Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

[Kaeso]

Admittedly, "tanking" is something of a concept that, outside of somewhat suicidal tactics, doesn't work well outside of video games. Unless you mean literally driving a tank, in which case it is an awesome tactic, but one that is not at all appropriate to (most) D&D games. But, anyway, it's understandable that it doesn't translate well to D&D, all things considered. Even in the world of D&D, "I make the monster hit me" is really, really odd unless you're made of metal or something. Even then, it's risky.

There are some classes that can pull the tanking gig off pretty well in DnD. Not fighters of course, but there are a few:

1. The Crusader. Some of his abilities are focused towards attracting enemies and he gains bonus damage if he's wounded.
2. Casters, as they can reduce the enemies ability to hit them through things like mirror image, blur, displacement, entropic shield etc.

Yes, even a properly built wizard (more likely than not a gish) can out-tank a fighter, if that's not sad I don't know what is.

[Amphetryon]

There are some classes that can pull the tanking gig off pretty well in DnD. Not fighters of course, but there are a few:

1. The Crusader. Some of his abilities are focused towards attracting enemies and he gains bonus damage if he's wounded.
2. Casters, as they can reduce the enemies ability to hit them through things like mirror image, blur, displacement, entropic shield etc.

Yes, even a properly built wizard (more likely than not a gish) can out-tank a fighter, if that's not sad I don't know what is.

The Knight is another class that's built to be reasonably good at forcing enemies to hit it, rather than someone else.

[term1nally s1ck]

Magebred animals in general are not valid animal companions. You cannot just apply the magebred template to any animal you want and make it your companion. However, the specific animals Magebred Brown Bear and Magebred Ghost Tiger are statted-up and listed as valid animal companions with an appropriate druid level adjustment, therefore they are valid animal companions.

That is of course, assuming that 'A completely normal animal of its type' means that no templates of any sort can be applied in any way. Which is NOT CLEAR.

You CAN have a completely normal for its type magebred fleshraker. It doesn't stand out from the other magebred fleshrakers in any particular way.

In fact, the RAW definition of 'Type' would allow it, since it would still have all the Animal traits.

Do not make assumptions about what sentences mean, and then bleat that you know the RAW better. Look at it PROPERLY before talking about it.

[Talya]

That is of course, assuming that 'A completely normal animal of its type' means that no templates of any sort can be applied in any way. Which is NOT CLEAR.

You CAN have a completely normal for its type magebred fleshraker. It doesn't stand out from the other magebred fleshrakers in any particular way.

In fact, the RAW definition of 'Type' would allow it, since it would still have all the Animal traits.

Do not make assumptions about what sentences mean, and then bleat that you know the RAW better. Look at it PROPERLY before talking about it.

Really, now, was all the scolding necessary, especially because you're wrong? My post had nothing to do with the phrase "'A completely normal animal of its type" and everything to dow ith the fact that the ECS specifically says magebred animals cannot be animal companions.

I won't go into your argument on "a normal animal of its type."

[Gametime]

That is of course, assuming that 'A completely normal animal of its type' means that no templates of any sort can be applied in any way. Which is NOT CLEAR.

You CAN have a completely normal for its type magebred fleshraker. It doesn't stand out from the other magebred fleshrakers in any particular way.

In fact, the RAW definition of 'Type' would allow it, since it would still have all the Animal traits.

Do not make assumptions about what sentences mean, and then bleat that you know the RAW better. Look at it PROPERLY before talking about it.

That interpretation renders the descriptor pointless, though, because literally any creature is typical for its kind if you consider "kind" to be "the subset of creatures that includes this creature." Surely I'm not the only one to think it sounds silly to say "This multiheaded pseudonatural magebred gelatinous dog is a completely typical multiheaded pseudonatural magebred gelatinous dog! It doesn't have any traits that any animal with those templates wouldn't have!"

(Also, the word is "kind," not type. I don't think that favors one interpretation or the other, it just means we probably shouldn't bother arguing about the characteristics of the "animal" type.)

