[3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?

[eggynack]

I wonder how hard it is to make a Druid-less Druid ?
Or a Cleric-less Cleric, and comparing the two.

What do you think is necessary for you to be able to say, "Yeah, this druid is totally emulating a cleric,"? Cause the baseline way to pull it off is getting some bone talismans for the turn undead, and using holt warden and contemplative for a full domain. You can definitely emulate other stuff, but it's hard to emulate a mystery set of class features. Same goes for the cleric, because while the class feature stuff has been mostly broken down in this thread, the spell list specifics are more complicated.

[IlPazzo]

as an aside to KellK's idea ... some might
remember the various old-old threads like
a Monk-less Monk and a Fighter-less Fighter.

I wonder how hard it is to make a Druid-less Druid ?
Or a Cleric-less Cleric, and comparing the two.

I mean Cleric is somewhat easier with Archivist,
towns and access to all the same PrCs.

Dread Necromancer/Rainbow Servant with DMM?
She can only DMM on spells that are on the Cleric list AND not on the Wizard/Sorcerer or Bard list, but hey at least she can do so spontaneously!
Grab extra domains somehow after completing Rainbow Servant?

[KellKheraptis]

Actually, my posit was that you'd have to build a Druid as a Twice-Betrayer Slayer to beat a top-end Cleric abusing Initiate of Mystra.  That being said, getting spell access to some (note: SOME) of the good ones isn't THAT hard with Shapechange on the table, but it would be carrying a disproportionate amount of the weight of the build (as it tends to).

Druids are still Tier 1 characters, make no mistake.  They are hard pressed to match the raw power of a Cleric - there's a reason they were called the "Superman" of Tier 1, and also a reason why they are behind "GOD" in Tier 1.  Both of them share a trait other than divine magic, and that's having a hard time breaking into that fabled Tier 0 realm most try not to go to - Wizards can do so far easier, as can Erudites and Artificers (especially Psi-Arties).  On the grand scale of things though, which the tiers attempt to quantify, the argument basically comes down to how do you want your world annihilated: overrun by the elements and dismembered with acidic claws one BBEG at a time, beaten to a pulp and null-magicked 10'-20' at a time, or nuked from orbit by a Shadow AftS?  All three result in a destroyed world, but the top of the T1s and the T0s can do so far more efficiently, with little to no effort, as opposed to rather slowly with little to no effort.

[eggynack]

Actually, my posit was that you'd have to build a Druid as a Twice-Betrayer Slayer to beat a top-end Cleric abusing Initiate of Mystra.  That being said, getting spell access to some (note: SOME) of the good ones isn't THAT hard with Shapechange on the table, but it would be carrying a disproportionate amount of the weight of the build (as it tends to).

I'm really talking pre-17 here, for the most part. Shapechange is so good at doing everything that it's practically the trivial case of optimization discussions. I dunno that a druid can copy the whole initiate of mystra deal straight up, but I figure that immunity to magic gets you part of the way there, at least. There's lotsa stuff like that, lesser known spells and abilities that can fill things that are generally perceived as gaps in druidic capabilities. Stuff like animate with the spirit for a movanic deva granting spells like plane shift, divination, and raise dead, or fey ring for a siabrie giving shapechange at level 15 (albeit with an amount of HD that doesn't allow zodar abuse). In all of these cases, the cleric can do the same general thing and do it somewhat better, but I don't think the gap between the cleric and the druid way is that massive. It's not perfect, but you don't need it to be perfect.

[KellKheraptis]

Actually, my posit was that you'd have to build a Druid as a Twice-Betrayer Slayer to beat a top-end Cleric abusing Initiate of Mystra.  That being said, getting spell access to some (note: SOME) of the good ones isn't THAT hard with Shapechange on the table, but it would be carrying a disproportionate amount of the weight of the build (as it tends to).

I'm really talking pre-17 here, for the most part. Shapechange is so good at doing everything that it's practically the trivial case of optimization discussions. I dunno that a druid can copy the whole initiate of mystra deal straight up, but I figure that immunity to magic gets you part of the way there, at least. There's lotsa stuff like that, lesser known spells and abilities that can fill things that are generally perceived as gaps in druidic capabilities. Stuff like animate with the spirit for a movanic deva granting spells like plane shift, divination, and raise dead, or fey ring for a siabrie giving shapechange at level 15 (albeit with an amount of HD that doesn't allow zodar abuse). In all of these cases, the cleric can do the same general thing and do it somewhat better, but I don't think the gap between the cleric and the druid way is that massive. It's not perfect, but you don't need it to be perfect.

