Author Topic: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?  (Read 51288 times)

Offline Kaelik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #100 on: December 26, 2015, 10:01:48 AM »
So, where do you draw the line at "break the game"? Because on the last page you were claiming that the druid is better because he can use shapechange and then on top of that turns into a Zodar for free wishes. But when pointed out that the cleric can do that better and earlier, you suddenly changed your mind to OP cheese stuff being a bad thing. While also supporting planar sheperd aberrant wildshape druids.

1) Can you point to even a single instance anywhere of me supporting Planar Shepard Aberrant Wildshape Druids? At all? Anywhere?
2) I said the Druid spell list usually has many of the spells people claim it doesn't like calling outsiders, planeshift at the same level of Clerics, and almost all 9th level spells by Shapechange. Part of that is that if you are in a situation in which Miracle is good but not broken, then the Druid can probably turn into a Zodar and cast Wish and get the same not broken effect.

Can you see why using a free Wish undo the effects of an insanity spell, or to being a character who was consumed by a Barghest back to life, or emulating a lower level spell, might be not broken, but Wishing for items with free wishes would be broken? This is my point about To bullshit. I suggest that Druids can emulate lower level spells and bring people back to life, and the immediate response is "But clerics can cast level 8 spells at level 3 and then use that to start a wish loop" Well yeah, and Druids can also cast level 9 spells at level 3 and start a wish loop, but who cares?

3) I really wish you would pretend to have even the faintest clue what I have said. You accused me of supporting druids I never even talked about, asked me a question I already answered in the post you were quoting, and made the super mega obviously false statement that Clerics have earlier/easier access to wish loops, even though that, besides being obviously not true, happens to be something I had already pointed out was wrong.

I can agree with a "let's not used borked stuff", but then the limits must be the same for both cleric and druid.

Yes, which is why in the very first fucking post I made in this thread, I said "If your DM considers DMM to be not broken, then the Cleric is probably stronger, but if he considers DMM to be broken, the Druid is probably stronger." So I already established that both classes where subject to the same standards, if they both get DMM, then the Druid is still weaker because his spell list doesn't benefit from DMM as much.

But note that whether the DM allows DMM or not, in neither case is Calling Magic, or Caster level = Character level +30-infinity, or Awaken Loop Cheese allowed to either party, because those are completely gamebreaking bullshit that both people classes can do.

Meanwhile, druid has shapechange, core cleric has both shapechange and gate before prcs/feats/tricks. Gate, like planar ally and whatnot, are still pretty boss spells even if free wishes are banned. Outsiders are still superior to animals.

Yes, even without free Wishes, Gate still breaks the game complety, making the game literally unplayable by it's very existence. Which is why it falls under the list of things that both Clerics and Druids can do if your DM allows it, because it is the objectively most powerful thing, but that no one ever does because it is broken.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #101 on: December 26, 2015, 10:35:44 AM »
Just as I added generic, so too did you add average.
No I didn't and if you read either my text or the rules you know that, but there you go changing the message to suit your needs again. It comes from the Polymorph Subschool and unless Shapechange overrides, and none-unique / average are refinements of each other, the text stands. Unless of course you whine about how it should be ignored, but same difference.

Sounds strong, but where are you going from there?
Really nowhere my self, Reserves of Strength is a sort of tangent since both Classes can take it. Just preemptively answering your question . And yeah Shapechange > Alter Self, but it's one example of how RoS changes the game, you don't have to wait for Polymorph to exceed 5HD or Shapechange to exceed 15 HD.

Edit: And, for the record, I haven't said that the theoretical druid is taking any specific feats outside of aberration wild shape and natural spell, but I also haven't really used any feats outside of those. Yeah, there was that planar shepherd thing, but that was just the high caliber thing I use when things get a bit too TO.
I don't think you cant start off with that, requiring a 9th level build just to take the Feats you've just brought up (wild shape & shepard both have prerequisites), and end with this.
It just feels a bit overly critical to poke at the undefined nature of the build when nothing I'm doing relies on the build being defined.
Just because 55% of it's level selection & 43% of it's Feat selection is still vague doesn't mean it's undefined, through I'm already in one language debate with you already >.>

Well, the paladin code demands an extremely specific set of standards that are quite difficult to meet. Druids just get some nature connection, one which can be explicitly broken by a few really easy to avoid things, and which doesn't seem breakable by just being not especially reverential towards nature.
Actually he makes a point.

