Does Paizo hate Druids or just people who play Druids?

[(Un)Inspired]

It's not like the pathfinder druid is terrible or anything... It just such a step down from the 3.5 druid. Does anyone know why they hacked it down so much but essentially left the cleric and wizard intact?

I never got the impression that they were the Kahuna of the big three. Can one honestly say they are still tier 1 in pathfinder? What do they have in terms of 9th level spells that break the game?

No gate, no wish, no time stop, to miracle, shapechange doesn't do anything special anymore... In what way can they compete with their so called peers?

[SowZ]

It's not like the pathfinder druid is terrible or anything... It just such a step down from the 3.5 druid. Does anyone know why they hacked it down so much but essentially left the cleric and wizard intact?

I never got the impression that they were the Kahuna of the big three. Can one honestly say they are still tier 1 in pathfinder? What do they have in terms of 9th level spells that break the game?

No gate, no wish, no time stop, to miracle, shapechange doesn't do anything special anymore... In what way can they compete with their so called peers?

The Druid has a few things going for it that make many people think it is the most OP class, and for many groups it is. Number 1: The Druid is equally good at all levels. From the gate, it is powerful. The Wizard, however, has to drudge through the early levels compared to the Cleric and Druid. While it is still more powerful than its mundane counterparts, the tiers stay about where they are from 1-20 and even from level 1 Wizard is useful, I'd say the Wizard doesn't really feel uber until it gets 4th level spells. At high levels, the Wizard outshines the Druid, but the Druid still doesn't feel useless at level 20. This is part of it, at least.

There is a misconception that the Wizard is weak until level 7 or so and being so powerful is a reward for sticking it out. While untrue, compared to the Druid, it is true unless you picked spells really well. The Druid is super strong from the get go.

The next part is optimization. Even during low levels, a well optimized Wizard can outshine the Druid. But most groups don't optimize much. And the Druid? Well, you can't really go wrong. Without even trying, you are a master of stealth, flight, tanking, mobility, and melee combat all from Wild Shape. And your pet is practically a free fighter. On top of all that, you get 9th level spellcasting. Drop the Druid down to a Paladin or Ranger casting progression and it is still solidly Tier 3. The Druid doesn't have the raw power of a wizard, but its versatility is insane. Yes, with the right spells, a Wizard is more versatile. But the Druid doesn't even have to try.

[Coidzor]

It was the easiest, most visible change they could make. It wouldn't be nearly as noticeable and would be a lot less fun for them if they went through and fixed the more egregious spells, even operating under the requirement to not completely change the spell system, at least, not initially.

Druids, on the other hand, had class features, which Paizo could nerf and/or simplify to show off.

[Kraken]

The decrease in druid power is a consequence of Paizo kneecapping all things involving shapechanging more than anything else. The rest is just a lack of splat support, which hit all classes equally at the outset. Off the top of my head though, I suppose druids have received less useful splat support than the other core full casters, or am I misremembering things?

[(Un)Inspired]

I know a lot of the Druids new level of power is due to the way paizo changed shape change and co. Do you guys feel like the Druid really is in the same class of power as the cleric and the wizard now? If so, how can the Druid compete with the two; both if which potentially have access to time stop, gate and wish or miracle?

As far as I can tell, none of the triumvirate have any killer archetypes-except for the Ecclesitheurge cleric. Oh man do I love that one.

[JusticeZero]

The Druid falls a bit behind the Cleric and Wizard at very high levels that most gamers never experience. However, as an experiment, I made a Druid at lower levels with spellcasting replaced with Ranger Tricks - they're still a powerhouse with no spellcasting at all.

[(Un)Inspired]

I'm not arguing that the pathfinder Druid isn't strong. I'm arguing that it's no longer on the same level as the cleric or the wizard.

[JusticeZero]

It isn't... At level 20. But it had about 15 ish levels where it was, and it can still do absurd stuff that blows everyone else out of the water.

[(Un)Inspired]

It isn't... At level 20. But it had about 15 ish levels where it was, and it can still do absurd stuff that blows everyone else out of the water.

Can you explain some of this stuff to me? As I see it, before 15 a wizard can still have loads of planar bound helpers, it can have a get out of jail free card with contingency and it can do PAO all it's allies into horrible monsters. I don't see how a Druid can match anything of this sort.

[Lanaya]

I'm not arguing that the pathfinder Druid isn't strong. I'm arguing that it's no longer on the same level as the cleric or the wizard.

That's probably true, and it's certainly a good thing. Nothing should be on the level of the cleric or wizard. Most deities shouldn't have the kind of power a mid-level wizard can attain. The only problem with PF's treatment of the druid is that it wasn't extended to the other T1 classes.

[kabreras]

My problem with pathfinder druid (and prety much all shapechanging in pathfinder) is that they have no taste...

form me, you widshape in a shapeless grey form with bland abilities.
a lion is a tiger is a guepar is a... big cat that is not really a big cat.

Instead of changing like that they should have put an evolutive CR limit at each shapechange cap and kept the take physical abilites / keep intellectuals ones

Yes it is less book keeping but it is also less immersion in the game.

[Kurald Galain]

Based on the past few games I've been in, I do find any spellcaster umpressive until they get 2nd level spells, or in the druid's case, wild shape. While it's true that the wizard in particular has some encounter-ending spells even at level 1, they simply don't have enough spells per day yet to stand out.

For the druid, it also makes a big difference whether the player has picked e.g. a spinosaurus (three attacks at str 18) or an antelope (one attack at str 10); as well as if the character has focused on strength for melee, or wisdom for save DCs, or neither. Finally, the druid spell list has a lot of duds on it. This means that a druid does take more player skill and involvement to build and play (compare to any melee class which can get away with 1.take high strength, 2.pick a big weapon, 3.power attack and done), and a poorly played druid turns out to be pretty ineffective.

[atemu1234]

The title of the thread just bugs me.

Do you remember CoDzilla? Paizo tried to fix that problem. Nerfing a class that probably qualifies as OP is not hatred of a group or type, just a hatred of unbalanced materials.

[Psyren]

Druid needed the nerf. Working as intended. Next!

[Elricaltovilla]

Druid needed the nerf. Working as intended. Next!

Cleric and Wizard needed the nerf too. Who's gonna fix that?