Pre-17, a Cleric is still packing 9th level slots at this level of Op.  They also have more than enough ways to deal with outright magic immunity, as at that point it becomes a beatstick battle, with the Cleric having the side effect of being immune to hp damage.  Again, it's not for lack of capability on the Druid - they are in Tier 1 for a reason.  It's because even as capable as they may be, they are exceedingly hard pressed to match the capability a Cleric has from spell list alone, let alone from an optimized build.  And at the really high end, they approach the power of an over-the-top wizard, as they too have access to Shadowcraft tech (though not the final piece of the puzzle, the Incantatrix - although they do get a free metamagic feat instead just for being a Cleric of Mystra).

[eggynack]

Pre-17, a Cleric is still packing 9th level slots at this level of Op.  They also have more than enough ways to deal with outright magic immunity, as at that point it becomes a beatstick battle, with the Cleric having the side effect of being immune to hp damage.  Again, it's not for lack of capability on the Druid - they are in Tier 1 for a reason.  It's because even as capable as they may be, they are exceedingly hard pressed to match the capability a Cleric has from spell list alone, let alone from an optimized build.  And at the really high end, they approach the power of an over-the-top wizard, as they too have access to Shadowcraft tech (though not the final piece of the puzzle, the Incantatrix - although they do get a free metamagic feat instead just for being a Cleric of Mystra).

How far pre-17, and 9th level slots in what particular fashion? Cause again, siabrie summoning is very much a thing, and one that grants actual 9th's by level 15. I do tend to agree, in any case, that clerics are probably more powerful once you get past level 10 or 11 or so.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

If we're going to the higher/highest levels of OP with both classes, the action abuse and damage output advantage of the Planar Shepherd is nullified by perma-AMF,

And Planar Shepherd, an entire Druid PrC, is completely outdone by Planar Bubble, a mere 7th level Cleric Spell.

Unfortunately, it's easy to write off the Animal Companion being useful at level 1 to be better than the much harder to quantify superior Spell List and the ease in which a Cleric expands it to obtain even more of the already undoubtedly superior Wizard's list.

"native plane" vs "chosen plane"

Assuming the race has to be native (not just "lol my parents birthed me in a fast time trait plane!"), how are you getting any decent race to match a good plane without eating massive ECL?

Granted, the PBMC balanced ECL variant would help...

[eggynack]

"native plane" vs "chosen plane"

Assuming the race has to be native (not just "lol my parents birthed me in a fast time trait plane!"), how are you getting any decent race to match a good plane without eating massive ECL?

Granted, the PBMC balanced ECL variant would help...

Very true. Dunno why I forgot about that one. Planar shepherd is now back to its previous game breaking spot in my mind. That was a saddening several hours when it was toppled from its throne.

[SorO_Lost]

I mean Cleric is somewhat easier with Archivist,

on my phone but I'm pretty sure the Archivist can learn ANY divine spell from a scroll and such. That includes Druid, Ranger and Paladin Spells. True Dragons can also replace their Cleric access with Druid Spells, which is why you'll find me referencing a Child of Eberron Steel Dragon Prestige Bard 1 / Silver Pyromancery 1 / Rainbow Servant 10 as the ultimate creator of Runestaffs and a StP Erudite's best friend, the only thing it theoretically can't cast (or manifest via mental pinnacle) is a select few Ranger Spells.

Also "native" does not actually mean "born", like Elemental are not born and neither are Golems from Mechanus. In fact, the Planar Handbook references "native" objects fairly often. So to build a collection of natives for Planar Bubble, simply Animate the focus used to shift there in the first place. It has the nice side effect of the creature fitting on a keychain and it'll try to roll its way back to you if stolen. - Someone totally made a three book story about one such device failing to come home btw - And why limit your self to simple things like a harmless hey when you could try crafting, Enhancing (not a druid spell), Animating (urban-only druids) crossbows on your desired plane, at least that can fire bolts every round.