Not the game breaking lose your abilities for stepping on a flower point you may think he does. But the Cleric can choose Chaotic Neutral Stupid and pretty much get away with everything outside of meaning to follow all his vows. But if the Druid wants to make usage of Control Temperature they have to justify why they are disrespecting the natural order of the world and "because they want to" can never be a valid answer.

Essentially, for as weak of a point it may seem and how easy it'd be to slip into a fallacy of appeal there is still an observation that the Cleric can make forward progress cutting trees down to build new homes and materials. Like they can use steel, maybe even invent plastic and antimatter if they so wanted. But if a Druid picks up a ceramic mug of coffee or a fancy pewter cup of wine for a drink, he just violated the intent of his Proficiency entry and depending on the dickery to be had lost his abilities for 24 hours. It is a line in the sand, but there is never the less a line.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2015, 11:41:55 AM by SorO_Lost »

Offline Soft Insanity

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Put a blanket over it!
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #102 on: December 26, 2015, 12:27:06 PM »
I'd assume there's some good stuff for it. But, y'know, what is it? I wouldn't really want a list of every spell impacted by it, but some highlights would be neat.

Cleric: Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, Divine Favor, Soul Boon
Other lists: Combat Readiness, Suffer the Flesh

That's just a few that spring to mind.  It's really Suffer the Flesh that stands out in the game I'm in due to it being allowed.

Back on subject, how are you guys getting Choose Destiny on your druids?  Or do we not care about that spell?

Offline zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 699
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #103 on: December 26, 2015, 12:48:26 PM »
For the relevant levels of play in your average group the druid will always be better than the cleric. Simply because action economy. And because their spell list has a lot more "fast" spells. Druids win the rocket tag compared to clerics. And i'm talking about standard games where people don't even know about chain gating, planar binding and all that stupid shit. Druids do more (companion), do it faster (spells with initiative and dex from wildshape) and do it better (summon unicorn > curative spells).

Dmm persist is a tactic which doesn't even work that well without nightsticks which are from an obscure book and also need stacking to really help. Thus, dmm persist is a rather weak argument.

And that bullshit about druids needing splatbooks: in a core game the druid is king. Full. Fucking. Stop.

Offline Kaelik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #104 on: December 26, 2015, 12:54:21 PM »
Back on subject, how are you guys getting Choose Destiny on your druids?  Or do we not care about that spell?

Seems underpowered as fuck for a 9th level Domain only spell. I mean, if you are DMM Persisting everything anyway, who cares about what amounts to an average +3 to attack rolls, skill checks, and saving throws, that's pretty weak for a 9th level spell, much less a 9th level domain spell. I mean It is nice in that it reduces the chance of auto fails on saves from 5% to like, .01% or whatever, but hardly something I consider worth a domain choice.

If you aren't DMM Persisting everything, then I definitely don't care about a +3 to some rolls for one fight from a level 9 spell.

And since the rest of the entire domain amounts to a bunch of Clerics spells you could already cast, a level 8 Wizard spell that isn't even that good for it's slot, an a 6th level immediate action spell that does the same thing the 9th level spell really does (reroll failed saving throw), and a once a day domain ability to do that for someone else...

Man unless your DM makes a habit of forcing 15 saves a round, I just don't think I would care about this domain at all. I'd rather put the same effort into buffing my saves, with or without DMM Persist, than I would making a domain selection just to reroll failed saves.

Dmm persist is a tactic which doesn't even work that well without nightsticks which are from an obscure book and also need stacking to really help. Thus, dmm persist is a rather weak argument.

I assume that if your group allows DMM Persist that every single character will devote their life to Persisting as much as possible, whether they are Incanatatrixes, DMM Persist Clerics, DMM Persist Druids, or people taking a level in Spelldancer (okay yeah, people who allow DMM Persist might still disallow Spelldancer, since DMM has at least some usage cap) because it is the most powerful thing available to them.

Just like I assume if your group allows Calling bullshit, everyone will devote themselves to calling bullshit, because calling bullshit is the most powerful thing available to them.

