PDA

View Full Version : Druidic Oaths as a Power Curb?



The Glyphstone
2008-12-06, 01:01 PM
The other thread was hilarious, ended up getting kicked down to SMBG, but it did spawn a few sparks of potential serious discussion amidst the paladin parodies.

It's almost universally accepted that Druids, being half of CoDzilla, are one of the best classes in the game alongside Clerics and Wizards. They have full casting, a free personal bodyguard who can be buffed into insanity, the ability to make 2/3 of their physical ability scores irrelevant, can buff themselves into insanity on top of everything else...druids are OP. Enforcing a mandatory Shapeshift variant is one way to go, stripping the animal companion and wildshape for a more balanced self-buffing ability, but it can be harsh.

However -druids do have qualifiers for losing their powers, though it is unfortunately even vaguer than the paladin's code - they must 'cease to revere nature' (or change alignment/teach Druidic to a non-Druid). Is there a way to enforce this open-ended restriction as a restraint on druids running rampant over the game world without turning them into Falladin 2.0, and avoiding the sort of ludicrous anti-reasoning that populated the silly thread? What other ways are there to whittle the druid down to size without rendering it unplayable?

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-06, 01:09 PM
What do you think of the Focussed Animal variant? It lacks Wildshape, but you are 2 levels higher for calculating your companion's stats, and you can talk with them.

Regarding falling, the fact that it's so subjective would cause more arguements then with Paladins supposedly breaking their code. The need to stay Neutral would also be problematic.

Fax Celestis
2008-12-06, 01:40 PM
Codes of conduct are for paladins. And fluff restrictions on mechanics usually don't end well.

Aquillion
2008-12-06, 01:57 PM
If you want to balance the druid, just nerf its wild shape, spellcasting, or animal companion ability (or all three). Don't muck around with codes of conduct; nobody seems to like them. Players who want to play to a code of conduct will do so themselves, but everyone hates having the DM step in and say "Hey, you're playing your character wrong!" I would much rather have my druid get reduced spellcasting, reduced animal-companions, and/or reduced wild shape than to have to worry about constant DM input as to how my character is/should be thinking.

For the most part, it's up to the player to decide how their character feels about nature, not the DM. You don't generally step in and tell the Barbarian or the Bard they're actually Lawful; don't tell the Druid what he's thinking, either.

Of course, if someone goes drastically far from their declared intentions, you could say something as DM. But for the most part, it's their choice -- the Druid's notes about respecting nature are not like the Paladins "one evil act = FALL" rules. A druid could burn down a forest if they feel that this is the correct thing to do, as long as they can justify it in line with revering nature overall (in fact, in the real world forest fires are natural and necessary for renewal; it's often better to have small regular fires rather than one big one, too.) A druid irritable about something or another could even lose their temper and plainly do or say something that doesn't show any respect for nature, as long as that doesn't represent their genuine character.

Waspinator
2008-12-06, 05:28 PM
Make the Shapeshifter variant from the Player's Handbook II mandatory and you're pretty much set.

Hal
2008-12-06, 07:07 PM
I'm not sure oaths of conduct are all that bad. What if the GM produced a list of potential oaths and the player who wanted to play a druid had to pick one or two from the list, rather than adhere to the usual druidic code in the PHB?

Alternatively, as the DM you can probably make it a setting issue. As in, "Oh, in my setting, the only druids would come from this group, and they have these standards of conduct attached to their powers." In that sort of situation, you ought to be lenient on your players, but it does give the GM an option.

Oslecamo
2008-12-06, 07:16 PM
Simply use the 3.0 druid:

-You need to find your own animal companion out there, and it doesn't gain any extra bonus for being your pet. You also can't go around treating it as a meat shield or it will leave you.
-No natural spell for you!
-No spontaneous summon nature ally, and the available monsters are much weaker.
-Sorry, dinossaurs aren't animals any more.
-Wildshape doesn't grant extraordinary abilities.
-Shapechange doesn't grant supernatural abilities.

