D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Druids - what to do about them?
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
two
First Post
I think the reason people freak over Druids sometimes is that they can be outrageously effective given a lot of "normal" adventuring conditions.
They can out-scout a scout in a lot of situations, particularly when the Druid can wildshape into a small or tiny animal -- and do it all day.
They can search ahead on wing, or on land, or at sea, checking for ambushes and getting around traps.
A very difficult situation (party must go to site X through enemy territory chancing dangerous attacks/harrasement) can be turned into a relative cakewalk for a party with a Druid. A party without a Druid could be dead halfway there.
Similarly, give a Druid a round or two of buffing and it can get gnarly - this is obvious.
Etc. All these sorts of things put pressure on the GM, pressure that other classes (such a rogue or bard or wizard) don't really do at low-mid levels.
The GM might end up "never giving the party any chance to prepare for attack" even when the party earned it, or it's logical, simply to foil the druid...
The GM might curtail or nerf outdoor dangers/adventures, because the Druid shines too brightly...
The GM might never allow the party to ambush or trap an opponent, which gives a Druid plenty of time to buff...
Might never let the Druid turn into a bat and perch over the enemy's head in their cave, listening to the various discussions they are having...
Etc.
I personally don't think Druids are all that, but they DO put pressure on GM's. That I grant you. And sometimes GM's don't want that pressure. I sometimes don't.
Does that make Druid overpowered? I don't know. I do know that a party without a druid and party with a druid, at levels (for example) 6+, are two very different beasts.
(as it were)
They can out-scout a scout in a lot of situations, particularly when the Druid can wildshape into a small or tiny animal -- and do it all day.
They can search ahead on wing, or on land, or at sea, checking for ambushes and getting around traps.
A very difficult situation (party must go to site X through enemy territory chancing dangerous attacks/harrasement) can be turned into a relative cakewalk for a party with a Druid. A party without a Druid could be dead halfway there.
Similarly, give a Druid a round or two of buffing and it can get gnarly - this is obvious.
Etc. All these sorts of things put pressure on the GM, pressure that other classes (such a rogue or bard or wizard) don't really do at low-mid levels.
The GM might end up "never giving the party any chance to prepare for attack" even when the party earned it, or it's logical, simply to foil the druid...
The GM might curtail or nerf outdoor dangers/adventures, because the Druid shines too brightly...
The GM might never allow the party to ambush or trap an opponent, which gives a Druid plenty of time to buff...
Might never let the Druid turn into a bat and perch over the enemy's head in their cave, listening to the various discussions they are having...
Etc.
I personally don't think Druids are all that, but they DO put pressure on GM's. That I grant you. And sometimes GM's don't want that pressure. I sometimes don't.
Does that make Druid overpowered? I don't know. I do know that a party without a druid and party with a druid, at levels (for example) 6+, are two very different beasts.
(as it were)
Lord Pendragon
First Post
This is very true. In my games I enforce it with draconian efficiency. It's one of the few rules I treat thusly. Once the druid realizes he can't talk to the party while wildshaped, his desire to remain always wildshaped decreases rapidly.IcyCool said:
I'm not particularly arguing with you entirely, just responding to a few of your assertions that I've found to be untrue in my games, though of course they could very well be true in others.two said:
For instance, this assertion that druid's can outscout the scout. This is only true if the druid has spent the skill points in Spot and Listen that a scout needs. If he has, then yes, he's a good scout. But he isn't outscouting the scout, he is the scout. If he doesn't spend the skill ranks, he's only going to be good at scouting out large encampments that aren't trying to hide themselves, which is only a mediocre scout at best.
Again, I disagree. Whether or not its a cakewalk depends on if the party has a good scout, not wither they have a druid. Yes, the druid can be a good scout, but the rogue can be just as effective.
As a note: Some DMs assume that a flying creature, like a hawk, can automatically see everything underneath it. On the contrary, it is my opinion that in forested areas, a flying creature will actually have a serious negative circumstance bonus working against it (provided by the forest canopy.) Therefore scouting as a hawk is generally a bad idea.
A wolf or fox doesn't have to deal with the canopy, but does have to make move silently/hide checks, and deal with the fact that if spotted/heard, marauding villains are likely to take shots at it for the pelt, and enemy spellcasters will get a Spellcraft check to notice the ongoing magical effect (wildshape) if they catch sight of it.
So again, a druid can be an effective scout if he's put the appropriate ranks in scouting skills. But while wildshape has certain advantages, it also has enough disadvantages to keep it from making scouting into an automatically successful endeavor.
Setting aside the fact that clerics and wizards can get "gnarly", this is even true of my paladin. One round to summon his griffon mount, another to cast bull's strength (shared with the mount) then a series of Spirted Charges = evil.
