Druids need to lose something, the question is what


Classes: Cleric, Druid, and Paladin

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:
This assumes that someone is going to be able to pin down the caster. Considering the mobility options, invisibility, mirror image, hours/day flight, wall spells, etc that casters have access to it's highly unlikely that casters will be in a threatened area for long once you get past 8th level.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Also, drastically increase the fighter's mobility in combat.

I've got that covered. If the fighter threatens 5 or 10 ft. and has movement as lame as he does now, jacking up DCs is a waste of time, as you correctly point out. But if he can bust out a 20- or 30-ft. move as an immediate action... then his effective "reach" is drastically improved. Barbarians, paladins, and most particularly fighters would also need some better ways to resist "auto-corral/auto-shut-down" spells.

But, overall, the point is to give casters a credible threat when casting, instead of just saying, "well, it's so easy for them to keep spells now, that it must therefore be impossible to make it harder."
This can be accomplished with fighter fixes, coupled with a skill adjustment, that don't otherwise remove any abilities of the spellcasting classes.

The fighters need to be more effective against the enemy not more effective against the party's casters though. I like the 30' sprint. I need to see the bigger picture though.

I can only talk about the beta as it exists though.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
The fighters need to be more effective against the enemy not more effective against the party's casters though.

Typically, "the enemy," in terms of BBEGs, means "a powerful spellcaster." Look at Age of Worms: we get Filge in episode 1, the Faceless One in part 2, a lizardfolk druid in 3, a mind flayer spellcaster in 4... the lich in "Spire," and then Darl, Dragotha, and Lashonna. The BBEG is more often than not a spellcaster because casters are more effective vs. everyone than fighters are against anyone. So if the party fighters become a lot better against spellcasters, they become a much more important asset to the party.

That said, I wouldn't be against giving them better offensive capabilities in general... maybe change weapon training to a straight damage bonus equal to 1/2 class level, and hit bonus equal to 1/5 class level, with all weapons?

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
I can only talk about the beta as it exists though.

Understood. I just figured I should maybe introduce the "bigger picture" you mentioned, and advocate working from there... although, admittedly, it's more or less tangential to the main thrust of this thread -- eliminating the problem from upstream, as it were.


If the druid needs to remove class ability, my vote would be to lose Animal Companion.

D&D Druids have always had wild shape and full spell casting.

On the other hand, Animal Companion came from a druid spell called Animal Friendship. The spell was not to get a massively buffed combat pet, but to get small animals to do the druid's bidding.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:
I can only talk about the beta as it exists though.
Understood. I just figured I should maybe introduce the "bigger picture" you mentioned, and advocate working from there... although, admittedly, it's more or less tangential to the main thrust of this thread -- eliminating the problem from upstream, as it were.

No, I agree that it can be attacked from both angles. Unfortunately the fighter, barbarian, ranger focus time is over and based on what Jason said I don't see any balance upsetting change coming down the pike from that end. Granted it might be coming from the feats end of things but who knows.

I certain Jason B is taking a holistic approach to the problem in the mean time all we have to work with is what's in the Beta.


Sannos wrote:

If the druid needs to remove class ability, my vote would be to lose Animal Companion.

D&D Druids have always had wild shape and full spell casting.

On the other hand, Animal Companion came from a druid spell called Animal Friendship. The spell was not to get a massively buffed combat pet, but to get small animals to do the druid's bidding.

I tend to agree... but I also respect that there are plenty of people who feel otherwise. That's why I like the idea of giving them the choice. Instead of choosing between a domain and an animal companion they would choose between wild shape and the companion. Makes for a much simpler thing, also makes it a lot easier to keep the AC 'relevant' as the pet lovers like to say.

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:

But, overall, the point is to give casters a credible threat when casting, instead of just saying, "well, it's so easy for them to keep spells now, that it must therefore be impossible to make it harder."

This can be accomplished with fighter fixes, coupled with a skill adjustment, that don't otherwise remove any abilities of the spellcasting classes.

It's not that we necessarily need a boost to the Fighter, per se, as a change to the movement/combat rules in general.

The '5'-step-then-freely-cast' trick should only work, if the enemy already used up all his movement to reach you. Otherwise, he can spend whatever he has left from his round-by-round movement pool, to follow up and still threaten.
If he wants to move further, then those aren't 'free' moves, so he will incur an AoO for movement, maybe for each square, if the enemy has Combat Reflexes and movement to spare. He can avoid these by Acrobatics (Tumble), but those DCs increase, as the enemy keeps following up...

All movement is supposed to be occuring simultaneously, but it looks wrong because we break it down into one PC does all their movement, then NPC does all of theirs, with no allowances for reactive side-stepping or throwing dummies.

(This option also helps offset being outflanked-you have the option of disengaging, if you spot the attempt).


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Your math is wrong. You can easily get 21 AC without Wild Armor. With Wild Armor it goes to 26. Take Heavy Armor Proficiency and suddenly it's 30. This is with large shapes.

That's all fine and good, but I've been talking about HUGE shapes. In fact, I specifically used the example of a Huge Earth Elemental. My math isn't wrong - you're just not reading very carefully. Your dreaded enemy the mighty Megaraptor is also Huge Size.

If you drop down to Large and your AC increases but your offense decreases - just like the designers intended.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Your proverbial barbarian? Breastplate +4, Dex +2, Ring of Protection +3... AC 23? 21 While raging.

Yes. But keep in mind that the Barbarian is the least armored of the melee classes - he's not a sword-n-board like a Paladin or a Fighter, but he makes up for it with his hit points. The Cleric is going to have a better AC then him. The fact that the Druid and the Barbarian have a relatively equal AC isn't a testament to how heavily armored the Druid is, but rather how lightly armored both classes are.

