Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ezell Pike 04-09-07, 10:39 AM	The Duid's animal companion is superior to the fighter. I have seen it stated time and again. To tell the truth I would be suprised if the animal could defeat a warrior npc class(after a few levels) let alone a fighter. Also if the statement is made that the pet is enhanced by a spell the fighter could also have a buffbot such as a cleric. That is not the issue. At best there I doubt there are more than 5 creatures that even have a prayer.
Zilvar 04-09-07, 10:51 AM	Proven? Probably not. There are a lot of variables. It has been demonstrated in at least one thread.
Scion of Coldshard 04-09-07, 10:57 AM	Did you just say that if the druid could buff his pet then the fighter gets a pet cleric to buff him? Does that even make sense? Which level are we talking also? Each level balances differently when comparing to all other classes. Some levels and for certain builds this is definately true, without a doubt. But the pile of variables is huge.
Lucas Blackstone 04-09-07, 10:58 AM	Many threads I see point out that the animal companion is about 80 percent as effective as the fighter, which I agree with for the most part. It just gets out of line when the companion dire bear, plus druid turned direbear start ripping everything apart, and then the druid casts some spells on top of it. With an optimized build I think the fighter will beat down animal companions though. ( Baring buffs from the druid, in which case things probably begin to look bad for the fighter )
Tempest Stormwind 04-09-07, 11:29 AM	It can be proven that the animal companion is comparable or superior to a standard DMG fighter build (i.e. the benchmark of all fighters). An optimized fighter can outperform it, but by the time it's cemented in its outperforming niche, the druid has Wild Shape and all bets are off. Take a Riding Dog that has been trained for war (mechanically the best animal companion at level 1). Give it the most expensive barding you can afford. Compare its hit dice, hit points, attack bonus, damage, armor class, and speed to a human fighter. Note that the dog gets a chance to trip the opponent on every single successful bite. Do note that the druid (who brought the companion to the table) can also buff the companion with things like Magic Fang, while the fighter cannot buff himself. The fighter pulls ahead at level 2, but the dog remains a strong combat presence, especially if you upgrade his barding. At level 3, the dog gains 2 extra hit dice, putting him ahead of the fighter again. By this point you've got longer duration buffs and better ones to pass around as well, but those aren't truly necessary. At level 4, the fighter does indeed pull ahead again. However, the druid can replace the dog at this point with a stronger animal with more advanced options, so the variables become hard to track at this point. At level 5, the druid has Wild Shape, and all bets are off. By level 6 Natural Spell is in the equation, and by level 8 the druid's never in normal form. Exponential power growth here compared to the fighter's linear growth shows that the fighter can't stand a chance past level 5 -- which isn't really what you're asking, since you wanted to know about the animal companion, but really, the companion is really best used at low levels. In general, at level 1 and 3, the animal companion is superior to all but the more optimized fighter builds (exception: Archers), and it comes close to or exceeds those builds if the druid buffs it. At levels 2 and 4, they're a lot closer and the comparison depends on a lot of variables. By level 5, the druid's shapeshifting and the fighter probably folds. The saddest part is that we're comparing a druid's class feature to the entire fighter class and coming up with, at worst, "comparable".
Ezell Pike 04-09-07, 11:31 AM	Did you just say that if the druid could buff his pet then the fighter gets a pet cleric to buff him? Does that even make sense? Which level are we talking also? Each level balances differently when comparing to all other classes. Some levels and for certain builds this is definately true, without a doubt. But the pile of variables is huge. By the buffbot comment I mean the druid's pet can't handle the fighter independantly of the druid. Tag team, sure they've got a rather large advantage. But most threads simply state that the pet can handle the fighter hands down. I do not agree and have seen no eveidence that this is the case. I definitely agree that level has an impact. Once again I am suggesting higher level play as that is often where it is cited that the fighter lags behind. At low levels there are fewer coplaints about the fighter. This is coincidentally when I feel the Animal has the best chance at victory.
BW0222 04-09-07, 12:24 PM	Ezell Pike, The Duid's animal companion is superior to the fighter. That depends upon what you mean by superior. Certainly, a wolf can't tie a knot, order a drink from a bar, build a camp fire, etc. You really can't roleplay one, so it is hardly superior as a PC class/race. In a strict combat role... it still hard to think that an animal companion is superior when there are so many non-attack actions which an animal simply can not do -- pour a potion down the cleric's throat, switch to a bow against a flying creature, drag an fallen PC out of a wall of fire, etc. Even a lot of combat actions are likely beyond an animal -- readying an action against spellcasting, knowing not to attack a fire elemental with natural weapons, knowing not to move across the engraved summoning circle in the room, etc. You also have the general need to direct an animal companion to attack (or not attack) certain targets and the issue with bringing some animals into specific environments -- a tiger on a row boat, a wolf into a high-end tavern, a bison up a ladder, etc. In some combat roles, certain animal companions are mighty deadly. A tiger can defeat almost any humaniod (except maybe a monk) single handed -- once you consider grappling. Large animals almost make extremely good blockers -- since they occupy 4 squares, threaten into 12 others, and are hard to trip, bullrush, etc. Strength gives them a lot of combat damage. Most fighters (choosing that role) can make up for this with magic, defensive buffing, reach weapons, feats, etc. However, overall, a tiger isn't superior to a 7th-level fighter by a long shot. The animal is of extremely limited use outside of combat, and in combat is limited to pretty specific roles. It can't heal itself, it may be too stupid not to attack certain foes, it might not be able to function at all due to it's size, etc. I'd say overall 25% as useful as a fighter, 60% in the combat role, and 90% in the front-line blocker/attacker role (in the best cases).
Toxic_Shaman 04-09-07, 12:57 PM	The saddest part is that we're comparing a druid's class feature to the entire fighter class and coming up with, at worst, "comparable". Exactly. It doesn't really matter if the animal companion can fight as well as a fighter or not, the fact that its even close and takes a good bit of analysis to do a good comparison says a lot about the relative power of a druid and a fighter. One of the Druid's three first level class features vs. an entire class.....Adding that the druid has better saves, better skill list and more skill points to spend, full spell-casting, and other class features would just be rubbing it in even further. Wasn't there a link to an OotS comic that touched on this?
Argaud 04-09-07, 01:03 PM	It can be proven that the animal companion is comparable or superior to a standard DMG fighter build (i.e. the benchmark of all fighters). Hmm, except you are optimizing the animal companion and comparing it to a very crappy fighter build. By that rule the companion is also better than the NPC druid, the NPC cleric and the NPC wizard. Take a Riding Dog that has been trained for war (mechanically the best animal companion at level 1). Give it the most expensive barding you can afford. Compare its hit dice, hit points, attack bonus, damage, armor class, and speed to a human fighter. Notice the first level human fighter has cash to buy a riding dog and the skills to train it for war. Dogfight! :D In general, at level 1 and 3, the animal companion is superior to all but the more optimized fighter builds (exception: Archers), and it comes close to or exceeds those builds if the druid buffs it. That is not exactly true. A spiked chain fighter, an archer or any dwarf are superior to the dog in most stats. A level 1 warforged fighter (probably the most optimized low level fighter) utterly pwns the dog with his adamantine plating for big AC, DR, etc. It is not the "most optimized" but merely "any good". In other words, the dog is slightly superior only to NPC fighters, crappy fighters done by novice players or fighters played by people that is aiming for a certain build a few levels ahead. And if the druid's companion is not the optimized dog (or a wolf, although the wolf is slightly inferior) there is little to compare.
countbubba 04-09-07, 01:30 PM	It's important to remember that the druid's role in the party is not, or at least should not be, that of primary combatant. If you're using all or most of a druid's spell slots towards combat, I consider that somewhat of a waste. Fighters can do an excellent job with much less magic going behind them than would need to be put on the druid. Let the druid be a spellcaster, backing up the fighter. Besides, the time it takes to make the druid and companion at least as good as a fighter is time that a normal fighter could use killing things. So there is the efficiency aspect of it.
DMsDelight 04-09-07, 01:53 PM	Hmm, except you are optimizing the animal companion and comparing it to a very crappy fighter build. By that rule the companion is also better than the NPC druid, the NPC cleric and the NPC wizard. The problem there is that mechanically, if not done right, a fighter can suck. If done well, a fighter can rock some socks. I'd say, one on one, non buffed, and the companion not optimized (barding, etc.), fighter wins. On that I agree with you. Tempest has a point though, but thats probably because he details examples so well, as he is an expert at. I'd say, on a side note, that fighter should have some extra skill points at least, though. Not every fighter has to be a meatshield. In Rolemaster/ICE (a d100 system), you can play a fighter with a lot of non-combat skills, though it's just a bit harder than other classes. Then again, EVERYTHING is a skill in ICE, including weapons, so it's not a fair or balanced comparison. Anyone here ever play ICE? Just a personal question. Sorry, didn't mean to sidetrack...lack of sleep ftl.... Notice the first level human fighter has cash to buy a riding dog and the skills to train it for war. Dogfight! :D Yes, but the druid's gains HD, BAB, Str/Dex, Nat Arm and abilities, while the fighters bought dog stays the same. At first level and on up to 3rd (I think) it would be a semi-fair match, but after that the fighter's would get the snot beat out of it like a scrawny kid in a room full of bullies. Have the fighter just train a dragon... :P That is not exactly true. A spiked chain fighter, an archer or any dwarf are superior to the dog in most stats. A level 1 warforged fighter (probably the most optimized low level fighter) utterly pwns the dog with his adamantine plating for big AC, DR, etc. It is not the "most optimized" but merely "any good". In other words, the dog is slightly superior only to NPC fighters, crappy fighters done by novice players or fighters played by people that is aiming for a certain build a few levels ahead. ...That is also true. Then again, warforged fighter tend to come out ahead most of the time anyway. Good point there. And if the druid's companion is not the optimized dog (or a wolf, although the wolf is slightly inferior) there is little to compare. Really, it's ALL a matter of how each is built. This comparison is HIGHLY situational, as most things are. It all depends on a lot of variables. That is my general answer to the OP.
Toxic_Shaman 04-09-07, 05:13 PM	It's important to remember that the druid's role in the party is not, or at least should not be, that of primary combatant. If you're using all or most of a druid's spell slots towards combat, I consider that somewhat of a waste. Fighters can do an excellent job with much less magic going behind them than would need to be put on the druid. Let the druid be a spellcaster, backing up the fighter. Besides, the time it takes to make the druid and companion at least as good as a fighter is time that a normal fighter could use killing things. So there is the efficiency aspect of it. Why can't the Druid be the primary combatant? He usually doesn't have to spend rounds in combat buffing, many of the buffs he casts last for a long time and can be cast pre-combat. For instance, Greater Magic Fang lasts for 10 minutes/level and Barkskin lasts for 1 hour/level. Granted, if the Druid is the party's only healer, he may not have many spells to spare, but if he wants to, the Druid can easily perform the primary combatant role if that's the role the party needs. A party that already has either a cleric or druid for healing, and a druid for primary combatant, will be much more flexible and at least as strong in combat as a party where the Fighter performs the combatant role.
Jell_Moo 04-09-07, 05:35 PM	It's important to remember that the druid's role in the party is not, or at least should not be, that of primary combatant. If you're using all or most of a druid's spell slots towards combat, I consider that somewhat of a waste. Fighters can do an excellent job with much less magic going behind them than would need to be put on the druid. Let the druid be a spellcaster, backing up the fighter. Besides, the time it takes to make the druid and companion at least as good as a fighter is time that a normal fighter could use killing things. So there is the efficiency aspect of it. Wild Shape. Now the Druid is as good as the Fighter. Add in the Animal Companion, now the Druid is better than the Fighter. At this point a single spell hasn't been cast.
Flan 04-09-07, 06:04 PM	Wild Shape. Now the Druid is as good as the Fighter. Hardly. If your DM doesn't let you pick any form you want from any source like the rules say they shouldn't then Wild Shape is not exactly overpowered. Until you can afford the armor mod, probably around 10th level, your AC in wild shape is going to be complete garbage and going toe to toe with anything let alone a compatent fighter is a death sentance, you'll be losing damage to damage reduction, your chance to hit is not going to be exactly stellar, you can't use a bow, and you won't have the combat ability of a fighter especially since you've given up one of your few feats just to overcome the disadvantage of not being able to cast in wild shape. Yes, a druid is better than a fighter at higher levels, but it has nothing to do with wild shape, which really is just a 4rth level spell called polymorph, it's all those stupid and broken spells they can cast.
Scion of Coldshard 04-09-07, 06:23 PM	It is easy enough to either have someone put armor on your new animal body or put it on yourself (depending on the form and a few other things). Leather armor and hide armor are not great, but they do give the druid 2 - 3 extra points of AC on the cheap. Later on a monks belt can help get that AC up a bit. At level 5 I am fairly partial to the cheetah. 50' movement, 17 AC with leather barding, 3 attacks on a full attack, and a pretty decent chance to trip foes. With barkskin and longstrider up before hand that makes the movement 60' and the AC 19. I like it! Of course there is something to be said for being an Baboon (later ape) with a shilelagh!
Jell_Moo 04-09-07, 06:25 PM	Hardly. If your DM doesn't let you pick any form you want from any source like the rules say they shouldn't then Wild Shape is not exactly overpowered. Until you can afford the armor mod, probably around 10th level, your AC in wild shape is going to be complete garbage and going toe to toe with anything let alone a compatent fighter is a death sentance, you'll be losing damage to damage reduction, your chance to hit is not going to be exactly stellar, you can't use a bow, and you won't have the combat ability of a fighter especially since you've given up one of your few feats just to overcome the disadvantage of not being able to cast in wild shape. Yes, a druid is better than a fighter at higher levels, but it has nothing to do with wild shape, which really is just a 4rth level spell called polymorph, it's all those stupid and broken spells they can cast. If the Druid can Summon it, the Druid can certainly study it and become familiar with it. AC while wild shaped is likely going to be lower than an equivalent level Fighter, no doubt. However, you have to factor in things like reach, speed, other modes of transport (such as swimming or flight)... The Druid's to hit is going to be on par with the Fighter thanks to a very high Str score. While the Druid can't use a bow, he can still cast spells which are much, much better.
Ralvuimego 04-09-07, 07:17 PM	Just my two cents, but there's a little armor enchantment in CaDV called Beastskin, which allows the druid to keep his armor bonuses from the armor he wears at the cost of a +2 enchantment on the armor.
Angerland 04-09-07, 07:42 PM	To answer the OP's comment. Please remember that a Druid's animal companion will always have a Druid nearby. That has to be taken into account for an accurate estimate of power. Otherwise it's just an animal and unless your very low level not much of a threat anyway. Although I did see a brown bear score a TPK on 3rd level party. As part of the recieving end of that TPK.
Otto the Bugbear 04-09-07, 08:08 PM	The Duid's animal companion is superior to the fighter. I have seen it stated time and again. To tell the truth I would be suprised if the animal could defeat a warrior npc class(after a few levels) let alone a fighter. Also if the statement is made that the pet is enhanced by a spell the fighter could also have a buffbot such as a cleric. That is not the issue. At best there I doubt there are more than 5 creatures that even have a prayer. Even if it wasn't capable of defeating a fighter, if it was instead 80% as effective, or 70% as effective, what does that say about the game design? And if you "giving" the fighter a buff-bot, why can't another character have a buff-bot given to it as well? How about a barbarian? Or a Ranger? Or a rogue? Or a druid?
Argaud 04-09-07, 09:24 PM	Even if it wasn't capable of defeating a fighter, if it was instead 80% as effective, or 70% as effective, what does that say about the game design? It says a CR1 monster (such a war-trained dog) is a serious threat for a level 1 character. Any fist level character, including a druid, can be defeated by the riding dog. It might mean the riding dog is too powerful as animal companion. Maybe the druid should be limited to CR 1/2 or weaker animals at first level?
scienceman47 04-09-07, 09:41 PM	Knowledge(nature). Now I know what a dire bear is. Or, seeing as how I'm a ****ing druid, go out and find one. Only DM fiat keeps druids from accessing animals.
scienceman47 04-09-07, 10:12 PM	It is easy enough to either have someone put armor on your new animal body or put it on yourself (depending on the form and a few other things). Leather armor and hide armor are not great, but they do give the druid 2 - 3 extra points of AC on the cheap. Later on a monks belt can help get that AC up a bit. At level 5 I am fairly partial to the cheetah. 50' movement, 17 AC with leather barding, 3 attacks on a full attack, and a pretty decent chance to trip foes. With barkskin and longstrider up before hand that makes the movement 60' and the AC 19. I like it! Of course there is something to be said for being an Baboon (later ape) with a shilelagh! Its like the mandrill from the lion king decided to go adventuring! :D
Flan 04-09-07, 10:34 PM	Later on a monks belt can help get that AC up a bit. +1 AC while not wearing armor?
Tempest Stormwind 04-09-07, 10:40 PM	+1 AC while not wearing armor? Someone hasn't been reading their rules.This simple rope belt, when wrapped around a character’s waist, confers great ability in unarmed combat. The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the belt lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus.When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).+Wis+1 AC while not wearing armor, such as when you're in Wild Shape (armor's absorbed and nonfunctional; you'd need a wilding clasp or something similar on the monk's belt, or, as Scion was suggesting, have someone else put it on you, since magic items resize to fit their wearer).
Eela6 04-09-07, 10:40 PM	+1 AC while not wearing armor? Regrettably, it's Wisdom Bonus+1 AC while not wearing armor (as clarified by the Sage, the FAQ, CustServ, and about everybody else). Not all that many people like it, but thems the rules. I don't like Spiked Chains, but they're in the rules, too.
Flan 04-09-07, 11:04 PM	Regrettably, it's Wisdom Bonus+1 AC while not wearing armor (as clarified by the Sage, the FAQ, CustServ, and about everybody else). Not all that many people like it, but thems the rules. I don't like Spiked Chains, but they're in the rules, too. I think the intent was pretty clear it was just the AC colum or it's grossly grossly underpriced. Everyone I know who has read it didn't even think it could mean the wisdom modifer. It's the best armor for any mid to high level wisdom based caster and stupidly good for a cleric since magical vestments work on plain cloths. +13 (monks belt at 34 wisdom) +1 dastana +2 shield +15 3x magical vestments +31 AC in a loin cloth. Woo woo.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-09-07, 11:12 PM	The saddest part is that we're comparing a druid's class feature to the entire fighter class and coming up with, at worst, "comparable". Quoted for Great Justice. And yet Andy Collins had the audacity to say that the fighter did not need to be changed for 3.5e. I love when the "all knowing" game designers can be proven this wrong.
Lanky Ogre Baggy Pants 04-09-07, 11:20 PM	I think the intent was pretty clear it was just the AC colum or it's grossly grossly underpriced. Everyone I know who has read it didn't even think it could mean the wisdom modifer. It's the best armor for any mid to high level wisdom based caster and stupidly good for a cleric since magical vestments work on plain cloths. +13 (monks belt at 34 wisdom) +1 dastana +2 shield +15 3x magical vestments +31 AC in a loin cloth. Woo woo. Magic Vestment Transmutation Level: Clr 3, Strength 3, War 3 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Armor or shield touched Duration: 1 hour/level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object) You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level). An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell. Except as soon as you include the dastana or shield you are no longer unarmored, as well as if the clothing counts as armor then you are not unarmored. And how do you get +15, enhancement bonuses don't stack from the same source. I'm also not sure what level you are assuming (20th) to get a 34 wisdom. And by this (20) level its easy to get 41 AC without all that extra junk.
Tempest Stormwind 04-09-07, 11:40 PM	Quoted for Great Justice. And yet Andy Collins had the audacity to say that the fighter did not need to be changed for 3.5e. I love when the "all knowing" game designers can be proven this wrong. I'd actually like to see that, if a link's still available.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-09-07, 11:47 PM	I have been looking for it myself, actually. It was back when there was a subforum dedicated to the upcoming 3.5e. Unfortunately the archives don't go back that far that I could find. It was also stated that becasue, in his experience, a fighter/prc (Ghostwalker, mebbe?) build was competetive when using 3rd party expansions; so that meant the fighter was competetive. :bored:
Willie the Duck 04-10-07, 12:00 AM	I think the intent was pretty clear it was just the AC colum or it's grossly grossly underpriced. Everyone I know who has read it didn't even think it could mean the wisdom modifer. It's the best armor for any mid to high level wisdom based caster and stupidly good for a cleric since magical vestments work on plain cloths. +13 (monks belt at 34 wisdom) +1 dastana +2 shield +15 3x magical vestments +31 AC in a loin cloth. Woo woo. I think the intent was a way to give a low-level or multiclass monk a boost and possibly a minor perk to a wizard or bard (back before bards wore light armor). I don't think they thought about clerics or druids choosing it over wearing armor, or especially about overmunched wisdom scores combined with excessive bonus stacking. The truly stagering number of ways to get a 50+AC, 200+damage, unresistable spell DC, or other rediculous effect shows to me that the designers care more about making less tricked out games fun than keeping munchkins from breaking the game. Kind of a, "What? Your druid with the 24 wisdom is picking up a monk's belt for +8 AC in animal form? Yeah, I guess that's acceptable per the rules. Yeah, boy it's a darn good thing you aren't in my campaign. Yeah, people who try to pull that kind of junk get spanked real quick." mentality.
Bob Loblaw 04-10-07, 12:35 AM	Take a Riding Dog that has been trained for war (mechanically the best animal companion at level 1). Give it the most expensive barding you can afford. Compare its hit dice, hit points, attack bonus, damage, armor class, and speed to a human fighter. Note that the dog gets a chance to trip the opponent on every single successful bite. Do note that the druid (who brought the companion to the table) can also buff the companion with things like Magic Fang, while the fighter cannot buff himself. I would like to make one correction, the riding dog does not have Improved Trip. This is a very common mistake I see and I just wanted to point this out. I don't know if this changes how the dog compares to the fighter, but I do know it makes the dog weaker than originally thought.
Tempest Stormwind 04-10-07, 12:49 AM	I would like to make one correction, the riding dog does not have Improved Trip. This is a very common mistake I see and I just wanted to point this out. I don't know if this changes how the dog compares to the fighter, but I do know it makes the dog weaker than originally thought. I wasn't making any errors.If trained for war, these animals can make trip attacks just as wolves do (see the Wolf entry). A wolf that hits with a bite attack can attempt to trip the opponent (+1 check modifier) as a free action without making a touch attack or provoking an attack of opportunity. If the attempt fails, the opponent cannot react to trip the wolf.Conclusion: Train the riding dog for war and it can trip like a wolf, as a free action after any successful bite. Note how this is distinct from Improved Trip, which says that after a trip attack, you can make a free attack at them. Totally distinct. There's a reason the dog's (correctly) held to be the best of the 1st-level animal companions. The real mistake lies in the PHB, which lists the crocodile as a first-level animal companion (subsequent sources list it more appropriately as a 4th level companion.)
StruckingFuggle 04-10-07, 12:50 AM	Kind of a, "What? Your druid with the 24 wisdom is picking up a monk's belt for +8 AC in animal form? Yeah, I guess that's acceptable per the rules. Yeah, boy it's a darn good thing you aren't in my campaign. Yeah, people who try to pull that kind of junk get spanked real quick." mentality. So, just out of curiosity, every time anyone says that, I have to wonder: where do you draw the line between on the one hand playing intelligently and making wise choices from your availible options; and on the other hand, 'breaking the game'?
Scion of Coldshard 04-10-07, 12:53 AM	Ohh.. 3rd level druid. Pick up a medium viper, 3rd level druid gives it 2 extra hd plus other stuff. d6 con damage poison DC 15 isnt huge, but I like it! Especially since that snake has a 19 AC without any help. Woo!
Bob Loblaw 04-10-07, 12:53 AM	I wasn't making any errors. I read that thing dozens of times and never saw that sentence. I guess I'll have to read all the words from now on.
navar100 04-10-07, 02:21 AM	Why can't the Druid be the primary combatant? He usually doesn't have to spend rounds in combat buffing, many of the buffs he casts last for a long time and can be cast pre-combat. For instance, Greater Magic Fang lasts for 10 minutes/level and Barkskin lasts for 1 hour/level. Granted, if the Druid is the party's only healer, he may not have many spells to spare, but if he wants to, the Druid can easily perform the primary combatant role if that's the role the party needs. A party that already has either a cleric or druid for healing, and a druid for primary combatant, will be much more flexible and at least as strong in combat as a party where the Fighter performs the combatant role. If a druid is going to be casting spell after spell after spell anyway to buff himself into uberoverlord or his animal companion into a great beast, since he's casting the spells anyway, it could be more efficient to cast fewer than needed spells on the fighter and have the fighter be uberoverlordjuggernaught.
MerlintheTuna 04-10-07, 02:48 AM	There's a reason the dog's (correctly) held to be the best of the 1st-level animal companions. The real mistake lies in the PHB, which lists the crocodile as a first-level animal companion (subsequent sources list it more appropriately as a 4th level companion.)There's apparently still some confusion at WotC about that one, then. Check it out. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061202a)
aelryinth 04-10-07, 03:03 AM	You can't get a Shield bonus and the bonus from a monk's belt, and dastana grant a shield bonus also, so they don't stack. The real power of an Animal companion is the huge Nat AC buffs they get. Combined with spells and armor, they are night untouchable at higher levels. ===Aelryinth
Zelck 04-10-07, 03:10 AM	If a druid is going to be casting spell after spell after spell anyway to buff himself into uberoverlord or his animal companion into a great beast, since he's casting the spells anyway, it could be more efficient to cast fewer than needed spells on the fighter and have the fighter be uberoverlordjuggernaught. You mean buff spells like Bite of the X (personal, but shareable with animal companions), Greater Magic Fang (natural weapons only), and Nature's Favor and Animal Growth (animals only)?
mevers 04-10-07, 03:54 AM	If a druid is going to be casting spell after spell after spell anyway to buff himself into uberoverlord or his animal companion into a great beast, since he's casting the spells anyway, it could be more efficient to cast fewer than needed spells on the fighter and have the fighter be uberoverlordjuggernaught. And again we have someone missing the point. We aren't comparing a Druid and Fighter in the SAME party, we are saying an EXTRA druid could do the job better. A Party with Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, will be MUCH more versatile and just as capable in combat, than a party of Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Fighter. Tell me, what does the second party lose over the first?? This is the point we are making, that nearly ANY advernturing Party would be better off with a Druid than a Fighter.
runestar 04-10-07, 04:25 AM	The best thing about a monk's belt is that it stacks with wild armour in a wildshape. However, the problem is that with the new wildshape errata, your monk's belt melds into your new form, unless you drop it first, wildshape, then have someone strap it on for you. Same for your ring of protection, amulet of NA etc. Hypothetically, the average AC a druid can get is... Base 10 +13 armour(+5 wild dragonhide fullplate) +5 ring of prot +5 amulet of NA(or cast barkskin) +12 AC(monk's belt, assume wis32, can be higher depending on your race) +dex and NA of your wildshaped form(which those legendary animals are infamous for) And if you throw in an animated shield...:P AC of 60-70 is to be expected, rather than an exception to the norm.:) The title of one of the most powerful classes in dnd is not accorded lightly.:)
Lina_Inverse 04-10-07, 04:28 AM	It's important to remember that the druid's role in the party is not, or at least should not be, that of primary combatant. If you're using all or most of a druid's spell slots towards combat, I consider that somewhat of a waste. The druid is the flatout best primary combatant in the game, and it is the area he is best in. It is a waste not to flip out and eat people as a druid. Fighters can do an excellent job with much less magic going behind them than would need to be put on the druid. Let the druid be a spellcaster, backing up the fighter. What do you classify as magic? Magic items? A fighter is absolutely helpless without his gear, fighters in d20 are afterall weapons platforms from which gear is used. A druid is -not- absolutely helpless without gear. He has wild shape and 9th level spells. The fact wild shape stacks with gear is just wrong. Besides, the time it takes to make the druid and companion at least as good as a fighter is time that a normal fighter could use killing things. Wild shape happens -before combat- and lasts -all day- thats before including any other -all day- buffs. Wild shape alone > Fighter.
Otto the Bugbear 04-10-07, 07:53 AM	It says a CR1 monster (such a war-trained dog) is a serious threat for a level 1 character. Any fist level character, including a druid, can be defeated by the riding dog. It might mean the riding dog is too powerful as animal companion. You said it.
Leo 04-10-07, 09:55 AM	Honestly, what the PHB says it's that you can get a riding dog, not a riding dog trained for war. Otherwise, by that logic, you could also add every freaking template you could think off to the riding dog and make a monstruosity at 1st level. Not to mention the druid's code. He's suposed to treat the dog as a friend, not an expendable meat shield. The fighter can send as much riding dogs as he can afford to battle whitout bothering if they die or no.
runestar 04-10-07, 09:59 AM	He's suposed to treat the dog as a friend, not an expendable meat shield. And the dog would gladly reciprocate by sacrificing itself for its master. That's what friends are for. Or was that fiends?:P
Argaud 04-10-07, 10:37 AM	Hypothetically, the average AC a druid can get is... Base 10 +13 armour(+5 wild dragonhide fullplate) +5 ring of prot +5 amulet of NA(or cast barkskin) +12 AC(monk's belt, assume wis32, can be higher depending on your race) +dex and NA of your wildshaped form(which those legendary animals are infamous for) And if you throw in an animated shield...:P AC of 60-70 is to be expected, rather than an exception to the norm.:) The title of one of the most powerful classes in dnd is not accorded lightly.:) The Monk's Belt won't work with any kind of armor or shield. Wild armor still counts as armor worn and applies non-proficiency, move restrictions and ACP to the user (so the druid needs to spend a feat to use it, and they don't have many to spare). Most animals can't use rings because they have no fingers. The real AC a druid can reach at high level is pretty good, but not outside the range other classes can reach.
Nephlite 04-10-07, 10:45 AM	The best thing about a monk's belt is that it stacks with wild armour in a wildshape. However, the problem is that with the new wildshape errata, your monk's belt melds into your new form, unless you drop it first, wildshape, then have someone strap it on for you. Same for your ring of protection, amulet of NA etc. Hypothetically, the average AC a druid can get is... Base 10 +13 armour(+5 wild dragonhide fullplate) +5 ring of prot +5 amulet of NA(or cast barkskin) +12 AC(monk's belt, assume wis32, can be higher depending on your race) +dex and NA of your wildshaped form(which those legendary animals are infamous for) And if you throw in an animated shield...:P AC of 60-70 is to be expected, rather than an exception to the norm.:) The title of one of the most powerful classes in dnd is not accorded lightly.:) Monks lose Wis to AC while using a shield so Animated wouldn't help. But everything else is rigtht. I like The Croc as my Animal Companmion: Cut Serv says it is a level 1 animal not a 4th. Riding dogs are faster though...plus it costs more for Barding on the Croc.
Bob Loblaw 04-10-07, 10:45 AM	Honestly, what the PHB says it's that you can get a riding dog, not a riding dog trained for war. Otherwise, by that logic, you could also add every freaking template you could think off to the riding dog and make a monstruosity at 1st level. Not to mention the druid's code. He's suposed to treat the dog as a friend, not an expendable meat shield. The fighter can send as much riding dogs as he can afford to battle whitout bothering if they die or no. I think they are refering to the fact that it's a DC 20 Handle Animal check which almost any first level character can pull off in 3 weeks. The druid begins with a +4 bonus to this check. If he's going to be training his companion, he should put some ranks in Handle Animal. Level 1, that's 4 ranks. He's at +8 already and we haven't accounted for Charisma, Aid Another, or any feats he may choose to take. If his Charisma is at least 12, the druid can Take 10 and have his riding dog trained for combat in 3 weeks at level 1. As for the "friend" aspect, why is it okay for the party to send their friends into battle but not okay for the druid to send in his dog? The definition of friend should not change based on creature type. The druid would have trained his companion for this situation. He is not sending an unarmed beast into a losing battle just to buy time for his escape. If we take the assumption that the riding dog trained for battle is better than a fighter trained for battle (and I am not convinced because numbers are only part of the picture), then how is the druid endangering his pet? He believes that the dog will win.
runestar 04-10-07, 10:55 AM	The Monk's Belt won't work with any kind of armor or shield. Wild armor still counts as armor worn and applies non-proficiency, move restrictions and ACP to the user (so the druid needs to spend a feat to use it, and they don't have many to spare). Most animals can't use rings because they have no fingers. The rules are quite ambiguous on this, actually. Wild: The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape. Armor and shields with this ability usually appear to be made covered in leaf patterns. While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen. Moderate transmutation; CL 9th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, baleful polymorph; Price +3 bonus. It does not say anything about you retaining the drawbacks of armour. If a druid wearing a wild dragonhide fullplate wildshapes, as per the new wildshape rules, the armour melds into his new form. However, the wild enhancement lets him retains his armour's AC. Since he is not actually wearing the armour(it has been subsumed into his new form), he does not suffer the armour check penalties for not being proficient with it, nor is he actually wearing armour, so it will not disable the monk's belt's benefits. As such, he can benefit from both wild +5 dragonhide armour and a monk's belt simultaneously, but only in wildshape.:) You also may not need fingers to wear rings or amulets. A wolf should be able to wear rings on its paws(they will magically resize to suit the new form), similar to how dragons can wear rings themselves. Boots similarly resize to fit its hind feet. Likewise for cloaks, eyepieces and gloves. Monks lose Wis to AC while using a shield so Animated wouldn't help. Good call there. I might have to change this to a +5 wild wooden shield.:)
RadicalTaoist 04-10-07, 10:57 AM	Wow, a whole 1st level party should pool their gold and buy/train a riding dog. When you get to 2nd level...get another! Given the shared wealth of a four-member party, how long (until what level) do you think we could go without Fighters?