[Psyren]

Cleric and Wizard needed the nerf too. Who's gonna fix that?

They were nerfed too. Divine Power no longer makes you a melee god and clerics can no longer simply fall into full plate. Wizards can no longer pyrohydra/war troll and wade into melee. You know, little things like that.

[Ssalarn]

The title of the thread just bugs me.

Do you remember CoDzilla? Paizo tried to fix that problem. Nerfing a class that probably qualifies as OP is not hatred of a group or type, just a hatred of unbalanced materials.

The druid nerf was necessary and welcome. The shapechanging spells were adjusted specifically because they encouraged massive stat dumping and broadened the gap between martials and casters not just in general, but specifically in the areas that the non-spellcasting classes are supposed to excel in.

Since Paizo was saddled with both an OGL limiting the design choices they could make and a tight timeline to turn out a new system, they had to select the changes that would be most noticeable to the widest audience; that means changing the things that are going to bring obvious disparity to a group of players with moderate (low by forum standards) system mastery. That means things like caster characters being automatically better at being martials than martials and secondary class features making casters even more SAD than they already are.

[Kurald Galain]

Cleric and Wizard needed the nerf too. Who's gonna fix that?

The Unchained book?

Probably not though. I think that while the wizard class is capable of breaking the game, almost all players with a wizard character either don't know how to do that, or just don't play it that way. Hence it's less problematic than the "hey look I'm two fighters" druid.

[Vortenger]

I know a lot of the Druids new level of power is due to the way paizo changed shape change and co. Do you guys feel like the Druid really is in the same class of power as the cleric and the wizard now? If so, how can the Druid compete with the two; both if which potentially have access to time stop, gate and wish or miracle?

As far as I can tell, none of the triumvirate have any killer archetypes-except for the Ecclesitheurge cleric. Oh man do I love that one.

Saurian Shaman Druid (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo---druid-archetypes/saurian-shaman) would like a word with you.

As the 3.5 Cleric's Handbook pointed out, so many clerics used DMM: Persist it may as well have been a class feature. That option no longer exists and a few of its primary candidates got blown away. Psyren mentioned Divine Power no longer makes a cleric equal in combat to a fighter. With the changes to spells and to feats, the cleric lost almost as much as the druid. Both have fallen towards the bottom of T1 rather than headlining. Its still a very good place to be, though.

[Ssalarn]

Saurian Shaman Druid (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo---druid-archetypes/saurian-shaman) would like a word with you.

As the 3.5 Cleric's Handbook pointed out, so many clerics used DMM: Persist it may as well have been a class feature. That option no longer exists and a few of its primary candidates got blown away. Psyren mentioned Divine Power no longer makes a cleric equal in combat to a fighter. With the changes to spells and to feats, the cleric lost almost as much as the druid. Both have fallen towards the bottom of T1 rather than headlining. Its still a very good place to be, though.

Yeah being at the bottom of Tier 1 is kind of like being the poorest millionaire at the party; you're still a millionaire, and you're still at the party.
I still find it a little odd that the Wizard got buffed in the conversion too (I mean, cantrips were a great thing and not really a power boost, but removing restricted schools from the class chassis and adding on a bunch of goodies while leaving the spell list almost untouched?), but...

Druid still has some excellent options (Vital Striking Saurian Shamans transformed in stegosaurii are just good old fashioned fun), he just doesn't get to be equally good at both casting and combat like he used to. I think the bulk of players probably don't know anything about Tiers, and what really bothers them are things like "Class A does my thing even better than me and gets to do its other cool thing too! WTH?!?". As long as the blatant perpetrators of that kind of issue are taken out, like the clerics losing their "transform into war-god" divine power spells and druids not getting to dump all of their physical stats and still have better physical stats than the martials, the game works well enough for the bulk of players and they're within their OGL parameters.

[(Un)Inspired]

Yeah being at the bottom of Tier 1 is kind of like being the poorest millionaire at the party; you're still a millionaire, and you're still at the party.
I still find it a little odd that the Wizard got buffed in the conversion too (I mean, cantrips were a great thing and not really a power boost, but removing restricted schools from the class chassis and adding on a bunch of goodies while leaving the spell list almost untouched?), but...

Druid still has some excellent options (Vital Striking Saurian Shamans transformed in stegosaurii are just good old fashioned fun), he just doesn't get to be equally good at both casting and combat like he used to. I think the bulk of players probably don't know anything about Tiers, and what really bothers them are things like "Class A does my thing even better than me and gets to do its other cool thing too! WTH?!?". As long as the blatant perpetrators of that kind of issue are taken out, like the clerics losing their "transform into war-god" divine power spells and druids not getting to dump all of their physical stats and still have better physical stats than the martials, the game works well enough for the bulk of players and they're within their OGL parameters.

Can Druids still be called tier 1? We have evidence of 9th level caster that don't make tier 1 or 2 such as the healer.

[Snowbluff]

The title of the thread just bugs me.

Do you remember CoDzilla? Paizo tried to fix that problem. Nerfing a class that probably qualifies as OP is not hatred of a group or type, just a hatred of unbalanced materials.No, it's pretty much a screw you to the more interesting mechanics that Druid had. Casting is pretty blase and common in a lot of cases, but wildshape had some interesting opportunities if you worked with it.

Not that it's all bad. Druid can really go "AM STR" and beat the crap out of most things.


They were nerfed too. Divine Power no longer makes you a melee god and clerics can no longer simply fall into full plate. Wizards can no longer pyrohydra/war troll and wade into melee. You know, little things like that.
Weren't those the classes that got a bunch of class features for no reason? :smallconfused:

[Zrak]

My problem with pathfinder druid (and prety much all shapechanging in pathfinder) is that they have no taste...

form me, you widshape in a shapeless grey form with bland abilities.
a lion is a tiger is a guepar is a... big cat that is not really a big cat.

Instead of changing like that they should have put an evolutive CR limit at each shapechange cap and kept the take physical abilites / keep intellectuals ones

Yes it is less book keeping but it is also less immersion in the game.

Yeah, I agree with this. Pathfinder shapechanging just isn't fun. I'd rather rely somewhat on a gentleman's agreement not to abuse the loopholes in polymorph and Wildshape than have theoretically airtight rules preventing those abuses that also make any and every use extremely boring.
It's especially galling given the later addition of the Synthesist archetype.

