PDA

View Full Version : Why druids are not overpowered (core)



Sir Giacomo
2007-05-29, 12:54 PM
Hi everyone,

over at the monk thread, the issue came up that a druid would be the most powerful of all classes, making even non-caster classes obsolete.

Since I would like to delve a bit futher into the matter, I am starting this new thread so as not to derail the monk thread (yes, I know, there have been several on this already, but I am trying to provide some new angles). Note, that for reasons of keeping it reasonably comparable and debatable I'd like to keep the discussion to the core rules.

I replied to the notion of druid power with the following:
They are not. AMF of opponents, dispels of opponents, spell resistance of opponents, vulnerability to re-learn spells (the same 1 hour uninterrupted prayer per day), vulnerability of animal companion (regain with 24(!) hour uninterrupted prayer, so likely if slain gone for the rest of the adventure), limited item use&limited DEX (in high-level play)&limited communication power in wildshape, ex-druid section (including all abilities are gone once you teach language to someone else - dominate monster anyone? Absurd bluff check to pass as a druid acolythe is also enough, so a bard with glibness can be a nuisance for any druid). That should do it.
But discussing more about it would derail the thread.

Aquillon then posted the following opposing views, which I have encountered from various sides and which he outlines very well. Hope he does not mind if I post his answers here. I'll use them to underpin my above comments.


These things are theoretically a weakness of all full casters, though AMFs appear so rarely that they don't tend to matter, while SR can worked around easily. Essentially, shutting down re-learning spells or using AMF is relying on DM fait to balance the class, which proves they're overpowered.

This was discussed already in a different druid thread, and is repeated often for many spellcaster class power arguments. I also now see the problem: DMs who make use of the rules as they are intended to balance casters will often create situations when the spelluser simply cannot do anything and the player will be angry.
However, what are non-caster players then saying if they miss an attack roll, fail a skill check, or (to simulate a full-day effect) suffer from long-lasting curses or ill effects due to weak will saves?
Players of spellcasting classes, in my view, should be prepared that they 1) do not refresh their spells automatically (otherwise the rules would have specified it as such) and 2) their spellcasting IS vulnerable and may at certain encounters not work at all (same as the archer thwarted by windwalls or the rogue thwarted by creatures immune to criticals).

The point is that the game is a group game and everyone is MEANT to have vulnerabilities where others can jump in. Strangely, for spellcasters in the eyes of many it does not seem to apply.
Imo they maintain that AMF, spell resistance, or even dispesl etc. do not matter or can "easily" be overcome, because their DMs simply use those too rarely, in particular at high-level play. And if it is indeed to rare (everything is campaign-specific), you should not be surprised then that casters get more powerful!



More importantly, though, Druids are the least vulnerable of all full casters on each of these counts. Even if the enemy has SR or they can't re-memorize their spells, they still have Wild Shape; even in an AMF, they still have 3/4 BAB, d8 for HP, a wild animal companion, and some armor.

Against the full combat classes (even a rogue in some situations!), this will not help them much, although the animal companion is quite good help (note, though, that all the buffs that make it really challenging are gone in AMF, and hardly an animal companion makes use of ranged tactics).



So? A well-selected companion is nearly as strong as another PC. If a PC dies, they're gone for the rest of the adventure, too, barring some way to bring them back (which works on the companion as well.)

No, it is not even half as strong as another PC. And this is where the problem starts. Basically, an animal companion is like an npc cohort and contrary to a wizard's familiar is even supposed to fight often (in melee, sometimes as a tank to boost!). At high level play, that just calls for quite an often untimely demise (or the druids spends a lot of his resources to just keep the animal companion alive).
In normal play, there are thus two reasons for an endangered animal companion 1) mechanical for the reasons outlined above (note that a pc has a pc's wealth while the animal companion has to be equipped with the druid's wealth!) and 2) fluff reasons, as a DM will often wish to increase drama and suspense by letting some of the good side die. Cohorts, familiars, mounts and
animal companions are ideal for this.



When they're in their natural form, it's far, far, less limited than, say, a Monk (or, for practical purposes, a typical wizard)... and Wild Shape doesn't need equipment.

Wild shape without equipment renders your druid much weaker than other pcs at high levels (maybe not your same level npc since they have much less equipment). In any case, it renders him weaker. A monk with his special moves and formidable defenses and high movement enhancement is far better equipped for his niche: combating spellcasters.



This is your big answer to Wild Shape? Limited dex and communication power? Telepathic Bond. Permanency it if you want. Shapes that generally have massive natural AC and will be dishing out damage overwhelmingly faster than the druid will be taking it.

Telephatic bonc is non-core, I guess. A telepathy helm could help, but is expensive, can be sundered and awkward to put on the dire bear (wildshaped druid). Permanency costs a lot and is subject to dispels and disjunctions.
And if the druid takes damage at all, it will wear him down much faster than the monk who has different ways to overcome an enemy than sheer damage.



Teaching someone a language takes more time than dominate monster grants. A bluff won't work on a PC for something like this--PCs are always in control of their actions unless controlled completely by something such as Dominate Monster, so a player is quite within their rights to determine entirely on their own whether they'd teach druidic to a strange person who popped up out of nowhere claiming to be an acolyte and asking to be taught sacred druid secrets out-of-process while they're in the middle of an adventure. Oh, and even if a druid decides, for RP purposes, that they want to have their druid fall for this? Atonement. Poof, problem gone... it wouldn't even cost XP.

The teach language drawback is a big problem for the druid, and I guess it was put there to balance him vs the cleric since he has so many more special abilities.
I have discussed it already elsewhere: teaching a language can be interpreted as "it starts with the first word" tought. Dominate person/monster lasts for days, and a lot can be taught in those days.
Atonement does not work in the "poof" way you described; it is often associated with a quest to check whether the repentant really repents.

Overall, I also already suggested elsewhere that as a DM I would not play at all with the "ex-section" stuff and would roleplay as npc the deity as appropriate if the player misbehaves, and try to keep in constant communication with that player to keep in agreement with what his religion means and what qualifies as a sacrilege etc.
However, this is a houserule and greatly relieves divine casters from the penalties envisioned by the RAW, so I would likely reduce their power- say reduce their hit dice to d6, reduce their wild shape ability to later levels and less often usage, etc.

Just let me know what you all think. I would have loved to start a poll, but somehow the option was not available for me when starting this new thread.

- Giacomo

GryffonDurime
2007-05-29, 01:09 PM
I'm afraid all your points share one small error: you assume that being overpowered is analogous to being uncounterable; this is not the case. Saying that X isn't overpowered because it can be countered in contrived manner Y does not prove that it isn't overpowered. You've proved that it has weaknesses. Congratulations. The state of being overpowered, however, is not an absence of weaknesses but a surplus of strength beyond what would be commiserate with your weaknesses. All these methods you've listed as weaknesses are either so rare or so contrived as to be virtually irrelevant.

By this same logic, the wizard isn't overpowered because he has weaknesses--his spells are vulnerable to interruption during preparation, he need material components, he can only cast so many a day, and he's not immune to being stabbed!

What's more, I question the ability of 97% of NPCs to know enough about the mechanics of the druids to abuse these weaknesses unless they themselves are druids. Why would they even KNOW about Druidic? Why would they know that it removes a Druid's ability to use class features? I feel you're mixing DM knowledge with NPC knowledge...the two are not exactly analogous, either.

Draz74
2007-05-29, 01:18 PM
Wild Shaped Druids actually make good tanks compared to other PCs (except ClericZillas with their buffs up). Pick animal forms with disgustingly high Strength and Dexterity scores. Make up for your lack of functional equipment with buffs that the druid can cast on himself (Greater Magic Fang is crucial, Barkskin, etc.).

Saying Druids aren't overpowered because their Wild Shape and Spells all don't work in AMF is like saying a Fighter can never deal damage at all to most opponents, because if his hands are tied behind his back he can't use his weapon. Yes, any class can be made useless if contrived, outside forces counter his abilities. But those counters don't come up much. AMF really doesn't happen much in most campaigns, because it's a two-edged sword, so most characters that can create an AMF don't like to because it destroys their own spellcasting abilities.

Also, Aquillion had a good point, that even when an AMF does happen, a Druid is still disturbingly competent. As good as a Monk, probably. (Same HD and BAB. Druid will have better Con, since he has much less MAD than the Monk. Monk will have better AC, better damage on its Unarmed Strike, and possibly more melee-focused Feats, although that depends a lot on the individual druid. Druid will have Animal Companion help to make up for these weaknesses.) True, a Druid won't be able to take on a Barbarian or Paladin in an AMF ... duh. So? It's still ridiculously strong in an AMF, for a caster.

SR doesn't concern Druids much, since they're likely to spend their spells almost entirely on Buffs and Healing, not offensive spells (neither direct damage, nor save-or-die).

Telepathic Bond is core. It's a great way for the druid to communicate while wildshaped. Plus, at higher levels, the druid has enough Wild Shapes/day that, if he needs, he can probably just turn back into his normal form, talk, and wildshape again.

You know what's really disturbing about the Druid? How little of his resources he needs to expend to get the core of his power. Suppose the DM says, "OK, I feel like nerfing you to oblivion. Your character has to use the following ability scores: 17, 14, 8, 8, 8, 8. He also gets 2 less skill points every level than his class says he should. And he doesn't get the feats he would usually get at levels 3, 9, and 15. And he gets only 20% of the equipment that he should get according to WBL."

With those kinds of restrictions, you could still make a viable druid. Not a great one, but one that could usually contribute meaningfully to combat. Ergo, if you don't have those restrictions, than you can use those same resources to pick your druid's specialty (in addition to general all-around butt-kicking) and optimize it to the Abyss and back.

Indon
2007-05-29, 05:50 PM
Well, I think the problem is in intensity of weakness.

Say, you have a class with many, lesser weaknesses, which make them less effective. As a DM, you have no problem using them to make things more challenging, eh?

Now say you have another class that has only one weakness, but when it is exploited, the character becomes completely worthless in every way. At any time, you can face the character up against their weakness and someone else gets to solve the problem for him. Chances are, this is much less interesting than a weakness which simply makes things more challenging, and will be employed less often (as being useless is not enjoyable).

In theory, these two classes are balanced. Both are capable in some ways and situations, and less capable in others. But in practice, one will have his weaknesses exploited while the other won't, making the second individual decisively more 'powerful'.

Henceforth, I call this phenomenon "Superman Syndrome".

(And I think it applies for far more than just druids)

Jacob Orlove
2007-05-29, 06:09 PM
Telephatic bonc is non-core, I guess. A telepathy helm could help, but is expensive, can be sundered and awkward to put on the dire bear (wildshaped druid). Permanency costs a lot and is subject to dispels and disjunctions.
Telepathic Bond (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/telepathicBond.htm). Perhaps you're more familiar with the non-OGL name: Rary's Telepathic Bond?

Laurellien
2007-05-29, 07:02 PM
Before I enter this tirade, I would just like to take the time to say how much i love it that when you write out your post in meticulous detail and spend lots of time over it, that the forum suddenly goes belly up as there is a mad rush for the comic, causing you to lose the post you spent HALF-AN-HOUR writing.

The jist of it.

Sir Giacimo, you are looking at all of the ways a DM can nerf a druid, but they either don't work in a mechanics way or a fluff way.

1. Anti-magic field: The only people who can use this are spell casters, unsurprisingly, spell casters don't like to nerf themselves with such spells. Additionally, the only ones that can cast it are druids, wizards, sorcerers and ridiculously high level clerics. A druid will be equal power level to you, and if you make your druid right, you should win every time. A sorcerer or wizard just committed suicide by casting this spell, as all you can now do is engage them in combat. With your 3/4 BAB and wildshape form, you will make mince meat out of them. A high level cleric is a high level cleric and they own anybody anyway. In conclusion, the anti-magic field actually benefits the druid as it has enough non-magical abilities to bitchslap any spell caster stupid enough to nerf themselves with one.
2. Spell Resistance: Firstly, very few creatures have this. Secondly, if they do, it usually ain't worth a damn. Thirdly, Not all spells even allow spell resistance. Fourthly, a druid should have buffed himself insanely (greater magic fang, barkskin, wildshape into something awesome etc...). Finally, in case a creature actually IS competent in combat, has high SR, and is being targetted by a spell which doesn't bypass it, the druid still makes a caster level check. You need all of these contrived circumstances to make him take one, whereas your fighter/monk/ranger etc... has been making similar rolls against a much higher DC since first level fights vs. cats.
3. Dispelling: Firstly, any spell caster who is having to dispel your buffs is not a) dealing damage to you or b) empowering themself but is c) wasting their own 3rd level spell slots. Even if they do decide to dispel your magic, they still have to roll a caster level check, and they didn't take into account the two rings of counterspelling you took. Seriously, they are a must have for any aspiring CoD, greater dispel magic and dispel magic within, you have them there as nice non-bypassable defences.
4. Disjoining: Yes, this will totally own a druid, but then again, it owns any character. The meaty fighter with the frostbrand and the suit of magical armour just got demoted to level 2 equipment as well.
5. Spell Preparation: That down time and rest you need affects everybody. If the DM keeps attacking you while you rest then he is just plain mean as it is, but the party fighters will be affected too. They will be fatigued or exhausted and unable to truly lay on the hurt, whereas the druid will still have a few orisons and other spells which he hasn't cast yet.
6. Vulnerability of Animal Companion: WHAT!?!? Are you serious? The druid is a powerful class, the Animal Companion is just the icing on the cake, cheap shoddy icing that occasionally comes in use, I've seen and played druids who don't need or just forget animal companions. It's like arguing that denying a wizard a familiar weakens it, or that removing a barbarian's fast movement and giving it pounce is in any way fair or balanced.
7. Limited item use while wild-shaped: The only item a druid is unable to use when wildshaped is a manufactured weapon, this argument stumps me as to its point. Considering the plethora of druid spells to increase the potency of natural attacks, and the fact that in wild shape it gains insane strength, this argument just falls flat on its back and pathetically waves its legs in the air.
8. Limited dex: A druid can wild shape into something with good dex, and even if it doesn't, what does dex give it. AC? a druid can buy a suit of wilded, dragon hide full plate and it has an AC equal to a monks (have to take a dig at them in my mood). Give it an animated or wild tower shield and see how much more superfluous that DEX to AC is. Ranged Attacks? Pah! When was the last time you saw a cleric or druid higher than 5th level make a ranged attack if it wasn't an elf or archery focused build beyond a potshot with a crossbow? Reflex Saves? The least important of the saves. It helps you avoid direct damage, which can be healed with the healing spells on the druid spell list. There are no save-or-die/suck spells which require reflex saves in core, thus a druid need not worry about its reflexes. If it really did then it could cast cat's grace (or divine agility if non-core). Initiative isn't really a problem either as most enemies are designed for one encounter and thus come with improved initiative as standard.
9. No capacity to speak: This is a real disadvantage... honest:smallamused: It can be negated by an 8,000 gp non-core item, or it can be negated with Rary's Telepathic Bond (which is core), or you can not bother as most PC's know what to do in combat anyway.
10. Teaching the secret language = loss of abilities: Roleplaying restrictions are the poorest excuse for balancing ever. Firstly, the bluffing idea isn't properly thought through. Bluff =/= dominate person. A druid can just say no, and if the little bardic whelp pushes it he can get suspicious. The domination idea... you seem to forget that a druid has a good will save and wisdom as its primary ability. It can just pass its save, and if, as you say, it is a word by word thing, then it gets a new save each word taught, and the teaching of half a dozen words isn't really breaking the code, as anybody could pick that up. If you try and argue that the will save DC is impossibly high, then that is a case of poor DMing and deliberate character nerfing. Even if it did eventually teach the language by enchantment/trickery, I doubt any DM would make you lose your class abilities as these things have to be informed choices on the character's part. Even if the DM is that strict, then atonement is a quest/friendly party cleric away. This problem is peanuts and is nowhere near as big as you try to make it.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-29, 07:06 PM
Chances are, this is much less interesting than a weakness which simply makes things more challenging, and will be employed less often (as being useless is not enjoyable).
Another reason is such weaknesses often defy plot verisimilitude. Why do the bad guys always plan ambushes every morning—just when the casters happen to be preparing spells?

