands but this sort of thing was used on horses when you want them to move silently.
Rings - Single handcuffs style. Generally put on the thumb posistion, or ankles for hoofed creatures.
Boots/Shoes - See Gloves.

So your Druid has all his magical gear while in Animal form. Of course out of animal form is a problem. :-)

Stephen

True... although there is a certain shame to need the help of another party member just to equip your gear (few animals have good enough opposable digits to use most items).

Although for some of those... I hate to break it to you, but if you do enough research, there are supposed to be rules on what shapes can use which slots. For example, I believe gloves actually have to be put on hands... forepaws do not qualify (RAW, anyway). Likewise, rings designed to be put around an animal's ankles is no longer a ring... it's a bracer, and takes up the corresponding slot. I think most other slots tend to work just fine, though.

[Stephen_E]

True... although there is a certain shame to need the help of another party member just to equip your gear (few animals have good enough opposable digits to use most items).

Although for some of those... I hate to break it to you, but if you do enough research, there are supposed to be rules on what shapes can use which slots. For example, I believe gloves actually have to be put on hands... forepaws do not qualify (RAW, anyway). Likewise, rings designed to be put around an animal's ankles is no longer a ring... it's a bracer, and takes up the corresponding slot. I think most other slots tend to work just fine, though.

What can I say. I have no shame. "Guys, can you equip me after I change. Afterall, you do want me at my most effective if we're attacked".

I'll give you the no rings on hooved creatures, but I can't find any such restriction on Gloves.

There was a article on the Wizards site sometime back where they handled the posistioning of items on non-humanoids.

Stephen

[MrNexx]

What can I say. I have no shame. "Guys, can you equip me after I change. Afterall, you do want me at my most effective if we're attacked".


Get a Wild Hand of the Mage. Be your own Butler.

[Gamebird]

The druid still looks ridiculously overpowered compared to the other primary casters - especially the wizard or sorceror. A large part of the problem is that the druid is as good as several other classes in the niche of each class. Buffed, they make better fighters, barbarians or rangers. With proper spell selection they make as good of healers. Their combat spells are as good as wizard/sorcerors and what they lose in flexibility they make up for in wide selection. With their wild shape, they are better than the monk for unarmed fighting and sneaking. With a good spell selection, they're better buffers than bards and they always do more damage.

There's no class that's better than a druid except a rogue's choice and number of skills (and arguably the bard's bardic knowledge). And the crying thing about it is that this can all be done by the SAME druid, right out of the PHB, without DM permission (aside from access to very normal, MMI animals). Yes, there are a FEW situations where a cleric is better than a druid or a barbarian is a better fighter. Like, say, if the druid wasn't high level enough to stay in animal shape all the time and the party got surprised... but even then the druid player gets TWO rolls to detect the ambush, due to the animal companion and Spot is a class skill for both of them (unlike Barbarians, who only get Listen last time I looked).

[krossbow]

I think a big part of this is misunderstanding or overlooking rules on the player's part.

First of all, I agree that a druid CAN fill the roll of many classes, but it doesn't do nearly as well in that "roll" unless it specializes, and that takes up resources, such as feats and such.

One of the first things I'd like to point out is that arcane casters have access to a VERY wide array of spells. Their spell selection is much broader and specific than a divine casters' such as a druid or cleric. Druids can cover certain areas of spellcasting such as damage fairly well, but no where near to the extent that an arcane caster can.

Another thing I find that people tend to overlook is the use of items, which become a more and more important part of a character's power as they level up. People often compare a druid to "close to the power of a fighter" in terms of melee. Druid CAN do melee, but they are no where near a fighter. Fighters gain feats after feats to help them in combat. Fighters have max BAB/level. Fighters have d10 HD. But, most importantly, fighters don't loose all their items' capabilities when they go into combat. You must remember. When druids fight in wildshape, they loose ALL of their item's powers. That means +4 hide armor, good bye. +3 Flaming, Keen Scimitar, good bye. That means ability score enhancements, good BYE. Because they loose ALL of their item a, this reduces them to using the creature's stats, AC, and attacks (non-extraordinary) to compensate for the fighters heavily specialized items that will pump AC, attack, damage, and health. Now, the druid can cast in wildshape assuming she takes the "Natural Spell" feat, but the druid will not have any sort of wisdom boost, and will no longer be able to use spells that require a divine focus or material components. Check out how many damage spells on the druid's spell list require only verbal and somatic components. I don't think many people actually look at that.

I'm just pointing a few things out that many people tend to forget when talking about a druid's power when compared to other classes.




Oh god... can't stop... laughing!

Dude, that is just plain ignorant.

Loses the +3 hide armor? Yeah, if your druid is stupid enough not to buy WILD armor. Oh, whaddaya know, that eliminates that problem...

Divine foci: Tie it to your neck. Hell, tie a few. It's NATURE. all you really need is a freaking pine cone. This isn't like a cleric with a highly ritualized religion.

Fighter being better: GAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dude, this is just ridiculous. Full BAB? What do you think that 32 strength is for? Not to mention readch, improved grab, improved grapple, pounce, all the juicy crap gained from wildshaping that a fighter CAN'T get? or the Size bonus's to grapple checks?


Goodbye +3 flaming scimitar? My claws do just fine, thank you. Besides, their's always the druid's spells to up their natural weapons.

Ability score enhancements being gone in Wildshape? Dude, what the heck do you call that 32 strength and 20 Con? Not to mention it's easy to put rings on tails or bracelets on the paws.


The fighter doesn't even come CLOSE to a druid in wildshape; people don't mention those things you did because they are so overcompensated for in wildshape as to be irrelevant.

[Suzaku]

What about Damage reduction other then magical. How does a druid bypass that? Why not ban wildarmor if you think it's over powered.

[Gamebird]

What about Damage reduction other then magical. How does a druid bypass that? Why not ban wildarmor if you think it's over powered.

Greater Magic Fang. Permanency. All your natural weapons get a +1 to hit. In 3.5, there's no difference between +1 and +5 in regards to damage reduction.

If Permanency is too steep, then just rely on the one hour/level duration of GMF. If you don't want to memorize GMF, then the cleric or wizard can buff you with Greater Magic Weapon, which specifically works on natural weapons too. And conveniently the druid's spell can be made permanent, whereas those available to wizards, clerics, bards and sorcerors can't be made permanent without crafting an item.

Or take Vow of Poverty.

Or buy an Amulet of Mighty Fists. Conveniently, it's an amulet, which is probably the easiest piece of equipment to wear as an animal. Sure, you'd lose it if you were a snake, but most of your decent combat forms can wear an amulet no problem and even put them on themselves.

And there's nothing to stop a druid from carrying a magical scimitar to deal with DR things when he's run out of wild shape. Druids will have magic items at approximately the same point in the game as Fighters, so if the party is running into a creature with DR and the druid is screwed, then everyone else is screwed too.

