There is a reason that Summoners are a touchy subject on the boards.Summons are incredibly overrated by a lot of people.
The way summoning will play heavily depends on the rest of the party.
Summoner druid plus a cleric, bard, rogue? Awesome. You'll be setting up flanks for the rogue, multiplying the bard's abilities upon your horde of creatures, and possibly even turning channel energy into a go-to combat choice (if you're healing 10 creatures at once rather than 4...)
Summoner druid plus blaster caster, turret archer, and pouncing barbarian? You'll have less time to get your creatures out in combat and they won't synergize as well with your friends' abilities. You're likely to be getting more use out of the utility side of the spell than the combat side (which is less for Summon Nature's Ally than Summon Monster, although not negligible).
This is my main problem with summoning-- when combats typically last 3 rounds (I've yet to get to play in a group where any DM other than myself could get them to go longer) why should I spend 1/3rd of my total actions summoning something relatively weak that MIGHT get to act twice at best?
I'm better off using any other offensive option. As far as tricks with summoning utility stuff. . . sure, occasionally useful, but deep down I don't feel its worth expending 1/3rd to 1/2 of my total actions in a scenario.
This is my main problem with summoning-- when combats typically last 3 rounds (I've yet to get to play in a group where any DM other than myself could get them to go longer) why should I spend 1/3rd of my total actions summoning something relatively weak that MIGHT get to act twice at best?
Last fight I DMed where 4 5th level Pcs against 12 hobgoblins with warrior levels, a hobgoblin with cleric levels and two hell hounds.
The earth elementals summoned byt he witch saved her life and they get dimised when their time ran out, and that was like 4 rounds before the fight ended.
So, I suppose there is a lot of playstyle involved.
This is my main problem with summoning-- when combats typically last 3 rounds (I've yet to get to play in a group where any DM other than myself could get them to go longer) why should I spend 1/3rd of my total actions summoning something relatively weak that MIGHT get to act twice at best?Last fight I DMed where 4 5th level Pcs against 12 hobgoblins with warrior levels, a hobgoblin with cleric levels and two hell hounds.
The earth elementals summoned byt he witch saved her life and they get dimised when their time ran out, and that was like 4 rounds before the fight ended.
So, I suppose there is a lot of playstyle involved.
That's definitely true, but like I said in most games I've had the options and in most published scenarios (barring hardcore ones like Bonekeep) summons (particularly from characters not focused specifically on summoning) tend to be marginalized.
They would definitely also be more powerful if the group was lacking high DPR characters to chew through enemies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that Nathanael has remained fairly civil throughout this argument, despite being repeatedly patronized or insulted. As absurd as I personally find his opinions, that's, just, like, y'know, my opinion, man. The inclusion of an insult isn't going to make your argument any more compelling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consider the following an instruction in the many and varied ways in which Druid is powerful.
I explained my reasons for saying so-- a spell list that I consider worse than Wizard, Cleric, and Bards which put their spell casting capabilities below Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Favored Soul, Wu Jen, and probably Psion.
This one's just straight-up wrong. While Druid's spell list doesn't compare to the sheer, "I can cast anything ever printed, ever," that Wizard and Cleric pull off, it's still substantial. It lacks the weak points of bard spellcasting (bards make great buffers but their offensive options get shut down a lot by immunity to mind-affecting), the limitations of sorcerer & favored soul casting (to wit, a druid can change her spells every morning) and the lack of support given to Wu Jen casting. Druid's spell list covers all the bases - control, buffing, summoning, denial, debuffing, blasting, and utility. Druid could be T1 on its spell list alone.
They lacked usable PrCs with very few exceptions-- Planar Shepard or nothing were pretty much your options; compared to Wizards and Clerics and even martial classes who could mix/match Druids were not gaining any power here.
And? Druid 20 is a perfectly viable build; a lack of prestige classes isn't really an issue. Even when you went for some of the more fun ones that formed technical nerfs (like Daggerspell Shaper) you remained a potent threat no matter what the situation was. That said, PrC =/= power, and it certainly =/= optimization. The cold stark truth is that Druid didn't need the support.
