DM thinks I shouldn’t be wild shape all the time

[Aelar]

My DM just told me that I’m not acting like “real druids” in D&D because I stay wildshaped all the time as a Desmodu Hunting Bat, he reasoned that a character wouldn’t disconnect from its physical life like this.

He said I read too many guides and forums and that druids aren’t meant to be wildshaped all the time. Am I being odd or is he just completely unaware of how druids usually play? What do you think?

Side note: this may have been because I pissed him off too much in a debate about whether or not I could ride the smoke horse in the Bottle of Smoke spell in the bat form because my legs would be too short.

[OgresAreCute]

Sounds like your DM needs to keep their nose out of your business. Micromanaging what a character would or would not do is not your job as a DM and not cool to do.

[RoboEmperor]

{Scrubbed}

[Segev]

1) Yes, it's your character; you can do what you want within the bounds of the rules of the game.
2) If this is an OOC issue, you need to discuss it with the DM OOC. Passive-aggressive - or even aggressive-aggressive on a false point of contention - confrontation doesn't do either of you any good.

[Aelar]

Sounds like your DM needs to keep their nose out of your business. Micromanaging what a character would or would not do is not your job as a DM and not cool to do.

That’s exactly what I thought, he never liked the fact that that I stay wild shaped all the time but this is the first time he said that I’m not acting like a “real” Druid

[magicalmagicman]

I will second RoboEmperor's suggestion. The quality of the game depends entirely on the DM and if a DM throws a fit over something simple as using Wildshape's hour/level duration the quality of the game is going to be very bad. Finding a better fit might be a better option as this DM seems like he doesn't even have the basics of the basics down.

[Aelar]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

He’s usually ok as a DM but this is the first time I’ve heard him say something so passive aggressive. I think he just doesn’t like how powerful druids are and the fact that I usually dominate in battles with the animals that I summon.

The other party members I play with are great, so i don’t want to leave but I really have to talk to him about this remark.

[Gallowglass]

Well I mean...

-Do- you stay wildshaped as a desmondu hunting bat 24/7 because you are playing your character, a druid who has a deep spiritual connection to the desmondu hunting bat, who dreamed of flying and eating insect out of the air as a young child, who yearns to feel the wind beneath your wings and to know, to truly know the joy of not just living LIKE a desmondu hunting bat, but living AS a desmondu hunting bat....

... or do you do it because a bunch of guides have shown you that its the most powerful way to play a druid? Because flying overcomes so many obstacles and presents you superior combat ability?


I mean, I don't judge either way. You do you. But hey, lets call a horse a horse. bat a bat.

[RoboEmperor]

I will second RoboEmperor's suggestion. The quality of the game depends entirely on the DM and if a DM throws a fit over something simple as using Wildshape's hour/level duration the quality of the game is going to be very bad. Finding a better fit might be a better option as this DM seems like he doesn't even have the basics of the basics down.

It's not just that. He told the OP how to play his character with a BS reason he would have NEVER made up if the OP's thing wasn't mechanically relevant.

"a character wouldn’t disconnect from its physical life like this."

Who is he to tell you what your character's personality is?

[Aelar]

Well I mean...

-Do- you stay wildshaped as a desmondu hunting bat 24/7 because you are playing your character, a druid who has a deep spiritual connection to the desmondu hunting bat, who dreamed of flying and eating insect out of the air as a young child, who yearns to feel the wind beneath your wings and to know, to truly know the joy of not just living LIKE a desmondu hunting bat, but living AS a desmondu hunting bat....

... or do you do it because a bunch of guides have shown you that its the most powerful way to play a druid? Because flying overcomes so many obstacles and presents you superior combat ability?


I mean, I don't judge either way. You do you. But hey, lets call a horse a horse.

It’s my first time playing a Druid, I didn’t have a specific reason for the stuff I did but I grew into my character over time.
It’s true that when I first started wild shaping I just went to the best animal form I could find but it’s not like I haven’t wild shaped to other creatures over time. If my character likes the versatility that the desmodu hunting bat form provides, I don’t see this as something that should require a long backstory.

[OgresAreCute]

It’s my first time playing a Druid, I didn’t have a specific reason for the stuff I did but I grew into my character over time.
It’s true that when I first started wild shaping I just went to the best animal form I could find but it’s not like I haven’t wild shaped to other creatures over time. If my character likes the versatility that the desmodu hunting bag provides, I don’t see this as something that should require a long backstory.

Adventuring is often a matter of life or death, of course you're going to use a safer/better option if you can reasonably do so. You don't see real life soldiers running into battle with a potato cannon or a .22 from the firing range.

[RNightstalker]

The right DR can neutralize a wild-shape Druid and its animal companion.

[urbanwolf]

If you are always wild shaped how do you talk with the rest of the party? Do you RP squeaks and screams?

[PhantasyPen]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say your DM is being reasonable. Wildshape is stupidly powerful, and frankly I don't think that the Druid class should have it at all. You said it's your first time playing a Druid, so I am going to assume your DM hasn't had to run for them before either, because there are several problems you might be causing them without realizing it:


When wildshaped, you've effectively removed yourself from all social encounters, even if you have telepathy of some kind, the psychic bat riding someone's shoulder isn't really going to hold much weight in the king's court.
Wildshape not only makes you a credible melee threat, you've also stated you are summoning a full menagerie of creatures and have your animal companion acting as front-liners, this causes two problems
A) If there are any actual melee classes on the field, you are probably outshining them greatly, which the longer you do so, the more noticeable it becomes, until you've rendered them entirely redundant and thereby removed their purpose in the game.
B) Summoning creates a LOT of extra actions, I can guarantee you're slowing combat to a crawl on your turn if you have two or more summons out at once. Even assuming you're playing it smart and you have every single action for every single character you control ready to go before your turn comes up, you're still slowing things down with the sheer number of dice you're rolling and possibly missing what others are doing because you're focused on yourself.
Natural Spell existing at all. You've said you're in your wildshape pretty much all the time, or at least implying such with your initial post, and you've also mentioned you're summoning creatures, which means you're casting spells WHILE you're wildshaped. The fact that you can do this at all is honestly pretty game-breaking, and it might be something your DM isn't ready for, even if the rest of your party isn't bothered.



Now with that being said, it sounds like your DM is trying to justify an out-of-game problem and cover it up with an in-game one. I am going to second Segev's statement as well, you need to talk to your DM outside of the normal game time and find a more reasonable compromise the two of you can accept. I highly recommend you see how the both of you feel about the Shapeshifter ACF from the Player's Handbook II. It's similar to wildshape, but much less broken.

[Blackhawk748]

Well I mean...

-Do- you stay wildshaped as a desmondu hunting bat 24/7 because you are playing your character, a druid who has a deep spiritual connection to the desmondu hunting bat, who dreamed of flying and eating insect out of the air as a young child, who yearns to feel the wind beneath your wings and to know, to truly know the joy of not just living LIKE a desmondu hunting bat, but living AS a desmondu hunting bat....

... or do you do it because a bunch of guides have shown you that its the most powerful way to play a druid? Because flying overcomes so many obstacles and presents you superior combat ability?


I mean, I don't judge either way. You do you. But hey, lets call a horse a horse. bat a bat.

I mean, there's totally a middle point here: Being a giant bat is awesome. If I was a Druid IRL I'd spend an awful lot of time as an animal, if only because its amusing.

[heavyfuel]

So many debates about DMs being unfair, but it always come down this:

Talk to the DM, explain why you want to do it and why you think you should be able to do it. And no. Saying "the rules say I can" is not a good argument on why you should be able. The rules themselves say the DM's word takes precedence over all rules. While doing this, keep a level head. Don't scream or throw a fit. If that doesn't work you have two options.

1 - Accept that the DM has nerfed your character and move on. It happens. Your character wasn't the first and nor will she be the last.

2 - Quit the game. No one's pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to play. If the DM really is bad, they'll soon be out of players to play with.

Also, everything that Gallowglass and PhantasyPen have said are seconded here

[daremetoidareyo]

Seeing as how you can wildshape multiple times a day, why are you riding a horse as a bat, instead of something with human legs and less arm wing flap wind resistance issues?

Are you afraid of some sort of "gotcha" shenanigans? Does the DM have a history of these sorts of things that make you want to hoard uses of the ability? Or is it a security thing, like the knowledge that you have another 2 uses in the bank makes the game feel safer because of the potential versatility for later? Have you ever run out of uses?

[Vizzerdrix]

{Scrubbed}

[Blue Jay]

My DM just told me that I’m not acting like “real druids” in D&D because I stay wildshaped all the time as a Desmodu Hunting Bat, he reasoned that a character wouldn’t disconnect from its physical life like this.

He said I read too many guides and forums and that druids aren’t meant to be wildshaped all the time. Am I being odd or is he just completely unaware of how druids usually play? What do you think?

Side note: this may have been because I pissed him off too much in a debate about whether or not I could ride the smoke horse in the Bottle of Smoke spell in the bat form because my legs would be too short.

I'm going to echo some of the other posters here and guess that the "real druids" thing isn't the real reason he's upset. So you need to talk to him and figure out what the real issue is.

Ideally, a DM lets his players play whatever they want and act however they want; but as a matter of practicality, most DMs simply don't have the ability to manage that kind of open sandbox game, and most of the ones who do have the ability won't have much fun doing it. And every DM gets in over his or her head at some point, and starts to act irrationally because of it.

Just remember that he's in this for the fun of it too, so chances are that he's acting this way because he feels like you're stepping on his fun just as much as you feel like he's stepping on yours. So, try to find out why your 24/7 Desmodu hunting bat is stepping on his fun, and I'll bet you can find a satisfactory compromise.

[eggynack]

The right DR can neutralize a wild-shape Druid and its animal companion.



If there are any actual melee classes on the field, you are probably outshining them greatly, which the longer you do so, the more noticeable it becomes, until you've rendered them entirely redundant and thereby removed their purpose in the game.
Desmodu hunting bat isn't really a melee threat. So, upside, melee classes aren't going to be outshined by the form (though they may well be by the summons depending on character and optimization level), but, downside, DR's not going to do all that much to deal with the problem. Helps with the summons and the companion, but not with the flying spell platform.

Anyway, I'ma agree with most folks here. This isn't much of an RP problem, and that's even the case if the only real reason for doing this is optimization. People do optimal things because optimal things are optimal. It's not like this is some weird combo that's hard to fully contextualize the power of within the game's logic. It's a form with high dexterity and good maneuverability. The benefits are obvious. If talking is a problem then you could just pick up a pearl of speech or whatever. If there's a problem here it's that you're doing a bunch of strong stuff, and it's having an impact on balance. If that's the DM's actual problem, then it's a reasonable one, and it's worth figuring out exactly what he takes issue with. If the problem is actually this dumb thing about how druids don't generally use the low cost ability that lasts forever, then the problem is dumb.

[Bphill561]

He’s usually ok as a DM but this is the first time I’ve heard him say something so passive aggressive. I think he just doesn’t like how powerful druids are and the fact that I usually dominate in battles with the animals that I summon.

The other party members I play with are great, so i don’t want to leave but I really have to talk to him about this remark.

Well if wildshape is your thing, maybe tone down animal summoning and additional stuff that makes you further dominate combat. I would pick wildshape over summoning spells any day as a druid. Not much to add beyond that, the rest has already been covered by the other posters.

[Aelar]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say your DM is being reasonable. Wildshape is stupidly powerful, and frankly I don't think that the Druid class should have it at all. You said it's your first time playing a Druid, so I am going to assume your DM hasn't had to run for them before either, because there are several problems you might be causing them without realizing it:


When wildshaped, you've effectively removed yourself from all social encounters, even if you have telepathy of some kind, the psychic bat riding someone's shoulder isn't really going to hold much weight in the king's court.
Wildshape not only makes you a credible melee threat, you've also stated you are summoning a full menagerie of creatures and have your animal companion acting as front-liners, this causes two problems
A) If there are any actual melee classes on the field, you are probably outshining them greatly, which the longer you do so, the more noticeable it becomes, until you've rendered them entirely redundant and thereby removed their purpose in the game.
B) Summoning creates a LOT of extra actions, I can guarantee you're slowing combat to a crawl on your turn if you have two or more summons out at once. Even assuming you're playing it smart and you have every single action for every single character you control ready to go before your turn comes up, you're still slowing things down with the sheer number of dice you're rolling and possibly missing what others are doing because you're focused on yourself.
Natural Spell existing at all. You've said you're in your wildshape pretty much all the time, or at least implying such with your initial post, and you've also mentioned you're summoning creatures, which means you're casting spells WHILE you're wildshaped. The fact that you can do this at all is honestly pretty game-breaking, and it might be something your DM isn't ready for, even if the rest of your party isn't bothered.



Now with that being said, it sounds like your DM is trying to justify an out-of-game problem and cover it up with an in-game one. I am going to second Segev's statement as well, you need to talk to your DM outside of the normal game time and find a more reasonable compromise the two of you can accept. I highly recommend you see how the both of you feel about the Shapeshifter ACF from the Player's Handbook II. It's similar to wildshape, but much less broken.


When I first started wild shaping I didn’t have a Pearl of Speech so I stayed quiet during verbal interactions but after I got it I resumed talking regularly, so that’s not an issue. Also, the rogue usually handles talking to NPC’s due to his high charisma and diplomacy.
That’s part of being a Druid, I couldn’t play it differently as it would weaken all the party
A) While i agree that the wild shape ability is powerful, changing it 5 levels after i started wildshaping isn’t really ok as it changes how I play my character, for example what items I bought along the way (wildling claps and such) and how this comes together with the other class features.
B) Summoning helps out the other party members a lot as they aren’t really optimized and if I didn’t do it, some of us would’ve probably died in plenty of encounters. While this is of course part of the game, I think they accept that it’s better to be annoyed sometimes because it takes longer for me to play rather than not finish battles quicker and rise in levels at a better rate. Also, I absolutely pay attention to what the others are doing during the battle as we sometimes consult (out of character) what each one should do given difficult situations.
The DM is annoyed at how well we finish battles but I don’t know what I could do at this point. I use wild shaping mostly to protect myself while casting due to the Natural Spell feat so even if I wasn’t wild shaped, the Druid class features would my character powerful. Calling it broken is akin to calling the Druid class broken which is a whole other matter.

Having said that, I’ll definitely discuss this with him, as you suggested, to help making the game more balanced in his eyes.

[Aelar]

Desmodu hunting bat isn't really a melee threat. So, upside, melee classes aren't going to be outshined by the form (though they may well be by the summons depending on character and optimization level), but, downside, DR's not going to do all that much to deal with the problem. Helps with the summons and the companion, but not with the flying spell platform.

Anyway, I'ma agree with most folks here. This isn't much of an RP problem, and that's even the case if the only real reason for doing this is optimization. People do optimal things because optimal things are optimal. It's not like this is some weird combo that's hard to fully contextualize the power of within the game's logic. It's a form with high dexterity and good maneuverability. The benefits are obvious. If talking is a problem then you could just pick up a pearl of speech or whatever. If there's a problem here it's that you're doing a bunch of strong stuff, and it's having an impact on balance. If that's the DM's actual problem, then it's a reasonable one, and it's worth figuring out exactly what he takes issue with. If the problem is actually this dumb thing about how druids don't generally use the low cost ability that lasts forever, then the problem is dumb.

Given all the comments expressed in the thread I think it probably has to do with me optimizing my character and how it affects the balance more than how I RP. However, I think he’s handling it well considering he gave relic items to each of the other party members that were really valuable both in terms of capabilities and worth (50,000-100,000gp each) for a party that is now at level 10.

I don’t really know how I can play it anyway else at this point, as I would have to change the Druid class features and that could be problematic at this point.

BTW, most of the stuff I did to optimize was based on your guide, which is absolutely amazing and really helpful so thanks a lot for your work :smallsmile:

[Segev]

Yeah, talk to him about this and see if there’s something else bothering him. Do pony out hat it’s your character, so if his only reason really is that it isn’t “what a real Druid would do,” he’s not making a good case. Your Pc could be the exception, even assuming he was right. So if there’s something that your choice to be a desmodu bat is causing him problems for, you’re willing to discuss resolving it, but you want to solve the real problem, and disliking character choices isn’t a real problem for a DM.

It may take some probing; he may not even be entirely aware of why it really bothers him. Or he may know and just fear you’ll not respect a game balance reason. Or he may just be a controlling jerk, but I don’t like to assume such hints about people without a lot of evidence.

But again: talk to him. Work on communication. It’s critical to interpersonal problem solving.

[Biolink22]

Calling it broken is akin to calling the Druid class broken which is a whole other matter.


That's because the Druid class IS broken along with Clerics and Wizards. Banning Natural Spell is basically the only way to bring them even remotely close to balanced.

[Crake]

From a DM's perspective, I'll start with saying that I push the PHB2 shapeshift option for druids hard. It solves a lot of problems surrounding the druid class in my opinion (removing animal companion, making wildshape much less problematic in trying to figure out stats, and no more natural spell), while making the class more player friendly in that you can shapeshift back and forth as a swift action at will, so you aren't locked into wildshape for the sake of not wasting your wildshape.

As an aside though... Desmodu hunting bat? Seriously? That alone raises red flags for me as a DM, because it just screams munchkin. Are you aware that wildshape requires that the druid be familiar with the forms they take? And are you aware that desmodu hunting bats are specifically reared and bred bats created by the desmodu tribe? A small, underground tribe of humanoid-ish creatures that rarely interact with the outside world? The likelihood of you being familiar with such a creature is practically nil unless you've actually encountered one at some point.

[eggynack]

Summoning helps out the other party members a lot as they aren’t really optimized and if I didn’t do it, some of us would’ve probably died in plenty of encounters. While this is of course part of the game, I think they accept that it’s better to be annoyed sometimes because it takes longer for me to play rather than not finish battles quicker and rise in levels at a better rate. Also, I absolutely pay attention to what the others are doing during the battle as we sometimes consult (out of character) what each one should do given difficult situations.
I mean, what you're describing right now is that your character massively out-powers the other characters to the point where you're fundamentally defining how the game operates. Enemies have to be much more powerful than the rest of the party to constitute a credible threat. This is how imbalance works. Either the monsters get crushed by your might or they easily crush the rest of the party without your intervention. If you were weaker, then the enemies could be made weaker as well, leading to the summoning being unnecessary.


The DM is annoyed at how well we finish battles but I don’t know what I could do at this point. I use wild shaping mostly to protect myself while casting due to the Natural Spell feat so even if I wasn’t wild shaped, the Druid class features would my character powerful. Calling it broken is akin to calling the Druid class broken which is a whole other matter.

As was noted above, the druid class is pretty broken. It ranges from best class in the game to top six or so depending on level, and this in a game where power gaps can be massive. In any case, the druid's power is defined by spells. This is definitely true in your case where wild shape is operating as a facilitator of more efficient casting and the animal companion is falling behind due to your reasonably high level.

So, if you want to tamp down on your power without fundamentally altering how your character or class operates, spells are where I'd focus. Cast worse spells and you become a worse character without having to change your sheet at all. It sounds like you're spontaneously converting a lot, so maybe do it a bit less. Presumably for the spells that are worse than the summons rather than for the spells that are better than them, but some of the better spells are arguably friendlier. BFC's, for example, let the party do the killing part. Not necessarily helpful if the problem is encounter power rather than the party feeling overshadowed.



BTW, most of the stuff I did to optimize was based on your guide, which is absolutely amazing and really helpful so thanks a lot for your work :smallsmile:
Glad ya liked it.

[Eldariel]

That's because the Druid class IS broken along with Clerics and Wizards. Banning Natural Spell is basically the only way to bring them even remotely close to balanced.

Uh...no, banning Natural Spell doesn't make them balanced in any way, shape or form. You're still two characters one of which is a full caster and one a relatively competent fighter, and the full caster is also a fairly competent fighter even without Wildshape. Druid spell list is worse than the Wizard one but not worse enough that it would be less broken even without all the goodies the class gets. Foolish girl, I'm a Druid, I have special abilities more powerful than your entire class. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0346.html) You can nerf one but he still has two others.

[Aelar]

From a DM's perspective, I'll start with saying that I push the PHB2 shapeshift option for druids hard. It solves a lot of problems surrounding the druid class in my opinion (removing animal companion, making wildshape much less problematic in trying to figure out stats, and no more natural spell), while making the class more player friendly in that you can shapeshift back and forth as a swift action at will, so you aren't locked into wildshape for the sake of not wasting your wildshape.

As an aside though... Desmodu hunting bat? Seriously? That alone raises red flags for me as a DM, because it just screams munchkin. Are you aware that wildshape requires that the druid be familiar with the forms they take? And are you aware that desmodu hunting bats are specifically reared and bred bats created by the desmodu tribe? A small, underground tribe of humanoid-ish creatures that rarely interact with the outside world? The likelihood of you being familiar with such a creature is practically nil unless you've actually encountered one at some point.

Well, the shapeshift option would essentially nerf 2 out of the 3 main features of a Druid because you don’t have an Animal Companion and you’re stuck either using the “wild shaping” to attack using only the natural attacks of what ever form you take. So if this was the case from the beginning, it’s one thing but now it would completely change the way I play which is too drastic in my opinion.

About the Desmodu Hunting Bat, I bought a book about the Desmodu at a certain point in the adventure, rolled a Knowledge Nature and then I wild shaped into one. Also, considering I didn’t wild shape till I got the Natural Spell feat at level 6 and could cast spells, this form was not what made stuff unbalanced (Dire Bat at level 8 isn’t that different)

[Crake]

Well, the shapeshift option would essentially nerf 2 out of the 3 main features of a Druid because you don’t have an Animal Companion and you’re stuck either using the “wild shaping” to attack using only the natural attacks of what ever form you take. So if this was the case from the beginning, it’s one thing but now it would completely change the way I play which is too drastic in my opinion.

About the Desmodu Hunting Bat, I bought a book about the Desmodu at a certain point in the adventure, rolled a Knowledge Nature and then I wild shaped into one. Also, considering I didn’t wild shape till I got the Natural Spell feat at level 6 and could cast spells, this form was not what made stuff unbalanced (Dire Bat at level 8 isn’t that different)

Reading about something and making a knowledge check isn't the same as being familiar with something. "well known from long or close association." is the google definition. Living with said creatures in their natural environment on the other hand, that would count. If you've never even seen one, definitely wouldn't say you could wild shape into one, and that's by RAW, not even a houserule.

[Aelar]

I mean, what you're describing right now is that your character massively out-powers the other characters to the point where you're fundamentally defining how the game operates. Enemies have to be much more powerful than the rest of the party to constitute a credible threat. This is how imbalance works. Either the monsters get crushed by your might or they easily crush the rest of the party without your intervention. If you were weaker, then the enemies could be made weaker as well, leading to the summoning being unnecessary.

As was noted above, the druid class is pretty broken. It ranges from best class in the game to top six or so depending on level, and this in a game where power gaps can be massive. In any case, the druid's power is defined by spells. This is definitely true in your case where wild shape is operating as a facilitator of more efficient casting and the animal companion is falling behind due to your reasonably high level.

So, if you want to tamp down on your power without fundamentally altering how your character or class operates, spells are where I'd focus. Cast worse spells and you become a worse character without having to change your sheet at all. It sounds like you're spontaneously converting a lot, so maybe do it a bit less. Presumably for the spells that are worse than the summons rather than for the spells that are better than them, but some of the better spells are arguably friendlier. BFC's, for example, let the party do the killing part. Not necessarily helpful if the problem is encounter power rather than the party feeling overshadowed.

I could do that, it just feels weird suddenly doing it after all this time optimizing. I think I’ll do it more in the small-medium encounters because if I did this during the big encounters the party would take some serious damage.

[ayvango]

"well known from long or close association." is the google definition.
Google definition is a point. But what about SRD definition? I noticed SRD frequently differs from common knowledge.

[Aelar]

Reading about something and making a knowledge check isn't the same as being familiar with something. "well known from long or close association." is the google definition. Living with said creatures in their natural environment on the other hand, that would count. If you've never even seen one, definitely wouldn't say you could wild shape into one, and that's by RAW, not even a houserule.

I mean, “familiar with” is problematic to begin with, what that means is up for interpretation so RAW is complicated. Seeing it complicates things further, how long do you have to observe if, do you need to touch it or see it react to different energy attacks for instance. This is more of a DM choice really so I guess my DM may have lenient with me about this.

[gogogome]

Google definition is a point. But what about SRD definition? I noticed SRD frequently differs from common knowledge.

Look up scrying. It has a definition for familiar as well. But since familiar isn't a explicitly defined game term you can say how a word is used in one spell has no impact on others.

[RoboEmperor]

Look up scrying. It has a definition for familiar as well. But since familiar isn't a explicitly defined game term you can say how a word is used in one spell has no impact on others.

I had this debate before.

Some DMs say knowing things about a creature because you studied it in a book counts as familiar.
Some DMs say reading about a creature, no matter how detailed, is still just hearing about the subject and never meeting him.
Some DMs say you can be familiar with something without ever meeting it so scrying rules shouldn't be used.

My response? Screw polymorph. I'm going planar binding or simulacrum.

My opinion? I don't know. All 3 have valid merits but if I absolutely have to choose one I'd choose knowledge check but with a 10 DC increase because the MMs give the most info at +10 DC.

[OgresAreCute]

If we take "familiar" to mean "well known from long or close association.", wild shape becomes a little dysfunctional in that the vast majority of druids aren't going to be familiar with animals more dangerous than dogs and sheep. Most adventurers probably don't have time to camp out in the bear hole for 3 weeks so the druid can fraternize with the local wildlife.

[RoboEmperor]

If we take "familiar" to mean "well known from long or close association.", wild shape becomes a little dysfunctional in that the vast majority of druids aren't going to be familiar with animals more dangerous than dogs and sheep. Most adventurers probably don't have time to camp out in the bear hole for 3 weeks so the druid can fraternize with the local wildlife.

I disagree. Druids are supposed to fraternize with bears and keep the order of nature in a forest their entire life. "guardian of the forest" type of deal.

I think Wildshape was intended to be a way for a druid to become the shape of an animal he befriended for a long time rather than like a wizard's optimal theorycrafting shenanigans. Thematically for me it makes sense that wizards would power game the best form but not druids.

Of course with the correct backstory none of this is relevant so I don't voice my opinion at all concerning druids' wildshape.

[Crake]

If we take "familiar" to mean "well known from long or close association.", wild shape becomes a little dysfunctional in that the vast majority of druids aren't going to be familiar with animals more dangerous than dogs and sheep. Most adventurers probably don't have time to camp out in the bear hole for 3 weeks so the druid can fraternize with the local wildlife.

The idea would be that a druid would have done this in their homeland, and so should be familiar with most/all animals in their homeland. Or anything that, y'know, they're able to summon.

[eggynack]

The Rules Compendium standard for familiarity for wild shape forms is that, "The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid has seen or could reasonably know about." That's pretty expansive. Just seeing the thing is apparently enough, and the latter aspect has some reading wiggle room but seems slanted towards allowing access.

[gogogome]

The Rules Compendium standard for familiarity for wild shape forms is that, "The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid has seen or could reasonably know about." That's pretty expansive. Just seeing the thing is apparently enough, and the latter aspect has some reading wiggle room but seems slanted towards allowing access.

That's a knowledge check at normal DC. Thanks for sharing. This is going to my list of RAWs.

[ayvango]

The druids hold meetings regularly. They share precious experience of how nature works, shows each other forms of rare animals, and recite excerpta from the Eggynack's Comprehensive Druid Handbook.

[Gnaeus]

I disagree. Druids are supposed to fraternize with bears and keep the order of nature in a forest their entire life. "guardian of the forest" type of deal.

I think Wildshape was intended to be a way for a druid to become the shape of an animal he befriended for a long time rather than like a wizard's optimal theorycrafting shenanigans. Thematically for me it makes sense that wizards would power game the best form but not druids.

Of course with the correct backstory none of this is relevant so I don't voice my opinion at all concerning druids' wildshape.

Ok, there are a lot of silly rules arguments that I couldn’t make myself confront, especially with eggy on the scene. But that one takes the cake.

1. Thematically, wildshape is obviously there because D&D loves Tolkien. And there’s a dude in the hobbit who turns into bears and keeps bears as pets, and he uses that power to pwn goblins in a huge battle. The Druid class less resembles an ancient Druid than it does Beorn.

2. Respect for nature is the most freaking power gamer mindset possible. It’s all about understanding that animals who use the skills relevant to their environment live, and ones who don’t die, and that’s freaking awesome. There is absolutely no way that a group of Druids discussing animals wouldn’t sound like Steve Irwin talking to the Wild Kratts. “Did you know that a Dire Tiger can charge and pin a hill giant in 6 seconds?” “Awesome! Did you know that a whale can withstand pressure at a depth of a mile?” “Cool! Did you know that a Dire falcon can dive at 96 miles per hour?” “Badass! Animal powers, Activate!”

3. What person with an inhumanly high Wisdom wouldn’t realize that if your job is “guardian of the forest” you probably want powers that let you locate enemies in the forest. Or kill the enemies of the forest.

[Telonius]

Reading about something and making a knowledge check isn't the same as being familiar with something. "well known from long or close association." is the google definition. Living with said creatures in their natural environment on the other hand, that would count. If you've never even seen one, definitely wouldn't say you could wild shape into one, and that's by RAW, not even a houserule.

I am now envisioning the Desmodu tribe marketing vacation getaways to every Druid circle in the world.

[Malphegor]

This sounds like a 'you wouldn't be wielding your sword to the bathhouse' argument confused with a 'you wouldn't be carrying your sword somewhere nearby if something went wrong whilst you were in the bathhouse'.

If you can be a bat, I'm not sure why you wouldn't be a bat, unless you can be a dinosaur. At most I'd say there's the psychological damage imparted by being in a different form sometimes- after all, the mind is shaped somewhat by the body, but druids are generally eccentric weirdos in my experience so that might be the 'I've just been an elephant for 6 months' in them expressing itself as being hippies with a tendency for snot to dribble out without a care.

And of course one would go for the best form you've heard of for combat and utility. That's just straight forward- which is better, a +1 sword or a +2 sword?


Irl druids are in D&D terms probably closer to clerics with the nature domain, maybe a bit of sorcerer if we go to mythic ones.

[Crake]

This sounds like a 'you wouldn't be wielding your sword to the bathhouse' argument confused with a 'you wouldn't be carrying your sword somewhere nearby if something went wrong whilst you were in the bathhouse'.

Well, except for a druid "carrying your sword somewhere nearby" is the equivilent of "having wildshape uses left for the day" while "wielding your sword to the bathouse" would be the equivilent of "being in bat form all the time".

I can understand the sentiment of "Oh, well, I've already changed into a bat for that encounter, I may as well stay in bat form", but "I must be in bat form at all times just in case we're attacked out of the blue" isn't one I can get behind.

[RoboEmperor]

but "I must be in bat form at all times just in case we're attacked out of the blue" isn't one I can get behind.

If an extended mage armor lasts half a day, would you prepare two and cast one at the start of the day? Or is that an idea you can't get behind and want players to cast 1hour/level spells at the start of combat only?

[bean illus]

Everyone wants to be understood, but few attempt verily to understand others.

I'm a conflict resolution counselor. What i see most is this:

A person may have said 10 things, but the other picks out an imperfection in the delivery of one of them. The second seems not to have heard anything else. The conversation then stalls as this imperfect delivery is repeated and debated.

Why does anyone expect DMs to be perfect? They are human, and busy. Try to remember they volunteer for an impossible job (making everybody happy, all the time).


That's because the Druid class IS broken along with Clerics and Wizards. Banning Natural Spell is basically the only way to bring them even remotely close to balanced.

If you basically have to save the party every encounter, your unbalanced to the table.

It's not like your's is the first game where folks considered nerfing druids wildshape+natural spell.

So I suggest, get with your DM and tell him that you know that it's a game, and everybody should have the most fun possible. Then open your mind and the conversation to a negotiation, which may include a nerf.

Btw, most of the trope I remember has the character who possesses an animal 24/7/365 slowly take on mental traits of the possessed form, eventually forgetting who they really were. lol.

[Segev]

What are the other PCs in the party?

If - as seems likely from this discussion - the DM's real core problem is that your druid is overpowered compared to the rest of the party, and you're not willing to nerf yourself, then examining ways to help the rest of the party do better is a possible solution. It does require everybody to be on board with it, though.

[Psyren]

I have no problem with being in Wild Shape all the time - it lasts all day for a reason. Indeed, there are plenty of druids in fiction (and D&D specifically) who prefer their animal/etc forms to their humanoid ones. Being one of those kinds of druids should be the player's choice, once they earn the power to do so.

Now, if the DM's concern is that wild shape provides too many benefits, that is a fair point, and is also solveable - the Giant has a shapeshifting fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?172910-Articles-Previously-Appearing-on-GiantITP-com), as does Pathfinder (which the Giant praised in the link.) You could even borrow from 5e in a pinch.

[Gnaeus]

I can understand the sentiment of "Oh, well, I've already changed into a bat for that encounter, I may as well stay in bat form", but "I must be in bat form at all times just in case we're attacked out of the blue" isn't one I can get behind.

Maybe if you are sitting in a forest or drinking in an inn that makes sense. For some characters at least.

Most relevant adventuring time seems to fall into either traveling, exploring, or fighting/preparing to fight.

Traveling, would I rather fly through the air as a bat or ride a horse? Never flown as a bat but I’ve ridden enough horses that it’s probably bat.

Exploring, obviously bat. Better senses. Better/different viewpoint.

Fighting/preparing to fight, maybe not bat but clearly some WS form.

Next most likely is probably some kind of negotiation. Even there, wildly situational. Kings dinner party the bat is likely bad. Random wilderness encounter you are pretty much just announcing that your team has a powerful Druid or ranger, which is likely to be helpful more often than not.

[Psyren]

Next most likely is probably some kind of negotiation. Even there, wildly situational. Kings dinner party the bat is likely bad. Random wilderness encounter you are pretty much just announcing that your team has a powerful Druid or ranger, which is likely to be helpful more often than not.

Agreed, and the beauty of wildshape is that it's a toolbox. A bat at the king's dinner party is probably a bad idea, but a mouse or cat? You get to hear things the nobles might not want you to hear, e.g. hanging out in the servant's quarters or under the table. Maybe a party member can smuggle you in as their "pet", and now the corrupt vizier or the hidden assassin has miscounted how many guests are in attendance - and better still, you have your weapons (claws) when the rest of the party was forced to leave theirs outside.

For wilderness trekking, advertising a druid's presence could be good or bad, but I don't think simply having an animal (even a relatively exotic one) accompanying the party would be cause for that unless the animal is behaving in a particularly intelligent fashion.

[Gallowglass]

As an aside though... Desmodu hunting bat? Seriously? That alone raises red flags for me as a DM, because it just screams munchkin. Are you aware that wildshape requires that the druid be familiar with the forms they take? And are you aware that desmodu hunting bats are specifically reared and bred bats created by the desmodu tribe? A small, underground tribe of humanoid-ish creatures that rarely interact with the outside world? The likelihood of you being familiar with such a creature is practically nil unless you've actually encountered one at some point.

<whine> Stop trying to tell me how to play my character </whine>

[gogogome]

If you are too strong for the party then you need to scrap your character and bring in a new one in line with the rest of the party. It sucks that you have to abandon your character but that's what happens when you play with unskilled inexperienced DMs among other things.

[Crake]

If an extended mage armor lasts half a day, would you prepare two and cast one at the start of the day? Or is that an idea you can't get behind and want players to cast 1hour/level spells at the start of combat only?

Mage armor isn't something that gives you options, and has no downsides to using it, it's either on or off. Wild shape on the other hand not only gives you options which you throw away upon use, but also comes with downsides, namely being unable to talk or use a large variety of skills.


Traveling, would I rather fly through the air as a bat or ride a horse? Never flown as a bat but I’ve ridden enough horses that it’s probably bat.

Either you're flying really close to the ground, at which point you honestly may as well be riding a horse, or you're flying high enough to be spotted from a far distance, at which point you're acting as a liability to your party and making yourself a target for aerial predators. Unless you're using your flight to specifically overcome an obstacle (at which point you could just transform anyway if you hadn't done so before) sitting in flight form for travel isn't at all as useful as you're making it out to be, considering you're likely the only one who can fly at that point, you just make yourself a better target for enemies, as they can single you out.

