I like the changes to the way it works, but I think it would have been more elegant and internally consistent as *rounds* per day. Jason, can you tell us why you preferred the uses/day over rounds/day?
Because wildshape has a very long duration. From the way it reads, it is infinite in PF.
You only need uses to turn into different kinds of critters.
Nope, it lasts one hour per druid level.
Just like before, you can maintain a form for one hour per Druid level.
Everything looks good to me.
I'm still a little confused about the size effects and large or tiny druids but that will probably become clear soon enough.
Speaking of Beasties... I thought I saw something in the bonus beastie book about claw/claw/bite attacks all being at full modifier, and full strength applying as well! No more -5/-2(with multiattack)on secondary natural attacks.
That is a sweet boost to natural attacking in general.
I'm now off to stat up some lizardfolk 5th level druids, last time I DM'd they were 3.5, now they are going to be a more nasty opponent.
EDIT:
"Their claw attacks are made at the same bonus as their bite attack (this appears to be a general change to the way natural attacks work*), and receive their full Strength bonus (also apparently a general rules change*)"
"* Jason has said in another thread that this is not true for all attacks, but that the difference between primary and secondary attacks is not handled in the same way as in 3.5 – apparently monsters can have multiple primary attacks now, as well as multiple secondary attacks."
And now we're leaking into the druids must choose which speacialty they want. Generalizing is much less possible with the new druid changes. Decide at birth to be good at one side of the coint but suck at the other.
Which, all-in-all, is preferable to being awesome at both.
Me, I would have preferred if they could be merely good at both, or good at one and passable at the other.
This is a good thing. Judging the preview, the druid class still seems to be the most versatile class of all. Nearly all the other classes have to make choices to be good at one aspect of their class or another. Generalizing should just be that… "Generally" good at all aspects, but great at none.
And now we're leaking into the druids must choose which speacialty they want. Generalizing is much less possible with the new druid changes. Decide at birth to be good at one side of the coint but suck at the other.
I think you are WAAAYYY over-stating this.
Need to try it to find out exactly, but it looks to me like they are going from too good to about right.
Now a druid must decide while he is being rolled up. Go for Melee, or go for druid stuff - no way to do both well enough to bother with either of them.
Quite a few folks think this is a good change. It is the case with every other class in the game so we don't think the druid should be an exception. The difference is for most classes you have to decide before you choose your class.
You can make a wizard who is good in melee (I've seen it done) but similarly he had to have a high STR and his casting pretty much sucked.
Incidentally SNA can be a potent battlefield control spell in it's own way, even if the creatures you summon can't do serious damage to enemies it breaks up the battlefield giving your party flanking and preventing the enemy from overwhelming you. In fact druids get quite a few nice BFC spells like Rock to Mud, Wall of stone, etc. Not saying they have the spell lists wizards do but it ain't horrible and they don't have to buy their spells.
I have my own reservations about the class but I figure there isn't much point griping since the book is already being printed, and I'm buying it regardless. Seems to me that the next couple years of gaming with the system should reveal what the truth is one way or the other.
I think the Size Bonus:Polymorph is throwing people off because of the NAME (i.e. PMorph doesn't always change Size CATEGORY), but FUNCTIONALLY I think it does a good job, linking all Polymorph spells including Enlarge/ Reduce X.
I presume the DESCRIPTION of "Size Bonus" WILL allude to it's broader usage than people expect (from 3.5).
over all... Awesome.
Overall I like this version of the druid very much. It allows a lot of flexibility on how you want to make your character, while still making the character clearly recognizable as a druid. You can mix and match a large range of class choices and build the character you want.
How many other classes can easily choose to be a front line fighter with a combat support pet, a ranged support character with a tank pet, an offensive spell caster with a guardian pet, or a healer with a guardian pet? Now take those same options and just change the pet for one of the many domains for even more customization.
Now keep in mind that you can build your character to be awesome at any of those things and you STILL get to do the others to a lesser or greater extent (other than the pet/domain choice). There are very few other classes that can make that same claim and no classes should be able to do all of those things better than everyone else at the same time.
