Being Everything: Eggynack's Comprehensive Druid Handbook

[eggynack]

Eggy: is there any part of this that would be useful for my transmogrifist handbook? I'm assuming that the wildshape part makes reference to useful Ex qualities thanks to enhance wild shape, and there are critters with insane natural weapon routines hidden somewhere. Is there anything else that might be useful, in that document or others?

Most of my good research along those lines pop up in relation to aberrations, and maybe plants. Animals are kinda boring, both in terms of enhance and massed natural weapons. Can't say as I know what specifically would be useful in non-druidic contexts, but there's certainly a wide swath of stuff covered, so such things are plausible.

[Endarire]

For Wild Shape purposes, what about Monster Manual III's topiary guardians?

For Aberration Wild Shape forms, what about these?

-Choker (dual actions as a Supernatural ability)

-Beholder (uber Supernatural abilities)

[Troacctid]

Also teamwork benefits are probably at least a little useful in regards to animal companion optimization.

[Snowbluff]

I suggest for Dragon Wild Shape the Oceanus Dragon, since their alternative breath weapon is a Dazing breath. Good for getting around immunities.

Also, the DCs of your breath weapons are based on your stats, not fixed.

[eggynack]

For Wild Shape purposes, what about Monster Manual III's topiary guardians?

It's not strictly stated, but topiary guardian seems to be a template to me, given that you have these strictly followed construction guidelines.

-Choker (dual actions as a Supernatural ability)

-Beholder (uber Supernatural abilities)

I've been tending away from the Su stuff, cause I don't feel it's necessary when Ex abilities are right there. For these two in particular, choker feels a lot like a more expensive nilshai, and the beholder actually is mentioned in the context of assume supernatural ability.

Also teamwork benefits are probably at least a little useful in regards to animal companion optimization.

Yeah, those seem kinda interesting. Not especially high in scale, but at least a couple seem like freebies.

Edit:

I suggest for Dragon Wild Shape the Oceanus Dragon, since their alternative breath weapon is a Dazing breath. Good for getting around immunities.

Also, the DCs of your breath weapons are based on your stats, not fixed.

On the latter point, I think that may actually be a broader problem. Notably, I think the only relevant altered stat is HD, because the stat in question is held to the form, but the HD thing is indeed an important point. Oceanus is interesting, meanwhile, but figuring out where it falls on the big comparison test could take a bit. Still do need to figure out the overall organization of that section, cause I've been super lazy on that point.

[Snowbluff]

Edit:
On the latter point, I think that may actually be a broader problem. Notably, I think the only relevant altered stat is HD, because the stat in question is held to the form, but the HD thing is indeed an important point. Oceanus is interesting, meanwhile, but figuring out where it falls on the big comparison test could take a bit. Still do need to figure out the overall organization of that section, cause I've been super lazy on that point.

Yeah, I would strong suggest getting a wilding clasp for a Constitution and maybe Ability focus: Breath Weapon if you're really in love with dragon forms.

As for the handbook layout, maybe it would be helpful to lay out the abilities of the weird forms like so:

Oceanus Dragon
Breath Weapon: Lightning or Daze
Abilities: Swim speed, waterbreathing/Amphibious, Smite Evil,

[eggynack]

As for the handbook layout, maybe it would be helpful to lay out the abilities of the weird forms like so:

Oceanus Dragon
Breath Weapon: Lightning or Daze
Abilities: Swim speed, waterbreathing/Amphibious, Smite Evil,

Not really what I mean. Dragons come in these clumps with static ability sets, and I think my current organization has some things as true dragons that really aren't, and which instead have different abilities, sometimes better ones. Think that little lung dragon section, except also with planar dragons, and maybe gem dragons (though I think sapphire is by far the best), and maybe a couple others.