[MrNexx]

Gamebird, he asked about "DR other than magical"

[Gamebird]

Gamebird, he asked about "DR other than magical"

You mean like energy resistance? Or DR related to cold iron, silver, good and so forth?

A druid would do the same thing a Fighter would. He'd either carry around extra weapons of that material/alignment/whatever or he'd have people cast spells on him or his weapon. Oh wait! He's a druid. He can probably cast those spells himself, unlike the Fighter, Barbarian or Ranger. <insert eye-roll icon here>

[Suzaku]

You mean like energy resistance? Or DR related to cold iron, silver, good and so forth?

A druid would do the same thing a Fighter would. He'd either carry around extra weapons of that material/alignment/whatever or he'd have people cast spells on him or his weapon. Oh wait! He's a druid. He can probably cast those spells himself, unlike the Fighter, Barbarian or Ranger. <insert eye-roll icon here>

Nope Druid doesn't have access to spells that bypasses damage reduction that's not magical. She also has to be out of Wildshape to be using those kinds of weapons so she is not as effective in combat anyway.

[Gamebird]

I'll point out another benefit druids get - their gear can't be sundered or stolen because it merges into their form.

They also trump rogues on stealth by turning into animals. This gives them access to other modes of movement as well as being ignored due to their size.

I'll grant that there's a un-sweet spot around 3rd to 5th level where you either don't have wild shape or it doesn't last very long (and only one change), and your animal companion is no longer more buff than the fighter. But at 1st and 2nd your animal companion will be the tank of the party, especially if you took a heavy horse (3 attacks/round and more hit points than the whole party put together). At 6th when you get a second change, you're up to 12 hours of animal form a day - easily enough to cover adventures and travel (though you'll have to get to 7th before you can cover the night watches as well).

But that's not even that un-sweet. It certainly isn't sucky. Compared to the other classes who have 5-15 levels of suck when compared to each other.

[MrNexx]

However, aside from direct damage spells, what DR-overcoming spells does a druid have? I don't recall a silvering or cold-iron-aligning spell, and they don't get align weapon.

If he's carrying extra weapons, he loses his primary melee benefit, which is wildshape.
If he's trying to align weapons, he's SOL.
To my knowledge, there are no SRD spells which will allow him to overcome other types on the druid spell list, save via direct damage.

[Gamebird]

Nope Druid doesn't have access to spells that bypasses damage reduction that's not magical. She also has to be out of Wildshape to be using those kinds of weapons so she is not as effective in combat anyway.

Not as effective in combat as what? She still has a 3/4 BAB, a magic weapon, armor and full casting, plus her quite-buff-on-its-own animal companion to hold back the enemies while she casts.

I'm not saying there aren't limited circumstances where other classes outshine a druid. There are. They're LIMITED, though. Certain monsters will be a problem - outsiders, usually. Maybe a few undead. Skill-intensive urban adventures will be better handled by the rogue or bard.

The vast majority of combats though are perfect for the druid's abilities. Humanoids? Check. Monstrous Humanoids? Check. Animals? Check. Oh hey, extra good against animals. Fey? Check and extra good against them too. Magical Beasts? Check, and some of those animal abilities relate to these guys too. Stupid undead? Check. Most physical-type undead? Check. Constructs? Check. Dragons? Check.

Can a Fighter, Barbarian or Ranger go down that list of monster types and check them off as easily as being able to deal with them? NO. Can a wizard, cleric or sorcerer? No (though a cleric [second most powerful class, I might add] might do okay if they know ahead of time what they're running into and can pick their spells appropriately).

A druid has to be out of Wild Shape to fight some monsters effectively. Boo-frickin-hoo. They STILL have a full caster progression of spells and STILL have a very buff animal companion and they're STILL wearing armor. So what that for a few limited encounter types they'll be in human form, wearing all their gear, getting full benefits of said gear? At that point they're still better than wizards or sorcerers and the equal of clerics (or maybe more so, because of the animal companion).

That's my point - druids are, at worst, the equal of the other classes. You have to reach for non-normal situations for a druid to be reduced to EQUAL. Normally, they are far superior.

[Gamebird]

However, aside from direct damage spells, what DR-overcoming spells does a druid have?

One could make the same comment about a wizard or sorcerer. Does it make them underpowered that they have to cast spells to damage their enemies?


I don't recall a silvering or cold-iron-aligning spell, and they don't get align weapon.

One could make the same comment about a fighter, barbarian or ranger. Does it make them underpowered that they don't have these spells?

I'd have to check the Spell Compendium. I believe they're out there. There's always silversheen for the silver stuff and I doubt it says you can't apply it to natural weapons. Since elsewhere the rules say you can treat natural weapons as weapons for all magical effects, then you're good to go on that one. I think there are oils of align weapon as well.

My point is that a druid isn't a crappy spell caster. They have a full range of spells, including healing. They aren't a crappy fighter. They have a full range of wild shapes, including a buff and easily commanded animal companion. They have BOTH of these abilities. Sure, you can construct limited circumstances where a druid can't combo up their casting/fighting abilities, but most of the time they CAN. Even when they can't, they're still as good as the other classes (possible exception for cleric, which as I've said is the second most powerful anyway).

[MrNexx]

I was responding to your specific wording, Gamebird. That a druid would rely on their weapons... in which case, he's inferior to a full-BAB type (because while there is an Animal companion, I would think the opposition takes the big tiger into account when they plan an assault)... or they cast spells on their weapons, of which they have shillelagh.

[Gamebird]

I would think the opposition takes the big tiger into account when they plan an assault)....

Yes, but your animal companion is a class feature. Assuming the DM follows the RAW, a CR-appropriate encounter does not add the tiger as a member of the party. It's part of the druid. So a party of four druids and their four tigers or bears - eight effective combatants - is supposedly equal to a party of four fighters, or a party of a fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue.

By the RAW, when the DM is designing an encounter he shouldn't take a druid's tiger into account.

Juicy goodness is that the animal doesn't suck up xp or treasure either. So your party of four druids + companions who breeze through an encounter get exactly the same xp as a mixed party that struggles through the same encounter. If that mixed party tries to take cohorts to make up for the lack of numbers and fighting ability, not only do they have to spend a feat for it, but they have to give the cohorts a share of the loot. (Or at least they do if they want the cohort's gear-related abilities to progress. As opposed to the animal companions, who keep getting better whenever the druid levels up.)

[MrNexx]

On the contrary, the DMG guidelines for designing encounters are fairly clear that if encounters are too easy, then the XP awarded should be less.

[krossbow]

On the contrary, the DMG guidelines for designing encounters are fairly clear that if encounters are too easy, then the XP awarded should be less.

thats no excuse: what your admitting is that a party with a druid is a higher level party eqivelent.

that rule is for when you as a dm suck and either give them way too powerful items or play monsters crappily (i.e. ignoring dragons spells or a pit fiends teleport)..