Also this might be forumist of me but leave it to the gitp'er to say he has no idea how partial actions work in 3.5, or object vs creature, or think that (An ethergaunt usually does not need to make Spot or Listen checks to notice creatures within range of its total vision) is ambiguous which means everything supports his claim. >.>

[eggynack]

Also this might be forumist of me but leave it to the gitp'er to say he has no idea how partial actions work in 3.5, or object vs creature, or think that (An ethergaunt usually does not need to make Spot or Listen checks to notice creatures within range of its total vision) is ambiguous which means everything supports his claim. >.>

Leave it to you to make weird and pointless ad hominem attacks. I mean, you haven't laid claim to any greater understanding of how partial actions operate than the one I've presented. The game says they work with spells, and there's nothing to contradict that that you've been able to cite. And while total vision does say object, that does speak to the underlying operation of the ability. And it is ambiguous at best. While "usually" doesn't strictly connote a set of circumstances where the thing does work, it also doesn't strictly connote circumstances where it doesn't work, like total cover for instance. The ability clearly does something. Just not all that clear what that something is.

Edit: Y'know, thinking about it further, an enemy with the kinda stealth focus that makes darkstalker worth it is unlikely to be completely naked. That means that you can just perfectly discern the objects hanging out on their body, and use that to target your spells. It's not a perfect plan, but it seems workable.

[SorO_Lost]

Leave it to you to make weird and pointless ad hominem attacks. I mean, you haven't laid claim to any greater understanding of how partial actions operate than the one I've presented. The game says they work with spells, and there's nothing to contradict that that you've been able to cite. And while total vision does say object, that does speak to the underlying operation of the ability. And it is ambiguous at best. While "usually" doesn't strictly connote a set of circumstances where the thing does work, it also doesn't strictly connote circumstances where it doesn't work, like total cover for instance. The ability clearly does something. Just not all that clear what that something is.

Oh no you've got all wrong eggy. It's not an ad hominem attack, it's an observance.

Like it or not, I've already spoke my peace with you on Cleric vs Druid and you've never been able to refute any of it. You've moved the standards for measuring around, strawmanned, made houserule assumptions, attempted to pose as some kind of GitP expert, even admitted to Spells being the best thing in the game, no proof of what partial actions should do, and the Cleric wins 10th level on up even as you continue your stupid little rant so who cares? If you feel like I'm ignoring you or being dismissive, it's because honestly I feel like I'm arguing with an idiot and like it or not that perception stems from your actions and not mine.

Like look at your response, I already pointed out how those two wrong and where to find it in the rules twice. But you rejected it and concluded that you are by default right unless someone can post the text that proves you wrong. The rejecting I'd think is obvious, but shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. Sort of like the kettle logic that your posts are based off of.
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.

Now if you want to be treated like a autistic five year old, I really don't have a problem with that but it does cost time and you're not really worth much to me so yes it took a bit to pull the page quotes that you are too fucking lazy to look up, even through you claimed you already did, unfortunately I have things called "responsibilities" in my life and I just can't hold your hand all the time.

(click to show/hide)

character: A fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting. The words “character” and “creature” are often used synonymously within these rules, since almost any creature could be a character within the game, and every character is a creature (as opposed to an object).

I didn't have to reach any further than the Glossary to prove creatures are not objects.

So look at the text.

Total Vision (Ex): An ethergaunt’s superdeveloped brain and countless facial sensory organs allow it to discern all objects within 40 feet, even through the mask that hides its face. An ethergaunt usually does not need to make Spot or Listen checks to notice creatures within range of its total vision. A silence spell has no bearing upon an ethergaunt’s total vision.

And the actual rules of Spot/Listen

A character can use Spot to notice the presence of an invisible creature. The relevant DCs are reprinted here. If the character beats the DC by 20 or more, he or she can pinpoint the location of the invisible creature, though it still maintains total concealment from the character (50% miss chance).

Listen
The character can pinpoint the location of an invisible creature, or detect an illusion with an auditory component.

Do I have to post what pinpoint means or can you Mr

No, I'm actually making claims based upon massive amounts of research into the topic. Research which I sometimes forget this site wasn't massively party to, given I mostly hang out on Giantitp. Your loss, I suppose.

