Why WOULDN'T a druid take Natural Spell??

[billd91]

I think the feat is far too good. In addition to the extreme desirability of the feat for most members of the druid class, I compare it with other ways of attaining the same facility with existing feats...

Basically it rolls together Still spell, silent spell and eschew materials into one handy thing for druids which doesn't even give a level adjustment to spells ?!?

I think they should have given it a +1 level adjustment. That would have made it useful, but not such an utterly fantastic feat as it is at the moment.

Cheers

I think this might be a darn fine alternative.
As I see it, Natural Spell is one of those feats that seems like a no-brainer for a druid to take in it's current formulation. Have the ability to cast spells while being in a perfect disguise? Or be able to cast while having the mobility of a bird, able to flit above a potential battlefield or cover large distances without worrying much about the terrain in-between? Heck, yes!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Comparing this feat to weapon specialisation is extremely misguided: weapon specialisation does not increase the versatility of the fighter class: it narrows a specialised ability.

It would be more comparative to suggest that the Exotic Weapon feat be made to apply to all exotic weapons. Barely a fighter would be without it then, because of the increased versatility offered. But in fact, even this feat pales in comparison to the versatility offered by Natural Spell.

The Fighter is an inherently specialized character with a high level of competence in his niche without even spending feats.

A druid is an inherently unspecialized class with moderate abilities in a couple areas. To put it another way, the Druid's specialty is versatility. The designers spell that out for us.

The other side of the coin is that Natural Spell pales in comparison with Specialization because it does not specifically enhance any Druidic ability. Specialization directly makes a Fighter better with his sword. Natural Spell does not directly make the Druid a better melee combatant or a better spell caster. (It does so indirectly by making it more practical to do both under difficult conditions.)

It sure seems to me that the designers methodically powered up the Druid. So I do not see Natural Spell as an oversight. They clearly made a high-power splat feat core on purpose -- it is one of a very short list.

 

[FrankTrollman]

One of the problems here is that Druids were always supposed to be able to Magic Fang themselves. In 3e you could enchant your fist and when you turned into a bear you got the full benefit out of it on your claw.

In 3.5 you have to enchant your claw while it is a claw - so for Druids to retain the functionality that they are supposed to have - they need to be able to cast while wild shaped.

The fact that the strength scales and such make a Wildshaped Druid fight better than the vast majority of "fighter" builds is a seperate flaw. Yes, every single Druid is supposed to be able to cast magic while in animal form. No, the Druid class is not balanced. And no, those two facts don't have anything at all to do with each other.

-Frank

 

[Spatula]

Basically it rolls together Still spell, silent spell and eschew materials into one handy thing for druids which doesn't even give a level adjustment to spells ?!?

The original version of the feat (from Masters of the Wild) didn't include Eschew Materials. The druid had to drop his focus/material components before shifting (since otherwise it would merge into the new form), then pick them up again after the shift - which limited the use of the feat to forms that can manipulate objects. Also makes it easier to pick out the wild shaped spellcasting druid, as any animal holding holy symbols or whatnot is going to look suspect, I think. It's still a useful feat, but not as powerful as the 3.5 version.

 

[Ketjak]

1> You are not in fact a Druid at that point.

Ah, excellent. You finally agree that a multi-class character (let's say a Fighter/Ranger hybrid) is not the same as a single-classed character (say, a Fighter) and should not be called that.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Ah, excellent. You finally agree that a multi-class character (let's say a Fighter/Ranger hybrid) is not the same as a single-classed character (say, a Fighter) and should not be called that.

I wouldn't call a Fighter/Wizard a "Fighter". I wouldn't call a Druid/Barbarian a "Druid".

Mixing archetypes makes you a mixed archetype. However, a Fighter/Barbarian is definately still a "Fighter", just as a Wizard/Alienist is still a "Wizard".

-Frank