But honestly "I sit in desmodu hunting bat form all day" literally just sounds straight ripped from a druid guide.

[Melcar]

My DM just told me that I’m not acting like “real druids” in D&D because I stay wildshaped all the time as a Desmodu Hunting Bat, he reasoned that a character wouldn’t disconnect from its physical life like this.

He said I read too many guides and forums and that druids aren’t meant to be wildshaped all the time. Am I being odd or is he just completely unaware of how druids usually play? What do you think?

Side note: this may have been because I pissed him off too much in a debate about whether or not I could ride the smoke horse in the Bottle of Smoke spell in the bat form because my legs would be too short.

What your character/ race would, or would not do, is completely up to you! Are you playing a PC or an NPC? If you are playing a PC, you tell your DM to sod off! Obviously you shouldn't be breaking the game, but how you play a druid if completely up to you. That might hamper you in quite a lot of social interaction, but again, that's your prerogative! Your DM sounds like someone I would not like to play under!

I suggest you read what is written in PHB about Druids. I highly doubt you find something that says: "druids don't want to be wildshaped for long periods at a time...."
Just tell your DM that that't the way you want to play. If he disallows that, then decide whether you want to continue playing...



It’s my first time playing a Druid, I didn’t have a specific reason for the stuff I did but I grew into my character over time. It’s true that when I first started wild shaping I just went to the best animal form I could find but it’s not like I haven’t wild shaped to other creatures over time. If my character likes the versatility that the desmodu hunting bat form provides, I don’t see this as something that should require a long backstory.

You are absolutely right! In WoW, when playing a druid you go into the form that fits the situation the most, whether that be bear, panther, seal, or traveling form. D&D is not different. You choose the best for for the job, just like wizards choose the best spells for the job, whether that be instakill, buffs og CC.

Again, how you character is playing is 100% your prerogative!

[AnimeTheCat]

is it bad that all I think about whenever i read anything in this thread is the bat voiced by Robin Williams from Fern Gully? Please tell me you do a bat rap. That's the only way I would find this acceptable. Otherwise... just kinda sounds boring (edit: and gamey) to me. If I wanted to play a bat I would play an anthropomorphic bat. or talk to my DM about playing an awakened bat.

Real talk, I'm not saying the DM has any business telling you, the player, what you, the character, would or should do in any scanerio. However, you are playing in what is likely the image of a world created by your DM (or possibly a standardized campaign setting). I tend to make my own worlds and they vary from insanely high magic with actual walking, existing, physically intervening gods, to absolutely no magic. They are tailored worlds that fit a certain image I came up with and wanted to make a reality to play and run in.

In the DM's world that he/she may have created with lots of effort, perhaps Druids lose touch with their humanity and start to have the change become different or permanent with ill side effects physically and socially. Granted, if the DM didn't say this up front or is trying to handle this out of game, again he's somewhat in the wrong. If that was the case I would have expected the DM to plop a lore bit or something in one of the books your character has read about legends of druids losing their humanity or something when they stay wild shaped for too long. At that point if you choose to push the bill and keep doing that, you reap what you sow and you have no room for complaint because an appropriate in-game, in-character warning was given for a real in-game, in-character outcome to occur.

Let's say, for instance, you stopped having your character in bat form all the time. What would change about how you play your character? What traits about your character would be different? How would your characte behave differently? Would you no longer be able to say or do the things you do now? What would change about the way you interact with your party? would you no longer be able to fulfil the function that you're setting out to fulfil? I ask all of that because I know about having attachments to characters or character concepts, and I know that when you have a schtick that you like it seems like the schtick is your character. I've done that and I know it's hard to see it for yourself, but the reality is that your schtick is not your character, but a part of it. Does walking around in human(oid) form stop your character from being your character?

I think the DM was wrong for the way he/she approached you about what they saw as a problem, but I also think you're in the wrong for taking it as something of a personal attack then taking to the internet to, essentially, complain about it. I know you've said you're going to talk to the DM about it and that's good, but remember that you're playing in the DM's world and that without the DM, you would either not have a game or someone else would have to run and that the other DM may not be as good as this one. See how you can be amenable to the situation and come to a comprimise. If the DM doesn't like that you're always wildshaped, mention the bit I said above about the lore bit about the change diminishing your humanity, bake it into the lore of the game, then you, the player, decide what you, the character, do fully knowing the potential consequences. I think both of you are being a little silly about this in the first place because it's a game. If someone isn't having fun, including the DM, just be open to what the rest of the group is leaning towards and have everybody, not just the DM, working towards making a fun experience for everyone.

[Zurambas]

It does sound like the OP is following a guide. But, speaking as a hack-n-slasher, I kinda understand where he's coming from. The DM did handle it wrong, because he tried to tell the OP to run his character a certain way, or not do a certain thing. We're DMs. We're supposed to be creative; we don't tell the players how to run their characters. We give them in-game, fair CONSEQUENCES for how they run their characters. If they always choose Plan B(kill everything that moves and loot the bodies), well, throw the whole bloody dungeon at them because they didn't attempt stealth. Give them political consequences for killing/looting the wrong body. etc.

In this case, the DM should have given the OP realistic consequences for remaining in the form of an intelligent bat 24/7. I don't remember a lot about Desmodu, but I believe they may have a hive mind-type thing going, so have the OP begin to develop a longing to be connected. Tell him to make a Will save every so often. Failure means he has to seek out the nearest Desmodu colony. Or something like that. Have him have to succeed on Will saves to come OUT of Desmodu form when he needs to do a town run. Etc. Be creative, and above all, let the player play his character.

[RoboEmperor]

Mage armor isn't something that gives you options, and has no downsides to using it, it's either on or off. Wild shape on the other hand not only gives you options which you throw away upon use, but also comes with downsides, namely being unable to talk or use a large variety of skills.

Then what's your problem with a player choosing to use a 1hour/level ability and embracing or overcoming the downsides that come with it?

[Gallowglass]

It does sound like the OP is following a guide. But, speaking as a hack-n-slasher, I kinda understand where he's coming from. The DM did handle it wrong, because he tried to tell the OP to run his character a certain way, or not do a certain thing. We're DMs. We're supposed to be creative; we don't tell the players how to run their characters. We give them in-game, fair CONSEQUENCES for how they run their characters. If they always choose Plan B(kill everything that moves and loot the bodies), well, throw the whole bloody dungeon at them because they didn't attempt stealth. Give them political consequences for killing/looting the wrong body. etc.

In this case, the DM should have given the OP realistic consequences for remaining in the form of an intelligent bat 24/7. I don't remember a lot about Desmodu, but I believe they may have a hive mind-type thing going, so have the OP begin to develop a longing to be connected. Tell him to make a Will save every so often. Failure means he has to seek out the nearest Desmodu colony. Or something like that. Have him have to succeed on Will saves to come OUT of Desmodu form when he needs to do a town run. Etc. Be creative, and above all, let the player play his character.

I feel like the same posters in this thread who are condemning the DM for "telling the guy how to play his character" would likewise object to any non-rules-certified action taken by the DM like you suggest as "the DM overstepping his authority." Because how DARE he try to make the game more interesting by inserting unusual or novel challenges to overcome.

I suggest the following:

DM: "Okay as the rest of the party plod along through the thick forest, you are flying above on "scout" enjoying the thick meaty taste of the misquito swarm hovering over the forest. When suddenly you feel a sharp pain! You take 17 damage and look down and see a harpoon like crossbow bolt sticking out of your ribcage."

Player: "What? Where did that come from? I dive for cover."

DM: "You scan about as you dive down to the trees for cover and see three more bolts flying toward you *rolls* two hit, one miss for another 38 damage."

Player: "Crap! Where are they coming from?"

DM: as you hit the tree cover, you see four figures down below firing up at you. They look like hobgoblins wearing bright orange vests over camoflauge armor and weilding oversized crossbows. You hear one of them yelling "You got him Roger! What a shot! Look at the size of that thing! We are gonna eat well tonight boys!" Also make a perception check."

Player: "Uh... I rolled a 13"

DM: "You failed to notice the netting stretched across the trees and you find yourself quickly entangled. wrapped in the net you fall through the trees, crashing through branches taking another 12 damage before coming to a stop hanging from a branch a few feet over the ground."

Player: "Oh. That knocks me unconscious."

DM: "Okay" *turns to the other players* "As you are working your way through the woods you smell roasting meat and see a fire up ahead. You come upon a clearing and find four hobgoblins as I describe above roasting something over a fire while drinking beer. They see you and wave at you "Hey guys! You won't BELIEVE the size of the turkey or whatever we just bagged! We got plenty to share, you guys wanna beer ?"

[Psyren]

Well I mean...

-Do- you stay wildshaped as a desmondu hunting bat 24/7 because you are playing your character, a druid who has a deep spiritual connection to the desmondu hunting bat, who dreamed of flying and eating insect out of the air as a young child, who yearns to feel the wind beneath your wings and to know, to truly know the joy of not just living LIKE a desmondu hunting bat, but living AS a desmondu hunting bat....

... or do you do it because a bunch of guides have shown you that its the most powerful way to play a druid? Because flying overcomes so many obstacles and presents you superior combat ability?


I mean, I don't judge either way. You do you. But hey, lets call a horse a horse. bat a bat.



As an aside though... Desmodu hunting bat? Seriously? That alone raises red flags for me as a DM, because it just screams munchkin. Are you aware that wildshape requires that the druid be familiar with the forms they take? And are you aware that desmodu hunting bats are specifically reared and bred bats created by the desmodu tribe? A small, underground tribe of humanoid-ish creatures that rarely interact with the outside world? The likelihood of you being familiar with such a creature is practically nil unless you've actually encountered one at some point.

Yeah, I missed the nuance that the OP is going with this specific creature because of its massive mechanical upsides. flight, trip, scent, and 120ft. blindsight are a bit much for a low/mid-op game, which this might be given the DM's reaction.

Not saying it's an illegal choice by any means, but that doesn't mean the DM should be forced to allow it regardless of the group's power level either.

[MeimuHakurei]

I feel like the same posters in this thread who are condemning the DM for "telling the guy how to play his character" would likewise object to any non-rules-certified action taken by the DM like you suggest as "the DM overstepping his authority." Because how DARE he try to make the game more interesting by inserting unusual or novel challenges to overcome.

I suggest the following:

DM: "Okay as the rest of the party plod along through the thick forest, you are flying above on "scout" enjoying the thick meaty taste of the misquito swarm hovering over the forest. When suddenly you feel a sharp pain! You take 17 damage and look down and see a harpoon like crossbow bolt sticking out of your ribcage."

Player: "What? Where did that come from? I dive for cover."

DM: "You scan about as you dive down to the trees for cover and see three more bolts flying toward you *rolls* two hit, one miss for another 38 damage."

Player: "Crap! Where are they coming from?"

DM: as you hit the tree cover, you see four figures down below firing up at you. They look like hobgoblins wearing bright orange vests over camoflauge armor and weilding oversized crossbows. You hear one of them yelling "You got him Roger! What a shot! Look at the size of that thing! We are gonna eat well tonight boys!" Also make a perception check."

Player: "Uh... I rolled a 13"

DM: "You failed to notice the netting stretched across the trees and you find yourself quickly entangled. wrapped in the net you fall through the trees, crashing through branches taking another 12 damage before coming to a stop hanging from a branch a few feet over the ground."

Player: "Oh. That knocks me unconscious."

DM: "Okay" *turns to the other players* "As you are working your way through the woods you smell roasting meat and see a fire up ahead. You come upon a clearing and find four hobgoblins as I describe above roasting something over a fire while drinking beer. They see you and wave at you "Hey guys! You won't BELIEVE the size of the turkey or whatever we just bagged! We got plenty to share, you guys wanna beer ?"

Blindsense won't be foiled by a mundane net (at the very least the druid would notice a physical object in that general direction). Also, with Spot/Listen being class skills, Druids focusing Wisdom and the form granting another +8 to both senses makes the chance for the druid to not notice the hobgoblins practically nil - even at Level 5 you're looking at a +20 modifier on both, easily able to spot orange things in a forest. If you have to contrive such a scenario and aggressively fudge rolls to force a scenario where the druid dies for a completely reasonable course of action (scouting in an effective flying shape), you're better off telling the player to leave your table for all that would accomplish (chances are this will encourage the player to make something even more optimized). Finally, they'd notice they killed a druid once they go pick up the corpse.

A better situation would simply be more urban environments where giant hunting bats aren't as welcome. Even if the town and important people are familiar with the druid they'd probably want them to not scare around the townsfolk.

TL;DR: If a player is doing problematic things, the solution is not to be an even more problematic DM.

[Gnaeus]

Mage armor isn't something that gives you options, and has no downsides to using it, it's either on or off. Wild shape on the other hand not only gives you options which you throw away upon use, but also comes with downsides, namely being unable to talk or use a large variety of skills.



Either you're flying really close to the ground, at which point you honestly may as well be riding a horse, or you're flying high enough to be spotted from a far distance, at which point you're acting as a liability to your party and making yourself a target for aerial predators. Unless you're using your flight to specifically overcome an obstacle (at which point you could just transform anyway if you hadn't done so before) sitting in flight form for travel isn't at all as useful as you're making it out to be, considering you're likely the only one who can fly at that point, you just make yourself a better target for enemies, as they can single you out.

But honestly "I sit in desmodu hunting bat form all day" literally just sounds straight ripped from a druid guide.
{Scrubbed}

We will ignore any rational thoughts that it is easier to see something on the ground when you are looking for threats on the ground as opposed to a creature on the ground who probably isn’t looking up for attackers in the sky.

What we will not ignore is the fact that a Druid, as a wisdom based type with spot on list and ample skill points, is probably going to have a higher spot than most enemies. Which he can now use because he has changed elevation to get better line of sight.

What we will not ignore is that the Druid is likely a medium or large flier, and the DC to spot him is likely to be higher than the things he is looking for, which will be threats to the party. He’s looking for ambushes, or a group of cavalry behind a hill, or a large predator moving in the party’s direction.

We will not ignore that most land based threats, seeing a large flier in the distance, will not drop what they are doing to attack it. Either because they can’t hurt it, like most ground predators, or can’t catch it, like a cavalry squad, or it isn’t in their job description, like bad guys attacking travelers on a road from ambush.

We will also not ignore that a flying scout in any kind of rough terrain is way more likely to spot points of interest that aren’t directly in the party’s path, like ruins, clearings or dwellings.

Nothing can “single you out” very effectively, as you are likely only one move action from the party. Anything that can meaningfully engage you was almost certainly going to be a threat anyway.

It sounds like it comes from a guide because it is good advice. And if someone tells you that having a flying scout is a liability to the party the only thing you can be certain of is that that player is the liability to your party.


Blindsense won't be foiled by a mundane net (at the very least the druid would notice a physical object in that general direction). Also, with Spot/Listen being class skills, Druids focusing Wisdom and the form granting another +8 to both senses makes the chance for the druid to not notice the hobgoblins practically nil - even at Level 5 you're looking at a +20 modifier on both, easily able to spot orange things in a forest. If you have to contrive such a scenario and aggressively fudge rolls to force a scenario where the druid dies for a completely reasonable course of action (scouting in an effective flying shape), you're better off telling the player to leave your table for all that would accomplish (chances are this will encourage the player to make something even more optimized). Finally, they'd notice they killed a druid once they go pick up the corpse.

A better situation would simply be more urban environments where giant hunting bats aren't as welcome. Even if the town and important people are familiar with the druid they'd probably want them to not scare around the townsfolk.

TL;DR: If a player is doing problematic things, the solution is not to be an even more problematic DM.

Exactly that. And more, the flying scout isn’t going to need to be more than a single move action from the party. If there are hobgoblins with balistas in the trees with insane hide skills the Druid is more likely to survive their surprise round than the rogue or wizard.

[Gallowglass]

Blindsense won't be foiled by a mundane net (at the very least the druid would notice a physical object in that general direction). Also, with Spot/Listen being class skills, Druids focusing Wisdom and the form granting another +8 to both senses makes the chance for the druid to not notice the hobgoblins practically nil - even at Level 5 you're looking at a +20 modifier on both, easily able to spot orange things in a forest. If you have to contrive such a scenario and aggressively fudge rolls to force a scenario where the druid dies for a completely reasonable course of action (scouting in an effective flying shape), you're better off telling the player to leave your table for all that would accomplish (chances are this will encourage the player to make something even more optimized). Finally, they'd notice they killed a druid once they go pick up the corpse.



I'm just going to latch onto the one thing in this worth disputing. As, you know, my post was mostly a joke, but still assumed that the DM made rolls and did so fairly and accurately without fudging.

Show me ONE reasonable ruling RAW or RAI that blindsense is going to help a creature differentiate a net from the branches and vines already in the tree that its suspended in.

Under ANY sense of logic blindsense would be a far WORSE way to detect that than normal vision. THEREFORE YOUR ENTIRE POST IS INVALID because I found one flaw in it



TL;DR: If a player is doing problematic things, the solution is not to be an even more problematic DM.

In a non joke response, I agree with you 100%.

[Aelar]

If you basically have to save the party every encounter, your unbalanced to the table.


In most battles I tend to do more mostly because of the how the other player play and their character choices.


What are the other PCs in the party?

If - as seems likely from this discussion - the DM's real core problem is that your druid is overpowered compared to the rest of the party, and you're not willing to nerf yourself, then examining ways to help the rest of the party do better is a possible solution. It does require everybody to be on board with it, though.

There's our tank which is a Dragonborn scout dervish that does a lot of damage almost every turn because he's either lays down cones of acid or dervish dances using two dual wielding powerful swords that are worth like 70,000-100,000gp each. The half-ling rogue beguiler that does between low and upto the damage that the tank does. There's the gnome wizard ultimate magus beguiler that concetrates on doing stuff outside of the battles and does some damage occasionally. Finally, the cleric gnome (played by the DM) that acts as the healer. There's also my animal companion which is a brown bear. Most of the damage is done by me and my animal companion and the tank.



Btw, most of the trope I remember has the character who possesses an animal 24/7/365 slowly take on mental traits of the possessed form, eventually forgetting who they really were. lol.

I reached an agreement with him that while we're all sleeping, I don't remain in animal form. He still complains that I do it all throughout the adventuring day


But honestly "I sit in desmodu hunting bat form all day" literally just sounds straight ripped from a druid guide.
I use that form mostly for protection so that I could cast spells during the battles. If there's something further ahead I scout a bit further than the group. Everyone uses wild shape differently, some use it to sneak into places, other use it to become a bear and tear the enemy a new one, etc.


It does sound like the OP is following a guide. But, speaking as a hack-n-slasher, I kinda understand where he's coming from. The DM did handle it wrong, because he tried to tell the OP to run his character a certain way, or not do a certain thing. We're DMs. We're supposed to be creative; we don't tell the players how to run their characters. We give them in-game, fair CONSEQUENCES for how they run their characters. If they always choose Plan B(kill everything that moves and loot the bodies), well, throw the whole bloody dungeon at them because they didn't attempt stealth. Give them political consequences for killing/looting the wrong body. etc.


I did read multiple guides and use some of what I learned there but I haven't taken any crazy feats as he wouldn't let me (my feats are Spell Focus: Conjuration, Augment Summoning, Natural Spell, Natural Bond). I use pretty standard druid spells and don't do anymore than utilize what the class offers. The only things that I think may give me an edge is the Desmodu Hunting bat form and the fact that I bought a Circlet of Rapid Casting which combined with the Splinterbolt spell gives me very good attack procedures.


In this case, the DM should have given the OP realistic consequences for remaining in the form of an intelligent bat 24/7. I don't remember a lot about Desmodu, but I believe they may have a hive mind-type thing going, so have the OP begin to develop a longing to be connected. Tell him to make a Will save every so often. Failure means he has to seek out the nearest Desmodu colony. Or something like that. Have him have to succeed on Will saves to come OUT of Desmodu form when he needs to do a town run. Etc. Be creative, and above all, let the player play his character.

Sadly, he's not really creative as a DM as far as I can tell, he follows the adventures as laid out in in the campaign's book and if we do something unexpected, like we went back for a quick rest at a tower where the enemies were essentially preparing to kill us, he just said they were a bit confused and that's it. I would love it if something like the hive mind thing were to happen, that sounds really fun.

[AnimeTheCat]

So, for those just tuning in, we have now learned that Crake’s grasp of tactics is as deficient as his mastery of rules.

We will ignore any rational thoughts that it is easier to see something on the ground when you are looking for threats on the ground as opposed to a creature on the ground who probably isn’t looking up for attackers in the sky.

What we will not ignore is the fact that a Druid, as a wisdom based type with spot on list and ample skill points, is probably going to have a higher spot than most enemies. Which he can now use because he has changed elevation to get better line of sight.

What we will not ignore is that the Druid is likely a medium or large flier, and the DC to spot him is likely to be higher than the things he is looking for, which will be threats to the party. He’s looking for ambushes, or a group of cavalry behind a hill, or a large predator moving in the party’s direction.

We will not ignore that most land based threats, seeing a large flier in the distance, will not drop what they are doing to attack it. Either because they can’t hurt it, like most ground predators, or can’t catch it, like a cavalry squad, or it isn’t in their job description, like bad guys attacking travelers on a road from ambush.

We will also not ignore that a flying scout in any kind of rough terrain is way more likely to spot points of interest that aren’t directly in the party’s path, like ruins, clearings or dwellings.

Nothing can “single you out” very effectively, as you are likely only one move action from the party. Anything that can meaningfully engage you was almost certainly going to be a threat anyway.

It sounds like it comes from a guide because it is good advice. And if someone tells you that having a flying scout is a liability to the party the only thing you can be certain of is that that player is the liability to your party.

While I agree with you in some ways, I disagree with you in others. Guards in any sort of camp would likely see a giant freaking flying thing that doesn't look like a bird and say, "huh... that looks strange. I'm going to call my lieutenant/superior" or worse "oh hey guys, that looks like dinner". It's easy to look up in the sky and spot something that looks out of place like a bird or bat, especially if it's circling or hovering. Super easy. There's nothing to hide you and the circumstance bonus from being silhouetted by the sunlight would probably be, solidyly, +10 if not more (imo +20). Airial scouting with a lone creature is just asking to be spotted. It's better to shape into a pigeon and fly with a natural flock. That would be effective airial scouting that would mitigate your risk of being identified as strange or a threat. You don't necessarily need to look scary, just weird enouh for a reasonable individual to say "that looks weird... I'm going to tell someone" even if it's just his buddy. People still know.

Secondly, anyone laying an ambush is going to camoflague themselves. Hide in underbrush, bushes, trees, etc. That would really make it tough for any sort of airial advantage to pay off. Also, they would be keeping their wits about them and likely notice, again, a big freaking flying thing that isn't a bird fluttering around squeeking for echolocation. If you're not squeeking, you don't get your blindsense (would be my rule as a DM. the blindsense is echolocation). If you're squeeking, anything within earshot gets to hear you (with a proper listen check). If there aren't normally bats in the area, that's going to be weird (especially if the NPC knows what a bat is from another place).

There is definitely a lot of cases where a flying scout *can* be a liability, and fluttering around scouting alone is one of them. You have no cover, no camoflague, and you are so out of place as a giant cave bat out in the open. If you're flying through a forest squeeking your face off so you get blindsense, you're going to at the very least give away your position or give up your blindsense. You clearly don't belong, you are clearly a sign of trouble or at the very least you display that something very odd is going on and it deserves investigating. How would medieval churls investigate? probably poke it with a stick or shoot it with an arrow.

[Aelar]

is it bad that all I think about whenever i read anything in this thread is the bat voiced by Robin Williams from Fern Gully? Please tell me you do a bat rap. That's the only way I would find this acceptable. Otherwise... just kinda sounds boring (edit: and gamey) to me. If I wanted to play a bat I would play an anthropomorphic bat. or talk to my DM about playing an awakened bat.

Real talk, I'm not saying the DM has any business telling you, the player, what you, the character, would or should do in any scanerio. However, you are playing in what is likely the image of a world created by your DM (or possibly a standardized campaign setting). I tend to make my own worlds and they vary from insanely high magic with actual walking, existing, physically intervening gods, to absolutely no magic. They are tailored worlds that fit a certain image I came up with and wanted to make a reality to play and run in.

In the DM's world that he/she may have created with lots of effort, perhaps Druids lose touch with their humanity and start to have the change become different or permanent with ill side effects physically and socially. Granted, if the DM didn't say this up front or is trying to handle this out of game, again he's somewhat in the wrong. If that was the case I would have expected the DM to plop a lore bit or something in one of the books your character has read about legends of druids losing their humanity or something when they stay wild shaped for too long. At that point if you choose to push the bill and keep doing that, you reap what you sow and you have no room for complaint because an appropriate in-game, in-character warning was given for a real in-game, in-character outcome to occur.

Let's say, for instance, you stopped having your character in bat form all the time. What would change about how you play your character? What traits about your character would be different? How would your characte behave differently? Would you no longer be able to say or do the things you do now? What would change about the way you interact with your party? would you no longer be able to fulfil the function that you're setting out to fulfil? I ask all of that because I know about having attachments to characters or character concepts, and I know that when you have a schtick that you like it seems like the schtick is your character. I've done that and I know it's hard to see it for yourself, but the reality is that your schtick is not your character, but a part of it. Does walking around in human(oid) form stop your character from being your character?

I think the DM was wrong for the way he/she approached you about what they saw as a problem, but I also think you're in the wrong for taking it as something of a personal attack then taking to the internet to, essentially, complain about it. I know you've said you're going to talk to the DM about it and that's good, but remember that you're playing in the DM's world and that without the DM, you would either not have a game or someone else would have to run and that the other DM may not be as good as this one. See how you can be amenable to the situation and come to a comprimise. If the DM doesn't like that you're always wildshaped, mention the bit I said above about the lore bit about the change diminishing your humanity, bake it into the lore of the game, then you, the player, decide what you, the character, do fully knowing the potential consequences. I think both of you are being a little silly about this in the first place because it's a game. If someone isn't having fun, including the DM, just be open to what the rest of the group is leaning towards and have everybody, not just the DM, working towards making a fun experience for everyone.

The DM uses a standardized campaign book so I don't think that he added too many things aside from making encounters harder so that it would match our group's handling of battles.

We were in a dead magic area zone at one point in the adventure and I kept remarking how odd it feels to be out of bat form and having to use my hands to wield weapons as it had been so long since I last did that. He could've suggested that I take penalties for being out of practice or something but he chose not to.

I will suggest to the DM the idea that staying wild shaped so long has some sort of adverse repercussions to my character because I like that.

[sorcererlover]

In every game I played everyone encouraged everyone to use guides. If someone can't perform everyone tells them to read up on guides and practice by yourself.

Even sports. When I suck at basket ball people told me to practice and read up material on the internet and get good.

And then we have d&d players. Reading a guide is the biggest crime you can ever commit. The only acceptable players are those who literally just picked up the game and has no idea what to do because god forbid you read a guide and learn something.

Tell the DM to get good. You spent all this effort learning about druids, so why shouldn't he? Why play with a fat basket ball player who doesn't exercise and chastises you for exercising regularly?

d&d is one of the worst communities ever. Name one other community that condemns people for reading a guide.

[Gallowglass]

In every game I played everyone encouraged everyone to use guides. If someone can't perform everyone tells them to read up on guides and practice by yourself.

Even sports. When I suck at basket ball people told me to practice and read up material on the internet and get good.

And then we have d&d players. Reading a guide is the biggest crime you can ever commit. The only acceptable players are those who literally just picked up the game and has no idea what to do because god forbid you read a guide and learn something.

Tell the DM to get good. You spent all this effort learning about druids, so why shouldn't he? Why play with a fat basket ball player who doesn't exercise and chastises you for exercising regularly?

d&d is one of the worst communities ever. Name one other community that condemns people for reading a guide.

I don't condemn people for reading guides. I like guides. I have spent an inordinate amount of time in Kurald's sublime Magus guide and Eggy's sublime Druid guide.

I suppose I do have a bad impression of people who slavishly follow guides like using a cheat code for a video game. And for people who substitute learning how to play with just slavishly following the guide.

But I do tend to think that you can divide most D&D players and DMs into two groups.

People who want to make the game fun for everyone and are willing to work with others who are at different levels of expertise than they are.

People who want to make the game fun for themselves and aren't willing to meet others halfway.

This thread has been very illuminating to which of these groups many of the posters fall in.

[Segev]

In most battles I tend to do more mostly because of the how the other player play and their character choices.



There's our tank which is a Dragonborn scout dervish that does a lot of damage almost every turn because he's either lays down cones of acid or dervish dances using two dual wielding powerful swords that are worth like 70,000-100,000gp each. The half-ling rogue beguiler that does between low and upto the damage that the tank does. There's the gnome wizard ultimate magus beguiler that concetrates on doing stuff outside of the battles and does some damage occasionally. Finally, the cleric gnome (played by the DM) that acts as the healer. There's also my animal companion which is a brown bear. Most of the damage is done by me and my animal companion and the tank.


I reached an agreement with him that while we're all sleeping, I don't remain in animal form. He still complains that I do it all throughout the adventuring day


I use that form mostly for protection so that I could cast spells during the battles. If there's something further ahead I scout a bit further than the group. Everyone uses wild shape differently, some use it to sneak into places, other use it to become a bear and tear the enemy a new one, etc.

It still is sounding like you need to ask him why this bothers him so much. There's almost certainly a reason he hasn't voiced, or you haven't heard.

Out of curiosity, why don't you turn back into a human, or use other animal forms, when, say, riding a horse? Is the desmodu bat that important that the awkwardness is worth it?

I'm not faulting you, mind; I'm just asking.

If you could get the DM to explain why it bothers him, it would help in finding a solution. It's rarely just the RP of a druid choosing to be in wild shape form most of the time; there's almost always something deeper.

[sorcererlover]

People who want to make the game fun for everyone and are willing to work with others who are at different levels of expertise than they are.

it only takes a few hours of hardwork to create a high-op character because google and internet. I rather blame the people who didn't spend the few hours learning the system than blame the person who cared enough about the system to actually learn it and spent hours trying to design the perfect character for him.

[Aelar]

It still is sounding like you need to ask him why this bothers him so much. There's almost certainly a reason he hasn't voiced, or you haven't heard.

Out of curiosity, why don't you turn back into a human, or use other animal forms, when, say, riding a horse? Is the desmodu bat that important that the awkwardness is worth it?

I'm not faulting you, mind; I'm just asking.

After the long discussion I had with him about whether or not the bat could ride what is essentially a smoke figure that is vaguely horse-like he reasoned that horses have rains and need to be controlled by a form that could be able to utilize them and also hold the bottle in one hand. So I got him to agree that apes should be able to do so (based on Planet of the Apes :smallsmile:). So while I'm riding the smoke horse I'll be a Dire Ape.

I preferred the Desmodu Hunting bat form as I've been one for so long and it comes with obvious benefits like +7 dexterity and AC 20 so it's a pretty good form.




If you could get the DM to explain why it bothers him, it would help in finding a solution. It's rarely just the RP of a druid choosing to be in wild shape form most of the time; there's almost always something deeper.

He said that he never saw a Druid that stayed in Wildshape between battles anywhere and accused me of being a minmax munchkin that uses that form not because of some RP reason but because it's mechanically superior. I think it's a combination of him not liking the Druid class since it's so powerful and not understanding Druids I guess.

[Gallowglass]

I preferred the Desmodu Hunting bat form as ... it comes with obvious benefits like +7 dexterity and AC 20 so it's a pretty good form.

He ... accused me of being a minmax munchkin that uses that form not because of some RP reason but because it's mechanically superior.

I mean.... *scratches head* Do you really not see what you just did there?

[Aelar]

I mean.... *scratches head* Do you really not see what you just did there?

It's true that I read about the Desmodu Hunting Bat in eggynack's guide and that's why I started using that form but it provides the best protection since I don't use wild shape to do attacks. I don't think there should be a RP reason for every wild shape form you choose. If I wildshape into an ape so that I could ride a horse do I need to explain why I'm doing this aside from it being mechanically best for that case?

[Segev]

He said that he never saw a Druid that stayed in Wildshape between battles anywhere and accused me of being a minmax munchkin that uses that form not because of some RP reason but because it's mechanically superior. I think it's a combination of him not liking the Druid class since it's so powerful and not understanding Druids I guess.

Okay, so his problem is that you're too powerful.

The next question is: why does he want you not in wild shape form? I mean, sure, you're being a powergamer, but why wouldn't a druid do that if they could? It feels better, it's safer, it uses fewer resources that could be used later.

He obviously has a problem with your powergaming. So what is it he believes you being in human form between combats would fix?

[Aelar]

Okay, so his problem is that you're too powerful.

The next question is: why does he want you not in wild shape form? I mean, sure, you're being a powergamer, but why wouldn't a druid do that if they could? It feels better, it's safer, it uses fewer resources that could be used later.

He obviously has a problem with your powergaming. So what is it he believes you being in human form between combats would fix?

I'm not sure, maybe since I have a monk's belt when I'm not wild shaped that would bring my AC down by quite a bit and would make me easier to hit. The way he said it seems like he meant it as a psychological problem that the character has for wanting to do it all the time.

[Crake]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Umm, wow. That seems needlessly hostile. I'm not really going to bother addressing the rest of your post, because it's outright derogatory, is defending against a strawman (I never said flight scouting was a liability, just that it wasn't as good as it was being made out to be), and because Animethecat covered it pretty well anyway. Maybe don't take a discussion as a personal attack in the future.


Yeah, I missed the nuance that the OP is going with this specific creature because of its massive mechanical upsides. flight, trip, scent, and 120ft. blindsight are a bit much for a low/mid-op game, which this might be given the DM's reaction.

Not saying it's an illegal choice by any means, but that doesn't mean the DM should be forced to allow it regardless of the group's power level either.

Afaik the druid wouldn't get scent or blindsight out of the box (wild shape only gives Ex special attacks, not special qualities), and unless I missed something, they didn't mention having any abilities that grant them special qualities along the way?


I'm not sure, maybe since I have a monk's belt when I'm not wild shaped that would bring my AC down by quite a bit and would make me easier to hit. The way he said it seems like he meant it as a psychological problem that the character has for wanting to do it all the time.

Do you also have +1 wild dragonhide fullplate that gives you a +9 armor bonus to your AC without actually wearing any armor while wildshaped, and a wilding clasp for that monk's belt? :smalltongue:


In every game I played everyone encouraged everyone to use guides. If someone can't perform everyone tells them to read up on guides and practice by yourself.

Even sports. When I suck at basket ball people told me to practice and read up material on the internet and get good.

And then we have d&d players. Reading a guide is the biggest crime you can ever commit. The only acceptable players are those who literally just picked up the game and has no idea what to do because god forbid you read a guide and learn something.

Tell the DM to get good. You spent all this effort learning about druids, so why shouldn't he? Why play with a fat basket ball player who doesn't exercise and chastises you for exercising regularly?

d&d is one of the worst communities ever. Name one other community that condemns people for reading a guide.

Again, gallowglass hit the nail on the head (though I believe his mentioned split is more of a spectrum than a discreet set of groups). It's not about reading a guide, it's about straight up ripping from a guide. It's like people who memorize their world of warcraft rotations from a guide, but don't actually understand how that rotation works, and so with just the slightest change of circumstance, they have no idea what to do.

But doing things that way also leads to cookie-cutter behaviour. Suddenly every druid in the world is the same. They all take xyz form for xyz obstacle because it's the best. Every druid turns into a fleshraker for combat, every druid turns into a desmodu hunting bat for defensive casting, etc etc. Why? Because it's the best, so why wouldn't they? Of course, if you're coming from a metagaming perspective, where "I use this one because it's the best", fine. If you're running a hack and slash game, you do you. When I ran tomb of horrors, one of the players came to the table with an anthropomorphic bat that spent 90% of his time in desmodu hunting bat form, sure, who cares. But if he tried to make a character like that in a more serious kind of game? Yeah, back to the drawing board buddy.

Having read quite a few of the guides on these boards, I can, at a glance, look at a player's character and tell if they've basically copied a guide's recommendations rather than trying to build a character for themselves. You see the same feats, the same spell selection, the same polymorph forms, the same wild shape forms, the same item choices, etc etc etc. Sure, they're cool and fun the first time you see them, but when you're DMing the third bard who's picked inspirational boost, song of the heart, words of creation with maybe a splash of dragonfire inspration and a medallion of courage, it just starts to get irritating from a DM's perspective, because you know people aren't playing for the game, they're just playing to win.