Well-researched-from-a-better-forum figure something out on your own? I mean it only took about 30 seconds on the SRD for me to prove you irrevocable wrong and make you look like an idiot for thinking seeing objects is unclear. It's not like an object can make a hide check right? Through thanks to the notation of usually, if the object was invisible we know how to handle that too since invisibility is a special case not part of the usual expectations.


And speaking of actions, in 3.0's list of actions it includes a "Partial Action", however in 3.5

Action Types
An action’s type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, swift actions, and immediate actions.

There is no such thing as a "Partial Action" and

Action Types
During a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform an immediate action or a swift action, and as many free actions as your DM allows

You cannot choose to take one any other type of action than the trumps-all-before-it Rules Compendium says you can. You're entire strawman bitchfest about this is fundamentally based on a bad houseruled update and refuted by not only the most basic set of rules but literally one of the most well known 3.0 to 3.5 changes in D&D through the modifications to Haste suggesting that you've never once talked to anyone about this or ever browsed any forum for help with the 3.0 ruleset. Which makes this

No, I'm actually making claims based upon massive amounts of research into the topic. Research which I sometimes forget this site wasn't massively party to, given I mostly hang out on Giantitp. Your loss, I suppose.

The biggest fucking joke I've ever seen. I'm not lying when I say I really did smile at it. I mean I didn't lol at all but I did crack a smile. To think you'd that one of your methods for debating is a card called "but I'm an expert!", it's that kind of rubbish that insults the forum you claim to be a big part of. I mean I may be a dick but at least I don't jump in other boards just to troll people and tell them how awesome I am over here.

You are not an expert, and until you start listening instead of droning on, you'll never hear the words to move up in the world.

[eggynack]

Like it or not, I've already spoke my peace with you on Cleric vs Druid and you've never been able to refute any of it. You've moved the standards for measuring around, strawmanned, made houserule assumptions, attempted to pose as some kind of GitP expert, even admitted to Spells being the best thing in the game, no proof of what partial actions should do, and the Cleric wins 10th level on up even as you continue your stupid little rant so who cares? If you feel like I'm ignoring you or being dismissive, it's because honestly I feel like I'm arguing with an idiot and like it or not that perception stems from your actions and not mine.

Pretty sure I've refuted plenty of it, actually. You're just unwilling or unable to listen. And I am, in fact, an expert on druids, whether you like it or not. My handbook on the subject easily dwarfs what you folks were working with previously on every metric in existence.

Like look at your response, I already pointed out how those two wrong and where to find it in the rules twice. But you rejected it and concluded that you are by default right unless someone can post the text that proves you wrong. The rejecting I'd think is obvious, but shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. Sort of like the kettle logic that your posts are based off of.

Not exactly sure where you pointed out some great refutation of my claims. The text says usually. Anyway, this aspect of the argument doesn't seem all that worth it at this point, given the worn objects claim.

character: A fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting. The words “character” and “creature” are often used synonymously within these rules, since almost any creature could be a character within the game, and every character is a creature (as opposed to an object).I didn't have to reach any further than the Glossary to prove creatures are not objects.

I never said that creatures are objects. I just think that that line implies the scope of the ability, particularly insofar as total cover is involved. I mean, if you can perfectly see a pebble on the other side of a wall, then why wouldn't you be able to see a rogue in the same location? The underlying claim, then, is that "usually" refers to some special circumstance, like darkstalker.

I mean it only took about 30 seconds on the SRD for me to prove you irrevocable wrong and make you look like an idiot for thinking seeing objects is unclear. It's not like an object can make a hide check right? Through thanks to the notation of usually, if the object was invisible we know how to handle that too since invisibility is a special case not part of the usual expectations.

Despite an object's inability to hide, an object behind a wall will be just as invisible as a creature behind one. In any case, this argument, again, seems irrelevant, because of the worn objects claim.

And speaking of actions, in 3.0's list of actions it includes a "Partial Action", however in 3.5
There is no such thing as a "Partial Action"

I am aware that there is no partial action in 3.5. However, the game says you get an action, and an action that allows for casting at that. An update should minimally alter what an ability does, and in this case that likely means a standard action. Doesn't really matter what you're getting though, as long as it's an action in which the nilshai would consistently be able to cast its spells. 