The difference is that the Barbarian makes up for his lack of AC with a D12 Hit Die, while the Druid only gets a D8 Hit Die. The Barbarian can compensate with his HP - the Druid cannot.

Also: the Barbarian only occupies one square. When the Druid assumes Huge size, he occupies 9 squares - he's a much easier target to flank and blast with AoE effects.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Compared to what? You keep comparing nothing to a ghost. I put up a build now put up or put a sock in it.

Whatever. The examples that I've given you so far have been thorough enough to prove my point.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Why wouldn't you build a druid with high STR considering you need it to leverage a significant class ability?

I don't know. Maybe because I want to cast spells and not suck? You can dump your points into your physical scores and spend your time mauling people all day, or you can dump your points into your casting stats and work like a regular caster. Unless you have some crazy ability scores, you can't do both. You have to make a choice.

And given the fact that after 12th level, the Druid doesn't have any further power gains in his Wild Shape ability, you're probably going to end up multiclassing to Fighter or Barbarian anyway to keep up with the rest of the melee combatants in the party anyway.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
In general your arguments are all based on shadows and your own assumptions (mostly wrong) about the limits of wild shape.

Oh please. The fact of the matter is that I'm not posting any of this for your benefit, or even to try and change your mind about this matter - I already know from your behavior in previous threads that you have a tendancy to simply discard facts and rules that don't fit your pre-conceived notions.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
So your barbarian is ALWAYS faced with 1 enemy that's nearby that he needs to do a lot of damage to? He's never on a battlefield where mobility is important? He never goes into an encounter where there are 10-20 more or less equally powerful enemies? He is always reliant on the casters?

Perhaps you are familiar with an item called the Composite Long Bow?

And in general, yes, the casters are going to be the ones throwing down with the AoE.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
"Everyone is already pulling ahead"... again who? Your ghost build that I can't see?

Who is pulling ahead? How about all of the melee warriors that can pile on Enhancement bonuses and Size bonuses after the Druid stalls out on stat gains at level 12?


Sueki Suezo wrote:
Rambled more stuff based his preconceived notions without any real content.

So what you are saying is you got nothin'

Oh, and if you do post something please post it using the Beta rules. 3.0 is quaint but lets stay on topic.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Calls the WHAAAMBULANCE because he's not making a convincing argument.

And with that, I guess I'll see you in the next "Nerf Druid" thread that you'll inevitably create! LOL


Look, if you don't want to try and do some sort of objective comparison just say so. Enough of the theatrics.

Sovereign Court

Weight. Druids need to lose weight. It's time for an intervention.


Nameless wrote:
Weight. Druids need to lose weight. It's time for an intervention.

Don't we all?

Sovereign Court

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Nameless wrote:
Weight. Druids need to lose weight. It's time for an intervention.
Don't we all?

Don't remind me. I'm going to go cry in a corner now.


Most of the characters I ever played has been druids, simply because I like the nature aspect of the class, and ability to wild shift with spell casting ability.

I used wild shape most for utility purposes than melee combat, and when the druid had to enter combat it has mostly been from a ranged perspective with arrows and spells. Often the AC has been a major annoyance when it comes to movement, when the animal could not keep up with the wild shape druid, or unable to travel through various terrains.

Generally I just took the AC, as it was just a class feature. And if the situation allowed for it used the AC to do some flanking, often the case end up dead and the campaign time flow often did not allow for obtaining a new AC for a while.

My personal opinion, a wild shifting druid would go for spells than have a AC to manage.

Wild shape was a tad too powerful as a result of the broken polymorph spells, but that has been fix now.

If one has to loose something for the druid, make it a choice at 1st level. Choose 2 of the following: full spell casting, animal companion/domain, and wild shifting.

To enforce the choice of taking wild shape, why not add a minor ability like Alter Self at 1st level, which would replace the major AC ability.

To solve the problem of not taking the full spell casting ability, the spell slots may need to be redone to reflect the half spell casting ability. Here we have a choice: either decrease the number of spells slots per spell level, or to have a slower spell level progression with no level 6 and 7 spells.


Since I almost never have the time to actually post here but input for the playtest was wanted here I am. I've been playing a druid levels 1 to now 12 in the crimson throne campaign. Before this campaign I've been playing D&D for about 15 years.

In reading this there were several interesting points made. To answer a few questions and bring everything together here is my overall response.

My stat block was extreme in what I got in my character build. My base stats at 12th level in order as as follows 6 (not 16, 6), 16, 14, 10, 19, 8. Keep in mind this is after the +2 for being human and the three +1s for my level have been added in.

I would probably be dead a few times over had it not been for my wildshape at this point. Granted he wildshape has been watered down and I think that the stat modifiers need some tweeking along the lines of the form assumed, but otherwise the new way wildshape works is pretty viable.

The animal companion has really been negligible from the perspective of at 1st level I can charm animals. Removing the animal companion would have no real impact in the druid's capabilities one way or the other because the druid can simply go out and charm the animal they want, train it, and then they have the "animal companion" without the class feature. Looking back I would have probably been better off taking the animal domain instead of the animal companion since then I could have multiple critters at my disposal, plus what the domain would have given me for bonus spells and such.

