Post/Author/DateTime	Post
trollbill 09-13-06, 12:50 PM	Okay, so I am going to try out an Arcane Heirophant. Here is the build concept at present: Grey Elf ST: 6 DX: 16 CN: 12 IN: 18 WS: 14 CH: 8 Lvl1: Druid (Improved Initiative) Lvl2: Wizard (Scribe Scroll) Lvl3: Druid (Practiced Spellcaster - Wizard) Lvl4: Druid (+1 WS) Lvl5: Druid Lvl6: Wizard (Craft Wondrous Item) Lvl7: Wizard Lvl8: Arcane Heirophant (+1 WS) Lvl9: Arcane Heirophant (Natural Spell) Lvl10: Arcane Heirophant Lvl11: Arcane Heirophant Lvl12: Arcane Heirophant (Practiced Spellcaster - Druid, +1 WS) Lvl13: Arcane Heirophant Lvl14: Arcane Heirophant Lvl15: Arcane Heirophant (Natural Bond - assuming access) My real question here is the relative importance of Craft Wondrous Item, Natural Spell, Natural Bond and Practiced Spellcaster - Druid. Is this the optimal order I should take them in?
Ariante 09-13-06, 01:25 PM	My real question here is the relative importance of Craft Wondrous Item, Natural Spell, Natural Bond and Practiced Spellcaster - Druid. Is this the optimal order I should take them in? Take a hard look at Natural spell to decide if you really want it, considdering that your wildshape options are 3 levels behind. If you do take it go for Practised Spellcaster Druid first. Also considder if you want Natural Bond (which is Limited), or if you might take a level of Beastmaster (Core) instead (gives a +4 on your level for animal companion *beyond your real level*). Given access you could even take both, as they stack.
Oogar 09-13-06, 01:30 PM	Well... you seem to be going a more Druid focused casting route, might you not want to consider a 16 int and 16 wisdom to start? Same point cost, but then you are not playing so much 'catch up' with your wisdom. If you truely want to focus in the Wizard spells, you may want to consider 2 levels of Mystic Theurge using your current stat array (Druid 3/ Wizard 3/ Mystic Theurge 2 / Arcane Heirophant 7). Mostly that would give you spell level boosts on your wizard side 1 level earlier (3rd level wizard spells at 8th rather then 9th, and so on). What I see is an outline, rather then a concept. If you want to pick a concept and delve into it, just let me know what specific goal you have, and I'll do what I can to help. The concept I currently 'see' is 'Get the most out of the Animal Companion / Familiar'
trollbill 09-13-06, 01:52 PM	Well... you seem to be going a more Druid focused casting route, might you not want to consider a 16 int and 16 wisdom to start? Same point cost, but then you are not playing so much 'catch up' with your wisdom. If you truely want to focus in the Wizard spells, you may want to consider 2 levels of Mystic Theurge using your current stat array (Druid 3/ Wizard 3/ Mystic Theurge 2 / Arcane Heirophant 7). Mostly that would give you spell level boosts on your wizard side 1 level earlier (3rd level wizard spells at 8th rather then 9th, and so on). What I see is an outline, rather then a concept. If you want to pick a concept and delve into it, just let me know what specific goal you have, and I'll do what I can to help. The concept I currently 'see' is 'Get the most out of the Animal Companion / Familiar' I am taking the 18 Int for the skill points, both at start and because I lose points if I work up Int from a 16, and because it fits the concept of a scholarly druid. The character concept is one of a learned city-fied druid who approaches both vocations from an intellectual, scholarly point of view. He was on the way to becoming a top rank wizard apprentise when nature and the ways of natural magic sparked something in him and he abbandoned his early wizard studies to take up druid teachings. His ultimate goal is to prove that 'natural' magic and learned magic are actually the same and can be melded together to make both stronger. He is not as intuitive as a straight druid to begin with, but the more he studies natural magic, the more he comes intune with it. So, yes, his bent is more towards druid than wizard, though this bent did not occur til late in life and he is remarkably cosmopolitan for a druid. In a way, his wizardly training is simply a means of understanding his natural magic even better. If anyone where going to get tenure teaching classes on druidism at the University of Gryrax, this would be the guy. Though born elsewhere, he is living in the Principality of Ulek because he heard the druids there (most notebly the Emerald Enclave) were more 'progressive' than other regions that still rely mostly on the Old Faith.
Oogar 09-13-06, 03:14 PM	With that backround and intent, your build is perfectly valid. I might still argue for Theurge as a way to examine a third school of magical philosophy into your build, but it is not neccesary. I would place Craft Wonderous Item as the highest priority - the other 3 are dependant on your perceptions of how often you will make use of Wild Shape, and in what situations, and how important your Companion Familiar is to you. For me, Craft Wonderous > Practiced Spellcaster - Druid > Natural Spell > Natural Bond. YMMV.
trollbill 09-13-06, 05:12 PM	That brings up a question regarding magic item crafting. Can multiclassed spell casters use one class to fullfil part of the prerequisits and another to fill the other? For example, could my Hierophant make an Amulet of Natural Armor at 6th level? He fulfils the requirement of being a 5th level caster (he is a CL6 with Wizard but only CL4 with Druid) and can cast the requisit barkskin. Or does he have to have the CL requirement in the class he is casting the spell from?
chesspiece 09-13-06, 05:38 PM	That brings up a question regarding magic item crafting. Can multiclassed spell casters use one class to fullfil part of the prerequisits and another to fill the other? For example, could my Hierophant make an Amulet of Natural Armor at 6th level? He fulfils the requirement of being a 5th level caster (he is a CL6 with Wizard but only CL4 with Druid) and can cast the requisit barkskin. Or does he have to have the CL requirement in the class he is casting the spell from? Yes. Yes. No. It's no different than a Wizard/Loremaster using scrolls of Barkskin (CL3) and UMD to MIC the amulet. CL and spell prerequisites are checked separately. It would be different if an item said "Prerequisite: Caster level of Barkskin must be at least three times the amulet's bonus". From SRD: "CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, barkskin, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus" Word of caution - I used to think that the +2CL for CWI without access only applied to the "CL 5th", but lately I've thought the more conservative ruling is correct. In other words, CL5 for +1 (minimum 5th), CL8 for +2 (3*2+2), CL11 for +3, CL14 for +4, CL17 for +5 (without access).
SirApropos 09-13-06, 06:39 PM	My only suggestion would be to take your 2nd level as Druid and your 3rd level as Wizard so that you would have more Wizard Spell options at 3rd level to choose from since you can't select spells other than those from the PHB until 3rd level. I have a Halfling Druid/Wizard going for Arcane Heirophant as well and it made a world of difference for my spell selection. I'm only third level at the moment, Druid 2/Wizard(Conjurer) 1, but I pack a punch with the spells available to me. Tallfellow Halfling ST: 10 DX: 16 CN: 14 IN: 14 WS: 14 CH: 8 I'm mainly looking to select spells with no Saves and no SR from the stats.
Namarus 09-13-06, 09:12 PM	I've been playing an Arcane Heirophant along with a friend of mine who also plays one. I've found the following. Taking a level of beastmaster D3/W3/BM1 for qualification results in one hell of a brusier animal companion. My friend can solo most CR+3 mobs with his animal companion along with the buffs he places on it. I have gone the alternate route, of D3/W3/MT2 which resulted for me in an very nice increase in spell power. I picked up a nice feat from Races of the Wild "Magic Of The Land" which allows me to heal with buff spells, and to also heal more with healing spells. Which makes for very nice stuff like casting 'haste' and healing all the affected party members 6 hit points. I would, however, suggest that you pick one spellcasting type, and use practise caster for it alone. I went with wizard, since I use wizard spells for damage, and my druid spells for buffing. If you want to break SR, and do more damage your going to want to have a high caster level. I would also ignore boosting your wisdom, at most you will need 14 wisdom, since a +4 stat item will do the job nicely. Your intelligence will be used for the damage spell DCs. Druid 1 Druid 2 Druid 3 Wizard 1 Wizard 2 Wizard 3 Is possibly a better way to advance, you will have an advanced animal companion and 2nd level spells by the time your doing APL 4 modules. Also it will allow you to take craft wonderous item by level 3. Furthermore a wizard's life is pretty damn painful if my memory serves, and putting spells into your spellbook is very costly, until you can afford a Blessed Book.
EvilErnie123 09-13-06, 10:36 PM	I'm coming at the Arcane Hierophant from another direction...Druid/Warmage. I'm only at 4th level so I've got a long way to go. I am considering Feating to get a familiar, but how beneficial is it?
paigeoliver 09-14-06, 01:09 AM	I'm coming at the Arcane Hierophant from another direction...Druid/Warmage. I'm only at 4th level so I've got a long way to go. I am considering Feating to get a familiar, but how beneficial is it? Reading the text of arcane hierophant it looks like wasting a feat to get a familiar would be a true waste, since you would lose the familiar when you went into the class.
trollbill 09-14-06, 10:25 AM	Taking a level of beastmaster D3/W3/BM1 for qualification results in one hell of a brusier animal companion. My friend can solo most CR+3 mobs with his animal companion along with the buffs he places on it. I will look at the pre-reqs for this. It's starting to sound tempting though it puts of me getting 3rd level spells of any kind until level 9 (Ouch). I have gone the alternate route, of D3/W3/MT2 which resulted for me in an very nice increase in spell power. I picked up a nice feat from Races of the Wild "Magic Of The Land" which allows me to heal with buff spells, and to also heal more with healing spells. Which makes for very nice stuff like casting 'haste' and healing all the affected party members 6 hit points. This is very tempting as it would allow me 3rd level spells in both classes as early as 7th level. But it would hamper my animal companion even more and mean I won't get Wild Shape until 9th. I am beginning to lean towards the tough animal companion to garauntee that there is at least one beafy fighter in the party that can stand between me and the monsters since I suck at melee. I have looked at Magic of the Land and it is very tempting and goes well with the character concept. I will think about it. I would, however, suggest that you pick one spellcasting type, and use practise caster for it alone. I went with wizard, since I use wizard spells for damage, and my druid spells for buffing. If you want to break SR, and do more damage your going to want to have a high caster level. Other than freeing up a feat for something else, I am not sure of the benefits of this. It's not like you can take this feat mulitple times for the same class. Druid 1 Druid 2 Druid 3 Wizard 1 Wizard 2 Wizard 3 Is possibly a better way to advance, you will have an advanced animal companion and 2nd level spells by the time your doing APL 4 modules. Also it will allow you to take craft wonderous item by level 3. Furthermore a wizard's life is pretty damn painful if my memory serves, and putting spells into your spellbook is very costly, until you can afford a Blessed Book. I considered this but decided otherwise. My primary character in LG is a sorcerer and I have discovered that having a wide selection of scrolls on hand to cover various situations is a life saver. So I wanted access to Scribe Scroll as soon as possible. But I didn't want my first level as Wizard because Intro Mods in the PoU are notoriously deadly and I wanted the HP and Animal Companion to stay alive. Taking Wizard early also gives me more ARs and Adventures to find other spells and Wizards to trade with. I also am trying to avoid taking levels that don't contribute much as I don't wish to be one of those people who relies on the party carrying much of their weight until they hit Uber level. The build you mentioned above wouldn't be very effective at levels 4 & 5.