I feel like I need to add a disclaimer in my signature though that says: None of what I've said is a condemnation of any other play styles. I'm sure there are plenty of playstyles and tables out there where such behaviour is normal, or perhaps even expected, and I'm sure they have plenty of fun playing the game that way, but at the same time, there are plenty of people that don't like that. My whole point is that I can see where the DM is coming from, and my opinion on the matter is that when you sit down at a table with a DM, you're playing his game. DMs put in a lot of work into their games, and thus I believe they are entitled to be the final arbiters on what the pace and power level of the game should be (of course, they need to find players who are equally on board, I'm not saying they should force their playstyle on unwilling players, but if you want to play at their table, you need to conform to their rules on whatever may be the case).

As an aside, something else I feel like I need to add to my signature is that I love to play devil's advocate. Many threads on this forum are woefully lopsided, and lack people thoroughly exploring both sides of a scenario, and not only that, people often fail to take into account the biased nature of posts like this. More often than not the OP will leave out details that they don't consider important, or that shine them in a bad light, either subconsciously, or intentionally, to help prove their point, and rather than instantly condemning the third party (who also rarely happens to be capable of speaking their piece to defend themselves), I think it's best that both sides be examined before coming to a conclusion.

Gosh this turned into quite a ramble, but I think some people are getting overly hot headed and taking an internet discussion awfully personal, so I feel like this needed to be said.

[Segev]

I'm not sure, maybe since I have a monk's belt when I'm not wild shaped that would bring my AC down by quite a bit and would make me easier to hit. The way he said it seems like he meant it as a psychological problem that the character has for wanting to do it all the time.

One thing you can do as a test is simply play a session or two as he's requesting: only wild shape when it's critical to the mechanics. Combat, when you need a specific form for utility, etc. See if it does anything you dislike. What I'm hearing from you is that you're trying to be ready in case bad stuff happens while you're not prepared by being unbuffed by wild shape. See what the DM does if you do as he asks.

If nothing particularly happens, have a polite discussion where you ask him if he liked your choices, and what he liked about them. If he's only going to go on about RP choices...then politely tell him that he's not the one who dictates what your character likes, thinks, or wants.

If something does happen, that suggests that his reason is that he wants to "gotcha" you when you're not buffed. Same thing: after session, away from table, ask him if he was more satisfied with what happened. Ask him why, if so, and if he again goes on about RP, tell him both the above, and point out that the events of the session are a very good reason why your druid would choose to stay in a more defensible form when in dangerous situations, even if he really did share the DM's view that being in animal form all the time wasn't desirable (which, if I'm reading your own position correctly, is not what your druid thinks).

If it's really about the powergaming, then having a longer discussion about why that's a problem and how to fix it is necessary.

[MeimuHakurei]

In every game I played everyone encouraged everyone to use guides. If someone can't perform everyone tells them to read up on guides and practice by yourself.

Even sports. When I suck at basket ball people told me to practice and read up material on the internet and get good.

And then we have d&d players. Reading a guide is the biggest crime you can ever commit. The only acceptable players are those who literally just picked up the game and has no idea what to do because god forbid you read a guide and learn something.

Tell the DM to get good. You spent all this effort learning about druids, so why shouldn't he? Why play with a fat basket ball player who doesn't exercise and chastises you for exercising regularly?

d&d is one of the worst communities ever. Name one other community that condemns people for reading a guide.

You can't believe how much I relate to this. Guides are essential towards improvement and they can only do so much in teaching play.

If people end up copying it without understanding, it does show their lack of comprehension but gives them a leg up with a more solid build. It's not the writer's fault if inexperienced players are being inexperienced.

[Crake]

You can't believe how much I relate to this. Guides are essential towards improvement and they can only do so much in teaching play.

If people end up copying it without understanding, it does show their lack of comprehension but gives them a leg up with a more solid build. It's not the writer's fault if inexperienced players are being inexperienced.

The problem with this is that by not understanding what they're doing, they don't know how to tune downward for the rest of their likely also inexperienced table, so it's less of a leg up, and more of a stilt up, that they can't bend to kneel down and help the other players stand up on their own two feet... to maybe take a metaphor a bit too far :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

There's our tank which is a Dragonborn scout dervish that does a lot of damage almost every turn because he's either lays down cones of acid or dervish dances using two dual wielding powerful swords that are worth like 70,000-100,000gp each. The half-ling rogue beguiler that does between low and upto the damage that the tank does. There's the gnome wizard ultimate magus beguiler that concetrates on doing stuff outside of the battles and does some damage occasionally. Finally, the cleric gnome (played by the DM) that acts as the healer. There's also my animal companion which is a brown bear. Most of the damage is done by me and my animal companion and the tank.
Aside from the dervish it sounds like a reasonably optimal party, and one where you don't meaningfully infringe on anyone else's stuff except for the dervish again. Doesn't seem like that huge of an issue, honestly, though there's a lot I don't know.



I mean.... *scratches head* Do you really not see what you just did there?
I'm honestly kinda confused by the idea that this kinda thing would be driven heavily by role playing. Unless a character has some unusual attachment to a particular type of animal, a character would probably pick the hard to hit creature that can hover around with high initiative. Cause it's good and stuff.




Afaik the druid wouldn't get scent or blindsight out of the box (wild shape only gives Ex special attacks, not special qualities), and unless I missed something, they didn't mention having any abilities that grant them special qualities along the way?
Indeed, and it's actually blindsense due to the update. The tripping is also relatively minor.



Again, gallowglass hit the nail on the head (though I believe his mentioned split is more of a spectrum than a discreet set of groups). It's not about reading a guide, it's about straight up ripping from a guide. It's like people who memorize their world of warcraft rotations from a guide, but don't actually understand how that rotation works, and so with just the slightest change of circumstance, they have no idea what to do.
Eh, druids are complicated. They have like five million vectors of decision making, and only some of the more obvious ones can be substituted for directly with handbook use. Left unanswered are pretty important questions like which of the many useful spells should be picked, how to best use those spells, how the summoned monsters can be best utilized, and so on. Bat form is good because it enables options, and the same goes for a focus on summoning. I'm just really skeptical of the degree to which someone can read my or any handbook, turn off their brain, and be successful. And if they're not successful, then who cares?

[Kaleph]

I guess I need some help to understand, since I'm a bit confused.

What we are saying here, I guess, is that this druid PC wakes up in the morning, he wants to go to the toilet, but before going to the toilet he wildshapes into a desmodu bat and then tries to properly use the toilet in that form, since likely that +7 AC could be useful. Maybe because his friends told him that a piece of **** will kill him sooner or later.

I mean, is this what we're talking about?

[eggynack]

I guess I need some help to understand, since I'm a bit confused.

What we are saying here, I guess, is that this druid PC wakes up in the morning, he wants to go to the toilet, but before going to the toilet he wildshapes into a desmodu bat and then tries to properly use the toilet in that form, since likely that +7 AC could be useful. Maybe because his friends told him that a piece of **** will kill him sooner or later.

I mean, is this what we're talking about?
I'm not all that sure what's confusing about it. You're just a bat 100% of the time, because being a bat is super useful. What you're saying, basically, is that you think a druid should take bat form with the exception of bathroom trips for some reason. Or some generalized version of that. Now that seems arbitrary to me. Is going to the bathroom as a bat such a hassle that it'd cause you to change up your routine?

[Calthropstu]

I see no reason a druid couldn't do this.

But I would impose stiff penalties for it. It's wierd, and acting weird involves stiff social penalties.

Also, bats are unable to speak. He would be unable to command his summons, communicate with others and numerous other issues. I am aware that this is able to be overcome, but even so such a character would soon find itself alone in the world. Also, he would face near constant attack in the wilderness since many creatures hunt bats,
In short, this type of player dickery has no place in the gane

[Crake]

I'm honestly kinda confused by the idea that this kinda thing would be driven heavily by role playing. Unless a character has some unusual attachment to a particular type of animal, a character would probably pick the hard to hit creature that can hover around with high initiative. Cause it's good and stuff.

There is a decent selection of animals to pick for evasive, defensive forms, the issue I would have is picking the desmodu hunting bat simply because it's the best one, and by it's nature, a choice that is rather meta-gamey in nature, because in real life, a) stats aren't just visible in plain sight, b) how would you know that the hunting bat is the best choice without even having seen one in personally, and c) could you honestly really tell the difference that well in character? Probably not.


Indeed, and it's actually blindsense due to the update. The tripping is also relatively minor.

This I wasn't even aware of, the news will make our resident druid player rather sad.


Eh, druids are complicated. They have like five million vectors of decision making, and only some of the more obvious ones can be substituted for directly with handbook use. Left unanswered are pretty important questions like which of the many useful spells should be picked, how to best use those spells, how the summoned monsters can be best utilized, and so on. Bat form is good because it enables options, and the same goes for a focus on summoning. I'm just really skeptical of the degree to which someone can read my or any handbook, turn off their brain, and be successful. And if they're not successful, then who cares?

How successful they are is largely up to the DM honestly, and from the sounds of things, this group in general is either new, or just not particularly optimized, which may well even be a personal choice by the players, I know that quite literally more than half my players couldn't care less about the specifics of their character, they are far more interested in engaging in an interesting story.


I guess I need some help to understand, since I'm a bit confused.

What we are saying here, I guess, is that this druid PC wakes up in the morning, he wants to go to the toilet, but before going to the toilet he wildshapes into a desmodu bat and then tries to properly use the toilet in that form, since likely that +7 AC could be useful. Maybe because his friends told him that a piece of **** will kill him sooner or later.

I mean, is this what we're talking about?

More likely they wake up already in hunting bat form, because their wild shape duration is longer than their sleep time :smalltongue:


I see no reason a druid couldn't do this.

But I would impose stiff penalties for it. It's wierd, and acting weird involves stiff social penalties.

Also, bats are unable to speak. He would be unable to command his summons, communicate with others and numerous other issues. I am aware that this is able to be overcome, but even so such a character would soon find itself alone in the world. Also, he would face near constant attack in the wilderness since many creatures hunt bats,
In short, this type of player dickery has no place in the gane

His animal summons would still be commandable, since they just require handle animal checks, but you're right, anything else, like elementals or fey, would be un-commandable. The rest I thoroughly agree with though.

[Segev]

I see no reason a druid couldn't do this.

But I would impose stiff penalties for it. It's wierd, and acting weird involves stiff social penalties.

Also, bats are unable to speak. He would be unable to command his summons, communicate with others and numerous other issues. I am aware that this is able to be overcome, but even so such a character would soon find itself alone in the world. Also, he would face near constant attack in the wilderness since many creatures hunt bats,
In short, this type of player dickery has no place in the gane

By which you mean, you'd actively hunt for ways to screw him over, rather than letting consequences naturally play out, because you don't like the choice.

I mean, he's a druid. Do you really think he can't handle predators and other natural threats to his chosen animal form(s)? They'll hunt humans, too, so the logic falls apart. You can't even fall back on the fact that few creatures do IRL; in D&D, a lot do: many random encounters are wild beasts attacking parties because they do.

If you don't like it because it's broken, that's fine; talk to the player about it and come to an accommodation. But don't pretend you're not targeting him to punish him rather than talking about it like OOC grownups by contriving complications. You don't NEED to contrive complications; the social ones you named earlier are very real. Yes, they can be gotten around; if he gets around them, good for him!

Either be honest about why you dislike something, or let it go. {scrubbed}

[Kaleph]

I'm not all that sure what's confusing about it. You're just a bat 100% of the time, because being a bat is super useful. What you're saying, basically, is that you think a druid should take bat form with the exception of bathroom trips for some reason. Or some generalized version of that. Now that seems arbitrary to me. Is going to the bathroom as a bat such a hassle that it'd cause you to change up your routine?

No, I'm not saying that. The first thing I'm saying is that there are cases where some people would find a wildshape awkward or inappropriate. So, it's about a balance bwn mechanical advantages and a behavior that may be felt as innatural. This balance lies somewhere, depending on the mechanical advantage, the sense of inadequacy and the personal sensibility (from the perspective of the PC, not of the minmaxer).

The second thing is that the master may legitimately place this balance somewhere else (compared to the PLAYER's perspective), find the whole story simply ugly, or even be irritated by this behavior.

I had the impression that the problem depended on the fact that the DM wasn't able to manage that level of optimization, but now I suspect that, during the campaign, some situation developed that was considered...ridiculous and irrealistic. Possibly (and I'm speculating now), something that - at least in the eyes of the DM - jeopardized the so-called suspension of disbelief. If that's the case, the best reaction would be to talk to the DM and find an acceptable compromise, not to stick to the point.

[Crake]

By which you mean, you'd actively hunt for ways to screw him over, rather than letting consequences naturally play out, because you don't like the choice.

I mean, everything he described is the natural consequences. He can't speak with the party, can't interact with NPCs, when the party are all around the campfire telling tales, or just conversing and bonding, he's just sitting there not talking, because he's a bat.

I imagine that the DM still allows the player to participate in conversations and decision making, as if the party in character has some kind of collective consciousness that they can all use to communicate and come up with the best course of action, but take away the druid's ability to communicate with the party while in bat form, even at a social level, and I guarantee he'll be swapping out of bat form.

And before you say "that's just being mean", ask yourself if you'd allow a player to participate in a conversation while the character wasn't there at all? If you wouldn't let them give ideas and point out things while their character isn't there, then why allow them to do so while their character is incapable of communicating said things in the first place? I mean, I'd be for allowing rudimentary communication, shaking head, nodding, making various kinds of noises appropriate to your form, but I guarantee you, if you limit them to that, the rest of the party is gonna get frustrated when communicating with said player, and just stop trying unless they come out and speak normally. Definitely happened more than once at my table.


No, I'm not saying that. The first thing I'm saying is that there are cases where some people would find a wildshape awkward or inappropriate. So, it's about a balance bwn mechanical advantages and a behavior that may be felt as innatural. This balance lies somewhere, depending on the mechanical advantage, the sense of inadequacy and the personal sensibility (from the perspective of the PC, not of the minmaxer).

The second thing is that the master may legitimately place this balance somewhere else (compared to the PLAYER's perspective), find the whole story simply ugly, or even be irritated by this behavior.

I had the impression that the problem depended on the fact that the DM wasn't able to manage that level of optimization, but now I suspect that, during the campaign, some situation developed that was considered...ridiculous and irrealistic. Possibly (and I'm speculating now), something that - at least in the eyes of the DM - jeopardized the so-called suspension of disbelief. If that's the case, the best reaction would be to talk to the DM and find an acceptable compromise, not to stick to the point.

Well said.

[Calthropstu]

By which you mean, you'd actively hunt for ways to screw him over, rather than letting consequences naturally play out, because you don't like the choice.

I mean, he's a druid. Do you really think he can't handle predators and other natural threats to his chosen animal form(s)? They'll hunt humans, too, so the logic falls apart. You can't even fall back on the fact that few creatures do IRL; in D&D, a lot do: many random encounters are wild beasts attacking parties because they do.

If you don't like it because it's broken, that's fine; talk to the player about it and come to an accommodation. But don't pretend you're not targeting him to punish him rather than talking about it like OOC grownups by contriving complications. You don't NEED to contrive complications; the social ones you named earlier are very real. Yes, they can be gotten around; if he gets around them, good for him!

Either be honest about why you dislike something, or let it go. Don't pretend you're proving a point by being a jerk DM.

Ummmm... you don't know how animals work do you?
Owl: "Hey look a bat. Bats are food. Yum."
Couger: "Hey look, it's meat sitting on a tree."
Wolf: "MEAT!"
Most animals don't mess with humans. But most animals DO mess with other animals. Staying in animal form should increase those encounters, not decrease. Of course, handle animal is a thing, and you should be able to stare them down to make them leave... IF you get the chance. Most predators attack from stealth after all.

[Crake]

Ummmm... you don't know how animals work do you?
Owl: "Hey look a bat. Bats are food. Yum."
Couger: "Hey look, it's meat sitting on a tree."
Wolf: "MEAT!"
Most animals don't mess with humans. But most animals DO mess with other animals. Staying in animal form should increase those encounters, not decrease. Of course, handle animal is a thing, and you should be able to stare them down to make them leave... IF you get the chance. Most predators attack from stealth after all.

I mean, I think you're both wrong, animals do mess with humans, if they're around and vulnerable. The main reason animals don't mess with humans is because we tend to roam in groups, but a solo bat vs a solo human, they'd be equally as ready to mess with a human.

That said, not many animals that encounter humans live, so there are very few animals that can recognize our scent, as opposed to the scent of prey they know, so they won't really actively hunt us down like they would a deer for example, but if they see an opportunity, why not take it?

The other thing to think about is that animals will see the humans walking, or sitting around a campfire, and a bat hanging from the tree, and not associate the two as necessarily being connected, and so think to attack the bat for food and avoid the humans, when otherwise they would just straight up avoid the party if everyone was in human form.

[Aelar]

Do you also have +1 wild dragonhide fullplate that gives you a +9 armor bonus to your AC without actually wearing any armor while wildshaped, and a wilding clasp for that monk's belt? :smalltongue:
Well of course I have a wildling clasp for that monk's belt otherwise how could I use it while being wild shaped...I don't have the dragon hide armor but I do cast Luminous Armor on myself as I feel as a neutral good character if fits me better since it sheds light like a daylight spell. Are you implying that this is part of the powergaming or the whole following a guide? I mean, the cleric has full plate armor with an AC of 31 and all the other party members all have ACs close to 30.


One thing you can do as a test is simply play a session or two as he's requesting: only wild shape when it's critical to the mechanics. Combat, when you need a specific form for utility, etc. See if it does anything you dislike. What I'm hearing from you is that you're trying to be ready in case bad stuff happens while you're not prepared by being unbuffed by wild shape. See what the DM does if you do as he asks.

If nothing particularly happens, have a polite discussion where you ask him if he liked your choices, and what he liked about them. If he's only going to go on about RP choices...then politely tell him that he's not the one who dictates what your character likes, thinks, or wants.

If something does happen, that suggests that his reason is that he wants to "gotcha" you when you're not buffed. Same thing: after session, away from table, ask him if he was more satisfied with what happened. Ask him why, if so, and if he again goes on about RP, tell him both the above, and point out that the events of the session are a very good reason why your druid would choose to stay in a more defensible form when in dangerous situations, even if he really did share the DM's view that being in animal form all the time wasn't desirable (which, if I'm reading your own position correctly, is not what your druid thinks).

If it's really about the powergaming, then having a longer discussion about why that's a problem and how to fix it is necessary.

My interpretation of Druids is that they're loners that don't really like unnecessary social interactions and prefer to be in Nature all the time, thus, being wild shaped all the time would present the closest you can get to Nature.

I could try what your suggesting but I feel like his issue is not really the RP aspect but the powergaming one because it messes with some of the things he planned to either surprise us with (e.g. one time we were attacked while sleeping and he simply stated, you haven't been sleeping while wildshaped). On the other hand, our current campaign involves Drow, maybe he thought that would make some interesting interactions since I'm an elf.


I mean, everything he described is the natural consequences. He can't speak with the party, can't interact with NPCs, when the party are all around the campfire telling tales, or just conversing and bonding, he's just sitting there not talking, because he's a bat.

I imagine that the DM still allows the player to participate in conversations and decision making, as if the party in character has some kind of collective consciousness that they can all use to communicate and come up with the best course of action, but take away the druid's ability to communicate with the party while in bat form, even at a social level, and I guarantee he'll be swapping out of bat form.

When I first started wild shaping I indeed stayed quiet and transformed back at different points but then I got a Pearl of Speech so I could talk normally with the group and other NPCs while still being wild shaped.


I mean, I think you're both wrong, animals do mess with humans, if they're around and vulnerable. The main reason animals don't mess with humans is because we tend to roam in groups, but a solo bat vs a solo human, they'd be equally as ready to mess with a human.

That said, not many animals that encounter humans live, so there are very few animals that can recognize our scent, as opposed to the scent of prey they know, so they won't really actively hunt us down like they would a deer for example, but if they see an opportunity, why not take it?

The other thing to think about is that animals will see the humans walking, or sitting around a campfire, and a bat hanging from the tree, and not associate the two as necessarily being connected, and so think to attack the bat for food and avoid the humans, when otherwise they would just straight up avoid the party if everyone was in human form.

Like other suggestions in this thread about the consequences of me being wild shaped all the time, this is also a good idea that I'll run by him.

[deuterio12]

I mean, I think you're both wrong, animals do mess with humans, if they're around and vulnerable. The main reason animals don't mess with humans is because we tend to roam in groups, but a solo bat vs a solo human, they'd be equally as ready to mess with a human.

That said, not many animals that encounter humans live, so there are very few animals that can recognize our scent, as opposed to the scent of prey they know, so they won't really actively hunt us down like they would a deer for example, but if they see an opportunity, why not take it?

Thing is, evolutionary pressure has forced predators that live in the same area of humans to recognize us as the apex predator and stay out of our way or begone.

Like there used to be lions in Europe during the time of the ancient greeks, but they were all hunted to extinction because they didn't learn fast enough, while smarter wolves knew to avoid direct confrotation with humans.

Now wolves will attack humans sometimes-but only if they're either in the verge of starving to death (like a particularly bad winter) or if the wolves get to gank a lone human in the wilderness that's completely defenceless (ancient greeks have the story of an athlete getting their hands stuck in a tree and then a wolf pack carefully approaching and checking things out and once they realized the human was truly stuck, only then did the wolves went for the kill). Otherwise wolves keep a safe distance from us and that's how they managed to last in Europe until today.



The other thing to think about is that animals will see the humans walking, or sitting around a campfire, and a bat hanging from the tree, and not associate the two as necessarily being connected, and so think to attack the bat for food and avoid the humans, when otherwise they would just straight up avoid the party if everyone was in human form.

Foxes attack chicken, wolves attack sheep. The human's pets are a lot more vulnerable than the humans themselves, and we humans are also less likely to seek revenge for a lost chicken/sheep than for a lost human.

[Crake]

When I first started wild shaping I indeed stayed quiet and transformed back at different points but then I got a Pearl of Speech so I could talk normally with the group and other NPCs while still being wild shaped.

Just wanted to address this point, it's a highly contested topic, but most people I know don't allow the pearl of speech to allow a creature that was otherwise unable to talk before the ability to talk, it merely grants you the ability to speak and interpret a language. This reasoning is mainly based on a) how cheap the item is and b) the spell that the item is based on, tongues, specifically has the line " Tongues does not enable the subject to speak with creatures who don’t speak." so it makes little sense that such a cheap item would have greater functionality over the spell it's based on.

Consider that if it enabled animals to speak, you could give an animal a pearl of speech and allow it to speak common.

[sorcererlover]

Again, gallowglass hit the nail on the head (though I believe his mentioned split is more of a spectrum than a discreet set of groups). It's not about reading a guide, it's about straight up ripping from a guide. It's like people who memorize their world of warcraft rotations from a guide, but don't actually understand how that rotation works, and so with just the slightest change of circumstance, they have no idea what to do.

But doing things that way also leads to cookie-cutter behaviour. Suddenly every druid in the world is the same. They all take xyz form for xyz obstacle because it's the best. Every druid turns into a fleshraker for combat, every druid turns into a desmodu hunting bat for defensive casting, etc etc. Why? Because it's the best, so why wouldn't they? Of course, if you're coming from a metagaming perspective, where "I use this one because it's the best", fine. If you're running a hack and slash game, you do you. When I ran tomb of horrors, one of the players came to the table with an anthropomorphic bat that spent 90% of his time in desmodu hunting bat form, sure, who cares. But if he tried to make a character like that in a more serious kind of game? Yeah, back to the drawing board buddy.

Having read quite a few of the guides on these boards, I can, at a glance, look at a player's character and tell if they've basically copied a guide's recommendations rather than trying to build a character for themselves. You see the same feats, the same spell selection, the same polymorph forms, the same wild shape forms, the same item choices, etc etc etc. Sure, they're cool and fun the first time you see them, but when you're DMing the third bard who's picked inspirational boost, song of the heart, words of creation with maybe a splash of dragonfire inspration and a medallion of courage, it just starts to get irritating from a DM's perspective, because you know people aren't playing for the game, they're just playing to win.

I feel like I need to add a disclaimer in my signature though that says: None of what I've said is a condemnation of any other play styles. I'm sure there are plenty of playstyles and tables out there where such behaviour is normal, or perhaps even expected, and I'm sure they have plenty of fun playing the game that way, but at the same time, there are plenty of people that don't like that. My whole point is that I can see where the DM is coming from, and my opinion on the matter is that when you sit down at a table with a DM, you're playing his game. DMs put in a lot of work into their games, and thus I believe they are entitled to be the final arbiters on what the pace and power level of the game should be (of course, they need to find players who are equally on board, I'm not saying they should force their playstyle on unwilling players, but if you want to play at their table, you need to conform to their rules on whatever may be the case).

As an aside, something else I feel like I need to add to my signature is that I love to play devil's advocate. Many threads on this forum are woefully lopsided, and lack people thoroughly exploring both sides of a scenario, and not only that, people often fail to take into account the biased nature of posts like this. More often than not the OP will leave out details that they don't consider important, or that shine them in a bad light, either subconsciously, or intentionally, to help prove their point, and rather than instantly condemning the third party (who also rarely happens to be capable of speaking their piece to defend themselves), I think it's best that both sides be examined before coming to a conclusion.

Gosh this turned into quite a ramble, but I think some people are getting overly hot headed and taking an internet discussion awfully personal, so I feel like this needed to be said.

Do you know what's the fastest way to learn something? Blind copying. Be it a MOBA game, a TCG game, a single player game, or even in real life sports or cooking the fastest way to learn something is blindly following what people consider the best. You make mistakes because you don't understand anything but after a short while you understand everything and that's when you start customizing the cookie cutter to your liking. Maybe you like your cake less sweet so you lower the sugar content in a cake recipe. Maybe you just want to lazily spam blasting stuff at range so you change a game build suboptimally so that it blasts more instead of whatever the most optimized option is.

If you played TCG games, there's nothing worse than a crybaby crying about net decking because the deck he made without any research got its ass kicked by basic staple cards. I'm not talking about new cards rendering old cards completely worthless, that's an issue of power creep to drive sales. I'm talking about a noob who didn't research the game and is crying that his deck getting pwned and then starts yelling this should be banned, or you're a cheapass, or learn how to play a real deck instead of blindly following online decks. Notice the similarity to d&d? You have players crying wildshape + natural spell is OP and should be banned, you're a t1 munchkin, learn how to play a "real" character which has 0 optimization because that's the correct way to play d&d.

So when the entire d&d community is a community of people who condemns anyone trying to learn a class by using the fastest method known to man because the build is not creative and too powerful for people who didn't spend anytime researching, you can't help but think that this community is one of the worst.

I mean really, when I learned sorcerers I copied and pasted the optimal BFC spell selection just to see how sorcerers felt like. Then once I got comfortable I ditched it all for charm monster and planar binding stuff because I like darker stuff. I'm an evil game ruiner because I copied a sorcerer build online as my very first d&d character.

[Crake]

Do you know what's the fastest way to learn something? Blind copying. Be it a MOBA game, a TCG game, a single player game, or even in real life sports or cooking the fastest way to learn something is blindly following what people consider the best. You make mistakes because you don't understand anything but after a short while you understand everything and that's when you start customizing the cookie cutter to your liking. Maybe you like your cake less sweet so you lower the sugar content in a cake recipe. Maybe you just want to lazily spam blasting stuff at range so you change a game build suboptimally so that it blasts more instead of whatever the most optimized option is.

If you played TCG games, there's nothing worse than a crybaby crying about net decking because the deck he made without any research got its ass kicked by basic staple cards. I'm not talking about new cards rendering old cards completely worthless, that's an issue of power creep to drive sales. I'm talking about a noob who didn't research the game and is crying that his deck getting pwned and then starts yelling this should be banned, or you're a cheapass, or learn how to play a real deck instead of blindly following online decks. Notice the similarity to d&d? You have players crying wildshape + natural spell is OP and should be banned, you're a t1 munchkin, learn how to play a "real" character which has 0 optimization because that's the correct way to play d&d.

So when the entire d&d community is a community of people who condemns anyone trying to learn a class by using the fastest method known to man because the build is not creative and too powerful for people who didn't spend anytime researching, you can't help but think that this community is one of the worst.

I mean really, when I learned sorcerers I copied and pasted the optimal BFC spell selection just to see how sorcerers felt like. Then once I got comfortable I ditched it all for charm monster and planar binding stuff because I like darker stuff. I'm an evil game ruiner because I copied a sorcerer build online as my very first d&d character.

Yeah, I'll be honest, I disagree with your entire premise that blind copying is the fastest way to learn something. Copying in general may be a good method, but I've seen plenty of cases of players perpetually blind copying and never improving in many genres, MMOs, tabletop war games, TCGs, and yes, in dnd too.

But you know what has an equally good (or arguably better) success rate? Innovation and experimentation. Trying things for yourself and seeing what works and what doesn't, and why. Copying on the other hand leads to knowing that X and Y don't work together, but never quite understanding why thats the case, because you've never actually tried X and Y together.

There are other strawmen I could mention, like the notion that 0 optimization is what anyone here was advocating for, or that anyone has called someone a munchkin for playing a t1 class.


So when the entire d&d community is a community of people who condemns anyone trying to learn a class by using the fastest method known to man because the build is not creative and too powerful for people who didn't spend anytime researching, you can't help but think that this community is one of the worst.

You understand though, that the TCG equivilent of this is showing up to a friend's place when they're playing some casually thrown together decks for fun with a netdeck you found on the internet, and then blaming everyone else for "not doing research", like your net deck was anything more than 5-10 minutes of "research". They were already having fun playing casually, they weren't interested in getting into the meta, and making the best decks, but what you've done is basically say "get on my level noobs". Well, yeah, they can get on your level, or they can just not invite you next time.

[Calthropstu]

When I first started wild shaping I indeed stayed quiet and transformed back at different points but then I got a Pearl of Speech so I could talk normally with the group and other NPCs while still being wild shaped.


Yes, as I stated, being unable to speak is not insurmountable.

The problem though, is you are a talking bat. You're not going to get treated the same by most people.
Just as half-elves suffer from racism from both elves and humans, and a drider going to the surface would be disastrous, a talking bat would be viewed as either suspicious or a novelty evoking entirely different responses than a pc would have under normal circumstances.

A man terrified of werewolves runs into a talking wolf druid, for example, might attack.
A villiage under siege might view the druid as a spy due to his constant bat form.

Repercussions offset the "bonus to ac" that the form gives you. And those repercussions aren't insignificant.

[sorcererlover]

Yeah, I'll be honest, I disagree with your entire premise that blind copying is the fastest way to learn something. Copying in general may be a good method, but I've seen plenty of cases of players perpetually blind copying and never improving in many genres, MMOs, tabletop war games, TCGs, and yes, in dnd too.

Right. So Japan and Korea surpassed U.S.A. in electronics technology by not copying everything western. Hell even pre-WWII Japan got their air technology by copying German metal planes.


But you know what has an equally good (or arguably better) success rate? Innovation and experimentation. Trying things for yourself and seeing what works and what doesn't, and why. Copying on the other hand leads to knowing that X and Y don't work together, but never quite understanding why thats the case, because you've never actually tried X and Y together.

Right, because experimenting and innovating when you don't know the basics and have no idea what you're doing or whether something is good or not isn't a complete waste of time and will result in nothing. Blind copying comes first, innovation and experimenting comes after. If it doesn't then that's not blind copying's fault. It's your player's fault. edit: Actually no, there's nothing wrong with a player who lacks creative ingenuity from using cookie cutter builds because he's incapable of making his own build.


You understand though, that the TCG equivilent of this is showing up to a friend's place when they're playing some casually thrown together decks for fun with a netdeck you found on the internet, and then blaming everyone else for "not doing research", like your net deck was anything more than 5-10 minutes of "research". They were already having fun playing casually, they weren't interested in getting into the meta, and making the best decks, but what you've done is basically say "get on my level noobs". Well, yeah, they can get on your level, or they can just not invite you next time.

That's fine with me. I rather play at a table where the DM challenges us with everything in the book rather than a DM that's lazily plopping down a generic unmodified monster that proves too strong for the party because the party has no clue what they're doing. If I wanted to roleplay without being mechanically challenged I'd make a cardboard costume and yell lightning bolt over and over.

There's nothing wrong with playing a game on easy where wildshape + natural spell breaks the game. Just don't say wildshape + natural spell breaks d&d because it doesn't. Not by far. It's actually completely unspectacular and if you have a problem with this then you shouldn't be playing 3.5. This isn't addressed to you Crake, it's addressed to the posters who said wildshape + natural spell is OP.

[Crake]

Right. So Japan and Korea surpassed U.S.A. in electronics technology by not copying everything western. Hell even pre-WWII Japan got their air technology by copying German metal planes.

As I said, copying is fine, what you're describing actually has a term: Reverse engineering, and it's actually a great way to catch up. Blind copying will get you nowhere. Consider it this way: you find a gun, you pull it apart, make a mold out of all the parts, and start mass producing. You've now blindly copied the gun. You can make the gun en mass, you can use the gun, but that's the extent of your capabilities. Now instead compare it to someone who pulls the gun apart, and examines how the pieces fit together, learns why each piece is as it is. This person could now instead design their own gun. They understand the key components of a gun and could potentially even make their own gun. Maybe their first gun is very similar to the one they learned from, maybe it's not.

Now, it may well actually be that you simply cannot fathom the mindset of a blind-copier. To many of us, it is indeed quite a foreign thought to have, to just take something and use it without understanding it. It's hard for people to imagine something that they would never do, we give people the benefit of the doubt, we think "no, there's no way people would do that". But if generations of gaming have taught me anything, it's that these people exist. There are people who will blindly copy without thinking, who never intend to innovate, and they are disturbingly more common than you would imagine.

Luckily for us here on this forum, those people typically never engage in any sort of discussion, because it rarely yields them much benefit, but I'll be honest, when I see someone having trouble with their DM, on a fresh account, while they're running which appears to be a fairly cookie cutter build..... It doesn't instill a lot of faith. I'd be happily proven wrong of course.


Right, because experimenting and innovating when you don't know the basics and have no idea what you're doing or whether something is good or not isn't a complete waste of time and will result in nothing. Blind copying comes first, innovation and experimenting comes after. If it doesn't then that's not blind copying's fault. It's your player's fault. edit: Actually no, there's nothing wrong with a player who lacks creative ingenuity from using cookie cutter builds because he's incapable of making his own build.

You don't learn the basics from reading a guide on the internet. You learn them from the player's handbook. The guides assume you already understand the basics.


That's fine with me. I rather play at a table where the DM challenges us with everything in the book rather than a DM that's lazily plopping down a generic unmodified monster that proves too strong for the party because the party has no clue what they're doing. If I wanted to roleplay without being mechanically challenged I'd make a cardboard costume and yell lightning bolt over and over.

Those aren't the only two options though. A DM might make a completely homebrew monster, spend hours designing the encounter, but not really have a great idea on what he's doing, and choose to err on the side of caution, and make the monster weaker than he could have to avoid a party wipe, then in comes the outlier and just one round KOs it. Claiming that any DM who isn't hardcore on mechanical challenges is thusly lazy is a false dichotomy.


There's nothing wrong with playing a game on easy where wildshape + natural spell breaks the game. Just don't say wildshape + natural spell breaks d&d because it doesn't. Not by far. It's actually completely unspectacular and if you have a problem with this then you shouldn't be playing 3.5. This isn't addressed to you Crake, it's addressed to the posters who said wildshape + natural spell is OP.

Perhaps I just missed it, but I don't think anyone actually claimed that natural spell was at all the core of the problem, but rather just claiming that druid (and natural spell) are "OP" in the sense that they are far stronger options than most equivilent material is. Plus "Druid is OP" is practically a meme on these boards anyway.

