|
Ug...low magic...
I mean, it depends on your DM. I've never had someone really restrict wild shape before, I personally feel like it's kinda a dick move.
What I would do is ask the DM if the animal in question is common, uncommon or Rare. If it's common, the Nature DC is 5 + CR, uncommon is 10 + CR, and rare is 15 + CR
If you can take a 10 and beat the DC, you can automatically wild shape into that animal. The two most powerful wild shapes I can think of are Allosaurus for huge and Dire Tiger for large, which are a CR 7 and 8 respectively. Which means you'd need a DC 18 Nature check to identify the most difficult one.
Also, I wouldn't consider prehistoric creatures "Rare"
Rare means things like Tarrasques, Balors, and crap like that.
|
|
If you can wildshape into the Deinonychus, the Dire Tiger, and the Allosaurus, you will pretty much wreck anything the DM throws at you and when you do so, make sure that every time you do it, you say "This is because you were such a dick about wild shape, my defining class ability."
And then drink his tears.
Use spells like Whispering Lore, Commune with Nature, and Stone Tell when no libraries or NPCs available.
Eventually, only the cruelest, most spiteful DM will say you don't know about the animal you want to turn into.
Trust me, there are a lot more of those in existence than one might think. Also, your advice should work.
|
I don't know.
It's like having a player who is a fighter, wants to use a Nodachi, and the DM says "um, no, that's an eastern weapon, and you don't know how to use it, because your PC is not Asian themed", the player begs "but it's a martial weapon, and I am proficient with all martial weapons", and the DM says "you need to study the weapon first."
Actually doesn't the book, AKA by RAW, state that "The form chosen must be that of an animal with which the Druid is familiar with"? The GM is such a dick for following the rules and fluff of a druid...
|
|
Actually doesn't the book, AKA by RAW, state that "The form chosen must be that of an animal with which the Druid is familiar with"? The GM is such a dick for following the rules and fluff of a druid...
Except that as RAW, there is no metric to determine "familiarity." What you are doing is using fluff to restrict mechanics. Thus, what a druid can wild shape into is entirely at the whim of the DM. DM's restricting class abilities, especially class defining abilities is obnoxious.
By the time a druid picks up wild shape, he should be familiar with just about any creature that he could wild shape into.
|
|
yes, those are the rules....
but, the DM fear combo's that will make the druid do as much damage as fighter...
(vital stike on behemoth...)
Fighter's get enough stuff, they don't need the GM's help.
he is the same as with my animal companion... i took a wolf cause any other animal was informed me will be attacked at places we go to...
thats why i want ot to be as logical as possible
This is not the way to go about doing this. Instead, when you and your animal companion have MURDERED about 20 or 30 people, maybe they will instead learn to not try and kill your animal companion.
In the one lowish magic game with a druid I ran, I just said he had to observe them, which meant that both he scouted around a ton, kept a log of what he saw, and made a point of attracting wandering monsters to fight to see what the animals looked like. It was also a planescape game if that helps.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM that does follow the familiarity rule both as a player and a GM, it really isn't that big of a deal. First, I work with the player on what animals they would know in the area. Simple stuff is just Taking 10 on the Knowledge: nature check. Rolling isn't necessary. So for example, in my fairly Slavic themed setting of Lanyrkhand, the druid has a wide array of animals to choose from, from the majestic elk to the ferocious grizzly bear. Anything exotic would require either seeing it or reading about it (and of course, making the appropriate K:N check). In a city, I can make this much easier. A circus comes to town and brings with it tigers and elephants. A gladiator arena would have lions and other exotic predators. And then there's the really rare stuff, like dinosaurs, elementals, etc. Those I handle on a case by case basis. Maybe there's a lost world below the ground where dinosaurs of old roam, or mammoths graze the plains of the frigid north. Or you cast summon monster and gave a fire elemental a high five. That's how I roll with it in games I run/play and people have been pretty cool about it.
I suggest bringing up the concern with the GM honestly. Just spiting him isn't really going to work. It's just going to ruin the game for everyone.
