WHY I think building a druid to mostly wild shape is a mistake.Which really completes the argument. It shouldn't be a mistake. It should be a reasonably viable build. Wildshape needs to approach but not equal the output of a martial.
I mean, wild shape druid is burning through one focus point to use their gimmick and still gets to be a full caster (one who effectively doesn't need to worry about slots in combat) while still being remarkably effective overall (with a big asterisks next to it for the janky progression that I think everyone agrees should be fixed).
The build is extremely low investment with very good returns. In order to justify making it any stronger you'd start having to find ways to strip stuff away from the rest of the class.
WHY I think building a druid to mostly wild shape is a mistake.Which really completes the argument. It shouldn't be a mistake. It should be a reasonably viable build. Wildshape needs to approach but not equal the output of a martial.I mean, wild shape druid is burning through one focus point to use their gimmick and still gets to be a full caster (one who effectively doesn't need to worry about slots in combat) while still being remarkably effective overall (with a big asterisks next to it for the janky progression that I think everyone agrees should be fixed).
The build is extremely low investment with very good returns. In order to justify making it any stronger you'd start having to find ways to strip stuff away from the rest of the class.
Wildshape is like taking an animal companion. It takes up most of your feats. The forms have prerequisites and requirements. That is a cost. Those feats could have instead given you a significant other option.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using Wild Shape, for a Druid, is a tactical choice. The idea is not for it to be always the best choice.
In a way, I feel it is similar to raging for an Animal Barbarian. Sometimes it is the best first action. Sometimes it is better to wait. And some fights, you do not even rage at all because there was always something better to do in that specific encounter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using Wild Shape, for a Druid, is a tactical choice. The idea is not for it to be always the best choice.
In a way, I feel it is similar to raging for an Animal Barbarian. Sometimes it is the best first action. Sometimes it is better to wait. And some fights, you do not even rage at all because there was always something better to do in that specific encounter.
This idea would hold far more water if wild shape didn't require this many feat investment to stay usefull the whole level range. When half of your class feat are dedicated to a single feature, the feature should be worth it and better not be something you only do once every few fights.
This idea would hold far more water if wild shape didn't require this many feat investment to stay usefull the whole level range. When half of your class feat are dedicated to a single feature, the feature should be worth it and better not be something you only do once every few fights.Using Wild Shape, for a Druid, is a tactical choice. The idea is not for it to be always the best choice.
In a way, I feel it is similar to raging for an Animal Barbarian. Sometimes it is the best first action. Sometimes it is better to wait. And some fights, you do not even rage at all because there was always something better to do in that specific encounter.
Slightly disagree.
While wildshape does take a lot of feats to remain relevant, and I agree it shouldn't have been split so much, I disagree with the idea that class feats need to be relevant and useful throughout an entire career.
I've got a fighter build that basically only makes use of 2/3 feats throughout 90% of most combats, and the rest are for specific niche situations.
Although I do agree with the general statement that I would expect a druid focused on wild shape to use that option in something like 40-50% of combats and to also be using it a lot outside of combat for mobility and movement types. Being able to turn into something that flies is awesome.
Wild shape could definitely use smoother scaling though, and maybe a caveat that allows you temporarily pop-out and back into your wild shape form without having to completely dismiss, so you can use up the entire duration and shift between forms without losing duration too. (Although probably make changing forms a 3 action activity so it's not something you want to do a lot of in combat).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This idea would hold far more water if wild shape didn't require this many feat investment to stay usefull the whole level range. When half of your class feat are dedicated to a single feature, the feature should be worth it and better not be something you only do once every few fights.Using Wild Shape, for a Druid, is a tactical choice. The idea is not for it to be always the best choice.
In a way, I feel it is similar to raging for an Animal Barbarian. Sometimes it is the best first action. Sometimes it is better to wait. And some fights, you do not even rage at all because there was always something better to do in that specific encounter.
This is wrong on two points though:
For one, you can wildshape most fights and expect to do fine, because wild shape is a good focus spell. It's not uncommon to just be able to wild shape every fight in a day and then wow you're a full caster who barely needs to do any spell management while still being great in combat. That's very powerful. The fact that you get to be a full caster if for some reason you can't leverage your battle form is an upside, not a downside.
Second, if you feel like you're spending too many feats on wild shape just... spend less? You don't actually have to invest that heavily.
Like up until level 10 your battle form scales automatically. That's zero feats. Beyond that you can maintain your battle form progression for most of the game with one feat (at 20 you need 2 for heart of the kaiju or 3 for true shapeshifter), anything beyond that is a matter of preference and expanding options. Wanting to expand your options is fine and valid, but that's an issue of preference, not you being held hostage by wild shape like it's being suggested in this thread.
There are a lot of problems with wild shape (options being split unnecessarily, awkward janky scaling that requires you to form hop and even then progresses unsteadily, mandatory size categories, ambiguous rules interactions especially with certain types of damage modifiers, speech)... but this whole narrative of wild shape being a borderline useless ability that devours all your class feats misses the mark, and distracts from trying to fix the actual problems wild shape has.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This idea would hold far more water if wild shape didn't require this many feat investment to stay usefull the whole level range. When half of your class feat are dedicated to a single feature, the feature should be worth it and better not be something you only do once every few fights.Using Wild Shape, for a Druid, is a tactical choice. The idea is not for it to be always the best choice.
