# Help me nerf the druid



## Dykstrav (Jul 3, 2010)

I'm really digging Pathfinder, but it does have one glaring thing that I want to change.

Druids are still a bit too over-powered to me. They can do a bit of everything, and I don't quite want them to be so versatile. They also have a grab-bag of odds-and-ends abilities that are situationally useful and I'd rather not keep up with. I'm trying to make my homebrew's druids a sort of cleric/mage hybrid. Here's what I have in mind. I'd appreciate insights or suggestions.

• Give druids most of the class features of the cleric. Keep the weapon and armor proficiencies and restrictions of the basic druid class. Keep the druid skill list, but give them the cleric's skill points.
• Give druids the choice to either channel positive energy (as the cleric class feature) or to gain wild empathy, and perhaps a few other class features as they gain levels (such as trackless step).
• Druids gain two cleric domains, choosing from the Air, Animal, Earth, Fire, Plant, Water, or Weather domains. If they so desire, a druid may give up access to one domain to gain an animal companion.
• Add the various _beast shape_ spells to the druid's spell list. Instead of spontaneously casting _cure_ spells, the druid can spontaneously cast _beast shape_ spells.

What do you think?


----------



## Noumenon (Jul 3, 2010)

This isn't explained well.  You haven't explained what you're going to take away from the druid, only what you're going to give them, so it sounds like you're just adding a bunch of abilities to the druid... until I get to the line here a druid has to give up a domain to get an animal companion, which implies you're taking away the animal companion.  Are you saying you're taking away _everything_ as a default and then going back to add things in?  In that case, you might as well just make a new class, called the "nature cleric."


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 3, 2010)

Dykstrav said:


> Druids are still a bit too over-powered to me. They can do a bit of everything, and I don't quite want them to be so versatile. They also have a grab-bag of odds-and-ends abilities that are situationally useful and I'd rather not keep up with. I'm trying to make my homebrew's druids a sort of cleric/mage hybrid. Here's what I have in mind. I'd appreciate insights or suggestions.
> 
> • Give druids most of the class features of the cleric. Keep the weapon and armor proficiencies and restrictions of the basic druid class. Keep the druid skill list, but give them the cleric's skill points.
> • Give druids the choice to either channel positive energy (as the cleric class feature) or to gain wild empathy, and perhaps a few other class features as they gain levels (such as trackless step).
> ...




If anything it looks like you are giving them even more versatility?  I agree with the other poster it seems you are giving them more and/or morphing to a nature cleric.  

Maybe you'd be better off finding a class you like in 3.5 that represents the druid image you have in mind and then replace the Pathfinder Druid with that?

Or maybe I am missing what you are going for with the changes you list.


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 8, 2010)

The changes I think I would make are:

1) Wild Shape lasts 1 hour _not_ 1 hour/level.  Perhaps add a feat that would let wild shape last longer (Extended Wild Shape, perhaps 2 hour/wild shape use).

2) Trackless Step grants a +4 bonus against being tracked, plus an additional +1 bonus per level thereafter (an absolute power that renders a skill useless at 3rd level is a bit much).

3) Change Venom Immunity to Venom Resistance, giving the druid a +4 bonus against poisons (rendering a whole class of monsters worthless against the druid takes away a lot of challenges.  If undead can lose their sneak attack invulnerability, I think the druid should lose his "invulnerability" as well). Perhaps give an additional +1 bonus at 13th, 17th and 20th.

My experiences with the druid has been that their shapeshifting ability is the one that causes the most headaches; primarily staying in animal shape and casting spells via Natural Spell.  I really would like to see Natural spell go away or have additional requirements that make it rare for a druid to have.


----------



## Ashtagon (Jul 11, 2010)

Why not just ban the Natural Spell feat? Even without splatbooks, it's is the most obviously broken feat in existence.

I agree with you in general on the "no absolute immunities" thing though (except really obvious things like fire elementals vs fire)


----------



## Dandu (Jul 11, 2010)

Have you looked at the 3.5 edition Player's Handbook 2? They have a Shapeshift variant that made the druid less broken for 3.5; seems like it would be something to look at for inspiration if you want to do something about Wildshape. It also takes away the animal companion, iirc.

Offering a choice between the Shapeshift ability from the PHB2 in place of Wildshape vs an animal companion seems like it would bring the Pathfinder druid down a notch.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 11, 2010)

Trailblazer has a take on the druid I'm fond of.

No spontaneous casting of _summon_.
Remove animal companion, replace with _speak with animals_ at will. Combined with a modification to wild empathy, the DM decides when or if the PC druid gets another mini on the board with a bundle of extra actions per round.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 11, 2010)

Why does the PF Druid need nerfing?  Seems like it got nerfed rather badly while the Cleric and Wizard _gained_ power, at least in terms of class abilities.  Of course, the spell nerfings presumably more than made up for those boosts, since ultimately, it was being full casters and prepared spellcasters that made them so powerful above all else.  So, assuming the spell lists were nerfed equally, why on earth would the Druid need more nerfing over the other two?  They were basically all equal in 3.5 (and non core allowed, Sorc joined their ranks).

Is it because PF thus far is sparse on prestige classes, and while Druid 20 gave interesting stuff aside from spells, a "Wizard 20" or "Cleric 20" in play seldom had more than 5 levels in the actual base class?

(I go with the opinion that it's hatred through lack of understanding or dislike of how "different" the class is from other spellcasters.  The same reason, to a less extreme degree, that causes you to occasionally get some moron who thinks the monk is overpowered because they get all these mystical supernatural abilities unlike anything a Fighter gets.)

Oh, also...Fun With Editing!



Dykstrav said:


> Bards are still a bit too over-powered to me. They can do a bit of everything, and I don't quite want them to be so versatile. They also have a grab-bag of odds-and-ends abilities that are situationally useful and I'd rather not keep up with.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 12, 2010)

I haven't experienced any problems with the druid in game. Doesn't seem like it needs a nerf.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 12, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Why does the PF Druid need nerfing?



Depends on the viewer. For me, it is because for the seat at a table for one player, a druid character brings:

One full-progression spellcasting character, yet can morph into an very capable melee-ist
Whatever beasts that spellcasting character spontaneously summons to the battlefield, sometimes a pair or more of creatures.
The pet of the spellcasting character, sometimes equal or better than the worth of the party melee-ist PC.
Easily three+ character's worth of actions on a board. Most encounters are predicated on how much a character can accomplish per round, spells per round, attacks per round, actions per round. Getting items that grant extra actions per round are pretty enticing (boots of speed, belts of battle) yet the druid brings all that and more as a base class feature.

That's primarily what I see in the druid's arsenal that needs taming.


----------



## Glade Riven (Jul 12, 2010)

Animal Companion is optional (either that or an extra domain), so if you are concerned about that, houserule they have to take the extra domain.

