Skip to content

What is the deal with the huge gap in power between Druid levels 14 to 15?

2»

Comments

  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    I agree that that seems to be the intended interpretation, @AHF, but if that's true, then neutral (at least druidic neutral) might just be good with more foresight. I have trouble saying someone ceases to be good because they're looking at the bigger picture. Although, as @Pibaro notes, it's entirely plausible that the alignment system simply isn't measuring a reasonable definition of "good" and "evil".
  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    Jarrakul said:

    I agree that that seems to be the intended interpretation, @AHF, but if that's true, then neutral (at least druidic neutral) might just be good with more foresight. I have trouble saying someone ceases to be good because they're looking at the bigger picture. Although, as @Pibaro notes, it's entirely plausible that the alignment system simply isn't measuring a reasonable definition of "good" and "evil".

    I think that 2nd Edition is trying to impose an objective view of morality rather than a subject one. You can make a great subjective morality case or big picture case for why "greed is good" but those just don't fly in 2nd Edition D&D alignment.
  • GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
    What happens for a druid who is not part of any order? Someone who picks it up himself, or who is trained and then wanders off away from the politics of the druid orders? Does he just...stop leveling up at a certain point? Or can he continue leveling up by breaking out of the political system?
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    I think that in 2nd Ed Druids was fairly constricted lorewise, so maybe he wouldn't be allowed to advance. Unless he was some kind of special kitted Solo Druid or something, maybe. Depending on the gm, of course.
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    Honestly, 2nd Edition was weird about stuff like that. Like, at a certain level, fighters got a castle. Why? Because they're lords now. Just, you know, because. It was both kind of cool and very, very strange.
  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    Jarrakul said:

    Honestly, 2nd Edition was weird about stuff like that. Like, at a certain level, fighters got a castle. Why? Because they're lords now. Just, you know, because. It was both kind of cool and very, very strange.

    Less strange if you have a good DM who weaves that development into the story. If the DM has the castle pop out of thin air without context, that would indeed be very strange!
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    Now, now, this is second edition. There is no reflex save. I wonder what type of effect a falling castle would be? Petrification? Breath Weapon? Maybe it'd just be a Dex check.

    Seriously, though, my point was more that second edition demanded that social progression be intertwined with level progression for some classes, including fighters and druids. Whether or not your DM introduces this progression in a way that makes sense, the mere fact that the two are necessarily tied together is pretty bizarre, imo.
Sign In or Register to comment.