It allows you to search the
messageboards, send and receive private messages, give yourself a
custom usertitle, turn ads on or off, create a custom style for your
profile, get a nifty badge under your username, and gives you a special
warm glowy feeling! Oh, and it gets rid of this annoying message, too!
From a philosophical viewpoint, maybe. Druids are supposed to be one with nature, and a bow and arrow distances one from his prey. However, Tarzan was one with nature and he used a bow.
From a cultural viewpoint, yes. Druids come across as being cultists, not hunters. The people hunt food for them. They deal with their people's spiritual, cultural, and religious needs, and, in return, the people give them food and other necessaries.
From a game balance viewpoint, maybe. Druids perform the same role as a cleric in a party. If druids can use bows, then what makes them different from a ranger? On the other hand, I don't know that it would imbalance the game to give them a bow, especially if your druids in your world don't have the cultural framework described above.
Nicely answered. I think it is important to take a lot of these aspects into account. While it makes no sense that druids in general should be prohibited from using bows, in the sense of game building and creating differences from groups, cultures and subcultures, it seems necessary to impose certain strictures and taboos. Many early cultures were rife with taboos. Groups would often prohibit certain things and allow others (seemingly without rhyme or reason) often in a way to structure themselves as societies. I think the thought applies here.
__________________ The natural unintended meaning of any abstract, symbolic language is rhubarb.
I always thought Druids just talked animals into walking up to them, befriending the cute, fuzzy creatures of the woods. Then, when the shy, trusting critters crept close enough.. the druids would use their sickles to lop their little heads off.
One should also note that many of the druid's traditional weapons are deeply symbolic. The scythe denotes the harvest, the scimitar (and to an extent the scythe) is shaped as the crescent moon, and so on. The bow lacks these spiritual cultural symbolisms important to what the druid represents to the people - it represents the hunt, which is not what druids do.
It is fascinating just how much rite and tradition has sprung from the elements and business of agriculture. Most of our efforts to control and predict nature can be traced back to agriculture (and before that the simple need to survive and avoid death). I sometimes forget what the meaning of the word even implies--- culture of vegetable harvest. It wasn't just the act of farming, it was an entire culture, with rites, practices, superstitions, predictions, foretellings, sacrifices, and more. Even our most basic practices in math can be drawn back to measuring the earth--- geometry. That and the fact that it was always good to be able to count how many goats you had and how many days until the rainy seasons.
Anyway, I am babbling...
__________________ The natural unintended meaning of any abstract, symbolic language is rhubarb.
I share your fascination. That is one of the reasons I love druids - and why I am disgusted that WotC left out the druid from the new version of D&D; they lost something primally important.
Perhaps they left out the Druid because all of what you are talking about sounds dangerously close to back story and character motivation. I am guessing a Druid's powers don't naturally break into neat little combat chunks, which makes him class-non-grata for D&D4e. The same with the Bard, I suspect.
"What's that. You want a character which would have powers for things outside of combat? That is UNHEARD of!"
Of course, I am oversimplifying. But not by much...
If this is what is going on in 4E, I doubt I will ever look at it. I play the game to be creative and build stuff. Some of my favorite characters have been builders. Their ability to fight was always a secondary concern for me.
__________________ The natural unintended meaning of any abstract, symbolic language is rhubarb.
I've always loved playing druids too but I suspect that their exclusion from the first PHB is because they never really felt "core". Druids are very specific characters -- of course, so are paladins which were included.
I don't have a problem that the rules seem to focus on Combat. Combat is really the only portion of the game that needs rules -- and the rules should be easy to understand and follow. Did other editions have rules on how you have to roleplay? Because I missed those chapters. Nothing in 4e is forcing anyone to just fight stuff.
Grimhelm says he wants to be creative and build stuff -- 4e at this point is such a blank slate that I'd think it would be the perfect place to apply your creative efforts. I suspect that you feel, like me, that you've spent most of your life learning that D&D works one way and that learning a new way will slow down your building efforts.
I'll counter that arguement (and challenge myself) by asserting that the act of learning a new system might inspire you to be more creative -- open up new avenues for adventure that you were previously blind to -- or reinvigorate old ideas.