You're entire strawman bitchfest

Not sure you even know what a strawman is, given this, but we shall continue dauntless.

about this is fundamentally based on a bad houseruled update and refuted by not only the most basic set of rules but literally one of the most well known 3.0 to 3.5 changes in D&D through the modifications to Haste suggesting that you've never once talked to anyone about this or ever browsed any forum for help with the 3.0 ruleset. Which makes this

I am well aware that haste was updated to not give extra actions. You seem to not be aware, however, that the nilshai does not have haste. Things need to be explicitly changed in order to be changed, not just vacuumed up by adjacent rules changes. Haste at best provides something of an indicator of how the developers would have altered the nilshai, had they done so, but it does not actually create that alteration. I was very much aware of this argument against the nilshai's functioning, incidentally. I just disagree with the claim. I mean, I guess I could link to a similar argument I was in that predates this one, if you like, but it all seems a bit pointless to me.

The biggest fucking joke I've ever seen. I'm not lying when I say I really did smile at it. I mean I didn't lol at all but I did crack a smile. To think you'd that one of your methods for debating is a card called "but I'm an expert!", it's that kind of rubbish that insults the forum you claim to be a big part of. I mean I may be a dick but at least I don't jump in other boards just to troll people and tell them how awesome I am over here.

Don't be ridiculous. You were claiming that my claims were based on no research whatsoever, and I was disabusing you of that notion. The evidence for my claim of expertise is right here, if you really need it.

You are not an expert, and until you start listening instead of droning on, you'll never hear the words to move up in the world.

I think it is you that needs to spend some time listening. You spend all of your time countering arguments I'm not even making, thinking incredibly simple RAW citations will be sufficient. I mean, in your best case scenario, you've still only managed to poke holes in something like two of my listed druid tricks. Because unlike you, I am listening. I think you have something of a point regarding ethergaunts, and one I hadn't considered prior, even if it's not the perfect and completely plan destroying point you think it is. And said point enabled me to create a better plan that is more in line with the rules, one that seems utterly unambiguous in its functioning. I disagree with your nilshai claim, meanwhile, though I do know where you're coming from.

[SorO_Lost]

Pretty sure I've refuted plenty of it, actually. You're just unwilling or unable to listen. And I am, in fact, an expert on druids, whether you like it or not. My handbook on the subject easily dwarfs what you folks were working with previously on every metric in existence.

Probably because your primary acknowledgements are from our site. MMX is ran by the same people that created BG, we officially moved to the new forum years ago and they locked the old forum but have kept it up for reference so you're essentially bragging about building off our work. And you know the "terrible" thing? Go for it, dead Handbooks are considered fair game for continued progress. Yeah, I'm sure you were trolling for a negative response but I like good Handbooks. I mean I feel you really need an editor and your assumptions ripped out but that side it's not really all that bad.

Speaking of, you listed 23 Initiate Feats and while D&DTools.pw is currently down an unsearchable mirror site says there are 49 and I'm sure a few are repeats but when you get a chance you may want to check those out. Also there are seven Animal Companion related Feats that I know of, not three. You're missing all the choice expansions, Feral Animal Companion (FR:CoR), Spider Companion (DotU), Totem Companion (EB:ECS), & Vermin Companion so for completness you might want to consider adding them. Sort of like on your Wild Shape list you should add Primeval Wild Shape (FB), Proportionate Wild Shape (MotW), & Speaking Wild Shape (CC) for completeness. Depending on the tabletop, such as LA buy off allowance and/or negative levels to remove some racial HD, proportionate is actually kind of nice since it buffs any smaller animal forms. For items, I feel you should add Elhonna's Brooch (CC) & the Worldmeet Glade (CM) location as both directly enhance your summons. There is also an entire [Wild] set of Feats, one of them gives you Blindsight 120ft, which are pretty nice too and going through at least a couple of the highlights would be awesome.

I like the additions from Dragon through, there isn't a lot of properly indexed Dragon content on the web. As for the rest of your post, meh. I mean we just covered you can't choose to take a "Partial Action" but you still want to say you can and you just called an item behind a wall invisible, umm not it'd have Total-Cover which negates targeting & attacking even if you knew it was there. >.> I'm also picking up a theme here, you really not the kind of guy that pays any attention to the details but let me ask you this. If you spend two years compiling information on the Cleric and building a Handbook do you really think you'd be sitting on the side that you are? And if you think not, you're going to need more than one paragraph claiming you're not blinded by any bias since there isn't a person you could convince here that you're not directly throwing your ego into this.