If you DM allows Persist and calling, I guess you do both?
« Last Edit: December 26, 2015, 12:59:36 PM by Kaelik »

Offline Kaelik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #105 on: December 26, 2015, 12:59:12 PM »
Can't figure out how to delete post.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #106 on: December 26, 2015, 01:50:26 PM »
Can't figure out how to delete post.
Which post? That one or
(click to show/hide)

Offline KellKheraptis

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
  • Temporal Dissonance Technician
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #107 on: December 26, 2015, 02:11:58 PM »
For the relevant levels of play in your average group the druid will always be better than the cleric. Simply because action economy. And because their spell list has a lot more "fast" spells. Druids win the rocket tag compared to clerics. And i'm talking about standard games where people don't even know about chain gating, planar binding and all that stupid shit. Druids do more (companion), do it faster (spells with initiative and dex from wildshape) and do it better (summon unicorn > curative spells).

Dmm persist is a tactic which doesn't even work that well without nightsticks which are from an obscure book and also need stacking to really help. Thus, dmm persist is a rather weak argument.

And that bullshit about druids needing splatbooks: in a core game the druid is king is still afraid of the Wizard, who beats up the Druid and Cleric and steals their lunch money.  For lulz. Full. Fucking. Stop.

Fixed that for you.

And actually, you don't need Nightsticks really for a decent pool of DMM Persists.  Only a couple really matter, anyhow (and the strongest stuff for that is in FR, for the free Persists all day long).  I do agree that the Druid has a leg up on Rocket Tag (tm), though again, the more 'wizardlike' the Cleric becomes by picking up stuff, the less that gap even becomes.  And at the top end, it's a -very- slim chance Mr. Druid can touch a Cheater of Mystra at all (though I found a couple recent holes in those defenses, which a Druid build could likely easily exploit - which has always been my go-to for top tier build vs top tier build).  The sad irony is that both of them, or even both of them together, are still pale shadows next to the moderately high end Wiz builds :P

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #108 on: December 26, 2015, 02:41:03 PM »
do it faster (spells with initiative and dex from wildshape)
Only Druid Spell Spell increases Initiative is Primal Instinct and Clerics get Sign. Now there ultimately are pros & cons to Sign that makes it better or worse than Primal Instinct. Like Sign is available at level one instead of level five and it stacks with anything, including the ever useful Belt of Battle, but it's duration is much shorter (10*clmins) than Instinct but while one can be called subjectively better you cannot deny the fact the other has one as well.

However, I thought at some point someone wanted to be a Dire Turtle which I believe has a negative Dexterity Bonus so I guess I should handle your post as if you didn't just try passing an ominous multi-form Wild Shape and continue talking talking about Spells again and it's kind of the same deal in that both have their pros and cons for the higher level versions. The Druid has a 7th level Aura of Vitality for a +4 Moral vs the Cleric's 5th level Divine Agility's +10 Enhance. Through now the Druid's Spell stacks with stuff instead of the Cleric's, which is a good thing since the Druid has to spend 36,000 gold on a +6 Enhancement item to catch up to the Cleric. Except, does he really? The 9th level version Visage of the Deity provides unnamed bonuses that'd apply on top of that.

Well I suppose you could forgot your favorite Aberrant Wild Shape benefits and Dire Turtle to dig up a high-Dex form, but I mean really why don't we just bring Domains into this then? Time Domain gives the Cleric Improved Initiative at the first level, or up to 8+Dex vs the unable-to-Wild-Shape Druid's Dex so there went your point out faster than a snowball mets in hell.
And the Spell Domain gives the Cleric Anyspell for Aura of Vitality (+4 moral), Combat Readiness (+1/3cl), Nerkskitter (+5), and Improvisation (+1/2cl luck) on top of Sign (+4) on top of being one of the best all around Domain options in the game.

Oh right, you said
And i'm talking about standard games where people don't even know about chain gating, planar binding and all that stupid shit.
I forgot you were basing your entire point on the idea to nerf the hell out of the Cleric until your Druid finally comes out on top.

Which by the way, how does that actually work? I mean it and seriously. Following suit you've arbitrarily said '5' is the maximum level allowed in your game. This brings the Cleric down to a '5' of course, but it also means the Druid cannot exceed '5' either. All this does is make it utterly impossible to say the Druid is better than a Cleric since they both can only equal the same arbitrarily determined level. This does not "win" an argument and can only at best tie it under those assumptions.