Wild shape is a bit nerfed comparied to 3.5 - If you read through the Beast Form spells, you don't take on the full stats of the critter. There are some minor stat modifications, a few special abilities gained (if that animal has one that is listed), a natural armor bonus, and I assume you gain the natural weapon of the animal (doesn't say in my PDF copy, may have been errataed as I haven't downloaded the latest).

Summoning spells are no worse than any other spellcaster that can get that spell. If it is that annoying, houserule it out.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 12, 2010)




----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 12, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> Depends on the viewer. For me, it is because for the seat at a table for one player, a druid character brings:
> 
> One full-progression spellcasting character, yet can morph into an very capable melee-ist
> Whatever beasts that spellcasting character spontaneously summons to the battlefield, sometimes a pair or more of creatures.
> ...




-Unless things changed from 3E, Druid has the worst spell list of any of the 4 primary casters.  That counts for something.
-All the primary casters can summon.  Nature's Ally are probably slightly more beefy brutes, but Summon Monster's much more versatile.  You care about versatility, right?
-Is this really true?  I never once found an Animal Companion in 3.5 to actually be the equal of a Fighter, even laden with buff spells (and the sheer int limitations affect combat performance sometimes).  Fast forward to PF, Fighter and other martial classes (except Barbarian, which oddly became unplayable, and arguably Monk) got a boost and animal companions got significantly nerfed.  Show me a statted out companion at different levels.  Prove to me they actually can even compete with an equivalent level Fighter.

Actions per round: The Druid gets a companion.  That's the only extra "actions" he has over others, generally!  Clerics can get a companion now, too.  Sorcs and Wizards have familiars, which with creative use can yield extra actions or at the very least extended range on melee touch spells.  ANYONE can summon.


----------



## Xendria (Jul 13, 2010)

I have a Druid Player in my campaign right now, let me touch on the multitude of problems he's had with his character. 

- Trackless step may cover the trail of the character (scent is arguable) but it however does not cover the tracks of the party. This ability can be emulated by a 1st level druid/ranger spell, and is arguably better.

- Yes, druids are immune to Poison. Shall we talk about Paladins? Monks perhaps? Poisons are strong yes, but they are the one class that is immune. If  there is a druid in the party that is immune to poisons, use them on the other 3 to 4 people that are with him. Just cause the druid is immune doesn't mean the entire party is.

- On the note of Wild Shape, let's take a "full caster" Human druid level 5. Str 10 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 10.  15 point-buy, not optimized but rounded out. You turn into ANY medium creature and only gain +2 Str, +2 AC, and an alternative movement or sense. If you turn into a small creature you only gain +2 Dex, +2 AC, +1 to Attack, -1 to CMB/CMD, and an alternative movement or sense. I'm sorry, but losing your armor (assuming it's not Wild) and gaining what? +2 Str? That is not a huge advantage in the slightest. 

- Summoning creatures is strong, especially Nature's Ally. But compare it to a Conjurer with Augment Summoning, buffing his summons and party with haste, all while invisible. The druid pales in comparison.

- The Animal Companion (Depending on when it's size upgrade is) is Decent 1-5, Good 6-10, then falls behind after that. It is never as good as a well played front-line melee combatant. The Summoner's Eidolon will trump any animal companion any day.

- On the action argument. Easily 3+ characters actions are a bit much. In a situation with no enemies using crowd control, you get 3. Druid casts a spell/attacks, mediocre animal companion attacks, mediocre summon attacks. A wizard has 2, more powerful, actions (stronger spell, summoned creature) and a fighter usually does the same amount of damage the companion and summoned creature do.

Overall, you are giving the druid FAR too much credit. Is it a powerful class in the hands of a good player, yes. Are all the classes powerful in the hands of a good player, yes. Part of the responsibility of being a DM is making the game dynamic and interesting for the players. Sometimes you play to their strengths, other times you play around them. I have had to do this with all of my players, you just need to know how to play around them to create a more challenging environment instead of just throwing a big monster at them with poison


----------



## Zurai (Jul 15, 2010)

I'm amazed at all the people who still think Wild Shape is overpowered. It's nothing but a utility ability now. Its combat usefulness to a spellcasting Druid is just about zero. It can still be a powerful combat tool, but only a Druid who sacrifices all the rest of his stats to be competent at combat in the first place. Wild Shape no longer replaces the Druid's stats, it gives him bonuses to stats instead. Your 3.5 8 strength druid is going to be worse than useless even Wild Shaped into a T-Rex.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Jul 16, 2010)

Zurai said:


> I'm amazed at all the people who still think Wild Shape is overpowered. It's nothing but a utility ability now. Its combat usefulness to a spellcasting Druid is just about zero. It can still be a powerful combat tool, but only a Druid who sacrifices all the rest of his stats to be competent at combat in the first place. Wild Shape no longer replaces the Druid's stats, it gives him bonuses to stats instead. Your 3.5 8 strength druid is going to be worse than useless even Wild Shaped into a T-Rex.



Agreed after first look. I had no idea they nerfed Wild Shape. In fact, without multiple monster books and Natural Spell it was never broken in the first place. Now you don't really shapeshift at all. You just look like a bear, you get somewhat stronger, your skin thickens somewhat (to compensate lack of leather armor)... and you get... hmm nothing? I don't even think bears have Scent. You don't even get natural weapons it seems, unless I have misread something. 

I actually liked the druid actually becoming a typical animal specimen. Lots of options for roleplay or clever use of marginal abilities. 

Hmm the only really bad stuff is casting spells while flying innocently in the sky.. which it seem can still be done (with silent spell or Natural Spell). Giving the option of flight at level 4 is just way too soon, as 99% encounters at that level cannot fly themselves and many can't even hurt fliers.


----------



## Glade Riven (Jul 16, 2010)

The Polymorph descriptor (of which wildshape is under) states that you gain natural attacks, size changes to CMB, AC, Steath, etc (everything except stats change, unless noted specifically in the spell). It is also where you find out about your armor AC bonus being ditched in the process (although the wording implies magical bonuses on your armor still apply - just not the origenal item bonus). Eschew materials and Natural Spell feats are still avalable to allow casting in that form, and abilities (such as growing claws from a sorcerer bloodline trait) still can be used.

All this wild shape talk is giving me some ideas, though, for a shapeshifter class..


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 16, 2010)

Friend of the Dork said:


> In fact, without multiple monster books and Natural Spell it was never broken in the first place.



What you mean is it wasn't broken without _any_ monster book.


----------



## Zurai (Jul 16, 2010)

Transbot9 said:


> All this wild shape talk is giving me some ideas, though, for a shapeshifter class..




There's a shapeshifting variant Ranger in the APG ...


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Jul 16, 2010)

Transbot9 said:


> The Polymorph descriptor (of which wildshape is under) states that you gain natural attacks, size changes to CMB, AC, Steath, etc (everything except stats change, unless noted specifically in the spell). It is also where you find out about your armor AC bonus being ditched in the process (although the wording implies magical bonuses on your armor still apply - just not the origenal item bonus). Eschew materials and Natural Spell feats are still avalable to allow casting in that form, and abilities (such as growing claws from a sorcerer bloodline trait) still can be used.
> 
> All this wild shape talk is giving me some ideas, though, for a shapeshifter class..