[eggynack]

Probably because your primary acknowledgements are from our site. MMX is ran by the same people that created BG, we officially moved to the new forum years ago and they locked the old forum but have kept it up for reference so you're essentially bragging about building off our work. And you know the "terrible" thing? Go for it, dead Handbooks are considered fair game for continued progress. Yeah, I'm sure you were trolling for a negative response but I like good Handbooks. I mean I feel you really need an editor and your assumptions ripped out but that side it's not really all that bad.

My handbook isn't really all that pulled from the handbooks I acknowledged. I mean, they were a halfway decent reference point, but, for example, where those handbooks have spell descriptions that are like a sentence, mine sometimes go up to several paragraphs in length and feature radically different opinions. I don't think a single thing I have is taken wholesale from a different handbook outside of the lists of stuff. I mean, jeez, that thing lists desiccate as a d6/level spell, and ignored the high leveled pixie's irresistible dance. And the worst thing is, most or all of the subsequent handbooks followed suit. We all build off of the works of those from the past, but I think that my handbook is as original as it could possibly be in a world where other handbooks on the topic already exist.

Speaking of, you listed 23 Initiate Feats and while D&DTools.pw is currently down an unsearchable mirror site says there are 49 and I'm sure a few are repeats but when you get a chance you may want to check those out.

I'm pretty sure I got all of them. The rest have prerequisites that match different classes, as I recall. My list is actually shorter relative to the tools list than you've indicated, as a lot of my initiate feats are dragon magazine based.

 

Also there are seven Animal Companion related Feats that I know of, not three.

My general tendency is toward hitting only either useful stuff, or stuff that's popular in spite of its crappiness. I mean, at some point of thing having a druid handbook would just be a copy of the entirety of the game (well, not really, but close when you consider the gestalt section). I do have some places which have all the things, like ACF's or initate feats (unless you're correct that I'm missing some), but my intent isn't really to hit everything out there. The reason I list three companion feats is cause those are the ones I think are good. I'll talk about the stuff you mention here though, as I tend to do.

Feral Animal Companion (FR:CoR)

The disease seems really do nothing, given the whole incubation period thing, which means that you're spending a feat for just those +2's. Seems pretty marginal to me.
 

Spider Companion (DotU)

That one's really really bad. Even ignoring the effects, you need two feats and two LA just to get it. Whatever would be worth that investment, that's not it.

Totem Companion (EB:ECS)

Two feats is a lot to spend when you're adding only a single creature to your list. The cool ranged nature of some of the options ups the feasibility some, but the fact that unicorns are trivial to get reduces of what may be the best option there by quite a bit. Might be missing something really crazy on that list, but I didn't see anything on that scale.
 

Vermin Companion

Do any of those options do anything interesting? I recall from my child of winter analysis that most of the vermin are pretty bad at fighting, and most were also lacking in much that's all that cool. Y'know, I think what happened with that one is that I was considering the inclusion of that one wizards article with vermin companions, because it seems better than the feat, but didn't think it seemed all that good and dropped the whole thing. Could be worth looking into though.
 

Primeval Wild Shape (FB)

Every time I read that one, I come in thinking I just didn't include it because it's overly numerical and kinda marginal, and then I'm inexplicably surprised by that stupid duration.
 

Proportionate Wild Shape (MotW)

Does that even do anything? You're taking this at 9th, I'd assume, so you either have to be bigger than large or smaller than small for it to be of benefit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any huge races are worth anything, which I guess leaves you with something like jermalaine for awful tiny forms. Doesn't seem anywhere close to worth it on that basis.
 

Speaking Wild Shape (CC)

That name was super exciting, and then I saw it and it was pretty bad. I can think of odd pieces of utility for it, but it definitely doesn't seem worth a feat.
 

proportionate is actually kind of nice since it buffs any smaller animal forms.

Pretty sure that's not a thing that feat does. It just lets you take on forms of creatures that are naturally of a certain size, and doesn't make forms of a smaller size match your own.
 

