Please tell me I am wrong and that some other class is way strong and list examples :D.
I have heard in D&D that druids were overpowered, but is seems to me that if a druid was to maximize all of their offensive abilities they would do way too much damage. My assessment would be that druids are low in be AC (easily fixable late game in fact it seems druids AC is way high do to the wild enhancement/wild shape/dragon hide), base attack average, physical damage absurd, health average, spells... as far as I know druids have the least restrictions as to what they know spell wise being that there are hardly any other than using druids list, cast count low, Saving throws normal. So basically my problem is that druids do too much potential damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh... this right after the other thread complaining about how nerfed druids are in Pathfinder? Seriously?
No. Druids are not "overpowered". They are among the most powerful classes from about level 6 to about level 15. Below level 6 they are just average, above level 15 they are overshadowed by clerics and wizards (and probably other classes).
In general druids are not significantly more powerful than wizards, clerics, summoners or even alchemists.
They are, along with the witch, the most versatile classes in the game. Because of their extreme versatility they can dominate the party mechanics if a player really pushes things. But that's not the same as "overpowered."
Druids were insanely overpowered in 3.5. Pathfinder did a good job bringing them back to the pack.
It's easier to make an OP druid than most classes. A good indicator is if their animal companion has pounce.
|
Damage wise...they are pretty middle of the road. Fighters and barbs can do more (nothing says pain like a fighter or barb in giantform 2). Clerics and magus and alchemists can burst for WAY more. Rangers vs favored enemy is pretty above as well and a paladin vs intended tagerts makes druis weep at the numbers they generate. What makes the druid powerful is that they have a full 20 levels of full casting. All that other stuff is just icing on the cake that makes them a cut above the other full casters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brass, you'll find that there are more than two people on the forums, and sometimes they have different views. We can't all be aliases of TOZ or Orthos.
Cheapy, the thread on druid nerfing is not hidden somewhere in an obscure corner of the messageboards. It's been a pretty active thread that I would expect to stand out to anyone worried about druids in Pathfinder. I'm pretty sure there were more than two participants in that thread too.
yay! thanks for telling me I was wrong!
yay! thanks for telling me I was wrong!
You're welcome.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Druids are solid at every level but, in my view, never the best DPR at any level. At low level, animal companions are very strong. At mid levels wildshape is very powerful and some animal companions are very good. At high level, they are full casters.
That said, a number of builds have very strong damage across every level - 2hand paladins, archery fighters, 2hand barbarians, etc.
The beauty of the druid is really flexibility. Their spell list covers many bases. They have good skills and plenty of skill points. They are extraordinarily mobile. They have good mellee options.
That said, money is tough for low and mid level druids. Amulets of mighty fists are expensive. Wild is expensive. By mid level you really want both. A wild shield, armor, and +2 amulet of mighty fists costs 32 is more gear than a 9th level character gets.
For the less money, a barbarian gets +4 str, +4 armor and a +3 weapon. That's a net of 2 more to hit and 4 more to damage.
Druids also have a much worse time with DR. They have fewer ways to beat it; and compared to a 2hander, they have more attacks for less damage which is unfavorable.
They also, frequently cannot take their best forms because it doesn't fit in the room/hallway. The same applies to some animal companions.
If there is a tier ranking system for DPR by class, with tiers ranging from 1 (best) to 5 (worst) I would put a well-crafted wildshape based druid as, at best, a tier 2 DPR character. Which is still pretty dang good, but doesn't really match a properly built 2H raging barbarian or feat-bloated fighter. No matter how you slice it, a druid is still a 3/4 BAB class.
The thing is, though, that tier 2 DPR class is also a tier 2 spellcaster. Maybe even tier 1 at some levels. Druids get some of the best spells in the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there is a tier ranking system for DPR by class, with tiers ranging from 1 (best) to 5 (worst) I would put a well-crafted wildshape based druid as, at best, a tier 2 DPR character. Which is still pretty dang good, but doesn't really match a properly built 2H raging barbarian or feat-bloated fighter. No matter how you slice it, a druid is still a 3/4 BAB class.
