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

[Brother MacLaren]

I find that my druid is greatly limited in his ability to fix conditions. While he can heal almost as good as a cleric, he doesn't get Remove Blindness/Deafness, Remove Curse, Restoration, Break Enchantment, Raise Dead, or Protection from Evil (any other enemy caster could negate his summons with that simple spell). Six spells whose absence is sorely noted. Party members have been blinded, cursed, killed, charmed, and subjected to negative levels and ability damage. We have a Reincarnate on deck for next session.

His animal companion (a riding dog) has far fewer of the obstacles that you get with a ludicrous beast like a rhino or giant crocodile, but it still has its problems. Had to baleful polymorph the poor thing into a monkey when the party was on a several-day mountain climb. Several times, my druid would have fled a fight in eagle form but for the fact that the dog would be left behind... the animal companion gets to be a hinderance at high levels.

Wild armor? Don't have it. It costs a feat to make it, plus a whole lot of money. Monk's belt? Couldn't make one. If you allow PCs to buy whatever items they want, yeah, druid is overpowered, but that's why magic shops are a bad idea. It really doesn't fit with the character class.

Now, in a party with no cleric and no wizard, the druid is very useful and versatile. But we have to go up against an evil druid, and it's going to be EASY. Summonings? Paladin can cast Magic Circle vs. Evil, problem solved, and the enemy druid can't do anything to defend against my summonings (unless he summons a unicorn). Wildshape? Poor AC, so rogues flank and sneak attack, paladin and barbarian Power Attack, 1 round he's down. Other spells? My druid will counterspell and will have prepped everyone with Mass Resist Energy (electricity and fire).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

That is, at best, a highly-debated assertion.

Personally, I do not treat polymorph-like effects as size increases.

The druid has not benefited from a size-increasing effect; rather, what you have is a perfectly normal-sized bear.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

My only beef with the druid is the arbitration that has to occur regarding what wildshapes are available. More concrete rules that helped the DM and player reach an accomodation would be nice. I don't have a problem with a high-level druid being able to assume many forms, but the 'wonder twin' aspect of it bugs me.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

That is, at best, a highly-debated assertion.

Personally, I do not treat polymorph-like effects as size increases.

The druid has not benefited from a size-increasing effect; rather, what you have is a perfectly normal-sized bear.

If it were an Instantaneous spell I'd agree. But wildshape is a continuing magical effect. It can be detected with a Spellcraft check and, as such, is certainly an "effect that increases size."

I won't turn this into a "does wildshape count as a magical effect that increases size" thread. Good enough to say I agree with you, this is a highly debated topic.

 

[Storyteller01]

Now, in a party with no cleric and no wizard, the druid is very useful and versatile. But we have to go up against an evil druid, and it's going to be EASY. Summonings? Paladin can cast Magic Circle vs. Evil, problem solved, and the enemy druid can't do anything to defend against my summonings (unless he summons a unicorn). Wildshape? Poor AC, so rogues flank and sneak attack, paladin and barbarian Power Attack, 1 round he's down. Other spells? My druid will counterspell and will have prepped everyone with Mass Resist Energy (electricity and fire).

Will a Circle vs Evil effect animals from a driudic summons? Aren't the animals a neurtral alignment? Near as I can tell, they Summon Nature's Ally (most of the critters called are neutral), not Summon Monster. Also, as far as I know the spell descriptor (Good vs Evil) is dependant on the creature summoned, not the alignment of the caster...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Will a Circle vs Evil effect animals from a driudic summons? Aren't the animals a neurtral alignment? Near as I can tell, they Summon Nature's Ally (most of the critters called are neutral), not Summon Monster. Also, as far as I know the spell descriptor (Good vs Evil) is dependant on the creature summoned, not the alignment of the caster...

Protection from Evil
Abjuration [Good]
Level: Clr 1, Good 1, Pal 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: No; see text
This spell wards a creature from attacks by evil creatures, from mental control, and from summoned creatures. It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot. The barrier moves with the subject and has three major effects.

First, the subject gains a +2 deflection bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus on saves. Both these bonuses apply against attacks made or effects created by evil creatures.

