The Druid's unique benefits mostly just boil down to free feats


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Teridax wrote:
So, once again: how would your proposal hold up to those classes? Forget about the janky Cleric class archetype; the Magus gets record-breaking burst damage while the Summoner gets to have four actions and two bodies per turn, all while having a stat spread that lets them leverage both the high Charisma for competent full casting and the high Strength for competent Strikes. How do you propose for what would effectively be a Shifter class archetype to shine at shapeshifting in a manner that is worth stripping the Druid of most of their spell slots and the upper end of their spellcasting proficiency?

Basics would be:

- Wave casting
- Magus weapon proficiency
- Master fortitude

Then, to the goodies:
1) Free action Untamed Form use when initiative is rolled, like a barbarian rage. Would fix action economy and allow unmatched flexibility
2) Allow casting while shaped, like the old PF1 natural spell (only with wavecasting spells, not archetype ones).
3) Maybe give Untamed form upgrades as class features, to free up some feats along the way.

IMO, that would be flavorful and powerful enough to make me want to play one.


Blue_frog wrote:

Basics would be:

- Wave casting
- Magus weapon proficiency
- Master fortitude

Then, to the goodies:
1) Free action Untamed Form use when initiative is rolled, like a barbarian rage. Would fix action economy and allow unmatched flexibility
2) Allow casting while shaped, like the old PF1 natural spell (only with wavecasting spells, not archetype ones).
3) Maybe give Untamed form upgrades as class features, to free up some feats along the way.

IMO, that would be flavorful and powerful enough to make me want to play one.

Casting while shapeshifted I'd say is definitely an appealing benefit, as would free forms as you'd level up. I don't know if that alone would be enough to justify losing most of your spell slots and legendary spellcasting proficiency, but it could definitely allow a class archetype of this sort to contribute both utility and a measure of Striking power -- even if that power would still be overall far weaker than on a Magus or full martial. It'd maybe compare to the Summoner's Striking power by way of their eidolon, but then the Summoner gets to supplement those Strikes with at least cantrips nearly every turn, so that's still a higher baseline that battle form Strikes wouldn't really be able to to match on their own.

Going back to the Druid class, spellcasting while shapeshifted is something I'd very like to see as a feat, though only at very high level. This wouldn't address the aforementioned issue re: battle forms falling off, but it'd be a nice alternative capstone to True Shapeshifter. I do still believe the class could benefit from exceptional Fort saves and Strike proficiency at those very high levels too, as that would bridge the current gap in their battle form performance, but more fun feats to play with also wouldn't hurt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Teridax wrote:
Blue_frog wrote:

Basics would be:

- Wave casting
- Magus weapon proficiency
- Master fortitude

Then, to the goodies:
1) Free action Untamed Form use when initiative is rolled, like a barbarian rage. Would fix action economy and allow unmatched flexibility
2) Allow casting while shaped, like the old PF1 natural spell (only with wavecasting spells, not archetype ones).
3) Maybe give Untamed form upgrades as class features, to free up some feats along the way.

IMO, that would be flavorful and powerful enough to make me want to play one.

Casting while shapeshifted I'd say is definitely an appealing benefit, as would free forms as you'd level up. I don't know if that alone would be enough to justify losing most of your spell slots and legendary spellcasting proficiency, but it could definitely allow a class archetype of this sort to contribute both utility and a measure of Striking power -- even if that power would still be overall far weaker than on a Magus or full martial. It'd maybe compare to the Summoner's Striking power by way of their eidolon, but then the Summoner gets to supplement those Strikes with at least cantrips nearly every turn, so that's still a higher baseline that battle form Strikes wouldn't really be able to to match on their own.

Going back to the Druid class, spellcasting while shapeshifted is something I'd very like to see as a feat, though only at very high level. This wouldn't address the aforementioned issue re: battle forms falling off, but it'd be a nice alternative capstone to True Shapeshifter. I do still believe the class could benefit from exceptional Fort saves and Strike proficiency at those very high levels too, as that would bridge the current gap in their battle form performance, but more fun feats to play with also wouldn't hurt.

.

TBH this sounds a lot like I want a full caster just as capable as a martial. You can try to spin that how you will but that's how you come off. Some have offered alternatives more inline with how Paizo does things, like one suggestion of wave casting with better melee capabilities. That's giving up something to gain something else. Sorry but I don't feel or think giving them full spellcasting capabilities while shifted should even be on the table. Right now there is actually a good reason to pick something besides casters, this would start heading in the opposite direction. If I can strike as good as a martial while maintaining full spellcasting why play a martial at all? And this is coming from someone who's favorite class in 2E is the Magus.


Riddlyn wrote:
TBH this sounds a lot like I want a full caster just as capable as a martial. You can try to spin that how you will but that's how you come off. Some have offered alternatives more inline with how Paizo does things, like one suggestion of wave casting with better melee capabilities. That's giving up something to gain something else. Sorry but I don't feel or think giving them full spellcasting capabilities while shifted should even be on the table. Right now there is actually a good reason to pick something besides casters, this would start heading in the opposite direction. If I can strike as good as a martial while maintaining full spellcasting why play a martial at all? And this is coming from someone who's favorite class in 2E is the Magus.

This is sounding an awful lot like a straw man given how I have specifically advocated for a heavily specialized Untamed Druid to approach a martial class a bit better when transformed, not be "just as capable". The example given was of a half-baked class archetype, as opposed to the properly-made wave casters with significantly more tangible power, and the tradeoffs are not, in my opinion, at all balanced -- not when the Druid can already exceed martials on Strike accuracy at certain levels right now and still be demonstrably behind in performance, yet also still satisfying. Even with master Strikes and the +2 bonus from untamed form, you would still not be Striking "as good as a martial", because your Strikes will be dealing less base damage before even starting to factor in class features, weapon traits, and martial feats. You would, however, be able to bridge the gap that appears specifically at high level when battle forms fall off further relative to martial classes, even with untamed form. This is, again, not about giving the Druid something they don't have already at some point in their leveling, it's just about maintaining that benefit across all levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Teridax wrote:
Riddlyn wrote:
TBH this sounds a lot like I want a full caster just as capable as a martial. You can try to spin that how you will but that's how you come off. Some have offered alternatives more inline with how Paizo does things, like one suggestion of wave casting with better melee capabilities. That's giving up something to gain something else. Sorry but I don't feel or think giving them full spellcasting capabilities while shifted should even be on the table. Right now there is actually a good reason to pick something besides casters, this would start heading in the opposite direction. If I can strike as good as a martial while maintaining full spellcasting why play a martial at all? And this is coming from someone who's favorite class in 2E is the Magus.
This is sounding an awful lot like a straw man given how I have specifically advocated for a heavily specialized Untamed Druid to approach a martial class a bit better when transformed, not be "just as capable". The example given was of a half-baked class archetype, as opposed to the properly-made wave casters with significantly more tangible power, and the tradeoffs are not, in my opinion, at all balanced -- not when the Druid can already exceed martials on Strike accuracy at certain levels right now and still be demonstrably behind in performance, yet also still satisfying. Even with master Strikes and the +2 bonus from untamed form, you would still not be Striking "as good as a martial", because your Strikes will be dealing less base damage before even starting to factor in class features, weapon traits, and martial feats. You would, however, be able to bridge the gap that appears specifically at high level when battle forms fall off further relative to martial classes, even with untamed form. This is, again, not about giving the Druid something they don't have already at some point in their leveling, it's just about maintaining that benefit across all levels.

Not on my side it isn't. With the situation you described here, +2 bonus from untamed form and master strikes you would definitely be striking just as well as a martial. And no I'm not factoring in any of that stuff because you aren't factoring in the Druid's casting. So what you wouldn't be doing is damage on the same level as a martial. Striking and damage are not the same and that is how you just equated them. Again you are still coming across as wanting full martial capabilities on a spellcaster without a tradeoff. Being able to strike and damage as well as full legendary spellcasting is quite a bit more than anyone else gets.

Silver Crusade

Teridax wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Have you actually PLAYED an Animist at high levels? Quite serious question, I'm genuinely curious.
Yes, I have, and much of what you're saying doesn't track at all for me.

Thank you for the reply (sincere, not snark).

So, our experiences are radically different. It would be interesting to try and figure out exactly WHY our experiences are different but this doesn't seem the thread for it.

