Treantmonk's Guide to Druids (Optimization)


Advice

101 to 150 of 274 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
YawarFiesta wrote:
LazarX wrote:
YawarFiesta wrote:


Because the GP limits where about 50 gp, wich under the rules it means that they have an unlimited suply of scrolls and potions of every 1st level spell in Core, Spell Compendium and every allowed splatbook.

Humbly,
Yawar

Hommlet was detailed enough with a complete listing of casters and (thier attitudes) to pretty much guarantee that scrolls would be FAR FAR from unlimited. As far as I can recall the only caster who even had the ability to scribe scrolls had enough on his time that you'd play DEARLY for the privilege.

GMs who let tables rule thier game without moderation deserve the game they get.

Wich that was okay because every sane DM would house rule otherwise?

Humbly,
Yawar

What exactly do you mean? This was Greyhawk... which meant that every "sane" GM would have run it exactly as it was written. In the old classic days you didn't shop for magic items at Malmart, you took them from dying hands of the orc guarding that chest in that 10x10 room.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

course with that the consequences of failing the check might result in a lock that can only be opened by brute force.


LazarX wrote:


What exactly do you mean? This was Greyhawk... which meant that every "sane" GM would have run it exactly as it was written. In the old classic days you didn't shop for magic items at Malmart, you took them from dying hands of the orc guarding that chest in that 10x10 room.

It means that it isn't okay to be a rule that literally states that you could find any item below 50gp in every hamlet, and so on. Every DM house ruling it means precisly that.

My previous example was to show the implications of that rule.

Humbly,
Yawar


An amulet of mighty fists is also nearly redunant because of magic fang (which I noticed can be made permant as well). So unless you really want another ability ontop of the enchantment such as flaming, or have multiple attacks, I would stick with magic fang.

Treantmonk, have you looked throught the bestiary and found any more incosistices with the main book at all?


Alrighty, Found your Druid thread. So I'll post this here.

Quote:

Fine, I'll share.

Anyway.

I was curious, it looks to me like the PHB II Shifter Druid variant is now O.P. for the Pathfinder Druid.

Am I correct?

Is there a way to possible make a shifter variant that would be both balanced and useful.

I have an idea or two in mind.

That are inspired by the Shifter Variant from PHB II.

Aside from that, I have another shifter option that I've been working on, but I really do dislike it.

The shifter option I have in mind now is that the druid uses nature bond (shifter) as his choice, and he gets wildshape at level 1, but instead of daily uses, they can use the ability 1 hour per level, per day, in total.

Meaning I could shift for 10 minutes, deshift, and still have 50 minutes left for that day. At level 1.

This would grant early access to Beast Shape I, but all other forms and shapes would only be accessible at the level they are normally gained.

Aside from that, At will unlimited transformation would be granted at lvl 15.

Aside from that, to further houserule the Druid so that it wouldn't be abusive. A druid is already stated that it must be familiar with a creature, I'd represent this by a knowledge nature check DC10 plus the creatures CR.

That is the option that I dislike at current, but came up with none the less. I've been told it seems balanced, but I haven't had many opinons.

My shifter PHB II inspired ideas are as follows

Quote:

Wildshape At Will, 1st Level.
Possibly Limited Amount of Forms.
Can Shift From Form to Form.

Possibility of additional bonuses to stats for varying forms. (Unlikely/unsure)

Possibility of Magical Enhanced Attacks for DR bypassing purposes (Unsure/unlikely)

Possible Move or Swift Action to Shift (Unlikely)

Woops, I so thought this was your Druid thread. My bad, sorry.

Anyway, just got a new suggestion from a very awesome person.

Nature Bond (Shifter) Option.
Half an hour each Druid level duration.
Levels one to three = 1 Uses per day
Level 4 = 2 Uses per day
Level 6 = 4 Uses Per Day
Level 8 = 6 Uses Per Day

Infinite Uses at???