The only way "win" by nerfing things and claim the Druid is better afterwards is to purposely over nerf the Cleric in favor of the Druid. In it's in that favoritism that you reveal your hand and admit the Cleric is vastly more broken than the Druid and in need of fixes and reductions in order to be close to another Class's capabilities.

So how does that point of banning content actually support your argument? I mean, your post is the rough equivalent of saying Clerics are OP but if severely nerfed they are weaker than a Druid. Well, yeah no shit Sherlock. So umm thanks for the informative post?
« Last Edit: December 26, 2015, 02:53:29 PM by SorO_Lost »

Offline Soft Insanity

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Put a blanket over it!
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #109 on: December 26, 2015, 04:15:44 PM »
Seems underpowered as fuck for a 9th level Domain only spell. I mean, if you are DMM Persisting everything anyway, who cares about what amounts to an average +3 to attack rolls, skill checks, and saving throws, that's pretty weak for a 9th level spell, much less a 9th level domain spell. I mean It is nice in that it reduces the chance of auto fails on saves from 5% to like, .01% or whatever, but hardly something I consider worth a domain choice.

In a game about die rolls (even with extreme mitigation you're gonna end up rolling dice), eventually someone is gonna fail.  The person who mitigates that failure into oblivion is often the most powerful.  Druids can't hope to compete with Clerics in this way, especially with auto-20, pride domain, luck domain, and choose destiny.  It's another factor when judging which is considered "better".  At some point, it will come down to die rolls.

Offline Kaelik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #110 on: December 26, 2015, 05:14:04 PM »
In a game about die rolls (even with extreme mitigation you're gonna end up rolling dice), eventually someone is gonna fail.  The person who mitigates that failure into oblivion is often the most powerful.  Druids can't hope to compete with Clerics in this way, especially with auto-20, pride domain, luck domain, and choose destiny.  It's another factor when judging which is considered "better".  At some point, it will come down to die rolls.

Yeah... No, not at all. In a game about die rolls pushing yourself off the RNG is more important than worrying about autofails, so again, if you aren't persisting spells, you are better off devoting a Domain to getting better spells. Even if you are DMM Persisting I'd much rather spend a domain on either a domain that gives better spells or on the ability to DMM Persist more spells. In a game with Persist, you really aren't spending your persist slots worrying about rolling a 1, because they are better spent on True Seeing, Deathward, Freedom Movement, Sheltered Vitality, Favored of the Martyr, Draconic Polymorph, and the 10 or so spells that give Luck/Divine/Enhancement/Morale/Insight bonuses to everything. Because a better offense and more immunities is more important throwing a shit about a 5% chance of failing a one on save when you are already immune to almost everything that you would actually care about.

Like I said, if you allow DMM Persist, the Cleric is probably stronger. If you don't allow DMM Persist, then Choose Destiny is an objectively terrible spell. So in no case is the existence of Choose Destiny evidence of Cleric superiority, since it's garbage except in a situation in which Clerics are already better without the Domain.

Offline zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 699
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #111 on: December 26, 2015, 05:45:03 PM »
The druid class is simply better than any other class in the average game it's not even funny. Second place goes to the beguiler btw. No gaming table apart from a totally negligible number of people cares about wizards who abuse stupidly worded spells or prestige classes. If you guys are talking about breaking the game, i'll do that as an elven commoner with ranks in basket weaving and zero XP. So shove your e-penis up your own butt.

In actual games played by hundreds of thousands of people noone gives a fuck about scry'n'die or shapechange. That's because most people have never played a character who was of high enough level to cast these spells. Only people who have nothing better to do than arguing over mostly impractical rules bullshit of a rpg like me do that. (And quite honestly I don't really care about shapechange). People care about doing things and a druid simply does more than anybody else. Your average wizard won't have all the spells he needs in any situation. A druid knows his whole fucking list. Summon nature's ally and the animal companion win a lot of fights simply by themselves. You don't even have to prepare that shit and you don't have to make your spell selection on level up. Just because wizards can be crazy powerful doesn't mean that the druid chassis isn't like five times better. The cleric is good at a lot of stuff but he doesn't do anything the druid couldn't. The point is still: druids simply do more.

