Advice for Druid’s wild shape and Archetype
Druid’s wild shape has been modified a lot from 3E to PF, and people have different opinions about it. Some believed that the modifications made the class more balance, but other thought otherwise. In any case, everyone agrees that druid in PF’s version is much weaker than 3E’s.
But I am not here to talk about how weak in combat a druid is today. I believe many players complained about wild shape not because the ability is useless, but because it is not distinct enough. In fact, you can even say that wild shape is totally indistinctive.
“This ability functions like the beast shape N” is a very bad description for a class feature such as wild shape. Basically, there is no other description for any other core class with a class feature functions like XXX spell (Yes, monk has, but it’s not their main class feature). Even if a particular class feature does function like a particular spell, this kind of description makes that particular class indistinctive.
For example, barbarian has rage (EX), and this ability functions like being casted rage (spell). But if you change the description of rage (EX) to, This ability functions like rage (spell), what would happen?
First, no matter what the actual effect of the ability is, it would give the reader an impression such as, “Oh, so this just like a fighter with skill in Use Magic Device and use Wand of Rage to cast rage (Spell) onto himself.” Would someone like the class he/she choose with the permanent class feature functions just like one of many spells in Wiz/Sor spell list? I guess NOT.
Next, after a particular class feature turns into “This ability functions like XXX spell,” you will notice it would become very hard to modify it, no matter to enhance or reduce the effect. If the effect of a particular spell is set, the only way to adjust it is by changing the caster level. Then, you’ll find out many Archetype become very boring.
Using barbarian as an example, if you change rage (ex) to “This functions like the rage (spell),” you will notice a lot of Archetype of barbarian would have class feature description such as, “the effective level of rage is equal to his barbarian level +2,” or, “the effective level of rage is equal to his barbarian level -2.” This kills a lot of opportunities for new Archetype. You will have barbarian that runs faster in snow, barbarian that hides better in plain, or barbarian with very distinctive feature, followed by “effective level for rage is equal to barbarian level -2,” or “effective level of barbarian +2 when equipping greataxe, but -2 when equipping other weapons.” Let me ask you, would you pick these Archetypes? Do you thing these Archetypes are fun to play? I guess NOT.
Ok, let’s go back to my original topic, why Paizo modified Druid in such way? Doesn’t the rule for wild shape in 3E good enough?
In fact, the rule for polymorph spells in 3E is a bit imbalance. The biggest problems are a) obtaining too many bonus Str, Dex, or Con ability scores, and b) with all the expansions, the monsters become more and more powerful, and polymorph spells would be enhanced accordingly.
Paizo noticed these 2 problems, so they modified druid quite a bit, not just weakened all the polymorph spells, but also weakened wild shape and druid itself. To make up for it, Paizo dished out a lot of Archetypes focused on nature weapons, and implemented a lot of feats on nature weapons.
Maybe druid’s combat ability is comparable with other class, but it turns druid to an indistinctive class, too. Furthermore, it has created a phenomenon, simplification of wild shape.
In all the choices for wild shape, lion is always the best choice (unless dinosaur appears, but I don’t like dinosaur). With the same ability score, lion has a unique ability, rake, the highest nature weapon bonus, and attacks per round. Not to mention that lion’s nature weapon is one size larger than other animal’s.
Would someone want to turn into a bear to combat? No, lion is better in every way than a bear, with the same Strength.
Would someone want to turn into a rhino? No, lion is better in every way than a rhino, including charge attack.
Would someone want to turn into a snake? No, lion is better in every way than a snake, including grapple.
The definition of better is not just damage-wise, but also because lion is able to perform all the abilities that particular animal has.
This type of modification is acceptable for a spell, but when applying to a main class feature of core class, it would be a little bit simple and crude.
As a summary of the above, maybe druid is not as weak combat-wise, but the core class feature functions like XXX spell is a very bad idea. It made the class seem boring, and hard to make the Archetype fun to play with. Furthermore, the multi-purpose of lion make the other animals cripple.
So I suggest the following:
1) Delete “This ability functions like the…” in the description of wild shape, and replace it with the full description. This way, wild shape could be modified into different Archetype or with feat separately from the spells.
2) Under the influence of his/her favorite form of wild shape, give the druid different bonus according to that particular type of animal. The initial bonus might be the same as the bonus from the spell, but with the level increases, the druid could obtain more bonuses, like feats, skill, or even ability score associated with the wild shape form. As compensation, the choice for wild shape would be limited, i.e., learn new form of wild shape(animal) in particular level, or the non-favorite form of wild shape(animal) would not get bonus with increase in level, just like the effect of XXX spell.
