Author Topic: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?  (Read 51287 times)

Offline Kaelik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #120 on: December 27, 2015, 04:24:45 PM »
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.

I know you can't read, but this is ridiculous.
1) I specifically called it a balance check.
I'm asserting that characters would need a 3-7 reflex save bonus (not from dex) before the DC could even possibly be considered mathematically equivalent to 11+mod, which is what you said. Since they don't have that, your statement is obviously false.
2) The check for running across Ice is DC 10. The check for running across a narrow severely slippery surface is +5 over what it already was, which was zero, because if they were already running over something that required a balance check then your spell isn't even doing anything but add +5 to the check they already had to make. In either case, you are completely wrong and you are making up bullshit. Cite an actual rule for this balance check, or shut the fuck up.

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.

I understand perfectly the importance of a Balance check, it's just that regardless of whether the enemy makes or misses the balance check, you will never get an action when they are flat footed. Entangle lets you attack enemies while they are rooted for a minute. It doesn't even matter what their AC is.

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.

Let me describe what actually happens:

1) You the cleric cast Ice Slick.
2) The enemy has to make a Balance check. They either make the check, or miss it. In either case, the DC is much lower than the save for entangle, or even a Cleric spell. Much less Grease which forces a Ref save and a balance check.
3a) If they make the check, the walk off the Ice Slick because anywhere on the iceslick is within 10ft of not being on the iceslick, and are no longer balancing, and are not flat footed. You cast your spell, and all it did was make them avoid an area and spend a move action leaving it.
3b) They fail the check, and fall over. They are now prone, but not balancing anymore, so they are not flatfooted. They also get a +4 bonus against ranged attacks. Sure hope your team wasn't going to use those against the people that you were battlefield controlling, because if they acted after you and the enemy they are getting -4 to ranged attacks for a turn.
4) It is your turn again, the Ice Slick disappears, so who cares if you can walk on it or not, because its fucking gone, so you can walk up to be in position to AoO them as they stand up, and they can stand up, or use immediate actions, or whatever, because the ice slick is gone.

Basically, you never get to attack anyone who is flatfooted ever, so who cares.

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.

Except for the part where Ice Slick never actually provides you with the benefits of the enemy being flat-footed, hurts you if they go prone, and is a DC 10 balance check that is way easier than a saving throw for most level 1 enemies, and if they pass it, they aren't even flat footed at the end of their turn because they just walk off the effect. And the effect lasts one round, instead of 10, and is therefore a "raise" only by the idiotic standards of people who make up random +12 to balance checks out of their ass, and still don't understand the durations of their spells, or how walking out of the effect works.

Offline Soft Insanity

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Put a blanket over it!
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #121 on: December 27, 2015, 05:19:19 PM »
Ice slick:
Any creature entering the area or caught in it when the spell is cast must make a successful Balance check or slip, skid, and fall. Those that succeed on the skill check can move at half speed across the surface, or can skate or glide normally. However, those that remain in the area must each make a new skill check every round to avoid falling and be able to move.

Grease:
A creature can walk within or through the area of grease at half normal speed with a DC 10 Balance check. Failure means it can’t move that round (and must then make a Reflex save or fall), while failure by 5 or more means it falls (see the Balance skill for details).

Balance:
Being Attacked while Balancing
You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you aren’t considered flat-footed while balancing. If you take damage while balancing, you must make another Balance check against the same DC to remain standing.

Draw your own conclusions.

Offline Kaelik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #122 on: December 27, 2015, 05:39:00 PM »
Ice slick:
Any creature entering the area or caught in it when the spell is cast must make a successful Balance check or slip, skid, and fall. Those that succeed on the skill check can move at half speed across the surface, or can skate or glide normally. However, those that remain in the area must each make a new skill check every round to avoid falling and be able to move.

Looks like the slightly different wording or Ice Slick means that one or more of your allies might get an attack against a flat-footed opponent, if they don't have ranks 5 in balance, and make the check. Still not better than entangle, but I guess it beats out grease if you have a ranged rogue in the party.

Offline eggynack

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #123 on: December 27, 2015, 05:44:33 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.
Not really a big issue. The big workaround is attaching plants to your animal companion, which puts the plants about where you want them (next to the enemy being attacked by your animal companion), and puts the companion about where you want them (next to an enemy that's inside an entangle field). Alternatively, if you're dungeon crawling, you could always just use impeding stones instead. That spell has a really similar power level, and works just fine in a dungeon environment.