Hmm thanks for the info will look up the Polymorph descriptor.. too bad one can't just read the spell descriptions anymore to get such details. So you get size changes to CMB(d), but not the same size modifiers to attributes? Thus when you choose a small or even tiny form you retain your 18 str (if you have that)? When you say you get AC, you mean the natural armor? Dex bonus? Anything else?



Jhaelen said:


> What you mean is it wasn't broken without _any_ monster book.




No I meant it wasn't broken with just MM1. Tough? Sure, but not over the top broken. At least I've yet to have a player who got a shape I felt was broken (except any flyer+natural spell).


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 16, 2010)

Friend of the Dork said:


> No I meant it wasn't broken with just MM1.



Well, I'm not an expert on this (I don't have to since I just saved myself the trouble and banned it right away), but I vaguely remember chokers and hydras being broken choices and some cheesy stuff related to a balor's equipment.

I'm sure the CO boards are full of this stuff.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 16, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, I'm not an expert on this (I don't have to since I just saved myself the trouble and banned it right away), but I vaguely remember chokers and hydras being broken choices and some cheesy stuff related to a balor's equipment.
> 
> I'm sure the CO boards are full of this stuff.




He was talking about *WILD SHAPE!!!!!*

I don't think it was even broken with Natural Spell.  Flying inconspicuous bird + spells can be devastating.  But...so can an Improved Invisibility arcanist flying around...


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 16, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> He was talking about *WILD SHAPE!!!!!*



Oh, dear. Sorry about this. 

I think I confused this thread with one over in the legacy forum... move on, nothing to see here


----------



## Shisumo (Jul 16, 2010)

Friend of the Dork said:


> Hmm thanks for the info will look up the Polymorph descriptor.. too bad one can't just read the spell descriptions anymore to get such details. So you get size changes to CMB(d), but not the same size modifiers to attributes? Thus when you choose a small or even tiny form you retain your 18 str (if you have that)? When you say you get AC, you mean the natural armor? Dex bonus? Anything else?



You may have already looked this stuff up, but to answer the question anyway: you get specific size modifications to your physical stats for pretty much any spell in the polymorph school*.  As a rule, shifting to a Medium form gets you +2 Strength, while shifting to a Small form gets you +2 Dex. Tiny forms get +4 Dex and -2 Str (sometimes -4 Strength and/or -2 Con), while Large forms get +4 Strength, -2 Dex and usually +2 Con.  Etc. The typical size modifiers to AC and attacks apply, and there is often, but not always, a specific modifier to natural armor as well.

*Note that, if you are not Medium or Small to begin with, you first take some size modifications to "get to" one of those two before you start appying further modifiers. Giants don't get stronger by shifting to Medium forms.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Jul 17, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> He was talking about *WILD SHAPE!!!!!*
> 
> I don't think it was even broken with Natural Spell.  Flying inconspicuous bird + spells can be devastating.  But...so can an Improved Invisibility arcanist flying around...




Well you can't do that at 4th level (well not without scrolls at least). With Wild Shape you can (or in 3.5, at 5th level). Also imp. invis only last for a few times, while Wild Shape lasts hours or until discontinued (3.5). 

And of course Fly has a very short duration too unless you're talking overland flight. Which IIRC is higher level. 



Shisumo said:


> You may have already looked this stuff up, but to answer the question anyway: you get specific size modifications to your physical stats for pretty much any spell in the polymorph school*.  As a rule, shifting to a Medium form gets you +2 Strength, while shifting to a Small form gets you +2 Dex. Tiny forms get +4 Dex and -2 Str (sometimes -4 Strength and/or -2 Con), while Large forms get +4 Strength, -2 Dex and usually +2 Con.  Etc. The typical size modifiers to AC and attacks apply, and there is often, but not always, a specific modifier to natural armor as well.
> 
> *Note that, if you are not Medium or Small to begin with, you first take some size modifications to "get to" one of those two before you start appying further modifiers. Giants don't get stronger by shifting to Medium forms.




Are you talking about generic modifiers as described in the "Beast form" spell? Well they are a far cry from actual size changes. IIRC you got +8 str, +4 con etc. for going from medium to large (except where noted in spells like enlarge person). 

Now compare it to actually shifting into a brown bear... ouch quite a difference.

BTW just read it... fairly clear that magic armor doesen't work since you don't get the armor bonus. An enhancement bonus to armor would thus be pointless (you can't have +3 magic cotton shirt in 3.75), while enhancement bonuses to natural armor would work indeed. 

You don't get any size changes except where noted by the spell, pretty clear (unless you're not medium or small sized). 

Strangely enough, if you are large and become medium you lose Con, but if you go the other way you don't gain Con... ? 

I couldn't find if you actually are supposed to remove your racial modifiers when you use Beast Shape(Wild Shape).If you do, halflings could gain a net +4 to str (but losing their dex bonus). Are mental stats affected at all?.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 17, 2010)

Friend of the Dork said:


> Well you can't do that at 4th level (well not without scrolls at least). With Wild Shape you can (or in 3.5, at 5th level). Also imp. invis only last for a few times, while Wild Shape lasts hours or until discontinued (3.5).
> 
> And of course Fly has a very short duration too unless you're talking overland flight. Which IIRC is higher level.




6th level.  Need natural spell to cast while in Wild Shape.  And really, 1/day for 5 hours and turning back if you decide you like to participate in a conversation and end it for the day really isn't sustainable.  Level 6 you get the feat and 2/day for 6 hours a pop.

And of course, flying is just an extra perk.  Invisibility and casting alone is pretty sweet, and druids can't really ever make themselves invisible.  I'm sure there's some spell out there or some trick...but most Druids can't, at least.


----------



## Shisumo (Jul 17, 2010)

Friend of the Dork said:


> Are you talking about generic modifiers as described in the "Beast form" spell? Well they are a far cry from actual size changes. IIRC you got +8 str, +4 con etc. for going from medium to large (except where noted in spells like enlarge person).
> 
> Now compare it to actually shifting into a brown bear... ouch quite a difference.



I was talking about the spells in the polymorph spells specifically, which are indeed much different from (and generally much less impressive than) the generic size change modifiers from the Bestiary.



Friend of the Dork said:


> I couldn't find if you actually are supposed to remove your racial modifiers when you use Beast Shape(Wild Shape).If you do, halflings could gain a net +4 to str (but losing their dex bonus). Are mental stats affected at all?.



 You don't lose your racial modifications, and as far as I know, there are no changes to mental stats at all (with the exception of _baleful polymorph_, that is).


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Jul 17, 2010)

Shisumo said:


> I was talking about the spells in the polymorph spells specifically, which are indeed much different from (and generally much less impressive than) the generic size change modifiers from the Bestiary.
> 
> 
> You don't lose your racial modifications, and as far as I know, there are no changes to mental stats at all (with the exception of _baleful polymorph_, that is).




