D&D 3E/3.5 Fix for overpowered 3.5 Druids?

[Old Gumphrey]

That's silly, that means druids could only wildshape into animals that their DM has put into the game, and I'm pretty positive that's not the way it works. If they meant "you must have seen this animal firsthand" then I'm sure that's what would have been printed. I'm familiar with George W Bush but I've never come into contact with him.

 

[Li Shenron]

If you want to tone down druids - although I don't think they need to - you may also consider being more strict in adjudicating how their spells work in the different environments.

For example, a spell such as Entangle is described in the PHB to be dependent on the vegeation around. IMXP every DM tend to simply make the spell work as written in any case, but if you start adjudicating that it works that well only with optimal vegetation, the spell becomes less powerful most of the time.

There are many spells you can adjudicate this way, and the result is that the whole spellcasting ability is toned down a little.

 

[Li Shenron]

Except that in 3.5 all it takes is a take 10 on knowledge (nature) to be familiar with any animal in the books (as long as you can beat their HD + 10 DC which is laughable unless you have a terrible Int score). So if you actually bother keeping up with your knowledge (nature) ranks (and with 4 skills per level, this is incredibly easy) you're pretty much automatically familiar with all animals. Not exactly a stretch of the imagination, but I hardly see that sentence as a real drawback to someone with very extensive knowledge in the field.

Apart the fact that I enforce the equation "Knowledge + Take 10 = paradox", no matter what the corebook says, but in 3.0 it was even worse than that, because Nature Sense used to mean that druids were able to identify any animal and plant species with perfect accuracy (not that it means necessarily to know every trait of the animal, but it allowed a desert druid to identify a polar bear at first sight for example).

 

[green slime]

Apart the fact that I enforce the equation "Knowledge + Take 10 = paradox", no matter what the corebook says, but in 3.0 it was even worse than that, because Nature Sense used to mean that druids were able to identify any animal and plant species with perfect accuracy (not that it means necessarily to know every trait of the animal, but it allowed a desert druid to identify a polar bear at first sight for example).

And what is wrong with that?!? Polar bears are pretty darn distinctive...

Assuming a world where teleport is readily available, books abound (and therefore information too), who wouldn't recognize a polar bear?

For that matter, consider all the animals on the planet that are not described in the MM. The MM has, what, 20-30 "animals" described. Wobbegongs, bronze whalers, white-tipped reef, hammerhead, tiger, and white are but a few of the sharks existing on our planet. All with their own particular niche. Dito the Siberian and Javanese tiger. Yet they are all lumped together. For a reason: to keep it simple, silly.

I can't see how allowing a character whose entire life revolves around the study and nurture of nature, to recognize "Shark, (large animal)" when he sees one (even if he has never been to the sea shore), as some incredible munchkin dream come true.

 

[Liquidsabre]

That's silly, that means druids could only wildshape into animals that their DM has put into the game, and I'm pretty positive that's not the way it works.

If by "animals that their DM has put into the game" you mean animals in the MM that exist in the environment: Temperate Forest, then yea, that is the way it works.

PHB Druid Wildshape
The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with. For example, a a druid who has never been outside a temperate forest could not become a polar bear.

So it appears that the PHB states that you have to have been there, seen that to be "familiar" with said animal. A Druid who hasn't been to the ocean won't be "familiar" with aquatic animal life and thus won't be able to wildshape into a porpoise, though said druid may understand and possess knowledge of said animal.

The same goes with any other terrain-type and the animals associated with it that a Druid hasn't been to.

If they meant "you must have seen this animal firsthand" then I'm sure that's what would have been printed.

On the contrary, that is what is printed (see PHB quote above).

 

[Darklone]

Non-melding of equipment?

Wilding clasps and wild enchantment?

 

[Eccles]

So it appears that the PHB states that you have to have been there, seen that to be "familiar" with said animal. A Druid who hasn't been to the ocean won't be "familiar" with aquatic animal life and thus won't be able to wildshape into a porpoise, though said druid may understand and possess knowledge of said animal.

The same goes with any other terrain-type and the animals associated with it that a Druid hasn't been to.

Yeah, but then that druid would be familiar with fish from streams and pools and things.

And having become a fish, how long would it take the druid to become familiar with various forms of aquatic wildlife? Not too long at all.

 

[Li Shenron]

And what is wrong with that?!? Polar bears are pretty darn distinctive...

Assuming a world where teleport is readily available, books abound (and therefore information too), who wouldn't recognize a polar bear?

First of all I don't assume. If in your world there's a 9th level wizard every village ready to Teleport you around the world and back, it doesn't mean that everyone's world has. And even if the current D&D trend is as such, that doesn't make it automatic.

