Is there a viable way to run a good combat druid without wildshape? And how?
I'm very curious why you would want to play a combat druid and not want to use wildshape.
Honestly, my first inclination would be to go with a nature cleric and just call it a "druid". You can even get an animal companion. You then get all of the self-buffing goodness of a melee cleric. Make your medium armor out of something non-metal (darkwood maybe?) and wield a typical druid weapon (might even be the favored weapon of your nature god).
Alternately, go ranged. I assume by "combat" you mean "not spells", so go with archery. I just had a friend build an archer druid who used her wolf companion to keep foes at bay. Drop a control spell to set up the battlefield to your liking and then pepper away with your arrows. Use your other spell slots for utility spells, or whatever, since you still have them.
I'm very curious why you would want to play a combat druid and not want to use wildshape.
Honestly, my first inclination would be to go with a nature cleric and just call it a "druid". You can even get an animal companion. You then get all of the self-buffing goodness of a melee cleric. Make your medium armor out of something non-metal (darkwood maybe?) and wield a typical druid weapon (might even be the favored weapon of your nature god).
Alternately, go ranged. I assume by "combat" you mean "not spells", so go with archery. I just had a friend build an archer druid who used her wolf companion to keep foes at bay. Drop a control spell to set up the battlefield to your liking and then pepper away with your arrows. Use your other spell slots for utility spells, or whatever, since you still have them.
Kind of a thought experiment. I was sitting around with nothing to do, and that thought came up.
Combat doesn't assume not spells, the druid has plenty of buffs, control, and direct damage spells to sling around. I had the idea of utilizing one of the shaman archetypes, not to wild shape but to utilize summons and the totem transformations, but not Wild Shape.
I also thought of a quarterstaff druid, but that could be done just as well and with a naturey theme by an Oracle with the wood mystery.
I'm not sure why it came up, but I decided to share the thought anyway.
A bit outdated now, since I think it's pre-APG even, but Treantmonk made a guide.
It is my opinion that the Druid is severely "imbalanced" in the mid levels (5-10) because of Wild Shape and Animal Companion being just that good.
Being able to out damage the Barbarian or the Bow Fighter AND have a bunch of useful spells and a lot of utility is just too much for my tastes as a GM.
So I replace wildshape with putting the various xyz shape spells on the duid spell list and be done with it.
Works like a charm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is my opinion that the Druid is severely "imbalanced" in the mid levels (5-10) because of Wild Shape and Animal Companion being just that good.
Being able to out damage the Barbarian or the Bow Fighter AND have a bunch of useful spells and a lot of utility is just too much for my tastes as a GM.
So I replace wildshape with putting the various xyz shape spells on the duid spell list and be done with it.
Works like a charm.
I think you are thinking about the 3.5 version of the druid. If a wildshaping druid wants to outdamage a barbarian (which is probably not possible, I've not crunched the numbers), he has to build himself like a barbarian, that is, all strength and constitution. This is because wildshape emulates the Beast Shape spells, which just modify base statistics, rather than replacing them (as 3.5 wildshape did).
So, a druid who focuses on melee damage sacrifices his spells. He'll have some utility spells and buff spells, but he will suck at anything that offers a save.
The Pathfinder Druid is good, but it's not that good.
In a standard pathfinder game, a druid looking to focus on spells generally resorts to using Wild Shape as a way to boost/change her mobility or add additional defenses. For the caster sorts it fails as an offensive venue.
...to outdamage a barbarian (which is probably not possible...a druid who focuses on melee damage sacrifices his spells...
Uhm, no. You forget about the great cat animal companion that, at Level 7, will have pounce, rake and pretty decent attacks that add a lot to the druids already great damage. Together these two regularily outdamage a Barbarian until said barbarian has a chance to deploy the awesome crit feats with his scimitar.
And, how does a melee druid "sacrificess his spells"? All it takes is one feat and the druid can cast just as well while shaped.
And, how does a melee druid "sacrificess his spells"? All it takes is one feat and the druid can cast just as well while shaped.