The class is still clearly a druid with many powerful options without being a one man army that does not need the rest of the party.
This class again shows that the guys and gals are doing a great job of revamping the game while still letting everyone look at the previews and still recognize the classes from past editions as the ones they know and love.
For explaining this to players confused about "Size Bonus" and same-size Polymorphing, I think I might suggest thinking of it as a "Polymorph Bonus" instead, and restrict the term "Size Modifier" to the Attack/ AC/ Encumbrance modifiers tied to actual Size Category.
Since Stat Bonuses and Attack/AC/Encumbrance Modifiers don't interact "directly" (i.e. they're not a bonus to the same thing, so stacking/not stacking isn't relevant), it might be less confusing to not use the same Bonus category to refer to them...?
Now a druid must decide while he is being rolled up. Go for Melee, or go for druid stuff - no way to do both well enough to bother with either of them.Quite a few folks think this is a good change. It is the case with every other class in the game so we don't think the druid should be an exception. The difference is for most classes you have to decide before you choose your class.
You can make a wizard who is good in melee (I've seen it done) but similarly he had to have a high STR and his casting pretty much sucked.
Incidentally SNA can be a potent battlefield control spell in it's own way, even if the creatures you summon can't do serious damage to enemies it breaks up the battlefield giving your party flanking and preventing the enemy from overwhelming you. [...]
agree
I have my own reservations about the class but I figure there isn't much point griping since the book is already being printed, and I'm buying it regardless.
I'm buing too, but I wonder what are your reservations about the class.
Seems to me that the next couple years of gaming with the system should reveal what the truth is one way or the other.true.
Just like before, you can maintain a form for one hour per Druid level.
Well that certainly puts a cap on that boy-leopard meets girl-leopard thing Gorbacz mentioned up-thread. It could be *really* awkward if it expired in the midst of the "fesitivities" :D
On a more serious note (although I'd say the above could result in serious injury), it was pleasant to read through a thread and get peoples opinions without the acrimony the last preview engendered.
Thank you all. I like to check my reactions / ideas against other peoples, but that last was becoming bloody painful to read...
I'm buing too, but I wonder what are your reservations about the class.
Heh... after the beta test flame wars I don't think there are any mysteries there. I still think the AC is a bit much at low levels. The other thing was I thought it would be more balanced if there was a choice between ACs and Wild Shape, then the remaining option could have been made that much better. Regardless, the class is much more in line with the rest now and like most of the changes the change to animal companions makes them more interesting and more fun to play throughout the game... Woot!
In fact there are niggles in other places too that I have but my general impression is that the game will be significantly improved overall and that's enough for me.
I'm glad to see that the Beta druid stuff made it into final. My only complaints with it were largely fixed.
Overall, jason is right. The core druid spell list is pretty crappy. But, to be honest, druids deserve it for all of the other goodies they get. And they do still get some doozies like entangle (which I've used to great effect) and summon elemental swarm (uck, hate conjuration). I don't agree that old druids were good generalists. Which is to say, a good generalist isn't the best at everything. Even if you take out the whacko options, old druids could still turn into grappling dire bears. And, the thing is, yes, the new druid can (depending on the power level of the game, they may have to), but this is true of every single class. If anything there's still less sucking in the nonspecialized areas.
The new wildshape fixes my complaints with beta (too many enhancement bonuses and magic items not working to compensate for changes). Even if it isn't the monster combat power it used to be, it's still the best utility power in the game.
I'm really glad that the preview animal companion system remained. As part of the aforementioned druid flamewar, I think this is the best compromise possible, as it takes away the OMGpowerful companions and motivates players to keep their ponies and puppies from level 1.
I do have two questions for Jason(which I hope he can halfway answer):
Was the system previewed in beta kept the same for other classes (IE, are paladins and rangers still not-screwed)?
Was the staggering on cure spells for druids aligned with clerics? (this didn't need balanced, but the old staggering was a pain, especially for healer druids).
I will admit that a size bonus feels akward for it because you get a size bonus to stats, even if you wildshape into smaller
So cats are clumsier than elephants?