That in mind, add Lion of Talsid to your list of viable Druid PrCs. It's in the Book of Exalted Deeds.
They lacked feats that gave them any real increase with the exception of Natural Spell and Draconic Wild Shape.
Exalted Wild Shape and Multiattack say hi. Druids also benefit perfectly well from metamagic feats or feats to improve their melee prowess, or both. As full casters, crafting was and is an option available to them. Frankly a Druid can go a substantial distance on just using Wild Shape for mobility and metamagic'd blasting spells to bring the pain - and that's if you wanna screw around with a low-power option instead of going all Avatar of Nature's Unending Wrath on people.
If you disagree that's fine, but I'd put Druids in the middle of the pack in 3.5 and they have been nerfed substantially since then.
Neither the numbers nor the community back your opinion.
Wait wait wait wait wait wait. Druids were considered weak on 3.5e? Maybe if you were high 24/7.You disagree with me, then disagree with me, but don't just insult me.
I explained my reasons for saying so-- a spell list that I consider worse than Wizard, Cleric, and Bards which put their spell casting capabilities below Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Favored Soul, Wu Jen, and probably Psion.
Maybe, but the druid had extremely powerful and versatile melee capabilities matched only by the cleric. That means you have a caster class able to take down the toughest barbarian in melee. And that's completely ignoring the animal companion!
They lacked usable PrCs with very few exceptions-- Planar Shepard or nothing were pretty much your options; compared to Wizards and Clerics and even martial classes who could mix/match Druids were not gaining any power here.
So the problem with the class is that it doesn't have enough ways to ditch it? :P
This conversation reminds me of a certain scene in Tales of Wyre, a massive campaign journal, where the druid Nwm wipes out an entire army and several high-level clerics with minimal preparation. Massive area effects + awakened allies + clerics not having many long-range attacks = Ow. He never even had to enter melee!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that Nathanael has remained fairly civil throughout this argument, despite being repeatedly patronized or insulted. As absurd as I personally find his opinions, that's, just, like, y'know, my opinion, man. The inclusion of an insult isn't going to make your argument any more compelling.He has reiterated his opinion over and over without proof.
He has not answered concerns or countered obvious examples of their power.
Poor form
Still he was civil about it and didn't start insulting anyone.
Consider the following an instruction in the many and varied ways in which Druid is powerful.
I explained my reasons for saying so-- a spell list that I consider worse than Wizard, Cleric, and Bards which put their spell casting capabilities below Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Favored Soul, Wu Jen, and probably Psion.This one's just straight-up wrong. While Druid's spell list doesn't compare to the sheer, "I can cast anything ever printed, ever," that Wizard and Cleric pull off, it's still substantial. It lacks the weak points of bard spellcasting (bards make great buffers but their offensive options get shut down a lot by immunity to mind-affecting), the limitations of sorcerer & favored soul casting (to wit, a druid can change her spells every morning) and the lack of support given to Wu Jen casting. Druid's spell list covers all the bases - control, buffing, summoning, denial, debuffing, blasting, and utility. Druid could be T1 on its spell list alone.
Bard spell list becomes Wizard/Sorc at 11th level, so I count that-- bard builds that don't take the 1 level it requires to get this spellcasting are worse than Druid, but I'd take it on every 3.5 bard I ever made.
They lacked usable PrCs with very few exceptions-- Planar Shepard or nothing were pretty much your options; compared to Wizards and Clerics and even martial classes who could mix/match Druids were not gaining any power here.And? Druid 20 is a perfectly viable build; a lack of prestige classes isn't really an issue. Even when you went for some of the more fun ones that formed technical nerfs (like Daggerspell Shaper) you remained a potent threat no matter what the situation was. That said, PrC =/= power, and it certainly =/= optimization. The cold stark truth is that Druid didn't need the support.
That in mind, add Lion of Talsid to your list of viable Druid PrCs. It's in the Book of Exalted Deeds.
Maybe; many PrC's were = to power however, or else people wouldn't have complained about them being OP.