[Snowbluff]

Oh man, Synthesist is the best! It's so much fun making up your dude. Be a sentai hero, or iron man, or anything you want. It's also NAD. :smalltongue:

I can't wait until it gets a PoW archetype.

[Ssalarn]

Can Druids still be called tier 1? We have evidence of 9th level caster that don't make tier 1 or 2 such as the healer.

They've still got a class feature that brings about as much to the group as a Rogue (for what that's worth), and they still have spells like ascension, elemental swarm, foresight, and shapechange; if they choose the domain instead of they can grab a couple other spells.

It's fair to call them Tier 1; they've got solutions for pretty much everything, they're good at whatever they want to do, and while they don't have the best I win buttons, they've still got some. And of course, they have access to their full spell list and can prepare different combinations of spells as needed.


Yeah, I agree with this. Pathfinder shapechanging just isn't fun. I'd rather rely somewhat on a gentleman's agreement not to abuse the loopholes in polymorph and Wildshape than have theoretically airtight rules preventing those abuses that also make any and every use extremely boring.
It's especially galling given the later addition of the Synthesist archetype.

Synthesist is literally what happens when Jason Buhlman has a severe flu during crunch time and doesn't review the freelance contributions :P
You get the kind of poorly reviewed, not-matching-their-own-design-standards material that they normally shunt off to the Player Companion line (though with Owen over there now that might change a bit). The Summoner in general of course is something that Jason Buhlman has blatantly referred to as "the most horribly twisted and broken thing in the game" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np3w0RUExy0) (jump to 24:45), so it's pretty clear they consider that a "whoopsies", and are actually releasing a new version that's basically their "here's what would have happened if our lead designer wasn't flirting with death" in Pathfinder Unchained.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I agree with this. Pathfinder shapechanging just isn't fun.

Speak for yourself, I played a straight druid from 1-15 and had a blast pulling various animals, plants and elementals out of the bestiaries to solve our problems. The fact that I had to have decent physical stats to pull it off while casting effectively just meant I had to use my brain more.



Weren't those the classes that got a bunch of class features for no reason? :smallconfused:

Not "no reason" - so that there could be a jumping off point for archetypes, i.e. something to trade. And those class features don't make up for the nerfing the spells got.

[Extra Anchovies]

Can Druids still be called tier 1? We have evidence of 9th level caster that don't make tier 1 or 2 such as the healer.

'cept the Druid doesn't cast from the Healer list. The Druid casts from the Druid list. The Druid can blast, they can heal, they can buff, they can debuff, they can summon, they can BFC, they have a pet beatstick, and they can turn into a beatstick themselves. They're T1.

[Babale]

As the 3.5 Cleric's Handbook pointed out, so many clerics used DMM: Persist it may as well have been a class feature.

I'm sorry, I can't be the only one who takes issue with this? I feel like this sort of disconnect between "so many clerics on the GiantITP Forums" and "so many clerics in people's actual games" is what causes so many issues when people come on here to ask for specific advice, either as players or DMs, especially for games where they are the only forum readers in the group.


Look, I've DMed many, many games in 3.5. I've probably had at least a dozen clerics in my games over the years. And during that entire time not one of them has ever asked for DMM, much less used it for Persist (which under normal conditions would take up ALL of a cleric's turns, and he'd have to be fairly into turning to even have that many). And here's the thing -- I would have been fine with DMM, or Persist, or even both together, assuming no nightstick abuse. But none of my players (even the ones who go on forums regularly) have asked to do that. And that's why I've had fighters break games while wizards were underpowered -- because while yes, you can find a trick to let you put up every single one of your buffs for a whole day, people don't really do that in regular games.


And then the question is, what level should we balance for? Because I've had players show me two dozen threads and beg me to use a fighter fix because hey, the rest of the party is playing a druid, a cleric, a wizard, and a favored soul, so they'll be useless; and then suddenly they're by far the most powerful character there.


I don't claim to have the answer; I'm just saying, maybe for the target market of Pathfinder, which is probably intended for more casual players than 3.5 (3.5's biggest advantage is the number of options, which a casual player doesn't really need or even want) nerfing druids while leaving clerics and wizards alone IS the right answer.

[Zrak]

Speak for yourself, I played a straight druid from 1-15 and had a blast pulling various animals, plants and elementals out of the bestiaries to solve our problems. The fact that I had to have decent physical stats to pull it off while casting effectively just meant I had to use my brain more.

My issue is that none of the various animals, plants, and elementals are different enough for the choice to really matter. Gaining all extraordinary abilities and the specific stats of the creature in question make each choice more meaningful and unique than getting a few set abilities and some static "pluses."

I don't really see how needing decent physical stats means you have to use your brain more; no matter how hard you think about it, the eight you rolled for strength won't just turn into a sixteen. Wild shape, itself, doesn't really offer anything in the way of creative solutions; you get a set bonus to a set ability score based upon the size of the form you choose. It's not like you can pick an extra-tough animal to compensate for low constitution; you just get some strength if it's a medium animal and some dexterity if it's a small animal.

Even if you wanted to get away from the idea of replacing physical ability scores, assigning bonuses based on the creature's abilities, rather than arbitrary bonuses based on its size, would be a better solution; creature-based ability modifiers adds verisimilitude and variety, size-based ability modifiers are often counter-intuitive and significantly homogenize the options available to a player. I mean, say I get some crazy high rolls or just assign my stats all wonky and I end up with a druid rocking an 18 strength. For RP reasons, I choose to play an orc and thus end up with a strength score of 22. If this druid were to use wildshape to take on the form of a wolf, the strength score of which is 13, his strength would rise to 24.

I think Pathfinder did a lot of things right and made some really good changes, but this just was not one of them.

[Ssalarn]

Even if you wanted to get away from the idea of replacing physical ability scores, assigning bonuses based on the creature's abilities, rather than arbitrary bonuses based on its size, would be a better solution; creature-based ability modifiers adds verisimilitude and variety, size-based ability modifiers are often counter-intuitive and significantly homogenize the options available to a player. I mean, say I get some crazy high rolls or just assign my stats all wonky and I end up with a druid rocking an 18 strength. For RP reasons, I choose to play an orc and thus end up with a strength score of 22. If this druid were to use wildshape to take on the form of a wolf, the strength score of which is 13, his strength would rise to 24.