Just gotta wait for you to tell me if such an option would need to be buffed in certain areas or things to make it balanced and a viable option that people would actually want to pick it.

So I suppose I've gotta wait for you to inform me of your opinions on all the options, and the concept in general I suppose.


Lael Treventhius wrote:

An amulet of mighty fists is also nearly redunant because of magic fang (which I noticed can be made permant as well). So unless you really want another ability ontop of the enchantment such as flaming, or have multiple attacks, I would stick with magic fang.

Treantmonk, have you looked throught the bestiary and found any more incosistices with the main book at all?

...and, even if its dispelled it is still cheaper than an amulet of mighty fist.


wraithstrike wrote:
...and, even if its dispelled it is still cheaper than an amulet of mighty fist.

Instead of saying GMF is better, go for both, having that 2-3 GMF permanent and on top of it going holy, bane, etc, is pure awesomeness mostly cause you don't need to have amulet of mighty fists +1 first.

That would be too much of a strain on your gold pouch ? Equipment wise you need less items than lets say, your rogue, he will need two weapons enhanced, boosters to physical attributes same as any other front-liner and int/cha (depending is he skill monkey or party face or rarely both). Boost wise you need more or less same things, but your GMF is cheaper than his 1 weapon and so is Amulet later on.

I seriously don't see the point of discussing which is better, since you can have both, going SoTB its not like you will be buying lots of wands except maybe few CWL's and other low level spell wands. (Well at least not as much as Wild Mystic Route)

Anyhow, very nice guide TM, i enjoyed reading it very much.

I just have 1 complaint about the guide, well not really complaint but all through i agree that wasting feat on Crafting tree is a bit redundant, it goes well with fluff of druids who prefer to wear and use what they make themselves. Also getting Craft Wondrous Item, not only will it cut how much gold you need, but it will practically double your and your parties wealth by level gold when it comes to Wondrous Items.

What do you guys think ? Would a Human with wis 20, str 16, con 14, dex 12, int 14 and cha 10 be able to go both routes ?


Lael Treventhius wrote:

An amulet of mighty fists is also nearly redunant because of magic fang (which I noticed can be made permant as well). So unless you really want another ability ontop of the enchantment such as flaming, or have multiple attacks, I would stick with magic fang.

Treantmonk, have you looked throught the bestiary and found any more incosistices with the main book at all?

Since you don't need the +1 enhancement on the Amulet of Mighty fists (you can just have add ons) - an amulet of mighty fists seems like an excellent investment - just not for enhancement bonuses.

I haven't really compared bestiary/main book.


Eyolf The Wild Commoner wrote:
Alrighty, Found your Druid thread. So I'll post this here...

You are asking my opinion on your houserules regarding a Druid/Shapeshift variant hybrid?

Really not my speciality. Looks okay.

The Shapeshift Variant on its own was actually a decent Druid fix (without houserules). The lack of an aquatic and climb form were the big dissapointments for me I guess, but overall I think it works fine as is.

With Pathfinder, it probably needs something more. Maybe give it the Druid's nature's bond.


Zoddy wrote:

I just have 1 complaint about the guide, well not really complaint but all through i agree that wasting feat on Crafting tree is a bit redundant, it goes well with fluff of druids who prefer to wear and use what they make themselves. Also getting Craft Wondrous Item, not only will it cut how much gold you need, but it will practically double your and your parties wealth by level gold when it comes to Wondrous Items.

What do you guys think ? Would a Human with wis 20, str 16, con 14, dex 12, int 14 and cha 10 be able to go both routes ?

To be clear - I don't think taking Craft feats is a bad idea. I just think it is selling your feat slots for cash. Cash is nice to have, so it's really up to you whether you think the trade is worthwhile.

As Yawar pointed out previously (I think it was Yawar), crafting can also be of use in a campaign where buying the items you want isn't always guaranteed.

