can druids revere artificial evolution?

[newguydude1]

{scrubbed}

one of the problems i have with druids is that artificial is an improvement over the natural. so those who stick to the natural is being stupid. like using a sword is superior to using a fist, and druids would be the one saying you should bring your fist to a sword fight without gauntlets because swords are unnatural.

but then i was reading about druids in lords of madness and found this

Most druids detest aberrations and think of them as outside nature, but some view them simply as examples of nature from an extreme and alien world. Thanks to your heritage, you are one of these latter, and have learned to channel your inhuman bloodline into your shapeshifting power."

so here druids are allowed to twist taboo into non taboo with the right spin. aberration is hated, aberration is actually just nature in an alien world, aberration is good, i use my aberration blood to transform into aberrations.

so i thought why not apply it here to try and remove one of my problems i have with druids. so here it is

---

evolution is part of nature. all species do it. even ants and plants. human intelligence is also a product of evolution. so if humans decide to use their intelligence to create superior lifeforms, how is that different from evolution?

so my druid would revere artificial lifeforms like constructs. mindless ones are akin to soldier ants, bred for a specific purpose. sentient ones would be akin to true evolution. cause sentient robot is better than humans.

my druid would hate undead though. she would view undead as a pathetic attempt to preserve an inferior lifeform long past its failure to survive.

my druid also hates tools because i gotta have a reason to not use metal shields and armor. so my druid views fortresses, walls, swords, and such crutches for the inferior race, surviving off of trickery and deceit instead of physical biological superiority. and thus dislikes civilization. but once these things become sentient like animate objects or animate city, she then loves them because they are weaponized life forms "evolved" to be superior than their creator race at their specific tasks. in this case its combat

---

so would this fly in d&d? if a druid practiced the above philosophy, would she keep all of her spells? and what if she participated in artificial evolution herself like with golem crafting and awaken construct to create an epic optimized sentient golem with optimized feat selection made out of refined metal. or create something like tyranids from warhammer 40k which would consume all life on a planet and that blast off to outer space to continue to do the same? something like how ultimate evolution makes it the ultimate predator species and the weaker lesser bioforms all lost out in the survival of the fittest which makes them food for the tyranids the best use of their flesh. better than the flesh using its brain to do its own thing because the brain and flesh are both inferior. (not that ill do this in game because tyranids dont exist in d&d and theres nothing thats similar to them. im just using them as an example)

important: its ok to say no. im not trying to say im right. i genuinely want to know whether the above flies with d&d 3.5 lore. if it doesn't then its ok ill play something other than druid. but i will defend it a little bit.

[Malphegor]

Sure. That’s basically a good way to play an Urban Druid tbh. Embracing the philosophy that ‘all things strive’ and that nature is more than just nature, and constructs exist therefore the balance of all things must now include them too.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
so my druid would revere artificial lifeforms like constructs.

Originally Posted by newguydude1
my druid also hates tools….

Constructs are tools. Just like fortresses, walls and shields, constructs are crutches to allow inferior races to achieve what they otherwise couldn’t, lacking physical biological superiority.

Originally Posted by newguydude1
but once these things become sentient like animate objects or animate city, she then loves them because they are weaponized life forms "evolved" to be superior than their creator race at their specific tasks.

The process of a construct gaining sentience has nothing to do with biological evolution, and any druid who is aware of biological evolution would know this.

But there’s no reason for a druid to be aware of evolution in the natural world. For all a druid knows, the world was created by the gods, and all life was created together with the world. Thus there is no reason to believe that constructs are somehow the apotheosis of the living world, when to a druid they would be completely artificial and lifeless, no matter what magic moved them.

.

[FaerieGodfather]

Short Answer: To answer the question in your thread title, yes, I think Druids can revere artificial and aberrant lifeforms as a legitimate part of nature. My avatar depicts a Druid like that... as reflection of my own beliefs and interests in a D&D fantasy world.

one of the problems i have with druids is that artificial is an improvement over the natural. so those who stick to the natural is being stupid. like using a sword is superior to using a fist, and druids would be the one saying you should bring your fist to a sword fight without gauntlets because swords are unnatural.