I think Pathfinder did a lot of things right and made some really good changes, but this just was not one of them.

I disagree, and count this amongst the better changes they made. In your example, you are already a ridiculously over-muscled humanoid; now you've wildshaped into a ridiculously over-muscled wolf, combining the beast's natural strength with your own. Makes perfect sense, and is mechanically sound from a design perspective unlike any ability that offers global physical stat replacement. It also means that if you are a particularly frail member of your species, you'll transform into a frailer version of the creature you're copying, which is again, both mechanically and thematically consistent and logical.

[Psyren]

My issue is that none of the various animals, plants, and elementals are different enough for the choice to really matter. Gaining all extraordinary abilities and the specific stats of the creature in question make each choice more meaningful and unique than getting a few set abilities and some static "pluses."

Because just like with old shapeshifting, it means you have to be savvy enough to find the right form that does all the things you want it to do. But unlike the old kind of shapeshifting, it means the monster designers are free to give exotic or unique Ex abilities to monsters without worrying "oh crap, a number of PCs can get this ability, what effects will that have?" It's the same problem that plagued 3.5 every time they released a new monster manual.

The spells are designed in such a way that even if you find a form that gets you everything on the list for that level, it has to be within the size requirements of the spell, and even if it fits all of that it still won't be broken beyond belief. The spells allow the player to access powerful abilities like regeneration or incorporeality at very precise times in their career, while the monster designers are free to put those abilities on monsters that are eligible choices at lower levels without worrying about it breaking the game open.



Even if you wanted to get away from the idea of replacing physical ability scores, assigning bonuses based on the creature's abilities, rather than arbitrary bonuses based on its size, would be a better solution; creature-based ability modifiers adds verisimilitude and variety, size-based ability modifiers are often counter-intuitive and significantly homogenize the options available to a player. I mean, say I get some crazy high rolls or just assign my stats all wonky and I end up with a druid rocking an 18 strength. For RP reasons, I choose to play an orc and thus end up with a strength score of 22. If this druid were to use wildshape to take on the form of a wolf, the strength score of which is 13, his strength would rise to 24.

How is that wonky? Why should you get weaker if you're transforming into something with the same size/mass as you or more? This way makes no sense.



I think Pathfinder did a lot of things right and made some really good changes, but this just was not one of them.

I have to respectfully disagree. The polymorph changes were some of the best design Paizo has ever done. My only changes to what they have done would be to (a) let Polymorph/Greater Polymorph duplicate any other polymorph spell of their level or lower, instead of the fixed lists they got, and (b) set PAO on fire and never look back.

[Thiyr]

How is that wonky? Why should you get weaker if you're transforming into something with the same size/mass as you or more? This way makes no sense.

I think he just chose a poor example, but I can agree with the general sentiment (even if I admit to not having used the system that's in place). A better example would be turning into a cat.

Full replacement makes you have Str 3

PF currently would give you str 20 (-2 for becoming tiny)

Assuming what he was proposing was a straight point-to-point change with an assumed baseline of 10, it would give a str of 15. (a deviation of -7 from a base of 10)


The first example makes sense on a gut level. I'm turning into a tiny kitten by literally modifying my body, of course I'm gonna have kitty strength. The last makes sense, in that "I'm obviously going to be significantly weaker when I'm a cat, but because my physique is the one being modified, I'm still significantly stronger than your average cat, and a lot of people at that". The middle one...well, feels a bit wonkier. "I'm a cat, so i'm a little bit weaker because I'm smaller, but not much weaker. Still stronger than any human." It's just a bit harder to swallow that turning yourself into a cat doesn't just make you an over-muscled cat, it makes you an -absurdly- over-muscled cat.

Or even better example, if you turned into a turtle, your dex goes up, even if a turtle only has a dex score of 6. Corner case, but still kinda weird. It's a question of bookkeeping vs verisimilitude between the last two options there, as both fulfill the "Can't ignore your own stats" niche. PF went with low-bookkeeping but a bigger chance of wonkiness, while the proposed alternative still requires animal-by-animal calculations but isn't gonna give you any weird situations like becoming a turtle making you -more- nimble. I personally prefer the latter, as I find such bookkeeping to be pretty easy, and I agree that the changes to wildshape at the very least are something I'm not huge on overall.


edit: Seems that I was wrong in my interpretation of what Zrak meant, see below. I still think my point stands though as another example of wonkiness.

[Zrak]

Because just like with old shapeshifting, it means you have to be savvy enough to find the right form that does all the things you want it to do. But unlike the old kind of shapeshifting, it means the monster designers are free to give exotic or unique Ex abilities to monsters without worrying "oh crap, a number of PCs can get this ability, what effects will that have?" It's the same problem that plagued 3.5 every time they released a new monster manual.
See, I think the exotic and unique Ex abilities are where a lot of the real creativity and, as you put it, using your brain of Wildshape came in. I'd rather have variety with the possibility for abuse than homogeneity without it, since the problems with the former are trivially easy to fix at the table and the problems with the latter are inherently ingrained in the mechanic.


How is that wonky? Why should you get weaker if you're transforming into something with the same size/mass as you or more? This way makes no sense.
If you're changing into something the same size as you, but less muscular, why should you gain strength? More generally, why should changing into something with the same size/mass as you increase your strength? Moreover, why should any two wild-shape forms in the same size category have identical strength when the animals do not; why is a druid no stronger as a bear than as a wolf, but a bear is stronger as a bear than a wolf is as a wolf? Of course, this isn't too wonky, but so far I've been playing with kid gloves on by sticking with medium-to-medium shapeshifting. Wonkier still is that shifting into a small animal doesn't decrease strength; our musclebound orc will be just as strong in the form of an eagle as he is in the form of an orc. I'm not sure how all his muscles fit into the significantly smaller form, but now he's an eagle that can lift hundreds of pounds over its head, deal with it. Of course, his greatest nemesis is the villainous shaman of a rival tribe, a Taiga Giant druid who gains strength by shapeshifting into a creature two size categories smaller than herself.
At the end, though, they have to work together to help combat a colossal great wyrm red dragon in a climactic battle where, in a cruel mockery of all they hold dear, he polymorphs himself into a medium-sized wolf, thereby becoming physically stronger than he is as a colossal red dragon.
Now do you get why I think it seems a little wonky?

