|
First, I'd like to thank the author for allowing me to avoid the friggin' Super-Pet. Animal Domain lets me at least have a taste of the old 3.0 'menagerie', even if it is only one at a time.
But... am I wrong in seeing a much heavier emphasis on Wild Shape than we had even in 3.5? I'm well aware I'm not "core" audience for D&D, but seriously, I hardly ever *use* Wild Shape, and I'm a regular, hard core Druid player.
Could we scale back the Wild Shape?
I haven't playtested it yet, but I don't think the druid looks weak. At the same time, it doesn't look like the strongest character in the game by 10 yards either.
Hopefully this will work out well.
As I posted elsewhere if they change the bonus from Beast Shape 1-5 from Enhancement to Racial it will work. As an enhancement bonus it just leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm completely fine with the stat boni being an "enhancement" bonus. the boni remain on par with any magic items the character may be wearing, just use the higher bonus is all.
I don't like Wildshape to say the least. Mostly because I've enjoyed the PHB2 Variant so much more. I just feel a little bit of a let down from the "new" druid, where the iconic classes (wizard, fighter, rogue, cleric) basically got in a sense revolutionized, the druid just looks awfully the same. I really like the idea of domain powers instead of an animal companion... I just would like a little Pathfinder twist to it?
Director of Game Design
|
I don't like Wildshape to say the least. Mostly because I've enjoyed the PHB2 Variant so much more. I just feel a little bit of a let down from the "new" druid, where the iconic classes (wizard, fighter, rogue, cleric) basically got in a sense revolutionized, the druid just looks awfully the same. I really like the idea of domain powers instead of an animal companion... I just would like a little Pathfinder twist to it?
Unfortunately, not every class needs that twist. The druid was a very solid, playable class in 3.5. In some cases, it was significantly better than a number of other classes. Much of what I did was to reign it in a bit and to make it a bit easier to use. Otherwise, you are right, the power level did not change too much.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Some things about druids:
- Make druid the favored class of half-orcs instead of cleric.
- Let beastshape users get landspeed, please. A gnome or halfling transforming into a wolf with land speed 20ft? No, please.
- Give him one domain for free. You nerved wildshaping and his casting/day.
- Let druids use beastshape III to take magical beast forms. Don't nerv wildshape in regard of a wizard casting a spell.
On domains avaiable to druids: Change the first plant power, please. Make it like a ranged attack, that entangle a fow for one or two turns.
I as well would like to see a 'natures touch' or something that allows a druid to do a bit more healing without spells like the cleric. Perhaps a "druid may spend a use of his wild shape to grant living targets within 30ft fast healing X for X rounds". Maybe tie the Xs to level or wild shapes current power?
This sounds good! But there is a problem with the level 20 power. Why not give the druids a turn/rebuke animal/plant power like the turn undead of the cleric taht gives this fast healing. This could be an alternative to spontanous summon or a new option for the nature bond.
Landspeed would be cool.
What I'm most concerned about is the ability to take a camel as an animal companion. I have a smartass player I'm positive is gonna take a camel.
|
I agree, landspeed would be nice. Also I see were you are coming with the racial instead of enhancement bonus for stats, but I'll have to do some playtesting before I put a vote on that.
I believe the reason behind not giving them magical beast is that druids are supposed to be champions of the natural, and magical beasts don't really fit into that category. However I would allow a feat to add magical beasts to wildshape.
A camel? WTF?
Unfortunately, not every class needs that twist. The druid was a very solid, playable class in 3.5. In some cases, it was significantly better than a number of other classes. Much of what I did was to reign it in a bit and to make it a bit easier to use. Otherwise, you are right, the power level did not change too much.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I know CoD zilla. But you improved the clerics power and nerved the druid.
- Give landspeed.
- Let them use beastshape full, without the no magical beast restriction (make it at least a feat.
- Give one domain for free. Give another option for nature bond (like an totem spirit)
- add bestial, elemental and plant shape spells to the druid list! It makes no sense to only be able to use them through wildshape.
Another problem:
At 8th level, a druid can use wild shape to change into a
Huge or Diminutive animal creature, a Medium elemental,
or a Small or Medium plant creature. When taking the
form of animals, a druid’s wild shape now functions as
beast shape III. When taking the form of an elemental,
the druid’s wild shape now functions as elemental body II.
When taking the form of a plant, the druid’s wild shape
functions as plant shape I.
What if I want to take the form of a medium animal with burrow?
Please change your wording to:
At 8th level, a druid can use wild shape to change into a
Huge to Diminutive animal creature, a Medium elemental,
or a Small or Medium plant creature. When taking the
form of animals, a druid’s wild shape now functions as
beast shape III. When taking the form of an elemental,
the druid’s wild shape now functions as elemental body II.
When taking the form of a plant, the druid’s wild shape
functions as plant shape I.
And there is the same problem in the spell description, too. People want to take small or medium forms with higher spells to get the larger list of abilities!
It makes no sense to have to change to a dire lion, because you cannot ever pounce as a leopard!
I don't like Wildshape to say the least. Mostly because I've enjoyed the PHB2 Variant so much more. I just feel a little bit of a let down from the "new" druid, where the iconic classes (wizard, fighter, rogue, cleric) basically got in a sense revolutionized, the druid just looks awfully the same. I really like the idea of domain powers instead of an animal companion... I just would like a little Pathfinder twist to it?
Actually, I wouldn't say the cleric or fighter got "revolutionized" any more than the druid. The fighter got some flat bonuses with weapons and armor and the cleric got slightly different domains (which a druid can also choose from) and healing added to turn undead.
Personally, I think the ability of a druid to turn into an elemental or plant much earlier is neat.