[Tellah]

what your admitting is that a party with a druid is a higher level party eqivelent.


I'll admit that. It's true.

[MrNexx]

thats no excuse: what your admitting is that a party with a druid is a higher level party eqivelent.

Because it is.

[Suzaku]

Because it is.
Same thing by having a cleric and or wizard in the party. Not having a cleric or druid in the party will increase encounter difficulty. Also even if you don't have a cleric and no wizard can increase the encounter level by simply not having a wizard.

[MrNexx]

However, a druid is a different case, because the presence of any fully capable spellcaster (i.e. those with a broad spell list; a druid, cleric, wizard, archivist, even a sorcerer, favored soul or spirit shaman in a pinch) is pretty much interchangeable for easing difficulty... not precisely, but pretty much.

A druid, on the other hand, has his free cohort ranger or barbarian with him (it tracks pretty closely... multiattack, tracking, some degree of stealth or tanking, with light or medium armor).

By the time the ranger gets his companion, it's far less of an issue... it's a free, limited, version of the cohort from the Leadership feat. It's significantly weaker than most of the party, and not going to be dominating the melee combat; it's useful for flanking, aid another, and tracking. The druid companion, however, remains of great value, because he can continually increase its utility by replacing it.

[FdL]

It can get pretty ridiculous, having a druid ask the rest of the party to "dress up his animal form". So much for being in contact with nature. It's like the philosophical opposite of shapeshifting into an animal..."Hey, when I change into bear take all my uber stuff and put on me, gotta keep those numbers high, you know".

But if you want to play it like that, it's your problem. Keep in mind that's the reason why you end up saying that the druid is overpowered.

I, for one, have no need to ban Wild Armor, Natural Spell and similar things. Because to me there's only the PHB II variant, which makes actual sense and does away with all those ridiculous things that can be abused in the name of Power.

This is a change long due and as someone said should have been on an Errata.

[Stephen_E]

What about Damage reduction other then magical. How does a druid bypass that? Why not ban wildarmor if you think it's over powered.

The general way of dealing with non-magic DR is just sucking it up and doing enough damage that some gets through. While the Fighter has Power Attack for this purpose, the Druid has more Strength.

If it's a situation where you knew what DR you were walking in to, there are ussually purchasable ways around it. Namely Silver sheen and weapons make of the appropriate materials. In the case of the Druid they will have to decide what form to fight in, but then they just get claws made of the appropriate material strapped on, and caps for their major canines.

Sure I wouldn't like to measure and fit such things on your average wild animal, but this is a Druid. He's not likely to bite you if you cause some minor pain. He may well fry you with magic if you don't do the work.

Stephen

[Desaril]

I don't know where to begin...

Animal companion in combat- animals don't usually attack anything, except prey, so getting it to attack anything is difficult. Although some animals use rudimentary tactics and attack from the rear, that is a far different cry from attacking from the exact opposite side as an ally. Can it happen? Sure! Does your animal companion have the intellect to do it on verbal command? Not without specialized training. Of course, and I've said this before, the druid can wait until the animal attacks and then take up a flanking position, but the animal will probably not take a flanking position when fighting. If your DM plays the animal companion as an extension of your character, i.e. lets you control their actions like you would a PC, this is a big bonus, but animal companions are normal animals. You should be able to scare them off by waving a torch in their faces. Animals don't fight to the death against armed and armored men. That's not a animal companion, that's one player having two PCs, one a humanoid druid, and the other a VERY intelligent and loyal animal.

Resizing magic items- the rule about resizing magic items is directed to GMs and is reasonably interpreted to avoid the necessity of putting small magic items in the campaign for Small PCs to pick up. I don't believe that magic items were designed to be worn/carried by animals. Is it prohibited by the RAW? No, but it's stupid. Just because the designers leave a loophole doesn't mean players should exploit it or DMs should allow it.

Druids are better than fighters- level for level druids never have the BAB, HP, AC, weapon damage or feats of fighters w/o relying on spells to buff them. If they rely on spells to be as good as fighters, then they are just as good, not better, therefore they are balanced.

"Their combat spells are as good as wizard/sorcerors and what they lose in flexibility they make up for in wide selection"- Whoa! Which ones? Perhaps you have a spell list I haven't seen. Of course, it depends on what level we're talking about but druids never have the same breadth of spells as wizards or as many spells as sorceror and clerics. The direct damage spells of a druid are weaker- magic stone is just not equal to magic missle. They can buff some stuff like clerics, but have no enchantments, no illusions.

Nearly everything else was an explanation about how some magic item or feat could make a druid better. It's not fair to compare a druid with wild armor and VOP compared to a fighter without a correspondingly powerful feat or item. The most bothersome thing was that someone kept mentioning "just buy Item X". I don't play in campaigns where you can go Ye Olde Magic Shoppe and just pick what you want off the rack. I suppose that might make a difference in my analysis, but of course so can the other characters and it becomes a wash.

The point is that although the druid does some of everything, it doesn't fight as well as the fighters, cast as well as the casters, or sneak as well as the rogues. But the druid is useful at all of them. That makes them seem powerful, but they're merely versatile.

[Suzaku]

I don't know where to begin...

Animal companion in combat- animals don't usually attack anything, except prey, so getting it to attack anything is difficult. Although some animals use rudimentary tactics and attack from the rear, that is a far different cry from attacking from the exact opposite side as an ally. Can it happen? Sure! Does your animal companion have the intellect to do it on verbal command? Not without specialized training. Of course, and I've said this before, the druid can wait until the animal attacks and then take up a flanking position, but the animal will probably not take a flanking position when fighting. If your DM plays the animal companion as an extension of your character, i.e. lets you control their actions like you would a PC, this is a big bonus, but animal companions are normal animals. You should be able to scare them off by waving a torch in their faces. Animals don't fight to the death against armed and armored men. That's not a animal companion, that's one player having two PCs, one a humanoid druid, and the other a VERY intelligent and loyal animal.

Resizing magic items- the rule about resizing magic items is directed to GMs and is reasonably interpreted to avoid the necessity of putting small magic items in the campaign for Small PCs to pick up. I don't believe that magic items were designed to be worn/carried by animals. Is it prohibited by the RAW? No, but it's stupid. Just because the designers leave a loophole doesn't mean players should exploit it or DMs should allow it.

Druids are better than fighters- level for level druids never have the BAB, HP, AC, weapon damage or feats of fighters w/o relying on spells to buff them. If they rely on spells to be as good as fighters, then they are just as good, not better, therefore they are balanced.

"Their combat spells are as good as wizard/sorcerors and what they lose in flexibility they make up for in wide selection"- Whoa! Which ones? Perhaps you have a spell list I haven't seen. Of course, it depends on what level we're talking about but druids never have the same breadth of spells as wizards or as many spells as sorceror and clerics. The direct damage spells of a druid are weaker- magic stone is just not equal to magic missle. They can buff some stuff like clerics, but have no enchantments, no illusions.

