More 3.5 character questions

[Amurion]

Ok, I'm looking at a shapeshift variant druid for a 3.5 game. I'm looking at shapeshift because we are starting at level 3 and I like not having to worry about running out of shifting. My question is whether one level of monk would be worth delaying my druid progression to add +4 AC to my shapeshift forms.

[Sillycomic]

As the question is purely crunch and no fluff, I imagine you want the most optimized character possible...

in which case, I would go with the cardinal rule: do not lose spell levels.

However, fluff wise I would say a shapeshifting druid that takes levels in monk is a druid who wishes to keep in tune with nature and natural attacks. Perhaps even a feral side? Hmmm, interesting.

And monk does open up other possibilities, like improved natural attack, some cool crunch and fluff combined there.

However, you can do all of that with spells that you would get if you kept going as a druid anyway. So... kinda up to you on that one.

[Ernir]

Naaah, single-classed Druid would be better. :smalltongue:

It takes more than a single Monk level to ruin a Druid, but generally... I'd say getting a stat to your AC, even if it is your casting stat, is not a great trade for a lost caster level.

You can squeeze a bit more juice out of the Monk level if you intend to grapple a lot, but I still wouldn't do it. Spells are that good. And you want them ASAP.

[Amurion]

Ok, I've never really played a caster before. Thus being why the shapeshift variant is probably appealing to me, it also keeps book keeping down. Would it be worth it to wait to get normal wildshape than get the instant gratification of shapeshift?

[Ernir]

A normal Wildshape Druid is more powerful by far. Shapeshift even costs you your animal companion, in addition to being much, much more limited on its own.

On the other hand, Druids are insanely powerful even with the Shapeshift variant. If the people you are playing with are inexperienced, playing poor classes, or just really bad at making powerful characters, the Shapeshift variant might be just the right thing to keep things less unfair. :smalltongue:

[Amurion]

Yeah, currently we just have two PCs, the other guy is brand new and is debating between paladin and monk. I was originally looking at playing a beguiler, but we are going to be running into lots of undead, so that wasn't a good idea.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Yeah, currently we just have two PCs, the other guy is brand new and is debating between paladin and monk.
Oh my. I'm not quite sure what to say.

[Amurion]

Yeah, its gonna be interesting. I was trying to convince him to go cleric with law domain. But he doesn't want to be associated with a god. So I was trying to tell him clerics don't need gods, that ideals and purposes work just as well. It didn't work though. So it looks like as a druid I am going to have to spend a feat that allows me to spontaneously cast heal spells as many times as my Wis modifier. I just can't remember the name of the feat. Plus we have no skill monkey to boot.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Yeah, its gonna be interesting. I was trying to convince him to go cleric with law domain. But he doesn't want to be associated with a god. So I was trying to tell him clerics don't need gods, that ideals and purposes work just as well. It didn't work though.
And the Paladin was...?

So it looks like as a druid I am going to have to spend a feat that allows me to spontaneously cast heal spells as many times as my Wis modifier.
Wands are a better use of your resources.

[Temotei]

And the Paladin was...?

Wands are a better use of your resources.

Really. Paladins are just as religious as clerics. I agree.

And...agreed.

[Amurion]

Yep, he is going pally. I just heard back from him.
I just sent him a link to the pally handbook, hopefully it will help a little.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Ok, so... he ... what... I mean... how does that... what?

[Amurion]

He's new and the DM encourages good stories, not always good classes. I can usually come up with a good character and good story, after I have good mechanics. The DM builds characters backwards from me.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

So... he doesn't want to be associated with gods, but he... paladin?

[nekomata2]

But...but...you can have both! You can have both!!

(Trust me, I've tried it).

