Community

Dec 3, 2009 -- 1:29PM, mellored wrote:

My suggestion, make it a tiny conjuration, last a turn, can make OA's against anyone in it's square.  Sort of like a combo stom pillar/cloud of daggers.

That let's artillary shift+shoot, which i think brings it closer to a reasonable power level, while keeping with the flavor and utility of it.

While definitely feasible, it would remove the uniqueness of the power - instead of providing soft control against artillery/controllers, it would become yet another take-damage-if-you-move-through-the-square power, only "useful" against brutes/soldiers. We already have those, so thanks but no thanks.

Dec 3, 2009 -- 1:29PM, mellored wrote:

My suggestion, make it a tiny conjuration, last a turn, can make OA's against anyone in it's square.  Sort of like a combo stom pillar/cloud of daggers.

That let's artillary shift+shoot, which i think brings it closer to a reasonable power level, while keeping with the flavor and utility of it.

It's already at a reasonable power level.  Last night I went over some rough numbers (with my level 14 Druid) to help me determine whether I wanted to switch up my at-wills.  Savage Rend was staying, so I was basically deciding between Fire Hawk, Call of the Beast, Swarming Locusts, and Grasping Tide for my remaining 2 at-wills. 

Fire Hawk was the first at-will that I decided to eliminate (though looking back, I'd probably take it over Call of the Beast, which is really only attractive when paired with Psychic Lock).  The reason why is because it essentially turns into a DPR power against very specific foes (namely artillery).  But Savage Rend is already my single target DPR power.  Here are some rough numbers with my level 14 Druid (baseline +14 to damage):

Fire Hawk:  15-22 damage if they don't provoke the OA; 30-44 damage if they do.
Savage Rend:  15-22 damage baseline, 18-34 if I have CA, 18-32 if I charge, 21-42 if I charge a foe that I have CA against (between charging into flanks, charging dazed, prone, etc. enemies, and setting up CA w/ Swarming Locusts this is fairly common). 

So looking at the raw damage range, Fire Hawk does come out ahead.  However, the DPR of Savage Rend is going to be better because with charging+CA I get a +4 to the attack (a fairly significant boost to DPR).  Even with just one or the other I get a +2 to-hit (CA with Fire Hawk would be rare).  Savage Rend has DPR potential in every encounter and potentially against any target, whereas Fire Hawk is generally only useful against ranged enemies.  Fire Hawk also requires a second attack roll in order to do max damage.  And finally, Savage Rend also comes with a generally useful hard control effect (slide 2 for me, since I have rushing cleats).  Depending on terrain hazards or any zones that are out, the slide may result in even more damage.

Note that this setup requires Claw Gloves, a Horned Helm, and both Ferocious Tiger Form and Enraged Boar Form, so at lower levels Fire Hawk is probably going to be the better choice for raw damage (though it will still be situational damage). 

Dec 4, 2009 -- 8:20AM, alien270 wrote:

Fire Hawk:  15-22 damage if they don't provoke the OA; 30-44 damage if they do.
Savage Rend:  15-22 damage baseline, 18-34 if I have CA, 18-32 if I charge, 21-42 if I charge a foe that I have CA against (between charging into flanks, charging dazed, prone, etc. enemies, and setting up CA w/ Swarming Locusts this is fairly common). 

So looking at the raw damage range, Fire Hawk does come out ahead.  However, the DPR of Savage Rend is going to be better because with charging+CA I get a +4 to the attack (a fairly significant boost to DPR).  Even with just one or the other I get a +2 to-hit (CA with Fire Hawk would be rare).  Savage Rend has DPR potential in every encounter and potentially against any target, whereas Fire Hawk is generally only useful against ranged enemies.  Fire Hawk also requires a second attack roll in order to do max damage.  And finally, Savage Rend also comes with a generally useful hard control effect (slide 2 for me, since I have rushing cleats).  Depending on terrain hazards or any zones that are out, the slide may result in even more damage.

Note that this setup requires Claw Gloves, a Horned Helm, and both Ferocious Tiger Form and Enraged Boar Form, so at lower levels Fire Hawk is probably going to be the better choice for raw damage (though it will still be situational damage). 

So with 2 feats, and 2 items, you can't match the damage of firehawk.  Seems pretty telling.

1. I've got two questions. First one is in the FAQ for PHB2 it said shield worked in wildshape. However, in Primal Power, the feat quick stow said it would not work since it was held. So would it work or not? And if I did not "hold" the shield instead of make it magical which take the space of a slot item?


A. Yes, we notice there is a discrepancy in the Quick Stow feat and are working to find a resolution. The shield is considered to take your arm slot, and maybe require a hand to be used. You'll receive the bonus from the shield while shapeshifted, and it will not drop as long as it's equipped correctly.

So the shield works afterall...

Dec 4, 2009 -- 9:44AM, mellored wrote:

So with 2 feats, and 2 items, you can't match the damage of firehawk.  Seems pretty telling.

Actually, that's two feats, two items, and charging into CA - as opposed to meeting a condition that applies to every enemy that is either more than their shift+reach distance away from any ally or a ranged attacker, along with a number of edge cases where it adds more lose to one side or the other of the enemy decisionmaking.

Note that this isn't quite fair.  Realistically it's more like 22-33 once you take into account the idea that the fire hawk could miss on its opportunity attack, and we'll call it pounce (and hand you the CA) rather than Savage Rend (so we don't have to keep track fo the free slide).  Even so, your pick of either the charge item and the charge feat or the CA item and the CA feat isn't enough.  Fire hawk by itself as your standalone ranged attack deals out more damage than an attack you've spent a feat and an item slot on.

but... nonmagical shields *don't* take your arm slot.  That's why you can have a nonmagical shield and a bracer item, and why it's possible to wield shields on both arms (though I don't think they'd stack, and one would have to be nonmagical)... unless that is to be changed?

Dec 4, 2009 -- 9:44AM, mellored wrote:

So with 2 feats, and 2 items, you can't match the damage of firehawk.  Seems pretty telling.

You've missed the point.  While the maximum damage of Fire Hawk is greater, the DPR for Savage Rend charge+CA is higher because of the +4 to-hit (I don't feel like calculating it out right now, but later today when I'm with my character sheet I may go ahead and do that).  Furthermore, the Horned Helm and Claw Gloves are fairly cheap items and are usually pretty standard for a Druid anyways (most are likely to take one or both of the feats as well).  Fire Hawk will not benefit from the Claw Gloves, Horned Helm, or Enraged Boar Form (obviously because it's not a melee attack).  Also, the fact that Fire Hawk requires two attack rolls means that the secondary attack could very well miss (it won't get charging/CA bonuses to-hit), not to mention the fact that some artillery have high Reflex. 

In actual play experience, the opportunity to charge with Savage Rend occurs almost every round (of course there's usually other tactical actions that take precedence), and getting CA is also fairly easy.  The damage from Savage Rend is simply more reliable, which is the point I was trying to make.  Powers chosen for DPR should not be as situational as Fire Hawk.  Brutes/Soldiers can only be targeted if they're isolated (likely the case in the first round of combat, but I'd rather immobilize or daze them instead).  Skirmishers have high Reflex, and can often shift multiple squares, making Fire Hawk a poor choice to use against them.  I will admit that Fire Hawk is awesome against artillery, but Grasping Tide could potentially be better if you wild shape then run into the power's area right after casting it (forcing artillery to leave the area if they want to shift/shoot, and probably knocking them prone). 

Dec 4, 2009 -- 11:09AM, SanityFaerie wrote:

Actually, that's two feats, two items, and charging into CA - as opposed to meeting a condition that applies to every enemy that is either more than their shift+reach distance away from any ally or a ranged attacker, along with a number of edge cases where it adds more lose to one side or the other of the enemy decisionmaking.

Note that this isn't quite fair.  Realistically it's more like 22-33 once you take into account the idea that the fire hawk could miss on its opportunity attack, and we'll call it pounce (and hand you the CA) rather than Savage Rend (so we don't have to keep track fo the free slide).  Even so, your pick of either the charge item and the charge feat or the CA item and the CA feat isn't enough.  Fire hawk by itself as your standalone ranged attack deals out more damage than an attack you've spent a feat and an item slot on.

Right, I was using Savage Rend because that's what my Druid has.  The numbers for Pounce would be the same though, so we can ignore the slide effect (though to be fair, most Druids will choose Savage Rend or Grasping Claws over pounce, both of which get the DPR and a nice control effect).  As for Fire Hawk's damage, I was reporting the damage range, not DPR or average damage.  Come to think of it, I'm not even sure if I know how to calculate the DPR assuming two attack rolls, with the 2nd one dependent on the 1st hitting. 

Basically, the argument was being made that Fire Hawk is an obvious choice for every Druid to take.  In a vacuum and unaugmented, it does outdamage whatever melee attack you decide to compare it to.  Personally, I've invested in improving charges and CA (by level 4 you can enchant your own Claw Gloves, and make the Horned Helm by level 6, if your DM hasn't handed them out to you as treasure).  Many Druids opt to do this, so it's certainly a factor in actual play.  Thus, I've decided that the marginal damage spike that Fire Hawk provides in the right situation isn't worth an at-will slot, since I already have a DPR at-will that also has a significant control effect (and counts as a BA).  It's not unreasonable to think that other Druid players will come to this same conclusion, which is why I disagree that Fire Hawk is a must have power.  If anything, that honor is bestowed upon Grasping Tide. 

Okay.  I have a few reframing questions to ask.