As for going both routes...yeah, if you get some good ability scores it is an option. However, I would switch that Wis and Str if it is an option. Better to err on the side of the Spirit of the Beast I would say.

Also - if you are planning on going both routes - I would take the animal companion, since you will be relying on spellcasting less.


Treantmonk wrote:


As for going both routes...yeah, if you get some good ability scores it is an option. However, I would switch that Wis and Str if it is an option. Better to err on the side of the Spirit of the Beast I would say.

Also - if you are planning on going both routes - I would take the animal companion, since you will be relying on spellcasting less.

Thanks for your input. Yea i was gonna go with Animal Companion.

But as you mentioned somewhere in the tread that Wild Mystic is better option after mid levels, i thought pumping up wis to be highest stat wouldn't be such a bad idea, being how i got sick rolls. Would it be better to get 2 18's ? Cause my core stats are 17/16/14/14/12/10, so i can pull of 18 on str (+2 race) and 18 (1 cause of 4th level) on wis. Also i am starting as 5th-6th level - thought that would be of some relevance for your opinion.


Also if i may add that Antilife shell is perfect for SoTB druids as well, if i am not mistaken, when you get Antilife Shell you get Huge Elemental form as well - so you can turn huge Earth Elemental and pummel away at those Large or medium enemies, and only thing they are left to do is just cry - thats about it except if they don't have spells.

Also note that weapons don't have same restriction as armor do - you can go with any weapon without losing spellcasting, proficiency is still advisable to have - but with that said, even some large creature as Ape for example could go around wielding something with reach and having Antilife shell on.

I have some more spells to comment on, but those are mostly innovative ways of doing it. Like Control Winds to get windstorm effect, than summon few swarms, summon an Air elemental, let him pick up the swarm in whirlwind form and enter into the Tornado. Of course as you can see, not every DM would allow something like this, so i won't give input like this :)


I like the guide quite a bit overall. The only comment I'd make is that I'd place some more value in the Fire Domain option because it offers you spells you couldn't otherwise cast (Fireball, most notably, and produce flame to a lesser extent). That said, I'll admit it really hurts to have produce flame take up the second level slot.


Treantmonk wrote:


To be clear - I don't think taking Craft feats is a bad idea. I just think it is selling your feat slots for cash. Cash is nice to have, so it's really up to you whether you think the trade is worthwhile.

It is not only selling feat slots for cash. There is a secundary bonus: getting bonuses earlier. You can often craft a specific item multiple game sessions earlier than you would be able to buy it (say, because you don't have the extra 25k in cash for a 50k item). Take items that boost stats for example. Getting +2 on you spell DCs and having 2 extra spells on your highest spell 2 levels 3 game sessions earlier for a +4 wisdom item you can craft is worth that feat slot alone imho.

In D&D you always want things now and not the next session ;-)


Treantmonk wrote:
Whew...finally done.

Very nice! Thanks for doing this.

One question: does your rating of Soften Earth and Stone and Transmute Rock to Mud, take account of the fact that these spells work only on natural, uncut, unworked, undressed stone? The Soften Earth and Stone discussion, at least, sounds like you may have overlooked that point.


David Empey wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
Whew...finally done.

Very nice! Thanks for doing this.

One question: does your rating of Soften Earth and Stone and Transmute Rock to Mud, take account of the fact that these spells work only on natural, uncut, unworked, undressed stone? The Soften Earth and Stone discussion, at least, sounds like you may have overlooked that point.

Hmmm...no, my rating didn't take that into account. I'm going to have to reconsider these spells and perhaps change the rating.

Thanks for the catch!


Hey treant, could you do me a favor and come on over to my thread and read the first post on the second page and give me your opinion for balance and usefulness and all that.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/communityContent/houseRules/natureBondShifterOptionDruidsWIPPEACH&pa ge=2#50

I would appreciate it very much.


