Augment Summoning ... how worthwhile ?

[Felix]

Kalendraf:

If Natural Spell works exactly how you rule it, then why would every druid not take this feat as his 6th level feat?

--No feat prereqs
--Essentially an Eschew Materials, with a (slightly) de-powered Silent Spell and Still Spell effect with no level increase.
--Seamlessly combines two of the Druid's biggest features: spells and wildshape.

I don't see any reason why any druid wouldn't take it. (And I certainly don't think "I'm not taking it for role-playing reasons" cuts the mustard... you don't balance mechanical advantages with role-playing disadvantages.)

So, if there is no reason at all that no druid wouldn't take this feat at 6th level, then couldn't this feat be a teensy bit overpowered? Certainly that is the case.

So, because this feat is overpowered if you rule it like you do, then the simplest way to de-power it is to use it like Saeviomagy does... ie, don't give the druid that much of an advantage. I should say that I would still take Natural Spell ruled as Saeviomagy does. Why? Someone with ranks in Spellcraft still has to hear or see the druid to pick him out. And which casters have Spot and Listen on their class skill list? You'll probably have a few rounds of confusion to take advantage of (or flee) before they can pinpoint your location.

And to protect your druid, remember that he'll likely have:

--smaller than medium size, which gives him a bonus to hide
--a ranged spell, which druids have a lot of
--the ability to gain concealment, which allows him to hide
--distance from the target, which imposes a penalty to Listen and Spot checks, to make it more likely that he goes unnoticed.

It's not that the feat doesn't give you advantages, but you just can't go around willy-nilly blasting things without fear of reprisal anymore. And I think that's a good thing.

 

[Staffan]

I would rule that a wildshaped druid with Natural Spell might be able to get a surprise round on someone who isn't prepared for a squirrel casting spells, but once noticed it's easy to see what the heck he's foing and react appropriately.

Now, if you want to be the stealth druid, cast a call lightning beforehand. Discharging the bolts shouldn't be too conspicuous.

 

[Kalendraf]

First, I'd like to appologize for high-jacking this thread on Summoning. I had merely intended to point out that natural casting was really good for druids, going so far as to provide some examples. Unfortunately it's now turned into a debate of sorts on how easy it is to spot a wildshaped caster. Probably worthy of a thread by itself...

If Natural Spell works exactly how you rule it, then why would every druid not take this feat as his 6th level feat?

There are other feats I can pose a similar question for. If Weapon Specialization works exactly how you rule it, then why would every fighter not take this feat as his 4th level feat?

--Essentially an Eschew Materials, with a (slightly) de-powered Silent Spell and Still Spell effect with no level increase.

In my campaigns, unless a spell has a material component with a cost (examples are identify, raise dead, etc), the components are ignored. So in this case Eschew Materials is essentially something all casters already have for the most part. I wouldn't agree that it counts as Silent and Still spell. A held or silenced druid can't cast, and they can still be heard and seen. Don't confuse the use of camoflaging yourself amongst other creatures as equating to being silent and invisible.

--No feat prereqs
--Seamlessly combines two of the Druid's biggest features: spells and wildshape.

Yup. No arguments there - that's how the feat was written. But unless there's been some kind errata issued for it, I don't think we're really debating that.

I don't see any reason why any druid wouldn't take it. (And I certainly don't think "I'm not taking it for role-playing reasons" cuts the mustard... you don't balance mechanical advantages with role-playing disadvantages.)

As the feat is written, I agree there are very few reasons for a druid not to take it. Much like I see almost no reasons for a rogue not to take Improved Initiative or a Fighter not to take Weapon Focus & Weapon Specialization. It would probably require some kind of special build of druid that requires 3 or 4 feats ASAP. That might occur with certain PrC's or multiclass druids. It's probably not common, possibly not very viable, but certainly possible.

So, if there is no reason at all that no druid wouldn't take this feat at 6th level, then couldn't this feat be a teensy bit overpowered?

As I said, I think the feat is very strong, but I'm not the person who invented it. WotC did that. You seem to think that I'm somehow improving the feat above what is listed in the PHB/SRD, but I disagree. I'm simply allowing it to be used by how the rules say it works. The problem is there seems to be some debate or gray areas as to how obvious spellcasting is. That's really what the debate has been focusing on. Everyone here seems to be in agreement that Natural Casting is a very strong feat for a druid.