For an example more in line with the name "Superman Syndrome": how come even the petty criminals with no real resources can get their hands on vast quantities of the supposedly rare kryptonite?


1. Anti-magic field: The only people who can use this are spell casters, unsurprisingly, spell casters don't like to nerf themselves with such spells.
Well... there are also Rogues with Use Magic Device and a scroll or staff with antimagic field. They might enjoy it. :smallwink:


A sorcerer or wizard just committed suicide by casting this spell, as all you can now do is engage them in combat. With your 3/4 BAB and wildshape form, you will make mince meat out of them.
Uh... No wild shape form in antimagic fields. Supernatural abilities are negated in antimagic fields.

Other than that, you've got the right of it.

Laurellien
2007-05-29, 07:11 PM
[rant] And another thing, the things you have suggested might work for one encounter. But it will get pretty boring for the druid if the villains always try and get him to teach druidic and attack at dawn and use such counter-productive tactics as deliberately nerfing themselves and fighting as defensively as possible.

Indon
2007-05-29, 07:13 PM
Another reason is such weaknesses often defy plot verisimilitude. Why do the bad guys always plan ambushes every morning—just when the casters happen to be preparing spells?

For an example more in line with the name "Superman Syndrome": how come even the petty criminals with no real resources can get their hands on vast quantities of the supposedly rare kryptonite?

Exactly. Either Superman is way more powerful than, say, Wonder Woman, or everyone and their grandmothers have Kryptonite. Absurdity like this can be done; the writers for Superman clearly got away with it. But, in this case, Superman complains about being exposed to the material repeatedly, most DM's opt to leave Superman powerful.

Laurellien
2007-05-29, 07:24 PM
Precisely, so unless a DM is willing to go out of his way to DM poorly and make the druid player's life a living hell, then he will have to live with it being an overpowered class. If he makes the druid player's life a hell, then the druid is likely to wander off from boredom.

greenknight
2007-05-29, 07:27 PM
Well... there are also Rogues with Use Magic Device and a scroll or staff with antimagic field. They might enjoy it. :smallwink:

Or a Ring of Spell Storing, which would do much the same job. However, in all cases it requires a spellcaster to cast the spell or make the item. And each time it's a one-off (I can't find a staff which casts AMF in Core). While I agree the tactic can be very effective, the conditions which allow it would make it very rare in-game.


Uh... No wild shape form in antimagic fields. Supernatural abilities are negated in antimagic fields.

True, but the Druid's still got that Animal Companion, which wouldn't be affected nearly as badly in an AMF.

MeklorIlavator
2007-05-29, 07:27 PM
Remeber, when thwarting players, they get very testy. Especially when its done by DM fiat. So if you make them lose their abilities by the dominiate-then-teach-forbidden-language route, you may face a rebellion amoung the players(unless this guy was a real a-**le). Especially if you attept to do it repeatedly before this, because then the players believe(rightly, in this case) that you are sliping fully into DM vs Players.

Laurellien
2007-05-29, 07:29 PM
Remeber, when thwarting players, they get very testy. Especially when its done by DM fiat. So if you make them lose their abilities by the dominiate-then-teach-forbidden-language route, you may face a rebellion amoung the players(unless this guy was a real a-**le). Especially if you attept to do it repeatedly before this, because then the players believe(rightly, in this case) that you are sliping fully into DM vs Players.

And that way lies madness...

And party break up, and the breaking of friendship, and occasionally death if you play with the mafia.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-29, 07:33 PM
...and occasionally death if you play with the mafia.
Well, then I'm in trouble.

FdL
2007-05-29, 07:38 PM
Sorry but the thing about teaching druidic language as a weak point of the class is ridiculous.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-05-29, 07:47 PM
In any case where a class's weakness requires doing something obscure that happens to completely decimate the player in question with little hope of survival, it should never be done by a competent DM. Might as well come in and say "You die. Roll something other then druid because I hate you."

Serpentine
2007-05-29, 07:49 PM
All these discussions on overpoweredness seem to miss out on one very important question: Does it really matter? If you have a whole party of minmaxers out to squeeze every last drop of advantage from a class, then yes, the "best" class will perhaps have an unfair advantage. If you have just one of these, they'll manage it no matter what they're playing. I think the average player will generally stay in step with everyone, probably won't have the first idea of where to begin optimising their class. If they play in step with the rest of the party, what does it matter that they could outstrip them, if, indeed, they really could to any significant degree? If they do try to do so, it's the player you need to fix, not the class.

Laurellien
2007-05-29, 07:59 PM
True, true. But these discussions are started by those who don't share your principles (principles i try to uphold) who wish to try and justify their own characters by belittling others or saying that they are powerful when they are not.

FdL
2007-05-29, 08:00 PM
I agree with both Viscount and Serpentine.

This kind of discussions assume that every player is a ruthless calculating machine, and also that a DM allows really weird things to happen just because they can. The game would be awful if these were true, no fun whatsoever.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-29, 08:03 PM
On the contrary. A player hardly has to be a "calculating machine" to take Natural Spell, or to Wild Shape into obvious choices (lions and tigers and bears, oh my!). This will put him significantly ahead of a similarily uncalculating Fighter, say.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-05-29, 08:08 PM
It's of some interest to me as a DM. I don't let the players see it, but I'm always concerned about each of the PC's getting an equal share of the spotlight. I've only outright nerfed a handful of spells in the past, and prefer to just give boosts to players that seem to be struggling. If I've got a min/max melee god and a newbie wizard, I'll probably be lending the most help to the wizard despite the potential brokeness of his class so that he can shine too. This is rarely the case in my groups, but I try to find the best crunch mechanics possible for my guys to have the most roleplay fun.

After all, the one who has to put up with big numbers should be the DM and only the DM. They're there for interested PC eyes to see, but it isn't actually important for them to know what their strength variable is or the best way to maximize their damage output. That's why they have me ;)

Laurellien
2007-05-29, 08:18 PM
That's the point, casting classes can help others dominate too with spells such as polymorph.

Sutremaine
2007-05-29, 08:44 PM
Another reason is such weaknesses often defy plot verisimilitude. Why do the bad guys always plan ambushes every morning—just when the casters happen to be preparing spells?
Yeah, it would be better tactically for them to wait, thus ensuring that the spell slots used during the ambush won't be available for another eight to twenty-four hours. After that, the party should be attacked again after they turn in for the night, and as often as possible in order to disturb the arcane casters.

Attacking during spell preparation guarantees that the casters will be low on spells, but if the attack fails they'll go right ahead and continue preparing, undoing all the bad guys' good work. If divine casters miss their timeslot, they aren't forced to wait for the next one as long as they pray for spells at the first opportunity.

barawn
2007-05-29, 09:24 PM
Another reason is such weaknesses often defy plot verisimilitude. Why do the bad guys always plan ambushes every morning—just when the casters happen to be preparing spells?

Um.

Why wouldn't they? Why in the world wouldn't bad guys plan ambushes at night, when the party beds down, or early in the morning? What kind of idiot would attack a party when they're fully prepared and ready?

The dominate trick is a little crazy, although not too crazy. Heck, look at OotS: Belkar knows that committing an evil act will cause Miko to fall, and likewise, enemies should know that giving up Druidic secrets will cause a Druid to fall. Obviously, that's a plot point that wouldn't happen too often in a game, but it should occur in some games, definitely.

I have to agree with Giacomo's one statement that the imbalance with casters, in a lot of situations, has more to do with DMs who don't fully take advantage of what NPCs in game do know.

As for the "Superman kryptonite" problem, it's really not that simple. There's only one Superman - there are many, many druids/spellcasters in general. Virtually everyone will have heard the story of a Paladin who committed an evil act, a Druid who betrayed the secrets of their order. Everyone will have heard of the great wizard who was brought down when the clever halfling thief slipped fake spell components into his pouch, and the wizard's ball of bat guano turned out to be a mash of peas.

What would be unfair is if the players have tactics to circumvent these limitations, having the BBEG always know how to work around it. That's targeting. Having the town's magistrate arrest the Druid for conspiracy when he's overheard talking in strange tongues to a known murderer (an ex-Druid in the employ of the BBEG) and refuses to repeat what was said? That's not targeting. That's having the BBEG be clever.

Gavin Sage
2007-05-29, 09:31 PM
I'm curious since a lot of what people say makes a Druid overpowered involves Wild Shape and the Natural Spell feat. So my question is should in some revision that feat be banned?

(I only played a Druid in NWN myself and never did any shape shifting, though buffing the Dire Wolf helped a lot)

Gralamin
2007-05-29, 09:39 PM
I'm curious since a lot of what people say makes a Druid overpowered involves Wild Shape and the Natural Spell feat. So my question is should in some revision that feat be banned?

(I only played a Druid in NWN myself and never did any shape shifting, though buffing the Dire Wolf helped a lot)

The Player's Handbook 2 Variant (Shapeshifting), Tunes down the druid to a more manageable level, notably by eliminating that feat, and a few other things.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-05-29, 09:48 PM
You can't apply too much intelligence to a D&D campaign's villains. If a BBEG was really smart, he'd kill the party the moment he even catches wind that they're out for him.

This is also assuming that there's an enemy that's stalking the party and purposely biding his time and figuring out a sure-fire way to kill them all, which is an absolutely abysmal plot device for D&D. So what if it can conceivably happen and is, in fact, the smartest way to do it? What fun is there in getting all of your throats slit in the night with no chance for retaliation?

Villains simply can't be allowed to purposely counter the heroes in a campaign. Surviving encounters is plenty hard enough without the DM intentionally forcing you out of your own class abilities. And if I ever saw a DM dominate a player's druid to make him teach someone Druidic so that he'd have a permanently crippled character, I'd leave. I don't even care if I wasn't the one playing the druid.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-29, 09:49 PM
Notably, atonement for things you're forced to do by magical compulsion functions at no cost to the caster and is not characterized as justification for a quest being inflicted on you in the spell description. All you need is a druid willing to cast a 5th level spell for a fellow druid.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-05-29, 09:57 PM
This is assuming you actually live through an encounter from a hostile enemy that has purposely prepared to ruin you. With D&D combat rules and an ex-druid lacking everything but a low BAB and merely decent saves? Not happening.

And I'd hate to see what this DM's got in mind for the rest of the party that this great evil schemer's got with him. Force the paladin to utter a blasphemy to rob him of his features as well, perhaps? Maybe have the wizard's hands cut off and his throat constricted so that he can't use practically any spells. Ooh, he could melt the fighter's equipment! And the monk... well, I guess he lucks out for once. Hope your monk can somehow take out an entire hostile encounter on his own with limited health remaining (night after adventuring, remember?).

Serenity
2007-05-29, 10:01 PM
Also, let's take a closer look at the idea of making the Druid teach you Druidic in the first place. Druidic is a language. Anyone here ever taken a foreign language class? Acquiring the most basic understanding of a language takes weeks. No bluff or dominate short of epic level could last that long, let alone be an effective way of disabling PCs.

Jack Mann
2007-05-29, 10:14 PM
And honestly, if you can actually manage to dominate the druid (very unlikely), you can do a hell of a lot worse to him than make him teach you druidic.

barawn
2007-05-29, 10:16 PM
You can't apply too much intelligence to a D&D campaign's villains. If a BBEG was really smart, he'd kill the party the moment he even catches wind that they're out for him.

No, he wouldn't. He's a BBEG. There are a lot of parties out gunning for him. He can't afford to devote full resources to all of them.

Now, when one of them starts to mount a serious challenge, then yes, he would start targeting them - at least in a more general sense.


This is assuming you actually live through an encounter from a hostile enemy that has purposely prepared to ruin you.

You're not talking about an enemy that's specifically going after the party. The enemy's just not stupid. How is it any different than a character casting Protection from Good versus a Good party?

I can't agree that "surviving encounters is difficult enough" - yes, you can make encounters arbitrarily difficult by upping the power level of the BBEG if you want to be silly and blunt. The PCs will still win even if the BBEG is clever. They just have to work together - that's their advantage, not the fact that the BBEG is dumb.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-05-29, 10:24 PM
BBEG's always have high level henches. Normally they aren't doing anything more important then playing butler for the BBEG until near the end. If I were a BBEG, I'd be sending them out every day to wipe out my enemies. It's the smart thing to do. It's also something the DM should never do with their BBEG's, as the players won't live through an encounter with a team of high-CR enemies out for blood.

I'm talking about instances where the DM specifically designs encounters to hit the party at it's weakest in their weak points, not generally using silly tactics. It's simply not fair and not fun. I can understand preparing for battle with a druid by, say, bringing along another spellcaster to counter him. It's a little mean to do that at the end of a day when the druid happens to be low on spells and health. I refuse to accept the DM preparing an ambush at such a time where the enemies use tricks to entirely rob a player's class of it's effectiveness. There's nothing good about that, and it'll only end the campaign.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-29, 11:39 PM
BBEG's always have high level henches. Normally they aren't doing anything more important then playing butler for the BBEG until near the end. If I were a BBEG, I'd be sending them out every day to wipe out my enemies. It's the smart thing to do. It's also something the DM should never do with their BBEG's, as the players won't live through an encounter with a team of high-CR enemies out for blood.

While that's a popular idiot-plot component of assorted fiction and cRPGs, there's no reason you have to set up your game with such a rich anti-suspension of disbelief scenario. It's not as if overpowering hench-types with nothing to do but knock off whoever irritated the boss today are mandatory.

Gah! Wrong thread for it, I guess. But claiming you're forced to make the BBEG an idiot, because you can't have him using the overwhelming force you gave him efficiently, is kind of missing something key...

Counterspin
2007-05-30, 01:06 AM
Giacommo - I refuse to have this boring argument again until you define your terms. How are you using the word overpowered. You must define before we can discuss it.

Aquillion
2007-05-30, 05:06 AM
The teach language drawback is a big problem for the druid, and I guess it was put there to balance him vs the cleric since he has so many more special abilities.
I have discussed it already elsewhere: teaching a language can be interpreted as "it starts with the first word" tought. Dominate person/monster lasts for days, and a lot can be taught in those days.
Atonement does not work in the "poof" way you described; it is often associated with a quest to check whether the repentant really repents.Atonement does indeed work in the "poof" way I described, at least for any unwilling, unknowing, or unintentional violations. Quests and XP costs for situations such as these are specifically excluded; it is very much a case of 'find cleric/druid, insert coin'. The game is simply not designed for this to be as serious a deal as you make it out to be.

Oh, and there's another catch with dominate person:

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out.
At the very least, they're going to get that second will save at +2. Recall that druids have Will as a good save and Wisdom as their primary stat, so in order to do what you want to do you'd have to get past the best will save in the entire game twice, the second time giving them a +2 bonus. There is even a fair argument to make that this order is "obviously self-destructive" and would therefore never be carried out; but it hardly matters. With those two will saves on the best will save in the game, you could just kill the druid far more easily than you could force them to teach you a language.

Laurellien
2007-05-30, 05:26 AM
Giacommo - I refuse to have this boring argument again until you define your terms. How are you using the word overpowered. You must define before we can discuss it.

He seems to have fled this forum to troll another one.

NullAshton
2007-05-30, 07:13 AM
He seems to have fled this forum to troll another one.

Or he could be doing something called SLEEPING? Most people do it, you know.

Vik
2007-05-30, 07:34 AM
Sir Giacimo, you are looking at all of the ways a DM can nerf a druid, but they either don't work in a mechanics way or a fluff way. I'll try to answer some of those. I'm not arguing that druids aren't powerful, mind you ; but I fully understand Giacimo point of view.