For example, if a druid is very familiar with wolves, he would be much stronger when he turns into a wolf than any other animal with wild shape.
At level 4, he can shape shift into wolf with all the bonuses from beast shape N.
At level 6, his wild shape wolf form would be stronger. He can choose a monster feat as the bonus feat, but he still need to fulfill all the requirement of the feat and the effect of feat only occur under wild shape. As for bonus skill, he would get +4 in Stealth racial bonus (+2 Strength and +2 Nature Armor for Bear).
At level 7, changing form is now a move action, and at level 12, this action only takes a swift action.
At level 8, he could turn into the wolf with Large size: Dire Wolf. His size category increases by one, Strength +6, Dexterity -2, Nature Armor +3 (size), etc. etc.
At level 10, he can choose another bonus monster feat.
At level 12, he can now turn into magical beast, Winter Wolf, with Strength +4, Constitution +4, Nature Armor +2, and gain a special attack: breath attack. When under the effect of spells, he is treated as animal or magical beast.
At level 14, another bonus. At level 16, increases in size, etc. etc.
Ps. Of course he can turn into another type of animal, but he wouldn’t get any bonus.
3) For some of the Archetypes of druid, wild shape seems useless combat-wise. For those Archetypes, I suggest the removal of the ability instead of “effective druid level -2 or -4,” and replace wild shape with other much useful ability. For example, a “Plant shaman” can use a standard action to cause any environment to become thick and overgrown with grass within a short range (20 feet radius). These grass has no effect themselves, but it could provide the druid to cast Entangle, Plant Growth or any spells that depend on the presence of local plants to take effect.
At level 6, the radius of the ability becomes 30 feet. At level 8, the radius increases to 40 feet and could be used on the surface of water (overgrown with seaweeds). At level 10, radius 50 feet. At level 12 the ability could be used in air (able to block line of sight with spores or seed of dandelion).
At level 7, this ability only takes a move action, and at level 12, it only takes a swift action. At level 14, druid could choose the creatures that are not affected by the spell depending on this ability.
Druid’s wild shape has been modified a lot from 3E to PF, and people have different opinions about it. Some believed that the modifications made the class more balance, but other thought otherwise. In any case, everyone agrees that druid in PF’s version is much weaker than 3E’s.
But I am not here to talk about how weak in combat a druid is today. I believe many players complained about wild shape not because the ability is useless, but because it is not distinct enough. In fact, you can even say that wild shape is totally indistinctive.
“This ability functions like the beast shape N” is a very bad description for a class feature such as wild shape. Basically, there is no other description for any other core class with a class feature functions like XXX spell (Yes, monk has, but it’s not their main class feature). Even if a particular class feature does function like a particular spell, this kind of description makes that particular class indistinctive.
For example, barbarian has rage (EX), and this ability functions like being casted rage (spell). But if you change the description of rage (EX) to, This ability functions like rage (spell), what would happen?
First, no matter what the actual effect of the ability is, it would give the reader an impression such as, “Oh, so this just like a fighter with skill in Use Magic Device and use Wand of Rage to cast rage (Spell) onto himself.” Would someone like the class he/she choose with the permanent class feature functions just like one of many spells in Wiz/Sor spell list? I guess NOT.
Next, after a particular class feature turns into “This ability functions like XXX spell,” you will notice it would become very hard to modify it, no matter to enhance or reduce the effect. If the effect of a particular spell is set, the only way to adjust it is by changing the caster level. Then, you’ll find out many Archetype become very boring.
Using barbarian as an example, if you change rage (ex) to “This functions like the rage (spell),” you will notice a lot of Archetype of barbarian would have class feature description such as, “the effective level of rage is equal to his barbarian level +2,” or, “the effective level of rage is equal to his barbarian level -2.” This kills a lot of opportunities for new Archetype. You will have barbarian that runs faster in snow, barbarian that hides better in plain, or barbarian with very distinctive feature, followed by “effective level for rage is equal to barbarian level -2,” or “effective level of barbarian +2 when equipping greataxe, but -2 when equipping other weapons.” Let me ask you, would you pick these Archetypes? Do you thing these Archetypes are fun to play? I guess NOT.