Nearly everything else was an explanation about how some magic item or feat could make a druid better. It's not fair to compare a druid with wild armor and VOP compared to a fighter without a correspondingly powerful feat or item. The most bothersome thing was that someone kept mentioning "just buy Item X". I don't play in campaigns where you can go Ye Olde Magic Shoppe and just pick what you want off the rack. I suppose that might make a difference in my analysis, but of course so can the other characters and it becomes a wash.

The point is that although the druid does some of everything, it doesn't fight as well as the fighters, cast as well as the casters, or sneak as well as the rogues. But the druid is useful at all of them. That makes them seem powerful, but they're merely versatile.

Mind if I save that for future use?

[Divides]

thats no excuse: what your admitting is that a party with a druid is a higher level party eqivelent.

that rule is for when you as a dm suck and either give them way too powerful items or play monsters crappily (i.e. ignoring dragons spells or a pit fiends teleport)..

It's also for special cases... like when the enemy NPC is exausted, out of spells, and has five negative levels from his recent battle with a wraith that occurred as part of the story...

But the fact remains that, yeah, having to lower the XP value of an encounter because there HAPPENS to be a person using a certain CORE CLASS in the party... is weird.


[EDIT ADDED]

Yes, I realize wraiths do con drain, not negative levels. Shut up and leave me alone!

[Gamebird]

Animal companion in combat- animals don't usually attack anything, except prey, so getting it to attack anything is difficult.

Animals in D&D can be taught reliably to attack ANYTHING per the rules for Handle Animal. Druids have a +4 to direct their companion via Handle Animal. Also, they can do so as a free action.

Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType), monstrous humanoids (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#monstrousHumanoidType), giants (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#giantType), or other animals (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animalType). Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#aberrationType)) counts as two tricks.
and
druid can handle her animal companion as a free action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#freeActions), or push it as a move action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#moveActions), even if she doesn’t have any ranks in the Handle Animal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/handleAnimal.htm) skill. The druid gains a +4 circumstance bonus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#circumstanceModifier) on all wild empathy checks and Handle Animal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/handleAnimal.htm) checks made regarding an animal companion.

So as a free action, a druid can direct her animal companion to attack any particular enemy it can get to.

So for two tricks (which animal companions get bonus tricks), they'll attack even things as bizarre as undead. Specifically.



Although some animals use rudimentary tactics and attack from the rear, that is a far different cry from attacking from the exact opposite side as an ally.

It has already been pointed out that the SRD says

A favorite tactic is to send a few individuals against the foe’s front while the rest of the pack circles and attacks from the flanks or rear.

And you yourself admit it hardly matters, since the druid can simply direct their companion to attack and then move in on the opposite side. Animal companions ALWAYS have specialized training. That's why they have bonus tricks.


but animal companions are normal animals. You should be able to scare them off by waving a torch in their faces. Animals don't fight to the death against armed and armored men.

Sorry, but D&D has no mechanic for morale checks. Not for animals, peasants, dragons or PCs. All they have is fear checks. As far as that goes, the RAW is silent about whether creatures even understand their current level of hit points, seeing as they go from fully able and not even winded at 1 hit point to bleeding to death at -1. You can house rule what you want, but it's a house rule. I'm not going to debate you the validity of your house rules regarding morale and hit points. By the RAW, animals fight until they are commanded not to or
until it must flee (due to injury, a fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear) effect, or the like) or its opponent is defeated. "Injury" only shows up in the following areas: variant rules (which don't apply to a RAW discussion), a result of taking a standard action when at 0 or negative hit points, the result of certain spells/items (spike stones and caltrops), damage taken while casting a spell, or a type of poison requiring hit point damage to work. It seems reasonable to suppose "injury" means hit point damage, but also it seems reasonable that it's not just any hit point damage. It's certain kinds or levels of damage.

But if this animal is so stupid that it can't figure out how to flank, then how does it know when it has 13 hit points or 3?


Resizing magic items- the rule about resizing magic items is directed to GMs and is reasonably interpreted to avoid the necessity of putting small magic items in the campaign for Small PCs to pick up.

No, I think it's there so that any treasure the DM gives out is ready-to-use for the PCs. It's a highly PC-centric game. All sorts of realism/verisimilitude issues are defenestrated so the PCs are the stars. Since the druid is a PC, I am unconvinced that the resizing shouldn't also be applied to situations that enhance the druid.


I don't believe that magic items were designed to be worn/carried by animals. Is it prohibited by the RAW? No, but it's stupid. Just because the designers leave a loophole doesn't mean players should exploit it or DMs should allow it.

There are a number of magic items designed specifically for animals in WotC products, some of them in the SRD. The SRD also has rules for barding for animals. It's not stupid. Nor is a druid's desire to be as powerful and tough as he can be. D&D usually involves repeat attempts to murder the PCs, after all.


Druids are better than fighters- level for level druids never have the BAB, HP, AC, weapon damage or feats of fighters w/o relying on spells to buff them. If they rely on spells to be as good as fighters, then they are just as good, not better, therefore they are balanced.

All they need is wild shape to equal or exceed the fighter. The point is that after they get wild shape and equal the fighter, then they get the spells in addition. Fighters don't.

Here: Fighter Bob stands opposite Druid Dave. They are of equal level and have equal gear. Curious about who would win, they agree to a duel with no outside assistance. The fight begins. Fighter Bob moves to the druid and attacks. Perhaps he hits. Dave's animal companion attacks Bob. The druid changes into a bear. Bob gets another round of attacks - another hit. So does the animal companion. But the druid is now done shifting form and AUTOMATICALLY heals as if resting a day, negating most of Bob's damage to it. Then the bear mauls Bob to death, because the bear form available to a druid of a certain level is generally better than a fighter of the same level as the druid. To add injury to injury, the bear's animal companion continues to attack every round, because Bob has never done any damage to it, meaning even under the strictest interpretation of "injury", the animal companion won't stop attacking until Bob's dead or Dave orders it down.


"Their combat spells are as good as wizard/sorcerors and what they lose in flexibility they make up for in wide selection"- Whoa! Which ones? Perhaps you have a spell list I haven't seen. Of course, it depends on what level we're talking about but druids never have the same breadth of spells as wizards or as many spells as sorceror and clerics.

Wizards can only cast the spells in their spell books, which are prohibitively expensive at higher levels. Sorcerers only have the spells on their Spells Known list. A druid (or cleric) has access to every druid or cleric spell the DM allows in their game, of a level the character can cast. Every single one of them, without training, without a spell book. If the DM only allows PHB spells, then the druid is not so outrageous, though they still get the quite buff spell Firestorm. It's a lovely spell and doesn't even harm the vegetation, in case you've Entangled your enemies first. Or slowed them with Plant Growth. Or affected them with Spike Growth. Or anything similar.

