Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

[Cosi]

Quoting the point you made:



Stressing the word "exactly", not "similarly" or somesuch. Meaning a 1st level Fighter being able to take Troll-Blooded and Shifter Stamina with flaws as source of additional feats.

Care to post such a build?

Care to admit you were wrong on the Internet?

I thought it was obvious that your build doesn't actually work without DM intervention. Your build involves using UA material, which is DM approval only.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I thought it was obvious that your build doesn't actually work without DM intervention. Your build involves using UA material, which is DM approval only.

I wasn't aware of that. I see people use UA material quite often, mostly ACFs.

[emeraldstreak]

I thought it was obvious that your build doesn't actually work without DM intervention. Your build involves using UA material, which is DM approval only.

Even if so, can you post, while using UA material, such a Fighter?

Alternatively, can you admit you thought Toughness or Endurance (or both) were Fighter bonus feats?

[Nifft]

I wasn't aware of that. I see people use UA material quite often, mostly ACFs.

Flaws are also quite common in build discussions, because they're helpful for builds.

That's not an indication that any particular DM will allow them to exist in a real game.

In TO threads, there is no DM, so this fact is trivia.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Flaws are also quite common in build discussions, because they're helpful for builds.

Yeah, I forgot about flaws; I always use them in my own builds.

That's not an indication that any particular DM will allow them to exist in a real game.

That could be the case for just about any material, though.

In TO threads, there is no DM, so this fact is trivia.

I see.

[AnimeTheCat]

I thought it was obvious that your build doesn't actually work without DM intervention. Your build involves using UA material, which is DM approval only.

Every build involves material that requires DM approval because every build must be approved by the DM. If the DM says no to a druid wild shaping into a bear because they're from the desert, that's just the rule. It requires DM approval to use your class feature in your desired way.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Every build involves material that requires DM approval because every build must be approved by the DM. If the DM says no to a druid wild shaping into a bear because they're from the desert, that's just the rule. It requires DM approval to use your class feature in your desired way.

In a discussion like this, the concept of DM approval is irrelevant; we're talking about general optimization, not an individual game.

[Anthrowhale]

What I don't like about Shake It Off is its exact wording "the Pugilist develops non-lethal damage only" may equally apply to damage dealt. To my knowledge the verb "develop" is not used anywhere else in regard to inflicting or taking damage in 3.5.

The wording is odd, but the theory that it applies to damage dealt seems deeply inconsistent. The class grants Improved Unarmed Strike at first level at first level and "Shake it off" reduces stun by 1 round. Altogether, it takes a a much deeper suspension of disbelief to imagine that "Shake it off" is a class feature contradicting another class feature and a nerf to nonexistent methods to causing stun by the Pugilist.

Also, I had forgotten: there is no need to pick up Endurance because that is also granted by Pugilist 1.

Hence, a Shifter Pugilist 1 can just take Shifter Stamina as the level 1 feat and Shake It Off in place of the level 1 fighter feat, no flaws needed.

[AnimeTheCat]

In a discussion like this, the concept of DM approval is irrelevant; we're talking about general optimization, not an individual game.

Then, in general optimization, nothing would be wrong with flaws or unearthed arcana and Cosi's comments about DM approval are irrelevant.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Then, in general optimization, nothing would be wrong with flaws or unearthed arcana and Cosi's comments about DM approval are irrelevant.

I would agree with that assessment. I can see maybe why you'd want to avoid UA content like Fractional BAB, because stuff like that significantly changes the game, but I fail to see why you would put ACFs in the same boat.

[eggynack]

Eh, I think the lower level UA stuff is more generally accepted as optimization fodder. ACFs, racial variants, and even flaws, are more or less wholly compatible with anything else that a DM wants to be doing. Recharge magic isn't a problem because it's in UA. It's a problem because it fundamentally restructures the way magic operates. Similarly, we wouldn't expect a game using some UA material to use fractional BAB/saves. It's a good rule, and a relatively low impact one, but it's still changing the game's structure.

There's nothing being changed structurally by letting a monk have toughness or whatever. Yeah, the UA ACFs are technically presented in a different way than the ACFs and substitution levels in other sources, but they're not really all that different in their functioning. Also, gotta be pointed out, most of them are pretty balanced. The only real exceptions are domain wizard, wild shape ranger, and maybe cloistered cleric. But it's telling, as regards this discussion, that these three game objects, among others, are talked about in the same ways as any other standard character option. People are always like, "If you wanna use MoMF, maybe go wild shape ranger," and there's rarely if ever a caveat about the DM allowing this "variant".

