ChaiGuy's page

Not to get too caught up in specific examples, but a barbarian priest could take the acolyte background to add weight to their roleplay as a priest. It seems to work fairly well for that character type too, mechanically.

I'm surprised that rangers aren't proficient with shields, then again if they where then perhaps that would overshadow their intended 2 weapon build, but then again shield spikes and shield boss are weapons so why not have shield proficiency?

Not very exciting, but good articles nonetheless.

I just want to know the playtest's final boss, but I guess I'll have to wait :P
The downtime rules are going to get my attention. I've never thought much about using these kinds of rules in my games. I'll check that out.

Quadratic W wrote:

So it's the scaling DCs of 4e...but with a static DC table too. One based on a "how difficult is this?" back of the envelope question rather than a "let's add up all these modifiers and see what comes out" approach.

Honestly, that's so elegant I wonder why 4e never thought to use it.

WotC's 4e was worse than 4e :P

But enough talk about editions! Now we fight like men! And ladies, ladies who dress like men! For Gilgamesh, it's morphing time!

(I hope anyone gets it).

P.S.: Why this avatar image popped up here, it's a mystery.

We can all use more Final Fantasy 5 in our lives. :P I'm not sure about the avatar, but when you mention "smurf" your avatar becomes a smurf, although I don't really notice you saying that.

… So now onto the Bloodline Powers and what does Lackluster mean?

Okay, so lackluster might have been the wrong word but to show you what I mean lets take a look at Glutton's Jaws...
Glutton's Jaws basically makes it so I don't need a backup weapon cause in an emergency I can summon up a pretty good enchanted weapon if enemies get too close for comfort.
So what's the problem?
Well, if I wanted to play some kind of martial Sorcerer this wouldn't really help me because:
1. I could make an even better weapon.
2. I can't enhance this cause it's temporary.
3. If I wanted to use shape-shifting spells to maul my enemy like a druid, then this still doesn't help unless I can apply it to that forms natural attacks....

I've been thinking about how a sorcerer could best use Glutton's Jaws, it seems to me it depends on the magic item mighty handwraps work, which where mentioned in the Trinkets and Treasure blog. I would imagine that they add magic runes to your character's unarmed attacks. Since Glutton's Jaws already increases it's enhancement bonus, it would be a way to add other effects to the attack, like add a frost rune to add cold damage.

It would work well with the whole spells need to be prepared at a higher spell slot for increased effect, like prepare at higher level for increased damage or increased area.

Also some spells get more powerful when more actions are spent to cast them, for example the heal spell becomes an area effect when 3 actions are spent to cast it. If you can spend 3 actions to cast a cone instead of 2 and gain extra area on the cast it might work.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Logan Bonner wrote:

We expect Resonance Points to be a contentious topic, and we're really curious to see how it plays at your tables. It's one of the more experimental changes to the game, and the playtest process gives us a chance to see it in the wild before committing to it.

So does this mean you have a less-experimental fallback system ready to plug in if Resonance crashes and burns? Would said fallback system be equivalent to PF1?

I'm hoping Resonance works out, but it's clearly not a done deal.

This is something that makes me think the playtest is too short. If major systems like resonance need to be changed or removed, we won't have time to test the replacement. Even just going back to how PF1 does things needs to be tested because so much of the rest of the game is different that it could interact in weird ways.

It seems to me that we really need a multi-step playtest. Test the initial version for x months, test the revision for x months maybe a third pass and then the final release. Playtest and one year later a final product (which will need to be written, edited published well ahead of time which dramatically cuts into how much meaningful playtesting is being done) is problematic. I could see it working fine for a more standard edition change like going from 3.5 to PF1, but PF2 seems closer to the AD&D 2 to D&D 3 level of change. It's a dramatic overhaul of just about everything, which makes it likely that some of these systems will turn out terrible and need to be replaced. Resonance is a prime candidate.

I also have to echo the concerns that this is just unclearly written. Took a few passes to get the idea of what the cloak of elvenkind does. These action names are pretty bad and cumbersome. Resonance for consumable items is horrible. I barely use them as it is, now I'll immediately throw them on the sell pile because it feels like we're being punished for daring to use magic items.

Seconded.

I have...