Seriously, I still don't know how the hell druids got buffed so much in 3.5

But yes, the druid code is vague precisely to allow the DM to keep the druid in check.

Aquillion
2008-12-06, 09:22 PM
But yes, the druid code is vague precisely to allow the DM to keep the druid in check.
No. First of all, there is no "druid code". There's rules for ex-druids. And they are not even slightly vague; if you intend to houserule teeth into it so you can arbitrarily declare "Interpret your character the way I demand or your powers go away!", then you should inform them in advance.

The actual RAW code is as follows:

Ex-Druids

A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
...and by default, players get to decide their PC's thoughts, opinions, and character. That means that (short of extreme cases, where you should be taking the player aside anyway), the only way for a PC druid to lose their abilities on that clause is to specifically choose to do so for character development. You don't inform players who they are loyal to; you don't tell them they have to agree to offers from NPCs; and you don't, normally, tell a druid that they no longer revere nature. That is their choice to make, and only extreme sustained actions over an extended period of time would, IMHO, ever be enough to even hint that you might say otherwise. I would also argue that a decent DM should give a player serious advance warning when they feel that their actions are outside of how they are describing their character (whether for alignment or for reverence towards nature); it should never, ever, ever be an out-of-the-blue 'hey, guess what, I've decided I get to tell you what your character thinks.'


I'm not sure oaths of conduct are all that bad. What if the GM produced a list of potential oaths and the player who wanted to play a druid had to pick one or two from the list, rather than adhere to the usual druidic code in the PHB?

Alternatively, as the DM you can probably make it a setting issue. As in, "Oh, in my setting, the only druids would come from this group, and they have these standards of conduct attached to their powers." In that sort of situation, you ought to be lenient on your players, but it does give the GM an option.All of those are good for RP options. But they miss the main point:

Players are the ones who decide what their characters are thinking. Not the DM. Anything that requires that the DM determine the state of a PCs' thoughts and opinions is an absolutely horrible idea.

If I decide that my druid feels that death is a natural part of life and, therefore, has no objection to undead as long as their bodies return to the natural cycle eventually, that is my prerogative. If I decide that burning down forests and returning them to fertile ash as part of the cycle of life is the best way to revere nature, that is my prerogative.

The worst part about using rules to enforce codes of conduct -- the reason why you only seem to see stories about them in the "horror stories about power-mad DMs" threads -- is because they are actually useless against the munchkins you are so eager to smash with them. A munchkin doesn't give a damn whether their druid reveres nature or not, or how their Paladin deals with a complicated situation. They'll happily turn the keys to their character's brains over to you the way you want, and accept lots of big shiny numbers in return. Trading RP restrictions for hard-number power is a munchkin's wet dream.

No, the people who are hurt by enforced codes of conduct are the people who like role-playing. The ones who (while feeling that their Paladin is, overall, good and just) want their to decide for themselves what is right, to question themselves and sometimes make small mistakes on the path to righteousness. The person whose druid tries to really think about their relationship with nature, and what it means to revere it -- are warforged natural? Unnatural? Are undead? I feel that that should be for player characters to decide, even turning it into character development.

The munchkins won't give a damn about all that. It's only the people who care about interesting, complicated characters who are hurt by enforced codes of conduct.

Now, yes, there can be some benefit in having loose guidelines, in ensuring that Paladins don't go around skewering dead babies on their spears. But overall, within those broad guidelines, it should be up to the player and not the DM to make decisions about what sort of person their character is.

Gardakan
2008-12-06, 11:27 PM
They are pretty overpowered for two big reasons...


1) They are very polyvalent and good at all(full spellcaster progression(heal, direct damage, buff and landcontrol), wildshape for the melee, animal companion to ''bodyguard, protect, being buff...'' and also some pretty nice class abilities.

2)Pretty nice hit dice(d8), medium BAB, good fortitude and will save, don't worry about your charisma, strenght and dexterity...