Argaud 04-10-07, 11:10 AM	The rules are quite ambiguous on this, actually. It does not say anything about you retaining the drawbacks of armour. If a druid wearing a wild dragonhide fullplate wildshapes, as per the new wildshape rules, the armour melds into his new form. However, the wild enhancement lets him retains his armour's AC. Since he is not actually wearing the armour(it has been subsumed into his new form), he does not suffer the armour check penalties for not being proficient with it, nor is he actually wearing armour, so it will not disable the monk's belt's benefits. As such, he can benefit from both wild +5 dragonhide armour and a monk's belt simultaneously, but only in wildshape.:) When the rules are ambiguous common sense should prevail :) Still, when faced with players lacking common sense, rulelawyers or powergamers, and if the DM wants to strictly follow the rules, we still can email WotC to ask for a clarification of the rules. I did this and the answer of Customer Service was very clear: the druid wearing Wild armor/shield is still wearing armor/shield and can't benefit from a Monk's Belt. Moreover the restrictions of the armor do not go away. (Incidentally, a human-sized dragonhide fullplate requires the skin of a colossal dragon to craft, so it might be pretty hard to get in most games. This is only a drawback at low levels though, since eventually a druid can also have a fullplate made of wood and just cast Ironwood on it).
Leo 04-10-07, 11:31 AM	As for the "friend" aspect, why is it okay for the party to send their friends into battle but not okay for the druid to send in his dog? The definition of friend should not change based on creature type. The druid would have trained his companion for this situation. He is not sending an unarmed beast into a losing battle just to buy time for his escape. If we take the assumption that the riding dog trained for battle is better than a fighter trained for battle (and I am not convinced because numbers are only part of the picture), then how is the druid endangering his pet? He believes that the dog will win. Well, I saw some people around the boards talking how they used their animal companions to spring up traps, wich honestly I don't think it's very friendly. And the animal companion isn't any friend. He's someone who's been with you for years and with wich you share a deep bond. The other PC's...You meet them last night in a bar. You probably share the same goal, and little else. They have profit to earn from allying with you. The dog has nothing to win from hanging with you besides injuries. Very friendly. I think those are diferent kind of friendships we're talking here.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-10-07, 11:35 AM	Ah, but what animal wouldn't do its best to protect a pack member or Mate? Those are the types of "emotions" an animal companion is likely to have with a druid or ranger. So assisting in combat is not only allowed, but likely. Using an animal companion to trigger traps would constitute abuse and be grounds for abandonment. ;)
Zilvar 04-10-07, 11:47 AM	And the animal companion isn't any friend. He's someone who's been with you for years ...Not necessarily. It only takes a day to get a new one if you feed your last to the grindstone, or level up, or whatever. In fact, you are making assumptions about characters with this statement that cannot be supported.
Scion of Coldshard 04-10-07, 11:47 AM	And the animal companion isn't any friend. He's someone who's been with you for years and with wich you share a deep bond. The other PC's...You meet them last night in a bar. You probably share the same goal, and little else. They have profit to earn from allying with you. The dog has nothing to win from hanging with you besides injuries. Very friendly. So, wait... Your campaigns often have characters who barely tolerate one another and there are no lasting commitments? How long do those games last? While I agree that what you have said 'could' happen I do not think that it is what is happening the majority of the time. An animal companion may be replaced with a 24 hour ritual. This means that the animal companion that you have could be as new as just a few seconds now. Also, an adventuring party might be made up of friends who have known one another since childhood. Or anything inbetween. Your description sounds like a rather cut-throat version of chaotic. You form bonds of friendship where you see fit but everyone else is just there to help you along. Druids can be good or evil, lawful or chaotic, with an eye towards balance. I can easily see a druid seeing his animal companion as a piece of meat to be thrown around as he sees fit or a druid who protects his animal companion at all costs. Both work, just like the party or the animal companion could have been around longer or share a deeper bond with.
Bob Loblaw 04-10-07, 12:36 PM	Well, I saw some people around the boards talking how they used their animal companions to spring up traps, wich honestly I don't think it's very friendly. And the animal companion isn't any friend. He's someone who's been with you for years and with wich you share a deep bond. The other PC's...You meet them last night in a bar. You probably share the same goal, and little else. They have profit to earn from allying with you. The dog has nothing to win from hanging with you besides injuries. Very friendly. I think those are diferent kind of friendships we're talking here. It's 24 hours to replace the companion. One could argue very easily that you've been adventuring with the people you met in the bar for more than 24 hours. I agree with the assertion that the pet should not be used as a trap springer. I agree that your pet should not be used to hold the opponent at bay while you run for your life. These are not the things one does to their companions without their consent. I think that too often the companion is given far more credit than it should. Their intelligence levels are often too low to be able to make any real tactical choices in combat. They usually can't deal with damage reduction. When the companion is replaced, it's barding needs to be replaced as well. This is an expenditure of resources that is often overlooked. The riding dog's barding simply will not fit the bear's body. While the cost may end up "minimial" as the druid progresses in levels, it is still there and should be taken into account. If ignored, then an equal value should be ignored in the fighter's wealth as well, just to be fair.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-10-07, 12:45 PM	But one is presuming that the cost of higher grade armors, Masterwork weapons, and Masterwork Armors (which are eventually supplanted by magical item/exotic materials) is oftened assumed for the fighter. So the Cost fothe Barding does wash when examined against a fighters "negligible" expenditures
OravennasBrother 04-10-07, 12:52 PM	Did you just say that if the druid could buff his pet then the fighter gets a pet cleric to buff him? Does that even make sense? If the Fighter is 6th level then he can EASILY afford the Leadership feat which will grant him a dedicated spellcaster.
Otto the Bugbear 04-10-07, 12:59 PM	I agree with the assertion that the pet should not be used as a trap springer. No. That's what the beguiler is for. "Hey, beguiler, go spring that trap." *shove!* I agree that your pet should not be used to hold the opponent at bay while you run for your life. No. That's what gnomes are for. "Hey, gnome, just slow that rhemoraz down for a little bit while I run away!" *trip!* -=-= Does the bag of tricks have 'gnome beguiler' on the list of animals you can pull?
Scion of Coldshard 04-10-07, 01:01 PM	When the companion is replaced, it's barding needs to be replaced as well. I usually treat magical equipment made for a specific size and type to magically adjust to the new creature. So, barding made for a medium creature will work as barding for another medium creature that uses barding (as in, armor for a humanoid is different than barding). But maybe I am a softy that way ;) If the Fighter is 6th level then he can EASILY afford the Leadership feat which will grant him a dedicated spellcaster. I really hate the leadership arguement. So very, very much. Most of the time it is simply not helpful, occasionally it actually hinders the conversation, only rarely is it actually a bonus to the topic at hand. Here, I am not sure if it is simply not helpful or hindering. Leadership is an incredibly powerful and versitile feat. It can turn just about any lackluster/bad/incredibly awful character into a competant one and maybe even break them. Generally speaking it is best to just ignore that it exists. It is even more optional than other core feats because it is listed in the dmg and has a special tag warning dm's about it. It should not be used as a class balancing feature or need to be a necissary addition to any topic talking about the balance of a single class. Leaving that aside the point I was making with the part you quoted from me is that there was a restriction placed on one character because both characters could not do the same thing with their class features. And that made no sense. Yes, the fighter could spend a feat one leadership, but then so could the druid. Lets leave that particular wrinkle out of the discussion if at all possible please ;)
Scion of Coldshard 04-10-07, 01:29 PM	Ohh.. 3rd level druid. Pick up a medium viper, 3rd level druid gives it 2 extra hd plus other stuff. d6 con damage poison DC 15 isnt huge, but I like it! Especially since that snake has a 19 AC without any help. Woo! I guess no one liked the snake? :( Just thinking about how much fun that would be almost makes me want to switch out the character I am currently playing! ;)
Haruspex 04-10-07, 03:01 PM	Let's see. I'm working quickly here, but I thought it'd be better to stat the darned thing out. Level 20 Druid's riding dog (naked): 14d8+28 (91 hp), 40 feet speed, AC 31 (+16 natural, +5 Dex), Str 21, Dex 21, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6, bite +15/+10 melee (1d6+7). Fort +11, Ref +14, Will +5 (+9 against enchantment), evasion, improved evasion, low-light vision, scent, Alertness and Track plus 4 additional feats from Hit Dice, maximum 13 tricks (there are only 12 in Core), link, share spells. Then you add however much gear the druid is willing to spare. What you have is a monster capable of killing horses (assuming they don't run), without any gear or spells from the druid. How does it compare to a fighter 20? Hard to say. Unless the druid spends all his cash on his companion, the fighter will have the equipment advantage. The fighter has more HD, should have more hit points (110 from HD alone), 4 attacks a round, and 18 feats (11 of which are fighter bonus). If they were both naked I'd give the dog even odds. I'd pay to watch that, but only if it was a hot female fighter. Who let the dogs out?!:D
Evicmar 04-10-07, 03:09 PM	I've always wondered about something. According to PHB a druid at 20th can have an elephant companion with evasion. Would the elephant be pink in color? :D
NobodyRemembersThis 04-10-07, 03:16 PM	Let's see. I'm working quickly here, but I thought it'd be better to stat the darned thing out. Level 20 Druid's riding dog (naked): 14d8+28 (91 hp), 40 feet speed, AC 31 (+16 natural, +5 Dex), Str 21, Dex 21, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6, bite +15/+10 melee (1d6+7). Fort +11, Ref +14, Will +5 (+9 against enchantment), evasion, improved evasion, low-light vision, scent, Alertness and Track plus 4 additional feats from Hit Dice, maximum 13 tricks (there are only 12 in Core), link, share spells. Then you add however much gear the druid is willing to spare. What you have is a monster capable of killing horses (assuming they don't run), without any gear or spells from the druid. How does it compare to a fighter 20? Hard to say. Unless the druid spends all his cash on his companion, the fighter will have the equipment advantage. The fighter has more HD, should have more hit points (110 from HD alone), 4 attacks a round, and 18 feats (11 of which are fighter bonus). If they were both naked I'd give the dog even odds. I'd pay to watch that, but only if it was a hot female fighter. Who let the dogs out?!:DSo, at 20th level, the Druid gets a class feature that is roughly comparable to a 15th level fighter - or 75% as effective as a 20th level fighter. This is a CLASS ABILITY - and equivelant to the Leadership Feats Cohort. With a basic animal companion. So, if you count leadership (an untenable arguement at best), the Druid gets TWO Cohorts to the Fighters One; Fighter is still left with the Monster of All Wedgies on the playground. :P
Haruspex 04-10-07, 03:27 PM	So, at 20th level, the Druid gets a class feature that is roughly comparable to a 15th level fighter - or 75% as effective as a 20th level fighter. This is a CLASS ABILITY - and equivelant to the Leadership Feats Cohort. With a basic animal companion. So, if you count leadership (an untenable arguement at best), the Druid gets TWO Cohorts to the Fighters One; Fighter is still left with the Monster of All Wedgies on the playground. :P True, but try pitting the druid against a wizard. Animal companion eats the wizard's familiar. Druid eats the wizard.
Scion of Coldshard 04-10-07, 03:29 PM	Level 20 Druid's riding dog (naked): 14d8+28 (91 hp), 40 feet speed, AC 31 (+16 natural, +5 Dex), Str 21, Dex 21, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6, bite +15/+10 melee (1d6+7). Fort +11, Ref +14, Will +5 (+9 against enchantment), evasion, improved evasion, low-light vision, scent, Alertness and Track plus 4 additional feats from Hit Dice, maximum 13 tricks (there are only 12 in Core), link, share spells. Then you add however much gear the druid is willing to spare. You forgot the dogs 3 extra stat points from hd! I would suggest 1 in strength, 1 in dex, and 1 in con ;) That would give it 105 hp, AC 32 (+16 nat, +6 dex), bite +16/+11 (d6+9), Fort +12, Ref +15, plus the rest ;) Unless the extra stat point does not apply for some reason? As far as I know it is a natural progression that goes with hd.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-10-07, 03:32 PM	True, but try pitting the druid against a wizard. Animal companion eats the wizard's familiar. Druid eats the wizard. totally sigged :D
Haruspex 04-10-07, 03:38 PM	You forgot the dogs 3 extra stat points from hd! I would suggest 1 in strength, 1 in dex, and 1 in con ;) That would give it 105 hp, AC 32 (+16 nat, +6 dex), bite +16/+11 (d6+9), Fort +12, Ref +15, plus the rest ;) Unless the extra stat point does not apply for some reason? As far as I know it is a natural progression that goes with hd. Hmm. It says that the animal companion gets skill points, base attack, base saves, feats for it's HD. It says nothing about ability scores, so I left that out.
Scion of Coldshard 04-10-07, 03:42 PM	Hmm. It says that the animal companion gets skill points, base attack, base saves, feats for it's HD. It says nothing about ability scores, so I left that out. True, although it mostly just looks like reminder text and explaining what sort of hd they are. As far as I know every 4 hd gives any creature an extra stat point. But this could be wrong.
Argaud 04-10-07, 03:55 PM	True, but try pitting the druid against a wizard. Animal companion eats the wizard's familiar. Druid eats the wizard. Yes, but the wizard's familiar can beat the druid at chess! And the paladin's mount can also play chess, and eats the druid's companion easily.
Flan 04-10-07, 04:05 PM	So, at 20th level, the Druid gets a class feature that is roughly comparable to a 15th level fighter - or 75% as effective as a 20th level fighter. Um, not even close. A 15th level fighter would destroy it, a 20th level fighter would ignore it because it isn't even worth decent XP.
Haruspex 04-10-07, 04:08 PM	Yes, but the wizard's familiar can beat the druid at chess! And the paladin's mount can also play chess, and eats the druid's companion easily. Oh yeah? Well, the druid's animal companion can beat the wizard at arm wrestling! Even without arms!
Scion of Coldshard 04-10-07, 04:18 PM	Um, not even close. A 15th level fighter would destroy it, a 20th level fighter would ignore it because it isn't even worth decent XP. Hopefully true. Although if the druid cast a few low level spells on the dog first it would definately be an interesting fight. I dont mean short term buffs though, only things with 10min/level durations or greater and only if they are 4th level or less (maybe 5th level, but we are talking essentially negligable expenditures in resources when we talk about 4th level spells for a 20th level druid). Hmm.. chain shirt barding +1, barkskin, greater magic fang, longstrider and delay poison (or neutralize poison). I wonder if that is all that it would take to make the dog win most of the time. I guess he could also pop on some energy resistance and freedom of movement but I doubt that would change anything much.
Zilvar 04-10-07, 04:21 PM	Who cares about good or bad? I'd just want the TRex at level 20 just so that I could take it walking down main street and DARE someone to get me to scoop up after it ;)
scienceman47 04-10-07, 05:48 PM	Who cares about good or bad? I'd just want the TRex at level 20 just so that I could take it walking down main street and DARE someone to get me to scoop up after it ;) I wonder what T-rex poop looks like. I'll pick up a triceratops first. It seems a bit more powerful, and thanks to the movie Jurassic Park I know exactly what Triceratops **** looks like :)
Flan 04-10-07, 06:01 PM	I wonder if that is all that it would take to make the dog win most of the time. Dog would need about 3 times the HP, boots of flying and a bow to even have a chance.
Scion of Coldshard 04-10-07, 06:11 PM	Dog would need about 3 times the HP, boots of flying and a bow to even have a chance. All the dog would need to do is hide for a few minutes until the winged boots duration ran out. I have thought it over though and decided that the 15th level fighter would win most of the time with a basic smash-em build. He can hit harder, gets more swings, and has more hit points. Of course a large portion of the dogs benefits do not come into play in this fight but the same might be true depending on the fighter build as well. I would think that with animal growth the dog would be doing 'much' better however. But that is outside of the scope of my previous post. There might be lower level buff spells to be had outside of the core though. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the druids resources it took to make the dog beat the fighter most of the time at various levels.
Flan 04-10-07, 06:57 PM	All the dog would need to do is hide for a few minutes until the winged boots duration ran out. They don't get hide in plain sight which is pretty much what you need if someone knows you're there to begin with. They're animal intelligence so wouldn't likely do that anyway, and if you awaken them, they aren't an animal companion anymore. Regardless, a fighter of that level will be stronger, have better BAB, will probably have improved grapple items like armbands of might, may have the improved grapple feat, may have things like armor spikes, and may be larger (permanent enlarge person + arcane sight is pretty typical for fighters by 15th level, and is going to make the dog even less likely to be able to hide with all those buffs and magic armor on it) and could simply grapple the dog to death easily. Even if you buff the dog out the wazoo burning the druid's resources, do things like give it self-only buffs via a ring of spell storing and using tricks to have it activate it, etc. the fighter is still going to trash the dog if the fighter is a reasonable build and has reasonable gear. A dozen feats + gear is going to have the fighter beating the dog easily all the time, it's a waste of time when a druid could simply use the spell slots to vapourize the fighter from a thousand feet away.
Scion of Coldshard 04-10-07, 07:10 PM	They don't get hide in plain sight which is pretty much what you need if someone knows you're there to begin with. How many fights happen in the middle of endless, featureless plains again? They're animal intelligence so wouldn't likely do that anyway Animals have animal intelligence, which is not 0 nor a -. Although even vermin, who do have a - for int, will likely go hide. Apparently we have had very different experiences with animals. But, even if we assume that animals are mindless automotons who have no freestanding thoughts of their own there is still the druid around somewhere to give some orders. Those are free actions anyway, so they do not take any resources. Regardless, a fighter of that level will be stronger, have better BAB, will probably have improved grapple items like armbands of might, may have the improved grapple feat, may have things like armor spikes, and may be larger (permanent enlarge person + arcane sight is pretty typical for fighters by 15th level, and is going to make the dog even less likely to be able to hide with all those buffs and magic armor on it) and could simply grapple the dog to death easily. The fighter might have a lot of things. Of course the dog has not chosen all of his feats either and his barding could be spiked. The fighter could also have a 3 strength and a dislike of hurting animals too for that matter. So really, sure, you could suck all of the fun out of this thought process by saying that the fighter could do millions of things or you could actually make up a fighter who is not made specifically to kill animals so that it is not so up in the air. Tell you what. I'll make the dog, you make the level 15 fighter. 25 point buy, core only, normal character wealth for your guy, and then we'll argue about terrain as it sounds like you will want a featureless plain while I would want something a bit more likely. Even if you buff the dog out the wazoo burning the druid's resources, do things like give it self-only buffs via a ring of spell storing and using tricks to have it activate it, etc. the fighter is still going to trash the dog if the fighter is a reasonable build and has reasonable gear. A dozen feats + gear is going to have the fighter beating the dog easily all the time, it's a waste of time when a druid could simply use the spell slots to vapourize the fighter from a thousand feet away. Cool. Glad you are so gung-ho about it. Feel free to write your fighter up.
Otto the Bugbear 04-10-07, 07:18 PM	Let's see. I'm working quickly here, but I thought it'd be better to stat the darned thing out. Level 20 Druid's riding dog (naked): 14d8+28 (91 hp), 40 feet speed, AC 31 (+16 natural, +5 Dex), Str 21, Dex 21, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6, bite +15/+10 melee (1d6+7). Fort +11, Ref +14, Will +5 (+9 against enchantment), evasion, improved evasion, low-light vision, scent, Alertness and Track plus 4 additional feats from Hit Dice, maximum 13 tricks (there are only 12 in Core), link, share spells. Then you add however much gear the druid is willing to spare. I tend to prefer the brown bear. Sure, only 2 open feats and 11 tricks, but starting at Str 27 does wonders. Equipment consists of... Collar of Resistance +5, 25000 gold, Chain Shirt Barding +1, 2500 gold, ...out of 760000 of the druid's money. Long duration shared spells would be something like... 1st level: Longstrider, 1 hour/level 2nd level: Barkskin, 200 minutes 3rd level: Greater Magic Fang, 1 hour/level If it's a little harder fight, then share... 4th level: Bite of the Wereboar, 1 round/level pushing up over 130 hit points, 27 Str (without the boosts every 4 HD, which they should get) For the really tough fights... 6th level, Bite of the Werebear, 1 round/level 3rd level, Charge of the Triceratops, 1 round/level pushing Str near 50, hit points up above 160, with AC near 40, and 4 attacks (with secondary attacks at only -2) As good as a fighter? Perhaps, perhaps not. But this is one of two in the party, if a druid is replacing the fighter's normal party spot.
Scion of Coldshard 04-10-07, 07:21 PM	I tend to prefer the brown bear. For general campaign combat use I might actually go with the Dire Weasel. d4 con damage each round? Take that living creatures!
Flan 04-10-07, 08:16 PM	How many fights happen in the middle of endless, featureless plains again? You should read the hide skill. To hide in the middle of combat you either need the hide in plain sight ability or you need to have total concealment + bluff, or total concealment + a distraction. The dog can't hide. So really, sure, you could suck all of the fun out of this thought process by saying that the fighter could do millions of things or you could actually make up a fighter who is not made specifically to kill animals so that it is not so up in the air. Fighters are made to kill things. I can't off-hand think of anything that would make a fighter specificaly better at killing animals though. Tell you what. I'll make the dog, you make the level 15 fighter. 25 point buy, core only, normal character wealth for your guy, and then we'll argue about terrain as it sounds like you will want a featureless plain while I would want something a bit more likely. Here... - Robilar's Gambit fighter + Deft Opportunist + Combat Reflexes: Every attack by the dog gives an AoO by the fighter at full attack + 4. Dog is dead in the first round. - Spiked Chain + Improved Trip + permanent enlarge: 20 foot reach, dog is tripped at 15 feet + free hit. On the fighters turn he gets a full attack and 5 foot step back. Dog provokes standing up and moving, 2 trips and two free attacks. Dog is dead on first or second round. - Dungeon Crasher + Knockback etc.: Your dog wishes it was on a featureless plain as it gets slamed into the wall half a dozen times and turned into a blood pancake in 1 round. - Shock Trooper + Leap Attack + Power Attack: Dog dies on the second hit, first if criticaled. - Improved Combat Expertise + Power Attack: Fighter gets +15 dodge bonus to AC, full power attack for +32 (armbands of might). Both fighter and dog need 20 to hit each other and dog's AC is irrelevant, but fighters hits are doing over 50 damage causing massive damage save or dies and killing the dog on the second hit. Dog turned into a spray of blood after a few rounds of wild swinging. Add in Robilar's Gambit to speed things up a bit. - Bow feats: Dog dies on the second full attack by the archer which is doing about 20-30 damage per arrow. Flight for the fighter is optional. - Improved Grapple: Dog dies a slow painful death by the fighter who has a superior grapple check.
Scion of Coldshard 04-10-07, 08:24 PM	You should read the hide skill. To hide in the middle of combat you either need the hide in plain sight ability or you need to have total concealment + bluff, or total concealment + a distraction. The dog can't hide. Why cant the dog hide? I know the rules just fine thanks. So tell me, why cant the dog break line of sight? Why can he not get behind something or undersomething or who knows what else? Unless we are on that featureless plain I was talking about there is likely to be at least a few options. Fighters are made to kill things. That was insightful. It is not universally true and unhelpful to the thread, but certainly insightful into your thinking process. - Robilar's Gambit fighter + Deft Opportunist + Combat Reflexes: Every attack by the dog gives an AoO by the fighter at full attack + 4. Dog is dead in the first round. - Spiked Chain + Improved Trip + permanent enlarge: 40 foot reach, dog is tripped at 35 feet + free hit. On the fighters turn he gets a full attack and 5 foot step back. Dog provokes standing up and moving, 2 trips and two free attacks. Dog is dead on first or second round. - Dungeon Crasher + Knockback etc.: Your dog wishes it was on a featureless plain as it gets slamed into the wall half a dozen times and turned into a blood pancake in 1 round. - Shock Trooper + Leap Attack + Power Attack: Dog dies on the second hit, first if criticaled. - Improved Combat Expertise + Power Attack: Fighter gets +15 dodge bonus to AC, full power attack for +32 (armbands of might). Both fighter and dog need 20 to hit each other and dog's AC is irrelevant, but fighters hits are doing over 50 damage causing massive damage save or dies and killing the dog on the second hit. Dog turned into a spray of blood after a few rounds of wild swinging. Add in Robilar's Gambit to speed things up a bit. - Bow feats: Dog dies on the second full attack by the archer which is doing about 20-30 damage per arrow. Flight for the fighter is optional. - Improved Grapple: Dog dies a slow painful death by the fighter who has a superior grapple check. Ok, so the first, third, fourth, and fifth examples are all non-core and the other three are wrong or unproven. Care to try again?
runestar 04-10-07, 10:02 PM	Forget about equipping your animal companion, simply give him the celestial template via exalted animal companion and have him take the VOP feat.:D Regarding Argaud's point about monk's belt not stacking with wild armour, I was approaching this more from a mechanical aspect, rather than a RP aspect. But since wotc has ruled that they do not stack, I will abide by their ruling. For now, since I too have sent them a similar question and will get their answer too.:)
Optimator 04-10-07, 10:30 PM	Forget about equipping your animal companion, simply give him the celestial template via exalted animal companion and have him take the VOP feat.:D Wow. That's crazy. Does that really work?
runestar 04-10-07, 10:48 PM	Wow. That's crazy. Does that really work? In theory at least. If my memory serves me correctly, Exalted companion gives you a monstrous animal companion. There should be a few with good alignment, thus allowing it to take the VOP feat with the free feats it gets when it gets the extra bonus HD. Or you could always find some way for it to swap out its starting feats for VOP, maybe using psychic reformation or something? Someone correct me if I am mistaken. It has been quite some time since I last flipped through BOED.:P
WolfHati 04-10-07, 11:09 PM	Leadership is an incredibly powerful and versitile feat. It can turn just about any lackluster/bad/incredibly awful character into a competant one and maybe even break them. Generally speaking it is best to just ignore that it exists. It is even more optional than other core feats because it is listed in the dmg and has a special tag warning dm's about it. It should not be used as a class balancing feature or need to be a necissary addition to any topic talking about the balance of a single class. Well the sting is that in 1st and 2nd ed. fighters essentially got the leadership feat as a bonus at level 9. It was their version of a druid or ranger's animal companion. Nature lovers get a pet, fighters get a bloody army. Heck, that would probably be the best way to make players actually want to play a fighter, just reinstate their friggin' castle and army. Why did they ever take that out in the first place? Stupid 3/3.5e....
Scion of Coldshard 04-10-07, 11:23 PM	Heck, that would probably be the best way to make players actually want to play a fighter, just reinstate their friggin' castle and army. Why did they ever take that out in the first place? Stupid 3/3.5e.... My groups always took it out in previous editions anyway so no real loss for me.
Dragonteuthis 04-10-07, 11:23 PM	since magic items resize to fit their wearer. The rules actually don't specifically say this; they simply present it as an option. Even if you interpret that as a rule, it doesn't say the armor reshapes to fit a new creature type, which is far more relevant.
Flan 04-10-07, 11:56 PM	Why cant the dog hide? I explained it quite clearly in my last post. Read the skill. Breaking line of sight isn't enough. Ok, so the first, third, fourth, and fifth examples are all non-core and the other three are wrong or unproven. Care to try again? All are correct, and core only is irrelevant. Care to try again yourself? Toss 3 dogs in at a time for all I care, all of those builds can beat them all at the same time. A nothing special 100hp monster with 30 AC is a joke for a 15th level fighter, not a challenge.
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 12:05 AM	I explained it quite clearly in my last post. Read the skill. Breaking line of sight isn't enough. Well, if you do not want to play by the rules, that is up to you. All are correct, and core only is irrelevant. Do you even read what you quote? I had said, '25 point buy, core only, normal character wealth'. If you did not want to do that you could have said so, but instead you chose to make a bunch of pointless examples that you failed to prove. Good job, you wasted everyones time. I've disagreed and agreed with khan on various points in a few different threads, but overall he is a good guy. You however are apparently just a jerk. Can I trade you in for khan? At least he makes sensible arguements a good portion of the time, even if we disagree.
Dragonteuthis 04-11-07, 12:21 AM	I explained it quite clearly in my last post. Read the skill. Breaking line of sight isn't enough. "You can run around a corner of behind cover so that you're out of sight and then hide, but the others know at least where you went." -PHB, page 76. May I suggest you bone up on the skill's description?
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 12:25 AM	Thanks Dragonteuthis, I was getting too frustrated to provide proper quotes.
navar100 04-11-07, 01:54 AM	You mean buff spells like Bite of the X (personal, but shareable with animal companions), Greater Magic Fang (natural weapons only), and Nature's Favor and Animal Growth (animals only)? That's not the point. The particular spells are irrelevant. It could be Barkskin, Bull's Strength, and Freedom of Movement for all I care. The point is if the druid is going to take the time to cast the spells, buffing the already poignant fighter into a "better" fighter could take less spells to do and have a more effective result than casting spells on himself and/or animal companion into something you would say equals the fighter. Buffing himself and/or his animal companion is still a good and viable tactic for the druid, but it may not always be the best tactic or most efficient tactic. In some cases, sure, just not all.
navar100 04-11-07, 02:01 AM	And again we have someone missing the point. We aren't comparing a Druid and Fighter in the SAME party, we are saying an EXTRA druid could do the job better. A Party with Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, will be MUCH more versatile and just as capable in combat, than a party of Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Fighter. Tell me, what does the second party lose over the first?? This is the point we are making, that nearly ANY advernturing Party would be better off with a Druid than a Fighter. It's been said one could have a party of four clerics. Can a druid be an effective dedicated warrior? Sure. So can a fighter. So can a barbarian. So can a paladin. So can many classes. Should you "always" have a druid or other non-fighter instead of a fighter? That's just a matter of what the player wants to play. A druid being superawesomesticfreakingadelicious, if one feels as such, does not take away that the fighter is good.
Haruspex 04-11-07, 06:31 AM	Fighter Dude Who Loves Dogs Medium Humanoid (Human) Fighter 15 Hit Dice: 15d10+30 (107 hp) Initiative: +5 (+1 Dex, +4 Improved Initiative) Speed: 30 feet (6 squares), 20 feet in armor Armor Class: 27 (+1 Dex, +13 armor, +2 deflection, +1 insight) touch 13, flat-footed 26 Base Attack/Grapple: +15/+22 Attack: +5 greatsword +29 melee (2d6+19/17-20) or composite longbow +21 ranged (1d8+12/x3) Full Attack: +5 greatsword +29/+24/+19 melee (2d6+19/17-20) or composite longbow +21/+16/+11 ranged (1d8+12/x3) Space/Reach: 5/5 Special Attacks: Special Qualities: Saves: Fort +10, Ref +6, Will +5 Abilities: Str 25, Dex 13, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10 Skills: Craft (weaponsmithing) +18, Handle Animal +19, Ride +22, Feats (15): Weapon Focus (greatsword), Point Blank Shot, Quick Draw, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Weapon Specialization (greatsword), Spirited Charge, Dodge, Greater Weapon Focus (greatsword), Blind-Fight, Improved Critical (greatsword), Far Shot, Greater Weapon Specialization (greatsword), Mounted Archery, Improved Initiative Environment: Any Organization: Solitary Challenge Rating: 15 (hopefully) Possessions: +5 spiked full plate (26,700 gp), +5 greatsword (50,350 gp), +5 composite longbow (Str +7) (51,100 gp), belt of giant strength +6 (36,000 gp), ivory goats (21,000 gp), ring of protection +2 (8,000 gp), dusty rose ioun stone (5,000 gp), efficient quiver (1,800 gp), 60 arrows (3 gp), Language: Common Alignment: Neutral Scenario 1: The riding dog challenges the fighter to an arena duel. The fighter calls out his goat of travail, and does the whole mounted combat thing. Scenario 2: Random encounter at the highway/swamp/beach/pub. The fighter takes out his magic greatsword and begins hacking. Scenario 3: Open plain. The fighter takes out his magic bow and shoots. P.S. The greatsword glows. If you consider that cheating, so be it. This is far from optimized (optimization is not my bag, baby), but I decided to get the ball rolling. Hopefully someone with CO experience can pull a more challenging fighter from Core.