First, I posit the following:
 1- CustServ has spoken, and done so fairly clearly
 2- They have been given authority over RAW.
 3- The interpretation that they have made of the power is not implausible, given the text.  It appears to be an interpretation rather than an errata, and it is not unreasonable, given the text, that it was the initially intended interpretation when the power was written.
Does anyone dispute these points?

I would further posit the following:
 4- The druid is not a weak class, even without firehawk.  Specifically, druids can be built that serve in their intended roles well.  Druids are capable of contributing to a party in ways that cannot simply be duplicated by members of other classes, and there are a number of reasonable parties for which the optimal nth slot would be a druid build, even if the DM had houseruled (as his only houserule) that firehawk was not permitted as a power choice.
 5- The nerfed version of Firehawk is still useful for some builds in some campaigns.  Its function is niche, but there are druids for whom it would be a reasonable choice for one of the three at-wills.
Does anyone dispute these points?

If there is no dispute on these points, I think that the argument pretty much speaks for itself, aside from possibly petitioning to up the level of firehawk because it would somehow improve the game... except that I believe that petitions are forbidden on the boards, so....

If you *are* willing to dispute these points, then there are a few arguments still left.
 - I don't think anyone can dispute points 1 or 2 on the face of them, but they do have a caveat in that CustServ has been incorrect and/or internally contradictory in the past.  The appropriate behavior to argue based on this appears to be re-asking the question of other CustServ representatives to see if the answer changes.
 - If you want to dispute point 3, the appropriate behavior is to quote the pertinent bit of text and argue why it doesn't or couldn't mean what they say it means.
 - if you want to dispute point 4, the appropriate behavior is to claim that druids suck mud as-is - that they *need* firehawk in all its glory - and provide support for your argument.  Secondary arguments on how firehawk makes them not suck mud would be useful support.
 - if you want to dispute point 5, then I'd say there are a few posts a bit further back in the discussion that roughly lay out campaigns, DM styles, and party builds for which the CustServ firehawk would be useful.  Find and explain the flaws in our logic.

Am I missing something here?  Essentially, the fact that it is a valid interpretation of the text by an official source means that the proponents of the CustServ version (among whose number I count myself) don't need to prove that the interpretation is Right and Good - merely that it is not Wrong and Bad.  I would say "change" except that I don't think it was a change at all.  It appears to have just been a misinterpretation from the start.  Am I wrong?

My comments below in bold.

Dec 4, 2009 -- 1:34PM, SanityFaerie wrote:

Okay.  I have a few reframing questions to ask.

First, I posit the following:
 1- CustServ has spoken, and done so fairly clearly
Yes, this is true but as you stated yourself they have been contradictory in the past.

 2- They have been given authority over RAW.
Can you explain what you mean by this?  Clearly this authority isn't absolute, since they've been known to give contradictory answers.  Thus, their credibility isn't 100%.  Furthermore, RAW is a completely separate entity from CustServ, comprised only of the published crunch text. 

 3- The interpretation that they have made of the power is not implausible, given the text.  It appears to be an interpretation rather than an errata, and it is not unreasonable, given the text, that it was the initially intended interpretation when the power was written.
I actually would say that it's implausible, just not impossible.  The argument has been stated many times before that if the power was supposed to work as CustServ interprets it, the simplest way to convey that in the rules would be to word the trigger thus:  "the target provokes an OA."  By instead stating the trigger as being anything that can provoke an OA, with non-shift movement and making ranged attacks being actions that can provoke OAs, the CustServ response has little RAW support aside from assertions that "can" is being used in a very specific way, essentially being equivalent to the wording "the target provokes".  Without specific commentary by the developers, it's hard to say what the intent of the power is, with the text giving better support for un-nerfed Fire Hawk and CustServ giving better support for nerfed Fire Hawk.

Does anyone dispute these points?

I would further posit the following:
 4- The druid is not a weak class, even without firehawk.  Specifically, druids can be built that serve in their intended roles well.  Druids are capable of contributing to a party in ways that cannot simply be duplicated by members of other classes, and there are a number of reasonable parties for which the optimal nth slot would be a druid build, even if the DM had houseruled (as his only houserule) that firehawk was not permitted as a power choice.
Agreed, the Druid is a solid class without Fire Hawk.  But I'd rather have it, as it functions according to RAW, as an option.  If it proves overpowered, I'd rather just have the damage reduced.

 5- The nerfed version of Firehawk is still useful for some builds in some campaigns.  Its function is niche, but there are druids for whom it would be a reasonable choice for one of the three at-wills.
Sure, even if it's nerfed someone will probably pick it.  But IMO it would make it arguably the worst at-will, doomed to be ignored by the vast majority of Druids.  Which would be a shame, because it's a flavorful attack and provides a unique anti-artillery function. 

Dec 4, 2009 -- 3:12PM, alien270 wrote:

My comments below in bold.

Dec 4, 2009 -- 1:34PM, SanityFaerie wrote:

 2- They have been given authority over RAW.[/qoute]
Can you explain what you mean by this?  Clearly this authority isn't absolute, since they've been known to give contradictory answers.  Thus, their credibility isn't 100%.  Furthermore, RAW is a completely separate entity from CustServ, comprised only of the published crunch text. 

There has been an official statement by WotC that CustServ responses are binding.  I acknowledge that their tendency to contradict themselves, and occasional habit of giving answers that are blatantly false means that their credibility isn't 100%.  It is my understanding that both of these have been improving lately, but both are still issues.  Still, the people who get to specify what RAW is have stated that CustServ responses count.  That does carry with it a degree of authority (and, indeed, if it didn't, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation).  In other words, published crunch text is what WotC says it is.  WotC says that CustServ counts as published crunch text.  I personally think that it's a bit unseemly to do that with an information source that has the reliability issues that CustServ does, but that's what they have done.

I'd also note that there's a difference between "is useful for some builds" and "someone will pick it".  My contention is that not only will it be used, but that in some cases, it will be the correct at-will choice from a Char-Op standpoint for people who have made otherwise strong builds.

Honestly, my position on firehawk isn't that it's freakishly overpowered in the stronger interpretation.  I don't think it is.  I do think that it's strong enough that it marginalizes a number of the other otherwise good choices.  I play a druid.  My druid has fluff reasons why it's not fit for me, it's not a particularly good fit tactically for my build or my party (there are other powers that are better suited), and there's absolutely nothing in my build that augments it or takes particular advantage of it, but in the original version it's strong enough that part of me feels like I ought to take it anyway, because it's just that good.  To me, that's an indicator.

Dec 4, 2009 -- 3:12PM, alien270 wrote:

But I'd rather have it, as it functions according to RAW, as an option.  If it proves overpowered, I'd rather just have the damage reduced.

honestly, I might be happy with the "works the same way but made weaker" version too.  I'd rather have it be an interesting, flavorful power that fit well into some builds but could be reasonably ignored than a power that only fit well into a few edge cases involving specific DM habits - but I'd prefer either of them to a power that was strong enough that it marginalized other options just by being there.

Dec 4, 2009 -- 1:34PM, SanityFaerie wrote:

Okay.  I have a few reframing questions to ask.

First, I posit the following:
 1- CustServ has spoken, and done so fairly clearly
 

As far as CustServ's response, it is definitely clear.  It also doesn't match with what the text actually says in my opinion.  There is no way a fluent English speaker reads the Firehawk power and comes up with the position that "can provoke an opportunity attack" is the same as "provokes an opportunity attack" except in the circumstance that they feel Firehawk is overpowered and are looking for a way to nerf it without making a houserule.  As such, I'm going to assume that there are situations where Firehawk works that don't involve the target actually provoking an opportunity attack for the purposes of the guide unless there is an erratum or clear developer commentary in this regard.

Dec 4, 2009 -- 4:07PM, Molecule wrote:

Dec 4, 2009 -- 1:34PM, SanityFaerie wrote:

Okay.  I have a few reframing questions to ask.

First, I posit the following:
 1- CustServ has spoken, and done so fairly clearly
 

As far as CustServ's response, it is definitely clear.  It also doesn't match with what the text actually says in my opinion.  There is no way a fluent English speaker reads the Firehawk power and comes up with the position that "can provoke an opportunity attack" is the same as "provokes an opportunity attack" except in the circumstance that they feel Firehawk is overpowered and are looking for a way to nerf it without making a houserule.  As such, I'm going to assume that there are situations where Firehawk works that don't involve the target actually provoking an opportunity attack for the purposes of the guide unless there is an erratum or clear developer commentary in this regard.

I disagree, i don't think you "can provoke" only when there's someone to provoke from, otherwise, you really CAN'T provoke it from anyone.

I'll agree that the nerfed version is near useless, but the un-nerfed version is overpowered.

Dec 4, 2009 -- 7:14PM, mellored wrote:

I disagree, i don't think you "can provoke" only when there's someone to provoke from, otherwise, you really CAN'T provoke it from anyone.

If I'm understanding correctly, what you're saying is that CAN provoke requires an adjacent enemy.  In response to this, the ranged 10 of the secondary attack implicitly allows these actions to provoke OAs from you. 

Regarding the CustServ response about Fire Hawk... the thing that really burns about it is how they specify that an ally has to actually be able to make the opportunity attack, i.e. not have made one already this round, as opposed to just having an ally adjacent when the target provokes.

If it simple required an ally adjacent, that would still be a very significant nerf to the power, but I could see it still being useful - maybe a black power rather than red?  In particular, all the druid's summoned creatures cannot make opportunity attacks, so it would be useful in conjunction with them.  Also if your melee allies are dazed or otherwise temporarily cannot make OAs, you could mitigate that condition a bit by backing them with Fire Hawk.

But if you have to play it in the way they specified?  I'm really doubting that you would ever get to use the opportunity action attack.  Only through actual play would we know for sure, and I could be wrong.  But that's how it seems.