Nerax 09-14-06, 06:45 PM	I went this route with my AcH: Human str 10 dex 14 con 14 int 15 Wis 14 cha 8 1. Druid; Track, S/F Concentration 2. Wizard(Diviner) 3. Druid; Practiced Spellcaster(wizard) 4. Druid; +1 int 5. Druid 6. Druid; Natural Spell 7. Wizard 8. Wizard; +1 Wis (This is my current level) *************** 9. AcH; Natural Bond 12. AcH; +1 Wis, Craft Wonderous 15. AcH; ? The reason I went to five levels of Druid is because I didn't want to play the APL ranges of 6 and 8 without third level spells. It also allowed me to take Natural Spell at sixth level which has been really great. Taking the form of an Eagle and casting Call lightning on an unsuspecting enemy is really sweet. :D I also buff my animal companion (ape) as a back-up tank/backline defense. When fully buffed with party spells and the spells I cast he becomes perty mean. Next level when I get Natural Bond and my AC becomes a Companion familiar I will change out for a Dire Ape.
Iswald 09-14-06, 08:41 PM	Nobody here has mentioned that you should expect table variation on your ability to wild shape without taking five levels of druid. As a judge, I wouldn't allow wild shape to work for most of the AH builds presented so far. Obviously, I'm in a minority. Obtain familiar with warmage levels is basicly spending a feat to make your companion more intelligent and have the familiar abilities. Is it worth a feat? That depends, does your regular judge think your companion can take power attack, but not use it effectively because it isn't smart enough?
Nerax 09-14-06, 08:49 PM	Nobody here has mentioned that you should expect table variation on your ability to wild shape without taking five levels of druid. As a judge, I wouldn't allow wild shape to work for most of the AH builds presented so far. Obviously, I'm in a minority. This is another reason I took five levels of Druid just because I have heard about the table variation. I believe that Druids still get wildshape even though they didn't take the five levels of Druid to start the PrC with. I think that the wording is said that way so that if you went Ranger/Wizard AcH you would not get the ability to wildshape. My two bits. :fight!:
paigeoliver 09-14-06, 09:21 PM	The text of the prestige class gives the companion familiar that ability anyway. Read it carefully. It never lists being able to summon a familiar is a requirement, it simply says you add your arcane hierophant level to your arcane spellcaster level and determine the intelligence bonus and special abilities of your animal companion from the table on page 53 of the player's handbook. Nobody here has mentioned that you should expect table variation on your ability to wild shape without taking five levels of druid. As a judge, I wouldn't allow wild shape to work for most of the AH builds presented so far. Obviously, I'm in a minority. Obtain familiar with warmage levels is basicly spending a feat to make your companion more intelligent and have the familiar abilities. Is it worth a feat? That depends, does your regular judge think your companion can take power attack, but not use it effectively because it isn't smart enough?
Reska 09-14-06, 09:35 PM	I'm going a somewhat similar, yet totally different route. Asherati (Wasteland Druid) Starting Stats Str: 10 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 12 Wis: 16 Cha: 8 1) Druid (Desert Fighter) 2) Druid 3) Druid (Craft Wondrous Item) 4) Druid 5) Druid (current level) 6) Druid (Skill Focus: Handle Animal) 7) Beastmaster (Dire Tortoise!) 8-10) Wizard (probably Practiced Spellcaster) 11-15) ACH (Dire Tortoise Familiar...of DOOM!) I'm doing more to buff up the Tortoise than anything else.
trollbill 09-15-06, 09:49 AM	Nobody here has mentioned that you should expect table variation on your ability to wild shape without taking five levels of druid. As a judge, I wouldn't allow wild shape to work for most of the AH builds presented so far. Obviously, I'm in a minority. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but doesn't the example Arcane Heirophant have only 4 levels of druid and still have the Wild Shape ability? Wouldn't that be definative proof that you don't have to have the Wild Shape ability in the first place to gain it as a Arcane Heirophant?
blood_kite 09-15-06, 11:03 AM	I don't have the book in front of me right now, but doesn't the example Arcane Heirophant have only 4 levels of druid and still have the Wild Shape ability? Wouldn't that be definative proof that you don't have to have the Wild Shape ability in the first place to gain it as a Arcane Heirophant? While I agree with your arguement, using the sample character as an example might not do it. Sample characters almost always have something wrong with them. In Tome of Battle and Dragon Magic I believe there are few, if any, sample characters that don't have something wrong with them. Some of the prestige class examples aren't even qualified for the prestige class they have several levels in.
Nerax 09-15-06, 01:21 PM	I don't have the book in front of me right now, but doesn't the example Arcane Heirophant have only 4 levels of druid and still have the Wild Shape ability? Wouldn't that be definative proof that you don't have to have the Wild Shape ability in the first place to gain it as a Arcane Heirophant? While I agree with your arguement, using the sample character as an example might not do it. Sample characters almost always have something wrong with them. In Tome of Battle and Dragon Magic I believe there are few, if any, sample characters that don't have something wrong with them. Some of the prestige class examples aren't even qualified for the prestige class they have several levels in. Actually the thing I think is really confusing is the example on page 108 under the wildshape heading. The example character is a druid 3/wizard 3/AcH 4. It does say that he can wildshape but the thing that confuses me is that with Druid 3/Wizard 3 you do not have the BAB requirements for the PrC. Has anyone heard clarification on this.
pwilcox 09-15-06, 01:28 PM	Re: table variation with wildshape: If you take a look at the example characters in the book, they are obviously wrong. (One of them doesn't even qualify for the PrC!) There is a thread on the CO boards(I think) regarding whether a druid 4/wizard 3/AHX gets wildshape - somone sent emails back and forth to CustServ and got a different answer every time. If I were going to do an AH, I would probably do it as a druid 4, plan on not being able to wildshape, and count it as gravy when the judge allows it.
JamesMaissen 09-16-06, 05:26 PM	Re: table variation with wildshape: If you take a look at the example characters in the book, they are obviously wrong. (One of them doesn't even qualify for the PrC!) There is a thread on the CO boards(I think) regarding whether a druid 4/wizard 3/AHX gets wildshape - somone sent emails back and forth to CustServ and got a different answer every time. If I were going to do an AH, I would probably do it as a druid 4, plan on not being able to wildshape, and count it as gravy when the judge allows it. I don't know I think the intent is fairly clear to allow an Arcane Heirphant with a druid level to eventually wildshape. The example I think demonstrates this, that it doesn't meet the BAB requirement could easily be from it's later addition to the PrC and not being updated while the main thrust of the paragraph could not have suffered such. As to customer service, they are a 'help desk' and not legal consultations. You cannot turn to them for the later without expecting more variation than you will normally encounter. While they have made great strides since LG's inception (when I first encountered them) they are not geared towards an LG mindset or attention to strict detail. Also the last line reading: "If you are not a druid... you do not gain the ability to wildshape" would begin instead "If you do not have wildshape" were such the case. It's likely to have variation, but how much it is justified is another matter. I would wonder that judges would take such a reading and impose it upon a player's character that has it in good faith. How are they supposed to handle wildshape based feats in such a case? Lastly buildwise I think AH's really need to take beastmaster unless they have a strong reason not to do so. -James
Iswald 09-17-06, 11:19 AM	The first sentence of the section is black and white. 'If you do not already possess the ability, you gain no new ability to wild shape.' Trying to get around this by using an example which is obviously flawed is nonsensical. This is the same as taking three levels of ranger and saying that adding levels of divine oracle will increase your caster level as a ranger. Caster level of a third level ranger === wild shape ability of a third level druid === nonexistent.
Mommy was an Orc 09-17-06, 02:37 PM	I don't know I think the intent is fairly clear to allow an Arcane Heirphant with a druid level to eventually wildshape. I don't know how anyone can figure out the intent of that paragraph. The first sentence clearly contradicts the next two sentences, the example doesn't qualify for the PrC, and Rangers can't naturally qualify for Arcane Hierophant in the first place as they don't get Trackless Step. There's two ways to read that paragraph for edits for actual intent: The example should be a Druid 5/Wizard 3. The paragraph then makes sense, though it could certainly be made more clear. The first sentence and second sentence should be merged to read, "If you have Druid levels, you add your Arcane Hierophant level to your druid level and gain the Wild Shape ability of a druid of the resulting level." ----- I think the 1st reading is a lot more natural. Examples are often wrong and that's the only thing really overriding the strong first sentence. The 2nd reading means throwing out the meaning of the 1st sentence.
trollbill 09-18-06, 10:14 AM	The first sentence of the section is black and white. 'If you do not already possess the ability, you gain no new ability to wild shape.' Trying to get around this by using an example which is obviously flawed is nonsensical. This is the same as taking three levels of ranger and saying that adding levels of divine oracle will increase your caster level as a ranger. Caster level of a third level ranger === wild shape ability of a third level druid === nonexistent. And if you look at the TWO sample characters PLUS TWO following sentences after that ONE and ONLY ONE contradictory sentence you will see that ALL FOUR strongly suggest that the opposite is black and white. Using a single example with no more given weight than any other example to dismiss 4 other examples combined defies Occam's Razor, i.e. the simplist answer is usually the right one. So applied directly here, you have one example that contradicts four examples. The simplist answer is that it is the one example that is flawed, not the four examples. And since Occam's Razor is a principle of logic, using it to reach a particular conclusion is neither flawed nor nonsensical. So please quite pretending you have the definitive answer, especially when it comes to the use of logic.
pwilcox 09-18-06, 12:54 PM	I don't know I think the intent is fairly clear to allow an Arcane Heirphant with a druid level to eventually wildshape. So do I. Not everyone does though. Like I said, if you don't have Druid 5 in your AH build, don't plan the build around being able to wildshape. As I think is evident, not all DM's read the class to mean the same thing, especially as it isn't even written all that well. For what it's worth, I think that AH grants wildshape, but the text is ambiguous so I'd plan for variation.
JamesMaissen 09-18-06, 05:27 PM	So do I. Not everyone does though. Like I said, if you don't have Druid 5 in your AH build, don't plan the build around being able to wildshape. As I think is evident, not all DM's read the class to mean the same thing, especially as it isn't even written all that well. For what it's worth, I think that AH grants wildshape, but the text is ambiguous so I'd plan for variation. So what happens when an AH that has say the feat Natural Spell (or any other feat requiring Wild Shape) sits down at a table where the judge says that they don't get Wildshape? The character is (in the judge's opinion) not a valid player by having a feat that they never qualified for. However this is not a campaign ruling but an individual judge ruling. How is this then resolved? -James
Mommy was an Orc 09-18-06, 06:54 PM	So what happens when an AH that has say the feat Natural Spell (or any other feat requiring Wild Shape) sits down at a table where the judge says that they don't get Wildshape? What's complicated? He can't use the feats because he doesn't qualify for them.
