Stealth nerf and all. I just realized this in the FAQ. So Wolf-Fu is explicitly forbidden by the rules while Octopus fu is not.
On the other hand, a lot of DMs don't let player characters take monster manual feats (despite letting the same players use custom spells and PrCs), even though there's no reason not to. Not that this is a very big deal, since raptors are the Tiger Druids of choice for 3.5E and are actually very good at it.
R.I.P. Dire-Wolf Fu
Moderator: Moderators
-
Count Arioch the 28th
- King
- Posts: 6172
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: R.I.P. Dire-Wolf Fu
Ehh, octopus druid fu has been the rule in my house for a long time, doesn't bother me.
And I say, if a player meets all the prerequisites, then he should be allowed to take any feat he wants. That includes MM feats.
And I say, if a player meets all the prerequisites, then he should be allowed to take any feat he wants. That includes MM feats.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
Re: R.I.P. Dire-Wolf Fu
What, exactly, is this stealth nerf of which you speak?
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: R.I.P. Dire-Wolf Fu
Oberoni at [unixtime wrote:1089689102[/unixtime]]What, exactly, is this stealth nerf of which you speak?
I'm not actually sure. They've flip-flopped on Octopus Fu vs. Dire Wolf Fu so many times that I honestly don't even pay attention anymore. If I wanted to convince a DM that one or the other was the official way it worked, I could collect a binder of "official" quotes which stated so in no uncertain terms, and so long as I selectively left out the binder of quotes which said the opposite, I'm sure I could get a character working with one or the other.
Every so often a game designer will totally notice that Dire Wolf Fu or Octopus Fu is broken if used right and then announce that the other one is the way it has always worked in order to "fix" the probelm. I'm pretty tired of it, actually.
So you can jump on the statement that you gain the natural weapons (which then follow natural weapon rules - Octopus Fu), or you can jump on the statement that you must (and therefore get to) use your normal attack routine (which would be Dire Wolf Fu). And periodically somebody will stress one or the other and completely ignore the other passage and we use it to make one or another broken build.
Whatever. I'm beyond giving a damn. The entire one attack/natural weapon thing is legacy bullshit anyway and should have been done away with the moment we started pretending that D&D was supposed to make sense.
-Username17
Re: R.I.P. Dire-Wolf Fu
Oberoni, it's in the latest FAQ. Read very carefully the section on monks; it's in there.
Further, I think that they're trying to outlaw both forms-- but realize that it's actually and truly impossible the way monster attacks are set up. The closest way I can think of for a way to kill both forms permanently and consistently would also seriously nerf 70% of the creatures in the Monster Manual to the level of an Expert NPC class.
If I had to side, I'd go with Dire Wolf Fu. It's easier to fix and eliminate stupidness like octopi responding 6x better to buffs than boars. Monsters should not have multiple attacks from more appendages--they should just get a generic form like 'savage' or 'batter' and some flavor text that states even though a brown bear and a rhinocerous rip into you a totally different way, the difference in the attack modes are represented by rolling larger dice and DM's description, not by multiple attacks.
What they probably meant to do was for a giant octopus to do 8d4 worth of damage, not something ridiculous like 8d4+100 when a druid loads up on power attack and nature's favor. That can be easily accomplished by changing the dice rolled for a creature's attacks and then making extra attacks solely come off of extraordinary qualities (like rend), BAB, and class features.
Further, I think that they're trying to outlaw both forms-- but realize that it's actually and truly impossible the way monster attacks are set up. The closest way I can think of for a way to kill both forms permanently and consistently would also seriously nerf 70% of the creatures in the Monster Manual to the level of an Expert NPC class.
If I had to side, I'd go with Dire Wolf Fu. It's easier to fix and eliminate stupidness like octopi responding 6x better to buffs than boars. Monsters should not have multiple attacks from more appendages--they should just get a generic form like 'savage' or 'batter' and some flavor text that states even though a brown bear and a rhinocerous rip into you a totally different way, the difference in the attack modes are represented by rolling larger dice and DM's description, not by multiple attacks.
What they probably meant to do was for a giant octopus to do 8d4 worth of damage, not something ridiculous like 8d4+100 when a druid loads up on power attack and nature's favor. That can be easily accomplished by changing the dice rolled for a creature's attacks and then making extra attacks solely come off of extraordinary qualities (like rend), BAB, and class features.
Re: R.I.P. Dire-Wolf Fu
The real problem is that most of the monsters are so poorly written that for some reason they still on on the whole "one arm=one attack, so 8 arms is 8 attacks" of older versions of DnD. That's dumb.
Yes, some monsters are supposed to rock the whole party at the same time. A free Whirlwind feat or some other AoE attack would work better in all ways, and we'd never want to murder game designers or DMs.
For monsters who are supposed to either rock everyone a little or rock one dude a lot, you can have a big single attack and asmall attack that's AoE that are mutally exclusive to each other.
Basically, the MM was written by guys who still hadn't figured out how the 3.0 rules worked, and they're far too arrogant to ever say that they screwed something up so they just compounded 90% of the mistakes in 3.5.
Yes, some monsters are supposed to rock the whole party at the same time. A free Whirlwind feat or some other AoE attack would work better in all ways, and we'd never want to murder game designers or DMs.
For monsters who are supposed to either rock everyone a little or rock one dude a lot, you can have a big single attack and asmall attack that's AoE that are mutally exclusive to each other.
Basically, the MM was written by guys who still hadn't figured out how the 3.0 rules worked, and they're far too arrogant to ever say that they screwed something up so they just compounded 90% of the mistakes in 3.5.