If you allow the Spell Compendium or spells out of various Complete books, then the druid does as much damage as the wizard, due to spells like Cometfall. Plus, they're as good at battlefield control as a wizard.

A cleric has this same benefit in spell choice, but their choices usually aren't as good at distance direct damage (though they pwn everyone on personal buff spells).


The direct damage spells of a druid are weaker- magic stone is just not equal to magic missle.

Yeah, but Entangle sure kicks the crap out of Sleep.


They can buff some stuff like clerics, but have no enchantments, no illusions.

Woo. They lose enchantments and illusions - the two least reliable schools in the book. More important is that a druid's spell list works excellently for buffing their animal companion and for personal buffs that stack nicely with wild shape.


Nearly everything else was an explanation about how some magic item or feat could make a druid better. It's not fair to compare a druid with wild armor and VOP compared to a fighter without a correspondingly powerful feat or item.

But that's the thing - there is no correspondingly powerful feat/item for fighters or clerics or whatever, because no one else gets Wild Shape. Everyone else is limited to their own stats (except wizards with Polymorph, but we won't go there). A druid gets to pick the stats of any animal the DM allows in the game world, unless the DM takes a non-RAW ruling on Knowledge: Nature and what it means to be familiar with a creature (which I wouldn't blame the DM if they did - I sure do - but it's non-RAW).


The most bothersome thing was that someone kept mentioning "just buy Item X". I don't play in campaigns where you can go Ye Olde Magic Shoppe and just pick what you want off the rack. I suppose that might make a difference in my analysis, but of course so can the other characters and it becomes a wash.

Other than Natural Spell, there aren't any feats that help a druid. Which leaves the druid free to take Item Creation feats. If you balk at the idea of there being magic item shops (which I'll point out the RAW provides that cities of a certain size *will* have items of under a certain value), then the druid can just make the item themselves.


The point is that although the druid does some of everything, it doesn't fight as well as the fighters, cast as well as the casters, or sneak as well as the rogues. But the druid is useful at all of them. That makes them seem powerful, but they're merely versatile.

I would say the bard is a good example of a class that does some of everything and gains "power" from versitality. The bard has a d6 hit points (druids get d8), poor spell progression (as opposed to druids getting full), poor spell choice and is limited to their spells known list. Do you really think the song-and-dance of bardic music buff, and 2 more skill points per level, is equal to the druid's Wild Shape and animal companion?

No, a druid is as good as a fighter, casts as well as any caster and sneaks as well as a rogue. It can do all three, perfectly well.

[FdL]

But that's the thing - there is no correspondingly powerful feat/item for fighters or clerics or whatever, because no one else gets Wild Shape. Everyone else is limited to their own stats (except wizards with Polymorph, but we won't go there). A druid gets to pick the stats of any animal the DM allows in the game world, unless the DM takes a non-RAW ruling on Knowledge: Nature and what it means to be familiar with a creature (which I wouldn't blame the DM if they did - I sure do - but it's non-RAW).

Actually, the PHB states something about familiarity. That's pretty RAW to me.

[MrNexx]

Yes, but it provides no mechanics for familiarity. The best you can do is a knowledge nature check to see "Do I know anything about this rare creature that I pulled out of a sourcebook" and, given the way DCs are, a druid is likely to know something about any creature of his HD or lower (DC is 10 + the creatures HD; the check is K: Nature. Even if they have a -3 Intelligence, they can take 10 to know about anything they can wild shape into).

[Aimbot]

Maybe a brainfart, but that might be another way of adding some balance to the mighty druid - a chance that they could get "stuck" in animal form. It would definitely have precedent in fantasy literature and mythology. I seem to remember some story about a woman who changed into a bear, got stuck there, and killed her kid; and Ged almost got stuck in bird form in the Earthsea trilogy. There may have been offhand mention of something like it in the Hobbit when they're visiting Beorn, though it's been awhile since I've read that one.

My childhood forced me to post this:
Tobias

At low levels, casters are just fine. With their animal companion and spells (Entangle, whee!), Druids are really good right from level 1. Level 1 clerics heal, which keeps them (and everyone else) going for way longer than they otherwise could a that level. At low level, Wizards are very effective with Sleep.

So they're just fine--just not overwhelming.

Really, I thought they were allways the first to die (http://www.dancebackwards.com/AlwaysTheFirstToDie.html)?

[Suzaku]

perhaps one can make familiarity of a creature to function like a Wizard's spell book. During down time a Druid could track an animal to study it so it could wildshape into one.

[Fhaolan]

perhaps one can make familiarity of a creature to function like a Wizard's spell book. During down time a Druid could track an animal to study it so it could wildshape into one.

That's an interesting idea. It needs some fleshing out into mechanics, of course, but I like the initial sound of it.

That's one of the issues I have with the RAW druid, is that 'familiarty' is so vague rather than solid mechanics. Neary every druid fix I've seen on these boards start with dealing with that bit of handwavium. Everyone's come up with their own answer, some based on Knowledge checks setting different DCs based on how restrictive they want to be, or more harsh restrictions based on DM fiat, but it all seems to boil down to 'How do we keep the Druid out of the dinosaurs and legendary beasts?'

Putting some kind of research 'cost' on each form is a very interesting idea. The cost doesn't have to be monetary, of course, but it should cost *something*.

[Desaril]

Training animals to attack by flanking- I never said it was impossible, just difficult. Table 4:3 of the PHB (PHB 64) describes a DC:20 as Challenging If training an animal to attack is challenging, teaching it to coordinate from the opposite direction is harder, perhaps formidable.

Animals don't flee- You're right 3.5 doesn't make morale rules, DMs do. I'm of the opinion that the rules are balanced if the DMs make reasonable rulings. If the DM puts no limits on the game, I can imagine that Druids do unbalance the game. It sounds like you're admitting that your DMs don't typically play animals as animals becuase the rules don't require it. I imagine that your DMs should start roleplaying. Animal companions can attack normal humanoids and can use rudimentary tactics, but animals are not as smart as humanoids. Further, they don't know what the other characters are going to do; they can't coordinate.

Animals don't recognize injury- no one knows their HP unless you are metagaming. Animals don't have to know their HP total to know that they were just hit with an axe. Animals lack human will and drive. They are largely driven by instinct, so they should'nt fight to the death. They should break off the fight and retreat like most creatures. Of course, if you have an undead or construct companion, that's not an issue.

Magic for animals- the fact that there are specific items for animals is proof of my point. The resizing rules specifically mentions allowing Small PCs use items they find. But I will admit the rule is broad enough to allow your interpretation.

Spells- OMG! At 13th level when the druid can cast a firestorm, the wizard can cast finger of death and limited wish! Entangle is good, but the enemy is only entangled, not rendered unconscious or dead. If the enemy is strong they might break out. And you can't go take them out without suffering the effects of the entangle. I don't know sounds kinda like a wash to me.