Archangel62 04-11-07, 06:35 AM	That's not the point. The particular spells are irrelevant. It could be Barkskin, Bull's Strength, and Freedom of Movement for all I care. The point is if the druid is going to take the time to cast the spells, buffing the already poignant fighter into a "better" fighter could take less spells to do and have a more effective result than casting spells on himself and/or animal companion into something you would say equals the fighter. Buffing himself and/or his animal companion is still a good and viable tactic for the druid, but it may not always be the best tactic or most efficient tactic. In some cases, sure, just not all. Except his spells are automatically piggybacked onto his pet. The self buffing druid gets a 2 for 1 deal. The druid buffing the fighter doesn't quite get that boost, not to mention that the druid has more tactical options with some of the spells combined with wildshape and capable animal companions.
Leo 04-11-07, 07:38 AM	Except his spells are automatically piggybacked onto his pet. The self buffing druid gets a 2 for 1 deal. The druid buffing the fighter doesn't quite get that boost, not to mention that the druid has more tactical options with some of the spells combined with wildshape and capable animal companions. So why do you imply so much with the fighter? Then the ranger also gets housed(the dog can track by scent), the barbarian also gets housed,the paladin gets housed, the wizard gets housed, etc, etc.
Archangel62 04-11-07, 07:46 AM	So why do you imply so much with the fighter? Then the ranger also gets housed(the dog can track by scent), the barbarian also gets housed,the paladin gets housed, the wizard gets housed, etc, etc. The fighter was the one being shown in the example that I quoted. Also, the ranger can also track someone that is able to avoid scent (darkstalker feat) and has their own combat options, plus a nice substitution option.
Qube 04-11-07, 09:18 AM	oke ... lets check the dire bear: Size/Type: Large Animal Hit Dice: 12d8+51 (105 hp) Initiative: +1 Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares) Armor Class: 17 (-1 size, +1 Dex, +7 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 16 Base Attack/Grapple: +9/+23 Attack: Claw +19 melee (2d4+10) Full Attack: 2 claws +19 melee (2d4+10) and bite +13 melee (2d8+5) Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft. Special Attacks: Improved grab Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent Saves: Fort +12, Ref +9, Will +9 Abilities: Str 31, Dex 13, Con 19, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 10 Skills: Listen +10, Spot +10, Swim +13 Feats: Alertness, Endurance, Run, Toughness, Weapon Focus (claw) Environment: Cold forests Organization: Solitary or pair Challenge Rating: 7 Treasure: None Alignment: Always neutral Advancement: 13-16 HD (Large); 17-36 HD (Huge) Level Adjustment: — 4 bonus hit dice, 4 natural armor, +2 STR, DEX fighter, from the top of my head, charges with shock trooper / leap attack and greater weapon specialisation (about 130 damage). I don't know about the additional buff spells, but if you don't heal the dire bear, he won't survive the next round) the next round a fighter gets a full attack ... hope you boosted the AC of the dire bear. a fighter could take on the dire bear animal compagnion, if he has parymembers (that make sure the druid doesn't continuously buff / heal the animal companion). -> remember that (A) its not 1 on 1 but a party of 4 against 1 of the same level. (B) CoDzilla is stronger then the fighter
Argaud 04-11-07, 10:47 AM	Except his spells are automatically piggybacked onto his pet. The self buffing druid gets a 2 for 1 deal. The druid buffing the fighter doesn't quite get that boost, not to mention that the druid has more tactical options with some of the spells combined with wildshape and capable animal companions. This is not exactly true: Share Spells (Ex) At the druid’s option, she may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) she casts upon herself also affect her animal companion. The animal companion must be within 5 feet of her at the time of casting to receive the benefit. If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the animal companion if the companion moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the animal again, even if it returns to the druid before the duration expires. In other words: Share Spells is a very limiting ability. The druid needs to be very close to the animal, and the companion will lose the spells if either the druid or the animal moves away. Given how movement works in D&D the only way this could work well is if the druid is riding the companion (or vice-versa, I guess). In general, in a real D&D battle, Share Spells will do nothing. Druid and companion will need to be in different areas of the fight, each doing what they do best. If they stay together and do not move the enemies can avoid them easily (which completely negates the usefulness the usually no-reach/no-range companion and most of the melee ability of the druid).
NobodyRemembersThis 04-11-07, 11:11 AM	First, try using core only - not everyone uses the splatbooks, so using information outside of the core invalidates your entire arguement. Only using the information EVERYONE will use/have access to is the only way to pove a point with this excercise in futility.
Kresalak 04-11-07, 11:20 AM	This is the dumbest thread I've ever read. The point about the Riding Dog isn't that he replaces the Fighter at level 15, it's that he replaces him at level 1 through 5, the times when the Druid can't replace him yet.
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-11-07, 11:22 AM	First, try using core only - not everyone uses the splatbooks, so using information outside of the core invalidates your entire arguement. Only using the information EVERYONE will use/have access to is the only way to pove a point with this excercise in futility. What EVERYONE has access to has no bearing on actual facts. You might as well say that any argument relating to molecular biology is irrelevant because you don't have access to the pertaining book. I'm for using any supplement available. EDIT: Kresalak brings up a good point.
Qube 04-11-07, 11:23 AM	This is the dumbest thread I've ever read. off topic: you haven't been visiting these boards much, have you :D
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-11-07, 11:25 AM	off topic: you haven't been visiting these boards much, have you :D I'm actually with him, now that he brought his last point up (this thread is on my top list, at least), and I've been here practically every day since mid-June '05.
Flan 04-11-07, 11:40 AM	Do you even read what you quote? I had said, '25 point buy, core only, normal character wealth'. If you did not want to do that you could have said so, but instead you chose to make a bunch of pointless examples that you failed to prove. Good job, you wasted everyones time. The only time you wasted was composing your petulent response. I on the other hand have wasted quite a bit of time trying to show you a very obvious fact that shouldn't need to be demonstrated. An even basic grasp of DnD's combat system should be more than adequate to know how silly this comparison is. More HP, more damage per hit, more BAB, higher AC, more combat options, access to magic items and ranged attacks. Can anyone seriously think the figher would lose? You need to make some silly little test to show it? You're comparing a severly undergeared warrior with reduced HP, animal intelligence and no ranged attacks to a fully geared fighter. :rolleyes: For our next comparison, an ogre with 10 levels of sorcerer vs. a level 1 commoner, it's up in the air folks, anyone could win! "You can run around a corner of behind cover so that you're out of sight and then hide, but the others know at least where you went." -PHB, page 76. May I suggest you bone up on the skill's description? "If people are observing you, even casually, you can't hide." Yes, you can go behind cover. And then the fighter follows you and kills you. I could just see imagine your game... DM: "No, you can't see the dog thats right beside you, that you know is right beside you because you watched it go where it is then followed it, it went behind a rock and used a hide check to disappear into the shadows that are now clearly visible in your 60 foot bright illumination, and because it's in a now non-existant shadow you can't see it's glowing magical auras either. But I'll give you a +2 circumstance on your spot check to see it."
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 11:43 AM	In other words: Share Spells is a very limiting ability. The druid needs to be very close to the animal, and the companion will lose the spells if either the druid or the animal moves away. Given how movement works in D&D the only way this could work well is if the druid is riding the companion (or vice-versa, I guess). In general, in a real D&D battle, Share Spells will do nothing. Druid and companion will need to be in different areas of the fight, each doing what they do best. If they stay together and do not move the enemies can avoid them easily (which completely negates the usefulness the usually no-reach/no-range companion and most of the melee ability of the druid). This is definately an oddity in the d&d movement and it should be addressed directly by the books. Assuming that it isnt, I am away from my books at the moment, we are left with an oddity. Using the cyclical movement there are indeed times when creatures can be fairly far apart from one another even though if someone was watching it in reality the two would never be apart. Take the handle animal command 'heel' for instance. With this the animal will never stray beyond a certain set distance unless you move faster than it can. So, you command, in this case, the dog to heel and it sticks right next to you forever... or until you enter combat at which point you can be up to 60' apart for no aparant reason. I fix this in my own game by having characters and those under their direct control go simultaneously. You and your animal companion and your familiar etc are all moved at the same time without the necessity of being mounted. Although, thinking of the mounted bit, I really love the concept of the druid + mount combination. Halfling + riding dog, human + dire bat, maybe it is even possible to work a giant snake in there too! Lots of fun ;)
OravennasBrother 04-11-07, 11:45 AM	The point about the Riding Dog isn't that he replaces the Fighter at level 15, it's that he replaces him at level 1 through 5, . Funny, I never imagined a Riding DOG could shoot a Bow very well. DO they come with Opposable thumbs now?
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 11:57 AM	The only time you wasted was composing your petulent response. And reading your posts. Those were all wastes of time. As is this post really but I figured I might as well make it anyway. It is apparent that you are unwilling to actually help with this thread, which is unfortunate. I am not sure why you feel the need to be so insulting though. You might want to work on that. Oh, and you are having issues with the rules of d&d as well. I went through and looked at your posts and most/all of them were at least partially wrong according to the rules and what was left were mostly unproven statements which you still have not backed up. You might want to work on that as well. More HP, more damage per hit, more BAB, higher AC, more combat options, access to magic items and ranged attacks. Can anyone seriously think the figher would lose? You are again not reading my posts yet feeling the need to respond to them anyway. Lets see what I did say shall we? We'll keep it simple, just one part directly relating to what you have said here: I have thought it over though and decided that the 15th level fighter would win most of the time with a basic smash-em build. He can hit harder, gets more swings, and has more hit points. Interesting how this ground has already been covered isnt it? ;) Now I did also pose the question wondering what percentage of the druids resources he would have to poor into the dog in order to make it win most of the time and what level of fighter it would win against. But that is a much more complicated question, although I would find an indepth analysis of it fascinating. "If people are observing you, even casually, you can't hide." Good thing this has already been covered before. Although you could save a lot of your own time by simply not repeating everything that other people say. From your posts though I think talking about tactics might be a waste though. It seems in your games those sorts of things do not come up. Everyones game is different though, in mine sometimes things get a little complicated based on terrain, foes, weather conditions, and so forth.
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-11-07, 12:01 PM	Funny, I never imagined a Riding DOG could shoot a Bow very well. DO they come with Opposable thumbs now? THIS is your logic? Riding Dogs can't wield bows? It doesn't matter, dude, they just maul stuff instead.
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 12:03 PM	Funny, I never imagined a Riding DOG could shoot a Bow very well. DO they come with Opposable thumbs now? Not all fighters work well with bows either for that matter ;) Bows are pretty expensive so a character might choose to use that money somewhere else. Sharing a produce flame would be interesting though. Dogs have a decent dexterity.
Zelck 04-11-07, 01:18 PM	That's not the point. The particular spells are irrelevant. It could be Barkskin, Bull's Strength, and Freedom of Movement for all I care. The point is if the druid is going to take the time to cast the spells, buffing the already poignant fighter into a "better" fighter could take less spells to do and have a more effective result than casting spells on himself and/or animal companion into something you would say equals the fighter. Buffing himself and/or his animal companion is still a good and viable tactic for the druid, but it may not always be the best tactic or most efficient tactic. In some cases, sure, just not all. Here's the problem. Barkskin is up to +5 natural armor. The animal buffs are +4 to a stat. Bite of the Wererat is +6 Dex, +2 Con, +3 natural armor, and free Weapon Finesse. Especially at lower levels, this spell totally outclasses the other two. True, Barkskin lasts longer (and I guess the animal buffs lasts almost negligibly longer), but the Bite spells are much stronger. This doesn't even get into the other stuff, like Animal Growth (better than Enlarge Person, and hits your summons too!) and Nature's Favor (swift action). @Share Spells: The thing with Share Spells isn't that you can get double the effect by sharing your spells on your animal companion (due to the 5' distance thing which is really odd in a cyclical combat game... maybe 5' apart at end of turn is more sensible, but that's not RAW). Its that you can cast Personal range spells on your animal companion, and they last for the full duration regardless of distance. @Animal Companion: I can't believe someone actually thought an animal companion can beat a fighter in an arena duel. Still, that's not the point. The important question is, can an animal companion suitably replace a fighter as a tank? And the answer is, more or less. The fighter would probably be better, especially if it's optimized (a fighter 4/psychic warrior 2/occult slayer 5/fighter +1/crusader 1/fighter +1/warblade2/XX 2 with Thicket of Blades + Standstill + Combat Reflexes, Mage Slayer + Pierce Magic Protection, and Power Attack + Leap Attack + Shock Trooper + Pouncing Charge can be pretty sweet). However, the animal companion can still take up space, threaten squares, and basically hold a front line. It should be able to approach the tanking performance as an equally-buffed sword-and-board tank. And that's just one class feature of the very versatile druid. Maybe during an encounter, the animal companion isn't a good enough tank. In response, the druid can Wild Shape and add another presence on the front line, or summon more tanks. A druid + animal companion combo could easily surpass a fighter at tanking. If that's not needed, the druid could play the role of a full caster, which is much more powerful than a fighter.
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 01:36 PM	I can't believe someone actually thought an animal companion can beat a fighter in an arena duel. This is a little vague ;) Do you mean to say that you can think of no situatations and builds where this might be true? I actually made a build a long while ago where the animal companion was stupidly powerful, but it came down to using a whole lot of the druids options up. It was still fun though! But of course you are correct in saying that the important question is about possible replacement. It is important to know when and how that could occur and what it means.
Argaud 04-11-07, 01:46 PM	@Share Spells: The thing with Share Spells isn't that you can get double the effect by sharing your spells on your animal companion (due to the 5' distance thing which is really odd in a cyclical combat game... maybe 5' apart at end of turn is more sensible, but that's not RAW). Its that you can cast Personal range spells on your animal companion, and they last for the full duration regardless of distance. It is a reasonable limitation of a very powerful ability. Notice paladins and wizards can also share spells yet they are not very restricted. The paladin tends to be riding his mount, the familiar tends to be perched on the wizard's shoulder (or hiding in a pocket). The druid's companion can also be a mount, or can be a bird perched in his shoulder, but if it is going to be used as a bruiser and it is supposed to act/fight independently to the druid... then share spells is not going to work well.
OravennasBrother 04-11-07, 02:03 PM	THIS is your logic? Riding Dogs can't wield bows? It doesn't matter, dude, they just maul stuff instead. If the encounter begins at 300'+ ? Dang those DOGS have long necks. A Sling is NOT expensive and does full strength Bonus damage without extra cost. RI 50' means maximum range 500' - and you still hit on a 20 (and threaten a critical) - a lot better than having to SEPARATE from the Group (as a DOG would have to to charge to engagement range) or stand around uselessly.
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-11-07, 02:15 PM	If the encounter begins at 300'+ ? Dang those DOGS have long necks. A Sling is NOT expensive and does full strength Bonus damage without extra cost. RI 50' means maximum range 500' - and you still hit on a 20 (and threaten a critical) - a lot better than having to SEPARATE from the Group (as a DOG would have to to charge to engagement range) or stand around uselessly. Your adding factors to favor the Fighter doesn't help your case, it actually hurts it by showing under what extreme circumstances the class has to be under to stand a chance. And slings are thrown weapons, so 250 ft. is the maximum. And even then, the Fighter takes a -10 to attack. He can't hit anything at that range. So no, even at long range, the Dog can still win by closing in on the Fighter, buffed by his Druid master.
OravennasBrother 04-11-07, 02:43 PM	And slings are thrown weapons, so 250 ft. is the maximum. NO, slings are MISSILE Weapons with ammunition. From the SRD "Your Strength modifier applies to damage rolls when you use a sling, just as it does for thrown weapons." SO clearly the Sling is NOT a thrown weapon, and thus can be used to 10 range increments. And how often do your parties travel overland? Outdoor encounters make up a LARGE part of many groups experience. Those typically start at far more than Point Blank Range. Dog's are not kown for their ability to open a door, pitch a tent, cook dinner, fetch water, load pack animals, ...... You see the list gets pretty long. Dogs have ONLY one attack option- a Bite. Fighters have A LOT of attack options, and feats to make thjose options even more effective.
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-11-07, 02:57 PM	NO, slings are MISSILE Weapons with ammunition. From the SRD "Your Strength modifier applies to damage rolls when you use a sling, just as it does for thrown weapons." SO clearly the Sling is NOT a thrown weapon, and thus can be used to 10 range increments. Okay, so at 300+ feet, we're still looking at a -12 penalty to attack rolls. IMO that's the dumbest tactic a Fighter can use outside of maxing UMD and trying to cast spells from scrolls. And how often do your parties travel overland? Outdoor encounters make up a LARGE part of many groups experience. Those typically start at far more than Point Blank Range. But what you are talking about is a sniper situation. That's is entirely dependant on DM fiat. Besides, what YOU experience has no bearing on what everyone else's game is. Dog's are not kown for their ability to open a door, pitch a tent, cook dinner, fetch water, load pack animals, ...... You see the list gets pretty long. Yeah, THAT'S what makes Fighters more powerful. Helping with the housework. Dogs have ONLY one attack option- a Bite. Fighters have A LOT of attack options, and feats to make thjose options even more effective. Riding dogs bite, trip and repeat. Buffed by the Druid, they'll rip the Fighter apart. Keep in mind that I'm talking about 1st to 5th level. At higher levels, the Fighter becomes a bit stronger, but the Druid replaces the Animal Companion as the alfa fe/male.
Kresalak 04-11-07, 03:05 PM	You know, I've never seen "can shoot a bow" as the reason a Fighter is viable at low levels. It's always been "you need him to survive with your puny d4 HD", which is precisely what the Riding Dog replaces. You don't need a Fighter to use a sling-the difference between a Fighter with a sling and a Druid with one is seriously only 1 point at level 4, and at level 5 the dog's master has Wind Wall to force enemies to close with him and his Wild Shape. Talk about changing goal posts.
Nephlite 04-11-07, 03:38 PM	Yeah, THAT'S what makes Fighters more powerful. Helping with the housework. Of course, who did you think was doing the dishes the Wizard, the Cleric, or the Druid? Nah, the Fighter: it is what he is good for.
OravennasBrother 04-11-07, 04:05 PM	Riding dogs bite, trip and repeat. Buffed by the Druid, they'll rip the Fighter apart. Keep in mind that I'm talking about 1st to 5th level. OH TWO TACTICS BITE AND TRIP. IIRC There are a whole slew of Posters who tell us that TRIP is not a Viable tactic for FIghters, but now it is for Dogs? AS for the "Share Spells MAKES the ANIMAL GETTING BUFFED FREE" - ONLY if the animal remains within 5' of the druid, eliminating the option for the DOG to keep an enemy at a distance. Too bad the fighter has a REACH weapon. Makes the Dog look pretty weak. Also, the Animal IS NOT built on an Elite Array; from the SRD - "A 1st-level druid’s companion is completely typical for its kind except as noted below." and the exceptions DO NOT Include an elite array. OOh AC 18 at 5th level SCARY. Get Real
Archangel62 04-11-07, 04:19 PM	OH TWO TACTICS BITE AND TRIP. IIRC There are a whole slew of Posters who tell us that TRIP is not a Viable tactic for FIghters, but now it is for Dogs? AS for the "Share Spells MAKES the ANIMAL GETTING BUFFED FREE" - ONLY if the animal remains within 5' of the druid, eliminating the option for the DOG to keep an enemy at a distance. Too bad the fighter has a REACH weapon. Makes the Dog look pretty weak. Also, the Animal IS NOT built on an Elite Array; from the SRD - "A 1st-level druid’s companion is completely typical for its kind except as noted below." and the exceptions DO NOT Include an elite array. OOh AC 18 at 5th level SCARY. Get Real Trip actually is bad for the fighter because unless they invest heavily in it it stops working at mid to high levels because of the nature of enemies at that level. The druid can keep upgrading companions. At low levels tripping is a perfectly reasonable, viable tactic.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-11-07, 04:24 PM	Trip actually is bad for the fighter because unless they invest heavily in it it stops working at mid to high levels because of the nature of enemies at that level. The druid can keep upgrading companions. At low levels tripping is a perfectly reasonable, viable tactic. Also animal companion trip is nice in that it's a free trip off the melee attack with no penalty for failure.
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-11-07, 05:02 PM	OH TWO TACTICS BITE AND TRIP. IIRC There are a whole slew of Posters who tell us that TRIP is not a Viable tactic for FIghters, but now it is for Dogs? Trip is awesome at low levels. The Riding Dog will be pwning the Fighter with just this simple tactic. The reason it's so awesome is because the Riding Dog gets it for free if he hits. And if he manages to hit, he has set up a vicious cycle that can only end in the Fighter's death. AS for the "Share Spells MAKES the ANIMAL GETTING BUFFED FREE" - ONLY if the animal remains within 5' of the druid, eliminating the option for the DOG to keep an enemy at a distance. The Druid can just buff the Dog. Share Spells is irrelevant. Too bad the fighter has a REACH weapon. Makes the Dog look pretty weak. You were just bragging about his awesome sling skills. Okay, say he has another weapon. Did he spend Quick Draw so he could draw it as a free action? Keep in mind that your feats are limited. Or aren't we talking about the same Fighter? Oravennas, are you cheating? Are you switching Fighter builds to win the battle? Also, the Animal IS NOT built on an Elite Array; from the SRD - "A 1st-level druid’s companion is completely typical for its kind except as noted below." and the exceptions DO NOT Include an elite array. And so what? The Riding Dog's ability scores are very decent as they come. Get Real I could say the same.
Midnight_v 04-11-07, 05:42 PM	This is sad... I read this and think some people just don't get it. The animal companion can be very dangerous and it can fight nearly as well as fighters. Everyone says "nearly" and so be it, but at some point the animal comapion is a dire lion or dire tiger or dire something and it can really stand and be a distraction/meatshield well. Honestly... as a druid... I want you to play as the "guy who loves dogs" I want you to try to kill my animal companion... so I can save or die you and feed you to him while he/she/it gets some tender druid healing. If you're comparing the animal companion to the fighter for the sake of a 1 hit meat shield then really it doesn't even matter whats standing there after that hit is dealt. As long as you're not the one thats struck. Any party benifits more from having Cleric/rogue/wizard/Druid/animal companion(instead of fighter) because basically you get another party member added (Animals only) for free as well as a back up healer/summoner/spell caster. The animal companoin can be optimized to kill fighters but really thats not at the real root what this is even about. Is the fighter better than the animal companion? Yes. Can the animal companion perform the "duties" of a fighter? Yes. Is the melee fighters contributions more useful than a druid? Never. Not because druid is overpowerd, but because fighters(aside from archers) don't really do thier jobs particularly well. Thats just what it is. As far as the OPs contention that the fighter should have a "pet" cleric... 1. See my sig. 2. The animal compaion comes as a class feature of a druid. Fighters don't get pet anythings, they get ... another bonus fighter feat. (which leadership isn't one)
Tony Vargas 04-11-07, 05:55 PM	While the riding dog, specifically, benefits from an improbably high natural armor bonus (+4) - twice that of wolves, woverines, and even black bears - it realy doesn't hold a candle to a humanoid warrior, let alone a PC-class character. Heck, a human Warrior1 with a greatsword would stand an excellent chance of Cleaving through a Druid1 /and/ his animal companion.
Nephlite 04-11-07, 06:00 PM	While the riding dog, specifically, benefits from an improbably high natural armor bonus (+4) - twice that of wolves, woverines, and even black bears - it realy doesn't hold a candle to a humanoid warrior, let alone a PC-class character. Heck, a human Warrior1 with a greatsword would stand an excellent chance of Cleaving through a Druid1 /and/ his animal companion. But it has better AC if you include Barding. Especially compared to that 2 hander (so no shield lowers AC comparison). So if that warrior can cleave the Riding Doig: it can cleave that Fighter.
Tony Vargas 04-11-07, 06:15 PM	So if that warrior can cleave the Riding Doig: it can cleave that Fighter.Sure, if you're a 1st level human warrior with Cleave, you can cleave through a Druid into a fighter - or paladin, or warrior, or commoner or whatever - as easily as through a Druid and into his animal companion. If you are a riding dog - or any other animal companion to a 1st level druid - however, you can't cleave through anyone into anyone else, at all. One of many ways that a riding dog - a 150gp piece of equipment - is inferior to an actual character.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-11-07, 06:18 PM	While the riding dog, specifically, benefits from an improbably high natural armor bonus (+4) - twice that of wolves, woverines, and even black bears - it realy doesn't hold a candle to a humanoid warrior, let alone a PC-class character. Heck, a human Warrior1 with a greatsword would stand an excellent chance of Cleaving through a Druid1 /and/ his animal companion. Of course the question is "How much better does the fighter do?" Because if it takes just as much effort for the warrior to cleave the fighter then the dog that staement means nothing. Comparative: 1st level HP: Fighter 13 (assuming 16 Con) Dog 13 AC: Fighter 20 (Breast Plate, 16 Dex, and Heavy Shield) Dog 20 (Chain Barding) Special: Fighter has +1 attack over the dog with 16 str (note the fighters stats are too high, but I don't care) Fighter has ranged weapons and more 2 feats Dog has trip and better movement speed. Also comes with 1st level Druid. 2nd level HP: Fighter 21 Dog 13 AC: Fighter 20 Dog 20 (Might go to 21 if the fighter can get plate, but then the Dog can get 1/2 plate barding for 21 AC as well) Special: Fighter has +2 attack over the dog with 16 str Fighter has ranged weapons and 3 more feats Dog has trip and better movement speed. Also comes with level 2 Druid. 3rd level HP: Fighter 29 Dog 25 (29 if ability points are gained via advancement like they should be) AC: Fighter 22 with new plate and magic shield Dog 24 with plate barding Special: Fighter has +1 attack over the dog with 16 str Fighter has ranged weapons and 2 more feats Dog has trip and better movement. Also comes with level 3 Druid. From 1st to 3rd the dog is a passable tank, that the Druid gets FOR FREE. Edit: If the Druid is getting hit and cleaved the tank has obviously failed anyway. In that case the Druid/riding dog was obviously the better choice because that party has a backup healer to go salvage the mess. As opposed to the fighter whos once again crying over his lack of skill points in useful areas.
Tony Vargas 04-11-07, 06:39 PM	Of course the question is "How much better does the fighter do?"Compared to the human Warrior, the human fighter would have an additional feat - how much better that makes him at cleaving through Druids and thier little furry friends depends on the feat - a non-human fighter, though, could also take Cleave, unlike a non-human warrior. Fighter1 > Human Warrior1 > Animal Companion.
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 06:51 PM	Fighter1 > Human Warrior1 > Animal Companion. Yet again, this seems to depend on the situation and the builds in question. The dog is likely able to trip people, moves faster than the fighter, either has a higher AC with less damage or about the same AC and damage dealing, can track rather well (track feat, scent, and +5 to track while tracking most of the time), better listen check, better spot check, and it is immune to hold person ;)
Greendevilman 04-11-07, 06:51 PM	Compared to the human Warrior, the human fighter would have an additional feat - how much better that makes him at cleaving through Druids and thier little furry friends depends on the feat - a non-human fighter, though, could also take Cleave, unlike a non-human warrior. Fighter1 > Human Warrior1 > Animal Companion. Right, but what is being asserted is actually that: Druid 1 + Animal Companion > Fighter1 > Human Warrior1 > Animal Companion And then there's the matter of scale. A Fighter 1 might (theoretically) have a +1 to all modifiers above an animal companion and thus be strictly superior, but the fact that the animal companion is accompanied by a Druid who can heal, deal extra damage, and provide extemely effective low level crowd control via Entangle. The extra modifiers on stats don't truely make the fighter any better as a "tank" and the Druid/Animal Companion combo is going to end up being far more effective. The only possible exception is if the campaign takes place entirely at level 2 which is the height of the Fighter's relative power and the absolute low point for a Druid. And even then the Druid isn't that bad.
Argaud 04-11-07, 06:53 PM	One of many ways that a riding dog - a 150gp piece of equipment - is inferior to an actual character. I think the key words are "150gp piece of equipment" Anyone can have a riding dog (or several). Until level 3 it is nothing special. When it becomes special, it is already way behind real PCs in fighting ability. And it never catches up unless the druid spends 75% of his time and resources to keep it buffed and healed (and controls what it does every round, so it doesn't do anything stupid like intelligence 2 critters tend to do). Only then it is almost as good as a warrior - one specialized in melee only. The druid is something else, of course. The companion is only just a part of his power. Concentrating in making the companion better in melee is generally a waste of time. The party is better off by using the odd buff or heal spell on the animal to keep it alive and useful, and letting it deal with lesser threats, while the druid casting offensive spells at the more dangerous enemies.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-11-07, 06:59 PM	Right, but what is being asserted is actually that: Druid 1 + Animal Companion > Fighter1 > Human Warrior1 > Animal Companion And then there's the matter of scale. A Fighter 1 might (theoretically) have a +1 to all modifiers above an animal companion and thus be strictly superior, but the fact that the animal companion is accompanied by a Druid who can heal, deal extra damage, and provide extemely effective low level crowd control via Entangle. The extra modifiers on stats don't truely make the fighter any better as a "tank" and the Druid/Animal Companion combo is going to end up being far more effective. The only possible exception is if the campaign takes place entirely at level 2 which is the height of the Fighter's relative power and the absolute low point for a Druid. And even then the Druid isn't that bad. Exactly. That's the thing. As a meat wall the Dog is better or equal to the fighter until higher levels. The DRUID is the offensive power, any damage from the dog is icing. The fighter's ability to outdamage the dog is meaningless, as the only point of the dog is to be a speedbump, which it succeeds at quite well.
Tony Vargas 04-11-07, 07:04 PM	Right, but what is being asserted is actually that: Druid 1 + Animal Companion > Fighter1 > Human Warrior1 > Animal CompanionWell, that'd certainly be a less laughable assertion. Though, the Druid's fragility at 1st level would argue against it. Rough equality seems more plausible. Of course, the Druid's spellcasting quickly makes him as potentially imbalanced as any other prepped caster, and his Wildshape makes him completely broken once he gets Natural Spell. But, at 1st, I don't really think the druid has a substantial advantage yet - and the idea that his animal companion, by itself, is superior to even the better NPC classes is giggleworthy.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-11-07, 07:08 PM	Well, that'd certainly be a less laughable assertion. Though, the Druid's fragility at 1st level would argue against it. Rough equality seems more plausible. Of course, the Druid's spellcasting quickly makes him as imbalanced as any other caster, and his Wildshape makes him completely broken once he gets Natural Spell. But, at 1st, I don't really think the druid has a substantial advantage yet - and the idea that his animal companion, by itself, is superior to even the better NPC classes is giggleworthy. I'd say the dog is better then the Warrior at first level. There isn't a feat that can be taken at first level that is superior to the Improved Trip ability in Core. (Well power attack, but it takes a while for that to reach it's true potential) The fighters 2 feats and archery make it better then the dog, but only as a group sum. As for druid fragility, it's no worse then the rogue...
