Are shifters too powerful?

[Wasteland Knight]

I would caution that this depends entirely on the DM. IMC we have, thus far, neither sunders nor 5 encounters per day, but I am not playing with rat-bastard mode enabled.

The kid gloves, as it were, are still on.

If the DM desires additional difficulties and complications, then it is equally easy for the DM to throw in a fifth encounter, or throw in some NPC with improved sunder.

Understandable. But let's put this in context...5 encounters per day is high, but what about 3? Ever had 3 encounters in the same day? I think that by the time a party has reached 8th level, they will have had quite a few days with 3+ encounters. A shifter who spends his at least two of his feats for 1st/3rd/6th level on shifter feats can still only shift 2 times per day. So no claws for the 3rd encounter. The shifter simply cannot do it. And having 3 or more encounters is a much more probable occurence than sundering/disarming.

Of course a DM could decide to have all their monsters attempt sunders/disarms all the time, that is certainly the DM's perogative. Most DM's are reasonable and rational people however, so I doubt this happens in most games. My point here is that a shifter who concentrates on natural attacks from shifting is at much more of a disadvantage than a fighter with a weapon that could be disarmed/sundered. I'm trying to talk generalities here, and situations could of course be very different from campaign to campaign. For example, certainly in a "gladitorial colosseum" type campaign things would be very different for the shifter...

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

The razorclaw, of course, has a weird rule.

He can't attack more than once in a round with a single claw, since it's a natural weapon.

However, the text then goes on to state that he can use a single claw as a light off-hand weapon, but that all his attacks in the round take a -2 penalty if he does so.

1. The penalty for using a light off-hand weapon should be -4 to all primary attacks and -8 to all off-hand attacks, unless the character has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

2. A natural weapon like a claw should be used as a secondary natural attack, at a -5 penalty to its attacks and no penalty to primary attacks, not as an off-hand weapon.

3. If the claw is being used as an off-hand weapon, rather than a secondary natural attack, it should be able to benefit from ITWF and GTWF for extra attacks, since it is not being treated as a natural weapon and thus the once-per-round restriction on natural weapons cannot apply.

-Hyp.

Looks like I'll be giving that the same treatment I gave Bite from AU/E. Lord ha'mercy, why can't they just use the already-in-place game mechanics?

 

[KarinsDad]

Player's Handbook

Thanks.

Didn't even think to look in that book.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

Do you use action points in your game?

page 46 ECS

"Activate Class Feature: You can spend 2 action points to gain another use of one of the following class features that has a limited number of uses a day: bardic music, rage, smite evil, stunning fist, turn or rebuke undead, or wildshape."

Technically you hit the same "it's a racial feature not a class feature" limitation, but personally I don't see why a Barbarian can spend 2 action points for an additional rage, but a shifter can't spend 2 action points for an additional "shift"

 

[Ahrimon]

Sorry I've been away for a while, I've been on vacation.

I thought I had hit on the solution when I remembered action points. Of course I was away from my books at the time. I was disapointed that I couldn't use action points for shifting when I read that it was class abilites only. Personally I wouldn't have an issue with using action points, especially since the shifter druid substitution levels trade wild shape on a one to one basis for shifting. I with you MW, but I'm not the DM and I want to try and stay solidly within the rules.

I'm going to have to take a look at Unearthed Arcana, I know it has an expanded ruleset for action points. Maybe there's something in there that will help.

I apreciate everyones inputs so far. I haven't given up on the idea yet. I'm too stubborn for that. I'll find a way to make this work eventually.

Ahrimon

 

[Ballard_Alvar]

In the Druids Defense

Q:

How exactly does the "super Druid" handle a Flying Sorcerer with Greater Invisibility pelting him with offensive spells?