[term1nally s1ck]

As most people, I interpret that line to mean it has the same base stat array and the same feats as listed in the books.

And I am *well* aware there's specific text saying magebred is not an option. I'm talking to the people before who jumped up and down saying 'magebred isn't typical for its kind'.

Do not take loose interpretations of ruletext and tout them as RAW when a different interpretation is STILL supported by the same text.

[Talya]

And I am *well* aware there's specific text saying magebred is not an option. I'm talking to the people before who jumped up and down saying 'magebred isn't typical for its kind'.

Well, I didn't say that, and I'm the one you quoted and replied to. I specifically quoted the reference that Magebred animals are not valid ACs in my post, and yet Magebred Brown Bears and Magebred Ghost Tigers specifically are allowed. That's all i am referring to here.

I'll stay out of your argument re: "typical for its kind," except to say, your definition doesn't make much sense to me. That said, I think Warbred/War Trained animals are legal by RAW, and I wouldn't allow them, either.

[term1nally s1ck]

I did?

Huh. That's my mistake, I must have hit the wrong post.

[Coidzor]

The typical for its kind thing is only for 1st level druids anyway from where it and how it appears in the text unless I'm missing some kind of reiteration of it applying it beyond that.

[dextercorvia]

Well, in a party of mixed characters I usually house-rule DMM so that the actual level of the metamagicked spell should be equal or less than the cleric's highest level spell... in this case DMM is still a nice feat to have but not completely broken. And than you don't have to read WotC's ridiculous arguments about touch spells not having fixed range...

You might have missed the point in the discussion where we ruled out both Persist and DMM.

I'm glad that both of you have (for your group) perfectly reasonable house rules. However, we can't objectively compare a class's ability to fill a role by using your houserules.

DMM exists. Persistent Spell exists. By the power of RAW, we combine them, and Clerics stomp all over a Fighter's intended role. And yes, they still manage to have Cleric things they can do for 4-5 encounters per day on top of that.

Clerics don't have to DMM Persist to be relevant, but it is an option.

[Talya]

I'm glad that both of you have (for your group) perfectly reasonable house rules. However, we can't objectively compare a class's ability to fill a role by using your houserules.

DMM exists. Persistent Spell exists. By the power of RAW, we combine them, and Clerics stomp all over a Fighter's intended role. And yes, they still manage to have Cleric things they can do for 4-5 encounters per day on top of that.

Clerics don't have to DMM Persist to be relevant, but it is an option.

I would argue that Persistent Divine Metacheese is actually suboptimal. Yes, a cleric can use it to do a fighter's job better than a fighter.

They could still be better if they didn't bother trying to do the "fighter's job." You don't need anyone to do the "fighter's job." If you feel the need to melee, druid, a druid's animal companion, or a TOB class is preferable. Hey, maybe a bardadin. But any Cleric trying to be a fighter is not trying to be a cleric, and a cleric is better than a fighter. Don't get a Tier 1 class to act at Tier 4 effectiveness by doing something in melee that's better accomplished with spells.

[Gametime]

I would argue that Persistent Divine Metacheese is actually suboptimal. Yes, a cleric can use it to do a fighter's job better than a fighter.

They could still be better if they didn't bother trying to do the "fighter's job." You don't need anyone to do the "fighter's job." If you feel the need to melee, druid, a druid's animal companion, or a TOB class is preferable. Hey, maybe a bardadin. But any Cleric trying to be a fighter is not trying to be a cleric, and a cleric is better than a fighter. Don't get a Tier 1 class to act at Tier 4 effectiveness by doing something in melee that's better accomplished with spells.

I don't think it's optimal to devote all your resources to being a better fighting-man, but it only takes a few spells to make the cleric a melee monster. DMM: Persist is likely worth picking up for the potential defensive buffs; once you've got the ability, blowing some turning attempts and two spell slots on getting large size + full BAB seems like a reasonable idea. You've still got all your other spells to handle situations inappropriate for melee, but being a melee beast who can still full cast is nothing to disdain (heck, look at the druid).