Lupo 09-19-06, 05:02 AM	So what happens when an AH that has say the feat Natural Spell (or any other feat requiring Wild Shape) sits down at a table where the judge says that they don't get Wildshape? The character is (in the judge's opinion) not a valid player by having a feat that they never qualified for. However this is not a campaign ruling but an individual judge ruling. How is this then resolved? -James depends on the judge and the occasion (home game, small con, big convention). first, by declaring that he sees your character as invalid built, the DM has several options: he may ask you to not use the feat in question and any connected feats, as the prerequisite isn't met. he may ask you to correct the "errors" (not really easy for such a problem as two missing levels of druid to get wildshape). he may demand a total character audit of your character. he may ask you not to play that character at all at the table unless you show up with a "legal" build. on any convention where a senior DM is established, your character might be handed over to him for the correction/audit. it becomes problematic, when you run into the same DM a second time. especcially if you have re-corrected your character to status-quo-ante afterwards. he might consider your character build, re-build, re-re-build as cheating, by doing the swap-out-feat trick for tweaking character to situation, here the different rules interpretation. that is the reason why one should avoid such builds. ciao martin m.
trollbill 09-19-06, 09:52 AM	that is the reason why one should avoid such builds. Shouldn't the simple answer be to get official clarification from the Circle rather than avoid such a build? Why is getting an official response that actually counts as documented proof from Wizards or the Circle so hard to achieve?
Lupo 09-19-06, 10:10 AM	Shouldn't the simple answer be to get official clarification from the Circle rather than avoid such a build? Why is getting an official response that actually counts as documented proof from Wizards or the Circle so hard to achieve? because WotC have hardly answered dearly needed clarifications on clear errors and bad wordings so far. and then they have to include them in either their FAQ or in the relevant ERRATA to be official fo LG. or in a DISPEL CONFUSION as a LG house rule. look at: soft cover and reach weapons (i hope the last "ask woc" ruling finally makes it in the next FAQ.) rainbow servant spell level progression monks and gauntlets (FAQ is self contradicting). crocodiles as animal companions different mettle effect different evasion mechanic just to name a few, when you scan the yahoo infinite monkeys you will get an idea, how many things theys SHOULD clarify/errata. ciao martin m.
Iswald 09-20-06, 10:13 AM	And if you look at the TWO sample characters PLUS TWO following sentences after that ONE and ONLY ONE contradictory sentence you will see that ALL FOUR strongly suggest that the opposite is black and white. Using a single example with no more given weight than any other example to dismiss 4 other examples combined defies Occam's Razor, i.e. the simplist answer is usually the right one. So applied directly here, you have one example that contradicts four examples. The simplist answer is that it is the one example that is flawed, not the four examples. And since Occam's Razor is a principle of logic, using it to reach a particular conclusion is neither flawed nor nonsensical. So please quite pretending you have the definitive answer, especially when it comes to the use of logic. Occam's Razor is not a principle of logic. :rolleyes: It's a test to see if your solution or theory is too complicated or farfetched to be probable. The simplist solution in this case is to assume that the first sentence, which is typically the most important and the topic of a paragraph, is the correct one. Given that your logic requires looking at this, that and some other thing to conclude that the opening sentence is incorrect, applying Occam's Razor to your logic results in concluding that you've erred. :D I've heard that some players will ask judges how they rule on various issues, then present a build that the judge will consider legal, though this may require having different feats selected for different judges (look at the suggestion for leadership in the DMG). A clever or subtle player may do this without their judge finding out. I'm not keen on doing this myself and think it's sad that some players feel forced to do so. I wouldn't want the circle to make decisions on every trivial argument, but it'd be nice if they were a bit more active in clarifying some rules that WotC seems unable or unwilling to clear up themselves.
trollbill 09-20-06, 10:56 AM	Occam's Razor is not a principle of logic. :rolleyes: It's a test to see if your solution or theory is too complicated or farfetched to be probable. The simplist solution in this case is to assume that the first sentence, which is typically the most important and the topic of a paragraph, is the correct one. It's a principle put forth by a 14th century logician. Albeit it's primary use is in Science, it is still a logical principle. You're picking nits. Given that your logic requires looking at this, that and some other thing to conclude that the opening sentence is incorrect, applying Occam's Razor to your logic results in concluding that you've erred. :D If there were only 2 contradictions to the first sentence I might be willing to give the first sentence enough weight to make your argument correct. But FOUR contradictions? That's a lot of contradictions to ignore for the sake of one sentence even if it is the first one. I wouldn't want the circle to make decisions on every trivial argument, but it'd be nice if they were a bit more active in clarifying some rules that WotC seems unable or unwilling to clear up themselves. I agree, but when you are looking at a possible consequence of having a character kicked out of a game for having an illegal build that is far too embedded to change easily, I think that at least deserves a response.
pwilcox 09-20-06, 02:01 PM	Clearly, WotC needs to errata the AH entry so there is a clear reading. Until they do so, unless there is a Dispel Confusion on the issue, it's up to the individual judge whether AH grants wildshape. That's why I said earlier to treat it as gravy if you get it. One thing you can do is just not play this PC at cons. If you ask all the judges in your local pool which way they will rule, and get a reasonable consensus, you can make a build based on that. (In my local area, I'm pretty sure all the regular judges agree that druid 4/AH x gets wildshape, so I wouldn't have a problem playing the build during local game nights.) If you then want to bring the PC to a con, do the simplest thing: ask the judge *before* the game starts which way he rules. If he goes against you, and wildshape is crucial to the build, then just play a different PC. This will get around the unsavory rebuild that some have suggested. There are a number of builds out there that won't fly at certain tables; the AH is one of them, I've seen trouble with Occult Slayer(based on the flavor text), I'm sure we've all heard of more. Easiest thing to do is not play these builds, second easiest is to build them to the most conservative ruling, thus you won't get surprised in a bad way. (I wouldn't want to play an AH with several feats built on wildshaping, unless I got wildshape from my druid levels. That way, no matter what the judge thinks I still get my wildshaping)
Mommy was an Orc 09-20-06, 03:15 PM	If there were only 2 contradictions to the first sentence I might be willing to give the first sentence enough weight to make your argument correct. But FOUR contradictions? That's a lot of contradictions to ignore for the sake of one sentence even if it is the first one. Normally, that might be true. Nevertheless, we're in a rare position of where the contradictions all have their own edit errors.
trollbill 09-20-06, 03:27 PM	Normally, that might be true. Nevertheless, we're in a rare position of where the contradictions all have their own edit errors. Given that one part of a given example character has a mistake in it, there is no direct correlary to any other single part of that example that means it is any less correct. All it means is that more mistakes are possible within that particular document. Which means it is just as likely that the first sentence has an editing error in it as any other. So again, the 4 to 1 ratio points towards the correct answer. The only thing the first sentence has going for it is the fact that it is the first sentence of the paragraph and that it is stated in a more difinitive manner. Which, again, might give it more weight than any 1 or 2 other sentences, but 4 is still stretching it quite a bit.
Mommy was an Orc 09-20-06, 04:50 PM	Given that one part of a given example character has a mistake in it, there is no direct correlary to any other single part of that example that means it is any less correct. All the contradictions have obvious edit errors in them independent of the 1st sentence - if you had five witnesses describing a crime, would you believe the four people who you know lied to you or the one who is only lying if the other four are telling the truth now?
trollbill 09-20-06, 04:56 PM	All the contradictions have obvious edit errors in them independent of the 1st sentence - if you had five witnesses describing a crime, would you believe the four people who you know lied to you or the one who is only lying if the other four are telling the truth now? Bad comparison. If 5 different people had written each sentence you would have a point. What you really had though was a single writer saying all five things (with possibly an editor contributing and someone else doing the official full sample character.) Since all 5 sentences come from the same source, however, you cannot attribute any more likelyhood of error to one sentence than to another. A more accurate comparison would be that if someone who was known to occasionally lie told you 5 things, 4 of which contradicted the other one, which one would you believe. Even more accurately, take the following sentence: The sun and the moon revolve around the earth. We know that the sun does not revolve around the earth, so the statement in whole is false. However, this does not mean that the portion of the statement that claims the moon revolves around the earth is any more likely to be false than any other give statement from the same source.
Mommy was an Orc 09-20-06, 08:07 PM	Since all 5 sentences come from the same source, however, you cannot attribute any more likelyhood of error to one sentence than to another. If you can attribute the likelihood of error, you can make the conclusion that four sentences are more powerful than one. If you can't, you can't. And also, you can attribute the likelihood of error. Each sentence that you have has an actual error that can be quantified: Sentence 1: No errors other than being contradicted by the examples. Clearly for my side. Sentence 2: However is not supposed to be used as Nevertheless according to Strunk and White, though you're assuming they did intend to use it that way. It could mean 'However, if you do' at which point it supports the first sentence. Assuming the writer is a professional, it should mean 'However, if you do' due to S&W. It is an error either way as it is not clear. Sentence 3: Druid 3/Wizard 3 not qualifying for the PrC. Clearly for your side. Sentence 4: Rangers don't qualify for the PrC. Also, you're making the assumption that they're referring to people who are non-druids without wildshape when the sentence actually refers to non-druids. Other than the use of Ranger, it is possible that they meant people who got wild shape from some other source - or perhaps the writer had Wildshape Rangers from Unearthed Arcana on the brain as an example. Example 1: This is most likely not from the same source - you want someone who is not the writer to check the PrC for clarity. If they have problems figuring something out, they can give back edits. This is problematic because of that - the person doing the example character clearly(given the number of errors) glossed over the paragraph and likely just looked at the example in the paragraph. We can throw it out. ----------- So in other words, the evidence backing up your point of view is the Druid 3/Wizard 3 part of the paragraph which needs to be changed anyway. The evidence backing up my point of view is the 1st sentence which needs to be thrown out completely if you're right. I think Occam's Razor would say my edits are simpler, therefore it is more likely that it is right.
TWG_Prometheus 09-21-06, 09:18 AM	Whether or not the use of Occam's Razor in this thread is correct, I wouldn't let anyone vote on my rules text, even if it was sentences in a book. Saying that 4 sentences overrule 1 sentence is absurd in my mind, regardless of whatever logic principle---if a table's Judge has made up their mind on the issue, calling in Occam's Razor is only going to make them angry or at the least confuse them and not make them favorable to your case. Due to their nature as rules items, any one of the five can carry all the weight they need to overrule any amount of other text. These things are resolved through errata, official rulings, or in the lack of such, table variation. I agree with other posters. Take Druid 5 or don't plan on Wildshape as part of the build. That is the simplest solution.
trollbill 09-21-06, 09:35 AM	Whether or not the use of Occam's Razor in this thread is correct, I wouldn't let anyone vote on my rules text, even if it was sentences in a book. Saying that 4 sentences overrule 1 sentence is absurd in my mind, regardless of whatever logic principle---if a table's Judge has made up their mind on the issue, calling in Occam's Razor is only going to make them angry or at the least confuse them and not make them favorable to your case. Due to their nature as rules items, any one of the five can carry all the weight they need to overrule any amount of other text. These things are resolved through errata, official rulings, or in the lack of such, table variation. I agree with other posters. Take Druid 5 or don't plan on Wildshape as part of the build. That is the simplest solution. No one is suggesting that anyone argue the rule with the judge at a table regardless of how good the argument is. Unless, and only unless, he is committing a blatent rules violation. And even then it is usually best to not argue and take it to the senior DM if it is really important. Since this rule is far from clear, such would not be the case. I am not claiming to have a definitive argument here for Wildshape gained through Arcane Heirophant. My arguments mostly stemmed from claims that the opposition did have definitive arguments. Such is not the case.