But at least I better understand why you think the druid needs something. Although I'd have thought that the better answer (from your point of view) would be to nerf the Animist. If its eating the druids lunch it is also eating other spellcasters lunch. For example, Garden of Healing is WAY, WAY better than Healers Font for out of combat healing and not a bad replacement for in combat healing, at least for hit points (yeah, I know, Restorative Channel is VERY good for clerics. Makes them by far the best character in the game for condition removal).

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blue_frog wrote:

To me, the druid is on the weaker side of casters, kind of a jack-of-all-trades, master of none.

That is actually pretty much correct. But you've significantly overstated how much he loses.

When Wild Shaped he is absolutely NOT as good as a full on martial. But he can be very, very close at some levels (even beating the weaker martials), and not too far behind at other levels. And that is from a pure combat point of view. He gains immense flexibility which can be very, very useful in some situations while being almost useless in others.

He is not as good a blaster as a fully focused sorcerer. But (especially with his superb focus spells) he is pretty close.

He is not as good a healer as a cleric, But, again, he is fairly close.

The key to a druid is to take advantage of his flexiblity. In the moderate encounters that are primarily intended to just drain resources you try hard to use no resources except focus points. You toss off a focus spell, wild shape, whatever.

You then get to use your actual spells in the harder encounters.

And every now and then you just destroy encounters or obstacles because of your flexibility. At low levels scent or a movement speed of 50 just solves some problem. At high levels being able to become a dragon just solves some problem. Doesn't happen all of the time but its part of your kit.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Teridax wrote:


as a Druid, you still don't get damage boosters like the Barbarian's Rage or the Rogue's Sneak Attack

Whether or not Battle Forms benefit from things like rage damage is one of the things about Battle Forms that is NOT clear and that Paizo refuses to clarify.

And the amount of table variation with how Battle Forms are treated is doubtless a part of why different people view Battle Forms differently.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't post saying that it is absolutely crystal clear that ... (whichever way you think is crystal clear). Its not. If you want to discuss it go raise from the dead one of the other threads discussing it.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Psychic is much, much higher priority than any tweak on an already amazing druid class.

I'm going to leave the personal attacks to the side, because those do not merit a response. What I will say, however, is that if you believe that the Psychic needs help, then your best move is to advocate for that, not push others down. It is perfectly possible for this thread and that hypothetical Psychic thread to coexist, particularly at a time where there is fairly little forum activity, so there is no need to pretend that one thread needs to be silenced for the other to thrive. Of course, we both know the real issue is that you're not a fan of opinions you disagree with and would see this thread removed if it was in your power, but thankfully you don't, so this thread is here to stay.

Riddlyn wrote:
Not on my side it isn't. With the situation you described here, +2 bonus from untamed form and master strikes you would definitely be striking just as well as a martial.

Okay, let's crack out the math, because this conversation is in dire need of facts.

Let's say you're a 20th-level Untamed Druid with a +6 Strength, and you've used untamed form to enter monstrosity form and use the cave worm form. With fully-upgraded handwraps of mighty blows and master unarmed attack proficiency, your attack modifier is +37, a +1 over, say, a Barbarian. Your most powerful attack deals an average of 39.5 damage, and with a 10% increase from the better accuracy that goes up to 43.45.

Now, let's go back to that Barbarian. You're wielding a greatsword, which at 20th level and with full runes will deal 49.5 damage. Already, we're 14% over the transformed Druid, but we're only just getting started: let's just pick Fury, the most generic and arguably the weakest instinct, which at that level adds a +13 to your damage rolls, bringing your total to 62.5, nearly one and a half times as much damage. Thanks to the devastator class feature, you also naturally ignore 10 points of resistance with each of your attacks. As a Druid, you may want to use Rip and Tear on your second attack for that 7 additional persistent bleed damage, but then as a Barbarian you get the pick of the litter for Strike feats, including Intimidating Strike, Reactive Strike, Follow-Up Assault, Impaling Thrust, Desperate Wrath, and Brutal Critical purely as examples of feats that boost your damage output. Not only is the Barbarian better than the Druid at attacking, it's not even close.

Oh, and by the way: should either class find themselves on the receiving end of a 9th-rank heroism, the Barb gets a +3 while the Druid gets a +1 to their Strikes. That too makes a difference.

Riddlyn wrote:
And no I'm not factoring in any of that stuff because you aren't factoring in the Druid's casting.

This sounds more like an excuse to just not do the math. Thankfully, I did it for you, so you don't have to worry about it anymore!

And yes, that Untamed Druid would be a full 3-slot caster (albeit, in the above example, one with a -1 to all their spell saves and DCs). That is in fact something I've acknowledged; the point being made is that martial classes, by virtue of not just being weapons on legs, also happen to have a lot of other things going for them that are equally good. The above Barbarian, for example, will have 80 more Hit Points than the Druid, a +4 to AC over the Druid in monstrosity form (or a +5 with Invulnerable Rager), and raging resistance. Their weapon will also have a trait to play with, like the sweep trait for a greataxe, and by virtue of their property runes will also be able to do a variety of other things like trigger weaknesses or do additional effects on a crit (oh, and by the way, the Barbarian gets crit specialization too). Even if the Druid were to have master Fort saves, the Barbarian would still have a comparative +2 to those saves, along with the degree of success bumps and halved damage on a failure that comes with the greater juggernaut feature. The Druid would certainly have a lot of power, but then so would the Barbarian, and what's more, the Barbarian can actually use that power while raging, unlike the Untamed Druid fighting while shapeshifted.

Riddlyn wrote:
So what you wouldn't be doing is damage on the same level as a martial. Striking and damage are not the same and that is how you just equated them. Again you are still coming across as wanting full martial capabilities on a spellcaster without a tradeoff. Being able to strike and damage as well as full legendary spellcasting is quite a bit more than anyone else gets.

And you're starting to sound like someone trying to have a very one-sided conversation by not actually listening to what the other person is telling you. Now that I've plainly laid out the math, hopefully it should be clear that what I'm asking for is very much not equality in martial power between the Druid and martial classes -- again, not even close. I don't want the Untamed Druid to equalize with martial classes in damage, and as demonstrated by the above, that's not something my proposals would bring about. What I am asking is for a continuation of benefits that already exist in the Druid now -- and once again, I can prove this.

Just as a very simple example: at 3rd level, untamed form lets you transform into an animal from animal form. Because you can start with a +3 Strength mod and get a +2 while other martial classes would only have a +4 Strength mod, your attack modifier would be, you guessed it, at a +1 over martial classes. In other words: the thing you are crying wolf about is already happening right now, just at a lower level where martial classes have even less differentiation to set them apart from the class that that stage has 5 spell slots to play with already.

And that's really what tires me in these sorts of discussions: there's a lot of opinionated comments going around, but very few people actually willing to substantiate their claims. You had every opportunity to run the math yourself and see just how wide the gap was, but instead you chose to repeat the same platitudes and refuse to move conversation forward in any productive way. You can easily do better than this, and I at least hope you will respect that I have taken the time and effort to show my work here.

pauljathome wrote:
Although I'd have thought that the better answer (from your point of view) would be to nerf the Animist. If its eating the druids lunch it is also eating other spellcasters lunch.

Oh, I couldn't agree more. I loathe the Animist's balancing with a passion, to an extent that is almost certainly irrational, and I would very much like for their design to be changed so that their entire mission statement is no longer to invalidate other classes. However, I also think the Druid could use some core feature improvements at very high levels. It's very much a case of "¿Por qué no los dos?"

pauljathome wrote:

Whether or not Battle Forms benefit from things like rage damage is one of the things about Battle Forms that is NOT clear and that Paizo refuses to clarify.

And the amount of table variation with how Battle Forms are treated is doubtless a part of why different people view Battle Forms differently.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't post saying that it is absolutely crystal clear that ... (whichever way you think is crystal clear). Its not. If you want to discuss it go raise from the dead one of the other threads discussing it.

No, no, I fully agree with you here too. I think the rules for battle forms are ambiguous, and more generally I take major issue with several ways in which battle forms were implemented in PF2e, to the point where I even homebrewed a completely different structure for them. Independently from the Druid, I would like to see the rules for battle forms clarified once and for all, if not rewritten so that they don't flat-out downgrade your character when not heightened to a high rank. But as you mention, that's a discussion for another thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I must admit that I share the opinion that Druid starts out strong, but loses steam at higher levels. Now, a strong start and being a full primal caster makes for a perfectly playable character, definitely also at the higher levels, but you really start feeling your specific druid stuff starting to lag behind.

