Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Elendur 10-26-03, 01:37 AM	This is a 'bad' broken not a 'good' (ie overpowered) broken. Every animal in the MM that has a higher dex than str has weapon finesse. But druids when wildshaping don't get that feat. So for example: A raven has a dex of 15 but a str of 1. So a druid wildshaped as a raven would be at -5 to attack, instead +3 like a normal raven. This means for no good reason druids are better at wildshaping into bears and lions than birds and snakes. Dumb. I have to houserule weapon finesse as a 'special attack' and hope I don't run into any more absurities. I'm really wanting to rewrite wildshape altogether.
ManTimeForgot 10-26-03, 01:41 AM	There is no reason to upgrade to the 3.5 conception of wildshape in so much as abilities are concerned. Wildshape should give all abilities which are a part of the biology of the creature. All you have to do is rule that part of the biology of certain animals is weapon finesse. If all the animals with high dex have it, then it must be biology related then huh? Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Greyman 10-26-03, 10:32 AM	Wildshape works like polymorph except where noted. Polymorph inherits from Alter Self. Alter Self grants racial bonus feats. Unfortunately animals with Weapon Finese do not have it marked as a bonus feat. If you take ManTimeForgot's advice, what you are doing is declaring it to be a bonus feat, but without replacing it a non-bonus feat. However, I don't see a problem with the current situation. If a druid wants to use high dexterity, low strength forms in combat, all she needs to do is take Weapon Finesse as a feat. In 3.5 it works for all finessable weapons, so the situation is actually an improvement over 3.0. You do realise that 3.0 polymorph self, and hence wild shape, did not grant weapon finesse with natural weapons, don't you? In 3.0 a druid needed to take weapon finesse with each form of natural weapon she wanted to use ~ typically bite and claw.
Mongoose4937 10-26-03, 12:25 PM	So a limiting factor makes a special ability more broken?
Elendur 10-26-03, 04:32 PM	Greyman - I agree with your statement of the 3.5 rules. However in 3.0, polymorph was vague, in that it states you gain the physical characteristics. So I could reasonably rule that for a snake, weapon finesse(bite) was a physical quality. However, there is no leeway in the 3.5 rules. 3.5 says special attacks only, nothing else, which has led to this absurity. Telling a PC he can wildshape effectively into a bear, but if he wants to effectively wildshape into a raven he has to take another feat is just not acceptible to me. Especially since people wildshape into these types of animals more for flavor than combat effectiveness. By 'broken' I don't mean in a power sense, I mean in a consistency sense. Here's another example. Tigers in 3.0 have 1d8 claw damage and 2d6 bite damage. In 3.5 they have the same damage, but it's justified by giving them improved natural attack (bite) and (claws). Those feats aren't racial bonus feats. Thus, any druid wildshaping into a tiger is weaker than a natural tiger. However when wildshaping into a lion he's just as good as a natural lion.
Greyman 10-26-03, 05:39 PM	If people are wildshaping into creatures more for flavour than combat effectiveness, why would they complain that they weren't combat effective? However, I do agree with Improved Natural Attack for tigers, but because bears, which are the same size, do the same damage without the feat. This lacks a certain consistancy of design.
Elendur 10-27-03, 01:54 PM	Originally posted by Greyman If people are wildshaping into creatures more for flavour than combat effectiveness, why would they complain that they weren't combat effective? Just because someone doesn't choose a combat effective shape doesn't mean that they should be penalized even more. For instance if you are wildshaped into a small snake for sneaking, and someone discovers you, you should have the same chance(or better due to your BAB) of a real snake to bite them. The rules as written appear to give you a -5 instead. Quite a penalty. The raven's even worse, a -8 penalty. This effects all birds listed in the MM, as well as the cat, rat, badger, weasel, monkey, and viper. This makes the ability to wildshape into tiny animals gained at 11th level much less useful. However, I do agree with Improved Natural Attack for tigers, but because bears, which are the same size, do the same damage without the feat. This lacks a certain consistancy of design. You could say that. I looked at the dire animals and those that have weapon finesse do have them as bonus feats. The stealthy feat and racial bonuses to hide and move silently are both applied to some animals. They both give the same bonuses, but druid would only get the racial bonuses. So a druid dire tiger would get the +4 racial bonus to hide and spot, but not the stealthy feat. The dire weasel has only the stealthy feat, so a druid wouldn't gain any bonus. So am I supposed to understand from this, that a dire tiger is naturally stealthy, but a dire weasel isn't? Is the stealthy feat a natural quality or a learned one?
