I've been monitoring the views to each post I've made the past few years and learned a few things. First off, it seems that people are most confused with Initiative and Surprise in AD&D. This makes sense, since it was a poorly explained concept in the DMG. The other posts that got the most interest were in the rules that were omitted from the game, or those that saw little use due to how complicated they were. In this case, I'm referring to recharging magic items and unarmed combat, respectively. The final most popular categories were regarding D&D (Moldvay specifically) with regards to the Companion Rules that were never published and how alignment/cosmology in D&D is viewed with only 3 alignments.
I hope to keep providing my readers with more of what they need in the future. Since the initiative and surprise postings were so popular I might try some more examples using the characters from the convention modules, perhaps with some illustrations as well.
My research into older forms of the D&D game has given me new insights on how the current rules came about, and brought up more questions about why some rules were inserted. For instance, the DUNGEON Boardgame is just a simplified version of the original D&D "to hit" mechanic. Two dice (2d6) were rolled and compared to a chart of numbers based on what a particular HERO, SUPERHERO, or WIZARD required to hit a certain monster. These charts are almost directly from the CHAINMAIL rulebook which preceded the d20 mechanic. The ELF, having bonuses against certain creature types, was kept separate since the chart was slightly different. Having never looked at CHAINMAIL before reading the OD&D booklets, I still managed to grasp the concept since DUNGEON was my intro into the world of D&D. Surprise and Complete Surprise, two concepts that baffled me after reading through the DMG, were found in Eldritch Wizardry, a later supplement to the OD&D game. Without do this research, all these rules may still have confused me!
I want to teach as many other players the glory of Old School D&D as I can before leaving this earth. I've only been able to instruct a few of the younger generation, but the older generations I play with have embraced these rules easily! Few people my age still play D&D Old School, preferring to advance with the more complicated modern rules; few of those people have ever DMed a game themselves and don't realize the effort required to prepare a good adventure.
So I will end this posting with this: if you have a portion of the rules that you're struggling to understand and want me to elucidate or give examples, please leave a comment and I will try my best to get to it as soon as possible.
Monday, January 9, 2017
D&D Musings: The Druid
HAPPY NEW YEAR! It's been a few months since I've posted...sorry about that. Truth be told, we haven't played much in that time and I've been looking over the reams of material sitting on my shelves.
THE DRUID
With its beginnings as nothing more than a cleric/magic-user monster in the pages of GREYHAWK Supplement I, the class has evolved into a myriad of forms - almost as many as the animal forms a druid can assume! However, the basics of the class have it as a nature priest. Also, I want to adapt that version to the Moldvay D&D Rules as a Companion-style addition. I've read the Mentzer version and I think it lacks vision based on what the class was when designed. It took away all the priestly powers and left the class under-powered and restricted.
The version I want to create is less of an AD&D druid and more of a Neutral Cleric with powers and restrictions based on faith. In that vein, I would restrict the druid to leather armor only, use of shields (assumed to be wooden in any case), and wooden/stone weapons, plus a dagger! All of the materials used in the creation of these weapons will necessarily be primitive (flint axes, obsidian blades, etc.) and likely cause a bit less damage as a result (maybe -1 damage). Obviously, blades of metal would NOT be used by the druid, so the iconic scimitar is no longer an option. The druid is a Cleric, first and foremost, and thus should not be an "offensive" character, but should play a more defensive and supportive role. In classical times, druids were the lorekeepers, judges, and priests/shamans of their tribes, supporting the chieftains and helping to keep order and balance. A druid is, in fact, more of a shaman in that they were the go-between for the people when dealing with the natural world.
The spells of the Druid would be more akin to those dealing with nature and the elements. Should they have their own list? I'm not so sure. Some of the Cleric spells should be kept, and many of these already deal with animals and plants. However, there are some that make no sense for a Neutral cleric of nature to be able to cast. Some subtle differences can make more of a role-playing effect than a game mechanic change. For instance, perhaps the Light spell illuminates an area in bright moonlight, while a Continual Light spell creates the effect of a bright sunbeam. Darkness can be represented by an eclipse of a light source, or as the fall of night (complete with stars if under under a moonless sky). The effects are the same - just the description is different. The loss of Turning means that a Druid is less effective than a Cleric of the same level. However, replacing this with some minor detection abilities seems not enough. Perhaps giving the druid the ability to affect animal reactions (a modified Charm Monster that only affects natural animals) at the 1st level is the way to make this work. The charm would only remain in effect so long as the druid is present, and the animal will respond only to the druid based on a Reaction Roll - otherwise it reacts as a normal animal of its kind. Instead of allowing the shapechange ability, the spell Polymorph Self should be on the druid's list of spells, with the restriction that only animal forms may be taken. This ability seems more in line with what was originally construed as a Cleric/Magic-User.
Now, I am in favor of adding in some of the iconic druid spells from OD&D such as entangle, faerie fire, produce flame, conjure fire elemental, etc. Why don't Clerics have access to these spells? Because they were developed by Druids and are only written in Druidic! The secret language of the Druids thus has a use - it is used to write their spells on scrolls and to teach the faithful! Other languages learned by Druids would include Elvish, Centaur, Satyr, Dryad, Sprite, Pixie, Treant, Green Dragon, and Hill Giant - all those languages spoken by inhabitants of the deep forests and/or friends of Man.
The other details of the class would be as Cleric: no spells until 2nd level, using the spell chart for Clerics, the XP, prime requisites, and HD of the cleric, and attack and saving throw matrices as well. I think that Druids should receive a +2 save bonus against nature-oriented spells (including those cast by other Druids) and natural charms (as by faerie folk). A druid must remain Neutral in alignment - any change, intentional or not, means a loss of all spells and other abilities until atonement is made (usually in the form of a Quest placed upon them by Nature or whatever deity of nature they worship, during which time they have no abilities other than that of a basic cleric minus Turning).
