I figure since it's working well for the sorcerer, and the other druid threads have trailed off recently, we might want to start a general thread. I failed at it last time, but maybe it'll work this time around.
And I'd like to start by asking if Jason would make some sort of comment about the Beast Shape and Wildshape based on the past couple day's feedback. I don't need to restate any of the issues. They were all over the druid and spell casting threads. I just want to make sure the thread starts off WITHOUT all the same arguments.
Other than the Wild Shape stuff, I've agreed with a poster that wondered why druids aren't proficient with the handaxe or shortbow? I've always wanted druids to have a more decidedly "hunter"/"tribal" weapon's list. Like add a fun exotics like nets or bolas or boomerangs. It makes sense for these sometimes loner hermits and sages in my opinion, especially since most races that have druid as favored are somewhat primitive or tribal societies.
I hope this thread can be as helpful as the sorcerer one has been to you.
Since I won't be here much today (really need to jump on a Islamic philosophy term paper), I just wanted to summarize an idea I posited yesterday that seemed to garner a little piqued interest.
This current set up tries to solve the Wildshape power level by decreasing the stat power/ex. ability gain, etc, while preserving all the tedious book searching (for whatever animal/plant as the right combination of flight and grapple or whatever.)
But what if you, instead, just force a focus on the player. Remove the form-fetching from the player and keep the DM having to make split-second decisions on some strange creature he's not aware of. You do this by saying at 4th a druid starts out with 2-3 forms that they add to a "list" of forms they can turn into. Each level they gain an addition use of the ability they gain another shape within the guidelines of the new level (HD and type and size).
As long as you put a line that says from MM only, with exception of GM on a form to form basis, sort of thing, then the druid is limited by creature selection based on source, based on HD, based on regional familiarity. *This would personally make me think twice about picking some strange niche situation when I know that the character will be stuck with that choice.
Another poster had a schema for some sort of form point buy system, which I thought was a good improvement on the current ability being base on the Beast Shape spells. (Sorry for not having the post link right now.)
I think something like this is a more flavorful reigning in of a very problematic ability. I'm sure you guys will come up with a fix or tweak for all this.
Because of finals I'm in a no-go area for actual playtesting time, but I really care about this class and about the potential I see in the Pathfinder RPG.
Have a good day, guys and gals.
Alright let’s see how this goes. (I like druids)
First off I’d say I feel the PF-A-2 druid is fine but some clarifications or details would be useful to many. So, point by point:
Weapon Proficiency:
I think the “base” presented druid is more of a Celt / Fey / Cult of Pan cultural flavour as opposed to the more Shamanic hunter/tribal flavour you suggest. Nothing wrong with that but maybe more of a “Variant Class“ weapon group. I do like the exotic weapons that would come up in that variant. Although the short bow fits into most of the cultural flavours that can be propose for the druid, it’s one with very good stats and possible rate of fire (no reload or drawing out), not necessarily a deal breaker but since it can come from many of the new racial traits I’m not sure it as to be part of the base line-up. Axes (any model) have a bad rep. in the nature “lobby” but I don’t see a major problem with having the Hand-Axe in the group, perhaps a trade-off for the scimitar, witch we get a little tired of seeing (Yeah for the Scythe!)
Wild-Shape / Book-flipping specifically:
The phrase “The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.” was enough in our groups (no one started off being familiar with dinosaurs) and it was the responsibility of both the player and the DM to figure it out (as a DM I would offer suggestions or alternatives not just allowed/not allowed) the but I can see how it won’t work for everyone.
I guess it could come down to getting a number of “familiar” forms with level progression or link to skills (Kn. Nature and/or Survival) or just making sure you get the DM to approve a list (or additions to that list) before the game and accept his veto when it comes up. 2 or 3 form seems like a very low number to me I’d be more of the 8 to 12 kind.
Wild-Shape / Nature Spell specifically:
I, personally, don’t see it as becoming a problem with the new rules form “beast-shape / elemental shape” the “buff”-effects are much more under control than possibly going from Str 10 to Str 19 (Black Bear, Medium size) as the original version. So casting in the “buffed” shape won’t be so different. The earth-glide move option from the earth-elemental shape gained at 6th level needs to be tested in that regards since one could cast a spell and move to full cover easily, you still have to come out to cast again or see what’s happening but still might be off-balance, borrow only comes up at 8th level.