As a GM that does follow the familiarity rule both as a player and a GM, it really isn't that big of a deal. First, I work with the player on what animals they would know in the area. Simple stuff is just Taking 10 on the Knowledge: nature check. Rolling isn't necessary. So for example, in my fairly Slavic themed setting of Lanyrkhand, the druid has a wide array of animals to choose from, from the majestic elk to the ferocious grizzly bear. Anything exotic would require either seeing it or reading about it (and of course, making the appropriate K:N check). In a city, I can make this much easier. A circus comes to town and brings with it tigers and elephants. A gladiator arena would have lions and other exotic predators. And then there's the really rare stuff, like dinosaurs, elementals, etc. Those I handle on a case by case basis. Maybe there's a lost world below the ground where dinosaurs of old roam, or mammoths graze the plains of the frigid north. Or you cast summon monster and gave a fire elemental a high five. That's how I roll with it in games I run/play and people have been pretty cool about it.
I suggest bringing up the concern with the GM honestly. Just spiting him isn't really going to work. It's just going to ruin the game for everyone.
I agree with this post. Well everything except high-fiving a fire elemental; that would burn pretty bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a DM who told me that I couldn't bring my Eidolon into town with me. After I killed about 15 or so townsfolk and guards that tried to attack me, he stopped.
I had a player like that once. There was a noble's party they were going to because they had to investigate him. For the party, noble attire was required. Armor was frowned upon but allowed, and weapons that were tied (The word escapes me at the moment) were okay, seen as a show of class and nobility. Everyone was pretty cool with it and excited to do some sleuthing except the fighter player (not character), who instantly went chimp when he had to tie his longsword. I explained that it's a city and a party for that matter and no one really walks everywhere dressed for war. There wasn't really any combat that was going to happen in any case as it was more of a sneaking mission. And even then, he had daggers that he could hide on his person in case things did go south.
When stopped at the gate of the nobleman's house, he was asked to tie his weapon to the sheathe. The player ignored the guard and walked past him. The guard tried to get between him and suddenly, the player disemboweled him and proceeds to start killed everyone in the party. Now, the other players were getting pissed at him for this outburst, but he just kept defending his actions, saying that this is what his CG character would do.
At the end of the day, I was exasperated and said he was CE now, giving the paladin player the cue to Smite Evil the fighter into oblivion. I then asked the player to not return to the game and we'll do just fine with four people. That kind of spiteful attitude really ruined the game. And all because he didn't want to tie up a weapon...
|
|
The problem with having to be "Familiar" with a monster is that any attempts to really apply this are torpedo'd by Summon Nature's Ally.
Example:
Druid: I transform into a Deinonychus!
GM: You can't transform into a Deinonychus, it's a dinosaur, you've never seen a Dinosaur before, and thus you aren't familiar with it.
Druid: Ah, I see. Well then I summon a Deinonychus, study it, and then transform into one.
GM:...oh
Druid: That's right. F*** you Fred. Do you feel stupid? You should.
I really think that's just a middle finger to the fighter player who's playing by the low magic item rules. When you play antagonistically, you really just ruin the game for everyone. Maybe you just have some sort of superiority complex. I wouldn't want to run a game or even play in a game with you.
Anyway, it just seems like OP is just trying to get a feel for what shapes are available which a proper Knowledge check your GM should help you with.
If someone had that antagonistic an attitude towards the GM for something as little as that, I'd rather not have that person in my group honestly. And I've let people use SNA to study animals. Although one would beg the question how they know what a Deinonychus is to summon it, but I don't go THAT far into it. I just allow it, no problem.
|
|
I had a DM who told me that I couldn't bring my Eidolon into town with me. After I killed about 15 or so townsfolk and guards that tried to attack me, he stopped.I had a player like that once. There was a noble's party they were going to because they had to investigate him. For the party, noble attire was required. Armor was frowned upon but allowed, and weapons that were tied (The word escapes me at the moment) were okay, seen as a show of class and nobility. Everyone was pretty cool with it and excited to do some sleuthing except the fighter player (not character), who instantly went chimp when he had to tie his longsword. I explained that it's a city and a party for that matter and no one really walks everywhere dressed for war. There wasn't really any combat that was going to happen in any case as it was more of a sneaking mission. And even then, he had daggers that he could hide on his person in case things did go south.