[eggynack]

There is a decent selection of animals to pick for evasive, defensive forms, the issue I would have is picking the desmodu hunting bat simply because it's the best one, and by it's nature, a choice that is rather meta-gamey in nature, because in real life, a) stats aren't just visible in plain sight, b) how would you know that the hunting bat is the best choice without even having seen one in personally, and c) could you honestly really tell the difference that well in character? Probably not.
There're two separate questions here. First, can you distinguish between the options when you're first selecting forms such that you'd wild shape into a desmodu hunting bat in the first place? This, I'm a bit more skeptical of. Assuming you know about the creature though, it's kinda just a really fast bat, and bats are a pretty evidently solid flight option in general. It's at least worth a shot.

Second, can you distinguish between the options after you've wild shaped into them such that you make the optimal selection? I'm inclined to say yes, especially in the comparison between various medium options. The dire bat against desmodu hunting bat comparison is a bit close, and the dexterity difference is probably indistinguishable, but you travel 50% faster, so that constitutes a pretty obvious advantage. The comparison between the bats and various other flying options is significantly more obvious. The big gap here, the thing that really gives bats the edge, is good maneuverability. Lacking hover actively makes your casting worse, and I think you'd want to seek out that ability in-game about as much as you would out of game.



How successful they are is largely up to the DM honestly, and from the sounds of things, this group in general is either new, or just not particularly optimized, which may well even be a personal choice by the players, I know that quite literally more than half my players couldn't care less about the specifics of their character, they are far more interested in engaging in an interesting story.
I guess. This criticism strikes me as a bit weird, however, because it limits the degree to which the character in question is liable to be powerful.


No, I'm not saying that. The first thing I'm saying is that there are cases where some people would find a wildshape awkward or inappropriate. So, it's about a balance bwn mechanical advantages and a behavior that may be felt as innatural. This balance lies somewhere, depending on the mechanical advantage, the sense of inadequacy and the personal sensibility (from the perspective of the PC, not of the minmaxer).

But what I'm saying is that going to the bathroom isn't precisely an awkward time to be wild shaped. You wouldn't wild shape to go to the bathroom, but neither would you end wild shape to go to the bathroom. It's not a particularly big deal either way. The number of situations that would drive me to stop being a bat are relatively limited in number.



Ummmm... you don't know how animals work do you?
Owl: "Hey look a bat. Bats are food. Yum."
Couger: "Hey look, it's meat sitting on a tree."
Wolf: "MEAT!"
Most animals don't mess with humans. But most animals DO mess with other animals. Staying in animal form should increase those encounters, not decrease. Of course, handle animal is a thing, and you should be able to stare them down to make them leave... IF you get the chance. Most predators attack from stealth after all.
It's a medium sized bat that's surrounded by glowing armor with supernatural agility that can fly constantly and is possibly in the general vicinity of a pile of powerful humanoids. I'm skeptical that most animals would try to eat that. Even the few that did would have serious difficulty even representing a speed bump. The druid is running 20 AC base, +9 against melee attacks from luminous armor, and then probably +6 or so from the monk's belt. So, 35 AC. Even something relatively beefy like a dire lion only has +13 to hit, and thus needs to leap into the air for a single natural 20. And the druid has significantly higher initiative. Oh, and if this actually does wind up creating a problem inexplicably, then you can swap to a desmodu guard bat. As skeptical as I am that these animals would go after a medium bat in glowing armor, I am more so of the idea that they would go after a large bat in glowing armor.

[Biolink22]

You understand though, that the TCG equivilent of this is showing up to a friend's place when they're playing some casually thrown together decks for fun with a netdeck you found on the internet, and then blaming everyone else for "not doing research", like your net deck was anything more than 5-10 minutes of "research". They were already having fun playing casually, they weren't interested in getting into the meta, and making the best decks, but what you've done is basically say "get on my level noobs". Well, yeah, they can get on your level, or they can just not invite you next time.

Honestly at that point I'd dig out one of my older decks and beat them to death with squirrels or myconids.



Perhaps I just missed it, but I don't think anyone actually claimed that natural spell was at all the core of the problem, but rather just claiming that druid (and natural spell) are "OP" in the sense that they are far stronger options than most equivilent material is. Plus "Druid is OP" is practically a meme on these boards anyway.

I'm probably the one he's talking about here because I said that "Druid is broken" and recommended banning Natural Spell was a way to bring them closer to balance because lets face it, Natural Spell does vastly exacerbate the problem. Druid isn't as broken as Cleric/Wizard imo, but it's still up there.

[deuterio12]

I'm probably the one he's talking about here because I said that "Druid is broken" and recommended banning Natural Spell was a way to bring them closer to balance because lets face it, Natural Spell does vastly exacerbate the problem. Druid isn't as broken as Cleric/Wizard imo, but it's still up there.

At first and high levels it's about the same level.

At game start Druid gets a CR 1 pet monster which is broken no matter how you look at it since a lv1 character is supposed to be CR 1 by themselves.

Then at level 17+ druid gets shapechange and from there they can basically unlock all the broken stuff they could want.

And for everything else in between, if you start adding splat material druid gets pretty crazy, in particular with all the animals that seem to have been made specifically to be (ab)used by the druid like the fleshraker.

[Reversefigure4]

Part of the objection, I think, is that the game ends up revolving around the Druid character rather than the party as a whole.

There's the power and abilities element. The group has an always-well-defended, always-sees-all-the-things, super-AC, always-flying creature which takes some interest away from a lot of encounters. The Druid crushes threats that might be otherwise interesting to the other party members.

The second part is the social and roleplaying element of it. 3 other adventurers travel around with somebody who is always a giant talking bat. Even if they don't find this unusual from having done it long enough, isn't every NPC going to react to the giant talking bat? Townsfolk might run from it, try and arrest it, try and kill it. The mayor who is hiring them to take out the mine full of goblins is going to have to address the fact that one of the PCs is a giant bat. None of it's game-breaking, but every single NPC is going to need to react to this thing, making the game all about BatDruid. Many people are going to want an answer to the same question the GM is asking - "Why are you always a giant bat?". "Because it makes me powerful / my enemies are always out to get me" is not going to be an answer that engenders trust in the townsfolk.

Either that or the world bends, and just as townspeople accept that there are wizards, they accept that all Druids are giant bats, all the time. The party should start meeting other groups who are Bats, regularly see giant bats flying by, etc. Either way, the game is now bending heavily to cater for the character who is always a giant bat.

I can definitely see this as a concept that bothers a GM.

[MeimuHakurei]

I mean, I think you're both wrong, animals do mess with humans, if they're around and vulnerable. The main reason animals don't mess with humans is because we tend to roam in groups, but a solo bat vs a solo human, they'd be equally as ready to mess with a human.

That said, not many animals that encounter humans live, so there are very few animals that can recognize our scent, as opposed to the scent of prey they know, so they won't really actively hunt us down like they would a deer for example, but if they see an opportunity, why not take it?

The other thing to think about is that animals will see the humans walking, or sitting around a campfire, and a bat hanging from the tree, and not associate the two as necessarily being connected, and so think to attack the bat for food and avoid the humans, when otherwise they would just straight up avoid the party if everyone was in human form.

If only Druids had a class feature that allowed them to improve the attitude of wild animals towards them...

[Kaleph]

But what I'm saying is that going to the bathroom isn't precisely an awkward time to be wild shaped. You wouldn't wild shape to go to the bathroom, but neither would you end wild shape to go to the bathroom. It's not a particularly big deal either way.

We are definitely not in the position of objectively judge what may be, and has been, felt as unnatural, awkward or irritating at the table. Trying to stay wildshaped also in a specific situation where the DM points out that it would get definitely irrealistic (from his perspective) could be one case. Refusing to find a compromise with the DM although available solutions wouldn't have had significant mechanical effects could be another one. A player justifying his strategy saying that he does it because he's read it in an handbook online yet another one. Ignoring any RP-related argumentation by the DM (e.g. "I would prefer that you are not in bat form when you speak with commoners who don't know you") in name of some marginal min/maxing aspect (e.g. I want +7 when I go to the toilet) may be also considered hostile. Repeating these kinds of arguments potentially at every session may bring further frustration. BTW, these are only theorethical examples, since I wasn't there and I don't know what happened.


The number of situations that would drive me to stop being a bat are relatively limited in number.

You are assuming that the only possible routine implies staying wildshaped at any time, which is definitely one possible routine, but not the only one. Another one could be to wildshape only in non-social situation when some danger is anticipated, and not being already wildshaped in the first place.
Another one is going out of wildshape when some circumstances dictate it. What are these circumstances, and how likely they are to actually occur in the game it's another story; yet, not being even open to discuss such a compromise isn't fair play, and sounds like the player simply wanting to stick to his point.

Although you say a lot of correct things, taken individually, your argumentation brings to the paradox - when brought to its extreme consequences - that a DM can never express his concerns on the atmosphere a certain behavior is inducing. I guess this is not what you are trying to demonstrate. It also implicitly sends the message that the OP is right in any case, should still stick to his point and not actively try to find a solution. If your message is so received, it's in general bad advice - regardless of the fact that, logically speaking, the player could be right.

If the truth lies somewhere between the two opposing positions (Player/DM), then there is a margin for a satisfactory solution. If instead the DM is utterly wrong but still adamant, and the discussion went beyond any possible fix, then the player has the only chance to put on a brave face and just accept what the master is requesting.

[eggynack]

The second part is the social and roleplaying element of it. 3 other adventurers travel around with somebody who is always a giant talking bat. Even if they don't find this unusual from having done it long enough, isn't every NPC going to react to the giant talking bat? Townsfolk might run from it, try and arrest it, try and kill it.
There's gotta be a limit to how weird arbitrary civilians think talking bats are. D&D has crazy magic nonsense all over the place, including creatures that come out of the box at a weirdness level on par with a talking bat, and some of those weird creatures are good. It helps that adventurers are a bit on the intrinsically weird side.


Either that or the world bends, and just as townspeople accept that there are wizards, they accept that all Druids are giant bats, all the time. The party should start meeting other groups who are Bats, regularly see giant bats flying by, etc. Either way, the game is now bending heavily to cater for the character who is always a giant bat.
I mean, high level druids are relatively rare, but it only makes sense that those that exist would be in some form with reasonable frequency. It's not like the OP magically made this a logical thing though. Druids usually being wild shaped always made sense.

Edit:
We are definitely not in the position of objectively judge what may be, and has been, felt as unnatural, awkward or irritating at the table. Trying to stay wildshaped also in a specific situation where the DM points out that it would get definitely irrealistic (from his perspective) could be one case. Refusing to find a compromise with the DM although available solutions wouldn't have had significant mechanical effects could be another one. A player justifying his strategy saying that he does it because he's read it in an handbook online yet another one. Ignoring any RP-related argumentation by the DM (e.g. "I would prefer that you are not in bat form when you speak with commoners you don't know you") in name of some marginal min/maxing aspect (e.g. I want +7 when I go to the toilet) may be also considered hostile. Repeating these kinds of arguments potentially at every session may bring further frustration. BTW, these are only theorethical examples, since I wasn't there and I don't know what happened.
The thing of it is, though, that you don't stay in your form when going to the bathroom because you fear bathroom assassins. You stay in your form when going to the bathroom because switching to your base form and then switching back later when it makes more sense costs hours of duration and one of your daily uses. A tenth level druid has forty hours a day spread across four uses. It's enough that you could do this and retain bat access across the whole day, but each use sacrifices moment to moment form variability which can be quite useful. I think you're underestimating the cost of doing this kinda thing.



You are assuming that the only possible routine implies staying wildshaped at any time, which is definitely one possible routine, but not the only one. Another one could be to wildshape only in non-social situation when some danger is anticipated, and not being already wildshaped in the first place.
Being in bat form all the time offers a lot of benefits, with perhaps the biggest in low key situations being the defenses. Initiative is especially valuable for dealing with spontaneous danger. High level casters get that way with a healthy dose of paranoia.



Although you say a lot of correct things, taken individually, your argumentation brings to the paradox - when brought to its extreme consequences - that a DM can never express his concerns on the atmosphere a certain behavior is inducing. I guess this is not what you are trying to demonstrate. It also implicitly sends the message that the OP is right in any case, should still stick to his point and not actively try to find a solution. If your message is so received, it's in general bad advice - regardless of the fact that, logically speaking, the player could be right.
I don't think DM's shouldn't express their concerns or that players are always right. I just think that this player is right in this circumstance. This doesn't seem like a particularly meaningful issue. The OP being a bat in social situations doesn't have to impact how those situations play out all that much, so the objection seems to be a largely aesthetic one. It looks weird for a character to be always a bat. That is being weighed against a player's desire to play their character their way, and I think that should win out.

[sorcererlover]

You don't learn the basics from reading a guide on the internet. You learn them from the player's handbook. The guides assume you already understand the basics.

Then how did I learn how to play by blindly following this sorcerer guide http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?74801-Solo%92s-Stupendously-Superior-Sorcerer-Stratagems ? Sure my DM corrected me a lot but blindly following that guide taught me why BFC spells are better than blasting without me going through the phase of experimenting and innovating with a blaster build.

You learn fastest by blindly following the pros, not by reading the mechanics of the game.

[Aelar]

Just wanted to address this point, it's a highly contested topic, but most people I know don't allow the pearl of speech to allow a creature that was otherwise unable to talk before the ability to talk, it merely grants you the ability to speak and interpret a language. This reasoning is mainly based on a) how cheap the item is and b) the spell that the item is based on, tongues, specifically has the line " Tongues does not enable the subject to speak with creatures who don’t speak." so it makes little sense that such a cheap item would have greater functionality over the spell it's based on.

Consider that if it enabled animals to speak, you could give an animal a pearl of speech and allow it to speak common.


Yes, as I stated, being unable to speak is not insurmountable.

The problem though, is you are a talking bat. You're not going to get treated the same by most people.
Just as half-elves suffer from racism from both elves and humans, and a drider going to the surface would be disastrous, a talking bat would be viewed as either suspicious or a novelty evoking entirely different responses than a pc would have under normal circumstances.

A man terrified of werewolves runs into a talking wolf druid, for example, might attack.
A villiage under siege might view the druid as a spy due to his constant bat form.

Repercussions offset the "bonus to ac" that the form gives you. And those repercussions aren't insignificant.

While a pearl of speech is contested by many to enable speech to a wild shaped druid, my DM chose to allow it and he didn't add any repercussions. I would've totally been fine with consequences as it would enable me to try different solutions and add greatly from the RP aspect.


Right, because experimenting and innovating when you don't know the basics and have no idea what you're doing or whether something is good or not isn't a complete waste of time and will result in nothing. Blind copying comes first, innovation and experimenting comes after. If it doesn't then that's not blind copying's fault. It's your player's fault. edit: Actually no, there's nothing wrong with a player who lacks creative ingenuity from using cookie cutter builds because he's incapable of making his own build.


Luckily for us here on this forum, those people typically never engage in any sort of discussion, because it rarely yields them much benefit, but I'll be honest, when I see someone having trouble with their DM, on a fresh account, while they're running which appears to be a fairly cookie cutter build..... It doesn't instill a lot of faith. I'd be happily proven wrong of course.

I hardly used a cookie cutter build, I didn't understand how to play a Druid in the beginning and went with what my DM recommended. Only when I reached level 3 did I even start reading guides so I could better understand what feats are available and what are good ones for druids. After that, I started doing much more research, I went over all the Druid spells in the SpC and when we could buy new items, I went over all the items in the MIC. Both of these took a lot of time, and led to me experimenting with different spells over time to figure out what was best for my character. Using the Desmodu Hunting Bat form gives an edge only in levels 6 and 7 really as the Dire Bat, which comes in at level 8, is the best high ac, high dex option in core if you don't want to wild shape to exotic creatures like the Desmodu bats.
My DM banned most of the crazy stuff that's suggested in the guides so the only optimization I really did was remaining in bat form all the time. You could say that getting the monk's belt counts as optimization as well, but most of my party has ACs close to 30, the cleric has 31, am I not supposed to have similar AC because doing so would be considered powergaming as the druid class is powerful.


Part of the objection, I think, is that the game ends up revolving around the Druid character rather than the party as a whole.

There's the power and abilities element. The group has an always-well-defended, always-sees-all-the-things, super-AC, always-flying creature which takes some interest away from a lot of encounters. The Druid crushes threats that might be otherwise interesting to the other party members.

The second part is the social and roleplaying element of it. 3 other adventurers travel around with somebody who is always a giant talking bat. Even if they don't find this unusual from having done it long enough, isn't every NPC going to react to the giant talking bat? Townsfolk might run from it, try and arrest it, try and kill it. The mayor who is hiring them to take out the mine full of goblins is going to have to address the fact that one of the PCs is a giant bat. None of it's game-breaking, but every single NPC is going to need to react to this thing, making the game all about BatDruid. Many people are going to want an answer to the same question the GM is asking - "Why are you always a giant bat?". "Because it makes me powerful / my enemies are always out to get me" is not going to be an answer that engenders trust in the townsfolk.

Either that or the world bends, and just as townspeople accept that there are wizards, they accept that all Druids are giant bats, all the time. The party should start meeting other groups who are Bats, regularly see giant bats flying by, etc. Either way, the game is now bending heavily to cater for the character who is always a giant bat.

I can definitely see this as a concept that bothers a GM.
My DM only mentioned reactions to my form when I'm interacting with people in towns sporadically and without real consequences. I should think that in a world with awakened animals, and wild shaping druids, people would be used to seeing plenty of talking animals in different groups so it wouldn't bend the game towards the BatDruid as it would only be a little odd.

[Divine Susuryu]

In every game I played everyone encouraged everyone to use guides. If someone can't perform everyone tells them to read up on guides and practice by yourself.

Even sports. When I suck at basket ball people told me to practice and read up material on the internet and get good.

And then we have d&d players. Reading a guide is the biggest crime you can ever commit. The only acceptable players are those who literally just picked up the game and has no idea what to do because god forbid you read a guide and learn something.

Tell the DM to get good. You spent all this effort learning about druids, so why shouldn't he? Why play with a fat basket ball player who doesn't exercise and chastises you for exercising regularly?

d&d is one of the worst communities ever. Name one other community that condemns people for reading a guide.

I needed to say that this post is blessed. A guide is a nonscarce resource held in common by all people in the group - indeed, by the whole community of whichever game the guide is for. There is no barrier to reading a guide for anyone. A majority of these guides - certainly the better ones - even explain why the bad choices are bad and the good ones are good. The only other way to learn that would be trial and error. Given how long it takes to find a game, build a character, and have that character level up, I certainly don't imagine anyone would, in all honesty, say that that's a reasonable way to learn. Particularly given that, in D&D and games that take inspiration from it, re-speccing is hardly trivial.

As to the thread topic, can we all at least concur that options that are mechanically good for characters must be not uncommon in-universe occurrences? Otherwise whatever world you're building would be non-self-consistent, as for some reason it's rare for someone to choose a better option over a worse one. Hard to believe that things like agriculture, language, or civilisation could become prevalent with that sort of mindset.

[Blue Jay]

Name one other community that condemns people for reading a guide.

Every game has its casual players that condemn people for taking it too seriously; and every gave has its serious players that condemn people for not taking it seriously enough. D&D is no different from any other game in this regard.

But, this really isn't what's happening on this thread. On this thread, the OP came in with an honest concern, and is discussing things in a very honest and civil manner with people who are suggesting that opposing points of view on the game might be the root of his problem; and the other posters are advising him that communication and compromise are the best way to find a solution to his issue.

I don't see why this needs to become a battleground for the bigger debate about character optimization and the state of the D&D community. The solution to the OP's problem is not going to come from determining whether character optimization is "good" or "bad" for the D&D community: the solution is going to come from him and his DM trying to understand one another and finding a way that they can both have fun. If that means going their separate ways and playing at different tables, so be it; but it seems like he'd rather stay at this table and find a more civil solution.

[Gallowglass]

<editing out a bunch of stuff that will fall on deaf ears so why bother posting it>

This will be my last post in this thread and I won't be back to read any more because, frankly, this thread has turned untenable.

To the OP, I sincerely hope you and your DM have a good conversation about this and find a common ground to work from. Personally, I have no problem with you staying in bat form 24/7, but I hope you recognize that its not completely invalid for someone to have a problem with it. I think you should invite him to read this thread and discuss the ideas you are excited about with it having an effect on you outside the rules to your psyche and personality. I think there is a fun game in there.

[Kaleph]

The thing of it is, though, that you don't stay in your form when going to the bathroom because you fear bathroom assassins.
Er, no, my example was purposedly so extreme as to allow fear of bathroom assassins as the only possible reason to be wildshaped.



You stay in your form when going to the bathroom because switching to your base form and then switching back later when it makes more sense costs hours of duration and one of your daily uses. A tenth level druid has forty hours a day spread across four uses. It's enough that you could do this and retain bat access across the whole day, but each use sacrifices moment to moment form variability which can be quite useful. I think you're underestimating the cost of doing this kinda thing.

Being in bat form all the time offers a lot of benefits, with perhaps the biggest in low key situations being the defenses. Initiative is especially valuable for dealing with spontaneous danger. High level casters get that way with a healthy dose of paranoia.

As a low-level druid you learn to splash your (limited) wildshape uses through the day. At higher level you may still use this tactic, but you encur in the risk of being unprotected in case of an unaspected challenge. Or you may be in animal form by default the whole day starting already in the early morning (after the toilet Routine :smallbiggrin:), but you encur in the risk that you must revert back to your humanoid form in any situation that may require it. It's a trade-off, each strategy has disadvantages, and it's not fair play to just get the benefits and feign that the draw-backs simply do not exist.

Should we speculate on some examples? If you want to ride a horse, you must revert back to human, there's no discussion for me. Same if you want to flirt with your girlfriend. Same if you have an audience with a king. These situation do exist, and it's irrelevant to the aim of our discussion how often they become a thing. Also, it's totally subjective to establish when an event forces the druid to switch back to his own form; and when a call is subjective, there's no other person than the DM to have the authority to make that call.
Now, if the DM makes this call even only once, under reasonable circumstances (I refer to the story with the horse) and the player complains and rejects the call, the player is probably wrong.



I don't think DM's shouldn't express their concerns or that players are always right. I just think that this player is right in this circumstance. This doesn't seem like a particularly meaningful issue.

Sorry, my English was very bad in that sentence. What I've meant is that we cannot be sure that the player is right, since we don't know all the boundary conditions.



This doesn't seem like a particularly meaningful issue. The OP being a bat in social situations doesn't have to impact how those situations play out all that much, so the objection seems to be a largely aesthetic one. It looks weird for a character to be always a bat.

Depending on the case, an aesthetic objection could be a particularly meaningful issue.



That is being weighed against a player's desire to play their character their way, and I think that should win out.

Not if, as I just said, he wants to "just get the benefits and feign that the draw-backs simply do not exist", and grabs at straws trying to justifying his course of actions.


@ OP: my view on your behavior seems very negative, but only because I'm assuming the worst possible boundary conditions for your case. I'm not really trying to say you are reasonable or unreasonable, just figuring out under which circumstances you'd be unreasonable. The only undisputable claim I wish to make is: just talk to your master and find a solution, you may only win something this way.

[Starbuck_II]

Should we speculate on some examples? If you want to ride a horse, you must revert back to human, there's no discussion for me. Same if you want to flirt with your girlfriend. Same if you have an audience with a king. These situation do exist, and it's irrelevant to the aim of our discussion how often they become a thing. Also, it's totally subjective to establish when an event forces the druid to switch back to his own form; and when a call is subjective, there's no other person than the DM to have the authority to make that call.
Now, if the DM makes this call even only once, under reasonable circumstances (I refer to the story with the horse) and the player complains and rejects the call, the player is probably wrong.



Wait, can't a giant bat ride a horse? Sure, it might be difficult (due to saddle being not made for bats to ride), but at is at most a -2 penalty thing.
He can use his wing claws to hold reins.

[Aelar]

Wait, can't a giant bat ride a horse? Sure, it might be difficult (due to saddle being not made for bats to ride), but at is at most a -2 penalty thing.
He can use his wing claws to hold reins.
I didn’t want the Desmodu Hunting Bat (which is a medium sized animal btw) to ride an actual real horse. It’s a spell called Bottle of Smoke that creates a vaguely horse-like figure made of smoke. The description of the spell mentions no rains, saddle or size limitations. It simply states that it’s a DC10 Ride check. That was the crux of the argument that led to my DM’s comment that caused me to start this whole thread.

[Calthropstu]

I didn’t want the Desmodu Hunting Bat (which is a medium sized animal btw) to ride an actual real horse. It’s a spell called Bottle of Smoke that creates a vaguely horse-like figure made of smoke. The description of the spell mentions no rains, saddle or size limitations. It simply states that it’s a DC10 Ride check. That was the crux of the argument that led to my DM’s comment that caused me to start this whole thread.

If it were a normal horse, I'd agree with your gm personally. A magical smoke horse is another thing altogether. Yeah, ride away.

[Crake]

If only Druids had a class feature that allowed them to improve the attitude of wild animals towards them...

You mean the ability which functions as diplomacy? The one that takes a minute? You're probably not going to have a minute if the animal is trying to eat you. You can try rushed at -10, but then you're likely guaranteed to fail.

[Segev]

You mean the ability which functions as diplomacy? The one that takes a minute? You're probably not going to have a minute if the animal is trying to eat you. You can try rushed at -10, but then you're likely guaranteed to fail.

While an accurate concern if the critter's already attacking, if you're not careful with your application of this logic, Wild Empathy is a useless class feature.

Additionally, druids have a lot of other options. Intimidation by the skill, or simply being too tough. The complaint is, after all, that the PC is too strong because he's always wild shaped. Anything that can reasonably threaten him reasonably threatens the party, and thus it failing to attack if he's in human form is blatant DM punishment when it does if the druid's wild shaped.

[Kaleph]

I didn’t want the Desmodu Hunting Bat (which is a medium sized animal btw) to ride an actual real horse. It’s a spell called Bottle of Smoke that creates a vaguely horse-like figure made of smoke. The description of the spell mentions no rains, saddle or size limitations. It simply states that it’s a DC10 Ride check. That was the crux of the argument that led to my DM’s comment that caused me to start this whole thread.

Please do not forget some details, like the fact that the spell has a focus (a bottle), that you must also HOLD IN YOUR HAND while you mount and ride, and that riding this horse is actually more complicated than normal, since the (additional) DC 10 ride check is only to MOUNT, action that with a real horse automatically succeeds wothout the need of any check.

And this course of action is consequently not that easy when you are morphed into Akrajaj.

I know they are only small details, but they could be useful to circumstantiate the discussion between you and your DM.

[Aelar]

Please do not forget some details, like the fact that the spell has a focus (a bottle), that you must also HOLD IN YOUR HAND while you mount and ride, and that riding this horse is actually more complicated than normal, since the (additional) DC 10 ride check is only to MOUNT, action that with a real horse automatically succeeds wothout the need of any check.

And this course of action is consequently not that easy when you are morphed into Akrajaj.

I know they are only small details, but they could be useful to circumstantiate the discussion between you and your DM.
That’s why I eventually agreed with him and compromised on being wild shaped as an ape while riding the horse

[Kaleph]

That’s why I eventually agreed with him and compromised on being wild shaped as an ape while riding the horse

Compromised? Which compromise?

I also guess that the term "eventually" is key here, based on the following:

I pissed him off too much in a debate about whether or not I could ride the smoke horse in the Bottle of Smoke spell in the bat form.

It wasn't so legitimate to piss him off in that particular case, right?

Now, coming back to your original question:

Am I being odd or is he just completely unaware of how druids usually play? What do you think?

Yes, Aelar, I think you're odd for insisting on riding that smoke horse and for believing that you compromised in the end.

And your DM? As far as I understood, he was very loose at the beginning, until he noticed that the gameplay was slowly slipping away from his (personal) mental image of a balanced and realistic game. Then he changed from 0 to 1, started arguing also when you were doing something totally kosher, and maybe gave you also the impression that he was somehow punishing you because of the previous issue.

If it's the case, you have to tell him. It's normal that a druid tends to be in wildshape all the time, there can be only a relatively limited number of cases where he has to switch back. If you're in the wilderness, I personally find no conceavable reason why you shouldn't play Agrajaj.

BTW, can you please answer honestly to my question? Why it was so important for you to stay morphed when you casted smoke bottle? To save 1 use of wild shape is an answer that I find hard to swallow (unless you had no use left); it looks videogame-y, and gives potentially the impression you are following instructions. That was the moment when your DM became crazy at handbooks, right?

[Crake]

While an accurate concern if the critter's already attacking, if you're not careful with your application of this logic, Wild Empathy is a useless class feature.

Additionally, druids have a lot of other options. Intimidation by the skill, or simply being too tough. The complaint is, after all, that the PC is too strong because he's always wild shaped. Anything that can reasonably threaten him reasonably threatens the party, and thus it failing to attack if he's in human form is blatant DM punishment when it does if the druid's wild shaped.

The notion would be that an animal that sees a solo bat and a group of humans wouldn't readily associate the two as being together, so would happily attack the solo bat.

Regarding wild empathy as a potentially useless class feature, that would be like saying that diplomacy is useless because it doesn't stop bandits from attacking you (unless you've boosted it out the wazoo to the point where you can use it even rushed and still beat the DC... or you've got naberious bound and can use it rushed as a standard action without any penalty). Diplomacy, and wild empathy by extension, are active abilities, not reactive. You use them when you're setting the terms of engagement, not when you've just been ambushed.

[Segev]

The notion would be that an animal that sees a solo bat and a group of humans wouldn't readily associate the two as being together, so would happily attack the solo bat.

Regarding wild empathy as a potentially useless class feature, that would be like saying that diplomacy is useless because it doesn't stop bandits from attacking you (unless you've boosted it out the wazoo to the point where you can use it even rushed and still beat the DC... or you've got naberious bound and can use it rushed as a standard action without any penalty). Diplomacy, and wild empathy by extension, are active abilities, not reactive. You use them when you're setting the terms of engagement, not when you've just been ambushed.

This is predicated on the desmodu bat being ambushed successfully, and the creature attacking seeing it as "just a bat" and not "a glowing bat dripping with magical auras and buffs." The "lone bat near some humans" is more likely amidst said humans. You don't get wild animals attacking horses while humans are grooming them.

The "bat" is so obviously not a normal creature that even an Int 2 animal is going to be a stretch for deciding to attack it when it wouldn't attack a human.

And, moreover? Any such attacks are counterproductive to the DM trying to persuade the druid not to stay wild shaped: he's more likely to just try to find an even more defensible, high-senses shape so he can't be ambushed and attacked successfully next time.

[Aelar]

Compromised? Which compromise?

I also guess that the term "eventually" is key here, based on the following:


It wasn't so legitimate to piss him off in that particular case, right?

Now, coming back to your original question:


Yes, Aelar, I think you're odd for insisting on riding that smoke horse and for believing that you compromised in the end.

And your DM? As far as I understood, he was very loose at the beginning, until he noticed that the gameplay was slowly slipping away from his (personal) mental image of a balanced and realistic game. Then he changed from 0 to 1, started arguing also when you were doing something totally kosher, and maybe gave you also the impression that he was somehow punishing you because of the previous issue.

If it's the case, you have to tell him. It's normal that a druid tends to be in wildshape all the time, there can be only a relatively limited number of cases where he has to switch back. If you're in the wilderness, I personally find no conceavable reason why you shouldn't play Agrajaj.

BTW, can you please answer honestly to my question? Why it was so important for you to stay morphed when you casted smoke bottle? To save 1 use of wild shape is an answer that I find hard to swallow (unless you had no use left); it looks videogame-y, and gives potentially the impression you are following instructions. That was the moment when your DM became crazy at handbooks, right?

You're correct in your assessment, I didn't really understand how riding horses in general works before I talked to him about this spell and I was probably too stubborn. I called it a compromise, perhaps I should have phrased it differently, I meant that we both compromised in a sense, because he could have just said, unless you're a humanoid, you wouldn't be able to ride a horse and not allow me to be wild shaped while riding the horse at all.

I didn't think I was odd for asking to ride the horse while wild shaped, which I now guess that I am, I asked whether it was odd being wild shaped all the time in general, since he didn't like it long before I even asked him about this spell. He was indeed more lenient in the beginning because he didn't know that much about Druids, and as time went on and I started gaining more experience and utilizing my spells, summons and wild shape in an optimal fashion, it started to bother him, I'm guessing, because as you suggested the game started feeling less balanced in his eyes.

And to answer your question, it was important to me because: A) my AC and dexterity would be lower while not wildshaped, whether I were in bat or ape form, which would impact my defense and the bonus I would get when casting spells that worked as ranged attacks B) I thought it would look cool (in a videogame-y way like you said). Reason A was obviously the important one, he suggested it couldn't physically work, which is why I argued with him, since this is a magic smoke horse that, to me, seemed like it would feel differently compared to an actual horse. I wasn't following orders, I discovered the spell while browsing the SpC, it seemed useful so I asked him whether I could use it in general.

[Crake]

This is predicated on the desmodu bat being ambushed successfully, and the creature attacking seeing it as "just a bat" and not "a glowing bat dripping with magical auras and buffs." The "lone bat near some humans" is more likely amidst said humans. You don't get wild animals attacking horses while humans are grooming them.

The "bat" is so obviously not a normal creature that even an Int 2 animal is going to be a stretch for deciding to attack it when it wouldn't attack a human.

And, moreover? Any such attacks are counterproductive to the DM trying to persuade the druid not to stay wild shaped: he's more likely to just try to find an even more defensible, high-senses shape so he can't be ambushed and attacked successfully next time.

Uhh, since when can animals see magical auras? And sure, the wolves may not attack the party's horses while they're being groomed, but they certainly would do so while the party is around the campfire and the horses are grazing. If OP is playing as he self described himself as a loner, it's unlikely he's gonna be sitting around with the rest of the party around the campfire, simply because, well, bats can't really sit very well.

[Segev]

The definition of compromise is that both sides give up something to get part of what they want, but not all. Too often, however, we insist only one side needs to compromise, and that that really means "give in," and then treat the side we want to "compromise" as being unreasonable when they refuse to give in.

Yes, shifting to a humanoid-but-still-wild-shaped form is a compromise between staying a bat and reverting to normal human form. The druid player gave up the bat form, and thus sum (but not all) of the buffs he could get from being wild shaped, and the DM gave up on having the druid debuff completely in favor of a sensible shape that still has some buffs, but not all of the buffs the bat form gave. Also, it cost the druid a resource in the form of a wild shape usage, which is at least something towards the DM's goal of not having the druid just sit on one use most of the day.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Uhh, since when can animals see magical auras?

Since never. But they can see the Luminous Armour spell, and any of the plenty more buffs and such which have a clear visual manifestation.



And sure, the wolves may not attack the party's horses while they're being groomed, but they certainly would do so while the party is around the campfire and the horses are grazing. If OP is playing as he self described himself as a loner, it's unlikely he's gonna be sitting around with the rest of the party around the campfire, simply because, well, bats can't really sit very well.

Even if that is assumed to be the case*, that has precisely nothing to do with him being a bat - it has to do with him being alone. A human-shaped straggler would be no less vulnerable; actually they would be far more so, because humans don't have blindsight, scent, or a massive racial bonus to spot and listen checks. It is not as if it would appear any better a target to wolves, either - the preferred prey of wolves does not include "flying creatures as big and well tougher than they are". A wolf hungry enough to go after such a target would be hungry enough to go for a human.

*Edit: distinctly arguable, since amongst other things you are assuming actions on his part without much basis (a loner could go and brood on the other side of camp... or he could just sit next to the fire and not communicate much. I'm kind of a loner, and I'd definitely do the latter.), it requires that the distance be significant enough to actually pose much of an obstacle in combat (Desmodu have a 60ft fly speed. Does he really need 60 feet of brooding space?), and requires that the threat actually be capable of sneaking up in the first place (a tall order, given that not only are we talking about someone with listen and spot as class skills and wis as a primary stat, but they are also in a form giving massive bonuses to perception. Also, bat - they're probably hanging from a high tree branch or somesuch.)

[eggynack]

Er, no, my example was purposedly so extreme as to allow fear of bathroom assassins as the only possible reason to be wildshaped.
Not precisely. Another possible reason is just that wild shaping is what the character does at the beginning of the day, as part of the standard buff routine, and going to the bathroom is just the second step in the day.


As a low-level druid you learn to splash your (limited) wildshape uses through the day. At higher level you may still use this tactic, but you encur in the risk of being unprotected in case of an unaspected challenge. Or you may be in animal form by default the whole day starting already in the early morning (after the toilet Routine :smallbiggrin:), but you encur in the risk that you must revert back to your humanoid form in any situation that may require it. It's a trade-off, each strategy has disadvantages, and it's not fair play to just get the benefits and feign that the draw-backs simply do not exist.