The spell casting has been a good balance between a cleric and a wizard. I'm not as capable of dishing out the damage as the arcane types nor as capable in healing and buffing as the cleric. In many cases I've found myself resorting to produce flame and lightning storm as a regular means of attack, even at higher levels. In last nights session over 50% of my spells were used for buffing and defense. It took that plus being an air elemental to keep myself from being ripped to shreds by a dragon. Lack of spell capability or wildshaping would have been my death. The battle with the dragon ended in little better than a draw.

So the bottom line is this. A character class is only as good as the player playing it. There seems to have been a lot of talk about one class being more powerful than another, but everyone seems to have forgotten the human factor in all of this. Just because one class may be slightly better than another here and there isn't that big of a deal. The difference in how well the class is played by the player makes more of a difference than if the classes are perfectly balanced (which they'll never be since each class has its strengths and weaknesses).


The 3rd Edition Druid was originally built without the feat Natural Spell. This came out in splatbooks and then 3.5e.

If the Druid has to choose between "cast spells" or "be in superman form", it helps with balancing the capabilities of the class.

Other than that, core rules Druid was fairly balanced even in 3.5e. Things got really stupid when you grab splatbooks and later Monster Manuals for gruesome animals to choose from, and spells that basically get around the lower powered spell list.
It was turning into the Fighter/Mage/Cleric class.

Overall though, if the Druid just feels like it has too many options, I'd move Animal Companion over to a fully Ranger thing, and leave the Druid with getting his animal friends through his animal charm spells.

And remove Natural Spell. Make Wildshape an actual important choice in combat. Think of it like Tenser's Transformation... you turning into a combat beast... but can't cast spells while doing so.

Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:
That said, I wouldn't be against giving them better offensive capabilities in general... maybe change weapon training to a straight damage bonus equal to 1/2 class level, and hit bonus equal to 1/5 class level, with all weapons?

Yes, I've been saying this since Alpha.

Fighters need a flat damage bonus that applies to their damage with proficient weapons (melee or ranged) or proficient unarmed attacks (if the Fighter in question doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike, he doesn't get that bonus to face-punching, unless he's wearing a spiked gauntlet...). Have the bonus occur at every odd level (half level, round down), so that a 1st level Fighter gets +1 damage and a 19th level Fighter gets +10 damage, and it's going to add up nicely and be increasingly useful when he's got multiple attacks.

Add in a class defense bonus of some sort, as well, either through getting more use out of proficient armor worn / shields equipped, or by exercising an option to drop armor proficiency feats to gain straight dodge bonuses to AC or the old standby of just adding dodge bonuses to AC based on level (similar to the Monk's bonuses).

Then take Power Attack and Combat Expertise and fold them right into the class as a class ability. The 1st level Fighter could sacrifice his +1 BAB to get a bonus +1 to damage or +1 to AC, or sacrifice his +1 damage bonus to get a +1 to attack rolls, or various other permutations based on trading off points between his new level based attack bonus, damage bonus and / or defense bonuses.

Bang, versatile Fighter, able to do out of the box what a Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger would have to spend at least two feats to do, able to do more damage, again, right out of the box, than another 'warrior' type using the exact same weapons, and able to get more effectiveness out of armor worn / shields equipped than any other class as well.

As for the topic of the thread;

Quote:
Druids need to lose something, the question is what?

IMO, Druids need to lose their reputation for being awesome. They have a pretty dire spell-list, just using core, and Wild Shape has been tweaked into junk. The Animal Companion is decent, but loses value by the mid-levels.

They are one of my favorite classes, for their *versatility,* but they aren't big damage-dealers or game-changers and lack most of the best 'save or lose' spells (with Entangle being an exception, and a situational one at that, unlike Grease or Glitterdust).

Natural Spell is a problem, and just saying 'no' to that one feat, as written, seems to 'fix' that problem nicely.


Set wrote:

IMO, Druids need to lose their reputation for being awesome. They have a pretty dire spell-list, just using core, and Wild Shape has been tweaked into junk. The Animal Companion is decent, but loses value by the mid-levels.

They are one of my favorite classes, for their *versatility,* but they aren't big damage-dealers or game-changers and lack most of the best 'save or lose' spells (with Entangle being an exception, and a situational one at that, unlike Grease or Glitterdust).

Versatility, I think, is one of the Druids most powerful assets. A fighter is pretty much focused on a narrow set of weapons, generally melee. If he uses a ranged weapon as well, his is either okay at both, or pitiful with one while being great at the other. Barbarians aren't a great deal better. Paladins and Rangers, having spell casting, a few class abilities, and automatic cohorts, are better.

Rogues and bards are also a bit limited, but they are kinda useful all the time.

Full fledged casters are better, especially clerics, druids, and wizards. These can literally adjust one of their primary abilities to suit the need at hand (at least, with a day's warning). Plus, nearly every kind of magic item can be used by them, to include scrolls, wands, staves, and rods, creating a Swiss Army Knife kit.

Clerics and druids are the worse (best?). Yeah, wildshape ain't what is used to be, but with a standard action, you still can fly, burrow, gain blindsense, etc, without the aid of magic items or spells. Druids and clerics (& bards) can heal themselves. They have options other classes don't have.

More options mean great power, I think. A full caster can chase the BBEG on the griffon through the air and still be able to open the collapsed passage way, summon a squad of critters, and charm the local bar wench, all in the same day. Everyone else gets to stab the bad guy in the same old way they did last level (if a little harder, or with slightly more interesting results).

Now, I don't see this as a bad thing, mind you. I like characters with more than one use. I've played the character who counts his weapon proficiencies as his (only) assets (feral barbarian, just to put yawl in the know). It was boring. My time with a Master of Many Forms was outstandingly fun. My fighter/rogue was a blast, because of his skills. Even the war mage- with his blow'em up spell list- was a lot more fun. Sure, when it came time to brawl, my character would maul the opposition. But put an obstacle in his way he couldn't destroy or jump over, and the poor boy was so much an angry paperweight.