trollbill 09-21-06, 10:51 AM	If you can attribute the likelihood of error, you can make the conclusion that four sentences are more powerful than one. If you can't, you can't. What sort of logic is that? The entire reason each sentence weighs as much as the other is the very fact that you have no idea what the likelihood of error is. Since the likelyhood is unknown for all, then the likelihood has the same weight for all. In other words, likelyhood of error has no bearing on any of this so those that are arguing that the other examples should be discounted because there are seperate, yet unconnected errors in them are wrong. Likelyhood of error is a null argument here, which means that in this area, all five sentences carry the same weight. Which again leads back to the 4 to 1 bit. And also, you can attribute the likelihood of error. Each sentence that you have has an actual error that can be quantified: Sentence 1: No errors other than being contradicted by the examples. Clearly for my side. Agreed. Sentence 2: However is not supposed to be used as Nevertheless according to Strunk and White, though you're assuming they did intend to use it that way. It could mean 'However, if you do' at which point it supports the first sentence. Assuming the writer is a professional, it should mean 'However, if you do' due to S&W. It is an error either way as it is not clear. Don't have the actual text in front of me right now so I cannot comment. Sentence 3: Druid 3/Wizard 3 not qualifying for the PrC. Clearly for your side. Agreed. Sentence 4: Rangers don't qualify for the PrC. Also, you're making the assumption that they're referring to people who are non-druids without wildshape when the sentence actually refers to non-druids. Other than the use of Ranger, it is possible that they meant people who got wild shape from some other source - or perhaps the writer had Wildshape Rangers from Unearthed Arcana on the brain as an example. Again, I don't have the actual text in front of me right now, but one has to ask why specific classes are mentioned as examples if there is no exception to the rule. And if the intent of the example is to make it clear that you can't get wild shape no matter what, why mention the obscure possibility of a Wildshape Ranger rather than the obvious possibility of a Druid? Example 1: This is most likely not from the same source - you want someone who is not the writer to check the PrC for clarity. If they have problems figuring something out, they can give back edits. This is problematic because of that - the person doing the example character clearly(given the number of errors) glossed over the paragraph and likely just looked at the example in the paragraph. We can throw it out. Since you have no evidence to support the contention that the example author glossed over the paragraph, it is no more likely this is what happened than he asked the text author for verification of the intent. So the example is not invalidated. And it at least demostrates that one gaming professional in the employ of Wizards interprets the intent as to give Druids wildshape through Arcane Heirophant levels.
Mommy was an Orc 09-21-06, 05:13 PM	What sort of logic is that? The entire reason each sentence weighs as much as the other is the very fact that you have no idea what the likelihood of error is. Since the likelyhood is unknown for all, then the likelihood has the same weight for all. That's not how logic works - you can decide that the likelihood is equal or you can decide that it is unknown. I don't think the likelihood is either equal or unknown and therefore I can weight the sentences. I may not know exactly what the precise odds of error are, but I know sample characters are often messed up, more so than paragraph text. Therefore I weight them less. As the example author was working from the incorrect paragraph, I can then put even less weight onto it as I can assign a high likelihood that he used the Druid 3/Wizard 3 part without reading the paragraph fully. You may not feel comfortable doing that yourself, but I've found that it significantly more often than not gives me the correct viewpoint when the writers comment about intent. Again, I don't have the actual text in front of me right now, but one has to ask why specific classes are mentioned as examples if there is no exception to the rule. And if the intent of the example is to make it clear that you can't get wild shape no matter what, why mention the obscure possibility of a Wildshape Ranger rather than the obvious possibility of a Druid? Well, by the same logic, one has to ask why the 1st sentence is in there if your assumption is correct - there is no need for it. I don't think they're referring to Ranger, I'm pointing it is equally likely they are referring to any non-druid PrC with Wildshape as a benefit, such as Abolisher. Why they chose to say Ranger/Wizard, isn't clear, but perhaps the writer uses Wildshape Rangers in his campaign and was thinking of them. By your logic, we don't know the likelihood, therefore my contention is equal to yours. Since you have no evidence to support the contention that the example author glossed over the paragraph, it is no more likely this is what happened than he asked the text author for verification of the intent. You want to say he glossed over it. Your argument depends on him glossing over it - if he read the 1st sentence, he should have been confused as to the author's intent and then said something. He clearly didn't.
trollbill 09-22-06, 10:13 AM	That's not how logic works - you can decide that the likelihood is equal or you can decide that it is unknown. I don't think the likelihood is either equal or unknown and therefore I can weight the sentences. I understand the reason why you may feel the first sentence may weigh more than any one given contradictory sentence, and I am not disagreeing with your reasons for this. But I still have a hard time believing a single sentence, no matter its location in the paragraph or lack of gramitical flaws can outweigh 4 other contradictory sentences combined. The logical odds that 4 mistakes were made instead of 1 make this too much of a leap of faith. It's not impossible, of course, just logically unlikely. The funny thing is that, regardless of original intent, if they ever do clear this up, I think it likely they will say Druids don't get Wild Shape from Arcane Heirophant just because by now they will have realized that Arcane Heirophant is an overpower PrC (not as bad as Wildrunner mind you) and nerfing it might not be a bad idea. I may not know exactly what the precise odds of error are, but I know sample characters are often messed up, more so than paragraph text. Therefore I weight them less. As the example author was working from the incorrect paragraph, I can then put even less weight onto it as I can assign a high likelihood that he used the Druid 3/Wizard 3 part without reading the paragraph fully. I will concede that example characters created by a 3rd party are more prone to error since they are not written by the person who wrote the rule. However, the example character is actually a legal 4/3 character. It is the character used in an example sentence that is the illegal 3/3. Since this is not a seperate character build, but rather simply part of an explanitory sentence, it was most likely written by the original author. Since I have some personal experience with both Wizard's authoring and editing procedures I consider the most likely scenario to be that the original requirements for Arcane Heirophant allowed you to be a 3/3 and the sentence was written with this assumpltion. But it was changed at a late date after it was deemed too powerful and the author or editor never corrected the sentence. Not that this really has anything to do with the other portion of it we are discussing. Well, by the same logic, one has to ask why the 1st sentence is in there if your assumption is correct - there is no need for it. I don't think they're referring to Ranger, I'm pointing it is equally likely they are referring to any non-druid PrC with Wildshape as a benefit, such as Abolisher. Why they chose to say Ranger/Wizard, isn't clear, but perhaps the writer uses Wildshape Rangers in his campaign and was thinking of them. By your logic, we don't know the likelihood, therefore my contention is equal to yours. I agree. Your contention is equal (even possibly superior) to any one of my other contentions. Where I disagree is that your contention is equal or superior to 4 of mine. You want to say he glossed over it. Your argument depends on him glossing over it - if he read the 1st sentence, he should have been confused as to the author's intent and then said something. He clearly didn't. Huh? I don't know why you think I said he glossed over it. That was your contention, not mine. The possible options, as I see them, are: 1) He glossed over it. 2) He didn't gloss over it. He studied the text carefully and reached the same intent conclusion I did. 3) He didn't gloss over it and asked the actual author for clarification. 4) He didn't gloss over it but the designers decided at the last minute the class needed nerfing and inserted the first sentence to nerf it without bothering to check to make sure there were no contradictions. 5) The example writer was part of the design team that may have flip flopped on this aspect during the design process, which may have left him with a false understanding of what the final decision was. 6) Any combination of the above. But without more information, I think it is impossible to accurately gauge the weight of likelihood of any given one of the above possibilties. Which makes it a mostly meaningless argument. Again, I agree that on a one-for-one basis, your arguments about the first sentence are logical. But, again, this is not a case of it being a one-for-one basis. It is a four-for-one basis, and this is where the logic faulters. This seems like a proverbial case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Mommy was an Orc 09-22-06, 11:35 AM	The funny thing is that, regardless of original intent, if they ever do clear this up, I think it likely they will say Druids don't get Wild Shape from Arcane Heirophant just because by now they will have realized that Arcane Heirophant is an overpower PrC (not as bad as Wildrunner mind you) and nerfing it might not be a bad idea. Honestly, it isn't that bad. I think as a whole, it depends on whether you're 'it doesn't say I can't' person or a 'it has to say you can' person and whether or not you think Mystic Theurges are overpowered. I think Mystic Theurges are pretty weak in LG and not to introduce more table variation into this, but a Companion Familiar is 'your Animal Companion' that 'gains many of the abilities that a famliar would normally possess.' To be specific, one thing it isn't is a familiar, it is an Animal Companion with some Familiar extras according to the text and those extras are listed. So no casting Augment/Enhance Familiar on it. Sure, you can cast buff spells that a Druid normally can't, but you could be casting those on the party fighters instead of your companion. Again, I agree that on a one-for-one basis, your arguments about the first sentence are logical. But, again, this is not a case of it being a one-for-one basis. It is a four-for-one basis, and this is where the logic faulters. This seems like a proverbial case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. From my point of view, you don't have four-for-one basis. You have a one-for-one and you haven't shown me anything that would make it four-for-one. And that's how you get table variation...
wooti 09-24-06, 09:58 AM	I considered a AH for LG and decided against it on the grounds that the rules were too unclear for me to have any idea what was happening from table to table. It wasn't however the wild shape rules, (I didn't care if I could wild shape or not) it was the rules over shared spells. There are unclearly writen and whats makes it worse is that wizards an article a while back of familars where they explained how shared spell works and made the whole issue so confusing that I've decided to avoid druids entirely. (basically they gave three rules on how to shared spells worked on different spells with out giving any rules on which spells fell under each of the three rules.)
Japangirl 09-26-06, 01:45 PM	I consider that the paragraph is clear in allowing druids to wildshape, even if they didn't have wildshape before going into the PrC. I will dissect the paragraph to tell people why I come to this conclusion. Wild Shape (Su): If you do not already possess the ability, you gain no new ability to wild shape. However, you add your arcane hierophant level to your druid level and gain the wild shape ability of a druid of the resulting level. For example, a character who is a druid 3/wizard 3/arcane hierophant 4 has the wild shape ability of a 7th-level druid. If you are not a druid, (for example, if you entered the class as a wizard/ranger), you do not gain the ability to wild shape. Sent 1: If you do not already possess the ability, you gain no new ability to wild shape. (Seems pretty clear and straightforward.) Sent 2: However, you add your arcane hierophant level to your druid level and gain the wild shape ability of a druid of the resulting level. (Ah, we see an exception to the otherwise hard-and-fast rule. You definitely only get wild shape if you are a druid. It's still unclear whether you had to have wild shape before or after going into Arcane Hierophant. The word "however" in the English language generally prefaces an exception to a rule, which is what we have here.) Sent 3: For example, a character who is a druid 3/wizard 3/arcane hierophant 4 has the wild shape ability of a 7th-level druid. (Clarification of sentence 2 here. It specifically states that you don't have to be able to wild shape to gain the ability when you hit effective druid level 5 (druid 3, AH 2) because you add the two. Sentence 2 is unclear, but sentence 3 clarifies and explains the grey area.) Sent 4: If you are not a druid, (for example, if you entered the class as a wizard/ranger), you do not gain the ability to wild shape. (Reinforcement of sentence 1 for those who may have become confused by the fact that druids get wild shape. You ONLY gain effective druid levels for the purpose of wildshaping if you had druid levels before going into arcane hierophant. You don't get those levels if you weren't a druid beforehand.)
pwilcox 09-26-06, 02:33 PM	Japangirl, the problem is that sentence 3 and 4's examples don't qualify for the PrC, so they have to be taken with a grain of salt. (Aside from the very-hard-to-read first 2 sentences. You don't gain? You do?) Mommy and Trollbill have already hashed out to a great extent the logical problems of the class description. There are a few things out there that aren't explicit in exactly what they do. (Read the feat Earth's Embrace, then ask 5 people what it does and get 5 different answers) The downside is that whatever the judge rules at the table is the way it stands. (At that table, at least) BTW- I've seen a few AH builds around, and read about more, and none of the ones I know about focus on wildshaping. Most of them focus on buffing the companion, so it's still perfectly viable.