They lacked feats that gave them any real increase with the exception of Natural Spell and Draconic Wild Shape.Exalted Wild Shape and Multiattack say hi. Druids also benefit perfectly well from metamagic feats or feats to improve their melee prowess, or both. As...
Fair on Exalted Wild Shape; Multiattack feels less than inspiring for casting druids, but yeah its pretty much required for melee-ing things.
Neither the numbers nor the community back your opinion.
That's fine; again, its my opinion and since this was a post asking for opinions about Druids and Wild shape I expressed it as is my right; dissenting view points don't reduce value in conversations they enhance it; the fact that on these boards very often expressing an opinion outside the group think leads to the kind of insults that I routinely get lobbed at me for being willing to not just parrot the general consensus and to express my opinions regardless of if they are popular or not says a lot.
I thank you specifically however for trying to discuss instead of simply saying "you must be high" or some other ridiculous statement as some others have done.
Bard spell list becomes Wizard/Sorc at 11th level, so I count that-- bard builds that don't take the 1 level it requires to get this spellcasting are worse than Druid, but I'd take it on every 3.5 bard I ever made.
Bard remains a solid T3 without using Sublime Chord; S.Chord is a solid prestige class and there's nothing wrong with taking it, but there's also nothing really wrong with going for other options or even just sticking with Bard 20.
Maybe; many PrC's were = to power however, or else people wouldn't have complained about them being OP.
Another lesson that needs learning: prestige classes themselves were not the problem. The issue with PrCs is/was as follows:
- Some classes had access to prestige classes that gave them power without a meaningful cost. Wizards/Sorcerers/Clerics were especially guilty of this, losing nothing - often including not even losing spellcasting - in exchange for cool class features that replaced their dead levels. These classes had no incentive to not PrC, leading to the mistaken assumption that the PrC was the issue when, really, it was sloppy class design.
- A lack of system mastery led people to see multiclassing/PrCing as an issue when they saw, for example, your average mid-op melee build. Because prestige classes sometimes brought in new and strange capabilities, they could be seen as stronger than they actually shook out into being.
- Some PrCs became famous for their power, leading to the mistaken assumption that PrCs were just about power.
Bard spell list becomes Wizard/Sorc at 11th level, so I count that-- bard builds that don't take the 1 level it requires to get this spellcasting are worse than Druid, but I'd take it on every 3.5 bard I ever made.Bard remains a solid T3 without using Sublime Chord; S.Chord is a solid prestige class and there's nothing wrong with taking it, but there's also nothing really wrong with going for other options or even just sticking with Bard 20.
True, but since it was basically a non-investment-- take levels of bard till you qualify spending only some of your many skill points (no feats) and abilities you automatically get for being bard, take 1 level in SC, then progress to whichever PrC you want and apply its +1 spellcasting level to Sublime Chord progression it is definitely what pushes Bard above druid in my eyes. Without the 1 of Sublime Chord level Druid is> Bard.
Maybe; many PrC's were = to power however, or else people wouldn't have complained about them being OP.Another lesson that needs learning: prestige classes themselves were not the problem. The issue with PrCs is/was as follows:
- Some classes had access to prestige classes that gave them power without a meaningful cost. Wizards/Sorcerers/Clerics were especially guilty of this, losing nothing - often including not even losing spellcasting - in exchange for cool class features that replaced their dead levels. These classes had no incentive to not PrC, leading to the mistaken assumption that the PrC was the issue when, really, it was sloppy class design.
I think this is more a problem with the ridiculously high number of dead levels for everything except spells that Wizards and Sorcerers and Clerics have. Getting either a bonus feat or nothing at every level and no other features is a flawed design to begin with.
So the problem with PrCs depends on the druid spell lists not being good, which itself is a flawed concept.
So the problem with PrCs depends on the druid spell lists not being good, which itself is a flawed concept.
I never said not good, I said the third best list. . . but when its the 3rd best out of basically 5 that's the middle. So unless you can argue that Druid spell list is better than Wizard or Cleric list, I'd say this is a pretty solid assertion.
