The druid is not fighting!!! LONG!

[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. There is no excuse for failing to do so; the druid is a coward and he ought to be punished for his actions by those that counted upon him to do his job.

 

[DragonLancer]

Gothmog, I agree completely. I'm glad someone sees this is the right light.

And Druids are not a combat class. Where did you get that from? Yes, they have wildshape and can assume aggressive animal forms but thats not a great combat ability. Barring anything that 3.5 does to them, Druids currently are the weakest class in the game.

And as for talking to a wall, it works both ways.

 

[Mark Chance]

The druid messed up.

So did the psychic warrior.

So did the entire party for having only one healer, and a substandard one at that.

I say kill all of the characters and start over again. The next time around, they can make the bard their only healer.

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, they have wildshape and can assume aggressive animal forms but thats not a great combat ability. Barring anything that 3.5 does to them, Druids currently are the weakest class in the game.

Have you seen a Druid in bear shape? Yikes.

How about casting Animal Growth on his companion (something like a Lion, Tiger or Bear---oh my!).

edit: The Druid in my campaign is currently the hands-down most effective character. Period. Between him and his Dire Lion companion, they do more damage that the front line fighters. I won't even mention the non-combat utilty of being a flying scout with blindsight.

Druids may be a weak class, but I don't see the Bard or Monk giving up their seats on the short bus any time soon.

 

[Gothmog]

Just a thought- how would everyone feel if the character in question were not a druid, but...

1) a fighter/paladin/ranger/barbarian who refused to take part in problem solving, diplomacy, or NPC interaction? Or a fighter type who chose sub-optimal weapons/feats because he enjoyed the uniqueness it gave his character?

2) a rogue who had sunk most of his skill points into skills other than pick lock, remove traps, move silently, and hide? Or who didn't want to play a killer-type rogue and didn't use his sneak attack?

3) a wizard/sorcerer who focused on divination or illusion, with few direct damage or buffing spells?

Are these characters failing to pull their weight? Does the rest of the party have the right to enforce certain choices or play styles on another PC because he isn't optomized?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Just a thought- how would everyone feel if the character in question were not a druid, but...

1) a fighter/paladin/ranger/barbarian who refused to take part in problem solving, diplomacy, or NPC interaction? Or a fighter type who chose sub-optimal weapons/feats because he enjoyed the uniqueness it gave his character?

2) a rogue who had sunk most of his skill points into skills other than pick lock, remove traps, move silently, and hide? Or who didn't want to play a killer-type rogue and didn't use his sneak attack?

3) a wizard/sorcerer who focused on divination or illusion, with few direct damage or buffing spells?

Are these characters failing to pull their weight? Does the rest of the party have the right to enforce certain choices or play styles on another PC because he isn't optomized?

Depends. Is the PC in question giving his all to ensure the party is successful?

This druid, based on what is given, is not doing that.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Player vs. Group Dynamics

While I don't think that Gamemastering Secrets revealed the end all be of on GMing tips and material, there is one important section to note.

"There's nothing wrong with good roleplaying, is there?" In the abstract, no, of course not. Good roleplaying is to be encouraged - but not as a nend in iteself. Gaming is not performance art. In a roleplaying game, which is about a group of friends creating an adventure story together, good roleplaying only helps if it contributes to the process of story creation. Good roleplaying that isn't dramatically apporpirate, detracts from the story, or interfers with what the group as a whole wants to do, is far more often than not, a bad thing.

Thank you Steven Long. I can tell you up front that I've had a lot of players make 'interesting' characters that can't do squat but be interesting. They die quickly. Every character is responsible to a certain point for the survival of the group. Those that aren't either don't belong with an adventuring group, or die.

 

[Mark Chance]

Depends. Is the PC in question giving his all to ensure the party is successful?

This druid, based on what is given, is not doing that.

[sarcasm]
Running a character that gives 110% to party success isn't roleplaying, which is, after all, what the game is all about. People who run characters focused on party success have a mentality more suited for "computer game style numbers and mods."
[/sarcasm]

But, seriously folks, the real culprit here in the psychic warrior's death is that drow. I mean, sheesh!, how mean can a body get?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Another thing to remmeber is that message boards allow people from all over the world to interact with one another. Gaming styles and philosophies are going to be different. Heck, I can drive just 10 miles away from where I live and game with people who do stuff way differently than I ever did. So duking it out isn't really going to resolve anything. I'd say chalk it all up as a learning experience; we're seeing just how vastly different all our gaming styles are. Way back when, before the internet, we kind of gamed in a vacuum. I vastly prefer it like it is now. Even if I disagree with something here and there.

 

[avendeen]

I think the Druid should by put on trial for his crimes agaist humanoidity.