Oslecamo
2008-12-07, 11:13 AM
No. First of all, there is no "druid code". There's rules for ex-druids. And they are not even slightly vague; if you intend to houserule teeth into it so you can arbitrarily declare "Interpret your character the way I demand or your powers go away!", then you should inform them in advance.

It is vague because what the hell is exactly revering nature? Is that dragon part of nature? Is it ok to acept the city rules despite they being destroying nature? When does nature end and abominations start? Ect ect.




The actual RAW code is as follows:

...and by default, players get to decide their PC's thoughts, opinions, and character. That means that (short of extreme cases, where you should be taking the player aside anyway), the only way for a PC druid to lose their abilities on that clause is to specifically choose to do so for character development. You don't inform players who they are loyal to; you don't tell them they have to agree to offers from NPCs; and you don't, normally, tell a druid that they no longer revere nature. That is their choice to make, and only extreme sustained actions over an extended period of time would, IMHO, ever be enough to even hint that you might say otherwise. I would also argue that a decent DM should give a player serious advance warning when they feel that their actions are outside of how they are describing their character (whether for alignment or for reverence towards nature); it should never, ever, ever be an out-of-the-blue 'hey, guess what, I've decided I get to tell you what your character thinks.'

All of those are good for RP options. But they miss the main point:

Players are the ones who decide what their characters are thinking. Not the DM. Anything that requires that the DM determine the state of a PCs' thoughts and opinions is an absolutely horrible idea.

If I decide that my druid feels that death is a natural part of life and, therefore, has no objection to undead as long as their bodies return to the natural cycle eventually, that is my prerogative. If I decide that burning down forests and returning them to fertile ash as part of the cycle of life is the best way to revere nature, that is my prerogative.

The worst part about using rules to enforce codes of conduct -- the reason why you only seem to see stories about them in the "horror stories about power-mad DMs" threads -- is because they are actually useless against the munchkins you are so eager to smash with them. A munchkin doesn't give a damn whether their druid reveres nature or not, or how their Paladin deals with a complicated situation. They'll happily turn the keys to their character's brains over to you the way you want, and accept lots of big shiny numbers in return. Trading RP restrictions for hard-number power is a munchkin's wet dream.

No, the people who are hurt by enforced codes of conduct are the people who like role-playing. The ones who (while feeling that their Paladin is, overall, good and just) want their to decide for themselves what is right, to question themselves and sometimes make small mistakes on the path to righteousness. The person whose druid tries to really think about their relationship with nature, and what it means to revere it -- are warforged natural? Unnatural? Are undead? I feel that that should be for player characters to decide, even turning it into character development.

The munchkins won't give a damn about all that. It's only the people who care about interesting, complicated characters who are hurt by enforced codes of conduct.

Now, yes, there can be some benefit in having loose guidelines, in ensuring that Paladins don't go around skewering dead babies on their spears. But overall, within those broad guidelines, it should be up to the player and not the DM to make decisions about what sort of person their character is.

Except this is D&D. Actions, not toughts, determine your alignment. Claim you're good all you want. If you go around spamming animate death(evil descriptor) and summoning imps(again, evil spells), you're gonna stop being it in no time.

And it's the DM who decides what the hell is revering nature. Why? Because he's the one controling mother nature or whatver else is granting the druid his/her powers every morning, of course.

All that "I decide if my actions are evil or good or revering nature" is just munchkin talk. You're not mother nature. You're a servant of her.

So even if you think undeads are ok, if mother nature doesn't think like that, and you go around helping necromancers, you're gonna fall from druid-hood. Hard.

Of course, the DM should first discuss with the player what is revering nature. But the final word is of the DM. Not the player. He's called dungeon master for a reason. And that reason is because it's the DM who decides how the dungeon/city/forest works, not the player.

Aquillion
2008-12-07, 03:26 PM
It is vague because what the hell is exactly revering nature? Is that dragon part of nature? Is it ok to acept the city rules despite they being destroying nature? When does nature end and abominations start? Ect ect.

Except this is D&D. Actions, not toughts, determine your alignment. Claim you're good all you want. If you go around spamming animate death(evil descriptor) and summoning imps(again, evil spells), you're gonna stop being it in no time.

