2e Druids, 4e druids, and thematic rules...

In my 4e campaign, the PCs are embroiled in a civil war between the two factions of the feywild court - the Eladrin versus the Drow. In the last few sessions, the PCs have come to discover a third "faction" that remains in the shadows - the Silvarine, eco-conscious nature protectors who have been described as "The Greenpeace Taliban" by the players (they come up with such evocative terms).

Anyways, the Silvarine are ruled by druids, and almost on a whim I decided these druids roughly follow the structure found in the 2nd Edition druid entry (there is no single archdruid in my version) - namely, that there are only a few druids of certain levels, and that to attain a new level in druiddom, you have to defeat a druid in combat and take his position.

This has been going well, and during a scene where a druid described evolution to the PCs (the druid had the details wrong, of course) he spoke of how this reflected in their own organization. Now, while I was just talking about of my butt at the time, the second it left my head, a little light bulb went off.

The druidic advancement rules in 2e actually speak perfectly towards evolution, mimicking the natural order! After all, if the only way a 12th level character can get to 13th level is to defeat a 13th level character (with no magic items!), that 12th level character is going to have to be better. And when he takes his position, the guy that defeats HIM is going to have to be even better!

This got me thinking about thematic rules - basically, rules that actually enhance the thematic nature of a concept, class, or whatever else. And really, just how neat it is that the ruleset for 2e druids exists for two purposes - to propose a variant on cleric's "followers" while ALSO reinforcing the druid's worldview.

It seems that later editions of D&D (3.0 onwards) have moved away from these thematic rules, instead focusing on generalizations. While this makes it easier for GMs to adapt classes into their own campaigns, it sometimes seem to drain the game of a little bit of flavour, because while GMs are more able to adapt these classes, a lot of GMs will not go through the bother. I'm beginning to think that the dropping of "Core" thematic rules is one of the contributing factors to what some have called the "vanillaization of D&D".

Thoughts?

P.S. I'd love to hear any stories regarding how 2e druids worked in your actual campaigns. While the druid was my favourite class in 2e (3e ruined the class for me, don't really know why), we never saw a druid reach past level 8 or 9 in any 2e campaign I played in, so we never got to see the upper progression rules in effect.

The 2e druid has nothing to do with "evolution" or even a druidic "worldview." I'm not even sure how those would relate at all.

It came about because Highlander was popular.

ProfessorCirno said:

The 2e druid has nothing to do with "evolution" or even a druidic "worldview." I'm not even sure how those would relate at all.

It came about because Highlander was popular.

Click to expand...

But it does. The only way your 12th level druid can beat a 13th level druid (therefore, a more powerful druid) is if you maybe have higher ability scores, are cleverer (is that a word?), more creative... and the only way you can get replaced is if the guy replacing you is better. It is, in a basic way, a constant strengthening of the druidic tradition.

Also, the first highlander movie was made in 1986. The druidic hierarchy was originally in the 1e PHB. Mine was published in 1980. So unless there's a highlander series of books I'm not sure of, I don't know if that theory stands up.

I really think the druid's rules were originally created as a sort of variant on the usual "gains followers when he builds a stronghold" option that so many other classes got in the mid-levels. Whether it was actually intended to mirror a sort of "survival of the fittest", I don't know. But it does seem that way to me.

HIghlander thing was a bit of a joke ;p

But I don't think it's intended to replicate evolution (which doesn't work like that D8) or any sort of druidic mindset. It was just decided that, since druids have their own internal hierarchy, they'd have this kinda trial to advance in it. D&D druids already take 99% of their influence from things that aren't druids so this doesn't really surprise me.

I know evolution doesn't work like that. But the end result - that this "red in tooth and claw" approach - would conceptually mean that the druidic order's higher echelons would consistantly strengthen.

Fully agree that D&D druids are not "real druids" by any stretch. Was never arguing that point. But I kind of think the hierarchy helps promote an idea of a more nature-based form of organization as opposed to your typical cleric's organization.

Druids could lose their abilities in 2e AD&D under certain circumstances, right?