The thing is, though, that tier 2 DPR class is also a tier 2 spellcaster. Maybe even tier 1 at some levels. Druids get some of the best spells in the game.
I'm not sure where your getting this tier two caster from...
Full caster...get cure spells and heal. Has status removals like lesser restore, remove disease, neut poison. Has buffs like stat spells, stoneskin, barkskin, death ward, freedome of movement, true seeing, resist/prot elements. Has BC spells such as summons (oh the summons), fog spells, entangle, sleet storm, wind wall and wall spells in general. Has a ton of utlity spells in move and tranmute line of spells, talk with animal, spider climb and air walk. Yeah their SoS/SoD list is pretty small...but they do have a bring abck from death spell...one that even remove age penalties no less. Yeah...not seeing the whole teir two bit. At all...and that's just core.
If there is a tier ranking system for DPR by class, with tiers ranging from 1 (best) to 5 (worst) I would put a well-crafted wildshape based druid as, at best, a tier 2 DPR character. Which is still pretty dang good, but doesn't really match a properly built 2H raging barbarian or feat-bloated fighter. No matter how you slice it, a druid is still a 3/4 BAB class.
The thing is, though, that tier 2 DPR class is also a tier 2 spellcaster. Maybe even tier 1 at some levels. Druids get some of the best spells in the game.
I'm not sure where your getting this tier two caster from...
Full caster...get cure spells and heal. Has status removals like lesser restore, remove disease, neut poison. Has buffs like stat spells, stoneskin, barkskin, death ward, freedome of movement, true seeing, resist/prot elements. Has BC spells such as summons (oh the summons), fog spells, entangle, sleet storm, wind wall and wall spells in general. Has a ton of utlity spells in move and tranmute line of spells, talk with animal, spider climb and air walk. Yeah their SoS/SoD list is pretty small...but they do have a bring abck from death spell...one that even remove age penalties no less. Yeah...not seeing the whole teir two bit. At all...and that's just core.
My baster druid build is pretty damn scary too. :P
Napalm, my rating of druids as lesser spellcasters when compared to wizards or clerics is entirely based on the types of spells the classes get. Especially at the highest levels.
I said they might qualify as tier 1 at some levels.
But until they get spells comparable to "wish" or "miracle" they are not going to measure up to wizards or clerics. Not to mention the severe lack of direct damage spells and save or suck spells (not that I'm a fan of save or suck spells).
Druid spells are like the rest of the druid class. They are extremely useful, extremely versatile spells that can be used with great effectiveness by a clever player. But they generally either lack the most powerful spells of the other full casters, or they get those spells later in their level progression (meaning they effectively get LESS of them, hence the "lesser" designation). Heal spells are a particularly glaring example of this.
So, yes, I consider them lesser casters than wizards or clerics. Not "poor" casters, just lesser than wizards or clerics.
Ashiel, what "blaster spells" by level do you prefer to prepare with your blaster druid?
Druid is one of the most powerful classes, but it is definitely not the most powerful class. Wizard, Cleric, and Witch are all more powerful. Oracle and Sorcerer are also far more powerful if the Paragon Surge spell is available. Summoner is arguably more powerful, due to their action economy benefits.
It is definitely my favorite spellcaster, I love the flavor. But the spell list just doesn't stack up to those of other primary casters (or the spell list + save or die hexes in the witch's case). Druid casting/wildshape is very good for bullying noncasters (buff yourself to be a Fighter; summon other "fighters"; lockdown the battlefield so fighters can't get out of your vines and spike stones, etc...) but fails at taking out other spellcasters. A lot of good anti-caster spells are just plain missing, and others tend to come at higher level.
And since spellcasters are the most powerful characters....
|
My first PF character was a druid. The campaign style was such that the party composition varied a lot - we'd play once or twice weekly with a party of 3-5 players drawn from a pool of about 10. The druid was quite possibly the most versatile character in the entire set.