[Psyren]

See, I think the exotic and unique Ex abilities are where a lot of the real creativity and, as you put it, using your brain of Wildshape came in. I'd rather have variety with the possibility for abuse than homogeneity without it, since the problems with the former are trivially easy to fix at the table and the problems with the latter are inherently ingrained in the mechanic.

If you're okay with abuse then houserule it in, nobody's stopping you. But the base rules have to be as abuse-averse as possible.



If you're changing into something the same size as you, but less muscular, why should you gain strength?

You are the one tacking "less muscular" on there needlessly. Statblocks are for typical specimens of a creature. Sure by the Bestiary, all dogs have the same stats - but should this one (http://assets.dogtime.com/breed/profile/image/4d3772570106195669002a43/max_400_whippet.jpg) have the same Str score as this one? (http://lol101.com/funnypictures/Animals/Muscular_Dog_VI8QW9.jpg)



More generally, why should changing into something with the same size/mass as you increase your strength? Moreover, why should any two wild-shape forms in the same size category have identical strength when the animals do not; why is a druid no stronger as a bear than as a wolf, but a bear is stronger as a bear than a wolf is as a wolf? Of course, this isn't too wonky, but so far I've been playing with kid gloves on by sticking with medium-to-medium shapeshifting. Wonkier still is that shifting into a small animal doesn't decrease strength; our musclebound orc will be just as strong in the form of an eagle as he is in the form of an orc. I'm not sure how all his muscles fit into the significantly smaller form, but now he's an eagle that can lift hundreds of pounds over its head, deal with it. Of course, his greatest nemesis is the villainous shaman of a rival tribe, a Taiga Giant druid who gains strength by shapeshifting into a creature two size categories smaller than herself.

Ah, I get it now - you don't actually understand the rules.

When changing size from polymorph, the numbers are calculated from medium or small size. If you are outside those ranges, you must first adjust your size (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Transmutation) (taking the necessary bonuses or penalties) to one of those two, then apply the bonuses from the spell. So a Taiga Giant turning into a wolf will get -8 Str before applying the bonuses from the spell.

So it's only wonky if you haven't read it fully.

[Zrak]

I'm not saying I'm okay with abuse, exactly. I'm saying that the 3.5 rules are better suited to the goal of maintaining as many options as possible while preventing abuse; as a DM, it's easier prevent the exploitation of loopholes in a mechanic than it is to rewrite a mechanic entirely; as a player, I have no control over houserules, but do have control over whether I exploit loopholes in RAW. As such, whether I am a player or a DM, the 3.5 version of the rules can better maximize the available options while minimizing exploits.


Ah, I get it now - you don't actually understand the rules.

When changing size from polymorph, the numbers are calculated from medium or small size. If you are outside those ranges, you must first adjust your size (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Transmutation) (taking the necessary bonuses or penalties) to one of those two, then apply the bonuses from the spell. So a Taiga Giant turning into a wolf will get -8 Str before applying the bonuses from the spell.

So it's only wonky if you haven't read it fully.

That is good to know, I really wasn't aware of that. :smallredface: While that is much less wonky, I would argue that still doesn't account for a lot of absolutely clown shoes situations brought up by myself and others; one still gains dexterity polymorphing into a turtle, medium characters retain their full strength when polymorphed into eagles, one gains strength (or dexterity, if small) when polymorphing into one's own creature type, and so on.

[Milo v3]

When changing size from polymorph, the numbers are calculated from medium or small size. If you are outside those ranges, you must first adjust your size (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Transmutation) (taking the necessary bonuses or penalties) to one of those two, then apply the bonuses from the spell. So a Taiga Giant turning into a wolf will get -8 Str before applying the bonuses from the spell.

Huh, didn't know this before.

[grarrrg]

When a problem comes along, you must
this one (http://assets.dogtime.com/breed/profile/image/4d3772570106195669002a43/max_400_whippet.jpg)
Before the Druid gets too strong, you must
this one (http://assets.dogtime.com/breed/profile/image/4d3772570106195669002a43/max_400_whippet.jpg)
When something's goin' wrong, you must
this one (http://assets.dogtime.com/breed/profile/image/4d3772570106195669002a43/max_400_whippet.jpg)

[(Un)Inspired]

When a problem comes along, you must
Before the Druid gets too strong, you must
When something's goin' wrong, you must

I was getting bored with this thread and you made it fun again. Thanks! You rock.

[Snowbluff]

I was getting bored with this thread and you made it fun again. Thanks! You rock.
*puts down drink*
Dude, this party's thread's lame. Wanna see what else is going on? :smalltongue:

[grarrrg]

I was getting bored with this thread and you made it fun again. Thanks! You rock.

The opportunity for that joke/pun doesn't happen nearly enough.

[Arbane]

I'm not saying I'm okay with abuse, exactly. I'm saying that the 3.5 rules are better suited to the goal of maintaining as many options as possible while preventing abuse;

:smalleek:

Have you ever even HEARD of Emperor Tippy?

Yes, DM fiat can reign in the more ridiculous game-breakers, but I think that in a better-designed game, it wouldn't NEED to.

[Zrak]

I feel as though you have missed the central conceit of what I am saying. My argument is that it's a lot easier for DM fiat to fix broken than boring; while 3.5's polymorph rules are almost certainly more prone to abuse than Pathfinder's polymorph rules, that is an easier problem to solve than the homogeneity with which Pathfinder's polymorph rules replaced the nuance of 3.5's. Obviating the need to rein in certain game breakers by creating a blander game is not better design, it's just blander. I'm not saying one couldn't improve 3.5's polymorph rules, I'm just saying Pathfinder's polymorph rules didn't.

[Psyren]

Again, if you think PF shapeshifting is boring, by all means houserule the 3.5 version back in. But most other folks who play PF are fine with it, even luminaries like the Giant. The system is more balanced without losing the toolboxy benefits of changing your form.