The cleric probably shouldn't waste time trying to outdo Tome of Battle classes, but it's so trivial to just keep up with melee that most clerics will probably do it.

[Kaeso]

I would argue that Persistent Divine Metacheese is actually suboptimal. Yes, a cleric can use it to do a fighter's job better than a fighter.

They could still be better if they didn't bother trying to do the "fighter's job." You don't need anyone to do the "fighter's job." If you feel the need to melee, druid, a druid's animal companion, or a TOB class is preferable. Hey, maybe a bardadin. But any Cleric trying to be a fighter is not trying to be a cleric, and a cleric is better than a fighter. Don't get a Tier 1 class to act at Tier 4 effectiveness by doing something in melee that's better accomplished with spells.

Let's also not forget that you don't need DMM: Persist to use divine power. At mid levels it surely lasts long enough to last most of the encounter

[Gnaeus]

Let's also not forget that you don't need DMM: Persist to use divine power. At mid levels it surely lasts long enough to last most of the encounter

And DMM quicken still lets you outfight the fighter if you need to outfight the fighter, gives you more options in spell combat, and requires one feat less.

[FMArthur]

Let's also not forget that you don't need DMM: Persist to use divine power. At mid levels it surely lasts long enough to last most of the encounter

Yeah, but that's a turn in battle used for it. The barbarian and rogue get to use their first turns in combat to murder a target of their choice. 1 turn is a noticable delay that bumps them up to being more effective than you if you're just using your cleric to whack people in the face.

[Kaeso]

And DMM quicken still lets you outfight the fighter if you need to outfight the fighter, gives you more options in spell combat, and requires one feat less.

Why waste a feat when ordained champion lets you auto-quicken all war domain spells (including divine power) and lets you cast them spontaneously as well?
Cast divine power as many times as you need to, wether you're in 4 fights a day or 9.

[Gnaeus]

Why waste a feat when ordained champion lets you auto-quicken all war domain spells (including divine power) and lets you cast them spontaneously as well?
Cast divine power as many times as you need to, wether you're in 4 fights a day or 9.

You are correct. That is also an excellent option for clerics of war deities. DMM Quicken works for anyone.

[Togo]

I keep hearing people say "front liners" but... what does that even mean really? Is that a measure of hp or something? Where did that even come from, It sounds like an even more nebulous term for tanking used because we know that doesn't work normally.

It's an attempt to describe a character built for engaging the monsters as a target of preference, without tying yourself down to either 'melee' or the fighter base character class.

So you're admitting that a DMM Persist cleric is a better frontliner than a fighter?

In many cases, of course. But if you're relying on DMM and/or persist, which are frequently banned for their power compared to other cleric options, then you're saying more about those options than you are about full casters in general.

Regadless, Druid can stay in wildhshape all day, and I also posted a build a page back that can keep alter self up for 5 hours at level 5. I still have to be provided with a 5th level fighter that's a better frontliner than that.

Hm.. Well, how about something like this?

Barbarian 1/fighter 2/Marshal 2

Combat expertise, improved trip, unarmed strike, improved grapple, rage, fast movement, motivate arts of war

Give him a reach weapon he can trip with, decent armour, a stat boost or two, and a bow. Stand him at the front of the party. What's the situation where an [I]alter selfed[I/] wizard is better?

Having played druids extensively, I can tell you that druids can't stay in wild shape all day. Sooner or later they have to talk to someone, climb a ladder, ride a horse, go near a town or settlement. At 5th level, you can't rely on being wild shaped all day.

Yeah, my group do it in actual play and it works. <snip>

It sounds like you play a very different style of game. I've never played in a game where unexpected things don't happen.

No. Casters are superior because they can pick their fights. If I can't win, I can run away so that I can come back better prepared. And by coming back I mean often as early as 10 minutes later,after I've safely cast all the needed buffs to crash their victory party. Or next day if the encounter requires some spells I don't have prepared.