Party full of melee? Support casting.
Party full of casters? Tank and/or melee damage as an Elemental or something with Pounce.
Cleric's staying home? Cure, Lesser Restoration, Delay/Neutralize Poison, and at level 13 Heal.
No scout? Hello Air Elemental and Diminuitive flying Wild Shape.
And in pretty much every situation, she covered the party with Barkskin, Resist Energy, etc as appropriate. Now, because I didn't opt to build her in any particular direction she never as effective at healing as the Merciful Healer cleric, or as good at melee as AM BARBARIAN. But there were a couple times where the versatility allowed her to pull out exactly what the party needed.
I started playing my current druid in D&D 3.5e, and converted her to PF at level 7. She is now level 9.
The campaign started at level 1, so I have played her from "birth". Here are my general thoughts about playing a druid in 3.5 and PF.
First, our group is very "conservative". We tend not to accept all of the available third party content. For example, "Book of Vile Deeds" was not allowed in our campaign, we stuck almost entirely to the core books, the supplements for new "standard" classes (like scout, spellthief, etc) and (most imoprtantly) the Spell Compendium. In PF we currently accept the core books, and books like "Ultimate Magic", not including any third party content.
From level 1 - 4 the druid seemed, if anything, a bit underpowered when compared to the party ranger and cleric. But all of that changed at level 5, and by level 6 the druid was the unquestioned most powerful member of the party. By level 7 the druid was almost as powerful by herself as the other three members of the party (cleric, sorcerer, rogue at the time) combined. It got so bad that I role played a nerf where she dismissed her animal companion as penance for deeds she did in character. Even without the AC, she was still the most powerful member in the party. With icelance and splinterbolt she was far more effective as a blaster than our sorcerer. Wildshaped into a tiger she was stronger, had more hit points and did more damage than our battle cleric.
Converting her to PF the nerfs were such that she was no longer so freakishly overpowered, and as such I ended her penance and reinstated her animal companion. Her wildshape became much, much less powerful due to her low strength and constitution scores. She lost almost all of her most common blaster, buffing and healing spells.
But even with all of those nerfs, she is still the most powerful overall character in the party. She is no longer the best melee character, no longer the best blaster, and can no longer keep up with the cleric on healing. But she's still a very good melee character, still a very good blaster and still a reasonably competent healer.
Her value to the party is that she can plug any gap and augment any role needed. If a fight calls for more melee, she can provide that. If it calls for ranged attacks, blasting, or even healing she can step up.
She makes the party a far more effective tactical group that can cope with a wide variety of challenges effectively by greatly extending our tactical options in combat. With her our party is at the same time a heavy melee party, a heavy blaster party, a heavy skill-based party or a heavy buffing/debuffing party.
That's the value she brings. Her extreme versatility makes the party better in almost any encounter by making the party better at whatever tactical needs the encounter demands. With her in the party every encounter is not a nail in search of a hammer. If the encounter is a nail, she makes the party a better hammer. If the encounter is a bolt, she makes the party a better wrench. If the encounter is a wooden plank, she makes the party a better saw.
Not to push an analogy too far or anything...
|
As always, opinions will vary.
But I think that just about everybody will agree that a druid is a very solid class that is one of the top few classes at just about every level.
When built well, it is arguably one of the top 2 or 3 classes at most levels.
Most builds also have far more versatility that most other classes. The value of this greatly depends on the player and the campaign. In PFS, this versatility is a huge benefit that puts a druid into the top 2 or 3 classes overall.
Pathfinder Druid isn't completely ridiculous like 3.5 Druid but it's still one of the better classes. It just can't do everything like it could with 3.5 era wildshape because it can no longer just completely dump physical stats and still be a close combat god. It's definitely either melee or casting and you have to kinda choose which one will be primary.
