Wildshape + Animal Growth =/= huge size

[Ridley's Cohort]

Corwin,

Putting asides the rules issues for the moment, on what basis do you believe that a 12th level Druid becoming a Huge Dire Bear is overpowered?

A normal Dire Bear does an average of 44 points damage if all attacks land. An Animal Growthed Dire Bear does 56 points of damage. Plus there is Improved Grab. Is that too powerful? Looks okay to me.

IMHO, a DM could reasonably throw 3 or 4 such beasts at once as a warm up encounter of CR 12.

 

[DM2]

Hmmm, I'm missing you here. The first part of that post was a rules statement about the size of the weapon growing with the character. This is indeed true.

The second part was the joke about greatswords growing on trees. But for that joke to have meaning, there needs to be a reason the druid grows them. So insinuating their need to use wooden weapons makes the case. Thus, the joke flows.

Uhg, now I'm explaining how comedy works...

Absolutely, and it was funny whether you thought they needed non-metal weapons, or were saying it for the joke.

So I picked up what I thought was a rules oversight in the first half of a joke...so sue me.

No harm meant, and joke enjoyed regardless.

DM2

 

[Corwin]

Putting asides the rules issues for the moment, on what basis do you believe that a 12th level Druid becoming a Huge Dire Bear is overpowered?

Fair enough.

Aside from the increased damage potential you cite (the least offensive bump, I agree), I think there are a great deal of other advantages. Trip, grapple, bull rushes, etc. are all extremely out of whack to me.

And don't forget, the druid himself is benefiting from the DR and save bonuses that, IMO, were intended for other animals (including his companion).

IMHO, a DM could reasonably throw 3 or 4 such beasts at once as a warm up encounter of CR 12.

Ah, but CR does not an LA/ECL make.

I could probably take the time to track down and/or calc it out if need be, but I'm betting the ECL of playing a Huge Dire Bear is extremely high.

Now, before certain people jump at my statement and claim I'm equating Wildshape/animal growth to playing the creature full-time...

No, I'm not saying that. I'm responding to RC's comparison of playing one vs. fighting against one (or more). That is why I brought it up. Because a PC getting to be one is far different than pitting one against a group of PCs as an encounter.

 

[Corwin]

No harm meant, and joke enjoyed regardless.

No sweat. Sometimes the written format leaves much to be desired when translating humor or emotion.

Thanks for the compliment on the joke.

 

[The Souljourner]

Looks like a 12th level druid in huge dire bear form does 63 per round if everything hits (2d6+14 x 2 + 4d6+7 = 3 attacks that do 21 damage each). These are with +23/+23/+18 to hit with no other bonuses (magic fang etc).

A 12th level fighter wielding a +3 greatsword with 22 strength (16 +2 increases +4 item) and greater weapon specialization will be doing 2d6 +16 three times for a total of 69 damage at +23/+18/+13.

That's actually fairly close, damage and to-hit wise, but the fighter loses out somewhat, since one of his attacks is at -10 to hit from the bear's equivalent attack.

Now.. this is using a spell which only lasts a minute a level, so it's not like this is something the druid just slaps on in the morning. It's a 5th level buff spell, which means it should be pretty kick-ass.

So... take that as you will.

-The Souljourner

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Aside from the increased damage potential you cite (the least offensive bump, I agree), I think there are a great deal of other advantages. Trip, grapple, bull rushes, etc. are all extremely out of whack to me.

And don't forget, the druid himself is benefiting from the DR and save bonuses that, IMO, were intended for other animals (including his companion).

Grapple looks pretty potent but I am skeptical that alone is sufficient to make it overpowered. The damage, Bull Rush, and Trips are yawners IMHO.

The DR is very useful if the Druid is fighting mooks. Real threats will "always" have a way of of bypassing that DR.

Ah, but CR does not an LA/ECL make.

I won't pounce on you. I believe we both recognize that there are huge differences between fighting a monster and building a PC out of that race.

