Druids and Fighters

[Zergrusheddie]

Those of you who have a great memory may remember my questions and the like about playing a Druid. I decided to do an Ape Druid type of build (Uses Spikes on a Staff while in an Apelike form) and found it to work decently. Currently, I turn into a Dire Ape and attack at +13/+8 for 1d6+17 damage and I am 8th level straight Druid. I find that it is roughly the same as turning into something like a Brown Bear in terms of raw power. This is the thread I started when my usefulness in combat was questioned; I'm making this thread as a "What can I do?" and to mostly pass on some semi-amusing information and irony.

These guys play classes as they were 'intended' to be played; Fighters are Sword and Boarders, Clerics are healbots, and Wizards are Evokers. The best way to describe the largest section of the party is thus: the last person to play a Druid took Natural Spell at level 15 once he ran out of feats that he could take that enhance his Archery skill and he only used Wildshape to go Eagle Form and fly Combat Air Scout. Oh, and he never used his Animal Companion.

Last session some of the other players (not the DM) actually stopped me and accused me of cheating. Most of the accusations include not changing my HP when I Wildshape, not reducing my BAB or hit dice, not reducing my Wisdom when I Wildshape, and casting spells during Wildshape. After showing them the Alternate Form Errata and the SRD, I stated that "Druids are often considered overpowered because they have special abilities that are more powerful than entire classes", which they simply dismissed as 'Internet Theory'.

At some point, the question of "what is the point of playing a Fighter if a Druid is better than he is (pointed at the SnB Fighter) at being a Fighter?" came out. This question is the primary point of this thread, with the beginning just to show the irony of how I have gone from being "useless" to "obviously cheating". I think it is mostly the Wizard being upset that I am starting to do more damage than his 10d6 Sonicballs.

TL;DR Version:
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players? The only thing I could come up with is "There is no reason as Fighters are a Tier 4 class and Druids are a Tier 1 class." I would use this line, but it would be dismissed as 'Internet Theory' and will still leave the other players curious.

Best of luck y'all!
-Eddie

[FMArthur]

Make fun of the way they say "internet theory" as though it means inapplicable nonsense. Tell them that "Internet theory" comes to be from (get this) a huge amount of people playing the same game and discussing it with others.

[Kylarra]

If you wish to portray an archetype (fighter) as defined within a very narrow scope of abilities (wears armor, hits things) complete with metagame label.

[mikej]

{tremors}

"I sense a hundred trolls about to gather in one single location"

Joking aside, your situation is 100% the same when I'd pick up the Druid. Before me it was some previous Druid player that didn't know what he was doing. I'd managed to out perform basically the entire party and my only previous experience was a Sorcerer. Nonetheless, my DM was upset after the end of the campaign. I wasn't very optimized at all either. Just an Half-Elf Druid with litthe Con and the only smart move was taking Natural Spell.

IMO, there is really nothing you can do except dumbing yourself down. I still get backlash from "why should we play X non-caster." I'm sure other posters would give better advice but I've been through this before.

[Eldariel]

Well, let them keep dismissing it as "internet theory" and wait for the reality to knock them in the forehead... Aside from that, Fighter's role is obviously to use all the feats he's got to do something productive instead of increasing their damage ever-so-slightly. Which is why Core sucks for them.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

If you wish to portray an archetype (fighter) as defined within a very narrow scope of abilities (wears armor, hits things) complete with metagame label.

Open ToB. Take a sharpie. Cross out all mentions of Warblade. Replace with F1ghter.

@the OP: There isn't. That's sort of the issue with Fighters. When they ask that again, state that there's a reason Druids are considered broken and Fighters weak. When they say "Internet Theory", ask them what their opinion of the balance of the classes is after seeing them in action.

[tyckspoon]

Things Fighters can do that Druids are not less good at:
Mundane combat control. Fighters have the spare feats to pick up the Improved (Combat Maneuver) feats. In particular, reach weapons and Improved Trip/Stand Still/Knockdown etc make the Fighter better at area denial (ignoring for the moment that the Druid's niche as a spellcaster is also area control starting from level 1 with Entangle, and that nobody goes much of anywhere when the Druid starts dropping tornadoes on them..) A Wildshape-centric Druid does better with single-target control, since Wildshape forms can pretty easily give you a monster-competitive Grapple check that is otherwise somewhat difficult to acquire.

Unfortunately, if the Fighter is running sword-n-board and the enemies are attacking him despite his low offensive capacity because that's Just How It Works, then chances are the group will not see the point of a trip build (they may follow the logic of prone enemy= +4 to hit= +8 extra damage from Power Attack, tho.)