That being said the Druid has a ridiculous amount of flexibility:
3/4 BAB class
2 Good Saves
Full Caster with a good spell list
Wildshape which results in Pounce at 6th level
Animal Companion gives an increase in the action economy
Altogether it's one of the strongest packages of class features in the game it just can't do everything like it could in 3.5. I think the arcane spell prep full casters (wizard and witch) top out at the top end as being slightly more powerful but the dividing line between the arcane full casters and the divine full casters really isn't that big.
They ARE overpowered, in the sense that a druid is the easiest swift army knife of the classes. They can't do everything perfectly, but they can do everything. Heal, buff, utility, revive(if it's in the game) damage dealing, distraction, skill-monkey (if you build it right, this can be a literal term)
There is very little a druid CAN'T do, thus their power in comparison to other classes
At this point in time, we should put a cease to all the over/under powered questions. Anyone with enough free time to exploit the books/feats/RAW can create a powerful member of any class.
In fact, I'd rather see builds with unique character concepts rather than the 2-3 builds we get for every class. It's pretty bad when you can show up at a table and know exactly what build a person will have as soon as they give you their class.
Whatever happened to imagination
If you try, then yes they are extremely overpowered.
With clever use of spells(like strong jaw) and feats(Improved natural attack and vital strike), I had a friend who would hit for 200 damage at level 13. He would almost one shot the boss.
Its the only time my group has had to flat out ban a combination.
lol
|
At this point in time, we should put a cease to all the over/under powered questions. Anyone with enough free time to exploit the books/feats/RAW can create a powerful member of any class.
In fact, I'd rather see builds with unique character concepts rather than the 2-3 builds we get for every class. It's pretty bad when you can show up at a table and know exactly what build a person will have as soon as they give you their class.
Whatever happened to imagination
You're busting out the Stormwind Fallacy, and it's not helping your argument.
I agree discussions on what is overpowered or underpowered are silly, but two Paladins with 18 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 7 Wis, 15 Cha and the same feats/skill points (this is an example, I'm not implying these are the best builds for Paladins) can be WILDLY different characters, based entirely on how you roleplay them.
So what if there are a handful of really strong builds for classes? You're not magically a better roleplayer for actively complaining about them, any more than you are for ignoring them, or giving a martial character ranks in Profession (Lounge Singer) and dumping your physical stats.
I think they can be pretty darn strong. So, yes: druids CAN be overpowered... But on the other hand, so can any other class built well (likewise for druids)
Just ask my Skulking Slayer Scout and his charging sneak attack with a great axe, power attack, and ridiculous strength. Or my magus. Or my witch. Or my dog. Or my GM(s).
Brass, you'll find that there are more than two people on the forums, and sometimes they have different views. We can't all be aliases of TOZ or Orthos.
I'm guessing this was a mispost, but it amuses me incredibly nonetheless. I know I have a lot of aliases but... >_>
Now I'm curious where this was supposed to be posted, so I can see the comment that spawned it.
I don't know what the Stormwind Fallacy entails, nor do I get that deep into all the mumbo-jumbo.I also try to avoid commenting on people's role playing ability
It's just disappointing to me to see every ranger built exactly like Treatmonk's switch hitter.
Orthos, I assumed Cheapy was speaking to me since my main avatar is "Brassbaboon" and I use "Adamantine Dragon" as an alternate. Cheapy and I have had a few... er... vigorous discussions on these boards.
Deyvantius, the Stormwind fallacy is the suggestion that you can't role play and power game at the same time, that there is some inverse relationship between the two such that if you are a serious power gamer, you must not be a good role player and vice versa. It's a fallacy because power gaming and role playing are orthogonal concepts with no direct interaction other than both take time and effort from the same player. I am not sure that it was used correctly in the above reference.
I don't know what the Stormwind Fallacy entails
Short version:
"The idea that a well-built character cannot be well roleplayed, and/or that a poorly-optimized character is a sign of greater roleplay skill."
I don't know what the Stormwind Fallacy entailsShort version:
"The idea that a well-built character cannot be well roleplayed, and/or that a poorly-optimized character is a sign of greater roleplay skill."