So, I support the versatility of druids, and all other classes. But I think druids might go a bit too far. The idea of choosing two of three options would work well with them, though I really don't see the overpowering effect of an animal companion. That may be just me.

Dark Archive

PetRock wrote:
So, I support the versatility of druids, and all other classes. But I think druids might go a bit too far. The idea of choosing two of three options would work well with them, though I really don't see the overpowering effect of an animal companion. That may be just me.

My concern would be a reactionary over-nerfing. Wild Shaping has been toned down. The Animal Companion is being toned down, if Jason's new Animal Companion rules are any indication.

The Animal Companion, in my experience, has proven to be annoyingly good at 1st level, competent at second level, back ahead of the curve slightly at 3rd level, back down to competent at 4th level, and then starts to rapidly fall behind soon after, with the Druid starting to have to expend spell resources to buff the companion with spells like Magic Fang or Nature's Favor to 'catch up' in which case, the Companion isn't pulling his own weight anymore, and is actually *stealing actions from the Druid!*

The rules that Jason is considering for Animal Companions might take care of them being 'too good' at 1st level, at the cost of doing nothing for them being a dumping ground for half of the Druids daily spells in buffs and healing by higher levels.


Sidebar: Okay, Pazio forums are really making me angry. I've written a post here two times that was long involved and well thought out, just to have the damn board say 'oops?' and make it go away. Third time is the charm. But you no longer get the reasoned, well thought out discussions and evidence that I've had before. I lack the patience for it now.

Real post begins:

The game of D&D has always been about making choices, ever since I started playing it when I joined Boy Scouts 30 years ago. The choices that had to be made were not always this simple, but these are simplistic examples.

FIGHTER: Do I pull out my bow and shoot the big baddie at the back of the mob, OR do I heft my sword and shield and try to deflect the tide of minions charging towards us?

CLERIC: Do I cast a buff/debuff spell, OR do I heft my mace and shield and stand beside the fighter and try to keep the minions off of the rest of the party?

ROGUE: Do I shoot my bow at either the big baddie or a minion, OR do I slip into the shadows and try to sneak around to flank and sneak attack someone?

WIZARD: Do I cast a protective spell, or do I try to eliminate some of the bad guys with an attack spell?

DRUID: So I cast a spell to try to hinder/harm the baddies, OR do I shapechange into something fierce and step up to help the fighter and/or cleric?

Now, with the Nature Spell feat, the choice isn't there. One can do both. So I've eliminated the Nature Spell feat.

I have one big problem with animal companions. All too often and all too easily they are treated like a disposable meat shield; they are tossed in to battle, killed, and then 'oh well, I'll get another.' I think that is a bullcrap attitude. Any AC (and familiar) has a deep and intense link to its character companion. That's how it works. Therefore, I think that anyone who gets their animal companion killed foolishly should suffer the kinds of penalties a paladin does when his called mount gets killed. Otherwise, what's the big deal? Crunch all you want, I'll make more. This attitude is very much against the mindset of either the druid or ranger classes, and probably should be against the wizard's mindset too. This kind of penalty for druids, rangers, and wizards would make the difference. Say a -1 on the DCs of saves versus spells they cast for 30 days, plus other hindrances like -1 on skill rolls dealing with either nature (druid & ranger) or spell casting (wizard) and the -1 to AC as well. Suddenly, an animal companion would be something more than disposable, and that would make playing a character companion require much more thinking. And I am for that too.


All this theoretical talk is great, but the playtesters are not noting true overpoweredness. See here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/playtest/druidWhoHasSeenADruidInPlayedInPFRPG


James Risner wrote:


If anything the class needs to get back some of it's old luster. I never like the Druid since 2nd forward. I've never played a Druid since 1st edition.

Where is my "2nd highest hit points possible in the game"?

Well technically you are not playing a straight first edition druid, you added Heirophant leves to it which came out later (possibly in dragon). Straight first edition druid went to level 14.

Now about the second higest hit points possible in game since htey weer resticted to 14 even a wizard could have them beat since wizards went to 29
But lets look at it at level 14 (which took more xp for a druid then most other classes).

Fighter 9d10 + 15 (levels 10-14) + 56 con = 161 Max 120.5 avg
Paladin 9d10 + 15 (levels 10-14) + 56 con = 161 Max 120.5 avg
Ranger 10d8 + 10 + 60 = 150 Max 114 avg
Druid 14d8 + 28 (con)= 140 max 77 Avg

Remember only fighters, paladins and rangers got to get more then a +2 bonus for con.


James Risner wrote:


It is amazing to me to read these boards and see all the Anti Druid bleeding out of so many.

The Quintessential Druid of D&D is a subset of Cleric (so anyone suggesting removing spellcasting doesn't want to play D&D) that shape shifts (so anyone wanting to nerf/remove Wild Shape doesn't like D&D) among other things.

If you ask me, the Druid has been nerfed so bad that it needs a boost.