Hey I am designing a druid for a game and my GM wants a sited source showing that if I give my animal int 3 it no longer needs tricks. I sited the int rules from the players, the paragraph on magical animals then the mechanics for griffon training from the bestiary. Is there anything that says specifically that animals over int 2 do not need tricks and can just take orders? References in 3.5 books are expectable.


Sure. At an Int of 3 - the animal is expected to understand language (common usually).

This is cited in the old Monster Manual, but I'm guessing it's probably also in the Bestiary (I can't find it at the moment.)

If 3.5 sources are allowed - then the SRD should work:

"Intelligence
A creature can speak all the languages mentioned in its description, plus one additional language per point of Intelligence bonus. Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language (Common, unless noted otherwise)."

Here's the source: Click here

If it understands common - then you can just ask for it to do what you want it to do. "Hey buddy, would you mind looking for something for us to eat? I feel like chicken tonight, like chicken tonight."

That said, there is nowhere specifically in the rules that says an animal with an Int score of 20 doesn't need tricks, but common sense would state that tricks are for animals of animal-int.


aretepolitic wrote:
Hey I am designing a druid for a game and my GM wants a sited source showing that if I give my animal int 3 it no longer needs tricks. I sited the int rules from the players, the paragraph on magical animals then the mechanics for griffon training from the bestiary. Is there anything that says specifically that animals over int 2 do not need tricks and can just take orders? References in 3.5 books are expectable.

Check the Handle Animal skill description. It sets the maximum number of tricks an Int 2 animal can learn at 6, implying that a higher Int animal has no set maximum number of tricks that it can learn. I'd say that you still might have to teach the animal all the tricks, but all that's going to cost you is some downtime.

Edit: After re-examining TreantMonk's post, I'd agree that you probably don't have to teach an animal companion that can understand language the tricks listed under Handle Animal. Or, at least, you should receive a significant break on the time it takes to teach them anyway. Of course, telling the animal companion to go to the old Wizard and tell him that the sheriff's tied up and the jail's burning down is probably still beyond its capacity!


Thanks for responding. This guy will want it printed in a book so I do not think the SRD would work. I am going to check out an old monsters manual. .

Incase this helps. He wanted to distinguish between int 3 and int 5 saying that there was difference of some kind when i sited the griffon example. Which amazes me because the system does not seem to note a huge difference between the scores.


Sorry to double post, but I am going to argue that if my animal has learned the handle animal skill then it can teach all the tricks therefore knows all the tricks.


aretepolitic wrote:

Thanks for responding. This guy will want it printed in a book so I do not think the SRD would work. I am going to check out an old monsters manual. .

Incase this helps. He wanted to distinguish between int 3 and int 5 saying that there was difference of some kind when i sited the griffon example. Which amazes me because the system does not seem to note a huge difference between the scores.

It is in the old Monster Manual - in the part before the monster listings.


I've really gotta get down to finding a better way to contact people on these boards than interrupting them in their threads.

Anyway, I updated my option, was wondering if you could evaluate it again and give it a rate from 1-10 on balance.

I apologize very much for bothering you with this, and you do not need to fulfill my request.
=====================
I've gotta get around to reading your guides ><

I bookmarked but haven't had the time ><


Eyolf The Wild Commoner wrote:


=====================
I've gotta get around to reading your guides ><

I bookmarked but haven't had the time ><

They can be downloaded. My internet service is spotty so its saved me a few times.

This has been your friendly neighborhood Wraithstrike.


Robert Young wrote:

Edit: After re-examining TreantMonk's post, I'd agree that you probably don't have to teach an animal companion that can understand language the tricks listed under Handle Animal. Or, at least, you should receive a significant break on the time it takes to teach them anyway. Of course, telling the animal companion to go to the old Wizard and tell him that the sheriff's tied up and the jail's burning down is probably still beyond its capacity!

What was that Lassy, Timmey's trapped in the well!?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
What was that Lassy, Timmey's trapped in the well!?

Nice catch!!