This "short version" does not quite ring true to me. I have never seen the fallacy used to suggest that poorly designed characters are a sign of greater role play skill, just that role players tend not to optimize their characters. A->B does not mean that !B->!A.
Here is an actual reference to the original post from Tempest Stormwind himself. You can go right to the source if you like.
I've seen it used both ways, but I'm admittedly being somewhat lazy, heh.
|
|
TL;DR: It doesn't matter what build you use for your character, whether it's mechanically optimal or completely unoptimized, but neither is objectively better than the other in the context of roleplaying.
Now, this thread can go back to being about Druids, who are not overpowered, they just have a really good toolbox for solving problems.
Thanks guys, I was just out googling it myself.
I wasn't trying to imply that optimizing characters is bad, but I'd rather see optimization after the character is conceived.
|
|
TL;DR: It doesn't matter what build you use for your character, whether it's mechanically optimal or completely unoptimized, but neither is objectively better than the other in the context of roleplaying.
I think this ignores the importance of suspension of disbelief in roleplaying. When every magus is dervish dancing with a scimitar, its harder to think of him as an actual character instead of a serious of optimized numbers.
For another example, a Bloatmage spellslinger Wizard is very well optimized, but is difficult to take seriously.
Is every Magus in the setting Dervish Dancing with a Scimitar? They it's probably part of the setting. If it's just that one PC, he's a unique character among many. For all you know, that character's concept existed long before the actual mechanical stuff. No one who plays that Dervish Dancing Magus or Bloatmage Spellslinger Wizard should be treated like they are doing it wrong just because they happened to make a character that is mechanically optimal. What, exactly, is the difference between a good character built around optimal mechanics, and optimal mechanics built around a good character? If you have an answer, I'd love to hear it.
Furthermore, "I can't take it seriously" is not a valid argument. It's unbelievably irrelevant to anyone but you.
|
|
It's just disappointing to me to see every ranger built exactly like Treatmonk's switch hitter.
They aren't. You should see my friend's crossbow-wielding Tengu ranger. He's based on the Vital Strike feats and takes exactly one shot a round. And that shot hurts.
Likewise, I saw someone on these forums earlier today trying to construct an unarmed Hexcrafter Magus.
I understand that you want to see variety in character abilities (build) as well as character personality, but I think that variety exists to a much greater extent than some discussions about optimization would lead a person to believe.
....
I understand that you want to see variety in character abilities (build) as well as character personality, but I think that variety exists to a much greater extent than some discussions about optimization would lead a person to believe.
your statement may be highly accurate as well. I'm probably just influenced by the multiple threads I see referencing a link to some other optimization guide as if that's the best and only way to build said character concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please tell me I am wrong and that some other class is way strong and list examples :D.
I have heard in D&D that druids were overpowered, but is seems to me that if a druid was to maximize all of their offensive abilities they would do way too much damage. My assessment would be that druids are low in be AC (easily fixable late game in fact it seems druids AC is way high do to the wild enhancement/wild shape/dragon hide), base attack average, physical damage absurd, health average, spells... as far as I know druids have the least restrictions as to what they know spell wise being that there are hardly any other than using druids list, cast count low, Saving throws normal. So basically my problem is that druids do too much potential damage.
Let me pick this one apart bit by bit as a career Druid player.
1. Pathfinder is not D&D. Paizo reworked them.
2. A druid who maximizes their "offensive abilities" trades in their flexibility in healing and spellcasting utility and basically becomes a fighter.
3. Wildshaping druids are not low in AC unless you're talking way low levels. And at those levels, you shouldn't be the melee combatant anyways.
4. A druid's physical damage is hardly absurd unless you pump str or stay in wildshape all the time (or both). Have you seen what Barbarians put out DPR-wise? THAT is absurd. But it's supposed to be.
5. Least restrictions? They can't even wear metal armor. Yes, they can cast infinitely off the Druid spell list. But have you actually taken a good look at that list compared to a Wizard's? I'll sit down an hour a day with my spellbook any day for that wide of a range to choose from. This does NOT make them better in any capacity.
