Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

DM's: How relaxed are you when it comes to Wild Shape?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Osirion

shallowsoul wrote:


Now if a player comes in expecting the ability to work one way while the DM says it works another then guess who is right. Now the DM may decide to allow it to work the way the player suggests but he doesn't have to and he shouldn't have to worry about the player throwing the old "I'm not having fun if we can't do it my way" argument.

So, if a player wants to do something that in now way imbalances the game, he shouldn't get to because the DM doesn't want his campaign setting to get hurt.

Well, I think my work here is done.

/thread


Mergy wrote:
Anyway, does anyone want to make a list of good versatile wild shapes? Don't hold back based on location or which bestiary they're from, seeing as a DC 10+CR knowledge check is all that's required to be familiar with one. DC 15+CR at the most.

One of the more fun fights we had in my campaign was a fight between an NPC Druid and a PC Druid, they spent time flipping between Animal Shapes. It became this weird knowledge off between the NPC and PC over what to change into.

As for veristale shapes, my PC likes change into heavy things to break rope bridges, or to fall onto people from trees. It was great fun earlier in his career.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Guy Kilmore wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Anyway, does anyone want to make a list of good versatile wild shapes? Don't hold back based on location or which bestiary they're from, seeing as a DC 10+CR knowledge check is all that's required to be familiar with one. DC 15+CR at the most.

One of the more fun fights we had in my campaign was a fight between an NPC Druid and a PC Druid, they spent time flipping between Animal Shapes. It became this weird knowledge off between the NPC and PC over what to change into.

As for veristale shapes, my PC likes change into heavy things to break rope bridges, or to fall onto people from trees. It was great fun earlier in his career.

Oh man, Merlin fight! :D


While I do not like his tone, I agree with Shallow, as have several people. Look back in the thread and you will note that many people did not simply state their opinions, but told him why he is wrong. Discussion (or argument) is a two way street. People furthering their positions are just as much a part of the equation as the original poster.

That said, it comes down to whether you consider sovereignty lies with the DM's perceptions or the player's desires. Oddly, people claim both that complete freedom for wildshape this is key to the ability, and that prohibiting any animals is pointless as the mechanics are limited by the spell. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

The crunch is intentionally vague. The fluff is up to DM interpretation. To me, it is clear. You may disagree with Shallow's interpretation of the fluff, but he has quoted the rules chapter and verse, and nobody has made successful assail of them. He's being a bit churlish, but those trying to ram player supremacy down the collective throat are little better, in my eyes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GoatToucher wrote:


That said, it comes down to whether you consider sovereignty lies with the DM's perceptions or the player's desires. Oddly, people claim both that complete freedom for wildshape this is key to the ability, and that prohibiting any animals is pointless as the mechanics are limited by the spell. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

The crunch is intentionally vague. The fluff is up to DM interpretation. To me, it is clear. You may disagree with Shallow's interpretation of the fluff, but he has quoted the rules chapter and verse, and nobody has made successful assail of them. He's being a bit churlish, but those trying to ram player supremacy down the collective throat are little better, in my eyes.

I think you're seeing things that aren't here. I don't see anyone saying that complete freedom is key to the ability - assuming you mean key to the ability pulling its weight. I don't think anybody's really saying that. Nor do I see anyone trying to ram player supremacy down his throat.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
GoatToucher wrote:
He's being a bit churlish, but those trying to ram player supremacy down the collective throat are little better, in my eyes.

Stay Classy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GoatToucher wrote:
You may disagree with Shallow's interpretation of the fluff, but he has quoted the rules chapter and verse, and nobody has made successful assail of them. He's being a bit churlish, but those trying to ram player supremacy down the collective throat are little better, in my eyes.

Except that people have. I know I have demonstrated clearly that familiarity implies Knowledge, and that a knowledge check implies familiarity. Just because the knowledge skill description uses a word other than familiar, doesn't mean that familiarity and knowledge aren't the same thing.

The argument that you must witness a creature in person is invalid.