Well, point blank, if you believe this you can't be a Druid in the exact same way that if you believe chivalry and justice to be stupid, you can't be a Paladin. I will point out that Druids are proficient in a number of artifical manufactured weapons, including actual swords, and their ethos doesn't prohibit them from enjoying all manner of artificial conveniences.

I will also point out the existence of artificial cheese.

Being a Druid isn't about rejecting progress and artifice. It's about recognizing the danger of allowing progress and artifice to destroy the ecology that supports them. Civilization cannot destroy Nature; it can only temporarily interfere with Nature's capacity to support Civilization. Druids are permitted to hate Civilization, but they are only obligated to prevent it from turning its surroundings into a smoking crater.

so here druids are allowed to twist taboo into non taboo with the right spin. aberration is hated, aberration is actually just nature in an alien world, aberration is good, i use my aberration blood to transform into aberrations.

I am all about this.

evolution is part of nature. all species do it. even ants and plants. human intelligence is also a product of evolution. so if humans decide to use their intelligence to create superior lifeforms, how is that different from evolution?

I am all about this. As a Druid, this is specifically my ethos, this is how I revere Nature.

so my druid would revere artificial lifeforms like constructs. mindless ones are akin to soldier ants, bred for a specific purpose. sentient ones would be akin to true evolution. cause sentient robot is better than humans.

... and you lost me. Constructs aren't "artificial lifeforms", because they are not lifeforms at all. Specifically, they do not have a lifecycle and they do not occupy any position within the food chain-- they are neither predators nor prey, they do not die and they do not nourish the soil. They do not reproduce, so they can not evolve.

Constructs are great! Constructs can do more work while consuming fewer resources than people and animals, meaning that a Civilization that employs them wisely can be more sustainable. Sentient Constructs can even become Druids, if they choose, though I think most conservative Circles should be prejudiced against them.

Constructs are not enemies of Nature, and can even be allies of Nature, but they can never be part of Nature.

my druid would hate undead though. she would view undead as a pathetic attempt to preserve an inferior lifeform long past its failure to survive.

Kinda got a "strawman Druid" thing going here-- I mean, sure, Druids can be Social Darwinists, but it's... well, it's an ideology born of Civilization's poor understanding of Nature, and doesn't really have anything to do with being a Druid.

I'd argue that the real reason to hate the Undead is similar to the reason not to revere Constructs-- most Undead are predators, but nothing preys upon them and they do not nourish the soil. They take life and give nothing back, and they poison their environment by their very presence.

my druid also hates tools because i gotta have a reason to not use metal shields and armor. so my druid views fortresses, walls, swords, and such crutches for the inferior race, surviving off of trickery and deceit instead of physical biological superiority. and thus dislikes civilization. but once these things become sentient like animate objects or animate city, she then loves them because they are weaponized life forms "evolved" to be superior than their creator race at their specific tasks. in this case its combat

Honestly... the Druid class does nothing for you in terms of supporting this ideology. It's also weirdly contradictory to hate tools with a passion while venerating the products of tools. You can't animate a golem's body until after you've built it, and you can't do that with your bare hands. (Though, if you're open to Pathfinder Third Party, check out the DSP version of the Soulknife, who can actually create tools out of psionic force.) Fundamentally, you can't have your goal of sentient constructs without the society you claim to hate.

I would totally buy it as a legitimate character concept in D&D, and I would totally let you play it-- but Druid is the wrong starting point for you. If you wanted to play this in my game... I would start by making a hybrid class out of Artificer and Soulknife, and then point you in the direction of some of the Prestige Classes that turn the character into Living Constructs.

[Quertus]

This is such a bizarre concept.

So, the first problem is the underlying concept of "evolution". This is more of a modern mindset, and isn't exactly something that one would expect D&D characters to understand (citation needed). In fact, it might be blatantly wrong for any given campaign world (citation needed). A GM who simply declares "evolution doesn't exist in my world" isn't wrong to do so (citation needed). Of course, I don't know your table, you do, so you can ask the GM whether evolution even is a valid concept in that world, and whether it's possible for a Druid to understand it.

There are several methods for this to make sense. For one, we've already "evolved" the concept of evolution, so characters could learn of it through worlds that have modern Earth as their past (citation needed), characters who have canonically or otherwise traveled to modern Earth, like Elminster (citation needed), or through exploring the dreams of modern humans (citation needed). Add time travel (via Teleport Through Time or other means) to taste (citation needed).