I'm a little unsure of what a Pathfinder 2.5 e would mean, but I don't think that an entire new edition would be needed to fix any perceived problems of Pathfinder 2e. If large parts of 2e are disliked then a Pathfinder 2e "Unchained" would probably work, but then again such a thing could be called a 2.5 of Pathfinder 2e. Smaller problems could be fixed with errata, PF 1e is no stranger to errata, that's for sure.

I'm not saying that a longer playtest couldn't help, it probably could, but there are possibilities outside of scrapping a not perfect Pathfinder 2e, which of course PF 2e will never be the perfect edition for all players.

Chubby1968 wrote:

Grand Magus wrote:

So, in gaming, just what is math?

It could e.g. be probabilities and statistics.

So what is Game Theory?

A youtube channel starring MatPat, who proposes Game Theories

ChaiGuy wrote:

I found it strange that it is not specifically said that both ability score increases need to be in different abilities, maybe you can double up with this increase

That would probably be outlined in the general character rules rather than repeated on each entry.

:

ChaiGuy wrote:

I found it strange that it is not specifically said that both ability score increases need to be in different abilities, maybe you can double up with this increase

... (snip)

I expect that there's a general background rule regarding ability boosts like, "apply to any score other than a score that is modified by another ability boost in the same step."

That would achieve consistency across every time you gain a set of ability boosts, whether from Ancestry or leveling up (where we know they work like that) or Background.

I suspect that the general rule of not stacking fixed and floating ability score bonuses from a single source to be highly likely, I'm still surprised it wasn't reiterated if that is the case.

I found it strange that it is not specifically said that both ability score increases need to be in different abilities, maybe you can double up with this increase

I think that many of the core classes should be reexamined with the lessons learned from the hybrids and make them more like the hybrids.

Rangers could get the option to get slayer talents as class feats, have studied target be an option instead of favored enemy, perhaps both can be class feats, or even class feat trees.

Druids can have class feats that are more in line with the Hunter. Monks with brawler class feats, ect...

Hopefully a lot of the PF 1 archetypes can be done with class feats, there where a lot of really good bard archtypes that could probably be done with class feats

The Beginner's Box was more than a collection of things, it had a streamlined if you will set of rules that I guess where intended to help new players learn some basics before experiencing the full set of rules for Pathfinder. Hopefully with Pathfinder second edition the rules will be intuitive enough not to need a simplified starting ruleset. A box with a set of things like dice, a few cardboard minis, play mat with 1" grid, dice, starting books would be nice especially if it could be affordable.

I suppose one option is to allow a spell to be heightened above what a caster normally would be able to do. For example if a caster could usually only cast 3rd level spells allow a spell to be heightened to level 4 or 5 after a ritual.

Allowing the spell to be cast without taking a spell slot could work too I guess.

Cardboard Bestiary boxes are much more affordable than plastic minis, and even the boxes from PF1 should work with PF2, although some of the monster artwork may change between editions.

Interesting idea MuddyVolcano. I remembered something about magic rituals that was in the Paizo blog all about spells: (rituals) Typically they involve some number of secondary casters, which can get the whole party involved or make a nice set-piece encounter with an evil cult.

It is a flavor thing more than anything else. If I am creating a character around a Robin Hood type theme, using a composite bow is just not right. Then too, a primitive group might be able to harvest the right trees even if they can't manage the layering involved in a composite bow.

Thank you for the clarification. Since the flavor of these weapons seems very important to you I hope that bows both compound and self, can come with strength to damage as a core choice. For me, I've seen Pathfinder weapons as not really that closely tied to actual historical weapons. Consider the well known (on these boards at least) discussion about the longsword.

Starfinder CRB is on the first page of that list. This makes sense, because Starfinder is new enough that people are buying the core book, which isn't the case with PF1. At one point Pathfinder was outselling D&D. Now, people just don't need to buy core rulebooks they already own. That's part of why PF2 needs to exist at all.

I've no doubt that PF2 will be on that list when it comes out; the question is, for how long and how much of an impact it will make? 10 of the top 20 items are D&D 5e. That's going to be hard to beat.

The general public will never know the difference between them. If I have to tell a norm what I'm doing, I tell them I'm playing Dungeons & Dragons, even if what I'm actually playing is Pathfinder, Starfinder, Mouseguard, Maid or even Munchkin.

Strangely among the people I play with they freely use the terms D&D and Pathfinder interchangeably. For example if we have a game session of Pathfinder planned, they may say something like "See you at the D&D game tonight." I used to try to correct them in a way pointing out the game was going to be Pathfinder, but generally their response was along the lines of "Pathfinder is D&D". I don't think they are or where trying to be dismissive, they just didn't see the need to make the distiction.