That don't really make sense... you still get the toughness of the dwarf when you polymorph/shift into something else?

The more I read of the Pathfinder rules on this subject the less I like them  

At least in 3.5 there was still a feeling of becoming that animal. Now it's just a few weak bonuses and maybe a speed.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 17, 2010)

Friend of the Dork said:


> That don't really make sense... you still get the toughness of the dwarf when you polymorph/shift into something else?
> 
> The more I read of the Pathfinder rules on this subject the less I like them
> 
> At least in 3.5 there was still a feeling of becoming that animal. Now it's just a few weak bonuses and maybe a speed.




Yup, I hate the PF changes for the same reason.  Instead of revamping the monster entries by HD and CR so a creature could only have a certain range of natural armor bonus (say for a certain HD it could have between a +2 and a +6 depending on how "thick hided" and slow it was) and other features like they should have, PF took the easy way out and just made polymorph abilities into some weird transmuation-illusion crossbreed, where you may look like creature x, but you sure as heck don't have his actual physical qualities.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Jul 17, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Yup, I hate the PF changes for the same reason.  Instead of revamping the monster entries by HD and CR so a creature could only have a certain range of natural armor bonus (say for a certain HD it could have between a +2 and a +6 depending on how "thick hided" and slow it was) and other features like they should have, PF took the easy way out and just made polymorph abilities into some weird transmuation-illusion crossbreed, where you may look like creature x, but you sure as heck don't have his actual physical qualities.




Ah  

Well thanks for info guys anyway. I'm seriously considering house ruling it back to 3.5 rules, but might that make druids too powerful? Do druids really get much new in PF anyway? I compared Animal Companion with 3.5 and it was almost the same. Optional Domains is nice, but usually less powerful than the companions, at least at low-mid levels. 

Anything else I missed?


----------



## Shisumo (Jul 18, 2010)

The reason for it is that it allows Paizo to make new animals, magical beasts, elementals, plant creatures, and so on, without worrying about how each one might overpower the druid.  The spells are balanced - mostly, anyway - so it doesn't matter if the animals are.  I wouldn't change it back, if I were you, but if you do, prepare for the absolute return of (c)oDzilla.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Jul 18, 2010)

Shisumo said:


> The reason for it is that it allows Paizo to make new animals, magical beasts, elementals, plant creatures, and so on, without worrying about how each one might overpower the druid.  The spells are balanced - mostly, anyway - so it doesn't matter if the animals are.  I wouldn't change it back, if I were you, but if you do, prepare for the absolute return of (c)oDzilla.




Since I'm only using the animals in 3.5 MM that won't be a problem for me. CoDzilla never happened in my game and was more a scary story from the Optimization forums. 

You say the spells are balanced? It seems to me the low-level Beast Shape spells are so bad the only usefulness is getting a different type of speed, scent, etc. 

But.. since this system is new for me and my players, I'm inclined to keep it RAW for the time being. Maybe I will change my mind after playtesting, and maybe the druid is powerful enough as it is even with nerfed Wild Shape.


----------



## Gorbacz (Jul 18, 2010)

Druid is a full caster. That's more than enough.


----------



## Kaisoku (Jul 18, 2010)

The change basically means that a Druid who wants to excel at physical combat will need to focus on it, instead of being a wicked spellcaster that could suddenly become a monster in melee combat as well with barely any effort.

Most "battle" clerics need to forgo a high Wisdom score and rely on magic items (+6 Wis headband) to cast their highest level spells, in order to have the base combat stats to be an effective melee character.

The same now applies to Druids. Wildshaping gives a slough of utility, and a decent buff package for going melee, but you need to make a base set of stats that is intended for melee combat (Str and Con at least, and probably Dex too).

Oh, and if you get your Animal Companion a +Int item (or take even one level adjustment to ability scores in Int), he can pick any feat at that point and take advantage of the nice new feats out there (and pump any skill either, for that matter).
Pathfinder has some really nice feats too. Like Vital Strike (4d8 bites anyone?)... or Greater Trip (on a wolf no less). Or Greater Grapple on a grabbing animal.
Plus, the simple idea of the creature learning your language so you can forgo the need of tricks or empathy to get your meaning across. It might not be able to speak back, but complicated commands can be shouted across the battlefield.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 18, 2010)

Kaisoku said:


> The change basically means that a Druid who wants to excel at physical combat will need to focus on it, instead of being a wicked spellcaster that could suddenly become a monster in melee combat as well with barely any effort.
> 
> Most "battle" clerics need to forgo a high Wisdom score and rely on magic items (+6 Wis headband) to cast their highest level spells, in order to have the base combat stats to be an effective melee character.
> 
> The same now applies to Druids. Wildshaping gives a slough of utility, and a decent buff package for going melee, but you need to make a base set of stats that is intended for melee combat (Str and Con at least, and probably Dex too).




Battle Clerics only needed a decent str, dex was a total dump stat ("My class gives me full plate proficiency"), and EVERYONE wanted Con.  The cleric buff spells gave them full BAB, large size, and some stat boosts, a 12 or 14 str was perfectly workable and you could still afford a high wis and good con with that.

Druids in 3.5 needed Wis and Con, and some Dex, as getting into a fight out of wildshape is a common possibility and not going last rocks.  If you're actually starting at level 1, or below level 6 even, Druids needed respectable Str and Dex to just not be useless for those levels.  They weren't much less stat dependent than clerics (divine metamagic abusing clerics need charisma, but am I supposed to feel bad about that?), and definitely no less so than sorcerers and wizards.



Kaisoku said:


> Oh, and if you get your Animal Companion a +Int item (or take even one level adjustment to ability scores in Int), he can pick any feat at that point and take advantage of the nice new feats out there (and pump any skill either, for that matter).




Wait...you think wildshape needs nerfing, but don't mind blatantly breaking the rules to let the companion get other feats?  Did PF change the definition of what it means to be an "animal"?  If an animal has Int 3+, it is no longer an animal, but a magical beast.  Which means you'd lose it as your companion just the same as if you cast Awaken on it.  You can't give your companion an Int boost.  Again, unless PF changed the definition of animal.


----------



## Maidhc O Casain (Jul 18, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Wait...you think wildshape needs nerfing, but don't mind blatantly breaking the rules to let the companion get other feats?  Did PF change the definition of what it means to be an "animal"?  If an animal has Int 3+, it is no longer an animal, but a magical beast.  Which means you'd lose it as your companion just the same as if you cast Awaken on it.  You can't give your companion an Int boost.  Again, unless PF changed the definition of animal.




From the PFRPG Core Rules, Druid Animal Companion Section (pg 52):

"*Skills:* This lists the animal’s total skill ranks. Animal companions can assign skill ranks to any skill listed under Animal Skills. If an _animal companion_ increases its Intelligence to 10 or higher, it gains bonus skill ranks as normal. _Animal companions_ with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can purchase ranks in any skill. An animal companion cannot have more ranks in a skill than it has Hit Dice."