And, as someone has already pointed out before: If you see a creature off in the distance, you would roll knowledge check. It would tell you that the creature is a wolf, has a bite... a trip attack.. ect.. Just because you rolled your check then, does not mean you just NOW know about the creature. You have always known, the check just confirmed that. You encountering the creature just now had nothing to do with your previous knowledge of it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In fact, until the knowledge check is rolled, I both know and do not know what this creature is. I shall call this Schrödinger's Check!


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I like that this thread has turned into more and more people questioning shallowsoul's intentions in this thread. He seems to have made the thread simply to argue. Why make a thread asking others' opinions when your sole intention is just to bicker? Seems strange.

What's even stranger is that a wizard who learns all the beast shape spells can turn into any animals he damn well pleases, familiar or not. A druid can still only turn into those he is familiar with.


Dr Grecko wrote:


If you see a creature off in the distance, you would roll knowledge check. It would tell you that the creature is a wolf, has a bite... a trip attack.. ect.. Just because you rolled your check then, does not mean you just NOW know about the creature. You have always known, the check just confirmed that. You encountering the creature just now had nothing to do with your previous knowledge of it.

Yep. This is like making a PC justify every knowledge roll with proof that they would have the knowledge...which is what the knowledge check represents in the first place.

"I roll Spellcraft to identify the spell...I got a 25."
"Well you wouldn't know the spell because you've never seen it before so you can't identify the spell because I don't want you to and it's my game."
"This is so much fun. Wee!"

Cheliax

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
drumlord wrote:

I like that this thread has turned into more and more people questioning shallowsoul's intentions in this thread. He seems to have made the thread simply to argue. Why make a thread asking others' opinions when your sole intention is just to bicker? Seems strange.

What's even stranger is that a wizard who learns all the beast shape spells can turn into any animals he damn well pleases, familiar or not. A druid can still only turn into those he is familiar with.

Shallowsoul would counter by saying that he wouldn't ever allow the wizard in question to learn beast shape.

Silver Crusade

redward wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:


If you see a creature off in the distance, you would roll knowledge check. It would tell you that the creature is a wolf, has a bite... a trip attack.. ect.. Just because you rolled your check then, does not mean you just NOW know about the creature. You have always known, the check just confirmed that. You encountering the creature just now had nothing to do with your previous knowledge of it.

Yep. This is like making a PC justify every knowledge roll with proof that they would have the knowledge...which is what the knowledge check represents in the first place.

"I roll Spellcraft to identify the spell...I got a 25."
"Well you wouldn't know the spell because you've never seen it before so you can't identify the spell because I don't want you to and it's my game."
"This is so much fun. Wee!"

That's not how Spellcraft works.

If you pass the check then you know of the spell and if you don't then you don't know of the spell.

Passing your check or failing it determines from then on if you know of something or not.

Silver Crusade

Dr Grecko wrote:
GoatToucher wrote:
You may disagree with Shallow's interpretation of the fluff, but he has quoted the rules chapter and verse, and nobody has made successful assail of them. He's being a bit churlish, but those trying to ram player supremacy down the collective throat are little better, in my eyes.

Except that people have. I know I have demonstrated clearly that familiarity implies Knowledge, and that a knowledge check implies familiarity. Just because the knowledge skill description uses a word other than familiar, doesn't mean that familiarity and knowledge aren't the same thing.

The argument that you must witness a creature in person is invalid.

And, as someone has already pointed out before: If you see a creature off in the distance, you would roll knowledge check. It would tell you that the creature is a wolf, has a bite... a trip attack.. ect.. Just because you rolled your check then, does not mean you just NOW know about the creature. You have always known, the check just confirmed that. You encountering the creature just now had nothing to do with your previous knowledge of it.

You have yet to show any of what you claim as being RAW. You are choosing one of the definitions to back up your interpretation which is fine but it still leaves the ability open to DM interpretation. What you have done is made an argument for your interpretation, not an argument for RAW.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:


You have yet to show any of what you claim as being RAW. You are choosing one of the definitions to back up your interpretation which is fine but it still leaves the ability open to DM interpretation. What you have done is made an argument for your interpretation, not an argument for RAW.

You do know that you've done exactly the same thing right?


So as long as there's a wizard in the party who takes beast shape x the druid can wild shape into whatever she wants? Seems like a waste of time.