Quote
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.
Druids certainly aren't great at undead, but they have their ways. Stuff like myconid sovereign or yellow musk creeper form for plant zombies or blackwater tentacles to make wraiths can be pretty useful. But, y'know, even without undead, druids do get minionmancy unbounded by animals. You have your fey ring, and your animate with the spirit, and your SNA for non-animals, and your valiant steed, and your cry of ysgard, and your deepspawn form, and a good amount more. You really can't shut down the big pile of druid minionmancy with simple anti-animal tech, or even with stuff that works against things that lack a lot of immunities.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #124 on: December 27, 2015, 07:41:10 PM »
Cite an actual rule for this balance check, or shut the fuck up.
It's cute that I can get under your skin so easily. You know, you strike me as the kind of piece of shit that people only associate them selves with because they are forced to.

Not really a big issue. The big workaround is attaching plants to your animal companion, which puts the plants about where you want them.
Not to play Devil's Advocate, well ok maybe a little.

The mechanical bases for the penalties, and removal of them, is dependent on the plants wrapping around your target and it never implies or suggests the plants are capable of growing. So if you need plants in the area, as in all of it, for the Spell to work than a 2ft long rose bush wreath around your pet dog isn't going to cut it. It's really more of an appeal, like it says plants and I offered a plant so either that's good enough or we can debate how much as a scary threat!. If I were ever asked, per the Spell's entry, no plants capable of reaching then no go. But I can see how a Druid-lover in the middle of a debate trying to claim Druids are super awesome would never go for it.

And also Yellow Musk Creeper really isn't some kind of Druid powers over Undead. I mean, SNA can summon Elementals but that really doesn't imply a Druid actually has any abilities to create, handle, or deal with Elementals. And if it did, well then I suppose Summon Monster is mastery over a couple types.

Offline Kaelik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #125 on: December 27, 2015, 07:59:04 PM »
Cite an actual rule for this balance check, or shut the fuck up.
It's cute that I can get under your skin so easily. You know, you strike me as the kind of piece of shit that people only associate them selves with because they are forced to.

Yeah, you totally got under my skin with your baseless made up bullshit. I'm mad bro! And that makes you right, because we all know saying "You Mad Bro?" is the universal sign of a clear victor who wasn't making shit up out of his ass and now realizes that he had no idea what the balance check was and no rules support for his claims.

Offline eggynack

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #126 on: December 27, 2015, 08:30:49 PM »

The mechanical bases for the penalties, and removal of them, is dependent on the plants wrapping around your target and it never implies or suggests the plants are capable of growing. So if you need plants in the area, as in all of it, for the Spell to work than a 2ft long rose bush wreath around your pet dog isn't going to cut it. It's really more of an appeal, like it says plants and I offered a plant so either that's good enough or we can debate how much as a scary threat!. If I were ever asked, per the Spell's entry, no plants capable of reaching then no go. But I can see how a Druid-lover in the middle of a debate trying to claim Druids are super awesome would never go for it.
The spell doesn't really give  a required scale for the plants at all. It just says that the plants in the area do this thing, and says that it works in this area. And, moreover, while there's leave given for differing effects based on plant type, there doesn't seem to be any for differing effects based on plant quantity. I don't see much RAW basis for a restriction of this sort based on

Quote
And also Yellow Musk Creeper really isn't some kind of Druid powers over Undead. I mean, SNA can summon Elementals but that really doesn't imply a Druid actually has any abilities to create, handle, or deal with Elementals. And if it did, well then I suppose Summon Monster is mastery over a couple types.
You're not summoning a yellow musk creeper (though you obviously can). You're becoming one, and using that form to make fancy plant zombies. It's really a secondary option when compared to the generally superior myconid sovereign though.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #127 on: December 27, 2015, 10:25:01 PM »
You're not summoning a yellow musk creeper (though you obviously can). You're becoming one, and using that form to make fancy plant zombies. It's really a secondary option when compared to the generally superior myconid sovereign though.
I think you missed the point.

Here, I can be a little more direct.
(click to show/hide)
Like I've said before, the only consistency is you unfairly adjudicate things.

Anyway, the Myconid Sovereigns? Do you have any 3.5 creatures you'd like to talk about or should I start considering the concept that 3.0's monsters are even more borked than 3.5s?

Offline eggynack

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: [3.5] Druid vs Cleric, which is "better"?
« Reply #128 on: December 27, 2015, 11:09:48 PM »
=Speaking of strict "RAW", misinterpretation, Zodars, and Entangle. A Yellow Musk Zombie defends it's patron creeper not a Nilshai or Dire Turtle.[/spoiler]Like I've said before, the only consistency is you unfairly adjudicate things.
Didn't say you were gonna stop being a yellow musk creeper, to be fair. There is a reason I prefer myconid sovereign form for these purposes, in any case.

Quote
Anyway, the Myconid Sovereigns? Do you have any 3.5 creatures you'd like to talk about or should I start considering the concept that 3.0's monsters are even more borked than 3.5s?
You mean like the dire tortoise, fleshraker will-o'-wisp, deepspawn, dharculus, and dolgaunt? Cause that's just going off of ones I'm pretty sure I mentioned in this thread. You do get some pretty crazy stuff out of 3.0 though.