[Snowbluff]

Not really what I mean. Dragons come in these clumps with static ability sets, and I think my current organization has some things as true dragons that really aren't, and which instead have different abilities, sometimes better ones. Think that little lung dragon section, except also with planar dragons, and maybe gem dragons (though I think sapphire is by far the best), and maybe a couple others.

Oh okay.

I'd like to point out crystal dragons. They blind on a reflex save. That's nice, since a lot of monsters are far worse reflex saves than others.

[eggynack]

Oh okay.

I'd like to point out crystal dragons. They blind on a reflex save. That's nice, since a lot of monsters are far worse reflex saves than others.

Y'know, I would say that that's irrelevant compared to all the stuff a sapphire dragon has, but just the fact that two is enough to make a fancy category might be enough to justify it. The other possibility is just tossing sapphire dragons into the miscellaneous category, where the abilities are defined within the creature itself.

[Snowbluff]

Y'know, I would say that that's irrelevant compared to all the stuff a sapphire dragon has, but just the fact that two is enough to make a fancy category might be enough to justify it. The other possibility is just tossing sapphire dragons into the miscellaneous category, where the abilities are defined within the creature itself.

I'll have to check what sapphire dragon has again.

[eggynack]

I'll have to check what sapphire dragon has again.

Sense psychoportation mostly. 24 AC doesn't hurt either.

[Endarire]

"Dragon" 319, page 34 (May, 2004) has Dark Sun animal companions. None seem better than the Fleshraker, but they may be worth considering if you're a no-go on Fleshy the Raker.

[eggynack]

"Dragon" 319, page 34 (May, 2004) has Dark Sun animal companions. None seem better than the Fleshraker, but they may be worth considering if you're a no-go on Fleshy the Raker.

Oh, wow, that's like a full on variant rather than a new set of companions, given that it looks like you have to choose between that list and the other one. Time for some weird dragon/dungeon cross-referencing.

Separately, as long as I'm here, I've added the spell wind at back and altered ethergaunt form to reflect the potential ambiguity regarding its vision ability.

Edit: Few arbitrary notes, reflective of the beginnings of my variant read through. First, what's the legality/acceptance of dungeon stuff, and critically, what's the acceptance of dungeon stuff when a source you're presumably using directly references it? Second, any opinions on what this variant should be called? I'm thinking dark sun druid or dark sun companion. Third, holy crap the kank seems insane. Yeah, you lose the riding dog's trip, but that poison's either about as good or better, and the rest just seems way better. Fourth, where the hell is the yallix? Can't see it anywhere. So, yeah, that's where I am after starting companions. Hopefully the rest will be as interesting.

Double-edit: Can't seem to find a ton of these creatures.

Final-edit: Found them. They're in Dungeon 111. Weird that they wouldn't put that info in dragon.

[Endarire]

Dark Sun Companions are definitely accurate descriptions.

[eggynack]

Well, that took awhile. Dark Sun companion is now hanging out in the variant section, being all long and junk. That's one weird variant right there.

[Norin]

Any info on plant companion and how to best utilize them?

(dragon magazine #357)

If you already have a section on it, i must have missed it.

[eggynack]

Any info on plant companion and how to best utilize them?

(dragon magazine #357)

If you already have a section on it, i must have missed it.

Haven't done it yet, no. Not really sure what it's good for, if anything, though I've considered including it a few times.

Separately, I now have an entry for draconic aura. Also considering doing some editing to urban companion, to reflect its higher level utility, and don't be too surprised if phynxkin companion and draconic aura get edited to reflect the interaction. Thinking more, might skip that whole phynxkin thing and just include dragontouched. Seems like a great way to give the whole party spell penetration, and it turns out that the fleshraker is totally qualified, presumably along with some other notable companions.

[Cosi]

From this thread.

Seems plausible. Cost is a bit prohibitive, but the impact is high.

Should probably note that it's 3.0 content, so you do have to convert it (AFAIK, partial actions are the equivalent of 3.5 Standard actions). But yes, Multitasking is very good. Particularly with shapechange, as you can turn into a Chronotyryn (pocketing Dual Action), Wild Shape into an Octopus, and get eight standards a round.