Japangirl 09-29-06, 02:46 AM	While the wiz 3/druid 3 build doesn't qualify for the PrC (you have to be 4 in one or the other due to BAB requirements, for anyone who is wondering why), I think the admittedly flawed example still serves its purpose in explaining that one ability. I agree that the PrC is terribly worded in many places, but I still think that this one ability is fairly straightforward in its application. Obviously there is significant disagreement.
Mommy was an Orc 09-29-06, 08:41 AM	While the wiz 3/druid 3 build doesn't qualify for the PrC (you have to be 4 in one or the other due to BAB requirements, for anyone who is wondering why), I think the admittedly flawed example still serves its purpose in explaining that one ability. I agree that the PrC is terribly worded in many places, but I still think that this one ability is fairly straightforward in its application. Obviously there is significant disagreement. The problem with using the flawed example is that the result of doing that is the 1st sentence has no application - it doesn't apply to anyone. Should you toss out the 1st sentence or the clearly illegal examples? If you toss one or the other, everything makes sense. The word "however" in the English language generally prefaces an exception to a rule, which is what we have here.) "However" is not a strong word and you are not supposed to use it in such a manner. The logical meaning here is "However, if you do have the ability to wild shape", not "However, ignore what I just said." It is only the again illegal examples which make one think that the logical meaning should not be used.
trollbill 09-29-06, 09:58 AM	It is only the again illegal examples which make one think that the logical meaning should not be used. And, again, I contend that this statement is completely illogical. There is no logical reason to believe that just because one portion of a sentence is flawed, that there is a greater probability that any other part of it is. Especially when one is making a comparison between two sentences written by the same author. A single author does not save up all of his mistakes to put them in a single sentence, nor is he more likely to make a mistake in the second part of a sentence just because he made a mistake in the first part of that sentence. While the example character is questionable, I find it highly unlikely that the authors of the first and last sentence in the paragraph are different people. All the 3/3 mistake means is that the author that wrote this sentence may make mistakes and that any sentence by this author is more suspect than from authors not known to make mistakes. But this statement of credibility applies to all sentences by that author, including the first one, not just the one he has a mistake in already.
Mommy was an Orc 09-29-06, 10:44 AM	While the example character is questionable, I find it highly unlikely that the authors of the first and last sentence in the paragraph are different people. . There's really no basis for that assumption. Suppose an editor was trying to tone down the power of Arcane Hierophant, put the 1st sentence in and However as a limit and forgot to edit the examples to match. If he edits the examples to match the 1st sentence, then the paragraph makes perfect sense from my viewpoint. I find it a lot more probable that a basic edit error happened than we're supposed to ignore the 1st sentence of a paragraph. Stuff like that goes on at WotC all the time - The Complete Warrior Invisible Blade as an example has ranged prereqs from the original Melee/Ranged 10 level Invisible Blade PrC, yet has no abilities directly intended to be used at Range.
trollbill 09-29-06, 11:48 AM	There's really no basis for that assumption. Suppose an editor was trying to tone down the power of Arcane Hierophant, put the 1st sentence in and However as a limit and forgot to edit the examples to match. If he edits the examples to match the 1st sentence, then the paragraph makes perfect sense from my viewpoint. I find it a lot more probable that a basic edit error happened than we're supposed to ignore the 1st sentence of a paragraph. Stuff like that goes on at WotC all the time - The Complete Warrior Invisible Blade as an example has ranged prereqs from the original Melee/Ranged 10 level Invisible Blade PrC, yet has no abilities directly intended to be used at Range. You are correct that this is a possibility (and one that isn't even far fetched). But I am talking probability here. Do you really think it more likely that this is what happened rather than the original author wrote both sentences? And, yes, it is a basic edit error. The question is, is a basic edit error more likely to occur in one sentence, or in 4? And, yes, there is a basis for the assumption. I believe it should be obvious that when viewing any one give paragraph of any one given document, it is more likely that one author wrote the entire paragraph than multiple authors. If you have some evidence that would contradict this generalization, be my guest, but my writing and editing experience says any given paragraph is less likely to be tampered with than it is to not be tampered with (unless you have a really bad writer).
JamesMaissen 09-29-06, 11:53 AM	I find it a lot more probable that a basic edit error happened than we're supposed to ignore the 1st sentence of a paragraph. Somehow I think the greatest chance lies simply with the BAB requirement for the AH being added later in the process than anything else or was simply glossed over rather than the sentence was retained instead of removed, let alone written in error to begin with... I mean it's one thing to not think of the BAB requirement, it's quite another to mistake what the sentences after the first one mean, right? Sure the first sentence could read differently. But consider how you would phrase it to make it agree with the rest of the paragraph. It takes a little convolutions there and isn't succint. Now let's consider that to WOTC writing rules and then contradicting/making them incorrect is not strange, in fact that's their style of writing more than anything else. They give an absolute, then contradict themselves with follow up 'explainations' and 'exceptions'. Bottomline, are you going to tell a character that comes to your table that his character is invalid because it's not clear to you what was meant by this section in the AH section? How is such a character supposed to appeal this and have such a ruling maintained? Seeing as it's not game breaking to allow, what's the point of doing so? If it's something that really bothers you then send in a question to WOTC on what the heck they mean by this and ask them to throw it into the errata to clarify it when you convince them how selfcontradicting it is. -James
Mommy was an Orc 09-29-06, 01:36 PM	Bottomline, are you going to tell a character that comes to your table that his character is invalid because it's not clear to you what was meant by this section in the AH section? -James Not 100% certain what you're asking here, but I'd tell them they can't use Wildshape or any feats that require it.
trollbill 09-29-06, 01:57 PM	Not 100% certain what you're asking here, but I'd tell them they can't use Wildshape or any feats that require it. What he is saying is that, since neither side of the argument can be proven conclusively, why is it necessary to err against the player rather than for them? Why shouldn't the player be given the benefit of the doubt? Do you trust them so little? If you rule against the player on this, you are obviously hurting the player. But is ruling for him hurting everyone else? Does it so overpower his character that it will decrease everyone else's enjoyment? If not, why penalize the player? As DM's we realize it is a player's habit to push the boundaries of their characters to test their limits. Changing DMs regurlarly just compounds this. So we do have to enforce clear limits. But when the limits aren't clear, too frequently we err on the side of caution and interpret the rules in a manner that penalizes the player. Its the easy answer many of us fall back on because its much harder to 'break' the game by default ruling against the players, but that doesn't always make it the best choice. If you are looking at something as major as invalidating a good deal of a character build, perhaps a more careful look at the advantages and disadvantages of the ruling is in order.
Mommy was an Orc 09-29-06, 04:01 PM	If you rule against the player on this, you are obviously hurting the player. But is ruling for him hurting everyone else? Does it so overpower his character that it will decrease everyone else's enjoyment? If not, why penalize the player? I'm not penalizing the player - I'm saying I don't think his build works the way he thinks it does, and at my table, here are the consequences of that. I like when DMs make consistent, fast, understandable rulings, even if those rulings are ones that hurt my character - it isn't personal when I rule for or against a player. I'll try to rule the same way every time. Let's be clear here - I can't prove anything. I still think I'm right and that you're wrong. More than enough so to have a good comfort level with my decision.
pwilcox 09-29-06, 09:09 PM	Let's be clear here - I can't prove anything. I still think I'm right and that you're wrong. More than enough so to have a good comfort level with my decision. And I think that sorta sums up the problem here - since the rules text doesn't say conclusively one way or the other(or rather it says both), it's up to the judge to determine if AH grants wildshape based on the letter & spirit of the rules. Each individual judge will have their own opinion on it, and the RPGA rules back him up whichever way he sees it. Why this hasn't been cleared up in an errata or an FAQ is completely beyond me; for now, I personally think that AH grants the ability, but I can't prove it. So if I sit down at Mommy's table and it's ruled that I don't have it, I'll accept that.
JamesMaissen 09-30-06, 12:29 AM	Not 100% certain what you're asking here, but I'd tell them they can't use Wildshape or any feats that require it. But if it were a wildshape feat, they couldn't even HAVE the feat as you rule it.. making the character not valid. Thus you wouldn't be able to let them play, would you? And how are they to fix it.. say contacting a triad? What if the triad agrees with the player? And I think if something like that is causing you enough problems that you're willing to do that then you should take it to wotc to fix and argue it with them. -James
Mommy was an Orc 09-30-06, 12:58 AM	Or as I said, I can just rule they're not allowed to use Wildshape or any related abilities. And c'mon, they've yet to correct Seeker of the Misty Isle, Rainbow Servant or Rapid Spell, all known problem areas in Complete Divine. By the time they issue a correction on Arcane Hierophant, it is likely because the set of builder books for 4.0 is coming out. But if it were a wildshape feat, they couldn't even HAVE the feat as you rule it.. making the character not valid. Thus you wouldn't be able to let them play, would you? And how are they to fix it.. say contacting a triad? What if the triad agrees with the player? And I think if something like that is causing you enough problems that you're willing to do that then you should take it to wotc to fix and argue it with them. -James
JamesMaissen 10-01-06, 09:17 AM	Or as I said, I can just rule they're not allowed to use Wildshape or any related abilities. . Which would make them not a legal character should they have a feat requiring the ability to wildshape. Right? Which would then mean what? -James
Mommy was an Orc 10-01-06, 09:35 AM	That they then don't get to use the feat at my table... Which would make them not a legal character should they have a feat requiring the ability to wildshape. Right? Which would then mean what? -James
Iswald 10-01-06, 11:26 PM	Sentence 4: Rangers don't qualify for the PrC. Also, you're making the assumption that they're referring to people who are non-druids without wildshape when the sentence actually refers to non-druids. Other than the use of Ranger, it is possible that they meant people who got wild shape from some other source - or perhaps the writer had Wildshape Rangers from Unearthed Arcana on the brain as an example. This is one possibility. WotC authors and editors see more classes and PrCs than we do and may err based on confusing what each class has. My personal guess is that they confused trackless step with woodland stride. The question of whether or not you need 5 levels of druid to improve your wildshape ability has been presented often enough to WotC that they are aware of the problem, and clearly don't care enough to provide an answer in an errata.
trollbill 10-02-06, 10:20 AM	I'm not penalizing the player - I'm saying I don't think his build works the way he thinks it does, and at my table, here are the consequences of that. I like when DMs make consistent, fast, understandable rulings, even if those rulings are ones that hurt my character - it isn't personal when I rule for or against a player. I'll try to rule the same way every time. I agree that consistancy is very important and I am not saying you should change your ruling on a case by case basis. What I am trying to say is that maybe you should re-evaluate your criteria for your ruling. Currently, you are basing your ruling on your own personal logic and game knowledge to come up with what you think the rule was actually supposed to mean. Which is fine, and within your perogative as a DM. But what if we look at it from a different viewpoint. What if we look at the ramifications of the ruling rather than the logic? If you rule pro-wildshape the ramifications are that no players will ever have illegal builds based on this particular rule. The downside might be that they are more powerful. If that power change is significant, then it may outweigh the benefit, but only if you believe it to be significant. If you rule anti-wildshape the ramifications are that the player would not be overpowered (if you felt that it was). But the downside is that some players may have illegal builds based on this particular rule. So if you base your ruling on what is best for the game, the players and the overall fun of LG, rather than personal rules interpretation, shouldn't you err on the side of pro-wildshape (unless you actually do believe it overpowers the character)? That they then don't get to use the feat at my table... And if they had levels of Warshaper or Nature's Warrior or Bearwarrior because the last 20 DMs they played under didn't rule the same way you did? And something else is starting to bother me. We all are having this discussion here so we know the problem is contested. But what do you do with those people who make the build in good faith who don't know about it? What if they even recognize it isn't clear, write Wizards customer services and get told the Wild Shape is legal? Yes, I know people have gotten both answers from CS and they are known to make mistakes. But that's not the point. The individual made a good faith effort to get documentation on this, and has in fact gotten documentation. It doesn't matter if the documentation may be incorrect, they now have documentation and unless you, as a DM, have documentation to the contrary, on hand at the event, I don't see how you can legally deny this build.