Dec 4, 2009 -- 10:10PM, ryryguy wrote:

Regarding the CustServ response about Fire Hawk... the thing that really burns about it is how they specify that an ally has to actually be able to make the opportunity attack, i.e. not have made one already this round, as opposed to just having an ally adjacent when the target provokes.

If it simple required an ally adjacent, that would still be a very significant nerf to the power, but I could see it still being useful - maybe a black power rather than red?  In particular, all the druid's summoned creatures cannot make opportunity attacks, so it would be useful in conjunction with them.  Also if your melee allies are dazed or otherwise temporarily cannot make OAs, you could mitigate that condition a bit by backing them with Fire Hawk.

But if you have to play it in the way they specified?  I'm really doubting that you would ever get to use the opportunity action attack.  Only through actual play would we know for sure, and I could be wrong.  But that's how it seems.

Yep, that's why I think this specific interpretation/nerf is so ridiculous.  Essentially the only thing it does is double the "threat" that OA's present.  It's useful in extreme corner cases where enemies would be thinking "hmm, it might be worth it to take the Fighter's hit because I really want to run over to that Cleric there."  Assuming you can predict when an enemy would consider making that risk, all that Fire Hawk does is get the enemy to reconsider because the punishment is potentially double.  Thanks, I'll pass.

I just thought of a potential psychological advantage of wild shape, though it may depend on how much your DM metagames.  When enemies are fighting a Wizard or Invoker, they quickly learn that the plethora of AoE's makes clumping dangerous.  When fighting a Druid in beast form, enemies may be less vigilant about clumping, perhaps to the point where Savage Rend could be used to covertly position enemies in the area of a future blast/burst without them suspecting it.  You could even have a ranged squishy feint foolish positioning, with the Druid "saving" said squishy by sliding the enemy away (into the clump).  Then you can surprise them with a well-placed AoE. 

I'll admit that there isn't an easy way to optimize for something like this, but it still might be one of those unquantifiable but undeniably beneficial advantages that controllers are known for bringing to the table (such as "versatility"). 

A couple of points I thought of while reading the guide:

Hungry For The Kill (E17): Your comment implies you think this is one of those powers that triggers when the target is bloodied by this attack. It isn't and only requires that the target be bloodied after the attack. If the target is already bloodied before the attack, the healing surge/save still triggers. This makes is more useful than you might have thought.

Vital Form (Paragon Feat, PP): This has a comment that it's better if you're a Dwarf or otherwise able to second wind as a non-standard action.  I'd add the Blood Moon Stalker PP to the list, as the L11 feature lets you second wind as a free action when you bloody or kill an enemy. Getting to use this twice per encounter is much better.

I'd also recommend a brief mention of Armor Specialization (Hide) in the Paragon General feats section (It's a handy, but pretty obvious, feat to take), with a comment that it should be replaced with Second Skin at Epic.

Dec 6, 2009 -- 7:11PM, boolean wrote:

A couple of points I thought of while reading the guide:

Hungry For The Kill (E17): Your comment implies you think this is one of those powers that triggers when the target is bloodied by this attack. It isn't and only requires that the target be bloodied after the attack. If the target is already bloodied before the attack, the healing surge/save still triggers. This makes is more useful than you might have thought.

Vital Form (Paragon Feat, PP): This has a comment that it's better if you're a Dwarf or otherwise able to second wind as a non-standard action.  I'd add the Blood Moon Stalker PP to the list, as the L11 feature lets you second wind as a free action when you bloody or kill an enemy. Getting to use this twice per encounter is much better.

I'd also recommend a brief mention of Armor Specialization (Hide) in the Paragon General feats section (It's a handy, but pretty obvious, feat to take), with a comment that it should be replaced with Second Skin at Epic.

Thanks.  These have been fixed.

Dec 4, 2009 -- 10:10PM, ryryguy wrote:

Regarding the CustServ response about Fire Hawk... the thing that really burns about it is how they specify that an ally has to actually be able to make the opportunity attack, i.e. not have made one already this round, as opposed to just having an ally adjacent when the target provokes.

If it simple required an ally adjacent, that would still be a very significant nerf to the power, but I could see it still being useful - maybe a black power rather than red?  In particular, all the druid's summoned creatures cannot make opportunity attacks, so it would be useful in conjunction with them.  Also if your melee allies are dazed or otherwise temporarily cannot make OAs, you could mitigate that condition a bit by backing them with Fire Hawk.

But if you have to play it in the way they specified?  I'm really doubting that you would ever get to use the opportunity action attack.  Only through actual play would we know for sure, and I could be wrong.  But that's how it seems.

I know for a fact that there are DMs out there who deliberately play unintelligent enemies as just that, and will ignore opportunity attacks with them.  In those cases, setting up and exploiting opportunity attacks can be a big part of party tactics.  (Likewise, disabling and/or killing off intelligent monsters that are directing the unintelligent monsters to that you can).

Mind you, I think that the version you propose (applies when allies are adjacent) would be a good one as well, and, again, fit well into the "flavorful and useful but not marginalizing" bin - particularly for instinctive-action caster-form summoning druids.

Whenever you get a chance to incorporate it into your guide, todays Class Acts:  Druid article contained some really nice (and flavorful) feats and powers. 

Dec 8, 2009 -- 7:09AM, alien270 wrote:

Whenever you get a chance to incorporate it into your guide, todays Class Acts:  Druid article contained some really nice (and flavorful) feats and powers. 

Yup, added them in (hooray for online material I can update while at "work").  Too bad WotC apparently feels that Swarm Druids are weak and need more power selections; it would have been nice to see some appealing feats for Guardians or some real sub-striker options for predators.  Maybe next month.

Dec 8, 2009 -- 12:06PM, Molecule wrote:

Dec 8, 2009 -- 7:09AM, alien270 wrote:

Whenever you get a chance to incorporate it into your guide, todays Class Acts:  Druid article contained some really nice (and flavorful) feats and powers. 

Yup, added them in (hooray for online material I can update while at "work").  Too bad WotC apparently feels that Swarm Druids are weak and need more power selections; it would have been nice to see some appealing feats for Guardians or some real sub-striker options for predators.  Maybe next month.

Just fyi, you placed Brutal Grappler Form (Paragon feat) in Heroic Tier feats.  You also left out the three Heroic feats that augment Pounce, Grasping Claws, and Savage Rend.

Also, I would argue that Primal Serpent should not be blue, but rather purple, or even red (especially given the competition at this level).  First of all, the effect only does extra damage if you use attacks that already have the poison keyword.  For attacks without the poison keyword, it simply gives them the keyword.  Not many monsters have poison vulnerability, making this largely useless.  Druids don't have too many poison powers, so you're rarely even going to get the extra damage.  The initial damage is also really terrible.  1D10 + Wis for a NINTH LEVEL DAILY?!?!  And on a miss it doesn't deal any ongoing damage.  Really, the only appeal of this power is the ongoing damage on a hit that you can't save against.  Which might be a typo.  Even so, an extra 5 damage each round on a single target until it dies doesn't make up for the fact that the initial damage sucks and the effect is highly situational. 

Dec 9, 2009 -- 9:14AM, alien270 wrote:

Dec 8, 2009 -- 12:06PM, Molecule wrote:

Dec 8, 2009 -- 7:09AM, alien270 wrote:

Whenever you get a chance to incorporate it into your guide, todays Class Acts:  Druid article contained some really nice (and flavorful) feats and powers. 

Yup, added them in (hooray for online material I can update while at "work").  Too bad WotC apparently feels that Swarm Druids are weak and need more power selections; it would have been nice to see some appealing feats for Guardians or some real sub-striker options for predators.  Maybe next month.

Just fyi, you placed Brutal Grappler Form (Paragon feat) in Heroic Tier feats.  You also left out the three Heroic feats that augment Pounce, Grasping Claws, and Savage Rend.

Also, I would argue that Primal Serpent should not be blue, but rather purple, or even red (especially given the competition at this level).  First of all, the effect only does extra damage if you use attacks that already have the poison keyword.  For attacks without the poison keyword, it simply gives them the keyword.  Not many monsters have poison vulnerability, making this largely useless.  Druids don't have too many poison powers, so you're rarely even going to get the extra damage.  The initial damage is also really terrible.  1D10 + Wis for a NINTH LEVEL DAILY?!?!  And on a miss it doesn't deal any ongoing damage.  Really, the only appeal of this power is the ongoing damage on a hit that you can't save against.  Which might be a typo.  Even so, an extra 5 damage each round on a single target until it dies doesn't make up for the fact that the initial damage sucks and the effect is highly situational. 

Somehow the at-will boosting feats ended up in the general feat section.  All of those feats you mentioned have been moved to the appropriate places.

Primal Serpent doesn't require that the power have the poison keyword, it only requires that you already be dealing poison damage with the power.  If you have a Staff of the Serpent, that should qualify, and that's the only circumstance under which the power is a consideration.

Dec 9, 2009 -- 1:25PM, Molecule wrote:

Primal Serpent doesn't require that the power have the poison keyword, it only requires that you already be dealing poison damage with the power.  If you have a Staff of the Serpent, that should qualify, and that's the only circumstance under which the power is a consideration.

I re-read the power, and you're right.  I agree that the Staff of the Serpent would qualify it.  Even with this set-up, I'd still call the power black at most though.  But of course you're free to disagree, and after all it's you're guide

Can someone please explain to me why people on these forums have such a raging hard on for swarming locusts?