Animal has well-known issues at higher levels, and, well, especially in FA games, everyone who wants one can have an animal companion comparable to yours. So, besides not being unique enough, even with the feat investment doesn't scale well into the higher levels.

Fixing the scaling, which really ought to be done anyway as it would benefit all companion-using classes and archetypes, and adding some unique druid-specific benefits to their companions should go a long way.

Untamed also asks for way too many feats for what you get at higher levels. While your accuracy is okayish, your damage and especially your defenses become abysmal. It's still crazy good utility and mobility though, so not worthless, but in fights where you don't want to use resources most of the time you're better off sticking to tempest surge, pulverizing cascade and even just electric arc.

I mean, I've seen it been useful in combat at higher levels, but way too rarely. With the feat investment it requires, it should be more impactful and character defining.

But again, it's mostly fixing the scaling of damage and defenses, perhaps also giving some form feats for free if you go Untamed, and battleforms really ought to get some clarifications in general anyway.

The Druid's core package is solid enough, just some polishing needed at higher levels. Even if it is on the more general level of tweaking all companion and battleform numbers so they scale better and not even touch anything specific for druids that would be great.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Lamp Flower wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Divine Font? That ability is boring and loses its advantages past the low levels where very few PCs are getting dropped and in combat healing is a waste of resources.

I'm curious what you mean by this. If past the low levels very few PCs are going down and in-combat healing is not needed, are you dying from something other than damage or is every fight just a curb stomp? Is the action cost simply too high?

Combats are a lot more unpredictable in the early levels, but I still think healing in combat stays useful in nearly every fight that isn't an automatic victory even in later levels. If an enemy spends actions dealing damage and you heal that damage away, you're essentially taking actions away from the enemy, which tends to be useful. Even if you only want to heal when someone goes down, that still means you want to have healing as an option for when that happens. If your survival isn't threatened, healing doesn't matter, but neither does anything else. Unless it's an encounter where you aren't directly threatened and instead need to stop the enemy in time or something. In my experience, those encounters are the exception, not the rule.

Your hit point levels are so high as you level that the need for combat healing due to sudden crits is far lower.

My level 18 barbarian at the moment has 348 hit points. It's very hard to bring that down to a level in a single combat where I need healing during that combat.

So you wait out the fight and do Medicine between combat healing and your fine. Thus the reliance on Divine Font is far, far lower.

Whereas in those early levels as discussed in another thread a while back, a single crit my reduce your hit points to near death requiring combat healing fairly often. Those fonts are great to have to shore up the hit points in those early level combats.

You keep fighting at higher levels. If your hit points stay above or around 50, then you're ok to wait until between combat healing. Thus...

To me, it sounds like your combats aren't all that dangerous. To be fair, most combats in this game aren't meant to be. Some combats are still going to be threatening, unless maybe the combats aren't balanced correctly, or, perhaps more likely, the players at your table are very good at the game and the breadth of options available to PCs makes higher level combats easy for experienced players. In any case, I'd rather try to optimize for the situations where things go wrong, even if those are rare.

If your combats are tuned to a difficulty where you're never going to be afraid, what can you even optimize for? Adding more healing doesn't help if no one is going to go down anyway, but adding more damage won't make survival more likely either. What's the goal then? Lowering TTK? Big number = good? I think those are both very valid, but I would summarize my goal as "not dead = good". Because of that, I'm not really worried about combats that have no risk of character death. They have their place in the game, but optimization doesn't really matter in them.

I completely agree with your point about table (and even adventuring day) variance, though. I think the same thing applies to a lesser extent to spell slots in general. It's the reason I don't like slots/rank being part of a caster's power budget. I'm kind of hoping they abolish spell slots in 3e. The problem is a lot more noticeable with divine font, as spamming all your high rank slots in the only fight of the day isn't very useful if all those slots are heal spells. Versatile font can help with this, but harm has its own issues.


The distinction between "striking" and "damage" is really just an argument about semantics. I'd call the overall ability to use the Strike action well a characters ability to strike well. Chance to hit (and crit) is "accuracy" and damage is "damage". Doesn't really matter what they're called, as long as we can agree on the meanings.

I'm a bit wary of giving druids master in weapons. I'm not convinced it'd be too strong, but I definitely could see it being too strong. Druids would still definitely be worse at using the Strike action than martials because the damage on a hit would be lower. Still, having better accuracy might be enough to make druids too good. Being able to use the Strike action almost as well as a martial while having full spellcasting is definitely pretty good.

One option worth considering is simply increasing the status bonus for using your own modifier to a +3 at level 19. It would be a smaller increase, and your chance to hit wouldn't be increased by heroism or fortissimo composition or the like at all.

The usefulness of untamed form lies in its versatility, and that's difficult to evaluate without seeing it in action. As I haven't seen a high level druid in play, I really don't have strong opinions on this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lamp Flower wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Lamp Flower wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Divine Font? That ability is boring and loses its advantages past the low levels where very few PCs are getting dropped and in combat healing is a waste of resources.

I'm curious what you mean by this. If past the low levels very few PCs are going down and in-combat healing is not needed, are you dying from something other than damage or is every fight just a curb stomp? Is the action cost simply too high?

Combats are a lot more unpredictable in the early levels, but I still think healing in combat stays useful in nearly every fight that isn't an automatic victory even in later levels. If an enemy spends actions dealing damage and you heal that damage away, you're essentially taking actions away from the enemy, which tends to be useful. Even if you only want to heal when someone goes down, that still means you want to have healing as an option for when that happens. If your survival isn't threatened, healing doesn't matter, but neither does anything else. Unless it's an encounter where you aren't directly threatened and instead need to stop the enemy in time or something. In my experience, those encounters are the exception, not the rule.

Your hit point levels are so high as you level that the need for combat healing due to sudden crits is far lower.

My level 18 barbarian at the moment has 348 hit points. It's very hard to bring that down to a level in a single combat where I need healing during that combat.

So you wait out the fight and do Medicine between combat healing and your fine. Thus the reliance on Divine Font is far, far lower.

Whereas in those early levels as discussed in another thread a while back, a single crit my reduce your hit points to near death requiring combat healing fairly often. Those fonts are great to have to shore up the hit points in those early level combats.

You keep fighting at higher levels. If your hit points stay above or around 50, then you're ok to wait

...

Single bosses should be incredibly easy for you at high level no matter what they throw at you, even level+4. You have such an action advantage over single bosses with far more tactical options, this type of fight should not be a problem.

Group fights with mini-bosses are the hardest fights putting the most pressure on hit point pools. Even these fights should be mostly in you favor if you build a group with at least two blasters. Two blasters should be able to level groups at high level.

No, fights are not set too weak. Well built groups wield massive power with a massive array of tactics a DM would have to work very hard to counter. It's not as easy as PF1, but still fairly easy.

The most dangerous fights are:

1. Groups with powerful casting ability.

2. Groups with some kind of special attack.

Even these fights are rare and do not require a healing font caster to survive.

Healing fonts are highly limited, situational, and can't really be used for much else as even the feats to enhance Divine Font are pretty poor unless you're fighting undead. Then it might useful. In an undead heavy campaign, a cleric would be more valuable.

The bottom line is the druid is a very versatile caster with enough healing power to handle the majority of healing you need as you level past the low levels.

What do you mean what do you optimize for? To win without having to use excessive healing to achieve victory. If you are optimally built to do damage and control fights, then you need less healing.

You are asking a very strange question. To me parties that are built poorly and play poorly would require more healing and thus a cleric might appear more valuable. Well built parties with optimal tactics reduced reliance on healing by killing fast so the enemy inflicts less damage.

So the answer to a lot of your questions is yes. TTK, damage, and the like is what we optimize for. It allows us to handle encounters that would wipe the floor with the average party with minimal in combat healing.

Druids are very, very good as a group caster due to the damage/healer role in a single caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Blue_frog wrote:

To me, the druid is on the weaker side of casters, kind of a jack-of-all-trades, master of none.

That is actually pretty much correct. But you've significantly overstated how much he loses.