Nathanael, I think your quote blocks broke on the post where you replied to my PrC statements. Did the forum eat anything you were trying to say?
No Offence but every time I see your "arguments" Nathanael, they always look weak...
I mean, druid is the SHINING EXAMPLE of things being broken in 3.5. Heck, the real spiritual successor in PF has just as many problems. The closests analogy of the druid's power in 3.5 is the Synthesist Summoner of now. You end up with what many people do, which is to say to dump yoru physical stats to min-max yoru caster stats, then just "shapechange" to make yourself bigger than the actual fighter.
Yeah, but your case for "druid needs good PrCs" is that the druid class doesn't have anything in the high-level area.
I think this is more a problem with the ridiculously high number of dead levels for everything except spells that Wizards and Sorcerers and Clerics have. Getting either a bonus feat or nothing at every level and no other features is a flawed design to begin with.
Druids are omitted. Was this intentional?
Nathanael, I think your quote blocks broke on the post where you replied to my PrC statements. Did the forum eat anything you were trying to say?
Fixed; formatting multiple quotes gets annoying sometimes.
No Offence but every time I see your "arguments" Nathanael, they always look weak...
I mean, druid is the SHINING EXAMPLE of things being broken in 3.5. Heck, the real spiritual successor in PF has just as many problems. The closests analogy of the druid's power in 3.5 is the Synthesist Summoner of now. You end up with what many people do, which is to say to dump yoru physical stats to min-max yoru caster stats, then just "shapechange" to make yourself bigger than the actual fighter.
1. I don't no why arguments is in quotation marks; they are arguments-- disagreeing with them doesn't make them any less so.
2. I haven't given the Synthesist a thorough examination, but I doubt its really that overpowered.
Even with the old rules the Druid in melee combat was not more effective than a well designed melee class; also every round that a Druid spends melee-ing is a round they aren't spending casting spells, ect-- there's an opportunity cost for wading into melee no matter how not awful a caster makes himself.
Druids are omitted. Was this intentional?
Yes, Druids didn't have dead levels like Sorc/Wiz/Cleric did and do.
I love these posts about the Vital Strike Hippo, yeah, that's an awesome build... Did you dump all your stats into making him that broken? You did? Congratulations! By the way, you're in a 10ft wide hallway... Now what do you do?
I love these posts about the Vital Strike Hippo, yeah, that's an awesome build... Did you dump all your stats into making him that broken? You did? Congratulations! By the way, you're in a 10ft wide hallway... Now what do you do?
I guess you hope you ended with a high enough Wisdom to still cast spells above 3rd level? I wouldn't go with that build though. . .
"All these posts"? You mean that single post on the previous page? :P
Also, I get it now, Nathanael. Took me some time to parse the sentence, my bad.
Also, "Vital Strike Hippo". It takes one feat. Vital Strike. Pretty self-explanatory, I'd say. ;D
Incidentally, the occasional small space isn't going to cripple a Vital Strike Hippo. Just choose another form that benefits from Vital Strike. Heck, forgot Vital Strike--it's just a feat, and nobody gets to use any feat in every single encounter they're in.
Incidentally, the occasional small space isn't going to cripple a Vital Strike Hippo. Just choose another form that benefits from Vital Strike. Heck, forgot Vital Strike--it's just a feat, and nobody gets to use any feat in every single encounter they're in.Improved Initiative says hi.
Toughness, Dodge.
Toughness, Dodge.Incidentally, the occasional small space isn't going to cripple a Vital Strike Hippo. Just choose another form that benefits from Vital Strike. Heck, forgot Vital Strike--it's just a feat, and nobody gets to use any feat in every single encounter they're in.Improved Initiative says hi.
Toughness only gets used if you get down to your HD in hit points during the encounter. Dodge only gets used if an attack missed you by 1.
Improved Initiative only gets used if the +4 bonus puts you ahead of someone else in initiative order. So it's not going to get use every encounter, but probably more encounters than Toughness or Dodge.
So strange seeing a thread arguing about whether or not the druid is underpowered.