And it's the DM who decides what the hell is revering nature. Why? Because he's the one controling mother nature or whatver else is granting the druid his/her powers every morning, of course.

So even if you think undeads are ok, if mother nature doesn't think like that, and you go around helping necromancers, you're gonna fall from druid-hood. Hard.

Of course, the DM should first discuss with the player what is revering nature. But the final word is of the DM. Not the player. He's called dungeon master for a reason. And that reason is because it's the DM who decides how the dungeon/city/forest works, not the player.Wait, what? You're confusing druids with clerics. There is no 'mother nature' mentioned anywhere. Nothing in the SRD even remotely suggests that nature is a sentient force for druids, or that anything consciously 'grants' them spells; characters who want that route are free to make clerics that worship nature-oriented 'Mother Nature' type deities, but that's not the druid's thing at all. According to the PHB a druid's power comes from "transcendent union" with nature; they're not granted the way a cleric's powers are, but are drawn from the natural world as a function of the druid's philosophy. There's no one entity that can consciously strip a druid of their capabilities; for a DM to invent that whole-cloth is like for a DM to say 'the goddess of magic takes away your casting!' to a wizard, or 'Your barbarian god strips you of your rage!' to a barbarian.

Likewise, you are simply wrong about alignment. What you said is a common misinterpretation, but the rules from the SRD are very clear:

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. Alignment represents your 'genral moral and personal attitudes', not your alignment. Yes, the DMG provides guidelines for a DM to change a player's alignment to what they're actually displaying if a player acts consistently in a way that implies their personal philosophy is different from what they stated (though, naturally, it recommends talking to the PC in question first.) But outside of extreme cases, alignment is supposed to be a measure of who your character is, and not what they do; it is ideally supposed to be up to the players and not the DM.

The druid's rules do not say "satisfy some random nature-deity's opinion that you are revering nature." It says that you must revere nature. That does not mean "worship a deity with the 'nature' portfolio." That means that your own personal attitudes must hold reverence towards nature; nothing more, nothing less.


All that "I decide if my actions are evil or good or revering nature" is just munchkin talk. You're not mother nature. You're a servant of her.Again: A munchkin wouldn't give a damn. Burning down forests is not something that comes up very often, and it's easy enough for a PC to hate undead or constructs. Even when it forces you to do or not do something, it's just an adventure hook that will earn you more xp. Trading RP restrictions for raw mechanical power -- the way you are suggesting the druid be balanced -- is a munchkin's wet dream, because 99% of the time the RP restrictions won't matter, and all the time the mechanical bonuses will.

The people who suffer from RP restrictions are the ones who want to have deep and interesting characters, because it means that they have to let the DM's opinions determine their druid's opinions if they want to play an effective druid, and that is stupid. If I want to RP my druid debating the necromancer in the party and slowly reaching a philosophical compromise with them, I should be free to do so without the DM suddenly butting into our argument and saying 'Nope, you lose all your powers for saying that'.

I do think the druid should be rebalanced; but that should be done by nerfing its wild shape, spellcasting, and/or animal companion capabilities, not by adding RP restrictions. RP restrictions suck as a balance mechanism. They're inconsistently applied, difficult for DMs to interpret and adjudicate, only show up under certain circumstances, and they encourage players to play generic cookie-cutter characters who always match whatever the DM says is the 'obviously acceptable' philosophy for their class. None of those are beneficial things.

hamishspence
2008-12-07, 03:31 PM
the SRD is a starting point. other books cover alignment in more detail. Evil acts, even for "good" reasons- done consistantly and deliberately, are "the hallmark of an evil character" by Champions of Ruin.

Which is not to say you can't do Some evil acts and still be good, but if its routine, regular, its a sign of character being Evil.

Fiendish Codex 2 argued "A character has to do something evil to suffer the torments of the Nine Hells, thoughts are not enough"

so, in that sense, a "well intentioned extremist" who does acts defined as Evil or Corrupt (FC2) on a regular basis, is still evil. Ambrose the Fallen Paladin of ToM, Gareth the Ex-paladin of Waterdeep- these characters don't think they are evil- but they are.