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person). The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect. If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally
command the controlled creature. Likewise, the barrier keeps out a possessing life force but does not expel one if it is in place before the spell is cast. This second effect works regardless of alignment.

Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect. The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature. Spell resistance can allow a creature to overcome this protection and touch the warded creature.

Arcane Material Component: A little powdered silver with which you trace a 3-foot -diameter circle on the floor (or ground) around the creature to be warded.

Protection from Evil prevents [Evil] and [Neutral] summoned creatures from attacking the warded creature. Only [Good] creatures are immune to this effect.

Protection from Good actually wards against [Good], [Neutral], and [Evil] summoned creatures.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Protection from Evil prevents [Evil] and [Neutral] summoned creatures from attacking the warded creature. Only [Good] creatures are immune to this effect.

This is what I would count on. Few of a druid's summons are good-aligned, and they tend to be not that powerful (giant eagle, unicorn, pixie, a few others).

Protection from Good actually wards against [Good], [Neutral], and [Evil] summoned creatures.

One of those cases where if the letter of the rules seems to contradict the spirit of the rules, I will go with the spirit of the rules. Most DMs would do likewise and consider it a "logical interpretation" rather than a "house rule." To blindly accept every instance WOTC's poor writing as evidence of actual intent is, I think, a bit foolish. The spirit of the rules is generally clear that the Evil/Good/Law/Chaos axes are basically symmetrical.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

This is what I would count on. Few of a druid's summons are good-aligned, and they tend to be not that powerful (giant eagle, unicorn, pixie, a few others).

What are you counting on? Protection from Evil protects against Neutral summoned critters. Meaning that nearly all of the critters summonable by Summon Nature's Ally...the neutral animals...would be blocked. Those few critters that are Good would be the only ones who could get through. And if it's Protection from Good, then even those won't.

One of those cases where if the letter of the rules seems to contradict the spirit of the rules, I will go with the spirit of the rules. Most DMs would do likewise and consider it a "logical interpretation" rather than a "house rule." To blindly accept every instance WOTC's poor writing as evidence of actual intent is, I think, a bit foolish. The spirit of the rules is generally clear that the Evil/Good/Law/Chaos axes are basically symmetrical.

What I think is foolish is posting in the Rules Forum, then calling people who respond with rules citations foolish.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

What are you counting on? Protection from Evil protects against Neutral summoned critters. Meaning that nearly all of the critters summonable by Summon Nature's Ally...the neutral animals...would be blocked. Those few critters that are Good would be the only ones who could get through. And if it's Protection from Good, then even those won't.

No, you're right. I agree with you. I, as the opponent facing an evil druid (see above), would count on Protection from Evil blocking most summoned creatures that a druid can call.

What I think is foolish is posting in the Rules Forum, then calling people who respond with rules citations foolish.

I don't think I'm calling you foolish. Do you truly believe that everything written in the PHB 3.5 perfectly reflects the designers' actual intent? Have you never read any clarification posted by one of the designers, or any opinion that seemed to contradict what was actually written?

Whether you have or not, I apologize for insulting you. I do think, and I have said, that the rules forum is a valid forum for more than just a strict literalist interpretation of what is actually written. It is also for discussing how the rules are the way they are, and why, and what rulings seem most in keeping with the overall game design. WOTC's writing is not perfect, nor was TSR's. For that reason, among others, the spirit of the rules is definitely part of the rules. The general effort that d20/3.5 has made for symmetry among all of the alignment axes seems to suggest that the proper interpretation of their poor writing is that "Protection from Good is like Protection from Evil except that Evil creatures can make physical contact with the subject and Good creatures cannot." To do otherwise would seem to, in my opinion, violate one of their design principles. The wording I have is verbose and clumsy, but accurate with what I think is the intent, whereas the wording in the PHB is shorter and more elegant but astoundingly counter-intuitive with no logical explanation.

The emphasis on following what is written as literally as possible without any judgment calls can produce some amazingly absurd results and that is what I call foolish... I have no reason to believe you actually do that. 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.

 

[Storyteller01]

You could just ban natural spell. They can get similar effects with the Silent/Still Spell feat combo, and you limit their available spells while in animal form...