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

[Aurumvorax]

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.

Half-elves could be druids. It makes more sense that being a druid is a human concept. Only humans could organize a religion around a single entity but bicker over how it should be revered or fight over who has the right to wield the greatest power.

The game rules very much promote a certain method of thinking and playing which is inherent in the design (and by Gygax who was very vocal about his opinions). While the designers have always urged you to throw away things you don't like, it doesn't mean the rules-as-written never existed. The advanced classes were designed for a greater role playing challenge. Personally, if I rolled high enough for a paladin or ranger, I almost always went with a fighter simply because I didn't want to deal with tithing or carrying only what I could stuff in a sack.

You don't need to be a paladin to be a holy warrior. You miss out on a few neat abilities but the sub-classes require a completely different mindset that rarely is compatible with traditional adventurers (i.e., kill stuff and steal junk).

Edit: With the exception of the bard but he's pretty frail as is.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

It is, though.

Must tithe income? Can't retain wealth? Ok, that's great. You can't buy magic items. What else are you going to spend the gold on? Not much of a limitation. Same with the amgic items - when your magic items are literally "What the DM gives you," only having ten (Which is a huge number) isn't much of a limitation.

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.

So not only do you flat out admit that non-casters literally do not upgrade, but that spellcasting is the most important thing and the only thing that dramatically upgrades. This is an important thing to mention!

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.

To what comparisons? A level 9 and a level 20 wizard in 2e are just as unmatchable. The only thing you've proven so far is "Yeah non-casters are even worst in 2e then they are otherwise."

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%

I know how 2e saves works.

What you've just proven is, again, that the 2e fighter has higher save increases then the 3e one does due to the static nature. You're arguing my point for me.

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.

Uh, no. The percentages you use there don't work. Have you played 3e?

You have to hold something up as comparison. The save increases a fighter gets are miniscule compared to the 2e one because saves aren't a static number. The fighter's saves other then fortitude go up dramatically slower then a wizard's DCs do.

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.

See the bold?

You just admitted that spellcasting is the only thing that dramatically increases. You just admitted that spellcasting is by and large the most important and most powerful thing in 2e.

So yes, you're correct. That fifth level spell is 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.

Comparison. Do you make them?

Monsters in 3e likewise improve dramatically harder then 2e does. The actual curve of powers (theoretically) remains the same - PCs got stronger and harder to kill, but so too did monsters. The 3e dragon and 2e dragon aren't even comparable; the 3e dragon is stronger in every single way. A level 1 orc in 2e and a level 1 orc in 3e are equally dramatically different.

What breaks druids is, you guessed it, spell casting (and wild shape). Not "how good they level."

 

[MarkB]

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.

It's not simulating evolution. It's simulating the pecking order of the pack. Which is thematic enough for druids on its own.


The reason it's not simulating evolution is that the test of whether a druid advances in the heirarchy is not even slightly related to whether that druid is good at his profession, or true to his beliefs, or even just good at survival in general. The only thing that is tested is whether the druid is good at fighting druids in single combat.

That being the case, what you'll tend to end up with at the top of the druidic heirarchy is an ultra-specialist, someone who has dedicated his life to the pursuit of one singular activiy - defeating druids in single combat.

The fossil record is full of the remnants of extinct species which had the misfortune to over-specialise.

 

[Hussar]

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).

Despite Aus Snow's posrep, this is actually inaccurate.

Yes, THAC0 caps at 1. That's true. But, there's nothing preventing your attack bonuses applying thereafter. A character with a THAC0 of 1 vs an AC of -10 who has +10 on his attacks from having a girdle of giant strength (STR 20 - +4 to attacks) a +3 weapon and a couple of pluses from somewhere else only ever misses on a 1.

Ever.

Since we're talking about 2e, we can include weapon specs in there, kit bonuses, and probably some other bonus in there as well. Having a +10 in attack bonuses isn't actually that hard to achieve.

However, the difference between different levels for druids comes with the spells. Creeping Doom was the single most damaging spell in AD&D. Never mind goodies like Earthquake and Chariot of Susstare (sp). High level druids were absolutely freaking devastating casters.

The idea that you played high level druids cos it was a role playing challenge might be true. But, let's not forget that a high level druid was one of the most powerful characters in the game.

 

[Pssthpok]

Prof. Cirno is killing this thread for me.