6. Labeling ANYTHING as op because the "potential to do too much damage" exists is simply ridiculous. I can min/max or munchkin anything to stand out from the other players. But I choose not to.
|
|
6. Labeling ANYTHING as op because the "potential to do too much damage" exists is simply ridiculous. I can min/max or munchkin anything to stand out from the other players. But I choose not to.
I agree, to an extent. The power of a character is highly dependent on the specific build choices made. However, I do think that a class imposes some sort of power range on characters of that class, and that ideally the power ranges of all classes should be similar.
your statement may be highly accurate as well. I'm probably just influenced by the multiple threads I see referencing a link to some other optimization guide as if that's the best and only way to build said character concept.
Of course it isn't the only way, but the optimization guides offer handy references for the strength of particular styles, builds, or individual character choices. If you're talking about optimization, they're a good place to start. I often have a quick look at the guides when I'm designing a character to give me ideas about what I can do with that character. There are enough feats, domains, and spells available that it's nice to have some suggestions. But they're just suggestions. Yes please I want Pounce on my Barbarian, no thanks on the Spell Sunder.
|
|
Napalm, my rating of druids as lesser spellcasters when compared to wizards or clerics is entirely based on the types of spells the classes get. Especially at the highest levels.
I said they might qualify as tier 1 at some levels.
But until they get spells comparable to "wish" or "miracle" they are not going to measure up to wizards or clerics. Not to mention the severe lack of direct damage spells and save or suck spells (not that I'm a fan of save or suck spells).
Druid spells are like the rest of the druid class. They are extremely useful, extremely versatile spells that can be used with great effectiveness by a clever player. But they generally either lack the most powerful spells of the other full casters, or they get those spells later in their level progression (meaning they effectively get LESS of them, hence the "lesser" designation). Heal spells are a particularly glaring example of this.
So, yes, I consider them lesser casters than wizards or clerics. Not "poor" casters, just lesser than wizards or clerics.
Wish and miracle are overrate spells. Other then the stuff they do as written in the spell text, everything else is GM fiat. You can be in a game where you can make a wish that the BBEG is dead and have it be granted as they have a heart attack and die in front of you or you can have it backfire in oh so many ways. For instance, any game I run...wish and miracles that are not standard will be rather brutal. Those my group of friends run are the same. These spells are not even remotely on top of the must have spells in the gaming groups around here. That is because by RAW, these spells are merely nice...what makes them a must have spell for any group is entirely based on what the GM lets you get away with using them. They are a form of deux ex machina...and you know what else gives you that effect? The DM...only you don't need to spend a resource to do it.
The second aspect...yes the druid get some spells a level behind. They get some spells a level ahead. Many spells are the same level and they have spells that neither clerics or wizards gets. Wizards have cleric spells they get a level later as well and clerics have wizard spells they get one level later too. The fact that some spells are gotten later by the druid isn't overall a big deal unless you think the cleric rocks because they get hold person as a 2nd level spell over the wizard. Overall, the druid gets a pretty good list of spells that come at a timely manner (instead of say level 16 for 6th level spells).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
your statement may be highly accurate as well. I'm probably just influenced by the multiple threads I see referencing a link to some other optimization guide as if that's the best and only way to build said character concept.
....
I understand that you want to see variety in character abilities (build) as well as character personality, but I think that variety exists to a much greater extent than some discussions about optimization would lead a person to believe.
That is because your mistaking the question asked.
I want the most optimized ranger will give you TM's switch hitter or a varaint there of.
I want the most optimized ranger that uses this concept will most likely NOT result in TM switch hitter.
Optimization boards are around to help BOTH questions. Now the thing is, the first question gets asked a lot. New players need help. They don't know about optimized concepts so they ask the easy questions. More advanced players will know about optimized concepts...but as being more advanced players they are less likely to need help so the questions gets asked less. So you are seeing a skewed view of things from that.