Elhonna's Brooch (CC)

That's already in there.

the Worldmeet Glade (CM) location

Nah, prerequisite stops it from working on a druid.
 

There is also an entire [Wild] set of Feats, one of them gives you Blindsight 120ft, which are pretty nice too and going through at least a couple of the highlights would be awesome.

Apart from blindsight, which I do seem to have, aren't all of those really bad? I remember reading through most or all of them, because their name demanded my attention, and there didn't seem to be anything worthy of highlighting.

I mean we just covered you can't choose to take a "Partial Action" but you still want to say you can

My way of figuring it is that you have to get something. The ability says that you absolutely get an action. There may have to be some conversion to make the action workable within the 3.5 rule set, but that conversion does happen, because something has to happen to the action. It can't just stop existing.

and you just called an item behind a wall invisible, umm not it'd have Total-Cover which negates targeting & attacking even if you knew it was there. >.>

Yeah, but it's a bit of a semantic distinction. An invisible object then, as opposed to an object behind a wall.

I'm also picking up a theme here, you really not the kind of guy that pays any attention to the details.

I pay attention to most, but I admittedly sometimes do miss some. That "usually" thing is a good example of that, and I'll probably wind up editing that entry to reflect the new worn items plan on account of it. I agree that this argument has gotten a bit circular and pointless, in any case.

[SorO_Lost]

Primeval Wild Shape (FB)

Every time I read that one, I come in thinking I just didn't include it because it's overly numerical and kinda marginal, and then I'm inexplicably surprised by that stupid duration.
 

Proportionate Wild Shape (MotW)

Does that even do anything? You're taking this at 9th, I'd assume, so you either have to be bigger than large or smaller than small for it to be of benefit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any huge races are worth anything, which I guess leaves you with something like jermalaine for awful tiny forms. Doesn't seem anywhere close to worth it on that basis.

Primeval is a trap Feat, +2 Str/AC is always nice, but the cut in duration hurts and isn't worth it in the long run through it can be mistaken otherwise. A warning would be good, same iwth some of the other stuff, like I said a bunch of it is for completeness.

Proportionate has a nich of optimization if you want to play something unique, while the Requirement is based on your natural Size the effect can be said it's based off your current Size. So you play a +1LA Race/Template on top of Divine Minion, multiclass for +2 Will Save bonuses at each level and take Hidden Talent(Expansion) to increase the selectable Size range to Huge & Frozen Wild Shape for Cold Magical Beasts. By as early as ECL 5 you can turn into an 11-headed Cyrohydra which through some healing access quickly becomes 22 attacks per round for a little E6-based abuse. And if you're starting at high levels you can get reasonably far into Ur-Preist and have a fairly nice multi-class chassis allowing you to have your bag of chips and eat it too. And I'm sure if you delve into the trick the Druid can find ways to make it useful too.

[eggynack]

Primeval is a trap Feat, +2 Str/AC is always nice, but the cut in duration hurts and isn't worth it in the long run through it can be mistaken otherwise. A warning would be good, same iwth some of the other stuff, like I said a bunch of it is for completeness.

My general standard for trap feat inclusion is someone being all like, "This feat is really cool, so I'ma take it on my build." I mean, if you think that folks are often trapped by the lure of primeval, I could always list it, but its badness seems pretty obvious. Maybe it's not, given the allure of stat bumping.

Proportionate has a nich of optimization if you want to play something unique, while the Requirement is based on your natural Size the effect can be said it's based off your current Size. So you play a +1LA Race/Template on top of Divine Minion, multiclass for +2 Will Save bonuses at each level and take Hidden Talent(Expansion) to increase the selectable Size range to Huge & Frozen Wild Shape for Cold Magical Beasts. By as early as ECL 5 you can turn into an 11-headed Cyrohydra which through some healing access quickly becomes 22 attacks per round for a little E6-based abuse. And if you're starting at high levels you can get reasonably far into Ur-Preist and have a fairly nice multi-class chassis allowing you to have your bag of chips and eat it too. And I'm sure if you delve into the trick the Druid can find ways to make it useful too.

I dunno that that works the way you think it does. The feat says, "of an animal whose normal size category matches your own," and it's unclear whether that "your own" bit is referring to "size category", or "normal size category". Based on context, I'm inclined to think the latter, and I don't think normal size category is changeable through something like expansion. I guess one could argue from the initial feat description, but the rest of the feat tends to act as clarifying text on the often vague opening.