InfernoSolarC 10-27-03, 03:18 PM	I think the intent of the rule was to prevent abuse by polymorphing into other intelligent forms that have a million and three feats. I would rule, and not think twice about it, that everything a normal animal, aka mindless, has is natural. That should solve your problem. In the end, the spirit of the rules, much like the spirit of the law, is what is important. Of course, just like in real life, if you are surrounded by lawyers, it might be a different story. =)
youspoonybard 10-27-03, 03:47 PM	If the Druid wants to fight dexteriously, there is NOTHING preventing her from getting Weapon Finesse, and she should do so.
Elendur 10-27-03, 04:13 PM	Originally posted by youspoonybard If the Druid wants to fight dexteriously, there is NOTHING preventing her from getting Weapon Finesse, and she should do so. If you accept that, then you are saying that strong animals are easier to wildshape into than weak animals. Can you think of a reason why that would be? Do you think that was the designer's intent?
youspoonybard 10-27-03, 04:17 PM	If a fighter wants to be a dex fighter, he's basically forced into taking a feat as well as using light armor, and people are pretty much ok with that. If an animal form only requires a feat, I'm fine with that too. Small animals still, from being small, have advantages: bonuses to hide and move silently, and often different types of mobility (specifically, fly speed). In a game where Natural Spell is core, I have no problems with Druids needing a single feat to fight effectively no matter what form she's in.
Elendur 10-27-03, 05:57 PM	You are talking about balance, but that's not a reason. Do you think it makes sense that a druid can wildshape into a dire rat, and gain its dex bonus to attack, but can't do the same with a small viper? They are both small creatures. I think they made a mistake. The person who did the dire creatures wasn't the same person who did the animals. They obviously didn't think through the ramifications of the change to polymorph. I don't think this new system was playtested enough, if at all. I post on the boards looking for logical explanations to things I find confusing. I've yet hear one in this case. "You can take a feat" just doesn't cut it. Do you suggest that a druid wanting to wildshape into a tiger should take both improved natural attack bite and improved natural attack claws?
youspoonybard 10-27-03, 06:02 PM	If they want the benefits of greater claw and bite damage, yes. Tigers, as well as their Dire counterparts, don't necessarily have larger claws. They just know how to use them better. From the feat: "The creature's natural attacks are more dangerous than its size and type would otherwise dictate." The puzzling thing for me is that any creature gets Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat. WF seems to be a purely mental feat, IMO, just as weapon proficiencies are learning to use the weapon.
Sorxores 10-27-03, 09:03 PM	I love the wildshape 3.0 like I was seeing it, it wasn't overpower nor underpower (IMHO), gave a unique ability the the druid and made the druid closer to nature: Giving the scent of the wolf, the low-light vision of the owl, the weapon finesse of all those weak dextrious animal. Giving all the extraordinary ability became overpower when the shapeshifter that could shapechange into a dragon appear. But as long as the druid is block to animal (I didn't checked all the new animals in 3.5) there is no overpowered stuff in having scent, weapon finesse and other animal abilitie. when elemental become available, I don't think then gain ability greater then other class, and the new plants, the extraordinary abilities? Treant: EX: trample, double damage Vs objects, FIRE VULNERABILITY, half damage from piercing Tendriculos: Imbroved Grab, Swallow Whole/paralysis, Regeneration (the arm detache become humanoid so it cannot reattach, and the cleric of the party can but it back any-way Shambling mound: Improved grab, constrict, Electricity immunity Phantom Fungus: NOTHING improved invisibility is SU Fungus: Shriek( make a noise for 1d3 round when there is light) OR poison (DC 14, 1d4 temp str + 1d4 temp Con) Assassin vines: Improved grab, Constrict, Blindsight, camouflage, NO MOUVEMENT The highest Dex I seen is 10, there is few chance for a druid to have less then 10 ( I think), the big ability like regeneration , electricity immunitie can be replicate by cleric spell. Swallow whole: the wizard have disintegrate, finger of death, wail of banshee, phantasmal killer ... all save or die. While swallow whole must succeed a grapple, then have a fort DC 19, lower then a well play finger of death, then it paralyse and do 2d6 per round (a new save each round) for 3d6 round, and then, the creature inside can climb up, or attack from the inner part. And for the elemental, elemantal master: +1 to att and dam if in the good condition and a little ability linked to the type.