By which time the princess is dead, in my game. I think we're just used to very different game styles.

If you have all this prep time, why bother with spells? I ran into one group (adventuring party plc) that managed to get rid of most their enemies financially. They didn't come back with new spells, they came back with 600 mercanaries, a full siege train, a real-estate deal and a load of commoners for witnesses and labour. They had an aversion to killing monsters that could be profitably sold on the open market. It worked... terrifyingly well.

Why bother to engage a melee at all? Seriously, what mecanical/strategical benefit is derived by wandering up to a melee brute monster? Sigh.

Why bother to fight monsters at all? What possible strategic/mechanical purpose does it serve? Going on adventures itself is horribly sub-optimal, and there are often safer options.

Yes, even a properly built wizard (more likely than not a gish) can out-tank a fighter, if that's not sad I don't know what is.

Technically a gish is a front-liner. The discussion was whether there is any point in playing anything other than a full caster. Which would include. It follows from that that any gish you can design would be better if replaced with a full caster. That seems like an extravagent claim.

I didn't mean to get everyone rilled up. I simply wanted to point out that full casters, while undoubtably very powerful and very flexbile, are not a better replacement for alternative choices in every game, and in every case.

[Kaeso]

Technically a gish is a front-liner. The discussion was whether there is any point in playing anything other than a full caster. Which would include. It follows from that that any gish you can design would be better if replaced with a full caster. That seems like an extravagent claim.

I didn't mean to get everyone rilled up. I simply wanted to point out that full casters, while undoubtably very powerful and very flexbile, are not a better replacement for alternative choices in every game, and in every case.

This is probably a matter of semantics, but isn't a gish a full caster already? Most Gish builds take only 2 levels in a melee class at best and don't skip any spell levels afterwards, which means they still get 9th level spells. IMHO that still makes them more of a caster than a frontliner.

Nevertheless, the ever-broken polymorph line makes a gish build an unneeded luxury if you want to break faces in melee.

[LordBlades]

In many cases, of course. But if you're relying on DMM and/or persist, which are frequently banned for their power compared to other cleric options, then you're saying more about those options than you are about full casters in general.

Of course, DMM and Persist are powerful options, but worthless ones unless you have good personal range buffs on your spell list.


Hm.. Well, how about something like this?

Barbarian 1/fighter 2/Marshal 2

Combat expertise, improved trip, unarmed strike, improved grapple, rage, fast movement, motivate arts of war

Give him a reach weapon he can trip with, decent armour, a stat boost or two, and a bow. Stand him at the front of the party. What's the situation where an [I]alter selfed[I/] wizard is better?

Defensive potential. The alter selfed wizard I posted is by all intents and purposes untouchable by almost anything a 5th level party will fight.
Also flight. You have a bow but unless you're bow-specced you're gogin to be doing 1d8+str/round.
Also, the hasted offensive potential of the wizard is at least equal to your raging damage potential, and he can do it as many times per day as you can rage (once), or more if he changes his 3rd level spells a bit, while you need a feat for extra rage.
Also, Alter Self wizard isn't the best frontliner by quite a large margin.
Try a 5th level stronghear halfling druid with Natural Bond, Companion Spellbond, SF: Conjuration, Augment Summoning, Greenbound Summoning, Ashbound (4 feats+2 flaws) and a Fleshraker animal companion.

Having played druids extensively, I can tell you that druids can't stay in wild shape all day. Sooner or later they have to talk to someone, climb a ladder, ride a horse, go near a town or settlement. At 5th level, you can't rely on being wild shaped all day.