Well by argue, I mean OP being disappointed in bear form (shapeshifter ranger is what you are looking for) and 1 guy who does not see the advantages to spont summons, a robust spell list with no deficits, and persistent polymorph effects that you can cast spells in.
Toughness, Dodge.Incidentally, the occasional small space isn't going to cripple a Vital Strike Hippo. Just choose another form that benefits from Vital Strike. Heck, forgot Vital Strike--it's just a feat, and nobody gets to use any feat in every single encounter they're in.Improved Initiative says hi.Toughness only gets used if you get down to your HD in hit points during the encounter. Dodge only gets used if an attack missed you by 1.
Improved Initiative only gets used if the +4 bonus puts you ahead of someone else in initiative order. So it's not going to get use every encounter, but probably more encounters than Toughness or Dodge.
So... I don't have the hit points from toughness until my hp gets low? The AC from dodge until it would make an attack miss? Not buying it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So strange seeing a thread arguing about whether or not the druid is underpowered.
Well by argue, I mean OP being disappointed in bear form (shapeshifter ranger is what you are looking for) and 1 guy who does not see the advantages to spont summons, a robust spell list with no deficits, and persistent polymorph effects that you can cast spells in.
Believe me, I haven't felt this odd since a guy at my FLGS was arguing to ban monks for being overpowered. I feel like we're back in 2001.
|
So... I don't have the hit points from toughness until my hp gets low? The AC from dodge until it would make an attack miss? Not buying it.
You don't really get any use out of it until those conditions happen however. Compare two characters, one with the feats and one without. In both cases, they don't fall unconscious, and they don't change the result of the attack.
We are talking about using the feat, not having it.
Toughness, Dodge.Incidentally, the occasional small space isn't going to cripple a Vital Strike Hippo. Just choose another form that benefits from Vital Strike. Heck, forgot Vital Strike--it's just a feat, and nobody gets to use any feat in every single encounter they're in.Improved Initiative says hi.
I actually went several years of play without my fighter once using Toughness. A significant contribution to its getting chosen for the chopping block when I wanted to retrain a feat.
Believe me, I haven't felt this odd since a guy at my FLGS was arguing to ban monks for being overpowered. I feel like we're back in 2001.So strange seeing a thread arguing about whether or not the druid is underpowered.
Well by argue, I mean OP being disappointed in bear form (shapeshifter ranger is what you are looking for) and 1 guy who does not see the advantages to spont summons, a robust spell list with no deficits, and persistent polymorph effects that you can cast spells in.
I pull out a bag of rats...
;)
So the OP's complaint isn't really that wildshape druids were nerfed as much as it was bears were nerfed. A dire tiger will be a much better wild shape at level 6 than a dire bear. That's just the way it is with the rules as they are right now, and it's because bears have been made too weak, not because wildshape is underpowered. You might be able to convince your GM to let you wild shape into a "Dire Bear" with a Dire Tiger's stats.
...? It's the same stats. The difference? The tiger gets pounce and rake. Boom, tiger's better. But, I mean, thematically, it doesn't seem to work either. Let's assume I want to turn into, and bear with me here, a tortoise. I get a 10ft movement speed, one bite attack, and NONE of its natural armor. I get +2 strength and +2 natural armor because of the spell. Why can't I get it's shell? Or sorry, I guess I am getting the shell, why won't that big son of a gun give me any protection? It's still weighing me down to a 10ft movement speed. But that's all the shell is doing.
So the OP's complaint isn't really that wildshape druids were nerfed as much as it was bears were nerfed. A dire tiger will be a much better wild shape at level 6 than a dire bear. That's just the way it is with the rules as they are right now, and it's because bears have been made too weak, not because wildshape is underpowered. You might be able to convince your GM to let you wild shape into a "Dire Bear" with a Dire Tiger's stats....? It's the same stats. The difference? The tiger gets pounce and rake. Boom, tiger's better. But, I mean, thematically, it doesn't seem to work either. Let's assume I want to turn into, and bear with me here, a tortoise. I get a 10ft movement speed, one bite attack, and NONE of its natural armor. I get +2 strength and +2 natural armor because of the spell. Why can't I get it's shell? Or sorry, I guess I am getting the shell, why won't that big son of a gun give me any protection? It's still weighing me down to a 10ft movement speed. But that's all the shell is doing.