Archery- Druids *can* do this, but Fighters have the feats and general stat arrangement to make it work better. It sounds like your group would probably insist on playing a Ranger if they wanted to do an archery-centric character, tho.

Raw damage: The Fighter can be superior here, but it requires optimization knowledge and source adventurousness that your group almost certainly doesn't have and would lash out against as 'broken' as soon as they saw it. So that's out.

Other than that.. not much reason to use a Fighter when you could be a Druid, mechanically speaking. At best you maybe get a Druid X/Fighter 2 who wanted a couple of bonus feats to help him out.

[Kylarra]

Open ToB. Take a sharpie. Cross out all mentions of Warblade. Replace with F1ghter.

Yes I know the common response.

[Tempest Fennac]

One other advantage which Fighters may have for battlefield control is that they don't need spell slots to use things like Improved Trip or Stand Still. (Admittedly, this isn't likely to be a problem in most groups if the DM is unlikely to put them up against repeated encounters without giving them time to rest).

I'd say fluff is the main reason for not playing a Fighter over a Druid due to how different they are. The fact that Fighters require less book-keeping may be another reason for some players.

[Fitz]

ok id recomend diplomacy, they are your gaming group, ooc arguements can ruin games. Make it clear how you are doing all that damage.. If they still say you are cheating there isnt much you can do, they are determined to see it. Otherwise, either tone down your optimisation a bit (so take some roleplay inspired feats for next level? Your can loose a feat to skill focus:caligraphy!) or suggest they try looking at "internet theory"
Fitz

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Tell them that like all warfare, this game has evolved. They're still using bows and arrows in an age of gunpowder. They're the Samurai rebelling against the emperor's new howitzers and rotary guns. It may look like their characters are still effective, and they are just as effective as they've always been, but new tactics and strategies have since developed that are just so much better that they've become obsolete. Tell them that the 'Internet Theory' is no longer theory, it has been tested repeatedly by thousands of people in play and has been proven successful, just as they're seeing it succeed with your character. Tell them that their failure is due to a lack of effort on their part, that if they would just take their heads out of the sand and learn to play more effectively they won't end up feeling like your character's sidekicks.

[Eldariel]

I'd also point out that it's worth emphasizing to them that the Fighter is Sword & Board. In other words, he's chosen defense as his primary shtick so he shouldn't expect to match offensive characters in damage output. Point out how much more efficient two-hander would be, especially in combination with Power Attack & Improved Trip.

[Tempest Fennac]

I disagree with the idea of toning your optimization down (my rationel is that doing so would suggest that they have a point). As Biffoniacus said, the problem seems to be them not making the best decisions (I wouldn't class this as a problem if there was an RPing reason for those designs but if they are only making those characters because they think they are "supposed to", I can't see any reason to tone your characters down*).


* I tend to think that making moptimal decisions always makes sense from an RPing perspective due to how your characters wouldn't want to make decisions which wouldn't maximize their survival chances.

[jiriku]

Let me get this straight...the guy dismisses you when you say that it's common knowledge the druid is stronger, then huffs and asks why he should play a fighter since your druid is so much stronger? Okaaay, sure.

If the druids are racing cycles, then fighters are the tricycles of D&D - easy to learn! You don't have to read more than 30 pages out of the PHB to roll a fighter, sit down and play. Many of my players have never read the PHB completely through and refuse to learn the game well enough to level up their characters without hep. For players like them, ease of play is a huge advantage.

A druid can be much more effective than a fighter, but playing a druid well requires reading a lot more of the PHB, including the spell list, then delving into the MM for shapes and companon and summons, then pre-statting out druid forms, possible summoned monsters, and the animal companion. And this assumes you restrict yourself to core and don't poke your nose into the DMG to look into magic items. For low-involvement players, that's way more time than they're willing to invest in the game.

In 3.5, casters are for serious hobbyists, while non-casters are for accessible casual players.

[Doc Roc]

Basically, I hate to say it, but...

I'm a well-known champion of optimization. I believe firmly in a player's right to choose. Sorry! Too funny to pass up.

I also believe firmly in a group's right to enjoy their game their way. I think you might consider sitting down with them outside of the table and talking about the various directions they could move in. If they won't budge, you may have to either seek out another game, or nerf-bat your character. These are your friends though. Good friends, I hope. If they won't look at math, maybe they'll listen to you when you present your experiences as evidence. Alternatively, offer to run a game for them with more optimized characters.