Not everything about how we consider game objects is strictly rules based. Aren't prestige classes technically supposed to be kinda DM permission based? Just checked and it says, "Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM." And yet just about everyone I've seen treats them as though they were as basic to character creation as feats. Most seem to treat UA ACFs in the same way, so it's probably fine to just casually use this stuff in discussions. The fact that the build uses both dragon material and setting specific material is usually a significantly bigger issue.

[Cosi]

The same "if the DM approves your desired ACF" argument can be made for the abrupt jaunt conjuration specialist.

The PHB II does not present itself as DM's option material. In any case, the difference is that while the Wizard does not require Abrupt Jaunt to be effective, the Monk does require UA.

Those points are ones already brought up in this thread and multiple times by what appears to be a minority on these forums. The DM is charged with the balance of the game and should disallow or prevent characters from overshadowing others.

Perhaps. The specific goal of the DM is, of course, a matter for debate. You can DM with the intention on ensuring relative balance (though, of course, doing so does not require that you limit the power of casters to the degree people seem to desire). You can also DM to be a neutral arbiter of the chosen rules, or to present a narrative you find compelling. What is unambiguous is the status of Unearthed Arcana material. Look at what you're saying here:

If that means not allowing the wizard to research polymorph, then so be it. If that means saying that nightsticks don't exist, then so be it.

"Say X doesn't work" is very clearly a different action from "say X is allowed". You can argue that those actions are comparable, but there's nothing at all inconsistent about saying "you can use all the published rules but not variant rules, because those require DM approval". Should I be allowed to assume the Warmage is using Recharge Magic when discussing it?

I wasn't aware of that. I see people use UA material quite often, mostly ACFs.

Sure, and those people are making assumptions about the play environment that are not necessarily warranted. Also, I don't argue with every person I disagree with every time they post something I disagree with. And most of those posts are fairly clear about acknowledging those ACFs as distinct from the base classes. You can have all the opinions you want about Domain Wizards and Wild Shape Rangers. But acting like that proves a point about the power of the Wizard or the Ranger (or, in this case, the Monk) is foolish.

Also, as Nifft points out, those are often TO arguments. And I really don't care about TO. The Wish and the Word is over a decade old, and it gets however much power you happen to ask for using only mechanics that are unambiguous and part of the core rules. As a result, I am unimpressed by schemes to use <dubious rules interpretation> to achieve <overpowered result>. We already know the most powerful character, which makes theorycraft uninteresting.

Even if so, can you post, while using UA material, such a Fighter?

I already posted a Fighter that achieves the same result by begging the DM for cheese. You start as a Human (taking Toughness), die, and get reincarnated as a Shifter. Technically you may need to spring for the true resurrection equivalent of reincarnate from I think Masters of the Wild, but that's splitting hairs. Or you could use the Dark Chaos Shuffle. Or any number of other tricks. Many of which have the advantage of not requiring DM approval. You're using Monk to get a bonus feat. Do you really think bonus feats are hard to get?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Sure, and those people are making assumptions about the play environment that are not necessarily warranted.

Up until now, I don't recall every hearing anyone say that UA ACFs are less likely to be accepted by DMs than any other ACFs.

Also, I don't argue with every person I disagree with every time they post something I disagree with. And most of those posts are fairly clear about acknowledging those ACFs as distinct from the base classes. You can have all the opinions you want about Domain Wizards and Wild Shape Rangers. But acting like that proves a point about the power of the Wizard or the Ranger (or, in this case, the Monk) is foolish.

I was under the impression that Wild Shape made the Ranger quite a bit better.

Also, as Nifft points out, those are often TO arguments. And I really don't care about TO. The Wish and the Word is over a decade old, and it gets however much power you happen to ask for using only mechanics that are unambiguous and part of the core rules. As a result, I am unimpressed by schemes to use <dubious rules interpretation> to achieve <overpowered result>. We already know the most powerful character, which makes theorycraft uninteresting.

Using UA content is TO?

EDIT: Or were you talking about using Dragon Magazine content?