(And honestly, if anybody really thought that by "spells with initiative" i meant spells which increase your initiative... I feel sorry for you. A spell like entanglement has initiative. It does something the moment you cast it. It's neither reactive nor a spell you have to cast in advance which most cleric spells are.)

Offline Kaelik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #112 on: December 26, 2015, 06:12:01 PM »
In actual games played by hundreds of thousands of people noone gives a fuck about scry'n'die or shapechange. That's because most people have never played a character who was of high enough level to cast these spells.

While most games are played in the lower level range, I don't think it's fair to say that no one ever plays games that reach level 9. I agree with you that 9th level spells are mostly a joke as a comparison point, because 99.9% of games will never see them, but I feel like even if 70% of games never see level 9, it's still not within the reasonable range of hyperbole to call that "most people have never played a character who was of high enough level to cast Scry."

(And honestly, if anybody really thought that by "spells with initiative" i meant spells which increase your initiative... I feel sorry for you. A spell like entanglement has initiative. It does something the moment you cast it. It's neither reactive nor a spell you have to cast in advance which most cleric spells are.)

It was a poor choice to use an in game terminology to describe the thing you were talking about when the thing you were talking about is not that thing. Also, you specifically said "Spells with init" and "Dex from wildshape" right next to each other. If someone thought you meant spells which increase init, they are making the most obvious possible interpretation.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #113 on: December 26, 2015, 06:15:59 PM »
@Zug I don't even think your serious any more with that last post. Like I really think you're just goofing off and I feel like that's the intended direction.

Still, I raise your Entangle with Ice Slick. It's basically Grease, if Grease had x2 the area and the DC was 11+Modifier instead of 10, because even Grease isn't the best Grease Spell in existent.

Offline Kaelik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #114 on: December 26, 2015, 06:33:58 PM »
@Zug I don't even think your serious any more with that last post. Like I really think you're just goofing off and I feel like that's the intended direction.

Still, I raise your Entangle with Ice Slick. It's basically Grease, if Grease had x2 the area and the DC was 11+Modifier instead of 10, because even Grease isn't the best Grease Spell in existent.

1) I'm not sure where you get the concept of a a DC 11+ Modifier anything. Running across Ice is a DC 10 balance check, not a DC 10+anything. So you are basically asserting that most characters have a 3-7 bonus to reflex saves at level 1, which is... odd.

2) I'm not sure you understand the concept of "raise" since entangle is way way better than Grease, and not just because of the area. I mean at level 1 if you want to argue you are casting something better than entangle you basically have to resort to either "I cast Color Spray" or "We are in a location where no plants are" because otherwise entangle is definitely making you look bad.

Offline eggynack

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #115 on: December 26, 2015, 10:39:11 PM »
No I didn't and if you read either my text or the rules you know that, but there you go changing the message to suit your needs again. It comes from the Polymorph Subschool and unless Shapechange overrides, and none-unique / average are refinements of each other, the text stands. Unless of course you whine about how it should be ignored, but same difference.
I can certainly give it a shot. The polymorph subschool specifies that your statistics and special abilities are defined by the average case of a monster. What Su abilities the zodar has would be defined by the average case, as given by the phrase special abilities, but the quantity of wishes on a given zodar is neither a special ability nor a statistic in the traditional sense. I suppose one could take a broader reading of statistic, but the term definitely does tend to refer to stuff like ability scores.
Quote
Really nowhere my self, Reserves of Strength is a sort of tangent since both Classes can take it. Just preemptively answering your question . And yeah Shapechange > Alter Self, but it's one example of how RoS changes the game, you don't have to wait for Polymorph to exceed 5HD or Shapechange to exceed 15 HD.
Fair enough. I'm sure it can do some cool cleric stuff, as well as some cool druid stuff.
Quote
I don't think you cant start off with that, requiring a 9th level build just to take the Feats you've just brought up (wild shape & shepard both have prerequisites), and end with this.
Just because 55% of it's level selection & 43% of it's Feat selection is still vague doesn't mean it's undefined, through I'm already in one language debate with you already >.>
I just meant that it's not currently defined beyond that point, and doesn't strictly need to be defined beyond that point. Obviously the already existing build definition is something I'm making liberal use of, and something that self evidently exists.

