Wildshape + Animal Growth =/= huge size

[Corwin]

Impeesa:

I'm at a loss.

So, IYO it is technically legal, by the rules. But then, in the same post, you state you'd likely nerf it for balance reasons and pull an obviously non-rules based reason to do so?

Odd.

 

[mikebr99]

OMG! It was a joke. Jeez. Where are people's sense of humor?!

Didn't you notice all your detractors wildshaping into Ruleslawyers to be able to use the improved resistance to sarcasm supernatural ability?


Mike

 

[FrankTrollman]

OMG! It was a joke. Jeez. Where are people's sense of humor?!

You've spent most of the thread articulating a rules position that is directly in conflict with the rules as written and the obvious intentions of the rules. So when you say something which is obviously at odds with the rules in this discussion peoples' natural assumption is not that you are attempting to be funny, but that you are again wrong.

-Frank

 

[DM2]

OMG! It was a joke. Jeez. Where are people's sense of humor?!

The "greatsword grow on trees" part was funny. The first half was a mistake people still make a lot, so go figure.

DM2

 

[two]

You've spent most of the thread articulating a rules position that is directly in conflict with the rules as written and the obvious intentions of the rules. So when you say something which is obviously at odds with the rules in this discussion peoples' natural assumption is not that you are attempting to be funny, but that you are again wrong.

-Frank

Must you always be such a snippy little ass?

 

[FrankTrollman]

Must you always be such a snippy little ass?

As long as there are morons like you around - yes.

-Frank

 

[two]

As long as there are morons like you around - yes.

-Frank

Oh yeah? oh YEAH? OH YEAH?

Well -- er... your... your MOMMA!!

[sticks out tongue]

neener neener neener.

Now I'm going back to my moronic studies. Not meaning moron in the pejorative, mind you... there are plenty of upstanding morons in power positions.

 

[Impeesa]

Impeesa:

I'm at a loss.

So, IYO it is technically legal, by the rules. But then, in the same post, you state you'd likely nerf it for balance reasons and pull an obviously non-rules based reason to do so?

Odd.

I'll be contradictory if I want to. But really, I'm not... all I said was that your interpretation was (as far as I can see) incorrect, it is legal, but I share your opinion that it is quite unbalanced. I then proposed a fix that makes a bit more sense, and prevents druids from abusing all kinds of animal-only buffs, rather than just Animal Growth.

--Impeesa--

 

[youspoonybard]

While the Splats and the like *CAN* be used in a 3.5 game, moderation is called for.

It's pretty apparent to me that the 3.5 Animal Growth was *meant* to be able to be cast on the Druid. It's also pretty obvious that Nature's Avatar and Nature's Favor and the like were not supposed to be cast on the Druid, unless they are shapechanged.

Hmmm...Shapechange. That kinda messes with my argument, doesn't it?

Realizing this, the developers of the spells in 3.0 must have realized that the spells could be cast on the Druid in question using Shapechange. I have no problems with Nature's Avatar, as the Druid would get that the same level that she would normally get Shapechange. Nature's Favor, however, can be gotten a lot sooner, and I am hesitant to grant that ability at a low level.

If I were DM, and my players told me that he was planning on using these spells (I don't allow stuff in other books unless the players run them by me first), I would actually allow Nature's Avatar, but not Nature's Favor.

 

[Corwin]

You've spent most of the thread articulating a rules position that is directly in conflict with the rules as written and the obvious intentions of the rules.

That's an arrogant statement. You don't know the "intent". I read it differently and am quite fluent in the rules, thankyouverymuch.

The only "direct conflict" seems to be stemming from your abrasive language.

So when you say something which is obviously at odds with the rules in this discussion peoples' natural assumption is not that you are attempting to be funny, but that you are again wrong.

Ah, so a "winky" at the end of it meant nothing? I can't believe you missed the humor in that statement. Or did you just overlook the obvious nature of the humorous comment because you saw an opportunity to act like I'm unaware of the rules, giving you the chance to "educate" me, oh mighty one? Yeah, I need that. If it weren't for your presence, I'd have trouble figguring out which end of the book to open. (P.S.> Yes, that was sarcasm, BTW...)