Tony Vargas 04-11-07, 07:38 PM	I'd say the dog is better then the Warrior at first level. There isn't a feat that can be taken at first level that is superior to the Improved Trip ability in Core. I'd argue that the Improved Trip feat is superior to the monster ability. For one, the ability doesn't grant the +4 bonus that the feat does. For another, it requires you to hit the target's total AC, rather than just his touch AC, while, with the feat, you can trip someone, then hit them more easily while thier down. Yes, you don't get tripped in turn if you fail, but that's about the only thing it has going for it. Heck, if the goal is to stop someone from moving past you, an AoO with a Trip weapon - no feat involved - is more likely to succeed than the Trip (Ex) ability, if only because so many creatures have substantially lower touch ACs than regular ACs. I'd also put forth Cleave, Rapid Shot, and even TWFing - all of which give you the potential to down two opponents per round instead of one - as feats superior to that particular ability. Again, sticking to core.
MerlintheTuna 04-11-07, 07:41 PM	Though, the Druid's fragility at 1st level would argue against it.Why is the Druid fragile at first level? At a (maxed) d8, he's already ahead of the Rogue, Bard, Wizard, and Sorcerer, and he's likely got a better Con than the Ranger, Monk, and potentially the Cleric. If he's fragile, so's pretty much everyone but your average Dwarf Barbarian. I mean, certainly he's fragile compared to, say, a 10th level Druid, but relative to other 1st level characters, the Druid's typically a fair sack of meat himself.
Tony Vargas 04-11-07, 07:44 PM	Why is the Druid fragile at first level? Mostly the armor available (hide or leather) giving him a poor AC - but also the tendency for Druids to dump physical stats in anticipation of abusing Wildshape.
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 08:17 PM	Mostly the armor available (hide or leather) giving him a poor AC - but also the tendency for Druids to dump physical stats in anticipation of abusing Wildshape. Studded leather and scale mail arent all that far above leather ;) Definately agree on the stat dumping though. If the druid plans to go that sort of wildshaping route it is a good plan to be a bit weak for 4 levels for such a big bonus at 5+.
Zelck 04-11-07, 08:24 PM	Studded leather and scale mail arent all that far above leather ;) Definately agree on the stat dumping though. If the druid plans to go that sort of wildshaping route it is a good plan to be a bit weak for 4 levels for such a big bonus at 5+. To be honest, they don't even have to stat dump that much. With 32 point buy, they could easily go 8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 18 Wis, and 8 Cha. The only real "waste" of points is the 14 Dex, since your HP doesn't change when you Wild Shape. Not very fragile at all. Granted, he can't do much by way of attacking, but that's what the animal companion and the party is for.
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 08:34 PM	To be honest, they don't even have to stat dump that much. With 32 point buy, they could easily go 8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 18 Wis, and 8 Cha. The only real "waste" of points is the 14 Dex, since your HP doesn't change when you Wild Shape. Not very fragile at all. Granted, he can't do much by way of attacking, but that's what the animal companion and the party is for. Well.. if you have a point buy of 32 you definately have a lot of options. And relative to this thread it becomes harder for the animal companion to keep up with what the fighter can do. The animals companions stats are basically the same no matter which point buy value the players get. With 32 points the fighter could have a str 16, dex 12, Con 16, int 14, wis 10, cha 8.. or something similar, which is pretty nice! I was thinking more about the baseline 25, which I know that people play but I am not sure why generally, with a druid who wanted to start with a wis 16 and has to eek out the rest of his stats from what was left. Yey shillelagh!
Argaud 04-11-07, 08:44 PM	To be honest, they don't even have to stat dump that much. With 32 point buy, they could easily go 8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 18 Wis, and 8 Cha. The only real "waste" of points is the 14 Dex, since your HP doesn't change when you Wild Shape. Not very fragile at all. Granted, he can't do much by way of attacking, but that's what the animal companion and the party is for. But 25 points is what they get by the normal rules of the book. So it is very likely that to abuse wildshape the druid will be Str 8, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 11, Wis 17, Cha 10. Or even just Con 12 and Cha 8 to get the 18 in Wisdom. 32 points only leads to casters being even more overpowered.
Zelck 04-11-07, 08:56 PM	But 25 points is what they get by the normal rules of the book. So it is very likely that to abuse wildshape the druid will be Str 8, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 11, Wis 17, Cha 10. Or even just Con 12 and Cha 8 to get the 18 in Wisdom. 32 points only leads to casters being even more overpowered. Dumping Con is a bad idea, since your BASE Con determines your Wildshaped HP (Wildshape won't change your HP beyond regaining some as if you'd rested for a day). With 25 point buy, I'd do something like Str 9, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 8. Relatively decent Dex so you have an OK initiative if you're ever caught out of Wild Shape, and 16 Wis is IMO enough. On the other hand, your Combat Expertise fighter with 25 pt buy looks something like Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8. Hardly impressive.
Khan the Destroyer 04-11-07, 09:05 PM	On the other hand, your Combat Expertise fighter with 25 pt buy looks something like Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8. Hardly impressive. Except when you realize that the game is based on those stats, and that those stats actually do represent a very impressive person in-game. I think we spend too much time disecting the game and delving in its potential that we forget the basics.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-11-07, 09:11 PM	Dumping Con is a bad idea, since your BASE Con determines your Wildshaped HP (Wildshape won't change your HP beyond regaining some as if you'd rested for a day). With 25 point buy, I'd do something like Str 9, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 8. Relatively decent Dex so you have an OK initiative if you're ever caught out of Wild Shape, and 16 Wis is IMO enough. On the other hand, your Combat Expertise fighter with 25 pt buy looks something like Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8. Hardly impressive. Looks about right. Funny thing is those scores make the fighter lose any of the non feat based advantages and it had over the dog in my analysis in addition to winding up with worse AC and HP for levels 1 and 3. As for improved trip vs dog/wolf trip their version is undeniably better simply because there is no chance of counter trip. In a fight with a 10 strength commoner theres about a 1 in 20 chance the fighter stands there looking like a moron while thier tripping implement ends up on the floor. It gets worse against monsters or things with more then 4 legs. I dislike manuvers that might cause you more harm then good. Missing would be preferable.
Zelck 04-11-07, 09:15 PM	Except when you realize that the game is based on those stats, and that those stats actually do represent a very impressive person in-game. I think we spend too much time disecting the game and delving in its potential that we forget the basics. Yes, but compare them to a monsters' stats. For instance, look at the Riding Dog's stats (just an example), which happens to be Str 15, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6. The 13 Int is very important, but come on, worse stats than a Riding Dog?
Bob Loblaw 04-11-07, 10:10 PM	But 25 points is what they get by the normal rules of the book. So it is very likely that to abuse wildshape the druid will be Str 8, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 11, Wis 17, Cha 10. Or even just Con 12 and Cha 8 to get the 18 in Wisdom. 32 points only leads to casters being even more overpowered. This is not meant for you, but I need to throw it out there: With stats like this and all the spells needed to buff himself and his dog, what's the druid contributing out of combat?
runestar 04-11-07, 10:20 PM	This is not meant for you, but I need to throw it out there: With stats like this and all the spells needed to buff himself and his dog, what's the druid contributing out of combat? How do you want him to contribute? Isn't that what the rogue is for?:confused:
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 10:23 PM	This is not meant for you, but I need to throw it out there: With stats like this and all the spells needed to buff himself and his dog, what's the druid contributing out of combat? The druid has a pretty impressive skill list actually, plus he has a way with animals.
Bob Loblaw 04-11-07, 10:26 PM	Has anyone noticed that the riding dog is a CR 1 creature with an additional CR 1 druid backing him up. I believe this is an Encounter Level 1-2 for the fighter. According to my DMG, this is Very Difficult (page 49-50). Very Difficult: One PC might very well die. The Encounter Level is higher than the party level. This sort of encounter may be more dangerous than an overpowering one, becuase it's not immediately obvious to the players that the PCs should flee. Without the buffs and armor, how would the dog fare? The fighter only needs to hit AC 16, let's give a fighter the same AC (chain shirt, Dex +2). With a Strength of 16 and weapon focus, the fighter is already hitting more often. The dog's attack deals 1d6+3 (6-7 damage). The fighter should have a decent weapon so let's make it a longsword. This gives him 1d8+2 (6-7 damage). They both should have about 13 hit points. The +2 initiative for the dog is nice and easy enough for the fighter to also have. The dog's trip attempt is at +2, and so is the fighter's so we're at a 50/50 shot still. With so much money left over, the fighter should be able to handle the dog just fine. What first level character doesn't have his trusty tanglefoot bag? The dog does have a 55% chance of not being entangled, but now it can only move at 1/2 speed. The fighter now has the mobility advantage which may be enough to down that potion of healing he has and go one more round. Sorry, but I really don't see the dog as "superior." I do see the higher encounter level to be superior, but that's how it's supposed to be.
Khan the Destroyer 04-11-07, 10:27 PM	Yes, but compare them to a monsters' stats. For instance, look at the Riding Dog's stats (just an example), which happens to be Str 15, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6. The 13 Int is very important, but come on, worse stats than a Riding Dog? Many animals are stronger and more agile than humans (or halfings and dwarves for that matter). But in the game world, a character with 14 strength is considered very strong amongst the common folk. And a 14 constitution displays an amazing fortitude. Same with the dexterity and even the intelligence. A stat score of 16 or 18 is like OMGWTF!?!?!?! In regards to the dog... it's a dog. I don't feel like playing one, nor do I feel heroic having it fight for me. So, I don't really mind that it has good physical stats. This is not meant for you, but I need to throw it out there: With stats like this and all the spells needed to buff himself and his dog, what's the druid contributing out of combat? Well, his skills will be tied up with Spellcraft and Knowledge (Nature). He's not the party face. He's not a great climber in regards to his strength and lack of ranks (maybe even less so in animal form). Even that high wisdom isn't enough for perception skills, unless he has the skill points to invest ranks. Of course, he can rely on animals for that, but I don't think he has Handle Animal as well. Depending on level and what spells he uses on his animal, he can heal outside of combat. EDIT: Actually, the druid has 4 skill points per level. In this case, this druid can be a decent scout, with ranks in Spot coupled with his wisdom. Alternatively, he can have a little squad of animals doing that sort of stuff with Handle Animal, and use Survival for food. I don't know.
Zelck 04-11-07, 10:30 PM	This is not meant for you, but I need to throw it out there: With stats like this and all the spells needed to buff himself and his dog, what's the druid contributing out of combat? Use these stats instead: Str 9, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 8. Much more reasonable. As for contributions, he has stuff like Knowledge (Nature), Survival, Handle Animal, Spellcraft, and Diplomacy on his skills list. Let's say he goes with Knowledge (Nature), Survival, and Handle Animal. He could go foraging for food in outdoors environments. In cities, he can take his animal companion and use the perform trick; it's great for making friends, because kids love animals. Meanwhile, the fighter hits the bar and gets drunk? But in the game world, a character with 14 strength is considered very strong amongst the common folk. And a 14 constitution displays an amazing fortitude. Same with the dexterity and even the intelligence. A stat score of 16 or 18 is like OMGWTF!?!?!?! In regards to the dog... it's a dog. I don't feel like playing one, nor do I feel heroic having it fight for me. So, I don't really mind that it has good physical stats. That's true. But, we're not competing against the common folk. We're slaying monsters here. Those +2 bonuses aren't very impressive.
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 10:33 PM	With so much money left over You have already spent 115gp out of the average 150gp for a first level fighter. You still might need food and adventuring gear plus spending cash for inns and whatnot. Oh, and tanglefoot bags cost 50gp according to the SRD. I doubt that is within the fighters budjet ;)
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 10:35 PM	Well, his skills will be tied up with Spellcraft and Knowledge (Nature). He's not the party face. He's not a great climber in regards to his strength and lack of ranks (maybe even less so in animal form). Even that high wisdom isn't enough for perception skills, unless he has the skill points to invest ranks. Of course, he can rely on animals for that, but I don't think he has Handle Animal as well. Druids do get 4 skill points a level. Knoweldge (nature), spellcraft, spot, and diplomacy with just those does not sound too bad if he wants to be the party face and only have a 10 int.
Khan the Destroyer 04-11-07, 10:37 PM	That's true. But, we're not competing against the common folk. We're slaying monsters here. Those +2 bonuses aren't very impressive. At level 1? Yeah, they are. For anyone. You don't need a 16 or 18 to overcome encounters at low levels. That's just the desire to be awesome poking through. If that was the case, they wouldn't expect you to the play the game with 25 point buy. Also, the highest bonus a riding dog has is +2, so I fail to see how it is impressive in one instance, and not so in the other. Especially when the animal is stupid and limited to certain functions. EDIT: Scion, I had edited my post after the revelation. Thought I doubt Diplomacy would be an optimal choice with the 6 charisma.
Bob Loblaw 04-11-07, 10:44 PM	The druid has a pretty impressive skill list actually, plus he has a way with animals. Of course he does. Let's look at that list shall we (the ones in blue are class skills, the ones in red are trained only)? Keep in mind the stats that were given: Str 8, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 11, Wis 17, Cha 10. Appraise (Int) +0 Balance (Dex) -1 Bluff (Cha) +0 Climb (Str) -1 Concentration (Con) +2 Craft (Int) +0 Decipher Script (Int) +0 Diplomacy (Cha) +0 Disable Device (Int) +0 Escape Artist (Dex) -1 Forgery (Int) +0 Gather Information (Cha) +0 Handle Animal (Cha) +0 (+4 with his dog) Heal (Wis) +3 Hide (Dex) -1 Intimidate (Cha) +0 Jump (Str) -1 Knowledge (Int) +0 Knowledge (nature) (Int) +0 Listen (Wis) +3 Move Silently (Dex) -1 Open Lock (Int) +0 Perform (Cha) +0 Profession (Wis) +3 Ride (Dex) -1 Search (Int) +0 Sense Motive (Wis) +3 Sleight Of Hand (Dex) -1 Speak Language Spellcraft (Int) +0 Spot (Wis) +3 Survival (Wis) +3 Swim (Str) -1 Tumble (Dex) -1 Use Magic Device (Cha) +0 Use Rope (Dex) -1 You have 16 points, make them count. You will need to max out Handle Animal so you can train your companions. You need to hit DC 20-30 with Taking 10. That's going to be 4 of your 16, leaves you with 12. You probably cast spells in combat so you may want to put some into Concentration. You're going to eventually want a really good check so that's 4 more. You're down to 8. Knowledge (nature)? Heal? What about survival? The list is nice, but you're no better off than anyone else. The reason I brought it up originally is because I continuously read how fighters can't contribute out of combat, but it seems to be overlooked with all the other classes whenever it's convenient.
Zelck 04-11-07, 10:46 PM	At level 1? Yeah, they are. For anyone. You don't need a 16 or 18 to overcome encounters at low levels. That's just the desire to be awesome poking through. If that was the case, they wouldn't expect you to the play the game with 25 point buy. Hmm... I'm not expressing myself clearly. Let's recap how this all started. Someone pointed out that a Druid is fragile at level 1. I replied that even with 25 point buy, the Druid can have some pretty decent Dex and Con at level 1. I also point out that with 25 point buy, a fighter's stats aren't so great either. And now we've gotten into this mess about whether or not 14's are fantastic at level 1. I mean, yea, a 14 won't kill you. But it's not great. And as someone pointed out, your fighter with 14's lost a lot of the advantages over the Riding Dog in tanking. And it gets worse 2 levels later when that Riding Dog gets a +1 to Str and Dex, bumping them both to +3. Higher starting ability scores actually helps the fighter in this analysis because the druid's animal companion doesn't benefit from those. Also, the highest bonus a riding dog has is +2, so I fail to see how it is impressive in one instance, and not so in the other. Especially when the animal is stupid and limited to certain functions. I didn't say that the Riding Dog's scores were that impressive, did I?
Bob Loblaw 04-11-07, 10:46 PM	How do you want him to contribute? Isn't that what the rogue is for?:confused: I don't personally think that any class is useless out of combat. I think that too many people don't understand the skill system.
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 10:47 PM	EDIT: Scion, I had edited my post after the revelation. Thought I doubt Diplomacy would be an optimal choice with the 6 charisma. No worries. I just listed it as an option, some druids might just go for it. And I know that I am tired, but where is the 6 charisma coming from?
Bob Loblaw 04-11-07, 10:49 PM	Use these stats instead: Str 9, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 8. Much more reasonable. As for contributions, he has stuff like Knowledge (Nature), Survival, Handle Animal, Spellcraft, and Diplomacy on his skills list. Let's say he goes with Knowledge (Nature), Survival, and Handle Animal. He could go foraging for food in outdoors environments. In cities, he can take his animal companion and use the perform trick; it's great for making friends, because kids love animals. Meanwhile, the fighter hits the bar and gets drunk? Now things are worse because you've lowered your Charisma and taking two skills that are Charisma based.
Bob Loblaw 04-11-07, 10:51 PM	You have already spent 115gp out of the average 150gp for a first level fighter. You still might need food and adventuring gear plus spending cash for inns and whatnot. Oh, and tanglefoot bags cost 50gp according to the SRD. I doubt that is within the fighters budjet ;) People are posting faster than I can respond... So drop the tanglefoot bag. Drop the healing potion. Address the first part of my post. Why is the fighter being compared to a Very Difficult encounter and being expected to survive?
Bob Loblaw 04-11-07, 10:54 PM	A lot of stuff that I actually agree with... I was trying to make a point that it seems okay for all classes to have weak skill checks but when it comes to the fighter, all of a sudden it's a problem. With 25 point buy, no one's skills are going to be all that impressive.
Zelck 04-11-07, 10:55 PM	You have 16 points, make them count. You will need to max out Handle Animal so you can train your companions. You need to hit DC 20-30 with Taking 10. That's going to be 4 of your 16, leaves you with 12. You probably cast spells in combat so you may want to put some into Concentration. You're going to eventually want a really good check so that's 4 more. You're down to 8. Knowledge (nature)? Heal? What about survival? With 10 Int and not human, the Druid probably maxes Concentration, Knowledge (Nature), Handle Animal, and splits Survival and Listen/Spot. Even with those limitations, the Druid can use Knowledge (Nature) to provide information, Handle Animal to make the animal companion perform tricks, and Survival to keep the party fed. With the stats I proposed (Str 9, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 8) and Human, we max both Survival and Listen/Spot, then add another piece of utility. Maybe Spellcraft, or Diplomacy, or Ride, or whatever. The Druid also has Wild Empathy, which could be very handy. On the other hand, your Human Fighter with 13 Int gets 4 skill points. Even if we count Concentration as an exclusively in-combat skill, the Fighter is still one skill point down. Worse, there seem to be really only two decent out of combat skills on the list: Handle Animal (which the Druid is better at) and Intimidate. The rest are situational movement skills that probably won't be used much (OK, maybe you could climb trees pretty frequently... not sure why you'd need jump or swim in a normal campaign though).
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 10:57 PM	The list is nice, but you're no better off than anyone else. So you are no better off than a guy with a lesser skill list and less skill points? We will have to agree to disagree I guess.
Scion of Coldshard 04-11-07, 10:59 PM	Why is the fighter being compared to a Very Difficult encounter and being expected to survive? You should be quoting someone who is dealing with that subject rather than me. I am discussing other issues.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-11-07, 11:15 PM	The argument is the assertion that the animal companion's contribution (example: riding dog) is roughly (about 90-95%) equal to that of a fighter overall. At low to mid levels, this statement is true; at high levels, the animal companion is roughly 75% as good as the fighter. So at high levels, the fighter has a 25% overall edge over the animal companion. Here is the problem: The animal companion is a CLASS FEATURE that is nearly comparable to a CORE CLASS . This was a blatantly ignorant mistake by the creators of 3.0 ad 3.5e - but especially 3.5e. The 3.5e team was warned repeatedly, with complete and thorough factual breakdowns and proofs that the fighter is an untenable core class. These warnings were ignored, when the warnings about the bard and ranger were not. Blame the 3.5e creative team for this mess. :nonono:
Zelck 04-11-07, 11:26 PM	The argument is the assertion that the animal companion's contribution (example: riding dog) is roughly (about 90-95%) equal to that of a fighter overall. At low to mid levels, this statement is true; at high levels, the animal companion is roughly 75% as good as the fighter. So at high levels, the fighter has a 25% overall edge over the animal companion. Here is the problem: The animal companion is a CLASS FEATURE that is nearly comparable to a CORE CLASS . This was a blatantly ignorant mistake by the creators of 3.0 ad 3.5e - but especially 3.5e. The 3.5e team was warned repeatedly, with complete and thorough factual breakdowns and proofs that the fighter is an untenable core class. These warnings were ignored, when the warnings about the bard and ranger were not. Blame the 3.5e creative team for this mess. :nonono:Thanks for clarifying this whole mess :). I'd argue, however, that at lower levels, the animal companion should be roughly comparable to a fighter/barbarian/ranger/other tank. At level 1, the Druid really doesn't have too many attack options. Druids don't have any real low-level attack spells (Entangle, but that doesn't really kill anything and makes it harder for your melee to kill stuff, and Produce Flame, which isn't very good with only 1 or 2 charges). Also, Druids don't have a good ranged weapon, and many Druids want to start off with low Str (even without Wild Shape, caster-focused Druids would want to do that). An animal companion may be the majority of the Druid's contribution at lower levels. At higher levels, fighters/barbarians/rangers/other tanks should ideally pull ahead, as Druids have received more options and power. That doesn't mean animal companions should be nerfed; if they are, they'd be more of a liability and that would be no fun. Instead, the tanks should have received more power in the late game, but didn't. So, we have problems :(.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-11-07, 11:31 PM	I can agree to that. Still, I could argue that at no time should a single class ability (Animal Companion) ever be the equal of an entire class. That would be like Turn Undead, Rage, or Sneak attack (just the ability) being able to replace the fighter. It proves how untenable the fighter is.
Zelck 04-11-07, 11:59 PM	I can agree to that. Still, I could argue that at no time should a single class ability (Animal Companion) ever be the equal of an entire class. That would be like Turn Undead, Rage, or Sneak attack (just the ability) being able to replace the fighter. It proves how untenable the fighter is.Yea. Ideally, at levels 1 and 2, an animal companion would be roughly equal to a tank in survivability and damage output without the special abilities (arguably minor anyway, so they should be close). At higher levels, they'd ideally have about the survivability of a tank without their versatility (25-50%) or damage output (35-75%). Alternatively, give a level 1 druid who put 8 in str something else to do. Seriously, these kinds of druids are almost NOTHING without their animal companions. Heck, 8 str clerics can at least shoot crossbow bolts which really hurt at low levels...
NobodyRemembersThis 04-12-07, 01:02 AM	Shileleigh. 'Nuff said. Or, and this is my personal favorite, acid flasks. 10 gp, but it is ranged touch and deals splash damage. Fun times.
Khan the Destroyer 04-12-07, 01:17 AM	No worries. I just listed it as an option, some druids might just go for it. And I know that I am tired, but where is the 6 charisma coming from? I must be tired as well. It was an 8 charisma. Zelck posited a druid with 25 point buy, that's the one we've been referring to. @Zelck: Understood. I thought you were saying a 25 point-buy fighter is not impressive and a riding dog is. I still don't agree that a 14 is merely ok, considering that at 25 point buy, it will be hard to get higher without sacrifcing something somewhere else. More than likely, a level 1 druid will have a constitution of 14, meaning 10 hit points. I don't consider that fragile, especially taking into account the animal companion, and any healing spells or summons. I was trying to make a point that it seems okay for all classes to have weak skill checks but when it comes to the fighter, all of a sudden it's a problem. I understand. I was trying to agree until I remembered the extra skill points and the extended skill list :).
Bob Loblaw 04-12-07, 02:01 AM	So you are no better off than a guy with a lesser skill list and less skill points? We will have to agree to disagree I guess. We're talking 1st level. And yeah, +1 or +2 to a skill, while nice, just isn't a game defining bonus. Knowledge (nature) is useless when not dealing with nature. Concentration is pretty useless out of combat. This is half of the druid's skill points. The rest will vary depending on build. Note that I was continuing the reasoning that the druid is spending everything he has to beef up his dog to take on the fighter.
Bob Loblaw 04-12-07, 02:03 AM	You should be quoting someone who is dealing with that subject rather than me. I am discussing other issues. Fair enough, I propose that question to anyone who feels like it can be answered justly.
Zelck 04-12-07, 02:04 AM	Shileleigh. 'Nuff said. Or, and this is my personal favorite, acid flasks. 10 gp, but it is ranged touch and deals splash damage. Fun times. Shillelagh is a great spell, but it doesn't last very long, and you'll have a poor attack bonus (+0, basically, after the strength penalty). Plus it forces you into the front lines, and your AC isn't great at low levels compared to what a fighter or cleric can get. Acid Flasks are fun, but they're expensive :(. There's just no good ranged option for druids. Why can't they use light crossbows again?
navar100 04-12-07, 02:12 AM	Except his spells are automatically piggybacked onto his pet. The self buffing druid gets a 2 for 1 deal. The druid buffing the fighter doesn't quite get that boost, not to mention that the druid has more tactical options with some of the spells combined with wildshape and capable animal companions. With the druid buffing the fighter into a "better" fighter, the fighter will have it even easier to kill the bad guy such that the druid wouldn't need to buff himself in the first place. You said it yourself, "tactical options". Buffing the fighter is a viable tactic. It's not always the 'best" one. It's not a tactic that "must" be done "or else". It's a viable one and worth doing.
Bob Loblaw 04-12-07, 02:14 AM	The argument is the assertion that the animal companion's contribution (example: riding dog) is roughly (about 90-95%) equal to that of a fighter overall. At low to mid levels, this statement is true; at high levels, the animal companion is roughly 75% as good as the fighter. So at high levels, the fighter has a 25% overall edge over the animal companion. Here is the problem: The animal companion is a CLASS FEATURE that is nearly comparable to a CORE CLASS . This was a blatantly ignorant mistake by the creators of 3.0 ad 3.5e - but especially 3.5e. The 3.5e team was warned repeatedly, with complete and thorough factual breakdowns and proofs that the fighter is an untenable core class. These warnings were ignored, when the warnings about the bard and ranger were not. Blame the 3.5e creative team for this mess. :nonono: Actually, I don't blame them at all. The problem doesn't stem from the mechanics but in how those mechanics are used. 1) It has been pointed out that the share spells ability only has a 5-ft radius. Even if you want the companion to flank, it will lose the benefit of sharing spells. This already weakens many of the tactics mentioned on the boards. 2) If the druid is spending resources on buffing the companion to make him equal to a fighter while the fighter is right there, then he is wasting resources. Boost the fighter instead and save resources. 3) I already covered the barding issue. Many DMs forget that the new pet needs new gear. In 3.0/3.5 magic armor does not resize for it's wearer like it used to. 4) What does the druid do with his companion when not outside. How often do we read "I can't wait until I get a T-Rex." Great, bring that into Greyhawk City and see what happens when I'm DM. Pet or not, this simply is not allowed. 5) Rules-lawyers focus on the written word rather than the intent of the rule unless it benefits them to do so. DMs need to put their feet down and tell the player that some things go agains the spirit of the rules. I know that I would not allow many of the things I read on the boards. Not because I would houserule them away, but because the rule is actually not clear or even mentioned so I must make a ruling that remains within the spirit of the game. When people start to play the game to have fun rather than win, I think many of the problems will no longer be an issue at the table. Playing to win only makes people twist the rules to their logic rather than looking at the big picture and keeping the game fun for everyone.
navar100 04-12-07, 02:17 AM	THIS is your logic? Riding Dogs can't wield bows? It doesn't matter, dude, they just maul stuff instead. Fighters can't wildshape into a direbear/gate in a solar/divine metamagic with nightsticks up the whazoo. It doesn't matter dude, they just maul stuff instead.
navar100 04-12-07, 02:22 AM	Here's the problem. Barkskin is up to +5 natural armor. The animal buffs are +4 to a stat. Bite of the Wererat is +6 Dex, +2 Con, +3 natural armor, and free Weapon Finesse. Especially at lower levels, this spell totally outclasses the other two. True, Barkskin lasts longer (and I guess the animal buffs lasts almost negligibly longer), but the Bite spells are much stronger. This doesn't even get into the other stuff, like Animal Growth (better than Enlarge Person, and hits your summons too!) and Nature's Favor (swift action). . Which spells are better is a matter of taste. I really, really like my clerics to cast Protection From Evil and not Shield of Faith. Others much prefer Shield of Faith and willing to wait for Magic Circle. In any case, still irrelevant. A fighter has better combat options than an animal companion. He can do more.
navar100 04-12-07, 02:25 AM	Your adding factors to favor the Fighter doesn't help your case, it actually hurts it by showing under what extreme circumstances the class has to be under to stand a chance. And slings are thrown weapons, so 250 ft. is the maximum. And even then, the Fighter takes a -10 to attack. He can't hit anything at that range. So no, even at long range, the Dog can still win by closing in on the Fighter, buffed by his Druid master. Ladies and gentleman. In this corner, wearing red trunks, I give you Oscar de la Hoya! In the other corner, wearing a brown collar, I give you Lassie!
Zelck 04-12-07, 02:30 AM	Which spells are better is a matter of taste. I really, really like my clerics to cast Protection From Evil and not Shield of Faith. Others much prefer Shield of Faith and willing to wait for Magic Circle. In any case, still irrelevant. A fighter has better combat options than an animal companion. He can do more. Wait, how is it a matter of taste? Barkskin + Bull's Strength takes two rounds to cast. At, say, level 6, it will give a total of +3 natural AC, +2 attack, and +2 damage. Bite of the Wererat gives +3 natural AC, +3 dodge AC, +1 HP/level, and up to +3 attack. So we basically traded +2 damage for +3 dodge AC, +1 HP/level, and an extra standard action. It seems pretty cut and dry which buff spell combo is better. The fighter needs Barkskin + Bull's Strength. The animal companion needs just the Bite of the Wererat. And while the fighter probably has more options than the animal companion, the animal companion approaches close to the fighter performance at his main role (tanking), and the animal companion comes with a druid. A fighter can't even hope to get close to the druid's versatility and power.
Argaud 04-12-07, 02:41 AM	Wait, how is it a matter of taste? Barkskin + Bull's Strength takes two rounds to cast. At, say, level 6, it will give a total of +3 natural AC, +2 attack, and +2 damage. Bite of the Wererat gives +3 natural AC, +3 dodge AC, +1 HP/level, and up to +3 attack. So we basically traded +2 damage for +3 dodge AC, +1 HP/level, and an extra standard action. It seems pretty cut and dry which buff spell combo is better. The fighter needs Barkskin + Bull's Strength. The animal companion needs just the Bite of the Wererat. And while the fighter probably has more options than the animal companion, the animal companion approaches close to the fighter performance at his main role (tanking), and the animal companion comes with a druid. A fighter can't even hope to get close to the druid's versatility and power. Bit Bite of the X have a duration of 1 round/level (likely not even a whole fight). Compared to 1 minute/level of Bull's Strength (the whole fight) and 10 minutes/level of Barkskin (may be several battles).
navar100 04-12-07, 02:41 AM	Wait, how is it a matter of taste? Barkskin + Bull's Strength takes two rounds to cast. At, say, level 6, it will give a total of +3 natural AC, +2 attack, and +2 damage. Bite of the Wererat gives +3 natural AC, +3 dodge AC, +1 HP/level, and up to +3 attack. So we basically traded +2 damage for +3 dodge AC, +1 HP/level, and an extra standard action. It seems pretty cut and dry which buff spell combo is better. The fighter needs Barkskin + Bull's Strength. The animal companion needs just the Bite of the Wererat. And while the fighter probably has more options than the animal companion, the animal companion approaches close to the fighter performance at his main role (tanking), and the animal companion comes with a druid. A fighter can't even hope to get close to the druid's versatility and power. 1) All of a sudden an animal companion just needs one spell? Where's (Greater) Magic Fang? Where's Animal Growth? Where's the Barkskin? 2) A fighter doesn't "need" Barkskin or Bull's Strength. He can get a decent AC and strength on his own. It's just that if the druid is going to cast those spells anyway, or any two spell slots dedicated to buffing, having the buff spells to buff the fighter can be and probably more often be better served to buff the fighter who can fight better than any animal. 3) We're not comparing a fighter to a druid; we're comparing a fighter to a dog.