We need to go and pluck some of the old abilities from 1st and add them to the Druid:

1) Master of Languages (+17 extra languages at 20th level)
2) Identify plants, animals, pure water at will.
3) Non Combat Shapeshifting forms (as the current Beta PRPG rules on Wild Shape.)
4) Spell Casting (since it was a "subclass of Clerics.")
5) Immune to Charm spells.
6) Immune to all poisons except mineral or gas.
7) Long life with excellent health.
8) Alter Self at will in 1/10th of a round (so about half a second now.)
9) Able to Summon the largest (most HD) elementals than any other class, so a powered up (superior) version of Elemental Monolith from Complete Arcane?
10) Plane Shift self at will to the following Planes (Earth, Fire, Water, Air, all para planes, Shadow, all inner planes, 7th dimension, Concordant Opposition.)
11) 14 hit dice, so basically statistically more hit points than any other class could accomplish. Every other class stopped at 9 or 10 hit dice. Only fighters got +4 from CON, everyone else got +2 max from CON.
So 14th Druid with ok CON will have 14d8+14*2 = 91 hp. A 14th Fighter with good CON will have 9d8+14*4 = 105.5 hp. Basically the 2nd highest hp in game.

So I ask you Druid haters, why do you not enjoy playing D&D?

Where is the Druid's Innate at will Alter Self?

Where is the Druid's Innate plane shifting? The plane shifting that took 3 seconds to perform (roughly a standard action now.)

If anything the class needs to get back some of it's old luster. I never like the Druid since 2nd forward. I've never played a Druid since 1st edition.

Where is my "2nd highest...

I totally agree with James. In our campign we have a player that consistantly plays druids of all varying races. They function kinda like clerics only without good healing or channeling energy and have a much poorer spell list. They are a jack of many trades, but masters of none except wildshape. The Animal Companion is not bad, but not great either. Not once in 3e, 3.5, or PF have we said...wow...that is one tough character. Their strength is in the outdoors and natural shape is a help in those scenerios. Put the druid in a city or dungeon...ya...monsters have lunch.

I do know that there are a lot of druid 'haters' and that is why 4e dropped them from their core book. I have never understood why as there is nothing overbalancing about the druids at all. As a matter of fact the druids in the campaigns tend to be one of the least useful characters in the group in terms of combat. They are a good outdoor utility character.

Personally I would not play a druid in its current form...nothing that stands out and goes...YA BABY! A boost to the Animal companion would be in order to affect creatures with DR.


Dinja wrote:

Personally I would not play a druid in its current form...nothing that stands out and goes...YA BABY! A boost to the Animal companion would be in order to affect creatures with DR.

Dinja brings up a couple of good points. In my campaign, it is a bear to get anyone to play a druid since they are not on par with other classes combat-wise. You can max a druid to the hilt, but then again you can to any other class as well. The barbarian is far more complete in this arena. The thing to remember is that druids are not meant to be front line fighters. They are meant to be (as others have said in this thread) utility characters. Put them in a forest where they can fly overhead and use Natural Spell and they are in their element. Remove that setting and they are average to below. A paladin is the best against Evil and so should a druid be to nature.

Do not remove anything at all and maybe allow the animal companion a way to overcome at least some DR against really tough creatures.


You know I've been noticing an interesting trend. The people who have play tested druids in Pathfinder for at least a few levels have found them to be underpowered or at best equal to their other companions, while most everyone who hasn't is constantly saying they're overpowered. Inevitably people are going to disagree, but for those who say that a druid is overpowered I would encourage them to play a druid as the book has it, rather than simply read about their abilities and critique.


Lord Starmight wrote:
You know I've been noticing an interesting trend. The people who have play tested druids in Pathfinder for at least a few levels have found them to be underpowered or at best equal to their other companions, while most everyone who hasn't is constantly saying they're overpowered. Inevitably people are going to disagree, but for those who say that a druid is overpowered I would encourage them to play a druid as the book has it, rather than simply read about their abilities and critique.

And the trend I've seen is that everyone who says that the Druid is fine, hasn't given the Druid half a chance yet, or even tested the situations where he was overpowered in 3.5e.

I think your data source is flawed. The playtest thread for druids has nearly everyone mentioning a character below 5th level, or multiclassed with only a level or two of druid. That means they don't even have basic Wildshaping yet, and/or their druid abilities are far below the CR. There was one 14th level druid who was in a group with no healer, which doesn't allow for much playtesting of druid specific powers.
One report had the player not even using Wildshape for anything but flight or swim speeds, because they didn't read up on what kinds of attacks they could get from Wildshaping... ignoring a whole aspect of the class.

.

I'm pretty sure no one says the Wizard is "overpowered" in the first 3-5 levels of gameplay. And yet many folks clamored for spell nerfs for higher level wizard spells (no more save or die, etc) due to overpowered problems.

From what I've read of that thread, it sounds more like Summoning spells need a buff along the lines of "Duration: 3 rounds + 1 round/level" so that 1st level druids aren't getting 1 round duration summoned creatures after wasting an entire round of combat.
Not a whole Druid buff, or a reason to not nerf higher level aspects of the Druid.

.

What I'd like to hear is how the new Pathfinder game handles the old Druid tricks. Wildshape into a Tiny, flying creature and cast Lightning Storm/etc with Natural Spell feat.
Or if the Druid can still be an effective fighter while still tossing near-wizard level damage spells around (call lightning at 3rd, flamestrike at 4th instead of 5th, etc).
Or if this new Animal Companion (from the design focus thread) and the extra character feats (allowing mounted combat as a feasible option now), gives the druid even more combat advantage.

Until these things get playtested, I can't really accept a general "druids are fine" claim.

.

Having said all that... I'm of the belief that Druids aren't really that overblown.
Wildshape did take a hit (no more making a 6 Strength into 20+), and everyone else has gotten a nice boost, catching up to the core rules Druid.

My thoughts are to change or remove the Natural Spell feat and he'd be totally in line.


