Tell me why Druids are the most powerful class

[DevoutlyApathetic]

None of your points apply if you've wildshaped into something that happens be the same size as you. DR 10/magic is sometimes worth it.

LG is the last place to go looking for rules help from. The previous ruling clearly let you still use the DR and resistance bonus from Animal Growth on yourself even if the spell didn't change your size. Now it's just unclear.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Would you care to quote a rule??? And not an LG house rule...

As I said, it's a matter of the one rule "two effects which increase your size do not stack"

One effect (wildshape) increases your size when you change shape, so you cannot stack any other effects that increase size.

As I said, the arguement "well, it doesn't use the words 'increase your size' anywhere in wildshape, so it is only changing your shape" would go over about as well as the arguement that a trip doesn't do damage so it isn't an attack with me or worse yet, the book doesn't specify a penalty for death, so I should still be able to attack.

A size change is a size change. Sean K Reynolds once states that one of his pet peeves was that everyone kept taking the rules literally when they were always supposed to be interpreted with common sense, so not EVERY last thing wes spelled out for you. They figured people were smart enough to figure these things out on their own.

 

[mikebr99]

As I said, it's a matter of the one rule "two effects which increase your size do not stack"

One effect (wildshape) increases your size when you change shape, so you cannot stack any other effects that increase size.

As I said, the arguement "well, it doesn't use the words 'increase your size' anywhere in wildshape, so it is only changing your shape" would go over about as well as the arguement that a trip doesn't do damage so it isn't an attack with me or worse yet, the book doesn't specify a penalty for death, so I should still be able to attack.

A size change is a size change. Sean K Reynolds once states that one of his pet peeves was that everyone kept taking the rules literally when they were always supposed to be interpreted with common sense, so not EVERY last thing wes spelled out for you. They figured people were smart enough to figure these things out on their own.

Ahh... now were getting to the heart of it... and your misreading of the books.

The correct rule you are trying to quote is...

Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus works (see Combining Magical Effects, below). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one.

As you can see... I've underlined the relevant part.

Wildshape... polymorph... is a "Form change, or type change"

Animal Growth is a "size change".


They are different types of bonuses.


Mike

 

[Thanee]

What makes the druid powerful is the same that makes the cleric powerful.

They have good BAB, HP, saves, skills, spellcasting and special abilities.

They are not the best in either category, fighters have better BAB, barbarians better HP, monks better saves, rogues better skills, wizards better spellcasting and monks also have better special abilities (tho, this one could be argued, Wildshape is mighty powerful ), BUT they are strongly positioned in every category, where most of the others are awesome in a few and weak in most.

Druids (and clerics) have no real weakness. That's what makes them strong.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Pielorinho]

I agree that the rules allow animal growth to be cast on a wildshaped druid; I just happen to think that's a very bad idea.

In my experience playing a druid to thirteenth level, fighting while wildshaped is often a very bad idea, due to the low AC of animals. Unless I'm under the effects of a mage armor, barkskin, and/or protection from evil, I go down very quickly. And if I am under those effects--well, the party fighter could also be under them, being a superior tank to me.

Again, however, we play that most items merge with the druid: when you're wildshaped, you are not taking advantage of that cloak of resistance, that ring of protection, that amulet of natural armor, that suit of +3 leather armor, that +2 shield, or any of the other doodads that normally protect you.

Daniel

 

[mikebr99]

I agree that the rules allow animal growth to be cast on a wildshaped druid; I just happen to think that's a very bad idea.

Daniel

Heh... I rather see the Natural Spellcasting Feat, go by the wayside. THAT whole mechanic... or lack therof... is screaming for a RoTG article... or seven.


Mike

 

[Mekabar]

Again, however, we play that most items merge with the druid: when you're wildshaped, you are not taking advantage of that cloak of resistance, that ring of protection, that amulet of natural armor, that suit of +3 leather armor, that +2 shield, or any of the other doodads that normally protect you.

This is even supported by the rules with the exception that amulets can be worn by anything that has a neck, rings can be worn by anything that has digits, and armor can be used if it has the Wild enhancement, which is quite expensive by itself. I don't think this is overpowering for a wildshaped Druid.

 

[mikebr99]

This is even supported by the rules with the exception that amulets can be worn by anything that has a neck, rings can be worn by anything that has digits, and armor can be used if it has the Wild enhancement, which is quite expensive by itself. I don't think this is overpowering for a wildshaped Druid.

Hi Mekabar.
Do you have a book and page number.. quoting that only rings and amulets, from the wondrous items list, stay active when you Poly?


thanks...


Mike

 

[Mekabar]

No I don't have a book or page number, nor do I think it exists, but I remember that somewhere it is stated that amulets are especially popular because they can be worn by virtually any creature. The only thing the rules state on this matter is:

When the change occurs, your equipment, if any, either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional.

So it could be possibly argued that an animal of roughly humanoid shape (like an ape) can wear even more than Rings & Amulets, perhaps even flexible Armor like Chain Mail (although a Druid may not use those). But in general most other equipment will become inoperative.

 

[Mekabar]

Ok, I found it, its from the Wizards rules FAQ:

In general, a change from one form that has a humanoid shape to another form that has a humanoid shape leaves all equipment in place and functioning. The subject's equipment changes to match the assumed form. It becomes the appropriate size for the assumed form and it fits the assumed form. The spellcaster can change minor details in your equipment, such as color, surface texture, and decoration.

When a subject changes from a form with a humanoid shape to a form with a nonhumanoid shape (or vice versa) most of his equipment is subsumed into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. Items the subject could conceivably wear in an assumed form remain functional. For example, most items worn on the body, such as armor, cloaks, boots, and most other items of clothing made for a humanoid body won't fit on a nonhumanoid body. Some items can fit on just about any kind of body. For example, a ring fits just about any form that has digits of some kind (the limit of two rings applies no matter how many hands or similar appendages a creature has). Likewise, a necklace fits on just about any form that has a neck.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a