Greendevilman 04-12-07, 02:41 AM	Ignoring the issue about the better buffs being self-only for Clerics and many times "animal-only" or better suited to pimping out the animal companion for the Druid (and some great Druid spells are also self-only) this is still a false distinction. We arn't choosing between buffing the Fighter and buffing the Animal Companion in a vaccuum. Nobody inducts the Animal Companion into the group as the 4th party member. He comes for free along with the Druid. The Fighter doesn't and brings nothing else to the table. Nobody is saying that all else being equalthat the party shouldn't focus its enhancements on its best potential melee combatant(s). But in D&D as currently implemented things are nowhere close to being equal, and buffing the fighter *really is* sometimes a waste of resources when those spell slots could be devoted to better self-only or animal companion specific buffs/extra utility and the other party member slot filled in with something stronger. Because in any party where we have a Druid potentially casting buff spells on a Fighter we also have a party suffering the opportunity cost of not having two Druids casting buff spells on two animal companions. Basically: Its not a matter of selfishness, the Druid will hopefully use his buff spells where they'll be most effective given actual party composition, but in many cases those spells (or actions used to cast them) can both be more effectively used on the Druid himself and the party really does have to weigh the actual opportunity cost associated with having a fighter as a member of a party. If the Druid and his associated companion can yield better performance in the Fighter's role than the Fighter can by himself then (insulting lectures about the value of teamwork aside) why have him? The answer is (from a standpoint of pure mechanical effectiveness) that you wouldn't[/] unless the Fighter somehow synergizes with other classes in ways that adding extra Druids wouldn't which he frankly [i]doesn't. The issue is never that of a druid buffed animal companion vs. druid buffed fighter, its that of a druid-buffed druid + animal companion vs. plain fighter or 2x druid-buffed druids and animal companions vs. 1x druid-buffed druid and animal companion and fighter. Ignoring this and talking about the cost of buffing an animal companion as opposed to a fighter is misleading sophistry.
navar100 04-12-07, 02:43 AM	Ignoring the issue about the better buffs being self-only for Clerics and many times "animal-only" or better suited to pimping out the animal companion for the Druid (and some great Druid spells are also self-only) this is still a false distinction. We arn't choosing between buffing the Fighter and buffing the Animal Companion in a vaccuum. Nobody inducts the Animal Companion into the group as the 4th party member. He comes for free along with the Druid. The Fighter doesn't and brings nothing else to the table. Nobody is saying that all else being equalthat the party shouldn't focus its enhancements on its best potential melee combatant(s). But in D&D as currently implemented things are nowhere close to being equal, and buffing the fighter *really is* sometimes a waste of resources when those spell slots could be devoted to better self-only or animal companion specific buffs/extra utility and the other party member slot filled in with something stronger. Because in any party where we have a Druid potentially casting buff spells on a Fighter we also have a party suffering the opportunity cost of not having two Druids casting buff spells on two animal companions. Basically: Its not a matter of selfishness, the Druid will hopefully use his buff spells where they'll be most effective given actual party composition, but in many cases those spells (or actions used to cast them) can both be more effectively used on the Druid himself and the party really does have to weigh the actual opportunity cost associated with having a fighter as a member of a party. If the Druid and his associated companion can yield better performance in the Fighter's role than the Fighter can by himself then (insulting lectures about the value of teamwork aside) why have him? The answer is (from a standpoint of pure mechanical effectiveness) that you wouldn't[/] unless the Fighter somehow synergizes with other classes in ways that adding extra Druids wouldn't which he frankly [i]doesn't. The issue is never that of a druid buffed animal companion vs. druid buffed fighter, its that of a druid-buffed druid + animal companion vs. plain fighter or 2x druid-buffed druids and animal companions vs. 1x druid-buffed druid and animal companion and fighter. Ignoring this and talking about the cost of buffing an animal companion as opposed to a fighter is misleading sophistry. You have my permission never, ever to play a fighter and only play a druid.
Greendevilman 04-12-07, 02:55 AM	You have my permission never, ever to play a fighter and only play a druid. Oh how that takes a weight off my mind! Stop being a condescending prick. I've played and enjoyed plenty of martial characters in my time but beyond that we're explicitly talking about the ******* mechanical advantages and disadvantages of selecting different options. If option A is strictly superior to option B mechanicswise, even if I hate the roleplaying flava' of option A profoundly, it still doesn't change the fact that option B is the objectively weaker of the two. The subtle (and not so subtle) implications that people who point out that the fighter is a totally lacklustre option compared to the alternatives are somehow shortcharging the fighter from his rightful due of party buffs is not only insulting, it is also misleading and wrong. I'm not telling anyone to play all caster parties, and the pen and paper games I usually play can have characters of wildly varying levels of effectiveness with everyone still managing to have a good time. But be realistic and base comparisons in effectiveness off of reasonable assumptions, not things like the party containing the Druid being down a man mysteriously, which is the hidden assumption behind all the "but buffing the fighter is better!" whining.
Cael 04-12-07, 03:07 AM	Hmm... A lot of deliberate misinformation and thearical, hysterical gnashing of teeth here from the pro-Fighter fringe. First, we are comparing a party of 4 PCs with a party of 4 PCs here. The Animal Companion is not a PC. It is an integral part of a PC. There is a major difference there, one that the pro-Fighters would rather everyone else forgot in their quest to prove that the Fighter is actually better than something, anything. Second, the comparison between a Fighter and an Animal Companion is a false one. It is a strawman because the Animal Companion is not a PC. The Animal Companion is part of the Druid. Thus, to be comparing apples with apples, the comparison should be a comparison of the Fighter vs the Druid *and* the Animal Companion. Third, the idea that Leadership could nett the Fighter a Cleric and therefore would solve all of the Fighter's woes is misplaced, as the Druid can also get a similar set-up, and in doing so, truly creating the CoDzilla, not just half of one. So, let us do the final analysis of the case of the Animal Companion replacing the Fighter: Level 1 Fighter: AC 18 (scalemail + heavy shield + 2 Dex), BAB +1, AB +5 (+3 Str +1 WF), damage 1d8+3 (longsword), hp 13 (+3 Con) Dog: AC 18 (nat + leather barding + 2 Dex), BAB +1, AB +6 (+2 Str + 1 Magic Fang + flank)), damage 1d6+4 (+3 Str +1 Magic Fang), hp 13 (+2 Con) Druid: AC 16 (leather + heavy shield + 2 Dex), BAB 0, AB +3 (Shillalegh + flank), damage 2d6+1 (Shillalegh), hp 10 (+2 Con) Plus both the Druid and the Animal Companion get 2 good saves. Fighter don't look too good... Level 2 Fighter gets more hp, 1 feat, gets 1 more BAB, maybe a masterwork weapon for a total of +2 to hit, and better armour. Druid gets +1 BAB, more hp, better armour (for both himself and the dog), another couple of spells to throw, like, say, Produce Flame. Doggie-poo gets nothing. Fighter looking better. Level 3 Fighter gets more hp, 1 feat, gets 1 more BAB, maybe a masterwork weapon for a total of +2 to hit, and better armour, maybe a magic weapon or armour. Druid gets +1 BAB, more hp, better armour (for both himself and the dog), 2nd level spells (Brambles and/or Barkskin anyone??). Doggie-poo gets +2hd (+2 BAB, +13 hp, 1 feat, etc.), +1 Str and Dex, +2 natural armour, making his AC go over 20 easily. Fighter gets shafted. Level 4 Like Level 2, except Doggie-poo can be replaced by Gronk the Gorilla and his man-like ability to wear items, or Leopold the Pouncing Rakemincer Leopard. Level 5 Druid gets Wildshape. Game, set and match.
TacoTornado 04-12-07, 03:18 AM	Little off topic, but which is the true statement: The fighter is under-powered, or the druid is over-powered? or is my gut correct and it's a little bit of both?
runestar 04-12-07, 03:55 AM	Little off topic, but which is the true statement: The fighter is under-powered, or the druid is over-powered? or is my gut correct and it's a little bit of both? Depends on what context you are examining this. The fighter is not underpowered in the sense that it can hold its own in a standard party. It does come across as somewhat lacklustre compared to spellcasting classes. You could try to rebalance it so that its power lv is roughly the same as the other classes, but you would not need to revise it if your concern is how it will fare against enemies in your game.:)
Cael 04-12-07, 03:59 AM	Little off topic, but which is the true statement: The fighter is under-powered, or the druid is over-powered? or is my gut correct and it's a little bit of both? It depends on where you set the median. The problem here is that there is a hold over from the old days of 1st and 2nd Edition. In those days, monsters don't generally have several hundred hps. That made the Fighter viable in that they can tar the crap out of monsters quickly enough that they don't take too many hits. This speed of execution meant that the Fighter is still a viable template in removing threats at high levels. With the advent of 3.x, monster hp went through the roof, and there wasn't a corresponding rise in Fighter damage output. Also, spellcasters got a huge boost in spells that they can cast, and again because of the ballooning hp totals, direct damage spells became less attractive. However, spellcasters have a lot of other options that did not rely on direct damage. The Fighter does not. This is where the problem really lies. At high levels, Fighters basically become meatshields. They are the living armour that gives the spellcasters enough time to get their spells off and win the encounter. The Fighter *class* became irrelevant. This function can be taken up by just about anything with enough AC and hp, be it a summoned creature, an Animal Companion or a Dominated monster. That is where the issue lies. Not so much on who is overpowered or underpowered, but in a lack of options for Fighter types to bring down foes of an equal CR to them at high levels. For example, in the game last night, my level 15 Arcane Hierophant (specialist Diviner) singlehandedly almost brought down one of the Aspects of the Ebon Triad (the one below Alhaster) in the Age of Worms campaign arc. The thing was CR 17. The Arcane Heirophant was a spellcaster that was more blaster and escape artist than anything else, and the aspect had over 300 hps (it was a 30 hd outsider). He did it without backup from his party or his Animal Companion. And the reason he was able to do that was that he had mobility (Haste and Fly), options (a lot of damage was done when he wet a 300ft shaft with Create Water and then dropped a Cone of Cold down it as the Aspect was climbing up), and a whole lot of area effect spells (he shot blind out of a Fog Cloud effect). A Fighter would have been grappled and killed within two rounds (the thing was Huge and had a grapple bonus of about +45). If I had him specialised in other areas rather than blasting and divinations, the aspect would have gone down far more quickly and efficiently. Was my character optimised? Nowhere even close. He was a dual-caster, for one thing, and that is generally considered very weak. More than half his loot was used to equip his Animal Companion (he only used +stat items himself), which was not even in the fight. The Age of Worms campaign is generally agreed to be very bad for Wizards due to lack of arcane scrolls and I started this character from level 1, so his spell selection was basically what he got during level ups: 1 divination and 1 other spell per level. What he had was options. He could run, hide and fight. This is something that a Fighter cannot do. In the older Editions, the Fighter didn't need to.
TacoTornado 04-12-07, 04:25 AM	Alright, thanks you guys for the perspective and insight. I especially enjoyed your knowledge of the history of D&D fighters throughout the versions Cael. :D Good night.
Leo 04-12-07, 08:00 AM	It depends on where you set the median. The problem here is that there is a hold over from the old days of 1st and 2nd Edition. In those days, monsters don't generally have several hundred hps. That made the Fighter viable in that they can tar the crap out of monsters quickly enough that they don't take too many hits. This speed of execution meant that the Fighter is still a viable template in removing threats at high levels. With the advent of 3.x, monster hp went through the roof, and there wasn't a corresponding rise in Fighter damage output. Also, spellcasters got a huge boost in spells that they can cast, and again because of the ballooning hp totals, direct damage spells became less attractive. However, spellcasters have a lot of other options that did not rely on direct damage. The Fighter does not. This is where the problem really lies. At high levels, Fighters basically become meatshields. They are the living armour that gives the spellcasters enough time to get their spells off and win the encounter. The Fighter *class* became irrelevant. This function can be taken up by just about anything with enough AC and hp, be it a summoned creature, an Animal Companion or a Dominated monster. That is where the issue lies. Not so much on who is overpowered or underpowered, but in a lack of options for Fighter types to bring down foes of an equal CR to them at high levels. For example, in the game last night, my level 15 Arcane Hierophant (specialist Diviner) singlehandedly almost brought down one of the Aspects of the Ebon Triad (the one below Alhaster) in the Age of Worms campaign arc. The thing was CR 17. The Arcane Heirophant was a spellcaster that was more blaster and escape artist than anything else, and the aspect had over 300 hps (it was a 30 hd outsider). He did it without backup from his party or his Animal Companion. And the reason he was able to do that was that he had mobility (Haste and Fly), options (a lot of damage was done when he wet a 300ft shaft with Create Water and then dropped a Cone of Cold down it as the Aspect was climbing up), and a whole lot of area effect spells (he shot blind out of a Fog Cloud effect). A Fighter would have been grappled and killed within two rounds (the thing was Huge and had a grapple bonus of about +45). If I had him specialised in other areas rather than blasting and divinations, the aspect would have gone down far more quickly and efficiently. Was my character optimised? Nowhere even close. He was a dual-caster, for one thing, and that is generally considered very weak. More than half his loot was used to equip his Animal Companion (he only used +stat items himself), which was not even in the fight. The Age of Worms campaign is generally agreed to be very bad for Wizards due to lack of arcane scrolls and I started this character from level 1, so his spell selection was basically what he got during level ups: 1 divination and 1 other spell per level. What he had was options. He could run, hide and fight. This is something that a Fighter cannot do. In the older Editions, the Fighter didn't need to. Wait, so a non optimized character alone killing a monster 2 cr higher whitout trouble nor optimizing is okay? Gotta love your concept of "balanced". I can't even imagine what happens when the party actually works togheter... I would also love to hear how the aspect let you buff yourself for 2 rounds and did nothing to stop you, or where are the rules for cone of cold and create water synergy.
OravennasBrother 04-12-07, 10:14 AM	The Duid's animal companion is superior to the fighter. Only Asserted, the Proofs fall FAR SHORT of anything resembling certainty. Particularly since the animal companion is ALWAYS Weaker then the fighter (With the Possible exception of Level 1 where the Animal with 13 HP and +1 BAB is Comparable to a fighter). Don't get distracted by all the "Hooah Druitz' (sic) are TEH L3T3" crowd.
Archangel62 04-12-07, 10:35 AM	Only Asserted, the Proofs fall FAR SHORT of anything resembling certainty. Particularly since the animal companion is ALWAYS Weaker then the fighter (With the Possible exception of Level 1 where the Animal with 13 HP and +1 BAB is Comparable to a fighter). Don't get distracted by all the "Hooah Druitz' (sic) are TEH L3T3" crowd. You're right, in the context of perfect proofs then you can't always get it because yes, the average animal companion can't do ranged attacks. And yes, if the situation is contrived in such a way to make the animals main abilities moot despite the druids bond then yeah, it fails. But the problem is that we can even have this argument in the first place and that it is an honestly close thing.
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 10:58 AM	(With the Possible exception of Level 1 where the Animal with 13 HP and +1 BAB is Comparable to a fighter). I wonder if level 3 is a better example. Druid 3's Riding dog: HD: 4d8hp (30) Ini: +3 Speed: 40' AC: 21 (+3 dex, +6 natural, +2 leather barding) BAB/Grapple: +3/+6 Attack: bite +6 melee d6+4 Full Attack: bite +6 melee d6+4 Special Attacks: Trip* Special Qualities: Low-light Vision, Scent, Link, Share spells, Evasion Saves: F+7, R+7, W+2 Abilities: Str 16, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6 Skills: Jump +9, Listen +5, Spot +5, Swim +4, Survival +3** Feats: Alertness, Track(b), +4 racial bonus on jump checks, +4 racial bonus on survival checks when tracking by scent**, Trip check on successful attack with no reprisal* For some reason I really want to give the dog some armor with armor spikes on it ;) That would allow the dog to attack with the spikes and his bite attack in the same round which would be very interesting. Full Attack: Armor spike +2 melee (d6+3), bite +6 melee d6+4 He also gets a feat but I make no claim to being the best feat searcher out there by any stretch of the imagination. For simplicity I would just grab something from either the phb or monstrous manual but given that he has pretty decent stats, a couple of feats already, and a bunch of special abilities there are likely some really good ones out there that he could get.
Khan the Destroyer 04-12-07, 11:04 AM	He also gets a feat but I make no claim to being the best feat searcher out there by any stretch of the imagination. For simplicity I would just grab something from either the phb or monstrous manual but given that he has pretty decent stats, a couple of feats already, and a bunch of special abilities there are likely some really good ones out there that he could get. I would make his 1st level feat Combat Expertise, and then choose Improved Trip at level 3, making his natural trippage more powerful and deadly to anyone he succeeds against. The dog would essentially have Knockdown without the need to deal 10 points of damage. As is, I don't believe the trip ability is better than having Improved Trip. I can see the merits of both.
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 11:08 AM	I would make his 1st level feat Combat Expertise Unless you know of a way around the prereq's my faith in your ability to pick out good feats is being shaken khan :( As is, I don't believe the trip ability is better than having Improved Trip. I can see the merits of both. Improved trip requires having a 13 int and it gives you multiple chances to fail, although it does improve your chances to succeed at one of the checks over the dog. Speaking as someone who has had several bad rolls and lost his weapon while trying to trip someone in a game I would prefer the dogs version to such an extreme amount it is almost painful that I cannot pick it ;)
Khan the Destroyer 04-12-07, 11:11 AM	I completely forgot the dog's intelligence is like... 2. Lame. What a dumb animal. ;)
Argaud 04-12-07, 11:12 AM	Full Attack: Armor spike +2 melee (d6+3), bite +6 melee d6+4 He also gets a feat but I make no claim to being the best feat searcher out there by any stretch of the imagination. For simplicity I would just grab something from either the phb or monstrous manual but given that he has pretty decent stats, a couple of feats already, and a bunch of special abilities there are likely some really good ones out there that he could get. You need to use that feat to give the dog weapon proficiency with armor spikes. Dogs don't usually have weapon proficiencies. (You also need to bribe the DM so he lets a dog learn how to use a weapon. I recommend large amounts of alcohol, you need him very drunk :D)
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 11:14 AM	You have been picking feats out for the fighters for awhile now Khan! Just pretend it is a fighter with a +3 BAB, str dex and con all 16, wis 12, altertness and track chosen as feats already, has scent and evasion, and wants to pick a feat generated from getting its 3rd hd ;) I wonder if there is an exotic version of the armor spikes somewhere....
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 11:16 AM	You need to use that feat to give the dog weapon proficiency with armor spikes. Dogs don't usually have weapon proficiencies. I already gave it the nonproficient penalty to attack ;) (You also need to bribe the DM so he lets a dog learn how to use a weapon. I recommend large amounts of alcohol, you need him very drunk :D) Drunk certainly gives a good circumstance bonus to my training check right? lol
Khan the Destroyer 04-12-07, 11:18 AM	You have been picking feats out for the fighters for awhile now Khan! And it seems there is finally a build that interests you ;). Just pretend it is a fighter with a +3 BAB, str dex and con all 16, wis 12, altertness and track chosen as feats already, has scent and evasion, and wants to pick a feat generated from getting its 3rd hd ;) That's what I did, and I forgot about the intelligence. Maybe I'll find something :). Maybe that Fling Ally feat in conjunction with the dog's fleas for some ranged attacks.
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 11:23 AM	And it seems there is finally a build that interests you ;). I have a soft spot for pets, what can I say? I also have a huge soft spot for turning said pets into interesting builds unto themselves. Hence, 'the big guy is with me'. ;) Maybe that Fling Ally feat in conjunction with the dog's fleas for some ranged attacks. Oh you know what I have just thought of.. the book of nine swords.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-12-07, 11:36 AM	Actually, I don't blame them at all. The problem doesn't stem from the mechanics but in how those mechanics are used.You should blame them. The fighter is mechanically untenable without taking this thread's arguement into account 1) It has been pointed out that the share spells ability only has a 5-ft radius. Even if you want the companion to flank, it will lose the benefit of sharing spells. This already weakens many of the tactics mentioned on the boards. 2) If the druid is spending resources on buffing the companion to make him equal to a fighter while the fighter is right there, then he is wasting resources. Boost the fighter instead and save resources. 3) I already covered the barding issue. Many DMs forget that the new pet needs new gear. In 3.0/3.5 magic armor does not resize for it's wearer like it used to.At levels 1-5 (as shown in the thread), the examples are for nonmagical gear - nothing is mentioned about buffs or magical equipment. And, the examples show clearly that the only benefit the fihgter has at those levels is 3 bonus feats. That is pathetically underpowered when compared to a CLASS FEATURE of another class. 4) What does the druid do with his companion when not outside. How often do we read "I can't wait until I get a T-Rex." Great, bring that into Greyhawk City and see what happens when I'm DM. Pet or not, this simply is not allowed.DM fiat cannot be used to argue against a mechanical failing of a class - especially since it is so arbitrary. Not all DM's would react as you do, so it is a straw man arguement at best. 5) Rules-lawyers focus on the written word rather than the intent of the rule unless it benefits them to do so. DMs need to put their feet down and tell the player that some things go agains the spirit of the rules. I know that I would not allow many of the things I read on the boards. Not because I would houserule them away, but because the rule is actually not clear or even mentioned so I must make a ruling that remains within the spirit of the game.One can argue about intent all you want. It is a straw man arguement. Thank you for proving the Oberoni Fallacy. Intent cannot be used as an arguement against clearly defined mechanical failings in a class. Using "intent" to house rule away a mechanical error does not change the fact that the mechanical error/discreprency is there. When people start to play the game to have fun rather than win, I think many of the problems will no longer be an issue at the table. Playing to win only makes people twist the rules to their logic rather than looking at the big picture and keeping the game fun for everyone.It's not about playing to win, it is about ensuring that everyone can contribute comparably with EVERY character design/idea. Not just a few.
magmer2 04-12-07, 12:13 PM	Alternatively, give a level 1 druid who put 8 in str something else to do. Seriously, these kinds of druids are almost NOTHING without their animal companions. Heck, 8 str clerics can at least shoot crossbow bolts which really hurt at low levels... He can summon with a feat it will last 2 rounds, cast entangle to cut a group of enemies in half, and cure light wounds, act as spotter.
Flan 04-12-07, 12:52 PM	Nobody inducts the Animal Companion into the group as the 4th party member. It's only free if you don't use it. If you use it, it will die a horrible horrible death in the first encounter unless you expend resources on it to make it strong enough to survive a fight and deal enough damage to be worth putting into a fight and afterwards heal it, or your DM plays the monsters to pretty much ignore it. Summon Nature's Ally on the other hand gives you options like flying when you need it, fire immunity etc. and you don't need to heal the creatures afterwards. Why waste resources protecting the pet when you can get a pearl of power or similiar item to get more summon spells, why waste resources buffing the pet when you can use the spell slots to summon even more, and why waste resources healing the pet when you can use the slots to summon even more?
Tony Vargas 04-12-07, 12:55 PM	As for improved trip vs dog/wolf trip their version is undeniably better simply because there is no chance of counter trip.That really is a pretty minor advantage. Touch ACs of monsters tend to be a lot lower than full ACs, because of the prevelence of Natural Armor. A touch trip attack with a follow-up at a 4 point advantage is a lot better than a regular attack with a trip follow-up - especially at low levels when hitting can be difficult and hps tend to be low. And the trip portion is superior, too, because of the +4 from the feat. The human warrior with Improved Trip will actually put foes on the ground (and thus, not just waltzing past him to attack the party) far more often than a wolf or war-trianed dog using the Trip(Ex) ability - even if he might have to draw a new weapon once in a while.
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 01:01 PM	That really is a pretty minor advantage. What would you be willing to pay for such an advantage?
Argaud 04-12-07, 01:09 PM	I already gave it the nonproficient penalty to attack ;) Hmmm... so which one is the secondary attack? If it is the bite, it comes at -5 to hit. If the dog is using TWF you need more feats, and then both attacks go at -2. Drunk certainly gives a good circumstance bonus to my training check right? lol Hehehe. I guess it would. What would you be willing to pay for such an advantage? One feat: Knockdown.
Tony Vargas 04-12-07, 01:12 PM	What would you be willing to pay for such an advantage? At low level, 8gp, the cost of a second flail to go with the Guisarm. (It's pretty unlikely you'll get return-tripped three times in a single low-level combat). At higher level, worthwhile backup weapons get a lot more expensive, but trip becomes a less frequent tactic, anyway.
Zelck 04-12-07, 01:12 PM	He can summon with a feat it will last 2 rounds, cast entangle to cut a group of enemies in half, and cure light wounds, act as spotter. The summon only lasts only 1 or 2 rounds because the feat Extend Spell would bump it to a level 2 spell. Or maybe you're talking about a different feat, but that's usually not worth it. Entangle is a fantastic spell and Cure Wounds is always good, but Druids only get 2 level 1 spells at level 1 (3 I think at level 2). No character can rely exclusively on spells at lower levels; they usually use spells to complement their attacks. Acting as a spotter in combat at level 1 or 2 is really lame. The only option right now for a level 1 or 2 Druid with 8 Str to deal damage in combat is their animal companion.
Dragonteuthis 04-12-07, 01:17 PM	"If people are observing you, even casually, you can't hide." Yes, you can go behind cover. And then the fighter follows you and kills you. No, if you break line of sight (say, by running around a corner) by gaining total cover or concealment, no-one is observing you. That's the whole point of breaking line of sight; allowing you to hide. Cover doesn't have much to do with breaking line of sight. Total cover and total concealment do, however, which I think is the crux of the "running and hiding" point.
Khan the Destroyer 04-12-07, 01:17 PM	The dog has no chance to lose his weapon, and can attempt a trip whenever he hits on a regular attack. The dog gets only his strength score as a bonus. The fighter has a chance to lose his weapon (a small chance at level 1), and must forgo his regular attack for a touch attack to trip. After the trip, he gets another attack at a lower AC. The fighter gets his strength score and an additional +4 as a bonus. So, neither is guaranteed to trip, but the fighter suffers a chance to lose his weapon if he does. The dog can attempt a trip on any attack, but the fighter is more likely to hit the AC on both his trip attack and his followthrough attack. The fighter also has a higher bonus. So more than likely, the fighter trips more often than the dog. Depending on weapon, the fighter may also be able to do this at a distance of 10 feet. In the end, I don't really see the dog as being much better than the fighter at tripping. The only advantage is that he doesn't lose his weapon on a failure. But if that is happening to you often, perhaps you shouldn't be tripping ;).
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 01:20 PM	Hmmm... so which one is the secondary attack? If it is the bite, it comes at -5 to hit. Duh on me, I had forgotten that when combining natural weapons and manufactured the natural weapons were all secondary weapons. I'll have to think about that. Which attack routine is better. Armor spikes +2 d6+4 and Bite +1 d6+1 or Bite +6 d6+4 At least it isnt a no brainer like I was thinking originally ;) One feat: Knockdown. Not in the SRD that I can see, what does this do and what are the prereqs? At low level, 8gp, the cost of a second flail to go with the Guisarm. (It's pretty unlikely you'll get return-tripped three times in a single low-level combat). Umm.. a second weapon? That is a completely different scenario as it takes an action to get that second weapon out. Especially if you have iterative attacks. Dropping your weapon could mean losing the rest of your attacks. Ouch! At higher level, worthwhile backup weapons get a lot more expensive, but trip becomes a less frequent tactic, anyway. So, you spent a feat on improved trip but you stop using it as you go up in levels? I'd say that the dogs trip is looking better and better then, it happens for free without having to think about it.
Tony Vargas 04-12-07, 01:30 PM	Umm.. a second weapon? That is a completely different scenario as it takes an action to get that second weapon out.Yeah. A move action. That can be combined with a move. For a character that doesn't have full attacks, yet. Trivial. Especially if you have iterative attacks. Dropping your weapon could mean losing the rest of your attacks. That comes in at 6th for the warrior. Quickdraw is certainly a possibility by then - if you ever intend to change weapons (from ranged to melee as enemies close, for instance) without missing out on a full attack. Of course, "you might lose an itterative attack when you have to drop a weapon" still compares pretty favorably to "you never get itterative attacks at all." So, you spent a feat on improved trip but you stop using it as you go up in levels?Use it less often and more selectively. It's still a great option vs some foes, it's just you face a wider variety of foes as you level up, and some aren't worth tripping or aren't likely to be tripped successfully. For the warrior, choosing Improved trip at low level is making something of a commitment to a feat that he might not use as often, later, and with the prospect of having only a half-dozen more feats to choose, that's a meaningful consideration. Of course, it's still a choice. You might choose a feat you feel will be usefull now, but less useful later, or you might 'plan ahead.' If you don't get a choice, you don't have the 'plan ahead' option at all.
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 01:46 PM	Yeah. A move action. That can be combined with a move. For a character that doesn't have full attacks, yet. Trivial. Unless you happened to have used up that move action getting to where you were, or want to use that action for something else. A couple of bad rolls and you may be out of spare weapons as well. That comes in at 6th for the warrior. Quickdraw is certainly a possibility by then I find, 'the ability is worth roughly a feat' to be a much more realistic answer than '8 gp'. Use it less often and more selectively. While the dog still uses it every attack, even if it is unlikely to actually succeed. High touch AC or miss chance foe? Fighter chooses to not use trip, dog doesnt care. High str/dex foe, possibly multiple legs, maybe even a dwarf? Fighter probably chooses not to trip as he only gets his bonus attack on a successful trip. Plus there is a chance of having to drop his weapon or fall down himself. Dog doesnt care. Plus the fighter in question needs a 13+ int and combat reflexes just to get to improved trip. I am not seeing these as huge, all encompasing issues. But I definately see it as an advantage for the dogs, and other creatures with the same ability, version of tripping. Much more than 8gp worth certainly. It also comes up that you might want a locked gauntlet to avoid being disarmed but that would make you unable to drop the weapon so you lose that option and so are tripped instead. The fighters choices here have been self limited.
Zelck 04-12-07, 01:47 PM	Not in the SRD that I can see, what does this do and what are the prereqs? Knockdown is a general feat in the "Divine Feats" section of the SRD. I think it was in one of those 3.0 books that "qualifies" in 3.5 play. Basically, if you deal 10 damage, you get a free trip attempt. Good, but pretty situational at low levels.
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 01:51 PM	Knockdown is a general feat in the "Divine Feats" section of the SRD. I think it was in one of those 3.0 books that "qualifies" in 3.5 play. Basically, if you deal 10 damage, you get a free trip attempt. Good, but pretty situational at low levels. Interesting, I wonder why it wasnt put into the other section? It certainly does not seem very 'divine'. BAB+2, improved trip, Str 15+, must deal at least 10 damage to trigger it. Very nice! Also very mean when combined with improved trip, which seems inevitable. Hit the foe, deal 10+ damage, trip them and if successful get another attack on them. Ouch!
Bob Loblaw 04-12-07, 01:53 PM	You should blame them. The fighter is mechanically untenable without taking this thread's arguement into account Seeing as the problem does not exist in all groups, I can't blame them. It is entirely possible that some people (myself included) are misunderstanding how things are supposed to work. At levels 1-5 (as shown in the thread), the examples are for nonmagical gear - nothing is mentioned about buffs or magical equipment. And, the examples show clearly that the only benefit the fihgter has at those levels is 3 bonus feats. That is pathetically underpowered when compared to a CLASS FEATURE of another class. First, I said that the druid's class feature is probably overpowered rather than the fighter being underpowered. If a single class feature increases your CR (and it should by the way Encounter Levels work), then it is too powerful. Second, it was mentioned that the druid could buff his pet more than once. So, yeah, it's not just a dog anymore. It's a dog with support. DM fiat cannot be used to argue against a mechanical failing of a class - especially since it is so arbitrary. Not all DM's would react as you do, so it is a straw man arguement at best. I didn't say DM fiat. How do you think a major metropolis would react to a T-Rex wandering down main street? One can argue about intent all you want. It is a straw man arguement. Thank you for proving the Oberoni Fallacy. I did not say anything about houseruling to fix an existing problem. I said that the rule may be unclear or missing so a rule must be made. There is a difference. Intent cannot be used as an arguement against clearly defined mechanical failings in a class. Using "intent" to house rule away a mechanical error does not change the fact that the mechanical error/discreprency is there. It absolutely can. This is why we see changes or clarifications to the game regurlarly. Intent means quite a bit. It's not about playing to win, it is about ensuring that everyone can contribute comparably with EVERY character design/idea. Not just a few. There are way to many people who feel that the fighter can't contribute because he can't cast Gate, Wish, Miracle, summon a TRex, or any of these other things. This is not a fault of the class. Khan has created several fighter builds in a few threads to show how fighters can contribute. I have gone into great detail in other threads how they can do it out of combat. If people would just play as a team rather than say you aren't my equal, things may turn out very differently.
