The druid is not fighting!!! LONG!

[Wormwood]

...One plays a druid, with an altrusitic goal of reaching epic levels. <snip>

I'm sorry, but I had to stop reading there.

You need to look up the word, 'altruism'.

Altruism: Attempting to save a fellow human being, especially at some risk to yourself.

Not Altruism: Because I want Epic Wild Shape., I'll allow my friends to die.

 

[DragonLancer]

My bad. I thought it meant something like selfish. Sorry.

 

[DanteHayes]

Ok, I'll try and explain this again.

If you would like to avoid the "derision and disrespect" that Necrogorgon spoke of, perhaps you you should consider revising this "talking down to" tone you've affected.

I don't need anything re-explained to me. I understand what you are saying. I just think you are wrong.

First off, attaining Epic levels isn't altruism, the unselfish concern for the welfare of others. In fact, his insistance on self preservation is quite literally the oppisite.

Next, he has made decisions about his character, disguised as good role-playing, which render him useless in combat situations.

Then, the DM, who is presumable familiar with the guides and outlines in the DMG, designs a combat situation, which should use about 1/4 of the party's resources. The Druid elects not to participate thus creating additional burden on the other three players. One of whose character dies because of it.

Had the Defender fumbled, and the DM had house rule regulating fumbles, and the PsyWar had died, you are right, the party would have forgivin him. Because, at least, he tried.

The DM brings this situation here and the board members encourage him to have that player change characters or, alter his precious persona.

Now, as to your feelings about fun; I have some opinions about fun myself. I think it's fun when I know I can count on the other characters to back me up and, knowing that I'll back them up. I have more fun when we emerge from a conflict victorious as opposed to running away. If the three players in the DM's campaign agree with my veiws on fun, and, I think they do or they wouldn't have this problem in the first place, then the question we really need answered is; why should one players decisions about his character ruin the fun for them?

 

[DragonLancer]

If you would like to avoid the "derision and disrespect" that Necrogorgon spoke of, perhaps you you should consider revising this "talking down to" tone you've affected.

My apologies. I didn't mean to cause offence. I must admit however to getting frustrated with some of the opinions being presented.

I don't need anything re-explained to me. I understand what you are saying. I just think you are wrong.

Forgive me again here, but I have a friend in one of my gaming groups who does this. If you don't agree with him, then your wrong and he's right. It irritates me because its closedminded, which unfortunately seems to be the nature of this discussion.

The DM brings this situation here and the board members encourage him to have that player change characters or, alter his precious persona.

But why should he have to change anything? After 12 levels the DM should know how the group will react in certain situations and should tailor any scenarios or modules accordingly.

I have more fun when we emerge from a conflict victorious as opposed to running away.

Yes, I agree, but he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day, as the saying goes. Not every encounter needs to or can end in victory for the party. Running away, especially when party members are that close to death, or have run out of healing potions/scrolls/charges...etc is common sense. It makes the victory all the more sweeter when you come back fully healed and prepared and defeat the enemy.

 

[arbados]

Original Poster Arbados back:

The druid has not seen the board yet. To be honest I didn't tell him about it because I was concerned that there would be a heavy thrashing of him as a player and character. I didn't want that to happen becasue he is a good friend. The other three players have read the posts and are intrigued by the responses.
They feel there are many great suggestions and are going to try it in tonights game (1 hour from now)!

Considering the equality of opinion and the majority of posts I am going to tell him tonight to take a look at it so that maybe he can garner some useful information.

The druid player enjoys his character tremendously and ousting him from the party would be the LAST resort. Keep in mind that although there are some bothered feelings amongst the three other players it is nowhere near the point of quiting the game or kicking his character out.

The group truly does play very well together as characters and players. Each knows there niche and fills it quite well. The druid has the scribe scroll feat and has been asked to create some healing scrolls, but he has been hesitant because of the minimal loss of xp's.



The druids alignment is Neutral Good. There has been question whether his alignment should shift and on one occasion I actually did it shift to true neutral. However, over months of adventuring and playing the good side heavily I allowed his alignment to shift back.