It's like when I'm at a fast food drive thru and ask what I'd like to drink, and I ask for a Coke. If they serve Pepsi products, they'll inform me of that. I don't have a strong cola preferrence, so I'll just go with it. Some people strongly perfer one cola over another, I see RPGs similarly. Many people see table top role playing games as D&D and don't have a strong perfference when it comes to playing games, others do have a strong prefference.

I hope that this is the edition that fixes a problem that has existed since 3.0, and that is only composite bows being eligible for strength bonus to damage. Especially in a world with many magical materials, it ought to be just as easy to create a strength longbow as it is to create a strength composite longbow.

It's possible that I'm not understanding what you mean by "eligible for strength bonus to damage", but in Pathfinder 1, slings and thrown weapons where both methods of ranged attacks that got str to damage. The problem I suppose was that the attack roll was made with dex and then str was added to damage, but the same is true for composite bows.

Thrown weapons had problems with action economy, since reloading a bow was easier than drawing another throwing weapon. The cost of magic weapons prohibited throwing weapons too, there where magic items, feats, weapon enchantments (returning) that helped, but it was quite complicated and it's been a long time since I really looked at all of the PF1 throwing weapon options.

Slings probably had fewer obstacles, but they had lower damage dies, and reloading was still too slow compared to bows

I want my sorcereress to look like Lulu.

*shrugs*

Yeah, real sorceress' carry around plushies! :P

I guess I'll reiterate what I wrote in the blog: I noticed this in the description of a "reach" weapon: "has reach (allowing you to Strike enemies up to 10 feet away" this seems to lack the inability to hit adjacent enemies. Perhaps this restriction has been removed, or perhaps it wasn't mentioned to keep the blog shorter.

I imagine that the rules for increasing weapon damage dice from size changes will be different in PF2, because of how weapon enhancements add die damage rather than static damage, combined with the new power attack could get really overpowered if the great sword went from 1d12 to 3d6 at size large, 6d6 for +1 great sword and perhaps 9d6 for power attacking with a +1 greatsword, also you'd still have an action to attack again with a possible other 6d6. I'll be looking forward to hearing how medium sized characters using large weapons and enlarged PCs work.

I noticed this in the description of a "reach" weapon: "has reach (allowing you to Strike enemies up to 10 feet away" this seems to lack the inability to hit adjacent enemies. Perhaps this restriction has been removed, or perhaps it wasn't mentioned to keep the blog shorter.

I imagine that the rules for increasing weapon damage dice from size changes will be different in PF2, because of how weapon enhancements add die damage rather than static damage, combined with the new power attack could get really overpowered if the great sword went from 1d12 to 3d6 at size large, 6d6 for +1 great sword and perhaps 9d6 for power attacking with a +1 greatsword, also you'd still have an action to attack again with a possible other 6d6. I'll be looking forward to hearing how medium sized characters using large weapons and enlarged PCs work.

I generally feel that alignment is usually used to give a shorthand impression of your character to the other players of the game. I'm generally less sure if it does a good or is useful in that regard though.

Alignment can help players notice potential conflict between player characters, and work on handling those situations before the game even begins, assuming that PC information is shared between all of the players, although I've been part of many games where this is discouraged to various degrees.

I don't think alignment needs to go, but I think there should be an emphasis on players to create motives, quirks and backgrounds that help create a fun game with the other players. I believe that the core book should emphasize creating PCs with the other PCs and the tone of the game to be played in mind. I guess alignment can sometimes be a part of that, but it tends to be too vague to do this successfully on its own.

Hrodwulf wrote:

I'm now curious on what my Cleric of Iomedae will look like when converted to 2nd Edition. It'll be fun to see what changes or different options would be available to him in the new system.

Hopefully a Mini-smite power! BAM EVIL!

EVIL

Persona 3 Nyx: "Yes, the Arcana is the means by which all is revealed."

I'm guessing that exclusivity is the reason why there are domain powers, specifically exclusivity among clerics. For example if Artistic Flourish became a spell, then all clerics would be able to get it, but if it remains a domain power it is gated to clerics worshiping a deity with that domain, making deity selection more interesting and important.