I see people all the time saying that it makes pounce useless but it just doesn't seem that way to me at all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying pounce is better, but the thing is to me they are both very situational powers.  Now if your druid likes to charge a lot, has a lot of melee allies in his party or likes to use summons, then pounce is a generally better option than swarming locusts.  But if you have a lot of ranged allies in your party, and find yourself frequently fighting lots of clumped enemies then swarms will probably give you better mileage.

Can someone justify why they see swarming locusts as outright superior?

It works on a miss.

Though you're right about pounce being able to be used on a charge, and i agree that there are a few sitations that it would work out better.  Having a heavy melee party for instance.

Dec 9, 2009 -- 11:38PM, kongovich wrote:

Can someone please explain to me why people on these forums have such a raging hard on for swarming locusts?

I see people all the time saying that it makes pounce useless but it just doesn't seem that way to me at all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying pounce is better, but the thing is to me they are both very situational powers.  Now if your druid likes to charge a lot, has a lot of melee allies in his party or likes to use summons, then pounce is a generally better option than swarming locusts.  But if you have a lot of ranged allies in your party, and find yourself frequently fighting lots of clumped enemies then swarms will probably give you better mileage.

Can someone justify why they see swarming locusts as outright superior?

There are a few considerations here:

(1)  Just about everyone is going to want an MBA in beast form so that they can make opportunity attacks.  Pounce doesn't satisfy this requirement; only Grasping Claws and Savage Rend do.

(2)  The ONLY thing Pounce does that GC/SR don't do it grant combat advantage, which is sometimes useful but not terribly often.

(3)  On the other hand, Swarming Locusts also has the unique attributes that it is a beast form area power and a close blast.  Druids don't have any other area at-wills in beast form, and they don't have any other close at-wills at all.

(4)  Unlike Pounce, Swarming Locusts applies its effect on a hit or a miss.

In a vacuum, Pounce is not a terrible power.  But once you take into account the opportunity cost of giving up either an opportunity attack power or a close blast power, it really isn't a very good option.

It's area effect, which means that more often than not you're going to be able to target more than one enemy with it.  It works on a miss.  It's relatively small and a blast, so most of the time if you only care about hitting one enemy, you're going to be able to aim it so that it doesn't hit any allies, even if things are getting a bit tight.  Pounce can be used on a charge, and swarming locusts cannot, but any druid who intends to spend much time in beastform is going to pick up one of the MBA powers anyway (they're pretty good, they give you an opportunity attack, and they can fire off of things that give you free MBAs - adding a potentially useful control aspect to the commander's strike arsenal, for example).  Thus, the only case where pounce's can-be-used-on-charge really matters is when the CA effect of pounce would be significantly better than the slow/slide that you'd get out of your MBA.

the logic is basically as follows
- If you're not in beastform much, you're only switching in for special occasions.  You'll likely want swarming locusts (for the area effect) or savage rend (to get yourself some space to move away/push them back into the defender/push them back out of the back lines)
- If you are in beastform much, taking an MBA is an obvious choice.  At that point, you have one beastform at-will left.  I could see wanting to get both of the MBAs at that point (so you could have both your at-will slide and your opportunity-attack slow) but pounce really just doesn't give you enough to be worth giving up the option of an area effect power.  Note that this argument *is* less compelling for a predator than it is for a swarm.  predator druids can reasonably take a casterform area effect (And there a re a few nice ones) and just transform-with-shift whenever they want to attack a group of enemies.  Swarm druids lose a noticeable block of defense while in casterform, so for them, an area effect that lets them just stay in beastform the entire time is really quite useful.

Personally, I'd call it purple rather than red - if you're putting together a charge-build predator druid in a party that contains a ranged rogue, for example, I could see it being exactly what you'd want.

edit: and yes, I *did* just get ninjaed.  Ah, well.

I'd agree with purple.

I'd suggest adding a line to Thorn Whip about how if your party is all melee or almost all melee, it can be useful for its ability to drag flying or otherwise inaccessible ranged enemies down where the party can get at them, and would suggest a black or possibly dark blue color for that case.

I'd also suggest upgrading the nerfed-version firehawk from red to purple.  It's still a viable source of ranged fire damage, and there are DMs and parties for which it might be useful (as previously discussed).  As far as at-wills are concerned, I like to reserve red for powers that are actively embarassing, rather than just being not as good as other choices in most cases.  I don't think that anyone who comes here looking for "how should I build my druid" is going to pick the purple choice off the shelf without being sure they know what they're doing, and if they do I don't think they're going to be disappointed with the performance of even nerfed firehawk, given that they knew it was purple to begin with.

Is not thorn whip only dragging 2?

Dec 10, 2009 -- 12:52PM, SanityFaerie wrote:

I'd suggest adding a line to Thorn Whip about how if your party is all melee or almost all melee, it can be useful for its ability to drag flying or otherwise inaccessible ranged enemies down where the party can get at them, and would suggest a black or possibly dark blue color for that case.

I'd also suggest upgrading the nerfed-version firehawk from red to purple.  It's still a viable source of ranged fire damage, and there are DMs and parties for which it might be useful (as previously discussed).  As far as at-wills are concerned, I like to reserve red for powers that are actively embarassing, rather than just being not as good as other choices in most cases.  I don't think that anyone who comes here looking for "how should I build my druid" is going to pick the purple choice off the shelf without being sure they know what they're doing, and if they do I don't think they're going to be disappointed with the performance of even nerfed firehawk, given that they knew it was purple to begin with.

RAW, you can't drag a flying enemy down to you (you can only forced-move things horizontally).  You can use it to slide an enemy that is exactly two squares away from the edge of a cliff (or whatever) down into your melee.  But any farther than that and it won't work; any closer than that and you could just take Chill Wind and use that instead.

I suppose I'll make Pounce and other-Firehawk purple, even though they both really suck, since they're not strictly worse than other at-wills.

Dec 10, 2009 -- 12:52PM, SanityFaerie wrote:

As far as at-wills are concerned, I like to reserve red for powers that are actively embarassing, rather than just being not as good as other choices in most cases.

I agree that none of the druid at-will powers warrant a red rating.  Even Pounce which is thought to be totally overshadowed by Swarming Locusts has its uses.  For example, Pounce + Patient Hunter + Claw Gloves is pretty effective combo for a predator druid.

With regards to the working on a miss for swarming locusts, the fact is this is only true providing you are at the correct place in the initiative order, in fact if you are not in the correct place for initiative then it doesn't matter if you hit or miss you will most likely be providing nothing to your party besides a blast 3 damage to the enemy.  Meanwhile pounce doesn't care if the enemy immediately goes  after you, your next ally will still get that CA, but it does require you to hit.

The other problem is that swarming locusts just has no synergy with items for the most part.  There are a great deal of magic items that are tailored for druids but are really designed to work only with melee attacks.  Lets look at what you can do with something like pounce with regards to items early on.  Throw in a horned helm for charging, a staff of the serpent, and say some claw gloves.  With just those 3 items you can enable yourself to be doing 1d8+2d6+1d10dmg without your plusses.  Are there any items that can enhance swarming locusts in the same way?

Add in a couple of very basic feats regarding charging and the new patient hunter feat and you've got something that hits pretty often with decent damage and grants your entire party CA each time it connects.

From what I've seen both playing my own druid and watching other druids play, both pounce and swarming locusts should be black, useful in the right situation or with the right build but otherwise not that great.

Dec 10, 2009 -- 2:33PM, Molecule wrote:

RAW, you can't drag a flying enemy down to you (you can only forced-move things horizontally).  You can use it to slide an enemy that is exactly two squares away from the edge of a cliff (or whatever) down into your melee.  But any farther than that and it won't work; any closer than that and you could just take Chill Wind and use that instead.

Huh.  Well, yes.  Purple all the way, then - and I'll be talking about this with my DM and possibly adjusting my build.  Thank you.

Dec 10, 2009 -- 10:24PM, kongovich wrote:

With regards to the working on a miss for swarming locusts, the fact is this is only true providing you are at the correct place in the initiative order, in fact if you are not in the correct place for initiative then it doesn't matter if you hit or miss you will most likely be providing nothing to your party besides a blast 3 damage to the enemy.  Meanwhile pounce doesn't care if the enemy immediately goes  after you, your next ally will still get that CA, but it does require you to hit.

The other problem is that swarming locusts just has no synergy with items for the most part.  There are a great deal of magic items that are tailored for druids but are really designed to work only with melee attacks.  Lets look at what you can do with something like pounce with regards to items early on.  Throw in a horned helm for charging, a staff of the serpent, and say some claw gloves.  With just those 3 items you can enable yourself to be doing 1d8+2d6+1d10dmg without your plusses.  Are there any items that can enhance swarming locusts in the same way?

Add in a couple of very basic feats regarding charging and the new patient hunter feat and you've got something that hits pretty often with decent damage and grants your entire party CA each time it connects.

From what I've seen both playing my own druid and watching other druids play, both pounce and swarming locusts should be black, useful in the right situation or with the right build but otherwise not that great.

Yes, I completely agree that Pounce has its uses, but your assertion that Swarming Locusts will likely provide nothing to the party if the enemies go next in initiative is not necessarily true.  What if the enemies want to be in the zone?  There could be a terrain feature that gives them a bonus, or it may just be a tactically advantageous position.  Alternatively, what if they can't leave the zone without some difficulty?  They could have a wall on one side, another zone on a second side, one of your allies on the third, and obviously you on the fourth?  Or even if just two sides are dangerous to exit out of, what if the enemy's movement can't get them into position to attack if they exit through the safe sides?  Their best option may be to just suck it up and grant CA.