Steelpunk 11-12-03, 02:32 AM	This response may be a bit late, but as an RPG game designer, I wanted to throw in my own 2 cents to this. From what I'm seeing in the MM, most of the special qualities listed for the various animals serve only as extrapolations, with a few exceptions such a Scent. They appear to serve only as a mechanical rundown of where the animal's attack routines are derived from. For example - a raven has the weapon finesse feat because that is how it evolved to be able to attack the way it does. Weapon finesse in this case serves to demonstrate its proficiency with its natural weapons, and since druids gain proficiency with all natural weapons of the forms they wild shape into, they would gain the same feat to demonstrate the same proficiency. My guess is that the designers simply included the feat to qualify why the raven has the attack stats that it does. On to dire animals and some of their weapon foci - these animals are bigger, nastier, bite harder and claw more savagely because they evolved this way. IMO, the focus feats associated with them merely demonstrate why they have the attack bonuses that they do - it's all natural. A druid wild shaping into one of these would become just as big, strong and savage. Animals do not train - they run on instinct and natural advantage. Thus, it's safe to assume that when a druid assumes a wild shape, they become - for all intents and purposes - the animal that they have shaped into. Admittedly, the polymorph rules were poorly outlined, and referring wild shape to them wasn't the best idea. In my experience, it looks as though the restrictions on polymoprh were designed to prevent someone assuming the form of a creature with dozens of supernatural abilities and whatnot, as someone in this thread pointed out above. Since animals don't possess supernatural abilities and possess very few special qualities, I think wild shape should be one of those areas where one follows the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law. As for the actual special qualities such as Blindsight and Scent, I'd rule that they be allowed (as our DM has). A druid can use either of these abilities in spell form, so assuming that they would lack them in wild shape because they wouldn't be able to process the information is flawed logic, IMHO. And from a point of pure physiology, the animals have these abilities as a part of their anatomies - a bat-shaped druid isn't just a bat with human ears (or a wolf with a human nose). Of course, individual DMs will houserule wild shape to death, and that's their right. Our experiences with the ability and letting druids assume the actual animal form have not unabalanced anything in our games or made the class super-powered, but we can't account for every situation.
Knight Marshal 11-12-03, 07:09 AM	How do you figure which feats are bonus or not?
A Man In Black 11-12-03, 07:45 AM	Originally posted by Steelpunk As for the actual special qualities such as Blindsight and Scent, I'd rule that they be allowed (as our DM has). A druid can use either of these abilities in spell form, so assuming that they would lack them in wild shape because they wouldn't be able to process the information is flawed logic, IMHO. And from a point of pure physiology, the animals have these abilities as a part of their anatomies - a bat-shaped druid isn't just a bat with human ears (or a wolf with a human nose). I want to bring up that dreaded phrase, "intent of the rules," but as you are a game designer, I'm an (ex-)law student. What you bring up is fair game for a cross. Blindsight, scent, and such abilities were INTENTIONALLY taken away from wildshapers. These are massive abilities to give to the druid basically at will, and there are appropriate combat forms to grant just about any interesting ability given to animals. Wild shape already gives combat prowess and mobility, as well as disguise. Isn't that enough for a class that also happens to give full spellcasting?
Elenna 11-12-03, 10:55 AM	Knight Marshal, The feats in the individual animal descriptions with a superscript 'B' are the bonus feats. For normal animals, the only bonus feat is track. Dire animals get more bonus feats, I can't remember off the top of my head what they are.