[Amurion]

I'm trying to fish out his reasoning for a paladin right now. Then maybe guide him towards cleric. I mean, sacrificing smite evil and going down to 3/4 BAB is totally worth it for full spell casting, and in heavy armor none the less. It is easy enough to tailor a cleric to play like a pally, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[Temotei]

I'm trying to fish out his reasoning for a paladin right now. Then maybe guide him towards cleric. I mean, sacrificing smite evil and going down to 3/4 BAB is totally worth it for full spell casting, and in heavy armor none the less. It is easy enough to tailor a cleric to play like a pally, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Probably for the mount. At least tell him that five levels of paladin is basically all he needs. After that, he can multiclass into cleric.

If he really, really wants paladin.

[Pluto]

Yeah, its gonna be interesting. I was trying to convince him to go cleric with law domain.

This is why I hate playing with powergamers of any sort.
(No, not the players who put "Power Attack" on their character sheets. I mean the ones who obsess about dodging a lost caster level. The ones whose builds are too complex to fit on the "Class" line of their character sheets. The ones who refuse to play a melee character who isn't a Spiked Chain-wielding Goliath with a dip a level of Barbarian and a specialization in pushing people.

Seriously, let the guy play a Paladin if he wants to play a Paladin.
Sure, around level 9, he won't have the same godlike abilities.
But it doesn't matter:
A. Most games don't go that long IME.
B. A decent DM will give a hand to a player who feels useless or left out.
C. Class disparity isn't a problem.

(Look at all the newbies who come onto this and other boards claiming Paladins and Monks are the most powerful classes in the game. This opinion wouldn't exist if it weren't close to true in their games. Not the games where Wizards convince Formians to Dominate Demon hordes to do their bidding, but the games that the newbies actually play.)

Leave the guy alone.

,,,This might be a bit of a sore spot of mine.

[dangerprawn]

Cleric/Prestige Paladin is a good compromise.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I'm just astounded by the reasoning that leads him to avoid playing a cleric because it is too closely associated with a god... but somehow paladins are... not... despite... being... servants....... of..... GODS!!!!:smallfrown:

[Amurion]

Yeah, he is saying that he likes the Paladin because they are what he would want to be in real life, a crusader for good, doesn't back down in the face of danger, yadda yadda. He also threw in something about not having to be a religious nut. Do you know what book the Crusader class is in? I'd like to point that one out to him.

[nekomata2]

Crusader is Tome of Battle. Yes, make him do it...make him do it now!

[Pharaoh's Fist]

He also threw in something about not having to be a religious nut.
Again, I find myself at loss for words.

[Kylarra]

Yeah, he is saying that he likes the Paladin because they are what he would want to be in real life, a crusader for good, doesn't back down in the face of danger, yadda yadda. He also threw in something about not having to be a religious nut. Do you know what book the Crusader class is in? I'd like to point that one out to him.... lol. The one with the codified code of conduct is more of a nut than just not deviating from your god's alignment by more than one step.

[Amurion]

I don't know if he has access to that book though, hmmmm...

Maybe I can hope for the Pally to die quickly.

[dangerprawn]

I don't know if he has access to that book though, hmmmm...

Maybe I can hope for the Pally to die quickly.

Or...help the Pally die quickly.

...

You know what I'm talking about.

[Temotei]

Or...help the Pally die quickly.

...

You know what I'm talking about.

Make him fall, then summon a huge monster to take him out on accident? principle?

[Amurion]

No, a chaotic neutral Druid would never do something like that. "Hey, lets see if entangle will hold you on the side of the cliff while you rescue that poor little bird all by itself in its nest." A few seconds later. "You almost have it, oh crap he comes its mother, (Dire eagle swoops in). RUN!!!!"

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Or...help the Pally die quickly.

...

You know what I'm talking about.

Incidentally, don't be evil. He'll fall pretty hard for being in your general vicinity.

[Baron Malkar]

Suggest a Knight from PHBII. It sounds more like what he is after.

[Amurion]

The problem with the Knight is the limited versatility, we are only a two PC party.

[Draz74]

Mostly echoing what others have said ...