Iswald 10-02-06, 10:48 AM	It doesn't matter if the documentation may be incorrect, they now have documentation and unless you, as a DM, have documentation to the contrary, on hand at the event, I don't see how you can legally deny this build. Players have to bring RW to the table to play an AH. The description of AH in RW has documentation enough to disallow wild shaping without five levels of druid.
trollbill 10-02-06, 11:04 AM	Players have to bring RW to the table to play an AH. The description of AH in RW has documentation enough to disallow wild shaping without five levels of druid. Unless I missed something (which is possible but if I did please point me to where is says I am wrong), responses from Wizards customer service, no matter how inconsistant, are official rulings with as much legality as an eratta or FAQ. So what you are suggesting is that a DM could claim a Scout can't have Disable Device as a class skill even though the Complete Adventurer eratta says it is, because it doesn't say it in the Complete Adventurer. That is a clear violation of the RPGA rules that state you must follow the latest official 3.5 rules when you DM. Now, like I said, if the DM actually had a response from Customer Service that was dated after the player's response, and contradicted the player's response, it becomes an issue of interpretation again. But, again, is such effort to enforce an interpretation of a rule that does little to no harm if you don't enforce it (but may cause problems if you do) really worth the effort for a DM to do? How does it benefit the game?
Iswald 10-02-06, 11:43 AM	Unless I missed something (which is possible but if I did please point me to where is says I am wrong), responses from Wizards customer service, no matter how inconsistant, are official rulings with as much legality as an eratta or FAQ. So what you are suggesting is that a DM could claim a Scout can't have Disable Device as a class skill even though the Complete Adventurer eratta says it is, because it doesn't say it in the Complete Adventurer. That is a clear violation of the RPGA rules that state you must follow the latest official 3.5 rules when you DM. They are simply guidelines that DMs may use when no clear answer appears in the rules. They are not an official source of rules per se. Erratas are official changes to the rules. But, a DM who is unaware of the errata may rule that scouts don't get disable device as a class skill if the player hasn't brought a copy of the errata along. Even if you're considering the errata for the PHB, if you don't have a copy on hand to reference, it's rather difficult to pull rules from it to judge a mod. So, I wouldn't mind if a DM ignored the changes from the PHB errata or any other rule source if it wasn't available to look up things.
trollbill 10-02-06, 12:21 PM	Erratas are official changes to the rules. But, a DM who is unaware of the errata may rule that scouts don't get disable device as a class skill if the player hasn't brought a copy of the errata along. Even if you're considering the errata for the PHB, if you don't have a copy on hand to reference, it's rather difficult to pull rules from it to judge a mod. So, I wouldn't mind if a DM ignored the changes from the PHB errata or any other rule source if it wasn't available to look up things. Not arguing that. My comments were only applicable if the player had documentation, and whether the response from CS was sufficient documentation (barring no other clarification) that the DM has no right to rule against it. Even if you claim he does have a right, if the player, in good faith, went to this effort to verify legality, should a DM still deny them this when they, themselves, have no clear documentation to dispute it. (Arguable rules in RW are not clear documentation disputing it. The whole point here is when the matter isn't clear within the rules.) You've all stated you reasons why a DM can rule against Wild Shape gained from AH. But now I'd like to see the reasons why a DM should rule against Wild Shape gained from AH? How does the game benefit?
chesspiece 10-02-06, 02:42 PM	My comments were only applicable if the player had documentation, and whether the response from CS was sufficient documentation (barring no other clarification) that the DM has no right to rule against it. In the LGCS, first 2 Q&As in Chapter 9 under Campaign Rules. "use the Knowledge Base customer service... the Knowledge Base is considered a guideline for play." Since it's only a guideline, Judges are not compelled to follow it. Which is a good thing IMHO since CS still contradicts themselves (although FAR less that they used to). Your other question is a question of the Judge's conscience & conviction (sympathy vs consistency) so you have to expect that to vary. If I told a regular Player my thoughts and (s)he built such a PC, I'd rule against them. If a Player was visiting from out of town for a weekend and didn't have another eligible PC, I'd cut them some slack. OTOH, if it were a clearer case, I wouldn't bend. That's just me - I love the rules, but I'm all about the playing to have fun...
trollbill 10-02-06, 03:46 PM	In the LGCS, first 2 Q&As in Chapter 9 under Campaign Rules. "use the Knowledge Base customer service... the Knowledge Base is considered a guideline for play." Since it's only a guideline, Judges are not compelled to follow it. Which is a good thing IMHO since CS still contradicts themselves (although FAR less that they used to). Ah, thank you for finding that. I will discontinue that line of thought then. Your other question is a question of the Judge's conscience & conviction (sympathy vs consistency) so you have to expect that to vary. If I told a regular Player my thoughts and (s)he built such a PC, I'd rule against them. If a Player was visiting from out of town for a weekend and didn't have another eligible PC, I'd cut them some slack. OTOH, if it were a clearer case, I wouldn't bend. That's just me - I love the rules, but I'm all about the playing to have fun... Seems reasonable and a final sentiment I hope everyone here can agree on.
Mommy was an Orc 10-02-06, 09:38 PM	If you rule pro-wildshape the ramifications are that no players will ever have illegal builds based on this particular rule. The downside might be that they are more powerful. If that power change is significant, then it may outweigh the benefit, but only if you believe it to be significant. That's a pro-wildshape point of view. There's the significant downside that those players who follow the rules conservatively and take Druid 5 are being unfairly penalized. So if you base your ruling on what is best for the game, the players and the overall fun of LG, rather than personal rules interpretation, shouldn't you err on the side of pro-wildshape (unless you actually do believe it overpowers the character)? No, I believe I should judge the rules as written and in the spirit of how they're written. The power level is absolutely irrelevant. I don't think AH is supposed to have Wild Shape unless it has Druid 5, therefore I rule they don't when I'm judge. Right or wrong, there's now a player with real incentive to get WotC to make things clear and that's good for LG. And if they had levels of Warshaper or Nature's Warrior or Bearwarrior because the last 20 DMs they played under didn't rule the same way you did? Yes, he can't use it. Honestly, I think that's a net benefit for tables to rule that way if someone is playing that horrible of a build. And most of the time, when a player says, "Well, the last 20 DMs let me do it." they mean, "I didn't explain that the rules weren't clear, so the last 20 DMs believed me when I said I did X."
TWG_Prometheus 10-03-06, 09:35 AM	I don't see that a Judge should consider a player's previous experience with other Judges as having any weight at all. This isn't a legal court. Players with questionable builds are generally trying to cheese the system. Even if they aren't and they made an honest mistake, an cheese build should be able to survive if their cheese isn't working. All characters should have a backup plan, and they are no exception. If the player is from another area and doesn't have another character with them, they can play the character under your ruling. You ARE the Judge. Advise them to pick up what their character needs to resolve the matter so that they don't have further problems in the future. In the case of Arcane Heirophant, a 5th level of an overpowered base class never killed anyone to take.
trollbill 10-03-06, 12:03 PM	That's a pro-wildshape point of view. There's the significant downside that those players who follow the rules conservatively and take Druid 5 are being unfairly penalized. Either way you get unfairness. So the best way to rule is to compare who is treated more unfairly. Which is more unfair; having to play a character that may be slightly less powerful than he could be or not being able to play at all? No, I believe I should judge the rules as written and in the spirit of how they're written. The power level is absolutely irrelevant. I don't think AH is supposed to have Wild Shape unless it has Druid 5, therefore I rule they don't when I'm judge. The rules also say the game is supposed to be about fun. If you send someone packing who spent good money to go to your mini-con because of a personal ruling on an unclear rule, you are grossly violating the concept of fun. It would be one thing if the rules on the issue were clear. But they aren't. Right or wrong, there's now a player with real incentive to get WotC to make things clear and that's good for LG. Well, I certainly agree with you that the ultimate responsibility for this lies with Wizards. But that doesn't mean we have to compound the problem with rigid, unsympathetic rulings. Yes, he can't use it. Honestly, I think that's a net benefit for tables to rule that way if someone is playing that horrible of a build. What is so horrible about the build? You yourself said that as long as it is legal, it should be allowed. And you can't prove it's an illegal build. And most of the time, when a player says, "Well, the last 20 DMs let me do it." they mean, "I didn't explain that the rules weren't clear, so the last 20 DMs believed me when I said I did X." Again with the assumption that the player must be trying to get away with something. Promethius is right. This isn't a court of law. In a court of law, the player would be pressumed innocent until proven otherwise. Clearly that is not the case here.
trollbill 10-03-06, 12:14 PM	In the case of Arcane Heirophant, a 5th level of an overpowered base class never killed anyone to take. When I first read the rule for Arcane Heirophant, it was clear to me when I read them that the intent was to give AH's the ability to gain Wild Shape from druid. Albeit I only read it a couple of times and didn't study it in depth, but I did not concieve that this was even questionable until the matter was brought up on this thread. So if I had never posted this thread, I would have never even had a clue that I should take a 5th level of druid just to be safe. My rules knowledge is pretty high. If I didn't have a clue before posting here, I can only image the number of other LG players who don't have a clue and haven't read this post (or similar ones). So I think it unreasonable to expect people to make this assumption.