1. Anti-magic field: The only people who can use this are spell casters, unsurprisingly, spell casters don't like to nerf themselves with such spells. A fighter-type NPC with a spell storing ring or a familiar are perfect to cast an anti-magic field.
Not to mention dead magic zones.


2. Spell Resistance: I do agree.


3. Dispelling: Firstly, any spell caster who is having to dispel your buffs is not a) dealing damage to you or b) empowering themself but is c) wasting their own 3rd level spell slots. Well, he is seriously taking down your power, usually it's better to do than a save-or-suck spell.


Even if they do decide to dispel your magic, they still have to roll a caster level check, and they didn't take into account the two rings of counterspelling you took. Seriously, they are a must have for any aspiring CoD, greater dispel magic and dispel magic within, you have them there as nice non-bypassable defences. Which takes your 2 ring slots. I'll add that most animal forms won't be able to use rings.


4. Disjoining: Is pure cheese, so I agree.


5. Spell Preparation: A fatigued Fighter can't charge and have a -2 penalty to Str and Dex, which is not such a hindrance. Furthermore, all he needs is a potion of lesser restoration (200gp) that any Fighter should have in good quantities.


6. Vulnerability of Animal Companion: Moste people keeps saying that animal companion is pure cheese. It's not. Obviously, it's better to have it than not, but it's not that powerful.


7. Limited item use while wild-shaped: The only item a druid is unable to use when wildshaped is a manufactured weapon, this argument stumps me as to its point. Check the paws of a cat or a dog, and try to put a human ring on it - you can, but then have the dog walk, run or fight and see what happen. Try to put a cloak on a dog or any 4 legs walking animal. Try to put a human helmet on an animal. And so on.


8. Limited dex Not so harsh, I admit.


9. No capacity to speak: This is a real disadvantage... honest:smallamused: It can be negated by an 8,000 gp non-core item, or it can be negated with Rary's Telepathic Bond (which is core), or you can not bother as most PC's know what to do in combat anyway. You'll have to wear a helm that, in fact, should not be usable in most animal forms, or have the wizard cast a 5th spell every few hours ... Or be effectively mute.


10. Teaching the secret language = loss of abilities: Roleplaying restrictions are the poorest excuse for balancing ever. Absolutely.


Firstly, the bluffing idea isn't properly thought through. Bluff =/= dominate person. A druid can just say no, and if the little bardic whelp pushes it he can get suspicious. SRD says : "A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe." I don't see anywhere any mention of PC's immunity to Bluff. If there was, then why would one bother with Bluff skill for NPCs ? Or Sense Motive for PCs ?

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-30, 07:57 AM
SRD says : "A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe." I don't see anywhere any mention of PC's immunity to Bluff. If there was, then why would one bother with Bluff skill for NPCs ? Or Sense Motive for PCs ?
(further emphasis added)

Bit hard to learn a language in 1 round or less, don't you think?

In any case, this type of thing is better represented by the Disguise skill, as you are pretending to be someone/something you are not.

Dausuul
2007-05-30, 07:58 AM
All these discussions on overpoweredness seem to miss out on one very important question: Does it really matter? If you have a whole party of minmaxers out to squeeze every last drop of advantage from a class, then yes, the "best" class will perhaps have an unfair advantage. If you have just one of these, they'll manage it no matter what they're playing. I think the average player will generally stay in step with everyone, probably won't have the first idea of where to begin optimising their class. If they play in step with the rest of the party, what does it matter that they could outstrip them, if, indeed, they really could to any significant degree? If they do try to do so, it's the player you need to fix, not the class.

Actually, it does matter, because you don't need to "squeeze every last drop of advantage" from druids for them to be overpowered. It's possible to make a horribly overpowered druid without even realizing it until you start playing and notice that you're dominating every encounter. I speak from personal experience.

Callix
2007-05-30, 08:04 AM
One problem, Vik:
Magic items resize. It specifically says so. So a bear can use rings, bracers and a cloak because they reform to fit them. Especially if you use the Wilding Clasp from Masters of the Wild, even if it isn't core. It is also the source for Natural Spell, so most of this discussion would be moot if you barred that source. Which seems like a good idea. Blindsight 60' radius? Yeah, right.

Indon
2007-05-30, 08:10 AM
And regarding balance-by-character restriction: that's a thing which was used in AD&D frequently, and very heavily with Druids; later Druidic levels could not actually be gained unless the Druid heirarchy promoted you, strictly limiting the number of druids at higher levels on any given world.

In 3.0 and 3.5, less page space is dedicated to it, but the Druid heirarchy is clearly still there. Higher-station (not neccessarily higher-level) Druids can command lower-station Druids (and equal-station Druids can just manipulate), and Druids have responsibilities towards their order which aren't neccessarily explicitly written down; a Druid who learns that Druidic is being taught somewhere is obligated to go keep it from being taught, for instance.

And finally, Druids can be bastards. While it takes quite a bit to actually lose one's Druidic powers, it doesn't take nearly as much to tee off a group of druids, or worse yet, perhaps even an Archdruid (the position, not the class). Sacred order or no, not much keeps Druids from killing each other; nature is, after all, a fiercely competitive environment.

Edit: My point being, as much as you may not like character-development-related power checks, D&D makes them availible for use (though they use significantly less now than AD&D did for Druids).

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-30, 08:10 AM
Especially if you use the Wilding Clasp from Masters of the Wild, even if it isn't core. It is also the source for Natural Spell, so most of this discussion would be moot if you barred that source. Which seems like a good idea. Blindsight 60' radius? Yeah, right.
You speak with wisdom on the magic items issue, but need to get back in touch with your PHB, page 98. Natural Spell is there...

Sir Giacomo
2007-05-30, 08:24 AM
He seems to have fled this forum to troll another one.

No, I'm still around :smallbiggrin:

OK, so far it appears as if the vast majority goes along what I have perceived as the consensus on these boards (after much, much adversiment of the "spellcasters win button" fraction, I have to say, though):

Druides are overpowered, because they have massive powers and their weaknesses are irrelevant.

I have outlined various issues, and still the overwhelming answer is: no, it's too rare to matter (sometimes fused with rules errors and misconceptions like an AMF not useable by non-caster classes, or AMF not suppressing wildshape). Vik's recent post, presents one of the rare (and imo refreshing) exceptions to this consensus.

To prove you all that I'm not a troll, I'll concede: with these circumstances, I accept that the druid is overpowered.

Which then brings me to...what to do about it? Leave it as it is?
You see, if you do not make use of the drawbacks and disadvantages that I feel are clearly set in the rules, what else to do?

Option 1)
Boost the other classes
Option 2)
Nerf the druid

What shall it be? Mind you, that both these options involve severe houseruling and, as such, are highly uncertain to really provide the kind of balance that may be needed to both satisfy one player who wishes to play rogue or fighter or monk and the other player who wants to play a druid.

- Giacomo

LordLocke
2007-05-30, 08:31 AM
Druid's the stereotypical case of trying to balance the ability to roll-play with role-play. A Druid SHOULD be somewhat of a specialist among the team- at their strongest when wandering the wild and untamed lands between civilized areas and working as the team's connection with nature.

Of course, roll-play wise, they outmelee the fighting classes (except Paladins and Barbarians under extremely ideal circumstances), make great summoners, and can still play medikit. 'Weaknesses' like unique difficulties in the urban world are ones that require role-play enforcement ("I'm sorry sir, but I'll have to ask that your Dire Bear friend stays outside the city gate.") and can of course be circumvented, and if they're not going to role-play any kind of possible flaw, you have to smack Druidzilla with DM-othera, which tends to make you unpopular with your playgroup.

That said, you can still bring other characters to the foreground- Druidzilla isn't nearly as all-encompassing as BatWizard in it's ability to make the entire party feel like glorified followers. They tend to make mediocre toolboxes at best- even when sacrificing their legendary buffs to take some of their more utility spells- and if your Druid is the party face (barring when dealing with the odd woodland folk), then either you got a rather different Druid from any I've ever seen, or a bunch of fighters and wizards who used Charisma as their dump stat for party members.

Plus, some characters just do things better- although for many tasks a Druid will do when in a pinch, I'd rather use the Cleric to stall the undead, a rogue to work out a deal with the local establishment to help us continue our quest in exchange for the completion of a small task, or the party bard to quickly find a reason for the angry dwarven mercenaries to keep us alive long enough for us to find a REAL way out of our current mess.

As for the melee classes... well, the Core melee classes need help anyways. Only the Paladin and maybe the Barbarian even begin to get anything remotely worth taking them as a martial class in exchange for lacking/no spellcasting. Can't really fault the Druid here, except that between buffs, a companion, and wild shape, they might be TOO good at it- definitely the best in core rules, and possibly in all of RAW, too.

Laurellien
2007-05-30, 08:38 AM
No, I'm still around :smallbiggrin:

Option 1)
Boost the other classes
Option 2)
Nerf the druid

What shall it be? Mind you, that both these options involve severe houseruling and, as such, are highly uncertain to really provide the kind of balance that may be needed to both satisfy one player who wishes to play rogue or fighter or monk and the other player who wants to play a druid.

- Giacomo

The best thing to do in these circumstances I would say is to stop a druid ever being able to cast spells in wildshape, or give it one good save and poor BAB. Perhaps you could limit its spells too so that it cannot be a jack of all trades when it comes to spellcasting (removing the offensive ones seems in keeping with the whole idea of class IMO).

As far as AMF nullifying the wildshape. Again, even if you get a fighting character with a ring of it, they lose the abilities of their magical equipment (and they would thus have a slight advantage over a druid). The druid could choose however to wait outside of the AMF until it ends, after all, unless the fighter's sole equipment is rings of spell storing (major) with AMF in them, the fighter is going to have to give up that protection eventually (the druid of course can wild shape the next day if it needs too).


EDIT: Oh, and I would like to apologise for accusing you of being a troll, that was out of line by me and completely unnecessary and untrue. You just hold views which are controversial and against the established norm, and I admire you for your bravery in clinging onto them.

greenknight
2007-05-30, 08:53 AM
Druids are overpowered, because they have massive powers and their weaknesses are irrelevant.

I wouldn't say irrelevant, but they aren't terribly significant most of the time because it's hard to take advantage of them.


Which then brings me to...what to do about it? Leave it as it is?
You see, if you do not make use of the drawbacks and disadvantages that I feel are clearly set in the rules, what else to do?

Option 1)
Boost the other classes
Option 2)
Nerf the druid

Nerf the Druid is probably the best option. Here's a few suggestions:

* Reduce the duration of Wild Shape to 1 minute per level. That's a useful duration without allowing the PC to spend all day Wild Shaped.

* Rather than simply replacing the Druid's physical stats, apply a template.

* Review the Druid's spell list. Most Core spells are ok, with the exception of Shapechange, which should be scrubbed from existance. You'd need to be very careful of some of the non-Core spells though.

* As a non-nerf, give the Druid spells to overcome DR which require silver, cold iron or adamantine weapons with natural / unarmed attacks. As a higher level spell, allow anarchic, axiomatic, holy and unholy attacks as well (provided the Druid's alignment allows the spell to be cast).

(EDIT) * Oh yes, make it so that when the Animal Companion dies, the Druid loses XP. Then the player would become a lot more careful with it, and maybe even leave it behind on some adventures.

tarbrush
2007-05-30, 08:55 AM
Which then brings me to...what to do about it? Leave it as it is?
You see, if you do not make use of the drawbacks and disadvantages that I feel are clearly set in the rules, what else to do?

Option 1)
Boost the other classes
Option 2)
Nerf the druid

What shall it be? Mind you, that both these options involve severe houseruling and, as such, are highly uncertain to really provide the kind of balance that may be needed to both satisfy one player who wishes to play rogue or fighter or monk and the other player who wants to play a druid.

- Giacomo
d6 HP, sorcerer (or worse) spellcasting progression, split stat casting (wis for spell level, cha for bonus spells) and some way of nerfing wildshape a little, for instance by making casting whislt wildshaped a full round action.

The idea being to turn them into a true generalist who can fight a bit and cast a bit, rather than a full caster who can turn into a giant bear.

Serpentine
2007-05-30, 09:02 AM
On the contrary. A player hardly has to be a "calculating machine" to take Natural Spell, or to Wild Shape into obvious choices (lions and tigers and bears, oh my!). This will put him significantly ahead of a similarily uncalculating Fighter, say.
But if the player doesn't abuse it, what does it matter? It seems to me that the big issue is DM-Player communication. Anyway, I have to have another look at Wild Shape, but from my understanding of it, by the time a druid can turn into a lion or a tiger or a bear (oh my!), any decent opponent should be able to take one of them out with moderate ease (or at least it's possible). My druid, admittedly pretty inexperienced, for example, freaked out some jungle lizardfolk with a polar bear, but was pretty quickly taken out by her opponent in that form. Attacks of Opportunity still apply in Wild Shape, y'know.


Actually, it does matter, because you don't need to "squeeze every last drop of advantage" from druids for them to be overpowered. It's possible to make a horribly overpowered druid without even realizing it until you start playing and notice that you're dominating every encounter. I speak from personal experience.At that point, it's time to talk to your DM. Perhaps a revamp is in order, a streamlining of your role in the group, or maybe an agreement to restrain your advancement, or to give everyone else first pick of magic loot. In whatever case, it's no more special a problem than you could potentially have with any other class - in my game's case, the rogue's the issue.

Stephen_E
2007-05-30, 09:11 AM
Just a note regarding Animal Companions and their fighting ability and survuability in combat.

You seem to forget that companions get NAC bonuses. This means that when equipped with armour (and it really isn't that expensive to armour up a Companion, they make better tanks than the Fighter, as well as having better saves. To be fair, since we're talking core only, they are somewhat weakened by the lack of Natural Bond from Comp Adventurer, but even so they're damned effective and durable in melee combat, and for most of the early campaign will have more HD than any party member. Simply put, if a Druid spends about 25% of his wealth on equiping his Companion, below 10th lev His Comapanion will match, or with Natural Bond, beat the fighter in straight combat without Buffing. So if the melee situation is such that Companion is likely to die, then so is the Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger or Paladin, and frankly a uninterupted 24 hrs isn't that hard to get in the middle of an adventure, unless you're running a really tight time dependant campaign. If the party is attacked while they're holed up for the Druids meditate, then the party just fights without the Druid, unless you throw enough that they'll be killed without his support. And how often are you going to keep throwing those CR encounters above their character lev (and nothing less will force the Druid to get involved) just to stop a new Companion getting summoned. Note: If you want to try and claim that nearby fighting innterupts the Druids summoning then you're simply going back to DM fiat "you can't have a Animal Companion for this adventure".

To put things in perspective I can't recall any of my Druids using Wildshape, and yet they've all more than pulled their weight. What other class can you simply not bother using their 2nd most powerful class feature and still have one of the power PCs of the group.

Stephen

Laurellien
2007-05-30, 09:16 AM
Guys, he conceeded already, let's get around to fixing the druid (although that would probably be better in the home brew forum).

shuntsu
2007-05-30, 09:31 AM
I think the only nerfs needed for Druid are pretty simple actually:

1. Go with polymorph-subschool rules, and remove Shapechange and most other polymorph spells. Alter Self and Disguise Self are probably still OK.

2. Use polymorph-subschool rules for Wild Shape as well, essentially swapping character sheets with an animal form, no spellcasting allowed.

3. Remove the Natural Spell feat.

4. Simply reinforce the rule of Wild Shape that says you can't use magic items while wild shaped. The entire notion of dropping items, wild shaping, and then having your friends put them on you again is really against the spirit of the rules. Simply disallow this behavior.

