Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shaele" data-source="post: 2905548" data-attributes="member: 3071">Well, it *is* a nerf, of a sort, in that you have fewer forms, and fewer abilities while in those forms. We're not powergamers by anyone's standards. The druid in our old campaign generally wildshaped to scout, or talk to other animals in the region. In combat, she'd generally stay elven so that she could talk to the party when it really mattered (e.g. &quot;fall back for a heal!&quot;). She occasionally wildshaped in combat, but since she could only do it a few times per day, tended to save them for non-combat activities. With the new rules, the same player wanted to try a shapeshifter so that she could do more of those types of activities. We expected her to be giving up some of her offensive abilties (i.e. no bear companion) to become a better shapeshifter. Instead, she's found that she's better in combat, but much less versatile than she used to be. That's what I find odd about the new shapechange rules: shapeshifter druids are actually worse at shapeshifting (in most respects) than straight-out druids with a couple of feats. They trade an animal companion, and most of the versatility, for better combat effectiveness. I'm not convinced that the two are equal... I can't help but think that a well-built 3.5 druid will be more effective in combat *and* have the versatility that the shapeshifter is lacking.... and yes, I acknowledge that if you feel that natural spellcasting is &quot;broken&quot;, and house-ruled it out, that this might be a more appealing class. We haven't done that though, so I'm stuck comparing the stock 3.5 druid with this variant. Call me an optimist, but I keep thinking that they should be roughly balanced against one another&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Shaele</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shaele, post: 2905548, member: 3071"] Well, it *is* a nerf, of a sort, in that you have fewer forms, and fewer abilities while in those forms. We're not powergamers by anyone's standards. The druid in our old campaign generally wildshaped to scout, or talk to other animals in the region. In combat, she'd generally stay elven so that she could talk to the party when it really mattered (e.g. "fall back for a heal!"). She occasionally wildshaped in combat, but since she could only do it a few times per day, tended to save them for non-combat activities. With the new rules, the same player wanted to try a shapeshifter so that she could do more of those types of activities. We expected her to be giving up some of her offensive abilties (i.e. no bear companion) to become a better shapeshifter. Instead, she's found that she's better in combat, but much less versatile than she used to be. That's what I find odd about the new shapechange rules: shapeshifter druids are actually worse at shapeshifting (in most respects) than straight-out druids with a couple of feats. They trade an animal companion, and most of the versatility, for better combat effectiveness. I'm not convinced that the two are equal... I can't help but think that a well-built 3.5 druid will be more effective in combat *and* have the versatility that the shapeshifter is lacking. ... and yes, I acknowledge that if you feel that natural spellcasting is "broken", and house-ruled it out, that this might be a more appealing class. We haven't done that though, so I'm stuck comparing the stock 3.5 druid with this variant. Call me an optimist, but I keep thinking that they should be roughly balanced against one another :D Shaele [/QUOTE]

Verification