Ok, I'm looking at a shapeshift variant druid for a 3.5 game. I'm looking at shapeshift because we are starting at level 3 and I like not having to worry about running out of shifting.
Good choice. The Shapeshift variant is not only available at lower level; it's also more fun IMHO (mostly due to lack of bookkeeping, and infinite uses/day). And I see the fact that it's weaker as a feature, not a bug, so that your Druid doesn't accidentally break the game.


My question is whether one level of monk would be worth delaying my druid progression to add +4 AC to my shapeshift forms.

It's not optimal. Spells are better. And +4 AC isn't going to make the difference vs. the kinds of monsters the DM will be sending against your party. And if you really want to powergame it, you can pick up a Monk's Belt and a Wilding Clasp eventually to get the same advantage without spending a precious level.

Still, if you like the idea, go for it. You won't be so weak that it's a problem (especially in your group). If you can actually get some use out of your Monk bonus feat (Stunning Fist or Improved Grapple), all the better.

[kemmotar]

meh paladins...

He can play the same concept with a fighter, he can pretty much play the same concept with every class if he's inventive enough. New players either get screwed over by the paladin's code of conduct, or screw up themselves by misunderstanding it...The DM would have to be quite lenient...

try convincing him to play something else, he could be a cleric representing a philosophy or an ideal...you can pretty much chose whatever domain you like, within logical boundaries, and not bother with gods. An unoptimised cleric would be a good first character, also if you play a druid you're not gonna be short on healing so hurray for better survival...

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Improved Grapple + Bear form is fun.

[Amurion]

meh paladins...
try convincing him to play something else, he could be a cleric representing a philosophy or an ideal...you can pretty much chose whatever domain you like, within logical boundaries, and not bother with gods. An unoptimised cleric would be a good first character, also if you play a druid you're not gonna be short on healing so hurray for better survival...

That is exactly what I am trying to do, except without saying the pally sucks and is going to be worthless and the cleric roxs. Tact is integral for it being a good first time playing through.

[kemmotar]

well a pally doesn't really suck, I'm sure if you search you'll find some paladin x/ prestige with some interesting combos that can pull its weight.

The problem is more likely to be that he'll play him too unoptimized so as not to be useful, break the code inadvertently, fall, be annoyed and you would all waste time on an atonement quest...Or the DM would handwave too much by way of being lenient on the first time player..

If you explain to him the reality of the code of conduct, that paladins are by definition religious nuts and that he'll have trouble pulling his weight he will probably change his mind...then tell him that if he wants to play something similar, he can play a battle oriented cleric worshiping an ideal...also that he can play the same concept with a bunch of different characters...tell him to trust you on this since you know a bit more about D&D:smalltongue:

[Krazddndfreek]

The problem with the Knight is the limited versatility, we are only a two PC party.

I laughed hard when I saw this.

Paladin has zero versatility. The knight does too, but at least he doesn't have to worry about losing his class features because of associating with someone too far away on the alignment compass.

[Amurion]

I know they are both nearly zip for versatility. I should probably just let him go Pally and try my best to support him with whatever tricks the druid has. Make it a good gaming experience for him. The next game, we can then work together to make the ultimate two man team.

[Devils_Advocate]

Neither paladins nor clerics necessarily need to serve deities in D&D 3.5. Neither paladins nor clerics necessarily need to be religious either, depending on how you define "religious".

Still, it's possible for a cleric to be tied to a deity in a way that a paladin can't be, or at least shouldn't be. E.g., if Moradin tells a community of dwarves to drive off a nearby tribe of stone giants, not because the giants are doing anything bad, but because Moradin wants the dwarves to expand into that area, it's the job of clerics of Moradin to see that this is accomplished. And it's the job of paladins to prevent it. Even if they worship Moradin.

A situations like this doesn't make it OK for a paladin to break a vow of obedience. Rather, situations like this are why paladins shouldn't swear unconditional vows of obedience in the first place.

Two paladins should not find themselves on opposite sides of the same war unless something very strange is going on. Paladins Are Not Partisans. They're all on the same side: the side of Justice. That's the entire point.