A: The Goal of this post was to discuss effective characters that focus on claws. Yes, I did say that Druids are the most powerful base class in D&D; However, No PC will be able to deal with every encounter. For that reason a PC Joins a party. To support my claim that the Druid is the most powerful base class in D&D all I have to say is look at what you get: d8 hit die means that you don’t usually die in the first round of combat. Cleric BAB means that you aren’t quite as good at non modified melee as a fighter. Full spell casting: means that there is a versatility of magic to accommodate non melee focused encounters. Lastly, In addition to the full casting and a better than wizard bab, there are useful abilities like Wildshape, etc. All of these things combined can lead to a more than lethal combination. (e.g. see my first post).



Statement:

Also, core rules itself state that a Druid that has not been outside of a temperate forest could not become a polar bear. If you allow just any animal in the monster manuals, even ones the Druid has never encountered, then yes, the Druid can become more powerful. If you play according to core rules, it's more difficult to "min/max" this way.

Articulation:

I have never said anything about using non-core rules. It is perfectly plausible for a Druid of 8-10th level to have journeyed to the arctic regions. If the polar bear is not available, a Brown Bear is nearly as good.

Statement:

Core rules also does not state that a Druid is allowed to bump up the size of herself in Wild Shape with Animal Growth. Animal Growth itself states that "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack".

It does not state "Multiple spell effects that increase size do not stack". Since Supernatural Abilities can be Dispelled or suppressed in an Antimagic Field, they have to be considered magical effects.

So, you cannot increase your size by Wild Shaping and also by casting Animal Growth.

Articulation: Yes, Wild shape is a supernatural ability. True multiple effects that increase size do not stack. Wildshape, however, says “as Polymorph” which the first sentence of the spell reads “This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin.” No where does it says you increase size therefore it is not qualify as a magical affect that increases size. this means that spells like Animal Growth would not stack with spells or effects such as Righteous Might or Expansion which otherwise specifically say that they increase size.. To better illustrate my point I am changing my form into a completely different form, even assuming the types and subtypes this is the new base form (although you retain your hp/mental stats/etc per the specific clause) My new form is thus subject to an affect that increases size as there is no other effect that is in effect at that time.


In short, I am simply saying that given the current wording and definitions provided in the core, the example is a legal option for the druid to take. As for dealing with Invisible firballing wizard (obviously with the drop on the druid) he may not do well, but if the situation is turned around and the wizard is grappling with the wildshaped druid, one could offer the same result.

 

[KarinsDad]

A: The Goal of this post was to discuss effective characters that focus on claws. Yes, I did say that Druids are the most powerful base class in D&D; However, No PC will be able to deal with every encounter. For that reason a PC Joins a party. To support my claim that the Druid is the most powerful base class in D&D all I have to say is look at what you get: d8 hit die means that you don’t usually die in the first round of combat. Cleric BAB means that you aren’t quite as good at non modified melee as a fighter. Full spell casting: means that there is a versatility of magic to accommodate non melee focused encounters. Lastly, In addition to the full casting and a better than wizard bab, there are useful abilities like Wildshape, etc. All of these things combined can lead to a more than lethal combination. (e.g. see my first post).

At low level, sure. A Druid is more potent than a Wizard or Sorcerer. And even at high level, a Druid can dish out more damage with melee attacks.

But, at medium to high levels, Wizards and Sorcerers can fight without even being on the battlefield and Druids cannot match that (e.g. Fly with Greater Invisibility, or cast spells through a Projected Image, or Summon Creatures, or Dominate others, or create undead armies, etc., etc., etc.). Yes, a Druid can Summon Nature's Allies, but they tend to be no match for what a Wizard or Sorceer can summon/conjure/create.

And, if you break the rules by allowing WildShaping that increases a Druid's size category to stack with Animal Growth that explicitly states that it does not allow that, then of course, your Druid will be able to dish out even more damage.

Articulation: Yes, Wild shape is a supernatural ability. True multiple effects that increase size do not stack. Wildshape, however, says “as Polymorph” which the first sentence of the spell reads “This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin.” No where does it says you increase size therefore it is not qualify as a magical affect that increases size. this means that spells like Animal Growth would not stack with spells or effects such as Righteous Might or Expansion which otherwise specifically say that they increase size.. To better illustrate my point I am changing my form into a completely different form, even assuming the types and subtypes this is the new base form (although you retain your hp/mental stats/etc per the specific clause) My new form is thus subject to an affect that increases size as there is no other effect that is in effect at that time.