Knowledge (nature) and familiarity with an animal- I don't know what RAW you're referring to that intertwines the two. Perhaps there is an errata that explains this, but my PHB and the SRD doesn't say how the two work together. Even if it is only a skill roll, the DM should limit your knowledge to animals you have or reasonably could have encountered, not any animal in the books.

Feats for druids- There are plenty of feats appropriate for druids. Taking your own veiw that druids can do it all, they should consider the fighter feats, the skill bonus feats, and metamagic feats. Of course, if your goal is to break a class, only take feats that will break the class.

Comparing druid to bard- I think the analysis suffers from the straw man fallacy. Comparing a druid to a bard to prove that the druid is ungodly powerful is silly. The bard is weaker in combat than the bard because it is more of a RP/interpersonal skill class.

Druids vs. fighters- Your analysis ignores that the 8th level fighter (at least since the Druid is wild shaped into a bear) has an incredible AC and never gets hit by the animal companion. It ignores that he fighter has magical weaponry and feats that balances the bear's strength advantage. Just with STR, a two-handed weapon and Power Attack the Fighter is matching damage. Put a magic weapon in his hands and its over. I have no idea what makes you think changing into wild shape gets you back up to full HP, but I read the rules to say that you retain your HP. Please direct me to whichever rule you are reading.

The druid is comparable to a ranger or a cleric, they can all do a variety of things pretty well. Can you "break" a druid using various combinations of feats? Yes, but you can break any class. The druid is balanced compared to the other classes, but I admit at higher levels the versatility is an advantage because at higher levels versatility is what matters. At lower levels, the druid is part of the team. The provide flexibility to a party that may not have four members to play the traditional (fighter, mage, rogue, cleric) roles. They are effective at all four, but not better than any at their specialty.

[Gamebird]

I have no idea what makes you think changing into wild shape gets you back up to full HP, but I read the rules to say that you retain your HP. Please direct me to whichever rule you are reading.

I don't have time for a full response, but here's this:

Wild Shape (Su (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities))

At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the alternate form (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm) special ability, except as noted here. The effect lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back. Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardActions) and doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm). Each time you use wild shape, you regain lost hit points as if you had rested for a night (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/injuryandDeath.htm#naturalHealing).

[krossbow]

Wait, have you ever seen an angry bear? They don't flee; those things do fight to the death.



People who have emptied multiple shotgun shots into a grizzly bear have been mauled as the thing kept coming-- alot of animals don't know fear.




And a T-rex animal companion.... well, thats just common sense.

[Stephen_E]

Training animals to attack by flanking- I never said it was impossible, just difficult. Table 4:3 of the PHB (PHB 64) describes a DC:20 as Challenging If training an animal to attack is challenging, teaching it to coordinate from the opposite direction is harder, perhaps formidable.

As has been pointed out training an animal to attack is challenging because you are teaching it to attack only when you tell him to. Ussually to a particular command. You've provided no reason why use basic tactical nouse (flanking) would require ANY significant additional training, let alone be more difficult than attacking ONLY on command. Indeed you rate it as more difficult than teaching it to attack Undead, Elementals and Eberations all together! You also provided nothing to support that flanking is a sophisticated manuver that is difficult to learn (as I've pointed out previously, having precise rules for deciding what counts is a game/player mechanic issue, not a sugestion of inherent difficulty of the manuever).


Animals don't flee- You're right 3.5 doesn't make morale rules, DMs do. I'm of the opinion that the rules are balanced if the DMs make reasonable rulings. If the DM puts no limits on the game, I can imagine that Druids do unbalance the game. It sounds like you're admitting that your DMs don't typically play animals as animals becuase the rules don't require it. I imagine that your DMs should start roleplaying. Animal companions can attack normal humanoids and can use rudimentary tactics, but animals are not as smart as humanoids. Further, they don't know what the other characters are going to do; they can't coordinate.

Animals aren't as intelligent as humanoids. They can be extremely smart in terms of limited situations of tactical and even strategic thinking. They can indeed coordinate, and a quite capable of reading body language to work out where you're moving to. Note - I do say "Can". Smartness varys hugely amongt animal as it does amongst humans, but IMO it is reasonable to treat Animal Companions as been amongst the smarter of their type, similiar to the way PCs are "superior".


Animals don't recognize injury- no one knows their HP unless you are metagaming. Animals don't have to know their HP total to know that they were just hit with an axe. Animals lack human will and drive. They are largely driven by instinct, so they should'nt fight to the death. They should break off the fight and retreat like most creatures. Of course, if you have an undead or construct companion, that's not an issue.

Actually the basic concept in DnD of hit points means that getting hit by a weapon doesn't actually reflect getting hit with a weapon. It reflects the exhaustion of avoiding the blow enough to avoid any real damage. Also animals do show will and drive (have you had much intereaction with animals?) and while they won't normally fight to the death by choice (neither do humans) such behaviour has been noted in animals, not discounting the ability to ride horses to death, which is a complete contradiction of your claim.


Druids vs. fighters- Your analysis ignores that the 8th level fighter (at least since the Druid is wild shaped into a bear) has an incredible AC and never gets hit by the animal companion. It ignores that he fighter has magical weaponry and feats that balances the bear's strength advantage. Just with STR, a two-handed weapon and Power Attack the Fighter is matching damage. Put a magic weapon in his hands and its over. I have no idea what makes you think changing into wild shape gets you back up to full HP, but I read the rules to say that you retain your HP. Please direct me to whichever rule you are reading.


What's this magical AC that your 8th level Fighter has that will stop an animal, be it an Animal Companion or Wildshaped Druid, hitting him. I've never noticed it. Your basic Wolf companion of a 8th level Druid will have a +7 attack before buffing (and Druids can and do buff companions) equipment (those who intend to make serious use of their companion in combat often equip them) and tactical considerations. The DMG puts your 8th lev Fighter at AC23, so that's a basic 25% hit chance. Note this is with the Druid taking no feats to improve their Animal Companion. Also note the Wolf will have AC 19 before buffing (Barkskin brings it upto AC22) vs the Fighters +12, and 6 hit dice gives him reasonable durability, and lets not forget the trip attack on any successful hit with a +2 modifier (and can't be tripped back) which means there is roughly a 10% chance of any particular attack (before buffing) leaving the Fighter Prone, which is a really bad situation.

Now the Wildshaped Druid is better in combat than his companion (at least in this circumstance) having a better BAB and more hit dice. Good choices at 8th level include Dire Wolf, Brown Bear, Polar Bear, Dinosaur (at least one of these should be available). Frankly I wouldn't want to put money on that Fighter facing a unbuffed Druid and Companion. Buffing just removes the chance of some modest good luck pulling it out for the Fighter.