I mentioned the CRs because it is evidence of the scale of power at 12th level. We should expect that a 12th level PC or a CR 12 threat will be able to eat an Animal Growthed Dire Bear for breakfast (while acknowledging the fact that some PC builds or monsters would be hosed because of the rock-scissors-paper nature of the game).

As I see it, the druid AGDB himself is not likely to have many other abilities with strong synergies with his enhanced form. Maybe I am wrong.

He can cast some spells. He might have a feat or two for combat. Keep in mind that the druid's AC is probably lowered, and he is in the Power Attack danger zone. So letting him buff up with a few spells seems okay.

The only worrisome detail is the extreme Grappling. But the "merely" Large wildshaped druid is already a vastly superior grappler to any medium-sized opponent he is likely to meet at ~12th level. Is being Huge such an amazing benefit that it should be disallowed?

Is the DR such a big deal?

I am honestly not seeing the 'great deal of other advantages', as you put it. Advantages, yes. Great deal? I do not think so.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Hehe, you use a very different dictionary from most of us here then. I have yet to see this definition hold as the standard. Every proper use I've seen (and used myself) is that "broken" means overpowered to the point of not being playable.

Broken = overpowered
Nerfed = weakened

You may want to update your thesaurus.

If you don't want to bother to use correct terminology that's your choice. The fact that other people use improper terminology doesn't make that terminology correct.

Overpowered = overpowered
Broken = broken
Nerfed = weakened.

If you can comprehend the difference between "unbalanced" and "broken" then you should be able to comprehend the importance of making a distinction between the two.

We are discussing the rules.

No... I've seen a lot of emotionally-charged opinions from you but precious few rules quotes. And I haven't seen you refute the rules quotes that have been presented to you, other than your exclamations of "Oh yeah? Well... despite these rules, I'm correct and you're a big meanie for disagreeing with me!!!1!!1 <smiley> <wink> <rolleyes>."

You're not discussing rules. Right now all you're doing is fussing.

Says you. I see it differently. And the difference between you and I seems to be that I'm not so arrogant as to assume my interpretation is flawless and perfect (in the face of opposing arguments by others). I admit to the rule in question being unclear and choose to rule on the side of caution. I interpret the rule on the side of balance since it seems to be questionable.

If I find, from official sources, that they intend it to work, so be it. But until then, I assure you, I don't hold your words as "official".

No, the difference between you and I is that I'm letting the SRD and published rules do the talking for me. My words aren't official, but the words from the SRD sure are.

Wow. Again? You sure like to dismiss people and shoo them away when they don't agree, don't you?

Don't police me. This is a legitimate debate on the rules.

Just trying to help. I honestly think you'll get a warmer reception in house rules. If you want to legitimately debate rules then please quote some rules.

So, let me ask you: If, by chance, the Sage comes along and states that polymorph (and its kin) does count as increasing size, what then?

I hope you will not be a hypocrit. You should come here and delete all your posts that state that they do stack. After all, they will be based on a "house rule" at that point, right?

I don't make the rules; I just try to help folks understand them. If the Sage disagrees with me then I'll point that out. If the FAQ or errata disagrees then I'll stop arguing the point. I won't delete anything because what's said is said.

I don't understand why you're getting so emotional and defensive. Please quit with the sarcasm and cite some rules. Or go to the houserules forum and argue balance issues.

-z

 

[Zaruthustran]

Weapons don't grow with your form change in 3.5. They either get molded into your form or just sit there as their normal selves.

Odd. I thought you were talking 3.5 here.

From the 3.5 SRD on animal growth:
"All equipment worn or carried by an animal is similarly enlarged by the spell, though this change has no effect on the magical properties of any such equipment.
Any enlarged item that leaves the enlarged creature’s possession instantly returns to its normal size."

In light of the above, I guess not, huh?

Oh, and I didn't bother to reply to the rest of your post since it is without merit in light of the facts.

Frank told you that "Weapons don't grow with your form change in 3.5. They either get molded into your form or just sit there as their normal selves."