It's a complicated spell. There's some interesting utility that wasn't previously available, and it wouldn't necessarily be awful if not for broader scale availability of effects that deny bombardment's SoL nature. The question of whether a spell is overleveled seems like it'd be relatively easy on the surface, but it becomes a lot more complex when dealing with high leveled druid spells because of the general weakness of those spells. Simply saying, "Yeah, this isn't much better than the 5th level version," isn't enough, because it still might be better than other available options. The fact of the matter is that some rather small changes to the spell would make it quite usable, if not necessarily good.

But the spell actually is bad. The question of how you would make it good is an interesting design question, and being able to answer that question is a valuable trait in someone who wants to write a D&D Handbook (as it signals a strong knowledge of the rules), but it's neither here nor there when it comes down to the brass tacks of playing a Druid.

I think I have most of that information in a general sense in the first section of each entry. It's not perfect, but I think you wind up knowing about what you need to know.

Honestly, I think the header for each entry should have the physical stats, as well as some combination of movement modes, natural attacks, and natural armor. That's information that people want, and it's a summary that makes skimming the guide much easier.

I agree in part. The reason it wound up that way is because that's the order that I wrote the entries, and I acknowledge that the way the comparison ordering worked out isn't ideal. However, in that case and many like it, the creature that comes later is decidedly the more iconic creature of the type. Using the obscure barracuda as the base creature tells you significantly less than using the well known shark.

Then put core stuff first. That lets all your citations be to things people know, and ensures that nothing is citing to a later entry.

Might be worth looking into, I suppose. Still, my entry on shapechange is necessarily pretty much the opposite of all encompassing. I don't know if there's much point to optimizing the thing when you're already past the singularity.

Possibly. My opinion on the matter is that any guide should have a "cheese" section, for stuff that is legal, but "broken" in whatever sense. So shapechange (both stacking and awaken tricks), the Octopus Druid, and Planar Shepherd shenanigans.

I'm not really sure where you're getting iterative attacks here, but even if you have them, they don't work on iteratives, cause iteratives work only with your bite attack. I don't think there's a way to get two bite attacks. I think there're ways to get some unarmed strikes in there, but those aren't all that great, and are kinda independent of your natural weapon stack.

So you change into some animal, right? That animal has natural attacks, which you can either use with your normal attack routine (which allows you to make iterative attacks with natural weapons, making the bite of the Wolf or 3e T-Rex OP) or with the animal's attack routine (which makes stacking damage buffs really good). They're both ways of fighting with Wild Shape, but they use totally different strategies. You should probably talk about that (and find some rules quotes which lean one way or the other).

[eggynack]

Should probably note that it's 3.0 content, so you do have to convert it (AFAIK, partial actions are the equivalent of 3.5 Standard actions). But yes, Multitasking is very good. Particularly with shapechange, as you can turn into a Chronotyryn (pocketing Dual Action), Wild Shape into an Octopus, and get eight standards a round.

3.0 isn't really an issue in itself, and the partial action thing seems workable given the feat's wording.

But the spell actually is bad. The question of how you would make it good is an interesting design question, and being able to answer that question is a valuable trait in someone who wants to write a D&D Handbook (as it signals a strong knowledge of the rules), but it's neither here nor there when it comes down to the brass tacks o playing a Druid.

What could make it good is indeed irrelevant. What's important is that the line between bombardment and good is a lot thinner and blurrier than you give it credit for. I wouldn't be surprised if the spell started black, and if a spell essentially fools me then that's enough trap for my book.

Honestly, I think the header for each entry should have the physical stats, as well as some combination of movement modes, natural attacks, and natural armor. That's information that people want, and it's a summary that makes skimming the guide much easier.

Can't say I haven't thought about it, but it's a tricky thing. I'll consider it further.