If you're used to 3.5's more open-ended approach and it wasn't causing trouble in your games, more power to you, but polymorph and wild shape absolutely were pain points for many DMs. Too many, as far as I and Paizo were concerned.

One thing I will say against PF is that it's missing some key options, like aberrations and outsiders, and powerful druids should have a way to wildshape into magical beasts (aside from planar wildshape.) I'll wait and see if PF Unchained offers these options.

[Snowbluff]

The problem with including aberrations and outsiders is that it would put the design goals of the PF wildshape in conflict with the effects people would want from those forms. Those creature types often have quirky effects that aren't easily covered in a list. To make them a satisfactory option, you would pretty much have to undo the actually balanced (IMO boring) part of the new Wildshape abilities, which is the limitations on what abilities you may get.

[Psyren]

The problem with including aberrations and outsiders is that it would put the design goals of the PF wildshape in conflict with the effects people would want from those forms. Those creature types often have quirky effects that aren't easily covered in a list. To make them a satisfactory option, you would pretty much have to undo the actually balanced (IMO boring) part of the new Wildshape abilities, which is the limitations on what abilities you may get.

Eh, Monstrous Humanoids have quirky abilities too and that hasn't stopped them. There are what, 2-3 MH with Mimicry in the entire game? But you can still get it with MP2; two versions are useless while the spell is balanced around the considerably more powerful third one. There's no harm in coming up with specific effects you want to impart imo, even rare ones.

[Snowbluff]

Including more MHs with a variety of abilities would require adding more to the spells. It's not open ended or self-maintaining. That's a problem.

Outsiders and Aberrations have abilities far and away exceeding mimicry (which is a handy tidbit for like... the 0 gishes that need martial prof. DAMMIT! :smallfrown:). So I doubt Paizo would allow anything interesting.

[thompur]

Again, if you think PF shapeshifting is boring, by all means houserule the 3.5 version back in. But most other folks who play PF are fine with it, even luminaries like the Giant. The system is more balanced without losing the toolboxy benefits of changing your form.

If you're used to 3.5's more open-ended approach and it wasn't causing trouble in your games, more power to you, but polymorph and wild shape absolutely were pain points for many DMs. Too many, as far as I and Paizo were concerned.

One thing I will say against PF is that it's missing some key options, like aberrations and outsiders, and powerful druids should have a way to wildshape into magical beasts (aside from planar wildshape.) I'll wait and see if PF Unchained offers these options.

See Beast Shape III and Beast Shape IV.:smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

You don't have to add more to the spells. For instance, they have shown that a lot of different abilities can be called "Mimicry." They can add a variety of abilities with that name to a variety of new MH if they want to expand it without changing the spell at all. Similarly, "Freeze" currently means "This creature can hide in plain sight with a max stealth roll" but it could mean other things as well.

For aberrations I would imagine granting abilities like quickness, adhesive, all-around vision, stench spray, and even niche/specific abilities like mimic object.

Incidentally that's another nice thing about PF shapeshifting - because it grants specific abiilities, you can let it grant Su abilities and Ex special qualities far earlier than 3.5 can without worrying about breakage.


See Beast Shape III and Beast Shape IV.:smallbiggrin:

I said wildshape, which removes those options :smalltongue: Druids can only become animals, plants and elementals, barring certain feats or archetypes.

[Snowbluff]

That's good point about mimicry, except that we can't have universal definitions for these abilities in that case. :smallfrown:

As for "breakage," take a moment to rethink your statement. Druid is a ninth level caster. Having interesting abilities isn't going to break the game any more than their base abilities. Not to mention that this also extends to other classes, including wizards intending to buff their fighter buddies.

[Psyren]

That's good point about mimicry, except that we can't have universal definitions for these abilities in that case. :smallfrown:

Do we need to? All the universal entry has to say is "here's how the ability works in a broad sense, and the individual monster entry trumps." Which for the most part is what they do.

Some, like Mimicry, are so open-ended there is no general entry - the creature tells you exactly what you get, and that's okay too.


As for "breakage," take a moment to rethink your statement. Druid is a ninth level caster. Having interesting abilities isn't going to break the game any more than their base abilities. Not to mention that this also extends to other classes, including wizards intending to buff their fighter buddies.

I simply do not agree with this false dichotomy between "interesting and easily broken" / "reasonable but boring." I was never bored playing my PF druid despite the increased reasonableness of the shapeshifting. When I protected my party by transforming into a Tendriculos with 15ft. reach, grab, regen, and acid resist 20, I was supremely effective at both offense and defense. It was certainly a hell of a lot more interesting than 4e wild shape.

[Snowbluff]

First off:
Easily broken is not a detractor. It's d20. Additionally, see my above comment about druid. It's not a false dichotomy. What they did was remove actions for the sake of removing options and deceiving a fan base.

Second off:
Fun is subjective, but there is not a question that more options is better when you're on a OP happy board.

Third:
4e wildshape was actually balanced. If you don't agree with the first about balance not being important, then point this one out is just plain foolish.

The 4e shifting ability was intended to provide a character with the ability to provide alternative powers. Wildshape also opened up more viable damaging options, since beast form powers offered melee basic alternatives. When the enemy numbers were sufficiently culled and your power abilities are expended, the druid changes from throwing out frost spells to biting blackguards. This is actually similiar to how a Wildshaping Druid at level 5 works in 3.5 (before they get natural spell). You exhaust your spells, so you'll probably spend the rest of the day as a bear. Thematically speaking, I consider it an interesting alternative if I wasn't going be allowed Lolcrulos or fleshrakers. There's a meaningful difference between shaped and not, and a reason to not just be an animal 24/7.

Not that I prefer 4e over PF or 3.5. It's just that it gets a bad rap by people who haven't tried building with it. Pretty much the d20 equivalent to the 4e druid would be a caster who shapeshifts into a warblade... which I think it happening in the next PoW.

[Kurald Galain]

Third:
4e wildshape was actually balanced.

Oh please :smallsigh:

4E wildshape is, literally, "you can take any shape you can imagine, but it will not have ANY game effect whatsoever" (except a free five-foot-step when you turn back). You can turn into a bird, but you can't fly. If you turn into a fish, you can't breathe underwater. Become a nine-headed hydra, and you still have the same attacks as you would in human form.