Now it's been a long time since I've played 2e AD&D, but I recall that XP was gained from performing deeds specific to your class + limited XP for killing monsters. (Thieves got XP for cash, wizards for casting spells, fighters for killing monsters...)

That suggests to me that there was a specific sort of gameplay that 2e AD&D was supporting. I believe that 3E (and 4E, to a lesser degree) don't have the same focus on a singular style of game, which is why the classes aren't as tied to any specific in-game actions.

I hated 2e druid flavor rules as written (except in a few limited cases I will outline) and I also hate the "traditional" level training system. So this will be a slew of negative comments.

Wik said:

Anyways, the Silvarine are ruled by druids, and almost on a whim I decided these druids roughly follow the structure found in the 2nd Edition druid entry (there is no single archdruid in my version) - namely, that there are only a few druids of certain levels, and that to attain a new level in druiddom, you have to defeat a druid in combat and take his position.

Click to expand...

So far I can agree with this. You haven't said whether druid "rank" is based on level, so I'm making no such assumption. Unless you wish to disagree.

Let's suppose the archdruid is currently 16th-level. To defeat him, another druid would need to be nearly the same level (say, 15th-level and lucky), the same level but more tactically proficient, or higher level.

In fact, you could have an "invincible" archdruid who has held the position for 30 years just because he's so high-level that beating him is next to impossible. Opponents have to wait for him to get so old that he starts taking more "penalties than bonuses" (non-game rules, eg he's now half-blind and his leg trembles, slap on some random penalties, etc), wait for him to retire, or wait for him to die. (Or assassinate him. Hey, Klingon promotion!)

Discworld wizards used to work like this, and Unseen University has changed for the better because the current wizard is basically unkillable. (His likely replacement, who is considerably younger, will probably take his position upon the former's death due to political maneuvering, but his relatively weaker magic powers might make his reign short.)

The druidic advancement rules in 2e actually speak perfectly towards evolution, mimicking the natural order! After all, if the only way a 12th level character can get to 13th level is to defeat a 13th level character (with no magic items!), that 12th level character is going to have to be better. And when he takes his position, the guy that defeats HIM is going to have to be even better!

Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Druids also didn't have a lot of options in 2e; without kits, one was basically the same as another. The only way to beat a higher-level druid was to either be lucky or have rolled higher stats at game generation. (Preferably Int, you've got to justify beating a more experienced druid.)

In addition to the risk of killing the druid, you're only reflecting part of natural selection, namely fighting and tactics. The ability to avoid being eaten is a big one, even if you can't fight the "big boys". The ability to have more children through one means or another is a big one. I'm trying to come up with a better way to explain this, but I'm sure no one here wants to read about the sex lives of colorful fish in a slightly-muddy river, but suffice to say the most successful fish had a balance between being colorful (more attractive, more mating opportunities per unit time, more likely to get spotted and eaten by predators) and being dull (less attractive, less likely to get eaten). Furthermore, shouldn't a druid leader also have some political talent? There's no selection for that there.

Even chimpanzees have more "balanced" rules for how they select leadership of their "tribes". In at least one case I read about, "politics" (as it goes with chimps) played a role.

But then druids had plenty of other dumb rules. The alignment rules (which weren't really a druid rule exactly but just a dumb alignment rule) really shafted them. The only way I'd willingly play a druid was in Forgotten Realms, where druids of Mielikki were allowed to be neutral good. (I also don't recall Mielikki encouraging destructive druid slaying competitions.)

It seems that later editions of D&D (3.0 onwards) have moved away from these thematic rules, instead focusing on generalizations. While this makes it easier for GMs to adapt classes into their own campaigns, it sometimes seem to drain the game of a little bit of flavour, because while GMs are more able to adapt these classes, a lot of GMs will not go through the bother.

Click to expand...

I think this is for the best. If you're going to impose rules they should be good rules. I consider the 2e druid rules (the flavor rules, that is) to be terrible. And while they might have had strong flavor, there is such as thing as strong bad flavor.