AngryMonkey 11-12-03, 02:25 PM	Somebody explain this to me: When you wildshape into a wolf you lose the scent ability that aids your tracking since it isn't a bonus feat. However, you GAIN the actual track feat as it is a bonus feat. Correct me if I'm wrong but if a wolf tracks by scent (and I doubt anyone can argue that) shouldn't the wildshaped druid either lose the track feat or gain the scent ability? The rules as written seem to imply that the druid gains the knowledge of tracking when wildshaped into many animals (rather silly IMHO) - rather than following scent trails the way an untrained animal actually does.
Elendur 11-12-03, 05:42 PM	The rules as written don't make any sense. I don't believe the designers meant to make small, less combat oriented creatures less useful to wildshape into in 3.5 than they were 3.0 Steelpunk's analysis is as sensible as any, I don't see see any reason not to use something like that.
youspoonybard 11-12-03, 07:41 PM	?? With the inclusion of an improved Natural Spell into the core rules, I find it *very* hard to believe that "small, less combat oriented creatures" are worse off as Druid forms in 3.5 than in 3.0.
Elendur 11-12-03, 10:16 PM	If you think the designers said "Well we're letting in Natural Spell, so we'll make these changes to compensate", then feel free to believe that. I am quite sure that this is an unintended effect. If I could ask Andy Collins a question, it would be "Did you give druids wildshaped into ravens a -8 attack penalty from 3 to 3.5 on purpose?" My guess is, he didn't write up the animals, and he didn't consider that weapon finesse wasn't a bonus feat for them(even though they are for dire animals). What baffles me is they made two major changes to druids, natural spell and changing wildshape, and this never came up in playtesting? No druid came up with what is to me an obvious strategy, delivering a touch spell while wildshaped into a flying creature? Did they playtest druids AT ALL? Again this isn't about power, its about consistency. A dire rat is a small 1HD animal with weapon finesse. A small viper is also a small 1HD animal with weapon finesse. A druid gets the weapon finesse of the dire rat, but not the viper. Does this make any sense?
Steelpunk 11-13-03, 12:57 AM	Many people seem to feel that giving a druid the Scent ability from wild shape makes them over-powered. In our group, the reasoning behind our ruling to allow it stems from this: Even if a druid gains Scent and Track from a certain form, they will almost never be as good at tracking as a ranger. The biggest reason for this is the synergy a ranger gets by having Search, a class skill of theirs which is non-class for druids. Tracking by scent is also much less reliable and becomes much more difficult much more quickly than straight tracking. At 8th level, a ranger can also track faster than a wild shaped druid. Apart from tracking and close-proximity detection, Scent hasn't thus far presented any other useful application to us. Range limits on the various qualities like Blindsight and Scent make them fairly minor abilities in the great scheme of things (at least in our experience), as well as the necessity to shape into the appropriate form to use them. In our games Natural Spell still requires a concentration check for somatic components if in a flying form that can't hover (flapping wings requires some coordination) so being able to see blind while in bat form really doesn't provide any significant advantage over otehr class abilities. My suggestion to those on the fence would be to try it out in your games. If someone finds a way to abuse it, take it out. I find most of the time those who are against things like this oppose it from an intellectual standpoint, but when seeing it in practice realize that it's not nearly as game-shattering as they feared.