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 18, 2010)

Friend of the Dork said:


> Since I'm only using the animals in 3.5 MM that won't be a problem for me. CoDzilla never happened in my game and was more a scary story from the Optimization forums.
> 
> You say the spells are balanced? It seems to me the low-level Beast Shape spells are so bad the only usefulness is getting a different type of speed, scent, etc.
> 
> But.. since this system is new for me and my players, I'm inclined to keep it RAW for the time being. Maybe I will change my mind after playtesting, and maybe the druid is powerful enough as it is even with nerfed Wild Shape.




Sure, try RAW first if you want.  For my part, I can't help but make some changes to things that really irk me without even trying the RAW first.  But I'll also not bother touching wildshape and the polymorph spells at first, whenever i actually run Pathfinder.  I have to say from playing in  campaigns of it (one very short, other is ongoing), I'm liking the rules changes less and less each week.

[sblock]Just a few weeks ago, our party fought a very powerful sorcerer who clearly was higher level than us.  He had buffed his AC to something like 30, which...is hard to hit at level 6 to say the least.  He twice put up the Mirror Image spell to make things even more annoying for us.  We first thought, "no big deal, either we swing at him or we wipe out an image, since they're easy to hit."  Silly us and our rational 3E mindsets where low level figments are easy targets.  Check out the 3.5 and Pathfinder versions of that spell.  As if higher AC on the images (ven a 25 was very hard for us to manage), notice PF also was nice enough to remove this text: "While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded."  See, in a civilized (ie, 3E) game, there are some common sense rules to help deal with the spell.  Such as, "you can't move the images until your turn comes up" so that should you get lucky and discover the real target, your party can take advantage of that for a round at least.  PF has no such text, so thanks to the ambiguity, it was up to the DM.  He figured if they took it out from 3E, then the intent was clear.   Who'd have thought that in their "balancing" of things, Paizo would actually *boost* Mirror Image, which I don't recall ever being considered a "bad" spell in 3.5...
Just one example of the little stuff you don't notice at first until it comes up in game, and then you realize how much worse PF rules are than 3E.  And yes, that encounter still pisses me off.[/sblock]



Gorbacz said:


> Druid is a full caster. That's more than enough.




And yet so many people go after Wildshape as the most over powered part of the class...

I agree with you, especially in 3E, being a full caster is the best trait to have, the wildshape just lets you also be a big stupid fighter.  And in return for that, Druids had the worst spell list of the 4 prime casters.  Awesome for versatility, poor deal if you're after raw power.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 18, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> And yet so many people go after Wildshape as the most over powered part of the class...



Some may. 

For me, it is simply that the druid is a character with far more actions per round than any other character.

The _accumulation_ of full caster (that can become an adequate melee-ist), Plus all the actions of an adequate melee-ist pet, plus all the actions of every _*spontaneously*_ summoned creature.

I know other casters can summon. But being able to do it without having to prep the spell is quite significant.

The first thing I'd try to bring druid down a notch would be to replace the animal companion with speak with animal's at will. Try it for a while, then maybe look at something else.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 18, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> For me, it is simply that the druid is a character with far more actions per round than any other character.




But they're not actually getting more actions per turn.  Sure, they can fill in for melee, they can cast, they can do some scouting...  They're the "Bard of full casters," if you will.  But they can't do all of that simultaneously, they don't actually get extra swift or standard actions per turn.  ...Not until level 17 and they can turn into a Choker...

In fact, it's the other 3 classes that get the extra actions.  Whether it's the Celerity spells, the Arcane Fusion sorcerer spells, the Cleric's Divine Metamagic (Quicken Spell) or Ruby Knight Vindicator PrC (burn turns for extra swift actions)...it's mostly the other three classes getting more actions per turn.  Only think Druid gets that I can think of is Planar Shepherd's planar bubble feature when used with a "fast time" plane.  But that's setting specific, and so laughably overpowered that I don't think any DM would allow it anyway (by that I mean, I could see some games where some of the other listed things would be allowed, but Planar Shepherd would "cross the line.")  Even if it is allowed...the bubble benefits potentially the whole party, so at least the Druid's not breaking the action economy selfishly...



Eric Anondson said:


> The _accumulation_ of full caster (that can become an adequate melee-ist), Plus all the actions of an adequate melee-ist pet, plus all the actions of every _*spontaneously*_ summoned creature.
> 
> I know other casters can summon. But being able to do it without having to prep the spell is quite significant.




Sorcerers can.  The PF Summoner class can too, I think.



Eric Anondson said:


> The first thing I'd try to bring druid down a notch would be to replace the animal companion with speak with animal's at will. Try it for a while, then maybe look at something else.




Would you also remove the companion from Clerics and Rangers, as both of them get it or can get it now?


----------



## BryonD (Jul 18, 2010)

I disliked the changes to Wildshape at first.

But I've come to think they were a real improvement.

It may seem simple enough at first that "turning into a bear"  == "turning into a bear".

But, by that reasoning, every "being a PC druid" == "being a PC druid".

I now very much like that a STR 8 halfling druid turning into a bear becomes a very different bear than a STR 18 human druid.

And, it really makes sense that there is a cap on the amount of magic mojo that a CLX druid can muster.  Another way to do it would be to pit a cap on ability increases and say that you just can not turn into any animal that has a larger STR than your limit.  But I think the method selected is better.

The animal you become is not just average, with 6 wildly diverse druids becoming 6 average, typical bears.  Each one is a reflection of the druid.

So the flavor is great.

And, outside of flavor, not being able to dumpstat STR and DEX and then just wildshape into melee form is a much better balance position.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 18, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> But they're not actually getting more actions per turn.



I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. Excluding the DM, the player of the druid character, has more actions per round than players of other classes.







StreamOfTheSky said:


> Would you also remove the companion from Clerics and Rangers, as both of them get it or can get it now?



Converted to speak with animals at will, absolutely.

As one who has seen Leadership abused, I would have that feat removed and converted to some function of "treasure" and intervals of regular Diplomacy checks to keep the cohort around (modified by past actions). Until then I just don't allow it.


----------



## Zurai (Jul 18, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. Excluding the DM, the player of the druid character, has more actions per round than players of other classes.




Not true at all.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Jul 18, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I disliked the changes to Wildshape at first.
> 
> But I've come to think they were a real improvement.
> 
> ...




Now if you actually got the bear's racial modifiers to attributes, that would be very individual bears indeed. Now it's just you +2 str. The halfling will be a puny 10 str bear... ridiculous. You don't really turn into a bear or whatever, you look like one, and get certain traits from it (in this case +2 str, +2 ac and d4 claws....)


----------



## BryonD (Jul 19, 2010)

Well, this is more a balance side of things than flavor, but at low levels it doesn't make sense to get that big a bump to stats.

You have to be 6th level to go large anyway.  And Wildshape at that point gives a +4 to STR.  This is on par with Bull's Strength.  