When stopped at the gate of the nobleman's house, he was asked to tie his weapon to the sheathe. The player ignored the guard and walked past him. The guard tried to get between him and suddenly, the player disemboweled him and proceeds to start killed everyone in the party. Now, the other players were getting pissed at him for this outburst, but he just kept defending his actions, saying that this is what his CG character would do.
At the end of the day, I was exasperated and said he was CE now, giving the paladin player the cue to Smite Evil the fighter into oblivion. I then asked the player to not return to the game and we'll do just fine with four people. That kind of spiteful attitude really ruined the game. And all because he didn't want to tie up a weapon...
There's a big difference between...well I'm not actually sure what you meant by tie up a weapon, but regardless we're talking about restricting a weapon for an encounter and saying "You can never have your Eidolon with you in a town."
A crapload of stuff happens in towns, we were in towns quite a bit, and summoning your Eidolon in combat isn't an option.
And I never killed someone who didn't attack me first.
There's nothing spiteful about it. In fact, it's the GM being spiteful by trying to restrict a player because of the flavor the class they chose to play.
There's nothing spiteful about it. In fact, it's the GM being spiteful by trying to restrict a player because of the flavor the class they chose to play.
And Paladins should totally be allowed to kill innocents who piss him off without taking any penalties because of some arbitrary flavor of the class they chose to play.
It depends. Some GMs play these things as if they were in the real world and not a fantasy world. I take magic into account. For example, in a larger city with academies and magic markets, an eidolon would probably garner some stares but otherwise, nothing would really come of it. Out in the boonies filled with superstitious folk, that would be a different story. I could see non-predatory animal companions being acceptable in more cities and frontier villages. And even then, if you saved that little hamlet with your eidolon/animal companion, their attitude would be very different from then on.
Also it depends on the culture. For example, it'd be weird in medieval England DnD to have elephants walking the streets, but go to a fantasy version of Bangkok and suddenly, no one would bat an eye. A lot of it really ends up being calibrating what would be 'normal' in a fantasy world and making sure to let your players know. This also goes along with the "playing an evil race" pittrap.
Wait, did this just turn into a "no, you're a doody head" thread?
When did that happen?
When people gave advice to spite the GM instead of having the player talk with him and let him know his concerns.
Most issues in game can be solved by sitting down with the GM and say, "Look, I have an issue with X". Anything beyond that is just going to exacerbate the situation.
Also I felt like being Devil's advocate :)
Admittedly, I'm in a very anti-player mood tonight because I run a player driven game with players that have absolutely no drive beyond being railroaded. I never thought I'd ever have to force players to pick their own destinies and make choices on what they want to do...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really think that's just a middle finger to the fighter player who's playing by the low magic item rules. When you play antagonistically, you really just ruin the game for everyone. Maybe you just have some sort of superiority complex. I wouldn't want to run a game or even play in a game with you.
Anyway, it just seems like OP is just trying to get a feel for what shapes are available which a proper Knowledge check your GM should help you with.
Then restrict druids entirely. Things get so messy when you start mucking around with class abilities.
And there's no superiority complex or antagonistic about it. It's annoying when you create a character and then GMs start dropping arbitrary restrictions on you.
The "Familiarity rule" is not well written and easily abused by GMs. It's silly because It's almost impossible to not be familiar with a creature by the time you could wild-shape into it.
Yes, I'm being hyperbolic for effect, but that's just it. I think the decision is silly. I explained how the monster knowledge rules worked. By the time a Druid is 4th level, he can take a ten on a knowledge nature and get at MINIMUM (assuming he didn't sack INT) a 19. That means that he knows everything up to a CR 9.
So by the time he gets wild shape, a druid is automatically familiar with anything he COULD transform into.
And even then, he can Summon almost any of the monsters he wants to turn into because Summon Nature's Ally doesn't require familiarity.
It's just silly to bother with it and it's annoying to make someone jump through the hoops when as I've just shown, there really is no point to it.
|
|
There's nothing spiteful about it. In fact, it's the GM being spiteful by trying to restrict a player because of the flavor the class they chose to play.And Paladins should totally be allowed to kill innocents who piss him off without taking any penalties because of some arbitrary flavor of the class they chose to play.