Of course that's going to be balanced, but only by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Snowbluff]

If you turn into a fish, you can't breathe underwater. Become a nine-headed hydra, and you still have the same attacks as you would in human form.

Factually incorrect. The powers you can use in and out of Beast Form are exclusive to eachother.


Wild Shape
As a druid, you have the ability to channel the primal energy of beasts into your physical form and trans- form into a beast. You have an at-will power, wild shape, that allows you to assume the form of a beast, and many druid powers have the beast form keyword (page 219) and therefore can be used only while you are in beast form.
An apology would be nice. :smallfrown:

While there are only 2 forms available (beast and swarm, IIRC), the point is that you have exclusive attacks while in different forms. Changing shape is a tactical decision in 4e. In d20, it's the default.

[Psyren]

First off:
Easily broken is not a detractor. It's d20.

When will you, and indeed much of GitP, ever get around to understanding that you are not playing the same game as many, and I would argue most, other people?

"Breakable" is indeed not a detractor; but "easily breakable" absolutely is. And there was nothing easier than wildshape or polymorph in that regard.


Additionally, see my above comment about druid. It's not a false dichotomy. What they did was remove actions for the sake of removing options and deceiving a fan base.

How is it a "deception?" Did they hide or paywall the rules somewhere?

The only people deceived by blatant rules differences are the terminally lazy.



Second off:
Fun is subjective, but there is not a question that more options is better when you're on a OP happy board.

And that's fine, but the game is not designed for "OP happy boards." It never was.



Third:
4e wildshape was actually balanced. If you don't agree with the first about balance not being important, then point this one out is just plain foolish.

I never said 4e wildshape was imbalanced. I said it was boring, far more boring than 3.5 or PF could ever hope to be.

You go into "beast form" (no plants, no elementals, no vermin etc., mind you) and you have the same keyword powers whether you are a cougar, an eagle, a bear, a wolverine, a shark, etc. "You choose a specific form whenever you use wild shape, and that form has no effect on your game statistics or movement modes." At least PF and 3.5 make your chosen shape matter.

[Zrak]

Again, if you think PF shapeshifting is boring, by all means houserule the 3.5 version back in. But most other folks who play PF are fine with it, even luminaries like the Giant. The system is more balanced without losing the toolboxy benefits of changing your form.
It does, however, lose some of the drawbacks of changing your form. In a stat-replacing or ability-based-modifier polymorph system, the abilities of the form into which you're changing matter. Especially at lower levels, this meant a trade-off between the "toolboxy" benefits and the stat benefits (or drawbacks) of any given form, which was an interesting dynamic that is missing from the Pathfinder version. The Pathfinder rule is functional, I'm "fine with it," but I don't think it was a very good fix. It doesn't achieve much that wouldn't also be achieved, with less loss of nuance, by saying "No, dude, you can't just dump all your physical stats" and being a little discerning in the forms you allow.

[Snowbluff]

When will you, and indeed much of GitP, ever get around to understanding that you are not playing the same game as many, and I would argue most, other people?


And that's fine, but the game is not designed for "OP happy boards." It never was.


How is it a "deception?" Did they hide or paywall the rules somewhere?

The only people deceived by blatant rules differences are the terminally lazy.
So I take an active part in how I build my character. Other players do not pay this much scrutiny to their characters. I'm the only kind of person that would really care in the first place.

As for a deception, these less knowledgeable players would see "oh, look they changed that broken wildshape thing, instant get" without actually considering what wasn't changed. Hence the deception. Do something that takes no effort while doing nothing to actually provide a fix for much more powerful mechanics. The market isn't OP happy, so they'll just eat it up without proper scrutiny.



"Breakable" is indeed not a detractor; but "easily breakable" absolutely is. And there was nothing easier than wildshape or polymorph in that regard. Au contraire, playing a powerful polymorpher rewards extensive research. Sticking to the basics, it's not in anyway easily broken.


I never said 4e wildshape was imbalanced. I said it was boring, far more boring than 3.5 or PF could ever hope to be.

You go into "beast form" (no plants, no elementals, no vermin etc., mind you) and you have the same keyword powers whether you are a cougar, an eagle, a bear, a wolverine, a shark, etc. "You choose a specific form whenever you use wild shape, and that form has no effect on your game statistics or movement modes." At least PF and 3.5 make your chosen shape matter. It's actually closer to PF's wildshape than 3.5's, and also actually provides the "balance" and "less broke" style of play you want. That's part of the reason why I think this line of thinking is ill contrived.

PF wildshape: Git stats, select passive abilities from a set list. No casting without a feat. Always on. Focus on pumping stats to the max.
4e Beast form: No stats, select active abilities from an alternate power list. No casting. Constantly shifting midcombat. Focused on changing based on turn to turn actions.

Sure, both leave a lot to desire, but 4e Druid doesn't deserve the brain-dead, knee-jerk reaction it gets. Personally, I would like to see a blend of the two. A 6/9 caster that may shift 1/round as a free action. Can't cast spells while shifted (no natural spell), but get a maneuver progression in beast mode. It would probably use a 3.5/PF compromise polymorph for stats and abilities, because it would be balanced around not dumping stats and providing a compromise between "rar 3.5megahydra360noscope" and "chessmasta 4e druid."

EDIT: ACFs/Archetypes could provide alternative shaping options. For example, a celestial shaper that would get more Su abilities.

[eggynack]

I think the issue here is that 3.5 wild shape is an ability both great and terrible. It's an ability that makes you become things, with all the baggage that entails, and it spans across a mass of source books, growing in potency the further you roam. It's an ability with secrets, wacky and wonky powers hidden away where no one would expect to find them, with interactions known to few, and that few almost certainly doesn't include the designers. It's an ability that can be expanded to ridiculous levels, going from largely physical changes to a place of crazy power and even crazier interactions. Yes, casting is more powerful, but casting isn't in competition with wild shape. It's in cooperation with it. Druid magic wouldn't be quite the same without that wild shape form backing it up.