Inyssius Tor
2008-12-07, 04:39 PM
Well, yes, but what implications does that have in the context of this conversation?

Almost nothing, since you're still a druid if you consistently behave in an evil fashion and you're still a druid if you consistently behave in an extremely chaotic fashion (whatever that means). And, of course, the law/chaos axis is almost completely impossible to define, so it's not as if that's going to get you anywhere anyway--and it's worth noting that a philosophical commitment to neutrality can be almost indistinguishable from a moral inclination toward law in any case, even if you've homebrewed a well-defined alignment system on your own.

hamishspence
2008-12-07, 04:42 PM
true, but if you change alignment to CE, you break the prerequisites- must have at least 1 Neutral alignment. Thereby making you an Ex-druid. and whether you change alignment or not is in the hands of the DM.

KIDS
2008-12-07, 05:09 PM
I second the thought to just use the Shapeshift variant for much better results.

Seeking ways to turn fluff into barriers against powergaming (which I suspect that was also the case with Paladin, even though the class is nowhere near powerful) causes angst. Angst leads to suffering. Suffering leads to pain. Pain leads to rules-lawyering.

hamishspence
2008-12-07, 05:11 PM
I liked Star Munchkin's "Anger leads to hate- hate leads to rage bonuses, rage bonuses lead to fatigue penalties"

but yes- codes don't keep class power in check.

Mewtarthio
2008-12-07, 05:50 PM
What about codes like "Druids who cease to revere nature, change to a restricted alignment, use the 'Natural Spell' feat, have an animal companion that out-fights the party's designated melee fighter, or are unanimously declared 'overpowerd' by the rest of the party become Ex-Druids"?

Immutep
2008-12-07, 05:55 PM
I never saw the first thread that is coming up alot here, but i do suggest a method of balancing druids a bit more, take it or leave it here it is.

Druid Philosophies
In this setting there are several different "casts" of druid. Each one taking there beliefs about nature (and therefore there benefits as a druid) from a different set of philosophical ideals. Some suggestion Philosophies and possible restriction follow.

Nature Should be free; May not take an animal companion as it would be like making the animal a slave, druids of this philosophy should try all that is possible and within there power to prevent the taking of pets from the wild or at the very least be disgusted with anybody who does so.

I am not worthy; Does not benefit form wild shape as it is considered sacrilage against the spirit of nature to assume the form of the creatures of nature.

This is very basic i admit and would need alot more finalisation to work correctly but the overall idea is sound IMHO. Furthermore as some people are crying out against roleplay restrictions as the reason for not liking oaths being enforced, they should find this system a little less restrictive for storyline as "philosophy" is a fairly grey area still. So long as the druid doesn't do something that breaks with the very teachings of how they aquired their harmony with nature then they won't loose all their benefits (they may even be able to switch philosophies rather than atone for some indescretions, how's that for character development!) the ideas i put forward are fairly restrictive and so maybe rebalance in the druids favour by means of a divine Philosophy spell slot much like a clerics domain spells.

woodenbandman
2008-12-07, 05:58 PM
Swear to god, I voluntarily became an ex druid because I was so overpowered. I literally had 2 items, 1 spell, and 1 feat, and I was the strongest guy in the room. Natural spell, monk belt, wild fullplate, bite of the weretiger, and the rest of it didn't even matter. It got to the point where the party was playing DnD and I was playing Rocket Tag With A Little Saving Of The Rogue's Bacon. Boring.

chiasaur11
2008-12-07, 06:14 PM
I second the thought to just use the Shapeshift variant for much better results.

Seeking ways to turn fluff into barriers against powergaming (which I suspect that was also the case with Paladin, even though the class is nowhere near powerful) causes angst. Angst leads to suffering. Suffering leads to pain. Pain leads to rules-lawyering.

And rules lawyering...
leads to Pun-Pun. So the DM loses big time there too.