The halfling simply doesn't have enough mojo to truly become a bear.  But the STR 12 limitation will show that he just ain't all that.

He can CHOOSE to take the shape of a bear, but his starting point, plus the limits of his power just don't have the juice to make a real bear.  A bear is a poor choice of form for a STR 8 halfling.  

You can just as easily say that it is ridiculous for the little guy to even think he can turn into a bear.

And, again on the balance side, you can say it is ridiculous to get +10 bonus to STR ( a bear's STR mod) at Level 6, when a spell is limited to +4.


----------



## Glade Riven (Jul 19, 2010)

On the cohorts, companions, and summoning shenanigans...rather than remove them, why not take DM control of them? Then players have to make skill checks, checks that take time, to get them to do what they want (and have a chance to fail completely). Players keep their flavor without getting any extra actions per turn, as these things are handled by the DM.

After all, I haven't seen a rule specifies that these things are under the control of the player.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Jul 19, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Well, this is more a balance side of things than flavor, but at low levels it doesn't make sense to get that big a bump to stats.
> 
> You have to be 6th level to go large anyway.  And Wildshape at that point gives a +4 to STR.  This is on par with Bull's Strength.
> 
> ...




So on 6th level you can mimic a 2nd level spell... weee. Ok, it's better than that, but still a bit underwhelming even for a mere buff. 

It's just as ridiculous for any human to turn into a Bear (which can be medium sized btw). But this is fantasy, and shape-changing is a staple of D&D. I don't see any reason why a weak PC couldn't become a relatively strong animal. 

Black bear str mod is +8... it's alot and shouldn't be available at low levels, but mid level? Sure. After all being in such a form means you have the disadvantages of not being able to speak, cast spells, or use items. And a tough fighter will still be able to beat a 6th level druid in bear form. 

Now if you remove any of those limitations: allow animals with magic armor, talking parrots and spell-casting pussycats, then thats when it becomes broken.


----------



## Gorbacz (Jul 19, 2010)

You don't need animals with magic armor, talking parrots or spell-casting pussycats. At lvl 8, buff yourself up, go Dire Bear and tell the Fighter that he just became a liability.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 19, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Yup, I hate the PF changes for the same reason.  Instead of revamping the monster entries by HD and CR so a creature could only have a certain range of natural armor bonus (say for a certain HD it could have between a +2 and a +6 depending on how "thick hided" and slow it was) and other features like they should have, PF took the easy way out and just made polymorph abilities into some weird transmuation-illusion crossbreed, where you may look like creature x, but you sure as heck don't have his actual physical qualities.




See, from my point of view, that's the wrong direction. That's the 4e direction in which the values for defenses and attacks are pretty much completely contrived and gamist. I'd prefer whipping up an animal to make it the most appropriate fit for D&D concepts rather than an appropriate fit for a certain level of adventurer.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 19, 2010)

Gorbacz said:


> You don't need animals with magic armor, talking parrots or spell-casting pussycats. At lvl 8, buff yourself up, go Dire Bear and tell the Fighter that he just became a liability.




Man, I just love this kind of Rhetoric!  Such insightful and intellectually stimulating debates these are!

/sarcasm

Dude, if you're going to make a wild, unsupported claim loaded with hyperbole, at least have the common decency to get basic facts straight.  Dire Bear is 12 HD, a level 8 Druid couldn't turn into one. 

And go ahead and turn into a dire bear and lose all your gear for a nice str check, size large (if only there were level 1 potions that let my fighter do THAT!), and some natural armor (to go along with your pathetic touch AC).  My Fighter will do just fine with his gear, feats, and full BAB.  Not as fine as he'd do if he were a Warblade or whatever, but fine enough...


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 19, 2010)

billd91 said:


> See, from my point of view, that's the wrong direction. That's the 4e direction in which the values for defenses and attacks are pretty much completely contrived and gamist. I'd prefer whipping up an animal to make it the most appropriate fit for D&D concepts rather than an appropriate fit for a certain level of adventurer.




Yeah, I don't want it to be like 4E, where there's a very narrowly defined "range" (by that I mean like how 4E was actually designed for expected attack and defense values at a give level so that they'd have X% chance to hit).

I'm just saying, some sort of hard limits would be nice.  It seems sometimes like a monster's HD is completely detached from his attributes.  I don't mind ranges depending on the nature of the creature, but there should be some guidelines.  If you want a creature with +15 natural armor, say...it can't have only 6 HD.  Depending on if it's built like a Rhino or a Vulture it might need a significantly different amount of HD to "qualify" for that much natural armor, but there would still be some sort of system.

Don't know if that explained things any better.


----------



## Gorbacz (Jul 19, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Man, I just love this kind of Rhetoric!  Such insightful and intellectually stimulating debates these are!
> 
> /sarcasm
> 
> ...




   Yeah, I forgot about the HD thing. So, Polar Bear – kosher, right ? I’ve got my Polar Bear with his speed, improved grab and 3 attacks, you have your Fighter 8 with his 2 attacks and feats.

  And to be honest – you will outdamage me. Not by an overwhelming deal, but you will be ahead of me in damage.

  But that’s not the point. The point is that a druid can compete with you, and he happens to be full caster with 4th lvl spells at that point, apart from his melee capability he can bring stuff like scry, fom and reincarnate to the table. And the fighter, apart from his damage dealing can bring … ?

  Of course, all this is irrelevant because a 3.5 core Cleric walks by, casts the holy trifecta and looks at both of us with a confused stare and asks “what are you two arguing about ?” at which point the Fighter can go back home and the Druid can start quickly looking for things which he can do and the Cleric can’t.

  Pathfinder fixed it by making sure that while Fighter remains one-dimensional, he at least is a king of the hill in that one dimension. Nobody gets close to his damage-dealing capability. The days of full casters replacing full BAB classes in their intended role are gone.


----------



## Kaisoku (Jul 19, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Did PF change the definition of what it  means to be an "animal"?




Yes, they did. I mean this in all politeness, but it'd be a good idea to  reread the class if you are going to make judgments on it.

Pathfinder also lets you decide what skills and feats it gets (which it  didn't seem to in 3.5e, at least not to the degree of versatility we  have now).

This is all basically to say that the Animal Companion is not a toss  away ability it might have once been considered.

.

Regarding "battle" casters...

Honestly, wildshape now simply gives the Druid a similar buff to combat  abilities that a Cleric can buff. There are some differences (more  utility, longer lasting, but not quite as much of a boost to attack and  damage, etc).

In 3.5e, a druid could_ literally_ tank their physical scores in  favour of wildshaping into a holy terror with 30+ Str and 20+ Con, etc.
There was no way to limit this without breaking some verisimilitude. I'm  glad Druids can still turn into the creature they want (for at least  utility and roleplay, if not for the gobs of combat stats it once  could).


----------



## BryonD (Jul 19, 2010)

Friend of the Dork said:


> So on 6th level you can mimic a 2nd level spell... weee. Ok, it's better than that, but still a bit underwhelming even for a mere buff.