My point here being that it's pointless to claim the druid is overpowered because he can lay the smackdown with 2+ rounds of preparation. Any class can do that. Even the fighter can do that at mid to high levels, if he's invested in the right magic items. (Ring of Spell Storing with Enlarge Person and Bull's Strength stored therein, for instance.)
This I agree with. You need to know how to deal with the various things the druid can do. It helps to think through various scenarios ahead of time.
BSF
Explorer
Jack said:
Why not be in Wildshape? Well, talking with your fellow PCs is a big reason. Talking with NPCs is another big reason. What if you are in an average dungeon bash? Rhinocerous is not very handy in such tight corridors. Let's take it a step further and assume you are assaulting a kobold or goblin lair. In such a case, a Druid's wildshape into a smaller form is a wonderful thing. But the large animal companion is stuck outside. What if you need to use a wand/staff/rod? What if you want to use a potion?
Wildshape is great. Druids are fun to play. Although I appreciate the RP aspects much mroe than the mechanics. I have played Druids from 1st Ed on up. But I also run games where combat might not even happen in a session. Even in sessions where combat is heavy, a Druid's Wildshape wouldn't have been overbearing. Heck, the last major fun combat we ran was on a flying ship being powered by necromantic engines over the ocean. The rhino in that situation would have been difficult to pull off since the PCs were on a dirigible at the beginning of the encounter.
If you give the PCs the opportunity to project the situation they will be in, there will always be optimizations that provide a strong response from them. If they know they are going to assault a Red Dragon, you expect that they will be heavy on energy resistance spells and you had better expect your Druid to memorize Quench. If they are out on the plains for days on end, a rhinocerous makes wonderful sense. It certainly isn't DM vs Players, but sometimes encounters will not be exactly what the PCs expected. The hobgoblin shaman casting spells on the hill is protected by a dozen hobgoblin spear wielders hiding in the grass. The Druid and his companion charge and suck up all that damage from the suddenly appearing hobgoblins with spears set to receive a charge. Or they charge across the area that has already had Spike Growth cast. Or they find that the ground is rough and the companion cannot charge. The Druid might be able to, but suddenly she is ahead of the group, by herself.
These aren't difficult situations to envision. You don't need to use them all the time. Your PCs should excel at what they do. But you do need to give each PC that room to shine. Sometimes that means the opponents are in a situation where the PCs favorite tricks aren't usable. When the PCs overcome the unexpctedly difficult challenge, they will become even better and they will remember that particular challenge all the more. Lull them into the sense of security with their 'unstoppable' tactics, then change things a little and watch them squirm.
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
A druid will never (barring outrageously convoluted circumstances) be the least effective member of the party. He'll never be as poor a fighter as the sorc/wizzy/psion (or the rogue against non-sneak-attack-able enemies). He'll never be as poor a scout as the fighter. He'll never be as poor a spellcaster as the non-primary spellcasters or even the bard. On top of all that, he has his own schticks (summoning and interacting with nature), and in those he's vastly better than anyone else.
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.
Compare that to the bard. He's never the best at fighting; under the right circumstances (the spellcasters have a chance to prepare), he may be the very worst. He's almost never the best spellcaster - even in enchantment spells he has no real edge over a sorcerer of the same level, if any. He's maybe an OK scout, if he took the skills, but nothing special - worse than a rogue and arguably worse than a druid with the same skills. He has his own schtick (buffing others) and he's extremely good at it.
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.
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.
Compare that to the bard. He's never the best at fighting; under the right circumstances (the spellcasters have a chance to prepare), he may be the very worst. He's almost never the best spellcaster - even in enchantment spells he has no real edge over a sorcerer of the same level, if any. He's maybe an OK scout, if he took the skills, but nothing special - worse than a rogue and arguably worse than a druid with the same skills. He has his own schtick (buffing others) and he's extremely good at it.
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.
The rules mention in several places that multiple effects that increase size don't stack.
A medium druid wild shaped into a large creature has already increased his size one category. One possible interpretation is that Animal Growth would then not have full effect. No size increase, no enlargement bonus to str/con.
Animal Growth is still useful, on the companion and summoned animals, and still gives the save bonus and DR to the druid.
As for huse rules, make Natural Spell a metamagic feat, with the restriction that a spell prepared with the feat can not be cast when in the druid's normal form.
A medium druid wild shaped into a large creature has already increased his size one category. One possible interpretation is that Animal Growth would then not have full effect. No size increase, no enlargement bonus to str/con.
Animal Growth is still useful, on the companion and summoned animals, and still gives the save bonus and DR to the druid.
As for huse rules, make Natural Spell a metamagic feat, with the restriction that a spell prepared with the feat can not be cast when in the druid's normal form.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