Then put core stuff first. That lets all your citations be to things people know, and ensures that nothing is citing to a later entry.

I don't like to source discriminate to that extent, and I don't even think all iconic forms are core.

Possibly. My opinion on the matter is that any guide should have a "cheese" section, for stuff that is legal, but "broken" in whatever sense. So shapechange (both stacking and awaken tricks), the Octopus Druid, and Planar Shepherd shenanigans.

The problem isn't that it's cheese, but that it's unimpactful. You're essentially as adding a couple points of add strength to the ability to use infinite wishes.

So you change into some animal, pright? That animal has natural attacks, which you can either use with your normal attack routine (which allows you to make iterative attacks with natural weapons, making the bite of the Wolf or 3e T-Rex OP) or with the animal's attack routine (which makesstacking damage buffs really good). They're both ways of fighting with Wild Shape, but they use totally different strategies. You should probably talk about that (and find some rules quotes which lean one way or the other).

That's just not how natural weapons work. They don't have iteratives ever. I'd give the citation, but I'm on a phone. The special ability entry is where the quote is though.

[Cosi]

What could make or good is indeed irrelevant. What's important is that the line between bombardment and good is a lot thinner and blurrier than you give it credit for. I wouldn't be surprised if the spell started black, and if a spell essentially fools me then that's enough trap for my book.

It's a blasting spell. When was the last time one of those was worth it at 15th level? Yes, it has a minor lockdown option attached, but targets get a save and subsequently can get out with a STR check or teleport SLA. Of SRD monsters, you can get the Mummy Lord (which is not all that dangerous, being a CR 5 monster stapled to a level 10 Cleric), and maybe the Dragons if your DCs are good.

I don't like to source discriminate to that extent, and I don't even think all iconic forms are core.

Isn't citing to the core form (medium shark) from the splat form (barracuda) because people are familiar with core, the exact same type of source discrimination, except that it makes things harder to parse?

The problem isn't that it's cheese, but that it's unimpactful. You'really essentially as adding a couple points of add strength to the ability to use infinite wishes.

Well, shapechange itself belongs in a cheese section, but there are certainly degrees. wish cheese probably counts as its own thing, distinct from using shapechange to stack immunities like "bludgeoning damage" and "non-bludgeoning damage".

That's just not how natural weapons work. They don't have iteratives ever. I'd give the citation, but I'm on a phone. The special ability entry is where the quote is though.

That's possible. I have heard the argument made the other way, but you may be correct. In any case, the idea of grabbing a bunch of natural attacks, stacking damage buffs, and shredding people deserves to at least be mentioned.

[eggynack]

It's a blasting spell. When was the last time one of those was worth it at 15th level? Yes, it has a minor lockdown option attached, but targets get a save and subsequently can get out with a STR check or teleport SLA. Of SRD monsters, you can get the Mummy Lord (which is not all that dangerous, being a CR 5 monster stapled to a level 10 Cleric), and maybe the Dragons if your DCs are good.

Have you looked at the list of 8th's I have? So many blasting spells with upside. Druid 8th's are quite bad.

Isn't citing to the core form (medium shark) from the splat form (barracuda) because people are familiar with core, the exact same type of source discrimination, except that it makes things harder to parse?

Not really, because the iconic creature isn't necessarily core. It could be a fleshraker or something. In any case, the general design of the handbook emphasizes ease of finding a given thing, rather than utility from reading in order.

Well, shapechange itself belongs in a cheese section, but there are ce rtainly degrees. wish cheese probably counts as its own thing, distinct from using shapechange to stack immunities like "bludgeoning damage" and "non-bludgeoning damage".

Maybe, but the main problem is that there're so many degrees of cheese between wishes and wild shape stacking. By the time I get to the latter, I have a shapechange handbook, and that's really not something I wanna do. Better, I thought, to make a bare bones proof that anything plausible pre-epic can be done with shapechange. From there, it's really up to the player what subset of everything they want.