 It is a lot better than that.  When the wizard is still casting L3 spells, an effect that can buff STR, and CON, plus give natural armor, plus give stealth advantages, plus give natural attacks, plus give enhanced mobility, among other things.  This is still an awesome ability for 6th level.  To call it underwhelming is boggling.



> It's just as ridiculous for any human to turn into a Bear (which can be medium sized btw). But this is fantasy, and shape-changing is a staple of D&D. I don't see any reason why a weak PC couldn't become a relatively strong animal.
> 
> Black bear str mod is +8... it's alot and shouldn't be available at low levels, but mid level? Sure. After all being in such a form means you have the disadvantages of not being able to speak, cast spells, or use items. And a tough fighter will still be able to beat a 6th level druid in bear form.
> 
> Now if you remove any of those limitations: allow animals with magic armor, talking parrots and spell-casting pussycats, then thats when it becomes broken.



A tough fighter SHOULD be able to kick the ass of an equivalent druid in melee combat.  If not, what is the point of the fighter?

How else do you propose getting a +8 to STR at L4 (when medium wildshape is available)?  Forget the list of other perks already provided, just give me an example of a +8 to STR at level 4.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 19, 2010)

billd91 said:


> See, from my point of view, that's the wrong direction. That's the 4e direction in which the values for defenses and attacks are pretty much completely contrived and gamist. I'd prefer whipping up an animal to make it the most appropriate fit for D&D concepts rather than an appropriate fit for a certain level of adventurer.



I agree 100% with this mindset.  But, you then need to step back and consider at what point should a druid gain this power.

As I mentioned in passing before, another approach would be to limit the amount of ability increase a druid can create.  And then limit the druid to forms his base STR + his increase cap can meet.  

So if you are 6th level and can get a +4 to STR, only a druid with a normal form strength of 14+ is capable of turning into a bear.  A druid with less base STR just can't take the form of a bear.  Maybe his ability to channel the nature of a bear isn't sufficiently supported by his own nature.  Whatever, flavor basis you want.  

I do agree completely that turning into a bear should be turning into a bear.  But, that doesn't mean that a L6 STR8 halfling should be able to turn into a STR21 bear, with claws and teeth and tougher skin, while the L6 STR 8 halfling wizard can get +4 STR.

I'd strongly encourage a halfling druid to not consider bear as a valid option.  

Making it feel right is absolutely the #1 priority.
But determining when in the scheme of things that correct feel is reasonably balanced is not far back down the list of priorities.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 19, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Dude, if you're going to make a wild, unsupported claim loaded with hyperbole, at least have the common decency to get basic facts straight.  Dire Bear is 12 HD, a level 8 Druid couldn't turn into one.



Does the HD restriction still exist?  I'm pretty sure it doesn't.  But maybe I missed it.


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Jul 19, 2010)

BryonD said:


> It is a lot better than that.  When the wizard is still casting L3 spells, an effect that can buff STR, and CON, plus give natural armor, plus give stealth advantages, plus give natural attacks, plus give enhanced mobility, among other things.  This is still an awesome ability for 6th level.  To call it underwhelming is boggling.
> 
> A tough fighter SHOULD be able to kick the ass of an equivalent druid in melee combat.  If not, what is the point of the fighter?
> 
> How else do you propose getting a +8 to STR at L4 (when medium wildshape is available)?  Forget the list of other perks already provided, just give me an example of a +8 to STR at level 4.




Well maybe Wild Shape was never intended to be gained at level 4? But even at 5th level, it was pretty unique - then again there were other weaknesses attached, such as AC, inability to talk, cast spells etc. (3.0). And a fighter with decent feats can still out-perform you. 

BryonD: 

If you use PF rules whenever advantageous, and 3.5 or 3.0 rules when those are advantageous, then of course it will be unbalanced. It is evident that if you allow 3.5 polymorph rules you use all of them, including the HD limitation. It probably also a good idea to delay when the druid actually gets wild shape, to level 5 at least. 

Why couldn't halflings turn into bears? This is even a medium sized one we're talking about. I can understand a limitation in the size alteration you can perform, but a black bear could be appropriate for a halfling while a brown bear could be for a human. 

I'm skeptical to have str requirements in order to turn into animals, doesn't fit with my idea of druid. Much better then to delay certain very strong animals to a higher level and not just based on size as it is.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 19, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I agree 100% with this mindset.  But, you then need to step back and consider at what point should a druid gain this power.
> 
> As I mentioned in passing before, another approach would be to limit the amount of ability increase a druid can create.  And then limit the druid to forms his base STR + his increase cap can meet.




I don't think I would like that approach much either. Even without gaining the full stats of the typical bear/dire bear/whatever, the PF druid still has a pretty ass-kicking disguise. So he's weak for a bear, still looks like one though. That's always been one of the best aspects of wildshape, in my book. So I'm pretty content with PF wildshaping.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 19, 2010)

If I made you think I'm mixing 3X with PF, I've misspoken.  I'm talking about PF only.



Friend of the Dork said:


> Why couldn't halflings turn into bears?



I'm not saying a halfling "can't" turn into a bear.  only that it may be much easier for s STR18 human to turn into a bear than it is for a STR 8 Hlafling to turn into a bear.


> I'm skeptical to have str requirements in order to turn into animals, doesn't fit with my idea of druid. Much better then to delay certain very strong animals to a higher level and not just based on size as it is.



And that could be fine as well.  

But again, there needs to be both correct flavor AND some degree of balance.  

Letting the hulking human druid turn into bears earlier than the tiny halfling, while the tiny halfling can become an agile, fast, stealthy owl much more easily than the hulking human.  To me there is some cool flavor in that trade off.  And there is less issue with OP druids.  

Ultimately, what I REALLY think is the best idea is to use the rules as written in PF.  I think they strike a good meeting of both flavor and balance.

Then expect a good DM and a good player to work together to understand what the character can do with those abilities.  It may be perfectly reasonable to agre that the halfling is going to be limited to a STR of 12, so any animal with a STR much higher than that isn't allowed for the character.  In effect a house rule by mutal consent.  

Or, you can agree that wildshape is just that, a shape.  The halfling can take the *appearance* of a bear, but not truly become a bear.  He is bulky and big, and maybe scary looking.  But, almost like a shadow conjuration, the forms bear muscles are not really all muscle like in a real bear.  

I completely buy the idea that wildshape is a well established cool staple of the druid.  And messing with it is touchy.  
But the druid is well established as being way more powerful that other classes (and I am referencing 3X,not PF here).  I think this change in PF brings that back in line.  I'm honestly not certain if it goes too far, or not far enough because no one has run a druid in my game so far.  But I see it as an improvement.   I think the flavor can still be maintained wiht the rules as is, the expectations just need to be adjusted to more equitable levels.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 19, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I don't think I would like that approach much either. Even without gaining the full stats of the typical bear/dire bear/whatever, the PF druid still has a pretty ass-kicking disguise. So he's weak for a bear, still looks like one though. That's always been one of the best aspects of wildshape, in my book. So I'm pretty content with PF wildshaping.