Alternately, if the world could support a druidic version of Charles Darwin, I suppose someone could have independently simply *observed* this truth - if they can encounter sufficiently isolated locations with variant creatures clearly evolved to their environment, like Darwin did (citation needed). Does your GM have that level of world-building skills? If not, then this method simply isn't reasonable.

Next, you have this strange juxtapositioning of "hates tools, loves Constructs". Sure, I can *completely* envision Constructs as an evolution upgrade from mankind… however, at the same time, there are many who view Constructs as simple tools. Perhaps your character would view those as having a Slave Lord / slave relationship, and murderhobo them to death, hard?

As for whether there exists an existing druidic structure in place that would be willing to empower this particular evolution of druidic insanity? Um… citation needed?

[Aotrs Commander]

I think you're really reaching to try and be able to find way to play a mechanical druid only without the animal bits, either by this approach or the "hates all life" one, given it is the class that is specifically all about the animal bits.

Given how deeply stuff like Wild Shape (or any replacements) - until very high level there's not getting around you have to change into animals, which would go against what you want (even with Shapechange ACF) and the spell list (let alone class features) are ingrained with the base concept, I think you're really going to struggle to find an approach that matches what you want. (And also you have the animal companion issue as well. Sure, you can just not USE Wild Shape/Animal Companion/Wild Empathy etc, but at that point you've just got a spellcaster wearing hide armour and waving a scimitar about, and there's better ways to get that.)



Perhaps consider Archivist instead? It's not quite as combat-capable (they fall between druid and wizard in terms of that), but you get access (through the RAW, which was begrudingly supported, as I recall by the WotC's customer services despite being not what they intended it to be) to ALL divine spells, so provided you DM lets you buy scrolls, you can have all the druid, ranger AND domain spells you like. It also has much less of a defined flavour and you can much more easily spin it monster lore abilities into the sort of flavour you're going for.

Archivist has fewer hits and worse BAB, sure, but you also aren't restricted by armour (hell, if you wanted to burn a feat, you could tanl around in plate) and with access to ALL divine spells it's not hard to just find spells that don't require attack rolls.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
so i thought why not apply it here to try and remove one of my problems i have with druids.

If you hate everything that defines a druid, as you honestly seem to, why are you spending so much effort trying to twist the class into something it isn’t?

Originally Posted by FaerieGodfather
Honestly... the Druid class does nothing for you in terms of supporting this ideology.

…I would totally buy it as a legitimate character concept in D&D, and I would totally let you play it-- but Druid is the wrong starting point for you.

Originally Posted by Aotrs Commander
I think you're really reaching to try and be able to find way to play a mechanical druid only without the animal bits, either by this approach or the "hates all life" one, given it is the class that is specifically all about the animal bits.

So much all of this.

Originally Posted by Quertus
So, the first problem is the underlying concept of "evolution". This is more of a modern mindset, and isn't exactly something that one would expect D&D characters to understand (citation needed).

…you can ask the GM whether evolution even is a valid concept in that world, and whether it's possible for a Druid to understand it.

These are key points. Evolution might not even exist in a world with one or more pantheons of gods, and so anything predicated on that concept wouldn’t exist either.

You need to ask your DM about this, but if your table follows RAW as closely as you suggest, this may be another tough sell.

[Psyren]

Looking at this and your other thread - I think your ultimate goal is to be a druid without the "animal bits" as others stated above. In my mind this means replacing the animal companion and wild shape with something more thematically fitting.

Pathfinder has druid archetypes that do exactly this - you could even get these ported back to 3.5 to allow you to play your non-animal druid from level 1.These include archetypes like Elemental Ally, Fungal Pilgrim, Halcyon Druid, Tempest Tamer, Death Druid and Skinshaper.

[newguydude1]

I think you're really reaching to try and be able to find way to play a mechanical druid only without the animal bits, either by this approach or the "hates all life" one, given it is the class that is specifically all about the animal bits.

i know im reaching. thats why i said its ok to say no. but my other thread was also me reaching and it turned out to be valid so im throwing this out here too in hopes that it can turn valid too.