PF wild shape, by comparison, is not so great, and it is not so terrible. You no longer just become things, which is less interesting, but you no longer just become things, which is less problematic. Nothing is hidden away about PF wild shape, which removes a lot of that sense of discovery and power that 3.5 wild shape has, but at the same time, it means that the designers know exactly what it does. You can't really expand it, or at least I don't think you can, and you certainly can't do things on the scale of aberration wild shape or even dragon wild shape. These are expressions of the past advantages and disadvantages of 3.5 wild shape, except even moreso.

The question then, as it always was, is one of preference. 3.5 wild shape is great and terrible in a way that PF wild shape just isn't, so depending on which of those things you value more, greatness versus not-terribleness, and depending on how much of the one you think PF sacrificed for the other, you'll either prefer one or the other. PF will never let you use a feat from one sourcebook, combined with a spell from a second sourcebook, and an obscure monster from an old sourcebook, to gain access to two spells a round all day. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on the game.

[Psyren]

So I take an active part in how I build my character. Other players do not pay this much scrutiny to their characters. I'm the only kind of person that would really care in the first place.

Everyone who plays this edition cares about building their character - planning builds is one of the core engagements of 3.P. Also, I'm fairly sure I scrutinize my builds as much as you do if not more - I'm just less turned on by things like synthesists with two dozen claw attacks. :smalltongue:


As for a deception, these less knowledgeable players would see "oh, look they changed that broken wildshape thing, instant get" without actually considering what wasn't changed. Hence the deception. Do something that takes no effort while doing nothing to actually provide a fix for much more powerful mechanics. The market isn't OP happy, so they'll just eat it up without proper scrutiny.

Yeah, many non-polymorph things are still really good. They're also inherently less problematic than shapeshifting is, because they don't let the noodly-armed wizard take the melee's job on a whim for an entire fight with one spell.



Au contraire, playing a powerful polymorpher rewards extensive research. Sticking to the basics, it's not in anyway easily broken.

"Extensive research?" Pyrohydras and Trolls are core. Ropers are core. Cloakers are core. Will o' Wisps are core. How is looking at the MM "extensive research?"



It's actually closer to PF's wildshape than 3.5's, and also actually provides the "balance" and "less broke" style of play you want. That's part of the reason why I think this line of thinking is ill contrived.

PF wildshape: Git stats, select passive abilities from a set list. No casting without a feat. Always on. Focus on pumping stats to the max.
4e Beast form: No stats, select active abilities from an alternate power list. No casting. Constantly shifting midcombat. Focused on changing based on turn to turn actions.

Sure, both leave a lot to desire, but 4e Druid doesn't deserve the brain-dead, knee-jerk reaction it gets. Personally, I would like to see a blend of the two. A 6/9 caster that may shift 1/round as a free action. Can't cast spells while shifted (no natural spell), but get a maneuver progression in beast mode. It would probably use a 3.5/PF compromise polymorph for stats and abilities, because it would be balanced around not dumping stats and providing a compromise between "rar 3.5megahydra360noscope" and "chessmasta 4e druid."

EDIT: ACFs/Archetypes could provide alternative shaping options. For example, a celestial shaper that would get more Su abilities.

4e wildshape is effectively just a stance change that lets you initiate a different set of maneuvers. It's not true shapeshifting, not when you can't use it to fly or swim etc. outside of a very limited set of powers that let you briefly do those things. I'm glad you like it but it's not for me.


PF will never let you use a feat from one sourcebook, combined with a spell from a second sourcebook, and an obscure monster from an old sourcebook, to gain access to two spells a round all day. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on the game.

Paizo rightly decided that the folks who want that sort of game are already empowered enough to houserule their way there. So they catered to the folks who want to just pick up and play and have things work at low-mid op. And it has been a winning formula.

[eggynack]

Paizo rightly decided that the folks who want that sort of game are already empowered enough to houserule their way there. So they catered to the folks who want to just pick up and play and have things work at low-mid op. And it has been a winning formula.
Something like that, I guess. If 3.5 wild shape didn't exist, then I'd probably be more annoyed by PF wild shape (because it's presumably the only option in this universe), but given the existence of the first, the existence of the second is probably just a good thing.

[Zrak]

Paizo rightly decided that the folks who want that sort of game are already empowered enough to houserule their way there.

I hadn't really thought about it this way. The kind of people comfortable enough with the rules to be comfortable dealing with the exploits 3.5's polymorph are more likely to houserule things in the first place than the kind of people who can't really foresee and deal with those exploits. So the kind of people for whom 3.5 polymorph will be a problem are better off in Pathfinder and the kind of people for whom it won't are willing to houserule to get exactly what they want. I guess from that perspective it's a pretty good solution, but it does still leave players who prefer the 3.5 rules in the dust. If I went to a 3.5 table I could self-limit even if the DM didn't know to houserule a few limits or veto some wildshape options, getting the options I want without breaking their game, whereas if I went to a Pathfinder table I'm basically stuck using PF wildshape.

[Snowbluff]

Everyone who plays this edition cares about building their character - planning builds is one of the core engagements of 3.P. Also, I'm fairly sure I scrutinize my builds as much as you do if not more - I'm just less turned on by things like synthesists with two dozen claw attacks. :smalltongue: Uh, sir. Sir. Synthesists can only have 7 claw. Judge!:smalltongue:



"Extensive research?" Pyrohydras and Trolls are core. Ropers are core. Cloakers are core. Will o' Wisps are core. How is looking at the MM "extensive research?"
I was speaking about the wildshape specifically, but gaining most of those effects would require you to know something about the game. The saves don't scale really well on the offensive form, either. I mean, damn that roper is good, but how long would that be effective? Does it matter with the abilities you have at the level or that you hit with a -6 compared to a regular roper?


4e wildshape is effectively just a stance change that lets you initiate a different set of maneuvers. It's not true shapeshifting, not when you can't use it to fly or swim etc. outside of a very limited set of powers that let you briefly do those things. I'm glad you like it but it's not for me. Superficially, yes. However, it actually allows a change in playstyle and the option to shapeshift based on your current situation. In PF and 3.5, it's a braindead choice. Ideally, wildshaping would actually be something past a stance that gives flying and +4 str.

[(Un)Inspired]

Uh, sir. Sir. Synthesists can only have 7 claw. Judge!:smalltongue:


According to the pedantry lobe in my brain, a Synthesist can have as many claws as they can afford with evolution point. They can only make up to 7 attacks with them per turn however.