Wild-Shape / Item Use specifically:
That’s a big possibility for abuse and should be clarified by shape Type. It’s clear you don’t keep your activation items or weapons when you change shape with them on but what can you do with those that come up after you change shape? I would rule by Type even if it’s not the always obvious (yes a monkey could handle complex tools/magic items and weapons but they have to be trained to do so) but since the spell-versions, and most creature traits, work by type it would be easier. Possibly with the added “must also have hands” condition. This is more a point for Polymorph but has been brought up for druids.
So in short:
Weapon Prof.: Variants lists would be nice, Book-Flipping: Establish a list (with or without official rules) before games, Nature Spell: Check earth-glide for possible abuse (playtest would tell), Item Use: Specific rules would be very useful.
My 2c
I like the idea of increaseing Druid Weapon prof to be more like the hunter
Short Bow Hand Axes and the like
I would prefer to keep the Druid and Ranger in their own arenas (Druid already steps too much on the rangers toes) Druids are not skilled hunters, that the Rangers chief concept. Druids dont need better weapons proficiencies, they dont need to even hunt! the forest itself gives them sustenance. (goodberries are 4 course meals to them) they dont stalk because they can charm animals to leave them alone, or to come to them.
I just feel that sometime people dont think about how mystical Druids are and just view them as "Rangers with better spellcasting"
|
I would prefer to keep the Druid and Ranger in their own arenas (Druid already steps too much on the rangers toes) Druids are not skilled hunters, that the Rangers chief concept. Druids dont need better weapons proficiencies, they dont need to even hunt! the forest itself gives them sustenance. (goodberries are 4 course meals to them) they dont stalk because they can charm animals to leave them alone, or to come to them.
I just feel that sometime people dont think about how mystical Druids are and just view them as "Rangers with better spellcasting"
Agreed, personally I've always been miffed with the fact that druids get a scimitar, what's that, no metal armor or weapons, oh right I forgot scimitars are made out of flubber. I personally will not allow scimitar wielding druids in my games anymore. Weapon proficiencies for this class should be limited to non metal items, on that note however I think it would be just dandy to add bolas, nets, and boomerangs to a druids list and think I shall do so.
Well the scimitar used to be a d8...still should be if ya ask me. It was added to give them a weapon that did a d8 every thing else was d4 or d6.
Also I think they got it mixed up with a falcutta a historical Celtic weapon that is also curved ,but it curves inward like a kukuri
I had only mentioned as a flavor alteration thing. It doesn't really require printing, but since Druid is supposed to be adaptable to all those other "naturey" magic sorts of fellas of different cultures (without spatbooking), it would be nice to sort of sidebar a couple variants.(By the way, did anyone else notice that monk weapons have their own group for fighters but the druid weapons don't get their own?)
I agree that druids should be druids, and rangers should be rangers. They got rid of the weapon ban because it was just a pain back in the day. "Hey, DM, I tool a level of ranger and now I have all these martial weapons, which ones have 'little enough' metal on them to keep me from breaking my Druidic oath?" DM:"Ugh, I don't know, bows and the other spears, I guess? I guess short swords have as much metal as a scimitar, so you can use that too...okay?" It's easier to look at armors and see it's not mostly made of hide/fabric/whatever. Tedium...gtfo my rpgs!
Just trying to spark some sort of conversation is all. It seems like other classes are being talked about more, which would lead me to think everyone is okay with druid in the Alpha2, and maybe everyone else is for the most part, but I'm not.
I just want feedback from Jason or someone about this Beastshape/ Wildshape thing. I really love everything I've seen in the base classes, with maybe the exception of the rage points business (which others are chatting about elsewhere), but I'm just not excited about my favorite class in the game and that makes me sad. I don't even want super convoluted and broken 3.x wildshape. I just don't want to feel shafted. I mean Cleric, tied for best class in the game (imo), got a good bit better out of this deal...and "we" just get an option to swap out a secondary class feature, albeit a nice one.