Really, that's your argument to the fact that i find it akward to have a medium sized creature transmorf into a medium size creature, and get a size bonus to their stats.
NO, really, that's my argument to the fact that you complained about size bonuses when you become smaller. Dex bonus for becoming smaller makes sense.
Getting a size bonus without getting a size change might be weird, but it's the best way to handle things. Better than using some other type of bonus. Better than not giving a bonus if your size doesn't change. Probably better than allowing size changes and tying the bonus to that.
Keep things nice and simple unless you have to go complex.
I like the changes to the way it works, but I think it would have been more elegant and internally consistent as *rounds* per day. Jason, can you tell us why you preferred the uses/day over rounds/day?
Because wildshape has a very long duration. From the way it reads, it is infinite in PF.
You only need uses to turn into different kinds of critters.
Nope, it lasts one hour per druid level.
Just like before, you can maintain a form for one hour per Druid level.
They corrected that I swear.
Yes when I read it at 3am EST I am sure it said for as long as the Druid wants for duration for wildshape.
This is what I expected so I was a little disapointed about not really seeing anything different about the druid. I was hoping for some mention about what happened after level 12 but nothing. I am really glad (as a lot of people before said) that polymorph spells are size bonuses and not enhancment. So thank you for that.
Can't wait for August and to roll my first PF class, my favorite, the druid.
Now a druid must decide while he is being rolled up. Go for Melee, or go for druid stuff - no way to do both well enough to bother with either of them.Quite a few folks think this is a good change. It is the case with every other class in the game so we don't think the druid should be an exception. The difference is for most classes you have to decide before you choose your class.
You can make a wizard who is good in melee (I've seen it done) but similarly he had to have a high STR and his casting pretty much sucked.
In particular, every comment about druids having to sacrifice a little to be a good melee combatant apply exactly as much to clerics (and I pointed this out in the past). So where is the outrage for the cleric?
|
I was under the impression that racial bonus's stack. Otherwise, you have the wierd situations of two characters built with exactly the same base stats, one human, one gnome. The gnome has a strength 2 less than the human. Then apply the Half-Dragon template, and you end up with a small half-dragon and a medium half-dragon (one half human, the other half-gnome) with exactly the same str stat (since if they don't stack, the half-gnome/half-dragon's gnomish racial penalty would be replaced by the half-dragon's boost).
Having been statting up a half-dragon yesterday, I had to go back to check I hadn't screwed up.
Abilities
Increase from the base creature as follows: Str +8, Con +2, Int +2, Cha +2.
There's nothing about granting a bonus, or the bonus having a type.
And that makes perfect sense, for a template, which is intended to be a modifier applied to lots of different races.An ogre half-dragon is stronger than an orc half-dragon is stronger than a human half-dragon is stronger than a halfling half-dragon...
Obviously, that's the 3.5 SRD, not the PF Bestiary.
But I'd be surprised if that changed, because it seems to make sense to me.
A template changes the racial mods, to create a whole new race.
When you're reincarnated, or wild-shaped, you're stripping yourself of one race, and becoming another. Which makes it a two-stage process for every modifier, and thus, more work.
In particular, every comment about druids having to sacrifice a little to be a good melee combatant apply exactly as much to clerics (and I pointed this out in the past). So where is the outrage for the cleric?
Heh, I have no outrage left in me ;)
I wasn't posting much at all when Kyra got put up so I didn't say much. I kind of thought clerics were overblown in 3.5 and are still a bit overblown. They did tone channel energy down a bit and they also toned down some of the spells which were pretty egregious, charisma is also much more important to clerics now... Overall though I think you are right. Outrage? Why, it's all water under the bridge now.
|
|
What I wanted to know is: Disregarding the complicated issue, is there any other reason (i.e. balance issues) for it to be a size bonus rather than a racial bonus? Will I nuke my game balance if I houserule it to make it a racial bonus?
The real problem here is that it would then stack with other size bonuses, which is something we are trying to avoid.. for a myriad of reasons.