This basically means that at any given time, a Druid can EITHER be a caster OR a halfway decent fighter, but never both at the same time. In many ways this makes Wild Shape a more versatile and long-lasting version of Transformation, and will have similar effects. Wild Shaping won't be useful in every encounter, as there will be times when being able to heal others and use spells will be more advantageous than being able to fight, and vice versa.

And my using polymorph-subschool rules, and eliminating the more abusive polymorph-spells, the whole tactic of polymorphing/wildshaping/shapechanging will be less easily abused and more easy to play at that (no number crunching at the table).

Laurellien
2007-05-30, 09:39 AM
I think the only nerfs needed for Druid are pretty simple actually:

1. Go with polymorph-subschool rules, and remove Shapechange and most other polymorph spells. Alter Self and Disguise Self are probably still OK.

2. Use polymorph-subschool rules for Wild Shape as well, essentially swapping character sheets with an animal form, no spellcasting allowed.

3. Remove the Natural Spell feat.

4. Simply reinforce the rule of Wild Shape that says you can't use magic items while wild shaped. The entire notion of dropping items, wild shaping, and then having your friends put them on you again is really against the spirit of the rules. Simply disallow this behavior.

This basically means that at any given time, a Druid can EITHER be a caster OR a halfway decent fighter, but never both at the same time. In many ways this makes Wild Shape a more versatile and long-lasting version of Transformation, and will have similar effects. Wild Shaping won't be useful in every encounter, as there will be times when being able to heal others and use spells will be more advantageous than being able to fight, and vice versa.

And my using polymorph-subschool rules, and eliminating the more abusive polymorph-spells, the whole tactic of polymorphing/wildshaping/shapechanging will be less easily abused and more easy to play at that (no number crunching at the table).

And then the clerics of the world will cry aloud in triumph as they march over the druid's forest and set up mild temples to pelor and saint cuthbert and tithe the hell out of the people.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-05-30, 09:40 AM
Try scratching the whole class and starting again. Maybe the Spirit Shaman (which certainly needs some lovin') with the shape-shifter variant rules would work; flavourful, and full of non-gamebreaking abilities.

Aquillion
2007-05-30, 09:41 AM
Guys, he conceeded already, let's get around to fixing the druid (although that would probably be better in the home brew forum).Honestly, Natural Spell is so obviously broken that any fixes have to start there. Usually I'm not a fan of just taking away abilities or feats, but in that case it's too much, completely and totally, without any cost beyond the one feat slot, negating what was supposed to be the big drawback of the Druid's two powers (spellcasting and wild shape). It's like a feat for wizards that gives them unlimited spells or a feat for fighters that gives them unlimited HP... it's just not fixable. Make druids who want to cast while wild shaping use silent and still spell like anyone else.

Also, polymorph fixes for wild shape, yeah. That'll solve most of the really nasty things. They'd still be a powerful class even with all that, but not overpowering.

Maybe swap the ranger and druid animal companion progressions? Druids don't need a decent animal companion; they can make do with a glorified familar and buff it if they really want help. Rangers, on the other hand, could use the boost.

Laurellien
2007-05-30, 09:44 AM
I agree, natural spell will HAVE to go.

Diamondeye
2007-05-30, 10:02 AM
Druids have been an extremely powerful class even since 1st Edition.. There was a lengthy article in Dragon Magazine on how to get the most out of the Druid (IIRC there were no Aimal Companions per se, but there was a combination of 1st level spells you could use to get essentially the same thing). They were unpopular at the time because they had a level limit (raised in 1st ed Unearthed Arcana), strict alignment restriction to neutral, couldn't cast cure light wounds at 1st level, people didn't want to play "treehuggers", couldn't multiclass, and had strict ability score minimums (12 WIS and 15 CHA IIRC). 1st Edition balanced classes that were "more powerful" by making them hard to get in the first place (this was when 3d6 for each ability score, rolled in order, was the order of the day).

Fast forward to 3.5 which is more centered on letting players play what they want instead of what the dice dictate. A good move in terms of player enjoyment, but now we've got a umber of problem classes.

My soultion to the druid:

Nix natural spell, or alternatively, let it be a metamagic feat; spells to be available in wild shape must be memorized 1 level higher than normal.

No elemental shape allowed. Elementals are outsiders, not creatures of nature. If you'd really like to keep it, I'd say at least make the druid take the elemental creature type so as to be more vulnerable to spells and such that target that sort of being.

For animal shapes, ruthlessly enforce the "familiarity" clause for what forms may be taken (I would say that dire animal forms, in particular, should not all be readily available unless the druid has actually encountered one), as well as the clause under natural spell that magic items may not be used in animal form unless that form could use them. I'd interpret that clause [I]very[/I strictly; for example a creature with no humanoid fingers could not use rings, pretty much nothing can wear a hat, etc. A druid who wldshapes should expect to rely almost entirely on the capabilities of that shape.

I might also limit the duration more severaly, maybe 1 to 5 minutes per level.

The last thing to do is keep the druid honest with reflex saves. That's their weak save; they should expect to have to make that about 1/3 of the time.

Serpentine
2007-05-30, 10:06 AM
Nix natural spell, or alternatively, let it be a metamagic feat; spells to be available in wild shape must be memorized 1 level higher than normal.
I quite like this idea. I would also suggest that spell components could be awkward and spells with verbal or somatic components should have a chance to backfire or at least fizzle.

Laurellien
2007-05-30, 10:07 AM
You could still bypass natral spell as metamagic with the use of sacred exorcist levels.

Diamondeye
2007-05-30, 10:21 AM
You could still bypass natral spell as metamagic with the use of sacred exorcist levels.

Sacred Exorcist would require 20 skill points in order to get the 10 points in knowledge: the planes, and Druids can't cast Dispel Evil or Dismissal.

NullAshton
2007-05-30, 10:27 AM
I quite like this idea. I would also suggest that spell components could be awkward and spells with verbal or somatic components should have a chance to backfire or at least fizzle.

That would be too much. If you really think natural spell is that overpowered, then go ahead and make it metamagic. But making them backfire or even fizzle would be too much. Offensive spells have saving throws and attack rolls, defensive spells should be used for teammates and not yourself, thus don't need to be balanced.

Counterspin
2007-05-30, 12:21 PM
Split the wild shape abilities and the shape shifting abilities into trees, requiring a spell centric druid to give up one third of his shapeshifting levels, and a shapeshifter to use bardic spell advancement. Something to bring the two powerful abilities out of conjunction.

Draz74
2007-05-30, 01:20 PM
Ban Natural Spell. If druids want to cast in animal form, they still can with Still Silent spells.

Ideally, replace Wildshape with the PHBII Shapechange variant. It's more fun since you can use it as often as you want, and it lasts as long as you want, and you gain it starting at level 1; but it's not as overpowered, because there are a limited number of controlled forms you can take, and it doesn't completely remove the need for you to have a decent Strength and Dexterity.

Switch Druid and Ranger progression for Animal Companions.

Reduce Druid hit die to d6.

OK, now the Druid is still a powerful class, but is fairly reasonable as full casters go. Like a Favored Soul, Sorcerer, Psion ...

barawn
2007-05-30, 01:23 PM
It's simply not fair and not fun.

If the DM's trying to kill the players, no, it won't be fun. If he's making the BBEG real rather than stupid, it will be fun. Even if you lose (preferably nearly lose).


It's a little mean to do that at the end of a day when the druid happens to be low on spells and health.

The only reason a druid would be low on spells and/or health is if there were other encounters during the day. That's too harsh by the DM - at that point, the party's facing too many EL/day to realistically survive. Just in general having the attack occur at night, however, I have no idea why that would be bad at all. That's what the guy should be doing.

I should note that I agree that in general most of the restrictions with the Druid are minor. Natural Spell should be a metamagic (+2, since it's Still Spell and Silent Spell - yes, you can only use it in wildshape, but it's only one feat instead of two) feat.


For animal shapes, ruthlessly enforce the "familiarity" clause for what forms may be taken

The "familiarity clause" should actually be defined, not just enforced. Make it serious, not just character fluff - require, say, a month dedicated to the study of the creature in question in order to be able to take its form. Double that for each size category off of Medium (it's harder to study a gigantic creature, and harder to study a small creature as well).

This isn't an undue hardship on the druid, to be honest - in order to take advantage of the crafting feats, you need to spend a lot of time. This is basically the equivalent.

Turcano
2007-05-30, 05:03 PM
Switch Druid and Ranger progression for Animal Companions.

I see this a lot in proposed druid fixes, but in my opinion, it makes no sense from a flavor perspective. Why in the world would a druid, a servant and agent of nature, have an animal companion that is less powerful than that of a ranger, who is basically a fighter who camps out more than usual? I could see the two classes having the same progression, but the former idea smacks of absurdity.


I should note that I agree that in general most of the restrictions with the Druid are minor. Natural Spell should be a metamagic (+2, since it's Still Spell and Silent Spell - yes, you can only use it in wildshape, but it's only one feat instead of two) feat.

Natural Spell is not the equivalent of Still Spell and Silent Spell. A spell cast in wild shape would still be vulnerable to a silence and/or web spell, while Still and/or Silent Spell would not.

Dhavaer
2007-05-30, 05:12 PM
Use the Shapeshift variant, and lower spellcasting to Bard levels.

NullAshton
2007-05-30, 05:29 PM
Use the Shapeshift variant, and lower spellcasting to Bard levels.

What about for people who don't have the PHB II? And reducing spellcasting would reduce it's healing capability. Druids seem to be more like an alternative cleric to me, and nerfing the healing ability of it would make it not very useful as a healing class.

Orzel
2007-05-30, 05:35 PM
I see this a lot in proposed druid fixes, but in my opinion, it makes no sense from a flavor perspective. Why in the world would a druid, a servant and agent of nature, have an animal companion that is less powerful than that of a ranger, who is basically a fighter who camps out more than usual? I could see the two classes having the same progression, but the former idea smacks of absurdity.


Ranger do more than camp out often. Rangers practically live in the wild. To me, rangers act like animals and adapt to nature, druids become animals and are one with nature.

Druids are overpowered in theory and on paper. In play I find this happening less unless the player is experience, allowed to go crazy, and the level goes past 15. Druids can fill the divine caster job at all times. They can play skill monkey or fighting man decently a few times a day too with. Their low number of spells rarely is an issue though.

I'd still nerf them.

Make Natural spell a metamagic feat at +1.
Make Companions grow at 1/2 level with a feat to make it full level.
Druid start with 1 + Int bonus animal shapes and learns one shape each level after. Additional shapes require an hour and a Knowledge (nature) check with a DC 10 + 2* the animals HD.

That's what I do

Dhavaer
2007-05-30, 05:53 PM
What about for people who don't have the PHB II?

Then they can, as Mother Theresa would say, SUFFER!
Or keep 9th level spells and drop Wildshape. Maybe drop hit die to d6 and BAB to 1:2 as well.


And reducing spellcasting would reduce it's healing capability. Druids seem to be more like an alternative cleric to me, and nerfing the healing ability of it would make it not very useful as a healing class.

Wands of Cure Light Wounds are still the cheapest healing on a /point basis, and they can use those. In any case, this version of the Druid is more of a divine Gish than a caster.

Skjaldbakka
2007-05-30, 06:03 PM
Or keep spellcasting the same, and use the shapeshifting variant.


I personally would prefer a druid that is more combat and less spells. I would recommend looking at the witch spellcasting progression from Arcana Evolved. Slower progression that ends with 8th level being the highest level spell. I am seriously thinking about doing the same to clerics in my games.

selfcritical
2007-05-30, 06:24 PM
Or a Ring of Spell Storing, which would do much the same job. However, in all cases it requires a spellcaster to cast the spell or make the item. And each time it's a one-off (I can't find a staff which casts AMF in Core). While I agree the tactic can be very effective, the conditions which allow it would make it very rare in-game.



True, but the Druid's still got that Animal Companion, which wouldn't be affected nearly as badly in an AMF.

The circumstances of wizards needing other wizards dead, and of high-skill types killing people for money?

greenknight
2007-05-30, 07:08 PM
The circumstances of wizards needing other wizards dead, and of high-skill types killing people for money?

If a Wizard needs another Wizard dead, it's usually cheaper and more reliable for that Wizard to sneak up and get the first spell in, making it a save or die/suck spell such as Finger of Death or Feeblemind. If the Wizard really wants to delegate, then giving someone an AMF might work, but if the enemy gets away, there's a real chance your agent will be captured and reveal who he/she/it is working for. Even death might not prevent that thanks to Speak with Dead and Divination spells.

And assuming the assassination attempt succeeds, all you've really managed to do is remove most of the Wizard's equipment and one level, thanks to the Clones a high level caster would almost certainly have prepared. And now that Wizard knows some high level caster is after him. So you've just started a war which is likely to end only when one or the other of them dies of old age. Which would have avoided all the fuss in the first place.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-30, 07:23 PM
And now that Wizard knows some high level caster is after him. So you've just started a war which is likely to end only when one or the other of them dies of old age.
Which is why the first wizard doesn't take matters into his own hands. He has subcontractors hire more subcontractors that hire yet further subcontractors who finally hire the mercenaries. Let Sir Clones-a-lot waste his time following the paper trail while he settles back and gets the really important stuff done. You can get so much more done when you let others fight your enemies for you.

Indon
2007-05-30, 07:32 PM
Which is why the first wizard doesn't take matters into his own hands. He has subcontractors hire more subcontractors that hire yet further subcontractors who finally hire the mercenaries. Let Sir Clones-a-lot waste his time following the paper trail while he settles back and gets the really important stuff done. You can get so much more done when you let others fight your enemies for you.

...which leads us to why Wizards' guilds exist, I imagine.

I'd say, AMF's exist becuse wizards may be intelligent, but that by no means implies they have good judgement.

NullAshton
2007-05-30, 08:44 PM
...which leads us to why Wizards' guilds exist, I imagine.

I'd say, AMF's exist becuse wizards may be intelligent, but that by no means implies they have good judgement.

Out of curiosity, what was a wizard THINKING when they made an anti-magic field? I mean, who the heck makes a spell that makes it impossible for them to do ANYTHING?

Dausuul
2007-05-30, 08:48 PM
Out of curiosity, what was a wizard THINKING when they made an anti-magic field? I mean, who the heck makes a spell that makes it impossible for them to do ANYTHING?

If you ask me, anti-magic field wasn't invented by wizards at all. It was invented by dragons who were sick and tired of having wizards run up to them and cast shivering touch. A dragon with AMF on is a scary, scary thing.

"Hi! None of your magic items work! None of your spells work either! And you're toe-to-talons-of-razor-sharp-steel with a twenty-ton beast that just grappled you! Have a nice day!"

Stephen_E
2007-05-31, 03:18 AM
I'm a big fan of the Tree Branch their big abilities approach.
Spellcasting tree this after 4th lev, when Wild Shape starts.
Wildshaping
Animal Companion

If you break them down to 3 setting for each and allow them 3 pts to spend.
Max/Moderate/Minimum
2pts/1pt/0pts

Spellcasting -
Max = current
Moderate = every even lev after 4th
Minimum = no advancement after 4th or Ranger advancement from start.

Wildshape -
Max = current
Moderate = 1/2 lev advancement after 4th.
Minimum = None

Animal Companion
Max = Druid can meld with companion and share hps and cast spells while melded (no Concentration check required) while their Companion fights. Allow sharing ofskills and feats with a Animal Handling or Wild Empathy check. Basicaly one body/two minds.
Moderate = current
Minimum = 1/2 lev advancement

Amongst other things this gives you 7 different Druid options.
Six different 1 Max, 1 Mod and 1 Min, or
Moderate at everything.

You can leave Natural Spell in if they don't have half the spells they currently have.

Stephen

Vik
2007-05-31, 08:18 AM
(further emphasis added)

Bit hard to learn a language in 1 round or less, don't you think?The druid doesn't lose powers when he successfully teached someone ; he does so when he teaches someone. So as soon as he starts the very first lesson ...