That's possible. I have heard the argument made the other way, but you may be correct. In any case, the idea of grabbing a bunch of natural attacks, stacking damage buffs, and shredding people deserves to at least be mentioned.

I'm not all that sure what that plan looks like in optimal form though. Druids typically aren't about stacking dice onto attacks. The best damage buffs are like bite and greater magic fang, where they work about as well on a wolf as on an octopus. I guess there're item methods, but I'm not sure they'reworth it, and it's far more likely that the couple of items would reference the pile of forms rather than putting that information in a weird paragraph thing.

Edit: I can do the citation on natural weapons now, so, "Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons." (MM I, 312) The text is actually strict enough that it may preclude other sources of extra attacks. Like, you may only get one unarmed strike if you have access to those.

[Cosi]

Have you looked at the list of 8th's I have? So many blasting spells with upside. Druid 8th's are quite bad.

I still don't understand how that justifies a paragraph that is longer than the spell's description explaining exactly how it is bad. Yes, Druid 8ths aren't the best in the world, but it's not like there aren't good spells on the list.

Not really, because the iconic creature isn't necessarily core. It could be a fleshraker or something. In any case, the general design of the handbook emphasizes ease of finding a given thing, rather than utility from reading in order.

Be that as it may, the citation of something being like a subsequent thing seems like an unacceptably poor layout choice to me.

Maybe, but the main problem is that there're so many degrees of cheese between wishes and wild shape stacking. By the time I get to the latter, I have a shapechange handbook, and that's really not something I wanna do. Better, I thought, to make a bare bones proof that anything plausible pre-epic can be done with shapechange. From there, it's really up to the player what subset of everything they want.

Sure. But that seems like a compelling reason to make the description short and link to someone talking about shapechange or cool supernatural abilities.

I'm not all that sure what that plan looks like in optimal form though. Druids typically aren't about stacking dice onto attacks. The best damage buffs are like bite and greater magic fang, where they work about as well on a wolf as on an octopus. I guess there're item methods, but I'm not sure they'reworth it, and it's far more likely that the couple of items would reference the pile of forms rather than putting that information in a weird paragraph thing.

I mean, you are getting eight times whatever the normal value is out of buffs, which at least makes Octopus far and away the best combat form. The big thing that I would look for is some means of making your attacks poison, which would combine with venomfire to do amounts of damage which are very large.

[nyjastul69]

I still don't understand how that justifies a paragraph that is longer than the spell's description explaining exactly how it is bad. Yes, Druid 8ths aren't the best in the world, but it's not like there aren't good spells on the list.



Be that as it may, the citation of something being like a subsequent thing seems like an unacceptably poor layout choice to me.



Sure. But that seems like a compelling reason to make the description short and link to someone talking about shapechange or cool supernatural abilities.



I mean, you are getting eight times whatever the normal value is out of buffs, which at least makes Octopus far and away the best combat form. The big thing that I would look for is some means of making your attacks poison, which would combine with venomfire to do amounts of damage which are very large.

Octopuses are great when in water. As a combat form you gotta spend resources on being able to survive out of water though. It's a small hurdle, but it still uses resources.

[eggynack]

I still don't understand how that justifies a paragraph that is longer than the spell's description explaining exactly how it is bad. Yes, Druid 8ths aren't the best in the world, but it's not like there aren't good spells on the list.

But the description isn't about how bad it is. It's about how it's close but not quite there. This is just pretty close to what 8th level combat druid spells look like. Piles of damage that's hard to resist, in a wide area, with a fancy rider effect that ranges from save or such to save or die. The only reason bombardment's on the low end of that type of effect is because the specific type of rider happens to work poorly on the basis of the metagame at that level. It's about complicated extrinsic factors, not easily visible intrinsic ones. Point is, I think you're coming to the conclusion you're coming to because you rate the spell lower than I do. Also, gotta say, even if the spell were just awful, it might still be worth having the writing because people love reading about why bad stuff is bad. At least I do. Might be worth putting in a massive entry about dinosaur stampede on that basis. Now that spell is awful.