6. Labeling ANYTHING as op because the "potential to do too much damage" exists is simply ridiculous. I can min/max or munchkin anything to stand out from the other players. But I choose not to.I agree, to an extent. The power of a character is highly dependent on the specific build choices made. However, I do think that a class imposes some sort of power range on characters of that class, and that ideally the power ranges of all classes should be similar.
By "power range" do you mean the ability to pump out a certain number of pure damage points per round? Because if so, the classes will never be "balanced" in that way. Certain classes aren't designed around dealing damage. This is not an MMO, terms like "DPR" and "Action Economy" are there for the min/maxxers, munchkins, and optimizers to set a baseline for their particular build. NOT to be a rating scale of "This class sucks because it's only 7.3 DPR. Everyone should just play Barbarians because they can do 9.3 DPR."
Some, like a druid, have utility in mind with the potential to do decent damage with spells, decent damage in combat, or decent spellcasting ability. The balance comes in by strengthening one, you lessen the power of the others. He's a "hybrid".
Some, like a barbarian, have combat in mind with the potential to do ridiculous damage, but....how does he heal himself once the rage fades? Others, like a wizard, pump out spell damage, but what happens when they are silenced or involved in a fistfight? So he's a "specialist".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cold Napalm, wish and miracle are not merely powerful because you can wish for stuff. They allow spellcasters to cast ANY lower level spell of ANY class. Druids can't do that. Wizards and clerics can. That's huge. It has a full bulleted list of very specific effects that are not subject to any GM "fiat". It just works. Sure it's costly, but at that level it's a cost any character can afford.
Here is the actual first sentence of the official spell description of wish: "Wish is the mightiest spell a wizard or sorcerer can cast."
Huh. wow. I wonder why the game designers would describe such a crappy spell that way. I suppose they don't have any idea what they are talking about.
The spells druids get a level ahead are not comparable to the ones they get a level behind. Again, all of the cure spells, perhaps the single most commonly cast spells in the game. Most of the few spells they get ahead of other caster classes are specific to animals or plants, which have very limited use.
It is not credible to argue that the druid spell list is as good as cleric or wizard spell lists. Don't bother to try, it just makes you look like you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
|
|
Cold Napalm, wish and miracle are not merely powerful because you can wish for stuff. They allow spellcasters to cast ANY lower level spell of ANY class. Druids can't do that. Wizards and clerics can. That's huge.
Here is the actual first sentence of the official spell description of wish: "Wish is the mightiest spell a wizard or sorcerer can cast."
Huh. wow. I wonder why the game designers would describe such a crappy spell that way. I suppose they don't have any idea what they are talking about.
The spells druids get a level ahead are not comparable to the ones they get a level behind. Again, all of the cure spells, perhaps the single most commonly cast spells in the game. Most of the few spells they get ahead of other caster classes are specific to animals or plants, which have very limited use.
It is not credible to argue that the druid spell list is as good as cleric or wizard spell lists. Don't bother to try, it just makes you look like you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Wish lets you cast any other class spell of 7th level or less or 6th for opposed school for the mere cost of 25k gold. Sorry...but that is kinda...meh in my books. Miracle is better since they have no material cost for the spells...BUT there is a GM shutdown on the spell if you go against the goals of your diety.
The most cast spells in most games isn't cure spells...it's specifically cure light wounds...from a wand. Hey guess what level druids get CLW...so that doesn't even hold water.
Your saying fluff = mechanical now? Seriously that is your argument? And you think I am the one who is arguing for argument sake? Your saying the wizard/cleric has better spells because of the fluff said so...yeah I am the one who looks like I am making stuff up for argument sake...whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druid summoning is weaker than wizard and cleric summoning, because the latter a) get far more spell-like ability access from their monsters and b) benefit from Paizo's MASSIVE buff to smite good/evil. A summoning character gets more benefit out of smite evil than a paladin does.
And look at the spells they get a level later. They're often the important ones, like dispel magic, or heal. The ones they get "early" (usually compared to clerics due to clerics not supposed to be good at those sorts of spells) tend to be direct damage type spells, like flame strike or (badly nerfed due to PF's changes to poison rules) Poison.
