Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 2674631" data-attributes="member: 10397">And I disagree with pretty much all of this <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /> I have yet to see any way, in the rules, in which the Druid is a stronger class than the Cleric. Druids can do some things that Clerics cannot yes. But the same is true in reverse and often in more important ways.Also on Holy Word etc: The Cleric seems to have an inordinate number of ill-thought out spells and also ill-thought out Cleric focused magic items (such as the Bead of Karma) and feats (such as Divine Metamagic and Domain Spontaneity). Limited Druid Spells: Animal Friendship, Calm Animals, Detect Snares and Pits, Entangle, Invisbility to Animals, Magic Fang, Animal Messenger, Animal Trance, Charm Animal, Hold Animal, Soften Earth and Stone, Warp Wood, Wood Shape, Dominate Animal, Greater Magic Fang, Snare, Speak with Plants, Antiplant Shell, Giant Vermin, Quench, Repel Vermin, Animal Growth, Commune with Nature (as compared to Commune and CoP), Transmute Rock to Mud, Tree Stride, Fire Seeds, Repel Wood, Transport Via Plants, Transmute Metal to Wood, Repel Metal or StoneThats at least 30 spells. Not a huge number, but considering the Druid list is already even small than the Bards, thats a good chunk of spells that have limits on their effects...target, material type or enviroment. In particular Transmute Rock to Mud which can be very useful has the strong limitations of that it only effects *stone* (it cant turn dirt into mud) and it must be totally unworked stone.And sure other classes have target limited spells (although Searing Light isnt one of them..it works fine on non undead, it just has greater effect on undead), but usualy those spells are only taken and used much under special circumstances. Sure you could (and I myself prefer to think of Druids as Nature-Mages rather than Nature Priests), but this doesnt really relate to their power level or balance. And mechanically you could not fully fill the role. You could get past on the direct damage. But Wizards are better at save or dies, teleportation and other means of transport, mind control and illusions.The Druid spell list is considerable smaller, and covers less overall ground than that of the other full casters. In some enviroments the gap narrows considerably. But their main magical offense is in the form of direct damage, which has serious issues in mid and high levels...especially for many of the spells Druids use in that area that deal smaller amounts of damage over a period of time. They arent especially good with Save or Dies, which later on becomes the main effective form of spellcasting offense. They are good buffers and healers, and good at some forms of utility, good at direct damage, and of course now good at summoning.  Yes, and their getting Flame Strike as a 4th level spell is indeed a very overpowered circumstance, since at 4th level it breaks the caps even for Arcane damage spells. Even with that though, I dont think getting Flame Strike and Poison a level early really makes up for getting Dispel Magic and Finger of Death a level late. Certainly this is true. And they do have plenty of good non restricted spells. But their spell list is still not the equal of the other casting classes. And thats as it should be considering everything else Druids get.  Indeed. And as I have said, i feel both classes are too strong. And I feel those spells should be availble to more classes, and in some ways that the spells themselves might also benefit from some adjustments.  Oh really?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  You realize I feel exactly the same about your contention, although to a lesser degree, because I do feel the Druid is to strong. I just think the Cleric is worse. And also, the Druid in 3.0 was a bit less overpowered than it is now, whereas the Cleric has been overpowered from the begining of 3.x Almost, but I dont think quite. Partially because of where the differences lie. Druids are better at direct damage, but Clerics are far better at save or dies, and past low levels save or dies are generally more useful. Also Clerics have things like Hold Person, Blindness/Deafness and others that disable foes...the Druid mainly has Entangle in that area, which is a great spell but also nearly the only one of its kind on the Druid list. Clerics also have the potential devastating Alignment Word spells, better divinations, and far better self combat buffs.Also the have Spell Resistance and the Spell Immunities along with the magic defense spells they share with Druids. Ok let me explain what I am getting at in this area. Most of the people I hear ranting about Druids and saying the are worse than the Cleric claim that Wildshape can let the Druid replace the Fighter because they can get such great ACs, and the Str and grapple stuff and whatall else.And I dont agree with that. Viritually all the Wild Shape forms have mediocre ACs that the Druid could probably easily achieve in his own form with what armor he has avaible and deccent Dex, and while yes you get the Str and attacks, you still only have medium BAB.In terms of Combat, I feel the Clerics heavy armor proficiency which is probably going to provide a better AC and which has no casting restrictions, along with their base combat ability and melee buffs is going to be a stronger melee ability overall than a Wildshaped druid.I dont really consider Wildshape to be one of the issues of a Druids too-great strength. Your right about the abilities, to an extent, although its not like its diffacult. A cleric should be able to have high Wis, and deccent Str, Con and Cha with little or no diffaculty. And they dont need to be stellar, especially Str considering how much Str the main Cleric melee buffs add.However I dont really agree about feats.  Sure picking up Power Attack and Weapon Focus is a good idea for a Cleric who plans to do this a lot, and Quicken is just a good idea period.  But many combat feats are designed to make you better at specific special manuevers, and dont really do a lot for you if you just want to beat the enemy to death, and if the Cleric does manage to get more than one melee buff off (say both DP and RM) the abilities gained from that will help a great deal with the real heart of melee...beating the crud out of the enemy while surviving the experience yourself. I think Domains make even less of a difference. They can help (or make it even worse as I think of it) but a Cleric with Sun and Travel still has a d8 hit die, medium BAB, full armor prof, and access to Divine Power and Righteous Might.Now yea a Cleric with War gets a free martial weapon and weapon focus, which makes it even worse (not to mention getting the Power Word spells from the Wizard list).  I disagree with both of these. a Cleric with a deccent weapon who casts Divine Power is going to be competitive with a Fighter. Same BAB. Same HPs. Same or better AC. that to me is the main issues of melee combat. And it only really takes the 1 round. Now yea, take two rounds and add Righteous Might and its even worse. And of course from about 9th on you could do DP and a Quickened Divine Favor in the same round, and at high level, you can do DP and RM in one round. But why, from a mechanically perspective, would a Cleric do this? Why would a Cleric EVER have a super low Str, seeing as how it would make it very diffacult for him to use his armor profciencies effectively? In most common ability generation systems, a Cleric should be able to have deccent Str, Con and Cha along with high Wis, and at higher levels can get or *make* low-bonus ability increasing items as well. I dont personally have a problem with that</blockquote>

Verification