That's not even close to a good comparison.
You're trying to say that:
A: I chose to play a summoner, which means I get to have a powerful outsider ally who is always by my side. But then the GM decides that every gibbering moron on the street is going to freak out and decide to burn me at the stake because of that? They don't freak out because the fighter wields a sword the size of Buick or when the wizard belches fire. But every lunatic in town decides to charge me with weapons at the ready and it's apparently not ok to defend myself from these psychos.
and
B: A Paladin, who is supposed to be a paragon of justice and good goes on a murdering spree killing innocents
are the same thing. And they're not. The reasoning is because I was playing my class as intended and the Paladin isn't. The flavor of the summoner is that you have a powerful ally who always at your side. The flavor of the paladin is that you a champion of righteousness. Walking around with your summon out is playing a summoner in keeping with the flavor. A Paladin running around murdering folks isn't.
|
I had a DM who told me that I couldn't bring my Eidolon into town with me. After I killed about 15 or so townsfolk and guards that tried to attack me, he stopped.I had a player like that once. There was a noble's party they were going to because they had to investigate him. For the party, noble attire was required. Armor was frowned upon but allowed, and weapons that were tied (The word escapes me at the moment) were okay, seen as a show of class and nobility. Everyone was pretty cool with it and excited to do some sleuthing except the fighter player (not character), who instantly went chimp when he had to tie his longsword. I explained that it's a city and a party for that matter and no one really walks everywhere dressed for war. There wasn't really any combat that was going to happen in any case as it was more of a sneaking mission. And even then, he had daggers that he could hide on his person in case things did go south.
When stopped at the gate of the nobleman's house, he was asked to tie his weapon to the sheathe. The player ignored the guard and walked past him. The guard tried to get between him and suddenly, the player disemboweled him and proceeds to start killed everyone in the party. Now, the other players were getting pissed at him for this outburst, but he just kept defending his actions, saying that this is what his CG character would do.
At the end of the day, I was exasperated and said he was CE now, giving the paladin player the cue to Smite Evil the fighter into oblivion. I then asked the player to not return to the game and we'll do just fine with four people. That kind of spiteful attitude really ruined the game. And all because he didn't want to tie up a weapon...
There's a big difference between...well I'm not actually sure what you meant by tie up a weapon, but regardless we're talking about restricting a weapon for an encounter and saying "You can never have your Eidolon with you in a town."
A crapload of stuff...
Peacebond. It's an old thing where warriors don't have to give up their weapons but then are tied down to prevent use in the heat of the moment.
|
|
Wait, did this just turn into a "no, you're a doody head" thread?
When did that happen?
When people gave advice to spite the GM instead of having the player talk with him and let him know his concerns.
Most issues in game can be solved by sitting down with the GM and say, "Look, I have an issue with X". Anything beyond that is just going to exacerbate the situation.
Also I felt like being Devil's advocate :)
Admittedly, I'm in a very anti-player mood tonight because I run a player driven game with players that have absolutely no drive beyond being railroaded. I never thought I'd ever have to force players to pick their own destinies and make choices on what they want to do...
In my defense, 99.999% of everything I say is in jest, so when I say things like "F*** you GM" and "Drink the GM's tears" I'm not being wholly serious, it's just my way of saying I think the GM is in the wrong in this situation. Hyperbole is too great a literary device for me to pass up.
As you can see, I did cogently explain:
A: How to do what the OP asked for (Making Nature checks to know about an animal)
and
B: Why I think that doing so is silly and a waste of time (It's impossible for a druid to fail a Knowledge Nature check to know about an animal he could potentially wild shape into and he can also usually summon just about every animal he could wild shape into as well)
...I had a DM who told me that I couldn't bring my Eidolon into town with me. After I killed about 15 or so townsfolk and guards that tried to attack me, he stopped.I had a player like that once. There was a noble's party they were going to because they had to investigate him. For the party, noble attire was required. Armor was frowned upon but allowed, and weapons that were tied (The word escapes me at the moment) were okay, seen as a show of class and nobility. Everyone was pretty cool with it and excited to do some sleuthing except the fighter player (not character), who instantly went chimp when he had to tie his longsword. I explained that it's a city and a party for that matter and no one really walks everywhere dressed for war. There wasn't really any combat that was going to happen in any case as it was more of a sneaking mission. And even then, he had daggers that he could hide on his person in case things did go south.