Given how deeply stuff like Wild Shape (or any replacements) - until very high level there's not getting around you have to change into animals, which would go against what you want (even with Shapechange ACF) and the spell list (let alone class features) are ingrained with the base concept, I think you're really going to struggle to find an approach that matches what you want. (And also you have the animal companion issue as well. Sure, you can just not USE Wild Shape/Animal Companion/Wild Empathy etc, but at that point you've just got a spellcaster wearing hide armour and waving a scimitar about, and there's better ways to get that.)



Perhaps consider Archivist instead? It's not quite as combat-capable (they fall between druid and wizard in terms of that), but you get access (through the RAW, which was begrudingly supported, as I recall by the WotC's customer services despite being not what they intended it to be) to ALL divine spells, so provided you DM lets you buy scrolls, you can have all the druid, ranger AND domain spells you like. It also has much less of a defined flavour and you can much more easily spin it monster lore abilities into the sort of flavour you're going for.

Archivist has fewer hits and worse BAB, sure, but you also aren't restricted by armour (hell, if you wanted to burn a feat, you could tanl around in plate) and with access to ALL divine spells it's not hard to just find spells that don't require attack rolls.

i just want to play a sorcerer or a wizard mindset with a druids tools. elemental wildshape. master of many forms. elemental animal companion.

my problem with druids is two things
1. animal bits.
2. against change. change is how things improve. a druid is likely gonna keep a boulder a boulder instead of carving it into a tool. so in the end the wizard creates super lifeforms like optimized epic creatures that can destroy all of the natural world including their own epic creatures while a druid would destroy anyone attempting to improve nature and completely stunt growth of humanity. or something like that.

so if i play a druid i have to go around killing wizards who want to create things like owlbears. i dont like that. owlbear makers are trying to improve nature. thats a good thing.

my first thread solved 1.
im trying to solve 2. with this thread. i know im reaching so its ok to say no. i already play cleric psion sorcerer and artificer. i just in the mood to play with elemental wildshape and elemental companion and master of many forms and stuff like that so im trying to force my ideal character motivation stuff onto a druid despite it not really fitting.

If you hate everything that defines a druid, as you honestly seem to, why are you spending so much effort trying to twist the class into something it isn’t?

i wanna play with their toys without playing someone i dont like roleplaying. elemental wildshape. master of many forms. elemental companion. stuff like that.

Next, you have this strange juxtapositioning of "hates tools, loves Constructs". Sure, I can *completely* envision Constructs as an evolution upgrade from mankind… however, at the same time, there are many who view Constructs as simple tools. Perhaps your character would view those as having a Slave Lord / slave relationship, and murderhobo them to death, hard?

i can change the hate tools part. that part is just there to justify me losing 24 hours of spellcasting if i wield a metal armor. roleplay gotta be represented mechanically too so i gotta come up with another reason she cant use metal stuff despite being totally ok with it idealogically.

... and you lost me. Constructs aren't "artificial lifeforms", because they are not lifeforms at all. Specifically, they do not have a lifecycle and they do not occupy any position within the food chain-- they are neither predators nor prey, they do not die and they do not nourish the soil. They do not reproduce, so they can not evolve.

thats not what i meant by lifeform.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...nicalLifeforms

Constructs are great! Constructs can do more work while consuming fewer resources than people and animals, meaning that a Civilization that employs them wisely can be more sustainable. Sentient Constructs can even become Druids, if they choose, though I think most conservative Circles should be prejudiced against them.

Constructs are not enemies of Nature, and can even be allies of Nature, but they can never be part of Nature.

evolution is nature. intelligence is a product of evolution. a creation of a superior race via intelligence is therefore also a product and the process of evolution. is the angle im going for like the aberration thing.

[Gavinfoxx]

Whoever told you Druids are against change is a damn dirty liar, and you should treat them as such.

Why not play a Progress-minded Druid who specifically is working toward a Solarpunk future? Perhaps one involving massive amounts of orbital rotating habitats and land-based arcologies and a planet with a sustainable population in the hundreds of billions while still having incredible biodiversity, massive amounts of space for people, huge amounts of untamed wilderness, and incredible quality of life? Really, given the various means of obtaining post-scarcity in D&D, it wouldn't even be hard.