When Wild Shaped he is absolutely NOT as good as a full on martial. But he can be very, very close at some levels (even beating the weaker martials), and not too far behind at other levels. And that is from a pure combat point of view. He gains immense flexibility which can be very, very useful in some situations while being almost useless in others.

He is not as good a blaster as a fully focused sorcerer. But (especially with his superb focus spells) he is pretty close.

He is not as good a healer as a cleric, But, again, he is fairly close.

The key to a druid is to take advantage of his flexiblity. In the moderate encounters that are primarily intended to just drain resources you try hard to use no resources except focus points. You toss off a focus spell, wild shape, whatever.

You then get to use your actual spells in the harder encounters.

And every now and then you just destroy encounters or obstacles because of your flexibility. At low levels scent or a movement speed of 50 just solves some problem. At high levels being able to become a dragon just solves some problem. Doesn't happen all of the time but its part of your kit.

This is pretty much how I've seen the druid work. They can apply enough in so many different situations that the aggregate power of the druid far exceeds almost any caster in the game.

You have to be the kind of player that understands the best action to use during play. If all you want to do is cast a spell every round, druid isn't for you. If you want to use a wide array of abilities to add amazingly versatile damage and capability to a group, nothing really beats the druid.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I never really touched Battle Forms but what is their biggest issue? I heard that they have them in this thread but not sure what that could possibly be. Rewriting them could give a good reason to introduce a Shifter class which is a Druid or Barbarian Class Archetype which trades spells or gives wave casting for truly powerful Wildshape options such as DPS Form or perhaps a choice between DPS Form or Tank Form. Would be quite fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do think the feeling of caution around letting casters become really good at martial things is valid in and of itself: after all, we've likely all seen how easy it is for casters to beat martials at their own game with the wrong balancing, whether it's in PF1e or other systems, or even just do enough of a martial's job that they end up doing too much overall. One of the reasons why I moved to PF2e in the first place was because I was fed up with how little agency I had as a martial class in another tabletop system, and love how this game lets my martial characters truly shine at all levels alongside the party casters.

In addition to this, however, one of the reasons why I love PF2e is that it uses consistent rules and math to power its balance, which in turn empowers us to better understand its structure by looking at its components in context. This also makes it very easy to compare certain elements, because the game's balance framework is consistent enough to allow that kind of comparison. If, for instance, the concern is about a Druid overpowering martials by matching their Strike modifier or exceeding it by 1, then one can see if this happens already (it does, with matching modifiers at levels 5-9 and 15-16, and the Druid having a higher modifier at levels 3-4 and 11-12), and determine whether that toe-treading occurs in those instances (it doesn't). Although this by itself isn't a 100% surefire comparison, as Pathfinder has a lot more moving parts to its math, it does help establish a concrete precedent and situate those concerns in better context.

So, in this respect, the answer to the general question of: "is it overpowered for a Druid in untamed form to have a higher attack mod than most martial classes?" I'd say is a pretty definite "no", because the Druid already does this across several levels and very much doesn't eat the lunch of martial classes. The more specific question of whether it's overpowered for this to happen at levels 19-20 is perhaps a little harder to answer, as there's no direct precedent for that, but if we look at what a polymorphed Druid can do relative to martial classes at those levels and compare that to earlier levels, I'd say the answer is still no. In fact, I would argue the opposite: the fact that the Druid loses the edge in attack modifier that they get at earlier levels is precisely what's causing their battle forms to fall off, and this drop in performance has been noted by several more people on this very thread. Furthermore, as other people have also noted, the Druid's other gish builds also suffer, because the gap in Strike accuracy ends up widening so much that the class has difficulty leveraging Pristine Weapon even as a single Strike alongside spellcasting, along with spells such as blazing armory, ferrous form, or wooden fists. Although a proficiency bump to the Druid's Strikes at very late levels could still have a risk of overpowering them, it would also be able to address several of their issues at once by extending benefits they already have to late levels. This is ultimately what this thread is about: it's not asking for anything the Druid doesn't already have, just for them to keep what they have through to higher levels.

ElementalOfCuteness wrote:
I never really touched Battle Forms but what is their biggest issue?

Battle forms have quite a few different issues from my experience:

  • Their scaling is incredibly rigid, because battle forms give you fixed statistics that mostly don't change unless a heightened entry says so. This causes battle forms to inevitably fall off, to the degree where if you cast a battle form spell at a much lower rank, you end up severely downgrading your stats.
  • As pauljathome mentions, the rules for battle forms could use some clarity: for starters, they could benefit from their own descriptive trait separate from the polymorph trait, but on top of that the bit about "the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties" is ambiguous. A strict RAW interpretation suggests that you don't benefit at all from additional damage granted by effects like weapon specialization, Rage, or Sneak Attack, because battle forms tend to list a damage bonus among their statistics, but because the examples cited only refer to bonuses and penalties, it suggests that this may be an unintended overreach, much like the incorporeal trait stating creatures can't attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures when the generally agreed-upon ruling is that this immunity only applies to Strength-based skill checks to avoid screwing over most martial classes.

    There are other issues as well, including that these forms tend to be terrible on martial characters (which is relevant when you get battle forms from ancestry feats or class feats like Dragon Transformation that need heavy adjustments to work), but the above two I'd say are the main pain points. For all the discussion about the utility offered by battle forms, my opinion is also that we could stand to have more battle form spells, and many of them could stand to offer more distinct utility benefits as well.


  • Deriven Firelion wrote:


    What do you mean what do you optimize for? To win without having to use excessive healing to achieve victory. If you are optimally built to do damage and control fights, then you need less healing.

    You are asking a very strange question. To me parties that are built poorly and play poorly would require more healing and thus a cleric might appear more valuable. Well built parties with optimal tactics reduced reliance on healing by killing fast so the enemy inflicts less damage.

    I think what he means is that if your group is optimized, you know how to play your characters and your teamwork is great to the point where healing isn't even needed and combats aren't that tense - like in your group, because everyone plays smoothly - then maybe it's the DM's job to crank it up a notch.

    When our team reliably crushes every AP's encounter without breaking a sweat, our DM usually adds a couple monsters/puts two fights back to back so we don't have a 10mn break/chains encounters to deplete our resources.

    The encounter building table is just an indication, a pretty good one at that for regular groups, but if you're facerolling everything, then nothing prevents you from going overboard with elite templates or extra monsters - as long as all the players are ok with this kind of play, of course.

    For our group, not needing to heal in most fights means the DM severely underestimated us, and there's little enjoyment to be had in easy fights. Fights we like are those who keep us on our toes the whole time, and that's part of the DM's job to give us challenges worthy of us.


    pauljathome wrote:
    Blue_frog wrote:

    To me, the druid is on the weaker side of casters, kind of a jack-of-all-trades, master of none.

    That is actually pretty much correct. But you've significantly overstated how much he loses.

    When Wild Shaped he is absolutely NOT as good as a full on martial. But he can be very, very close at some levels (even beating the weaker martials), and not too far behind at other levels. And that is from a pure combat point of view. He gains immense flexibility which can be very, very useful in some situations while being almost useless in others.

    He is not as good a blaster as a fully focused sorcerer. But (especially with his superb focus spells) he is pretty close.

    He is not as good a healer as a cleric, But, again, he is fairly close.

    The key to a druid is to take advantage of his flexiblity. In the moderate encounters that are primarily intended to just drain resources you try hard to use no resources except focus points. You toss off a focus spell, wild shape, whatever.

    You then get to use your actual spells in the harder encounters.

    And every now and then you just destroy encounters or obstacles because of your flexibility. At low levels scent or a movement speed of 50 just solves some problem. At high levels being able to become a dragon just solves some problem. Doesn't happen all of the time but its part of your kit.

    Well, that's true, except the action economy is horrible.

    You enter a moderate fight and want to conserve your resources by using wild shape ? You just lost a whole turn - not only that but the first turn, usually the most important - doing absolutely nothing. And if you needed a movement speed of 50 to escape or get to someone, let's hope the round you lost didn't matter much.

    You're in wild shape and your healer is down ? You need to change back to heal - and good luck if you were mauling some big monster with AOOs, because there's nothing you can do to avoid it.

