[3.5] Revision Spotlight - Druid class

[Steverooo]

One think I am curious about...Animal empathy is gone?

If so how will this affect Tamer of Beasts Prestige class as one of the requirements is Skill focus Animal Empathy and 10 ranks in Animal empathy.

Soo... what happens to that Prestige class?

(I ask cause I play Living greyhawk and I am taking my druid to that prestige class. So I am curious to what people here think on it)

You probably make it: Wild Empathy with a total bonus of +12.

 

[Dark Dragon]

Re: Wildshape/Polymorph

I was going back through some of the old Dragon Revision Alerts, and came across the general abilities of Polymorph (Dragon #307)

Polymorph does NOT grant you any extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural abilities of the chosen creature. The only listed exception is that or extraordinary attack forms (the troll's Rend ability is given as an example of an extraordinary attack action).

It lasts only 1 min/level, also.

This should help with determining the limits of Wildshape.

Hmm, if it says extraordinary attack forms, does this include improved grab, constrict, pounce, rake?

What about other EX-abilities like sprint? A druid morphed into a cheetah can't sprint?! No scent? Huh?!

Same mistake as in 3.0, same problems...at least that's what it seems.

This will brake down the shifter prc, btw. The shifter's power relies on the extraordinary abilities of the forms he takes.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If the proposition is "the druid needed to be improved," then
nobody has to prove that the druid is (or was) "a great class." Rather, the side supporting the proposition has to prove it's called for. I was calling PlaneSailing's argument to that effect (that boosting the druid was justified due to a lack of player participation) into question.

I like to think of it as less of an argument and more of a hypothesis

Of course, one could argue that the bribery strategy is already what they were doing with clerics, which makes it kind of a lost cause already.

I think this hits the nail on the head, to be honest. It seems as if the general policy was to make classes which their research (of whatever kind) showed to be undesirable or under-played into more commonly played classes by boosting their power. I don't know about you, but I've seen more clerics in play now than before. I would guess that they are following that logic through with druids (and to a certain extent bards, perhaps?)

It isn't that I think this is the *only* rationale for changes which they make to classes, but it seems to be one of them.

There has been one druid player in my campaign, who got up to 5th level then asked if he could retire the character and bring in something else because he felt underpowered and a fifth wheel compared to everyone else in the party. Regrettably his second character was so optimised for AC that he turned out to be less than impressive in other respects, and a few months later the chap left my gaming group. This isn't a "3e druid class forced a player out of my group" story

I'm very pleased with the changes they are making to the 3.5e druid. I'd considered playing a druid for my last character, I'd consider it even more strongly if and when we move to 3.5e rules.

Cheers

 

[Psion]

Not really. People enjoy dungeon adventures and they are intrinsically easier to balance and stat on a tactical level. Its not a pity, just efficient. Supply and Demand meet.

Unlike other classes, the 3.0 Druid and Ranger were particularly incompatible with a dungeoneering campaign.

Heh... I have read (and run) enough adventure with the phrase to the effect of "this adventure contains significant outdoor portions and a ranger or druid would be beneficial" that I consider that to be false.

If players' aren't taking the class, then it isn't contributing much fun to the gaming community as a whole, is it? Balance and player participation usually go hand in hand.

I don't beleive so. Balance is required for fun, but does not guarantee it. I don't think there is anything compulsory about getting the "druid count" up and think factors contribute to it's low usage other than balance. For example, it is a very specific role and an odd fit in some games. That they are invariably cast as "worshippers of nature and not deities" in the books does not help, as it makes it so that the DM either has to shoehorn them into the game and have to fight against the perception made by the text in the books.

Read the thread. The proposition was 'the new druid is overpowered.' I asked for proof. No fallacy there.

I think, not seeing the new spell list and spells, it would be just a little premature to make that judgement. That said, I think IF the druid is made as effective in a dungeon environment as the cleric and wizard, AND are just as effective as they are outdoors, the druid will not be role-balanced.

 

[Psion]

You probably make it: Wild Empathy with a total bonus of +12.

Naw. Wild Empathy with a base bonus of +7. That would put it on the same level.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Read the thread. The proposition was 'the new druid is overpowered.' I asked for proof. No fallacy there.

I've read the thread, thanks, and am well aware of both the topic of the tread and the proposition I was actually responding to. I'll ask you to refrain from so impugning me.

"Read the thread," indeed. Thank you so much for indicating that my position could only possibly be based on ignorance or laziness. Completely uncalled-for.

 

[jasamcarl]

Heh... I have read (and run) enough adventure with the phrase to the effect of "this adventure contains significant outdoor portions and a ranger or druid would be beneficial" that I consider that to be false.