Stephen

[Gamebird]

Any druid worth his salt puts hide armor barding on his companion.

[Serenity]

OK, dump auto-healing from Wild Shape. Definitely stupid, though I've never heard of it before. Disallow Natural Spell. Most Magical items shouldn't function while Wild Shaped: gloves, rings, cloaks or robes, weapons, etc. And any that could work have to be specially designed to do so, which entails extra cost and takes up an enchantment level.

Make some tweaks to other classes--ie, Listen/Spot/Search are class skills for everyone, possibly rolled into one skill., give fighters 4 skill points+INT mod.)

How's that do?

[Gamebird]

OK, dump auto-healing from Wild Shape. Definitely stupid, though I've never heard of it before. Disallow Natural Spell. Most Magical items shouldn't function while Wild Shaped: gloves, rings, cloaks or robes, weapons, etc. And any that could work have to be specially designed to do so, which entails extra cost and takes up an enchantment level.

Make some tweaks to other classes--ie, Listen/Spot/Search are class skills for everyone, possibly rolled into one skill., give fighters 4 skill points+INT mod.)

How's that do?

Now we're getting into a kind of flavor debate. I prefer to balance the classes by reducing the stronger ones down to the power of the weaker ones. Some people prefer to balance the classes by increasing the power of the weaker ones up to the stronger ones. Either way is fine, or even trying some middle path of increasing the weakest and nerfing the strongest.

Which way is best is up to debate. Opening the topic beyond druids and tinkering with other classes is a big, big can of worms. Not one I'm interested in.

But about wild shape healing - oh yeah. In our table top game it was used all the time. Since we usually only had one combat a day, the druid could heal himself afterwards just by switching forms a few times. My wizard took Polymorph primarily in case I got damaged during the downtime and couldn't get to a cleric.

[Yzorth]

Guys, the PHB says, (or at least in the new errata or w/e) that ALL your equipment melds into you when you wildshape. It doesn't MATTER if the items COULD be worn as an animal or not.

[krossbow]

Well, the problem comes about in that wildshape lasts so long. It's fairly easy to, by 9th level, simply remove all your gear, wildshape, and then have your allies fasten the stuff on and not have to worry about it the rest of the day.
________
HERBALAIRE (http://herbalairevaporizer.com/)

[Serenity]

I was trying for something of that middle path, moderating the changes needed by adding some strength to the weaker classes. PHB II has a certain amount of stigma in my group, ditto for DMG II, so I don't particularly want to go for variants presented there.

[Stephen_E]

Guys, the PHB says, (or at least in the new errata or w/e) that ALL your equipment melds into you when you wildshape. It doesn't MATTER if the items COULD be worn as an animal or not.

It does matter if you take the items off before changing. The items only dissappear if you're wearing them when you change. Oddly enough most Druids don't.

Stephen

[Yzorth]

I think the revised polymorph rules made by Rich are decent. Just an fyi.

[Stephen_E]

If you want to chop the Druids back some I approach it this way.

There are 3 major power threads to a Druid.
Spellcasting
Wildshaping
Animal Companion
With Spellcasting been the strongest.

Make a Druid have to choose which of 3 types of Druid they want.
a) Full Spellcasting, Wildshaping but no Animal Companion.
b) Full Spellcasting, no Woldshaping but they do get their Animal Companion.
c) Limited Spellcasting (standard 1-4 levs, then half advancement, i.e. the 5th lev advance would occur over the 5th and 6th, so by 20th lev you cast as a 12 lev Druid, with CL2) Wildshaping and Animal Companion.

This will chop the Druids strength back by about 20%, and create different Druids.

Then to balance up the other Pure casters -

Clerics. - Clerical Buff spells can no longer target self. Clerics are their to preach the word and support God's Champions. Not to be the champions.
Those "self only" Buffs will instead be reserved for the most devout warriors of the God - Paladins, Blackguards, Pious Templars, ecetre, + anyone whose taken the True Believer feat (Comp Divine). Note that the warrior also has to worship the same God to receive the Ex-"Self" Buffs (Righteous Might and Divine Power). I'd also give them SR = to class level vs Arcane spells. (you'll see the point to that shortly)

Arcane Casters. - Penetrating Spell Resistance will now be done using CL/2 + 1d20. Suddenly Spell Resistance becomes a real pain in the arse for Arcane casters (as it was in earlier editions, which was one of the things that kept them honest at high level). Feats and Class abilities that are specifically designed to assist penetrate Spell Resistance will be a flat add to the roll, rather than a add to the CL. Note with Clerics now getting SR, spell duels with high level Clerics become dicier, and the Wizard would much rather have a Fighter to throw at him (and with the Cleric not been able to Buff himself, the Fighter is much more interested in having that Fighter/Cleric fight).

Stephen

[Desaril]

Thanks GameBird, I didn't catch the healing reference. b

@ Stephen E- I was just playing last night and actually acheiving a flanking position can be difficult for a PLAYER using a battlegrid depending on terrain and obstacles. However, animals don't move in accordance with battle grids. They will not normally have the intellect to attack from a 180 degree angle from another character. I'm not saying animals can never flank (or attack from the flanks in the normal use of the word), I'm saying a RAW flanking maneuver usually requires the purposeful intention to take that particular position. If you;re in a 5 foot wide hallway and your enemy is between the animal and another character, I'm pretty sure the animal will flank. But if you're in a wide open field, the animal will probably not circle the opponent to get the proper position to acheive a RAW flank.

What HP represents- Actually the rules say the HP represent the ability to take physical punishment and to turn serious blows into less serious ones. Your description is from 2.0. Either way, I will admit that no I have never fought an animal in life and death combat, but I will tell you that MOST animals do not fight to the death. You can probably train an animal to do so.

Druids are as good as fighters- I never said an 8th level fighter would defeat an 8th level druid in single combat. That is an impossibly difficult analysis that has to balance equipment, feat choice, spell choice, terrain, time for preparation, etc. The point is that a druid does not fight as well as a fighter fights at the same time as he can cast as well as a wizard casts and sneak as well as a thief sneaks, or whatever. The notion spread on this board is that the druid is more powerful than the other classes because it can do everything they do at the same time.

Quoted from GameBird- No, a druid is as good as a fighter, casts as well as any caster and sneaks as well as a rogue. It can do all three, perfectly well.

That's just not true. Every example in favor of that proposition has use the combination of spellcasting, companion, wildshape and skills to show that the druid just as effective as a fighter.

I think Yzorth said it best when he said that the druid is the class most vulnrable to cheese or powergaming because of its versatility. You CAN make a druid that overpowers other characters. You CAN make a fighter or wizard or rogue that does the same thing. But the druid as written doesn't have hide barding on his wolf companion, or the optimal collection of feats to go toe-to-toe with a fighter. He doesn't have time to cast buff spells on himself and his companion or to strip off all his magic items and then redress before a combat.