Mr. Wizard, I'd like to be a polar bear, can you show me what one looks like so I can learn to wild shape into it?

Certainly my dear boy, perhaps next time your user will select a class that doesn't rely on another class for assistance using one of your primary abilities.

Once again proving that all other classes are inferior to the wizard. Yay!


shallowsoul wrote:
redward wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:


If you see a creature off in the distance, you would roll knowledge check. It would tell you that the creature is a wolf, has a bite... a trip attack.. ect.. Just because you rolled your check then, does not mean you just NOW know about the creature. You have always known, the check just confirmed that. You encountering the creature just now had nothing to do with your previous knowledge of it.

Yep. This is like making a PC justify every knowledge roll with proof that they would have the knowledge...which is what the knowledge check represents in the first place.

"I roll Spellcraft to identify the spell...I got a 25."
"Well you wouldn't know the spell because you've never seen it before so you can't identify the spell because I don't want you to and it's my game."
"This is so much fun. Wee!"

That's not how Spellcraft works.

If you pass the check then you know of the spell and if you don't then you don't know of the spell.

Passing your check or failing it determines from then on if you know of something or not.

I know that's how Spellcraft works. That's also how Knowledge works. Do you know that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This reminds me of a time a player wanted a druid with a dinosaur companion in one of my games.

My brain first said to me, "There aren't any dinosaurs here."

So then I thought for a bit and said to the player, "While dinosaurs are long extinct and no longer roam these lands, an order of elder druids performed rituals to delve into the forgotten past and bring forth and renew ancient forms of life. That's where you got your dinosaur."


exactly how soon after you allowed that to happen did your campaign come crashing down around you? Please answer in seconds, minutes are too vague....


It may have been related to the occurence of kobold cavaliers on raptor mounts.

So... it resulted in awesome?


I started this thread thinking, I don't exactly agree with shallowsoul, but I can see where he(?) is coming from.
The more I read of it, the less willing I was to accept his side, not so much because of logical arguments but mostly just that a tone that adversarial is not one to win people over.

The bottom of the reply box say "The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place" for a reason.
It's not just that coming off as a jerk might upset people, it is also that appearing unpleasant will poison people against your suggestions even when they have merit - which is why after reading through this thread I no longer feel I'm remotely able to judge if such merit was there.

It doesn't matter how good your Knowledge, if you balls up the Diplomacy check then you'll have a lot more trouble convincing people.

And now that I've likely done just as bad on mine, I'll go sit under my bridge...


My favorite part is where shallowsoul compares Wild Shape to a Wizard's spellbook and claims that nothing RAW allows Wizards to gain more than 2 spells per level.
What's the big draw to playing a Wizard over a Sorcerer again? I forgot. :P


By RAW, a wizard can spend money to get more than the 2 spells per level they get for free.

By RAW, a magic item worth less than a community's gold piece limit has a 75% chance of being available for purchase. even if the community has no use for the item.

community sizes also have available spells up to a given level dependant on size. all spells of this specified level and lower are available to aquire through spellcasting services.

the only non guaranteed spell level is 9th.

Silver Crusade

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

By RAW, a wizard can spend money to get more than the 2 spells per level they get for free.

By RAW, a magic item worth less than a community's gold piece limit has a 75% chance of being available for purchase. even if the community has no use for the item.

community sizes also have available spells up to a given level dependant on size. all spells of this specified level and lower are available to aquire through spellcasting services.

the only non guaranteed spell level is 9th.

You mistake a guideline for RAW like a lot of people do around here. By RAW you are only guaranteed 2 spells per level, that's it. There is no place else you are going to find anything RAW that will dispute that.

Community sizes are all guidelines. Show me where it says by RAW.

Silver Crusade

sheadunne wrote:

So as long as there's a wizard in the party who takes beast shape x the druid can wild shape into whatever she wants? Seems like a waste of time.

Mr. Wizard, I'd like to be a polar bear, can you show me what one looks like so I can learn to wild shape into it?

Certainly my dear boy, perhaps next time your user will select a class that doesn't rely on another class for assistance using one of your primary abilities.

Once again proving that all other classes are inferior to the wizard. Yay!

You are trying to compare a spell, which has it's own set of rules in it's description, to a supernatural ability that has it's own set of rules.