I'm sorry, I think I must have misunderstood your point somehwere along the way.

But if we both like the PF approach, then I think we are good.


----------



## ruemere (Jul 19, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> [...]
> 
> Just a few weeks ago, our party fought a very powerful sorcerer who clearly was higher level than us.  He had buffed his AC to something like 30, which...is hard to hit at level 6 to say the least.  He twice put up the Mirror Image spell to make things even more annoying for us.  We first thought, "no big deal, either we swing at him or we wipe out an image, since they're easy to hit."  Silly us and our rational 3E mindsets where low level figments are easy targets.  Check out the 3.5 and Pathfinder versions of that spell.  As if higher AC on the images (ven a 25 was very hard for us to manage), notice PF also was nice enough to remove this text: "While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded."  See, in a civilized (ie, 3E) game, there are some common sense rules to help deal with the spell.  Such as, "you can't move the images until your turn comes up" so that should you get lucky and discover the real target, your party can take advantage of that for a round at least.  PF has no such text, so thanks to the ambiguity, it was up to the DM.  He figured if they took it out from 3E, then the intent was clear.   Who'd have thought that in their "balancing" of things, Paizo would actually *boost* Mirror Image, which I don't recall ever being considered a "bad" spell in 3.5...
> Just one example of the little stuff you don't notice at first until it comes up in game, and then you realize how much worse PF rules are than 3E.  And yes, that encounter still pisses me off.[...]




When fighting opposition of higher level, expect difficulties.

Also, in this particular case: close your eyes and grapple. 
So yes, he'll get AoO on you (or maybe not, he was a sorcerer).

50% miss chance and your CMB vs his CMD:
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier

This is the way our party Barbarian does most of opponents under multiple buffs.


Regards,
Ruemere

PS. Blind-Fight + Rage = CMB ownage.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 19, 2010)

ruemere said:


> When fighting opposition of higher level, expect difficulties.
> 
> Also, in this particular case: close your eyes and grapple.
> So yes, he'll get AoO on you (or maybe not, he was a sorcerer).
> ...




I was the party Barb, technically (Barb 2 / Warblade 4)...  Rage only gives +2 CMB and I didn't have Blind-Fight.

We did try grappling, I don't remember all the reasons why, but that didn't work out too well for us, either.  He did have a decent melee attack and none of us had Imp. Grapple, so the fact he was disrupting the attempts one reason we abandoned the idea.  Also, even once grappling, it barely helped the others to hit him, they still ran the risk of hitting an image, whilst the grappler did piddly unarmed damage for the short time he could hold the sorcerer (I'm guessing he had the feat to treat HD as BAB for CMD based on his grapple checks).

Now, we didn't try closing our eyes.  In retrospect, I guess a 50% miss chance IS an improvement to the situation.  Even so, giving the guy the effect of Greater Invisibility (wich is basically what fighting him blind does mechanically) as a way to _depower_ his *level 2* buff spell is pretty friggin stupid, don't you think?
So, we fought him toe to toe in a stalemate for about a dozen rounds, going through two sets of mirror image castings.  We could barely hurt him, and he ran away after running out of spells and failing to kill us.  All because we couldn't just do simple things like hit image AC or let our companions know which one was real for a turn when we got lucky.


----------



## Glade Riven (Jul 20, 2010)

On the whole halfling-to-bear thing - what if he was under Bear's Endurance as well? No reason they can't stack. Between that and wild shape, the total bonus is either +6 or +8, depending on whether or not it was a medium or large bear.

Granted, a STR 18 human would be able to buff that way as well, but if someone is wanting to have a STR 16 halfling druid when they had the proper rolls, it's not that big of difference.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 20, 2010)

I assume you mean Bull's STr, and yes, by PF they stack, so it is still good.


----------



## ruemere (Jul 20, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I was the party Barb, technically (Barb 2 / Warblade 4)...  Rage only gives +2 CMB and I didn't have Blind-Fight.
> 
> We did try grappling, I don't remember all the reasons why, but that didn't work out too well for us, either.  He did have a decent melee attack and none of us had Imp. Grapple, so the fact he was disrupting the attempts one reason we abandoned the idea.  Also, even once grappling, it barely helped the others to hit him, they still ran the risk of hitting an image, whilst the grappler did piddly unarmed damage for the short time he could hold the sorcerer (I'm guessing he had the feat to treat HD as BAB for CMD based on his grapple checks).




Pile up. Once someone gets a grapple, Aid him.

Grapple, important quotes: 

Remember +5! _If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds._ - as soon as you get to maintain the grapple, you get +5 to use in all the checks.
Pin him! _Pin: You can give your opponent the pinned condition (see Conditions). Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled condition, but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC._
Aid another! _Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check._
With all of the party helping with the pin, you should have between +7 to +11 in addition to your CMB. Then just tie him up and sit on him. Gagging is optional.

Of course, it may be just that your GM was setting you up - Sorcerers (unless they are giants) very rarely make such good wrestlers.



> Now, we didn't try closing our eyes.  In retrospect, I guess a 50% miss chance IS an improvement to the situation.  Even so, giving the guy the effect of Greater Invisibility (wich is basically what fighting him blind does mechanically) as a way to _depower_ his *level 2* buff spell is pretty friggin stupid, don't you think?




Nah, I'm fine with that. I have been (in real life) blinded with strobe lights, suffered from motion sickness and had tear gas experimentally used on me - in all cases, despite vestigial vision, closing my eyes helped me to focus on what I was doing. Mirror Image is like seeing several things overlapping - it works in the same way stage magicians fool your vision to perform tricks in plain sight. 



> So, we fought him toe to toe in a stalemate for about a dozen rounds, going through two sets of mirror image castings.  We could barely hurt him, and he ran away after running out of spells and failing to kill us.  All because we couldn't just do simple things like hit image AC or let our companions know which one was real for a turn when we got lucky.




I've put souped up spellcasters in melee several times, too. My players always came up with creative ways to disable or negate the opposition. Once they outwaited duration of spells, another time they used faerie fire to outline real creature. 

My point is, that unless you GM sets you against much stronger opponent, you should try thinking outside the box. It may not be the best way, but it is what is expected of players - to do something outstanding and inventive.
Or run. You don't need to win every fight, sometimes survival is sufficient.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Friend of the Dork (Jul 20, 2010)

ruemere said:


> When fighting opposition of higher level, expect difficulties.
> 
> Also, in this particular case: close your eyes and grapple.
> So yes, he'll get AoO on you (or maybe not, he was a sorcerer).
> ...




Good tips. I agree with SotS that the Pathfinder version seem even more powerful and changed a spell that didn't really need buffing.

Another tip might be the good old magic missile. Target one ...wait.... the new spell means MMs will affect the target automatically. It seems only spells that require an attack roll can hit a figment. Which means spells is the best way to attack Mirrored Imaged casters.


----------