Should we speculate on some examples? If you want to ride a horse, you must revert back to human, there's no discussion for me. Same if you want to flirt with your girlfriend. Same if you have an audience with a king. These situation do exist, and it's irrelevant to the aim of our discussion how often they become a thing. Also, it's totally subjective to establish when an event forces the druid to switch back to his own form; and when a call is subjective, there's no other person than the DM to have the authority to make that call.
Now, if the DM makes this call even only once, under reasonable circumstances (I refer to the story with the horse) and the player complains and rejects the call, the player is probably wrong.
The drawbacks mostly don't exist. Sure, riding a horse is a scenario where you may need hands. I'm not sure why that matters, given that desmodu hunting bats are faster than standard horses and with greater maneuverability, but it's technically a drawback. I'm not sure why the DM has purview over how the player chooses to interact with their girlfriend or even the king. Maybe the girlfriend is one that gets that your form is pretty transitory and is cool with that, and maybe they don't think that being a magic glowing bat is a problem in king dealings. And hell, in the latter case, maybe they get proved wrong. That's the risk you take.

You say that, when a call is subjective, the DM has the authority to make that call. I disagree. The player is the one who makes calls as regard the decision making of their character. They don't get to make mechanical calls, but they are the primary determinant of when they are a bat. This is even the case when trying to ride a horse. The DM can say, "You fall off the horse because bats cannot ride horses." It is unreasonable to say, "You transform back into your base form in order to ride the horse." If the drawbacks exist, then they exist. The drawback cannot be that you are magically transformed out of bat form by the universe. It can be that being a bat causes problems.




Uhh, since when can animals see magical auras? And sure, the wolves may not attack the party's horses while they're being groomed, but they certainly would do so while the party is around the campfire and the horses are grazing. If OP is playing as he self described himself as a loner, it's unlikely he's gonna be sitting around with the rest of the party around the campfire, simply because, well, bats can't really sit very well.
A lot of spells have obvious visual manifestations. Luminous armor was mentioned, which means the bat is surrounded by crazy glowing armor, and there's also stuff like heart of water, which converts part of your body into elemental water, and primal instinct, which features rings of energy travelling up and down across your body. I'm very skeptical that random animals would go after this medium sized bat that is covered with magic. I am, as previously noted, even more skeptical that the random occasional animal that stupidly decides to attack will constitute a threat of any sort.

[Kaleph]

I didn't think I was odd for asking to ride the horse while wild shaped, which I now guess that I am, I asked whether it was odd being wild shaped all the time in general, since he didn't like it long before I even asked him about this spell. He was indeed more lenient in the beginning because he didn't know that much about Druids, and as time went on and I started gaining more experience and utilizing my spells, summons and wild shape in an optimal fashion, it started to bother him, I'm guessing, because as you suggested the game started feeling less balanced in his eyes.

The only outstanding issue would be to understand if now he's stressing you and/or criticizing whatever you do because he has a point, or only because he has a prejudice.

[Zecrin]

Uhh, since when can animals see magical auras? And sure, the wolves may not attack the party's horses while they're being groomed, but they certainly would do so while the party is around the campfire and the horses are grazing.

I doubt that the druid would be attacked by wild animals for several reasons.

1. Most animal predators large enough to challenge the medium-sized hunting bat are grounded and unable to fly.
2. Even if they could reach the bat, I don't believe that creatures such as lions, tigers, or bears (oh my!) naturally hunt or eat bats.
3. Many nocturnal winged predators that naturally hunt medium sized bats could be expected to have an aversion to bright light. As already observed, luminous armor sheds exceedingly bright light.

[Aelar]

The only outstanding issue would be to understand if now he's stressing you and/or criticizing whatever you do because he has a point, or only because he has a prejudice.

That’s indeed the question, I’ll be having this discussion with him tomorrow to figure out how we can both agree on the way I play and if I need to amend that so that the party is more balanced in his eyes. Hopefully, we’ll reach an accord and we can get back to having fun, both the party and the DM.

[Crake]

Since never. But they can see the Luminous Armour spell, and any of the plenty more buffs and such which have a clear visual manifestation.


A lot of spells have obvious visual manifestations. Luminous armor was mentioned, which means the bat is surrounded by crazy glowing armor, and there's also stuff like heart of water, which converts part of your body into elemental water, and primal instinct, which features rings of energy travelling up and down across your body. I'm very skeptical that random animals would go after this medium sized bat that is covered with magic. I am, as previously noted, even more skeptical that the random occasional animal that stupidly decides to attack will constitute a threat of any sort.

Luminous armor is a fair point, but would the druid be using that at night when the party's trying to sleep? It'd be rather annoying to try and sleep with light just beaming around you like that


Even if that is assumed to be the case, that has precisely nothing to do with him being a bat. A human-shaped straggler would be no less vulnerable; actually they would be far more so, because humans don't have blindsight, scent, or a massive racial bonus to spot and listen checks. It is not as if it would appear any better a target to wolves, either - the preferred prey of wolves does not include "flying creatures as big and well tougher than they are". A wolf hungry enough to go after such a target would be hungry enough to go for a human.

The idea is that if he were in human form, he wouldn't be a straggler, because it wouldn't be so awkward to sit around the fireplace with the rest of the party, even if he doesn't talk or interact with the party. Also, druids in wildshape don't get blindsight (which is actually blindsense, as eggynack pointed out) or scent, so that's not relevant anyway.


I doubt that the druid would be attacked by wild animals for several reasons.

1. Most animal predators large enough to challenge the medium-sized hunting bat are grounded and unable to fly.
2. Even if they could reach the bat, I don't believe that creatures such as lions, tigers, or bears (oh my!) naturally hunt or eat bats.
3. Many nocturnal winged predators that naturally hunt medium sized bats could be expected to have an aversion to bright light. As already observed, luminous armor sheds exceedingly bright light.

Well, for your first point, while that's true, many ambush or stealth predators also come with improved grab and pounce, so one surprise round, you're half dead already, and in a grapple so you can't just fly away. For your second point, many ambush and stealth predators can climb quite easily, so reaching the bat isn't an issue, and while bats aren't normally part of their diet, likely due to how small they are, and thus not having a very good effort to sustenance ratio, a medium sized bat doesn't hold such an issue. And for your final point, well, I've already mentioned that luminous armor would make sleeping just a pain in the ass, and any thought about stealth just gets thrown out the window, certainly a very good way to be ambushed by groups of enemies since they can see the shining beacon of your camp from miles away.

[Zecrin]

Well, for your first point, while that's true, many ambush or stealth predators also come with improved grab and pounce, so one surprise round, you're half dead already, and in a grapple so you can't just fly away. For your second point, many ambush and stealth predators can climb quite easily, so reaching the bat isn't an issue, and while bats aren't normally part of their diet, likely due to how small they are, and thus not having a very good effort to sustenance ratio, a medium sized bat doesn't hold such an issue. And for your final point, well, I've already mentioned that luminous armor would make sleeping just a pain in the ass, and any thought about stealth just gets thrown out the window, certainly a very good way to be ambushed by groups of enemies since they can see the shining beacon of your camp from miles away.

I doubt that there's an animal in the monster manual that can successfully hide from a group of high level PCs, so ambush and stealth are out of the question. There are no animals in the MM that to my knowledge have both improved grab and a climb speed, so reaching and grabbing the druid is out of the question.

As for size, I don't know if animals consider effort to sustenance ratios while hunting or if they just instinctually hunt certain prey.

I could defiantly see a DM ruling that its difficult to sleep in the radius of a daylight spell, but I also believe that a party frequently exposed to this bright light while sleeping could eventually adapt to it.

Now I think your shining beacon argument is pretty solid. However, a campfire is likely also visible from miles away, as is a torch, or even a candle. Unless everyone in the party has darkvision the camp is likely already a beacon of light.

[noob]

Luminous armor is a fair point, but would the druid be using that at night when the party's trying to sleep? It'd be rather annoying to try and sleep with light just beaming around you like that



The idea is that if he were in human form, he wouldn't be a straggler, because it wouldn't be so awkward to sit around the fireplace with the rest of the party, even if he doesn't talk or interact with the party. Also, druids in wildshape don't get blindsight (which is actually blindsense, as eggynack pointed out) or scent, so that's not relevant anyway.



Well, for your first point, while that's true, many ambush or stealth predators also come with improved grab and pounce, so one surprise round, you're half dead already, and in a grapple so you can't just fly away. For your second point, many ambush and stealth predators can climb quite easily, so reaching the bat isn't an issue, and while bats aren't normally part of their diet, likely due to how small they are, and thus not having a very good effort to sustenance ratio, a medium sized bat doesn't hold such an issue. And for your final point, well, I've already mentioned that luminous armor would make sleeping just a pain in the ass, and any thought about stealth just gets thrown out the window, certainly a very good way to be ambushed by groups of enemies since they can see the shining beacon of your camp from miles away.

Wait you want stealth through not being seen?
I believed stealth was usually replaced by astonishingly awesome and visible clothes and constant blinding light in all the directions in so intense ways nobody dare look at the hidden person directly.

[eggynack]

Luminous armor is a fair point, but would the druid be using that at night when the party's trying to sleep? It'd be rather annoying to try and sleep with light just beaming around you like that
I think the OP said they sleep in base form, and there's limited utility to going all that far away even if they did sleep like that. I thought we were talking something like keeping watch here, and the previous scenario was more standard adventuring.


Well, for your first point, while that's true, many ambush or stealth predators also come with improved grab and pounce, so one surprise round, you're half dead already, and in a grapple so you can't just fly away.
I think it's worth just asking what monster we're talking about here. Sure, there is the occasional animal at the very highest ranges that could maybe pull this off on occasion, but most animals are going to miss a few times and then have the druid fly further out of range. You'd have to go up to something like dire tiger levels to constitute much in the way of a credible annoyance. It's just not gonna happen all that often. Doubly so in this case because dire tigers can't really climb. A standard tiger is just going to miss three times.

[icefractal]

Why would it be awkward to sit around the fire with the party in nonhuman form? Dogs and other pets do it all the time.

"An optimized Druid is too powerful for this party" is a valid concern. "The Druid is acting in a way that would be strange for a typical person" is not. Feeling so comfortable as a giant bat that they spend much of their time in that form seems fitting for a mystic who tries to be one with the forces of nature.

[Crake]

I think it's worth just asking what monster we're talking about here. Sure, there is the occasional animal at the very highest ranges that could maybe pull this off on occasion, but most animals are going to miss a few times and then have the druid fly further out of range. You'd have to go up to something like dire tiger levels to constitute much in the way of a credible annoyance. It's just not gonna happen all that often. Doubly so in this case because dire tigers can't really climb. A standard tiger is just going to miss three times.

It does honestly surprise me how little the developers knew about animals, tigers and bears not having climb speeds, or even bonuses to climb at all is just mind boggling, though I suppose I can see sorta where they're coming from, they can't climb surfaces that don't yield to their claws very well, like rock surfaces, but they should definitely have climbing bonuses on wooden surfaces.

But at levels 5-6ish, if we assume that they can climb, a regular tiger could easily sneak up and pounce the druid if he's hanging up in his tree, pouncing with +11 to hit, possibly +12 if it manages to get the high ground, and once it becomes a grapple contest, the druid's high AC becomes mostly meaningless, dire tiger becomes a more credible threat after that, or dire bears, and then legendary after they become irrelevant.

But, I mean, once you're past the levels where regular animals aren't a threat, and it's generally not feasible to constantly throw dire or legendary animals at the players unless it makes sense for the location, at that point, you're probably not traveling by foot anywhere anyway. Level 11 druids get transport via plants, level 9 wizards get teleport, so the party can generally rest in peace, and arrive at their destination unmolested anyway. So really, any discussion of resting spots beyond that don't really have a point.


Why would it be awkward to sit around the fire with the party in nonhuman form? Dogs and other pets do it all the time.

"An optimized Druid is too powerful for this party" is a valid concern. "The Druid is acting in a way that would be strange for a typical person" is not. Feeling so comfortable as a giant bat that they spend much of their time in that form seems fitting for a mystic who tries to be one with the forces of nature.

Dogs, sure, horses.. eh maybe, starting to get awkward due to size, but... a bat? A medium sized bat at that? That's starting to get awkward, they aren't ground dwellers, and their bodies don't make sitting around very comfortable or feasible.

[Kaleph]

That’s indeed the question, I’ll be having this discussion with him tomorrow to figure out how we can both agree on the way I play and if I need to amend that so that the party is more balanced in his eyes. Hopefully, we’ll reach an accord and we can get back to having fun, both the party and the DM.

That sounds cool. So it looks like you don't need this thread anymore, and anyhow the discussion already derailed into too many and too detailed sub-topics.

If you allow me a tip, drop this attitude:

Am I being odd or is he just completely unaware of how druids usually play?

That really screams like "I am the top, he's just a minor-league player, how does he dare to challenge my playstyle"'? That's not ok, because of the reasons I'll explain now.

First, you're also learning to play the class, and having read an handbook online (although admittedly a very comprehensive one) doesn't prevent you from making mistakes.

Second, unfortunately the balance within the party and between the party and the enemies is key. So you have to accept - to a certain extent - some fiat, ban, rule 0. Mind you: your DM should admit the imbalance-issue (at the moment it seems he's disguising it behind the RP-argument, but they are two separate problems) and address it with the right tools, not forbid random stuff with the excuse that "a druid wouldn't feel confortable doing that". I mean, I expect you spontaneously cast SNA, which is a druidic staple - would he really have the nerve to say that you shouldn't 'cause it doesn' fit the druid archetype? Jeeez.

Third, you should be a bit more open minded when you play. I've said you give the impression you're following instructions (I didn't say orders!), like having a one-size-fits-all to-do list, and if you're prevented from following it, you're lost. It's wrong. The to-do list is the oprimum, but you have also to improvise, develop your own strategies, think out of the box. This means, in my opinion, mastering the class, not memorizing and implementing "slavishly" a procedure. I say slavishly since I find odd that you quarrelled to ride that horse in bat form as it would have been a matter of life and death. I mean, who cares. Maybe I have a wrong view on this; maybe you were really feeling unconfortable with the loss of AC; this also denotes some lack of flexibility, though.

Side note: handbooks are good, and the routines they describe are really optimal, so in principle (save DM's ban) you have no reason not to implement them whenever practicable.

Good luck for tomorrow!

[eggynack]

But at levels 5-6ish, if we assume that they can climb, a regular tiger could easily sneak up and pounce the druid if he's hanging up in his tree, pouncing with +11 to hit, possibly +12 if it manages to get the high ground, and once it becomes a grapple contest, the druid's high AC becomes mostly meaningless, dire tiger becomes a more credible threat after that, or dire bears, and then legendary after they become irrelevant.

Even at 6, where mostly being a bat is first viable, you can run 29 AC through the bat AC plus luminous armor. Not impossible for the tiger, but the chances of missing are quite high. You also probably have reasonable perception, and an ambush is the only way this works. Even in a worst case scenario, it's not like the druid is completely absent options. You can wild shape into something that's cool with being in a grapple, especially once you get large forms, and heart of water is not an uncommon buff once you get to, say, seventh or eighth level. It's not necessarily physically impossible for the druid to get challenged by some animal if you lower the level this is happening at, assume a weirdly bad scenario, and marginally buff the animals making the attempt. Relaxing those assumptions a bit makes it pretty implausible though, and I'm hard pressed to view this as a credible downside to mostly being a bat.

[icefractal]

I'm not really in favor of "balance OP stuff by introducing supposedly-IC difficulties that in fact you would never have considered otherwise" anyway.

Good: "I don't want to have to structure all opposition around Shivering Touch; please choose a different spell."
Bad: "Well the, um ... book mites ... are attracted to you spellbook, because Shivering Touch is so tasty. And they ate it. Totally by natural consequences."

[CharonsHelper]

This sounds like an OCC issue.

Frankly - it sounds like you're dominating the table, both in power level and by summons. (Which are a hot mess - and I only allow 1/caster at my table so combat doesn't slow to a crawl.)

Don't be that guy.

Personally - I like optimizing characters. It's fun; something I enjoy.

But I still don't want to be "that guy" when it's not something that everyone else at the table enjoys. So - I optimize the crap out of sub-par concepts and/or support characters. I get the fun of optimizing without breaking ol' Will Wheaton's creed.

But I do also agree that the DM shouldn't be threatening IC issues. This is an OCC problem and should be dealt with OOC.

[Crake]

Even at 6, where mostly being a bat is first viable, you can run 29 AC through the bat AC plus luminous armor. Not impossible for the tiger, but the chances of missing are quite high. You also probably have reasonable perception, and an ambush is the only way this works. Even in a worst case scenario, it's not like the druid is completely absent options. You can wild shape into something that's cool with being in a grapple, especially once you get large forms, and heart of water is not an uncommon buff once you get to, say, seventh or eighth level. It's not necessarily physically impossible for the druid to get challenged by some animal if you lower the level this is happening at, assume a weirdly bad scenario, and marginally buff the animals making the attempt. Relaxing those assumptions a bit makes it pretty implausible though, and I'm hard pressed to view this as a credible downside to mostly being a bat.

I mean, sure, all of what you said is true, but keep in mind here that the argument isn't that the druid can't handle himself, or that the party can't come and help him, the argument is that it invites more encounters that the party has to deal with, draining them of resources that they would otherwise not have to spend.


I'm not really in favor of "balance OP stuff by introducing supposedly-IC difficulties that in fact you would never have considered otherwise" anyway.

Good: "I don't want to have to structure all opposition around Shivering Touch; please choose a different spell."
Bad: "Well the, um ... book mites ... are attracted to you spellbook, because Shivering Touch is so tasty. And they ate it. Totally by natural consequences."

As has been pointed out on more than one occasion in this thread, this is quite possibly an IC issue for the DM. I know as a DM I have no issue with players being powerful, it's when they become powerful via highly meta-gamey, and cookie cutter methods that it becomes irritating.

[icefractal]

As has been pointed out on more than one occasion in this thread, this is quite possibly an IC issue for the DM. I know as a DM I have no issue with players being powerful, it's when they become powerful via highly meta-gamey, and cookie cutter methods that it becomes irritating.I was referring more to "let's have hunters and/or wild animals appear and be super-effective" ideas and the like. But as far as "meta-gamey" ...

"A person who is thematically one with nature, and specifically has the ability to turn into animals for hours ... is turning into an animal for hours!"

IMO, that's about as meta-gamey as "This dwarven warrior ... is wearing heavy armor!"

[Crake]

I was referring more to "let's have hunters and/or wild animals appear and be super-effective" ideas and the like. But as far as "meta-gamey" ...

As I mentioned in my last post, it's not so much that the animals would necessarily be "super effective", but that more attacks would happen than normal. It wouldn't necessarily mean people dying, but less spells for the coming day, more bumps and bruises, and less nights of uninterrupted sleep.


"A person who is thematically one with nature, and specifically has the ability to turn into animals for hours ... is turning into an animal for hours!"

IMO, that's about as meta-gamey as "This dwarven warrior ... is wearing heavy armor!"

Soo, like, a tundra druid turning into a fleshraker "because it's the best"? Or in this case a druid turning into a very rare, and specifically bred bat that exists in only one place "because it's the best", rather than something more thematically fitting for their character? Personally that kind of mentality is quite irritating to me as a DM, and it's not just for druids. To me, anyone who sacrifices the integrity of their character for mechanical gains is an anathema, but as I've already stated, I'm sure there are plenty of games where people don't care about any of that, and dungeoncrash, get loot, holla dolla. All I'm doing is exploring the possibility that gasp maybe it's not about the fact that the druid is powerful, just that his habits aren't really indicative of someone making choices that their character would, but rather making choices based on optimal meta-game numbers.

For your example of the dwarven warrior, it would be like, if there was some hypothetical orcish armor that was better than full plate, and the dwarf, despite his racial hatred of the orcs, said "That armor has better stats than what I'm using, I'm gonna wear that instead".

[Zecrin]

The argument is that it invites more encounters that the party has to deal with, draining them of resources that they would otherwise not have to spend.

I feel as if you haven't established what animal would rather charge up a tree to kill a giant bat wearing blindingly bright armor as opposed to attacking a humanoid on the ground.

Furthermore, this is like saying that the ranger's animal companion (who is substantially more vulnerable looking than the druid) naturally draws in predators to attack the party. If I were a ranger who acquired a dog and the DM told me that this would "invite more encounters that the party has to deal with" I would likely feel as if I were being punished by the DM for choosing a perfectly valid character option. The reason I would feel this way is because that's exactly what's happening.

[Crake]

I feel as if you haven't established what animal would rather charge up a tree to kill a giant bat wearing blindingly bright armor as opposed to attacking a humanoid on the ground.

Well, we discussed tigers, and we've already covered the impracticalities of having luminous armor at night while trying to sleep.


Furtermore, this is like saying that the ranger's animal companion (who is substantially more vulnerable looking than the druid) naturally draws in predators to attack the party. If I were a ranger who acquired a dog and the DM told me that this would "invite more encounters that the party has to deal with" I would likely feel as if I were being punished by the DM for choosing a perfectly valid character option. The reason I would feel this way is because that's exactly what's happening.

The dog doesn't hang out on his own by himself, he stays with his master. As I've mentioned, giant bats can't very easily sit about a fireplace, and don't do well walking around on the ground, a dog can just lay right next to his master perfectly fine, and his close proximity to the human group would lead to no such extra encounters.

[Zecrin]

Well, we discussed tigers, and we've already covered the impracticalities of having luminous armor at night while trying to sleep.

The dog doesn't hang out on his own by himself, he stays with his master. As I've mentioned, giant bats can't very easily sit about a fireplace, and don't do well walking around on the ground, a dog can just lay right next to his master perfectly fine, and his close proximity to the human group would lead to no such extra encounters.

Yes we discussed tigers and concluded that one could not climb up a tree in D&D. Even if it could climb up a tree, why would it choose the BLINDINGLY bright, difficult to see target that is at the top of a tree, as opposed to the humanoids on the ground?

As you note above, I did cover the impracticalities of luminous armor.

Also, I don't believe all animal companions do stay near their masters. As a ranger who could cast speak with animals, I would often deploy my dog to scout surrounding areas. If a ranger utilized this tactic, which I think is a clever use of class features, would you actively punish them?

Finally, just because someone describes their character as a loner does not automatically mean they camp far away from the rest of the party. Character traits should not mean splitting the party.

[Crake]

As a ranger who could cast speak with animals, I would often deploy my dog to scout surrounding areas. If a ranger utilized this tactic, which I think is a clever use of class features, would you actively punish them?

I'll just leave this here... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waa2ucfgVgQ)(Short answer: yes)

[bean illus]

That’s why I eventually agreed with him and compromised on being wild shaped as an ape while riding the horse


You're correct in your assessment.. .. and I was probably too stubborn. I called it a compromise,

You seem like a nice guy. And you're close enough to right to feel right.

But it took 4 pages for you to compromise by being a bat 90% of the time, and an ape all other times. It's a (small) compromise.

How did he compromise? Did he stfu when you explained it to him?.

I'm just teasing, but really, try to see the other person's side.

I feel confident that you're going to work it out.

[eggynack]

I mean, sure, all of what you said is true, but keep in mind here that the argument isn't that the druid can't handle himself, or that the party can't come and help him, the argument is that it invites more encounters that the party has to deal with, draining them of resources that they would otherwise not have to spend.
The stuff about expending resources only happens in a really out there scenario. Most of the time you're pretty unlikely to get grappled by some errant tiger. The conditions that make it marginally plausible are not applicable here.


For your example of the dwarven warrior, it would be like, if there was some hypothetical orcish armor that was better than full plate, and the dwarf, despite his racial hatred of the orcs, said "That armor has better stats than what I'm using, I'm gonna wear that instead".
I doubt this character has racial hatred of either bats or desmodu. This isn't an out of character move. It's just not an especially in character move. It's character neutral. The only weird aspect of it is that it's a little obscure, which seems relatively minor given that the character is a nature expert.

[AnimeTheCat]

I doubt that there's an animal in the monster manual that can successfully hide from a group of high level PCs, so ambush and stealth are out of the question. There are no animals in the MM that to my knowledge have both improved grab and a climb speed, so reaching and grabbing the druid is out of the question.

Specifically the Leopard and the Constrictor Snake from MMI spring to mind for me. Both with improved grab, constrict or rake, pretty decent stealth abilities (for a ~3 HD creature), and likely predators for bats. Leopards can even advance to 4 or 5 HD without too much effort, giving them an additional ability score point (probably put in Dex) and an extra point of BAB.

[QUPTE]As for size, I don't know if animals consider effort to sustenance ratios while hunting or if they just instinctually hunt certain prey.[/QUOTE]
There certainly is natural precident for animals considering effort to substance ratios when hunting. Predators are far more likely, in any scenario, to take the easiest prey they can that will provide the most substance. Sometimes this is the young of a particular species like gazels or similar grazing creature, an sometimes it's wounded or injured prey like an elephant with a broken leg or stuck in a mud pit. Highly circumstantial all around, but definitely a relative precident for targeting low effort, high return prey.


I could defiantly see a DM ruling that its difficult to sleep in the radius of a daylight spell, but I also believe that a party frequently exposed to this bright light while sleeping could eventually adapt to it.

Now I think your shining beacon argument is pretty solid. However, a campfire is likely also visible from miles away, as is a torch, or even a candle. Unless everyone in the party has darkvision the camp is likely already a beacon of light.

The light emitted by a camp fire is very very different to that emitted by a daylight spell. Campfires emit bright light, but as a torch, and that light rapidly diminshes to shadowy illumination (30 ft I think). Luminous Armor I believe, emits light as if it's a daylight spell therefore imitating the sun, that doesn't diminish to shadowy light until after 60 feet and that extends out to 120 or more feet IIRC. Regardless, there's a big difference between the amount and intensity of the light thrown by a Luminous armor spell versus a fire.

Either source of light is likely to attract all sorts of attention, from ambushing brigands to curious animals of all kinds (squirrels, badgers, other predators). If an animal sees an opportunity to capitalize on some relatively easy prey (be it stealing the party's rations or attacking an outlier from the party that happens to look like a big juicy bat sleeping in a tree), they would likely take it or try to until it either proved too hard or the rest of the party responded.

I think, in general, I can understand both the DM and the player in this scenario. From the DM perspective, I would be (I don't know the right word. Not irritated, annoyed, or upset... maybe disappointed or dissatisfied) with the player for seeking out something so mechanically specific that it divorces the background or history of the character from the present actions, even going so far as to look for a book with a specific creature in it simply to qualify for being "familiar" with the creature. What I would have preferred, as a DM, would be:
Player - "Hey DM, I really like X creature but it's not really in-scope for my character's background."
DM - "Hmm... X creature... I'm not super familiar, let me look in to it and I'll see if we can squeeze it in for your character."
Player - "Cool, thanks!"
DM (Next session) - "You arrive in town and notice that there is a book store right next to the inn you're planning on staying at. Signs on the outside indicate that the store is 'Belvederes Bestest Bestiary' boasting 'Bargain Bucket Books' for only 2 gp each."
Player - "I go grab 5 of the bargain books"
DM - "You're grab A, B, C, D and X creature books. One of the books says that creature X is commonly found only in Y location, but sometimes exotic goods traders will bring them to this town in the summer months to trade."
Player - "oh wow, it's summer right now! I'm going to go to the trading square."
But it seems more like the exchange went like:
Player - "I want to shape shift into this creature, hey DM can I find a book with this creature in it?"
DM - "Sure, that creature is in Z book in V store"
Player - Poof I'm a bat.

One leads the player on an interesting path where they can actually experience the creature in-character and even give the DM a plot hook chance. The other doesn't develop anything and is purely mechanical in nature. In technicality, neither is wrong. I, however, would prefer giving real substance and reason to my player's (and their character's) actions.

By the same token, I can see this from the Player's perspective. After all, it seems like this all happened rather acutely. Coming to a head after some seemingly arbitrary action (from what I gather, trying to ride a smoke horse as a bat or something obscure IMO, but that's not what I'm here to talk about). If the actions up until this point weren't a problem, why is there suddenly a problem now?

I have to admit, it is harder for me to sympathize with you OP. I personally don't like my druids to shape in to creatures they haven't lived around for long periods of time. To me, it defeats the purpose of their connection and familiarity with that creature. While you have now developed an attachement to the bat and enjoy being in the bat form, you seem to have forged that connection after being able to shape in to it rather than baked it in to your character concept. At levels 5, 6, or 7 I still consider characters relatively young in their progression. Far from grand masters, they are more or less technical experts in their field. Far from all knowing in their field, but likely the best in their immediate area. I wouldn't expect a druid of that level to have forged meaningful connections and familiarity with a wide plethora of obscure creatures. I would expect this of a level 13, 14, 15 druid. If your character set out to be Ash Ketchum of D&D and you are an animal enthusiast, constantly seeking out obscure creatures and questing to study them in person, I would feel differently. It's personal taste.

Regardless of what I feel, I'm not blaming you or the DM (I blame you both as I stated earlier). No problem is really ever one-sided, there are always indicators and issues on both sides of the conflict. I do think that you could maybe pick something a little less obscure and specific to be shaped in to that your character would have been more innately familiar with (though it is a bit late for that), and I do think the DM could either give a better reason as to what may happen or just suck it up and plan encounters knowing there are going to be summons and such. For that matter, I would expect your DM to actually dig in to the adventure and edit the encounters to better challenge the group as opposed to just blurting out the text and being upset when the party squashes it.

[Blue Jay]

I was referring more to "let's have hunters and/or wild animals appear and be super-effective" ideas and the like. But as far as "meta-gamey" ...

"A person who is thematically one with nature, and specifically has the ability to turn into animals for hours ... is turning into an animal for hours!"

IMO, that's about as meta-gamey as "This dwarven warrior ... is wearing heavy armor!"

Well, aside from the fact that the desmodu hunting bat comes highly-recommended by optimizers, there are a few lore-based reasons why the desmodu hunting bat raises skepticism.

Other people have already touched on the obscurity of the creature, but I haven't seen anyone comment on the fact that desmodu bats are not wild animals that live natural lives in the wilderness: they're domesticated livestock specially bred by desmodus. So it's kind of like trying to claim that your druid is getting in touch with nature by turning into a Holstein cow, or a white leghorn rooster, or a wiener dog.

It's pretty obvious that the mechanics are the real reason for choosing the desmodu hunting bat form, and that the "kinship with nature" theme is a post hoc rationalization. So in principle, it's really no different from the DM's spurious argument about how "real druids" behave: they're both making up in-character excuses when the real reasons are out-of-character matters. Neither party has any kind of "moral high ground" in this discussion, so the only question is whether they can find a compromise that leaves them both reasonably happy.

[noob]

Well, aside from the fact that the desmodu hunting bat comes highly-recommended by optimizers, there are a few lore-based reasons why the desmodu hunting bat raises skepticism.

Other people have already touched on the obscurity of the creature, but I haven't seen anyone comment on the fact that desmodu bats are not wild animals that live natural lives in the wilderness: they're domesticated livestock specially bred by desmodus. So it's kind of like trying to claim that your druid is getting in touch with nature by turning into a Holstein cow, or a white leghorn rooster, or a wiener dog.

It's pretty obvious that the mechanics are the real reason for choosing the desmodu hunting bat form, and that the "kinship with nature" theme is a post hoc rationalization. So in principle, it's really no different from the DM's spurious argument about how "real druids" behave: they're both making up in-character excuses when the real reasons are out-of-character matters. Neither party has any kind of "moral high ground" in this discussion, so the only question is whether they can find a compromise that leaves them both reasonably happy.

I would see well an urban druid turning into a cow
Now the thing is that urban druids are horribly restrained on their picks and so can not decide "now I will turn into a cow" or "now I turn into a desmodu hunting bat"

[Aelar]

Well I talked to my DM today and we’ve reached a good compromise. He didn’t have a problem with me optimizing my spells or summons but the main issue he has was with being wild shaped all the time. Regardless of whether or not I’m in bat form. Our compromise was this, when I go to towns or when were on a long way traveling I won’t be wild shaped.

What happened when we started playing today proved my point quite painfully. We were in Sigil trying to get to a portal, I wasn’t wild shaped as part of our deal. When suddenly we were ambushed by a bunch of aberrations that I don’t know their name and a Nycaloth. I did some damage to the Nycaloth and it was knocked to the ground from where it was flying. We didn’t see where it fell but when he came back he was pissed and he came right at me. He swung his great axe and with a critical hit dropped me to -10. My face went white and I said “I’m dead!?”. To this the DM responded with a smile, well your Druid is RIP. Luckily I remembered I had a magical item that stabilizes me automatically if dropped to -10 and thus I was spared. I was seriously shocked by this. I’ve never come this close to dying in this character. The next day, I looked at the DM and told him that my character was still in shock from yesterday and thus wild shaped immediately in the morning, he agreed that this was quite appropriate now.

TL;DR I didn’t wild shape at the start of the day, was hit with so much damage I was literally at -10 but managed to be stabilized nonetheless.

[RoboEmperor]

Well I talked to my DM today and we’ve reached a good compromise. He didn’t have a problem with me optimizing my spells or summons but the main issue he has was with being wild shaped all the time. Regardless of whether or not I’m in bat form. Our compromise was this, when I go to towns or when were on a long way traveling I won’t be wild shaped.

What happened when we started playing today proved my point quite painfully. We were in Sigil trying to get to a portal, I wasn’t wild shaped as part of our deal. When suddenly we were ambushed by a bunch of aberrations that I don’t know their name and a Nycaloth. I did some damage to the Nycaloth and it was knocked to the ground from where it was flying. We didn’t see where it fell but when he came back he was pissed and he came right at me. He swung his great axe and with a critical hit dropped me to -10. My face went white and I said “I’m dead!?”. To this the DM responded with a smile, well your Druid is RIP. Luckily I remembered I had a magical item that stabilizes me automatically if dropped to -10 and thus I was spared. I was seriously shocked by this. I’ve never come this close to dying in this character. The next day, I looked at the DM and told him that my character was still in shock from yesterday and thus wild shaped immediately in the morning, he agreed that this was quite appropriate now.

TL;DR I didn’t wild shape at the start of the day, was hit with so much damage I was literally at -10 but managed to be stabilized nonetheless.

It's not appropriate now. It has always been appropriate. Just like how casting mage armor at the start of the day is appropriate being in a harder to kill wildshape form all day is just as appropriate.

Like i said in the first page, any DM that cries because a player decides to use his 1hour/day defensive buff at the start of the day is a terrible DM. If my character died because my DM didn't let me use my defensive buff and if the DM smiled afterwards I would've been physically violent.

I will repeat my suggestion that you leave this table. If you didn't have that magic item, how do you think you'd be feeling right now? Your character died because the DM forced you to do something you didn't want to do and then he took advantage of that to kill you. There is a 100% chance this guy will do something like this again in the future so rather than investing anymore time in the table only to get royally ****ed, I suggest you cut your losses now and find a better DM.
{Scrubbed}

[Remuko]

Well I talked to my DM today and we’ve reached a good compromise. He didn’t have a problem with me optimizing my spells or summons but the main issue he has was with being wild shaped all the time. Regardless of whether or not I’m in bat form. Our compromise was this, when I go to towns or when were on a long way traveling I won’t be wild shaped.

What happened when we started playing today proved my point quite painfully. We were in Sigil trying to get to a portal, I wasn’t wild shaped as part of our deal. When suddenly we were ambushed by a bunch of aberrations that I don’t know their name and a Nycaloth. I did some damage to the Nycaloth and it was knocked to the ground from where it was flying. We didn’t see where it fell but when he came back he was pissed and he came right at me. He swung his great axe and with a critical hit dropped me to -10. My face went white and I said “I’m dead!?”. To this the DM responded with a smile, well your Druid is RIP. Luckily I remembered I had a magical item that stabilizes me automatically if dropped to -10 and thus I was spared. I was seriously shocked by this. I’ve never come this close to dying in this character. The next day, I looked at the DM and told him that my character was still in shock from yesterday and thus wild shaped immediately in the morning, he agreed that this was quite appropriate now.