In a way, I feel it is similar to raging for an Animal Barbarian. Sometimes it is the best first action. Sometimes it is better to wait. And some fights, you do not even rage at all because there was always something better to do in that specific encounter.
I have a tough time with this perspective because regardless of how many class feats are spent, the druid doesn't lose any of their spell slots. Their spell attack and DC doesn't ever go down. They still get the maximum spell level. They lose nothing.
My main problem with the battle form spells is that they don't have full heightening effects per spell level.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WHY I think building a druid to mostly wild shape is a mistake.Which really completes the argument. It shouldn't be a mistake. It should be a reasonably viable build. Wildshape needs to approach but not equal the output of a martial.
Ah, I hadn't realized that was your argument.
I see no way of achieving that without going to a full bore shifter class. At a minimum, a reasonably viable wild shape druid would have to lose some significant spell casting capability to compensate because otherwise it would just be too powerful.
Right now I think a wild shaping druid is doing just fine. They're generally weaker than a straight martial but they compensate for it with their spells.
If you bump up their martial ability you HAVE to take something away somewhere or they'll be significantly overpowered (probably not game breakingly so due to action economy issues but significantly so).
...a Druid with max strength gets the +2 status bonus and so their to hit is within 1 of most martials for quite a few levels...
It's not possible for a druid to get max Strength since their class boost goes to Wisdom. That puts their attacks one additional point behind martials who do have their class boost and attack modifier based on the same stat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
better not be something you only do once every few fights.Although I do agree with the general statement that I would expect a druid focused on wild shape to use that option in something like 40-50% of combats and to also be using it a lot outside of combat for mobility and movement types. Being able to turn into something that flies is awesome.
I like druids and have played several through many levels. I'd guesstimate that I actually use wild shape in something like 2/3 of encounters.
Some encounters I'll start with a blasting spell or two (when I can get lots of people and so lots of damage) and then wild shape to finish things up.
Against a single foe I'll often wild shape since another body on the table (to provide flanks and a target) is more useful than the pitiful damage my spells will do.
Sometimes I REALLY value the insane mobility (or something else) that wild shapes tend to give. Whether that is turning into a deer or a dragon it works out well.
Sometimes I'm in a situation where preserving spells is obviously going to be unusually important (or its the end of a LONG day) and so its better to do my wild shape damage than spam electric arc/ray of frost.
And then I reasonably often use them for non combat encounters. Ranging from being able to climb the cliff as a snake to flying somebody or two as a dragon.
I'm curious. I've played several druids and I've played them at levels 3 to 20 and my opinions are based on actual table experience. Those of you who think the wild shaped druid is woefully inadequate, is that opinion ALSO based on actual personal experience?
|
What if we got one of the other things we've been asking for a lot, and be clearly allowed to choose not to heighten focus spells/cantrips if it doesn't seem needed in the situation?
Then you could go to your second-highest level form and almost always be eligible for the +2 to hit. Effectively, trading some damage for accuracy. Looking at how fighters get reviewed compared to barbarians, that's an interesting bargain.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...a Druid with max strength gets the +2 status bonus and so their to hit is within 1 of most martials for quite a few levels...It's not possible for a druid to get max Strength since their class boost goes to Wisdom. That puts their attacks one additional point behind martials who do have their class boost and attack modifier based on the same stat.
Max strength for a druid.
There are two viable ways to build a wild shaping druid.
1) Max out Str as much as you can and sometimes get the benefit of the +2 status bonus (how often will depend to some extent on how GM rules a few things). Start at 16, put in a stat boost at levels 5, 10 and 15.
2) Ignore Str totally. You'll never get the +2 status bonus but you still get the reasonable to hit bonuses from wild form and now you have stat points to blow on something else (personally, I like Charisma :-)) and even save some money. Identical to 1 some of the time and significantly worse some of the time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if we got one of the other things we've been asking for a lot, and be clearly allowed to choose not to heighten focus spells/cantrips if it doesn't seem needed in the situation?
Then you could go to your second-highest level form and almost always be eligible for the +2 to hit. Effectively, trading some damage for accuracy. Looking at how fighters get reviewed compared to barbarians, that's an interesting bargain.
In my experience every GM allows that.
If not, you can somewhat expand the range of forms by using Form Control.
...a Druid with max strength gets the +2 status bonus and so their to hit is within 1 of most martials for quite a few levels...It's not possible for a druid to get max Strength since their class boost goes to Wisdom. That puts their attacks one additional point behind martials who do have their class boost and attack modifier based on the same stat.Max strength for a druid.
There are two viable ways to build a wild shaping druid.
1) Max out Str as much as you can and sometimes get the benefit of the +2 status bonus (how often will depend to some extent on how GM rules a few things). Start at 16, put in a stat boost at levels 5, 10 and 15.