Then look at the spells they just plain don't get. Their teleportation options are ery limited; they get no planar travel spells like Plane Shift at all. Other than Baleful Polymorph, a wonderful exception, they tend to lag behind badly on save or suck/die. Their buff spells are extremely lackluster, other than some animal-based buffs. In the abjuration department, critical for shutting down other spellcasters (the most dangerous type of foe you can face, other than dragons and outsiders....who often are casters in their own right.... and higher-than-your-CR monsters), nearly everything they get at all is delayed a level or simply doesn't exist. Antimagic Field? Dimensional Anchor/Lock? Nope, sorry. Look elsewhere. Oh, and Enervation to nuke CL would be nice, too....
In short, their list is severely lacking in nearly all of the categories of the most powerful/important spells. Even in battlefield control, which IS one of their strengths, many of thier BFC spells are situational based on terrain (like Entangle and Plant Growth). Which is why I said the druid is excellent at bullying the weaker classes (noncasters) with their combination of self-buffing polymorph, free meat shield class feature (companion), and mix of summoning, BFC, and direct damage spells, but terrible for taking on a mage. Therefore, their spell list is weaker than the other primary casters, since *any* caster can wreck a noncaster with ease. I mean hell, after a certain level, anything that can't fly or teleport auto-loses the fight, due to the "cavalry archer problem" (entire party can be buffed to fly and/or teleport and thus kite the monsters till they die; similar to how historical armies couldn't deal with cavalry archer armies like the Mongols in any sort of open area due the the latter force out-ranging AND out-speeding them).
Cold, Stream is doing a better job of explaining just how much worse the druid spell list is than I am. Stream's comments have been extensive, explicit and specific.
You can call it "fluff" when the game designers call a spell the most powerful spell in the game. I somehow suspect there aren't many people who would take your word over the word of the people who actually created the spells.
Anyway, I'm done with this, if you want to continue to argue that the druid spell list is as powerful as cleric or wizard spell lists, it's only your own credibility that is suffering. Knock yourself out.
Depends on the game and where the battles take place, but usually they're pretty strong. Out in the wilderness, they are the strongest where they can control the battlefield with their spells and animal companion. But they're generally balanced in comparison with some other characters.
They can be stupid OP when the GM doesn't pay attention though, forgetting the fact that it's a move action using the handle animal skill to control an animal companion, letting them use the stats from the bestiary for the base animal companions or shape shifting instead of the class rules. There's nothing like being a 1st level fighter overshadowed by the cat that has a +7 initiative, a +7 to hit, deals 1d8+5 + 2d4+10 damage, and can grab its opponent in the same round.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overpowered is a pretty silly term if you ask me. Compared to what? Usually people get the sense that something is overpowered compared to another character in their party. But that in no way reflects the potential of the classes in question. There are so many variables in pathfinder characters not the least of which is the people that play them, that the only class that is 'overpowered' is the one you make so. With the exception of maybe a straight rogue (not a ninja) and maybe the cavalier ive seen literally every class be declared 'overpowered' on these boards. They cant ALL be overpowered. Its more likely a construct of your group mechanics. If the best optimizer in the group is playing the fighter, and the group roleplayer/i dont care about stats guy is playing the synthesist summoner, then the fighter will seem overpowered.
That said, druids are strong. They have among the largest potential of all pathfinder classes. They are not the best at any one thing thanks to pathfinder changes to 3.5. They wont do the most damage, take the most damage, or be the most versatile caster, or heal the best, or be the best at skills (even in the wilderness). BUT, they can be GOOD at alot of those things. If we could take 'capability' and make it a unit of measure of liquid, then all the 'power juice' of the druid would be a very full cup. Among the most full of any class. But if we were to divide those into several different cups that included, damage, ac, control, utility, healing etc, then it wouldnt be the most full of any of those cups.
If that means overpowered to you, so be it, but it doesnt mean that to me. Just strong and versatile.