Basically, no one's wrong here. You are cheating, in their eyes. They have rules, a set of constraints they place on game performance out of passionate preference. This is silly, sure, but it can also be a lot of fun. If it's not fun for you, then there's the titch of things.

[elliott20]

I would be careful to not take on the same tone as Biff though. While he does have a valid point, making this about THEIR play style will elevate this to a personal level and it can get ugly from there on out.

[Doc Roc]

It is about their style. This isn't bad, or unfortunate. They do outnumber you, here. Significantly, if I'm not off my mark. You're the person who (while acting PERFECTLY within your rights as a player) kicked over the apple cart. There are in fact apples, now on the metaphorical ground, that were once in the metaphorical cart.

[Kylarra]

You could tell them that you can only wildshape a certain number of times per day, whereas the fighter can always fight. It probably won't work, but it's worth a try.

[olentu]

Well I assume their problem with internet theory is that it is has not had enough sufficiently rigorous experiential verification for them to invest in it. I would assume that they are composing something like this

The Royal Society of Dungeons and Dragons
213 The Real World Avenue
Reality, RL 12345

8/10/2009

Mr. The Internet
31337 Online Street
The Net, WWW 55555

Dear Mr. Internet:

We are sorry to inform you that your grant proposal has been rejected. Your theory on the nature of class value has produced some interesting results. The homebrew factor shows promise and the newly derived player preference equation successfully combines both in-game and meta-game conditions to provide an increased happiness ratio. However we do not think that your theory is sufficiently developed for the society to make such an investment at this time.


Sincerely,



The Royal Society of Dungeons and Dragons

So clearly the answer is to secure outside funding and perform more experiments to refine the theory and gain additional confirmation. Perhaps a company would be willing to fund the project if the possible payoff is sufficient though the company may suppress any discoveries if they would hurt profits.

[Eloel]

How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players?

There is no point.

Easy answer.

[Doc Roc]

Well I assume their problem with internet theory is that it is has not had enough sufficiently rigorous experiential verification for them to invest in it. I would assume that they are composing something like this




So clearly the answer is to secure outside funding and perform more experiments to refine the theory and gain additional confirmation. Perhaps a company would be willing to fund the project if the possible payoff is sufficient though the company may suppress any discoveries if they would hurt profits.

I lawled. I'd just picked up my drink, so you nearly got me.

[elliott20]

whatever it is you want to do, you gotta make sure that you establish that the RAW is on your side and that you are merely playing to the effectiveness provided by RAW.

I'm saying, don't make it about the player's personal character (as in, not their personality), and more just about the system and how it's flaws. They might not believe you, but at least they see where you're coming from.

[nefele]

How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players?

Old fashioned answers for old fashioned players (and no, I don't mean that in a bad way).

You play a Fighter because it's fun. You enjoy role-playing a familiar and beloved archetype. You are having a good time. What more do you want?

That said, in cases like this, it's difficult for all the others to stand back while you take care of everything, and it's difficult for the DM to come up with encounters that will challenge equally all players. When this first happens, it's nobody's "fault".

You are certainly not to blame for playing a Druid legally and effectively (and an unoptimised druid, for that matter). On the other hand, they are not to blame for playing the archetypes they want, without struggling with optimisation techniques (which are obviously alien to them) in order to bring their characters closer to your power level. It's simply a flaw in the system: widely different levels of optimisation (in the broad sense) can ruin the game for everyone.

But once this happens, some compromise from both parties would be wonderful. For their part, they really should stop being so... jealous. Yes, a Druid is more powerful by default. So? D&D isn't a contest about "who can build the most powerful character", it's a role-playing game. If they focus on role-playing to their heart's delight instead of trying to outshine the old man with the Viper, all will be better.

And for your part, maybe you should try to leave them some room to shine in battle, too. How? You choose. Could be a typical "So, instead of personally mopping the floor with the monsters, I'll buff you guys! Go bash some heads!" You could use a nerfed version of the Druid, like taking Shapeshift variant or -gasp!- retraining Natural Spell. From what I gather, even without Natural Spell, you'll be better than the lot of them. Choose whether to wildshape OR cast control spells OR summon an army - you can most certainly do all of the above at the same time, but you don't have to. Not if it ruins the fun for the others. (Who subsequently spite you, and ruin the fun for you, too...)

Now, if you don't identify yourself as an "old fashioned player" and if their whole mentality truly annoys you (from what I gathered), maybe this group isn't the best for you. You can always look for a group that will be more to your liking. No hard feelings and no drama needed, it's just that you prefer a different game style.

[kamikasei]

"What's the point?"