We don't change the rules of one class just because you think their toys aren't as nice as those of another class. You can do that in your homebrew but that's not what you referring to.


shallowsoul wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

By RAW, a wizard can spend money to get more than the 2 spells per level they get for free.

By RAW, a magic item worth less than a community's gold piece limit has a 75% chance of being available for purchase. even if the community has no use for the item.

community sizes also have available spells up to a given level dependant on size. all spells of this specified level and lower are available to aquire through spellcasting services.

the only non guaranteed spell level is 9th.

You mistake a guideline for RAW like a lot of people do around here. By RAW you are only guaranteed 2 spells per level, that's it. There is no place else you are going to find anything RAW that will dispute that.

Community sizes are all guidelines. Show me where it says by RAW.

tell my why i would ever want to play a wizard over a sorcerer then?

there has got to be some compensation for carrying around a book that can be easily lost, stolen, or destroyed.

usually that compensation is the ability to spend money on extra spells.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

tell my why i would ever want to play a wizard over a sorcerer then?

there has got to be some compensation for carrying around a book that can be easily lost, stolen, or destroyed.

I think your missing his point (I very well could be aswell).

He as said repeditivly throughout this thread that getting additional spells is purely OPTIONAL and up to the DM while it may be RAW it is still only optional.

OT: IMO i think a Knowledge check is sufficent for wildshaping in to monsters with either a bonus or negative based on the backstory. If you pass the check then you know of the creature and if you don't then you don't know of the creature until you either meet it in the wild and find out what it can do, or your study it after hearing storys of it or talking to another druid who about their favourite wildshapes(or something along those lines).


Alski wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

tell my why i would ever want to play a wizard over a sorcerer then?

there has got to be some compensation for carrying around a book that can be easily lost, stolen, or destroyed.

I think your missing his point (I very well could be aswell).

He as said repeditivly throughout this thread that getting additional spells is purely OPTIONAL and up to the DM while it may be RAW it is still only optional.

lets see what else is optional that everybody uses

magic items

prestige classes

archtypes

traits


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

lets see what else is optional that everybody uses

magic items

prestige classes

archtypes

traits

In no way am i agreeing with what hes said.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey now, the important thing is that anything that leads to druids having general access to arbitrary wildshape forms is abusive, even if it's only abusive for the specialized meaning of "abusive" that means something like "not actually a problem in any way, but the word 'abusive' sounds like a bad thing, so we'll keep using it."


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

By RAW, a wizard can spend money to get more than the 2 spells per level they get for free.

By RAW, a magic item worth less than a community's gold piece limit has a 75% chance of being available for purchase. even if the community has no use for the item.

community sizes also have available spells up to a given level dependant on size. all spells of this specified level and lower are available to aquire through spellcasting services.

the only non guaranteed spell level is 9th.

I wish for a spell book dealer with 9th level spells!

Seriously, I don't get the point of players arguing with GMs. Personally, I think angry players are a little funny and if I see someone is being weak and trying to spoil my fun by arguing with me, I just get harder on them.

A GM is going to invent encounters to a certain difficulty and they are going to expect them to be in that range. If you argue with a GM because his rules are making things to hard, he can just play by the rules exactly and add more monsters. He can also put you on the slow XP track if he wants so you don't level up any faster. There is no point in arguing rules with the man who arbitrarily picks the playing pieces.

If PF was chess, I could see you getting angry that the other player was moving his rook like a knight, but in this game if you aggravate him he can follow the rules by replacing his pawns with knights and moving the rook like a rook.

Player entitlement irritates me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

By RAW, a wizard can spend money to get more than the 2 spells per level they get for free.

By RAW, a magic item worth less than a community's gold piece limit has a 75% chance of being available for purchase. even if the community has no use for the item.

community sizes also have available spells up to a given level dependant on size. all spells of this specified level and lower are available to aquire through spellcasting services.

the only non guaranteed spell level is 9th.

I wish for a spell book dealer with 9th level spells!

Seriously, I don't get the point of players arguing with GMs. Personally, I think angry players are a little funny and if I see someone is being weak and trying to spoil my fun by arguing with me, I just get harder on them.