Anyway, that's that. Felt like posting to reply and bump. Later.
Just wanted to reiterate that I feel there are three primary focuses for the Druid. Animal Companion, Magic, and Wild Shape. With the ability to "specialize" by choosing an animal companion or by choosing a domain, it would make sense to have a third Nature Bond choice that offered something for the wild shape group.
Just wanted to reiterate that I feel there are three primary focuses for the Druid. Animal Companion, Magic, and Wild Shape. With the ability to "specialize" by choosing an animal companion or by choosing a domain, it would make sense to have a third Nature Bond choice that offered something for the wild shape group.
How about pulling things from the Master of Faces PrC? Allowing either more shape changes at lower levels and allowing those druids forms outside of animal/elementals?
I think it's important to keep the "Wild Shape x/day" as a core Druid ability (though it could be given up in exchange for other focus), especially since it is amenable to the types of feats like Clerics have for using a turn attempt to achieve some other effect, which gives the player some (variable) x/day special effect outside of their general spells.
There could be some other way to achieve the same end, but this is already part of the Druid motif, and they'res already feats out there that use this mechanic...
|
|
I have a couple of Druid question. I hope this is the thread for them.
#1 - Venom Immunity (p16): Druids are immune to all poisons. Okay, I get immune to all plant and animal venoms, but aren't there some poisons that aren't venoms, like mineral based poisons? And aren't toxic gases and sludges considered poisons? I certainly don't think Druids should be immune to pollution related poisons.
#2 - A Thousand Faces (p16): I know Druids are shapechangers but what about this ability says "Druid"? As I see it, being a Druid has nothing to do with alter self and masquerading as someone else. Not a good Druid ability in my book.
Thanks.
You have some good points there.
I would split the poison immunity into natural (meaning plant/animal) and unnatural (every other) but give them both.
I would grant the natural immunity at 5th level or so, since I think 9th (or were is it now) is just a bit late.
The unnatural can be granted at 9th and upwards I guess.
About the 1000 faces. I never understood this ability too. While it sure is a cool one, it's just a 1st level spell usable at will right?
I'd rather see the druid become some Treant or something at 20th.
OH! and nearly most important! Drop the scimitar under weapon profs, because I DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! Sickle, sure. Spear, ok with that. Bows(!), why not? BUT SCIMITAR?! Common, I mean, SCIMITAR?!?!?!
|
Having tested the Druid I would say it is pretty good (although overly tied to the whole animal form concept), mind I played mine with a slight variance:
As one of the King of Korvosa's Game Wardens (had a Dog as a companion, and wielded a Fire-hardened Bayonet (a firehardened Wooden short Rapier). At third level he picked up a Steam Pistol (Druid casts heat metal to use), cast some silver shot to chase down a problem Lycanthrope in the wood, and eventually had to flee because he was involved in an attempt on the King's life.
Some variants:
Celtic druid- Druidic Avenger; proficient in light armor, shields (except for tower shields), club, dagger, javelin, quarterstaff, short sword, shortspear, sickle, sling, and spear.
Nature druid- Aspect of Nature; choose one of the cleric domains with Nature Bond; proficiency in all Simple Weapons.
Totem druid- Animal Companion must be a tribal totem animal (see Totem Barbarian); gain the Totem Barbarian class features for the tribe's totem; gain proficiency in tribal favored weapon(s)* instead of scimitar.
*: Ape- greatclub, bear- battleaxe, boar- greataxe, dragon- heavy flail, eagle- bastard sword, horse- scimitar, jaguar- light mace, lion- spiked gauntlets, serpent- longspear, wolf- longsword and handaxe. I created this list to give each totem barbarian a distinctive fighting style, using feats in Complete Warrior and Player's Handbook II (ape- Three Mountains, bear- Bear Fang, boar- Shock Trooper, dragon- Combat Brute, eagle- Raptor School, horse- Cavalry Charger, jaguar- Whirling Frenzy and Lightning Mace, lion- Two-Weapon Pounce, serpent- Elusive Target, wolf- High Sword Low Axe).