Here you go:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

and

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

And just watch a bunch of Isaac Arthur and Kurzgesagt videos on youtube, you seem like you have some misunderstandings about science... stuff that might or might not be relevant to a D&D game, but is good to resolve anyway.

[FaerieGodfather]

thats not what i meant by lifeform.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...nicalLifeforms

I did actually understand what you meant, but it doesn't matter for the reasons I listed: Constructs may not be harmful to a living ecosystem, but they do not function as a part of it.

evolution is nature. intelligence is a product of evolution. a creation of a superior race via intelligence is therefore also a product and the process of evolution. is the angle im going for like the aberration thing.

I see the angle you're going for. It doesn't work. There is no part of the Druid's ethos or skillset that is compatible with either the ethos or the skillset you're trying to cultivate here. You admitted in the OP that you didn't like the Druid class and you thought it was stupid-- well, you're right. It is not going to do what you want it to do.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
my first thread solved 1.

I didn’t see anything solved in that thread.

Originally Posted newguydude1
evolution is nature.

Which you’ve told us you personally hate, in lurid detail, and you want to play a character who shares that hate.

But now you’re using it to support your concept, which seems selective at best, if not utterly inconsistent.

Originally Posted by newguydude1
so if i play a druid i have to go around killing wizards who want to create things like owlbears.

… a druid would destroy anyone attempting to improve nature and completely stunt growth of humanity. or something like that.

This is an absurdly distorted view of druids, and I have absolutely no idea where you’re getting any of this from.

Originally Posted by newguydude1
i just want to play a sorcerer or a wizard mindset with a druids tools.

Rather than trying to warp the druid class into something it was never meant to be, it might be more productive if you started another thread (preferably without the “rules”) to look for ways to add your desired elements to a wizard chassis.

That would be a lot simpler, and would involve much less conceptual dissonance, than trying to strip away the essence of a class to service a view not grounded in the lore regarding that class.

[Gavinfoxx]

Since you aren't keen on changing your understanding of either nature, science, or the canonical beliefs of d&d druids, why not play a Spirit Shaman?

[Psyren]

evolution is part of nature. all species do it. even ants and plants. human intelligence is also a product of evolution. so if humans decide to use their intelligence to create superior lifeforms, how is that different from evolution?

so my druid would revere artificial lifeforms like constructs. mindless ones are akin to soldier ants, bred for a specific purpose. sentient ones would be akin to true evolution. cause sentient robot is better than humans.

You made a bit of a leap here. I can understand your thought process on aberrant wild shape, but how did you get to constructs?

There is a type of druid that can wild shape into constructs (the urban druid) but they explicitly don't get their powers from nature:

Characteristics: Urban druids cast divine spells in the same way druids do, although they get their spells from the power of the city's spirit rather than from nature.

They are a separate class, so it's not straightforward to see how regular druids could revere constructs in this way.

[Saintheart]

So, the first problem is the underlying concept of "evolution". This is more of a modern mindset, and isn't exactly something that one would expect D&D characters to understand (citation needed). In fact, it might be blatantly wrong for any given campaign world (citation needed).

“I’m not surprised at Yennefer,’ he said as he walked. ‘She is a woman and thus an evolutionary inferior creature, governed by hormonal chaos. But you, Geralt, are not only a man who is sensible by nature, but also a mutant, invulnerable to emotions.’

--Vilgefortz of Roggeveen, some weird D&D campaign world.

I think they even had druids, albeit that was one setting where they actually let melee have Some Nice Things so long as they passed some pretty brutal fluff prerequisites.

[MicHag]

my druid also hates tools because i gotta have a reason to not use metal shields and armor. so my druid views fortresses, walls, swords, and such crutches for the inferior race, surviving off of trickery and deceit instead of physical biological superiority. and thus dislikes civilization. but once these things become sentient like animate objects or animate city, she then loves them because they are weaponized life forms "evolved" to be superior than their creator race at their specific tasks. in this case its combat

So an artificer starts creating a weapon. You hate that, you hate the weapon, you hate the tools the artificers uses to make it. The artificer then makes the weapon a sentient weapon. You suddenly love it! best thing in the world! This sounds strange to me.

...thread and makes it hard to read

If you are worried about your threads being hard to read, try using punctuation.