Players familiar with the old rules, or even better, who know a little something about real druids (reliable historical info is hard to find, alas) can always apply flavor rules to themselves if they want to, as long as it's not disruptive to the campaign.

I'm beginning to think that the dropping of "Core" thematic rules is one of the contributing factors to what some have called the "vanillaization of D&D".

Click to expand...

I have to wonder who complains about this, though. I'm not that old, but I did play 2e as a kid. I wasn't introduced to DnD with 3e. I was introduced to the 2e druids and paladins who would rather beat a low-ranking evil guard bloody than lie to them. I'd rather have vanilla than bad flavor.

So while I congratulate you for coming up with druid flavor rules, it seems like you're skipping out on the parts I consider dumb. The ability to learn from one's mistakes (or better yet, someone else's mistakes) is always a positive.

LostSoul said:

Druids could lose their abilities in 2e AD&D under certain circumstances, right?

Now it's been a long time since I've played 2e AD&D, but I recall that XP was gained from performing deeds specific to your class + limited XP for killing monsters. (Thieves got XP for cash, wizards for casting spells, fighters for killing monsters...)

That suggests to me that there was a specific sort of gameplay that 2e AD&D was supporting. I believe that 3E (and 4E, to a lesser degree) don't have the same focus on a singular style of game, which is why the classes aren't as tied to any specific in-game actions.

Click to expand...

I knew those rules for somewhere, but I never actually read them. (This came from never having my own PH 2e, always borrowing someone else's. Although I suspect you're actually referring to 1e rules.) In any campaign I was in, we got most XP from defeating monsters, solving problems and quest rewards.

But I always thought those rules were a bad idea. "Thieves" (I much prefer the term rogue) weren't always in business for making money (at least no more than other characters). Sometimes they were more interested in dungeon delving (using those trap-disabling skills), assassination (for whatever reason, sometimes "patriotic" eg a spy/assassin) or just being a pretty nifty scout. I have to wonder how that worked for some corner cases, like kender, who while they were gifted pick pockets, were less interested in an item's value and more interested in it being "shiny". In short, it was another case of strong (and for some players and campaigns, bad) flavor.

I have to say, Pick Pockets/Sleight of Hands in DnD and d20 Modern are some of the most destructive skills in the game when players used them as intended -- to steal money and stuff -- and ended up picking fights with random noble NPCs or even spiraling into a fight with a SWAT team. (It's almost like the DM had to have high-level good-aligned NPCs with very high Spot/Detect Noise/Perception just to curb this.)

I don't want to encourage players to use the skill that way, certainly not with XP! You shouldn't encourage players to be disruptive.

Players could use the skills "not-as-intended" in a much less destructive way (not literally; one character in a Modern campaign invented a "cell phone bomb" which he would plant on people, move away and then call it! And Modern let you use the skill to hide weapons on you, so you could enter places where you shouldn't be armed with guns -- twice in prison, due to absurdly high skill checks in rural jails without metal detectdors -- and a great way to ensure cops aren't pulling people over for having guns). So it's not the skill. It's the thought process of a designer who thought that having a PC wander off and randomly cause trouble was good for most campaigns.

For a group of people who prize wisdom so highly, it makes absolutely no sense for trial by combat to be the deciding factor of who leads your organization.

If nothing else, defeating people in combat only means you are good at defeating people in combat, not that you can manage a global organization with important logistic, political, and supernatural needs.

Incendax said:

For a group of people who prize wisdom so highly, it makes absolutely no sense for trial by combat to be the deciding factor of who leads your organization.

Click to expand...

LostSoul said:

Druids could lose their abilities in 2e AD&D under certain circumstances, right?

Click to expand...

Look at it this way - only the true Druids can withstand the combat. Once you stray from the path, you will fall.

That "fluff" supports the game of AD&D - play true to your class and gain power over the imagined setting.

LostSoul said:

Look at it this way - only the true Druids can withstand the combat. Once you stray from the path, you will fall.

Click to expand...

Well, true druids and druids that are specifically capable combatants with no other qualifying skills.

But then again, this is just an example of the Peter Principal in action. And, also the reason why PCs eventually overcome NPCs.