You replied with a quoted rule about Animal Growth. Er... Animal Growth isn't a form change.

Wipe that smug smile off your face Corwin. Your quote is not relevant.

-z

 

[Corwin]

If you don't want to bother to use correct terminology that's your choice. The fact that other people use improper terminology doesn't make that terminology correct.

Hehe. I'm sure you could start a poll on the meanings if they are so near and dear to your heart. Perhaps you'd even learn something. Unless being wrong would destroy that impressive ego of yours...

No... I've seen a lot of emotionally-charged opinions from you but precious few rules quotes. And I haven't seen you refute the rules quotes that have been presented to you, other than your exclamations of "Oh yeah? Well... despite these rules, I'm correct and you're a big meanie for disagreeing with me!!!1!!1 <smiley> <wink> <rolleyes>."

Hey pot... this is kettle...

I find it interesting that you are seeing "emotionally charged" in my posts. You seem to know a lot about my state of mind. (Uh, oh, there's another emoticon - there I go getting all emotionally charged again...)

Despite your repeated claims, I've cites plenty of rules to support my possition. As have several others. But don't let that stop you. It's not like you'd want to bother going back to the first page and checking them out or anything. I'm not going to repeat myself just because you are too lazy to do it yourself.

You're not discussing rules. Right now all you're doing is fussing.

Ah. And what is it you're doing right now, exactly?

No, the difference between you and I is that I'm letting the SRD and published rules do the talking for me. My words aren't official, but the words from the SRD sure are.

I assume you are talking about the same SRD I've been quoting...

Just trying to help.

Yeah. Trying to help. I'm sure that's your motivation for all the emotionally charged statements you're making.

If you want to legitimately debate rules then please quote some rules.

Done it. It's a few pages back. I'm sure you can find the right buttons on your browser to get there. I've posted all the rules I need to support my statements.

I don't understand why you're getting so emotional and defensive. Please quit with the sarcasm and cite some rules. Or go to the houserules forum and argue balance issues.

And I would ask you to actually contribute something to this debate or move on. You've added nothing to it since your arrival. You just parrot other peoples' opinions sprinkled with passive-aggresive comments designed to rile my feathers. I'm sure your all giddy at the thought of them working.

Frank told you that "Weapons don't grow with your form change in 3.5. They either get molded into your form or just sit there as their normal selves."

You replied with a quoted rule about Animal Growth. Er... Animal Growth isn't a form change.

Then why did Frank post a correction in the first place? Huh? Obviously it was irrelevant to my comments then.

I specifically said that if a druid (who wildshaped into a dire ape and is weilding a greatsword) is animal growthed, themn the sword increases in size.

He proceeded to correct me (as if I were wrong). I responded, citing rules (darn, there I go quoting those rules again...)

Wipe that smug smile off your face Corwin. Your quote is not relevant.

I'm sorry, but who's being irrelevant again?

Oh, and "smug"? That's irronic, since I was just using that very same word to describe you to a friend of mine.

 

[Caliban]

So what you're saying is that wildshape is NOT a "magical effect that increase size"?

In other words, a polymorphed cleric casting righteous might on him/herself becomes huge?

Wildshape is a magical effect - check. It could increase size - check.

"The new form must be within one size category of your normal size".

"This alteration changes each animal’s size category to the next largest..."

What's the difference?

One gives you an "Enlargement bonus" to size, the other does not.

Wildshape effectively gives you an "unnamed" bonus to size, which would stack with anything, even the size increase from Animal growth.

Wildshape would count as a size increasing magic if it specifically stated that it increased your size. It does not, it merely tells you what your new size will be, regardless of your old size.

If you counted it as size increasing/decreasing magic, you would get inconsistent applications, such as a Medium druid wildshaping into a Medium animal and being a legal target for Reduce Animal (because his size hasn't changed), while a Large druid who wildshapes into a Medium animal isn't legal target for Reduce animal, because he has already decreased his size category. Likewise, as Small druid who wildshapes into a Medium animal would not be able to use Animal Growth, while a Medium Druid could.