You shouldn't take 'all day literally. I meant 'all the time you'd be sticking your nose into dangerous stuff' At level 6 (when you get Natural Spell and most Druids start using WS extensively) you get 12 hours of WS. Do you usually adventure for more than 12 hours a day? Why ride a horse when you can be one? Why climb a ladder when you can fly? The social interaction part is a bit tricky but it can be solved mid-level with permanent Telepathic Bond to the party face if you're really paranoid. I play Druids quite a lot, and that's what I usually do: if it's safe and I want to say something I'll go out of WS, if it's not, just transmit it to the party face via Telepathic Bond (which I get as soon as possible). I also sleep in Wildshape usually when out adventuring(if I'm high enough level to get 24+ hours of Wildshape.

It sounds like you play a very different style of game. I've never played in a game where unexpected things don't happen.

Unexpected stuff happens in our game too, it's just that it takes careful planning to bypass that kind of defenses so it doesn't happen that often. Regardless, I believe some manner of scouting happens in most D&D groups, so being surprised doesn't come up as often as some people imply.

By which time the princess is dead, in my game. I think we're just used to very different game styles.

Well, you missed my point. I meant encounters where you asses the situation and see you can't handle it. If a caster gets ambushed, he has 2 options: fight or flee. The fighter has just one. Also, unbuffed casters aren't as weak as you think. A druid with only Wildshape on, or a cleric with only long duration buffs are still very strong combatants.

If you have all this prep time, why bother with spells? I ran into one group (adventuring party plc) that managed to get rid of most their enemies financially. They didn't come back with new spells, they came back with 600 mercanaries, a full siege train, a real-estate deal and a load of commoners for witnesses and labour. They had an aversion to killing monsters that could be profitably sold on the open market. It worked... terrifyingly well.

It's spells that give you the prep time usually

[Gnaeus]

In many cases, of course. But if you're relying on DMM and/or persist, which are frequently banned for their power compared to other cleric options, then you're saying more about those options than you are about full casters in general.

* Shrugs *. A cleric can beat a fighter as a tank without DMM Persist. DMM quicken is less often banned, and certainly does the job, but lets count that out also. At level 8, the fighter is ahead by 9 hp, 2 attack bonus, 5 feats. The cleric has better will save, making him much less likely to be disabled by effects in combat. His relative weakness in HP is a minimal problem when you consider that he can always convert a spell to heal himself on the rare occasions in which it is necessary. Law Devotion (a swift action, usable multiple times per day with turn attempts, acquired for free by trading a domain), gives him a better to hit than the fighter (Except for rounds when the tank is self-buffing or self-healing, in which case it gives him a better AC). Greater magic weapon increases that further (while at the same time making him less vulnerable to tricks like sunder). Magic Vestments means that he is likely to have a higher AC. His range of situational spells (including Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, Protection from Energy, Invisibility Purge, Neutralize Poison, Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, just in core) mean that he can stand up and keep tanking in fights where the fighter is disabled by poison/level drain/energy damage/grapples/mind control or stuff he just can't see. I would totally rather have a non-DMM cleric as a tank than a fighter, in almost any campaign that will last into mid levels, and regardless of what the rest of the party is composed of.

Give him a reach weapon he can trip with, decent armour, a stat boost or two, and a bow. Stand him at the front of the party. What's the situation where an [I]alter selfed[I/] wizard is better?

Invisible opponents. Swarms. Dire animals. Pretty much any ranged encounter. Any encounter which the party loses which requires running away. Flying opponents. Should I continue?

Having played druids extensively, I can tell you that druids can't stay in wild shape all day. Sooner or later they have to talk to someone, climb a ladder, ride a horse, go near a town or settlement. At 5th level, you can't rely on being wild shaped all day.

The pet is (at worst) almost as good as a fighter. In any situation where a melee fighter is helpful, pet should at least be able to buy a round or two for his master to buff himself to above fighter levels of competence.

If you have all this prep time, why bother with spells? I ran into one group (adventuring party plc) that managed to get rid of most their enemies financially. They didn't come back with new spells, they came back with 600 mercanaries, a full siege train, a real-estate deal and a load of commoners for witnesses and labour. They had an aversion to killing monsters that could be profitably sold on the open market. It worked... terrifyingly well.