Mommy was an Orc 10-03-06, 02:01 PM	Either way you get unfairness. So the best way to rule is to compare who is treated more unfairly. Which is more unfair; having to play a character that may be slightly less powerful than he could be or not being able to play at all? You're answering my argument for me here. I'm not telling the player he can't play, I'm telling him he's slightly less powerful than he could be. If he chooses not to play, that's his decision. The loss of Wildshape might be painful, but it isn't going to cripple an Arcane Hierophant. What is so horrible about the build? You yourself said that as long as it is legal, it should be allowed. And you can't prove it's an illegal build. You're sacrificing 2 caster levels, companion familiar advancement, and possibly even Wildshape for the ability to be marginally better at melee while wildshaped into an animal? After sacrificing at least 3 levels of Wildshape to enter AH in the first place? Losing at least 4 caster levels from both classes, so you can't even cast spells of (APL/2)-1? You have to ask?
trollbill 10-03-06, 02:11 PM	You're answering my argument for me here. I'm not telling the player he can't play, I'm telling him he's slightly less powerful than he could be. If he chooses not to play, that's his decision. The loss of Wildshape might be painful, but it isn't going to cripple an Arcane Hierophant. I was refering to my portion of the argument of when someone cannot easily modify their build. Losing an ability to use a feat is one thing. But what do you do when they have levels in a class that requires wild shape, or a PrC that requires feat that requires wild shape. What do you do then? Do you simply say, 'too bad, you should have known better'? You're sacrificing 2 caster levels, companion familiar advancement, and possibly even Wildshape for the ability to be marginally better at melee while wildshaped into an animal? After sacrificing at least 3 levels of Wildshape to enter AH in the first place? Losing at least 4 caster levels from both classes, so you can't even cast spells of (APL/2)-1? You have to ask? Regardless of how crappy their build may or may not be, I don't see as the crappiness of it has any bearing on their right to play it.
Mommy was an Orc 10-03-06, 03:20 PM	I was refering to my portion of the argument of when someone cannot easily modify their build. Losing an ability to use a feat is one thing. But what do you do when they have levels in a class that requires wild shape, or a PrC that requires feat that requires wild shape. What do you do then? Do you simply say, 'too bad, you should have known better'? They don't qualify for the PrC, so they only get BAB, skill points, and saves. Yes that sucks. As they're probably used to not doing very much anyway except when playing down 2, it isn't a big problem. Regardless of how crappy their build may or may not be, I don't see as the crappiness of it has any bearing on their right to play it. I've yet to say they can't play their character. I'm simply noting that by making the ruling, the table as a whole likely benefits from the decision, even if they stay.
Japangirl 10-03-06, 06:20 PM	Why do people think druids are so overpowered as a base class? I'd say barbarians, wizards, and rogues are overall as powerful or more powerful if played straight up. Sure, druids get spell casting, but so do sorcerors and wizards, and overall sorc/wiz spells are as powerful or more so. Cleric spells are amazingly powerful and they can spontaneously heal as well. Druids can wildshape . . . it's an hour per level, limited uses per day, and takes a feat to be able to cast spells while shapeshifted. If a druid spends a lot of feats and money (and loses caster levels), they can become a very effective tank or melee damage dealer. Or a druid can take feats to be an effective spellcaster, but their animal form is then not very useful or powerful. Druids can use wildshape as an escape mechanism: I'd take dimension door or teleport over turning into a bird, as they are overall far more reliable. A rogue or monk's tumble skill does much the same thing as turning into a bird, so druids are not uniquely better at running away. In addition, while wildshaping, a druid loses item slots. They can use only a head slot, back slot, and amulet slot. So while a druid may be able to focus on those and spend a lot of money on them, they give up a lot of other powerful slots to work with. Druids can summon animals. So can clerics and wizards and sorcerors, and while druids have powerful summons so do clerics. Clerical summons also have the celestial template, which means they get past DR/magic unlike druid summons. Druids have an animal companion, which is more powerful than a ranger companion and of a different utility than an arcane caster's familiar. The familiar gives a skill or save bonus and can also deliver touch attacks for the wizard. An animal companion can be a good tank/damage dealer at low levels, but at high levels is fairly useless except as a free mount. If a druid puts a lot of feats and money into it, the animal companion can become a good tank/damage dealer. Druids can do many things, but they have to choose between their options. A druid cannot be an amazing spellcaster, tank, melee damage, and animal companion druid all at the same time. Sure, druids are powerful. But so are the vast majority of base classes. Druids are not overpowered.
Mommy was an Orc 10-04-06, 09:57 AM	Why do people think druids are so overpowered as a base class? I'd say barbarians, wizards, and rogues are overall as powerful or more powerful if played straight up. Sure, druids get spell casting, but so do sorcerors and wizards, and overall sorc/wiz spells are as powerful or more so. Cleric spells are amazingly powerful and they can spontaneously heal as well. There's a few variables that are player and region dependent: You can dump physical stats - a Druid who starts with say a 10 Con, 16 Int, and 18 Wis is perfectly viable. Having an 18 casting stat and 8 skill points per level is phenomenally useful. Now normally, that 8 Str/Dex/10 Con would be a horrible limitation - but once you hit 7th level, you can essentially be Wildshaped all day if you like. Yes, it is cheesy, but what's stopping a player from doing that? How often are you required to heal in combat? The major balancing factor on Clerics and Druids is that it is assumed that they spend about half their spells healing the party from various problems. If they don't have to do that, their power goes way up. It isn't hard to take Craft Wondrous, make about 10 Pearls of Power, and use that to cast Lesser Vigor outside of combat basically at will. That's 165 hp of healing available to the party at level 5-6 or so. Knowledge of wacky spells and how to best exploit Wildshape and their animal companion. One of the major limitations on Druids is the player doesn't know what their capabilities are. Drop a Summon Nature's Ally on the enemy, then follow it up with Nature's Favor(swift action) and Animal Growth(on your animal companion and the Summon'd Ally). Use Rods of Lesser Extend Spells, mithril chain shirt barding on your animal companion, etc... A Huge Polar Bear with a 37 Strength(high 20s Grapple Check) at APL 10 is not a pleasant thing to have to deal with and that's potentially possible at Druid 9.
JamesMaissen 10-06-06, 07:34 AM	They don't qualify for the PrC, so they only get BAB, skill points, and saves. Yes that sucks. As they're probably used to not doing very much anyway except when playing down 2, it isn't a big problem. I've yet to say they can't play their character. I'm simply noting that by making the ruling, the table as a whole likely benefits from the decision, even if they stay. But you SHOULD be saying that they cannot play their character via your ruling. They haven't LOST the ability to wildshape.. you would be claiming that they never HAD the ability... Your ruling is grey at best and only serves to increase variation in a place where a player would have no recourse to correct other than to redesign his character to suit your opinions that will disappear as soon as he changes tables. That's pretty bad. What happens as a result, people stay away from classes that they would like to play trying to avoid inevitable character destroying variation. But with attitudes like this they become more and more common. It's one thing when someone is grossly missrepresenting what they can do and the like, but this is not the case. There are limits, but drawing them here is a bad thing to do for everyone involved. Imagine if you sat down at a table to play with your character and the judge said I believe this ruling is really like that.. so this makes your character invalid. However you may not be allowed to alter your character into a valid one as it may already be considered valid... What does that serve anyone??? -James
Mommy was an Orc 10-06-06, 10:12 AM	There are lots of variations that do that. The Quicken Spell+Rapid Spell problem - should a Spiked Chain Gish who wants to Quicken Enlarge Person be forced to take Rapid Spell - despite it having little practical value to a Gish outside of the table variation(which the writer of PHB has called bizarre) And that affects characters where they're likely to actually exist. I'm not going to change my ruling for good reason on actual characters because some theorectical character might have issues. And even if someone does make up a character like this, I view it as a net benefit to the table to make the ruling anyway. As the odds of a TPK just went down, no matter what the player does. Your ruling is grey at best and only serves to increase variation in a place where a player would have no recourse to correct other than to redesign his character to suit your opinions that will disappear as soon as he changes tables. What does that serve anyone??? -James
Japangirl 10-06-06, 03:52 PM	There's a few variables that are player and region dependent: You can dump physical stats - a Druid who starts with say a 10 Con, 16 Int, and 18 Wis is perfectly viable. Having an 18 casting stat and 8 skill points per level is phenomenally useful. Now normally, that 8 Str/Dex/10 Con would be a horrible limitation - but once you hit 7th level, you can essentially be Wildshaped all day if you like. Yes, it is cheesy, but what's stopping a player from doing that? Nothing, except for having to survive to level 7. An 8 Str, 8 Dex, 10 Con druid is most likely going to die a lot of the time. Also, that kind of druid is uniquely hosed by Beholders (AMF anyone? Oh look, no more wildshape for YOU!) and really any AMF. Yes, all casters are hosed in AMFs . . . but most casters have more than 10 Con to make up for that. How often are you required to heal in combat? The major balancing factor on Clerics and Druids is that it is assumed that they spend about half their spells healing the party from various problems. If they don't have to do that, their power goes way up. It isn't hard to take Craft Wondrous, make about 10 Pearls of Power, and use that to cast Lesser Vigor outside of combat basically at will. That's 165 hp of healing available to the party at level 5-6 or so. Granted. Clerics can do it too, as you said. And this makes druids uniquely overpowered why? Clerics are more powerful spellcasters because they don't have to memorize their healing but can spontaneously cast it. Thus, they memorize Lesser Vigors and other stuff that can become Cure Light Wounds, and Pearl of Power back the other stuff. Druids have to memorize the CLW and the Lesser Vigors. No, I am not saying clerics are overpowered. I am saying druids are not. And a druid who focuses on wildshaping will not have full caster level, most likely (neither Nature's Warrior nor Warshaper have any caster levels). Knowledge of wacky spells and how to best exploit Wildshape and their animal companion. One of the major limitations on Druids is the player doesn't know what their capabilities are. Drop a Summon Nature's Ally on the enemy, then follow it up with Nature's Favor(swift action) and Animal Growth(on your animal companion and the Summon'd Ally). Use Rods of Lesser Extend Spells, mithril chain shirt barding on your animal companion, etc... Agreed, druids can do really cool stuff. Full round casting at the beginning of combat, then a second round to buff up the two animals. Not a terribly long time, but also not a short time either. Two buffing rounds, effectively, in which time clerics and wizards can also do some pretty crazy buffing things. Again, the animal companion and summoned animal can not get through any DR but damage type (bites are considered bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing), which many things have starting at APL 4 and almost everything has by APL 8. They cannot get through hardness. They are situationally useful, just like every other class. I never said druids were weak, because they aren't. But they aren't overpowered, either. A Huge Polar Bear with a 37 Strength(high 20s Grapple Check) at APL 10 is not a pleasant thing to have to deal with and that's potentially possible at Druid 9. At APL 8, I fought two Huge Otyughs, both with grapple checks in the low to mid-twenties. They have three attacks a round, improved grab, 20 foot reach, and constrict. They live in an environment which precludes 5-foot steps. How exactly is a Huge Polar Bear at APL 10 unbalanced? Druids have to choose what they will be good at. Will they be a caster/summoner with base wild shaping, or will they focus on their animal forms at the cost of casting? Will they expend feats to improve their animal companions, or to be able to cast in animal form, or to improve their summons? They can't do all of them, but they can do one or two of them very well. People see druids who have chosen different paths and assume all druids can do all those things, and that simply is not true. I will reiterate: druids are powerful. They are not overpowered. And because I feel a lot of the arguments against AH giving the wild shape ability are based on this misconception, I am writing this ridiculously long post here.