That question's carrying a whole lot of baggage. "If druids were so much stronger than fighters, there'd be no point in playing fighters. The designers wouldn't do that, so you must be cheating."

The points you need to get across are a) yes, classes do differ in strength, you can't assume the designers got everything just right, and b) you're playing to the strengths of a strong class, while the fighter is a weak class and sword-and-board is a weak style for him.

Maybe they'll dismiss that as "internet theory", but all you can do is point out that that's the consensus achieved by a large number of people looking at the problem and that it's being borne out in your games. Neither point should be particularly hampered by the players being "old fashioned".

As to what to do in the group, once you convince them you're not cheating? I would suggest a party-boosting playstyle where you buff and BC and tone down the actual in-person face-murdering, and at the same time see if you can help the fighter be a little more effective. Not "play a warblade" or anything like that, but work out some strategies to make use of combat bonuses and maybe track down / import some feats to help with his style. (What sources do you have access to?)

[Zergrusheddie]

Those of you who have a great memory may remember my questions and the like about playing a Druid. I decided to do an Ape Druid type of build (Uses Spikes on a Staff while in an Apelike form) and found it to work decently. Currently, I turn into a Dire Ape and attack at +13/+8 for 1d6+17 damage and I am 8th level straight Druid. I find that it is roughly the same as turning into something like a Brown Bear in terms of raw power. This is the thread I started when my usefulness in combat was questioned; I'm making this thread as a "What can I do?" and to mostly pass on some semi-amusing information and irony.

These guys play classes as they were 'intended' to be played; Fighters are Sword and Boarders, Clerics are healbots, and Wizards are Evokers. The best way to describe the largest section of the party is thus: the last person to play a Druid took Natural Spell at level 15 once he ran out of feats that he could take that enhance his Archery skill and he only used Wildshape to go Eagle Form and fly Combat Air Scout. Oh, and he never used his Animal Companion.

Last session some of the other players (not the DM) actually stopped me and accused me of cheating. Most of the accusations include not changing my HP when I Wildshape, not reducing my BAB or hit dice, not reducing my Wisdom when I Wildshape, and casting spells during Wildshape. After showing them the Alternate Form Errata and the SRD, I stated that "Druids are often considered overpowered because they have special abilities that are more powerful than entire classes", which they simply dismissed as 'Internet Theory'.

At some point, the question of "what is the point of playing a Fighter if a Druid is better than he is (pointed at the SnB Fighter) at being a Fighter?" came out. This question is the primary point of this thread, with the beginning just to show the irony of how I have gone from being "useless" to "obviously cheating". I think it is mostly the Wizard being upset that I am starting to do more damage than his 10d6 Sonicballs.

TL;DR Version:
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players? The only thing I could come up with is "There is no reason as Fighters are a Tier 4 class and Druids are a Tier 1 class." I would use this line, but it would be dismissed as 'Internet Theory' and will still leave the other players curious.

Best of luck y'all!
-Eddie

[Tyrmatt]

It comes down to the simple facts. In a closed room where wave after wave of enemies come at you, the druid will live longer, hit harder and even has the potential to escape or turn the tables with his own summoned creatures ALL AT ONCE.

Now the fighter has only one option in a closed room and that's to fight. He only has whatever equipment he can easily reach out of his backpack without dying of AoOs and no exit strategy.

Offer to run a battle simulation of a oldies style Sword and Board fighter vs your druid against waves of increasingly difficult enemies and illustrate the fact that it's simply a power gap. Maybe nudge them towards Tome of Battle as well.

[Saph]

TL;DR Version:
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players?

With difficulty.

You can say "Well, you guys should all play higher tier classes." This is equivalent to saying "You should all rebuild your characters, do a bunch of work that you obviously don't want to do, and learn a completely new playstyle." Not a good idea.

You can say "Suck it up, I know how to optimise and you don't, now I get to stomp all over you." Also not a good idea.

The trouble with the situation you're describing is that it might occur to either the DM or the players that the easiest way for them to solve their problems is to either get rid of your character or to get rid of you. If they're nice, they won't do this, but it's still kind of a precarious position to be in.

My preferred solution would be to use combat buffs to try to push the fighters in the group up to the level where they can stand on the front lines with you. But in the long term - and you may not like hearing this - you're probably better off toning down the optimisation levels. Remember that making a character more powerful does not necessarily equate to more fun.

Edit: Whoops, looks like there are two threads. Could a mod merge them?