TL;DR I didn’t wild shape at the start of the day, was hit with so much damage I was literally at -10 but managed to be stabilized nonetheless.

ive been staying out of this conversation, but lurking and reading but holy crap that session after your "agreement" with the DM sends up TONS of RED FLAGS for me.

[Aelar]

It's not appropriate now. It has always been appropriate. Just like how casting mage armor at the start of the day is appropriate being in a harder to kill wildshape form all day is just as appropriate.

Like i said in the first page, any DM that cries like a baby because a player decides to use his 1hour/day defensive buff at the start of the day is a terrible DM. If my character died because my DM didn't let me use my defensive buff and if the DM smiled afterwards I would've been physically violent.

I will repeat my suggestion that you leave this table. If you didn't have that magic item, how do you think you'd be feeling right now? Your character died because the DM forced you to do something you didn't want to do and then he took advantage of that to kill you. There is a 100% chance this guy will do something like this again in the future so rather than investing anymore time in the table only to get royally ****ed by a *censored*, I suggest you cut your losses now and find a better DM.

{scrubbed}

If he just said something like: what!? Are you sure? what happened was still terrible but would've made sense. That smile and his remark was the most disconcerting thing that has happened at this table. I thought we were good after the conversation. I don't know what to think now...I'm seriously considering your advice right now.


ive been staying out of this conversation, but lurking and reading but holy crap that session after your "agreement" with the DM sends up TONS of RED FLAGS for me.

I know! I mean, I can't even look at him the same way after this...

[Tallyn]

If he just said something like: what!? Are you sure? what happened was still terrible but would've made sense. That smile and his remark was the most disconcerting thing that has happened at this table. I thought we were good after the conversation. I don't know what to think now...I'm seriously considering your advice right now.



I know! I mean, I can't even look at him the same way after this...

Be careful about taking advice from RoboEmperor. Based on his posts, he'd not be allowed at 90+% of gaming tables I know that are run. (Sorry no offense RoboEmperor, but you have a VERY particular playstyle, and a very strong opinion that you must be allowed to play how you want to)

Aelar, your GM probably just wanted an in game reason of why you were wildshaped ALL the time previously (You probably could have sated this by having a backstory for your character). And now, he's provided you with one.. a near death experience when you weren't prepared.. so if the GM asks why you're wildshaped all the time now, it'll be because the time you nearly died.

[Psyren]

Wild shape into something obscure I could maybe see an issue with, but dictating no wild shape at the start of the day at all is the DM telling you how to play your character, and I wouldn't stand for it.

[Tallyn]

The designers intentionally made wildshape 1hour/level so you can be an animal 24/7 for a reason.



Well, actually no you can't. Not for a while when you first get wildshape.

Btw, I don't like adversarial GMs, but your tone almost always comes off as super adversarial as a player. You know, the GMs are supposed to have fun too, they aren't robots at your service to produce the game you want to play. The game is a cooperative event between the players and the GM (the game the GM wants to run, and the game the players want to play)

[RoboEmperor]

Be careful about taking advice from RoboEmperor. Based on his posts, he'd not be allowed at 90+% of gaming tables I know that are run. (Sorry no offense RoboEmperor, but you have a VERY particular playstyle, and a very strong opinion that you must be allowed to play how you want to)

Aelar, your GM probably just wanted an in game reason of why you were wildshaped ALL the time previously (You probably could have sated this by having a backstory for your character). And now, he's provided you with one.. a near death experience when you weren't prepared.. so if the GM asks why you're wildshaped all the time now, it'll be because the time you nearly died.

No hard feelings. I know my playstyle isn't for everyone which is why I always have a thorough interview with the DM before I join. One of the reasons I post my build online is so I can simply show it to my new DM and we can go over everything and see if he has a problem with something. And if he has a problem with something I can't part with we say our good byes.

My current DM made a mistake and didn't know how powerful my build was and we had a talk session about it. I was upset because I was upfront about it from level 1, I think i even threw a tantrum, but he was right. I was too OP and he made a mistake of allowing me into his table. After a few days I cooled off and I could see clearly that I was 100% in the wrong and I apologized to him. I made a weaker character and we're still together ever since. I still apologize to him. When he says "I know you're ticked because I made you switch characters" i respond by saying "No, you did nothing wrong, I was the bad guy here 100% and I'm thankful, not ticked off, because you didn't kick me and tried to keep me from leaving."

I respect this DM a lot. I think it's a miracle that I found him. But the OP's DM does not remind me of this awesome DM. He reminds me of scrub DMs who cried everything was OP and house ruled everything on a whim because they didn't want to learn how to deal with normal things within the rules, like you're supposed to. Long duration wildshape is NORMAL.

[Tallyn]

No hard feelings. I know my playstyle isn't for everyone which is why I always have a thorough interview with the DM before I join. One of the reasons I post my build online is so I can simply show it to my new DM and we can go over everything and see if he has a problem with something. And if he has a problem with something I can't part with we say our good byes.

My current DM made a mistake and didn't know how powerful my build was and we had a talk session about it. I was upset because I was upfront about it, I think i even threw a tantrum, but he was right. I was too OP and he made a mistake of allowing me into his table. After a few days and I cooled off I could see clearly I was in the wrong and I apologized to him and I made a weaker character and we're still together ever since. I still apologize to him. When he says "I know you're ticked because I made you switch characters" i respond by saying "No, you did nothing wrong, I was the bad guy here 100% and I'm thankful, not ticked off, because you didn't kick me and tried to keep me from leaving."

I respect this DM a lot. I think it's a miracle that I found him. But the OP's DM does not remind me of this awesome DM. He reminds me of scrub DMs who cried everything was OP and house ruled everything on the whim because he didn't want to learn how to deal with normal things. Long duration wildshape is NORMAL.

Yeah finding a good GM is hard. Sometimes being a good GM and finding good players can be hard too.

I feel bad for Aelar, because from the way he described it, the GM was just looking to catch him with a "gotcha" moment, or to "own" him for an encounter... which can be an adversarial play style. And given the power the GM has, he can definitely win any encounter with a player (thus there is a big responsibility for the GM to be as impartial as he can) There is a big difference between this and between wanting to challenge the PCs and not have them walk all over your encounters.

[Aelar]

Be careful about taking advice from RoboEmperor. Based on his posts, he'd not be allowed at 90+% of gaming tables I know that are run. (Sorry no offense RoboEmperor, but you have a VERY particular playstyle, and a very strong opinion that you must be allowed to play how you want to)

Aelar, your GM probably just wanted an in game reason of why you were wildshaped ALL the time previously (You probably could have sated this by having a backstory for your character). And now, he's provided you with one.. a near death experience when you weren't prepared.. so if the GM asks why you're wildshaped all the time now, it'll be because the time you nearly died.

I don’t think I’ll leave the table but I still need more time to process it, because I’m still sorta overwhelmed by what happened.

The thing is, I don’t think he knew that I had that item, so he couldn’t have planned on this being the case. It’s true that now I have an in game reason but I mean, I’ve had near death experiences before I started wild shaping so I think I had an in game reason before but not in his eyes, I guess

[Tallyn]

What happened when we started playing today proved my point quite painfully. We were in Sigil trying to get to a portal, I wasn’t wild shaped as part of our deal. When suddenly we were ambushed by a bunch of aberrations that I don’t know their name and a Nycaloth. I did some damage to the Nycaloth and it was knocked to the ground from where it was flying. We didn’t see where it fell but when he came back he was pissed and he came right at me. He swung his great axe and with a critical hit dropped me to -10. My face went white and I said “I’m dead!?”. To this the DM responded with a smile, well your Druid is RIP. Luckily I remembered I had a magical item that stabilizes me automatically if dropped to -10 and thus I was spared. I was seriously shocked by this. I’ve never come this close to dying in this character. The next day, I looked at the DM and told him that my character was still in shock from yesterday and thus wild shaped immediately in the morning, he agreed that this was quite appropriate now.


Well Nycaloths can fly... so a critical hit from his axe (x3 multiplier), even when you were in bat form most likely would have downed you. But your description leads me into another point...

Wait a minute... when you say you were in "Sigil"... you mean like the City of Doors from Planescape? To me, all bets are off if you're talking about the Planescape setting, being wildshaped all the time seems appropriate, because if you're plane hopping, anything can happen at any time. I was previously viewing your stories as if you were on a relatively normal material plane.

I still think your GM is probably looking for RP/in character reasons for why your character is taking in game actions probably. Hopefully not just looking to punish you for his own amusement. Good luck.

[RoboEmperor]

Yeah finding a good GM is hard. Sometimes being a good GM and finding good players can be hard too.

I feel bad for Aelar, because from the way he described it, the GM was just looking to catch him with a "gotcha" moment, or to "own" him for an encounter... which can be an adversarial play style. And given the power the GM has, he can definitely win any encounter with a player (thus there is a big responsibility for the GM to be as impartial as he can) There is a big difference between this and between wanting to challenge the PCs and not have them walk all over your encounters.

If the OP's DM said "I have no idea how to hurt your PC. Your PC is just too strong for me." I wouldn't be as aggressive as I have been in this thread. Because optimized druids are often too powerful for CR-appropriate creatures and it's normal for new DMs to not be able to handle that.

But he didn't. He said "Your character should be in his vulnerable human form 100% of the time because I say so". Anyone who says this is a terrible DM.

Now someone posted in this thread that in the heat of the moment the DM could've been simply momentarily irrational. That's more than reasonable so I held my tongue. But now he immediately used this opportunity to kill the OP's PC. You can't tell me this DM isn't a horrible DM.


Wild shape into something obscure I could maybe see an issue with, but dictating no wild shape at the start of the day at all is the DM telling you how to play your character, and I wouldn't stand for it.

I agree.

[Tallyn]

If the OP's DM said "I have no idea how to hurt your PC. Your PC is just too strong for me." I wouldn't be as aggressive as I have been in this thread. Because optimized druids are often too powerful for CR-appropriate creatures and it's normal for new DMs to not be able to handle that.

But he didn't. He said "Your character should be in his vulnerable human form 100% of the time because I say so". Anyone who says this is a terrible DM.

Now someone posted in this thread that in the heat of the moment the DM could've been simply momentarily irrational. So I held my tongue. But now he immediately used this opportunity to kill the OP's PC. You can't tell me this DM isn't a horrible DM.

I also missed how he was in "Sigil"... which unless the GM has another city named Sigil, is the City of Doors in the Planescape setting, and thus all kinds of precautionary measures would be appropriate.

I want to give some benefit of the doubt towards his DM as I've only seen a small amount of what he has done, but, yeah, I'm starting to get a little suspicious of him (the DM). Perhaps he is new-ish and needs to learn what an appropriate role for a DM is (and what isn't)

[Segev]

Sounds like the experiment I suggested almost got your PC killed: sorry about that. That said...it definitely was a successful experiment. It revealed exactly what it was designed to: whether the DM was trying to "get" you or just didn't like it, aesthetically.

He's absolutely trying to get you. He wanted your druid dead. He's also kind-of foolish for punishing you for, essentially, compromising with him.

I'd quit the game, personally, but I know that sometimes people don't like that idea. If you stay in it, play how you want to. I would expect him to keep trying to screw you over, though, assuming your story as you tell it is really what happened. (Not accusing you of lying; people are naturally biased and we only have your side of the story, here.)

It definitely sounds like he wants your druid dead and out of the game. Though...there is also resurrection magic, so even killing somebody isn't a guarantee you want them out of the game, as a DM, especially if you guys are 9th level or higher.

[Aelar]

Well Nycaloths can fly... so a critical hit from his axe (x3 multiplier), even when you were in bat form most likely would have downed you. But your description leads me into another point...

Wait a minute... when you say you were in "Sigil"... you mean like the City of Doors from Planescape? To me, all bets are off if you're talking about the Planescape setting, being wildshaped all the time seems appropriate, because if you're plane hopping, anything can happen at any time. I was previously viewing your stories as if you were on a relatively normal material plane.

I still think your GM is probably looking for RP/in character reasons for why your character is taking in game actions probably. Hopefully not just looking to punish you for his own amusement. Good luck.


I also missed how he was in "Sigil"... which unless the GM has another city named Sigil, is the City of Doors in the Planescape setting, and thus all kinds of precautionary measures would be appropriate.

I want to give some benefit of the doubt towards his DM as I've only seen a small amount of what he has done, but, yeah, I'm starting to get a little suspicious of him (the DM). Perhaps he is new-ish and needs to learn what an appropriate role for a DM is (and what isn't)

Yes, that Sigil :) and this was no random encounter, they were looking for my party specifically since we killed some giants and took their demon slaying bow. I don’t get why he didn’t hint that this was not the place to socialize and I should probably be wild shaped.

[Tallyn]

Yes, that Sigil :) and this was no random encounter, they were looking for my party specifically since we killed some giants and took their demon slaying bow. I don’t get why he didn’t hint that this was not the place to socialize and I should probably be wild shaped.

Sigil is a very potentially dangerous place. Nevermind my earlier stuff about the city, seems like the Lady of Pain will usually only get involved if the balance or city itself is threatened..

Good luck! Planescape was one of my favorite settings (although I didn't do all the fancy "berk" lingo and stuff), and there are plenty of ways to challenge PCs in that setting, both martially, and mentally without having to resort to "gotcha" moments.

[Aelar]

Sigil is a very potentially dangerous place. Were you in the city itself? The Lady of Pain usually responds VERY negatively, and VERY quickly to anyone attacking anyone in that place (if I'm remembering correctly, probably been 20+ years since I've played in that setting). And in that place, her power is near absolute. From the ambush in the city, I'm not sure he (the DM) is very familiar with the setting either.

Good luck! Planescape was one of my favorite settings (although I didn't do all the fancy "berk" lingo and stuff), and there are plenty of ways to challenge PCs in that setting, both martially, and mentally without having to resort to "gotcha" moments.

We killed the giants in another plane and then went back to Sigil. Except for a few dabus that were starting to act antsy, we weren’t agitating the environment there too much.

[Aelar]

Sounds like the experiment I suggested almost got your PC killed: sorry about that. That said...it definitely was a successful experiment. It revealed exactly what it was designed to: whether the DM was trying to "get" you or just didn't like it, aesthetically.

He's absolutely trying to get you. He wanted your druid dead. He's also kind-of foolish for punishing you for, essentially, compromising with him.

I'd quit the game, personally, but I know that sometimes people don't like that idea. If you stay in it, play how you want to. I would expect him to keep trying to screw you over, though, assuming your story as you tell it is really what happened. (Not accusing you of lying; people are naturally biased and we only have your side of the story, here.)

It definitely sounds like he wants your druid dead and out of the game. Though...there is also resurrection magic, so even killing somebody isn't a guarantee you want them out of the game, as a DM, especially if you guys are 9th level or higher.

It’s ok, it’s not your fault. I probably should have told him before that since this is Sigil, I would be wild shaped all the time.

The experiment was a success but I don’t know if I like the results since now the likelihood of him wanting and/or tring to kill me is higher.

I would have eventually been resurrected after the battle but losing a level would’ve sucked.

[gogogome]

It’s ok, it’s not your fault. I probably should have told him before that since this is Sigil, I would be wild shaped all the time.

Why do you have to justify use of your own class feature to your DM? If I want to cast a spell, I cast it. I don't have to justify it to the DM.

I agree with every single other poster here. You should leave.

[Psyren]

Well, actually no you can't. Not for a while when you first get wildshape.

Not 24/7 - but when you first get it it lasts 5 hours. That's a big chunk of the adventuring day already - you don't have to sleep as a bear after all. The very next level you can be shapeshifted for a combined 12 hours per day. The level after that, total of 21 hours/day. So I don't think spending more of your adventure wildshaped than not is unreasonable at all.

[Tallyn]

Why do you have to justify use of your own class feature to your DM? If I want to cast a spell, I cast it. I don't have to justify it to the DM.

I agree with every single other poster here. You should leave.

Sometimes the DM will ask for an in character reason for certain behaviors, so they can understand your character better, or when you are acting outside of your normal behavior at times.

Also, leaving is only a good option if he has other available games to play in. If he's in an area that another group is not easily available, he may want to stick it out and try and work things out with his DM (and hopefully make the DM better in the long run as well)

[bean illus]

Well I talked to my DM today and we’ve reached a good compromise. , ... and a Nycaloth. I did some damage to the Nycaloth ... when he came back ... he came right at me. He swung a with a critical hit dropped me to -10. ... I had a magical item that stabilizes me automatically ...


Nothing about this sounds malicious. DMs don't crit at will.
It just sounds like an ironic moment, and near death roll. I would have rolled my eyes with a nervous smile also, if I was the DM.



My current DM made a mistake and didn't know how powerful my build was and we had a talk session about it. I ... think i even threw a tantrum, but he was right. I was too OP and ... After a few days I cooled off and I could see clearly that I was 100% in the wrong ... we're still together ever since ...

"No, you did nothing wrong, I was the bad guy here 100% and I'm thankful, not ticked off, because you didn't kick me and tried to keep me from leaving.".

Great story. Thanks.


I don’t think I’ll leave the table but I still need more time to process it, because I’m still sorta overwhelmed by what happened.


Do yourself a favor, and try not to make too much of it.


. . But now he immediately used this opportunity to kill the OP's PC. You can't tell me this DM isn't a horrible DM.

Oh, BS. If your DM wanted you dead, you would be dead.

Honestly, folks.

[gogogome]

Sometimes the DM will ask for an in character reason for certain behaviors, so they can understand your character better, or when you are acting outside of your normal behavior at times.

That's explanation not justification. If I have the Summon Elemental Reserve feat, I don't have to justify to my DM if I decide to summon an elemental every 6 seconds. It's my ability. I use it however I want.


Also, leaving is only a good option if he has other available games to play in. If he's in an area that another group is not easily available, he may want to stick it out and try and work things out with his DM (and hopefully make the DM better in the long run as well)

No gaming is better than bad gaming. This is bad gaming. The OP has expressed grievance with this DM twice. He will continually experience more grievances because this is bad gaming.

[Tallyn]

No gaming is better than bad gaming. This is bad gaming. The OP has expressed grievance with this DM twice. He will continually experience more grievances because this is bad gaming.

How do bad DMs, become mediocre, then good, then great? It takes time and experience, and sometimes someone to point out that they are screwing up. If nothing else, it sounds like the DM is making some rookie mistakes to me

[Psyren]

How do bad DMs, become mediocre, then good, then great? It takes time and experience, and sometimes someone to point out that they are screwing up. If nothing else, it sounds like the DM is making some rookie mistakes to me

Sometimes losing a player is the only way to realize how bad you are though, and improve.

I do agree with trying to make a change, but that has limits too. Some players/DMs are simply incompatible, just like any relationship. I don't think this is necessarily at that point yet, but red flags are red flags.

[gogogome]

How do bad DMs, become mediocre, then good, then great? It takes time and experience, and sometimes someone to point out that they are screwing up. If nothing else, it sounds like the DM is making some rookie mistakes to me

That's only true if the person wants to improve. People say "People don't change" for a reason. If you think you're in the right, would you change? Another question, when do bad DMs ever think they're not in the right?

I admire your attitude and I'd welcome someone like you at my table. But most aren't like you. One of the reasons I became a DM myself is because I couldn't find a decent DM.

[Psyren]

That's only true if the person wants to improve. People say "People don't change" for a reason. If you think you're in the right, would you change? Another question, when do bad DMs ever think they're not in the right?

I admire your attitude and I'd welcome someone like you at my table. But most aren't like you. One of the reasons I became a DM myself is because I couldn't find a decent DM.

I think it's quite a stretch to say that "most" DMs are like the OP's.

[Tallyn]

That's only true if the person wants to improve. People say "People don't change" for a reason. If you think you're in the right, would you change? Another question, when do bad DMs ever think they're not in the right?

I admire your attitude and I'd welcome someone like you at my table. But most aren't like you. One of the reasons I became a DM myself is because I couldn't find a decent DM.

I was a horrible DM when I was younger... BUT, it wasn't in the adversarial style. I was the monty haul GM.. I gave them too many items, too much power, and advanced things too quickly. I wanted my players to be powerful, and to feel powerful. And to do epic and memorable things.

Unfortunately, I didn't realize at the time that pacing and timing are key to giving rewards, and to make things truly memorable, there must be good challenges for the players to overcome... it can't be too easy. The storytelling aspect was always my strength, I didn't have a problem with that at all.

Still, I cherish the early experiences. I had a group of characters I was running in AD&D that killed Hastur at level 12ish... I look back and wonder WTF I was doing lol

[NichG]

This situation strikes me as awkward on both sides. Saying 'your character wouldn't do X' is really bad form. But at the same time, saying 'I don't care about the fiction layer, the rules say I can do this so I'm doing it' is also IMO bad form. Making a compromise in the form of taking a requested action without feeling it doesn't really resolve the denial of the fiction layer, and using the compromise as an opportunity to take a pot shot like that just totally justifies the initial statement of 'the fiction layer doesn't matter, I'm just going to do mechanically powerful things' - because it indicates there is no slack to do otherwise and not just be put in bad situations.

I'd tell the DM: "If you want someone to care about the fiction layer, give them a positive reason to do so. Don't punish them, don't threaten them, don't try to order them around. It doesn't work, it gets them to resent you, and generally speaking its a jerk move."

I'd tell the player: "The DM is being petty and you shouldn't have to put up with that. So don't, and make sure you tell them that explicitly and calmly. But, for the future, doing mechanically potent things just because they're mechanically potent is boring for everyone else at the table, and breaks immersion. Try to care about the fiction you're presenting, and take it equally seriously as the mechanics. At the very least, you can play your character as bat-obsessed and sort of stuck in bat psychology mode for laughs rather than saying e.g. 'obviously every druid does this, this is just normal and it has no psychological effects'."

[RoboEmperor]

Some players/DMs are simply incompatible.

This. You (Tallyn) mentioned my playstyle and how 90% of the games that you know of won't accept me right? That's an example right there.

I only care about three things: powerful minionmancy of a robot-looking creature, independence from civilization (being reliant on gold, shops, crafting materials I can't find in the wild, etc), and lasting all day. None of this 5min adventuring day crap.

So if you won't let me create a powerful long lasting minion without expending gold even though I found many, many, many ways to accomplish this then nothing in the world would get me to join your table because playing a standard BFC spellcaster is torture for me, and there's no way a DM is gonna turn his game into a chore just to accommodate me. So never being together is the correct solution here.

edit: This seems off-topic. I was saying OP should leave because the OP's DM is horrible and is sporting a mountain of red flags.

[gogogome]

I think it's quite a stretch to say that "most" DMs are like the OP's.

If the definition of "most DMs" is ones found on this forum, maybe. Some I'd like to play with, some I don't.

If the definition of "most DMs" is the ones found online at sites like roll20, it's not a stretch. It's apt.

If the definition of "most DMs" is ones found in real life, I can't say. I only met one DM in real life and he was great but a sample size of one isn't a good survey.

[Psyren]

If the definition of "most DMs" is ones found on this forum, maybe. Some I'd like to play with, some I don't.

If the definition of "most DMs" is the ones found online at sites like roll20, it's not a stretch. It's apt.

If the definition of "most DMs" is ones found in real life, I can't say. I only met one DM in real life and he was great but a sample size of one isn't a good survey.

I'm more than a little doubtful that you have a survey of roll20 DMs or DMs on these forums either, but this is getting off-topic.

Point for the OP is, nothing wrong with having a playstyle difference or attempting to reconcile them, but the extremes (doing nothing for a long period of time or trying to change them for a long period of time should be avoided.)

[Segev]

I'll just note that the DM's actions here also seem counter-productive: he is said to want the druid in wild shape less often, and yet his actions have encouraged the druid to be, if anything, more paranoid about being caught out of wild shape.

[sorcererlover]

{scrubbed}

[Kaleph]

Well I talked to my DM today and we’ve reached a good compromise. He didn’t have a problem with me optimizing my spells or summons but the main issue he has was with being wild shaped all the time. Regardless of whether or not I’m in bat form. Our compromise was this, when I go to towns or when were on a long way traveling I won’t be wild shaped.

What happened when we started playing today proved my point quite painfully. We were in Sigil trying to get to a portal, I wasn’t wild shaped as part of our deal. When suddenly we were ambushed by a bunch of aberrations that I don’t know their name and a Nycaloth. I did some damage to the Nycaloth and it was knocked to the ground from where it was flying. We didn’t see where it fell but when he came back he was pissed and he came right at me. He swung his great axe and with a critical hit dropped me to -10. My face went white and I said “I’m dead!?”. To this the DM responded with a smile, well your Druid is RIP. Luckily I remembered I had a magical item that stabilizes me automatically if dropped to -10 and thus I was spared. I was seriously shocked by this. I’ve never come this close to dying in this character. The next day, I looked at the DM and told him that my character was still in shock from yesterday and thus wild shaped immediately in the morning, he agreed that this was quite appropriate now.

TL;DR I didn’t wild shape at the start of the day, was hit with so much damage I was literally at -10 but managed to be stabilized nonetheless.

Well, at least now you verified that he was actually punishing you; his psychology seems very easy to me: he was feeling his leadership endangered by you/your PC and abused his authority as a master to own you. If this is true, he's behaved veeeeeery childish.

Strategically, he also made a mistake since he didn't really solve any problem - now you have a realistic legitimation to always stay wildshaped, even when it would feel awkward or unconfortable, which apparently was what he wanted to prevent. So the whole scene is pointless.
Personally I just had ruled that the pearl of speach doesn't confer an animal the ability to speak (RAI it's an acceptable interpretation), and leave you the responsibility to decide if you prefer to stay morphed and do nothing during social interactions, or you want to play instead.

You behaved perfectly: you owed an explanation to him, you gave him one.
Now he does owe one to you; you shouldn't just let the thing go, you should address it with him. Even if he would now let you use your favored mechanics without interference, this doesn't justify the direction he gave to the game lately.
Explain him you found the last session unfair (I guess you do), and allow him to justify himself and/or to make amend. Hopefully, after he has established again his ego, he is now able to switch back to a reasonable behavior (and what I mean has not that much to do with D&D, I'm talking about basic human relationships). And if not, then you have to make up your mind.

[Crake]

Well I talked to my DM today and we’ve reached a good compromise. He didn’t have a problem with me optimizing my spells or summons but the main issue he has was with being wild shaped all the time. Regardless of whether or not I’m in bat form. Our compromise was this, when I go to towns or when were on a long way traveling I won’t be wild shaped.

What happened when we started playing today proved my point quite painfully. We were in Sigil trying to get to a portal, I wasn’t wild shaped as part of our deal. When suddenly we were ambushed by a bunch of aberrations that I don’t know their name and a Nycaloth. I did some damage to the Nycaloth and it was knocked to the ground from where it was flying. We didn’t see where it fell but when he came back he was pissed and he came right at me. He swung his great axe and with a critical hit dropped me to -10. My face went white and I said “I’m dead!?”. To this the DM responded with a smile, well your Druid is RIP. Luckily I remembered I had a magical item that stabilizes me automatically if dropped to -10 and thus I was spared. I was seriously shocked by this. I’ve never come this close to dying in this character. The next day, I looked at the DM and told him that my character was still in shock from yesterday and thus wild shaped immediately in the morning, he agreed that this was quite appropriate now.

TL;DR I didn’t wild shape at the start of the day, was hit with so much damage I was literally at -10 but managed to be stabilized nonetheless.

What I don't understand about this story is... why didn't you wildshape after being ambushed? As a DM, I can understand the sentiment of not wanting you to be wildshaped 24/7 because it's so alienating to the point where you'd basically just be an NPC tagging along, but, like, there's no reason to not change once you're ambushed.

Also, yeah, I'll echo the sentiment that if you're doing a planes hopping adventure, staying wildshaped isn't such an issue, considering how weird stuff gets on the planes, and how many planar creatures have telepathy anyway, most of the points raised become irrelevant.

[eggynack]

What I don't understand about this story is... why didn't you wildshape after being ambushed? As a DM, I can understand the sentiment of not wanting you to be wildshaped 24/7 because it's so alienating to the point where you'd basically just be an NPC tagging along, but, like, there's no reason to not change once you're ambushed.
A standard action is decidedly not nothing in a combat situation. Using wild shape may have been tactically optimal, but it also may have not been.

[Crake]

A standard action is decidedly not nothing in a combat situation. Using wild shape may have been tactically optimal, but it also may have not been.

I mean, I guess that's true, and the crit may well have confirmed against the druid in Wild shape if it had attacked from invis, negating a pretty decent chunk of the desmodu's AC from dex, but I mean, if the attack would have crit and killed anyway, then it's not really a gotcha?

In fact, the little item that saved him by stablizing him may well have not activated while he was wildshaped unless he had a wilding clasp on it, so it could very well be the fact that he WASN'T wildshaped that saved him from death?

[Divine Susuryu]

He swung his great axe and with a critical hit dropped me to -10. My face went white and I said “I’m dead!?”. To this the DM responded with a smile, well your Druid is RIP. Luckily I remembered I had a magical item that stabilizes me automatically if dropped to -10 and thus I was spared.

That's a flag big and red enough that you could pop some stars on it and fly it above a Chinese embassy. I had previously been assuming that there was some reason like "It interferes with my mental picture of the game world and breaks my immersion all the time" or "The rest of the party is feeling like you take all the spotlight by being wildshaped at all times". But if he's wanting you to not wildshape just so he can have a cheap "haha gotcha your buffs aren't up" moment, then why not just have the party attacked in their sleep?

[Aelar]

What I don't understand about this story is... why didn't you wildshape after being ambushed? As a DM, I can understand the sentiment of not wanting you to be wildshaped 24/7 because it's so alienating to the point where you'd basically just be an NPC tagging along, but, like, there's no reason to not change once you're ambushed.

Also, yeah, I'll echo the sentiment that if you're doing a planes hopping adventure, staying wildshaped isn't such an issue, considering how weird stuff gets on the planes, and how many planar creatures have telepathy anyway, most of the points raised become irrelevant.


A standard action is decidedly not nothing in a combat situation. Using wild shape may have been tactically optimal, but it also may have not been.

Our tank was getting hit pretty badly so I didn’t think I should wild shape as I was before him in the initiative and the monsters’ initiative was before the tank’s. I figured I should probably do my best to distract the really strong monster flying above. Also, as this was Sigil, I couldn’t summon anything so I figured let’s try to get it to take damage and fail some save that would knock him out for a round or more. It backfired completely because the Nycaloth went straight at me afterwards. I didn’t wild shape before because in a previous round, out tank suggested that I should wild shape to the bat form but the DM responded told him, do you really think he should get up closer to this monster in the sky...

[Aelar]

I mean, I guess that's true, and the crit may well have confirmed against the druid in Wild shape if it had attacked from invis, negating a pretty decent chunk of the desmodu's AC from dex, but I mean, if the attack would have crit and killed anyway, then it's not really a gotcha?

In fact, the little item that saved him by stablizing him may well have not activated while he was wildshaped unless he had a wilding clasp on it, so it could very well be the fact that he WASN'T wildshaped that saved him from death?

I don’t think he intended for that specific hit to kill me, the crit was just chance. However, if I were hit and reduced below 0 while wild shaped I would’ve reverted back to my normal form without dying at all. Unless, the monster deals like 200 damage at once, which isn’t possible for an encounter of this level as far I know.

[Melcar]

Well I talked to my DM today and we’ve reached a good compromise. He didn’t have a problem with me optimizing my spells or summons but the main issue he has was with being wild shaped all the time. Regardless of whether or not I’m in bat form. Our compromise was this, when I go to towns or when were on a long way traveling I won’t be wild shaped.

What happened when we started playing today proved my point quite painfully. We were in Sigil trying to get to a portal, I wasn’t wild shaped as part of our deal. When suddenly we were ambushed by a bunch of aberrations that I don’t know their name and a Nycaloth. I did some damage to the Nycaloth and it was knocked to the ground from where it was flying. We didn’t see where it fell but when he came back he was pissed and he came right at me. He swung his great axe and with a critical hit dropped me to -10. My face went white and I said “I’m dead!?”. To this the DM responded with a smile, well your Druid is RIP. Luckily I remembered I had a magical item that stabilizes me automatically if dropped to -10 and thus I was spared. I was seriously shocked by this. I’ve never come this close to dying in this character. The next day, I looked at the DM and told him that my character was still in shock from yesterday and thus wild shaped immediately in the morning, he agreed that this was quite appropriate now.

TL;DR I didn’t wild shape at the start of the day, was hit with so much damage I was literally at -10 but managed to be stabilized nonetheless.

It comes across like he's a douche... but since I don't know him I obviously cant say for sure. I, however, concur with people here. It seems like punishment for being wildshaped too much (in his view). I would probably retire that character and maybe pick up the game again at either a later date, or when a new game had formed!

[MeimuHakurei]

I agree with the posters saying the DM isn't someone you should stay with any longer, but I would actually go a step further than assuming he is an inexperienced killer DM - if he was that, he'd have overpowered and beat down the druid already. What he did was catching the druid with their buffs down, such that the situation can be spun to be the player's mistake rather than him being unfair.

The DM knew exactly what he was doing - powertripping and controlling the plot while making the players think they're the ones being problematic.

[Crake]

I don’t think he intended for that specific hit to kill me, the crit was just chance. However, if I were hit and reduced below 0 while wild shaped I would’ve reverted back to my normal form without dying at all. Unless, the monster deals like 200 damage at once, which isn’t possible for an encounter of this level as far I know.

Umm.. it sounds like you're using 5e wildshape rules maybe? In 3.5, wildshape doesn't give you any extra HP whatsoever. If something were to kill you in your normal form, it would kill you in wild shape too. Wildshape also doesn't revert at 0 hp, it reverts upon death, so you would die, wildshape would revert, and your stabilizing item wouldn't be able to work because you're already dead.

[Aelar]

Umm.. it sounds like you're using 5e wildshape rules maybe? In 3.5, wildshape doesn't give you any extra HP whatsoever. If something were to kill you in your normal form, it would kill you in wild shape too. Wildshape also doesn't revert at 0 hp, it reverts upon death, so you would die, wildshape would revert, and your stabilizing item wouldn't be able to work because you're already dead.
That’s what my DM told me when I first started wild shaping, if I get to 0 hp while wild shaping I revert back to my normal form but with the same HP I had before I wild shaped. If I wild shaped back to that form later, I would start with 0 hp for that form. I guess he got the rules wrong.

Now that I’m googling this myself, most of the results you get back are indeed about 5e. I think he checked it online himself and didn’t realize the wrong version. This came up the first time I dropped below 0hp, which has happened only once while wild shaped.

This may be a non RP reason of why he disliked wild shaping all the time so much.

[Crake]

That’s what my DM told me when I first started wild shaping, if I get to 0 hp while wild shaping I revert back to my normal form but with the same HP I had before I wild shaped. If I wild shaped back to that form later, I would start with 0 hp for that form. I guess he got the rules wrong.

yeah, that's 5e wildshaping. I don't know if your DM intentionally made that a house rule, or if he's just unaware of how 3.5 wildshaping functions, but that may also be a contributing factor to the issue at hand. Getting an extra giant pool of hp every time you wildshape is not factored into the game's design. Wildshaping itself gives you some hp back (to be specific, you get back a night's rest worth of hp, which by default is hp equal to your level, though there are some feats that increase your passive healing which would increase this healing), but it doesn't grant you a separate pool of hp for your form.

Edit: Wait, that whole "If I wild shaped back to that form later, I would start with 0 hp for that form." part isn't from 5e, I have no idea where that part came from, but yeah, none of that is how 3.5 wildshape works.

[Aelar]

yeah, that's 5e wildshaping. I don't know if your DM intentionally made that a house rule, or if he's just unaware of how 3.5 wildshaping functions, but that may also be a contributing factor to the issue at hand. Getting an extra giant pool of hp every time you wildshape is not factored into the game's design. Wildshaping itself gives you some hp back (to be specific, you get back a night's rest worth of hp, which by default is hp equal to your level, though there are some feats that increase your passive healing which would increase this healing), but it doesn't grant you a separate pool of hp for your form.

Edit: Wait, that whole "If I wild shaped back to that form later, I would start with 0 hp for that form." part isn't from 5e, I have no idea where that part came from, but yeah, none of that is how 3.5 wildshape works.