[emeraldstreak]

I already posted a Fighter that achieves the same result by begging the DM for cheese. You start as a Human (taking Toughness), die, and get reincarnated as a Shifter. Technically you may need to spring for the true resurrection equivalent of reincarnate from I think Masters of the Wild, but that's splitting hairs. Or you could use the Dark Chaos Shuffle. Or any number of other tricks. Many of which have the advantage of not requiring DM approval. You're using Monk to get a bonus feat. Do you really think bonus feats are hard to get?

Spellcasting services cost money a 1st level Fighter can't afford. You're inflating the Fighter's WBL, which of course makes him better and also very, very houseruled.

You originally posted while thinking Toughness or Endurance (or both) are Fighter bonus feats, you were wrong, and since then you've been swiveling to find a way to not be wrong.

You cannot admit being wrong even on this very minor issue (thinking one of these feats is a Fighter bonus, a common mistake). This fits with your overall style of posting on this forum.

[Cosi]

Up until now, I don't recall every hearing anyone say that UA ACFs are less likely to be accepted by DMs than any other ACFs.

That's not the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making, roughly, is that non-table-specific optimization shouldn't assume anything that requires DM intervention. So just as you shouldn't assume that some rules ambiguity is resolved in your favor, you shouldn't assume that Unearthed Arcana material is allowed.

I was under the impression that Wild Shape made the Ranger quite a bit better.

Well, Wild Shape Ranger is good, but its also ranked separately from Ranger in e.g. the Tier System. If Wild Shape Ranger was really just a buff to the Ranger, why make that distinction?

Using UA content is TO?

TO is, of course, a poorly defined term. In this case I mean that using Unearthed Arcana is making assumptions in excess of what I consider to be justified by RAW. I frankly don't see a substantive bright line between "you can use Flaws and UA ACFs" and "you can use Recharge Magic". But again, I don't really care, because the whole "make a character that bends the rules to be stupidly powerful" thing is not useful, important, or meaningful. You can make a character who has however much power you happen to ask for without bending the rules. Why should I care that you might be able to convince your DM to let you play a character who is simply more powerful than they are supposed to be?

Spellcasting services cost money a 1st level Fighter can't afford. You're inflating the Fighter's WBL, which of course makes him better and also very, very houseruled.

WBL breaks are RAW. Hell, just add an extra step where you have another life as an Elf and farm for a couple thousand years. But, yes, getting <insert cheese> to get Toughness at 1st level requires the DM to support that, implicitly or explicitly. So does using DM-approval material.

You originally posted while thinking Toughness or Endurance (or both) are Fighter bonus feats, you were wrong, and since then you've been swiveling to find a way to not be wrong.

Don't you think that if I thought that I would have said it? I said that you made a build that works no better for the Monk than the Fighter. Which you did. It seems like if you actually thought I was wrong on the rules level of the debate, you would spend more time there and less time on ad hominems.

However, I will freely admit to being wrong if you acknowledge the legitimacy of the Recharge Magic Warmage. Do that, and I will admit publicly and explicitly that I was wrong.

[ColorBlindNinja]

That's not the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making, roughly, is that non-table-specific optimization shouldn't assume anything that requires DM intervention. So just as you shouldn't assume that some rules ambiguity is resolved in your favor, you shouldn't assume that Unearthed Arcana material is allowed.

Alright, I think I understand what you mean.

Well, Wild Shape Ranger is good, but its also ranked separately from Ranger in e.g. the Tier System. If Wild Shape Ranger was really just a buff to the Ranger, why make that distinction?

I assume because the buff is rather significant?

TO is, of course, a poorly defined term.

That it is.

In this case I mean that using Unearthed Arcana is making assumptions in excess of what I consider to be justified by RAW. I frankly don't see a substantive bright line between "you can use Flaws and UA ACFs" and "you can use Recharge Magic". But again, I don't really care, because the whole "make a character that bends the rules to be stupidly powerful" thing is not useful, important, or meaningful. You can make a character who has however much power you happen to ask for without bending the rules. Why should I care that you might be able to convince your DM to let you play a character who is simply more powerful than they are supposed to be?

OK, I think I understand your stance on this matter.

[Cosi]

I assume because the buff is rather significant?

The tiers actually have entries for classes that get significant buffs from specific ACFs. Those entries are presented differently from the one for Wild Shape Ranger. Certainly I don't claim to be able to read JaronK's mind, but it seems reasonable to infer that presenting Fighters with the Dungeoncrasher ACF differently from Wild Shape Rangers (see here, specifically the difference between "Wildshape Varient Ranger" and "Fighter (Dungeoncrasher Variant)") implies a difference in how those options are viewed.