[King of Nowhere]

disclaimer: this thread is about my table and my table only. my table follows raw as closely as possible. so if you have no intention of talking about my table, raw, or help me, please dont derail the thread with your offtopic post.
rule1: dont derail the thread. dont post offtopic stuff. this is about my table and raw only. for example, if at your table you ignore the rules and do whatever you want based on what you believe to be "intent", please dont derail this thread by posting such nonsense as it has absolutely nothing to do with my table or raw.
[B]rule2: backup all statements pertaining to rules with rule citations.

You are asking for hard rules, but what exactly a druid worship is fluff.
Pure fluff.
there are, and there cannot be, hard rules about it. if someone actually made rules about it, then it's like the old class/race restrictions, restricting creativity and enforcing archetypes for no real reason.
It would be like asking "can I have a character that likes pies? please provide rule quotations"

[Malphegor]

I really do think the solution to all of this is play an Urban Druid for the construct wildshape and animated object companion and focus on that aspect over the wild nature in a city aspects

[Psyren]

“I’m not surprised at Yennefer,’ he said as he walked. ‘She is a woman and thus an evolutionary inferior creature, governed by hormonal chaos. But you, Geralt, are not only a man who is sensible by nature, but also a mutant, invulnerable to emotions.’

--Vilgefortz of Roggeveen, some weird D&D campaign world.

I think they even had druids, albeit that was one setting where they actually let melee have Some Nice Things so long as they passed some pretty brutal fluff prerequisites.

Pretty sure Witchers just use magic with their swordplay, and probably some alchemy. He's closer to a Magus or Duskblade than a fighter; if that's your standard for "nice things" then the existing D&D settings have those too.

I really do think the solution to all of this is play an Urban Druid for the construct wildshape and animated object companion and focus on that aspect over the wild nature in a city aspects

I agree this should get him closer to where he seems to want to be (which I read as "druid, but constructs!"), but I'll caveat that Urban Druid is not actually a Druid, both fluff and mechanically. Different spell list, different power source, different primary stat etc. It has various class features that work similarly, but it is at the end of the day a different class.

[Red Fel]

2. against change. change is how things improve. a druid is likely gonna keep a boulder a boulder instead of carving it into a tool. so in the end the wizard creates super lifeforms like optimized epic creatures that can destroy all of the natural world including their own epic creatures while a druid would destroy anyone attempting to improve nature and completely stunt growth of humanity. or something like that.

so if i play a druid i have to go around killing wizards who want to create things like owlbears. i dont like that. owlbear makers are trying to improve nature. thats a good thing.

I'm going to join in with others and say that I have no idea where this comes from.

Druids revere nature, full stop. That's basically the only part of the class fluff that's essential. How they do it can vary wildly. This Druid may destroy cities because he feels they hurt nature. That Druid may battle Wizards because she feels that arcane magic interferes with the natural world. These Druids may devote their lives to protecting this isolated glade from any mortal intrusion. It's all about mindset.

You say your mindset is evolution? Perfect. Nature is all about evolution, even if not all Druids know it by that name. Nature is, by its nature (sorry not sorry), dynamic. It changes. A rose bush doesn't remain in its shape forever; it grows and spreads, or wilts and dies. An ecosystem, a local climate, a population of animals or plants, the tides and the rains and the shade of the trees - they all change over time. That's natural, and therefore good. Change is good.

And what's wrong with tools? As people advance, they change, like nature. They evolve and adapt, like nature. They develop tools. Wolves have their fangs, raptors have their talons, and the intelligent races have their tools. That's natural too.

And then you have constructs. This is the problem, here. If you embrace constructs as the natural next step of tools, that's great, because it makes sense. Animals develop better natural defenses with times, the intelligent races develop better tools. Solid. If you embrace constructs because they're an unusual lifeform - living, but not living, part of the living world but apart from it - that's great, because it makes sense. Weird things are fascinating. Constructs aren't natural, but they're also not quite unnatural, either - not like, say, Undead. You could even argue, depending on how your setting handles constructs, that placing intelligence in a construct is the logical extension of replacing body parts with prosthetics or grafts - eventually, why not replace the whole thing? You could argue that this is therefore a natural extension of humanity's drive for self-improvement, again assuming that's how your setting handles constructs. (Cybermen, much?)