Wow, that’s quite enlightening. At least we played it based on 3.5 rules all this time essentially, because I was wild shaped all the time and when I got hit, I healed after the battle just the same. I didn’t revert back to normal form to get extra hp or something. That one time when I dropped below 0hp, I was healed ASAP so I never actually used the wrong rules. So at least that’s good. I’ll obviously follow the correct rules from now on.

[Crake]

I’ll obviously follow the correct rules from now on.

Well, I'd recommend double checking with your DM to make sure he wasn't using an intentional houserule, but yeah, if not, then you should definitely read up on the rules of wildshaping just so you know exactly how they all work.

[bean illus]

Well, we seem to be working towards solutions.

But the fact that the poster knows more about the optimization handook and the best wildshapes ... than he/she knows about The Basic Wildshape Rules on healing/etc ... does imply some things.

[Kyberwulf]

I just want to say, on the subject of Player "Agency".

No, it's not just "your" character. That you can do just what you want.

There are other players at the table. That' means it's a social game, and you have to take your selfish desires out of the game. Not only is the DM a player in the game, the other PCs are there too.

This whole Idea of, Well without me, the GM doesn't have a game. Is ludicrous, Without you he has the other players, who seem to be enjoying his DMing? Not only that, without him, and HIS world, you also wouldn't have a game.

Personally, I think this is Player entitlement. From the sounds of it, He started arguing with the DM over something that he thought should be right. The Smoke horse. When that escalated to bad feelings. The DM used that to poke back at the Entitled player. Which then the player wasn't able to really admit he could have been in the wrong in the first place. He then goes to a Message board that is, as far as I can see mostly, very vocally in favor of PCs. They sit there and stroke his ego about how he is in the right, and that the big bad dm shouldn't be forcing things down his throat. It's also not right to think, just because you went to the internet and got a guide, that that gives you some right to argue with a DM. Sure in a vacuum, it might be right. In the DM's world that might not be the case. I mean, sure he should have told you that in his world it's weird to be Shapeshifted all day. Yet, at the beginning of the game I don't know if he thought that was going to be a problem. I mean at this point I don't see how the DM can do anything without it turning into, "The DM is harassing me for not playing his way". When it could be that it is just weird to have a Giant bat in your party. Even in a Magical world, I don't see how that is just.... normal. There should be TONS of social situations where that is a negative.

I don't see how people on this thread can really give proper advice for conflict resolution. We are only being given one biased side of a story here. Some of the advice on here is horrible. I mean to sit there and say, what he thinks doesn't matter, it's YOUR character. I mean, if he wants to go down that road then he shouldn't be surprised if the DM pushes back. That is one game he isn't going to win.

[eggynack]

This whole Idea of, Well without me, the GM doesn't have a game. Is ludicrous, Without you he has the other players, who seem to be enjoying his DMing? Not only that, without him, and HIS world, you also wouldn't have a game.

This is not why the player has primary agency over the actions of their character. The actual reason is that players having control of their characters is essentially the entire point of the game. The DM has massive control over what goes on in the universe. They control the environment, the NPC's, and even the rules. The player's job is literally only to control what their character does and says, and the DM infringing on this is a bad thing.


Even in a Magical world, I don't see how that is just.... normal. There should be TONS of social situations where that is a negative.
Then let it be negative. If, in this universe, being a bat in social situations causes people to be mean to you, then have the people be mean. It's really as simple as that. You don't communicate that the villagers hate bats by forcibly transforming the character back to the original form. You communicate it by having the villagers hate bats.

[Divine Susuryu]

I just want to say, on the subject of Player "Agency".

Okay, stop right here. The DM has control over the whole game world. The players only have control over their characters. Take that away, and you have one person playing a game while the others watch. That's why player agency is important.


There are other players at the table. That' means it's a social game, and you have to take your selfish desires out of the game. Not only is the DM a player in the game, the other PCs are there too.

Yes, and he's also a player, and his feelings matter too. They're exactly as valid as the feelings of everyone else.


This whole Idea of, Well without me, the GM doesn't have a game. Is ludicrous, Without you he has the other players, who seem to be enjoying his DMing? Not only that, without him, and HIS world, you also wouldn't have a game.

This illustrates my point - the DM already controls the whole game world! Why allow him to also control the one and only thing that you are allowed to play with?


Personally, I think this is Player entitlement.

Yes, he actually is entitled to control of his character and deciding how he wants to play it. The DM can and should enforce logical, in-universe consequences for that, or have an out of character dicussion about the type of game they're playing, but he can't simply say "I don't like it, stop it" on it's own.


He then goes to a Message board that is, as far as I can see mostly, very vocally in favor of PCs.

Yes, because, as I've said a bunch of times already, the DM already controls the rest of the game world. The PCs have only a tiny sliver of agency at all compared to that, and you are suggesting that even that is too much.


I mean to sit there and say, what he thinks doesn't matter, it's YOUR character. I mean, if he wants to go down that road then he shouldn't be surprised if the DM pushes back. That is one game he isn't going to win.

And that doesn't strike you as an unreasonable use of the DM's power in a game? At all?

[Selion]

I'm joining late to the discussion, I haven't read everything, I'm sorry about redundancy with other posts if any.
I think that both you and your DM are half-right half-wrong, a RPG is not a winnable game, but a cooperative narrative experience, so what it is fine on a table may be inapplicable in other game groups, depending on players' expectations.
Your DM should have talked to you more clearly, because it appears obvious to me that his argument about your druid behavior is just an excuse, the real problem is likely that your permanent wild shape ruined the game atmosphere, the game balance or both. A better call may have been that you can wild shape only to creatures you are familiar with (if you don't know anything on pandas' existence you cannot wildshape in a panda), but this is hardly the point.
So, have a little talk with your DM and your gaming group, is playing your character this way a funny addition to the game or he's just mechanically efficient?
Note that in some tables efficiency is the key word, so your play-stile would have been welcome, but usually a group of 5-6 persons is not homogeneous so it's required to compromise someway.

As a suggestion if you want to keep playing this way, make it interesting, roleplay around some ideas: why do you like to be a very peculiar bat all the time? Is it because your character is a strategy perfectionist or does him have poor eyesight and have become addicted to the heightened senses of this creature? What side-effects have your bestial life? Maybe you could eat a fly while in human form, accustomed to your new diet, you could have become light sensitive because you are now more prone to the nocturnal life, and so on.

On the other side your DM should have a similar approach: a player is acting in a way i don't like, what can i do to make it interesting for both of us? What if in my world setting it happened that shapechangers couldn't revert on their natural shape after a long period in the shape of another beast? Is this character behavior respectful of nature? Why? What could go wrong? And then answer with actual game events, not with hollow threats! One day you are out of spell, or you cannot revert back in human form, or in human form you have a bat resemblance, what do you do?

[noob]

One day you are out of spell, or you cannot revert back in human form, or in human form you have a bat resemblance, what do you do?
First case: you are still tier 3.
Second case: great now you have a justification to never take back human form.
Third case: You can now moan about discrimination together with the drow adventurer and the cyborg adventurer which is a plus.

[gooddragon1]

Yes, because, as I've said a bunch of times already, the DM already controls the rest of the game world. The PCs have only a tiny sliver of agency at all compared to that, and you are suggesting that even that is too much.


WotC has an edition of DnD to accommodate many different play styles. 5e does well to accommodate DM's who prefer this sort of play style and players who prefer it. It's not better or worse, just different.

[RoboEmperor]

WotC has an edition of DnD to accommodate many different play styles. 5e does well to accommodate DM's who prefer this sort of play style and players who prefer it. It's not better or worse, just different.

One is saying "I want to control everything but because I couldn't program an AI I recruited people to do as they're told under false pretenses."
The other is saying "I want to have a couple of unknowns have free reign over my world and I want my world to react to that"

One goes like "Your character wouldn't do that. He would give up all of his money to atone for killing a goblin without trying to diplomacy it first because that's what lawful characters do, even if you're lawful evil. Lawful means you follow an honor code. So your character gives all his gold to the temple to atone."

The other goes "Oh so you guys didn't try to take the goblin alive and question him? Alright."

So one is clearly worse than the other. I'm not doubting some DMs prefer this style. I'm saying these DMs should not be inflicted on other players, especially new players.

[Crake]

Yes, he actually is entitled to control of his character and deciding how he wants to play it. The DM can and should enforce logical, in-universe consequences for that, or have an out of character dicussion about the type of game they're playing, but he can't simply say "I don't like it, stop it" on it's own.

I don't think it's that cut and dry tbh. Players do stupid things sometimes, and I think part of the DM's job is to say no when a player does something super metagamey. Otherwise you get the first DND episode of community.


One is saying "I want to control everything but because I couldn't program an AI I recruited people to do as they're told under false pretenses."
The other is saying "I want to have a couple of unknowns have free reign over my world and I want my world to react to that"

One goes like "Your character wouldn't do that. He would give up all of his money to atone for killing a goblin without trying to diplomacy it first because that's what lawful characters do, even if you're lawful evil. Lawful means you follow an honor code. So your character gives all his gold to the temple to atone."

The other goes "Oh so you guys didn't try to take the goblin alive and question him? Alright."

So one is clearly worse than the other. I'm not doubting some DMs prefer this style. I'm saying these DMs should not be inflicted on other players, especially new players.

Saying no to something isn't the same as dictating what the character should do. One eliminates one option, the other eliminates all but one option.

[RoboEmperor]

Saying no to something isn't the same as dictating what the character should do. One eliminates one option, the other eliminates all but one option.

I don't disagree with this but I don't see how that is relevant. I was responding to someone who was saying a playstyle where the DM tells the player how to play his character is just different instead of strictly worse.

[Crake]

I don't disagree with this but I don't see how that is relevant. I was responding to someone who was saying a playstyle where the DM tells the player how to play his character is just different instead of strictly worse.

Because I don't believe gooddragon1 was at all talking about total control over a character. I mean, if the DM is dictating how the character is being played in it's totality, then it's not really the player's character anyway, but I don't believe for a second that any such DM exists that enacts that level of control over a player's character.

[Mechalich]

I don't think it's that cut and dry tbh. Players do stupid things sometimes, and I think part of the DM's job is to say no when a player does something super metagamey. Otherwise you get the first DND episode of community.

It's absolutely part of a GMs job to houserule and otherwise make rulings regarding abilities that prove to be unworkable - whether by being OP, taking too much time to handle at the table, being thematically derailing, or otherwise - in the game. Ideally, this would be something the GM would do when a player suggests doing something and not after they've been doing it for a while. Unfortunately, especially in a game with 3.X's mechanical complexity, the GM simply may not know that something is going to be an issue until after it's been in play for several sessions. A GM will often go through a process like: 'huh, well that was weird, but maybe it was just this encounter', 'nope, that's just really powerful, but what if I try this soft counter', 'crap, that didn't work either and this is going to wreck my next month's worth of plans, what do I do now?'

Without a very high level of mechanical mastery by the GM, a 3.X D&D campaign is particular vulnerable to a player making a single build choice and the GM having to make hundreds of adjustments to re-work everything in light of that choice. This can also happen the other way, wherein a GM idly plans to use some group of monsters only to discover the party is wholly unequipped to handle them.

This is a game flaw that is sufficiently embedded into the system it can affect even professionally published games like Pathfinder: Kingmaker that game takes a huge turn the minute the Wild Hunt shows up in the final chapter, because the resources to fight them are very different than all the conventional melees leading up to it and it tends to create out-of-character conflict as a result.

[Ashtagon]

Given how happy the GM seemed to be at near-killing the character after coming to that compromise, I'd be asking the GM upfront if he engineered that encounter to create a backstory reason why the druid was wildshaping constantly. Any answer other than "yes, that was my plan" would probably result in me leaving the game, or at least losing all personal investment in it.

[Psyren]

Given how happy the GM seemed to be at near-killing the character after coming to that compromise, I'd be asking the GM upfront if he engineered that encounter to create a backstory reason why the druid was wildshaping constantly. Any answer other than "yes, that was my plan" would probably result in me leaving the game, or at least losing all personal investment in it.

I mean, even that answer wouldn't be particularly appealing to me; it's basically saying "I felt your character needed to be traumatized to justify this, so I took the liberty of arranging a scenario, you're welcome!" It's pretty squicky behavior, and that's the best case.

[RoboEmperor]

{Scrubbed}

[Crake]

{Scrubbed}

The first example was just the DM saying "Don't do that" rather than "Do this". The second example, well, if it's a custom pantheon, I as a DM would make sure the player actually properly understands the faith he's following before even allowing a player to play a paladin or cleric. They are devout followers, and thus would follow their code of conduct strictly. If they didn't then they wouldn't be particularly devout, and would never have gotten their powers from their god to begin with, so it's kinda a catch22, if they don't follow the code of conduct literally religiously, then their character shouldn't really exist in the first place, because they didn't follow their code of conduct religiously, and thus never got rewarded with divine powers. The third example of the OP is one I've experienced where it's less "your character wouldn't disconnect himself from physical life like this" and it's more "If your character disconnected himself from physical life like this, the people you're adventuring with would have no in-character reason to really continue travelling with you after their immediate goal, get out of wildshape and do some character development".

The cleric/paladin example is the closest you described to a controlling DM, but if you play a devout follower of a pantheon, you have to adhere to the DM's worldview, so you're just asking for that. Everything else was just the DM saying "Don't do that" rather than "Do this specific thing".

[ZamielVanWeber]

The cleric/paladin example is the closest you described to a controlling DM, but if you play a devout follower of a pantheon, you have to adhere to the DM's worldview, so you're just asking for that. Everything else was just the DM saying "Don't do that" rather than "Do this specific thing".

If the DM's interpretation of a code and yours differ and the DM asserts his absolute will that is a controlling DM. If there are fundamental misunderstandings (take any code of office/religious code and see how radically people interpret [fundamentally] identical texts) then the two groups should discuss it like adults.

Consider: does a paladin have to follow a lawful evil society's law? One may say "yes" and seek to enact good works within the bounds of that society. Another may argue "no" because the perversion of laws used to acquire power in that society means that the laws are invalid, yet another may say "no" because the laws of man and inferior to deific law and it is only the laws and mandates of their god their are concerned with, and doubly yet another could say "no" because their code places good as the highest pinnacle and they just need to make sure they don't blow up society in the process of reforming it. None of those is intrinsically wrong but will definitely lead to wildly different outcomes if DM and player don't agree on them and thus the two need to work out, OOC, what is appropriate and not.

Clerics have such broad codes of conduct that I cannot readily see a DM and player have a reasonable disagreement over it; someone is likely very wrong.

[Kyberwulf]

See the thing wrong with that, is that you are choosing to play in those worlds. You pick those characters and then decide to try be a rebel?

I don't understand how you can't see what you are suggesting isn't just as bad as what you are advocating against.

A "Controlling" DM is just the same as a Player that is ripping a prebuilt character off the web and getting angry that the game isn't going the way the guide said it would. A Player getting angry that the world isn't adhering to the way that makes their min/maxing work out.

You saying a Player has the right to only be the one that affects their characters action, is like a DM that says their word is law in their world.

Being a good player,(either a PC, or DM) requires you to make what you wanted, let go at the game and just see where it takes you.



I can see the DMs point. A Druid that chooses to remain in animal form isn't really being a good Druid. It's disrespecting Nature, by not appreciating the fact that they were given the body of human(or whatever they started as) and living in another form entirely. A Druid is suppose to protect and advocate for nature. You can't do that if you are stuck in a Bat form for the entire time. You are abusing the gifts Nature has given you to live out some power-fantasy. IT would be entirely within the DMs purview to revoke the gifts Nature has given this Druid, for a short period of time. Being the follower of Nature doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want. It is a calling that has deity, just as following St. Cuthbert, Wee Jas, or Helm has rules.

You can try point to mechanics to justify the behavior of the player. The point however, is that the DM is suppose to be the arbiter of rules that aren't written down. I would put forth that since Nature can't talk for itself in the rules, that the DM has to step in and stop the abuse.

Remember, A "Railroading" Dm, is just the same as a Player that thinks they own and control their character. Both are bad Players.

[sorcererlover]

{Scrubbed}

[Crake]

If the DM's interpretation of a code and yours differ and the DM asserts his absolute will that is a controlling DM. If there are fundamental misunderstandings (take any code of office/religious code and see how radically people interpret [fundamentally] identical texts) then the two groups should discuss it like adults.

Consider: does a paladin have to follow a lawful evil society's law? One may say "yes" and seek to enact good works within the bounds of that society. Another may argue "no" because the perversion of laws used to acquire power in that society means that the laws are invalid, yet another may say "no" because the laws of man and inferior to deific law and it is only the laws and mandates of their god their are concerned with, and doubly yet another could say "no" because their code places good as the highest pinnacle and they just need to make sure they don't blow up society in the process of reforming it. None of those is intrinsically wrong but will definitely lead to wildly different outcomes if DM and player don't agree on them and thus the two need to work out, OOC, what is appropriate and not.

Clerics have such broad codes of conduct that I cannot readily see a DM and player have a reasonable disagreement over it; someone is likely very wrong.

{Scrubbed} In dnd, the gods literally tell their followers what to do, there's no room for interpretation. If you interpret something in a twisted way for your own benefit, your god doesn't care about your interpretation, he just smites you, or strips you of your power. Thus, there's no interpretation bar the god's interpretation. And the DM controls the god. Thus there's no interpretation bar the DM's interpretation. If you don't like the DM's interpretation, don't play a religious character, it's that simple.

[eggynack]

I don't understand how you can't see what you are suggesting isn't just as bad as what you are advocating against.

A "Controlling" DM is just the same as a Player that is ripping a prebuilt character off the web and getting angry that the game isn't going the way the guide said it would. A Player getting angry that the world isn't adhering to the way that makes their min/maxing work out.

But the player isn't doing that. They're not using their fancy build and seeing it fail to function. They're using their fancy build, the build is functioning to the player's satisfaction, and the DM is trying to restrict the character's actions in an out of character sense. The essential framing you've presented indicates that the DM is being super jerky, because they're being controlling and you view that as equivalent to some petulant player who's angry their build hasn't worked out, but the player isn't doing this, so the DM is blatantly in the wrong.


You saying a Player has the right to only be the one that affects their characters action, is like a DM that says their word is law in their world.
Yes. This is exactly what I said. The player is the only one who should control their character, and the DM is the only one who determines how the world functions. Wouldn't it be weird to you if someone demanded authority over how an NPC reacts to something?



I can see the DMs point. A Druid that chooses to remain in animal form isn't really being a good Druid. It's disrespecting Nature, by not appreciating the fact that they were given the body of human(or whatever they started as) and living in another form entirely. A Druid is suppose to protect and advocate for nature. You can't do that if you are stuck in a Bat form for the entire time. You are abusing the gifts Nature has given you to live out some power-fantasy. IT would be entirely within the DMs purview to revoke the gifts Nature has given this Druid, for a short period of time. Being the follower of Nature doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want. It is a calling that has deity, just as following St. Cuthbert, Wee Jas, or Helm has rules.
This seems like an absurd reading of all involved game objects. It's disrespecting nature to use your nature granted abilities a lot? How does that make sense. Is using any druid ability against nature because you're disrupting the world you were given? Using wild shape is not some disruption of nature. It gets you closer to nature. That's why druids can do it. Why can't you protect and advocate for nature while being a bat? The entire point of being a bat is that it makes you really good at doing stuff, nature protection included. And you seem to think that the player is being bat primarily because the character just has a lot of fun being a bat, living out some fantasy, but think that this super in character reasoning should be disrupted?

[RoboEmperor]

The first example was just the DM saying "Don't do that" rather than "Do this". The second example, well, if it's a custom pantheon, I as a DM would make sure the player actually properly understands the faith he's following before even allowing a player to play a paladin or cleric. They are devout followers, and thus would follow their code of conduct strictly. If they didn't then they wouldn't be particularly devout, and would never have gotten their powers from their god to begin with, so it's kinda a catch22, if they don't follow the code of conduct literally religiously, then their character shouldn't really exist in the first place, because they didn't follow their code of conduct religiously, and thus never got rewarded with divine powers. The third example of the OP is one I've experienced where it's less "your character wouldn't disconnect himself from physical life like this" and it's more "If your character disconnected himself from physical life like this, the people you're adventuring with would have no in-character reason to really continue travelling with you after their immediate goal, get out of wildshape and do some character development".

The cleric/paladin example is the closest you described to a controlling DM, but if you play a devout follower of a pantheon, you have to adhere to the DM's worldview, so you're just asking for that. Everything else was just the DM saying "Don't do that" rather than "Do this specific thing".

Out of curiosity, would you defend a DM saying this?


I can see the DMs point. A Druid that chooses to remain in animal form isn't really being a good Druid. It's disrespecting Nature, by not appreciating the fact that they were given the body of human(or whatever they started as) and living in another form entirely. A Druid is suppose to protect and advocate for nature. You can't do that if you are stuck in a Bat form for the entire time. You are abusing the gifts Nature has given you to live out some power-fantasy. IT would be entirely within the DMs purview to revoke the gifts Nature has given this Druid, for a short period of time. Being the follower of Nature doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want. It is a calling that has deity, just as following St. Cuthbert, Wee Jas, or Helm has rules.

[zergling.exe]

Yes. This is exactly what I said. The player is the only one who should control their character, and the DM is the only one who determines how the world functions. Wouldn't it be weird to you if someone demanded authority over how an NPC reacts to something?

Important, the DM says how druids work, so can say that prolonged use of wild shape is against nature. Every world is different, and some character concepts just don't work in a given world.

[Divine Susuryu]

Important, the DM says how druids work, so can say that prolonged use of wild shape is against nature. Every world is different, and some character concepts just don't work in a given world.

Then why not say that instead of whining how "real" D&D druids work? Maturely discussing what is and isn't appropriate in a given campaign is DMing 101.

An example I had in PF recently in character generation - I have a soul knife with the War Soul archetype, Discipline Blade Shapes, and Fool's Errand. This means that I can shape my mind blade into any weapon at all RAW. But because I was discussing which weapons would be appropriate for the setting, the DM said ahead of time that firearms and technological weapons don't exist in this setting, and also siege engines would be silly.

No passive aggression, no whining, no telling me how a "real" soul knife is played, no attempts to kill off my character by insisting I don't use my abilities, just a discussion of what works in the world and what doesn't.

If the DM in question here actually said ahead of time "Hey guys, just so you know, in this world, druids staying wildshaped long-term is against nature", then there wouldn't be a problem. If his concern was purely power level, he could have taken the player aside and said "Look, your character overshadows the rest of the party, can you lessen the wildshaping please?" then I'd be on the DM's side. If he'd applied stiff penalties to diplomacy or started NPCs off a step more hostile if the druid was in a particularly ugly form, again, I'd take his side. Hell, if he'd just taken the player aside and said "The way you play your character totally breaks my immersion, can you tone it down or change it please?", I'd at least get it - I'd probably rather leave a game if that was said to me, but it wouldn't be on bad terms.

But what did he do? Generic "but you wouldn't do that" whining and then smugly near killing the character after insisting that he doesn't use this (coincidentally defensively useful) ability. No matter how you spin it, that's nowhere near as conducive to a good game as any of the options I listed above.

[gooddragon1]

I was just trying to be conciliatory. I can't really say much about the approaches as I have never encountered a DM as described. It's just that in the past I'd criticized 5e for its approach and wanted to move past it a bit.

[icefractal]

I can see the DMs point. A Druid that chooses to remain in animal form isn't really being a good Druid. It's disrespecting Nature, by not appreciating the fact that they were given the body of human(or whatever they started as) and living in another form entirely. A Druid is suppose to protect and advocate for nature. You can't do that if you are stuck in a Bat form for the entire time. You are abusing the gifts Nature has given you to live out some power-fantasy. IT would be entirely within the DMs purview to revoke the gifts Nature has given this Druid, for a short period of time. Being the follower of Nature doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want. It is a calling that has deity, just as following St. Cuthbert, Wee Jas, or Helm has rules.
Obviously this is a matter of opinion, but the above sounds flat-out bizarre to me. IMO, a Druid who refuses to channel nature unless they absolutely need to, who lives in a way indistinguishable from a non-Druid until a fight starts ... *that's* the Druid whose commitment is questionable, if anyone's is.

I know that the "use magic as little as possible" mind-set has precedent (Gandalf), but it's only one perspective, and not any 'better' than others.

I usually see it more like being an artist. If you spend your life studying something, presumably you *like* doing that thing. If an artist doesn't even sketch without being paid, we don't think "What a wise artist, truly they respect art." We might think they're cynical and jaded, or have lost their inspiration, or some misfortune has made it painful to create, but in any case it's basically a negative thing.

[Zecrin]

Important, the DM says how druids work, so can say that prolonged use of wild shape is against nature. Every world is different, and some character concepts just don't work in a given world.

1. The player's handbook says how the Druid works, not the DM.
2. Did the player "cease to revere nature, change to a prohibited alignment, or teach the Druidic language to a nondruid?" I thinks not.
3. If you want to tell a player that they disrespected nature by wild shaping this =/= ceasing to revere nature; only if the player themselves stops "feel[ing] great respect or admiration" for nature do they become an ex-druid. If you are telling a character how to feel as a DM, then you have, in my mind, crossed a line.
4. If the DM wants to make a homebrew adjustment to the rules, they ought tell players about their adjustment before characters are rolled.

[Crake]

Out of curiosity, would you defend a DM saying this?

Personally, no, I don't believe staying in wildshape all day is necessarily an affront to nature. In fact, I would see it as rather standard druid behaviour (though the OP's chosen form is highly suspect, as others have noted, the desmondu bat is a humanoid-made abomination, kinda like a mule is a donkey-horse abomination made by humans). The issue for me would be less the whole, staying it wildshape all day, and more the whole alienating yourself from all others bit. Of course, in my world, druids are known for their isolationist nature (no pun intended), and thus it's very hard to justify a druid adventurer in the first place, and as such, unless the circumstance actually allows, I just don't let players play a druid. In games where the players roam about, and spend most of their time hunting for fame and fortune, there's practically no place for a druid, though in a game that's focused around a specific location, like a town, or a valley, then it's much easier to justify a druid as living there and being tasked with the protection of that land.

This is all based around the interpretation I have of druids in my campaign setting. They are staunch protectors of nature, and they defend their territory fiercely. They do not wander off and travel the land aimlessly just appreciating nature, and they do not go off on adventures, unless the adventure hook specifically threatens the balance of nature, like a corruption spreading across the land, or a lich building an undead army.

I of course understand that other DMs or other settings may have vastly different ideas on what roles druids play, but that's their role in my setting, and I have, on more than one occasion, disallowed them to be played in games because it would just make no sense, much to one of my player's chagrin, he absolutely loves druids.


Important, the DM says how druids work, so can say that prolonged use of wild shape is against nature. Every world is different, and some character concepts just don't work in a given world.

This right here. I had a player literally come up to me once, saying they wanted to play some kind of zen, enlightened character, that was aware of some higher existence or afterlife, I can't remember the exact details, and I told them "No, the afterlife, deities and cosmology of this setting are all already defined, you can THINK that, but it won't be true."


1. The player's handbook says how the Druid works, not the DM.
2. Did the player "cease to revere nature, change to a prohibited alignment, or teach the Druidic language to a nondruid?" I thinks not.
3. If you want to tell a player that they disrespected nature by wild shaping this =/= ceasing to revere nature; only if the player themselves stops "feel[ing] great respect or admiration" for nature do they become an ex-druid. If you are telling a character how to feel as a DM, then you have, in my mind, crossed a line.
4. If the DM wants to make a homebrew adjustment to the rules, they ought tell players about their adjustment before characters are rolled.

{scrubbed} The DM is the ultimate arbiter of how things function in his setting. Sometimes not everything can be explicitly laid out to the player beforehand, it's not always something that's in the forefront of the DM's mind, or it might not be readily available information to the players. Also, disrespecting something is the direct opposite of revering it, you can't revere something and disrespect it at the same time. Literally, you're saying "disrespect" is not mutually exclusive with "respect".

Also, why do people emphasize homebrew, like it's a dirty thing? I don't get it.


Obviously this is a matter of opinion, but the above sounds flat-out bizarre to me. IMO, a Druid who refuses to channel nature unless they absolutely need to, who lives in a way indistinguishable from a non-Druid until a fight starts ... *that's* the Druid whose commitment is questionable, if anyone's is.

I don't quite agree. The idea of not using your power unless the balance is disturbed makes total sense for a druid. If you constantly use your power to safeguard nature, then you're babying the inhabitants of nature and they won't ever learn to fend for themselves, and you make nature reliant on you. Now, it's not an idea I align with, but I can understand where a DM might be coming from, and if a DM imposed that rule for his setting, I wouldn't complain, I would take it as a roleplaying challenge, or if I wasn't in the mood for a challenge, I would just play something different. As a friend of mine once said "When playing religious characters, you don't play your ideal of the religion, you play the DM's".

[Zecrin]

This literally made me cringe with how entitled it is. The DM is the ultimate arbiter of how things function in his setting. Sometimes not everything can be explicitly laid out to the player beforehand, it's not always something that's in the forefront of the DM's mind, or it might not be readily available information to the players. Also, disrespecting something is the direct opposite of revering it, you can't revere something and disrespect it at the same time. Literally, you're saying "disrespect" is not mutually exclusive with "respect".

Entitled to what? Using the the player's handbook to debunk a claim which you yourself would not defend? Truly, there's no need for name-calling. We are currently discussing who is in the right, player or hypothetical DM.

"The DM is the ultimate arbiter of how things function in his setting"

Yes but, a good DM does not:
A. Change the rules on players mid-way through a campaign
B. Tell a player how to feel.

In this hypothetical, the DM is forced to do one of the following, making this a bad DM choice.

If the rules of his or her setting as they affect a character do not come to a DM's mind until halfway through a campaign, they are, in my mind, likely not a good DM.

If a DM deliberately does not make information that pertains to a core mechanic utilized by a player available, then they are, in my mind, not a good DM.

I mean I guess you could call me "entitled" to what I consider a good DM? But I think this is a slippery slope, as you could stave off any criticism of a DM's actions this way.

Also, in any religion, just because you sin against, or disrespect, a deity, does not mean you cease to revere that deity. For example, if your holy scripture says "thought shall not eat meat," and you eat meat, you don't automatically cease to have love and respect for your god. This is especially true when a player doesn't feel as if wild shaping/eating meat disrespects nature/their god, because reverence is about feelings. Not the feelings of the thing being revered but the feelings of the one doing the revering.

Finally, I emphasize "homebrew" for the same reason I emphasize "player's:" because I'm trying to use these words to bolster my argument and not because I think either are dirty. In the case of homebrew, I emphasize the word specifically because its expected that a DM may enforce the Rules as Written at any time. Homebrew on the other hand, is, in my opinion and I suspect several other's, a different animal. You generally don't spring it on your players especially when it has serious repercussions on a player character's viability. You can do this. But in my opinion when a DM does this, they are in the wrong.

I say this as someone who mostly DMs and loves homebrew :)

[eggynack]

Important, the DM says how druids work, so can say that prolonged use of wild shape is against nature. Every world is different, and some character concepts just don't work in a given world.
{Scrubbed} That's not what the DM is doing though. They are saying, "It's weird that you're playing the character this way. Play it different." Such a position isn't really acceptable. It's of note that, when Kyberwulf was asserting this issue with wild shape, they were arguing from the perspective that this would be consistent with the game as it stands. Which it isn't. Hence my argument there was structured around how the rule fails to fit with the logic of the game, the logic of the situation, and the logic of the DM making the rule, rather than asserting outright that the DM lacks this authority.

Edit:

I don't quite agree. The idea of not using your power unless the balance is disturbed makes total sense for a druid. If you constantly use your power to safeguard nature, then you're babying the inhabitants of nature and they won't ever learn to fend for themselves, and you make nature reliant on you.
I think you've missed the point on this one. They weren't asserting that the druid would use their power to constantly baby nature. Just that they would use their power with some frequency, because the power is nature and they love nature. It's about being a bat all the time for the love of being a bat, because being a bat is great, as opposed to holding that ability back for when nature is threatened. The druid's magic is an art, and it is a good art, so it shouldn't be held back from the universe to be used only in times of gravest need.

[Divine Susuryu]

This literally made me cringe with how entitled it is. The DM is the ultimate arbiter of how things function in his setting. Sometimes not everything can be explicitly laid out to the player beforehand, it's not always something that's in the forefront of the DM's mind, or it might not be readily available information to the players. Also, disrespecting something is the direct opposite of revering it, you can't revere something and disrespect it at the same time. Literally, you're saying "disrespect" is not mutually exclusive with "respect".

How is there entitlement here? We specifically are not talking about a DM who lays things out beforehand. So if you aren't given the information... how can you act in accordance with it? If the DM wants something, they should tell you, not just expect you to know what they think. And if you're not told something is different, how can you possibly be at fault for going by what the rules say you can do?

If the DM had laid things out beforehand, maybe I could see where you're coming from, but we're talking specifically about a DM who has entirely avoided all the reasonable ways this could have been handled. When they do tell you, "but I don't think your character would do that" followed by nearly killing the character "coincidentally" is so far from an acceptable way of handling it that it's not even in the same universe.


If you constantly use your power to safeguard nature, then you're babying the inhabitants of nature and they won't ever learn to fend for themselves, and you make nature reliant on you.

{Scrubbed} How could a single druid baby all of nature by using wildshape? The answer is no, they can't. At all. That's just an embarrasing claim to make.

[Mechalich]

How is there entitlement here? We specifically are not talking about a DM who lays things out beforehand. So if you aren't given the information... how can you act in accordance with it? If the DM wants something, they should tell you, not just expect you to know what they think. And if you're not told something is different, how can you possibly be at fault for going by what the rules say you can do?

If the DM had laid things out beforehand, maybe I could see where you're coming from, but we're talking specifically about a DM who has entirely avoided all the reasonable ways this could have been handled.

In 3.X D&D you cannot expect the DM to lay everything out beforehand, there are simply too many options to master them all effectively. This specific case is actually a good example of how the system's inexhaustible complexity works against the DMs ability to manage the variables: the desmodu hunting bat is an obscure creature published in Monster Manual II and wildshaping into it represents a considerable level of cheese due to its Dex 24 in combination with flight and blindsense and it is absolutely something a DM could reasonably ban as an OP wildshape option.

Now, that's not an excuse to passive-aggressively try to kill off the character, but unfortunately there's really no good solution to balance issues like this that emerge in play when the GM wasn't able to anticipate them. Just taking the ability away arbitrarily is always going to come off as jerkish, even when it's the best choice (which it would have been in this case, especially since blocking the ability to become a desmodu bat is the slightest of alternations to wildshape).

Ultimately this sort of thing is a problem with the system. It is entirely too easy, especially in the internet era, for a player to go through a book or read a webpage and think 'I've found a cool new trick' only to have said trick drastically destabilize an entire campaign (there was a recently locked thread regarding Age of Worms where it was widely acknowledged that PCs becoming necropolitans basically detonates that whole adventure line). It is not appropriate to expect the GM to rework everything to accommodate newly acquired player abilities.

As a result, playing 3.X D&D demands a measure of give and take on this sort of thing (also it helps to avoid Tier I classes), but because there's nothing in the rules that acknowledges this, it can blindside groups and lead to some seriously hurt feelings.

[Divine Susuryu]

In 3.X D&D you cannot expect the DM to lay everything out beforehand, there are simply too many options to master them all effectively. This specific case is actually a good example of how the system's inexhaustible complexity works against the DMs ability to manage the variables: the desmodu hunting bat is an obscure creature published in Monster Manual II and wildshaping into it represents a considerable level of cheese due to its Dex 24 in combination with flight and blindsense and it is absolutely something a DM could reasonably ban as an OP wildshape option.

Now, that's not an excuse to passive-aggressively try to kill off the character, but unfortunately there's really no good solution to balance issues like this that emerge in play when the GM wasn't able to anticipate them. Just taking the ability away arbitrarily is always going to come off as jerkish, even when it's the best choice (which it would have been in this case, especially since blocking the ability to become a desmodu bat is the slightest of alternations to wildshape).

Ultimately this sort of thing is a problem with the system. It is entirely too easy, especially in the internet era, for a player to go through a book or read a webpage and think 'I've found a cool new trick' only to have said trick drastically destabilize an entire campaign (there was a recently locked thread regarding Age of Worms where it was widely acknowledged that PCs becoming necropolitans basically detonates that whole adventure line). It is not appropriate to expect the GM to rework everything to accommodate newly acquired player abilities.