[Calthropstu]

As I've noted, luminous armor is accessible to all three, and wild shape makes such an effect not all that important.

Unless you have decent distance/defense from the situation. Druids are pretty good at getting both, and spontaneous summoning means that any real opportunity can become bears.

Is there any particular reason you've decided to evaluate a single first level BFC spell? They have so many BFC and debuff effects. Kelpstrand, wall of thorns, blinding spittle, just so frigging many effects like this.

Really not an issue, given both how mediocre damage spells are on the whole, and that they have summons, the animal companion, and maybe wild shape to deal damage. Also, they have some decent damage options. Boreal wind, righteous hammer, and splinterbolt come to mind.

So, that's it for the spell evaluation then? AC boosts, summons, entangle, and damage spells? Do you have any idea how far you have to go through the list of spells in my handbook before you hit a single one of those? Skipping 0th's (which have no spells of any of these categories, so it'd work in my favor rather than against it), you have aquatic escape, aspect of the wolf, blockade, camouflage, charm animal, cloudburst, darsson's cooling breeze, endure elements, and enrage animal. The next one is entangle. Druids have a lot of spells.


The best of their best for optimizing? Are you joking? That was a wild shape form you're going to want to be in anyway combined with an hours/level 2nd level spell.


Why is the bat over your head? Druids have spells. They can engage from a distance. This giant bat could be 50 feet away.

Decent plan until the druid casts wind wall or friendly fire.

Your experience doesn't really mean too much to the capacities of a druid. The animal companion is logically incapable of being anything but strict upside.

Are you going to actually evaluate the example I provided? I literally laid out how an animal companion can easily acquire the durability of a melee character. I don't know why, given this, you're just saying they can be easily eliminated. Of course a first level riding dog can be easily eliminated. Anything can be easily eliminated at first level. A riding dog, however, isn't particularly easier to eliminate than anything else, and they're going to be the only party member with the ability to be raised from the dead.


Eagle? Seriously?

Eagle. Why are you becoming or having an eagle? I get that these are legal options, but that doesn't mean you have to pick them. I... don't think fly checks are a thing in 3.5. Are fly checks a thing in 3.5?


This is a ludicrous claim. Druids are one of the least ability dependent classes in the entire game. Make a game where everyone gets nothing but 3's and you still have a riding dog and wild shape forms. Make a game where everyone just gets 11's and you can almost always cast your highest level spells and still have all of that combat capacity. Make a totally normal game and the druid can invest in literally nothing but wisdom and constitution, because the other two get replaced whenever you need it. I have literally no idea what "dex for flying" means.


Wilding clasps are a thing, and plenty of great items can be used without them. Ring of the beast, for example.

That's a really really bad characterization. What level are we even talking about here? At first, a druid is more or less a straight up fighter that happens to have a druid friend around who can launch sling bolts and entangles to back it up. At 6th, a druid is a straight up spell platform with a wide variety of strong options, mostly BFC based. And they have venomfire now if you want cheese. At any point past that, they're even more of a spell platform.


And the 5th level druid casts sleetstorm, plant growth, mass snake's swiftness, kelpstrand, blinding spittle, or any number of other spells. I'd take that before literally anything you listed. I mean, the wizard can probably do better, but you said fireball, and that's not exactly super impressive.


Yeah, fundamentally arbitrary house rules can arbitrarily hurt characters.



I literally said riding dog. Wolf can work in a pinch.


You can also take a fleshraker, which is quite a bit better in general. Same to-hit, and a lot of beefy advantages.


That seems pretty mediocre, to be honest. You do realize that spells are an option here, right? Blinding spittle, for example. The fighter is now, in all likelihood, blinded.


Could do that, or the druid could just not be a dinosaur and cast some spells. I really don't much use wild shape at level 5, to be honest. If it's this hard for your fighter to hit the druid's AC of 21, I wonder how hard it'll be to hit the fleshraker's AC of 22 after I stick leather barding on him.


The druid does not have bull's strength prepared. Because that spell kinda sucks.

Nah. I think the druid is pretty advantaged with literally none of that.

You're spending almost half your gold on potion buffs?