This is semantics and a way for min/maxers and powergamers to try to get around the rules.

It does not matter if your new form defaults to a different size. If a Polymorph spell or WildShape changes your size from Medium to Large, it is a magical effect that increased YOUR size. How it does it does not matter. It's magic.

You cannot claim that it did not increase your size or more specifically according to the rules, your size category.

Just look at what you wrote:

"No where does it says you increase size therefore it is not qualify as a magical affect that increases size"

Because the spell does not explicitly state that you increase size, you do not??? This is like saying that just because the spell did not explicitly state that your weight increased when you became a Dragon, that the rickety wooden bridge would still support your new weight.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either your size category increased and you gained reach and got a -1 penalty per size increase to AC, etc., or it did not.

You cannot pretend that your size category did not change and that it was not a magical effect that caused it.

In short, I am simply saying that given the current wording and definitions provided in the core, the example is a legal option for the druid to take.

Except that it is not legal.

You are pretending that your character did not change size category due to magic because the default size of the form he got changed into is different than his original form and now becomes his new default size.

You are ignoring the fact that it was still magic that changed his size when he changed to the new form and that his size category actually does change.

In location after location after location in the rules, it states:

"Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack."

It does not state: "Multiple magical effects that explicity state that they increase size do not stack."

But, that is what you are attempting to change the rules to in order to get the result you want.

As for dealing with Invisible firballing wizard (obviously with the drop on the druid) he may not do well, but if the situation is turned around and the wizard is grappling with the wildshaped druid, one could offer the same result.

Not if the Wizard has Dimension Door and a decent Concentration roll.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Yes, a Druid can Summon Nature's Allies, but they tend to be no match for what a Wizard or Sorceer can summon/conjure/create.

In my experience, the Summon Nature's Ally creatures are actually more powerful in melee combat than the Summon Monster creatures. You don't get the templates, but you do get animals one or two levels earlier (dire bear at 6th rather than celestial dire bear at 8th) which is a huge advantage. Animal Growth is an excellent way to enhance the summons. Spontaneous casting is a good feature that should not be ruled out.

Summon Monster's advantage is in the spell-like powers of some of the outsiders you can summon. The elementals are on both lists (non-templated) and are often very good options, and they are usually lower level for the druid. It's really the calling spells that most favor wizards and clerics.

There's a running rules debate on wild shape/animal growth and, yes, it does come down to semantics (much like the debate on lance and 1.5x Str bonus). I doubt it's really necessary to allow them to stack in order for the druid to be an effective combatant (though if it becomes widely accepted that they don't stack, I think you'll see a higher-level spell that does stack and/or prestige class features to increase size).

 

[glass]

In location after location after location in the rules, it states:

"Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack."

I guess the question is, do you consider wildshape et al to be effects that increase size.

I consider them to be shape changing effects. Some shapes just happen to be naturally bigger than other.


glass.

 

[Diirk]

Its actually better for the druid if they don't stack; he remains a valid target of the animal growth, so the spell still goes off. But if you're playing it that multiple enlargements don't work (thats the rules) and that wildshape is indeed a size altering effect (thats a bit questionable, but for the sake of argument we'll go along), then the animal growth and wildshape overlap. That is, they're both there, but they don't stack.

Now lets have a look at what spells do when they overlap. If you have a morale bonus to attacks already, and someone casts heroism on you, what happens ? The morale bonuses to attack don't stack, so you pick the better of the two. But regardless of which is better, heroism still grants you the bonus to ability checks and saves.

In the same way, animal growth's size alteration may be redundant and not do anything, but the DR 10/magic, the saves boost and the stat modifications would still take effect. Without making you too big to fit in a dungeon. Sign me up !