BW0222 11-13-03, 10:38 AM	I don't think scent and other abilities make wildshape overpowered. The druid already likely has an animal companion and track is a standard trick which can be taught. A leopard, lion, or tiger could easily track by scent. In combat, I don't see the druid wildshaping into a wolf and taking standard actions across a 60' square room to find the invisible rogue. (Summon swarm, flaming sphere, summon 2-5 normal wolves, or sweeping the room with longspears would be faster and safer.) For both consistancy and time, I'd say just play them with the feats they have in the MM. It is time consuming enough for most fighters to figure out the current attack rolls (base missle + point blank - cover - in melee + bless - blight + bard song + ....). I'd rather that the druid can just look at his/her summoned animal list and use the stats adjusted by the difference in BAB. Is it overpowered that a druid/tiger does 1d8+6 rather than 1d6+6? He could just turn into a bear anyway? And is it worth the extra two minutes at the table while the player reads through the MM and adjusts everything? Not in my games. I routinely allow druids to take non-monster manual shapes. If a druid needs to dive down 40' to pick up a ring someone just lost, I honestly don't care if he is an otter, a salmon, or a dolphin. What's the stats for an otter, who cares? No need to make a thirty-second role-playing experience turn into a ten minute rules discussion which doesn't affect the end result. Same a wolf. Can a druid/wolf track? Sure. Why not? Otherwise, a five minute role-play will take two hours as the druid wildshapes into a dire wolf, goes out and meets some real wolves, animal empathy's the pack, and comes back with a dozen of them, and then follows the trail. It's far faster just to use common sense about what everyone knows an animal can and can't do, rather than having the rules try to explain everything -- especially in non-combat activities. Can a squirrel climb a tree, can a mongoose get rid of a small snake, can a gopher dig a hole, can a dog bark, can a seagull distract a sailor by going to the bathroom, can a big-horned sheep make it up a mountain trail? Of course. Why waste time on whether a druid/squirrel, druid/mongoose, druid/gopher, druid/dog, druid/seagull, or druid/big-horn can do the same things? It's a game. There are lots of times when I don't let the rules waste my time. If simplifying them in non-combat situations saves time without changing the outcome, it's often better to do so rather than waste play time. Thanks, Brett
youspoonybard 11-13-03, 11:07 AM	I don't think they allowed in Natural Spell to compensate. They didn't want to give animals all of the feats; feats represent training. Why would a Druid somehow learn how to finesse her claws in that form? Bonus feats represent some physical aspect of the animal that allows use of the feat; that's why animals and other creatures HAVE these from birth. Wolf Track? It's because of their noses. Dire Weasel Weapon Finesse? Something natural about their bodies allows them to do this. It's possible to see a raven without Weapon Finesse. It's not possible to see a Dire Weasel without Weapon Finesse. That's just the way they are. Likewise, Druids can access the feats that the body can grant, but not the mind. That is what makes perfect sense to me. I also don't let Wiz/Sorc get weapon proficiencies in the creatures natural attacks when they Polymorph; weapon profs are a mental thing. Druids do get it by virtue of their weapon proficiencies. What doesn't make sense to you is that some animals get Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat, while others don't. But animals are different from one another. If you really think that this is such an issue, I would recommend changing the animals who have Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat to Alertness; I notice they both have Alertness as such a feat. It's true that I think this change was primarily made because of the melding of Polymorph and Wild Shape, and the feats that a mage could get their hands on, but it still makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is why Druids got these feats in the first place. The Druid retains her mind; as Alter Self text states, "You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind". I don't see why this will apply to Wildshape as well, as you keep your own feats and mind.
AngryMonkey 11-13-03, 02:36 PM	Bonus feats represent some physical aspect of the animal that allows use of the feat; that's why animals and other creatures HAVE these from birth. Wolf Track? It's because of their noses. I want to start by saying that I in no way consider letting a druid track in wolf form as an "overpowered" ability. I simply see the way it works as inconsistant. If a wolf can track because of it's nose and heightened sence of smell over a human, then why is the druid not also granted scent?
Elendur 11-13-03, 10:00 PM	yourspoonybard - Both dire weasel and weasel have weapon finesse. Are you saying it makes sense to you that one has it as a bonus feat, but the other doesn't? That a dire weasel is naturally dextrous in combat, but a regular weasel has to 'learn' how to be?