Mildew wrote:
Dinja wrote:

A boost to the Animal companion would be in order to affect creatures with DR.

Dinja brings up a couple of good points.

Do not remove anything at all and maybe allow the animal companion a way to overcome at least some DR against really tough creatures.

A standard combat oriented animal companion has 20-ish Strength. They get around +5 for being an Animal companion by the higher levels (where you'll see DR 15). They get another +8 from Animal Growth (why is your AC going into combat with this?). Give another couple points from HD (every 4 levels).

Toss in a Bull's Strength (2nd level spell slot, why wouldn't a high level caster have this up?).

We are looking at a 40ish Strength score after all that. That's +15 damage straight from strength alone.

Considering Magic Fang bonuses, being enlarged and the improved natural attack feat, the animal is going to be doing likely more than 30 points of damage per round on average before any DR.

The highest DR being 15... the animal is still doing decent damage per attack, and that's not including any rider effects it might have (poison, or if you have an amulet of mighty fists).

This actually brings me to another point... people seem to get real hung up over Damage Reduction, like if you can't bypass it, it's the end of the world or something.
This used to be the case back in 3.0, where DR 50/+5 existed. But since 3.5e came out, DR's don't exceed 15. Most, even at high levels, are only 10 or lower.
Anything built for melee damage is going to be doing a lot more than that, which makes DR just a way to reduce incoming damage, not nullify the melee fighter who doesn't have the appropriate bypassing weapon.

Keeping in mind that this AC doing melee damage is on top of the Druid's own damage, or nuking, or healing... and you have to ask yourself, should this tacked on ability for a class already capable of doing other things, be as good as the Fighter?

.

I think the Design Focus Animal Companion is strong enough to compete. Having a Huge Wolf doing 3d6 +30 damage twice a round is powerful enough for a class that already has full spellcasting and wildshaping.


Kaisoku,
You have some good points in your post. For you're reference I'm playtesting a Pathfinder druid now, I'm level 12 and started at 1.

The damage a druid can now put at per round by spell has been substantially reduced in trade for being able to pump it out over time. With the new changes to the cleric's death spells now only dealing direct damage, the druid deals much less damage than a cleric or a wizard. The trade off is that the druid can deal out about the same amount over more time, and has better defenses from their wildshape.

A front line druid could be built and the shape changing would make that druid a lot more durable but things like the stacking of bulls strength on top of what shape changing gives you is gone and what shape changing gives you in compared in what the druid had in 3.5 is about half as useful.

In comparison between a 3.5 druid and a pathfinder druid, I'd say the pathfinder druid has lost about 30-40% of its capabilities. Part of that is by design and part of it is that there isn't a ridiculous amount of supplemental books out there that enable players to make more and yet more powerful characters.

The animal companion issue is largely negligible due to the charm animal and handle animal capabilities of a druid. The 'bond' the druid has with their companion has been watered down to a bonus on handle animal checks, nothing more. The bonus HD and abilities an animal gets by being the druid's companion is about on par to a reduced version of a leadership cohort. Its just that the companion's experience isn't tracked, they just get bonuses that reflect how they would have grown with the experience they would have earned...

I agree that if the companion is going to stay it needs to be reworked into something else. I would like to see the companion almost be more of a sentient mystical force that could bond with animals similar to how a voluntary and shared version of a possession my work. This would essentially make the animal companion very smart and versatile but not have the animal be anything more than what it normally is.


Lord Starmight wrote:

The damage a druid can now put at per round by spell has been substantially reduced in trade for being able to pump it out over time.

What?

Could you please provide examples of this change from 3.5 to Pathfinder. I've tried looking through the spells for the Druid, comparing each of them, and they look copy/pasted. What changes have been made?

As far as I can see, the core rules 3.5 Druid has the exact same spells available in PFRPG.

Lord Starmight wrote:

With the new changes to the cleric's death spells now only dealing direct damage, the druid deals much less damage than a cleric or a wizard.

Wait... so because insta-death spells now deal damage, this "ups" the cleric's capabilities over the Druid?

I'm not sure I understand this part. Those spells have been reduced in effectiveness. A cleric in 3.5 was killing things outright, while the Druid had to deal regular damage... now the Cleric deals damage instead of killing them outright, and that makes the Druid somehow weaker in comparison?

And it's not like the Druid is without these spells. They get Finger of Death. Baleful Polymorph is at the same level as Slay Living, and while it might require two checks, if it succeeds it's basically a death sentence.
You even have the option to make the target into a creature that's not fit for it's environment. Yeah, at a +4 bonus vs the Save, but still... you can effectively start "drowning" the target on a success.

Lord Starmight wrote:

A front line druid could be built and the shape changing would make that druid a lot more durable but things like the stacking of bulls strength on top of what shape changing gives you is gone and what shape changing gives you in compared in what the druid had in 3.5 is about half as useful.

This is the one situation where I agree. Wildshape has been drastically reduced in power.

However, if you are to be casting spells while getting these benefits (Natural Spell feat), there had to be some kind of reduction in power.
Going from a Str 6 to a Str 28 by changing into a Tyrannosaur was giving the Druid more out of this class ability than it really should. That's a 22 point increase that stacked with everything else (a +11 modifier difference).

Now, if the Natural Spell were removed... I'd like to see the ability score increases in Beastshape to become untyped (or of a shapechange type or something).

Actually, I'm not even against making that change right now, so that the Druid still benefits from having a magic item (enhancement bonus).