Also remember that your type does not change to animal.
Polymorph effects have been nerfed in PF. You can't turn into a bear or into a tortoise. You can assume the form of one of those creatures and the spell effect puts a hard limit on what that form can do. Consequentially some forms are better than others.
Think back to Aristotle substance and form distinction*. You don't gain the substance of a tortoise, you gain the form of a tortoise.
*may be misrepresenting the theory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you pull your head in, you can look like a rock I guess? That's why no one wild-shapes into a tortoise! You could get your GM to houserule it, I suppose, but you can do that with anything.
Wild-shaping into anything and getting all physical stats of that creature, regardless of what your stats are, is what made the 3rd edition druid OP.
Compare a dire bear and a dire tiger, both of which are large sized and therefore eligible for a 6th level druid to shape into.
Dire Bear gets:
Grab
Bite 1d8
2xClaws 1d6
Dire Tiger gets:
Grab
Pounce
Bite 2d6
2xClaws 2d4
I don't think you get improved critical on the bite, since that's a feat and you don't get the feats of the form. You also don't get rake until level 8.
However, the dire tiger is clearly much better than the bear.
If your argument is that the bear should have pounce, I'm not going to disagree with you.
Wild-shaping into anything and getting all physical stats of that creature, regardless of what your stats are, is what made the 3rd edition druid OP.
A note - its spells were what made 3.5 Druid powerful. Wildshape was nice, yes, but you could honestly never use it and still mop the floor with the game world's face.
Wild-shaping into anything and getting all physical stats of that creature, regardless of what your stats are, is what made the 3rd edition druid OP.A note - its spells were what made 3.5 Druid powerful. Wildshape was nice, yes, but you could honestly never use it and still mop the floor with the game world's face.
On top of that, the Synthesist Summoner is not straight breaking games, and his "form" is stronger, better, more modular, and he can have it on all day.
On top of that, the Synthesist Summoner is not straight breaking games, and his "form" is stronger, better, more modular, and he can have it on all day.Wild-shaping into anything and getting all physical stats of that creature, regardless of what your stats are, is what made the 3rd edition druid OP.A note - its spells were what made 3.5 Druid powerful. Wildshape was nice, yes, but you could honestly never use it and still mop the floor with the game world's face.
^This!^ I almost considered doing the First Worlder Synthesist because it was closer to what I was looking for. But we've already got our archmage, and the guardian stuff wouldn't work for my eidolon because we'd be the same creature... or maybe I just didn't have a full grasp of the character to understand what all I get and don't get.
^This!^ I almost considered doing the First Worlder Synthesist because it was closer to what I was looking for. But we've already got our archmage, and the guardian stuff wouldn't work for my eidolon because we'd be the same creature... or maybe I just didn't have a full grasp of the character to understand what all I get and don't get.On top of that, the Synthesist Summoner is not straight breaking games, and his "form" is stronger, better, more modular, and he can have it on all day.Wild-shaping into anything and getting all physical stats of that creature, regardless of what your stats are, is what made the 3rd edition druid OP.A note - its spells were what made 3.5 Druid powerful. Wildshape was nice, yes, but you could honestly never use it and still mop the floor with the game world's face.
What's wrong with two archmages? You can still do guardian, just no pet abilities. I would dual path into archmage to at least grab wild arcana.
Druid just doesn't fit your desire to play a bear shape focused character.
Incidentally, the occasional small space isn't going to cripple a Vital Strike Hippo. Just choose another form that benefits from Vital Strike. Heck, forgot Vital Strike--it's just a feat, and nobody gets to use any feat in every single encounter they're in.Improved Initiative says hi.
Who takes Improved Initiative?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druid just doesn't fit your desire to play a bear shape focused character.