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 02:02 PM	If a single class feature increases your CR (and it should by the way Encounter Levels work), then it is too powerful. Do you feel that the barbarian rage raises the barbarians CR? After all, if it was a template that granted +4 str and con it would likely have an LA of at least +1. How about summons? I have been told that there is an ability (domain or feat, I forget which they said that it was) that allowed the cleric to summon as a standard action. Or even creating undead, getting a leadership feat, or whatever. There are a lot of examples of these sorts of things in the game. The CR system is not robust enough to do well with all eventualities unfortunately :( Second, it was mentioned that the druid could buff his pet more than once. There were mentions of buffing and not buffing, but was any of the buffing that was mentioned used for the first few levels? I am pretty sure that I have only been using nonmagical gear with no spells for the pet, but I might have forgotten one of the side discussions. Although if the pet was being used as a mount I could definately see any spells going on the druid going to the pet if they could even if they did not actually do any good.
OravennasBrother 04-12-07, 02:03 PM	How much magic CAN a 20th Level Wizard expend PER ENCOUNTER ? Start with Elite Array, placing Intelligence at the top. Then add 1 every 4 levels, and a Headband of Intellect +6, this raises a Wizard's Intelligence to 26. The wizard now gets 4 Spells every level +2 spells bonus on levels 1 to 4 and +1 spell bonus on levels 5 to 8. This makes for a high-average end of 1 Cantrip, 1 First (level spell), 2 Second, 1 Third, 2 Fourth, 1 Fifth, 1 Sixth, 1 Seventh, 2 Eighth, and 1 Ninth. Scrolls run 25 GP x Spell Level x Caster Level So an Extra Spell of a given level costs 0 - 12.5 GP; 1 - 25 GP; 2 - 150 GP; 3 - 375 GP; 4 - 700 GP; 5 - 1125 GP; 6 - 1650 GP; 7 - 2275 GP; 8 - 3000 GP; 9 - 3825 GP; Wands only cast up to 4th level, but the cost per charge is only 15 GP x Spell Level x Caster Level Recall that a CR 20 opponent should yield 80,000 GP for FOUR characters to split and that means 20,000 GP Per participant. Any money spent on scrolls/wands is money you lose - so spend wisely or you'll end up with less money at epic level than 20th. If you go outside Core, Persistent has a HUGE Level Adjustment, so you lose High level spells for effects which are subject to Dispel magic or Lesser Disjunction (Which works rather like Dispel magic, but affects ALL ongoing spells on a target - Oops all those persistent spells don‘t seem so useful now, do they?), and Sudden Metamagic feats are only 1 use/day. Divine Metamagic uses a LOT of Turning attempts, requiring a substantial investment in charisma for any use of Persistent. Miscellaneous notes 1) Gate and Time Stop DO NOT work well together. First they are both 9th level spells, so using both overextends for an encounter. Second while the time stop is in effect NO other creature can act, so the Gated being cannot react to come through the gate. 2) Balors, Pit Fiends, and Solars have better things to do than be Gated in for someone else’s fight. Particularly since they risk death in those fights. They might attack your enemies by - Grapple with one physically weak enemy, teleport well away from the fight, spend the rest of the rounds the gate works trying to convince the person they are grappling to voluntarily switch allegiance to the Gate caster’s side. Highly intelligent creatures don’t act as perfect slaves in a fight, but binding them more closely will require some sort of contract which will take a LOT of time - and which will bring up the Cost of gating in a creature. That cost is 100 GP per hit die for a few minutes, and goes up from there. Don’t forget the 1000 XP Cost per Gate used for summons. 3) Dimensional Anchor is only 4th level, has no Saving throw, and can force a Caster to Stand and Fight, even if low on spells. So using ALL a caster’s spells early is not a good option. 4) Antimagic Field makes all magic useless. Although not one of the Items listed in the DMG it is possible to use Core rules on magic item creation to MAKE an anti-magic stone which is “always” active. 5) Grapple with Dimensional Anchor OR Antimagic is certain to kill a caster unless they have Fighter (or similar skilled combat) support. Really the question becomes HOW Many of these “Casters PWN ALL because they are L33T” posters have a DM who actually has opponents use Intelligent tactics against the casters? Perhaps even some permissive DM who lets the casters get away anything? I’ve seen so many “I have this great route to ultimate power” posts which, when analyzed closely, fall apart, that I have stopped counting. Until Proven otherwise, by posting a complete Core only build (Items, Elite array attributes, Feats, Skills, and spells memorized) which can actually handle “ANY” level appropriate encounter using no more than 1/4th the resources available, and without going negative cash flow, I’m going to be forced to conclude that the “Casters PWN ALL” posters have Permissive DM’s, and it is their imbalanced experience which causes them to make such indefensible statements. One closing note - with all the “That’s not a Fighter” calls when I propose a Fighter who uses Leadership to gain the services of a dedicated caster or when the Fighter Dips into Barbarian etc, I’m going to respond with “Don’t use Leadership to Gain a Cohort,” and No Multiclassing (Even PrC’s) I’ll be willing to examine ONE build each of Wizard, Cleric and Druid, so think well before hasty posting. Remember Core only, Elite attribute array only, No Multiclassing, and anything not listed IS NOT AVAILABLE.
Khan the Destroyer 04-12-07, 02:05 PM	I have a soft spot for pets, what can I say? I also have a huge soft spot for turning said pets into interesting builds unto themselves. Hence, 'the big guy is with me'. ;) And that was a splendid build :D. That title always made me envision a psicrystal sitting at the bar (well, on the bar most likely) surrounded by all sorts of patrons listening to his stories of adventure as if he were a regular person. One guy questions the PC in the background and the crystal responds with 'The big guy's with me.' Oh you know what I have just thought of.. the book of nine swords. You mean like having the dog be a Bloodstorm Blade and throwing his fleas while treating them as melee attacks so that if they hit he gets to trip his opponent? That would be awesome. Alternatively, and more possible, he could get Martial Study: Vanguard Strike. So when he initiates the maneuver, he gets a chance to trip *and* his allies recieve a +4 bonus to attack the enemy. If the enemy ends up getting tripped, I'm pretty sure even the druid with 8 strength could hit his Prone AC with a +4 bonus. But I would probably grab Leading the Attack instead. It does the same thing, but is a White Raven maneuver. This means in acquiring it, the dog also recieves Diplomacy as a class skill, so he can act as the party face on top of being the tank. (Note to self... I couldn't think of a way to get Diplomacy as a class skill in the other thread when constructing war general archtypes, and here it comes to me as easy as 1st grade math when attempting humor.)
NobodyRemembersThis 04-12-07, 02:09 PM	two words:rope trick. Unless the monsters (or DM fiat) is in just the right area, then the caster can adventure as much as he wants, and still be able to rest in perfect safety. And there is nothing the DM can do about it except as nicely to not use the spell.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-12-07, 02:09 PM	There were mentions of buffing and not buffing, but was any of the buffing that was mentioned used for the first few levels? I am pretty sure that I have only been using nonmagical gear with no spells for the pet, but I might have forgotten one of the side discussions. Although if the pet was being used as a mount I could definately see any spells going on the druid going to the pet if they could even if they did not actually do any good. I know when I cranked out numbers (with an all 16 stat point fighter) I included no buffs and gave the fighter a magic item too early (when I rechecked) but I think I overspent for the dog too so the money should ballance out.
Bob Loblaw 04-12-07, 02:15 PM	Do you feel that the barbarian rage raises the barbarians CR? After all, if it was a template that granted +4 str and con it would likely have an LA of at least +1. It's not what I feel, it's what the Encounter Level shows. Two against one is not a fair fight. How about summons? I have been told that there is an ability (domain or feat, I forget which they said that it was) that allowed the cleric to summon as a standard action. I didn't mention anything about how long it takes to summon. There options out there, but that's not something I see as an issue. I do feel that some of the summoning spells are a bit too powerful (Gate?). Things like this actually do change the outcome greatly. Everyone knows it, that's why it's an incredibly common spell. Everyone knows it increases the power of the caster more than most spells. Or even creating undead, getting a leadership feat, or whatever. Having the leadership feat does increase the Encounter Level if the cohort or followers are there. At least that's how I've seen it in every module so far. There are a lot of examples of these sorts of things in the game. The CR system is not robust enough to do well with all eventualities unfortunately :( Yet it's quite often brought up to show how the fighter is too weak. When I mention this, I either get ignored or it is simply hand waved away and then brought back up. You'll also note that I try to use the Encounter Levels rather than Challenge Ratings because CRs are really only meant to give XP. Encounter Levels are meant to determine how tough an encounter may be. While they do have some points where they connect, they actually are two different things. There were mentions of buffing and not buffing, but was any of the buffing that was mentioned used for the first few levels? I am pretty sure that I have only been using nonmagical gear with no spells for the pet, but I might have forgotten one of the side discussions. Although if the pet was being used as a mount I could definately see any spells going on the druid going to the pet if they could even if they did not actually do any good. It is getting confusing. I know that I don't like having to go back several pages to find the one thing I need so I try to go from memory too. Sometimes it pays off. I can see the pet being useful in many situations. I don't see it as the replacement for the fighter.
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 02:24 PM	It's not what I feel, it's what the Encounter Level shows. Two against one is not a fair fight. The rules also say that such creatures are part of the masters CR when fought together. So that is where we are. I didn't mention anything about how long it takes to summon. No, but I did. Mostly in an attempt to get around the, 'but it takes a round!' arguement. I do feel that some of the summoning spells are a bit too powerful (Gate?). Gate isnt actually a summoning spell, although that is mostly a technicality. But for its calling ability it is pretty broken, I rather like its ability to walk across the planes though. There are broken spells, there are broken feats. I'd rather have neither ;/ Having the leadership feat does increase the Encounter Level if the cohort or followers are there. At least that's how I've seen it in every module so far. Is this in the rules somewhere? I'd like to read it. Yet it's quite often brought up to show how the fighter is too weak. This thread is talking about the druids pet being a replacement for the fighter. The combination of the two being better or worse than the fighter overall though I have not really had much to say about. I think that the fighter needs some boosting anyway so I would not be the one to ask if you want a response that isnt that the fighter is too weak ;) It is getting confusing. I know that I don't like having to go back several pages to find the one thing I need so I try to go from memory too. Sometimes it pays off. I can see the pet being useful in many situations. I don't see it as the replacement for the fighter. I guess it depends on the situation. Personally, I'd rather have the druids pet fill in. It does not suck up exp ;)
Argaud 04-12-07, 02:42 PM	I didn't say DM fiat. How do you think a major metropolis would react to a T-Rex wandering down main street? A bit off topic, but you know a T-Rex is a valid mount for a level 11 paladin? Yes, a T-Rex. The rule is a critter of a CR equal to the paladin level minus 3. It will be a T-Rex with Int 6 and 20HD, too. Talk about an overpowered class feature!
Kresalak 04-12-07, 02:58 PM	Guys, shut up. Whether or not the Fighter has higher numbers than the dog is inconsequential, since what we care about is his actual worth to the party. And that worth is simple; worth equals resource output minus resource input. For the Fighter, you're investing 1/4 of your party, which means you're down 25% before you get anything back. The Riding Dog comes as a single class feature of another character, which means you're only down something like 5% resources before you get anything. This means that for the Fighter to be an equal contributor he has to be about 5 times as good as the Riding Dog.
Bob Loblaw 04-12-07, 03:01 PM	A bit off topic, but you know a T-Rex is a valid mount for a level 11 paladin? Yes, a T-Rex. The rule is a critter of a CR equal to the paladin level minus 3. It will be a T-Rex with Int 6 and 20HD, too. Talk about an overpowered class feature! I didn't know about the T-Rex mount. Which book can I find this in? Also, I was just rereading the Special Mount ability and the paladin can only use this ability once per day. I don't like this at all. Wasn't it different in 3.0?
Kresalak 04-12-07, 03:07 PM	A bit off topic, but you know a T-Rex is a valid mount for a level 11 paladin? Yes, a T-Rex. The rule is a critter of a CR equal to the paladin level minus 3. It will be a T-Rex with Int 6 and 20HD, too. Talk about an overpowered class feature! Cite that rule, please.
Argaud 04-12-07, 03:08 PM	I didn't know about the T-Rex mount. Which book can I find this in? Also, I was just rereading the Special Mount ability and the paladin can only use this ability once per day. I don't like this at all. Wasn't it different in 3.0? DMG page 204. The examples provided only go to the level 8 paladin, when he can call a griffon or dire lion mount, but the rules are mentioned a couple paragraphs before that. And before Draconomicon a level 20 paladin could even have an enhanced CR16 dragon as mount. They nerfed dragon mounts there :mad: Not that most sane DMs would allow some of the options possible... but then again, the same will happen with the druid companion, right? ... Um... RIGHT?
Bob Loblaw 04-12-07, 03:11 PM	Guys, shut up. Whether or not the Fighter has higher numbers than the dog is inconsequential, since what we care about is his actual worth to the party. And that worth is simple; worth equals resource output minus resource input. For the Fighter, you're investing 1/4 of your party, which means you're down 25% before you get anything back. The Riding Dog comes as a single class feature of another character, which means you're only down something like 5% resources before you get anything. This means that for the Fighter to be an equal contributor he has to be about 5 times as good as the Riding Dog. So let me see if I can understand how this works: 1) The fighter can make his own decisions on his tactics and change accordingly. He can flank where needed, trip, grapple, shoot, whatever he needs. The companion needs the druid to command him, and even then the commands must be simple. So using a standard action to command the companion is better than the fighter just doing what needs to be done? 2) The fighter can make his own suit of armor for 1/3 the cost of the market value. The companion needs the druid to spend his money on that same suit of armor for 4 times the cost. 3) The fighter can use his skills to help the party in and out of combat. With a small investment in Heal (1 rank, Healer's Kit, Wis 13), he has a 50% chance of stablizing a dying character. The companion has a 0% chance. 4) The fighter can wear more gear than the companion. Most companions aren't going to be able to wear the boots of speed the party just acquired. The fighter's mobility and number of attacks just increased. The poor companion is waiting for the druid to cast yet another spell. "Resources" is a very vague term. If the druid is putting anything at all into making the companion into a comparable fighter, then goes ahead and uses more resources, who's using more resources, the fighter or druid? Simple math says the druid. 1-3 spells to turn the companion into a fighter then more to beef him up or just start beefing up the fighter.
Flan 04-12-07, 03:16 PM	This means that for the Fighter to be an equal contributor he has to be about 5 times as good as the Riding Dog. Well since animal companions will die on round 1 with a DM that isn't coddling the PCs, but the fighter will usually survive the whole fight, I'd say fighters are a lot more than 5 times as good as an animal companion.
Bob Loblaw 04-12-07, 03:20 PM	DMG page 204. The examples provided only go to the level 8 paladin, when he can call a griffon or dire lion mount, but the rules are mentioned a couple paragraphs before that. And before Draconomicon a level 20 paladin could even have an enhanced CR16 dragon as mount. They nerfed dragon mounts there :mad: Not that most sane DMs would allow some of the options possible... but then again, the same will happen with the druid companion, right? ... Um... RIGHT? Thanks. Our group doesn't really deviate too much from the basics because we feel that some are rather silly or inappropriate (dinosaurs hit both categories in most of our games). I just read it and it looks like the DM is supposed to determine what's appropriate or not. This leaves a lot of room for variance form game to game. I also have never read the section on Leadership and Mounts. Thank you for providing this. It was enlightening.
Bob Loblaw 04-12-07, 03:22 PM	The rules also say that such creatures are part of the masters CR when fought together. So that is where we are. This is one of the problems that I have with the game. It is inconsistant in this regard and makes some of the challenges a bit hard to judge.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-12-07, 03:23 PM	Well since animal companions will die on round 1 with a DM that isn't coddling the PCs, but the fighter will usually survive the whole fight, I'd say fighters are a lot more than 5 times as good as an animal companion. That's odd. Because the animal companion has the same HP and AC as the fighter levels 1 and 3, and I don't think the damage jump is some incredible at level 2 to allow for any instagibs that weren't happening at level 1. Edit: And just because I haven't stated it, I'd like to point out that none of my arguments here show if the fighter is underpowered or the animal companion is overpowered or if both are true. It's just at low levels they seem comparable. I have opinions on those matters, but they're much harder to prove.
Haruspex 04-12-07, 03:55 PM	I'm beginning to wonder, if the animal companion class feature was removed altogether, would it make the druid unplayable? EDIT: Or give them the half-arsed animal companion that the ranger gets.
Argaud 04-12-07, 04:14 PM	I'm beginning to wonder, if the animal companion class feature was removed altogether, would it make the druid unplayable? EDIT: Or give them the half-arsed animal companion that the ranger gets. Next game I DM I will use a houserule. At level 5 a druid can choose: a) Gain wildshape, but then the animal companion no longer improves b) Keep the animal companion, but no Wildshape is gained Another possibility is using the alternate Wildshape rules in PHB2
DaidojiTaidoru 04-12-07, 04:15 PM	I'm beginning to wonder, if the animal companion class feature was removed altogether, would it make the druid unplayable? EDIT: Or give them the half-arsed animal companion that the ranger gets. Admittedly I'm not the best at 20 level power guesses but I think that a 1st level druid would be okay without an animal companion. Comparing it to a wizard (who does okay at low levels) the Druid has 4 more HP and better AC. The hard part comes with spell comparision. The Druid has better damage with produce flame or shilleglagh, but damage is weak sauce and mages get way more in terms of shutdown spells. It'd be an intresting to see what the Char OP people think.
Cael 04-12-07, 04:38 PM	Wait, so a non optimized character alone killing a monster 2 cr higher whitout trouble nor optimizing is okay? Gotta love your concept of "balanced". I can't even imagine what happens when the party actually works togheter... I would also love to hear how the aspect let you buff yourself for 2 rounds and did nothing to stop you, or where are the rules for cone of cold and create water synergy. Whether it is OK or not is not the point of the thread. If you want an argument against that, I suggest you go to the What's a Player to Do board, where there is a lively discussion on the topic. I will indulge you there. Second, I am a Wizard that was *alone*. Which means I had things like Invisibility and Fly on already. With Fly, I can outpace something that is climbing up a 300ft shaft. With a Cone of Cold, I can create ice in the wet shaft. Ice is slippery. A fall of over 200ft. Do the math.
Khan the Destroyer 04-12-07, 04:49 PM	A CR 17 BBEG died from 20d6 damage?
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 05:09 PM	1) The fighter can make his own decisions on his tactics and change accordingly. He can flank where needed, trip, grapple, shoot, whatever he needs. The companion needs the druid to command him, and even then the commands must be simple. So using a standard action to command the companion is better than the fighter just doing what needs to be done? First off, free action to command the pet. Secondly, I would expect most fighter builds to put little to no points into intelligence or wisdom. Listening to the druid, who is likely to at least have a pretty good wisdom, might not be a bad plan! Especially as the druid is the guy with spot and/or listen ;) 2) The fighter can make his own suit of armor for 1/3 the cost of the market value. The companion needs the druid to spend his money on that same suit of armor for 4 times the cost. Barding is only double cost for medium creatures. Making a suit of armor is possible, although it is incredibly time consuming. While it is true that the animal companion is unlikely to be able to do so it is not really far up the list of important things to be able to do either. 3) The fighter can use his skills to help the party in and out of combat. With a small investment in Heal (1 rank, Healer's Kit, Wis 13), he has a 50% chance of stablizing a dying character. The companion has a 0% chance. Yep, he can. Although I doubt that the fighter will have a 13 wisdom to be able to take the 10. But he could instead get 2 ranks cross-classed to make up for it, with 3 ranks he can even take 10 and do it automatically. It is too bad that the checks for use magic device are so high. Otherwise I would suggest putting the points into that instead. 4) The fighter can wear more gear than the companion. Most companions aren't going to be able to wear the boots of speed the party just acquired. The fighter's mobility and number of attacks just increased. The poor companion is waiting for the druid to cast yet another spell. Most of the animal companions have feet and so could wear boots. I would even go so far as to say that many items are useable by the creatures. Dogs have feet, a place to put a belt, can wear shirts, armor, have a neck, have toes for rings, and so forth. "Resources" is a very vague term. If the druid is putting anything at all into making the companion into a comparable fighter, then goes ahead and uses more resources, who's using more resources, the fighter or druid? Simple math says the druid. 1-3 spells to turn the companion into a fighter then more to beef him up or just start beefing up the fighter. If we are talking about 'fighter+abilities' and 'druid+abilities' relative to a 4 person party then any spells that the druid casts to buff himself or his animal companion are all still coming from the same 25% of the pool, so I am not really sure what you mean here.
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 05:10 PM	A CR 17 BBEG died from 20d6 damage? Well, it could have failed the massive damage saving throw.
Flan 04-12-07, 05:14 PM	That's odd. Because the animal companion has the same HP and AC as the fighter levels 1 and 3, and I don't think the damage jump is some incredible at level 2 to allow for any instagibs that weren't happening at level 1. I was thinking more like around level 14 where it's 5 HD below the rest of the party and it's saving throws are garbage so the first distinitgrate or save or die will waste it. It's BAB is also 8 below the fighter's though so it's doubtful opponents would even bother trying to kill it.
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 05:33 PM	I was thinking more like around level 14 where it's 5 HD below the rest of the party and it's saving throws are garbage so the first distinitgrate or save or die will waste it. It's BAB is also 8 below the fighter's though so it's doubtful opponents would even bother trying to kill it. Hmm.. level 14.. Riding dog Touch AC 15 F+10, R+12, W+4(+8vsenchantments) This is base, before anything else. Definately not so hot. But then at these levels it isnt really meant to be, this has been gone over before. The 20th level druids riding dog was a significant speed bump to a 15th level guy but that was about it. Of course if the 14th level badguy feels like using resources on it then that may have just saved a characters life, which is also something that the animal companion is there for. But then a riding dog may not be the strongest guy all the way up either, we have just been using that for ease of use. hmm.. I think if I was a druid with an animal companion I would use at least 10% of my gear for the level on my little buddy. Preferably items that are easily useable by most animals so that if I need to change I can easily. Which leads me to an important question. In 3.0 masters of the wild equipment that was restricted to only being able to be used by animals was given a discount. Does anyone know if this still applies in 3.5? Possibly in one of the various splat books?
DaidojiTaidoru 04-12-07, 06:05 PM	Hmm.. level 14.. I don't know about you but at level 14 my animal companion is there to flank while I eat the enemy in some horrible wildshape form. Also to aid another in tracking and survival checks. Which admittedly means the answer to the OPs question is "It can't" past a ceratin point. Unfortunately that point is when wildshap kicks in....
Cael 04-12-07, 06:21 PM	A CR 17 BBEG died from 20d6 damage? I said *almost* took him out via direct damage. He had over 300 hp. Between that fall and a bunch of blasty area effects, he was down to less than 50 hps (which I didn't know) before I got bored and left. I had a few orbs, scorching rays and about half my base spell-load left too... Oh well. I really should take ranks in Heal...
Cael 04-12-07, 06:43 PM	I was thinking more like around level 14 where it's 5 HD below the rest of the party and it's saving throws are garbage so the first distinitgrate or save or die will waste it. It's BAB is also 8 below the fighter's though so it's doubtful opponents would even bother trying to kill it. The Druid is a full spellcaster. By then, the Fighter is already naturally overshadowed by any full spellcaster. Add in Wildshape and he is not needed.
Zelck 04-12-07, 07:21 PM	Admittedly I'm not the best at 20 level power guesses but I think that a 1st level druid would be okay without an animal companion. Comparing it to a wizard (who does okay at low levels) the Druid has 4 more HP and better AC. The hard part comes with spell comparision. The Druid has better damage with produce flame or shilleglagh, but damage is weak sauce and mages get way more in terms of shutdown spells. It'd be an intresting to see what the Char OP people think. That's not the difference. The difference is wizards, sorcerers, and clerics all have proficiency with the light crossbow, allowing them to deal consistent strength-independent damage. Druids don't. A druid going for a caster build (as in low str) gets to do nothing at low levels except cast two spells per day. The only real consistent damage dealer it gets is its animal companion. Next game I DM I will use a houserule. At level 5 a druid can choose: a) Gain wildshape, but then the animal companion no longer improves b) Keep the animal companion, but no Wildshape is gained IMO, that doesn't solve anything and creates more problems. Wildshape will be much much better than the animal companion, and at higher levels the animal companion does lag a bit due to slower HD progression. So everyone will choose Wildshape. On the other hand, it creates RP problems because now the druid's beloved animal companion is a liability in combat. If you want to balance the Druid more, just give them the Wildshape variant in the PHB II, but allow them to keep their animal companion (they IMO need it at lower levels, and it's great for RP and flavor).
Flan 04-12-07, 07:29 PM	Add in Wildshape and he is not needed. No doubt that will be the next thread. I've yet to see a wild shape arguement end up with a druid able to even take on a fighter let alone surpase one, and thats with idiot DMs who let the druid wild shape into any old non-existant dinosaur or whatever.
Khan the Destroyer 04-12-07, 07:31 PM	I wouldn't mind seeing a thread that outlined a druid's Wild Shape progress. I'd like to see what sort of uber stuff he can pull at each level (I could do it on my own but... I'm disinterested enough to be lazy :)). EDIT: Even the first monster in the Dire section is pretty badass. The Dire Ape comes with 22 strength, a claw/claw/bite attack routine, and rend, as well as +4 natural armor. On top of that, he gets a climb speed. He's also large (meaning reach and better opposed rolls). Further, he is relatively humanoid in shape, meaning no potential problems with difficult modes of movement. I likey.
MerlintheTuna 04-12-07, 08:33 PM	I wouldn't mind seeing a thread that outlined a druid's Wild Shape progress. I'd like to see what sort of uber stuff he can pull at each level Yes. If only there were some sort of board devoted to creating powerful characters, where one might assemble a guide or manual on how to play a priest of the woodlands. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=733400) If only.
Cael 04-12-07, 08:40 PM	I wouldn't mind seeing a thread that outlined a druid's Wild Shape progress. I'd like to see what sort of uber stuff he can pull at each level (I could do it on my own but... I'm disinterested enough to be lazy :)). EDIT: Even the first monster in the Dire section is pretty badass. The Dire Ape comes with 22 strength, a claw/claw/bite attack routine, and rend, as well as +4 natural armor. On top of that, he gets a climb speed. He's also large (meaning reach and better opposed rolls). Further, he is relatively humanoid in shape, meaning no potential problems with difficult modes of movement. I likey. It is also Druid level - 6. Better to have a normal Ape at Druid level - 3.
Cael 04-12-07, 08:42 PM	No doubt that will be the next thread. I've yet to see a wild shape arguement end up with a druid able to even take on a fighter let alone surpase one, and thats with idiot DMs who let the druid wild shape into any old non-existant dinosaur or whatever. As was mentioned, he doesn't have to surpass the Fighter, just have enough hp and AC to hold off the bad guys long enough for the casters to get their spells off. Anything else is superfluous. Not to mention that he himself is a caster of note. This is where the Fighter fails.
PhaedrusXY 04-12-07, 08:43 PM	It is also Druid level - 6. Better to have a normal Ape at Druid level - 3.He's talking about Wildshaping to turn into one, not having one as a pet. The first level the druid can turn into a Dire Ape is 8th, which is incidently the same level where he can stay wildshaped 24/7. Since a Dire Ape is relatively humanoid shaped, he can use most of his gear in that form, and even have gear crafted specifically for that form, if his DM doesn't like the "drop, shift, pick up" trick.
Cael 04-12-07, 08:45 PM	He's talking about Wildshaping to turn into one, not having one as a pet. The first level the druid can turn into a Dire Ape is 8th, which is incidently the same level where he can stay wildshaped 24/7. Since a Dire Ape is relatively humanoid shaped, he can probably use all of his gear in that form, and even have gear crafted specifically for that form, if his DM doesn't like the "drop, shift, pick up" trick. Ah, I see. My bad. Didn't Polymorph have the line that said that if you can use the item in your polymorphed form, it still exists as per normal, but if you can't it gets melded? If so, then Druid to Dire Ape means the Druid loses nothing (other than armour, which don't resize).
Khan the Destroyer 04-12-07, 08:47 PM	Yes. If only there were some sort of board devoted to creating powerful characters, where one might assemble a guide or manual on how to play a priest of the woodlands. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=733400) If only. Thanks Merlin. It is also Druid level - 6. Better to have a normal Ape at Druid level - 3. I was actually referring to the druid's wild shape ability, not his animal companion. This is where the Fighter fails. Only if you expect him to be able to compete with the power potential of full casters. If you and your party don't mind having a fighter act as tank, and someone competent is playing the fighter, the fighter doesn't have to fail anymore than any other class has to fail.
Tony Vargas 04-12-07, 08:51 PM	Unless you happened to have used up that move action getting to where you wereYou can draw a weapon while moving. If you've failed a trip, you've already attacked, anyway, you're not going to get to attack again. A couple of bad rolls and you may be out of spare weapons as well.A series of bad rolls - actually, an OK roll followed by two bad ones. You have to hit the touch AC, fail your trip (at +4), then fail the counter-trip. That just doesn't happen that often. I find, 'the ability is worth roughly a feat' to be a much more realistic answer than '8 gp'.Not at all. Quickdraw is very nice to have, on it's own. But, when you consider that the pooch never gets full attacks, anyway, the idea that it's ability somehow saves it from losing full attacks is hardly meaningful. Now, having an intrinsic weapon, one that can't be taken away is pretty nice to - about as nice as having a set of armor spikes. 50 gp. So we've acounted for 58 of the dog's 150gp sale price. While the dog still uses it every attack, even if it is unlikely to actually succeed.Sure, you can keep trying to trip the dragon all you want, even if it's beating you when you roll a 20 and it rolls a 1. But I definately see it as an advantage for the dogs, and other creatures with the same ability, version of tripping. Much more than 8gp worth certainly.Not having to worry about a counter-trip is worth the gold and effort of carrying a backup weapon or two. Tripping after a successful full-AC attack is nice in the sense you might as well try it every time you've successfully hit, but it has less tactical value than having a much better chance of tripping successfully when you believe it'll be useful to do so. It also comes up that you might want a locked gauntlet to avoid being disarmed but that would make you unable to drop the weapon so you lose that option and so are tripped instead. You'd probably want to go with armor spikes, instead. You have both hands free (to use other weapons, weapon & shield, climb, etc), and you have a weapon that can't be disarmed.
PhaedrusXY 04-12-07, 08:54 PM	Ah, I see. My bad. Didn't Polymorph have the line that said that if you can use the item in your polymorphed form, it still exists as per normal, but if you can't it gets melded? If so, then Druid to Dire Ape means the Druid loses nothing (other than armour, which don't resize).They changed Wild Shape. It is no longer based on Polymorph. Everything melds into the druid now. Of course, all you have to do is take off your items, change, and put them back on. Magic items (except armor and weapons) automatically resize to fit their wearer by default. This definitely pisses off alot of people, and I'm sure DMs have 1001 ways of nerfing it into oblivion, but it is 100% legal per the rules.
Nephlite 04-12-07, 08:55 PM	If you go outside Core, Persistent has a HUGE Level Adjustment, so you lose High level spells for effects which are subject to Dispel magic or Lesser Disjunction (Which works rather like Dispel magic, but affects ALL ongoing spells on a target - Oops all those persistent spells don‘t seem so useful now, do they?), and Sudden Metamagic feats are only 1 use/day. Divine Metamagic uses a LOT of Turning attempts, requiring a substantial investment in charisma for any use of Persistent. Have you heard of NightSticks: "Duracels of the Gods". Add 4 turning attempts each a bargain for 7, 500. You don't need massive charisma. Miscellaneous notes 1) Gate and Time Stop DO NOT work well together. First they are both 9th level spells, so using both overextends for an encounter. Second while the time stop is in effect NO other creature can act, so the Gated being cannot react to come through the gate. Spell effects still works so yes you can draw them in. They just stay stuck on this side. 2) Balors, Pit Fiends, and Solars have better things to do than be Gated in for someone else’s fight. Particularly since they risk death in those fights. They might attack your enemies by - Grapple with one physically weak enemy, teleport well away from the fight, spend the rest of the rounds the gate works trying to convince the person they are grappling to voluntarily switch allegiance to the Gate caster’s side. Highly intelligent creatures don’t act as perfect slaves in a fight, but binding them more closely will require some sort of contract which will take a LOT of time - and which will bring up the Cost of gating in a creature. That cost is 100 GP per hit die for a few minutes, and goes up from there. Don’t forget the 1000 XP Cost per Gate used for summons. Um, nothing says they get a choice. Gate= they come. It says unwillingly or willingly. You call + control them: thus can't rebel till battle over (if the 1rd/level). If more than immediate service than you get a cost. Yes we know the cost for longer than one battle is expensive. But the one battle cost is just exp. DM can houserule this but he better admit it. 4) Antimagic Field makes all magic useless. Although not one of the Items listed in the DMG it is possible to use Core rules on magic item creation to MAKE an anti-magic stone which is “always” active. Next, you'll try to sell me True strike sword or ring. I’ll be willing to examine ONE build each of Wizard, Cleric and Druid, so think well before hasty posting. Remember Core only, Elite attribute array only, No Multiclassing, and anything not listed IS NOT AVAILABLE. So none of your antimagic stones.