I don't beleive so. Balance is required for fun, but does not guarantee it. I don't think there is anything compulsory about getting the "druid count" up and think factors contribute to it's low usage other than balance. For example, it is a very specific role and an odd fit in some games. That they are invariably cast as "worshippers of nature and not deities" in the books does not help, as it makes it so that the DM either has to shoehorn them into the game and have to fight against the perception made by the text in the books.



I think, not seeing the new spell list and spells, it would be just a little premature to make that judgement. That said, I think IF the druid is made as effective in a dungeon environment as the cleric and wizard, AND are just as effective as they are outdoors, the druid will not be role-balanced.

And if you were to read a little farther down the thread, you would see that I've already made the two latter points. Now put them together. 'Role balance' has to be weighted for the usefulness of the roles that you are balancing. Given the limited role of the Druid, with many of his spells being exceedingly passive and requiring special GM intervention to make relevant versus just about every other class, a 'role balanced' druid should have to pay little in power in the dungeon for those meagre outdoor utility abilities.

And yes, a core class should want to be played by as many people as possible, because it feeds into the general quality of the game. The more popular all the classes are, the more popular the game, the more people play.

 

[WizarDru]

Heh... I have read (and run) enough adventure with the phrase to the effect of "this adventure contains significant outdoor portions and a ranger or druid would be beneficial" that I consider that to be false.

But....but....but what about "Back to the Dungeon?"

(snif)

Wait, I know! 3.5's catch phrase will be "Into the Woods!"

 

[Argent Silvermage]

But....but....but what about "Back to the Dungeon?"

(snif)

Wait, I know! 3.5's catch phrase will be "Into the Woods!"

Now you know Bolo will have to get a red riding cloak.

 

[woodelf]

Re: Re: Wildshape/Polymorph

Hmm, if it says extraordinary attack forms, does this include improved grab, constrict, pounce, rake?

What about other EX-abilities like sprint? A druid morphed into a cheetah can't sprint?! No scent? Huh?!

'Cause that would be "unbalanced" apparently. It's ok if shapeshifting lets you kick all the butt, but if it lets you do something cool and non-combat-oriented? Nope, too powerful.

I don't get it. I'd understand changing polymorph and wildshape so that you get everything *except* the combat abilities. Maybe my D&D games over the years have just been weird. But i've seen those abilities used a lot (in multiple editions), and i can only think of one instance where they were used for combat. Heck, the druid in the game i'm in now used wildshape literally every chance she got (the player thought it was cool, so she'd use it any time she had an excuse). At least once a session. In the course of 2 years, she turned into a rhino once (to deal with some, essentially, dire wolves), and that's the *only* time she used wildshape for combat.

Anyway, on druids and roles in general: i think, if they're trying to get all the classes equally played, they may be missing the point. I'm not convinced the underlying archetypes are equally popular, so adding more carrots may not be the answer. I'll take my old D&D campaign as an example: It ran for 7 years, had an *average* of 8 players at a given session and a dozen players "active" at any given time (max 19 at one session, probably about the same for active players), and a fair bit of turnover (6-8 players were the same ones all the way through, others were there for a couple of years, and there was a complete newbie (who might or might not have become a regular) at about every other session). All told, i can come up with ~60 characters from that game (count's a little fuzzy in my head). Of those, there was exactly one single-class, non-specialist wizard. One fighter/wizard and 3 or 4 specialist wizards. Several druids. A fair number of clerics. A couple bards. The only classes that were underrepresented were the wizard, the monk (1), and the paladin (0). (This was under AD&D1, then AD&D2, then AD&D2 + copious house rules. Balance wasn't what kept people away from a class--if they liked the concept, i made sure they didn't feel shafted--i was more interested in happy players than strict game balance.) Interestingly, i had a disproportionate number of clerics. I attribut this to their customizability--i went gung-ho with eth concept of specialty priests in 2e, and let players help me customize their abilities for their deity. I don't think i had a single cleric who could turn undead in the entire 7 years. ;-)

My point is, i think those who don't play clerics, don't play clerics because they don't want to, not because they want to, but they feel shafted if they do. To that end, i think the narrowing of the class concept (from 2e specialty priest to 3E cleric) is the problem, not them being underpowered. And i think that giving them more variety is the solution. Similarly, i think lack of flexbility is what's hurting the druid, if anything is. As others have said, the druid seems to be being relegated to a narrower role, so even fewer people are gonna be interested in it--it doesn't matter how powerful your shapeshifting circus-master is, if you don't want to play a shapeshifting circus-master.