Robert Young wrote:
Of course, telling the animal companion to go to the old Wizard and tell him that the sheriff's tied up and the jail's burning down is probably still beyond its capacity!

Well, yeah.

Understanding language and speech capability are two different things.

Unless of course the Sheriff has a speak with animals spell.

Also, 3 int is still pretty dumb. I generally think an animal with a 3 int is probably as smart as a humanoid with a 3 int.


Not probably, it is as smart as humanoid with 3 int. Which is awesome for an animal, not so awesome for a humanoid :)


Not sure if this has been covered, but didn't PRPG exclude the 'aging effects' rule?


Slatz Grubnik wrote:
Not sure if this has been covered, but didn't PRPG exclude the 'aging effects' rule?

Table 7-2 of Core Rules on page 169 would say no :)

Scarab Sages

question on your guide - love what I have read so far
I am up to the SOTB wildshape section & you say the Deinonychus would be good at higher levels but does not get pounce which is correct with Beast Shape I but not with Beast Shape II & the Deinonychus does have pounce listed under special attacks so is this form good at higher levels too & this is an error in the guide?

also the Deinonychus looks to be a good AC is there a reason why you havent included it or maybe think it is bad ? I know it doesnt have great strength but any reasons otherwise ?

also is says about ironwood for armour - now I assume this is darkwood cause I cant find ironwood - the problem is darkwood cant be used for armour as armours dont use wood as main components - they are metal or leathers & darkwood only works with items that mainly replace wood so you are stuck with hide like dragonhide


Zoddy wrote:
Slatz Grubnik wrote:
Not sure if this has been covered, but didn't PRPG exclude the 'aging effects' rule?
Table 7-2 of Core Rules on page 169 would say no :)

Thanks for the correction. I could have swore they were going to leave that part out. My fault.

Scarab Sages

I eventually found out about ironwood - did not realise its a spell used in conjuction with warp wood to make wood in metal shaped armour like platemail

what I would like to know now is why Treantmonk thinks this is better than say dragonhide - cost ?


Ceefood wrote:

I eventually found out about ironwood - did not realise its a spell used in conjuction with warp wood to make wood in metal shaped armour like platemail

what I would like to know now is why Treantmonk thinks this is better than say dragonhide - cost ?

Darkwood: wrote:

This rare magic wood is as hard as normal

wood but very light. Any wooden or mostly wooden item
(such as a bow or spear) made from darkwood is considered a
masterwork item and weighs only half as much as a normal
wooden item of that type. Items not normally made of wood
or only partially of wood (such as a battleaxe or a mace) either
cannot be made from darkwood or do not gain any special
benefit from being made of darkwood.

Practically this will vary from gaming table to gaming table cause its up to every DM to chose can armor of certain type be made of Darkwood or not. Even if they allow it, you don't get its special material "effects" - which aren't that great neither, something you can definitely leave without.

Also reason this is better than a Dragonhide is cause you don't have to kill a Gargantuan or Colossal Dragon to get it :)

When worst come to worst Ironwood spell is a nice thing - all through 1 Dispel Magic on your armor and you are left without spells, and thrown down to Expert class practically.

Scarab Sages

Zoddy wrote:


When worst come to worst Ironwood spell is a nice thing - all through 1 Dispel Magic on your armor and you are left without spells, and thrown down to Expert class practically.

wouldnt the dispel make it just wooden pieces since thats whats it made of so you still keep your class & spells just lose armour ?

Ceefood wrote:


I am up to the SOTB wildshape section & you say the Deinonychus would be good at higher levels but does not get pounce which is correct with Beast Shape I but not with Beast Shape II & the Deinonychus does have pounce listed under special attacks so is this form good at higher levels too & this is an error in the guide?

also the Deinonychus looks to be a good AC is there a reason why you havent included it or maybe think it is bad ? I know it doesnt have great strength but any reasons otherwise ?