If D&D was a tabletop tactical game and the characters were just pieces on a board, these things may be unbalancing. However, the DM is supposed to enforce some story considerations and encourage roleplaying. They should limit feat and equipment selection to maintain balance. Without the good judgment of the DM, the system is vulnerable to abuse from every quarter.

[Yzorth]

Just another point.

You keep your own health when you transform. It doesn't matter if the creature has a billion Con. You don't gain any health when you change to the creature.

Another thing, you don't gain any extraordinary attacks or abilities. That means no pounce, improved grapple or anything like that.

Also, just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it doesn't meld into you. It says all "equipment". That means it doesn't matter if its a block of steel or a tree leaf. Its ALL EQUIPMENT, so it melds into you.

Wild armor is a +3 bonus. Thats very expensive when you want to get something good with the armor as well.

[Stephen_E]

@ Stephen E- I was just playing last night and actually acheiving a flanking position can be difficult for a PLAYER using a battlegrid depending on terrain and obstacles. However, animals don't move in accordance with battle grids. They will not normally have the intellect to attack from a 180 degree angle from another character. I'm not saying animals can never flank (or attack from the flanks in the normal use of the word), I'm saying a RAW flanking maneuver usually requires the purposeful intention to take that particular position. If you;re in a 5 foot wide hallway and your enemy is between the animal and another character, I'm pretty sure the animal will flank. But if you're in a wide open field, the animal will probably not circle the opponent to get the proper position to acheive a RAW flank.

It was difficult for you, the player, to set up a game mechanics flank position for your PC. It wasn't difficult for your PC to Flank. He didn't have to gain any feats, make any skill checks, ability checks, or anything else, other than move to the flank square. Now this isn't always possible to get in the square for physical reasons, but it's not a inherently difficult thing to do. If you're in a wide open field with an attack trained dog it probably will circle to attack in such away that it's victim can't focus it's attention completly on it (which is was DnD flanking represents). In fact if non-attack trained dogs attack you they'll do it to (Two of my Sisters dogs tried to have a go at me recently and that's exactly what they tried to do, threaten me from opposite sides to increase the chance of a opening. And yes they had to move around to get that position).


@ What HP represents- Actually the rules say the HP represent the ability to take physical punishment and to turn serious blows into less serious ones. Your description is from 2.0. Either way, I will admit that no I have never fought an animal in life and death combat, but I will tell you that MOST animals do not fight to the death. You can probably train an animal to do so. .

Right, so the blows have been turned into less serious injuries. Determined animals attacking will indeed keep fighting after minor injuries. If you think animals won't fight to the death I suggest you look at Boar spears. They have a cross peice to stop the Boar driving up the spear to kill you even as it kills itself.


@ Druids are as good as fighters- I never said an 8th level fighter would defeat an 8th level druid in single combat. That is an impossibly difficult analysis that has to balance equipment, feat choice, spell choice, terrain, time for preparation, etc. The point is that a druid does not fight as well as a fighter fights at the same time as he can cast as well as a wizard casts and sneak as well as a thief sneaks, or whatever. The notion spread on this board is that the druid is more powerful than the other classes because it can do everything they do at the same time.

Quoted from GameBird- No, a druid is as good as a fighter, casts as well as any caster and sneaks as well as a rogue. It can do all three, perfectly well..

Look at Gamebirds quote again. She didn't claim Druids could do all three things at the same time, she simply said they could do all 3 things. As a rule it isn't nessecary to scout, fight and spell cast at the same time. The Druid can fight as well or better than the Fighter when he chooses to fight. He can scout as good as the Rogue when scouting, and can cast spells almost as good Clerics and Wizards when he's spell casting (It;s a matter of opinion, but I don't think the Druid spell list is quite as powerful as the Wizard or Cleric). The Druid is more powerful because he great at any of these three activities whenever he wants to be. You're not seriously suggesting that because he's only great at one of these at a time, he's no stronger than the character who's only great at one of these things ever!

And it's not impossibly difficult to do analysis of Druid vs Fighter combat. Fighters mostly lose.


@ That's just not true. Every example in favor of that proposition has use the combination of spellcasting, companion, wildshape and skills to show that the druid just as effective as a fighter.

I think Yzorth said it best when he said that the druid is the class most vulnrable to cheese or powergaming because of its versatility. You CAN make a druid that overpowers other characters. You CAN make a fighter or wizard or rogue that does the same thing. But the druid as written doesn't have hide barding on his wolf companion, or the optimal collection of feats to go toe-to-toe with a fighter. He doesn't have time to cast buff spells on himself and his companion or to strip off all his magic items and then redress before a combat.


TTBOMK people haven't been saying that Druids Scout well in the same round that they melee fight, as well as casting in that combat round. What they can do is do all of these rolls well (more so than any other class) and switch between these rolls faster than any other class. You can make a Fighter, Rogue or Wizard that can do SOME of what a Druid can do, but I don't know of any Fighter, Rogue or Wizard build that can do ALL a Druid does as well as a Druid (unless you're multiclassing, in which case. we can do things with the Druid as well - Arcane Heirophant anyone)

The Druid doesn't need the optimal set of feats to go toe-toe with the fighter. He needs 1 feat for optimal spellcasting (Natural Spell), 1 feat for optimal Animal Companion (Natural Bond - Comp Adv) and frankly he doesn't need any feats for Melee combat, although the fast Wildshape feats are useful.

Stephen

[Gamebird]

Yeah, what Stephen E said.

And to add:
In our reality, animals have two fight responses. One is a direct, frontal attack. Animals do this when alone, cornered or engaging in a threat display. It is not their desired form of attack and they usually don't press it - being content to run off their oppositition. It's also quite dangerous to them as it allows their enemy to focus all attention on them. The other is to seek an opening, usually by flanking. This is highly preferred by pack hunters such as dogs, wolves and lions.

(For the purposes of this, I'm considering "fight" responses not to include the killing of prey by stealth or surprise. I'm only considering contested, mutual combats.)

I don't know if it would be possible to train a horse, ox, goat, tiger or bear to do a precise and automatic flanking attack. They don't do that sort of thing deliberately in reality. However, none of those animals are so stupid that they don't recognize when someone is distracted. If they are going to attack someone, they are well able to wait patiently for their target to look the other way before head-butting them in the butt, stepping on them or kicking them.

There's no need to train a dog, wolf or lion for flanking, because if they're going to bother attacking something, then they're going to do it.

The issue is whether you think an INT 2 creature in the game will act like their counterpart in the real world. If they do, then a wolf will automatically seek out the "flanking square" because it perceives this as the easiest place to attack from and because it instinctively does that. If you say that the +2 to attack is imperceptible and that animals are too stupid to know, then so be it. Animals as written make very little sense anyway, what with most of them not doing enough damage to kill their prey before said prey runs away.