Adam Hall's page

By way of rebuttal

That's a +25 Untyped Bonus to one of a character's ability scores.

Mechanically, that is how it works out in this case, yes, but it's at least a little more complicated than that, isn't it? The druid is physically becoming another creature, a dire bear (a large animal with a documented strength score). The "bonus" is a calculation made in hindsight from reference to the creature and the caster, which is why it is "untyped." And if our hypothetical gnome had any other strength score, it would not be a +25 "bonus."

That is not balanced in any way, shape, or form against any other stat boosting effect in the game system.

Assuming that it is advisable to balance magical affects against one another in a game system, aren't there at least some "way[s], shape[s], or form[s]" of balance here? What about the limitation to self-only; the loss of the ability to speak; the loss of the ability to use wands, staves, scrolls, potions, etc; and the cumbersome new character size (especially in dungeons)? I don't mean to suggest that these would be sufficient (see my original post) but they are limitations which are not imposed by other "stat boosting" spells.

I don't mean to suggest that no change is needed from 3.5. Something should be done, but I don't think approaching it from a wholly meta-game perspective is the right move. Any rules change should be consistent with the concept which it purports to implement [wildshape = +x str, -x dex, +x con irrespective of the form taken within a given size category?]

I don't think the goal was to make it simpler; the goal was to make it weaker. I.e. no 6 Str gnomes turning into 31 Str dire bears.

Certainly this is a dramatic change in strength scores, but isn't that the point of the ability in this circumstance? (i.e. small, weak creature suddenly becomes large, strong creature [vs. large, weak creature]).

In my opinion, the druid really needed nerfing. Maybe they went a little too far, but I hope they don't revert to the case where a druid can get a +25 bonus to Str that lasts all day.

I would like to see the ability change the druid into the animal of its choice (ala 3.5 as I understand it). I would agree, however, that being able to compensate for one's weak physical ability scores (with dramatic affect, in some cases) while retaining all of one's mental ability scores and spellcasting* seems (or, properly, "IS") overpowered.

*Note: I realize that the ability to cast spells while wild shaped comes from a feat, but that feat is so commonly known and so commonly taken that it hardly needs mentioning.

The present solution falls short of the mark. The druid player is unhappy (at least in my case), because the nature of the shaping ability has been altered. No longer does his character become the desired creature, but instead he shifts into a creature-like shape with fixed abilities (admittedly based in part upon a chosen creature-template). The player is left scratching his head on why his dire bear form has STR 16, when the one is the book is STR 31 (I didn't look this up, btw).

An alternative to these "objectionable" changes would be to adjust the ability to retain one's mental scores and/or spellcasting after wild shaping. I think this is where balance should (have been?) sought. It is intuitive to think that a character should lose the ability to cast spells, or the ability to think as well, as an animal (as animals usually aren't renowned thinkers and/or spellcasters, even in fantasy). My kneejerk solution would be to eliminate the ability to cast spells while wild shaped from the game, forcing the player to make a tactical choice (melee v. spellcasting) instead of allowing the best of both worlds but to a lesser degree. A similar change could also be made with mental ability scores, if desired.**

[edit] ** Note: I am not wholly neutral on this subject, I would like to see the druid retain some vestige of human intelligence (as is common in fantasy).

Maybe I am too late on this one (laches!), and my discussion is wholly academic, in which case feel free to move to the next post, but I had to put it out there to get it off my mind.

Kalyth wrote:

Ok first off let me start by saying. That if Pathfinder institutes a buff limit system that is not completely option, like a side bar or something, I will not be playing pathfinder.

Agreed.

My players aren't lazy, and they can keep track of the buffs. So can I. The problem isn't the number of buffs that can alter a character sheet (unless you've got a total [way too much] beer & pretzels group). The problem is dispel magic.

You guys have my vote on this issue (with the caveat that I think NOT PLAYING an otherwise superb game seems like an extreme measure to take with regard to any change. Wouldn't it be a better solution to just house rule away the buff limit? [i.e. aren't all rules "completely option"?]).

I enjoy a system which is consistent and which backs rules with rationales (express or implied). What would be the rationale for a buff limit? (notwithstanding the meta-game considerations).