Now, source material may waffle on this in an attempt to be many different things to many different people. And this may serve to make the source material, taken as a whole, a bit incoherent. (This is the case for several issues in D&D.) But it's clear that one of the core concepts of the paladin is that a paladin is always supposed to do what's right. And one upshot of that is that if your friends, your government, your leader, your church, and even your god oppose what's right, then screw them.

So, to be blunt about it, paladins are too principled to be loyal to people (for a certain value of "loyal"). That's why a lot of people hate paladins, and also why a lot of people love them. But love 'em or hate 'em, they are what they are.

Of course, nothing prevents characters of other classes from adopting a paladin's ethics. And it's arguably a bad idea to make a character's abilities powered by adherence to a specific code of conduct, or even to give ethical conduct any direct mechanical impact at all. This is probably why they killed off the classic paladin in 4E, and why they made alignment basically irrelevant.

(And yet they still kept alignment. Why? If it's for tradition's sake, then why the heck would they change it so much?)

[9mm]

The problem with the Knight is the limited versatility, we are only a two PC party.

*headdesk*


... wow, just wow.

[Amurion]

Are you saying the knight/pally is versatile or just the fact that it is a two person party and one person wants to severely gimp our already gimped party?

[Sir.Swindle]

As a first time player he likely doesn't want to deal with spells (or martial manuvers) wether he says it or not. Some people just don't like spell casters and don't have fun playing them even if they have an army of solars riding Gold wyrms bound to their will. End of story there.

As a paladin he can at least lay on hands which will help a little and if you help him with his build as far as feats and magic items go he should be fine assuming the campaign isn't overly lethal.

As far as your druid goes have you not banned Vow of Poverty in your group yet? It kind of has the same feel as a monk level and you would get along with your paladin friend.

[Telonius]

A level of Monk does have a few other perks that haven't been mentioned, depending on what role you're generally going to play.

- Skills. Monk puts Hide, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Religion) (never understood why Druids don't get this one, being Divine casters and all...), Move Silently, Sense Motive, and Tumble on your class list. This means that your maximum number of ranks in those skills improves to (your level + 3). You still have to spend two skill points to raise them a rank, if you're gaining the skills in a Druid level, but that maximum makes a big difference with things like Tumble.

If you're planning on being the party scout, Hide, Move Silently and Tumble are going to be extremely useful. If you're planning to be mainly melee, Tumble is extremely useful too.

So, on the one hand: better class skill list, bonus feat (stunning fist or improved grapple), Flurry of Blows, Improved Unarmed Strike, increased unarmed damage, better saves all around, and WIS to AC.

On the other hand: -1 caster level, 1 fewer 8th level spell per day, 1 fewer 9th level spell per day, possibly lower BAB (if your DM doesn't use fractional BAB).

I honestly think that's almost a toss-up; slightly edging to a Druid level under normal circumstances, edging to a Monk level if you're short on people or are seeing yourself primarily as a melee combatant who can also sometimes cast spells.

[Galdor Miriel]

Encourage the guy to play a paladin! They are really cool and a lot of fun to play, it does not matter how optimised the party is, what matters is the story you create with the dm. Sure throw him some useful spell or feat suggestions and then just go with it, do the same with your druid as well! Sure he could be more powerful,but all that matters is the ability you have wrt the challenges your dm throws your way.

Sometimes a monk is a good character choice because the game is not a competition, its a process of creation.

GM

[Amurion]

As far as your druid goes have you not banned Vow of Poverty in your group yet? It kind of has the same feel as a monk level and you would get along with your paladin friend.

VoP hasn't been banned, I was thinking of it. But the DM was discouraging it as he would have a harder time working rewards into the game. I was seriously thinking about it though.

[Amurion]

I think I may change it to Ninja1/DruidX. I still get the wisdom to AC, but also minimal sneak attack damage and more skills. The skills will help to compensate for not having a sneaky skill monkey, plus the trap finding will be very helpful. It will also allow me to be something other than a lawful neutral alignment.