D&D 3.x Fix for overpowered 3.5 Druids?

Ferret · Jul 28, 2004

Simple question: Why would making Natural spell simply a +0 adjustment metamagic feat change it?

Li Shenron · Jul 28, 2004

Ferret said:
Simple question: Why would making Natural spell simply a +0 adjustment metamagic feat change it?

AFAIK, as metamagic it would require those spells to be prepared beforehand, but with +0 there's no problem... you just prepare ALL with Natural Spell

Maybe Thanee meant to change it also in a way that a spell prepared with NS would work ONLY when wildshaped, now that would definitely make it more difficult to use.

Destil · Jul 28, 2004

D6 HD, weaker fort save. Same as the cleric, only you don't need to strip out heavy armor.

Old Gumphrey · Jul 29, 2004

Ferret said:
Simple question: Why would making Natural spell simply a +0 adjustment metamagic feat change it?

Simple answer: It wouldn't.

Destil said:
D6 HD, weaker fort save. Same as the cleric, only you don't need to strip out heavy armor.

Good start, but not quite enough. I think making Natural Spell a +2 meta feat helps a lot, and something really needs to be done about the animal companions. I don't see how letting a full caster have a pet Tyrannosaurus is somehow necessary for its balance.

Liquidsabre · Jul 29, 2004

Eccles said:
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.

Naturally, but they wouldn;t be able to wildshape into a aquatic (salt-water) form until they spent time in an aquatic (salt-water) environment, becoming familiar with the animal life there: befriending, living beside, etc.

Old Gumphrey said:
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 someone wants to power-game it, sure. Nothing stops you from doing this in the current rules unfortunately. Don't mistake my reading of the RAW for disagreement on the topic at hand however.

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.

I'd start by defining familiarity with it's dictionary definition: "Considerable acquaintence with, established friendship." I just take it to mean that the Druid has been to these wilds and befriended, spoke with, live next to these animals for some period of time. *shrugs* but you can change it's meaning however you want, whatever knocks your socks off I guess.

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

That IS weird. I suggest looking at it again. Something to do with never having been to the polar regions therefore never having ever SEEN a polar bear before I believe. It sounds like you're just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it. As I said though, what ever knocks your socks off I guess.

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

I agree, as I mentioned in my first post (if it was even read). I'm in favor of putting some sort of limit on it.

Now if you want to apply that same type of restriction to all polymorphing, that seems a lot more fair to me.

An excellent suggestion. Changing the core polymorph set of rules would be the way to go for fixing this and have it apply across the board. Definately a step in the right direction, sounds great! This being the case limiting the number of creatures you are familiar with enough to change into would have to be a mechanic based on Knowledge ranks (to apply across the board to Wildshape, Polymorph spells, etc.). Perhaps for each appropriate Knowledge Rank you may add 1 creature to your list of possible shapechanges. So a 1st level Druid might start with 4 animal shapes they are familair with to change into (though not necessarily able to yet). A 12th level Druid in turn would be able to possess 15 different animal shapes they are familiar with enough to wildshape into.

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.

Natural Spell IS too good, ooohhh I like the Eschew Materials requirement, consider this snagged!

Hmmm, our group uses spontaneous metamagic, so for us changing Natural Spell into a metamagic spell would almost kill it too much (limiting it to 3/day only). I don't know, I kind of like it heh. For us it would be +0 slot adjustment but for core metamagic having EM as a requisite and a +1 slot adjustment sounds good.