Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tenken 02-10-06, 07:04 PM	If there's a druid that wild shaped into a dire lion, can he cast animal growth on himself?
Ithamar 02-10-06, 07:14 PM	Yes. But its best to cast it so that it applies to both the druid and their animal companion. That's how you get the most bang for your buck.
cfr1216 02-10-06, 08:18 PM	Hmmm.... I don't think so. It states that the druid keeps their own creature type (humanoid, in most cases) when in wild shape. Animal Growth only affects creatures with animal sub type. Additionally, the druid's animal companion is considered a 'magical beast'. That means that animal growth won't work on the druid's companion either. I like the druid a lot - if someone can prove me wrong - please do!
BW0222 02-10-06, 09:45 PM	cfr1216, >Hmmm.... I don't think so. It states that the druid keeps their own creature >type (humanoid, in most cases) when in wild shape. Incorrect. PHP p37 "This ability functions like the polymorph spell, except as noted here." PHP p253 "The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types ... animal ...". A wildshaped druid becomes an animal. Spells affecting animals (including animal growth) can affect her.
Dragonteuthis 02-10-06, 10:43 PM	Also, the errata for the PHB mentions that the druid's companion does NOT in fact become a magical beast. Having a single casting of Animal Growth affecting both the druid and her companion doesn't work out very often; if they move more than five feet from each other, the spell ends for the companion. Two castings would work, though.
Seeker95 02-10-06, 11:12 PM	Animal growth has both verbal and somatic components. How many animals do you know of that have both speech and hands?
green_yawgmoth 02-10-06, 11:14 PM	Animal growth has both verbal and somatic components. How many animals do you know of that have both speech and hands?I dunno, how many druids are there with natural spell? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Nimrud 02-10-06, 11:29 PM	Also, the errata for the PHB mentions that the druid's companion does NOT in fact become a magical beast. Having a single casting of Animal Growth affecting both the druid and her companion doesn't work out very often; if they move more than five feet from each other, the spell ends for the companion. Two castings would work, though. Animal growth as a target of 1 per two caster levels. So yeah, one casting is enough.
Nimrud 02-10-06, 11:30 PM	I dunno, how many druids are there with natural spell? Like just about every druid? LOL
BW0222 02-10-06, 11:44 PM	Dragonteuthis, >Having a single casting of Animal Growth affecting both the druid and her >companion doesn't work out very often; if they move more than five feet >from each other, the spell ends for the companion. PHP p198. Targets: "Up to one animal (...) per two levels, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart." By 9th-level, one could easily affect herself, her animal companion, and two other summoned creatures. That said, casting it upon yourself is a dangerous tactic. Many creatures at APL 9, can easily stand toe-to-toe with a huge bear and one dispell magic and the druid could easily be dead by her next initiative. Three hill giants, a couple of fire elementals, etc. could easily drop a druid-bear in round or two if spell drops.
green_yawgmoth 02-10-06, 11:53 PM	Dragon, I think you're misinterpreting the "target" entry. The druid and her companion don't have to stay within 30 ft of each other. They have to be within 30 ft at the time of casting, but after that, they can move as far from each other as they need or want. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Dragonteuthis 02-11-06, 12:11 AM	Yeah I overlooked the multiple targets of Animal growth. Sorry about that; I was thinking of Share Spell...
Nimrud 02-11-06, 01:39 AM	That said, casting it upon yourself is a dangerous tactic. Many creatures at APL 9, can easily stand toe-to-toe with a huge bear and one dispell magic and the druid could easily be dead by her next initiative. Three hill giants, a couple of fire elementals, etc. could easily drop a druid-bear in round or two if spell drops. Well if you have an encounter with 3 hill giants plus a caster capable of dispelling your animal growth, it's safe to say you are in an EL >> party level encounter. Anyway, that's more of an issue with going into melee while wildshaped than an issue with AG. If you are going to melee anyway, AG can only help.