I haven't run the numbers on druid+companion damage vs. a barbarian, but the bit about sacrificing spells is entirely true. A great majority of druid spells (more than cleric) are offensively based, and require a saving throw. A melee oriented druid will not be able to focus on her casting stat along with all the other stat requirements of a melee character: strength, dexterity, and constitution. Because of her reduced casting stat, along with the fact that she chose to not select the domain, and additionally hindered by the fact that the druid has not invested feats into spellcasting, leaves the woodland warrior with a greatly reduced ability to cast spells.
I hope that clears it up for you.
...to outdamage a barbarian (which is probably not possible...a druid who focuses on melee damage sacrifices his spells...Uhm, no. You forget about the great cat animal companion that, at Level 7, will have pounce, rake and pretty decent attacks that add a lot to the druids already great damage.
While I agree that they sport huge damage, taking up a 10x10ft. area AND a 5x5ft. isn't always good. In tight spots, the animal might not be able to attack at all. In corridors it's more likely than not, especially if there's another melee. Also remember that animal companions are usually quite easy to stop with spells, much easier than barbarians (compare those saves!).
So while they will, under optimal circumstances, outdamage a barbarian, the barbarian will be more reliable for damage since all he needs is melee range, and he'll be less likely to be partially incapacitated (but more likely to be completely incapacitated). The fighter archer doesn't even need melee range.
And, how does a melee druid "sacrificess his spells"? All it takes is one feat and the druid can cast just as well while shaped.
Lower wisdom. If you're going to be a meleeing druid, you'll want to start out with at least 14 str, 10 dex and 12 con - preferably more dex or con as your AC won't be great.
...I hope that clears it up for you.
Thanks, but it is clear to me.
Put all the spells that the druid has access to in the following categories:
Damage / Debuff
Buff
Utility
Healing
Don't you think that damage /debuff is rather weak when compared to the rest of his spells?
Especially considering that a Blaster druid will have just a fraction of the damage output of a melee duid unless going against hordes of weak minions (how often does that happen)?
...So while they will, under optimal circumstances, outdamage a barbarian, the barbarian will be more reliable for damage
"Optimal" is a bit too strong, I think. "Many circumstances" fits better.
So, I would say these two are on par, sometimes the barbarian is better, sometimes the druid is better.
But still the druid has his spells and his awesome utility on top and is even a much better druid if he choose to not waste his spells with weak blasting - the only case in which he is crippled without a high Wisdom (even entangle is still a very good 1st Level spell with a save that is 2 points lower for a melee druid).
Thanks, but it is clear to me.
Put all the spells that the druid has access to in the following categories:
Damage / Debuff
Buff
Utility
HealingDon't you think that damage /debuff is rather weak when compared to the rest of his spells?
Especially considering that a Blaster druid will have just a fraction of the damage output of a melee duid unless going against hordes of weak minions (how often does that happen)?
Yes, his damage spells are really sucky, but he's got quite a few good battlefield control spells. The issue, however, isn't just the spell DC's but also the spells per day. At 9th level, a spellcasting druid will have a wis of about 24 - giving him (including domain) 4/7/7/6/4/3 while a melee druid will have a wis of about 16, giving him 4/5/5/3/3/1 spells per day. The caster druid has 13 spells of 3rd or higher lever, the melee druid only 7. That hurts.
Generally, a caster druid plays more like a "god" wizard with a little better defensive utility and a little worse offensive utility.
...So while they will, under optimal circumstances, outdamage a barbarian, the barbarian will be more reliable for damage"Optimal" is a bit too strong, I think. "Many circumstances" fits better.
So, I would say these two are on par, sometimes the barbarian is better, sometimes the druid is better.
But still the druid has his spells and his awesome utility on top and is even a much better druid if he choose to not waste his spells with weak blasting - the only case in which he is crippled without a high Wisdom (even entangle is still a very good 1st Level spell with a save that is 2 points lower for a melee druid).
It depends. In open areas, the druid might be better (and that's might - mounted barbarians can do a TON of damage). In close quarters, I'd pick the barbarian any day. If my party lacked a good meleer, I'd prefer a barbarian. If my party had one, I'd pick the druid for versatility.
Remember that big cat companions are worthless against any flying encounter (because their fly skill sucks and they rely on many attacks). Barbarians not so much (because they can pick up a bow or sling and deal decent damage).