There is a huge difference in common adventuring situations between "we run away, and come back 16 hours later" and what you describe. They may not have weeks to go back to the city and return with a siege train. They may be somewhere underground where 600 mercs aren't helpful. They may just be dealing with a random wilderness encounter, which may justify setting up camp in a rope-trick, but not a trip home.

Certainly, Rogue, Bard, Beguiler or Factotum can function as Tier 1s in a game in which they can retreat at will to a city and go shopping. The difference is that Tier 1s can function that way given 8-21 hours with no resources other than their own class abilities.

I didn't mean to get everyone rilled up. I simply wanted to point out that full casters, while undoubtably very powerful and very flexbile, are not a better replacement for alternative choices in every game, and in every case.

That is true. Anything T3 or above can usually serve a role even in most T1 parties, and may be better in their niche than a T1 would be. The only time I would rather have a fighter in my party than a T1 tank is in a world with lots of AMFs, and even then it is dependent on cheese level.

[term1nally s1ck]

As a high level caster specifically, you cast plane shift onto your genesis'd plane of flowing time, spend a day getting ready, and port back in fully buffed 6 seconds later.

At mid-level, you port out, spend a round or two buffing, and pop right on in again.

At lower levels, you probably have to fight. Same as any other class.

A cleric can either DMM:Persist, DMM: Quicken, or spend one round of buffs using quicken spell to have the standard 3 cleric buffs up by the second round's action, and is immediately as good at the basics as the fighter. He doesn't have as much ability to crowd control with AoOs, but he has spells for that, anyway.

And no, in most games, casters will not be as good at frontlining as fighters a lot of the time.

Becuase in most games, people DO NOT PLAY CASTERS AT FULL STRENGTH.

If you play a full strength caster at mid to high levels, he breaks the campaign. He uses maybe 2-3 spells of divinations to determine what the problem is, prepares, buffs up, and walks in and solves the problem with maybe 2-3 spells.

The *only* way around it is to use significant defence against divinations, which means your only counter is a high level spellcaster anyway.

In that situation, the wizard will be spending most of his spells on preparation, will buff up against most concievable problems, will have his many many Contingencies against everything else up, and will go to deal with whatever issue is forcing him to actually fight them.

[Doug Lampert]

I would argue that Persistent Divine Metacheese is actually suboptimal. Yes, a cleric can use it to do a fighter's job better than a fighter.

They could still be better if they didn't bother trying to do the "fighter's job." You don't need anyone to do the "fighter's job." If you feel the need to melee, druid, a druid's animal companion, or a TOB class is preferable. Hey, maybe a bardadin. But any Cleric trying to be a fighter is not trying to be a cleric, and a cleric is better than a fighter. Don't get a Tier 1 class to act at Tier 4 effectiveness by doing something in melee that's better accomplished with spells.

The thing is, showing that a cleric is a better cleric than he is a fighter doesn't show that fighter is weak.

The chain of logic is:
Cleric playing as cleric>>>Cleric pretending to be fighter>>cleric pretending to be fighter without DMM cheeze>actual fighter.

That's the chain (and the equivalents for wizard and druid) that shows the fighter is stupidly weak.

Even with that you STILL need to show that
Cleric+Cleric+Druid+Wizard>>>Fighter+Cleric+Rogue+ Wizard
to show that the fighter is really badly designed, because if fighters actually were noticably better buffing targets than Druid's or the Druid's animal companion or the Cleric or whatever then the fighter would still have a reasonable place in a party.

Showing that cleric pretending to be a fighter is better than the fighter doesn't mean anyone actually thinks its a good idea, just that showing this is part of showing why fighters are badly designed.

And no, in most games, casters will not be as good at frontlining as fighters a lot of the time.

Becuase in most games, people DO NOT PLAY CASTERS AT FULL STRENGTH.

As Talya points out: If they are playing the casters to full strength then they're unlikely to pretend to be fitghters, they'll simply dispense with the role as unneccessary.

But if for some bizzaro reason the casters WANT to melee, they can do so, better than the fighter.