A GM is going to invent encounters to a certain difficulty and they are going to expect them to be in that range. If you argue with a GM because his rules are making things to hard, he can just play by the rules exactly and add more monsters. He can also put you on the slow XP track if he wants so you don't level up any faster. There is no point in arguing rules with the man who arbitrarily picks the playing pieces.

If PF was chess, I could see you getting angry that the other player was moving his rook like a knight, but in this game if you aggravate him he can follow the rules by replacing his pawns with knights and moving the rook like a rook.

Player entitlement irritates me.

GMs and players that see the game as adversarial make me sad. If that's how your group likes to play, that's fine and good, but IMO playing competitively when one person makes all the rules is a recipe for disaster.


Pathfinder is not intended to be an adversarial game. it is not the same as playing chess. a DM who abuses thier power to hose the players is a lot worse than a player who supposedly feels "entitled" because they are citing a commonly used rule from the core rulebook that may as well be RAW.

players work as a team and it is not the DM's goal to kill the players, it is the DM's goal to run the PCs through the adventure. there should be some risk involved, but it shouldn't stem from an artificially implanted restriction such as Fiating away an entire class feature because you find it unbalancing.

do you really have to be up in arms about every druid who transforms into a dire tiger?

it's really no different from all the fighters who chose a falchion

or all the sorcerers who chose to be human


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber
Mergy wrote:

So this topic started hostile and has remained so, but what I would like to know is what everyone's favourite wild shape form is! :)

A deinonychus gets 4 natural attacks and is achievable at level 4, and who doesn't like turning into a raptor?

Personally, I think this thread has toned down a lot since the start. Let's call it less hostile with background tensions, or something.

Second: No, your deinonychus transformation does NOT grant 4 natural attacks at 4th level. Although theoretically it can achieve 5 (two talons, two claws, and a secondary of bite ;) ).

Personally, I like the simple stuff. I'm a long time fan of trip, improved trip, etc..., so I like wolves (be they winter, normal, worg, dire, were, or otherwise). That said...

And I quote: "at 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here..."

That's on page 51 of the core rule book. Beast Shape I is on page 247 (as is version 2 and 3, version 2 applying first at level 6)
Beast Shape spells

Ergo: what the druid changes into doesn't match the creature in a "I gain the 22 strength of the rare and elusive super ape, along with four claw attacks and a rend, as well as a tail with constrict. It is also a normal animal because I say so It mimics the spell. At fourth level you look like a super ape, but your personal strength only goes up by 2. If the super ape is large, you can change into it at 6th level, but again, unless you started with 18 strength, your version of the super ape is somewhat weaker. Or maybe stronger. Unless you took a feat in multiattack, (or otherwise simulate it), you don't get all five claw attacks at the best possible attack value. Damage is by the Universal monster rules, Natural attacks by size might have to scroll a ways or ctrl-f for it This table is in every bestiary so far.

By the RAW, you technically don't even gain poison if you transform into a snake before 8th level when Beast Shape 3 kicks in.

summation: the actual animal transformed into is NOT the bestiary definition thereof. It is an approximation, different for each and every druid that transforms into that animal.

As a DM, I'd probably go ahead and fudge the rules enough to allow poison, trip attacks, etc, where appropriate (from a venomous lizard or wolf, say, respectively), but that falls under house rules. Of course, by 8th level it falls into RAW as well.

Further ergo and summation: limiting what a druid can or can't change into is little more than set dressing. Okay, no dinos in the world? Well, how about I change into a hunting cat with 4 claws and a bite instead? If the DM says no dinos in his world, but you really, really want to transform into one, you might ask about the posability of some sort of special quest, feat, or something to help you out. Again, it's mostly just set dressing, but maybe he'll let you invent a campaign specific feat (say, terrifying transformation: you can transform into shapes of extinct creatures. Their oddity grants you a +2 to intimidate, etc... so long as you are transformed) or perhaps just a ritual to allow you to make the change. Again, since it's less a stats thing than set dressing, you might be surprised with what you are allowed (especially since most of us GMing want to keep our players involved and at least somewhat happy). If it's a deal breaker for you (ie. you get the dinos, the polar bear, the super ape, whatever; or you don't play/don't play the druid)... well... I guess...