Even with this, you only get the bonus at level 4 iirc. It's a houserule (or oversight) to allow druids to get the bonus if they only match the modifier instead of exceeding it. Of course wildshape is going to perform better if it's constantly applying its +2 status bonus without needing a 6th level heroism buff.
WHY I think building a druid to mostly wild shape is a mistake.Which really completes the argument. It shouldn't be a mistake. It should be a reasonably viable build. Wildshape needs to approach but not equal the output of a martial.Ah, I hadn't realized that was your argument.
I see no way of achieving that without going to a full bore shifter class. At a minimum, a reasonably viable wild shape druid would have to lose some significant spell casting capability to compensate because otherwise it would just be too powerful.
Right now I think a wild shaping druid is doing just fine. They're generally weaker than a straight martial but they compensate for it with their spells.
Right now I don't even feel like I can have that discussion properly as no one can agree on what the actual rules are for wildshape. That is my real issue.
If you bump up their martial ability you HAVE to take something away somewhere or they'll be significantly overpowered (probably not game breakingly so due to action economy issues but significantly so).
All the martial classes get improved action economy as they go up levels. Martials get free actions and extra reactions. In comparison casters get little outside their spells. Quickend casting is once per day. Effortless Concentration is nice but only for certain types of spells.
You can't balance it exactly. You just have to accept it and move on, because forcing everyone to be the same is boring. As long as it only works some of the time, not all of the time, the game is still OK.
Instead the goal is really to keep every class relevant, and don't get bogged down in arguing about the last few percent.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right now I don't even feel like I can have that discussion properly as no one can agree on what the actual rules are for wildshape. That is my real issue.
I am 100% in vehement agreement with that :-( :-(.
The first step in changing wild shape and/or building a shifter pretty much HAS to be a clarification of how the rules actually work
This idea would hold far more water if wild shape didn't require this many feat investment to stay usefull the whole level range. When half of your class feat are dedicated to a single feature, the feature should be worth it and better not be something you only do once every few fights.Using Wild Shape, for a Druid, is a tactical choice. The idea is not for it to be always the best choice.
In a way, I feel it is similar to raging for an Animal Barbarian. Sometimes it is the best first action. Sometimes it is better to wait. And some fights, you do not even rage at all because there was always something better to do in that specific encounter.
Something along the lines of:
Anthropomorphic Form: "You can speak while using Untamed Form."Elemental Shape: "You may add your level to the amount of temporary HP you gain when you use Untamed Form."
Ferocious Shape: "Whenever you use untamed form to take a shape that grants you a specific Athletics modifier, you gain a +1 status bonus to your Athletics checks, and to damage rolls, which stacks with the bonus granted by Soaring Shape."
Soaring Shape: "Whenever you use untamed form to take a shape that grants you a specific Acrobatics modifier, you gain a +1 status bonus to your Acrobatics checks, and to damage rolls."
Insect Shape: "Whenever you use untamed form to take a shape, you gain a +1 status bonus to your Attack Rolls."
Monstrous Shape: "Whenever you use untamed form to take a shape, you gain a +1 status bonus to your Attack Rolls, which stacks with the +1 bonus from Insect Shape."
Plant Shape: "Whenever you use untamed form to take a shape, you gain a +1 status bonus to your Armor Class."
True Shapeshifter: "Whenever you use untamed form to take a shape, you gain a +2 status bonus to your Attack Rolls, Damage Rolls, and Armor Class. These bonuses stack with the bonus from other feats that have Untamed Form as a prerequisite, to a maximum of +4."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came here looking for any errata or adjustment from Paizo on Dragon Shape, but stayed for the possibility of suggestions to increase the feel of versatility in the Druid class, as well as feeling more capable for multiclass characters like Strength of Thousands' Barbarian/Druid, like the one in my campaign. Hopefully paizo picks up on this.
Our primary-class Druid doesn't defeat golem DR in Adamantine Dragon Form and some of my players are up in arms about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I came here looking for any errata or adjustment from Paizo on Dragon Shape, but stayed for the possibility of suggestions to increase the feel of versatility in the Druid class, as well as feeling more capable for multiclass characters like Strength of Thousands' Barbarian/Druid, like the one in my campaign. Hopefully paizo picks up on this.
Our primary-class Druid doesn't defeat golem DR in Adamantine Dragon Form and some of my players are up in arms about it.
You know you can change that for your players, right? If you feel strongly enough about this to trawl the forums and petition Paizo, just house rule it in the meantime.
I feel your player's pain-- I realized my empyereal dragon form didn't have the holy trait on its attack or breath weapon and couldn't trigger weakness against a fiend, which cheesed me off. But the restrictions on casting in dragon form never felt immersive because they are prioritizing balance instead. Things like battle forms inheriting appropriate traits seems like a similar balance casuality. Personally, I think they went too far nerfing these spells, but that's why I just let house rule them when I DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dragon Form would be way too powerful if it let you do all that with one spell. It already gives a lot of amazing abilities all wrapped up in one spell. Giving you adamantine or holy would be pretty crazy for one spell. Maybe a 10th level heightened version could add more, but the base version already does a lot.