    Untamed form makes you incredibly slow to react to the flow of battle.
    You need to battle medicine someone ? You can't.
    You want to chug a potion of cat's eye because someone is covered in smoke ? You can't.
    Someone just turned invisible and it so happens you have revealing light ? You can't.
    You need to dispel a confusion on your barbarian ? You can't.
    Mooks entered the fray and you want to chain lightning ? You can't.

    Well, that's not true, you can - it's just that you lose one action turning back, and you actually lost the two actions you used to wildshape in the first place.

    I love characters who can adapt to fast-paced environments and for all its vaunted flexibility, the Untamed Form Druid is the most cumbersome character in PF2e.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    pauljathome wrote:


    He is not as good a blaster as a fully focused sorcerer. But (especially with his superb focus spells) he is pretty close.

    As for being a blaster:

    1) He cannot have Sorcerous Potency.
    2) As a WIS class, he'll have more trouble dipping into Oracle for Foretell Harm (especially if he wants to melee as well).
    3) He doesn't have the basic bloodline potency effects, nor the shenanigans you can do with explosion of power
    4) His focus spells are great, but so is elemental toss.

    So his 6th level chain lightning will deal 8d12, while a metal sorcerer will deal 8d12 + 6 (sorcerous potency) + 12 (foretell harm) on every target, + 6 on one opponent. 8d12 average is 52, so adding a 35% increase on everyone and 46% on one target is kind of a big deal, especially since the sorcerer has more slots to play with.

    And the sorcerer can add insult to injury by throwing a 6th level elemental toss the same round for 6d8+6 damage.

    If we enter into Explosion of power shenanigans, some targets will also take 6d6 extra damage.

    So, no, the druid is not a good blaster. He's actually the bottom of the blasting barrel, along with wizard (who at least has more slots).


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Blue_frog wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:


    What do you mean what do you optimize for? To win without having to use excessive healing to achieve victory. If you are optimally built to do damage and control fights, then you need less healing.

    You are asking a very strange question. To me parties that are built poorly and play poorly would require more healing and thus a cleric might appear more valuable. Well built parties with optimal tactics reduced reliance on healing by killing fast so the enemy inflicts less damage.

    I think what he means is that if your group is optimized, you know how to play your characters and your teamwork is great to the point where healing isn't even needed and combats aren't that tense - like in your group, because everyone plays smoothly - then maybe it's the DM's job to crank it up a notch.

    When our team reliably crushes every AP's encounter without breaking a sweat, our DM usually adds a couple monsters/puts two fights back to back so we don't have a 10mn break/chains encounters to deplete our resources.

    The encounter building table is just an indication, a pretty good one at that for regular groups, but if you're facerolling everything, then nothing prevents you from going overboard with elite templates or extra monsters - as long as all the players are ok with this kind of play, of course.

    For our group, not needing to heal in most fights means the DM severely underestimated us, and there's little enjoyment to be had in easy fights. Fights we like are those who keep us on our toes the whole time, and that's part of the DM's job to give us challenges worthy of us.

    I'm not sure what is being talked about. So much of this is easy for me to understand, yet seems like a foreign experience to others. More monsters won't matter much. It doesn't change healing dynamics.

    The fights we get in reduce our hit points, but we're very comfortable fighting with around 50 hit points from the large hit point pools you have as you level up.

    My level 18 barbarian has 348 hit points, but he regularly gets knocked under a 100 in a fight and sometimes lower. He's fine sitting at that level. If for some reason, he gets knocked there quickly then a primal healer can kick him up up for another hit or two. You don't need a divine font.

    I know you understand this Blue Frog, but what's better at high level?

    A Divine font level 8 against a group of 6 equal CR creatures with a +2 mini-boss or a level 8 chain lightning or eclipse burst hitting them all for massive damage that accelerates their death?

    Let's say you use the level 8 heal for a 3 action group heal. That is 8d8 healed to the group.

    A level 8 chain lightning is potential 10d12 damage to the enemy group with critical fails doubling damage.

    The healing can't be doubled. There is no save. But the chain lightning or damage spell can do double damage decimating the hit points of the group. You can do this at range ambushing them before they close.

    If you have to single target heal, the level 8 heal may be better than the AOE spells. If you're fighting a single target boss, then you have a control trip martial and a slower with a huge number of level 3 slow slots. So you can nearly perma-slow when combined with trip turns a boss monster into a 1 action cakewalk.

    So much of this is on a per fight basis, but this idea you can just make the fight harder tossing on a few monsters really doesn't take into account what are the monsters, how easily can you control them or waste them, is the few extra going to be able to do anything meaningful.

    This is all being discussed absent any context. We don't even use the CR system. We put in challenges far above the CR system and numbers most would balk at. We collapse encounters. Our fights are incredibly difficult.

    That's why when say Mathmuse is discussing encounters using the CR system, I have nothing to add. Our idea of the CR system is take what is there and boost it by 50 to 100 percent, collapse multiple rooms, design enemies with specific spells and abilities for efficient tactical play so they can hang with the PCs.

    Do we consider all our fights difficult? No. Some are, some are middle ground, some are easy. Would our fights be difficult for other groups? Probably. Depends. I'm thinking some groups have a good tactical idea of how to handle numbers like Unicore or Gortle or you Bluefrog.

    To some having multiple rooms collapse on a group or clearing an entire dungeon floor or lair in 10 minutes would be rough for them to handle. A lot of players I've seen are not great a resource management, but my group is very good at resource management. Don't use powerful spells until needed or they will have maximal effect, everyone has stealth, all high value spells (no fluff or experimentation), and go in and crush the area using terrain and chokepoints.

    Same stuff I mention all the time.

    It seems in these discussions people forget I've already covered how hard our fights are. They seem to want to find some point of contention based on something that isn't true. We run at a very high difficulty. We don't waste time with fluff abilities or spells or tactics.

    I'd have see what percentage of the player base can clear whole dungeon levels with 50 percent increase numbers and CR+3 or 4 bosses in under 10 minutes before the herosim runs out to compare what they consider difficult versus what my group considers difficult.

    Just for more context: we run with 4 to 5 players. Today we ran with 3 on a side campaign, but the current campaign we have 5. I like to increase numbers by about 50 percent for five players depending on what they are.


    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    This is all being discussed absent any context. We don't even use the CR system. We put in challenges far above the CR system and numbers most would balk at. We collapse encounters. Our fights are incredibly difficult.

    Out of curiosity, and just to set a bit more of that context you mention, could you list an encounter your party recently fought? Which enemies did you go up against? Which classes are the rest of your party members?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The point is, encounters should be scaled to a point where the party is, at least occasionally, challenged. If the players are playing tactically, encounters need to be more difficult. Clearly your group agrees with this, since you've already pumped up the difficulty.

    Like you said, the difficulty of encounters varies. The way I look at the game, I don't find optimization to be meaningful in the easy fights. You go in, take damage, and heal to full afterwards. Doesn't matter whether it takes you 2 rounds to win or 6, the outcome is the same. Of course, in a more difficult fight the ability to end the fight faster might have been useful, but it didn't matter in that particular fight. Hypothetically, if 1 in 10 fights is difficult enough for optimization to make a difference, the outcome of 9/10 fights is the same regardless. That rare, dangerous fight is the one I'm concerned about. In that fight, someone is at risk of going down. That means that, at the very least, in-combat healing isn't "a waste of resources".

    As for increasing encounter difficulty, the GM is basically omnipotent. I wouldn't expect a solo boss to be a meaningful threat against a high level party that has even a basic understanding of action economy. It would need some sort of ability that allows it to "cheat" against action denial. But that's also one reason why adding enemies can make encounters more difficult. The action economy isn't tipped so much in the party's favor anymore. A regular combat might feel easy, but what about when you're up against Treerazer and his semi-half-cousin with whom he shares three of the same mothers?

    Somewhere between the encounter building rules and "rocks fall, everyone dies" there is a sweet spot where encounters feel meaningfully threatening but aren't the equivalent of the GM giving the party a middle finger. I mean, you mentioned using choke points. What if the enemies start in a position where they can utilize the choke point better than the party can? After all, you would expect intelligent enemies to construct their home in a way that makes it easy to defend. Things like this aren't properly taken into account in the encounter building rules. While they won't create insurmountable challenges, they can at least add some difficulty.