Be that as it may, the citation of something being like a subsequent thing seems like an unacceptably poor layout choice to me.

I don't see why it's necessarily unacceptable to have to go to a different entry. And, because the shark is a well known creature, a reader wouldn't necessarily have to do that anyway. It might be worth doing your cited inversions, rewriting everything that references shark to instead reference barracuda, and reconstruct all of those entries to match the new setup, but that takes bunches of time.

Sure. But that seems like a compelling reason to make the description short and link to someone talking about shapechange or cool supernatural abilities.

I basically did, except the quote was from Tippy, and was pretty short itself. I figure that his quotes are as good as anything else you could put together on the topic. I don't think anyone's done really extensive work on shapechange, but if they have, I'd be happy to link to it. I guess that's ultimately the limiting factor to basically linking to someone else's handbook about shapechange, that there might not be one.

I mean, you are getting eight times whatever the normal value is out of buffs, which at least makes Octopus far and away the best combat form. The big thing that I would look for is some means of making your attacks poison, which would combine with venomfire to do amounts of damage which are very large

.
Not really on the first part. Those bonuses I mentioned are about accuracy to a large extent, and accuracy helps single big attacks as much as or more than a bunch of smaller ones. To the second part, I guess, but venomfire doesn't care that much about attack quantity, cause it just kills stuff. Finally, a bunch of this stuff seems kinda trivial. You're basically telling me that you want something up top of wild shape saying, "If you have lots of attacks, then boosting damage is better." That's not a matter of style, but simply one of math. It could be worth putting that somewhere, but are you sure it's not too trivial to merit inclusion, especially given how few such effects are represented in the overall handbook?

[Mr Adventurer]

Octopuses are great when in water. As a combat form you gotta spend resources on being able to survive out of water though. It's a small hurdle, but it still uses resources.

A Druid once ruined my dungeon crawl by Wild Shaping into an octopus (for 8 attacks), casting Speed of the Raptor (for 60' land speed) and a slew of other buffs to become Chicken-legged scuttling mutoid octopus of Doom.

[Beheld]

Edit: I can do the citation on natural weapons now, so, "Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons." (MM I, 312) The text is actually strict enough that it may preclude other sources of extra attacks. Like, you may only get one unarmed strike if you have access to those.

The problem is that if you look at the FAQs and Sage articles, literally both ways or using iterative attacks are described as the correct way. Now, it's almost certainly only one, but depending on who you ask, different people will tell you different things is how it works.

[eggynack]

The problem is that if you look at the FAQs and Sage articles, literally both ways or using iterative attacks are described as the correct way. Now, it's almost certainly only one, but depending on who you ask, different people will tell you different things is how it works.

That stuff doesn't really qualify as rules, by my understanding. Moreover, these only plausibly RAI sources are competing against a direct core citation, possibly the RAWest source there is. I don't see much room for ambiguity on the basis of what you're citing, as a result. Something out of an actual source book would be more interesting, but would still lose to the all consuming power of core, and you actually get to ambiguous status when you bring up something from a different core source, though even then there are ways to remove the contradiction. I suppose the rules compendium could plausibly be strong enough, but I just checked and it says, "Creatures don’t receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons," just as in the monster manual.

[Cosi]

Is there a way to get something that functions like the Warshaper's Multimorph (change form repeatedly without costing extra Wild Shape uses) ability without losing caster levels?

[eggynack]

Haven't seen anything like that. There'd definitely be some cool things possible with such an ability.

[eggynack]

I've updated urban companion to reflect the fact that it's actually pretty sweet at high levels, and put in a little note about wand use. I feel lIke it's an ACF worth taking a non-trivial fraction of the time, and while the color of the entry remains black, it's definitely higher in that grade. Also, first handbook thing done on a phone, so that’s neat.