BW0222 11-13-03, 11:15 PM	youspoonybard, >They didn't want to give animals all of the feats; feats represent >training. Why would a Druid somehow learn how to finesse her >claws in that form? Mother tigers teach their young how to get bigger claws? I guess tigers in captivity has smaller claws? However, bears in captivity have the same sized claws as those in the wild? House pets can't smell unless their owners train them? Dolphins in captivity don't have sonar, owls in captivity can't see in the dark, squid born in an aquarium can change color, etc., etc. Makes you wonder how snakes get weapon finese, since their parents abandon them from birth? Give me a break. The rules and feats given are just to represent the animal's physical abilities. A tiger doesn't do a 1d8 damage because someone taught him better than a lion, he does 1d8 because he has bigger claws than a lion. A cat doesn't have weapon finese because someone taught him, he has weapon finese because it is the best way for the D&D rules to represent the cats normal method of attacking -- because it's body was made for speed and quickness rather than muscle and power. The feats and Ex abilities in the MM are just representations of physical abilities of animals. Ink clouds, sonar, low-light vision, hold breath, weapon finese, scent, etc. are just as much native physical abilities of animals as pounce, rake, improved grab, powerful charge, poison, trip, attach, rage, etc. Why you gain some when wildshaping and not the others is unexplainable, inconsistant, and in many cases just silly. A druid/owl can't see in the dark, but a druid/weasel can attach? A druid/octopus can't use an ink cloud, but a druid/snake gain poison? A druid/shark gains gills, but a druid/porpoise doesn't have sonar? Thanks, Brett
Archtyrant Terevoth 11-14-03, 02:00 AM	Originally posted by Elendur If you accept that, then you are saying that strong animals are easier to wildshape into than weak animals. Can you think of a reason why that would be? Well it is easier to wildshape into weaker animals, because they have lower hit dice and smaller sizes. If you're asking about a reason why it's harder to control weaker animals than stronger ones then I can present the following argument. Agility takes a lot more skill to use than brute force. It's the reason weapon finesse is a feat in the first place. Anybody can just swing a mace as hard as they can in the enemy's general direction, but to learn to weild a rapier with speed and finesse, that takes a lot more time and dedication. So it's not too hard to take advantage of a dire bear's brute force, but to learn to precisely attack with a raven's claws takes some time and training.
youspoonybard 11-14-03, 10:31 AM	Elendur - Under the rules of DnD, that is exactly what I'm saying. BW0222 - How many HD does a newborn animal have? Under the rules of the system, I can't think of having more than 1 HD. As the animal matures, it picks up feats, but the animal matures in different ways. Its physical body matures, as well as its mental state. A Druid in dolphin form may very well have sonar...but would she know how to use it? How would her mind (which is still a humanoid mind) interpret all of the information that is coming in? I also argue that the Tiger's larger weapon damage is due to training and development of killing techniques with the claw. If it was just due to size, in game terms, it would be a bonus feat. It makes sense to me that if you train with a certain limb all of your life you could become better at using that limb, and can hurt enemies more with it. Tigers have more HD than lions, and stalk enemies, so doing lots of damage quickly is paramount. Lions chase after their foes; so they've taken the Run feat instead. This seems perfectly fine to me. You don't have to learn something from someone; you can discover it on your own. Else we would still be without any technologies at all : P. Also, just want to inform you that Druids do get Low-Light Vision (a trait not unique to specific animals but inherited when the Druid changes to the Animal Type), and so Druids not only get Low-Light Vision but a nice bonus to spot checks in shadowy illumination. Remember, the Druid very well may have sonar/Ink/Jet/whatever abilities when she Wild Shapes. But she doesn't know how to use them properly. If you had another arm suddenly grafted onto your body, do you think you'd instantly (within 6 seconds) know how to manipulate it just as well as your current arms? What if you actually changed bodies with someone, say, shorter than you? Taller than you? Changed genders? How do you think your mind would react to that new situation? What if you changed into something very different from a human? A squid? A toad? A tiger? You suddenly find yourself with no limbs. 8 limbs. 4 feet. Claws. Bite attacks. How do you use these things? If a Druid player came up to me and said "I've been an octopus for a long time now, and I think that I should be learning how to manipulate my body more", I'd let him pick up a feat or a PrC to develop these abilities. But saying that a person, just because he's placed in a different body, is able to replicate the training of the body instantaneously is what seems odd to me. I agree with the basic premise that there should be a different type of designation other than Special Attacks and Special Qualities; say, a Natural Attack and Natural Qualties listing, I think that would be too big of a shift, and should be saved for the next edition. Otherwise, I believe the current version works well for what tools they had.