Vik
2007-05-31, 08:25 AM
One problem, Vik:
Magic items resize. It specifically says so. So a bear can use rings, bracers and a cloak because they reform to fit them. Sorry, but no.
Magic items are meant to be able to change of size to adapt to another humanoid of different size ; so while it means you could wildshape into an ape (*) and then pick your stuff, a tiger just can't wield a cloak - well, he can but it will be a great hindrance.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-31, 08:36 AM
The druid doesn't lose powers when he successfully teached someone ; he does so when he teaches someone. So as soon as he starts the very first lesson ...

That is entirely disingenuous, sir; I suspect that you, in fact, know better.
If the other person does not know Druidic by the end, they have not been taught Druidic.
Honestly, if you are that eager to weaken druids, then simply do so; Wizards of the Coast did, with their Shapeshifting Druid variant.

I am uncertain as to why people have such a difficult time accepting that, yes, the Druid is an extraordinarily powerful class, and do their level best to stretch the rules to make it so rather than simply altering the rules.

Vik
2007-05-31, 09:18 AM
That is entirely disingenuous, sir; I suspect that you, in fact, know better.
If the other person does not know Druidic by the end, they have not been taught Druidic Do you mean that someone who goes in course and do not complete it has not been taught ? So that the teacher is not a teacher ? You can teach to people who don't understand (most of the time, who don't make any effort to understand).

And again, you don't lose powers when someone has been by the end taught druidic, but with the simple fact of teaching it.

Why is that if you want to prove that Druids/Wizards/Clerics are powerfuls, you take whatever you want literally if it fits you, and not if it doesn't ?


Honestly, if you are that eager to weaken druids, then simply do so; Wizards of the Coast did, with their Shapeshifting Druid variant. I would never use that trick. But don't you find it strange that if a player is playing on words, abusing a rule, or so on he's a smart optimiser whereas if the GM does so, he's a badass nerfing GM ?


I am uncertain as to why people have such a difficult time accepting that, yes, the Druid is an extraordinarily powerful class, and do their level best to stretch the rules to make it so rather than simply altering the rules. I've already said that I find the druid to be a very powerful class. However, I don't like the trend to make them stronger than they are by ignoring limitations, calling someone who's proposing solutions a troll, and so on. I've had Druids in my group, they were not ultimate rulers. And yes, GM was part of the reason ; but that's always the case.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-31, 09:30 AM
Do you mean that someone who goes in course and do not complete it has not been taught ? So that the teacher is not a teacher ? You can teach to people who don't understand (most of the time, who don't make any effort to understand).
Someone who attends one day of a language course has not been taught the language.


And again, you don't lose powers when someone has been by the end taught druidic, but with the simple fact of teaching it.
No--you lose your powers when you teach Druidic to someone. Not when you attempt to teach Druidic, or when you fail to, but when you do so. How much progress you have to make is not specified, but you quite definitely have not taught someone Druidic if they can not speak it, however poorly--and one can not speak a language after a day or so.


Why is that if you want to prove that Druids/Wizards/Clerics are powerfuls, you take whatever you want literally if it fits you, and not if it doesn't ?
I do not. I have no need to attempt to twist language to make druids stronger--they are quite strong enough on their own.


I would never use that trick. But don't you find it strange that if a player is playing on words, abusing a rule, or so on he's a smart optimiser whereas if the GM does so, he's a badass nerfing GM ?
No, misinterpreting wording to gain a benefit is not something a player should do. That is called "munchkin" behavior. But playing a druid does not involve playing on words or abusing rules.
You also misunderstand what I object to: I have no issues with removing some of the Druid's power. That is not objectionable "nerfing". I have issues with doing so via obviously erroneous misinterpretations of the text and claiming that one is not nerfing, as that is dishonest.


I've already said that I find the druid to be a very powerful class. However, I don't like the trend to make them stronger than they are by ignoring limitations, calling someone who's proposing solutions a troll, and so on. I've had Druids in my group, they were not ultimate rulers. And yes, GM was part of the reason ; but that's always the case.
No one is ignoring the limitations--it is just that the limitations are quite simply not as large as they are being made out to be; take the Druidic argument.

Indon
2007-05-31, 10:01 AM
Well, by RAW, it takes as long to learn a language as it does to gain a level to put points into Speak Language. You just need the Druid availible and willing to teach during that time frame.

Edit: I know in AD&D, gaining a level isn't instantaneous... but I forget about how the current version deals with it.

Vik
2007-05-31, 10:11 AM
Someone who attends one day of a language course has not been taught the language. So, what is the teacher doing the first day of language course ? I'd say that as soon as the course begin, he is teaching, isn't he ?


No one is ignoring the limitations--it is just that the limitations are quite simply not as large as they are being made out to be; take the Druidic argument. Druidic is really nitpicking. My main concern is about Wildshape and familiarity.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-31, 10:16 AM
So, what is the teacher doing the first day of language course ? I'd say that as soon as the course begin, he is teaching, isn't he ?
The first day? He is acting as a teacher, but he is not teaching the language so much as teaching a few words, laying the groundwork, and so on.


Druidic is really nitpicking. My main concern is about Wildshape and familiarity.
It is nitpicking, and it is disingenuous, and you may as well say that if the Druid ever curses out loud in Druidic he loses his powers, as he has taught his party members a word of Druidic. It is patently clear that that is not how the limitation functions.

Logos7
2007-05-31, 10:21 AM
The Way I've more or less wanted to enforce familurity is threw the use of X-Skin Cloaks.

If the druid can spot, hunt , and kill following with Tanning and making out of the body a cloak, I think he knows the animal well enough.


Of course its nerfs druid a bit ( Limited forms they can change into) but it works for me ( I never liked wildshape )

Logos

also Intent would seem to make the difference, If the teacher is going to class to teach, then they are teaching, If the teacher curses in what they might teach they are not. Intent breaks the code and it doesn't seem hard to differ. If the druid says " I start teaching bob the fighter druidic" then he looses his abilities Immediately( None of this but bob is dumb it will take him 2 levels to scrap up the Skill Points ) If the druid talks in druidic in front of the party he's not teaching the party he's talking.

barawn
2007-05-31, 10:33 AM
It is nitpicking, and it is disingenuous, and you may as well say that if the Druid ever curses out loud in Druidic he loses his powers, as he has taught his party members a word of Druidic. It is patently clear that that is not how the limitation functions.

Where's that logic?! Just because you say a word doesn't mean you know what it means, unless you've got a universal translator handy. If I swear in a random language, you have no idea what it means. You can guess the emotion/message I'm trying to convey, but that's a heckuva lot different than knowing the translation of the words!

Now, if he curses, someone else says "What did you say?" and he tells them the translation of what he said, well, to be honest, that could be construed as failing that limitation. And I don't see how you can say it's "patently clear." Druids are intended to be a secretive order - this is a betrayal of that secrecy.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-31, 10:36 AM
It is patently clear because a rogue, a fighter, and a wizard knowing a Druidic curse word is in no way a betrayal of that secrecy. They still do not know Druidic, could not understand it if they heard a conversation, could not read it, and so on.

If we are nitpicking the rules, they would have to have you teach them until the next time they levelled up, at which point they could put two skill points into Speak Language.

Indon
2007-05-31, 10:56 AM
If we are nitpicking the rules, they would have to have you teach them until the next time they levelled up, at which point they could put two skill points into Speak Language.

I'm pretty sure the amount of language exposure required to learn a language is never actually specified anywhere. Specifying it would be akin to, say, specifying standards for 'familiarity'.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-31, 11:00 AM
I'm pretty sure the amount of language exposure required to learn a language is never actually specified anywhere. Specifying it would be akin to, say, specifying standards for 'familiarity'.

You still need to allocate the skill points, which you can not do until you gain a level. Whatever the amount of teaching, RAW, you are incapable of learning any language without leveling up.

Reinboom
2007-05-31, 11:14 AM
You still need to allocate the skill points, which you can not do until you gain a level. Whatever the amount of teaching, RAW, you are incapable of learning any language without leveling up.

Expanding on this, you either know a language or you don't as well by RAW, there is no middle grounds in the rules. So, even by RP reasons, applying the RAW to it, you would need to be actively taught the language in full or at least to fluent in order to "reach RAW standards."

barawn
2007-05-31, 11:18 AM
It is patently clear because a rogue, a fighter, and a wizard knowing a Druidic curse word is in no way a betrayal of that secrecy. They still do not know Druidic, could not understand it if they heard a conversation, could not read it, and so on.

If we are nitpicking the rules, they would have to have you teach them until the next time they levelled up, at which point they could put two skill points into Speak Language.

Knowing a curse word is not the same as knowing what that word means. Anyone can repeat things they hear. That doesn't imply comprehension.

If I say "bohai!" and say "oh, it's an expletive in a random language I made up" that doesn't tell you that it actually means "stick!", and used because the people whom the language is for were frequently beaten with sticks as slaves.

"Could not read it" is a giant leap as well.


Whatever the amount of teaching, RAW, you are incapable of learning any language without leveling up.

Gaining a point in Speak Language implies fluency (hence the "no skill check needed"). I can learn a language without being fluent in it. It does not say that Druids need to teach a language to the point of fluency.

Indon
2007-05-31, 11:22 AM
Gaining a point in Speak Language implies fluency (hence the "no skill check needed"). I can learn a language without being fluent in it. It does not say that Druids need to teach a language to the point of fluency.
Oh, I forgot about that. But that's a tricky call.

And Tempter; I was hinting at a possible flaw in the RAW; I do believe leveling requires little to no downtime, so if the druid happens to be Dominated at the time, bam, fastest language immersion ever. I wasn't actually being serious about its' use in a game.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-31, 11:26 AM
Knowing a curse word is not the same as knowing what that word means. Anyone can repeat things they hear. That doesn't imply comprehension.

If I say "bohai!" and say "oh, it's an expletive in a random language I made up" that doesn't tell you that it actually means "stick!", and used because the people whom the language is for were frequently beaten with sticks as slaves.

"Could not read it" is a giant leap as well.
If you taught someone to speak it well but not read and write it, you are a good candidate for losing your powers--my point is that someone who knows a few words is not going to destroy Druidic secrecy. They will not be able to use the language functionally. If we are going by implications--the Druidic language is an important secret, which is why teaching it to non-Druids makes you lose your powers--then so long as that secrecy is not violated, there should not be a problem.


Gaining a point in Speak Language implies fluency (hence the "no skill check needed"). I can learn a language without being fluent in it. It does not say that Druids need to teach a language to the point of fluency.
"You don’t make Speak Language checks. You either know a language or you don’t."
That is pretty clear-cut. If you do not have the skill points allocated, you do not know Druidic.

Indon--since you are not serious, let us drop this entire ridiculous "but Druids can fall by teaching Druidic, which is a balance!" issue.

barawn
2007-05-31, 11:28 AM
Oh, I forgot about that. But that's a tricky call.

Of course it's a tricky call, because it's poorly worded. Most of the "RP restrictions" on classes are poo-pooed by everyone because they are poorly worded, and typically simply ignored by DMs in general.

That, and learning languages in the SRD is just silly, but they figured it wasn't an important part of the game. I've never seen a variant rule on learning languages that was intelligent, which surprises me - especially considering how important languages were in Tolkien, which inspired a lot of D&D.

barawn
2007-05-31, 11:31 AM
my point is that someone who knows a few words is not going to destroy Druidic secrecy.

That's your opinion. You're assuming that the Druidic order is reasonable. Why does it have to be?

edit: and druids do not become ex-druids when someone else speaks Druidic due to their actions. They become ex-druids when they teach Druidic to someone else. The fall is due to their actions, not someone else's stat sheet.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-31, 11:33 AM
Here's why the druid is overpowered:
He is more versatile than the bard (being able to party-face, speak with a variety of NPCs, wildshape into scout-type forms, A Thousand Faces).
He is a better combattant than the fighter (wildshape, self-buffs, party buffs, healing)
He is better at stealth than the rogue (wildshape into a tiny form, various hide boosts, buffs)
He is capable of healing, albeit not as well as the cleric, bard, or favored soul
He has some of the best direct damage and battlefield control spells in the game, and with the expenditure of a single feat, can cast any spell he knows without issue while wildshaped.

Counterspin
2007-05-31, 11:34 AM
Barawn : The druidic order has no control over whether you fall or not. Nature, or the deity you worship, makes that call.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-31, 11:37 AM
That's your opinion. You're assuming that the Druidic order is reasonable. Why does it have to be?
Ah, "that's [just] your opinion", that old chestnut. No, a few words are NOT going to destroy Druidic secrecy. There is no real way in which they can.
The Druidid order does not necessarily exist, and is irrelevant--the order does not remove your powers, "nature" presumably does (since you just lose them--you do not get disbarred as a lawyer might). I am assuming it is reasonable because it is entirely nonsensical for "nature" to disempower its servants at the slightest opportunity.


edit: and druids do not become ex-druids when someone else speaks Druidic due to their actions. They become ex-druids when they teach Druidic to someone else. The fall is due to their actions, not someone else's stat sheet.
Teaching someone Druidic involves some acquisition of knowledge on their part. You could explain all of Druidic in minute detail to a deaf, dumb, blind man, but he would not hear or see any of it so you would not fall.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Dominating a druid into teaching you some small amount of Druidic would harm the druid? And, more importantly, that this balances the druid in any way?

Indon
2007-05-31, 11:38 AM
Here's why the druid is overpowered:
He is more versatile than the bard (being able to party-face, speak with a variety of NPCs, wildshape into scout-type forms, A Thousand Faces).
He is a better combattant than the fighter (wildshape, self-buffs, party buffs, healing)
He is better at stealth than the rogue (wildshape into a tiny form, various hide boosts, buffs)
He is capable of healing, albeit not as well as the cleric, bard, or favored soul
He has some of the best direct damage and battlefield control spells in the game, and with the expenditure of a single feat, can cast any spell he knows without issue while wildshaped.


Actually, I'm pretty sure this has been established already, we're just nitpicking details about what it takes for a Druid to actually lose their powers at the moment.

Though, I've always thought of the Druid as superior to the Bard in healing. The Druid, after all, eventually gets Heal where the Bard does not, and the Druid gets more restoration-related spells as well.

barawn
2007-05-31, 11:39 AM
Here's why the druid is overpowered:

Not that I disagree with you, but do you think any amount of flavor restrictions would adequately balance those issues? How restrictive do they have to get before they can balance things? I'm reminded of the Paladin rewrite, for instance.


Barawn : The druidic order has no control over whether you fall or not. Nature, or the deity you worship, makes that call.

That's exactly what I meant. I just said "druidic order" because it was simpler. Same as saying "Paladin code" rather than "the deity." The deity created the order/code, so it's pretty much the same thing.

barawn
2007-05-31, 11:44 AM
"nature" presumably does (since you just lose them--you do not get disbarred as a lawyer might).

Fine, let me reword, since it's apparently massively controversial. What makes you think "nature" and/or the Druid's deity is reasonable?


Teaching someone Druidic involves some acquisition of knowledge on their part. You could explain all of Druidic in minute detail to a deaf, dumb, blind man, but he would not hear or see any of it so you would not fall.

Where does it say that the acquisition of knowledge of the other person is important? As far as I can see, all it says is "teaching."

How is it any different than the Paladin's code (other than being far less of a restriction) - the intent, rather than the effects of the action, is the important part. (Domination, mind control, etc. has the nasty side effect of forcing intent, so you don't get out of it that way.)


And, more importantly, that this balances the druid in any way?

No, no, of course not. But it's a real restriction. The druid's supposed to be a secretive, semi-antisocial class, and you're simply brushing it aside and saying "no one could interpret it like that!" Yes. Yes, they could, and it's not stupid, cheese, or anything else. It would be perfectly allowable by RAW.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-31, 11:44 AM
Not that I disagree with you, but do you think any amount of flavor restrictions would adequately balance those issues? How restrictive do they have to get before they can balance things? I'm reminded of the Paladin rewrite, for instance.