Quote
Not the game breaking lose your abilities for stepping on a flower point you may think he does. But the Cleric can choose Chaotic Neutral Stupid and pretty much get away with everything outside of meaning to follow all his vows. But if the Druid wants to make usage of Control Temperature they have to justify why they are disrespecting the natural order of the world and "because they want to" can never be a valid answer.
Is that a thing you have to justify? You draw your power from nature, and you have the powers of nature, but I don't think that strictly means that you must let nature take its own course without some big reason otherwise. Your whole shtick is altering nature in various ways.
Quote
But if a Druid picks up a ceramic mug of coffee or a fancy pewter cup of wine for a drink, he just violated the intent of his Proficiency entry and depending on the dickery to be had lost his abilities for 24 hours. It is a line in the sand, but there is never the less a line.
I don't think there's much logic to trying to glean some extra intent to a code as specific as that one is. You're not sneaking around anything by doing the things that are clearly and obviously allowed by the code. Or, to consider it from a different perspective, if I got someone to sign a contract saying that they wouldn't use metal armor, I wouldn't even look at them askance for using a metal weapon, or picking up a ceramic cup, or even wearing plastic armor. I'd just be like, "Yep, that's a thing you can do." If nature wants me to follow a really exacting and potent code it should have given me an exacting and potent code.

Cleric: Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, Divine Favor, Soul Boon
Other lists: Combat Readiness, Suffer the Flesh

That's just a few that spring to mind.  It's really Suffer the Flesh that stands out in the game I'm in due to it being allowed.
Those do seem quite good, especially suffer, but I'm just not sure even that scale of numerical potency compares to extra actions or magic immunity or other crazy abilities.

Quote
Back on subject, how are you guys getting Choose Destiny on your druids?  Or do we not care about that spell?
I mean, we could, through contemplative or something, but it doesn't seem like a thing I'd do. I'd probably just prep some alter fortunes instead. Not as good, but the spell level is low enough to make up for the possibility of multiple needed preparations. Besides, whether the cleric is getting DMM or not, the druid is probably not, so it has relatively low utility for the druid. Not none, but not that much more than what alter fortune gives.

Fixed that for you.
I actually think that comparison looks pretty similar to the druid versus cleric comparison. Druids are better early, because them class features are so good (especially in core, where they can't be replicated), and wizards are better later, when spells gain in importance.

Only Druid Spell Spell increases Initiative is Primal Instinct and Clerics get Sign. Now there ultimately are pros & cons to Sign that makes it better or worse than Primal Instinct. Like Sign is available at level one instead of level five and it stacks with anything, including the ever useful Belt of Battle, but it's duration is much shorter (10*clmins) than Instinct but while one can be called subjectively better you cannot deny the fact the other has one as well.
Actually, primal instinct is 3rd level. Really great combo with a lesser rod of extend spell.
Quote
However, I thought at some point someone wanted to be a Dire Turtle which I believe has a negative Dexterity Bonus so I guess I should handle your post as if you didn't just try passing an ominous multi-form Wild Shape
Nah, see, dire tortoise is your late game form, when you get to 15th level wild shape (either through items or just having that level). Before that, you're often a desmodu hunting bat, which gives a huge initiative bonus. Of course, both forms can fall by the wayside with a form adding feat, and at that point you can sometimes be on the losing side of the initiative fight. You usually get things good enough to make up for it though. To be clear here, there is an element of schrodinger's form when working with aberration wild shape, but that's more due to the need for the long casting time enhance wild shape and the wide variety of forms than anything. Other wild shape modes usually lack that problem, because the big defensive forms tend to directly supplant weaker ones, and you can often get all of the benefits of another form as a swift action with a mantle of the beast. Probably not the plan with the dire tortoise/bat thing, but it could easily be the plan if you start defensive and want to go aggressive. 

Offline zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 699
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #116 on: December 27, 2015, 09:18:52 AM »
Quote from: Kaelik
It was a poor choice to use an in game terminology to describe the thing you were talking about when the thing you were talking about is not that thing. Also, you specifically said "Spells with init" and "Dex from wildshape" right next to each other. If someone thought you meant spells which increase init, they are making the most obvious possible interpretation.
Yeah, true. Still, the point stands: druids have an advantage in action economy, way better class features and more spells for crowd control in the most relevant levels of play.