    To reiterate, healing only matters when there's a risk of going down. Optimization, IMO, only matters when there's a risk of dying/failing the current quest, which usually involves going down. Therefore, in any encounter where optimization will affect the outcome, in-combat healing has a meaningful use. Of course, you need less healing if you have good damage, but you also need less damage if you have good healing.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Teridax wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    Psychic is much, much higher priority than any tweak on an already amazing druid class.

    I'm going to leave the personal attacks to the side, because those do not merit a response. What I will say, however, is that if you believe that the Psychic needs help, then your best move is to advocate for that, not push others down. It is perfectly possible for this thread and that hypothetical Psychic thread to coexist, particularly at a time where there is fairly little forum activity, so there is no need to pretend that one thread needs to be silenced for the other to thrive. Of course, we both know the real issue is that you're not a fan of opinions you disagree with and would see this thread removed if it was in your power, but thankfully you don't, so this thread is here to stay.

    Riddlyn wrote:
    Not on my side it isn't. With the situation you described here, +2 bonus from untamed form and master strikes you would definitely be striking just as well as a martial.

    Okay, let's crack out the math, because this conversation is in dire need of facts.

    Let's say you're a 20th-level Untamed Druid with a +6 Strength, and you've used untamed form to enter monstrosity form and use the cave worm form. With fully-upgraded handwraps of mighty blows and master unarmed attack proficiency, your attack modifier is +37, a +1 over, say, a Barbarian. Your most powerful attack deals an average of 39.5 damage, and with a 10% increase from the better accuracy that goes up to 43.45.

    Now, let's go back to that Barbarian. You're wielding a greatsword, which at 20th level and with full runes will deal 49.5 damage. Already, we're 14% over the transformed Druid, but we're only just getting started: let's just pick Fury, the most generic and arguably the weakest instinct, which at that level adds a +13 to your damage rolls, bringing your total to 62.5, nearly one and a half times as much damage. Thanks to the devastator class feature, you also...

    I didn't fail to do the math, I chose not to because then I'd have to do both sides of the equation. You conveniently listed the Barb's damage but forgot to add the corresponding damage for the druid. I mean in your scenario the druid can cast a tempest surge before attacking dealing 9d12 then striking or casting a 9th or 10th rank spell before striking. I fully read what you said and understood it, I just don't agree and these are some of the reasons why. And it doesn't change the fact that to me you are coming across as wanting to be a full caster who can deal melee damage on par with a martial. The fact that a druid who is a full spellcaster can strike as well as a martial is amazing seeing as spellcasters top out at expert in weapons.

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Riddlyn wrote:
    Teridax wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    Psychic is much, much higher priority than any tweak on an already amazing druid class.

    I'm going to leave the personal attacks to the side, because those do not merit a response. What I will say, however, is that if you believe that the Psychic needs help, then your best move is to advocate for that, not push others down. It is perfectly possible for this thread and that hypothetical Psychic thread to coexist, particularly at a time where there is fairly little forum activity, so there is no need to pretend that one thread needs to be silenced for the other to thrive. Of course, we both know the real issue is that you're not a fan of opinions you disagree with and would see this thread removed if it was in your power, but thankfully you don't, so this thread is here to stay.

    Riddlyn wrote:
    Not on my side it isn't. With the situation you described here, +2 bonus from untamed form and master strikes you would definitely be striking just as well as a martial.

    Okay, let's crack out the math, because this conversation is in dire need of facts.

    Let's say you're a 20th-level Untamed Druid with a +6 Strength, and you've used untamed form to enter monstrosity form and use the cave worm form. With fully-upgraded handwraps of mighty blows and master unarmed attack proficiency, your attack modifier is +37, a +1 over, say, a Barbarian. Your most powerful attack deals an average of 39.5 damage, and with a 10% increase from the better accuracy that goes up to 43.45.

    Now, let's go back to that Barbarian. You're wielding a greatsword, which at 20th level and with full runes will deal 49.5 damage. Already, we're 14% over the transformed Druid, but we're only just getting started: let's just pick Fury, the most generic and arguably the weakest instinct, which at that level adds a +13 to your damage rolls, bringing your total to 62.5, nearly one and a half times as much damage. Thanks to the devastator

    ...

    Can Druids in "Battle-form" cast spells?


    Riddlyn wrote:
    I didn't fail to do the math, I chose not to because then I'd have to do both sides of the equation. You conveniently listed the Barb's damage but forgot to add the corresponding damage for the druid.

    So this is a lie:

    Teridax wrote:

    Let's say you're a 20th-level Untamed Druid with a +6 Strength, and you've used untamed form to enter monstrosity form and use the cave worm form. With fully-upgraded handwraps of mighty blows and master unarmed attack proficiency, your attack modifier is +37, a +1 over, say, a Barbarian. Your most powerful attack deals an average of 39.5 damage, and with a 10% increase from the better accuracy that goes up to 43.45.

    [...]

    As a Druid, you may want to use Rip and Tear on your second attack for that 7 additional persistent bleed damage, but then as a Barbarian you get the pick of the litter for Strike feats, including Intimidating Strike, Reactive Strike, Follow-Up Assault, Impaling Thrust, Desperate Wrath, and Brutal Critical purely as examples of feats that boost your damage output.

    Not off to a good start, then.

    Riddlyn wrote:
    I mean in your scenario the druid can cast a tempest surge before attacking dealing 9d12 then striking or casting a 9th or 10th rank spell before striking.

    As Aristophanes gently tried to suggest, you can't cast spells while in a battle form. If you want to factor in tempest surge then sure, you spend two actions dealing 65 damage, less than the damage you'd get to do with your battle form Strikes, and with a -1 to your spell attacks and DC, but then you'd have to also spend two more actions casting untamed form to start Striking properly, which you'd only be able to do on your next turn. You clearly did not think this through.

    Riddlyn wrote:
    I fully read what you said and understood it, I just don't agree and these are some of the reasons why. And it doesn't change the fact that to me you are coming across as wanting to be a full caster who can deal melee damage on par with a martial. The fact that a druid who is a full spellcaster can strike as well as a martial is amazing seeing as spellcasters top out at expert in weapons.

    I don't think any key part of what you've just said is true. You clearly did not fully read what I posted, because you claimed I didn't factor in the Druid's damage when I very much did, and explicitly mentioned the feat they can use to deal persistent bleed damage. I don't think you understood what I had to say, nor even how the Druid really works in practice, because you either believed the Druid can cast spells while polymorphed or simply forgot the action and turn cost associated with casting a spell, then entering a battle form in the middle of combat. You keep insisting that the Druid "can strike as well as a martial" when the above demonstrates that no, they don't, it's not even close. Finally, as I have now stated numerous times and substantiated with supporting math: I very much don't want the Druid to deal melee damage on par with a martial. As demonstrated by the above math, that simply would not happen with the changes I suggested. Not only that, but the Druid already matches or exceeds the attack modifier of martials while in untamed form across several levels, and that is demonstrably not enough for the caster to eat their lunch.

    All of which is to say: you had ample opportunity in this discussion to act in good faith, verify your claims, and change your opinion in the face of new evidence. You have done exactly none of this, and instead have preferred to exercise willful ignorance, knowingly repeating false claims even after they have been disproven. Thus, given this evidence, I get the impression you're not really here to argue in good faith, so much as cast aspersions that you're intent on repeating no matter how false they are. I'd ask you to please not do this, particularly as it's become pretty apparent that you're actively avoiding engaging in any kind of dialogue.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Teridax wrote:
    Riddlyn wrote:
    I didn't fail to do the math, I chose not to because then I'd have to do both sides of the equation. You conveniently listed the Barb's damage but forgot to add the corresponding damage for the druid.
    So this is a lie:

    Let's start here, are you willing to giving up either some spell proficiency or spell slots to increase the melee damage? If the answer is no, which I may have missed somewhere then what I said was very much true.

    And because they can't cast while shifted doesn't mean you shouldn't account for their spellcasting. So that still needs to be factored in especially if you are going to factor other parts of the barbarian kit like rage and resistance.

    So again I read, understood and legitimately disagree disagree with you and the above is the biggest reason why.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    The main problem I see stems from players trying to shoehorn druid in doing only 1 thing. Only forms, or only blasting, or only healing, and etc.