I do not think that, no.

barawn
2007-05-31, 11:48 AM
I do not think that, no.

Note that I'm not talking about the Druid's current restrictions.

Why is this significantly different than the Paladin rewrite that you did?

The one I'm thinking of in particular is "what would 'familiar' have to imply in order to balance Wild Shape?"

Marius
2007-05-31, 11:52 AM
Sorry, but no.
Magic items are meant to be able to change of size to adapt to another humanoid of different size ; so while it means you could wildshape into an ape (*) and then pick your stuff, a tiger just can't wield a cloak - well, he can but it will be a great hindrance.

Sorry, but yes.


Size And Magic Items

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.

It doesn't say they reshaspe only for humaniods, it says that they reshape to adjust magically to the wearer. The druid just have to make sure that the items he wears fall in the category that magically reshapes.

Koga
2007-05-31, 11:58 AM
It seems the only non-overpowerd casters are cha based. Whom most of the time aren't even fullcasters. (Bard, Spelltheif, Sorcerer..)

Paladins and rangers aren't overpowerd but again, they're not full-casters.


What The Koga would do is just take away fullcasters with the exception of the sorcerer.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-31, 12:15 PM
Sorry, but no.
Magic items are meant to be able to change of size to adapt to another humanoid of different size ; so while it means you could wildshape into an ape (*) and then pick your stuff, a tiger just can't wield a cloak - well, he can but it will be a great hindrance.
I've seen plenty of "cloak" style garments for quadrupeds. Service animals oftentimes have one to identify them as such. Had to pin a sock to such a garment several times to keep a dog I was watching from chewing its stiches.

Check out some of the pet costumes here: http://www.costumecraze.com/dog-costumes.html

Most of those include the kind of thing I'm talking about. Superman, Robin Hood, and Prisoner all have variations.

Properly sized cloaks can be worn without hindrance to most creatures. For the types of animals that a druid typically turns into, I can only see much problem with cloaks and bird forms.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-31, 12:16 PM
Note that I'm not talking about the Druid's current restrictions.

Why is this significantly different than the Paladin rewrite that you did?

The one I'm thinking of in particular is "what would 'familiar' have to imply in order to balance Wild Shape?"

Weakening is far more difficult than augmenting. Further, the code of conduct is central to the paladin concept, while the druid code of conduct feels like more of an afterthought.

LordLocke
2007-05-31, 01:10 PM
The fact of the matter is, a Druid losing their powers through teaching someone else the Druidic language is a way that requires a careless player or some degree of DM fiat. The former wouldn't be terribly effective at Druidzilla anyways, and the latter is basically you telling the player that they can't play a Druid. It doesn't matter the circumstance.

That said, I'd say that mind controlled language tutoring doesn't cause an unredeemable fall, although it might ask for an atonement before the Druid can cast their divine spells again depending on the circumstance. It pretty much falls into the same category as a brainwashed Paladin slaughtering innocents for the BBEG- it sucks, and your gods/nature spirits won't be happy, but it's also against your will, and redemption is just a cleric and a sidequest away.

Simply put- if you don't want someone to play a druid, you're better off asking them to not play a druid, rather then trying to 'balance' them by jacking them of their powers whenever you feel they're being too powerful. Like brainwashing Paladins or repeatedly targeting a wizard's spellbook, 'balancing' the classes that way is terribly unfun for the party involved and is a major step of turning the game into DM vs Players, a version of D&D with no winner.

Core Druid is really damn powerful (probably second only to BatWizard), and with just the closest expanded books, they dip into broken territory. Their power, mechanics-wise, is borderline absurd. Their only real weakness comes in aspects involving roleplaying, and as most of us know by now, D&D is fairly notorious for players being able to creatively circumvent most of those kind of flaws. ("It's an urban druid.")

Indon
2007-05-31, 01:36 PM
Weakening is far more difficult than augmenting. Further, the code of conduct is central to the paladin concept, while the druid code of conduct feels like more of an afterthought.

Well, as I noted earlier in the thread, in previous versions of (A)D&D, Druid conduct was a much more pivotal part of the class. The game emphasized how the Druid was a member of what was essentially a secret society of nature worshippers, and this was important.

I guess that this was found to be too restrictive on the variety of environments D&D could be played in, and so they reduced some and eliminated others, thus leading to a vast lessening of the 'secret society' feel of the Druid.

barawn
2007-05-31, 02:05 PM
The fact of the matter is, a Druid losing their powers through teaching someone else the Druidic language is a way that requires a careless player or some degree of DM fiat.

I really, really disagree here. It is not "DM fiat" to assume that a BBEG will know that a Druid can lose his powers by betraying their secrets, just like Belkar knew a paladin would fall by committing an evil act. Belkar specifically risked his own life to try to get her to fall, and it made perfect sense to do so.

Is it crazy to think he'd concoct a scheme to try to take out the druid in the party? Why wouldn't he? There's no guarantee it would work, but if it does, hey, that's the cost of playing a druid. Exactly like a BBEG putting a paladin in a lose-lose ethical situation, or heck, exactly the same as a wizard casting a save-or-suck spell against the party.

Indon did note that the background flavor of Druids was heavily weakened after AD&D, and I agree. That's one of the reasons that I hate the class descriptions in the PHB - they frequently allude to background flavor that's not actually fleshed out, without any suggestions as to how to do it. The Paladin's code of ethics, the Wizard's years of schooling, the Cleric's religious affiliation, and the Druid's "reverance of nature/etc." bit.

In some sense, it's funny - it'd probably be better to build classes from the ground up similar to the way Fax did with the Paladin. Instead of saying "This class gets this, oh, and by the way, the class is supposed to act like this and this and this" you instead say "Act like this. By doing so, you gain this."

I have no idea if that made sense or not.

Indon
2007-05-31, 02:16 PM
In some sense, it's funny - it'd probably be better to build classes from the ground up similar to the way Fax did with the Paladin. Instead of saying "This class gets this, oh, and by the way, the class is supposed to act like this and this and this" you instead say "Act like this. By doing so, you gain this."

I have no idea if that made sense or not.

You know, AD&D had a lot of that for multiple classes. Wizards had to find or research their spells, Druids had a level cap that was increasable through RP methods, Paladins had to tithe, the game really had a lot more association between in-character behavior and character capability.

But, for any given D&D game, I think this could be accomplished, to some degree, just by tightening the association yourself. Make appropriate classes and PrC's require training. Stat out druid groves and have them follow their agendas. Have churches 'request' donations from believers.

Counterspin
2007-05-31, 02:25 PM
I myself prefer the severance of the classes from their fluff. Let the queer leveling practices of druids and the tithing of paladins be a notion to be discussed as part of a setting. In the core give me classes which are balanced with each other.

It is notoriously hard to balance abilities with such things, because some DMs really dig on exploring those topics and some would rather ignore them. Thus I think a fluff neutral core is stronger game design.

Turcano
2007-05-31, 02:25 PM
I really, really disagree here. It is not "DM fiat" to assume that a BBEG will know that a Druid can lose his powers by betraying their secrets, just like Belkar knew a paladin would fall by committing an evil act. Belkar specifically risked his own life to try to get her to fall, and it made perfect sense to do so.

In fairness, the fact that the fourth wall in OotS has been shattered into a million pieces has a lot to do with that.


Indon did note that the background flavor of Druids was heavily weakened after AD&D, and I agree. That's one of the reasons that I hate the class descriptions in the PHB - they frequently allude to background flavor that's not actually fleshed out, without any suggestions as to how to do it. The Paladin's code of ethics, the Wizard's years of schooling, the Cleric's religious affiliation, and the Druid's "reverance of nature/etc." bit.

This is exactly why fluff is a poor balancer; it depends entirely on interpretation, which is very likely to be different between different players and between players and the DM. Take the "reverence of nature" clause in the druid's description. Is this hippie reverence, where the wolf lies down with the lamb, fur is murder, and only you can prevent forest fires? Or is this reverence of a system where animals eat each other and many plants depend on regular fires in their reproductive cycle? And do druids actually worship nature in the abstract, or is this a very high respect for nature, or do druids get their powers in a manner similar to sorcerers? Modern attitudes toward nature can have a great impact on such a decision, and agreement is unlikely. Alignment restrictions are another thorny issue; druids must be some flavor of neutral, and you can justify almost any individual act within that restriction (especially on the ethical axis, which is almost never consistently interpreted).

Indon
2007-05-31, 02:32 PM
I myself prefer the severance of the classes from their fluff. Let the queer leveling practices of druids and the tithing of paladins be a notion to be discussed as part of a setting. In the core give me classes which are balanced with each other.

It is notoriously hard to balance abilities with such things, because some DMs really dig on exploring those topics and some would rather ignore them. Thus I think a fluff neutral core is stronger game design.

Well, in a way, the leveling practices of druids and tithing paladins were crunch. They were just crunch that followed from fluff, which there's absolutely nothing wrong with.

Counterspin
2007-05-31, 02:40 PM
Indon - You are entirely correct, they were crunch, in that they had in game effect. I suppose it's hard for me to differentiate things here, because I want a stronger version of the word "crunch." I want the classes stripped down to sleek little building blocks which I can combine and then festoon with fluff. I want the possibility of blighter druids who are tricking nature for their powers, paladins of highly questionable morality, lawful barbarians, lawful bards, chaotic monks.

barawn
2007-05-31, 02:42 PM
I myself prefer the severance of the classes from their fluff. Let the queer leveling practices of druids and the tithing of paladins be a notion to be discussed as part of a setting. In the core give me classes which are balanced with each other.

It is notoriously hard to balance abilities with such things, because some DMs really dig on exploring those topics and some would rather ignore them. Thus I think a fluff neutral core is stronger game design.

That's exactly what I meant by "from the ground up." Start off by creating a class with the druid's spells, but call them something else. Axe virtually all of their special class abilities.

Then offer a "druid variant" for a campaign, which adds the class features back in, but with the fluff added, and heavily fleshed out. In fact, the features could be, in some sense, segmented. Create various "training regimens" which give the ability. You could directly balance each one of those "training regimens" themselves. See Fax's Paladin variant, where each of the Mantles is relatively internally balanced, in some sense (though they're treated as class specials, so they're not entirely zero-sum).

I think someone's suggested something like this, to be honest. Start with "fighter, skill monkey, spellcaster." Balance the three of them, period. Then have a way to modify the base classes into the more varied classes we have now, and balance those modifications.

That way, it'll be much more clearly spelled out "this is needed to balance this." Otherwise, in some sense, it's silly. Spellcasters might be perfectly balanced in a game I run, but not in someone else's - having nothing to do with the rules, but everything to do with the style of the DM.

Indon
2007-05-31, 02:51 PM
Indon - You are entirely correct, they were crunch, in that they had in game effect. I suppose it's hard for me to differentiate things here, because I want a stronger version of the word "crunch." I want the classes stripped down to sleek little building blocks which I can combine and then festoon with fluff. I want the possibility of blighter druids who are tricking nature for their powers, paladins of highly questionable morality, lawful barbarians, lawful bards, chaotic monks.

Eh. Myself, I prefer a strong bond between crunch and fluff, and I dislike how 3'rd edition has weakened that bond. For example, it makes druids seem less... druidlike, and too generic for my tastes. But in the end, D&D tries to straddle the chasm between high crunch-fluff synergy (such as you could find in, say, a D10 White Wolf game) and low crunch-fluff synergy (such as you could find in a more universal system, of which I can give no proper examples because I've never played GURPS).

So compromises are going to be par for the course.

barawn
2007-05-31, 02:55 PM
Indon - You are entirely correct, they were crunch, in that they had in game effect. I suppose it's hard for me to differentiate things here, because I want a stronger version of the word "crunch." I want the classes stripped down to sleek little building blocks which I can combine and then festoon with fluff. I want the possibility of blighter druids who are tricking nature for their powers, paladins of highly questionable morality, lawful barbarians, lawful bards, chaotic monks.

Well stated. I think I'm going even farther in that direction, to be honest. The issue with the base classes is that they're already too fleshed out, and fleshed out poorly. Wizards spent years of their life in schooling? Really? How'd they pay for it? Where'd they go to learn? Do they have any obligations to those teachers, still (is there a "Hogwarts Alumni Association" calling them every few months to remind them to donate so that they'll continue to get the latest wizarding research?)? Maybe in order to specialize, they had to get a Wizarding Degree, which holds them to a set of ethics (much like the bar association), and violation of those ethics sends the Transmuter Police after you to strip away your designation as a Transmutation specialist.

That way, if a DM doesn't want to deal with lots of "fluff" restrictions, he just doesn't allow those additional building blocks - but then, no wizard specialists, no Wild Shaping druids, etc.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-05-31, 03:08 PM
All this talk has given me a very amusing idea for a druid-specific poison. I'll dub it Druidbane. It's basically mercury, except it infects the body a little more closely and stagnates druidic spells and abilities by overloading it with metal. Ordinary characters take a bit of CON damage, druids lose wild shape and a randomly determined portion of their prepared spells.

Actually... I think the game could do well to have poisons like this made for all major casters.

Turcano
2007-05-31, 03:11 PM
Um, aren't druids immune to poison?

Indon
2007-05-31, 03:14 PM
Actually... I think the game could do well to have poisons like this made for all major casters.

Ooh, Cold Iron powder could deal spell level damage to Sorcerors (and creatures with Sorceror spells). Hmm...

Arbitrarity
2007-05-31, 03:57 PM
Um, aren't druids immune to poison?

Silence, fool. :smalltongue: This isn't poison to druids, it's forcing them to have metal in their bodies!

Or... not.

PaladinBoy
2007-05-31, 05:46 PM
That said, I'd say that mind controlled language tutoring doesn't cause an unredeemable fall, although it might ask for an atonement before the Druid can cast their divine spells again depending on the circumstance. It pretty much falls into the same category as a brainwashed Paladin slaughtering innocents for the BBEG- it sucks, and your gods/nature spirits won't be happy, but it's also against your will, and redemption is just a cleric and a sidequest away.

You're pretty much correct; I'd just like to point out that it doesn't even require a sidequest. To correct a fall resulting from an unwilling act, like that created by enchantments, atonement only requires a 5th level slot and 1 hour to cast. After that, everything's fine.

Stephen_E
2007-05-31, 05:57 PM
I'd point out that there are two uses of the word teach. One involves the act, "teaching", the other involves the result, "taught". IMHO in reading the DnD books whenever the word "teach" is used it is eithier clearly the 2nd form used, or it is not specific, but the 2nd use makes more sense.

As for whether people would know that Druids fall if they teach their secret tongue. Paladins are public leaders. They're supposed to be shining examples to people everywhere, so it's not that unlikely that people have some ideas about the restrictions involving them. Druids are a fairly reclusive group. The don't interact with the public in any big way, and don't ussually expect people to automatically trust them. So their is no reason for people to know they even HAVE a secret language, let alone that teaching it will cause them to lose their powers.

I'd also note that the Paladin's Code is cruch rather than fluff, not because breaking it has an effect on the character, but because keeping it does. Their code influences a Paladins behaviour and actions almost every day.

The Druid's restrictions have no effect on the came other than causing them to lose their powers. Druids don't go on "save the Wildlands campaigns" to keep their powers. They don't get cities to ban the teaching of Druidic tongue. It's a rare day that the Druid restrictions have the slightest impact on their behaviour.

Stephen

FdL
2007-06-01, 12:06 AM
People, the idea of tricking the druid to fall by making him teach the druidic secret language is an example of people playing the game wrong. Come on!