BW0222 02-11-06, 02:45 AM	Nimrud, >Well if you have an encounter with 3 hill giants plus a caster capable of >dispelling your animal growth, it's safe to say you are in an EL >> party level >encounter. Hill giants are CR 7 (MM p123). Three are suitable APL 10 -- assuming 4 PCs. Even adding a 9th-level caster (or a pair of 6th+ or folks able to use wands) would only make it APL 11. (DMG p49). This is well within a challenging range which an APL 9 party should expect. And if you have five or six PCs, it would be an even fight. It is hardly (by the rules) an EL >> party level encounter. Certainly not an encounter I'd have any problems tossing at a 9th-level party which includes a druid/9 and with a grizzly bear alongside them. >Anyway, that's more of an issue with going into melee while wildshaped >than an issue with AG. If you are going to melee anyway, AG can only help. Agreed. However, my basic point is that casting it on yourself is of limited use. You can already cast it on summoned creatures which one can use with far less risk to oneself and which allows you to continue casting spells while the animals go at it. There is little need for a druid to do this.
Tenken 02-11-06, 08:24 AM	Wow, thanks for all the replies. Answered my question :) That actually leads me to another question. If the druid wild shaped into a Dire Lion, and then casts animal growth, will he become a huge size, or stay as a large size (because he became large from wild shaping into a dire lion, so another size change won't stack)?
Seeker95 02-11-06, 09:37 AM	The spell is cast on the dire lion. It would go from large to huge. Wildshape is not a magical size increase, it is a form change.
Sockslayer 02-11-06, 10:46 AM	As the original question is already answered I would like to ask another one. Do you find that a druid using animal growth on himself and his companion can be considered too powerful? I know that this sort of thing has probably been discussed to dead already, but this came up in our last session and the regular DM is coming closer with the nerfstick... The reason it looks overpowered is that it really turns the druid into a better fighter or barbarian(albeit not the whole day) and he can just start dealing ungodly amounts of damage. Now I know that it can be somewhat controlled by using dispel or by retreating, but it still seems that every melee orientated enemy is going to be shredded by this beast.
Nephlite 02-11-06, 10:52 AM	As the original question is already answered I would like to ask another one. Do you find that a druid using animal growth on himself and his companion can be considered too powerful? I know that this sort of thing has probably been discussed to dead already, but this came up in our last session and the regular DM is coming closer with the nerfstick... The reason it looks overpowered is that it really turns the druid into a better fighter or barbarian(albeit not the whole day) and he can just start dealing ungodly amounts of damage. Now I know that it can be somewhat controlled by using dispel or by retreating, but it still seems that every melee orientated enemy is going to be shredded by this beast. Yes, most peope don't realize Druids are better warriors after level 5 than most fighters and barbarians. You see the desingers thought no one would play a divine caster if they didn't power it up veru much: no one wants to be a band-aid. So both Cleric and Druid are very strong. Even stronger with buffs that they can cast.
Dragonteuthis 02-11-06, 11:03 AM	Druids can indeed become melee-damage monsters, but they suffer a problem similar to the Rogue: Weak armor class and a lower die size than the Barbarian or fighter. In general, a Fighter is going to have a much, much better armor class than the druid, while a Barbarian will many more hit points. If the druid faces foes he cannot destroy quickly, he may have to retreat to heal while the Fighter and Barbarian deal with them. With all that being said, druids are slightly overpowered in this current iteration of the rules. The main culprit, however, is polymorph, which even the game designers don't like. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20051216a)
Seeker95 02-11-06, 02:52 PM	As the original question is already answered I would like to ask another one. Do you find that a druid using animal growth on himself and his companion can be considered too powerful?Not in the least. Being big has advantages and disadvantages. In a diversely-crafted adventure, these will balance each other out. The advantages are obvious. The disadvantages are those things normally associated with size... narrow passages become obstacles. You become much easier to flank. You become much easier to hit.
stamhaven 02-11-06, 06:05 PM	I agree that it's not overpowered (strong but not too much or broken). Heck if the druid just used it on himself only on a rutine basis he's missing out on a big chunk of the spell's potnetial since it can apply to multiple animals including his animal companion. This is the first time in a while that this frequent question didn't devolve in to a who's ruling is more RAW arguments about stacking with shape changing magic and growth spells.
Seeker95 02-11-06, 07:17 PM	This is the first time in a while that this frequent question didn't devolve in to a who's ruling is more RAW arguments about stacking with shape changing magic and growth spells.Give it time. :D