When stopped at the gate of the nobleman's house, he was asked to tie his weapon to the sheathe. The player ignored the guard and walked past him. The guard tried to get between him and suddenly, the player disemboweled him and proceeds to start killed everyone in the party. Now, the other players were getting pissed at him for this outburst, but he just kept defending his actions, saying that this is what his CG character would do.
At the end of the day, I was exasperated and said he was CE now, giving the paladin player the cue to Smite Evil the fighter into oblivion. I then asked the player to not return to the game and we'll do just fine with four people. That kind of spiteful attitude really ruined the game. And all because he didn't want to tie up a weapon...
There's a big difference between...well I'm not actually sure what you meant by tie up a weapon, but regardless we're talking about restricting a weapon for an encounter and saying "You can never have your Eidolon with you in a town."
A
THANK YOU! God, it was bothering me all freaking night.
|
|
Peacebond. It's an old thing where warriors don't have to give up their weapons but then are tied down to prevent use in the heat of the moment.
Oh yeah, thought that sounded familiar. I have a friend who goes to a lot of Conventions and I think they do that there.
My point was that Peacebonding a weapon for one night is reasonable (and I think the fighter in that anecdote was out of line) but restricting an Eidolon or a Animal companion whenever one is in town is overreaching.
And yes, in the noble's party scenario that was described, I would leave a summon/animal companion at the gate. Although I would instruct any animal companions to stare intently at the guards and lick their chops from time to time.
|
|
It depends. Some GMs play these things as if they were in the real world and not a fantasy world. I take magic into account. For example, in a larger city with academies and magic markets, an eidolon would probably garner some stares but otherwise, nothing would really come of it. Out in the boonies filled with superstitious folk, that would be a different story. I could see non-predatory animal companions being acceptable in more cities and frontier villages. And even then, if you saved that little hamlet with your eidolon/animal companion, their attitude would be very different from then on.
Also it depends on the culture. For example, it'd be weird in medieval England DnD to have elephants walking the streets, but go to a fantasy version of Bangkok and suddenly, no one would bat an eye. A lot of it really ends up being calibrating what would be 'normal' in a fantasy world and making sure to let your players know. This also goes along with the "playing an evil race" pittrap.
Typically I assume Golarion when I talk about stuff like this and I think Golarion is a pretty varied enough setting that villagers have PROBABLY seen some rather outrageous stuff in their days that they could handle me walking through town with my tiger and not flip their lids and start trying to murder me.
Also, I believe we're talking about Planescape here, which isn't exactly Ye Olde Middle Ages.
|
|
Wizards are what totally get my goat about what is and isn't acceptable in towns. The dude in that picture? Totally acceptable in town. He's an upstanding member of the adventuring community. Not a shopkeeper in the world who would turn him away.
But my Ranger's Leopard, Mr. Tibbles, who has been her friend and noble ally for as long as she can remember? TOTALLY inappropriate for town. I will be chased by every guard for 3 counties for bringing him into town. By the end of the day, there will be a 1,000 gold bounty on my head for my audacity.
And I just think that's a wrong way to look at the game and as a player I feel personally attacked for my class choices when GMs do this to me.
(And yes, I do TELL them that, I don't always just outright murder every NPC in a 10 mile radius)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, I hate inconsistency in gaming as well. I can recall one game where the DM decided that the horse that I summoned with the mount spell(he has weird summoning house rules) was considered an enemy mage and an extreme threat, but in that very same city a Goblin teleported right into the port and not a single eyelash was batted at it.
However being spiteful towards the GM is never helpful because if the GM is going to be a control freak they will be a control freak and their NPCs will be invulnerable and you will be super frail. Communicating with and working with the GM is infinitely better.