Cael 04-12-07, 09:10 PM	Only if you expect him to be able to compete with the power potential of full casters. If you and your party don't mind having a fighter act as tank, and someone competent is playing the fighter, the fighter doesn't have to fail anymore than any other class has to fail. That isn't the question here, though. The question is whether the Druid can replace the Fighter in his niche. The answer is a "yes" because it need not be a Fighter there, just someone with enough hp and AC to take a few hits and allow the spellcasters to get their spells off. Even a high hp Wizard can do the trick, if you can somehow get a high hp Wizard...
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 09:11 PM	You can draw a weapon while moving. If you've failed a trip, you've already attacked, anyway, you're not going to get to attack again. Of course if you are unarmed then you are likely not threatening the area around you. This can have certain detrimental effects. A series of bad rolls - actually, an OK roll followed by two bad ones. You have to hit the touch AC, fail your trip (at +4), then fail the counter-trip. That just doesn't happen that often. It sounds like it doesnt happen that often because you only hit soft tripping targets. That is a penalty relative to the dogs ability. Not at all. Quickdraw is very nice to have, on it's own. But, when you consider that the pooch never gets full attacks, anyway, the idea that it's ability somehow saves it from losing full attacks is hardly meaningful. Why does it never get full attacks? There are two different ways that I believe have already been mentioned in this thread. So we've acounted for 58 of the dog's 150gp sale price. I still find your 8gp price to be a bad guideline. It makes some assumptions that I feel are pretty poor. Roughly a feat I can go for, especially as there is a pretty similar feat in existance. Of course that is a 3rd tier feat and it is not quite as good as the dogs ability on its own... Sure, you can keep trying to trip the dragon all you want, even if it's beating you when you roll a 20 and it rolls a 1. So there might be creatures that have a huge disparity in tripping like that? That is true, I suppose, but it ignores the point that he gets the try whenever he hits instead of having to go out of his way to try. Only a 15% chance of tripping? Fighter is very unlikely to even try unless it is desperately needed for that guy to be on the ground. Dog doesnt care. Not having to worry about a counter-trip is worth the gold and effort of carrying a backup weapon or two. A couple of backup weapons plus the actions it takes to get them out. A lesser problem would be that the weapons that you have managed to basically disarm yourself of is now unattended which is bad news sometimes. Tripping after a successful full-AC attack is nice in the sense you might as well try it every time you've successfully hit, but it has less tactical value than having a much better chance of tripping successfully when you believe it'll be useful to do so. I think that this really depends on the creature you are fighting. Touch attacks tend to be pretty easy, but not always. Miss chances are not terribly difficult to get and in the intermediate to low levels touch attacks still miss on things other than a 1. For the fighter: Touch attack +trip attempt (with a bonus, possible counter check) +extra attack if you were successful For the dog: Regular attack +trip attempt (no extra bonus, no counter check) Which is better depends on the circumstances. But the first is definatly better for tripping when it is used as such. You'd probably want to go with armor spikes, instead. You have both hands free (to use other weapons, weapon & shield, climb, etc), and you have a weapon that can't be disarmed. No tripping with armor spikes and there are some questions about two weapon fighting apparently (I really would like the rules overall to have whole sets of ambiguities cleared up). But armor spikes are definately a good backup plan. So far it looks like 2 backup weapons plus armor spikes then quick draw ;) 8gp goes a long way!
Kingfisher 04-12-07, 09:16 PM	I thought druids were powerful in 3.0. When they received a major buff in 3.5 and I read their class I was thinking to myself "Is this a 2 page long typo?" Take natural bond in the complete adventurer, and a single level in beastmaster, and you've got a dire bear at level 7. It wasn't a stretch of the imagination to say that the level 7 druid in the party could kill the other 3 party members united against him. Druid should be in the Complete Joke. If you suck at DnD, play a druid so you are still good, otherwise, I don't see why you would want to. But that's just my personal opinion.
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 09:17 PM	nothing says they get a choice. Gate= they come. It says unwillingly or willingly. You call + control them: thus can't rebel till battle over (if the 1rd/level). If I was to allow the spell I like the following combo: Go shopping for pancake making supplies, enough so that it will take hours to make them all and cooking materials Protect yourself from the hazards of the negative material plane, hopefully protect the food and cooking materials too, you will need them Travel to the negative material plane Set up your little pancake making minikitchen Cast gate and name your worst enemy When they arrive order them to cook you pancakes for the next hour Watch as they slowly die to the badness that is the negative material plane Repeat until out of enemies
Alpha_Moose 04-12-07, 09:21 PM	That isn't the question here, though. The question is whether the Druid can replace the Fighter in his niche. The answer is a "yes" because it need not be a Fighter there, just someone with enough hp and AC to take a few hits and allow the spellcasters to get their spells off. Even a high hp Wizard can do the trick, if you can somehow get a high hp Wizard... This is kinda pointless to mention, but I once played a Wizard that had more HP than the Ranger in the party and had a better attack in melee. I rolled stupid high on my ability scores (16, 16, 16, 12, 18, 12) and then took Toughness for 10 HP. That was a fun character. :D Edit* Holy! Scion has a fun idea there!
Nephlite 04-12-07, 09:26 PM	If I was to allow the spell I like the following combo: Go shopping for pancake making supplies, enough so that it will take hours to make them all and cooking materials Protect yourself from the hazards of the negative material plane, hopefully protect the food and cooking materials too, you will need them Travel to the negative material plane Set up your little pancake making minikitchen Cast gate and name your worst enemy When they arrive order them to cook you pancakes for the next hour Watch as they slowly die to the badness that is the negative material plane Repeat until out of enemies You have to pay them if your request is longer than an 1 round/level and they won't accept a low sum if it it is in negative energy plane (because dangerous). It says the request must be reasonable in proportion of the payment. So I can't imagine what you'd offer that'd be a goods reward.
Scion of Coldshard 04-12-07, 09:33 PM	You have to pay them if your request is longer than an 1 round/level and they won't accept a low sum if it it is in negative energy plane (because dangerous). It says the request must be reasonable in proportion of the payment. So I can't imagine what you'd offer that'd be a goods reward. Complaining about the amount of time I stipulated is completely missing the point of the joke ;) Greater rod of extend is pretty easy, so you can get the duration of this spell up to minutes very easily. Tell them to cook pancakes for as long as the duration is going to last. :Þ
Cael 04-13-07, 12:11 AM	I thought druids were powerful in 3.0. When they received a major buff in 3.5 and I read their class I was thinking to myself "Is this a 2 page long typo?" Take natural bond in the complete adventurer, and a single level in beastmaster, and you've got a dire bear at level 7. It wasn't a stretch of the imagination to say that the level 7 druid in the party could kill the other 3 party members united against him. Druid should be in the Complete Joke. If you suck at DnD, play a druid so you are still good, otherwise, I don't see why you would want to. But that's just my personal opinion. You can't take Beastmaster at level 1. Next strawman argument, please.
runestar 04-13-07, 01:23 AM	If I may be so bold as to ask... So where are we know?:confused:
navar100 04-13-07, 02:21 AM	Oh how that takes a weight off my mind! Stop being a condescending prick. I've played and enjoyed plenty of martial characters in my time but beyond that we're explicitly talking about the ******* mechanical advantages and disadvantages of selecting different options. If option A is strictly superior to option B mechanicswise, even if I hate the roleplaying flava' of option A profoundly, it still doesn't change the fact that option B is the objectively weaker of the two. The subtle (and not so subtle) implications that people who point out that the fighter is a totally lacklustre option compared to the alternatives are somehow shortcharging the fighter from his rightful due of party buffs is not only insulting, it is also misleading and wrong. I'm not telling anyone to play all caster parties, and the pen and paper games I usually play can have characters of wildly varying levels of effectiveness with everyone still managing to have a good time. But be realistic and base comparisons in effectiveness off of reasonable assumptions, not things like the party containing the Druid being down a man mysteriously, which is the hidden assumption behind all the "but buffing the fighter is better!" whining. Most pro-figthers, including me, have not said that fighters are so uber don't bother playing anything else. However, most anti-fighters are saying that with respect to the druid. That is being hubris. It has already been shown in other threads that the fighter can do just fine. Whether you prefer to have a druid instead of a fighter is only a matter of personal taste. We know already that a fighter has nothing to compare against Gate, Wildshape with Natural Spell, Divine Metamagic. We get it already that spellcasters are superduperawesomesticfreakingadelicious. We're not denying that. What we are saying is that the dedicated warriors, and the fighter in particular, are just fine on their own. They can do what they can do well. It is not necessary for them to be able to kill every monster that exists in the Monster Manual in one round, let alone two. Out of combat, the fighter does not have to be able to do what other classes do. The only limits to the fighter outside of combat is a player's lack of imagination and possibly DM fiat. Let's say you played "Deal or No Deal". The $1 million box is revealed. The $750,000 box is revealed. You keep your box all the way to the end. When it is opened, you find you won $500,000. Are you going to throw it away in disgust because the $750,000 and the $1 million prizes were "so much better"? Just because you find the druid is oh so wonderful does not mean the fighter must therefore be orc dung.
navar100 04-13-07, 02:36 AM	Guys, shut up. Whether or not the Fighter has higher numbers than the dog is inconsequential, since what we care about is his actual worth to the party. And that worth is simple; worth equals resource output minus resource input. For the Fighter, you're investing 1/4 of your party, which means you're down 25% before you get anything back. The Riding Dog comes as a single class feature of another character, which means you're only down something like 5% resources before you get anything. This means that for the Fighter to be an equal contributor he has to be about 5 times as good as the Riding Dog. You got a deal! You take Lassie for your party; I'll take Oscar de la Hoya for mine.
navar100 04-13-07, 02:41 AM	The Druid is a full spellcaster. By then, the Fighter is already naturally overshadowed by any full spellcaster. Add in Wildshape and he is not needed. The barbarian can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The paladin can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The ranger can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The bard can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The rogue can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The warlock can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The monk can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The crusader can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed.
Greendevilman 04-13-07, 03:12 AM	Most pro-figthers, including me, have not said that fighters are so uber don't bother playing anything else. However, most anti-fighters are saying that with respect to the druid. That is being hubris. It has already been shown in other threads that the fighter can do just fine. Whether you prefer to have a druid instead of a fighter is only a matter of personal taste. We know already that a fighter has nothing to compare against Gate, Wildshape with Natural Spell, Divine Metamagic. We get it already that spellcasters are superduperawesomesticfreakingadelicious. We're not denying that. What we are saying is that the dedicated warriors, and the fighter in particular, are just fine on their own. They can do what they can do well. It is not necessary for them to be able to kill every monster that exists in the Monster Manual in one round, let alone two. Out of combat, the fighter does not have to be able to do what other classes do. The only limits to the fighter outside of combat is a player's lack of imagination and possibly DM fiat. Let's say you played "Deal or No Deal". The $1 million box is revealed. The $750,000 box is revealed. You keep your box all the way to the end. When it is opened, you find you won $500,000. Are you going to throw it away in disgust because the $750,000 and the $1 million prizes were "so much better"? Just because you find the druid is oh so wonderful does not mean the fighter must therefore be orc dung. Right, but again we're talking about a thread whose explicit purpose is to compare the animal companion to the fighter in terms of group utility, not a thread about how I cream my jeans for Druids while you nobly defend fighters from unfair attacks on their competence. In such a thread if I see people making erroneous arguments as to the fighter's actual effectiveness I'm going to call them on it. Again (and I'll not say this again) I've played and enjoyed plenty of games involving fighters (and have played many games as fighters or other melee guys) as well as games that involved hideously unoptimized casters. That those games were really enjoyable and that everything worked out fine has nothing to do with the fact that from an objective point of view, when evaluating the pure effectiveness and balance of a class, the warrior is a sack of orc dung in relative terms. To draw from another game, when I was much younger (think 15-16) I played in some highly enjoyable games of Rifts with my dumbass friends. That system had and still has nothing approaching balance or even rules that are entirely playable as written. There are character options you can take in that game that are strictly superior to others. We managed to form a highly dysfunctional but still relatively enjoyably party anyway and all had a good time. Everybody contributed because everybody was a PC and took an active interest in things, but that still didn't change the fact that the class who had uniformly better stats and came with a giant robot was objectively much better than the guy who didn't. In this case we're talking about a class with a class feature that at low levels provides pretty comparable "tanking" ability to a fighter (and the stats back this up except at level 2) attached to a class that will eventually surpass the fighter in almost all ways. The fact that the fighter is adequate for most games doesn't change a ******* thing about its comparative mechanical advantage, which is what this thread is all about. Additionally for someone whose argument is that the fighter is consistantly "good enough" have you considered turning that argument around and realizing that its the same one being used for the Riding Dog? That the Riding Dog is "good enough" for the purposes of most low level adventures and that the Druid on top is gravy (until later when the Riding Dog becomes comparatively less good and the Druid hulks out)? The question this thread is asking isn't "should all people who want to play fighters in the future be shot and have their party slots replaced with vicious NPC dogs?" It's "is it true that the Druids animal companion is (mechanically) superior to a fighter (in the party role a fighter fills)," and I'm saying that it is important to look at how closely the animal companion compares to the fighter for the levels in which its performance really matters and that part of that comparison is weighing the opportunity costs associated with the "fighter as tank" option vs. the "animal companion (with attached Druid who wouldn't have been there before)" option at low levels. Also, beyond the issue of me not watching anything with Howie Mandel in it, the Deal or No Deal example isn't remotely appropriate and is exactly the kind of sophistry that I'm talking about. Nobody is advocating the throwing away of the "$500,000" that the fighter represents, but I am saying that in a situation where we're looking at just the mechanical advantages of the class why take a $500,000 payout when there is apparently another option we can pick that we know will instead yield a payout of something like $1,250,000 instead? The comparison here would be to a game where we knew the payouts of all the options ahead of time. If we do know comparative payouts we might very well be annoyed that we had passed up a free $750,000 for no discernable reason. There still might be noncash reasons to take the $500,000 instead, like that we really enjoy the look of the slick black suitcase that it comes in while the $1,250,000 is packaged in a crate of smelly tins of tuna caught with non-dolphin-safe nets, but if all I want is the greatest ammount of money* possible I'd be a damn fool not to take the more pungent option. The fact that you're reading anything into this about my gameplay preferences or anything else other than what I'm directly saying is your problem, not mine. *To help out people who are bad with metaphors: By this I mean the mechanical strength of the class we are selecting.
Greendevilman 04-13-07, 03:31 AM	You got a deal! You take Lassie for your party; I'll take Oscar de la Hoya for mine. This is the kind of pointless comment that doesn't help at all. We're debating mechanics, not ****ing roleplaying preferences. Those matter a lot, but since in D&D Oscar de la Hoya apparently isn't much (if at all) better at taking down the opposition than Lassie and lacks the skills to do basic things like watch the camp competently while the party sleeps and D&D Lassie comes with its own free magical superhero I can envision lots of scenarios where a party concerned purely with effectiveness is going to take the dog. Especially since the more apt comparison is between Oscar de la Hoya and the amazing Magical Superhero who also comes with the amazing Free Dog Sidekick whose powers include Oscar de la Hoya fighting style immitation! You may prefer to play Oscar de la Hoya because his archetype appeals to you more than the Magical Superhero, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a worse decision from an effectiveness standpoint and insulting people who are pointing that out doesn't change a ******* thing.
Otto the Bugbear 04-13-07, 07:27 AM	I have to question this whole "pro-fighter" phrase that started popping up also. I question it because short after, many that labeled themselves "pro-fighter" starting labeling everyone arguing against them "anti-fighter". It's very disingenuous I say that because a lot of the people saying fighters deserve more certainly like the fighter and wish it had a bit more. Like mutable options or better battlefield movement and control, or a few more skills & skill points (spot, listen, tumble, sense motive, among others). If they like the fighter, doesn't that make them pro-fighter as well? I know, someone will come along and say something like "but you dislike the mechanics!!!1!" Well, I dislike a lot of other mechanics out there, too. Diplomacy? No thank you. But that doesn't make me anti-diplomacy either. That just means I'd like there to be better rules for diplomacy. Back on topic... One thing I wonder... Say a player sat down at the table and brought two characters. One was a fighter, optimized to X degree. The other was a druid, optimized to the same degree. He wants to play both equally well, and the back story for each is equally good. He says the party gets to interview both of the characters. You go through the process of seeing what the characters can do, and each is made to fill the niche of "killing monsters". The party already consists of Rogue Wizard Druid (his animal companion is a bear of some sort) (remember, it's the same player, good at role playing, good back story, etc., just with two characters to choose from) Which is the better mechanical choice to make to fill in that 4th party slot?
Khan the Destroyer 04-13-07, 09:16 AM	In terms of impact and versatility, I would have to say the druid. He can heal, offer utility and offense in the way of spells, offer more allies in the way of summoning and with his animal companion. He can also aid in combat with wild shape, and use the same ability with his perception skills to make an adept scout. But I don't think anyone has argued that the fighter is a more efficient option. At least, I have never tried to contend that.
Flan 04-13-07, 11:41 AM	The barbarian can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The paladin can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The ranger can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The bard can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The rogue can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The warlock can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The monk can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The crusader can't cast 9th level spells or wildshape. He's not needed. The druid can't cast 9th level wizard spells. He's not needed.
Otto the Bugbear 04-13-07, 12:14 PM	In terms of impact and versatility, I would have to say the druid. He can heal, offer utility and offense in the way of spells, offer more allies in the way of summoning and with his animal companion. He can also aid in combat with wild shape, and use the same ability with his perception skills to make an adept scout. But I don't think anyone has argued that the fighter is a more efficient option. At least, I have never tried to contend that. No, you haven't tried to contend that. That's likely the reason your posts and arguments draw more conversational back-and-forth, rather than exasperated, annoyed back-and-forth. Others, however, are a different story, trying to twist either the actual mechanical value around so the one that offers less impact and less versatility is actually the more efficient option, from their argument. Or blatantly changing the goal posts every few posts (see the switch from high level argument to low level, then back, then back, then back that takes place).
NobodyRemembersThis 04-13-07, 01:34 PM	Most pro-figthers, including me, have not said that fighters are so uber don't bother playing anything else. However, most anti-fighters are saying that with respect to the druid. That is being hubris. Wrong. What it is is a proveable mechanical failing in a class (the Fighter) that needs to be admitted and errata'd so that the mechanical failing is removed. All that this thread was initially designed to was was showcase that, becasue we can have this discussion seriously and not as a joke, the Fighter has serious mechanical failings that need to be addressed.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-13-07, 01:43 PM	Wrong. What it is is a proveable mechanical failing in a class (the Fighter) that needs to be admitted and errata'd so that the mechanical failing is removed. All that this thread was initially designed to was was showcase that, becasue we can have this discussion seriously and not as a joke, the Fighter has serious mechanical failings that need to be addressed. Well that and/or the Druid needs a solid kick in the jimmys followed by a Nerf storm not usually seen outside of Toys R Us, but that's for the designers to decide. The important part is we admit D&D has a problem so that there can be an intervention when the rules get retooled.
Scion of Coldshard 04-13-07, 01:47 PM	Well that and/or the Druid needs a solid kick in the jimmys followed by a Nerf storm not usually seen outside of Toys R Us, but that's for the designers to decide. The important part is we admit D&D has a problem so that there can be an intervention when the rules get retooled. Going this route since the fighter isnt all that far above the warrior anyway we could just get rid of all of the current pc classes and play npc classes. Yey nerf storm! I liked this thread better when we were playing with pets ;)
DaidojiTaidoru 04-13-07, 01:55 PM	Going this route since the fighter isnt all that far above the warrior anyway we could just get rid of all of the current pc classes and play npc classes. Yey nerf storm! I liked this thread better when we were playing with pets ;) Well I personally think the Fighter is underpowered AND the Druid is overpowered, but that's just me. And I have to admit the efforts to turn Fido into an invincible machine of combat destruction were amusing. I'll go see if there's anything I can add, but I fear I can't think of anything that tops giving the dog diplomacy as a class skill.
Ezell Pike 04-13-07, 01:56 PM	Wrong. What it is is a proveable mechanical failing in a class (the Fighter) that needs to be admitted and errata'd so that the mechanical failing is removed. All that this thread was initially designed to was was showcase that, becasue we can have this discussion seriously and not as a joke, the Fighter has serious mechanical failings that need to be addressed. Actually, this thread started because I had seen many posts where things were stated but no one gave examples. Even an exaggerated example can lead to enlightenment when it is confronted with/by truth. So far the examples that favor a pet would be the wolf or riding dog just because they get a free trip attempt when they hit. ( not a free attack with a successful trip *at the cost of 2 feats and 13int no less*) Later it seems that beasties with size and free grapple attempts or full attacks after moving make the fighter look less like the master of combat. Adding the actual druid class to the mix makes things pretty grim for a fighter. This is not to say that they should be pitted against each other in Gladiatorial combat. Just asking that something actually be posted to put things into perspective for those of us who do not find themselves enticed to play a druid despite it's obvious power.
Scion of Coldshard 04-13-07, 02:01 PM	Well I personally think the Fighter is underpowered AND the Druid is overpowered, but that's just me. At what levels though? ;) I have to say that before druids get wildshape and with most other animal companions other than the dog they do not look overpowered. Wildshape is a huge buff though and I think it could be done a whole lot better. Making the animal companion a little different would likely work as well. A little less tough than the dog early on but a whole lot tougher later on so that it is not instantly slain everytime it thinks about entering a battle (havent done many comparisons with trade out buddies so I am not sure how well that holds over all of them, I bet some are really powerful while others are incredibly weak though). The fighter is just a mish-mash of crazy. He does not get much for skills but has a good amount of feats. If you pull together enough different feats from enough sources you can eventually create a pretty good character. But you still had to start with something that I feel is pretty poor in quality. At this point the phb2 alone makes pretty good headway, but that is because it was designed to work with that poor base and throw on things that would otherwise be horribly powerful just to get the thing running again. Fix the base and there is less problem ;/ I hate feats like the fighter feats that are 'fighter X' needed, it feels like a giant step backwards. And I have to admit the efforts to turn Fido into an invincible machine of combat destruction were amusing. I'll go see if there's anything I can add, but I fear I can't think of anything that tops giving the dog diplomacy as a class skill. Pets are fun ;)
Scion of Coldshard 04-13-07, 02:04 PM	So far the examples that favor a pet would be the wolf or riding dog just because they get a free trip attempt when they hit. ( not a free attack with a successful trip *at the cost of 2 feats and 13int no less*) Why does everyone ignore my poor viper? :( Check out the camel though! That guy is mean.
Ezell Pike 04-13-07, 05:33 PM	Why does everyone ignore my poor viper? :( Check out the camel though! That guy is mean. Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore the viper.:D Heck, a constrictor is pretty nasty too.
Tony Vargas 04-13-07, 07:34 PM	Why does it never get full attacks? Because it's an animal with a single natural weapon. I suppose you could haste it, but that still only gives it two attacks on a full attack, vs a regular full attack +1. You could polymorph it into something with a full attack, but then it probably loses the Trip(Ex). I still find your 8gp price to be a bad guideline. It makes some assumptions that I feel are pretty poor.It's up to a staggering 58 gp. Another 92 and the pooch has paid for himself. Roughly a feat I can go for, especially as there is a pretty similar feat in existance. The Trip(Ex) ability, overall, is roughly the equivalent of a feat. I think that this really depends on the creature you are fighting.That's the idea, yes. The warrior is able to substantially vary his tactics - weapon choice, melee or ranged, trip or regular attack, move & attack or full attack, etc - to the foe and situation. The dog is able to attack once a round, and try to trip. Against something that can't be tripped, he bites once a round, period. Against something outside of melee range, he barks. Miss chances are not terribly difficult to get and in the intermediate to low levels touch attacks still miss on things other than a 1.They're not /difficult/ to get, but not many monsters have them - mostly incorporeal undead. Which is better depends on the circumstances. But the first is definatly better for tripping when it is used as such.Which was my point. A war-trained dog or wolf can try to trip all the time. It'll succeed more often when the trip is superfluous, and less often when it's desireable. No tripping with armor spikes and there are some questions about two weapon fighting apparently I wasn't even getting into the TWF cheese. It's just, if you want a weapon that can't be disarmed - like an animal's bite, armor spikes are it. 50gp. (I really would like the rules overall to have whole sets of ambiguities cleared up).Hey, something we can agree on! But armor spikes are definately a good backup plan. Yep. Not much call for quickdraw when you go the spikes route, except to preserve full attacks when switching from melee to ranged.
Tony Vargas 04-13-07, 07:40 PM	Say a player sat down at the table and brought two characters. One was a fighter, optimized to X degree. The other was a druid, optimized to the same degree. The party already consists of Rogue Wizard Druid (his animal companion is a bear of some sort) Which is the better mechanical choice to make to fill in that 4th party slot?The better choice is obviously the fighter. While a heavily optimized fighter in an ordinary party may often dominate in combat, the rest of the party will still have plenty of spell-casting and skill-use duties to take the spotlight. The campaign won't be as well-balanced as it could be, but it'll likely be workable. The overly optimized druid, OTOH, will dominate combat, stomp all over the other druid's toes, and probably show up the rogue and wizard a fair proportion of the time. If a player is a high-octane optimizer, giving him one of the most abuseable classes in the game to play with is not a great idea.
PhaedrusXY 04-13-07, 08:21 PM	I have to question this whole "pro-fighter" phrase that started popping up also. I question it because short after, many that labeled themselves "pro-fighter" starting labeling everyone arguing against them "anti-fighter". It's very disingenuousThey're probably all "Pro-lifers" in real life. :smirk:
Otto the Bugbear 04-13-07, 08:22 PM	The better choice is obviously the fighter. While a heavily optimized fighter in an ordinary party may often dominate in combat, the rest of the party will still have plenty of spell-casting and skill-use duties to take the spotlight. The campaign won't be as well-balanced as it could be, but it'll likely be workable. The overly optimized druid, OTOH, will dominate combat, stomp all over the other druid's toes, and probably show up the rogue and wizard a fair proportion of the time. If a player is a high-octane optimizer, giving him one of the most abuseable classes in the game to play with is not a great idea. Who said 'heavily optimized'? Not I. Who said 'overly optimized'? Not I. Who said 'high-octane optimizer'? Not I. What did you just do there? Did you really just add a bunch of qualifiers that didn't exist so you could answer the question posted?
Otto the Bugbear 04-13-07, 08:23 PM	They're probably all "Pro-lifers" in real life. :smirk: I'm just going to poke that one with a 10 ft. pole, and hope it goes away. :eek:
Zelck 04-13-07, 08:35 PM	They're probably all "Pro-lifers" in real life. :smirk: OK, let's ignore this comment. While I love ethics and political debates, this is not a political board, and this is not the time and place for it. Let's keep on topic here. Say a player sat down at the table and brought two characters. One was a fighter, optimized to X degree. The other was a druid, optimized to the same degree. The party already consists of Rogue Wizard Druid (his animal companion is a bear of some sort) Which is the better mechanical choice to make to fill in that 4th party slot?The better choice is obviously the fighter. While a heavily optimized fighter in an ordinary party may often dominate in combat, the rest of the party will still have plenty of spell-casting and skill-use duties to take the spotlight. The campaign won't be as well-balanced as it could be, but it'll likely be workable. The overly optimized druid, OTOH, will dominate combat, stomp all over the other druid's toes, and probably show up the rogue and wizard a fair proportion of the time. If a player is a high-octane optimizer, giving him one of the most abuseable classes in the game to play with is not a great idea. "High-octane optimizer" qualifiers aside, you totally dodged the question there. Otto was asking which class provides mroe MECHANICAL benefits. Your response was that a fighter offers more PLAYER RELATIONSHIP benefits, while at the same time possibly admitting that a druid would dominate mechanically.
not Yoda 04-13-07, 08:39 PM	Good grief I never even thought of feats for the pet. That's just not fair.:tantrum:
Optimator 04-13-07, 08:49 PM	What happens if the druid puts a headband of intellect on his riding dog? Does it stop being his animal companion?
Otto the Bugbear 04-13-07, 08:57 PM	I believe it does. Which brings about an interesting question of having Int raising spells cast on it by an enemy.
Nephlite 04-13-07, 09:03 PM	What happens if the druid puts a headband of intellect on his riding dog? Does it stop being his animal companion? No, it shouldn't. Animals get get more than 2 Int. Are you saying the Headband turns it into a Magical Beast? Assuming this idea: yeah you'd lose the AC benefits. But Just take the will save (the save shouldn't be that high seeing as it a low level spell).
Optimator 04-13-07, 09:05 PM	Yeah, I was thinking that druids dont need quite as much magic gear due to wildshaping, it wasn't unreasonable for the animal companion to have some nice gear. Then I thought about the headband and awakening critters and whatnot.
Khan the Destroyer 04-13-07, 09:06 PM	The better choice is obviously the fighter. While a heavily optimized fighter in an ordinary party may often dominate in combat, the rest of the party will still have plenty of spell-casting and skill-use duties to take the spotlight. The campaign won't be as well-balanced as it could be, but it'll likely be workable. The overly optimized druid, OTOH, will dominate combat, stomp all over the other druid's toes, and probably show up the rogue and wizard a fair proportion of the time. If a player is a high-octane optimizer, giving him one of the most abuseable classes in the game to play with is not a great idea. It isn't really about dominating the game. It is that a druid can provide for the party what the fighter can, and more. In this case, Otto posited that both the druid and the fighter were equally capable of tanking (or killing stuff). Though they undoubtedly do it in different ways, both get the job done. Now, which one would be a better mechanical choice? The druid not only provides that essential role, but he also provides the potential for healing, battlefield control, offensive blasting, scouting, and multiple allies. Mechanically, many of his options rely on magic, so one can argue that the fighter may be a better, more reliable choice. But I think the chances of antimagic going on are not so great to ignore the fact that your party would gain a lot more from a druid than a fighter. Again, I don't think this means that fighters are unplayable or can't work in a normal party. That's an entirely different argument. In the sense of who brings more to the table, I can't see how one can argue the fighter brings more than the druid.