At best it's terrible metagaming. The language is supposed to be secret. The fact that anyone ingame uses this is proof that they have a copy of the PHB in their possesion :p
Don't know who it was that cited the example of Belkar and Miko, well, if you don't know it yet the comic plays heavily with the breaking the fourth-wall effect where characters explicitly know the rules and make jokes about them. For comedic value, mind you.

Also teaching a language takes a lot of time, and any regular druid wouldn't just go around teaching it for any reason. Don't look for workarounds or weird justifications against this.

It would never happen in any real game with a decent DM.

Aquillion
2007-06-01, 03:39 AM
That said, I'd say that mind controlled language tutoring doesn't cause an unredeemable fall, although it might ask for an atonement before the Druid can cast their divine spells again depending on the circumstance. It pretty much falls into the same category as a brainwashed Paladin slaughtering innocents for the BBEG- it sucks, and your gods/nature spirits won't be happy, but it's also against your will, and redemption is just a cleric and a sidequest away.Per RAW, at least with core classes, there is no such thing as an irredeemable fall as long as your character is genuinely repentant (which is, note, usually up to the player.) A druid could teach Druidic to everybody in the entire world, then burn an entire continent worth of forests, and a single application of the Atonement spell would restore all their powers. A Paladin could murder every man, woman, and child in a major city, eat the bodies, loot everything that isn't nailed down, then backstab their companions so they don't have to share it, and it would take at most two atonement spells five minutes later to restore their Paladin powers as though nothing had happened (one to bring their alignment back, another to atone for the code violation.)

This might seem odd, but the makers of D&D had this idea that suddenly having your character become permanently useless over RP was bad. In fact, despite the stupid-sounding examples above having irredeemable falls really hurts RP--if falls are irredeemable, nobody can ever RP a doubting or less-than-perfect Paladin, since they'll be screwed in terms of gameplay if the DM ever decides they've crossed the line.

(And per RAW, the brainwashed Paladin would not fall in the first place--the code specifically says that they only fall if they willfully commit an evil act.)

Anyway, as indicated before... in any situation where a Druid could concievably be forced to teach the druidic language to another person, it would be simply to just kill them. If you (by some miracle) have a druid dominated for that long, just have them waste all their spells, give you all their equipment, then lie down and close their eyes while your barbarian friend coup-de-graces them. Dying is much more of a problem than the temporary power loss they'd get from teaching someone druidic.

Sir Giacomo
2007-06-01, 04:34 AM
Hi again,

interesting discussion.

I'll just throw in another question. Why did the designers put in restrictions for the druid and "ex-druid" section?

Why would they have put them in if they would have assumed that 99.99% of all campaigns and players would never encounter any difficulties for the druid when
- refreshing spells ("DM can't do that, otherwise everyone will not heal overnight and non-casters will suffer." Wrong, btw, since the druid is not dependent on sleep for the spells, but on his 1 hour of prayer, and a druid likewise suffers if the fighter gets hurt; it's a group game).
- casting his magic (AMF, dispels, counterspells)
- letting his animal companion fight all the time like the party frontline fighters (remember, the animal has no ranged attacks option, so it is a tank that draws damage all the time)
- teaching the secret language ("Ah, I have sworn to the US government never to betray its nuclear missile launch codes, but here are those of the Alaska area- you see, I did not teach you ALL of them, so I did not go against the oath of secrecy")
- betraying nature (burning down the forest yourself or when hit by an insanity spell effect is fine, since fires are natural)

You see, I have admitted above that all this stuff does not matter for the majority of you and thus, druids are overpowered.

However, did the designers indend it? Or did they just word it poorly? Still, interpreting the rules as also I feel the designers meant them seems to be followed also by some of the posters here.

If the designers would not have wished the above restrictions to matter for the druid as many of you interpret, they would have then (following the order of restrictions above) written:
- Spells: "The druids automatically regain all their spells every 24 hours. They do not need to pray uninterrupted for them."
- Spells part 2: "The druid's spells are almost impossible to resist. Their spells are immune to dispels, anti-magic-fields and counters. Saving throws and spell resistance still apply."
- Animal Companion: "The animal companion immediately reappears after being slain."
- Language/Druid order secrecy restriciton/atonement specification: "If the druid ever walks on the moon, he loses all druid powers until he receives an atonement spell from anyone who can cast the spell."
- Revering/betraying nature: "The druid can never betray nature, since nature is everything."

The problem is, imo, if you try to go RAW for poorly worded/interpretable rules which are intended to mesh with the roleplaying aspects of the game ("fluff") and oppose a DM's ruling on it as "houserule" or "DM fiat", you run into the trouble of "OK, we now have to find another way to limit the druid, which is COMPLETELY unfounded in the rules."
Which way is better, I wonder?

- Giacomo

Vik
2007-06-01, 04:46 AM
It doesn't say they reshaspe only for humaniods, it says that they reshape to adjust magically to the wearer. The druid just have to make sure that the items he wears fall in the category that magically reshapes.You mean, except the fact that this ability is named "resize", and the fact that the word size is always used, which has a specific meaning in DnD ?
When you read : "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.", do you really understand that the shape doesn't matter ? So that a gelatinous cube could wear any magic item, because it refit to its cubic shape ?

In fact, I can't remember anywhere in Core where slots for other creatures that humanoid-shaped are defined (in SRD at least). If they are not defined, then by RAW it's not even possible to wear a magic item if you're not humanoid-shaped.

Vik
2007-06-01, 04:56 AM
At best it's terrible metagaming. The language is supposed to be secret. The fact that anyone ingame uses this is proof that they have a copy of the PHB in their possesion :p A language may be secret in that no one outside Druids can speak it, but everybody knows it does exist.

A bard may very well know the story of a druid being rejected because he teached someone druidic. And a bard would be the best one to do the trick to a druid :)

greenknight
2007-06-01, 05:00 AM
I'll just throw in another question. Why did the designers put in restrictions for the druid and "ex-druid" section?

The restrictions are there mainly as a concept element, although they don't always work in practice. Teaching Druidic is a good example of something which just doesn't work if you examine it closely. Consider:

1) A Druid who teaches Druidic to a non-Druid loses class abilities.
2) A character is not a Druid until that character gains 1 level in the class.
3) All 1st level Druids know Druidic. Presumably this knowledge is not instantaneous, so they must have started learning before they became a Druid, so the person who was teaching them became an ex-Druid.


Why would they have put them in if they would have assumed that 99.99% of all campaigns and players would never encounter any difficulties for the druid when
- refreshing spells

I wouldn't say no difficulties, but it shouldn't be too hard to minimize the issues with this. Just have the party Wizard cast Rope Trick and the entire party should be safe enough.


- casting his magic (AMF, dispels, counterspells)

Those things can happen, but remember, without rings of spell storing or UMD (both one-off uses), it takes a caster for AMF, and most casters are going to be weaker than the Druid + Animal Companion, so it's a suicide tactic to do that and then fight a Druid.


letting his animal companion fight all the time like the party frontline fighters (remember, the animal has no ranged attacks option, so it is a tank that draws damage all the time)

There is that, but remember the AC is essentially a "free" extra party member which can hold it's own at low levels and get some powerful buffs at higher levels. If it dies, the Druid might feel very, very sad about it, but it can be replaced at full power after a 24 ceremony. Compare that to what happens when a PC dies.


teaching the secret language ("Ah, I have sworn to the US government never to betray its nuclear missile launch codes, but here are those of the Alaska area- you see, I did not teach you ALL of them, so I did not go against the oath of secrecy")

Yes I know. As I explained above, every Druid seems to become an ex-Druid the moment they take on an apprentice.


betraying nature (burning down the forest yourself or when hit by an insanity spell effect is fine, since fires are natural)

No so much betraying, as ceasing to rever Nature (or going to a prohibited alignment). The real problem is to determine exactly when does the Druid not revere nature, because as you've said, a lot of stuff is natural. Even allowing multiple animal companions to die might not qualify, since animals in the wild die too.

greenknight
2007-06-01, 05:05 AM
In fact, I can't remember anywhere in Core where slots for other creatures that humanoid-shaped are defined (in SRD at least). If they are not defined, then by RAW it's not even possible to wear a magic item if you're not humanoid-shaped.

You want something like this, (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031125a) maybe?

Vik
2007-06-01, 05:20 AM
Thanks a lot. It's not Core, but if it's there I guess core has no such thing inside. And there is no cloak.
Amazingly, they gave rings slots even to creatures with hooves ...

greenknight
2007-06-01, 06:55 AM
Thanks a lot. It's not Core, but if it's there I guess core has no such thing inside. And there is no cloak.

There's also this more recent article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070206a) which talks about most animals being able to wear cloaks. The only animals which seem to have difficulty with them are those with wings.

Stephen_E
2007-06-01, 07:44 AM
I'd be leary about guessing abot anything in the classes that have gone through multiple edition revises.

Originally Gary Gygax abd Co had a number of ideas about how the game, and classes, were intended to play. Since then there have been multiple revisions by different people, and while they yanked stuff that was unworkable or went against THEIR vision, the tendancy would be to leave in stuff that didn't particuly bother the current designer. Note: "Not bother" doesn't = "useful".

Lets face it, way back Druids past mid-level had to find a Druid of the next level up and defeat/kill him and take his place. Real survival of the fittest stuff.

Stephen

Fhaolan
2007-06-01, 08:27 AM
Yes I know. As I explained above, every Druid seems to become an ex-Druid the moment they take on an apprentice.


I've played in a game much like this one. The DM was merging 1st edition with 3.0 rules together in an unholy mishmash for druids. Basically there were a fixed number of Druids in the world, and the only way to become a druid, or to go up a level, was to make sure the druid above you (or teaching you in the first place) ceased to be a Druid...

He actually had the PC druid go up a level unexpectedly because some druid somewhere fell off a cliff, so there was a gap needing filling. I assume it went down the chain, and somewhere in the world some kid spontaneously became a druid for no apparant reason.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-06-01, 08:41 AM
For the druid poison thing, I was thinking of having it as some sort of very mildly sentient living metal that courses through veins. It's not a poison, really, but treating the saves like poison just seems to make the most sense.

A cold iron powder that disorients and robs spells from an arcane caster is a delicious idea as well. Now we just need a cleric-killer. But how do you disrupt a class that diverse?

barawn
2007-06-01, 09:05 AM
Don't know who it was that cited the example of Belkar and Miko, well, if you don't know it yet the comic plays heavily with the breaking the fourth-wall effect where characters explicitly know the rules and make jokes about them. For comedic value, mind you.

Does anyone really think that was an example of fourth-wall breaking? Really? Belkar is setting himself up into a situation to lure Miko into violating the laws of her organization. People do this all the time. The only fourth-wall issues there are whether Belkar knows about the rules of being a Paladin - and that doesn't take a lot of information gathering to find out.


Teaching Druidic is a good example of something which just doesn't work if you examine it closely.

You're assuming there are no methods of learning Druidic which don't involve being taught by someone else. The entire "all Druids fall when they take an apprentice" loop breaks if you just assume that Druids, during their apprenticeship, have to learn the language via immersion. Or that upon attaining first level, they aren't given a Druidic primer book.


I'll just throw in another question. Why did the designers put in restrictions for the druid and "ex-druid" section?

Here are the base classes with "fluff" restrictions and "ex-X" sections where the "ex-X" penalties are more than "can't gain more levels as an X" (which wouldn't even need to be there):

Druid, Cleric, Paladin, Barbarian, Monk.

These are all classes where the designers "wanted" the classes to behave in a certain way - to follow a certain code, etc. - but didn't set out any way to properly evaluate what that "code" was, or for the cases where the "code" is completely left up to the DM (Cleric, for instance), they didn't leave out any description of how to balance those codes.

Just as an example, take Cleric. The cleric description says that they have to follow the code of conduct required by their god. If you're completely in your own homebrew campaign, and you decide there's a god "Apathy-ius", whose code of conduct is "do whatever you want, I don't care, I'll give you spells no matter what" - is the problem the Cleric class, or the god you've developed? Are any of the religions in the PHB actually balanced? (My opinion: no). Could you balance a Cleric class with religion? Yes, sure. Require tithing and daily rituals which have no exception - you could easily make it frequent that the Cleric has to atone (obviously, atonement would need to be modified - maybe a "minor/major atonement"), and so the Cleric would frequently be without spells (I'm not suggesting this - I'm just suggesting you can balance classes with fluff).

In my mind, all of the classes except Fighter, Rogue, and Sorcerer have too much fluff associated with them, and the biggest problem with that is that those remaining classes can be balanced by DMs who choose to pay much more attention to the fluff, or imbalanced by DMs who do not choose to pay attention to the fluff.

I guess that's my new banner: all classes other than Fighter, Rogue, and Sorcerer should be axed, and we'll rebuild them from these three bases.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-01, 10:32 AM
Thanks a lot. It's not Core, but if it's there I guess core has no such thing inside. And there is no cloak.
Amazingly, they gave rings slots even to creatures with hooves ...
If you read their list alongside the normal list, there's a perfect correspondence of bullet points. If we suppose equivalence, that puts the "pectoral or harness" as matching the cloak, cape or mantle. Though elsewhere (Draconomicon) pectorals were considered vest-like.

Indon
2007-06-01, 10:48 AM
A cold iron powder that disorients and robs spells from an arcane caster is a delicious idea as well. Now we just need a cleric-killer. But how do you disrupt a class that diverse?

Sounds like a job for the oft-underestimated (un)holy water! Turners are affected by unholy water, rebukers by holy water.

As for the specific effect... hmm. Drawing a blank.

barawn
2007-06-01, 11:23 AM
Sounds like a job for the oft-underestimated (un)holy water! Turners are affected by unholy water, rebukers by holy water.

As for the specific effect... hmm. Drawing a blank.

Disrupts the casting of a spell completely - no Concentration check, as you're actually disrupting the energy flow of the caster, not the caster's concentration. More appropriately, though, maybe a caster-level check depending on how strong the imbuing of the holy/unholy water was. Note that neutral-type clerics could be affected by holy and unholy water as well.

So maybe something like "holy water blessed by a town's priest" would cause a caster-level check vs 15, "blessed by a city priest" might be 20, "blessed by the high priest of the deity" might be 25, "blessed by the deity himself" might be 30.

Could be neat.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-06-01, 12:52 PM
Just holy water and dark water would be sufficient for a naming convention, me thinks, with neutral clerics being effected by dark water as well.

I think I'm going to include these three. A sentient liquid metal that disorients nature-based divine magic when applied to the blood stream like a poison, a powdered form of a rare metal that can be blown into the air to weaken caster ownage, and divine water that can be chucked like a grenade weapon to disrupt non-natural divine magic. It doesn't weaken casters to the point of being unplayable, but it's a significant threat to them that helps non-casters immensely.

greenknight
2007-06-01, 05:54 PM
You're assuming there are no methods of learning Druidic which don't involve being taught by someone else. The entire "all Druids fall when they take an apprentice" loop breaks if you just assume that Druids, during their apprenticeship, have to learn the language via immersion. Or that upon attaining first level, they aren't given a Druidic primer book.

Ok. Let's examine that closely. If a non-Druid can learn Druidic via immersion, then there must be lots of non-Druids running around who can speak it (Rangers are a pretty good candidate). From the text, that doesn't happen - Druidic is known only to Druids. That seems to sink immersion.

So how about the primer? Well, the text indicates that all Druids learn Druidic upon becoming 1st level. But if they've learned the language, why would they need a primer? Despite what is sometimes claimed, gaining levels in 3.5e assumes a certain amount of background training, which is stated in the PHB and repeated in the DMG. So characters don't suddenly gain new powers and abilities, they've been practicing them for a while. Which means someone must have been teaching those non-Druids Druidic, and since the only ones who know it are Druids (and presumably ex-Druids), that's the most likely source.