Also since there are no class specific spell lists, if Artistic Fourish became a divine spell, all divine casters would have access to it. This may just be a problem with combined spell lists, but while purify food and drink would be fine for a druid, Artistic Flourish would be less so IMO. Clearly it could be left up to the GM to prohibit spells that do not fit the theme of a class (or character), but that would add a lot of work for the GM, making houserules over which spells fit and would likely cause some GM/Player tension. Probably nothing that couldn't be worked out, but it could be a thing.

Domain powers could also leave more room for archtypes for the cleric class, since it gives them another item to be swapped out or modified, depending on how archetypes work, if they are anything like they where in PF1 (possibly a stretch).

I guess I'd go with Endurance, it can really put an emphasis on having a tough as nails character, but it's benefit depends on the type of game being run. The ability to sleep in medium armor is the bright spot IMO, but it only really applies when there are night time battles, which depends on GM style. I've had GMs who did so rather often, other who never did so.

In a gritty low level, low magic campaign it may be worth taking, in most games I've played in it's only good if you can get it with little investment, like the half-orc racial to trade a -2 to intimidate for the feat.

Speaking of half-orcs Endurance leads to several other cool themed feats, the Deathless line, with 3 feats in that line. They really give the flavor of a tough as nails character that refuses to die (similar to die-hard). The problem is spending feats to gain benefits when you're at negative hit points, isn't optimal, to say the least. By the time you get deathless initiate if you're in the negatives the character is probably not going to make it, since many enemies at that level will have their secondary attacks. I had a GM allow a character of mine, a half-orc to take deathless initiate early (I had met the other pre recs), I never really used it, but I felt it added to that character's flavor.

To really shine Endurance and the associated tree, would need to apply to things that happen more often, such I suppose as reduce bleed damage, help resist poison, being transformed against your characters will (like turned to stone, or baleful polymorph), ect...

I guess it depends on how often critical failure happens in the game. Depending on the system used in PF1, it can be pretty easy to determine how often they would happen. I think I remember that a designer said that even with the -10 penalty on attack rolls the 3rd attack can still be viable, it depends on how high enemy AC is. In PF2, their seems to be more variables involved. In this new system it seems like it would be punishing to characters that don't maximize their to hit, well more then the system already does.

I don't really know if there will be conditions for weapons, like broken, will exist in PF2 or as you have pointed out if they will have hit points and hardness. I would imagine it can be done, but without all the information it's hard to know how difficult it will be.

I'm surprised that summon monster, or nature's ally was mentioned.

ChaiGuy wrote:

Malachandra wrote:

RumpinRufus wrote:

Maybe two lines of books - bestiaries with 1 page/monster, and then something like "Imrijka's Tome of Monster Lore" with 2 pages/monster.

This would be awesome. With the disadvantage of having to buy two books, I think this would keep everybody happy

This could work if the demand for the lore companion book was enough to pay for the cost of making and printing it. Needing to carry around 2 books to run a specific monster is also a significant drawback, for those who value the lore monster book.

Well the idea isn't to put the same monster in multiple books. I'd think more straightforward monsters like "bear" would end up in the 1-page-spread book, whereas something like a barghest would be in the 2-page-spread book (and not appear as a 1-pager.)

I appreciate the clarification on this, thank you. I would imagine that if there where enough monsters in the straightforward monster book to run a game with it should work ok.

On a separate note, I wonder if there will be a NPC Codex or similar. Having pre made NPCs with classes was really nice.

RumpinRufus wrote:

Maybe two lines of books - bestiaries with 1 page/monster, and then something like "Imrijka's Tome of Monster Lore" with 2 pages/monster.

This would be awesome. With the disadvantage of having to buy two books, I think this would keep everybody happy

This could work if the demand for the lore companion book was enough to pay for the cost of making and printing it. Needing to carry around 2 books to run a specific monster is also a significant drawback, for those who value the lore monster book.

I'm glad to hear that the dwarves aren't worse of than they where in PF1e.

"Dwarves
Adventuring is for the stout-hearted. Be stable. Be dependable. Be a dwarf! These fine folk live in isolated citadels, their surface empire having fallen long ago, but from time to time they venture out into the world of adventure."

I'm kind of surprised that I have yet to see anyone mention this, in another thread there was a discussion about how the nations of Golarion might change between editions. This states that the surface empire of the Dwarves, the (Five King Mountains?) and the Sky Citadels fell. I'm curious if this has anything to do with their new hatred for Darro and duergar?