Jason,
Thanks. Can you elaborate on any of those reasons? Why would stacking with size bonuses be such a problem?
(Hope I'm not being too much of a pest, just trying to understand. 8^)
It would be extremely wierd to wildshape into, say, an elephant, gain an untyped bonus to Str, and then be polymorphed into an elephant, for a further, equal, size bonus to Str.
It would be extremely wierd to wildshape into, say, an elephant, gain an untyped bonus to Str, and then be polymorphed into an elephant, for a further, equal, size bonus to Str.
Or to cast Enlarge Person and then polymorph into an elephant; the elephant shape should make the Enlarge Person obsolete.
|
|
Or to cast Enlarge Person and then polymorph into an elephant; the elephant shape should make the Enlarge Person obsolete.It would be extremely wierd to wildshape into, say, an elephant, gain an untyped bonus to Str, and then be polymorphed into an elephant, for a further, equal, size bonus to Str.
Very true. I was thinking I would change all polymorph subschool effects, though. So wildshape and polymorph would all be racial bonuses and therefore wouldn't stack. In the enlarge then polymorph, well, then you'd have an enlarged elephant, which should be stronger, yes? 8^) [Again, for my houserules, not an argument that it should work that way in RAW. James and Jason explained things sufficiently for me to understand.]
|
|
CHA ... making it a dump stat feels very un-druidic.
A lot of druids I read about in stories are gruff, not very friendly, and part of their choice to become druids was that they were unconfortable around humans.
Seconded.
I don't think I've ever heard the following...
"Par-tay!"
"Par-tay!"
"Come on everybody! Party time at The Mad Hermit's Cave!"
"Bring your own keg!"
"Bring the hooters and party-poppers! You all know how much his panthers like sudden, loud noises!"
"Can we play 'Pin the Tail on the Used-to-be-Hibernating Cave Bear'?"
"I'll bring the pinata! We can joke about bashing animals' heads in, for candy!"
"Wo0t!"
|
Getting a size bonus without getting a size change might be weird, but it's the best way to handle things. Better than using some other type of bonus. Better than not giving a bonus if your size doesn't change. Probably better than allowing size changes and tying the bonus to that.
Keep things nice and simple unless you have to go complex.
Actually you can also think of it another way. While by rules your size doesn't change, your actually size DOES change. Also the creature you are changing into mechanically is the same size (1 square) in the game, your figure still might get bigger. An orc is bigger than a human (size wise) but mechanically is the same size (Medium), if a human were to change into an orc and get bigger, his strength would increase based on size. (This is not mechanically but just theoretically).
So the wildshape being based on size really makes sense to me even if the person wildshapes into something that is the same size (Small/medium) than they currently are.
If you want to be picky, technically it's a "shape" bonus, not a "size" bonus in this case, but you can just roll both into the same word.
Getting a size bonus without getting a size change might be weird, but it's the best way to handle things. Better than using some other type of bonus. Better than not giving a bonus if your size doesn't change. Probably better than allowing size changes and tying the bonus to that.
It is pretty clunky. But it is a clunkiness that is completely behind the scenes.
Pretty much you have to do a minor hand wave and change you concept of a size bonus. A size bonus has as much to do with proportions and build as it does with the square footage of your personal space.
After all, going from being a 170 pound "medium" human to a 240 pound "medium" bear can quite reasonably include some increase in STR. And lumping how those pounds are assembled under the same umbrella as overall size isn't that big a problem. It makes sense that each of these factors would play a role, but also that they would always be associated. Just forget the term "size bonus" and replace it with "build bonus" and the problem goes away.
Actually you can also think of it another way. While by rules your size doesn't change, your actually size DOES change. Also the creature you are changing into mechanically is the same size (1 square) in the game, your figure still might get bigger. An orc is bigger than a human (size wise) but mechanically is the same size (Medium), if a human were to change into an orc and get bigger, his strength would increase based on size. (This is not mechanically but just theoretically).
So the wildshape being based on size really makes sense to me even if the person wildshapes into something that is the same size (Small/medium) than they currently are.