Of course, one way to explain it is that Druids gain their knowledge of the language magically (and instantaneously), and their ability to speak the language is some spell-like or supernatural effect. That would make speaking Druidic a special ability which would be lost on becoming an ex-Druid. But if that's the case, why impose a restriction on teaching it rather than say it can only be spoken and understood by Druids (and those who gain magical understanding of languages though spells and effects like Comprehend Languages and Tongues - or maybe even they don't work).

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-01, 06:07 PM
Or you could assume that the proto-druids who are not yet level 1 druids have, nonetheless, taken appropriate oaths and initiations to count as Druids for purposes of the prohibition. Because they are very junior druids, just not yet members of the Druid class.

Not that I don't like a good nitpick...

Stephen_E
2007-06-01, 06:24 PM
Just read the PHB. "Druidic is a language they learn upon becoming a 1st lev Druid". So you become a 1st lev Druid and then get taught the tongue.

It should be noted that giving a language primer to someone does constitute "teaching" them the language if they then use said primer.

Stephen

Jasdoif
2007-06-01, 06:41 PM
All this talk has given me a very amusing idea for a druid-specific poison. I'll dub it Druidbane. It's basically mercury, except it infects the body a little more closely and stagnates druidic spells and abilities by overloading it with metal. Ordinary characters take a bit of CON damage, druids lose wild shape and a randomly determined portion of their prepared spells.How should it work mechanically, though?

I was thinking, when using a druid class ability with limited uses, including spellcasting, you have to make a Wisdom check (DC 10+class level where you first get access to the ability, so for example DC 21 for a 6th level spells) or you lose the daily use to no effect. Persists until you regain daily uses through rest.

greenknight
2007-06-01, 06:43 PM
Or you could assume that the proto-druids who are not yet level 1 druids have, nonetheless, taken appropriate oaths and initiations to count as Druids for purposes of the prohibition. Because they are very junior druids, just not yet members of the Druid class.

You could apply that to teaching Druidic to anyone. Just make sure that they take the appropriate oaths in front of you and you're covered.


Just read the PHB. "Druidic is a language they learn upon becoming a 1st lev Druid". So you become a 1st lev Druid and then get taught the tongue.

Except that in 3.5e, you either know the language or you don't. The very first words in that sentence are: "A druid also knows Druidic". So every Druid, even someone fresh out of basic training, knows Druidic. So when did they learn it? According to the book, the ability is gained "upon becoming a 1st-level druid". If we assume that knowledge doesn't come out of thin air, then the character must have been learning how to speak Druidic for some time prior to attaining 1st level.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-01, 06:51 PM
You could apply that to teaching Druidic to anyone. Just make sure that they take the appropriate oaths in front of you and you're covered.
Well, yes. Initiating someone as a Druid does tend to do away with obstacles pertaining to non-druids. And assuming that druids are in fact trained by other druids, such an initiation has to be possible...

barawn
2007-06-01, 09:35 PM
If a non-Druid can learn Druidic via immersion, then there must be lots of non-Druids running around who can speak it (Rangers are a pretty good candidate).

How do you know that a character who takes the time to learn Druidic via immersion doesn't gain a level in Druid?

Sir Kobold
2007-06-01, 10:48 PM
In my humble opinion, druids are overpowered. Here is why:

1: Druids, next to bards, are the best class at making other people better at what they do. Combine this with an animal companion and you practically have another PC.
2. Wild shape is a great class feature. And any druid who doesn't have the intelligence to tell the other PCs his plan and back-up plans before charging into combat is a fool.
3. Full spell-casting progression, average BAB, good fort and will saves, knows all spells of his class, and D8 hit points. Yes, I know that the cleric has this too but the druid has more class features.
4. Good prestige classes relating to Wild Shape. Take five levels of Nature's Warrior, you can still cast 9th level spells if you don't multiclass and you can become an absolute wildshaped tank.
5. Damage-dealing spells. The druid has the same number of damage-dealing spells as the cleric and this also make him better than your average fighter/rogue/wizard.
6. The Druidic thing is kind of similar to a Paladin's code of honor: Some DM's ignore it, others add more stuff onto it, and some leave it as it is. But for the majority of DM's ignore the Druidic thing, as it is just one more piece of fluff [to them, not to me] to ignore.

However, there are some balancing features.

1. Less access to healing spells than the cleric. This is important, as healing spells are the main reason people play divine casters.
2. Summon Nature's Ally is not as good [in my opinion] as Summon Monster.
3. Druids have to have a neutral component in their alignment, restricting their multiclassing options.

Bosh
2007-06-01, 11:13 PM
1. Less access to healing spells than the cleric. This is important, as healing spells are the main reason people play divine casters.
Not really. During down time its a very bad idea to blow spells on healing, just use a wand of cure light wounds instead at all but the lowest levels. During combat, healing is generally a bad idea in all but the biggest emergencies in D&D

JaronK
2007-06-01, 11:27 PM
Since Druids get the Vigor line, they're just as good at downtime healing as Clerics.

During the fight, they don't need to heal, as they're eating all the opposition instead.

JaronK

greenknight
2007-06-02, 02:11 AM
How do you know that a character who takes the time to learn Druidic via immersion doesn't gain a level in Druid?

I'd find it very difficult to believe that just learning a language gives a character all the benefits of a class, even if it's only the 1st level benefits. I'd also find it hard to believe that one's alignment (which could be LG, CG, LE or CE) prevents one from learning a language, or that learning that language changes one's alignment.

Dark Tira
2007-06-02, 05:20 AM
2. Summon Nature's Ally is not as good [in my opinion] as Summon Monster.


Ok, far be it from me to say that a perfectly valid opinion is wrong but....you are SO wrong. Summon Natures Ally is better than Summon Monster in that it summons the same elementals and animals(sans the fairly useless templates) that Summon Monster can a full spell level earlier. So if a cleric can summon a large fire elemental a druid using the same spell slot can summon 1d3 of them.

barawn
2007-06-02, 08:05 AM
I'd find it very difficult to believe that just learning a language gives a character all the benefits of a class, even if it's only the 1st level benefits. I'd also find it hard to believe that one's alignment (which could be LG, CG, LE or CE) prevents one from learning a language, or that learning that language changes one's alignment.

Depends on the amount of time required to learn it. If you have to spend five years with the druids in order to pick up the language (maybe it's really, really hard) maybe it'd be hard not to have your alignment drift and pick up the class features.

Wehrkind
2007-06-03, 09:38 AM
Depends on the amount of time required to learn it. If you have to spend five years with the druids in order to pick up the language (maybe it's really, really hard) maybe it'd be hard not to have your alignment drift and pick up the class features.

From what I am given to understand of the personalities of most Latin teachers from friends, learning Latin might make you evil and insane.

However, saying some intellectual knowledge (a language) will change how you behave and view the world (alignment) is quite a stretch. Knowledge might change behavior, but usually only in the sense of what goals you pick, and/or how you achieve them. Generally languages do not offer the sorts of insights inherent in that sort of self altering revelations.

tarbrush
2007-06-03, 11:13 AM
He actually had the PC druid go up a level unexpectedly because some druid somewhere fell off a cliff, so there was a gap needing filling. I assume it went down the chain, and somewhere in the world some kid spontaneously became a druid for no apparant reason.
That'd be hilarious.

"Holy ****! I can speak this wierd language that no-one understands and this enormous wolf has started following me around! Plus I have the urge to go and hug trees! What should I do Doc!?!

barawn
2007-06-03, 12:09 PM
However, saying some intellectual knowledge (a language) will change how you behave and view the world (alignment) is quite a stretch. Knowledge might change behavior, but usually only in the sense of what goals you pick, and/or how you achieve them. Generally languages do not offer the sorts of insights inherent in that sort of self altering revelations.

You're not just learning a language. It's the method by which you learn it. Immersion means you're spending an absolute crapload of time around other druids. That might do exactly what you're suggesting.

Wehrkind
2007-06-03, 01:31 PM
You're not just learning a language. It's the method by which you learn it. Immersion means you're spending an absolute crapload of time around other druids. That might do exactly what you're suggesting.
Yes, it MIGHT. Note that "might" states that it is merely a possibility, not the metaphysical certainty that gaining a level of druid and changing alignment requires.
If you wanted to make the argument that the experience would likely move the character a step towards a neutral alignment of some sort, or even add a rank or two of some nature related skills, go for it. Saying that all that immersion while having an entirely different alignment and not intentionally training as a druid is going to radically change your thought processes and garner a whole set of skills outside of the language is a bit much.

greenknight
2007-06-03, 06:06 PM
Immersion means you're spending an absolute crapload of time around other druids.

If you spend that much time around Druids and they're using the Druidic language enough for you to pick it up, wouldn't that qualify as them teaching you the language, even if they didn't mean to? And since the simple act of teaching the language causes them to become ex-Druids, that would happen well before the character actually learned the language, much less become a Druid.

Jack_Simth
2007-06-03, 06:25 PM
Ok, far be it from me to say that a perfectly valid opinion is wrong but....you are SO wrong. Summon Natures Ally is better than Summon Monster in that it summons the same elementals and animals(sans the fairly useless templates) that Summon Monster can a full spell level earlier. So if a cleric can summon a large fire elemental a druid using the same spell slot can summon 1d3 of them.
Yes and no.

Summon Monster, while in many cases it does indeed give you the critter a level later, also includes critters with abilities that Summon Nature's Ally won't get you at all (mostly specific types of outsiders).

Likewise, that Celestial/Fiendish template is not useless. Sure, the abilities it adds aren't particularly nifty, but the Intelligence of at least 3 is very handy - you see, it means they understand Common, and can thus be ordered to do other tasks with no further investment, while the Druid needs to cast Speak With Animals first.

greenknight
2007-06-03, 06:32 PM
Sure, the abilities it adds aren't particularly nifty, but the Intelligence of at least 3 is very handy - you see, it means they understand Common, and can thus be ordered to do other tasks with no further investment, while the Druid needs to cast Speak With Animals first.

Don't forget that a Druid gains the ability to communicate normally with other animals of the same general grouping as the new form while Wild Shaped, so Speak with Animals isn't the only solution.

Yechezkiel
2007-06-03, 06:53 PM
Not really. During down time its a very bad idea to blow spells on healing, just use a wand of cure light wounds instead at all but the lowest levels. During combat, healing is generally a bad idea in all but the biggest emergencies in D&D

I'm interested in this statement... could you (or anyone) go into why?

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 06:58 PM
I'm interested in this statement... could you (or anyone) go into why?

Because you can generally prevent more damage by killing the enemy faster than you can heal.

Fawsto
2007-06-03, 07:26 PM
I believe that the problem in D&D is the magic system... Everythjing that can use the full power of the D&D magic lists (cleric, druid, wizard/sorcerer lists) is more powerfull than the other classes. Now, what makes teh druid even better is that he can use his all mighty magic and still do some other cool things like shapeshifting into various animals and etc.

If the druid wasn't a full caster, if he was at least a partial caster as the Paladin or the Ranger, he would be balanced.

BTW, if you want a good example about full casters that can do other cool things, try the Favoured Soul from complete divine. It is mostly Monk(saves) + Cleric(spells, I don't remember if he uses the same list or not) + Resistance to elements and damage - Turn Undead = CHEESE!

Bosh
2007-06-03, 08:04 PM
I'm interested in this statement... could you (or anyone) go into why?

Generally damage piles up faster than you can heal it. Also in any combat, unless your heal saves someone from dying then that heal didn't do anything to help your party win the fight.

Unlike MMORPG battles which are generally long drawn-out attrition matches where healing makes a big difference, battles in D&D are short and bloody and a good strong offense (and battlefield control of course) matters much more than anything else.

Once you get to high levels and get spells like Heal things change a bit, but even then offense trumps defense in D&D

barawn
2007-06-03, 08:10 PM
Saying that all that immersion while having an entirely different alignment and not intentionally training as a druid is going to radically change your thought processes and garner a whole set of skills outside of the language is a bit much.

I think you're missing a point here. In order to actually be surrounded by Druidic enough to learn it, the Druids would have to allow you to be there. If you've got an obviously non-Druid temperment, and are not assisting them, they'd just kick you out.

Of course, the whole "Druids have to become non-Druids to make new Druids" loop can be fixed by simply saying "Druids who teach Druid disciples have to atone afterwards." That might seem a bit odd, but, then, who's to say druids aren't odd.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-03, 08:52 PM
BTW, if you want a good example about full casters that can do other cool things, try the Favoured Soul from complete divine. It is mostly Monk(saves) + Cleric(spells, I don't remember if he uses the same list or not) + Resistance to elements and damage - Turn Undead = CHEESE!
Uh, Favored Soul cheese? :smallconfused:

Differences from cleric:
-no domains.
-spontaneous casting, similar to sorc. but with somewhat more spell picks (off cleric list).
-MAD: casting requires cha, but DC is wis based.
-no turning, so that cha isn't doing anything for you.
-Not proficient with heavy armor.
-proficient, and eventually free focus and spec., with deity's weapon.
-good reflex save progression
-nifty gifts: energy resistances, DR (at level 20) and wings.

The first 5 points are painful. Only the last really has much value, and only at levels 17, 20, and maybe 5.

greenknight
2007-06-03, 08:58 PM
I think you're missing a point here. In order to actually be surrounded by Druidic enough to learn it, the Druids would have to allow you to be there. If you've got an obviously non-Druid temperment, and are not assisting them, they'd just kick you out.

You could be their prisoner, or just hired help they don't care much about (for example, mercenaries might be used to guard the Grove rather than the far more valued animal companions). You might be a LE spy trying to learn how to destroy said Grove without being killed in the process. Or you could even be a CG Bard there to entertain. With Speak Language as a class skill, the ability to get on well with just about everyone, and the habit of picking up all kinds of stray knowledge, a Bard could learn Druidic almost by accident.

Dark Tira
2007-06-04, 12:35 AM
Yes and no.

Summon Monster, while in many cases it does indeed give you the critter a level later, also includes critters with abilities that Summon Nature's Ally won't get you at all (mostly specific types of outsiders).

Likewise, that Celestial/Fiendish template is not useless. Sure, the abilities it adds aren't particularly nifty, but the Intelligence of at least 3 is very handy - you see, it means they understand Common, and can thus be ordered to do other tasks with no further investment, while the Druid needs to cast Speak With Animals first.

Actually, although the int of 3 does allow some additional flexibility for orders it doesn't automatically confer knowledge of common. If anything the default language of a celestial animal would be celestial and a fiendish animal would be infernal/abyssal. From a straight power standpoint Summon Nature's Ally is far superior since raw stats/numbers are generally better than refined control in combat.

Indon
2007-06-04, 08:50 AM
Actually, although the int of 3 does allow some additional flexibility for orders it doesn't automatically confer knowledge of common. If anything the default language of a celestial animal would be celestial and a fiendish animal would be infernal/abyssal. From a straight power standpoint Summon Nature's Ally is far superior since raw stats/numbers are generally better than refined control in combat.

Wizards and sorcerors, luckily, often take one or more planar languages.

Both Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally specify that unless you want it to "attack your opponents to the best of its' ability", that you need some way to communicate with it. For a Druid, this means either knowing an elemental language (not hard) and picking elementals, or using Handle Animal.

For a kick-in-the-door campaign this isn't neccessarily bad. But what happens if your opponent surrenders and offers to help you... only to get mauled by a bear because you didn't do too hot on your Handle Animal check?

greenknight
2007-06-05, 02:49 AM
Both Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally specify that unless you want it to "attack your opponents to the best of its' ability", that you need some way to communicate with it. For a Druid, this means either knowing an elemental language (not hard) and picking elementals, or using Handle Animal.

You're forgetting that a Druid can communicate normally with other animals of the same general grouping as her new form while Wild Shaped. So all that Druid needs to do is Wild Shape into a Bear form and summon bears to be able to "talk" with them. And if you can communicate with it, a summoned animal can be directed to do other things than attack. There's also the Speak with Animal spell, which the Druid can fall back on if necessary.