Argaud 04-13-07, 09:15 PM	No, it shouldn't. Animals get get more than 2 Int. Are you saying the Headband turns it into a Magical Beast? Assuming this idea: yeah you'd lose the AC benefits. But Just take the will save (the save shouldn't be that high seeing as it a low level spell). Well, actually... An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). * Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal). I think Optimator just found one of those funny bits where the game breaks in a most amusing way :D
Otto the Bugbear 04-13-07, 09:20 PM	nevermind, Argaud nullified this post
Nephlite 04-13-07, 09:22 PM	Well, actually... I think Optimator just found one of those funny bits where the game breaks in a most amusing way :D I meant no more than 2. So the animal would become a magical beast. But yeah, you lose the AC.:(
cactot 04-13-07, 09:55 PM	Most pro-figthers, including me, have not said that fighters are so uber don't bother playing anything else. However, most anti-fighters are saying that with respect to the druid. That is being hubris. Nobody is saying play nothing but a druid, they are just showing how weak the fighter is compared to CoD/wiz/sorc/psionicist/any caster, in order to hopefully get WOTC to buff them, so they can be special too. Instead they try and nerf other classes... which is never the answer. Better to give more options than fewer.
mevers 04-14-07, 12:51 AM	I find it interesting that those who call themselves "pro-fighter" are the ones arguing that the fighter is fine as is. While those who are arguing the fighter needs an upgrade are labelled "anti-fighter." But wait, it gets even more rediculous. Not only do those who want to power up the fighter get called anti-fighter, but since they acknowledge (generally) that the druid could do with a bit of a nerfing, somehow they are also pro-druid. How did it gt to the state, where wanting to see something powered up is seen as oppossing it, and claiming that something needs to be nerfed s supporting it? To relate it to another frequent topic on these boards, this would make those crying about ToB being Broken "pro-ToB", while those of us who claim it is balanced and usable the way it is are somehow "anti-ToB". Does anyone else see this ridiculousness?
navar100 04-14-07, 03:10 AM	This is the kind of pointless comment that doesn't help at all. We're debating mechanics, not ****ing roleplaying preferences. Those matter a lot, but since in D&D Oscar de la Hoya apparently isn't much (if at all) better at taking down the opposition than Lassie and lacks the skills to do basic things like watch the camp competently while the party sleeps and D&D Lassie comes with its own free magical superhero I can envision lots of scenarios where a party concerned purely with effectiveness is going to take the dog. Especially since the more apt comparison is between Oscar de la Hoya and the amazing Magical Superhero who also comes with the amazing Free Dog Sidekick whose powers include Oscar de la Hoya fighting style immitation! You may prefer to play Oscar de la Hoya because his archetype appeals to you more than the Magical Superhero, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a worse decision from an effectiveness standpoint and insulting people who are pointing that out doesn't change a ******* thing. Whatever the "original intent" of the thread, the thread is still yet another anti-fighter rant. Trying to prove a dog is equivalent enough to a fighter is exactly the same thing as saying the fighter is "useless". It is insulting. The druid's animal companion is a fine addition to a party. Personal experience last game session had the druid's wolf help me out big time when my character was encased in an ectoplasmic coccoon and bad guy was attempting to carry me away. It wasn't because no one else could help me or a fighter couldn't help me; it was only due because it was the druid's turn next and she was thoughtful enough to have her wolf help me. It's what party members do. In thanks I told her the wolf's next feast is my treat. However, to say having that wolf with the party means there's no point to having a fighter - that's being a "condescending pr*ck". I don't care how many spells a druid will cast on his animal companion. Hooray for the druid he can make his animal companion into the uberoverbeast of the multiverse such that yes, a particular fighter of equal HD just might not be able to handle it by his lonesome. That doesn't prove anything except that as a viable option the druid can buff his animal companion into an effective warrior-type. However, the anti-fighters are taking this mathematical game mechanics result and saying to toss the fighter over the nearest cliff. Note: it is only the fighter being tossed, not any other dedicated warrior class who also might not be able to handle all by his lonesone the animal companion whom the druid buffed into being the uberoverbeast of the multiverse. They are tossing the fighter, for this particular instance, only as a matter of comparing fighting prowess. Skills, battlefield control, helping other party members -these are discussed in other threads, though slightly touched upon here. In this thread, the anti-fighters are tossing the fighter in favor of the dog over fighting prowess.
navar100 04-14-07, 03:31 AM	Wrong. What it is is a proveable mechanical failing in a class (the Fighter) that needs to be admitted and errata'd so that the mechanical failing is removed. All that this thread was initially designed to was was showcase that, becasue we can have this discussion seriously and not as a joke, the Fighter has serious mechanical failings that need to be addressed. It has already been admitted, in other threads and including me, that the fighter could use some improvement. More skill points, more class skills (I prefer getting rid of the idea of class and cross class skills). Some nice fighter-only feats that are significant would help. PHB2 is a step in the right direction. I actually think the Magekiller feats are bit overboard in that direction to being unfair to spellcasters. Preventing defensive casting ok, but effectively dispelling all buff spells is too much. Still, I can appreciate the attempt. I'm sure a 4 person party of cleric, wizard, rogue, druid can do well. They will probably have an easier time than a party of fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter. A party of cleric, cleric, cleric, cleric can also do well. However, it's the hubris of "Well, that just proves there's no need to have a cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter" that I argue against. The fighter is not useless. The fighter can and does contribute just fine in such a party. Preferring the druid is only a matter of preference for the player of that 4th character. A player who chooses the fighter instead did not make a poor/dumb/inferior/uninformed/ill-advised/pick your word choice.
navar100 04-14-07, 03:40 AM	I find it interesting that those who call themselves "pro-fighter" are the ones arguing that the fighter is fine as is. While those who are arguing the fighter needs an upgrade are labelled "anti-fighter." But wait, it gets even more rediculous. Not only do those who want to power up the fighter get called anti-fighter, but since they acknowledge (generally) that the druid could do with a bit of a nerfing, somehow they are also pro-druid. How did it gt to the state, where wanting to see something powered up is seen as oppossing it, and claiming that something needs to be nerfed s supporting it? To relate it to another frequent topic on these boards, this would make those crying about ToB being Broken "pro-ToB", while those of us who claim it is balanced and usable the way it is are somehow "anti-ToB". Does anyone else see this ridiculousness? Fine "as is" in relation to the idea that he is capable of doing what he is supposed to do as a dedicated warrior, including not being in combat, irrelevant of the fact that other classes can also be a dedicated warrior(1). That other classes can "do more stuff" is not in dispute (2). That spellcasters can do awesome powerful things a fighter could not hope ever to equal is not in dispute (3). The fact that (1), (2), and (3) exist means the fighter is useless and you're better off without one, that's the dispute.
Greendevilman 04-14-07, 04:58 AM	I'm sure a 4 person party of cleric, wizard, rogue, druid can do well. They will probably have an easier time than a party of fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter. A party of cleric, cleric, cleric, cleric can also do well. However, it's the hubris of "Well, that just proves there's no need to have a cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter" that I argue against. The fighter is not useless. The fighter can and does contribute just fine in such a party. Preferring the druid is only a matter of preference for the player of that 4th character. A player who chooses the fighter instead did not make a poor/dumb/inferior/uninformed/ill-advised/pick your word choice. Really? The 4th player picking a strictly inferior class like commoner or warrior isn't making a poor choice from a mechanical perspective? Because it sure seems like it to me. The commoner can still effectively contribute to the party after all- he has spot and listen as class skills and can take any profession he wants! He's guided by a human intelligence, has awesome roleplaying potential, and is a perfectly viable class choice and saying that taking any levels of the class is mechanically stupid is an insult to the fine institution that is the commoner. This argument is stupid. You know it is stupid. The commoner is a bad choice because there are multiple other classes that are strictly better than him for whatever you hoped to do with it*. The objection is of course (unless you are actually arguing something so crazily extreme I have difficulty believing it) that the commoner is an intentionally poor NPC class clearly not intended for PC use. I say so what? The only difference between NPC and PC classes are that the PC classes are supposed to be better and are labeled as such. Remove the imposed distinction and put the commoner and the aristocrat and the warrior into the corebook as alternate PC choices. Would we be wrong in saying that the Warrior is useless as a PC mechanically because the Fighter is strictly superior in all things? From what you've been saying we cannot make such judgements and must respect the Warrior's roleplaying potential and ability to contribute to a party to such a degree that we have to ignore the fact that it is very bad comparatively and multiple other classes can do whatever it can do better. The objection to this of course is that a fighter *does* do two things better than anyone: -stack up the feats -fufill the roleplaying niche that is the brawny warrior who doesn't use magic I say that the exact nature of the implementation of class features doesn't really matter much in terms of overall balance if different implementations produce a certain given level of effect. If rather than feats the Fighter had some other class feature that ended up giving exactly the same bonuses in all situations it wouldn't really matter (except from an RP standpoint) what the implementation of the class looked like (i.e. either feats or wierd class features) because the two theoretical classes would produce identical in game effects and demonstrate the same level of performance. Essentially the classes would be a black box that outputted certain (identical) results into the game system, with the internal workings of each box totally unknown. If these black boxes output results that were commoner-esque in power when compared to other class options (and I'm not saying the fighter is actually this bad) then we'd be totally correct in saying that regardless of how it interacts with gameplay mechanics its a totally subpar class (and I'm ignoring multiclassing here because I don't think anyone has yet claimed Fighter is a bad dip class). Insulting maybe, but accurate. This leaves roleplaying concerns, because no matter how much better the "Captain Fancypants: the magical man of mystery" class is sometimes we gain satisfaction by avoiding magic and just playing a guy who hits things with other things. Awesome. I'm all for that. I like to play those characters. But for purposes of a PC class I'd like the choice to play such a character to be mechanically rewarding and give me some niche that other people don't totally overshadow while getting lots of other cool toys. I'm not demanding exacting mechanical parity, I'm demanding that a class that is supposed to represent a certain heroic archetype actually be more competent at its job when compared to other classes that do other things. Additionally I'm demanding that its job actually be worthwhile to do and that completing its job is actually possible and supported by the rules. If the fighter does its job competently but not so competently that it has any sort of real edge, if the fighter does a job that has so little niche protection that multiple other classes that are superior in other areas can fufill its requirements while still doing their own thang, if the fighter's job is quickly obviated in usefulness as the game progresses, and if the fighter doesn't do anything else beyond its narrow job well then we don't have a class that fufills my demands for a PC class. How we react to this is a matter of preference in that we can try to fix it, play it as it is, replace it totally, ban it as a PC class, etc. But to say that acknowleging that there is a problem and running a mechanical analysis vs. a dog in which the fighter ends up comparing rather unfavorably (he's better than the dog of course but that its such a close run thing before adding in the Druid doesn't speak well for him) is an unspeakable insult to the fighter and beyond the pale of discussion is rediculous. To say that people who have run such an analysis and come to the conclusion that the fighter is totally unneeded mechanically in a party (because better options are available) are somehow out to get the fighter and want to "throw if off a cliff" is insanely presumptous and downright delusional. You apparently make a mental connection straight from people saying "the fighter is a poor class for these reasons" to "the fighter is an awful class because I hate the idea of fighters and think everyone should play these *****in' rad classes because they have kewl powers and totally rock!" In reality most people who make such comparisons do it because they realize that the fighter is a mechanically weak choice, think it is useful for other people to recognize that fact and leave the hows and the whys of solving the issue they percieve up to others. They also do it because its useful when evaluating the relative mechanical utility of different options and when trying to readjust a game to achieve some semblance of play balance. You mischaracterize the people you argue with and generally come off as a jerk. I don't think you'd get nearly as much argumentation if you simply stated that the fighter can still effectively contribute to a group if designed properly and if you want to play one for non-mechanically related reasons (which is true). Instead you go on a crusade to assail the "anti-fighter" hordes (a ludicrious and willful mischaracterization) who commit the unspeakable sin of pointing out that from a mechanics perspective the fighter really brings nothing to a party's table that another class couldn't provide on top of a host of additional benefits. Its not being a "condescending prick" to assert that there really isn't a need for a fighter in a party with animal companion (and later Druid) tanking any more than that there isn't need for a druid with maxed out diplomacy in a party with a bard for the role of a party face (except to the extent that redundant duplication is useful). The fact that the fighter's relative mechanical weakness and lack of unique benefits almost always relegates it to the status of "replaceable and subpar option for designated party role" is a function of its poor class design rather than some shadowy conspiracy out to "get" the poor fighter. Which sucks because I like the option to play a competent non-magical warrior archetype. *Except enter the Survivor PRC but...
Archangel62 04-14-07, 06:34 AM	The fighter isn't the only problematic class, most of the martial classes have design problems. Tome of Battle did a fair amount to alleviate the situation but it isn't perfect. The real problem is this, if looked at as a whole the core rulebook is most unbalanced manual out of all 3.5 D&D material. It has the most power inequities, and is home to two of the most powerful classes in the game as well as several items that I've heard many DMs ban. The later books tend to be more balanced because the creators actually realized over time that certain things weren't as powerful as they had believed initially. The hexblade looks as bad as it does because armored casting was feared too strong and instead they learned it tends not to mean as much as they feared. The sheer number of feat chains were thought to make the fighter great, except because of how the system works the fighters feat chains are closer to paying off a debt than growing in power. Many of the suppliments add in stealth fixes, substitution options to buff martial characters and power down casters or refocus their abilities. Create new and better feats, better magical items for martial characters (I'm looking at you augment crystals) and try to add more mechanical options to make the martial classes fun and playable. The issue the martial classes have are what I've listed many times, and the problem is that so many on the anti-logic side of the fence seem to believe that the numbers are irrelevant. This one confuses me, if we can show that in general a CLASS FEATURE can outfight the fighter or come close to it then I do believe we have an issue, mind you I think the same of any class in that regard. They argue that a DM would never allow it. Lovely, so the classes now work fine because the DM will intervene, that means that ANY class works or doesn't work because the DM will punish/coddle the class to where it can work congratulations. The other popular argument seems to be that the caster can/should just be healing/buffing/serving the fighter. This is where I get frustrated, I'm speaking as someone who's done clerics since second edition and each time I make one now I tell the group that if they expect me to be a first aid kit with feet that I'll just make a different character because it isn't worth my time or my frustration.
runestar 04-14-07, 07:30 AM	Yeah, its kinda ironic. The cleric is expected to be the heal-bot in the party(or so its flavour makes it out to be), yet healing is exactly the last thing he should be doing in combat. He should have no qualms patching everyone up with wands of CLW in between fights, but wasting precious actions on casting curative spells when he could be fighting or casting combat spells?:( One can argue that in theory, an astute dm can and will fix any problem. Or that the spirit of roleplaying should enable you to overlook or gloss over any deficiencies. But the rest do have a point in that this is ultimately no excuse for lousy mechanics. Why can't we have the best of both worlds?
navar100 04-14-07, 07:34 AM	Really? The 4th player picking a strictly inferior class like commoner or warrior isn't making a poor choice from a mechanical perspective? Because it sure seems like it to me. The commoner can still effectively contribute to the party after all- he has spot and listen as class skills and can take any profession he wants! He's guided by a human intelligence, has awesome roleplaying potential, and is a perfectly viable class choice and saying that taking any levels of the class is mechanically stupid is an insult to the fine institution that is the commoner. This argument is stupid. You know it is stupid. The commoner is a bad choice because there are multiple other classes that are strictly better than him for whatever you hoped to do with it*. <snippage for brevity> ... You are missing the point again. It is irrelevant that a particular PC class that happens not to be a fighter is "better" than a fighter, defining "better" however you wish to. What matters is whether or not the fighter can function well as a PC class for what its generic purpose is to do. It has been shown in other threads that he can. The fighter is a viable PC class. Choosing not to play a fighter because you'd rather play a particular PC class that happens not to be a fighter because you think it's better in however you define to be better is just your personal preference, just as it is my personal preference that I will not play a bard because I think all the other PHB classes are "better" and I know I will not have fun playing a bard where as you will find people who champion the bard as "the bomb". The fighter still does his job well enough as a PC class where as one cannot say the same of the commoner, warrior, or a dog. If someone would like to try playing a commoner or warrior or a dog, more power to him. If he can pull it off, hooray for him. If I even accept as given (which I don't, but say I do) that the fighter is the weakest character class of all the PHB classes, the fighter is still a viable character class and someone choosing to play one is not hurting the party with a deficiency. That the fighter can be improved upon such that it would not break the game is not in dispute. Better skill set and skill points would help. More and decent fighter-only feats would help. The Tome of Battle classes I agree make a dedicated warrior, in general, more fun to play, but that's a personal preference, not a testimonial that non-Tome Of Battle dedicated warrior classes or the fighter in particular are boring to play.
navar100 04-14-07, 07:49 AM	The issue the martial classes have are what I've listed many times, and the problem is that so many on the anti-logic side of the fence seem to believe that the numbers are irrelevant. This one confuses me, if we can show that in general a CLASS FEATURE can outfight the fighter or come close to it then I do believe we have an issue, mind you I think the same of any class in that regard. . I don't dispute that different classes have different power levels. The druid, with his animal companion, can indeed become an effective dedicated warrior, yes, in addition to his spellcasting. That this is of higher caliber power level than a fighter who is an effective dedicated warrior but without spellcasting is also true. The first question is, then, is the fighter truly an effective dedicated warrior. The answer is yes. Therefore, the issue is then that perhaps the druid is too powerful. In a hypothetical 4E, which of course is not in development, getting rid of the animal companion could be a way to go to lessen the druid's power yet keep him viable as worthy to play. However, it still remains that the fighter is an effective dedicated warrior. One might be distressed the druid can make his animal companion "better" than the fighter. It still does not take away that someone choosing to play a fighter is playing an effective dedicated warrior, and he did not make a wrong/poor choice for doing so.
runestar 04-14-07, 08:12 AM	So it won't upset you if the druid in your party is able to upstage your role in the party using a single class feature? You set out to be the melee tank cornerstone in your party, and someone is pretty much accomplishing a similar feat without even trying. Good for you then.:)
Bob Loblaw 04-14-07, 08:24 AM	So it won't upset you if the druid in your party is able to upstage your role in the party using a single class feature? You set out to be the melee tank cornerstone in your party, and someone is pretty much accomplishing a similar feat without even trying. Good for you then.:) Some of us play the game just to have fun. I know that when I play fighters, I don't personally care if the other characters are dealing more damage. I know that I am able to keep the enemy at bay and often put them in a situation where the others can can deal massive damage to several at once. I also know that our combats get up close and personal. This makes it harder for the casters because the enemy has been known to ready actions to stop the spellcasting. The 5-ft step out of the threatened area doesn't help because the enemy can take their 5-ft step as well if they haven't already moved.
Archangel62 04-14-07, 09:07 AM	I don't dispute that different classes have different power levels. The druid, with his animal companion, can indeed become an effective dedicated warrior, yes, in addition to his spellcasting. That this is of higher caliber power level than a fighter who is an effective dedicated warrior but without spellcasting is also true. The first question is, then, is the fighter truly an effective dedicated warrior. The answer is yes. Therefore, the issue is then that perhaps the druid is too powerful. In a hypothetical 4E, which of course is not in development, getting rid of the animal companion could be a way to go to lessen the druid's power yet keep him viable as worthy to play. However, it still remains that the fighter is an effective dedicated warrior. One might be distressed the druid can make his animal companion "better" than the fighter. It still does not take away that someone choosing to play a fighter is playing an effective dedicated warrior, and he did not make a wrong/poor choice for doing so. The problem is somewhat on the druids end, but the fact is that the companion is still a worthwhile comparison to a proper fighter. Part of it is simply that as designed the fighter is too weak, has too few unique abilities that aren't easily duplicated.
Flan 04-14-07, 09:45 AM	So it won't upset you if the druid in your party is able to upstage your role in the party using a single class feature? You set out to be the melee tank cornerstone in your party, and someone is pretty much accomplishing a similar feat without even trying. Animal companion surely doesn't accomplish that. The Gate spell will though.
runestar 04-14-07, 09:58 AM	Animal companion surely doesn't accomplish that. The Gate spell will though. It does come close at lower lvs though. And that is supposedly the time when fighters are supposed to shine since spellcasters like wizards don't really come into their element until around lv5+...
Kresalak 04-14-07, 03:22 PM	Some of us play the game just to have fun. I know that when I play fighters, I don't personally care if the other characters are dealing more damage. I know that I am able to keep the enemy at bay and often put them in a situation where the others can can deal massive damage to several at once. I also know that our combats get up close and personal. This makes it harder for the casters because the enemy has been known to ready actions to stop the spellcasting. The 5-ft step out of the threatened area doesn't help because the enemy can take their 5-ft step as well if they haven't already moved. This is what I don't get. You say you want to have fun, and playing a Fighter is fun, and yet you are somehow opposed to the idea that you deserve to be equal to the people who find playing a Wizard fun.
Flan 04-14-07, 06:04 PM	This is what I don't get. You say you want to have fun, and playing a Fighter is fun, and yet you are somehow opposed to the idea that you deserve to be equal to the people who find playing a Wizard fun. Are you saying playing a wizard is always more fun?
Scion of Coldshard 04-14-07, 06:11 PM	Are you saying playing a wizard is always more fun? Maybe you should reread his statement...
navar100 04-14-07, 06:31 PM	So it won't upset you if the druid in your party is able to upstage your role in the party using a single class feature? You set out to be the melee tank cornerstone in your party, and someone is pretty much accomplishing a similar feat without even trying. Good for you then.:) As the tank of the party, regardless of class, I'd be very happy another party member is in there in the thick of things taking some hits his way which relieves the pressure off of me. I'm playing the game with a party in which we all work together to overcome the obstacles we face, not trying to win the game solo.
Haruspex 04-14-07, 06:56 PM	I wonder, what would such a hypothetical "worthy fighter" look like? Would he/she have the ability to counter spells/supernatural effects by awesome willpower? Ability to destroy force effects? Ability to negate all penalties of wearing armor? Blindsight? Fists of ghost touch? d100 hit dice? Immortality at level 20? UMD as a class skill? Automatic proficiency in all weapons? Rage? Evasion? Uncanny Dodge? Monk speed and AC? Bardic music? Sneak attack? Worthy Fighter: lol I am harder, faster, better, stronger than the druid! Barbarian: I have no reason to exist. Paladin: I can't even touch him. Wizard: My magic is ineffective! Sorceror: My magic is even more ineffective. Rogue: I can't run or hide from this monster. Monk:....... Ranger: He massacred the orcs before I even found the trail. Then he killed my animal companion by sneezing at it. He's better at two-weapon fighting than I am. *twitch* Bard: He doesn't need me. Nobody needs me. Druid: Hey, want to get a beer? Cleric's buying. Worthy Fighter: Sure. Let's ditch these suckas. The End. Seriously though. I think the variants that WOTC has been publishing are a step in the right direction for the much-maligned (on these boards anyway) fighter. Personally I think that WOTC will not officially nerf the druid or any other spellcaster to the point where they won't upstage the fighter. Not directly anyway. Maybe they'll release a Complete Animal book where all the animals are suddenly made useless. Or in Spell Compendium II all spells on the druid list will suddenly stink.
Bob Loblaw 04-14-07, 09:48 PM	This is what I don't get. You say you want to have fun, and playing a Fighter is fun, and yet you are somehow opposed to the idea that you deserve to be equal to the people who find playing a Wizard fun. Whether or not I have fun has absolutely no bearing on how someone else's character performs. While that may not hold tru for everyone, it certainly holds true for me. Some things to keep in mind about the group I play in: 1) No one likes playing druids or clerics. We have a healer, but he doesn't get to play all that often so he chose a class that would be very easy for him to incorporate into the game. 2) When someone's character gets too powerful because he chose somethings that work much better than initially assumed, that person always asks the DM if he can play something else or weaken his character. Our artificer has gone through two incarnations in the current campaign; the first one was way to powerful. Because of the way he plays the character, he will never reach his full potential. It's about the character, not the numbers for him. 3) The players in our group have no problems with boosting other party members who may have fallen behind. As the DM, I put a lot of things in the treasure for the group, but they can't always use it all. They have to sell it off and try to buy something they can use or they just make due. The current game has not had a lot of down time. They have had a total time of about 2 months, but these aren't consecutive so item creation has been an issue. 4) The opponents I use just happen to favor the PCs. I like using Large and smaller creatures at all levels of play. While I do throw Huge and larger creatures in, they are rare. The party will probably never see the Tarrasque and they are already level 19. So when I talk about how group dynamics matter quite a bit how well a class performs, this is some of what I am talking about. We are not trying to compete with each other. We are trying to play as a group. There is some friendly competition, but not as bad as I have seen from some on these threads (this is not one of those threads).
runestar 04-14-07, 10:34 PM	Different people have different definitions of what constitutes fun, I suppose. In our games, part of the fun lies in sitting together during meals and boasting about our earlier exploits in the game, as well as some good-natured joking about any booboos made during gameplay. This leads us to have a tendency to each "reserve" a role which we are then each expected to specialize and excel in, so as to be able to contribute your fair share. Since to have fun also means being able to overcome our challenges readily, and our dm sure does not like to pull his punches.:)
Cael 04-15-07, 06:09 PM	Several things here. First, there was a fix that turned a level 20 Fighter into Samuel L. Jackson. Second, for the ultimate in Animal Companions, I would recommend the following: Druid 6/Wizard 3/Arcane Hierophant 10/Beastmaster 1 Take Natural Bond as a feat. End up with a thug of an Animal Companion that is a Magical Beast (and hence qualify for Rapid Strike, amongst other things), Int of 12, a level 13 equivalent for all Familiar goodies (and hence all the neat ranks in stuff like Diplomacy if the Druid has ranks in it), and a level 23 Druid equivalent for all the bonus HD and stat goodies. And yes, this is one archetype that I am interested in playing just for giggles. Third, once again, the Animal Companion comes standard with a Druid. The Fighter doesn't. You can't just compare the Animal Companion with a Fighter without bringing in the Druid. To do so would be disingenuous.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 04-15-07, 10:13 PM	But in the game world, a character with 14 strength is considered very strong amongst the common folk. And a 14 constitution displays an amazing fortitude. Same with the dexterity and even the intelligence. A stat score of 16 or 18 is like OMGWTF!?!?!?! This is simply not true. Stats are generated using a 3d6 distribution and one out of 36 people will have an 18. That is not "OMGWTF!?!?!?!"
Otto the Bugbear 04-15-07, 10:16 PM	Second, for the ultimate in Animal Companions, I would recommend the following: Druid 6/Wizard 3/Arcane Hierophant 10/Beastmaster 1 Take Natural Bond as a feat. No. Behold Caelic's Supermount! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=382372)
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-15-07, 10:32 PM	This is simply not true. Stats are generated using a 3d6 distribution and one out of 216 people will theoretically have an 18. That is not "OMGWTF!?!?!?!" Fixed one number for extra correctness. :thumbsup: That's still a lot, though. EDIT: Added the word "theoretically" after "will" to denote that variations exist.
Argaud 04-15-07, 10:51 PM	This is simply not true. Stats are generated using a 3d6 distribution and one out of 36 people will have an 18. That is not "OMGWTF!?!?!?!" As UndefinedDemonicEntity mentioned 6x6x6=216, not 36. Nevertheless the calculation is still incorrect, NPCs are not generated by rolling 3d6. They are given the standard array: 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 or the non-elite array: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 or the elite array: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. The elite array is used for all the NPCs with PC class levels in the DMG. So 18s are limited to PCs and special NPCs created by the DM using non-standard patterns. 18s should be extremely rare... unless, of course, the DM has crated a world where they are normal.
Cael 04-15-07, 10:56 PM	No. Behold Caelic's Supermount! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=382372) Shush, you! I am trying to keep it "real" :) Besides, I don't recall that mount having 12 Int... and the PC having Wizard spellcasting...
Cael 04-15-07, 11:00 PM	As UndefinedDemonicEntity mentioned 6x6x6=216, not 36. Nevertheless the calculation is still incorrect, NPCs are not generated by rolling 3d6. They are given the standard array: 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 or the non-elite array: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 or the elite array: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. The elite array is used for all the NPCs with PC class levels in the DMG. So 18s are limited to PCs and special NPCs created by the DM using non-standard patterns. 18s should be extremely rare... unless, of course, the DM has crated a world where they are normal. Actually, UDE is wrong. Each character has *six* stats. That means each character has 6 chances of getting an 18 on a straight 3d6 roll. There is a 1 in 216 chance of getting an 18 on a 3d6 roll. If each character has 6 chances, then an 18 will come up 1 in 36 characters on average, which is what the guy with the funny name said.
runestar 04-15-07, 11:17 PM	That assumes you have the liberty of rearranging your stats however you see fit. If you just roll your stats in order and accept the results as they are, the chance of you getting 18 in a stat you do want would still be 1 in 216.:)
Cael 04-15-07, 11:19 PM	That assumes you have the liberty of rearranging your stats however you see fit. If you just roll your stats in order and accept the results as they are, the chance of you getting 18 in a stat you do want would still be 1 in 216.:) That isn't what the guy with the funny name said. He said that you will get an 18 in any stat once in 36 characters. That's all. He didn't specify which stat.
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-15-07, 11:20 PM	Actually, UDE is wrong. Each character has *six* stats. That means each character has 6 chances of getting an 18 on a straight 3d6 roll. There is a 1 in 216 chance of getting an 18 on a 3d6 roll. If each character has 6 chances, then an 18 will come up 1 in 36 characters on average, which is what the guy with the funny name said. Aye. I did get it wrong. The sad part is that the guy (whose name means "The Mighty/Great Tyrant/Overlord/Dictator") is three years younger than I am (and is still in elementary school, while I'm in my second-last year in high school). I have shown astounding skill in algebra and physics on occasion, though.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 04-16-07, 08:26 AM	As UndefinedDemonicEntity mentioned 6x6x6=216, not 36. Nevertheless the calculation is still incorrect, NPCs are not generated by rolling 3d6. They are given the standard array: 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 or the non-elite array: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 or the elite array: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. The elite array is used for all the NPCs with PC class levels in the DMG. So 18s are limited to PCs and special NPCs created by the DM using non-standard patterns. 18s should be extremely rare... unless, of course, the DM has crated a world where they are normal. This is incorrect. Read what it says under the heading: "Elite and Nonelite characters" on page 110 in the DMG. Average people are generated on a 3d6.
Khan the Destroyer 04-16-07, 09:40 AM	This is simply not true. Stats are generated using a 3d6 distribution and one out of 36 people will have an 18. That is not "OMGWTF!?!?!?!" Despite the fact that your number is incorrect, who cares about averages? Consider what an 18 in strength represents. This character, regardless of class, can drag almost a ton by himself (1500 lbs.). He can lift 300 lbs. over his head, and stagger around with 600 lbs. lifted off the ground. His punch alone can kill an average level 1 commoner, warrior, expert, monk, druid, cleric, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, wizard, and maybe even the fighter or paladin in one hit. He is as strong as a centaur, or minotaur. Both considerably larger creatures with monstrous features. Someone with an 18 strength will definitely stick out and get noticed. Especially considering that he is even better than the other above the average guy, the guy with the 14 strength. If an 18 in an ability score isn't impressive to the common folk in your games, that's ok. In my games, it gets noticed, and respected. I remember the Hero Builder's Guide saying something about the common people placing big expectations on those characters with such high stats. I mean... if there's some ogres terrorizing about, why not send the blacksmith's son with his 18 strength and 16 constitution? You know, the one that can juggle his dad's anvils. He is by far the strongest person they will most likely ever know, and tougher than the toughest dwarf. It just makes sense. Average people are generated on a 3d6. Correct. With an average result of 3.5 on the die, you get a total average of 10.5 on a 3d6. Or 10-11. Meaning, the average person has a 10 or 11 in his stats. Wow. That's kind of like... the standard array ;).
Einvaldurinn_mikli 04-16-07, 10:15 AM	Despite the fact that your number is incorrect, who cares about averages? How is my number incorrect? Please do explain, I am eager to learn after all. Correct. With an average result of 3.5 on the die, you get a total average of 10.5 on a 3d6. Or 10-11. Meaning, the average person has a 10 or 11 in his stats. Wow. That's kind of like... the standard array . The average stat is of course 10.5. I know that, but claiming that everyone is completely average in everything? That's absurd. The standard array is a timesaver for DM's. Nothing more.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-16-07, 01:36 PM	How is my number incorrect? Please do explain, I am eager to learn after all. You forgot to subtract (A and B) after doing the addition for (A or B). For example the probability of a coin getting heads at least once is 1/2 + 1/2 - 1/4 for 3/4. Of course since this is a 6 set of 1/216 the margin of error isn't that big. 1/36 is .0278 (to 3 sig fig) while the actual chance of having 1 or more 18s is .0275 (3 sig fig). So about 2.75% of the population should have max racial attributes in one field (barring level bonuses).
Einvaldurinn_mikli 04-16-07, 01:52 PM	You forgot to subtract (A and B) after doing the addition for (A or B). For example the probability of a coin getting heads at least once is 1/2 + 1/2 - 1/4 for 3/4. Of course since this is a 6 set of 1/216 the margin of error isn't that big. 1/36 is .0278 (to 3 sig fig) while the actual chance of having 1 or more 18s is .0275 (3 sig fig). So about 2.75% of the population should have max racial attributes in one field (barring level bonuses). Thank you. Still, it's basically 1 in 36.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-16-07, 01:55 PM	Thank you. Still, it's basically 1 in 36. Hey that .0003 is important. ;)