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

[Ed_Laprade]

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.

And this is why you don't hate 2E Druids. If your character was stuck at X level because you couldn't beat the guy who ranked above you, while everyone else was leveling up normally, yoyu'd very probably think differently. Its one of those ideas that sound great in theory, but rarely work well in practice.

 

[Orius]

I think how the whole level limit idea works depending on what the typical retirment level is. If characters in your campaign are retiring before level 12, then it shouldn't matter. If not it becomes a problem. I think 3e removed the limit in part because they were making a conscious effort to play the levels between 10-20 and not just gloss over them.

Another problem is that once you do become the highest-ranking druid you rule all the druids everywhere in the world. That means you have responsibilities other than adventuring. Hell, some of those responsibilities kick in before that level as you rule a regions and continents first. Other clases had similar rules, but the fighter for example was generally only ruling a small barony, maybe he'd work his way up to king in the levels past name level. With the druid there is the assumption that the player will want to rule over all the other druids in the world eventually, and that does kind of force the PC into a straightjacket.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Are you talking about levels or social rank? Because this means that advancement stops short.

The druidic advancement rules in 2e actually speak perfectly towards evolution,

Nonsense!

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!

And here you have a model of a species that is going to fail and fail hard when it comes up against a cooperative one. Ambitious druids are brought down slightly after their prime by younger and more ambitious druids, never having the chance to pass on their knowledge. All powerful druids see all other powerful druids as threats unless they are the same rank. So they won't help each other. Instead they are going to be looking to stick the knife into higher ranking druids, so they've already half won by the time of the duel.

Arcanists on the other hand get stronger over time because they share knowledge - druids are capped in terms of total power. What this also means is that even if one druid can beat one arcanist, ten arcanists are going to kick the arse of ten druids - and in a hundred verses hundred contest, the arcanists wait and pick up the pieces when the druids have stopped fighting each other.

It gets worse. If the only way to become a powerful druid is to defeat a powerful druid and steal their strength, the order of druids must by its very nature get weaker over time as some of those powerful druids are killed by people who aren't druids. Also the skills of a politician and those of a fighter and those of a caster are different. There are times when a king who really can't fight is simply the best man for the job.

This isn't Nature: Red in tooth and claw. It's Nature: Red from self-inflicted wounds and terrible medicine.

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".

Oh, it has. But good vanilla icecream made with real vanilla is very nice. Hummous, chocolate, and chilli ice cream is not something I want to see return.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.)

I'd prefer to say that the current faculty is fully behind me due to my inter-personal skills and my willingless to listen to their concerns - and the same of course of the students. I wouldn't say it has anything to do with the arrows coming from the front, except maybe as a minor factor.

 

[Aurumvorax]

The difference between AD&D and 3e is a simulationist vs. gamist approach. In 3e, everything is about "builds" and how you can fit your character in with everyone else. In AD&D, the "advanced" classes were specifically designed for more challenging role play. You didn't play a druid because you wanted all these crazy nature powers, you played one because you wanted to be part of a world wide organization and the power struggles within it. Druids were very much wardens of nature but they were still human meaning a constant desire to one-up each other.

Limited advancement worked in AD&D because after 9th level power increased very slowly unlike 3e where power increases rapidly after 9th. A 15th level fighter is almost as powerful as a 20th level human fighter, missing only but 4 THAC0 (which is instantly made up with a magic weapon or specialization), about 2 from each save, and 15hp total. In 3e a 15th level fighter is several thousand gold pieces short of a 20th level fighter, has a base average of 27hp missing, loses an entire iterative attack and +5 bonus to hit, and has about 30% worse saving throws.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The difference between AD&D and 3e is a simulationist vs. gamist approach. In 3e, everything is about "builds" and how you can fit your character in with everyone else. In AD&D, the "advanced" classes were specifically designed for more challenging role play. You didn't play a druid because you wanted all these crazy nature powers, you played one because you wanted to be part of a world wide organization and the power struggles within it. Druids were very much wardens of nature but they were still human meaning a constant desire to one-up each other.

This is meaningless. Literally - what you typed has no meaning. In fact, you could flat out switch "AD&D" and "3e" in every instance and nothing would change.

Limited advancement worked in AD&D because after 9th level power increased very slowly unlike 3e where power increases rapidly after 9th. A 15th level fighter is almost as powerful as a 20th level human fighter, missing only but 4 THAC0 (which is instantly made up with a magic weapon or specialization), about 2 from each save, and 15hp total. In 3e a 15th level fighter is several thousand gold pieces short of a 20th level fighter, has a base average of 27hp missing, loses an entire iterative attack and +5 bonus to hit, and has about 30% worse saving throws.

Listing numbers is meaningless without anything to compare them too. You fail to mention the changes in monsters in new editions. You fail to even mention what the differences mean. Oh my god, a level 15 fighter loses +5 bonus to hit! That means...what, exactly? Well, once we actually look at how 3.5 works, it means not all that much. And the AD&D fighter gets a bigger increase in saves - the 3e fighter gets a +5 bonus (3 to fort, 1 o ref, 1 to will) whereas the AD&D fighter has a massive +10 bonus to all his saves.