So, yeah, if you ignore access to all of the actually impactful spells and just pretend to be a particularly mediocre fighter, you wind up with a particularly mediocre fighter. If you don't ignore the impactful spells, and instead do the opposite of that, then super AC having fighter becomes pretty crappy. A blinded idiot swiping in vain at a druid who can maybe win through the use of sling bullets (though it may become necessary to toss some other spells into the mix). If you choose not to build a particularly mediocre fighter, and instead build a pretty good fighter, then you wind up with a fleshraker, maybe even a natural bond having fleshraker, still backed up by a druid.


Probably doesn't. Few things. First, while fighter is tier five, the weaker tier five is the monk. Not as great a comparison for the not-AC. Second, wolves are good, but riding dogs are better, and leather barding is a thing. Combine these two and the comparison becomes quite a bit better for the animal companion. Third, the goal here isn't precisely outfighting, though that can happen depending on setup and situation. What you want, and this is true across a range of early levels, is something close enough to a fighter. Maybe better, maybe worse, but, broadly speaking, capable of doing the things you want a fighter to do.

Be a fighter? Maybe not. Fully replace a fighter? I think it's possible. A well built fighter is usually going to be better than an animal companion. There are exceptions, but whatever. But what do you want a fighter for? There're a few things. You want someone to stand in front to soak up some attacks. You want someone to traipse into a controlled battlefield to do the damage. You maybe want someone to add extra control to the battlefield, not as the main source but to supplement what's already going on. An animal companion does these things. It does these things well enough that you probably don't need another fighter. You usually can't get ranged combat (though I'm a big fan of the sailsnake), but you're a druid and that's not really why you wanted a fighter in the first place.


Depends on some factors, but sure.


Unicorn summoning is pretty efficient, but also sure.


Still makes literally no sense.

Sure on the first. Depends on the cleric comparison. They both have advantages and disadvantages.

This:

Really not true. Wizard casting is usually going to be stronger than druid casting. Cleric casting is often going to be weaker. Druid spells are amazing. Without it, with nothing but their direct combat, their healing, their blasting, and their entangle, they are not tier one. It's after you account for the fact that they have an incredibly powerful and versatile spell list that they hit tier one. The list of things a druid cannot do is shockingly small. And we haven't even gotten into wild shape optimization yet, which winds up covering a surprising amount of gaps in the spell list.


Dharculus, yo. Planar handbook, page 112. Really sweet.

I'd expect the guy who wrote the druid handbook to try to defend druids, but you're simply wrong about their spell list.
Sure, it has some bfc but that bfc is terrible. Most of them slow down the enemy but doesn't stop them. Sure, there's a few decent ones but level by level, their spell list simply loses. Plus, their spell list is extremely selfish as far as buffs are concerned.
This is the class that is supposed to wield and control the power of nature, but I don't get that feeling from this class. Call lightning, for example, is extremely weak. 3d6 damage can be safely ignored by simply 10 points of resistance. Compare that to lightning bolt (which druids should totally get btw). It just flat loses. But, since you agreed that they lose to wizard, that's beating a dead horse.

I am going to blatantly ignore the unicorn thing. "An item exists in something somewhere that allows the druid to cast a spell to summon this creature..." No. I'm sticking to what you will generally see at a standard table using mid optimization.
Besides, outside of combat, there are plenty of options for healing that don't require spell slots. If you're needing spell slots for healing, that healing is probably needed RIGHT NOW.
So expending a 4th lvl spell slot and a 1 round action to get the result of a 2nd level spell won't cut it. As such, I maintain clerics are flat better at healing.
What's that? Druids can cast those healing spells too? Yeah, prepared... kinda hurts your case that druids are better than clerics if they have to prepare healing spells in slots that clerics don't have to.
Now 3.5 and pathfinder have very different summon lists. At summoning in 3.5 the druid is king. That is their only shining grace. Pathfinder, It's more arguable, but the fact they can sac any spell to summon is very heavy in their favor. So summons I give to druids... they are great at it all around. Making a druid specialized in summoning would be fantastic.

But otherwise, their spell list...

Let's look at the d20 srd.

1st lvl.
Druid:
Not a lot going on here. Entangle and shalelaeigh are clear winners. Entangle allows for both str and dex based to have outs though, so likely trapping few for more than a round. Still, it keeps the same usability at all levels. Shalelaeigh turns your staff into a magic double bladed great sword. Pretty neat. Too bad only you can use it. Summon nature's ally has no need to be prepared and the rest of that list is flat garbage, extremely situational or is also received by the cleric.