Lord Starmight wrote:

The animal companion issue is largely negligible due to the charm animal and handle animal capabilities of a druid. The 'bond' the druid has with their companion has been watered down to a bonus on handle animal checks, nothing more. The bonus HD and abilities an animal gets by being the druid's companion is about on par to a reduced version of a leadership cohort. Its just that the companion's experience isn't tracked, they just get bonuses that reflect how they would have grown with the experience they would have earned...

Were you using the new Animal Companion rules that James had put up in his Design Focus thread here?

Because the animal companion gets accelerated HD, which means higher BAB, Saves, Skills and Feats, and get an additional +1 ability score increase over levels.

Even better, the animals gain an automatic boost that gives Large animals without having to give up even more HD (and specifically, Druid animal companion bonuses).

If you decide to outfit your Animal Companion just like you would a cohort from the Leadership feat, you can end up with a very effective additional character... and it's part of the Druid base class.

Lord Starmight wrote:
I agree that if the companion is going to stay it needs to be reworked into something else. I would like to see the companion almost be more of a sentient mystical force that could bond with animals similar to how a voluntary and shared version of a possession my work. This would essentially make the animal companion very smart and versatile...

This is still a good idea though, and I'd like to see this option for more utility type animals. So instead of picking the small Bird for combat and getting kind of screwed compared to the Large wolf or Dinosaur others picked up, you instead get a sentient bird (maybe similar to the effects of the awaken spell, special case useable on the animal companion here, but at 7th level when other animals are becoming large and getting +8 strength?).

Then animals could be made more apparent in their uses. You get an animal with weak attacks and more utility-based abilities (such as flight), and they become "imbued" with a sentient spirit instead of trying to get more combat effectiveness.

Dark Archive

Kaisoku wrote:
Going from a Str 6 to a Str 28 by changing into a Tyrannosaur was giving the Druid more out of this class ability than it really should. That's a 22 point increase that stacked with everything else (a +11 modifier difference).

IMO, Wild Shape should replace your Str / Dex modifier with that for the animal. If a Gnome with a Str 6 turns into a Tyrannosaur, she should replace her -2 racial Str penalty with the T-Rexs +18 racial Str modifier, making her a slightly weaker than average Str 26 T-Rex.

To avoid dealing with hit points changing, I'd just keep Con the same, regardless of form. So she's a T-Rex with a Con 14 and her normal Fortitude save, that's fine with me. (And yeah, that would mean that Elves, Dwarves and Gnomes keep their Con adjustments when Wild Shaping, which is sad for the Elves, anyway.)


The druid may be overpowered in some games, but in the game i'm in I am the primary healer, we do have a paly, that greatly limits my spell output in any given combat. I just got wild shape and haven't had a chance to use it yet but just based on rules the Druid seems to have become more bardic. In the fact that you can't just focus on one area, you need to make a well rounded charcter. Its hard to have that 20 wisdom, not so much for sor, wiz or cleric. I do think the time table of the wild shape should decrease, minutes instead of hours, or maybe a point systme like barbarians.


I would like to see druids lose two things:

1) Natural Spell
2) Items 'melding' when they wildshape


With all this talk about nerfing and some classes being overpowered, I'm wondering why you don't just try a classless system like GURPS which allows players to pick and choose which abilities they want (or don't want) for their characters and still wind up equal in relative power to other characters. Too much time seems wasted in D&D on developing and trying to balance classes, IMHO.


ArchLich wrote:

I would like to see druids lose two things:

1) Natural Spell
2) Items 'melding' when they wildshape

Without Natural Spell, Druids are the weakest class in the game.

Without being able to wild shape at a moment's notice (because of worn gear), wild shape is relegated to a non-combat ability.

Both combined would make Druids worth less than the paper they're printed on. It'd be simpler, easier, and less painful to all involved to completely remove them from the game and provide conversion charts to convert druid NPCs into pathfinder clerics.


Zurai wrote:

Without Natural Spell, Druids are the weakest class in the game.

Without being able to wild shape at a moment's notice (because of worn gear), wild shape is relegated to a non-combat ability.

Both combined would make Druids worth less than the paper they're printed on. It'd be simpler, easier, and less painful to all involved to completely remove them from the game and provide conversion charts to convert druid NPCs into pathfinder clerics.

Yeah because being a 20 level spell caster and having an awesome animal companion just sucks compared to being able to poke things with big sticks.

Shadow Lodge

Have you concidered dropping skill points down to 2. I think that would go a long way in my book.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Yeah because being a 20 level spell caster and having an awesome animal companion just sucks compared to being able to poke things with big sticks.

You really can't be a level 20 spellcaster and have an awesome animal companion unless you're spending the first five rounds of a given fight (that only last two rounds at that level anyhow) buffing the animal companion. It's a well-established fact that ACs peak in power at around level 4 and rapidly diminish from there. By level 20, the AC is a flank buddy and not much else.

In addition, Druids have the worst spell list of the full caster classes. They have fewer save-or-die/save-or-suck spells by far, and don't even have good healing spells or efficient damage spells to make up for it.

The reason Druids were so strong before was because Wild Shape was completely broken in 3.0 and 3.5. Paizo's fix to Wild Shape is efficient and effectively balances the druid against the majority of the other classes (though the Monk still needs help).


Zurai wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Yeah because being a 20 level spell caster and having an awesome animal companion just sucks compared to being able to poke things with big sticks.

You really can't be a level 20 spellcaster and have an awesome animal companion unless you're spending the first five rounds of a given fight (that only last two rounds at that level anyhow) buffing the animal companion. It's a well-established fact that ACs peak in power at around level 4 and rapidly diminish from there. By level 20, the AC is a flank buddy and not much else.