Hell, who needs to wait for PHB2, use that creative energy to learn the core rules and then build your own druid class! Nothing is stopping it!
Of course it could all be , too. But don't close off the possibility that it's actually a really good system.
__________________ I think we're all bozos on this bus.
The fact is, I am closed to it. I could play D&D blindfolded in a room with nothing in it but me and a DM. I understand what you are saying, but I just don't give a rat's ass what the system is. I have said this a hundred times. The other part of my argument, which I have stated multiple times, is that I never saw anything wrong with 3E! If it ain't broke...
The fact is that I am not dismissing 4E for any reason other than it is just another system, and systems, as I have argued before, are just a general annoyance to me no matter what the system is. Does having an overlying framework and restriction foster creative growth? Absolutely. However, I am not terribly interested in the fences, just what I am going to do in relation to them.
Even when we were griping about 1st edition and 2nd edition, we still played, and we played wonderfully imaginitive games! The system had nothing whatsoever to do with our ultimate enjoyment because we were creative enough to get around the stuff that was bad. So, in conclusion, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 7893rd. I don't give a good G-D!!! LOL It's all the same to me.
__________________ The natural unintended meaning of any abstract, symbolic language is rhubarb.
Last edited by Grimhelm; 29th July 2008 at 04:48 PM..
Perhaps you've forgotten how frustrating 3E was when we'd fight the villians/monsters and WHOMP! they'd smack the hell out of a player in round one -- make them dead and we all had to flee.
That scenario played out time after time after time -- if I recall, our adventures were mostly a series of strategic retreats.
There were certainly some notable exceptions but, especially as we got into higher levels, we found that combat dragged out interminably long as a grizzillion options were weighed and damage dice rolled.
You say the system doesn't matter but I remember everyone was discouraged and complaining loudly about these failings. I'd say it contributed heavily to you abandoning D&D for a time and IM switching over to Conan.
There was also the problem with not being able to do more than your core class allowed without suffering a huge power vacuum. Sure, you could be a fighter/sorcerer but by the time you were 10th level, you found that you sucked at both fighting and spellcasting. How creative is that when a system doesn't allow me to realize the vision I have for my character?
If I understand correctly, 4e attempts to resolve a lot of these issues. Maybe it has succeeded, maybe not but I'd like to find out.
Here's an interesting blog by someone who doesn't like 4e but feels it addresses some of these issues too:
You're missing the point. I still loved those games, and I created cities and vast networks of Chaos Lords. My curiosity led us to hugely magical awarenesses within the game. And none of this had anything particularly to do with a system.
And, no, I did not abandon the game because of the system. This is pure presumption on your part.
Visualizing your character and not being able to create that character is laughable to me. Who your character is has nothing to do with trappings or abilities. Character is how he is. It is personality. Players who argue as you are doing tend to create extremely unmemorable Christmas trees who go through the game like little Marios picking up mushrooms and stars. They are quickly forgotten and add nothing to the world in which they are playing.
What you posit presumes that you view your character from the start as some sort of uber-Munchkin. I feel that the trick is not to really visualize your character in this way but let the game and the character's experiences mold him. Playing with a pregenerated ideal for your character is the quickest way to disappointment, if you ask me, for no matter what the system is, you will always fail.
__________________ The natural unintended meaning of any abstract, symbolic language is rhubarb.
Who your character is has nothing to do with trappings or abilities.
So explain to me why you added any class other than "shipwright" to Roland; and created your own prestige class for Chaos Lord? And when you realized that Roland had added too many classes and was a pretty weak combatant, didn't you reconfigure him so he would more closely reflect the vision you had of who he was within the game world?
Abilities have an awful lot to do with creating a character in D&D. It doesn't define their motives or personality, nor does it drive the plot but it does allow you to interact with the game structure. It allows you to act within the rules.
All I'm saying is that 4e might offer better options for acting within the ruleset. So I'm not dismissing it - I'd like to see if the shoe fits..
__________________ I think we're all bozos on this bus.
Last edited by BobProbst; 29th July 2008 at 07:24 PM..
I'd say it contributed heavily to IM switching over to Conan.
I'd say you are right. I still maintain the Conan system is better than the standard 3E system in sooooo many ways.