These are bases for a Druid - or at least, a lowercase-d druid-like character - to embrace constructs. They make sense. What doesn't make sense is looking at constructs and seeing any kind of natural evolution. Constructs do not occur naturally. As others have mentioned, they do not live, they are not born, they are not dynamic, and they do not propagate. In most senses, a construct is antithetical to the notion of evolution, because it can neither change nor pass on its changes.

If what you want is a construct-focused Druid, then I agree with everyone else - go Urban Druid and be done. Otherwise, I simply can't wrap my head around what you're trying to achieve with your character concept. And that's an issue of your pitch - you need to be able to communicate your character concept in order for your table to interact with them properly. If you can't do that much, you need to take a step back. If the people on this forum who are trying to pick apart your concept to help you can't quite get it, how do you think it will be for the people at your table who, frankly, shouldn't have to worry about your character?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
i know im reaching so its ok to say no.

You keep saying that, but even when everyone in the thread says no, you don’t seem to take it to heart.

Let’s go around the horn:

Originally Posted by Faerie Godfather
…the Druid class does nothing for you in terms of supporting this ideology….Druid is the wrong starting point for you.

Originally Posted by Quertus
As for whether there exists an existing druidic structure in place that would be willing to empower this particular evolution of druidic insanity? Um… citation needed?

Originally Posted by Palanan
Rather than trying to warp the druid class into something it was never meant to be, it might be more productive if you started another thread (preferably without the “rules”) to look for ways to add your desired elements to a wizard chassis.

Originally Posted by Psyren
There is a type of druid that can wild shape into constructs (the urban druid) but they explicitly don't get their powers from nature…. They are a separate class, so it's not straightforward to see how regular druids could revere constructs in this way.

And to perfectly sum it all up:

Originally Posted by Faerie Godfather
There is no part of the Druid's ethos or skillset that is compatible with either the ethos or the skillset you're trying to cultivate here. You admitted in the OP that you didn't like the Druid class and you thought it was stupid-- well, you're right. It is not going to do what you want it to do.

Also, everything Red Fel says, but especially this:

Originally Posted by Red Fel
If what you want is a construct-focused Druid, then I agree with everyone else - go Urban Druid and be done. Otherwise, I simply can't wrap my head around what you're trying to achieve with your character concept.

OP, what we’re trying to tell you is that by insisting on using the druid class, you have a character concept that’s essentially dividing by zero. It does not work.

And you should really, really take this to heart:

Originally Posted by Red Fel
…you need to take a step back. If the people on this forum who are trying to pick apart your concept to help you can't quite get it, how do you think it will be for the people at your table who, frankly, shouldn't have to worry about your character?

[newguydude1]

lets take this backwards.

goals
i want elemental wildshape elder
i want elemental companion
on a different druid i want to enter master of many forms and go all the way to the 10th level of it.
reason is because i like both master of many forms and elder elemental shape. i always wanted to try it in a game. seems fun and awesome.

other goals
i want to help other npcs advance, for a lack of a better word, technology. i want to help them make iron colossus. i want to make an iron colossus myself. i want to help them make some kind of super aberration monster like an artificial worm that walks or gibbering orb or whatever.
i want to help npcs who graft. like if they want to make a 20 armed creature stitched with arms of 20 different monsters, as long as its not undead i want to help them.
i want to cast awaken construct on the iron colossus, give it the best feat combination possible, and set it loose on the world. its gonna call my druid mommy.

problems
druid reverance of nature conflicts with metal constructs or unnatural things.
not going druid robs me of elemental wildshape elder, elemental companion, and entry into master of many forms.

what i dont want to do
keep natures cycle of death and life going. those things under other goals results in immortal superior beings.

solution????
give me something that works if evolution angle doesnt. if its possible. if its impossible then i guess thats that. i become sad and never play master of many forms or play with elemental wildshape.

This is an absurdly distorted view of druids, and I have absolutely no idea where you’re getting any of this from.

seriosuly?

wizard: im gonna fuse owl and bear to make owlbear!!!!
druid: you bastard. you are committing an unspeakable atrocitiy. how dare you defile nature with your perverted wizardry experiments!!! die!!!!

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
give me something that works if evolution angle doesnt.