So, because this feat is overpowered if you rule it like you do

Is it? The druid has been spotted an attacked multiple times, sometimes coming quite close to dying in the process. I think you've come to the conclusion that I'm somehow ruling that Natural Casting makes the caster silent and invisible and that is certainly not the case.

Someone with ranks in Spellcraft still has to hear or see the druid to pick him out. And which casters have Spot and Listen on their class skill list? You'll probably have a few rounds of confusion to take advantage of (or flee) before they can pinpoint your location.

You might be surprised, but it turns out that is pretty much how I have been ruling it. What you've failed to understand is just how few opponents have Spellcraft in this campaign world!!! In a bulk of the situations where the druid is wildshaped and manages to get the jump on the enemy, those foes have tended to be unintelligent creatures or humanoids that aren't familiar with casters. When they have encountered more intelligent foes, the wildshaped druid has definitely been a primary target.

It's not that the feat doesn't give you advantages, but you just can't go around willy-nilly blasting things without fear of reprisal anymore. And I think that's a good thing.

I never said he could do it w/o fear of reprisal, or that he's just blasting things willy-nilly. My example was just trying to show a situation where it can be extremely difficult for opponents to solve "Where's Waldo".

 

[Saeviomagy]

If it takes a DC10 to spot a human caster at a certain range casting a spell, then by the size rules, I would estimate that it's more like a DC18 to spot a tiny animal doing so at the same distance. I think in actuality the tiny animal would be even harder to detect than that, but this at least attempts to follow existing rules.

If the human is standing in the open (ie - not trying to hide), then there is no DC needed to spot him. You see him automatically. Stuff might be in the way, it might be dark, or whatever, but barring that there is no spot DC to see someone standing in front of you.

If he's hiding, THEN there is a DC.

Do you know why? Imagine the ridiculousness if you said it took even a dc 0 to spot a human being standing in the open with no cover. Half the time a peasant would be unable to see a man standing in a clear field 100 feet away. So this is a patently silly change to the rules unless you're going to overhaul the whole lot.

If the squirrel is hiding, then the DC to spot him is some 12 higher than for a human (3 size categories I'd say).

A human can hide in a crowd. A squirrel can hide in a crowd.

Just use the mechanics that are there instead of trying to make them up. If someone is trying not to be seen, they are HIDING.

If they are trying not to appear suspicious, they are BLUFFING. Probably. I wouldn't let a human caster get away with a bluff to conceal their spellcasting, so I won't let a squirrel one do so either.

They're fairly simple and generic rules. They cover a lot of situations. They don't really need to be altered just because you think a druid shouldn't even need to TRY to hide...

Spellcraft requires training to use, so this method of detection largely limits it to other casters and perhaps a few higher level types that have decided to invest in it. I'm not saying that spellcraft shouldn't factor into the detection, just that it may wind up being overly restrictive. If you are up close to an animal casting a spell, I'd say that even an untrained person might be able to notice something it's doing and figure out that it's casting a spell. So maybe for these purposes, I'd make an exception and allow untrained spellcraft checks (DC15+) to determine if those wierd movements are spellcasting. Still requires the spot check to be made 1st.

So wait - first you think that spotting a squirrel casting spells should be easy. So easy that the untrained eye can tell.

In addition, crossing species likely makes detection harder. There are spells that factor in species-crossing (Hideous Laughter) and impose a +4 penalty/bonus on the roll. For crossing creature types w/ spellcraft checks, I'd suggest applying that. That moves the DC to 19+. For an untrained person, it will be pretty difficult, but for someone with enough ranks in spellcraft (which I guess could cover topics like alternate species casting), it's a makeable roll.

But now it should be hard? I don't get it. I really don't.

Oh, and way to devalue spellcraft even further. It's hard enough when half the stuff out there just uses SLA's and you can't counter them anyway. Now you can't even tell what they did...

 

[Felix]

If there is only one thing Kalendraf and I agree upon, is that this thread is being hijacked. A new thread in the Rules Forum, which is where this kind of thing should be, is now here: Locating a Druid using Natural Spell

We now return you to your normal Augment Summoning discussion.

 

[Pickaxe]

Getting back to another subplot: SF (conjuration) as prereq.