Elendur 11-14-03, 01:36 PM	Originally posted by youspoonybard Elendur - Under the rules of DnD, that is exactly what I'm saying. I understand what the rules are, that's not what I asked. I'll ask again. I'll phrase it in the context of your last comments. A druid wildshapes into a weasel, but because the weasel is so different from a human, she cannot take advantage of its weapon finesse. Humans are used to attacking with strength, not dexterity after all. So she is at a -6 penalty to attack. However when wildshaping into a dire weasel, she gets the weapon finesse, and can attack at no penalty. This is because a dire weasel fights much more like a human than a regular weasel. Also dire weasels are born dextrous in combat, while weasels must learn to be so. This argument makes sense to you? You agree with this, and if you were DMing you would tell your druid PC this? If you can answer yes or no to this it would help me immensely. Let me know if I've mistated your argument at all.
youspoonybard 11-14-03, 01:47 PM	Not that the Dire Weasel fights more like a human. I suppose the way to say it is "It's very easy for anyone in a Dire Weasel's body to fight with dexterity." You can pick it up instantly. "Also dire weasels are born dextrous in combat, while weasels must learn to be so." Apparently so. That is what bonus feats represent. Although I don't have experience with being a Dire/Normal Weasel : P... And I *do* play a Druid. Ever since I started playing (not very long, though, about a year or so). I also DM a game, but no one plays a Druid in that.
Elendur 11-14-03, 02:40 PM	Ok, good, it's clear to me now. I'm not sure if it actually makes sense to you, or if you are just willing to take the rules on faith, but it amounts to the same thing. I've decided to do what most people are suggesting, which is give the wildshape all the animals abilities. I was on the fence on a few, like weapon focus, but for easy of play I'll just include them all. I just need to stop being mad at how messed up the 3.5 rules are and play whatever makes the game fun. I guess I'm still stinging because I vigorously defended 3.5 on the boards before it came out, and now that I am rolling it into my campaign I realize how shoddy it actually is.
youspoonybard 11-14-03, 02:48 PM	Playing in 3.0, I felt that giving everything was ok, but Blindsight and/or scent (+ Faerie Fire) were pretty darn powerful (Desmondu Hunting Bat, or just normal bats/wolves)... But feats represent training, and in that sense it makes no sense that they just pick up the feats. It's not overpowering, it's not broken...it just doesn't go along with the line "You gain the form, but retain your own mind..." or whatever it was I quoted before. Still, Elemental Wild Shape gets you all of the feats...and once I hit level 16, I'll be using those... EWS is SO POWERFUL. But I'm not opposed to people playing however they want in their own games...I just don't think it was a bad design call. If anything, you're right, they should have been more consistant on the placing of the bonus feats...but all in all, I think they did a pretty good job.
Redeemer of Ogar 11-15-03, 02:37 AM	If a Druid player came up to me and said "I've been an octopus for a long time now, and I think that I should be learning how to manipulate my body more", I'd let him pick up a feat or a PrC to develop these abilities. But saying that a person, just because he's placed in a different body, is able to replicate the training of the body instantaneously is what seems odd to me. So... it seems odd to you that a Druid can become an octopus and be able to release a sphincter that lets ink flow into the water... but you have no problem with allowing the same druid in the same form, with eight tentacles and no arms or legs, to swim proficiently. Also, it seems odd to you that a Druid can become a wolf and gain an increased sense of smell, but you have no problem with said Druid becoming a winged creature and being able to fly proficiently. This seems inherently backwards to me. I boggle at the leap of illogical faith that is needed for the above paragraph to be true. +--Redeemer of Ogar--
Wubbie075 11-17-03, 01:23 AM	Originally posted by youspoonybard Remember, the Druid very well may have sonar/Ink/Jet/whatever abilities when she Wild Shapes. But she doesn't know how to use them properly. If you had another arm suddenly grafted onto your body, do you think you'd instantly (within 6 seconds) know how to manipulate it just as well as your current arms? What if you actually changed bodies with someone, say, shorter than you? Taller than you? Changed genders? How do you think your mind would react to that new situation? [/B] I think he'd react at least as well as he would be wildshaping into a form with wings and suddenly learning to fly... an ability he is explicitly stated to gain...