Treantmonk - can you advise on the above please


Ceefood wrote:


Ceefood wrote:


I am up to the SOTB wildshape section & you say the Deinonychus would be good at higher levels but does not get pounce which is correct with Beast Shape I but not with Beast Shape II & the Deinonychus does have pounce listed under special attacks so is this form good at higher levels too & this is an error in the guide?

also the Deinonychus looks to be a good AC is there a reason why you havent included it or maybe think it is bad ? I know it doesnt have great strength but any reasons otherwise ?

Treantmonk - can you advise on the above please

The Deinonychus does get pounce at higher levels. I think I had it in my mind that it didn't get pounce when I was writing the guide using Beast Shape I, and forgot that the base creature did have the ability.

I think the form would be reasonable at higher level, definitely if you can get a large sized version. That's a lot of attacks on a pounce.


Ceefood wrote:

I eventually found out about ironwood - did not realise its a spell used in conjuction with warp wood to make wood in metal shaped armour like platemail

what I would like to know now is why Treantmonk thinks this is better than say dragonhide - cost ?

No, actually, I think Dragonhide is a good option for Druids. Guess I didn't think about it because from personal experience, it hasn't been available for purchase (need to actually get the dragon hide by killing a dragon - you need a hide from a colossal dragon to make medium full plate I believe) in campaigns I've played.

However, if dragonhide full plate is available, this is a good option.

For the rest of us - Ironwood remains a decent option.

Quote:
wouldnt the dispel make it just wooden pieces since thats whats it made of so you still keep your class & spells just lose armour ?

Agreed - actual plate armor is not a material component of ironwood so the armor wouldn't revert to actual full plate - just useless wooden armor.


Treantmonk wrote:
Agreed - actual plate armor is not a material component of ironwood so the armor wouldn't revert to actual full plate - just useless wooden armor.

It seems i read the spell wrong, i apologize.


Races of Stone had stone plate armor which could be used by druids, alas no such thing in pathfinder.


There's been a couple overlooks in the Summoning list regarding the errata:

-Giant Lizard entry in SNA III is, in fact, for Lizard,Monitor; Lizard, Giant Frilled should be in SNA/SM V.

-Riding Dog, in SNA I, should be simply Dog.

-Finally, Ant, Drone from SNA II is an Ant, Worker.

Humbly,
Yawar


YawarFiesta wrote:

There's been a couple overlooks in the Summoning list regarding the errata:

-Giant Lizard entry in SNA III is, in fact, for Lizard,Monitor; Lizard, Giant Frilled should be in SNA/SM V.

-Riding Dog, in SNA I, should be simply Dog.

-Finally, Ant, Drone from SNA II is ant worker.

Humbly,
Yawar

Yep - the list was done pre-errata.

I'll look at updating sometime in the next week.


Been thinking, is there anyway to get more than 2 attacks while in form like an elemental? I'm sure I saw something like multiattack then said you can get a another attack? Am I just thinking of perhaps two weapon fighting?


With Ironwood armor, is there a way for you to make it permanent or do you have to recast it every couple of days?


Treantmonk wrote:

Whew...finally done. This handbook was pretty challenging. It appears in 3 chapters - all are interlinked so shouldn't be too hard to navigate. Link is at the bottom of this post.

This handbook is way overdue. While writing this I discovered a thread where someone claimed that Druids were the WEAKEST class in Pathfinder, and that they could PROVE it.

When asked to prove it, they related personal experience and this screamed to me "WE NEED A HANDBOOK!", so here it is.

As with the wizard handbook, I'll begin with a HAQ (Hypothetically asked questions)

I found a math error in your summoning stats, should I let you know?

Yes. If you find a math error in my summoning statistics, reply here and I'll correct the error. I'm pretty certain that there are some errors, as my eyes were going buggy as I did that part.

So I'm going to play a Druid, what do you think of my build? I've used the same strategy as a 3.5 Druid...

