Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
2e Druids, 4e druids, and thematic rules...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 5363065" data-attributes="member: 1165"><p>I hated 2e druid flavor rules <em>as written</em> (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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!)</p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p>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 <em>some</em> political talent? There's no selection for that there.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think this is for the best. If you're going to impose rules they should be <em>good</em> 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 <strong>bad</strong> flavor.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="(Psi)SeveredHead, post: 5363065, member: 1165"] I hated 2e druid flavor rules [i]as written[/i] (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. 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.) 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 [i]some[/i] 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.) I think this is for the best. If you're going to impose rules they should be [i]good[/i] 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 [b]bad[/b] 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 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
2e Druids, 4e druids, and thematic rules...
Top