Keep in mind that this feat sucks for druids in particular, but not necessarily for other classes. I have a sorcerer with Grease and Glitterdust, and I'm thinking about the Augment Summoning track, partly because the prereq will improve the DC for these two spells. Maybe that doesn't make SF (conjuration) fantastic, but I think it was made a prereq for AS as a way to make it slightly more attractive compared to SF (enchantment) or SF (illusion). The fact that SF (conj) has zero direct applications for druids may have been accidental, or it may have been by design, because the druidic summoning list is so good, especially early on. I'm not actually defending this logic, just distinguishing it from essentially making AS cost two feats.

--Axe

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but if you do go with Augment Summoning it's almost always better to summon 1d3 of nature's allies one level below (and sometimes better to summon 1d4+1 of allies two levels below the spell level).

Sometimes, yes. But I do not buy it as a general rule.

The problem with summoning 1d3 critters is I am screwed 1 time in 3. That is too high a failure rate. If I get two critters from my doubly boosted spell (two feats worth of boost), I fully expect to kick ass in all but the toughest fights. The third critter is not much of a boost because I already expect to win to prevail with just two. But one critter is bad enough that I am probably going to need to burn a good spell to make sure things go right. If one critter is okay, then just go for the sure thing with the bigger beast in the first place.

As the DMG says, randomness works against the PCs. d3 is too random in my book.

Now I can see being a higher level and going for d4+1. Either I am high enough level to burn a spare 3rd or 4th level spell to harass the mooks, or I am high enough level to invest a 5th level spell to bring in a team of Augmented Pouncing Improved Grabbing Raking Lions onto my poor Medium foes. The fact the Lions are way outclassed in the BAB department will not matter with Large size, good Str, and numerous attacks in their favor. I have a good chance of heinously hosing 2-3 dangerous bad guys with one spell.

 

[Klaus]

Change 1d3 to d2+1 (2 or 3 critters) and 1d4+1 to d3+2 (3, 4 or 5 critters).

Also, one can rule that Spell Focus (Conjuration) adds +1 to the DC to dispel summoned creatures.

 

[Legildur]

yeah, my entire group thought druids were completely worthless and i could not get them to believe me till i played one... <snip>

LOL! I face exactly the same attitude in my group. Mind you, their tone has changed somewhat after a few levels... A 9th elven Druid is nothing to sneeze at. Mind you, just lost my pet wolf for the 1st time to some hook horrors. :-(

I've gone the Augment Summoning and Natural Spell route and thoroughly think that it has served me well. Augmented Dire Wolves are my DM's pet hate now. Especially when his pet huge purple worm went down in 2 rounds to the barbarian and my wolves.

Anyway, no one has mentioned that summoned animals don't need to beat spell resistance?? But, on the downside, there is the 1-round casting time, short range, and congestion it causes (though sometimes desirable).

Summoned animals can also deal with different threats - water, air, land etc. And some of the special attacks (trip, electricity etc) can be saviours.

I tend to use wildshaping for scouting roles - very successfully.

 

[fusangite]

Spellcraft (Int: Trained Only)
Use this stkill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place.
Check: You can identify spells and magic effects. The DCs for Spellcraft checks relating to various tasks are summarized in the table above.

Natural Spell (General)
You can cast spells while in a wild shape. For example, while in the form of a hawk you could substitute screeches and gestures with your talons for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell. You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded with your current form.

From my reading of the two feats, I see no text suggesting that the DC for detecting casting in wild shape increases. Given that the feat description for Natural Spell clearly indicates that the druid in animal form would have to behave in a way very uncharacteristic of the species they are impersonating, I don't see why spells cast in wild shape wouldn't be more detectable. Humans say things and gesture in a focused way all the time; a grizzly bear standing on his hind legs, roaring and waving his front claws in a weird pattern is far more atypical than a human casting a spell.

Furthermore, Spellcraft is a trained-only skill. If you know enough about magic to acquire ranks in the skill, you certainly know that there are druids; they can shape-shift; and some of them can cast spells while in this altered shape.

This does not speak to whether one can see the caster in question. Obviously Spellcraft does not augment one's visual capacity. But if you're already watching a mouse, I would think if it stood on its hind legs and began making high pitched incomprehensible noises your attention would certainly be drawn to such an activity.