And there is the same problem in the spell description, too. People want to take small or medium forms with higher spells to get the larger list of abilities!
It makes no sense to have to change to a dire lion, because you cannot ever pounce as a leopard!
I think it's assumed that you can take the in-between sizes as well when you get access to the higher level powers.
|
|
Walking Dad, I think the expression you were looking for is 'nerfed', not nerved. Wiki reference
I'll bring the landspeed issue to the spells topic (because it affects arcane shape-shifters, too), if it isn't there already.
|
As I posted elsewhere if they change the bonus from Beast Shape 1-5 from Enhancement to Racial it will work. As an enhancement bonus it just leaves a lot to be desired.I'm completely fine with the stat boni being an "enhancement" bonus. the boni remain on par with any magic items the character may be wearing, just use the higher bonus is all.
One of the things I like about 3.5 was the simplicity of just taking the base animals physical (Str, Dex, Con) modifiers (without adjusting hit points...) The scores were not modified ("enhanced"), but they simply changed.
Making the bonus Racial makes more sense. But should the bonuses and penalties take into consideration the racial stat modifiers of the druid's race? For example, a halfling will have to remove the Str penalty and then add the bonus for Beast Shape X (netting an additional +2), or does it factor from score the character has at the start?
For simplicity, the bonus should not be labeled at all...and let it stack with everything...(Of course magic items need to still meld and become nonfunctional after the change...)
What, there are no druids in the deserts in your game?
A camel? WTF?
It is not the desert campaigns that I'm concerned about, but when the druid wants to ride his new companion steed thru the icy mountains and into the underdark....with not a desert within 500 miles.
Then he's gonna ask the wizard make some kind of spiderclimbing item for his frigging camel...then the camel is gonna be walking around on the ceiling of the kings banquet hall.
I already know how this is gonna go down....
I like the new druid, but I would like to see the druid get a domain AND an animal companion.
I would also like to see all the new polymorphing spells be named xxx-shape. ex) beast shape, elemental shape, dragon shape etc for uniformity.
Hey fellow Druid enthusiasts. I made a thread that I think poses a number of possible fixes in the Pathfinder environment to the balance of the druid and the desires of differing play styles for the class.
I would really appreciate some input and if I don't get any, I don't know if anything works well/better. Besides I want Paizo to look over these ideas.
"Constructive Druid fix thread"
|
I don't like Wildshape to say the least. Mostly because I've enjoyed the PHB2 Variant so much more. I just feel a little bit of a let down from the "new" druid, where the iconic classes (wizard, fighter, rogue, cleric) basically got in a sense revolutionized, the druid just looks awfully the same. I really like the idea of domain powers instead of an animal companion... I just would like a little Pathfinder twist to it?Unfortunately, not every class needs that twist. The druid was a very solid, playable class in 3.5. In some cases, it was significantly better than a number of other classes. Much of what I did was to reign it in a bit and to make it a bit easier to use. Otherwise, you are right, the power level did not change too much.
I think the druid changes hit the nail on the head. Toned down the power just a touch, gave an option to get rid of the animal companions (for those who don't like them). Dialed down Wild shape a notch and in some ways made it a little more fun IMO. I've already mentioned what I thought was the one major question remaining about the Druid and that is natural spell. In many cases the polymorph changes will reign in the wild shape abuses but there are a few issues left with it.
-- Dennis
I don't like Wildshape to say the least. Mostly because I've enjoyed the PHB2 Variant so much more. I just feel a little bit of a let down from the "new" druid, where the iconic classes (wizard, fighter, rogue, cleric) basically got in a sense revolutionized, the druid just looks awfully the same. I really like the idea of domain powers instead of an animal companion... I just would like a little Pathfinder twist to it?I think the druid changes hit the nail on the head. Toned down the power just a touch, gave an option to get rid of the animal companions (for those who don't like them). Dialed down Wild shape a notch and in some ways made it a little more fun IMO. I've already mentioned what I thought was the one major question remaining about the Druid and that is natural spell. In many cases the polymorph changes will reign in the wild shape abuses but there are a few issues left with it.
-- Dennis
Hello, Ogre. Although you seem not be be my best forum buddy here, we seem to ping off one another 'round these druid parts, and I would like to disagree with you, sir- to an extent. The companion/domain thing was a master stroke that should have been done earlier, but as someone that loves wildshape like I do the aspects of nature never quite carried their own weight. I'm the first to say 3.5 druid is a bit broken, but I would be really upset if this druid build went the way of aspect of nature or the current version of PRPG of wildshape. It seems like the community is trying to fix it though, so I figure it'll work out.
|
|
Hello, Ogre. Although you seem not be be my best forum buddy here, we seem to ping off one another 'round these druid parts, and I would like to disagree with you, sir- to an extent. The companion/domain thing was a master stroke that should have been done earlier, but as someone that loves wildshape like I do the aspects of nature never quite carried their own weight. I'm the first to say 3.5 druid is a bit broken, but I would be really upset if this druid build went the way of aspect of nature or the current version of PRPG of wildshape. It seems like the community is trying to fix it though, so I figure it'll work out.
Previous Post eaten, grrr..
James,
I see the goal of the Pathfinder RPG as providing a drop in replacement for the existing classes. Take what's in the SRD, pull it out and look at what you have. Is it broken or too weak? If the class has some jaggy edges use a file and carefully sand them down. If the class is too weak maybe add a little to it, preferably in a flavorful way.
Jason's fix took several of the really jaggy sharp edges and sanded them down a bit. I think there needs to be a bit more sanding at one point, Natural Spell, but overall it's pretty decent now.
-- Dennis