    A damage comparison with a barbarian offers absolutely nothing in the context of balance for the battle forms as an example. Because I don't think anyone is suggesting battleforming on T1 and spend all your turns just striking being something "optimal" (regardless if your fantasy is a character that's shifts and strikes, you should probably wait for Shifter or try a fighter/druid for just doing that.).

    You battleform after your initial barrage, or for utility, or for special reasons where you absolutely need heavy Strikes.

    Druid, alongside bard, are imo the 2 strongest casters in the game. For different reasons, but druid relies on their flexibility to reach that spot. No one can match their flexibility. And they get that on top of being a 10th rank caster.

    Sorcerer may be build for higher damage, Cleric has higher healing, wizard more spells, animist better gish potential, but druid combines most of the above bonuses without sacrificing much in output.

    And that's what makes the class, when properly utilised, so strong.


    Riddlyn wrote:
    Let's start here, are you willing to giving up either some spell proficiency or spell slots to increase the melee damage? If the answer is no, which I may have missed somewhere then what I said was very much true.

    Question: do you have anything to substantiate the claim that the Druid would need to give something up to keep a benefit they already have at early levels? Because if not, then no part of what you’re saying here is true.

    Oh, and follow-up question: why is it so important to you that I come across as someone wanting the Druid to Strike as well as martial classes? Putting aside how we’ve already gone over how this accusation is false, your only real angle of approach throughout this thread has been trying to make that accusation stick, even after it was thoroughly disproven. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it feels to me like you’re trying very hard to discredit me by trying to paint me as this unreasonable caster supremacist, which doesn’t strike me as a very healthy approach to discussion.

    Riddlyn wrote:
    And because they can't cast while shifted doesn't mean you shouldn't account for their spellcasting. So that still needs to be factored in especially if you are going to factor other parts of the barbarian kit like rage and resistance.

    What makes you think I haven’t? I am in fact discussing the merits of one of their most iconic spells here… as well as its action cost when trying to cast other spells first.

    shroudb wrote:
    A damage comparison with a barbarian offers absolutely nothing in the context of balance for the battle forms as an example. Because I don't think anyone is suggesting battleforming on T1 and spend all your turns just striking being something "optimal"

    A few questions here:

  • Why are the action costs of spellcasting not being factored here? Surely, spending actions just to get ready while the Barbarian keeps doing their thing plays even more in the latter’s favor.
  • Why is it a bad idea to start in a battle form? Saving the action cost of transforming in battle is one of the known benefits of Form Control, for instance.
  • If the Druid is spending lots of time doing things other than Striking, then wouldn’t that surely mean that the advantage of more accurate Strikes is being greatly overstated?

    Really, my big issue with this is that it’s an attempt to dismiss concrete evidence with statements that just aren’t grounded in any sort of fact. There’s no attempt here to quantify the benefits being listed, nor any comparisons made to ground the whole thing in context, unlike the post I made. If you’re just trying to preach to the choir then great, they already agree with you, but I’m not convinced that these kinds of claims are really able to change the mind of someone who doesn’t have their mind already made up.


  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Lamp Flower wrote:

    The point is, encounters should be scaled to a point where the party is, at least occasionally, challenged. If the players are playing tactically, encounters need to be more difficult. Clearly your group agrees with this, since you've already pumped up the difficulty.

    Like you said, the difficulty of encounters varies. The way I look at the game, I don't find optimization to be meaningful in the easy fights. You go in, take damage, and heal to full afterwards. Doesn't matter whether it takes you 2 rounds to win or 6, the outcome is the same. Of course, in a more difficult fight the ability to end the fight faster might have been useful, but it didn't matter in that particular fight. Hypothetically, if 1 in 10 fights is difficult enough for optimization to make a difference, the outcome of 9/10 fights is the same regardless. That rare, dangerous fight is the one I'm concerned about. In that fight, someone is at risk of going down. That means that, at the very least, in-combat healing isn't "a waste of resources".

    As for increasing encounter difficulty, the GM is basically omnipotent. I wouldn't expect a solo boss to be a meaningful threat against a high level party that has even a basic understanding of action economy. It would need some sort of ability that allows it to "cheat" against action denial. But that's also one reason why adding enemies can make encounters more difficult. The action economy isn't tipped so much in the party's favor anymore. A regular combat might feel easy, but what about when you're up against Treerazer and his semi-half-cousin with whom he shares three of the same mothers?

    Somewhere between the encounter building rules and "rocks fall, everyone dies" there is a sweet spot where encounters feel meaningfully threatening but aren't the equivalent of the GM giving the party a middle finger. I mean, you mentioned using choke points. What if the enemies start in a position where they can utilize the choke point better than the party can? After all, you would expect intelligent...

    This has nothing to do with Divine Font or the power of the druid.

    I don't understand why it's being brought up. We found out a long time ago Divine Font is overkill in the majority of encounters. This was years ago shortly after PF2 came out.

    That's why I find it strange that anyone that understands optimal play is bringing up Divine Font as some winning point against the druid. It isn't. It wasn't years ago.

    Divine Font is a decent ability that feels much better at low level when you have fewer spell slots, potions, scrolls, don't have Continual Recovery or Ward Medic, and monsters can rip through your hit point pool with a few hits.

    Divine Font is overkill when you have hundreds of hit points, tons of spell slots, magic items with healing, and can recover to max hit points between battles with Continual Recovery and Ward Medic and such.

    Yes. Sometimes you build an encounter to be really challenging. But that isn't close to enough times to make Divine Font seem great at high level. If you're needing that much healing, something has gone very wrong for you and your group.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Aristophanes wrote:
    Riddlyn wrote:
    Teridax wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    Psychic is much, much higher priority than any tweak on an already amazing druid class.

    I'm going to leave the personal attacks to the side, because those do not merit a response. What I will say, however, is that if you believe that the Psychic needs help, then your best move is to advocate for that, not push others down. It is perfectly possible for this thread and that hypothetical Psychic thread to coexist, particularly at a time where there is fairly little forum activity, so there is no need to pretend that one thread needs to be silenced for the other to thrive. Of course, we both know the real issue is that you're not a fan of opinions you disagree with and would see this thread removed if it was in your power, but thankfully you don't, so this thread is here to stay.

    Riddlyn wrote:
    Not on my side it isn't. With the situation you described here, +2 bonus from untamed form and master strikes you would definitely be striking just as well as a martial.

    Okay, let's crack out the math, because this conversation is in dire need of facts.

    Let's say you're a 20th-level Untamed Druid with a +6 Strength, and you've used untamed form to enter monstrosity form and use the cave worm form. With fully-upgraded handwraps of mighty blows and master unarmed attack proficiency, your attack modifier is +37, a +1 over, say, a Barbarian. Your most powerful attack deals an average of 39.5 damage, and with a 10% increase from the better accuracy that goes up to 43.45.

    Now, let's go back to that Barbarian. You're wielding a greatsword, which at 20th level and with full runes will deal 49.5 damage. Already, we're 14% over the transformed Druid, but we're only just getting started: let's just pick Fury, the most generic and arguably the weakest instinct, which at that level adds a +13 to your damage rolls, bringing your total to 62.5, nearly one and a half times as much damage.

    ...

    No. But you can use dragon breath weapons and combat maneuvers. You can cast a spell prior to going into battle form with a sustain then sustain it with effortless concentration in battle form.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    You're not trying to beat the barbarian at damage in every fight. As a druid you're like this jack of all trades adding something highly effective every fight.

    What showed me the power of the druid?

    At low level I started off with Tempest Surge, a good focus spell, built up archery for my weapon. My standard attack sequence in the early levels was to Tempest Surge and shoot my bow or electric arc and shoot my bow.

    Then about level 5 you get your first fireball. Then you pick up order explorer, grab Untamed Form. You start mixing things up. Drop a Tempest Surge here or there, may be turn into a bear or gorilla or cat do some martial damage, drop a fireball on a group followed by electric arc then use your bow for some more damage.

    You got a fort wall or some scouting to deal with, turn into a climbing gorilla to climb over the fort wall and open gates or drop a rope.

    At level 5 and every ability level, you max out your four core stats: Str, Dex, Con, Wis.

    Pick up more forms, max out athletics, get higher move speeds, reach, and the like in your forms. Use them when they fix to do some martial damage, drop a breath weapon, or do maneuvers at reach.

    The druid doesn't really have this locked in playstyle.