Cleric list:
Bless, a mass buff.
Bane, a mass debuff. Both together is pretty damned effective, applies to all atracks on both sides and are easily a great choice all around.
Cause fear. An enemy flat out runs away. Any enemy. Where the druid spells only function on animals, the cleric also affects animals and everything else.
Comprehend languages. Awww yeah... we can now understand the other side and try to assuage their fears or prevent horrendous misunderstandings.
... Just look at that cleric list. Compare it to that druid list. Cleric is so clearly the winner it's not even funny.
Level 2:
Let's see what we have here.

Druid:
Barkskin, a fairly decent buff.
Fire trap, a situationally decent trap.
Fog cloud, a very good escape spell. Needs decent tactical acumen to use to its full potential otherwise.
Heat/chill metal, neat. Make your opponent drop his weapon, or deal a bit of damage by heating his armor. Takes a while though, and they're likely dead before the full damage hits them.
Hold animal... unless you're regularly fighting animals in the wilderness... useless. And getting attacked by animals is RARE. Or should be.
Soften earth is actually very powerful situationally. You could theoretically bring down a castle with enough castings. But again, very situational, and hard to use.
Cleric:
Hold person. People attack people far more often than animals. Shutting down a person is much more useful.
Aid, bonus hp and an attack bonus that stacks with bless? Pretty cool.
Augury: a very nice little divination.
Darkness: An amazing utility spell.
Enthrall: Temporarily stop a combat giving diplomacy a chance to work.
Find traps: fairly good spell. Lets the cleric act as a rogue in a pinch.
Inflict mod: Now we have a nice damage spell. 2d8+5 beats almost any weapon.
Make whole: fix anything. An extremely useful spell.
Remove paralysis: Remember how I said clerics are better healers? This is also why. Why don't druids get this?
Shatter: Destroy an opponents weapon. Where the druid makes them drop a weapon (or take damage) you just break it. No picking it up now.
Zone of truth: know when someone is lying. Sounds very useful to me.

For 2nd level the buffs are reasonably even. But cleric wins BIG in utility and combat spells.

That disparity continues in every spell level with clerics crushing druids.

Druids are the worst full casting class BY FAR as far as spells go. Their physical capabilities lose to mundanes.

Though, to be fair, they do beat wizards and clerics in physical capabilities. If they are a t1 class, I put them at the absolute bottom.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I am going to blatantly ignore the unicorn thing. "An item exists in something somewhere that allows the druid to cast a spell to summon this creature..." No. I'm sticking to what you will generally see at a standard table using mid optimization.

Why are you ignoring a useful item that Druids can purchase? As long as the city's big enough, by RAW you can buy any magic item you want.

Besides, outside of combat, there are plenty of options for healing that don't require spell slots. If you're needing spell slots for healing, that healing is probably needed RIGHT NOW.

If the party's doing their job, they won't need to heal in combat.

So expending a 4th lvl spell slot and a 1 round action to get the result of a 2nd level spell won't cut it. As such, I maintain clerics are flat better at healing.

Druids get Vigor, that's enough for them to heal competently.

What's that? Druids can cast those healing spells too? Yeah, prepared... kinda hurts your case that druids are better than clerics if they have to prepare healing spells in slots that clerics don't have to.

Clerics can only spontaneously cast Cure spells, which tend to be mediocre in combat. Plus, Clerics with Rebuke Undead can't even do that.

Now 3.5 and pathfinder have very different summon lists. At summoning in 3.5 the druid is king. That is their only shining grace. Pathfinder, It's more arguable, but the fact they can sac any spell to summon is very heavy in their favor. So summons I give to druids... they are great at it all around. Making a druid specialized in summoning would be fantastic.

Indeed, Greenbound Summoning is exceedingly good at low levels.

But otherwise, their spell list...

Let's look at the d20 srd.

[SNIP]

At low levels, (before level 5) Greenbound Summoning along with Entangled and Blinding Spittle should suffice. After level 5, Venomfire is the Druid's best bet for damage.

That disparity continues in every spell level with clerics crushing druids.

Druid's spell list is inferior to the Wizard & Cleric. But those are two of the best classes in the entire game.

Druids are the worst full casting class BY FAR as far as spells go.