The Totem stuff is a great idea for Rangers, not for Druids. My POV.
The druid should be more about mysticism and ... stuff. ;)
Some variants:
This is good stuff. Many of the variants we already use (Unearthed Arcana is a big favorite at our table), but it's nice to have a "checklist." Also, in case you missed it (IIRC, it's stuck in at the end of the chapter in "other variant class ideas"), the Druidic Hunter (UA) can be a very cool one, too.
The idea of pulling in totems to the druid obviously won't fit evey campaign, as DracoDruid points out, but to my mind it makes a very cool option for those who like it (I also really dig the tying in of combat feats to the totems you did). A+
So proficiencies would be: Club, dagger, dart, quarterstaff, scythe, sickle, sling, and spear (any).
While I like that list why not add a Khopesh, it has a sickle like blade better fit then the scythe which is a farming tool.
1d8..crit 19-20/x2....and can be used to make trip attacks
I'm not too sure about the shortbow though.
I'd veto it by houserule, if it were official; the druid is good enough without a martial ranged weapon (which elves get anyway). I like to make non-elf druids use slings (and slings also make the magic stone spell worthwhile; bows would render it obsolete).
|
|
While I like that list why not add a Khopesh, it has a sickle like blade better fit then the scythe which is a farming tool.
Because the Khopesh is an Egyptian sword, and because while old editions of D&D gave the Druid access to any weapon that was vaguely moon-shaped, and then did NOTHING ELSE to emphasize real world druidic connections with moon deities, it makes no sense to give druids who have even less to do with the moon than older versions those same vaguely moon-shaped weapons?
Druids should also abhor the use of bows. Bows aren't made out of branches, they require the felling of a whole tree to get to it's core.
Every longbow in the party is another dead tree.
You're all murderers!
Murderers!
;-)
Because the Khopesh is an Egyptian sword, and because while old editions of D&D gave the Druid access to any weapon that was vaguely moon-shaped, and then did NOTHING ELSE to emphasize real world druidic connections with moon deities, it makes no sense to give druids who have even less to do with the moon than older versions those same vaguely moon-shaped weapons?
While I like that list why not add a Khopesh, it has a sickle like blade better fit then the scythe which is a farming tool.
Well khopesh wasn't only and Egyptian weapon really it was a common weapon type in much of the ancient world derived from the sickle, smaller versions are known a cannite swords but ok. what druids need is a falcutta really which was a Celtic weapon and most likely used among druids of the time. A falcutta is a curved blade with the curve in the edged side much like a kukuri. it would prob be simler then the longsword by a few inches but just as powerful it was known for cleaving though roman helms with powerful downward blows.
It's spelled "falcata," and has it's own wiki. Check it out. It's my new favorite sword- a sword that cuts more like an axe.
Actually, you could probably just rule it a battle axe and change the flavor... allow it to count as a scimitar/longsword for feats. Or make it a scimitar with a x3 crit...unless that's "broken" to you. It's a light but heavy-chopping sword.
Anyway, I started this thread out on the wrong foot.
Have any of you played the PFRPG Druid? How does it play in comparison to the 3.x versions...other than the already stated "quirks" with wild shape mentioned in other threads?
It's spelled "falcata," and has it's own wiki. Check it out. It's my new favorite sword- a sword that cuts more like an axe.
Actually, you could probably just rule it a battle axe and change the flavor... allow it to count as a scimitar/longsword for feats. Or make it a scimitar with a x3 crit...unless that's "broken" to you. It's a light but heavy-chopping sword.
Anyway, I started this thread out on the wrong foot.
Have any of you played the PFRPG Druid? How does it play in comparison to the 3.x versions...other than the already stated "quirks" with wild shape mentioned in other threads?
I know how its spelled just can't edit on here mixed the spelling up. yep a battleax stats would work well and it fits better then the scimitar.
FACT is, that druids don't wear metal armor, so WHY(!) should they use weapons mostly made of steal?
Daggers, Spear-tips, or maybe arrows can easily build with a small amount of metal or even substituted with obsidian or bone.
A complete sword (like khopesh or scimitar) surely can't, period.
