D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Druids - what to do about them?

[Hypersmurf]

I can dig through the books to come up with the most insane literal rulings, or I can ask Hypersmurf to do it for me.

Gosh... I've read that twice now, and I still can't decide if I've been complimented or insulted...!

-Hyp.

 

[BSF]

At WORST, the druid will be second best at almost everything, and not worse by a wide margin, and best at his own schticks. At best (and 'best' means 'any situation where he has time to prepare'), he'll be better than most at their specialties.

At worst, the bard is third best at something, if not last, second or third best at another, and best at a narrow focus. At best, he's the best within a narrow specialty and second best at everything else.

Also, I find it interesting that many people equate 'the party having time to buff' with 'the DM fails to challenge them.' Your PCs, when tactically astute, rarely if ever have twelve to twenty-four seconds to spare? They never ambush their opponents as opposed to the inverse? Never delay entering a room or charging an encampment to prepare themselves?

As for the fix I favor, I would reduce the druid's spellcasting progression to the bard's. Animal growth then becomes one of the class's capstone spells rather than its "mid-level" buff. Removing the Natural Spell feat would significantly lower the druid's powerlevel, but in a less flavorful way.

Heh - Bard is one of my favorite classes! Of course, I chose to play one simply to see if I could make my PC relevant and fun. I have. But it does take a certain perspective to playing one to make it fun. I have watched other people try to play a Bard and be severely disappointed.

Natural Spell is the most broken aspect of the Druid that I observe. Yet, I haven't had the opportunity to watch it be abused in an actual game. But my gut tells me that Natural Spell is easy to abuse if a player chooses to do so.

I am not advocating that 'the party having time to buff' is 'the DM fails to challenge them.' However, I don't feel that judging the best case scenario for a player to leverage a PC's abilities versus any given DM's habits and situations automatically equates to a broken class. Running a Cleric that has been optimized against undead in an undead-heavy campaign doesn't make the Cleric broken.

All I am really saying is that sometimes you just need to change your DM style a little bit and throw the Players for a loop. As a DM, I expect my players to find situations where they can excel. I enjoy that. I enjoy it even more when they work together as a group and find ways to have several PCs shine at once. I love to watch them get excited when their plans come together. But, I also love to watch them react when the NPCs do something they didn't anticipate. I like to watch them scramble to turn what looks like abysmal failure into success. They don't always succeed, but often they do. After all, there are 6-7 of them around the table and only one of me. They have a wider perspective, and can come up with very clever plans quickly if they need to.

The only time you really have a broken PC is when the rest of the PCs can never shine. My experience has been that this usually comes about from a difference in play styles, player experience, or other 'social contract' issues. Not always, but quite often.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Heh - Bard is one of my favorite classes! Of course, I chose to play one simply to see if I could make my PC relevant and fun. I have. But it does take a certain perspective to playing one to make it fun. I have watched other people try to play a Bard and be severely disappointed.

Yeah, I like bards, too.

It takes a lot of player skill to play a bard effectively, a lot of reworking one's notions, and a bit of favorable circumstance. For instance, bards seem to suffer almost as much as rogues when undead and constructs abound, and have trouble being all they can be in small parties.

Natural Spell is the most broken aspect of the Druid that I observe. Yet, I haven't had the opportunity to watch it be abused in an actual game. But my gut tells me that Natural Spell is easy to abuse if a player chooses to do so.

I've seen it used. I'm not sure where you draw the line between used and abused. If 'being consistently more effective than a core fighter' is abusing it, then I've seen it abused. IMC, which are manifestly NOT core only or even mostly WotC, it's fairly balanced, but on its own it's balanced against characters with highly optimized builds of multiple synergistic PrCs.

I am not advocating that 'the party having time to buff' is 'the DM fails to challenge them.' However, I don't feel that judging the best case scenario for a player to leverage a PC's abilities versus any given DM's habits and situations automatically equates to a broken class. Running a Cleric that has been optimized against undead in an undead-heavy campaign doesn't make the Cleric broken.

All I am really saying is that sometimes you just need to change your DM style a little bit and throw the Players for a loop. As a DM, I expect my players to find situations where they can excel. I enjoy that. I enjoy it even more when they work together as a group and find ways to have several PCs shine at once. I love to watch them get excited when their plans come together. But, I also love to watch them react when the NPCs do something they didn't anticipate. I like to watch them scramble to turn what looks like abysmal failure into success. They don't always succeed, but often they do. After all, there are 6-7 of them around the table and only one of me. They have a wider perspective, and can come up with very clever plans quickly if they need to.

I love to watch all that, too - sometimes. In those circumstances, the druids seem to end up 'merely' average, able to hold their own but outclassed in any one area.

However, my players do tend to take tactical initiative most of the time, and whenever they do that, the druids usually excell. Since it's often druidic powers that put them in a position to take the initiative, the druid does double duty.

The only time you really have a broken PC is when the rest of the PCs can never shine. My experience has been that this usually comes about from a difference in play styles, player experience, or other 'social contract' issues. Not always, but quite often.

Again, this largely depends on what you mean by "broken." I don't have a problem with the core druid because I run very high powered games with very few restrictions; most of my best roleplayers are powergamers and I like to encourage both tendencies. When Druid 20 ends up as effective or moreso than Swashbuckler/Wizard/Bladesinger/Int Monk combos and characters who can key every action off of Charisma multiple times, I do question whether or not it's balanced with the other core classes.

 

[Thanee]

At WORST, the druid will be second best at almost everything, and not worse by a wide margin, and best at his own schticks. At best (and 'best' means 'any situation where he has time to prepare'), he'll be better than most at their specialties.

Now that really does not mirror my experiences.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Shadowdweller]

Now that really does not mirror my experiences.

Likewise.

99% of the time, when I see people complaining about the druid (or any of number of popularly maligned classes) it comes from said person knowing less about the rules than the supposed abuser.

Druids do great, for instance, in a straight-up fight when they can buff themselves against standard, living creatures. However, throw in a few common oddities, such as incorporeal undead, high-DR creatures, hard to reach enemies (flying creatures, etc)...and they do significantly less well.

 

[Dryfus]

At worst, the bard is third best at something, if not last, second or third best at another, and best at a narrow focus. At best, he's the best within a narrow specialty and second best at everything else.

.

Isn't that sorta the point of the bard "jack-of-all-trade" kinda thing??

 

[Endur]

Don't Count Animal Growth for Balance

You should not consider Animal Growth when you talk about balancing the Druid class. It is not clear that Animal Growth applies to Druids. Applies to Summoned Animals and Animal Companions, yes. Applying to the Druid is an interpretation.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Gosh... I've read that twice now, and I still can't decide if I've been complimented or insulted...!

-Hyp.

It's a compliment. I think you pointed out the Shillelagh Paradox, for example, and I know I've seen you mention other instances where following the rules as literally as possible produces some bizarre (and probably unintended) results.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It's a compliment. I think you pointed out the Shillelagh Paradox, for example, and I know I've seen you mention other instances where following the rules as literally as possible produces some bizarre (and probably unintended) results.

My favourite is that in 3.5 (not 3.0) rogues can sneak attack at range if there is an ally directly on the other side of the opponent, regardless of whether the rogue threatens the opponent or not. That's a hell of a loophole.

 

[Thanee]

FLANKING
When making a melee attack...

Bye
Thanee