If you want to be picky, technically it's a "shape" bonus, not a "size" bonus in this case, but you can just roll both into the same word.
lol
great minds....
Wow, I have to admit, I'm really surprised here.
I thought this thread would be a war between the wildshape haters and the wildshape lovers.
I think I'm the only one on the wildshape haters side. Of course, as a tarrasque, the fight is still unfairly balanced in favor of me...
Hey Blake!
I've been surprised, normally you use a lot more figures to back up what you're saying. Maybe you could work up some sample druids in another thread to illustrate better what you mean?
If you have the time of course :)
|
|
I knew there was something bothering me there. Since the stat block below for leopard indicates they are small (see preview), that does sort of indicate that something in the progression allows an increase in size, the exact game mechanic of course is still to be determined.
Woohoo! I like this so far. Imagine taking the same mechanic and applying it to a tiger.
Now, why did I suddenly get a flashback of my youth and seeing an over muscled blonde surfer crying 'Battlecat ho!'.
You'd probably start with a tiger cub, which coincidentally had stats veerrry similar to the leopard or other cats, and grew to Medium size at the same PC level.
Wow, I have to admit, I'm really surprised here.
I thought this thread would be a war between the wildshape haters and the wildshape lovers.
I think I'm the only one on the wildshape haters side. Of course, as a tarrasque, the fight is still unfairly balanced in favor of me...
Hey Blake!
I've been surprised, normally you use a lot more figures to back up what you're saying. Maybe you could work up some sample druids in another thread to illustrate better what you mean?
If you have the time of course :)
At first, I didn't think it was necessary. I expected people, at least some of them, to say "hey, yeah, this is kinda weak." No math needed.
Now, I realize everyone is so glad to see the schoolyard bully knocked flat that they are jumping on the bandwagon and cheering on the kid who knocked him down - not the best time to try to win any sympathy for overly punishing the bully.
Besides, to do it right, I need more than the preview rules. I'll probably come back to this in October-ish, throw in some math and some examples. Maybe then people will be in a place where discussing houserules to bring the poor druid up to par with his allies might be productive.
Then again, he's ruled the schoolyard for so many years, it may be way longer than October before everyone can forgive him for all the black eyes and stolen lunch money, encough to try to help him back onto his feet.
|
|
After all, going from being a 170 pound "medium" human to a 240 pound "medium" bear can quite reasonably include some increase in STR. And lumping how those pounds are assembled under the same umbrella as overall size isn't that big a problem. It makes sense that each of these factors would play a role, but also that they would always be associated. Just forget the term "size bonus" and replace it with "build bonus" and the problem goes away.
Yes, but what about the 625 lb. Ogre shifting to an 85 lb. Timber Wolf and gaining +2 strength as a size bonus?
The way that these abilities are written make sense from a human perspective, because that was the core assumption. They make less sense for small and smaller races, and are outright counter-intuitive for larger races.
I'm all for hand-waving it as a balance issue, but that doesn't mean it always makes sense.
After all, going from being a 170 pound "medium" human to a 240 pound "medium" bear can quite reasonably include some increase in STR. And lumping how those pounds are assembled under the same umbrella as overall size isn't that big a problem. It makes sense that each of these factors would play a role, but also that they would always be associated. Just forget the term "size bonus" and replace it with "build bonus" and the problem goes away.Yes, but what about the 625 lb. Ogre shifting to an 85 lb. Timber Wolf and gaining +2 strength as a size bonus?
The way that these abilities are written make sense from a human perspective, because that was the core assumption. They make less sense for small and smaller races, and are outright counter-intuitive for larger races.
I'm all for hand-waving it as a balance issue, but that doesn't mean it always makes sense.
See,
I sort of see it like this. The 625 lb. Ogre is a Large creature. Turning into a Timber Wolf, for him, is turning into a smaller creature, so he'd use the +2 Dex/-2 Str version for turning into a creature one size smaller than himself, not the turn into a creature same size.Alternately, he could turn into a dire wolf (which is a large creature) and take the +2 Str bonus. That would even make sense, because he's going from a 625 lb Ogre to a 900 lb Dire Wolf.