Namarus 10-06-06, 05:34 PM	I view it as a net benefit to the table to make the ruling anyway. Exactly how do you figure that out? A character losing his abilities due to a dubious ruling in a grey area does not benefit the table at all. It is just a GM being a ........ If I play my Arcane Heirophant at a table, I expect to be able to use ALL of my abilities. The spirit of the rules as far as I see it indicate that an Arcane Heirophant should have the wildshape ability if he has 4 levels of druid. Yes, I have bugged customer service to sort this out, as I have also asked the Circle to dispell the confusion regarding it. With nothing forth coming. I would however point out that the Arcane Heirophant build on page 112 is a legal build for an Arcane Heirophant. It does not have 5 levels of druid only 4, with 3 levels of wizard. It has the wild shape ability. So since your arguements are based on a faulty build example early on in the Chapter. The fact that there is a correct build should indicate that it should have the ability.
Mommy was an Orc 10-06-06, 05:50 PM	Nothing, except for having to survive to level 7. An 8 Str, 8 Dex, 10 Con druid is most likely going to die a lot of the time. Also, that kind of druid is uniquely hosed by Beholders (AMF anyone? Oh look, no more wildshape for YOU!) and really any AMF. Yes, all casters are hosed in AMFs . . . but most casters have more than 10 Con to make up for that. At which point that Druid has an animal companion and still has roughly the hit points of a Wizard with a 14 Con. Granted. Clerics can do it too, as you said. And this makes druids uniquely overpowered why? Clerics are more powerful spellcasters because they don't have to memorize their healing but can spontaneously cast it. Thus, they memorize Lesser Vigors and other stuff that can become Cure Light Wounds, and Pearl of Power back the other stuff. Druids have to memorize the CLW and the Lesser Vigors. Actually, no they don't. That's the basic assumption that a lot of players make - that the Druid is memorizing a bunch of healing spells. When you don't do that, the power goes up. Agreed, druids can do really cool stuff. Full round casting at the beginning of combat, then a second round to buff up the two animals. Not a terribly long time, but also not a short time either. Two buffing rounds, effectively, in which time clerics and wizards can also do some pretty crazy buffing things. Except this can easily happen before the combat starts. At APL 8, I fought two Huge Otyughs, both with grapple checks in the low to mid-twenties. They have three attacks a round, improved grab, 20 foot reach, and constrict. They live in an environment which precludes 5-foot steps. How exactly is a Huge Polar Bear at APL 10 unbalanced? It isn't the entire encounter. That Otyugh should be low 20s at best, the Polar Bear I believe is +29. And because I feel a lot of the arguments against AH giving the wild shape ability are based on this misconception, I am writing this ridiculously long post here. Actually, I think AH is generally underpowered compared to any pure caster build. With or without Wildshape. Especially when down a minimum of 3 levels on Wildshape if they start doing things to enhance Wildshape via Warshaper/Nature's Warrior. There's a narrow range of levels where they're not too bad, but 5-7 levels out of 15 isn't great, especially when they're not the middle levels. Just because something is underpowered, it doesn't mean you give it something that rules say it shouldn't get.
Mommy was an Orc 10-07-06, 03:54 PM	Exactly how do you figure that out? A character losing his abilities due to a dubious ruling in a grey area does not benefit the table at all. In general, no. This is an exception. The character is not good at melee. They've decided to sacrifice 2 caster levels, their companion familiar, and for that matter, Wildshape progression, to be marginally better at melee with Wildshape. They've done this by taking Warshaper/Nature's Warrior after Arcane Hierophant. They're making a strong argument that they're an incompetent player who is desiring to do something tactically stupid(go into melee). Not only does ruling Wildshape not work for them stop them from going into melee, but it also focuses their spell choices on spells that will benefit the party rather than make them slightly better at melee.
Japangirl 10-07-06, 07:58 PM	A base animal companion (which has lost a huge amount of druid progression) isn't a very useful animal overall, unless used as a beefy mount. Tanking physical stats for a wildshape build is one option for a druid, but doing that also tanks their companion and their casting. It's a choice that can be made, but it doesn't make druids overpowered that they can choose to focus on one of their special abilities to the detriment of their other abilities. A druid's power goes up if they don't memorize healing, as you said. However, clerics almost never memorize healing. My point was that both can Pearl of Power back their spells, but a cleric pearling back a CLW gets a utility/damage spell back while a druid who happened to cast that spell gets her CLW back. However, with a caster build wildshape (and animal compation) are only so-so while the person is a primary caster. Wildshape at that point becomes an escape button inferior to Dim Door (wiz/sorc), Teleport (wiz/sorc), and Word of Recall (cleric), not a melee combat beatstick. Summons and Nature's Favor both only last rounds. They can't easily be cast before combat any more than a haste can. You can put Greater Magic Fang on an animal companion, of course, and that makes it do magic damage, bypassing some DR and making its to hit and damage a bit better. That's about equivalent to a wizard walking around with Mage Armor: a breakfast spell that is good but not overpoweringly broken or anything. Also, a summoning druid is a caster druid. See above for why their wildshape and animal companion isn't broken. At APL 10, a huge polar bear is an asset to a party. However, so is a grapple monk who has +30something to his grapple check. My point with the Otyugh encounter (and there were two of them, both at the same time) was that at a lower APL than the one you mentioned, we fought monsters that are a lot scarier and nastier than polar bears. Additionally, that druid made a choice to focus on his animal companion. Her wildshape isn't very good and she has given up feats (and possibly a caster level) to achieve that build. If she got a base polar bear (druid lvl -9 animal, she's lvl 10) and merely animal growthed it, it has a low number of hit dice, a small number of tricks, low AC, and she used a druid spell wisely. Druids are a very versatile class, but they have to choose which of their many abilities they want to focus on. They can be a wildshaper or a caster primary. They can focus heavily on animal companion or focus on their own wellbeing. Wildshapers generally give up too much to have good animal companions. Casters in many prestige classes also give up animal companion advancement. Focusing on the animal companion requires a large number of feats and probably giving up a caster level for Beastmaster. Regardless of whether anyone feels AH is overpowered, it seems some people think druids, and especially the wild shape ability, are overpowered. It is that assumption I am trying to refute.
DuctShuiTengu 10-08-06, 12:08 AM	Animal companions are hardly weak either. At first level, the best tank your party can have is the druid's riding dog (with or without equipment). They may not keep up quite as well at higher levels, but they don't exactly lag behind either. Here's few of the more classic combative animal companions at 15th level. Wolves: Wolf Dire Wolf STR 18 28 DEX 20 18 CON 15 17 INT 2 2 WIS 12 12 CHA 6 10 HP 87 99 BAB +9 +9 Bite: +14/+9 +18/+13 Dam: 1d6+6 1d8+13 Trip +4 +13 Speed 50 50 AC 27 22 Fort +10 +11 Reflex +13 +12 Will +5 +9 (Riding Dog is the same as the wolf but with 2 higher strength netting a +1 to hit, damage, and trip, along with +2 AC but with 10 less feet of movement) Bears: Brown Bear Dire Bear STR 30 32 DEX 16 14 CON 19 19 INT 2 2 WIS 12 12 CHA 6 10 HP 111 129 BAB +9 +10 Claw +18 +21 Dam 1d8 2d4+11 Bite +16 +15 Dam 2d6 2d8+5 Grapple +23 +25 Speed 40 40 AC 23 20 Fort +12 +13 Reflex +11 +11 Will +5 +10 Cats: Leopard Lion Tiger Dire Lion STR 20 24 26 27 DEX 23 20 18 17 CON 15 15 17 17 INT 2 2 2 2 WIS 12 12 12 12 CHA 6 6 6 10 HP 80 80 99 99 BAB 8 8 9 9 Bite 14 12 14 11 Dam 1d6+5 1d8+3 2d6+4 1d8+4 Claw 12 14 16 17 Dam 1d3+2 1d4+7 1d8+8 1d6+8 Rake 14 14 16 16 Dam 1d3+2 1d4+3 1d8+4 1d6+4 Grapple 13 19 21 21 Speed 40 40 40 40 AC 25 23 22 20 Fort 9 9 11 11 Reflex 13 12 12 11 Will 4 4 5 9 Admittedly, not that impressive for 15th level, but considering this is one class feature with absolutely nothing extra put into it, they're not bad. (and keep in mind that with the exception of the Dire Bear, all of these get an extra 2 feats beyond what's shown for them in the MM.) And this still leaves our Druid with all their other fun class features, like being able to Wild Shape 5 times per day for up to 15 hours each time, with any animal from size tiny to huge or plant creature (elementals are out of the range of the normal campaign), a solid set of spells (including what are arguably the best summoning spells - at 9th level, the druid can summon that polar bear, or 1d3 brown bears, along with having either as an animal companion. And can then wild shape into yet another and animal growth the entire... what do you call a group of huge bears? Besides trouble, I mean :P ) A single feat allows the druid to spontaneously cast healing spells just as easily as a cleric can, while another lets them cast while wildshaped. So far, I'm not really seeing them having to sacrifice much from their spellcasting or "their own wellbeing" to be able to have a big nasty animal companion to hide behind and very solid wildshaping abilities.
sellout23 10-14-06, 06:32 PM	I would however point out that the Arcane Heirophant build on page 112 is a legal build for an Arcane Heirophant. It does not have 5 levels of druid only 4, with 3 levels of wizard. It has the wild shape ability. So since your arguements are based on a faulty build example early on in the Chapter. The fact that there is a correct build should indicate that it should have the ability. End Disscussion!!! ACH get wild shape as per the Example Character on page 112 of Races of the Wild. As far as builds go...... Skip that level of Beast master, join a meta org, gain access to natural bond feat because ACH needs to get Polymorph spell ASAP so he can turn that 8 or 9 HD companion into a huge 8 or 9 headed Hydra. 8 or 9 attacks buffed with spells like(assuming both druid and wizard practice spellcaster feats) Natures Favor,Augment familar,Magic fang, Enhance familar and Haste is just crazy good!!!
Mommy was an Orc 10-14-06, 07:14 PM	Natures Favor,Augment familar,Magic fang, Enhance familar and Haste is just crazy good!!! If you read the description of Companion Familiar, a Companion Familiar is no more a Familiar than a Monstrous Humanoid is a Humanoid. ...your animal companion...gains many of the abilities that a famliar would normally possess. It then proceeds to list the abilities it gets. Actually being a familiar isn't one of them. i.e. Enhance Familiar and Augment Familiar don't work on it.
sellout23 10-14-06, 08:37 PM	If you read the description of Companion Familiar, a Companion Familiar is no more a Familiar than a Monstrous Humanoid is a Humanoid. Monstrous Humanoid and Humanoid are types of creatures. Companion Familiars are magical beast, Familiars are the creature type associated with the familiar you choose upon gaining the class feature. Familiar and Companion Familiar are just names of a class feature. Augment familiar and Enhance familiar dont discriminate between the two. It then proceeds to list the abilities it gets. Actually being a familiar isn't one of them. i.e. Enhance Familiar and Augment Familiar don't work on it. Familiar is not a type of creature, it is simply the name of a class feature. Thats why it points out that spells that effect the creature type Animal also effect Companion familiars , because normally Companion familiars are consider to be the creature type Magical Beast. Just the way i look at it. I could be wrong.