I think this version of the Druid is playable, certainly from 1st level, and may even make more sense than those in later versions. I would have to playtest it to see how it plays out. Sub-classes should be more a role-playing decision than an actual new class, in my opinion. I might also argue that each religion should have its own restrictions and requirements - a god of knowledge or magic, for example, should have clerics who wear no armor, are not trained in weapons, but have access to some magic-user spells in addition to cleric spells. A god of peace would not allow its clerics to wield weapons in combat, and may not allow them the use of armor either. Such clerics should be compensated in some way with a special ability. For instance, perhaps anyone who strikes a cleric of a peaceful god is cursed, or they must make a saving throw vs. spells in order to attack them (like a continual Sanctuary effect from AD&D). Perhaps such priests can cast Protection from Evil with double the normal effect, strength, or duration. It all depends on how detailed a DM wants to get with his world. The Druid is a good example of how to make Neutral clerics different from Lawful clerics and Chaotic Anti-clerics.
THE DRUID
With its beginnings as nothing more than a cleric/magic-user monster in the pages of GREYHAWK Supplement I, the class has evolved into a myriad of forms - almost as many as the animal forms a druid can assume! However, the basics of the class have it as a nature priest. Also, I want to adapt that version to the Moldvay D&D Rules as a Companion-style addition. I've read the Mentzer version and I think it lacks vision based on what the class was when designed. It took away all the priestly powers and left the class under-powered and restricted.
The version I want to create is less of an AD&D druid and more of a Neutral Cleric with powers and restrictions based on faith. In that vein, I would restrict the druid to leather armor only, use of shields (assumed to be wooden in any case), and wooden/stone weapons, plus a dagger! All of the materials used in the creation of these weapons will necessarily be primitive (flint axes, obsidian blades, etc.) and likely cause a bit less damage as a result (maybe -1 damage). Obviously, blades of metal would NOT be used by the druid, so the iconic scimitar is no longer an option. The druid is a Cleric, first and foremost, and thus should not be an "offensive" character, but should play a more defensive and supportive role. In classical times, druids were the lorekeepers, judges, and priests/shamans of their tribes, supporting the chieftains and helping to keep order and balance. A druid is, in fact, more of a shaman in that they were the go-between for the people when dealing with the natural world.
The spells of the Druid would be more akin to those dealing with nature and the elements. Should they have their own list? I'm not so sure. Some of the Cleric spells should be kept, and many of these already deal with animals and plants. However, there are some that make no sense for a Neutral cleric of nature to be able to cast. Some subtle differences can make more of a role-playing effect than a game mechanic change. For instance, perhaps the Light spell illuminates an area in bright moonlight, while a Continual Light spell creates the effect of a bright sunbeam. Darkness can be represented by an eclipse of a light source, or as the fall of night (complete with stars if under under a moonless sky). The effects are the same - just the description is different. The loss of Turning means that a Druid is less effective than a Cleric of the same level. However, replacing this with some minor detection abilities seems not enough. Perhaps giving the druid the ability to affect animal reactions (a modified Charm Monster that only affects natural animals) at the 1st level is the way to make this work. The charm would only remain in effect so long as the druid is present, and the animal will respond only to the druid based on a Reaction Roll - otherwise it reacts as a normal animal of its kind. Instead of allowing the shapechange ability, the spell Polymorph Self should be on the druid's list of spells, with the restriction that only animal forms may be taken. This ability seems more in line with what was originally construed as a Cleric/Magic-User.
Now, I am in favor of adding in some of the iconic druid spells from OD&D such as entangle, faerie fire, produce flame, conjure fire elemental, etc. Why don't Clerics have access to these spells? Because they were developed by Druids and are only written in Druidic! The secret language of the Druids thus has a use - it is used to write their spells on scrolls and to teach the faithful! Other languages learned by Druids would include Elvish, Centaur, Satyr, Dryad, Sprite, Pixie, Treant, Green Dragon, and Hill Giant - all those languages spoken by inhabitants of the deep forests and/or friends of Man.
The other details of the class would be as Cleric: no spells until 2nd level, using the spell chart for Clerics, the XP, prime requisites, and HD of the cleric, and attack and saving throw matrices as well. I think that Druids should receive a +2 save bonus against nature-oriented spells (including those cast by other Druids) and natural charms (as by faerie folk). A druid must remain Neutral in alignment - any change, intentional or not, means a loss of all spells and other abilities until atonement is made (usually in the form of a Quest placed upon them by Nature or whatever deity of nature they worship, during which time they have no abilities other than that of a basic cleric minus Turning).
I think this version of the Druid is playable, certainly from 1st level, and may even make more sense than those in later versions. I would have to playtest it to see how it plays out. Sub-classes should be more a role-playing decision than an actual new class, in my opinion. I might also argue that each religion should have its own restrictions and requirements - a god of knowledge or magic, for example, should have clerics who wear no armor, are not trained in weapons, but have access to some magic-user spells in addition to cleric spells. A god of peace would not allow its clerics to wield weapons in combat, and may not allow them the use of armor either. Such clerics should be compensated in some way with a special ability. For instance, perhaps anyone who strikes a cleric of a peaceful god is cursed, or they must make a saving throw vs. spells in order to attack them (like a continual Sanctuary effect from AD&D). Perhaps such priests can cast Protection from Evil with double the normal effect, strength, or duration. It all depends on how detailed a DM wants to get with his world. The Druid is a good example of how to make Neutral clerics different from Lawful clerics and Chaotic Anti-clerics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)