I guess that:
I'm glad it ain't me having that discussion with you. Personally, from the GM perspective I'd be upset if you left the game, but less so if you changed class. Generally the inclusion of a specific class in the game isn't needed. From a player's perspective... Okay, I've been upset over things being unavailable before, but I generally find that talking with the GM eventually turns into SOME sort of compromise, and it helps to know exactly why you want what you're asking for. If it's just the ability to turn into cool-awesome -super-munkey, a unique transformation, or even something you saw in a show once, the GM is probably able to come up with something that works toward your goals in his world. Really. Also, bribery never hurts (unless your GM is a professional dominatrix...)


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
sheadunne wrote:

So as long as there's a wizard in the party who takes beast shape x the druid can wild shape into whatever she wants? Seems like a waste of time.

Mr. Wizard, I'd like to be a polar bear, can you show me what one looks like so I can learn to wild shape into it?

Certainly my dear boy, perhaps next time your user will select a class that doesn't rely on another class for assistance using one of your primary abilities.

Once again proving that all other classes are inferior to the wizard. Yay!

You are trying to compare a spell, which has it's own set of rules in it's description, to a supernatural ability that has it's own set of rules.

We don't change the rules of one class just because you think their toys aren't as nice as those of another class. You can do that in your homebrew but that's not what you referring to.

Actually, see my previous post. A druid's Wild Shape works like the Beast Shape spell, except as listed (primarily range, lack of components (this implied by it being an ability and not a spell), and familiarity with the form taken).

They follow the same set of rules, otherwise, and is a legitimate thought. However, were I to limit druids to forms known, I would also limit the Wizard. Sure, he might get that polar bear form right, but he might also get an albino black bear. Or he might not know what a polar bear was in the first place.

Further, would a Wizard using one of the Beast Shape/Polymorph/shapechange family of spells be able to mimic the form well enough for a druid to familiarize with it? Say an arctic wizz-o beast shaping to a polar bear for a desert druid? Is the reverse enough for the Wizard? If the same group has an arctic druid and a jungle Wiz, could the effectively 'swap forms' in this manner? Why or why not?


heyyy i love yo rule!!

it has a lot of sense: how a desert druid can transform into a polar bear if hes never see one?

now let me tell you something; why do not let the druid has a wisdom modifier like slot for unusual animals to begin knowing?

example: druid wis 16 know all animals from hes enviroment, plus 3 unusual animals to start... (actually this only awake when he reach level 4th or was it 5?

i love make new rules: blacksmith skill for example with a book of what the player can do with...

the linguistic skill: or every point u has is a language new, but you still need to make a linguistic check to speak with some one who dont speak your language (i kick off the common tongue and feel great hen the party comes to new town and run searching for a translator first)
and when they found some ruins, with an ancient language, the linguistic skill check is needed to try to understand the writtings...

knowledge local has a synergy bonus +2 to the checks to speak a language

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
sheadunne wrote:

So as long as there's a wizard in the party who takes beast shape x the druid can wild shape into whatever she wants? Seems like a waste of time.

Mr. Wizard, I'd like to be a polar bear, can you show me what one looks like so I can learn to wild shape into it?

Certainly my dear boy, perhaps next time your user will select a class that doesn't rely on another class for assistance using one of your primary abilities.

Once again proving that all other classes are inferior to the wizard. Yay!

What makes you think that I wouldn't apply the same, perhaps even more restrictions to the wizard, than I would to the Druid? Knowing the Beast Shape spell doesn't convey the knowledge of all animal forms to the wizard, than it would to the druid.


You can house rule Beast Shape however you like, but the description of the spell is pretty clear. "When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the animal type." No vagueness there.

My point was, the Druid has plenty of options to become "familiar" with the form, without having to travel across the world. Wildshape doesn't "make" you the creature. You don't think and act like the animal. You act like yourself. Studying the creature isn't going to be any more useful to a Druid than looking at a picture in a book. It's the form that matters, not the habits.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
sheadunne wrote:

You can house rule Beast Shape however you like, but the description of the spell is pretty clear. "When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the animal type." No vagueness there.