That's why I asked earlier (although none of the powers that be responded) about if Polymorph/Shapeshift was now based on base creature size instead of hard-coded to small/medium. It makes more sense for it to be based off the caster's size.
|
|
That's why I asked earlier (although none of the powers that be responded) about if Polymorph/Shapeshift was now based on base creature size instead of hard-coded to small/medium. It makes more sense for it to be based off the caster's size.
In the beta, the spells were hard-coded size categories and hard-coded attribute bonuses. Jason confirmed on Page 2 that both a small druid and a medium druid are limited to small-medium animals at level 4, and both gain access to large at roughly 6th level.
I agree that it would make more sense to tie size changes to the creature's base size, but all the evidence points away from it.
It all makes decent enough sense from most PC's perspectives. I just spend so much time DMing that I'm used to thinking about what's going to happen to my poor Ogres and Giants. :)
That's why I asked earlier (although none of the powers that be responded) about if Polymorph/Shapeshift was now based on base creature size instead of hard-coded to small/medium. It makes more sense for it to be based off the caster's size.In the beta, the spells were hard-coded size categories and hard-coded attribute bonuses. Jason confirmed on Page 2 that both a small druid and a medium druid are limited to small-medium animals at level 4, and both gain access to large at roughly 6th level.
I agree that it would make more sense to tie size changes to the creature's base size, but all the evidence points away from it.
It all makes decent enough sense from most PC's perspectives. I just spend so much time DMing that I'm used to thinking about what's going to happen to my poor Ogres and Giants. :)
That's what I was afraid of.
Oh well, it's easy enough to house-rule. Gives small druid's more options anyway, they can do tiny/small to start with, and medium ones can do small/medium, and large can do medium/large.
I can't imagine why they didn't base it off the caster's base size (not current size, since that runs into problems of enlarged druids getting access to larger creatures early).
I can't imagine why they didn't base it off the caster's base size (not current size, since that runs into problems of enlarged druids getting access to larger creatures early).
I can see what you mean, and it is a easy houserule.
I think the reason it's *not* based on the druid base size is the havoc of opinions that would result, and needing a chart just for that. For instance, a small druid changing into a small creature would get +2 Str, while a medium druid changing to small would get +2 Dex. At higher levels, a small Druid changing to Large would get +4 Str, and a Gargantuan Druid changing to Large would get +4 Dex.
I'm not saying it wouldn't make sense, just that it gets rather complicated (which is one of the big problems in the first place, and why I pretty much had 0 wild-shaping druids in all my time running 3rd edition). Even trying to "simplify" it off the difference between the size and druid base size (one size category larger, etc.) would be complicated - what if you were enlarged before wildshaping? Sure the bonus wouldn't stack, but you could become a much bigger creature.
It also, frankly, penalizes the small druids rather immensely. They wouldn't be able to Large creatures (with decent dice of damage) until... 10th level or so?
Again - your idea makes sense, and is an easy rule, but I think the one implemented works a lot simpler.
They might just have a sliding table adding Dexterity and subtracting Strength if you go down in size and adding Strength and subtracting Dexterity if you go up in size, along with other bonuses.
I think it'd be cool if you could go down to Tiny (or smaller) becoming a mouse to escape from a prison, or what have you. That's very fantasy-esk
Well, if I read it correctly, in Beta, you could go to Tiny/Large at higher levels of Polymorph. It was the lower level ones that were locked to small/medium.
I agree, a sliding scale based on caster base size would be ideal (and probably how I'll house rule it).
|
Getting a size bonus without getting a size change might be weird, but it's the best way to handle things.I will admit that a size bonus feels akward for it because you get a size bonus to stats, even if you wildshape into smaller
So cats are clumsier than elephants?
Really, that's your argument to the fact that i find it akward to have a medium sized creature transmorf into a medium size creature, and get a size bonus to their stats.
And i never said it wasn't. In fact I think it's a pretty elegant solution. However it does seem awkward regardless of whether it's the best way to handle it or not.