DougL

[Gnaeus]

Even with that you STILL need to show that
Cleric+Cleric+Druid+Wizard>>>Fighter+Cleric+Rogue+ Wizard
to show that the fighter is really badly designed, because if fighters actually were noticably better buffing targets than Druid's or the Druid's animal companion or the Cleric or whatever then the fighter would still have a reasonable place in a party.

Even then its questionable. If the primary cleric and wizard aren't interested in spending the first few rounds of every combat tossing buffs, having a second cleric acting as a fighter is still better than a fighter. If the primary cleric and wizard are busy buffing someone else, or are too far away, or have already used buff X, or were themselves incapacitated by hostile action, having a second cleric acting as a fighter is still better than a fighter. If having another source of buffs in the party allow the cleric and wizard to prepare a wider selection of situational spells to win more varied encounters, the second cleric acting as a fighter is helpful.

Showing that cleric pretending to be a fighter is better than the fighter doesn't mean anyone actually thinks its a good idea, just that showing this is part of showing why fighters are badly designed.

But if for some bizzaro reason the casters WANT to melee, they can do so, better than the fighter.

I enjoy playing melee casters. I find muggle adventurers to be boring. I like the concept of the physical adept who uses his magic to be a warrior. I know that it isn't optimized, but it is fun for me.

[Grey Knight]

I'm glad that both of you have (for your group) perfectly reasonable house rules. However, we can't objectively compare a class's ability to fill a role by using your houserules.

DMM exists. Persistent Spell exists. By the power of RAW, we combine them, and Clerics stomp all over a Fighter's intended role. And yes, they still manage to have Cleric things they can do for 4-5 encounters per day on top of that.

Clerics don't have to DMM Persist to be relevant, but it is an option.

I don't normally comment on this sort of thread, but I feel compelled to point out that ruling out divine metamagic isn't a houserule. Divine metamagic is an optional expansion rule, not core functionality, so ruling it out is the default case. Clerics doesn't have the ability to use divine metamagic unless the "house" stance specifically includes that expansion book and its associated rules. Your house might do so, but we can't objectively compare a class's ability to fill a role by using your houserules. :o)

[term1nally s1ck]

If you would care to point to the passage in any 3.5 book where it says using any other 3.5 content is optional, except for the setting specific books, and UA, I'll be interested.

By default playing 3.5 includes all non-setting material published in 3.5.

[mootoall]

Well in that case, the Fighter doesn't get any splat books either, and gets gimped further. Divine Power is a core spell. Shock Trooper isn't a core feat.

[Gnaeus]

If you would care to point to the passage in any 3.5 book where it says using any other 3.5 content is optional, except for the setting specific books, and UA, I'll be interested.

By default playing 3.5 includes all non-setting material published in 3.5.

More than that, if you restrict discussion to Core, I can already make a perfectly capable melee druid, and a pretty decent cleric tank. I have real difficulties, on the other hand, making a melee fighter that functions nearly as well, because there aren't enough good feats to make the core fighter competent at his job.

Ack. Swordsages!

[Fox Box Socks]

Having played druids extensively, I can tell you that druids can't stay in wild shape all day. Sooner or later they have to talk to someone, climb a ladder, ride a horse, go near a town or settlement. At 5th level, you can't rely on being wild shaped all day.

Unless you're playing a solo adventure, yes, you actually can. It's not your job to be the party's face anyway, so staying in wolf form for a full 12 hour period is perfectly feasible assuming that the party's face is good enough with Diplomacy / Intimidate to...

You know what? No. This entire conversation is stupid. "The Druid isn't that good because the DM can put the Druid into situations that favor the Fighter" would be a terrible argument even if it didn't smack of Oberoni.

[TroubleBrewing]

You know what? No. This entire conversation is stupid. "The Druid isn't that good because the DM can put the Druid into situations that favor the Fighter" would be a terrible argument even if it didn't smack of Oberoni.

This whole THREAD smacks of Oberoni.