Worse than the Healer? Than the Warmage?

Their physical capabilities lose to mundanes.

Say what? Wild Shape alone lets Druids beat out most melee classes.

Though, to be fair, they do beat wizards and clerics in physical capabilities.

That depends on what spells the Wizard and Cleric use.

If they are a t1 class, I put them at the absolute bottom.

I would agree that Druids are the worst of the tier 1 classes, but they still are massively stronger than 90% of the other classes in the game.

[Nifft]

Druids are the worst full casting class BY FAR as far as spells go.

Worse than Spirit Shamans?

[RoboEmperor]

Rules are...
1. 1st Party Official
2. 1st Party Variant Rule
3. 1st Party House Rule (Unearthed Arcana)
4. 3rd Party Official (Dragon Magazine, Dragonlance)
5. 3rd Party
6. Homebrew/House Rule

Unearthed Arcana is an entire tier below what is generally accepted as RAW so there are a lot of DMs who don't allow it.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Rules are...
1. 1st Party Official
2. 1st Party Variant Rule
3. 1st Party House Rule (Unearthed Arcana)
4. 3rd Party Official (Dragon Magazine, Dragonlance)
5. 3rd Party
6. Homebrew/House Rule

Unearthed Arcana is an entire tier below what is generally accepted as RAW so there are a lot of DMs who don't allow it.

First time I've heard of it.

EDIT: Also, last I checked, Dragon Magazine was official 1st party content.

[Nifft]

Rules are...
1. 1st Party Official
2. 1st Party Variant Rule
3. 1st Party House Rule (Unearthed Arcana)
4. 3rd Party Official (Dragon Magazine, Dragonlance)
5. 3rd Party
6. Homebrew/House Rule

Unearthed Arcana is an entire tier below what is generally accepted as RAW so there are a lot of DMs who don't allow it.

At any given table, that table's house rules must by definition "win" over 1st party official content.


Here's the legality structure as I've seen it in the wild...

1. Local house rules
2. Stuff the DM likes, including the DM's own homebrew
3. SRD
4. Books the DM owns
5. Books a player lent the DM
6. Books the players own but don't lend
7. PDFs that one guy downloaded illegally, we don't like to talk about him
8. Forum opinions
9. The FAQ
10. Dragon Magazine
11. Other people's homebrew

[Kelb_Panthera]

First time I've heard of it.

EDIT: Also, last I checked, Dragon Magazine was official 1st party content.

Check again. Dragon magazine, including the compendium, is Paizo publishing's content with WotC licencing.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Check again. Dragon magazine, including the compendium, is Paizo publishing's content with WotC licencing.

Then why do the issues have the words "100% Official Content" plastered on the front covers?

[RoboEmperor]

Then why do the issues have the words "100% Official Content" plastered on the front covers?

Because it's 3rd Party Official?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Because it's 3rd Party Official?

What does that even mean?

[RoboEmperor]

What does that even mean?

1st Party = WotC
3rd party = Anyone not WotC, like Paizo.
Official = WotC says it's official even though they personally did not create it.
Unofficial = WotC doesn't say it's official.

Like you said Dragon Magazine is 100% official, but it was created by Paizo not WotC, so it's 3rd Party Official.
Dragonlance Campaign Setting is similarly also 3rd Party Official, but every single other Dragonlance book is just 3rd Party because WotC didn't say it's official.

[ColorBlindNinja]

1st Party = WotC
3rd party = Anyone not WotC, like Paizo.
Official = WotC says it's official even though they personally did not create it.
Unofficial = WotC doesn't say it's official.

Like you said Dragon Magazine is 100% official, but it was created by Paizo not WotC, so it's 3rd Party Official.
Dragonlance Campaign Setting is similarly also 3rd Party Official, but every single other Dragonlance book is just 3rd Party because WotC didn't say it's official.

Seems overly convoluted. It would seem to me that anything that WotC labels as official content should carry the same weight as 1st party content.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Then why do the issues have the words "100% Official Content" plastered on the front covers?

Because the WotC licencing allows them to do so. It also allows them to use product identify features; like mindflayers, beholders, the names "Leomund" and "Tenser" etc; that are not part of the open gaming licence.

The point is, the first party publisher is Wizards of the Coast. Paizo is not Wizards of the coast. Dragon magazine is officially licenced third party content. That's just all there is to it.