We’ve tried. We’ve really, honestly tried.

Originally Posted by Faerie Godfather
I would start by making a hybrid class out of Artificer and Soulknife, and then point you in the direction of some of the Prestige Classes that turn the character into Living Constructs.

Originally Posted by Aotrs Commander
Perhaps consider Archivist instead?

Originally Posted by Palanan
…it might be more productive if you started another thread (preferably without the “rules”) to look for ways to add your desired elements to a wizard chassis.

Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx
…why not play a Spirit Shaman?

Originally Posted by Malphegor
I really do think the solution to all of this is play an Urban Druid for the construct wildshape and animated object companion and focus on that aspect over the wild nature in a city aspects.

Originally Posted by Red Fel
If what you want is a construct-focused Druid, then I agree with everyone else - go Urban Druid and be done.

We have given you options to spare, but you don’t seem interested in considering anything we suggest.

At this point there’s no reason to say anything more.

[newguydude1]

We’ve tried. We’ve really, honestly tried.

We have given you options to spare, but you don’t seem interested in considering anything we suggest.

At this point there’s no reason to say anything more.

not going druid robs me of elemental wildshape elder, elemental companion, and entry into master of many forms.

does any of those options solve this problem?

perhaps theres no reason for at least you to say anything more. i get it. you are someone who thinks druids must love plants. there is nothing that will change your mind. and all you're doing is brow beating this to me when everything you say has nothing to do with what im trying to do. which is sorcerer or wizard mindset with druid toys specifically elemental wildshape, elemental comapnion, and master of many forms. how many times have i repeated that i want to try these three things out to you and yet you keep saying other classes that cant use these.'

i say i want to use these three things in my next character. you spew some other class that doesnt have them.
i say i want to use these three things in my next character. you spew some other class i dont care about
i again i say i want to use these three things in my next character. again you brow beat some other class that doesnt have them and therefore i dont care about.
what part of i want to use elemental wildshape do you not understand????????????? how many more times do i have to repeat that i want to use elemental wildshape???????

if your not gonna help me try to get a construct loving character with elemental wildshape and master of many forms then yes, there is no reason for you to say anymore.

[Psyren]

seriosuly?

wizard: im gonna fuse owl and bear to make owlbear!!!!
druid: you bastard. you are committing an unspeakable atrocitiy. how dare you defile nature with your perverted wizardry experiments!!! die!!!!

How do you know this didn't happen?

The guy who made owlbears isn't around anymore after all.

[newguydude1]

How do you know this didn't happen?

The guy who made owlbears isn't around anymore after all.

whether it happened or not is not the important part. the important part is i dont want to be the guy who gets mad at guys who make owlbears.

[Nifft]

whether it happened or not is not the important part. the important part is i dont want to be the guy who gets mad at guys who make owlbears.

Maybe I missed something...

Did someone in this thread say that you have to get mad about owlbears?

[Psyren]

if your not gonna help me try to get a construct loving character with elemental wildshape and master of many forms then yes, there is no reason for you to say anymore.

Given that an Urban Druid's Urban Shape "functions identically to wild shape except the list of forms is more specialized" - couldn't it be used to qualify for PrCs and feats that require wild shape? Your GM should be able to okay using it for Master of Many Forms, and that solves your problems.

[Draconi Redfir]

this might be the kind of thing that can only be talked about with the DM of the game. or by finding and replacing. Maybe you can look around normal animal companions, find one that has stats that are similar to the elemental companion you want, and then see if the DM will allow you to substitute the animal for the elemental instead?

[newguydude1]

Given that an Urban Druid's Urban Shape "functions identically to wild shape except the list of forms is more specialized" - couldn't it be used to qualify for PrCs and feats that require wild shape? Your GM should be able to okay using it for Master of Many Forms, and that solves your problems.

ok dragon compendium might be allowed in my dms game. dragon magazine is a definite no.
he is gonna want rules or examples of "functions like something" qualifying for prerequisites. but i suspect hes gonna bring up artificers infusions and psionic powers functioning like spells and then how they cant be used as prerequisites. so thats probably a no.

momf is one of what i want to try out. elemental elder wildshape is the other.

edit: nope. he says dragon compendium is official 3rd party. urban druid is out so the other debate doesnt need to come up.