Also note that Swarming Locusts is the Druid's only at-will AoE that targets Reflex.  Who tends to be clumped up in one spot?  Soldiers and Brutes, with low Reflex.  Bonus points if your defender is a Swordmage, as the risk of hitting him will be fairly low.  Even without CA, the straight area damage could be useful, especially since it's the most damaging at-will AoE right out of the box.

Finally, I'll end with some anectodal evidence of Swarming Locust's awesomeness.  My Druid took advantage of a clump of three enemies, casting Vine Serpents in round one.  Guess what power she used when those enemies were struggling to escape from the restraining vines?  Then the Fighter parked himself at the edge of the zone, so that when the enemies saved they were still in a zone which damages anyone who leaves it or attacks creatures outside of it.  Needless to say, they had quite a bit of trouble trying to get past the Fighter and out of my double zones.

Can we have some more stuff about requirements to qualify for good feats in the Attribute section please?

This is the main thing I worry about tripping me up when building characters as it's easy to miss something you'll regret and very hard to fix later (no retraining and you don't want to be spending your precious 'bumps')


In my experience most GMs allow vertical forced movement on flying critters   -the idea was to stop people thunderwaving monsters into the air every round.

Dec 16, 2009 -- 10:52PM, Timlagor wrote:

Can we have some more stuff about requirements to qualify for good feats in the Attribute section please?

This is the main thing I worry about tripping me up when building characters as it's easy to miss something you'll regret and very hard to fix later (no retraining and you don't want to be spending your precious 'bumps')

There really aren't that many good feats for druids that have stat requirements.  You've already got hide, shields and two weapon fighting/defense (probably) don't work in beast form, and hide spec/second skin are mentioned in the Con section.  To the best of my knowledge, the only other things to worry about stats for are multiclass feats, and I'm not going to list all of those in the stat summary section.  If I'm missing something let me know.

The only case I can think of where you might want stats for feats would be some sort of longspear build that wanted polearm momentum (15dex at paragon plus 13str for fighter MC).  That's something of an edge case, though.

Dec 17, 2009 -- 12:10AM, Molecule wrote:

There really aren't that many good feats for druids that have stat requirements.  You've already got hide, shields and two weapon fighting/defense (probably) don't work in beast form, and hide spec/second skin are mentioned in the Con section.  To the best of my knowledge, the only other things to worry about stats for are multiclass feats, and I'm not going to list all of those in the stat summary section.  If I'm missing something let me know.

If you plan on building a charge machine, Powerful Charge has a Str requirement.  But overall I agree, Druids don't need to worry that much about meeting stat pre-requisites for feats.  Worst case scenario and you run into something that we've missed: not a terrible loss since Druids, IMO, have a lot of excellent feats to choose from so there's always something good to fall back on.

Right.  a few preliminary definitions on build type:

Solid: does nothing dumb.  Won't embarass you in front of your friends.  Takes all fo the feats that you should obviously take.  Functional, and good enough to contribute meaningfully even in a party largely composed of Tuned characters

Strong: some attention paid to optimization and synergies.  Picks and chooses feats and may adjust 1st level stats in order to get generally good feats later.  Generally more powerful than a solid build

Tuned: has a plan, executes on it, and does it really well, but still playable even before the pieces of the combo come together.  Generally more powerful but less versatile than a strong build.

...and the optimizations (and the tradeoffs made to get them) get more intense from there, through Optimized (generally must be carried by the other members of the party for at least the first few levels, but eventually gets quite powerful) and Broken(does things the devs never intended, and pays the price for it right up to the point where he starts becoming absurdly overpowered).

So if you're going for something Strong or lower as a druid, you really don't need to worry abotu stat alignment for feat qualification.  If you're going for Tuned, then you need to know what you're tuning for, and you'll want to look around for what feats feed into the thing you're tuning for.  Some of those feats may have stat requirements worth considering.

Contrast this with the protector shaman, who needs a 11-13 in otherwise useless str from lvl 1 to even qualify as "solid" because otherwise his AC is irretrievably awful.

According to Customerservice shield works in wildshape and the description of quick stow is a mistake...

Where did you see that? I want to link it and send it to everyone who said it was intended.  =)

As far as shields go, I am pretty much going to treat what's actually in the books as more important than CS responses unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise.

Dec 17, 2009 -- 8:58AM, SanityFaerie wrote:

Contrast this with the protector druid, who needs a 11-13 in otherwise useless str from lvl 1 to even qualify as "solid" because otherwise his AC is irretrievably awful.

My guess is you mean protector shaman here?

Dec 17, 2009 -- 10:50AM, Taenia wrote:

Where did you see that? I want to link it and send it to everyone who said it was intended.  =)

1. I've got two questions. First one is in the FAQ for PHB2 it said shield worked in wildshape. However, in Primal Power, the feat quick stow said it would not work since it was held. So would it work or not? And if I did not "hold" the shield instead of make it magical which take the space of a slot item?

A. Yes, we notice there is a discrepancy in the Quick Stow feat and are working to find a resolution. The shield is considered to take your arm slot, and maybe require a hand to be used. You'll receive the bonus from the shield while shapeshifted, and it will not drop as long as it's equipped correctly.

Thanks, hey Grizley check this out ya bastard.

Molecule the problem is the books said one thing and the FAQ said another, so the question was which is true.  CS answered that the FAQ was right.

The problem was that if they intended such a major change to druids, it should not have been in an offhand manner like it was presented in PP, now we see it was simply writer error on the part of the author.

The thing that makes wild shape work over previous incarnations is the fact your stats don't change, outside some specific features and feats, its just a toggle of what powers can I use.  If you take shields away then druids suffer from a lack of ability allowed to other classes to improve their ac if they so choose, you have hide, hide spec and second skin and thats it, nothing else. This puts druids in line with other classes in if they want to they have the option.

One druid i have starts with a 13 str, went primal swarm, and in epic will get heavy shield.

I just wish druids at a feat like rogues that could let them gain a bigger bonus with light shields for a better ac bonus earlier. 

Dec 17, 2009 -- 11:03AM, Molecule wrote:

My guess is you mean protector shaman here?

Ah.  Yes.  Indeed.  Fixed now.  Thank you.

When I first read that qick stow feat I thought that it made light shields ok but heavy shields were unusable.  The reason for my thinking was that a light shield is not "held" in the description doesn't it say that you can hold an item in your hand with the light shield (you can not use the item but you can hold it) this means the light shield is not even held at all it is worn.  A heavy shield requires your hand to be used directly in the use of the shield so perhaps that would not be allowed with wild shape without the quick stow feat.  Personally I would want to be able to use either even though I would never use a heavy shield.

There is a weapon enchantment (Lyric?) that works for blades and gives +1AC+1Ref when wielded in the off hand.

There is a light shield that is also a blade and takes the off-hand weapon slot (not arm) when enchanted as a weapon but still gives the shield bonus.

Therefore Light Shield Proficiency is as good as Heavy Shield proficiency so long as:
a) you can afford a few hundred gp to get the +1 version
b) you weren't planning to use a magic shield (how likely is that?)

...still hoping they'll come to their senses and declare the shield a seperate slot or hand slot item.


Thanks for answering about the Feats. I didn't have anything in particular in mind but I usually miss something


Wilder's make awesome Druids and are in the Character Builder for PH3.

Too bad that property is a weapon property thus won't work when wildshaped...

Tried out a world tree guardian this week in game and ran into some limitations on its 21st level ability.

It seems to work great when you are being attacked by a number of foes at the expense of all your immediate actions.

However, in some situations without the ability to force them to hit you and only you most foes will simply eat aoos and use other attacks and if dealing with only a single foe it failed to mitigate much damage unless the attacker attacked you multiple times, possible in epic but tactically in some situations its better for the monster to spread damage around.

The worse part was the fact it lasts until the start of your turn, the means its no help versus auras and as an immediate reaction it cant be used on your turn if you provoke.  I know its still a useful ability, but something to consider when choosing a epic destiny.

Now as far as I know its an immediate reaction when hit, we had been assuming this meant you still took the damage from the first attack.  If instead it also applies to that initial hit, its value would definitely increase, however at this point i find the adamantine warrior equivalent much stronger as it works on your turn and doesn't take up your immediate actions. 

I've been playing a human guardian druid (more caster than oportunist) from level 3 to 8 now and would like to share some experience.

Up to now I tested chill wind, flame seed, grasping claws, storm spike and fire hawk, and I can't agree with flame seed as blue or storm spike as black.
Flame seed has really little utility. It only works when the enemies are really bunched up, and it rarely occurs after the first round, in wich you usually have encounter area powers.
Storm spike is on the other hand the best at-will later on combat. Fire hawk just works well on enemies keeping distance from your melee allies, but by the time you have already spent all your encounter powers, your allies have probably approached this enemy. Not moving 2 squares is the most common action for all enemies. Fire hawk and have an ally in position for opportunity attacks is redundant. Storm spike and have an ally in position for opportunity attacks is a good combo.

So I'd put in order of importance the at-will powers to my character: Fire hawk>storm spike>chill wind>flame seed.

From the level 1 dailies, I picked lightning arc and I wouldn't exchange it for any other. Combined with action surge it has never missed, wich makes it a really great option as daze+prone=useless melee monster.

From level 6 utilities there is a power missing. I think it is from D&D minis, as I've seen it only on character builder. The name is wall of leaves or something like that.

Dec 25, 2009 -- 6:46PM, fred321 wrote:

I've been playing a human guardian druid (more caster than oportunist) from level 3 to 8 now and would like to share some experience. [snip]

Good to know, thanks.

What encounter powers have worked out for you? I'm building one now (going predator summoner), and very few seem appealing.