I'm also against this idea for two reasons, one high level play often has a bunch of low level monsters as minions of the more powerful enemies to go with, and I rather have all in one book that split in many. Secondly if we where to divide a bestiary up, I would rather have it divided in themes than CR. Monsters that say an adventure in the inner sea would encounter.

Generally I've seen minions be about 3 CR less than the more powerful enemies, but YMMV. Bestiaries by theme would be interesting too.

That means that Paizo would need to release 4 Bestiaries at the same time when the game launched to cover the same ground as 1. Not everyone starts their game at level 1, and different parties certainly don't level at the same pace. I just don't see this working well.

If you don't start at level 1, then you would buy the book relevant to the PC starting level. Faster leveling would mean you get less mileage out of low level bestiaries though, so it's something I hadn't considered.

This idea is interesting but I think the main problem is you won't get all the rules for monsters in one book. You'd have to buy two or three to play the game described in the core rulebook. You would have all the rules in one core book but the monsters spread across two or three books to play all 20 levels.

I agree, if you play from level 1-20 you'd need all 3, but you wouldn't need them all at once. I'm not sure why you'd need more then 1 to start with, even when not starting at level 1, unless you start at a boundary line.

In a the thread Can we please have bigger bestiaries I shared an idea I had on a
different take on bestiaries. I was hoping to hear other peoples opinions on if this approach to bestiaries would work or not.

From the other thread:
"Perhaps instead of larger in general, bestiaries could be more focused on certain level ranges. The default bestiary has monsters with CRs ranger from fractions to 20+.
Usually the GM is only interested in monsters that are a sufficient challenge to the pcs, so in game prep they only need a small portion of those monsters.
How about having the bestiaries be focused to say CR up to 6, in the say heroic bestiary, CR 7-13 in the paragon bestiary, CR 14 to 20 in a Epic bestiary,
CR 20+ in another bestiary. Since they are more focused on their CRs you can have the same number of monsters per book, but the monsters will be more relevant to the
GM when they prepare for a game, since there will be more choices in the CR range relevant to the game they are preparing for."

Now I'm sure this approach has both benefits and drawbacks, so I'll list as many of both that I can think of:

Benefits:
More monsters in the desired CR range, assuming that each bestiary is the size of a normal bestiary.
Less issue with bindings since each book is normal sized.
Takes less bag space
More intuitive IMO, GMs just pick the book with monsters that challenge the PCs

Drawbacks:
Keeping track of the inventory of 3 different books would be more complicated, I'd assume
the up front cost of printing high CR bestiaries, since they may not sell as fast
PCs that are near the transition between books may require GMs carry/buy both books, although there is probably ways to minimize this

It would be great if the process of creating and modifying monsters was retooled to be quicker. I know that many want monsters and PCs to use the same rules, but I'd rather not spend an equal amount of time creating a monster as a PC, they are not going to see equal play time to say the least.

Perhaps instead of larger in general, bestiaries could be more focused on certain level ranges. The default bestiary has monsters with CRs ranger from fractions to 20+. Usually the GM is only interested in monsters that are a sufficient challenge to the pcs, so in game prep they only need a small portion of those monsters.

How about having the bestiaries be focused to say CR up to 6, in the say heroic bestiary, CR 7-13 in the paragon bestiary, CR 14 to 20 in a Epic bestiary, CR 20+ in another bestiary. Since they are more focused on their CRs you can have the same number of monsters per book, but the monsters will be more relevant to the GM when they prepare for a game, since there will be more choices in the CR range relevant to the game they are preparing for.

Going off of the Race builder book:

Specialized ability scores 1RP
+2 str, +2 dex, -2 Wis

Low light vision 1RP

Dual Minded (+2 will saves) or Elven Immunities Either 1RP

Weapon Fimiliarity (orc or elven) 1RP

Ferocity (like diehard) 4 RP or make it like the half orc ability

Total 8 RP,or 9 if weapon familairity with both orc and elven

I kind of wonder if elemental spell metamagic can be used with spells like Stone Call that deal damage, but not elemental damage, bludgeoning damage in this case. A lesser rod of elemental metamagic (cold), with rime spell could be interesting. Basically no save, no spell resist entangle over a large area as a 3rd level spell.

As soon as Atalius mentioned the ability to use "you" only spells on allies, I thought of the brown fur brown fur transmuter arcanist. I doubt this would be the best buffer in the game, but I'm sure it'd have potential to be quite strong.