So, do you plan on tackling the other classes? I'd love to see your take on how to optimise Clerics, Barbarians, and, especially Sorcerors. (The bloodlines and lack of known spells make it different from wizards?)

STOP! Druid is the one class in Pathfinder that you must use a different creation strategy for, or you will find yourself sorely dissapointed. You'll find yourself writing posts where you claim the Druid is the weakest class in Pathfinder!

What if I wanted to play a Druid that mixes Spellcasting and Melee combat? Can't I do that now?

You can't do it as easily. However, if that's what you're looking for, I would suggest the Spirit of the Beast build. Just make sure you pick up Augment Summoning. Avoid direct offense spells, stick to battlefield control, buff, healing and summmoning. You should be fine.

Where do I put suggested grammatical and spelling error corrections?

I have a suggestion...

...but what if spelling and grammatical errors are a pet peeve of mine?

Guess what my pet peeve is? I did the work. Write your own spelling error free and grammatically correct guide.

You rated a spell incorrectly. Will you change it?

Spell ratings are opinion based, so no, my rating is an exact and correct reflection...


Lael Treventhius wrote:
Been thinking, is there anyway to get more than 2 attacks while in form like an elemental? I'm sure I saw something like multiattack then said you can get a another attack? Am I just thinking of perhaps two weapon fighting?

I worked out where I saw it. Its the Multiattack option animal companions get, saying that if the animal in question has no other natural weapon other than just the one, it instead gains a secondary attack with that natural weapon at -5. Unfortinatly it seems its unique only to Animal Companion and not to other creatures.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
jlord wrote:
With Ironwood armor, is there a way for you to make it permanent or do you have to recast it every couple of days?

Enchanting it as magic armor should do the trick.


TM what is your opinion on the imbue summoning feat from PHB2?


Treantmonk wrote:

BobChuck has come to the same conclusion as I have regarding why Shield Bonus transfers to Wildshape.

Like BobChuck, I think it's pretty cheesy, and a prime candidate for errata. I would be very surprised if Shield Bonuses continue to work in Wildshape indefinitely.

I would absolutely discuss it with the DM. Banhammer may result.

Ancient bump! ;)

Anyway I just wanted to add my 2 cents, take it or leave it :p

I personally think that the whole shield aspect is a bit cheesy, but if you take it away, it really gimps the druids.

Lets take my level 4 druid for example. No magic items, some masterwork gear and that's about it. If I wildshape, this will be my armor:

Round one:
I wild shape to a medium creature...
10(base)+3(16 dex)+2(natural armor) = 15

That is weak. My buddy who plays a wizard casts mage armor round 1 and has a 18 AC (he has a 18 dex, damn elves ;) ).

Round two:
I cast barkskin, I get a bonus of +2 so 17 AC total

My wizard friend casts shield - he now has a AC of 22.

How is it a wizard is now a more viable tank than I am and I'm a melee class?

That being said a rogue with a decent amount of dex + studded leather will still beat me even after I buffed!

I'm even skeptical having the wild enchant even required for armor let alone shields. Lets say HYPOTHETICALLY That it's level 4, a fighter vs a druid with no magic gear square off and Wild isn't required on the armor.

Druid wild shape:

10(base) + 2 (natural armor) + 2 (shield) + 4 (hide armor) + 3 (16 dex) = 21

Fighter:

10(base) + 9 (full plate) + 2 (shield) + 1 (dex) + 1 (armor training if the warriors dex is 14 or higher) = 24

Soooooo how is it overpowered? Let alone the wild enchant is a +3 enchantment... that means if i wanted hide armor + the wild enchant I am paying MINIMUM 16,165 Gold for an additional +5 to his AC.

Bleh

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You could just buy hide armor barding for your druid's wildshaped form, and have your allies strap it on after you wild shape.

I certainly would not allow shield bonuses from shields merged into the wildshaped form to provide their bonus.

101 to 150 of 274 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Treantmonk's Guide to Druids (Optimization) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.