 

[DragonLancer]

Welcome back.

Interesting. Perhaps as a punishment he should shift back to TN until (if) you decide that he has earnt his way back but make sure to make it much tougher this time round. I think thats a fair way of handling it.

 

[Creeping Death]

Re: Re: Role-player POV only please.

Well, for a RP reason... see Raistlin Majere.

Course, in that case, the druid is about to alignment shift...

But wasn't Raistlin Magere also a novel character that was pregenerated for use in a D&D game to help the writers?

Also, their group did split up on several occasions and worked with or against each other. This is not something that can be pulled off very easily in a D&D game where everyone has their own different plans and expectations.

Raistlin also used other people for his own purposes so that he could attain great power. Whatever happened to those he used, he didn't care. I would classify that as evil, especially if it lead to others torment, misery, or death.

If you can classify that as evil, couldn't the druid be classified as evil (not knowing if they were ambushed or if they started the fight and not knowing if they could retreat or not). Attempting to gain great power, in this case epic levels, at the expense of others. If he is not evil but is "using" others for his own personal gain, then an alignment shift is necessary.

If we can classify him as evil, then wouldn't the party be justified is saying hey, we don't hang around with evil guys, please leave.

If he is good and is playing a pacifist, then why is he an adventurer? If he is playing a timid coward, why is he an adventurer? If he is playing an evil druid out just for power, then why is the rest of the group allowing him to stay? Unless they are evil too, I don't see a reason for him to be there.

We really don't know how hack'n slash or how role-playing oriented this group is. Did they all write up character backgrounds? Did they write up their character's dreams, goals, ambitions, inhibitions, etc etc etc. If none of them did this, then they are less role-playing oriented than some have claimed. The truth is, we don't know.

 

[Mark Chance]

The best thing for the players to do is avoid playing the Blame Game. Instead, each player, IC or OOC (or both), needs to take a step back and review the scenario to identify mistakes and develop a plan to avoid those mistakes in the future.

Major issues that I see:

* The druid needs to be proactive. As the only healer in the group, he cannot be too cautious when the chips are coming down. If a party member calls for healing right now, that means right now, not when it seems safe or convenient.

* The party needs a real healer or, at a minimum, another semi-healer. A lone druid cannot adequately cover the healing needs of the party.

* When the only healing left is the druid (i.e., when all of the potions and scrolls are used up), it is time for the party to retreat, regroup, and recuperate. If they don't have a plan for this, they need to develop one. The druid and the wizard, with appropriate barrier spells (i.e., web, any of the various wall of... spells, etc.) can help provide cover for a safe retreat.

* If they are not already doing so, as much as possible the party needs to focus damage on the main fighter's current opponent. It is often best to double- or triple-team a single foe even if it means not targeting other opponents.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Corinth

Druids are combatants. This druid isn't doing his job, which is to do whatever is necessary to support his allies in battle- which includes using wildshape or mundane means to enter melee in support of his beleagered allies.

I don't think the problem here is a druid who doesn't like melee. That druid should have immediately cast a healing spell on the psychic warrior (who needed immediate help), and maybe taken some AoOs.

Forcing him into melee is not fair, however. Making him perform his role as healer is fair.

PS I suggest getting said druid some wands of cure serious wonds since the party doesn't have a healer.

PPS what about the druids' animal companions? I can see why, however - barkskin does not stack with natural armor.

Fenes

As far as I understood it the PsyWar was asking for help - and the Druid did not help. I don't know about others, but in such situations I expect the player of the druid to step over his shadow and have his PC save the PsyWar. It is not about participating in combat - it is about letting a comrade die. I'd not expect the druid to melee, I'd not even expect him to cast combat spells - but I would expect him to risk a hit or two to save a comrade from death.

I agree completely.

 

[Tsyr]

The druid has the scribe scroll feat and has been asked to create some healing scrolls, but he has been hesitant because of the minimal loss of xp's.

In fairness, this attitude is actualy more common than you might think... A lot of people really hate the XP loss in item creation, esp. if they came from 2E.

Others don't think anything about it.