In addition, Druids have the worst spell list of the full caster classes. They have fewer save-or-die/save-or-suck spells by far, and don't even have good healing spells or efficient damage spells to make up for it.

The reason Druids were so strong before was because Wild Shape was completely broken in 3.0 and 3.5. Paizo's fix to Wild Shape is efficient and effectively balances the druid against the majority of the other classes (though the Monk still needs help).

Huzzah! I agree fully. Even in 3.5 if you had a DM the exercised restraint/ground rules on wild shape with the druid players, they were not the boat full of awesome everyone thinks. I guess I am not a total power gamer, but my ani companions and my druid were not bringing the whomping stick to the show. Actually the Evoker I played in PF would wipe the floor with my the druid I am switching over to our new Forgotten Realms campaign using the PF rules when considering consistent damage output. And consider that Evocation is considered the weakest of the specialty schools by many. Overall, I see clerics and druids as equal power in PF.

Clerics: channeling/Pulses (area healing & turning all in one? wow), Spontaneous Casting - Healing, Spells, All armor and shields (with out loss of abilities like druid do if wearing metal), Simple weapons + favored of deity, 2 domains and resulting domain powers

Druids: Wild shape, Spontaneous Casting- Summon Nature's Ally, Spells (some are very dependant on surroundings (IE one Dennis Da Ogre has mentioned a number of times: entangle; can't use if there is no vegetation... So not indoors/dungeons); Light and Medium non-metallic armor/Shield; Only the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, quarterstaff, scimitar, scythe, sickle, shortspear, sling, and spear. They are also proficient with all natural attacks (claw, bite, and so forth); Nature's Bond: Animal comp or 1 Domain; Flavor class abilities (Non-game changing) Such as pass w/ out trace; nature sense; woodland stride, trackless step, etc. (these just add to the woodlands background and do not come into play in most situations).

If there are 3 concessions to be made for druids: move call lightning to a 4th level spell, flame strike to 5th level, and move skills to 2 + Int

It just makes me chuckle on how hard da Ogre is on druids. I still think his 1st born was stolen by druids, thus the hatred. I believe the answer is to not steal one of the Jack of all Trades areas from druids (WS, ACs, spell casting), but to bring the fighter types closer to par with the spell casters damage wise (starting in midlevels). They need to be below big huge fireball capability though as casters have those as limited resources, while fighters would be able to hack away all day long at big spell damage.


Lord Starmight wrote:
So the bottom line is this. A character class is only as good as the player playing it. There seems to have been a lot of talk about one class being more powerful than another, but everyone seems to have forgotten the human factor in all of this. Just because one class may be slightly better than another here and there isn't that big of a deal. The difference in how well the class is played by the player makes more of a difference than if the classes are perfectly balanced (which they'll never be since each class has its strengths and weaknesses).

This seems to be the biggest factor to me. I've seen Druids played to be extremely effective and dangerous... in 1st edition. Since 3rd edition I've yet to see a single Druid played well to be much more than a roadblock above 5th-6th level.

I'm not saying it can't/hasn't been done. But I think the level of effort needed to do so is beyond most player's abilities and/or attention spans. The three most time-consuming things in 3rd edition are looking through lots of spell choices, stat'ing up lots of summoned creatures, and figuring attack bonuses for yourself in lots of different scenarios. The Druid "requires" all three.

So I guess that's why all the "Druids are way too Uber!" comments always ring false with myself and many others - we haven't seen someone go through the hassle. With the hassle they might be strong or broken or whatever. Without it they tend to be barely even decent from a mechanics standpoint.

Hard to build a balanced class in that kind of situation.


In our games our DM requires us to have the stat blocks and changes from any type of shapechanging ready on a seperate character sheet/ index card. If you aren't ready when he comes around you get skipped. While it creates a little hassle for the player upfront, it cleans up a lot of confusion in play and makes things faster in combat. Even so like Majuba said: Alot of this comes down to the player.

Some people come to the table and should have a "Level Adjustment" just for being themselves. They see and play better than others (make better choices, see combinations others don't, use resources in inventive ways)... I'm not saying these people are bad or anything, just that they are better than the "typical" role player.


Majuba wrote:
So I guess that's why all the "Druids are way too Uber!" comments always ring false with myself and many others - we haven't seen someone go through the hassle. With the hassle they might be strong or broken or whatever. Without it they tend to be barely even decent from a mechanics standpoint.

Effectiveness of spell casters is completely dependent upon the player's ability. Effective combination of feats, spell choice, wild shape forms, animal companion choices, etc makes for wildly different play experiences. Druids are IMO one of the trickier classes to master but can be extremely effective. I think this is why there is are so many anecdotal stories of ineffective druid characters.

On the other hand I've seen druids played with devastating effectiveness, the wildshape and animal companion changes help but the class still has the potential to seriously overshadow many of the other classes.

Ultimately do you design and balance a class around people who are effective or the ones who are ineffective? I would love to see the Druid fixed for both sorts of people but I'm not entirely sure how this could happen without completely rebooting the class.


I'm not certain it could even happen then Dennis. Some people come to the table and should have their own personal LA.

However I don't think that's something we can really address in building the basic classes.


Kaisoku,
Sorry for the delay in my response to your question. I never played a druid in 3.5 so I can't really give feedback on the difference between the pathfinder version and the 3.5 version. All I know is what I've learned from playing a pathfinder druid since late spring.

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Classes: Cleric, Druid, and Paladin / Druids need to lose something, the question is what All Messageboards
Recent threads in Classes: Cleric, Druid, and Paladin