I can't imagine why they didn't base it off the caster's base size (not current size, since that runs into problems of enlarged druids getting access to larger creatures early).I can see what you mean, and it is a easy houserule.
I think the reason it's *not* based on the druid base size is the havoc of opinions that would result, and needing a chart just for that. For instance, a small druid changing into a small creature would get +2 Str, while a medium druid changing to small would get +2 Dex. At higher levels, a small Druid changing to Large would get +4 Str, and a Gargantuan Druid changing to Large would get +4 Dex.
Yes, but that's actually not an issue. The reason? Generally, when someone is smaller than medium, they get str penalties and dex bonus's (in general), and the other way around, when something is larger than medium it usually get's str bonus's and dex penalties. So the idea of it sliding based on base size makes sense.
I'm not saying it wouldn't make sense, just that it gets rather complicated (which is one of the big problems in the first place, and why I pretty much had 0 wild-shaping druids in all my time running 3rd edition). Even trying to "simplify" it off the difference between the size and druid base size (one size category larger, etc.) would be complicated - what if you were enlarged before wildshaping? Sure the bonus wouldn't stack, but you could become a much bigger creature.
Ah, but that's the idea, I think. It seemed from what Jason said earlier that was their reasoning, and it's easier to just say Enlarge/Shrink is part of the Polymorph school, and you can only be affected by one polymorph at a time. So you can't be enlarged and Animal Form 1'd at the same time. That gets around the issue neatly, and it's not like you can have both earth elemental form and animal form at the same time anyway.
It also, frankly, penalizes the small druids rather immensely. They wouldn't be able to Large creatures (with decent dice of damage) until... 10th level or so?Again - your idea makes sense, and is an easy rule, but I think the one implemented works a lot simpler.
I don't think it penalizes them at all, unless you think wild shape is strictly for combat. What it does is push off when they can get Large, but also gives them Tiny off the bat. Which means they can do all sorts of things a medium druid couldn't. Become a tiny snake and wriggle through a 2 inch pipe to infiltrate a castle, or turn into a tiny vermin to climb up and over the castle wall unnoticed. They can turn into a tiny bird and zoom around without being noticed.
What it really does is make a small druid a much better scout/infiltrator than a medium druid. It just depends on what your focus is. If you consider wild shape only a combat ability, then yes, it penalizes them. If you consider it an ability that gives the druid options other classes don't have, then it gives them a different set of options than a medium druid (or a large druid) and so it allows some specialization that wasn't possible before.
|
First, I've never played a druid in 3rd edition as a player - and only once in 2nd edition (a multiclassed druid/ranger), so I can't have say from a player's perspective a whole lot - but from a DM's perspective I've seen others play them much to my chagrin.
I'll go ahead and put my 2 coppers in that I think the druid is elegantly redesigned. Easier, more balanced, and fair, and still keeps the same flavor and looks fun. The animal companion changes are some of the best class-based design changes we've seen yet.
I think the wildshaping is looking fair and decent; I'm glad to see the druid is no longer the dominating force it once was - but with good tactics and design can still be quite a capable PC/NPC.
I'm mostly happy that the ability to have 2 types of size changing/shape changing is now done with.
That was one of the biggest hurdles as a DM that I had to endure with druid characters - and polymorphing wizards - was the Enlarge Spell + Polymorph/Wildshape. I feel that removing that option was the single-best thing that needed to happen for the Druid class and polymorph spells in general - closely followed by the cool changes for the animal companion being able to grow.
Now it's far more fair and controlled. Upwards and onward I say. Thanks for all your hard work, Jason.
Robert
From what I understand from the Beta, in the case of an ogre changing to a medium animal, you would need to back the size down to medium, then apply the changes.
If a polymorph spell is cast by a creature that is smaller than Small or larger than Medium, first adjust its ability scores to one of these two sizes using the following table before applying the bonuses granted by the polymorph spell. If the creature’s new size is the same as its previous size, do not make these adjustments.
So an Ogre wildshaping in to a wolf would have the following adjustments:
-4 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution (change to Medium)
+2 Strength (for wildshaping)
Total changes: -2 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.