As a result, playing 3.X D&D demands a measure of give and take on this sort of thing (also it helps to avoid Tier I classes), but because there's nothing in the rules that acknowledges this, it can blindside groups and lead to some seriously hurt feelings.

Oh look if the DM had taken him aside at any point - as I wrote in a previous post - and actually discussed it with him, I'd be singing a very different tune. I'm not against hard bans in concept when they're effectively communicated. But that's the thing, if the DM is having a problem with it, it's incipient on them to actually sort it out in a constructive way. There actually is a good solution, and it involves talking to your player, explaining why you're having an issue with their character, and offering alternative solutions. Most players will go for that, and the players that won't aren't a good match for your table for one reason or another. It's all about reaching a solution that works for both of you, which isn't what happened here.

[RoboEmperor]

In 3.X D&D you cannot expect the DM to lay everything out beforehand, there are simply too many options to master them all effectively. This specific case is actually a good example of how the system's inexhaustible complexity works against the DMs ability to manage the variables: the desmodu hunting bat is an obscure creature published in Monster Manual II and wildshaping into it represents a considerable level of cheese due to its Dex 24 in combination with flight and blindsense and it is absolutely something a DM could reasonably ban as an OP wildshape option.

When people say Dex 24 is cheese but STR 24 is not cheese...

I'll just say, if Dex 24 is too much for a DM to handle then 99% of d&d 3.5 is too much for him to handle because, you know, AC doesn't mean jack.

Who cares about blindsense. When people say noncombat or nondivination related utility is OP...

Since when is MMII obscure? When people say MMII is obscure but not MMI, MMIII, MMIV, or MMV...

Since when is flight OP? Every character is expected to have flight. Wizards have the fly spell.

I agree that there's too many things in 3.5 to lay out before hand. But wildshape isn't one of them.


Also, why do people emphasize homebrew, like it's a dirty thing? I don't get it.

Because players expect to play d&d.

For example: I want to play a deityless cleric. Surprise, in the DM's homebrew setting deityless clerics are illegal. I have a list of spells I want to cast. Surprise! The DM says in this setting clerics don't have access to all cleric spells. Instead he divvied them up between the various gods of his setting. As a neutral cleric I expect to be able to cast both evil and good spells. Surprise! The DM says neutral clerics can't cast neither evil nor good spells.

I expect to play d&d. Not this horrible mangled ****. I don't care how much the DM touts "homebrew". This isn't d&d. I spent a lot of time learning how to play d&d and figuring out how to get I want within the rules of d&d. This DM's homebrew isn't d&d. If I play his game I'm not playing d&d.

So when someone says "homebrew setting", his "homebrew" better be solely location related and 0 mechanical relevance.

Saying staying in the form of an animal for long durations is disrespectful to nature instead of trying to be closer to nature to render a 1hour/level multi-use core class ability to be usable solely in combat is an example of terrible "homebrew" and is indication of the DM's complete lack of system mastery, complete lack of interest in learning the system, and is most likely a house rule happy never look up a rule railroad DM that will tell you how to play your character that you designed because he doesn't like you.

[Crake]

Entitled to what? Using the the player's handbook to debunk a claim which you yourself would not defend? Truly, there's no need for name-calling. We are currently discussing who is in the right, player or hypothetical DM.

Well, firstly, I didn't name call, i just said that it made me cringe, which it did. And the players handbook doesn't debunk anything in this situation, because this situation is literally the epitome of rule 0, so hard rules are irrelevant.

"The DM is the ultimate arbiter of how things function in his setting"


Yes but, a good DM does not:
A. Change the rules on players mid-way through a campaign
B. Tell a player how to feel.

In this hypothetical, the DM is forced to do one of the following, making this a bad DM choice.

The DM in question isn't really changing any rules in question, but rather enlightening the player of the rules. And sometimes, yeah, the DM should tell the player how to feel. If you're playing a cleric of Uriel, the paragon of compassion and benevolence, and you see someone being brutally tortured, and you say "My character views the scene with cold, uncaring eyes before moving on", hell yes I'm gonna say "uhh, you're playing a cleric of Uriel, there's no way that's how you'd react". Because you see, a character who would react like that, should never have been blessed by uriel with his power in the first place, thus the character becomes a living, walking paradox.


If the rules of his or her setting as they affect a character do not come to a DM's mind until halfway through a campaign, they are, in my mind, likely not a good DM.

If you spent your time explaining all the nuance of your setting to players before starting your game, you'd never get started in the first place. Plus, there are things that the DM may just not consider, as it's not something they'd ever fathom. There's stories of players doing things out of left field all the time, and this extends to character roleplaying. What you're basically saying is "A DM who can't read their players' minds is a bad DM.


If a DM deliberately does not make information that pertains to a core mechanic utilized by a player available, then they are, in my mind, not a good DM.

No comment I guess? DMs have a lot of work to do, and typically limited face time with the players. Gotta prioritize, but see the above point. Not always obvious that players and DM don't see eye to eye until it comes up.


I mean I guess you could call me "entitled" to what I consider a good DM? But I think this is a slippery slope, as you could stave off any criticism of a DM's actions this way.

I call you entitled because your post was all about "the book says this, so that's how it is", giving a sense of entitlement, because some words in a book said it, and thus the DM has to give it to you.


Also, in any religion, just because you sin against, or disrespect, a deity, does not mean you cease to revere that deity. For example, if your holy scripture says "thought shall not eat meat," and you eat meat, you don't automatically cease to have love and respect for your god. This is especially true when a player doesn't feel as if wild shaping/eating meat disrespects nature/their god, because reverence is about feelings. Not the feelings of the thing being revered but the feelings of the one doing the revering.

I have to disagree with you here. If you don't follow the scriptures of your religion, it means you don't have particular respect or reverence for whatever it is you follow, you're merely following it for the sake of following it. That's all well and good for the average person, but divine casters are held to a different standard. If your holy scripture says "thou shalt not eat meat", and you eat meat as a cleric, that's basically spitting in the face of your god. Respect in an ideal, maybe, is a one way street, but respecting a greater power, well, no, it's not a one way street. You don't get to decide if your "I feel like I revere you" is enough, your DM does, because your DM controls your deity, who controls your source of power.


How is there entitlement here? We specifically are not talking about a DM who lays things out beforehand. So if you aren't given the information... how can you act in accordance with it? If the DM wants something, they should tell you, not just expect you to know what they think. And if you're not told something is different, how can you possibly be at fault for going by what the rules say you can do?

If the DM had laid things out beforehand, maybe I could see where you're coming from, but we're talking specifically about a DM who has entirely avoided all the reasonable ways this could have been handled. When they do tell you, "but I don't think your character would do that" followed by nearly killing the character "coincidentally" is so far from an acceptable way of handling it that it's not even in the same universe.

Sure, maybe your DM hadn't laid it out beforehand, but he's laying it out now, now that he's realised it's an issue. Also, for the most part, we're talking in hypotheticals here, not the specific case at hand. I'm not at all for the "hah gotcha" thing the DM did. What I am advocating for is the validity of the DM's control over aspects of a character, especially in the circumstance of religious characters. If you don't want to be beholden to your DM, then don't play a religious character that's beholden to a higher power, aka the DM.


This may be the silliest argument I've ever read. How could a single druid baby all of nature by using wildshape? The answer is no, they can't. At all. That's just an embarrasing claim to make.

Who said anything about all of nature? :smallconfused:

[Divine Susuryu]

Sure, maybe your DM hadn't laid it out beforehand, but he's laying it out now, now that he's realised it's an issue. Also, for the most part, we're talking in hypotheticals here, not the specific case at hand. I'm not at all for the "hah gotcha" thing the DM did. What I am advocating for is the validity of the DM's control over aspects of a character, especially in the circumstance of religious characters. If you don't want to be beholden to your DM, then don't play a religious character that's beholden to a higher power, aka the DM.

Oh, I've been trying more specifically to address the case at hand, not the abstract thing. I'd definitely say that in the abstract just talk to your players.


Who said anything about all of nature? :smallconfused:

Are you using a nonstandard definition of the word?


Nature: The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

You can't baby that. I don't think you believe you can baby that either.

[eggynack]

the desmodu hunting bat is an obscure creature published in Monster Manual II and wildshaping into it represents a considerable level of cheese due to its Dex 24 in combination with flight and blindsense and it is absolutely something a DM could reasonably ban as an OP wildshape option.
This is not, as far as I can tell, what is happening. The DM is not opposed to bat form on the basis of it imbalancing the game. He is opposed to bat form because he thinks it's weird to be a bat all the time. It is well within the DM's purview to try to keep the party somewhat balanced, with that allowance premised on the fact that it's an out of character problem. This situation, where the DM just has these weird aesthetic criteria that aren't being met, is quite a bit different.

Also, gotta be noted, dire bat is right there. Desmodu hunting bat has a few meaningful advantages, but it's not like they're playing a whole different game. You just have somewhat worse flight and slightly worse initiative (and significantly less blindsense, but that only comes up if you're using enhance wild shape). Arguably the biggest advantage is that it's medium size so you can access it from level five, and that's obviously not part of this equation. It's a great form, one of the best animals out there, but it's unlikely that balance problems can be traced back to it. It's not like these fancy flight forms do anything on their own anyway. It's all about what you do when you're up there.

[Crake]

Because players expect to play d&d.

A major expectation of D&D is that you're going to be playing in a world built by your DM, and that expectation comes with the understanding that that world will have it's own rules, so I think expecting to play D&D without homebrew is actually a bolder claim.


For example: I want to play a deityless cleric. Surprise, in the DM's homebrew setting deityless clerics are illegal.

And so does faerun. An offical setting. It's not a "surprise", you've been informed, you have plenty of time to come up with another character.


I have a list of spells I want to cast. Surprise! The DM says in this setting clerics don't have access to all cleric spells. Instead he divvied them up between the various gods of his setting. As a neutral cleric I expect to be able to cast both evil and good spells. Surprise! The DM says neutral clerics can't cast neither evil nor good spells.

Naturally this would be an issue if it happened post game start, but again, if you don't like it, play something else. You can't expect to be able to play every single character in every single game. You tailor your character to the setting.


I expect to play d&d. Not this horrible mangled ****. I don't care how much the DM touts "homebrew". This isn't d&d. I spent a lot of time learning how to play d&d and figuring out how to get I want within the rules of d&d. This DM's homebrew isn't d&d. If I play his game I'm not playing d&d.

This is exactly dnd. Dungeons and dragons is a framework to build upon, something that you can use to emulate the world you envision. You may even envision a world where deities don't exist, and by extension neither do clerics. That doesn't make the game any less dungeons and dragons.


So when someone says "homebrew setting", his "homebrew" better be solely location related and 0 mechanical relevance.

So every setting has to have red mage of thay, even if thay doesn't exist? Every setting has to include pelor so that you can play raidiant servant of pelor? I guess the DMs also aren't allow to make custom spells, or feats in your mind either? The planes have to be the same as well, because otherwise that changes things. Can't have a world where hell and heaven are literally places on the material plane... not like that's ever existed in mythology? Oh wait, that's what the olympic pantheon was like, huh, guess we can't use that then.

Basically what you're saying is "If you're not playing in the standard greyhawk setting, you're doing it wrong. Thankfully, people don't all think like that, and that's how we get wonderful and diverse campaign settings like eberron, dragonlance, and forgotten realms, plus all the multitude of homebrew settings that people have come up with in the privacy of their own homes that have enabled people to enjoy a sense of wonder and exitement as they venture into the unknown for the first time.


Saying staying in the form of an animal for long durations is disrespectful to nature instead of trying to be closer to nature to render a 1hour/level multi-use core class ability to be usable solely in combat is an example of terrible "homebrew" and is indication of the DM's complete lack of system mastery, complete lack of interest in learning the system, and is most likely a house rule happy never look up a rule railroad DM that will tell you how to play your character that you designed because he doesn't like you.

Has it occured to you that not everything is about mechanics and system mastery? Some decisions are made purely on lore and thematics with the rules impact being a secondary thought. For example, in my setting elementals and the planes are a construct, and thus not actually a part of normal nature, thus elementals are removed from the summon nature's ally list. Druids do however, get a custom version of planar ally that allows them to call fey to their aid. Neither of these decisions were made with the rules impact in mind, they were made because they fit the setting.


Oh, I've been trying more specifically to address the case at hand, not the abstract thing. I'd definitely say that in the abstract just talk to your players.

That would be the ideal case, yes, though the expectation of absolutely every little thing to be laid out beforehand, as others have said, is something I feel to be potentially unreasonable in some circumstances. There's not always an obvious case of conflict of expectations, and you can't just sit there for hours on end explaining every find detail of your setting.


Are you using a nonstandard definition of the word?

You can't baby that. I don't think you believe you can baby that either.

I was using nature in the abstract, referring to the nature around you. For a druid in particular, referring to the area of nature that they were tasked to maintain balance within. No druid can baby all of nature, but likewise, no druid can also protect all of nature, they each have their own territory and are tasks with maintaining the balance there.

[Kyberwulf]

Well, yes I allow players to change NPCs all the time. I allow the players to change things in the world setting all the time. With rolls of the dice, some of the times. Also if i make a NPC that doesn't seem right, the players can talk to me about it. Sometimes I will change the character out of game, sometimes it starts another campaign idea to follow as to why a character is behaving weirdly.

I would say yes. The player is not revering nature, and instead is using the powers granted in a way that is disrespectful.

I love how blind it is to say it's not a sin, to sin against your God. As someone said in our world.. well let's not get into real world religion. But in the game world..... yes you have to follow the will of a deity, especially if you are a servant of him.

Even Druids are followers of something, that you can sin against. I would have the Druid lose access to his abilities as a warning he is straying from the path.

I don't get this logic of.. you have to tell me everything about a game that can have an infinite amount of outcome. otherwise you are a crap DM.

[Mechalich]

This is not, as far as I can tell, what is happening. The DM is not opposed to bat form on the basis of it imbalancing the game. He is opposed to bat form because he thinks it's weird to be a bat all the time. It is well within the DM's purview to try to keep the party somewhat balanced, with that allowance premised on the fact that it's an out of character problem. This situation, where the DM just has these weird aesthetic criteria that aren't being met, is quite a bit different.

Also, gotta be noted, dire bat is right there. Desmodu hunting bat has a few meaningful advantages, but it's not like they're playing a whole different game. You just have somewhat worse flight and slightly worse initiative (and significantly less blindsense, but that only comes up if you're using enhance wild shape). Arguably the biggest advantage is that it's medium size so you can access it from level five, and that's obviously not part of this equation. It's a great form, one of the best animals out there, but it's unlikely that balance problems can be traced back to it. It's not like these fancy flight forms do anything on their own anyway. It's all about what you do when you're up there.

I think the combination of advantages that come from the bat form and being in it all the time - constant flight and blindsense are significant - are having an impact, especially as the player appears to have adjusted their build in order to augment their wild shaped abilities. The comment about the encounter when the DM killed the character strongly suggests that being in wild shape boosts this character very significantly. Essentially the player has tied a great deal of their buff suite to being in wild shape and have used staying in wild shape constantly as a way to have their buff suite always active.

It is true that there's an aesthetic aspect as well. Now, the OP mentions being in Sigil, which implies that this is at least partially a Planescape game. In that case, the aesthetic complaint is utterly misplayed - in Planescape anything goes. If they were playing in FR or Greyhawk though, this would be a legitimate issue, since spending all your time as a bat is kind of like actively thumbing your nose at the world-building.

[eggynack]

Well, yes I allow players to change NPCs all the time. I allow the players to change things in the world setting all the time. With rolls of the dice, some of the times. Also if i make a NPC that doesn't seem right, the players can talk to me about it. Sometimes I will change the character out of game, sometimes it starts another campaign idea to follow as to why a character is behaving weirdly.
What do you mean you allow players to change NPC's? What specific forms of control do they have? If the player says, "That NPC doesn't do that," do they have that authority? If the player wants to make a request, you can choose to abide by that request. You still have final say though, I have to think.


I would say yes. The player is not revering nature, and instead is using the powers granted in a way that is disrespectful.
How? How is it disrespectful? How is it not revering nature?


I think the combination of advantages that come from the bat form and being in it all the time - constant flight and blindsense are significant - are having an impact, especially as the player appears to have adjusted their build in order to augment their wild shaped abilities. The comment about the encounter when the DM killed the character strongly suggests that being in wild shape boosts this character very significantly. Essentially the player has tied a great deal of their buff suite to being in wild shape and have used staying in wild shape constantly as a way to have their buff suite always active.

Wild shape is a good ability, and it could plausibly cause issues. Not necessarily desmodu hunting bat in specific as opposed to other forms, but just because flight and solid defenses are good in general. That doesn't seem to be the DM's issue though. From what I've seen the OP say, the DM's concern is a primarily aesthetic one with the OP being in a wild shape form perpetually. I thought that imbalance was the problem the DM was having at first, and so did several others, but that conclusion doesn't seem supported.

[RoboEmperor]

This is exactly dnd. Dungeons and dragons is a framework to build upon, something that you can use to emulate the world you envision. You may even envision a world where deities don't exist, and by extension neither do clerics. That doesn't make the game any less dungeons and dragons.

No it's not. You made a random d20 game using the d&d ruleset as a basis but it's not d&d. Pathfinder is not d&d, it's pathfinder. So if pathfinder isn't d&d, what chance does your homebrew have of being d&d 3.5?

If a game says d&d 3.5 I expect to play d&d 3.5. Not pathfinder, or whatever you call your homebrew.


So every setting has to have red mage of thay, even if thay doesn't exist? Every setting has to include pelor so that you can play raidiant servant of pelor? I guess the DMs also aren't allow to make custom spells, or feats in your mind either? The planes have to be the same as well, because otherwise that changes things. Can't have a world where hell and heaven are literally places on the material plane... not like that's ever existed in mythology? Oh wait, that's what the olympic pantheon was like, huh, guess we can't use that then.

Considering how Eberron PrCs don't exist in FR, your example is a bad one.


Basically what you're saying is "If you're not playing in the standard greyhawk setting, you're doing it wrong. Thankfully, people don't all think like that, and that's how we get wonderful and diverse campaign settings like eberron, dragonlance, and forgotten realms, plus all the multitude of homebrew settings that people have come up with in the privacy of their own homes that have enabled people to enjoy a sense of wonder and exitement as they venture into the unknown for the first time.

This is that strawman that you love so much. Didn't I say homebrew better be solely location related? As in you can create a homebrew location with homebrew cities and town as long as you don't make any changes to the rules? How does that equate to "play only greyhawk?" FYI world building is part of the ruleset, including custom planes and their affects on spells like summoning. I'm just less inclined to play in a game where the astral plane doesn't exist.


Has it occured to you that not everything is about mechanics and system mastery? Some decisions are made purely on lore and thematics with the rules impact being a secondary thought. For example, in my setting elementals and the planes are a construct, and thus not actually a part of normal nature, thus elementals are removed from the summon nature's ally list. Druids do however, get a custom version of planar ally that allows them to call fey to their aid. Neither of these decisions were made with the rules impact in mind, they were made because they fit the setting.

Why roll initiative? Why roll damage? Why not just describe what you're doing, and what your monster is doing, until a player says "I decapitate it" and you say "it dies"? This is a game. It's all about mechanics and system mastery. It's not the only thing it's about, RP is important too, but a mindless gauntlet with no RP is still d&d where as RP with no mechanics is not d&d so RP is optional, mechanics are mandatory, therefore in d&d mechanics and system mastery is inseparable to the system.

World Building using all the world building rules in d&d is still d&d. Making up a rule where if a creature grants cover, he gets hit by the ranged attack if it misses you is not d&d. Neither is limiting cleric's spell access because you don't like how clerics know all their spells while wizards don't, or making every creature including fighters get only half BAB because you want AC to stay relevant longer.

[Crake]

Considering how Eberron PrCs don't exist in FR, your example is a bad one.

And by your logic, that would be bad. Because it's a mechanical change due to the setting.


This is that strawman that you love so much. Didn't I say homebrew better be solely location related? As in you can create a homebrew location with homebrew cities and town as long as you don't make any changes to the rules? How does that equate to "play only greyhawk?" FYI world building is part of the ruleset, including custom planes and their affects on spells like summoning. I'm just less inclined to play in a game where the astral plane doesn't exist.

So why is faerun allowed to make mechanical changes, like forcing you to pick a deity as a cleric, but a DM's homebrew setting isn't? I'm fairly sure eberron has a few of those too, like action points, which aren't a default part of the game. But if you want #nochanges, then the "default" setting, where all the standard things are as outlined in the core books, then you're looking at greyhawk. That is how I came to that conclusion, because anything not greyhawk, would be a deviation from the "standard" rules.


Why roll initiative? Why roll damage? Why not just describe what you're doing, and what your monster is doing, until a player says "I decapitate it" and you say "it dies"? This is a game. It's all about mechanics and system mastery. It's not the only thing it's about, RP is important too, but a mindless gauntlet with no RP is still d&d where as RP with no mechanics is not d&d so RP is optional, mechanics are mandatory, therefore in d&d mechanics and system mastery is inseparable to the system.

World Building using all the world building rules in d&d is still d&d. Making up a rule where if a creature grants cover, he gets hit by the ranged attack if it misses you is not d&d. Neither is limiting cleric's spell access because you don't like how clerics know all their spells while wizards don't, or making every creature including fighters get only half BAB because you want AC to stay relevant longer.

Wow, and you claimed I was strawmanning? I'm just gonna go ahead and ignore the first bit, here, since its just totally irrelevant. Regarding the second bit though, notice how all of the things you listed aren't changes based on lore, but rather changes based on mechanics? You're not changing the way clerics get spells becuase it makes sense for the setting, you're changing it becuase you don't like the mechanics of the class. That's completely different to my example before of removing elementals from the summon nature's ally list, I didn't remove them due to a mechanical issue or bias, but beacuse it made sense for the setting. Is that concept that hard for you to imagine? That a change may be made for a reason other than mechanics?

[RoboEmperor]

@Crake
I think i'm derailing the thread at this point so I'm just gonna drop the issue. If you want I can continue over PM.

[Crake]

@Crake
I think i'm derailing the thread at this point so I'm just gonna drop the issue. If you want I can continue over PM.

I don't think it's derailing the thread. The thread is basically about where the boundary is between what the DM does and does not have purview over, with the OP basically being a prime example and a leaping point for further discussion. I say this, because the OP's already been back and explained what happened with the case at hand, which co-incidentally was also a textbook case of a very poor way to handle an issue as a DM.

Personally, as a DM I'm quite happy to let any character concept play out, until religion starts to fit into the mix. If you want to start playing a devout character in my setting, you'd best be prepared to actually be devout. It's caused conflicts at my table, for sure, but personally, I'd rather maintain the integrity of my setting rather than have some bastardized character concept running around that should never have existed in the first place, even if it means one of my players gets grumpy over it, because I said no to their character concept. On the other hand, if you're playing a wizard, there's no such conflict, because, short of putting in the time and effort to learn how to cast magic, there's no other roleplay requirements to being a wizard. You can be any sort of wizard you like, but if you want to be a druid, you need to fit into the niche of what is expected of a druid. Same goes for clerics and paladins, or anyone else that recieves their power from some outside being that gets to decide what they need to do to gain that power.

And that brings is back to the case at hand, where a DM requested the player make a change based on (at least claimed to be based on) a role-play reason (why is your character being so antisocial and reclusive, always staying back in roleplay scenarios as a bat, etc), and everyone is claiming that either a) the DM is using that as a mask for a mechanical issue he has, or b) that if it is a roleplay reason, the DM has no right to intervene on the way a character is being played.

[RoboEmperor]

I don't think it's derailing the thread. The thread is basically about where the boundary is between what the DM does and does not have purview over, with the OP basically being a prime example and a leaping point for further discussion. I say this, because the OP's already been back and explained what happened with the case at hand, which co-incidentally was also a textbook case of a very poor way to handle an issue as a DM.

But me dictating what is d&d and what is not feels off-topic.


Personally, as a DM I'm quite happy to let any character concept play out, until religion starts to fit into the mix. If you want to start playing a devout character in my setting, you'd best be prepared to actually be devout. It's caused conflicts at my table, for sure, but personally, I'd rather maintain the integrity of my setting rather than have some bastardized character concept running around that should never have existed in the first place, even if it means one of my players gets grumpy over it, because I said no to their character concept. On the other hand, if you're playing a wizard, there's no such conflict, because, short of putting in the time and effort to learn how to cast magic, there's no other roleplay requirements to being a wizard. You can be any sort of wizard you like, but if you want to be a druid, you need to fit into the niche of what is expected of a druid. Same goes for clerics and paladins, or anyone else that recieves their power from some outside being that gets to decide what they need to do to gain that power.

In the OP's situation it wasn't religion. It was the druid's personality the DM railroaded on the fly as a response to a mechanical thing.

In my situation it wasn't only religion, it was also house rules that changed the very nature of how cleric spells work.

Religion restrictions are all fine if they are informed about before the first session. And for the record, clerics have no restrictions either. Elder Evils clearly spelled out someone worshiping something, even themselves, results in divine magic. Hell even Frostburn says so as that harpy's worship is what keeping the portal to the hells open. You need an overgod to stop this from happening.

Kyberwulf's post however is not fine since he declared spending more time as an animal instead of a human is disrespecting nature when it is almost always the opposite just because he doesn't like wildshape.

[Crake]

In the OP's situation it wasn't religion. It was the druid's personality the DM railroaded on the fly as a response to a mechanical thing.

Well, firstly, we don't know it was a response to a mechanical thing. We can assume, but we don't know.


In my situation it wasn't only religion, it was also house rules that changed the very nature of how cleric spells work.

Religion restrictions are all fine if they are informed about before the first session. And for the record, clerics have no restrictions either. Elder Evils clearly spelled out someone worshiping something, even themselves, results in divine magic. Hell even Frostburn says so as that harpy's worship is what keeping the portal to the hells open. You need an overgod to stop this from happening.

The DMG has a whole section about changing the way classes work, and something like limiting the spell lists clerics have based on their deity, or requiring a deity in the first place, definitely fits in with the sorts of things it describes. Page 174 if you're interested in reading about it.


Kyberwulf's post however is not fine since he declared spending more time as an animal instead of a human is disrespecting nature when it is almost always the opposite

I can't speak directly for him nor do I necessarily agree with him, but I can definitely understand his position on the matter. The notion is that nature has given you this power to use to maintain the balance, but you yourself are a part of nature, and you must maintain balance within yourself as well. Endlessly being in a form other than your own is definitely unbalancing for yourself, you aren't being true to who you are, you're trying to be something else. Maybe on days you're out adventuring, but time spent in towns, or during your downtime?

Again, not something I necessarily agree with, but I can see his position, and if he was running the game, then I would adhere to his ruling and not argue with it.


just because he doesn't like wildshape.

I don't recall him saying that. I could be wrong, but unless he actually said that, you really need to stop ascribing motive to something when you really have no idea what people are thinking. I think you'll find it a lot easier to remain level headed if you don't assume motives, let alone motives that you see as negative, beind people's statements. If you're going to assume a motive, at least assume a positive one, it'll help you see the silver lining, and possibly let you view things from a different perspective that you may not have considered before.

[Harkness]

DM thinks I shouldn’t be wild shape all the time.

Sounds like you need a new DM.

[AnimeTheCat]

No it's not. You made a random d20 game using the d&d ruleset as a basis but it's not d&d. Pathfinder is not d&d, it's pathfinder. So if pathfinder isn't d&d, what chance does your homebrew have of being d&d 3.5?

If a game says d&d 3.5 I expect to play d&d 3.5. Not pathfinder, or whatever you call your homebrew.

Considering how Eberron PrCs don't exist in FR, your example is a bad one.

This is that strawman that you love so much. Didn't I say homebrew better be solely location related? As in you can create a homebrew location with homebrew cities and town as long as you don't make any changes to the rules? How does that equate to "play only greyhawk?" FYI world building is part of the ruleset, including custom planes and their affects on spells like summoning. I'm just less inclined to play in a game where the astral plane doesn't exist.

World Building using all the world building rules in d&d is still d&d. Making up a rule where if a creature grants cover, he gets hit by the ranged attack if it misses you is not d&d. Neither is limiting cleric's spell access because you don't like how clerics know all their spells while wizards don't, or making every creature including fighters get only half BAB because you want AC to stay relevant longer.

D&D 3.5 is a system. Pathfinder is a system. Faerun is a setting. Grayhawk is a setting. Eberron is a setting.

Faerun, Grawhawk, and Eberron all use D&D 3.5 as their system, but have differing rules dependent upon their unique settings.

For example, The Ashbound are a unique collective of Druids in Eberron. the Feat "Ashbound Summoning" is unique to this group of Druids. Would you say that if I didn't allow you to take the Feat in a Faerun Setting that I "Wasn't playing D&D 3.5"? A different Example, also from the Eberron Campaign Setting, is the Kalashtar and Shifter races. If We were playing in Grayhawk, a setting that doesn't include Kalashtar or Shifters, would you say I'm not playing D&D 3.5 if you can't play a Kalashtar or Shifter? Yet another example, is playing in the Eberron Campaign Setting still playing D&D 3.5? With their Regions of Origin rule, Druids and Rangers are restricted as to what animals they can have for Animal Companions. Further, another example of a campaign setting overruling the PHB again from Eberron, on Page 35 of the Eberron Campaign Setting under the heading "Clerics and Corruption" there is a passage that says, "A cleric can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric’s alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells, but the deities of Eberron do not prevent their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments. This rule supersedes the information in Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells on page 33 of the Player’s Handbook.". Does this mean Eberron isn't D&D 3.5? It changes the rules, and what is available to clerics from what is listed in the 3.5 PHB.

What I'm getting at is that the setting will modify the rules. Modifying the rules does not mean you playing something other than D&D 3.5. You're still playing 3.5, but youre playing in a different setting that modifies those rules. Modifying the rules doesn't make it not 3.5. The core mechanics are the same. You have your skills, you use your d20, you have classes, etc. You're playing 3.5, but you're playing it in a different setting. Effectively, you're just using Rule 0 in your world building.

[Zecrin]

I didn't name call
...
I call you entitled

:smallconfused:


The DM in question isn't really changing any rules in question, but rather enlightening the player of the rules. And sometimes, yeah, the DM should tell the player how to feel. If you're playing a cleric of Uriel, the paragon of compassion and benevolence, and you see someone being brutally tortured, and you say "My character views the scene with cold, uncaring eyes before moving on", hell yes I'm gonna say "uhh, you're playing a cleric of Uriel, there's no way that's how you'd react". Because you see, a character who would react like that, should never have been blessed by uriel with his power in the first place, thus the character becomes a living, walking paradox.

The DM is in fact changing the rules. They allowed wildshape in the past. They allowed the druid to remain in wildshape form for extended periods of time. They provided the player with a book detailing how to transform into a desmodu hunting bat. The DM allowed a character to build around this and then pulled what I consider to be a bait and switch. This is fine. The DM has the power to do this. But just because they have the power to do something does not make them a good DM for doing it.

Also the DM should not tell the players how to feel. This is a hallmark of a bad DM. If a cleric says "My character views the scene with cold, uncaring eyes before moving on." Then you may consider saying, “Your goddess does not grant you spells the next morning.” But as the DM, you do not seize control of the character. This would be analogous to four players voting to take control of an NPC away from the DM, should that NPC ever act out of character.

Also the argument that such a character would never have been blessed by uriel in the first place strikes me as silly. These aren’t omecient gods we’re talking about here. Why would the gods have created Asmodeus, if they knew how evil he was? How can fallen cleric or paladin exsist? Why would gods invest them with their power in the first place?


If you spent your time explaining all the nuance of your setting to players before starting your game, you'd never get started in the first place. Plus, there are things that the DM may just not consider, as it's not something they'd ever fathom. There's stories of players doing things out of left field all the time, and this extends to character roleplaying. What you're basically saying is "A DM who can't read their players' minds is a bad DM.

How your class features work =/= nuance. It would take under 20 seconds to explain that your restricting wild shape should someone play a druid.

Also yes, I would posit that a DM who does not consider the implications of material which they explicitly allow in their setting, is not a good DM. Just as online guides are available to players so to are they available to DMs. The DM also can (and should, in my opinion) talk to a players about game balance before the start of a campaign.


I call you entitled because your post was all about "the book says this, so that's how it is", giving a sense of entitlement, because some words in a book said it, and thus the DM has to give it to you.

The DM doesn’t have to give it to you. The DM does not have to follow the rules of the game; they are designed to be flexible for a reason. But if I want some degree of warning and honesty with regards to changes to the rules which hurt my character, that’s entitled? I don’t understand that. It’s just the courteous thing to do.


I have to disagree with you here. If you don't follow the scriptures of your religion, it means you don't have particular respect or reverence for whatever it is you follow, you're merely following it for the sake of following it. That's all well and good for the average person, but divine casters are held to a different standard. If your holy scripture says "thou shalt not eat meat", and you eat meat as a cleric, that's basically spitting in the face of your god. Respect in an ideal, maybe, is a one way street, but respecting a greater power, well, no, it's not a one way street. You don't get to decide if your "I feel like I revere you" is enough, your DM does, because your DM controls your deity, who controls your source of power.

Your cleric to druid comparison is apples to oranges. A cleric has an explicit code of conduct set forth by their deity, a druid does not. Furthermore, as nature is not, to my knowledge a sentient creature, it does not set forth a code of conduct, or have an ability to feel revered. Therefore, the druid themselves must decide whether they feel respect towards the wild.

Also, many religions believe that no one is free from sin, not even clergy. And yet, despite this, all of the clergy still revere their sovereign deity. Maybe if the cleric commits a gross violation of their code, they will lose access to spells (assuming the comparison is apples to apples, which its not). Using a druid class feature for its full listed duration though, which apparently to some constitutes a disrespect, is not equivalent to a “gross” violation.


The DMG has a whole section about changing the way classes work, and something like limiting the spell lists clerics have based on their deity, or requiring a deity in the first place, definitely fits in with the sorts of things it describes. Page 174 if you're interested in reading about it.

Yes and the DMG also says, "no one like to get something, only to have it taken away again"

And the complete arcane suggests that good DMs not resort to "capricious and arbitrary limitations on magical power"

[Talakeal]

So, I think the moral of the story is to just ban the fricking MM2. Worst balanced book ever. Twenty years later and that thing is still causing problems. I still sometimes have elemental wierd flashbacks.


For the record, I dont think it is out of place for any player, including the DM, to ask another player, including the DM, to try and stick to the tone that was agreed upon at the start of the campaign.

If you agreed to play a low key sword and sorcery campaign, permanent polymorph is not appropriate. If you agreed to play a heroic campaign, suddenly becoming a CE child murderer is mot appropriate. If you agreed to play a realistic historical game, the DM having aliens invade war of the roses era England is not appropriate, etc.

Obviously there is no hard line though, and I would err on the side of trusting the player / DM.



Hell, if he'd just taken the player aside and said "The way you play your character totally breaks my immersion, can you tone it down or change it please?", I'd at least get it - I'd probably rather leave a game if that was said to me, but it wouldn't be on bad terms.

If you are leaving someone's game because they politely asked you to tone something down, I think you are probably going to be leaving on pretty bad terms. Imo that is an outrageous overreaction.

[eggynack]

So, I think the moral of the story is to just ban the fricking MM2. Worst balanced book ever. Twenty years later and that thing is still causing problems. I still sometimes have elemental wierd flashbacks.
It's a strong book, but I'm super doubtful it's the problem here. The DM's problem seems to be with perpetual wild shape rather than imbalance, which makes sense given the party seems reasonably strong. It's also not clear they're using enhance wild shape, and, as I've previously noted, the difference between this form and dire bat is not massive without the expanded blindsense. Realistically, if something's messing with the game's balance, it's probably the character's frequent summoning. More or less core only summoning at that.


If you agreed to play a low key sword and sorcery campaign, permanent polymorph is not appropriate.
This is a weird line to me. We're talking about a 10th level druid here. All kindsa ridiculous magic nonsense, and a lot of the other PC's have abilities to match. It seems odd that being a bat long term would be out of place. Especially given that being a bat in the first place is not out of place, and given also that being a bat when adventuring for similar durations is also presumably not out of place. This division between being a bat all the time and what the DM seems to want seems blurry and arbitrary.