Anyway, identifying an exotic animal which is however common in its own environment is not a serious problem. But to wildshape into an animal, I'd like to keep it so that knowing an animal from books or having seen once is not exactly being familiar. Not that I normally bring this out against the players (at least I don't remember to have told a druid that she couldn't wildshape into a chosen form), but if I was playing a druid myself I wouldn't like to turn into a form which has nothing to do with her life just because I want a nifty ability.

Here the thread is about toning down the druid class because someone - in their own campaign setting - has the feeling of it being too good. I disagree, but I tossed in my opinion as well and said that the Druid's abilities can be toned up/down without actually changing much in the class, but just by adjudicating those abilities in a more restrictive way. I suggested spells, but wildshape is another possibility, and pushing the player to wildshape only in a few chosen forms can be done with an explanation that actually makes sense.

For example, using the hint about GWBush... we all know him and recongnize on sight, but would one be able to disguise himself as him (given the proper tools)? Most likely it'd be difficult, because even if we remembers his face, few can tell the details, how tall is he, how much he weights, how do his hands and feet look like... someone could pass for him against someone else who knows him from tv, but his wife would certainly recognize the real GWB.
It's perfectly fine if a DM decides to adjudicate Wildshape in the same fashion: to polymorph into an animal, you must have precise knowledge about its anatomy and physiology, unless you want to find out too late that an eagle's wings joints were not exactly the shape you thought

 

[Thanee]

A good solution to Natural Spell is Metamagic with +0 levels.

It doesn't even have to add levels (that would make it a bit too weak already, I think).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Old Gumphrey]

*lots of stuff that Old Gumphrey doesn't agree with*

Ok then, I'll just inform the DM that my druid has traveled the world and visited every terrain on the planet at least once. Why not? If before this issue came up I wanted a world-traveled rogue and that would be allowed, this also has to be allowed, or else it's a double standard arbitrary DM fiat.

This discussion of late is really just a silly semantics debate and is pussyfooting around the heart of the issue: that yes, it really *is* that easy for a core druid to be able to change into anything he wants to. So the PHB says I can't change into a polar bear if I've never left my temperate forest. Contradicts what's already said, but OK. Then I want to make this traveled druid and that's probably going to be countered with "well the DM is stupid if he lets you do that" or something similar. I'm not buying it. If in-depth knowledge of something doesn't qualify as familiarity, what does? I don't buy that casually observing a polar bear is somehow more familiar with it than studying it extensively and knowing where it lives, what it eats, its mating habits, what it looks like, how big it is, etc, etc, etc. Also, I'm sure in a world with D&D magic it's not too far off by a long shot to have an indoor zoo of sorts with things like polar bears in them. None of the semantics prevent me from defining something like this and would back up your views just fine.

If they meant "you must have seen this animal firsthand" then I'm sure that's what would have been printed.

On the contrary, that is what is printed (see PHB quote above).

Hmm, weird, I don't see that quote ANYWHERE in the text you offered.

pushing the player to wildshape only in a few chosen forms can be done with an explanation that actually makes sense.

That's a pretty good solution but instead of pushing I'd like to impose a set limit...maybe one form per two ranks in Knowledge (nature)? Despite my arguments in favor of a core druid easily shifting into anything, I am greatly opposed to it.

It's perfectly fine if a DM decides to adjudicate Wildshape in the same fashion: to polymorph into an animal, you must have precise knowledge about its anatomy and physiology, unless you want to find out too late that an eagle's wings joints were not exactly the shape you thought

Except that Polymorph doesn't require anywhere near that kind of precision and that is what Wild Shape is based on. You presumably hold the image in your head and shift into that. It's bunk to put the crunch on an innately wild-shaping druid like that but allow the other casters total freedom. Can anyone tell I'm not a big fan of arbitrary restrictions? Now if you want to apply that same type of restriction to all polymorphing, that seems a lot more fair to me.

A good solution to Natural Spell is Metamagic with +0 levels.

I'm already using that actually, except with +1 levels, and thinking about changing it to +2. I do not believe that the druid is somehow fundamentally weaker if it cannot be a full spellcaster while in Dire Bear form. If a wizard polymorphs to a dire bear and he wants to cast spells he has to make them silent and stilled and have Eschew Materials...so I put Eschew Materials as a requirement for Natural Spell and I think +2 levels is a fair trade. Almost all spellcasters take Spell Focus, but 100% of druids take Natural Spell as-written. That means it's way too good. I have never even heard of a 3.5 druid that skipped out on Natural Spell. What could possibly be a better choice? It's not like Natural Spell doesn't fit every druid concept in existence.