    In some fights, they'll do less than the martials in other fights when they can drop a big AOE they'll do more. In the end it all adds up to a huge amount of damage, utility, and versatile abilities that allow them affect a battle in ways that allow easier victory.

    They're probably the most effective and versatile caster in the game. Are they as well-liked as the bard? No. Bard buffs everyone, so people don't care. Whereas the druid is stealing the show themselves.

    You can't really focus the damage comparison between a druid and a martial when the martial is doing this very specific strike every battle. The druid might open with a chain lightning followed by an arrow shot, then go into a battle form and start physically attacking using a breath weapon, followed by a maneuver.

    Then next fight they may stay in regular form using electric arc and a bow for the entire fight not wasting resources because the fight is easier.

    Then they might drop a heal here or there or a slow with another blast spell.

    Each fight can be very different for a druid. Whereas the barbarian goes in, rages, starts swinging fight after fight.

    I have found tracking damage that over the course of battles the druid ends up on par or ahead of the martials when you add up all their damage. It was a surprising finding when I tracked it. The druid proved so useful and versatile over the course of an adventure, I had to put it as a high tier power class due to all the ways it added to fights over the course of an adventure.

    You have to use the abilities and develop an good intuition on when to use them. If you go into every fight looking to blast every battle, you'll be disappointed. The druid by its very nature is a jack of all trades adding damage and effectiveness by bringing a whole lot of different options to the table and using them effectively over the course of time. Druid definitely not a class for a player that wants to have a schtick they do over and over again. Druid is for that player that wants to do a lot of different things in many fights operating intuitively with a big toolbox.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    I don't understand why it's being brought up. We found out a long time ago Divine Font is overkill in the majority of encounters. This was years ago shortly after PF2 came out.

    Going to say this is very accurate, having GM'd for a 20th level cleric. You can still only cast one 2-action spells a turn, and a 2 rank lower divine wrath or good old mass fear probably prevents more damage than max rank heal. The cleric ended up using them to heal between encounters... instead of the 30 elixirs they had for the same purpose. The Druid at 20th is casting mass haste/slow out of lower rank slots to 'heal'.

    So yes, the value of max rank heals drop off as the cleric levels up too. It's not zero, especially for warpriests who can use the 1 action more effectively, but saying the Druid can get the combined cloistered/warpriest proficiencies because they don't get Heals is not very accurate.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Teridax wrote:

    Let's say you're a 20th-level Untamed Druid with a +6 Strength, and you've used untamed form to enter monstrosity form and use the cave worm form. With fully-upgraded handwraps of mighty blows and master unarmed attack proficiency, your attack modifier is +37, a +1 over, say, a Barbarian. Your most powerful attack deals an average of 39.5 damage, and with a 10% increase from the better accuracy that goes up to 43.45.

    Now, let's go back to that Barbarian. You're wielding a greatsword, which at 20th level and with full runes will deal 49.5 damage. Already, we're 14% over the transformed Druid, but we're only just getting started...

    What value do you give the druid having full casting while that Bar has no casting? Is "I can also cast chain lightning" worth - to you - more or less than getting +14% on single action martial attacks?

    I think full caster access to the primal list is more valuable than that. You?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Quote:

    Okay, so we really are reducing martial classes to beat sticks on legs. Let's inject a few more facts into this discussion:

    The Barbarian is one of the best classes, if not the best, at disrupting enemies with Athletics checks.
    The Barbarian has many feats that let them do much more than Strike, including toss enemies around, apply a variety of debuffs, barrel around the battlefield, and so on and so forth.
    It is trivially easy for a high-level Barbarian to pick up a spellcasting archetype and cast up to 8th-rank spells for large amounts of utility. By contrast, the Druid can't archetype into comparable Striking power. And yes, casting as a Barbarian requires action costs, with the class being just about the least-suited martial for spellcasting, but even then, the one-action cost to Rage after casting spells in combat is still a lot less than the cost for an Untamed Druid to do the same and then transform.
    So no, the Barbarian isn't just a Striking machine, and it is massively weird that we'd adopt such a reductionist approach while also hyping up the Druid's versatility. There's clearly a double standard at play here.

    Druid can do just fine on maneuvers. When the barb does uses a trip build which I had, it makes it easier for the druid to hit.

    Tossing enemies is bad action economy and a waste of time and damage.

    It is not trivially easy to pick up spellcasting for a barbarian. Rage doesn't allow much spellcasting. How do you not know these things?

    The barbarian is a striking machine. If they use a maneuver unless they take Crashing Slam, they don't do much damage with a trip. I usually take Crashing Slam, which allows me to knock them down with an attack for no check. Then I have MAP and usually generate one Reactive Strike.

    Quote:
    A quick search for the term "rogue", and a look again at your posts, shows this is your first time posting your party composition here. Even now, you are also conspicuously refusing to answer my question, which included an example encounter that your party fought. I'm sorry to say, but it sounds to me like you're still trying pretty hard to avoid giving any substantial context, and I'm pretty curious to know why.

    Oh man, this is rich. What do you want to know? We fought many bosses. We do the same tactics.

    Trip them. Hit them, Slow them, kill them. All done.

    If there are large groups, hit them with your most effective AOE spells. Mass slow if they have problem attacks. Focus fire. Wipe them out. Soften at range if you can.

    Rinse and repeat. Adjust as needed if they are immune to one of your tactics or use some special group set up.

    if you land a Critical miss save on a slow, they are a cakewalk. If you land a regular slow with trip, they are a cakewalk. But a crit miss on a slow is like time to start searching the room while the martials hit it.

    Heal as needed.

    Conserve resources on easy fights. Rely on cantrips or lower level slots or items.

    What do you want to know? If there are four or more targets use a powerful AOE spell like chain lightning or eclipse burst?

    Don't you already know how to end an encounter quickly and build a strong group?

    It's not special rocket science. It's easy. The druid is good at it because they tons of high value abilities.

    Why don't you give an example encounter and I'll tell you how to handle it. I'll make it real easy for you.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Teridax wrote:
    more one-sided stuff

    It is purely in good faith, because while your words may say that you acknowledge the strengths of the class, you keep hoping from one class to another to compare him:

    Pick a SINGLE class/subclass and compare to the Druid.

    At the moment you're saying you are "acknowledging the spellcasting" while you compare him to a barbarian.

    Pick a SINGLE class, and I'll point out what the druid does better than said class.

    He has extremely better spellcasting than a barbarian.
    He's more defensive and a better martial than a cloistered.
    He's much better defensively than a sorc and better in melee.
    And etc.


    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    What exactly are you looking for proof of? My excel logs aren't going to do anything for you. I don't track the individual monsters as they are irrelevant. I wanted to see aggregate damage by all classes blinded to the creatures they were fighting.

    I mean, for starters, literally any shred of evidence for what you're saying. It doesn't seem to me like you actually have any, which given the claims you've made I'd say is quite sus.

    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    Druid can do just fine on maneuvers.

    Remind me how you're using Athletics maneuvers while in monstrosity form?

    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    The barbarian is a striking machine. If they use a maneuver unless they take Crashing Slam, they don't do much damage with a trip.

    Putting aside how you literally just provided the counterexample to your own claim, the Barbarian also has Brutal Bully, Thrash against grabbed targets which leads into Collateral Thrash and Whirlwind Toss, and Furious Grab and Furious Bully for even more reliable maneuvers. The Barbarian is absolutely not just a Striking machine, and getting the class so badly wrong does not cohere in my view with all these self-professed claims of knowing the game better than nearly everyone else.

    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    Oh man, this is rich. What do you want to know? We fought many bosses.

    Okay, which ones?

    shroudb wrote:
    It is purely in good faith, because while your words may say that you acknowledge the strengths of the class, you keep hoping from one class to another to compare him:

    So this is a lie:

    Teridax wrote:
    I mean, for starters, a Cloistered Cleric, who at the level ranges I'm discussing can blast just as well as the Druid while obviously healing far better thanks to their class features. In fact, with the right domains and feats the Cleric can even become a gish powerhouse too. All of which is to say: we should perhaps not be pretending that the Druid is the only versatile class in the game, certainly not at high level.

    Notice how you couldn't even include any of the quote's actual contents in your post, because they would immediately disprove what you're saying. That isn't really arguing in good faith.

    1 to 50 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / The Druid's unique benefits mostly just boil down to free feats All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.