Following that same note, I hate being a player in games where I'm trying to play a character that fits in the game and somebody comes along with a cheese build disregarding setting entirely and expects to have complete control and has a hissy fit when any of their class features is even the slightest bit limited. (This has happened before and it was such a horrible experience that I left the game)
|
|
Ugh, I hate inconsistency in gaming as well. I can recall one game where the DM decided that the horse that I summoned with the mount spell(he has weird summoning house rules) was considered an enemy mage and an extreme threat, but in that very same city a Goblin teleported right into the port and not a single eyelash was batted at it.
However being spiteful towards the GM is never helpful because if the GM is going to be a control freak they will be a control freak and their NPCs will be invulnerable and you will be super frail. Communicating with and working with the GM is infinitely better.
Following that same note, I hate being a player in games where I'm trying to play a character that fits in the game and somebody comes along with a cheese build disregarding setting entirely and expects to have complete control and has a hissy fit when any of their class features is even the slightest bit limited. (This has happened before and it was such a horrible experience that I left the game)
I hear yah, and while I do it to be funny online, I'm not terribly combative. I have my moments, but I think everyone does. Sorry if I came off that way, my intention was humor.
I mean to some degree you pick your games (Which is why I find myself GMing more often). If I start out a game and lets go with my Eidolon example: I want to bring my Eidolon into town with me. If my GM says that's going to be a problem, well that's warning sign number one that I need to leave this game. I've got no problem restricting stuff for an encounter or toning down ancillary abilities, but leave things that define classes (Wild Shape, Bombs, Eidolons, Rage ect.) alone. But lets say that I don't take the cue. It's my right as a player to play the character how I want. Maybe my summoner isn't cool with the idea of dismissing his summon. He worked long and hard to forge that bond and isn't going to break it because some guard has a problem with it. So now we're at an impasse. If the guard is going to attack, my summoner will defend himself, that's only fair. Now here is where warning sign two comes up: Guards are 1st level warriors. But most GM's don't do that. Instead, they have what I call "15th level bartender syndrome." 15th level Bartender syndrome is characterized by NPCs leveling as the PCs level and being roughly as powerful or more powerful than the PCs. If this is your game, run. Run fast. It's games like this where the guards will ALWAYS be more powerful than you. Your 12th level barbarian gets into a fight in a bar? Guess what, the guards rush in, 10 of them, and they're all 15th level fighters. And don't forget the 15th level ex-adventurer bartender.
So at the end of the day, either one of the two things is going to happen: You and Your Eidolon are going to Ginsu every guard in town who rushes to try and kill you (Which is what happened in that one game), or you are going to be killed outright by the 5th level guard.
At the end of the day, the problem stems from not having good communication before the game. If you want to play a summoner, your GM should inform you that there will be a problem like what I described and you should probably play something else.
When I GM, I like to make the game suit the players instead of the players suit the game. I think that's more fun. To contrast the scenario I described, in one of my games I had a player with an animal companion enter a big city. Within about 3 minutes he had a horde of children begging him to let them ride his tiger. Which he obliged. Much to the tiger's chagrin.
EDIT: Off Topic, but how awesome are the Penguin Skin boots in that picture? From now on, in all my games, that is what Boots of the Winterlands are going to look like.
|
|
The problem with having to be "Familiar" with a monster is that any attempts to really apply this are torpedo'd by Summon Nature's Ally.
Example:
Druid: I transform into a Deinonychus!
GM: You can't transform into a Deinonychus, it's a dinosaur, you've never seen a Dinosaur before, and thus you aren't familiar with it.
Druid: Ah, I see. Well then I summon a Deinonychus, study it, and then transform into one.
GM:...oh
Druid: That's right. F*** you Fred. Do you feel stupid? You should.ye.. but....
you summon it at lvl 7, where Deinonychus is kinna not relevent no more...
Well that was more to illustrate a point that the familiarity rules are silly because they don't apply to Summon Natures Ally. So you could not be familiar with an animal at all, and yet still summon it.
But by 4th level, with a 10 int and 4 ranks in knowledge nature, you can take a 10 and beat a DC 19 Knowledge Check. A Deinonychus is a DC 13 check (18 if your DM thinks that Dinosaurs are rare creatures for some reason). So by the level you can transform into a Deinonychus, it's impossible for you to fail the knowledge check and thus not be familiar with the creature. Which is why I think making you do it in the 1st place is silly.