And there's a reason your example is in fighters - the difference between a level 9 druid and a level 10 druid is absolutely massive in every edition.

 

[Aurumvorax]

This is meaningless. Literally - what you typed has no meaning. In fact, you could flat out switch "AD&D" and "3e" in every instance and nothing would change.

It is not meaningless. The "advanced" classed in AD&D have specific role playing restrictions that 3e does not have because of the change in design philosophy.

AD&D Paladin
-Can't own more than 10 magical items
-Can't retain wealth
-Must tithe 10% of income
-Doesn't attract followers
-Must employ only lawful good hirelings
-Must always be lawful good

3e Paladin
-Must be lawful good.

That's a huge difference in character descriptions and is absolutely not interchangable as you mention in the slightest.

Listing numbers is meaningless without anything to compare them too. You fail to mention the changes in monsters in new editions. You fail to even mention what the differences mean. Oh my god, a level 15 fighter loses +5 bonus to hit! That means...what, exactly? Well, once we actually look at how 3.5 works, it means not all that much.

THAC0 in AD&D caps at 1 and AC caps at -10. The best warrior in the world will always have a 50% chance to hit the most defensible opponent. A level 9 character can match the fighting capability of a level 20 character provided the former has magic items, high strength, and weapon specialization (a +2 weapon, +2 from strength, and +1 from specialization, all of which are easily feasible at 9th level, brings a 9th level fighter to the capabilities of a 14th level fighter without magical equipment/bonuses).

Spell casting is the only thing that improves dramatically with level beyond the HD cap with priests achieving 7th level spells at 14th level.

A level 9 character in 3e can never match a level 20 character short of ridiculous optimization and the level 20 character being unoptimized. Because BAB drops rapidly with iterative attacks, a +5 can be the difference between your second or third attack hitting on the money or missing horribly.

And the AD&D fighter gets a bigger increase in saves - the 3e fighter gets a +5 bonus (3 to fort, 1 o ref, 1 to will) whereas the AD&D fighter has a massive +10 bonus to all his saves.

Saving throws in AD&D don't work like that; they're linear and class dependent. No matter how powerful the enemy is, the target's level determines the difficulty of the save. The difference between a level 15 fighter and level 20 fighter in AD&D is

Save vs. Paralyzation: +5%
Save vs. Rod: +5%
Save vs. Petrification: +5%
Save vs. Breath: 0%
Save vs. Spell: +5%

A level 20 fighter in 3e has 15% better fortitude saves, 5% better reflex, and 5% better will. Saving throws can be increased faster than the spell DCs making saves in 3e more valuable than in 2e where they show diminishing returns at 9th to 11th level depending on the class.

And there's a reason your example is in fighters - the difference between a level 9 druid and a level 10 druid is absolutely massive in every edition.

For the reference, a 10th level druid's THAC0 goes from 16 to 14 (+10% to fighting capability), his saves improve by 1 (5%), and he receives 2 hit points. An 11th level druid, the highest a druid can be before having to compete for 12th level, he receives +2hp and 1 5th level spell.

Wow. Absolutely massive.

A 3e druid going from 9th to 10th has 1-8 hit points, +1 BAB (+5% to his attacks), +5% to fort and will saves, wild shape 4x a day, and 2 5th level spells because 3e clerics/druids gain magic at a faster rate. An 11th level druid can transform into tiny creatures, his BAB improves again, and he receives 6th level spells.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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?

Pretty much, yeah. As in, I agree. And "genericisation" is an alternative I see a bit.

I rather like the Priests, too. Or rather, aspects of them. Gotta love the simple fact that it's plural, just for starters. And some of what Aurumvorax posted above, plus more. . .

Along with kits, even, I could see a very nice unholy hybrid being made, from bits and pieces of the corpses of 2e, 1e, and maybe others. Never thought I'd say it, but there you go.

 

[Aurumvorax]

Just to elaborate on my original post, I don't care about the differences between AD&D and 3e, whether or not druids make sense, or whether or not a druidic organization is anything close to naturalism or evolution. My point is simple: don't mix the level restrictions of AD&D with 3e unless everyone likewise halts in advancement.

3e falls apart when characters are disproportionately leveled as they often are in AD&D.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In AD&D, the "advanced" classes were specifically designed for more challenging role play. You didn't play a druid because you wanted all these crazy nature powers, you played one because you wanted to be part of a world wide organization and the power struggles within it. Druids were very much wardens of nature but they were still human meaning a constant desire to one-up each other.

Or elven or ... actually, could elves be druids? You would think it makes sense.

But I still have to disagree. It's up to players and the DMs to define conflicts. The game rules don't "promote" conflict between fighters, but they fought all the time anyway. If the players think druids duelling each other is stupid (and judging from the responses to the thread, the answer is yes) then said rules should be dumped.