[SorO_Lost]

Wow really? Partial Actions & Total Vision are unclear to you but they behave exactly how you want, but now Proportionate Wild Shape is unclear and thus is means it works exactly how you perceive I wouldn't want it. Well at least your desired outcome is always consistent.

Anyway, the Feat does bring up your unaltered Size in it's Prerequisite and it uses the term "natural form" which would suggest the correct wording you'd need to actually have a refutable point would be "natural size", not normal size. I'm not even sure it's possible to devolve into a language debate since "whose" is a determiner, of whom or which (used to indicate that the following noun belongs to or is associated with the person or thing mentioned in the previous clause), which concludes normal - or more likely mostly size with normal behaving as an adverb - belongs to selected animal. It's be a different story of they used who's, which sounds the same phonically and could be mistaken either way but we're reading text not hearing words.

[eggynack]

Wow really? Partial Actions & Total Vision are unclear to you but they behave exactly how you want, but now Proportionate Wild Shape is unclear and thus is means it works exactly how you perceive I wouldn't want it. Well at least your desired outcome is always consistent.

I never said partial actions are unclear, because I don't really think they are in this case. I did say that I thought total vision was unclear, but that was actually in the context of me thinking that my position wasn't an airtight one, rather than using a lack of clarity as a tool to justify my position. So, I think I've behaved with a surprising amount of consistency with regards to that word's use, for whatever that's worth. And, in any case, the use of "unclear" in this situation was something of a hedge. I'm pretty strongly of the position that the feat is based off of your normal size, with a lack of clarity claimed largely to keep some room open for discussion in case I'm missing something (and also just cause it's how I tend to phrase things, even in this tiny parenthetical).

Anyway, the Feat does bring up your unaltered Size in it's Prerequisite and it uses the term "natural form" which would suggest the correct wording you'd need to actually have a refutable point would be "natural size", not normal size.

I don't see why natural and normal size would mean substantially different things.

I'm not even sure it's possible to devolve into a language debate since "whose" is a determiner, of whom or which (used to indicate that the following noun belongs to or is associated with the person or thing mentioned in the previous clause), which concludes normal - or more likely mostly size with normal behaving as an adverb - belongs to selected animal. It's be a different story of they used who's, which sounds the same phonically and could be mistaken either way but we're reading text not hearing words.

I mean, "your own" is clearly adopting something that is held by the animal, so I'm not sure it really matters who the size category initially belongs to. It's shared across both creatures. And, honestly, I can't see much call to disconnect normal from size category in terms of what gets adopted. Because, critically, what would normal mean associated with the animal? Normal clearly seems to modify size category in this context.

[Kaelik]

When it comes to the spell lists Druids are better at:

Blasting, Battle Control, debuffs, save or dies, locating people, buffing themselves, buffing anyone who happens to be an animal.

Clerics are better at answering questions not about the specific location of people. Buffing people who are not themselves or animals. Most of the time healing HP. Much later, arguably better at healing status effects.

The Druid list has most of the things people claim aren't on the Druid list (Shapechange gives you practically any 9th you would want, Druids can spontaneously convert a 5th level spell into a summon that can Planeshift.)

The Druid spell list is better, the Druid has better class features. The Druid is just better. If your DM, for whatever weird reason, really likes DMM but hates every other TO ability, the Druid can get DMM too absurdly easily. Can also get any Domain or 3 you care to name.

The Cleric list is actually better for DMM Persisting 500 ranged bonuses ontop of each other and DMM Draconic Polymorph is better than Wildshape, but if your DM doesn't allow DMM Persist, then Druid is just objectively better.

[DDchampion]

Shapechange cheese goes both ways since the cleric can also play that game by picking up the Nature domain.

And one key 9th level spell that shapechange won't give you is Gate. Cleric calls army of wyrm dragons using only core material, cleric wins. If shapechange is on the table, all bets are off.

For lower levels, another massive advantage you forgot from cleric is the planar ally line of spells. Druid can keep his bears, cleric can party with angels and infernals along the wizard.

Being able to bring your allies back to life in their original body is also pretty nice last time I checked.