Although I am disappointed in the lack of druids in 4e (I do consider the druid "core" as I have always had druids in my game - even when I was a youngster), I am not averse to giving it a shot.
There are some things I like about 4e, such as recurring damage, et. al. I do wish they had put together the books differently as I find them hard to read - a chart indicating powers at the levels would be handy, instead of just the list of multi-colored powers (I still can't figure out what the various colors mean!), and I wish they had included the druid. I also am not sure how to make a wizard into something.... different (such as a necromancer), although I am really digging the Warlock and its potential with its eldritch pacts; I can see building a druid out of the warlock with a fey pact.
I dislike that the wizard has extremely few spells to choose from, but I like the ritual magic aspect.
I also dislike the terminology - how the books openly discuss "builds." I never liked "building" a character (which I see as max-min playing, which goes along with what Grimhelm is saying about positing that players are all munchkins).
On the other hand, I do remember the nightmare that was planning for a 3E scenario, especially pre-4th level and post-12th level. I also painfully remember the discouragement everyone (including me) constantly felt and expressed. I remember how some things were WAY more difficult than I intended and other things were WAY more easy than I intended - a problem I rarely had with Advanced D&D, AD&D 2e, or even the Conan system.
I also dislike the presumption that everyone is gaming in a certain world (Greyhawk?). For example, the entry under Shadowhunter Bat it says they linger next places touched by the Shadowfell. A) I hate names like "Shadowfell." Forgotten Realms reaks of stupid names like that. B) I don't know what a Shadowfell is and am annoyed I have to look it up. C) What happens if my game world doesn't have a Shadowfell (largely because of reason A)?
The Monster Manual is filled with crap like that. Also the Monster Manual got rid of most of the fluff information (which, for me, is actually the best part). The Black Dragon (one of my more beloved monsters), for example, got five paragraphs of stuff, plus a paragraph on tactics. The new Black Dragon gets two short sentences (one sentence that they spew acid, and another about their link the f'ing "Shadowfell") and another paragraph on tactics. Half of the descriptive text (about the Shadowfell) is useless to me!
So explain to me why you added any class other than "shipwright" to Roland; and created your own prestige class for Chaos Lord? And when you realized that Roland had added too many classes and was a pretty weak combatant, didn't you reconfigure him so he would more closely reflect the vision you had of who he was within the game world?
Yes, I reconfigured him. What is your point? Do you mean we used creativity to overcome a system's shortcomings? Yes, we did. Just as I was saying in my earlier post.
All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what the system is, I would have had fun and created a very cool character. Your argument is not even in opposition to what I am saying. You are simply illustrating the point that we use the system to build a character. I am saying, I will build a character well, regardless of the system.
What you and I are saying is just half dozen of one and six of the other, a style of argumentation that I am falling all too prone to in recent weeks. Ugh.
__________________ The natural unintended meaning of any abstract, symbolic language is rhubarb.
Last edited by Grimhelm; 29th July 2008 at 09:35 PM..
I also dislike the presumption that everyone is gaming in a certain world (Greyhawk?). For example, the entry under Shadowhunter Bat it says they linger next places touched by the Shadowfell. A) I hate names like "Shadowfell." Forgotten Realms reaks of stupid names like that. B) I don't know what a Shadowfell is and am annoyed I have to look it up. C) What happens if my game world doesn't have a Shadowfell (largely because of reason A)?
<snip>
Half of the descriptive text (about the Shadowfell) is useless to me!
I know this doesn't really help your problem, but it states what the shadowfell is in the 2nd post of this thread and some of the posts below that:
Sounds cool and all - but the name is HORRIBLE. Why the word "fell"? What does the past tense of "fall" have to do with anything (other than the fact that Shadowfall sounds like a water fall without the water, but with shadows). Putting it into past tense really doesn't help, though.
I suppose one could go with Old Norse and its meaning as mountainous terrain with gentle slopes and no glaciers.
I guess I can get used to it if that is what it is - a plane for the afterlife.
I think we have carried this thread long past its actual purpose - whether or not druids ought to use bows or not. I say nay, which makes me a naysayer. Druids, in general, should not use bows, however certain feats and class combinations could give specific druids the interesting and varied ability to do so.
Linear Mode