My point was, the Druid has plenty of options to become "familiar" with the form, without having to travel across the world. Wildshape doesn't "make" you the creature. You don't think and act like the animal. You act like yourself. Studying the creature isn't going to be any more useful to a Druid than looking at a picture in a book. It's the form that matters, not the habits.

Books aren't that common. It's not like you can go down to a local library and rent a copy of Thystram's Zoological Catalog and just get a complete picture of the Bestiaries in one sitting. Particulars do matter especially since most scrolls and pictures are sadly lacking in the fine detail 3 dimensional holographic display aspect.


LazarX wrote:
sheadunne wrote:

You can house rule Beast Shape however you like, but the description of the spell is pretty clear. "When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the animal type." No vagueness there.

My point was, the Druid has plenty of options to become "familiar" with the form, without having to travel across the world. Wildshape doesn't "make" you the creature. You don't think and act like the animal. You act like yourself. Studying the creature isn't going to be any more useful to a Druid than looking at a picture in a book. It's the form that matters, not the habits.

Books aren't that common. It's not like you can go down to a local library and rent a copy of Thystram's Zoological Catalog and just get a complete picture of the Bestiaries in one sitting. Particulars do matter especially since most scrolls and pictures are sadly lacking in the fine detail 3 dimensional holographic display aspect.

Because Magic doesn't exist or anything ;)

Druids are a weak class as it is in Pathfinder. I'd hope my players would look up a cool animal form to take and if they didn't, I'd recommend it to them. Druids need all the help they can get :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
sheadunne wrote:
LazarX wrote:
sheadunne wrote:

You can house rule Beast Shape however you like, but the description of the spell is pretty clear. "When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the animal type." No vagueness there.

My point was, the Druid has plenty of options to become "familiar" with the form, without having to travel across the world. Wildshape doesn't "make" you the creature. You don't think and act like the animal. You act like yourself. Studying the creature isn't going to be any more useful to a Druid than looking at a picture in a book. It's the form that matters, not the habits.

Books aren't that common. It's not like you can go down to a local library and rent a copy of Thystram's Zoological Catalog and just get a complete picture of the Bestiaries in one sitting. Particulars do matter especially since most scrolls and pictures are sadly lacking in the fine detail 3 dimensional holographic display aspect.

Because Magic doesn't exist or anything ;)

Druids are a weak class as it is in Pathfinder. I'd hope my players would look up a cool animal form to take and if they didn't, I'd recommend it to them. Druids need all the help they can get :)

(Because Magic doesn't exist or anything ;) What's exactly is that supposed to mean?

That because of magic, information is as easily available as calling out to the Computer in Star Trek:TNG?
That each hamlet has the Encyclopedia Britannica on demand? Magic doesn't change that much when it comes to the scarcity of scholarship.

Druids are only weak if 3.5 Druidzilla is your benchmark. My spouse has played two under Pathfinder, one in PFS, and in neither case are they "weak".


LazarX wrote:


(Because Magic doesn't exist or anything ;) What's exactly is that supposed to mean?

That because of magic, information is as easily available as calling out to the Computer in Star Trek:TNG?
That each hamlet has the Encyclopedia Britannica on demand? Magic doesn't change that much when it comes to the scarcity of scholarship.

Druids are only weak if 3.5 Druidzilla is your benchmark. My spouse has played two under Pathfinder, one in PFS, and in neither case are they "weak".

I was suggesting that each world is different. In my pathfinder world, finding a book of animals is pretty common place. Education is normal. The world doesn't lack for magical texts detailing every aspect of common creatures (many in 3d). Spells exist to copy text and disseminate them throughout the civilized world. Magic exists and is used to great effect (depending on civilization and time period).

Druids are also in my world, trained in the art by other Druids who can wild-shape. They learn forms from them as well.

I have found Druids weak because they have to choose between being good at wild-shape or being good at spell casting (or average in each). And I find their average below my expectations for the class. Just my experience.

This is not intended to be an aggressive position. I am fully aware that other people do it differently and that's a beautiful thing. More people developing their own ideas, the more good ideas to steal for my own games.

151 to 200 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / DM's: How relaxed are you when it comes to Wild Shape? All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.