Offline DDchampion

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #117 on: December 27, 2015, 11:55:26 AM »
In theory.

In practice, a good chunk of the game happens in dungeons. It's on the name. And dungeons don't usually have a lot of plant life for key druid spells, with the lack of sun and stuff. Entangle is freaking overhyped, nice for helping against wilderness random encounters, but useless when you reach the actual dungeon/fort where the actual treasure and strongest enemies are.

Another thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that clerics get to have fun with undead. There's a whole handbook for it in this very forums, and clerics are the best class for it. Druids can't even begin to do that. And undeads work pretty much everywhere, unlike animals and their puny living vulnerabilities. Certain undeads even have "animals can f*** right off" auras.


Offline Kaelik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #118 on: December 27, 2015, 01:22:57 PM »
In theory. In practice, a good chunk of the game happens in dungeons. It's on the name. And dungeons don't usually have a lot of plant life for key druid spells, with the lack of sun and stuff. Entangle is freaking overhyped, nice for helping against wilderness random encounters, but useless when you reach the actual dungeon/fort where the actual treasure and strongest enemies are.

There are like, two Druid BC spells at all that require plants. And entangle can work on moss and lichen. Hell, you can carry around a bonsai tree and throw it if you really want. Entangle is a much better level 1 BC spell than what anyone else has, and it's "drawback" is relatively minor, certainly not "you can never cast it in a dungeon" bad.

Another thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that clerics get to have fun with undead. There's a whole handbook for it in this very forums, and clerics are the best class for it. Druids can't even begin to do that.

Well 1) Druids can totally do that.
2) The reason it probably isn't mentioned is because Undead are like 65% mother may I, and and cost money when Clerics make them, and that kind of sucks. If you are getting them for free, then the Wizard is the best at Animate Dead but either Cleric or Druid can grab the nearest undead and ask a neighboorhood Wizard to spell stitch them.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #119 on: December 27, 2015, 02:56:32 PM »
1) I'm not sure where you get the concept of a a DC 11+ Modifier anything.
Eh, not all posts are done with the book open in front of me but the good news is,

See Text and  Running across Ice is a DC 10 balance check, not a DC 10+anything. So you are basically asserting that most characters have a 3-7 bonus to reflex saves at level 1, which is... odd.
Your mistake is ten times worse. It's not a Reflex Save, it's a Balance Check and the DC literally is +5~+12 depending on the terrain it's cast on.

Also it appears you have no idea of the importance of a Balance Check. While Entangle caps out at can't move away, -2 att, and -4 Dex, or at worst only imposes a 1/2 penalty to Speed. And none of your melee-based allies can safely enter the area until you buy them some Spellguard Rings and by the time you can afford those entangle is pretty useless.

Ice Slick on the other hand forces a Balance Check, these have to be redone every time you take damage or attempt to offset your 1/2 Speed penalty like Running or Charging and unless you have 5 Ranks, and virtually no creature does and hell even DM/PC builds often skip it, the very act of making the Check makes you Flat-Footed. FF is a huge debuff, you lose Dex-to-AC, negates several Class Features, prevents a creature from making AoOs meaning you can safely cast Spells even if you happen to be standing next to them and no creature can use an Immediate Action while FF. FF is also one of the triggering requirements for Precision Damage setting up the abuse of Iaijitsu Focus. And remember, we're literally just talking about having to make the Check so far, failure has it's own effects.

If you fail a Balance check you instantly fall Prone. If this happens during your Move Action it negates all further movement since Crawling or standing up requires another Move Action. Being Prone adds a -4 penalty to AC vs melee and a -4 penalty to Attack Rolls so you're want to stand ASAP, probably. Problem is, if you do you instantly provoke an Attack of Opportunity if you do potentially doubling the damage you'll take in a given round. Ice Slick can also be safely entered by quite a few Classes once you hit level 2, including the Cleric depending on Domain/Feat selection, so you don't have to wait for Spellguard Rings or fear using it in small rooms.

tl;dr: Entangle holds the people still, Ice Slick does too and additionally negates an entire Action Type and it improves to-hit & damage and can set up extra attacks and it a hell of a lot more party friendly. So yes I raised Zug no matter your very subjective and poor opinion on the matter is.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2015, 03:00:43 PM by SorO_Lost »