I personally don't like the Constitution changes, but that is how the beta rules are currently written.
So an Ogre wildshaping in to a wolf would have the following adjustments:
-4 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution (change to Medium)
+2 Strength (for wildshaping)Total changes: -2 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.
I personally don't like the Constitution changes, but that is how the beta rules are currently written.
Seems to be how it should work.
Is that how it works per the rules? Do we know yet?
From what I understand from the Beta, in the case of an ogre changing to a medium animal, you would need to back the size down to medium, then apply the changes.
If a polymorph spell is cast by a creature that is smaller than Small or larger than Medium, first adjust its ability scores to one of these two sizes using the following table before applying the bonuses granted by the polymorph spell. If the creature’s new size is the same as its previous size, do not make these adjustments.
So an Ogre wildshaping in to a wolf would have the following adjustments:
-4 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution (change to Medium)
+2 Strength (for wildshaping)Total changes: -2 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.
I personally don't like the Constitution changes, but that is how the beta rules are currently written.
Which would, I think, be the same mods as if a Medium changed into a small, yes? If so, that's fine and works, but doesn't let the Large creature turn into a large creature (same size). That's what I was suggesting, keep the size changes equivalent (one down or same) for all sized casters.
The big problem there is that it gets complicated fast. Racial bonuses don't stack, so if you add them to a character, you have to go in and look at the base race and the new source to figure out which one goes and which one stays. Size bonuses, on the other hand, are a lot easier to manage since they're already sort of built around a sort of slider type bonus that changes as you change size.
Basically... size bonuses are easier to keep track of than racial bonuses.
Actually, according to the 3.5 SRD, racial bonuses DO stack, as is say in the Casting Spells chapter (bolding mine):
Bonus TypesUsually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus works (see Combining Magical Effects, below). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one.
I don't know about Pathfinder, though.
|
|
The big problem there is that it gets complicated fast. Racial bonuses don't stack, so if you add them to a character, you have to go in and look at the base race and the new source to figure out which one goes and which one stays. Size bonuses, on the other hand, are a lot easier to manage since they're already sort of built around a sort of slider type bonus that changes as you change size.
Basically... size bonuses are easier to keep track of than racial bonuses.
Actually, according to the 3.5 SRD, racial bonuses DO stack, as is say in the Casting Spells chapter (bolding mine):
I don't know about Pathfinder, though.
Bonus TypesUsually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus works (see Combining Magical Effects, below). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one.
The SRD seems to contradict itself:
Stacking
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.
Both Dodge and Circumstance mention stacking, racial doesn't in this portion.
I think part of the problem is "racial" was never really seen as a bonus per se. If you were a halfling your stats were what they were. That was what you were, after *doing something* you start at the same place you were and then adjusted. Then they (WotC) realised it was possible to have "racial bonuses" and get more of them, and it be specifically racial bonuses, and had to throw something in about that after the fact.
I think I'm going to give characters size bonuses, too.
Halfling has size modifier -2 STR, +2 DEX and racial bonus is +2 WIS (is that right?).
Gnome has size modifier -2 STR, +2 DEX and racial modifiers -2 DEX, +2 CHA, +2 CON.
If they become a small creature, no change. Medium and they replace their size modifier.
It doesn't seem very complicated to me as long as there is no stacking of size modifiers. That is, you only get the modifiers associated with your current size.
I'm not a fan of simplified mechanics that are not logical.
Just to confirm, is my reading here going along with the general consensus on how it seems to work?
For explaining this to players confused about "Size Bonus" and same-size Polymorphing, I think I might suggest thinking of it/calling it a "Polymorph Bonus" instead, and restrict the term "Size Modifier" to the Attack/ AC/ Encumbrance modifiers tied to actual Size Category.
Since Stat Bonuses and Attack/AC/Encumbrance Modifiers don't interact "directly" (i.e. they're not a bonus to the same thing, so stacking/not stacking isn't relevant), it might be less confusing to not use the same Bonus category to refer to them...?