Hi all,
I need some opinions :-) i'm wondering about if you would allow the following:
I want to play as a ranger hunter archtype without an animal companion. Instead the ranger gets to use wildshape exactly like the druid but only for one shape: the grizzly bear :-)
Is this ok? Should i drop some more skills or is this fine? The gm thinks it is ok, but i don't want to be over/underpowered :-)
If your GM and fellow players are OK with it, then our opinions shouldn't matter.
However, if you're looking for a reality check, then, yes, it's overpowered.
1. A bear has 3 primary attacks, which you're putting on a full BAB class.
2. The 3 attacks carry not To Hit penalty.
3. The 3 attacks do full strength bonus damage.
4. You're doing these three attacks 2 levels before any other full BAB class can get their second iterative attack.
5. The most a character of similar level could do is 2 at a -2 penalty through TWF, one of which does only 0.5 strength binus (and probably has less strength or constitution than you because they need to meet the dex requirements of TWF).
6. The grizzly is large, providing reach (I think, unless it is large long) and 2 levels before a druid can take large size forms.
Taking black bear doesn't help much as it still has 3 primary attacks.
Wolf might be reasonable with it's 1 primary attack at 1.5 strength bonus.
This is not overpowered, no. If you want overpowered, do this, except as a Druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't game breaking power, but it is envy inducing power. Unless your GM gives your table mates similar power boosts to their classes, they are likely to feel outclassed and under valued as you take out a enemy per round.
I believe that the feral mutagen discovery proves the point. My experience with a player who took it at 2nd level on his vivisectionist put all our fighter types to shame. My personal opinion is that the claws should be secondary (-5) attacks, but that is neither here nor there.
Keep in mind that an alchemist with feral mutagen discovery or a druid at 4th level are less powerful in melee than a ranger at 4th with 3 primary attacks. The alch and druid are 3/4 BAB, have d8 hit dice, and should be devoting some of their points to their casting stat, while the ranger has full BAB, favored enemy (+2/+2 on each of those three attacks), and can take an archetype that dumps spells so they don't need Wisdom at all (and don't technically need it for a melee brute anyhow), and will have a bonus fighting style feat.
So, I agree, it's not going to break the game (the GM can just up HP to compensate), but it is an upgrade (particularly early on) and may foster bad feelings at the table if nobody else was given the same consideration. That is my only caution.
I believe that the feral mutagen discovery proves the point. My experience with a player who took it at 2nd level on his vivisectionist put all our fighter types to shame. My personal opinion is that the claws should be secondary (-5) attacks, but that is neither here nor there.
Anecdotes aren't tremendously great evidence.
I do respect that you've seen what you've seen, but without a more-complete picture, there isn't much to go on. Context plays a lot into such situations after all.
An Alchemist attacking at +1/+1 with two Claws and a +4 to Strength at second level IS powerful... but much weaker than, say, a Toothy Orc Barbarian with Lesser Beast Totem active (+2/+2/+2 Claw, Claw, Bite).
At the same time, a Claw Attack Tengu Warpriest also can also attack at +2/+2/+2 Claw, Claw, Bite at lv2 (assuming they take Weapon Focus (Bite) and Weapon Focus (Claw) as their Focus Weapon and their first-level Feat). Such a warpriest would also be dealing 1d6+Str for each of those attacks - higher than basically every other class here mentioned.
---
I'm sure your warrior-types did feel emasculated a little by the "chemistry-nerd" class beating faces with claws, BUT, I have a feeling that was, in total, more a problem of those players not being great optimizers, or simply taking classes which took longer to become very strong, than it is a problem of the Alchemist, Wild Shape users, etc., causing "Natural Attack Envy"
Natural Attacks start out very strong early on, but by the time iterative attacks come into the fray, they've lost quite a bit of steam.
Natural Attacks are only very good IF you can keep the number of attacks up to or higher than your attack iterations AND you can pump up your Strength to heinous levels; if not, then you're generally just better off swinging a greatsword or thereabout.
I have to agree with chbgraphicarts. As a GM I'd be all for a Ranger giving up their Animal Companion. One less "character" to worry about on the map. Giving a Ranger the ability to Shapchange into a Bear 1/day at 4th level, not a huge deal in my mind. Especially if it's an Archer Ranger. I'd love for them to take that hit to DPR. I mean you can't talk (without feats) you lose your armor until you can afford +4 armor, (+1 bonus, and +3 wild). Yeah I'd let you do it if I were GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the reactions!
I don't want to give the shape at level 4. Since the druid also gets it at 6 i thought to copy the druid in each aspect. I also think that at level 4 its very strong.
Thanks for the reactions!
I don't want to give the shape at level 4. Since the druid also gets it at 6 i thought to copy the druid in each aspect. I also think that at level 4 its very strong.
Are you sure a bear is large? I'm too lazy to look it up, but the Bear animal companion is only Medium...because we all know that wolves get so much larger than bears o_O. Either way, I wouldn't have an issue with it as a GM, especially if you wait until 6th level where you'll probably take a hit to DPR by shifting.
Large ;-) http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/bear/brown-grizzl y-bear
A black bear is medium.
It is an alternative option to instead allow the grizzly bear to only allow to shape into an animal companion. This shape evolves according to how an animal companion would normally grow. I would allow all animal companions instead of only Rhode available to rangers.
So it would work for times a day an duration like a druid, ranger levels would count as druid.
The shapes that are available would be one animal each time a druid would game addintional shapes (4,6,8,10 etc...).
Or
One animal companion chosen from all available animals. This animal will gain levels.
Any good?