Does it have to be demons? The qlippoth seem like more of a universally acceptable target. After all, demons have a goddess and several princes who bear good alliances with other divine forces. Qlippoth don’t have ANYTHING going for them.

From what I remember where the qlippoth live is so undesirable that nothing else would want to live there. I imagine they don't want to live there either, but the demons drove them there.

@ Ikorus: I agree that the ranger works better in certain situations, where the favored enemy and terrain come into play. I believe that they would work good in an intrigue heavy game as a frontline character. The dandy ranger has a larger hit die, full bab, style feats that ignore pre requisites, so they have a lot to distinguish them from bards, although I'm not saying their better than a bard, or of other rangers, just that saying they are bards without inspire courage is over simplifying it quite a bit.

The dandy ranger's favored nation covers a country, favored terrain (urban) covers all urban areas, not just one city. Is there some other dandy ranger ability that is tied to a city that I am missing?

The Dandy Ranger, is very unique for a ranger. The class skills shift away from nature survival to social interaction. The spells are charisma based rather than wisdom, is spontaneous rather than prepared and, not only that, they get bard spells instead of ranger spells. >.> Favored Nation, Rumor Empathy, the changes to favored terrain, and hobnob makes for a character more focused on political intrigue than a standard ranger.

The examples given probably are something that can be brought up either during character creation or in private between game sessions. For example when a player shows interest in making a bard, say that you'd like to hear in character lyrics as part of their bardic performance, although singing is only one possible type of performance. They may say that their not comfortable, or think it'd get old quickly. They may say their character gives speeches, dances or plays an instrument instead, although in most cases it doesn't change the outcome too much. For example you may want a description of the dance, I guess.

It would give them a chance to think about it, but that's missing the point of improvisation.

Perhaps this is to increase immersion, or sense of them being in character?

Spell list Druid

0: Spark, their is nothing really horrible on the list, but this is easy enough to not need magical assistance.

1: Advanced Scurvy, making people sick is morally wrong.
2: Pox Pustules, same as the 1st level spell
3: Water of Maddening (I think this spell's name has been changed from Waters of Lamashtu) it's pretty nasty stuff, physically and mentally.
4: Explosion of Rot, very nasty imagery indeed
5: Contagion Greater, now magic is required to cure the disease.
6: Epidemic, sickness is the theme here
7: Creeping Doom, kind of gross and unlike control weather it doesn't have many good applications.
8: Blood mist, make people go crazy and attack each other
9: Sea of Dust, makes permanent deserts

I would think that a wizard with a spell list that a more experienced player helps them make would be about as easy to play as a sorcerer with spells known that a more experienced player helps them choose.

Some people strongly favor prepared or spontaneous casting as a style though, I'd imagine that such a preference would only come through game play, but some may just find the mechanics of one to be more to their liking (to wrap their head around on how it makes sense in character I guess).

At higher levels wizards can gain flexibility though things like fast study.

An alchemist with the infusion discovery could buff allies by giving them extracts. I think that the alchemy isn't really magic, it only acts like magic is many ways.

Well, if you like reach then the aberrant Primalist Bloodrager would be hard to beat. You could be a half-elf with the ancestral arms (fauchard) alternate racial trait. The Fauchard is a d10 reach weapon with a crit range of 18-20, which would work well with the level 1 bloodline power staggering strike, which can stagger enemies your character crits (fort save).

Level 4 gives abnormal reach, for 5 extra feat of reach.

At level 8, I'd imagine that you could get the 2 rage powers. Lesser Fiend Totem, and fiend Totem would give you a good way to threaten adjacent squares (a gore attack), and a damage creatures that hit you in melee. There's plenty of great rage powers of course.

I guess for a frontline druid a goliath druid should work. This archetype has access to the Rage subdomain if you want that rather than an animal companion (since this has been brought up as a solid strategy earlier). They also can get dinosaurs, which seem like very strong offensive options as an AC.

The ability to wild shape into a giant will allow the character to use the normal armor class boosting items, so their AC should be higher than that of most other druids in wildshape, although I would imagine that their offense would be less, without pouncing.

0: Mending
1: Endure Elements
2: Make whole
3: Remove Disease
4: Tongues
5: Overland flight
6: Heroes Feast
7: Mage's Magnificent Mansion
8: Summon nature's ally 8
9: Shapechange