Has anyone considered taking the Invoker PP Devoted Orator, especially as a Swarm Druid?

Given they seem to be built on close attacks, the level 16 PP power would seem a great fit.  On any close attacks you can add half int mod as damage and push all targets 1 square.  If you do, you can add the thunder keyword.  Which with Resoundign Thunder increases the size of them.

Problem with that is playing as a swarm druid who has any int to speak of.  Swarm druids are definately among the builds that like to keep their secondary stat beefy.  Why take that PP when you can go blightbeast and pick up a damage bonus from the stat you actually *have*?

Mind you, the blast size is nice - but it's worth noting that druid area effects tend to be ally-unfriendly, so it's not as nice as it could be.

Personally, I'm waiting for PHBIII and Darkness Power so we can finally start playing around with necrotic-boosting feats the way people play around with thunder and ice.

Just want to reiterate what was mentioned earlier by another poster. Why no Primal Smash (Push enemy 1 square on Daze or Stun)? The obvious advantages are adding in Earthfall totem damage, not to mention every enemy you dazed is now 1 square away from you. This would stack with Rushing Cleats/Brutal Thresher where applicable as well.

Savage Frenzy (prime choice), Predator Flurry, Roar of Terror and even Lightning Arc (push the primary target beside a bunch of enemies) all would benefit from Primal Smash early on. Dazes dry up for awhile after that (but Stuns start showing up). You could always retrain it once you start dropping the daze attacks and pick it back up in the late 20's when Dazes show up again (Leaping Rake... that's a lot of push).

If a Daze or Stun already had a Push/Slide, would you add onto that (Primal Lion or Ferocious Maul for example)? Or just take the highest?


Off topic, how are people treating Summons and magical equipment? For example, Summon Wolf Pack, Claw Gloves and Earthfall Totem. If the Wolf makes it's attack with combat advantage (knocking the target prone) and you are in beast form, does it get the d10 dmg from Claw Gloves (from advantage) and the d6 from Earthfall totem (from the prone)?

Your item selection is heavily focused on characters who will spend most of their time in beast form.  Any suggestions for a more humanoid-focused character?

Jan 5, 2010 -- 12:10PM, EcoGeek wrote:

Your item selection is heavily focused on characters who will spend most of their time in beast form.  Any suggestions for a more humanoid-focused character?

The truth is that there isn't really very much itemization for casters (specifically for druids, but in general as well).  In terms of things that have useful properties and encounter powers (in contrast with daily powers) very few things affect non-melee attacks.  So if my list seems slanted towards beast form, it's just because beast form users tend to have more options.

Jan 5, 2010 -- 12:12PM, Molecule wrote:

Jan 5, 2010 -- 12:10PM, EcoGeek wrote:

Your item selection is heavily focused on characters who will spend most of their time in beast form.  Any suggestions for a more humanoid-focused character?

The truth is that there isn't really very much itemization for casters (specifically for druids, but in general as well).  In terms of things that have useful properties and encounter powers (in contrast with daily powers) very few things affect non-melee attacks.  So if my list seems slanted towards beast form, it's just because beast form users tend to have more options.

Fair enough.

I plan on taking a pretty close look at it (at least at heroic tier) fairly soon.  If you'd like to incorporate it, I can share what I come up with.

Jan 5, 2010 -- 12:12PM, Molecule wrote:

Jan 5, 2010 -- 12:10PM, EcoGeek wrote:

Your item selection is heavily focused on characters who will spend most of their time in beast form.  Any suggestions for a more humanoid-focused character?

The truth is that there isn't really very much itemization for casters (specifically for druids, but in general as well).  In terms of things that have useful properties and encounter powers (in contrast with daily powers) very few things affect non-melee attacks.  So if my list seems slanted towards beast form, it's just because beast form users tend to have more options.

Any thoughts on the Primal Smash post mentioned above? Or do you view it to be too situational to be useful?

Jan 5, 2010 -- 3:50PM, Rathyr wrote:

Any thoughts on the Primal Smash post mentioned above? Or do you view it to be too situational to be useful?

I'll have to look into it a bit since I'm AFB and it all depends on encounter and daily powers.  When I first looked at it it seemed too situational to justify a feat slot to me, but several people have mentioned it (and I apologize for not having responded earlier; I haven't had much time to check the forums lately) so I will give it a more in depth look when I get the chance.

I prefer Stonefire Rager as my PP, for the Serenity of Stone 10 resist for an encounter.  Combined with Armor of the Wild and Stone Bear Rage, that means one encouter of 16 resist, and two encounters of 12 resist at level 11.  Makes me almost invulerable.

For your Racial PP section, consider the Warforged Juggernaut. Charging Action and Charging Strike both increase the druids' already amazing charging capabilites. The level 20 power Crag of Steel gives you some damage resistance, and the capability of ignoring effects done to you if the entire damage is nullified (good for swarm druids). It's a stance, and thus can be maintained in Beast form, though I don't know how it's 1[W] Rain-of-Steel effect would work while wildshaped.

The rest isn't much tailored to the Druid (in fact you'll have to use Reserve Maneuver to replace the level 11 power), but it's something to consider.

Sudden bite by the way is not bad for even some druids that prefer beast form.  Its useful to plant near an enemy and have them move thinking your AoOs will suck only to find themselves surprising slowed, shifted or immobilized and giving you a free transform.  One thing about swarm druids is they do benefit from shifting midfight to recharge temp hp at paragon and this feat can mitigate some of the problems with that strategy.  

I was just browsing through your feat section again and I noticed that you rated light shield proficiency as purple, citing the wording of Quick Stow as a reason why Druids can't effectively utilize shields.  I'd like to offer a counter-argument from my Polearm Druid thread in the Controller forum:

Jan 6, 2010 -- 10:42AM, Dirge-Overdrive wrote:

Actually, before Quick Stow was printed it was well-established that shields work in beast form.  The official FAQ states that quite clearly: 

5. Does a Druid in Wild Shape continue to get the bonus from his Shield?

Yes. Wildshape allows you to benefit from equipment you are wearing.

There was also a statement floating around on the forums from one of the developers (or it may have been a custserve response) in response to the descrepency between the FAQ and the wording of Quick Stow, and it was in favor of the FAQ's ruling.  Essentially, the author of Quick Stow was clearly unfamiliar with the Druid's mechanics, and further the example of "shield" contradicts with the term "handheld items" used earlier in the feat's description.  The actual text of the feat states "...gain no benefit from a hand held item, such as a shield..." but a shield isn't actually a handheld item at all.  If the fact that it takes up your arms slot isn't a good enough argument for it being a "worn" item, then consider the light shield text from p. 214 of the PHB:  "You need to use your shield hand to wield a light shield properly.  You can still use that hand to hold another item, to climb, or the like."  Clearly, the shield is strapped to your shield arm because otherwise you wouldn't be able to hold another item, climb, etc. without dropping it.  If the shield can't be dropped, Quick Stow is irrelevant for this item.

As stated in Wild Shape, "your equipment becomes part of your beast form, but you drop anything that you are holding, except implements that you can use.  You continue to gain the benefits of the equipment you wear." 

What it comes down to is that the author of Quick Stow used shields as an example of handheld items, but the example wasn't relevant to the function of the feat.  What's worse, it created a contradiction in RAW.  Fortunately, as I've laid out above there is far more support in favor of shield's still functioning in beast form, and I expect the text of Quick Stow to be errata'd in the near future.

Apologies if this has been brought up in this thread before, but I just think that for certain builds it's an excellent feat.  My Polearm Druid has a Fighter M/C for Savage Rend + Polearm Momentum shenanigans, so the 13 Str is already there.  Powerful Charge is another good option that is opened up by having a 13 Str.  Furthermore, Predator Druids are going to have a very easy time qualifying for Shield Specialization in Paragon, so utilizing a shield is a great way to boost your AC (and Reflex, to boot). 

And fort, since you already MCed Fighter, with Stout Shield.
If you starts with Githzari, Traveler's Harliquim could be a very effective PP for you will be allowed more than one multiclass so you could MC both into fighter and monk and use that monk feat to replace hps and surge numbers with Wis, for a predatorl.

I would like to call your attention to Marauder's Armor (AV2, p. 10).  It grants an AC bonus- which scales- when a Druid charges.  One of the rare ways that a Druid can increase their AC.  As just an extra bonus the armor also provides healing potential as a daily.  For Predators it should be sky-blue and for Swarms at least blue.

I have a question about Deva Druids. I dunno if this is answered yet, but I could use some clarification.

The Radiant Power Feat (Deva Racial Feat) allows the player to sacrifice 2 attack power to gain 2 radiant dmg. It doesn't say add 2 dmg to your damage rolls, just that it adds 2 radiant dmg. If you couple that with the Call of the Beast at-will power, you could be a pretty decent minion killer during atleast the lower levels. It's an at-will that targets enemies only in an area 1 burst from range 10 and it's versus Will.

Thoughts?

Feb 4, 2010 -- 2:07AM, 2ndEditionPwns wrote:

I have a question about Deva Druids. I dunno if this is answered yet, but I could use some clarification.

The Radiant Power Feat (Deva Racial Feat) allows the player to sacrifice 2 attack power to gain 2 radiant dmg. It doesn't say add 2 dmg to your damage rolls, just that it adds 2 radiant dmg. If you couple that with the Call of the Beast at-will power, you could be a pretty decent minion killer during atleast the lower levels. It's an at-will that targets enemies only in an area 1 burst from range 10 and it's versus Will.

Thoughts?