EDIT: Have you SEEN the saves on a big cat companion? Level 9, they'll have +9/+8/+5. Any kind of mind-affecting ability will take it out easily.
Have you SEEN the saves on a big cat companion? Level 9, they'll have +9/+8/+5 (edit, should be 4). Any kind of mind-affecting ability will take it out easily.
Uhm, no with Iron Will and Devotion (gained at Level 6) the cat has a Will Save of +10 against Enchantment/Charms and +6 base. Not bad, I'd say.
A raging Barbarian with a 12 Wisdom (luxury, I know, but the big cat has Wis 15 even if the second increase was not spend on Wis) and Iron Will has a Will Save of +6...
While I agree that they sport huge damage, taking up a 10x10ft. area AND a 5x5ft. isn't always good. In tight spots, the animal might not be able to attack at all. In corridors it's more likely than not, especially if there's another melee. Also remember that animal companions are usually quite easy to stop with spells, much easier than barbarians (compare those saves!).
Actually, aren't large animals 10x5?
Have you SEEN the saves on a big cat companion? Level 9, they'll have +9/+8/+5 (edit, should be 4). Any kind of mind-affecting ability will take it out easily.Uhm, no with Iron Will and Devotion (gained at Level 6) the cat has a Will Save of +10 against Enchantment/Charms and +6 base. Not bad, I'd say.
A raging Barbarian with a 12 Wisdom (luxury, I know, but the big cat has Wis 15 even if the second increase was not spend on Wis) and Iron Will has a Will Save of +6...
Fair enough with devotion, missed that, but an animal companion has precious few feat slots so iron will is expensive (at that level, only 4 feats, though I agree it's probably worth it). A raging barbarian (Con 18, Dex 12, Wis 12) with iron will and the superstition rage power (which he SHOULD have) as well as a +3 cloak (easily affordable for one character - harder to match for two) has saves of +17/+11/+13 against anything magical or supernatural. At the same time, the animal companion can probably have a cloak +2, so he'd have +11/+10/+8 (+12 vs enchantment).
Actually, aren't large animals 10x5?
Nope, that's 3.0. No more facing (thank god).
Actually, aren't large animals 10x5?Nope, that's 3.0. No more facing (thank god).
Huh, in that case I'm not so sure - it's kinda hard to accept that a horse or tiger can be 3 meters wide, no matter how much you feed it.
Huh, in that case I'm not so sure - it's kinda hard to accept that a horse or tiger can be 3 meters wide :D .Actually, aren't large animals 10x5?Nope, that's 3.0. No more facing (thank god).
Lol! But it's not that they're so wide, it's that they move around a lot and thus keep enemies in a 3 meter radius away (unless acrobatics shenanigans). Just like how few humans are 1.5 meters wide (and halflings certainly not) but still occupy that space.
But it's not that they're so wide, it's that they move around a lot and thus keep enemies in a 3 meter radius away (unless acrobatics shenanigans). Just like how few humans are 1.5 meters wide (and halflings certainly not) but still occupy that space.
Well, the problem comes when you want to explore a dungeon and have to get them to squeeze through a 6-foot wide corridor, getting penalties for being so cramped. I tell you, that druid of ours really needs to start being a bit more strict with her pets. I could somehow understand it if it were a bear, but a tiger?
But it's not that they're so wide, it's that they move around a lot and thus keep enemies in a 3 meter radius away (unless acrobatics shenanigans). Just like how few humans are 1.5 meters wide (and halflings certainly not) but still occupy that space.Well, the problem comes when you want to explore a dungeon and have to get them to squeeze through a 6-foot wide corridor, getting penalties for being so cramped. I tell you, that druid of ours really needs to start being a bit more strict with her pets. I could somehow understand it if it were a bear, but a tiger?
Well, it IS pretty awkward for a horse to fight in a 6ft. wide corridor. A tiger would have an easier time but still not easy. Heck, a 6ft. corridor is limiting for real people in real life. I don't see that as much of an issue. Now, it's a larger issue with things like linnorms and giant centipedes, but IRC they count as a lesser size when squeezing.