[Starbuck_II]

Those of you who have a great memory may remember my questions and the like about playing a Druid. I decided to do an Ape Druid type of build (Uses Spikes on a Staff while in an Apelike form) and found it to work decently. Currently, I turn into a Dire Ape and attack at +13/+8 for 1d6+17 damage and I am 8th level straight Druid. I find that it is roughly the same as turning into something like a Brown Bear in terms of raw power. This is the thread I started when my usefulness in combat was questioned; I'm making this thread as a "What can I do?" and to mostly pass on some semi-amusing information and irony.

These guys play classes as they were 'intended' to be played; Fighters are Sword and Boarders, Clerics are healbots, and Wizards are Evokers. The best way to describe the largest section of the party is thus: the last person to play a Druid took Natural Spell at level 15 once he ran out of feats that he could take that enhance his Archery skill and he only used Wildshape to go Eagle Form and fly Combat Air Scout. Oh, and he never used his Animal Companion.

Last session some of the other players (not the DM) actually stopped me and accused me of cheating. Most of the accusations include not changing my HP when I Wildshape, not reducing my BAB or hit dice, not reducing my Wisdom when I Wildshape, and casting spells during Wildshape. After showing them the Alternate Form Errata and the SRD, I stated that "Druids are often considered overpowered because they have special abilities that are more powerful than entire classes", which they simply dismissed as 'Internet Theory'.

At some point, the question of "what is the point of playing a Fighter if a Druid is better than he is (pointed at the SnB Fighter) at being a Fighter?" came out. This question is the primary point of this thread, with the beginning just to show the irony of how I have gone from being "useless" to "obviously cheating". I think it is mostly the Wizard being upset that I am starting to do more damage than his 10d6 Sonicballs.

TL;DR Version:
How do I respond to "What is the point of being a Fighter if a Druid can do it better than a Fighter?" when it is asked by extremely old fashioned players? The only thing I could come up with is "There is no reason as Fighters are a Tier 4 class and Druids are a Tier 1 class." I would use this line, but it would be dismissed as 'Internet Theory' and will still leave the other players curious.

Best of luck y'all!
-Eddie

Tell them Fighters are automatics, but Druids are stick shifts. Most people who drive a stick will tell you that stick shifts are better once you figure out how.

Same for Druids/Fighter disparity. Fighter are easier (just run up and hit things), but aren't as good same way manuals are easy to use but not as good.

Druids have to use the other foot (wildshape) and spells (stick) to drive better (combat, life, etc). So it seems like more work (but once do it becomes easy/second nature).

I got tell them:
Druids can 't wear mrtal armor. So the point of Fighters is wear the metal armor they find. Someone has to feed the rust monster

[Jack_Simth]

As I mentioned in a different thread:

... it's not the classes themselves that are broken. A party of four poorly-built bards isn't a problem - just throw stuff at them that they can handle while still being a challenge. A party of four optimal full casters isn't a problem - just throw stuff at them that they can handle while still being a challenge. Sure, one's running at -4 CR, the other's running at +4 CR, but either can be accounted for without too much headache by the DM, and everyone gets about the same spotlight time.

What breaks a game is not overpowered classes. It's a wide disparity of power amongst the players. In a party with an optimized Druid, Cleric, and Wizard, the Bard who doesn't know how to build a bard effectively is the broken one... because he's the one off of the power curve of the party, and he's the one that needs to be accounted for. In a party with three bards who don't know how to build characters (what, they wanted to play a rock band and drive around in the mystery mobile), the optimized Druid is the broken one - because he's off the power curve of the rest of the party. It's a game. The broken comes from when someone isn't having fun, and that (mechanically) usually comes from a significant disparity in spotlight time.

If you're teaming up with a Sword and Board Fighter, a Healbot Cleric, and a Evoker Wizard, and none of them are using particularly strong tricks to increase their effectiveness at those roles, you've got a broken character (you're playing significantly above their power level, and thus cutting back on their spotlight time). My recommendation is to tone it down. Pick less useful Wildshape forms (regular Ape instead of Dire Ape, for instance), use fewer buff spells (drop Barkskin and Greater Magic Fang) and play more to the party's level.

[Waargh!]

Haven't played that lot the game, but a fighter never seemed a class worth of taking 8 levels.
Think of this. When leveling up the druids gets higher levels of spells. The fighter gets feats. There is not even a comparison how more powerful spells are than feats. The higher BAB helps but only a bit. Still spells are far more powerful.
For casters prestige classes offer some added bonuses. For fighters they are just a must.

Not all classes are equal.

The interesting thing to do is compare a 8 lvl fighter with an 8 lvl Druid when they both have the role of a melee fighter. Meaning comparing attack roll, damage roll, defenses and HP