Ok, let’s go back to my original topic, why Paizo modified Druid in such way? Doesn’t the rule for wild shape in 3E good enough?
In fact, the rule for polymorph spells in 3E is a bit imbalance. The biggest problems are a) obtaining too many bonus Str, Dex, or Con ability scores, and b) with all the expansions, the monsters become more and more powerful, and polymorph spells would be enhanced accordingly.
Paizo noticed these 2 problems, so they modified druid quite a bit, not just weakened all the polymorph spells, but also weakened wild shape and druid itself. To make up for it, Paizo dished out a lot of Archetypes focused on nature weapons, and implemented a lot of feats on nature weapons.
Maybe druid’s combat ability is comparable with other class, but it turns druid to an indistinctive class, too. Furthermore, it has created a phenomenon, simplification of wild shape.
In all the choices for wild shape, lion is always the best choice (unless dinosaur appears, but I don’t like dinosaur). With the same ability score, lion has a unique ability, rake, the highest nature weapon bonus, and attacks per round. Not to mention that lion’s nature weapon is one size larger than other animal’s.
Would someone want to turn into a bear to combat? No, lion is better in every way than a bear, with the same Strength.
Would someone want to turn into a rhino? No, lion is better in every way than a rhino, including charge attack.
Would someone want to turn into a snake? No, lion is better in every way than a snake, including grapple.
The definition of better is not just damage-wise, but also because lion is able to perform all the abilities that particular animal has.
This type of modification is acceptable for a spell, but when applying to a main class feature of core class, it would be a little bit simple and crude.
As a summary of the above, maybe druid is not as weak combat-wise, but the core class feature functions like XXX spell is a very bad idea. It made the class seem boring, and hard to make the Archetype fun to play with. Furthermore, the multi-purpose of lion make the other animals cripple.
So I suggest the following:
1) Delete “This ability functions like the…” in the description of wild shape, and replace it with the full description. This way, wild shape could be modified into different Archetype or with feat separately from the spells.
2) Under the influence of his/her favorite form of wild shape, give the druid different bonus according to that particular type of animal. The initial bonus might be the same as the bonus from the spell, but with the level increases, the druid could obtain more bonuses, like feats, skill, or even ability score associated with the wild shape form. As compensation, the choice for wild shape would be limited, i.e., learn new form of wild shape(animal) in particular level, or the non-favorite form of wild shape(animal) would not get bonus with increase in level, just like the effect of XXX spell.
For example, if a druid is very familiar with wolves, he would be much stronger when he turns into a wolf than any other animal with wild shape.
At level 4, he can shape shift into wolf with all the bonuses from beast shape N.
At level 6, his wild shape wolf form would be stronger. He can choose a monster feat as the bonus feat, but he still need to fulfill all the requirement of the feat and the effect of feat only occur under wild shape. As for bonus skill, he would get +4 in Stealth racial bonus (+2 Strength and +2 Nature Armor for Bear).
At level 7, changing form is now a move action, and at level 12, this action only takes a swift action.
At level 8, he could turn into the wolf with Large size: Dire Wolf. His size category increases by one, Strength +6, Dexterity -2, Nature Armor +3 (size), etc. etc.
At level 10, he can choose another bonus monster feat.
At level 12, he can now turn into magical beast, Winter Wolf, with Strength +4, Constitution +4, Nature Armor +2, and gain a special attack: breath attack. When under the effect of spells, he is treated as animal or magical beast.
At level 14, another bonus. At level 16, increases in size, etc. etc.
Ps. Of course he can turn into another type of animal, but he wouldn’t get any bonus.
3) For some of the Archetypes of druid, wild shape seems useless combat-wise. For those Archetypes, I suggest the removal of the ability instead of “effective druid level -2 or -4,” and replace wild shape with other much useful ability. For example, a “Plant shaman” can use a standard action to cause any environment to become thick and overgrown with grass within a short range (20 feet radius). These grass has no effect themselves, but it could provide the druid to cast Entangle, Plant Growth or any spells that depend on the presence of local plants to take effect.
At level 6, the radius of the ability becomes 30 feet. At level 8, the radius increases to 40 feet and could be used on the surface of water (overgrown with seaweeds). At level 10, radius 50 feet. At level 12 the ability could be used in air (able to block line of sight with spores or seed of dandelion).
At level 7, this ability only takes a move action, and at level 12, it only takes a swift action. At level 14, druid could choose the creatures that are not affected by the spell depending on this ability.