Actually, the text of the feat reads that it does 2 extra radiant damage.  Depends on whether you interpret "extra" to mean "in addition to anything else the power does," or if "extra" damage requires initial damage.  It's an interesting corner case because there are few powers that don't do any damage on a hit.  Of course even if it did work (which is how I'd be inclined to rule it), I'm not sure if a -2 to attack is worth a measly 2 radiant damage even if you're turning an attack into a minion sweeper.  Can't kill minions if you can't hit them, and most Druids will be used to high accuracy (from flanking and/or charging). 

The wording of the feat aside, when dealing with the accuracy issue, Distant advantage feat which allows a caster to gain combat advantage on enemies being flanked, not to mention the fact that the power targets will, usually the lower defense on enemies, I think it could be quite effective. My lvl 6 druid would be +8 vs will to hit with it, and thats WITH the -2 calculated. Add the distant advantage feat for a possible +2 on a couple of minions and it turns into +10 to hit at level 6...

Anyone have any idea on wether or not the radiant damage would even count? The wording could be argued either way I think, but as I'm the druid, my vote would naturally lean towards the damage counting.

Feb 4, 2010 -- 2:07AM, 2ndEditionPwns wrote:

I have a question about Deva Druids. I dunno if this is answered yet, but I could use some clarification.

The Radiant Power Feat (Deva Racial Feat) allows the player to sacrifice 2 attack power to gain 2 radiant dmg. It doesn't say add 2 dmg to your damage rolls, just that it adds 2 radiant dmg. If you couple that with the Call of the Beast at-will power, you could be a pretty decent minion killer during atleast the lower levels. It's an at-will that targets enemies only in an area 1 burst from range 10 and it's versus Will.

Thoughts?

There is a rule somewhere (I believe it's in the back of the Player's Handbook 2) which states that you can't apply additional damage to things that deal no damage.

Feb 4, 2010 -- 1:35PM, Molecule wrote:

There is a rule somewhere (I believe it's in the back of the Player's Handbook 2) which states that you can't apply additional damage to things that deal no damage.

Yes, thanks for that suggestion, it's on p. 221 of the PHB2 in a sidebar on the bottom right corner of the page.  So yeah, no radiant damage for Call of the Beast.  Darn.

Great thread!  Very nice work Molecule.

I've played a Striker / Controller druid through heroic teir, and I'll try to share what I've learned from the experience. 

Controlling:

Stack Wall of Thorns with Earth Roots in the same area.  Yes it uses 2 dailies, but unless the creature has an action point / teleportation / flight (and even if it does have an action point, the combo still works on large creatures) the creature can't leave the zone and it dies, without ever touching your party.  It doesn't even require a specific terrain layout.  No saves.  No chance.  Ultimate control.

I have also found that Prone is far less effective than Dazed as a method of crowd control.  Theoretically they're about equal, but in practice... You go to the trouble of making someone prone to prevent them from dealing damage on their turn, but as soon as you do your melee classes run straight for the prone creature to take advantage of the +2 to their attack rolls... Even though Dazed creatures grant CA as well, it doesn't seem to illicit the same irresistible temptation.

Damage Dealing:

I think you may have undersold the gnoll race and Ferocious Tiger Form a bit.  Those +2s really add up.  Anytime the enemy formation doesn't lend itself to control casting, I charge into a situation where I have combat advantage.  Now that charge is a standard action, setting up this situation is cake with 8 speed.  As a gnoll I love to be bloodied (it gives me a +2 untyped damage bonus) so I really don't mind taking opportunity attacks when necessary.  Ferocious Tiger Form gives me +2 untyped damage with CA.  Enraged Boar Form gives me +2 untyped damage after charging.  The gnoll race can provide up to +6 damage: +2 if I'm bloodied, +2 if 2 or more allies are adjacent to the enemy (which has happened a LOT more than you would think) and another +2 if I use Ferocious Charge. 

Because I am a gnoll with Ferocious Tiger Form and Enraged Boar Form, I frequently deal +8 damage per attack, based solely on racial and untyped feat bonuses.  With a pair of Claw Gloves in conjunction with the Horned Helm, I roll 1d6 + 1d8 + 1d10 on the attack (13).  Then I add my Wisdom Modifier (5) and Totem Enchancement (2).  This puts me up to 20 damage per attack.  That's not great, but when I add 8 from being a gnoll with damage feats, it becomes 28 [30 with FC], which is great, especially since the attack only cost me an At-Will. My point is that being a gnoll with Tiger Form turns a second-class striker into a first-class striker.  Again, I have had almost no trouble setting this situation up turn after turn.  The only bonus that ever presents a problem is Pack Attack, but I still get that bonus more often than not.

Tanking:

Even though I'm a Striker / Controller, I took 15 Con to start with.  I'm very glad I did.  I play recklessly because I love to be bloodied (for ability and roleplaying purposes), so I am constantly hanging out on death's front door.  Thankfully we have 2 healers - a bard and a paladin.  But healers typically expend your healing surges to heal you, which means that you need a lot of surges if you want a lot of heals.  I've been below 10 hp with few or no surges left way too many times to advise anything less than 14 Con, even if you want to be a Striker / Controller.

Wild Shape Feats:

If there were a feat that let you Wild Shape twice per turn, the Wild Shape feats would be worthwhile.  But for the most part I am of the opinion that they're not worth taking.  As a Controller with 8 move, I'm in melee (beast form) when I choose to Strike, and I'm not in melee (caster form) when I want to Control.  If I use Wild Shape just to shift X squares, I'm going to be subjugated to the role I didn't want to play at that moment.  Additionally, given the Controller encounter powers druids have access to, it's not like it's hard to move around without provoking for a few turns.

It's possible that druids in caster-heavy parties don't have the luxury of making the decision to match their form with their location themselves, i.e. they want to Control but they're in beast form and threatened by a creature, or they want to DPR but they're in caster form a great distance away from the nearest monster.  But my party is fairly melee-heavy, and this has only happened to me once or twice in 10 levels. 

Quick Wild Shape looks appealing at first glance, but it's majorly flawed.  I like it because I could sustain 2 Control spells, change forms and charge in the same turn.  But there is a major problem.  I will only have a standard action on subsequent turns.  The monster I charged is going to shift away from me.  At the very least, he'll shift to deny me combat advantage and unless he is suicidal he's not going to move 2+ squares away from me so I'll never get to charge again.  Without CA or a charge, the melee attacks I make with my lonely little standard action will deal pitiful damage.  On the other hand, the Control spells that I could be flinging around the map would be Controlling at full capacity.  I guess if I'm getting chased around the map while sustaining 2 spells and my allies aren't helping this feat would be good, but it's pretty easy to ask the paladin to yank a monster off of me, or the bard to shift me a few squares.

It would enable multiclass druid avengers like myself to use Wild Shape as a free action and Oath of Enmity as a minor action on the same turn, but I'm not entirely convinced that it warrants a feat...

Just my informed opinions.

Anyway, great work Molecule, I really appreciate this thread and you can bet I'll be reading it as I cross over to Paragon Tier.

Your comment on Lightning Arc confused me. The primary attack dazes 1 or 2 creatures on a hit, and then you make a burst 1 attack with those creatures as the origin that knocks prone. That is a lot more then "dazing and proning 1 or 2 creatures" you can daze the big thing surrounded by all the little things, then knock all the little things prone.  "Centered on primary target" also means it does a fun/useful thing against large creatures, ends up covering a 6x6 area on the map of proning instead of 3x3 so in the right situation you could hypothetically prone more targets.

I just wanted to mention since I hadn't seen it anywhere on this thread.  The errata came down hard on Hide Armor Expertise feat.  Swarm druids are in real trouble right now. 

I've started updating things for the March errata and PHB 3.  I'm AFB right now so specific feats from PHB 3 will have to wait, but I've added in all the races and touched on the major change from the errata (i.e. HAE being hammered into the ground) in a couple places.

Couple nifty feats in PHB3.

Deadly Draw & Viscious Advantage.  Both work well to open up Claw Gloves and Ferocious Tiger Form damage.

And of course Superior Implements as well, Accurate staffs for all! /totems for some.

Focused Mind gives a +4 feat bonus to saves against dazed and stunned, which is quite nice at paragon and up.

Hafted Defense could be your light shield substitute, depending on how your DM considers you to be wielding the staff while you're in beast form. (CS says it's not in two hands anymore, but I'm not sure how else you're considered to be wielding it. Handlessly?)

EDIT: And who could forget, friggin' Superior Initiative! Taste that +8 glow.

Mar 23, 2010 -- 1:46PM, yesnomu wrote:

Hafted Defense could be your light shield substitute, depending on how your DM considers you to be wielding the staff while you're in beast form. (CS says it's not in two hands anymore, but I'm not sure how else you're considered to be wielding it. Handlessly?)

My guess, based on the notion that you can't normally wield weapons in beast form, is that you aren't considered to be wielding the staff as a weapon at all in beast form (similarly to how you aren't considered to be wielding a staff as a weapon if you are only using it in one hand or if you are small sized).  I don't think there's any hard evidence either way in the rules, but that is how I will treat it in the guide and then add a footnote for those people whose DMs treat it differently.

Well, in beast form, you are weilding a staff as an implement, which is one handed...

Mar 23, 2010 -- 2:50PM, Rathyr wrote:

Well, in beast form, you are weilding a staff as an implement, which is one handed...

I don't see any evidence that the wielding changes in shapeshifting, though. If you're a hybrid Swordmage|Druid and wield a glaive, can you benefit from Hafted Defense in Beast Form?

Mar 23, 2010 -- 9:26PM, yesnomu wrote:

Mar 23, 2010 -- 2:50PM, Rathyr wrote:

Well, in beast form, you are weilding a staff as an implement, which is one handed...

I don't see any evidence that the wielding changes in shapeshifting, though. If you're a hybrid Swordmage|Druid and wield a glaive, can you benefit from Hafted Defense in Beast Form?

Honestly, I have no clue. Some of the CS responses did get me thinking about how weapon/implements work in beast form and so forth. I hate weaplements so hard >.<. They are the single most confusing thing I've come across in 4e.

As far as I am concerned, if you are giving up your offhand implement (moreso with that new juicey PHB3 staff) and spending feats for AC, you should get it.

Well, since I never claimed to not be a hypocrite, here's a CS question and answer I just submitted:

Subject
Hafted Defense, Implements and Wild Shape
Discussion Thread
Response (Support Rep)	03/24/2010 09:35 AM
Hello [yesnomu], 1.1. My character is a druid wielding a staff in two hands, and she has the Hafted Defense feat. When she uses Wild Shape, does she keep the bonuses in Beast Form? A. You'll still be able to wield the item as you were, so in two hands and you'll still receive the bonus from the feat. 1.2. My character is a hybrid Swordmage|Druid wielding a glaive in two hands, and she has the Hafted Defense feat. When she uses Wild Shape, does she keep the bonuses in Beast Form? A. Definitely, same answer as 1.1. Please let me know if you need anymore help! We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire. To login to your account, or update your question please click here. Troy Online Response Crew Wizards of the Coast

So, no elaboration besides the opposite answer from before. I hate you, CS.

Hah!

Wild shape, weaplements and more! Tune in next week for confusing ingame mechanics.

Basically wild shape is now a trap.  Instead of being a simple toggle to say hey, you look different but your stats don't change and you can access these abilities instead of those it is now a penalty to assume wild shape.  You lose access to all weapon properties, all feats based around weapons, all shield and any ability to increase your AC beyond secondary stat and specialization, assuming that you still retain your armor bonus after the next round of nerfs.

Instead of simplifying wild shape to eliminate the over powered problems of past editions they have created a shapeshifting class and nerfed it into the ground to prevent people from not only playing one but also to prevent them from having to make one every again.  So all your shapechange fans out there, its time to find another class cause D&D clearly doesnt want you to play one in their world. 

Could someone please show the link where CS said you wouldn't gain the bonus.  Currently having a heated discussion (about firehawk) with some friends of mine, and they are using the argument of CS says.  I just want to show them that CS is not really that dependable of a source, due to their ability to answer 2 different ways on the same issue.

Ramius

Mar 24, 2010 -- 2:36PM, Taenia wrote:

Basically wild shape is now a trap.  Instead of being a simple toggle to say hey, you look different but your stats don't change and you can access these abilities instead of those it is now a penalty to assume wild shape.  You lose access to all weapon properties, all feats based around weapons, all shield and any ability to increase your AC beyond secondary stat and specialization, assuming that you still retain your armor bonus after the next round of nerfs.

Instead of simplifying wild shape to eliminate the over powered problems of past editions they have created a shapeshifting class and nerfed it into the ground to prevent people from not only playing one but also to prevent them from having to make one every again.  So all your shapechange fans out there, its time to find another class cause D&D clearly doesnt want you to play one in their world. 

There are other mechanics out there to increase your AC. Simply because you have average-ish AC (unless you are a Swarm) doesn't mean you can't do your job. I honestly never like people using weapon feats in beast form anyways (but thats just my view of Druids, to each their own). Use the now available feats to increase you HPs, surges, striker/controllery bits etc. You went down in AC, but up in other areas.

That new PHB3 staff (+2 to all defences against creatures suffering an effect from you) is amazing for my Pred. I love to run up and at-will immobilize anything remotely artillery/controller shaped. Combine with the new feat that slowed/immobilized mobs grant CA and the feat for +2 AC against CA mobs... fun times. I can sit on top of a mob and smack it to death while the rest of the party cleans house.

Could someone please show the link where CS said you wouldn't gain the bonus.  Currently having a heated discussion (about firehawk) with some friends of mine, and they are using the argument of CS says.  I just want to show them that CS is not really that dependable of a source, due to their ability to answer 2 different ways on the same issue.


community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Mar 24, 2010 -- 2:36PM, Taenia wrote:

Basically wild shape is now a trap.  Instead of being a simple toggle to say hey, you look different but your stats don't change and you can access these abilities instead of those it is now a penalty to assume wild shape.  You lose access to all weapon properties, all feats based around weapons, all shield and any ability to increase your AC beyond secondary stat and specialization, assuming that you still retain your armor bonus after the next round of nerfs.

Instead of simplifying wild shape to eliminate the over powered problems of past editions they have created a shapeshifting class and nerfed it into the ground to prevent people from not only playing one but also to prevent them from having to make one every again.  So all your shapechange fans out there, its time to find another class cause D&D clearly doesnt want you to play one in their world. 

To be fair, it is a little silly for a druid to get weapon properties in beast form. Otherwise, I am certainly on the side of "don't change the stats", and I really dislike the shield nerf too.

Regardless, 4e is probably the most shapeshifting-friendly edition thus far. Remember when you needed to buy a +3-equivalent enchantment just to get your armor bonus in beast form? WS's not as powerful as it used to be, but it's dang convenient.

I miss my Legendary Eagle form and Natural Spell, but Pouncing Form and free action shifting are pretty sweet as well. Overall, I really like playing my druid.

The new  dragon article on half-elves has a feat allowing the @will dilettante power to gain the beast form keyword.

www.wizards.com/dnd/downloads/dragon/385...

Kung Pao Chicken Twin Claws? I wonder what the damage would be XD

I added in feats from PHB3.  I'll be adding classes to the multiclass options in the near future once I get my head around all of them (this includes taking into account new multiclass feats in MP2, if there end up being any useful ones for a druid).

I also looked through the items in PHB3, but none of them seemed that impressive to me (which isn't surprising, since I don't believe there is a single class in the PHB3 that wears hide by default).  If I've missed something excellent, let me know! 

By the way, I'd revise the rating on Storm Behemoth a bit. I think it's fair to say anyone who'd take it will also take Primal Summoning Expertise, and with that feat it becomes a minor action burst 2 cannon. Forego your move action, and you're doing triple attacks to most everything around every turn. It's just damage, but that's a damn good amount.

Lightning Drake should also get an indication that it improves a lot after PSE.

Updated to add new powers from D 386 as well as PHB3 multiclass options.  The battlemind hasn't been added because its multiclass feat currently is wrong in the compendium.

Writhing Hedge is currently level 25 in the article; who knows what will happen in the compilation, of course.

Oops.  Fixed.

Assuming "your DM lets you use polearm momentum with implement attacks."  Would the following work?

Take the Alfsair Spear on an Urgosh.  Note you don't even need to take the Proficiency(+1 AC is nice though) since we aren't going to use it for Weapon attacks, but implement attacks.  Now we are able to use a Hammer for our implement attacks (Or a spear, but never both at the same time).

Take a Fighter MC(Cyclone Warrior for Dex, Wrathful Warrior for Con).  Just to meet the prereqs for a few Epic feats.  Specifically Overwhelming Impact and Slashing Storm, combined with Grasping Claws.  Now you Daze until the end of your next turn, as an At-Will usable in place of any MBA, and if you hit on your last turn, you deal Wis modifier damage to any enemy that starts adjacent.

May 9, 2010 -- 5:17AM, WOLead wrote:

Assuming "your DM lets you use polearm momentum with implement attacks."  Would the following work?

Take the Alfsair Spear on an Urgosh.  Note you don't even need to take the Proficiency(+1 AC is nice though) since we aren't going to use it for Weapon attacks, but implement attacks.  Now we are able to use a Hammer for our implement attacks (Or a spear, but never both at the same time).

Take a Fighter MC(Cyclone Warrior for Dex, Wrathful Warrior for Con).  Just to meet the prereqs for a few Epic feats.  Specifically Overwhelming Impact and Slashing Storm, combined with Grasping Claws.  Now you Daze until the end of your next turn, as an At-Will usable in place of any MBA, and if you hit on your last turn, you deal Wis modifier damage to any enemy that starts adjacent.

Alfsair Spear is limited to spears. An Urgrosh is not a spear.

Also I believe you would need to take a feat... you have to be proficient with a weapon to use it as implement IIRC.

May 9, 2010 -- 5:17AM, WOLead wrote:

Assuming "your DM lets you use polearm momentum with implement attacks."  Would the following work?

Take the Alfsair Spear on an Urgosh.  Note you don't even need to take the Proficiency(+1 AC is nice though) since we aren't going to use it for Weapon attacks, but implement attacks.  Now we are able to use a Hammer for our implement attacks (Or a spear, but never both at the same time).

Take a Fighter MC(Cyclone Warrior for Dex, Wrathful Warrior for Con).  Just to meet the prereqs for a few Epic feats.  Specifically Overwhelming Impact and Slashing Storm, combined with Grasping Claws.  Now you Daze until the end of your next turn, as an At-Will usable in place of any MBA, and if you hit on your last turn, you deal Wis modifier damage to any enemy that starts adjacent.

The short answer is that Urgroshes are not hammers, they are axes.  Overwhelming Impact does not work.

As far as the more general question goes, I believe the double weapon rules now treat each side of the weapon as essentially separate, so this combination still wouldn't work even if you had a hammer/spear.  I'm not positive about that though. 

Slashing Storm on its own looks pretty nice for beast form druids though, I'll have to add that into the feat section. 

Dang, I knew I should have double checked on the Urgosh was of what type of weapon on the reverse side, forgot its an Axe for one end and a spear on the other.  Thanks.