Kensai -> Druid

[ister]

I am absolutely sure that Jahiera can weild the Yamato and cannot wield the wakizashi and ninja-to that you find at the start. I had assumed that Yamato was a scimitar since she can weild it, but I guess I didn't read the description. And I di have baldurdash installed.

So it's a bug. Either Yamato is supposed to be a scimitar or druids are not supposed to be able to use it.

Gimli, why are you shorting constitution to get strength for your dwarf? You can use potions and items to get your strength up, but you'll have to live with crappy constitution forever. Just take enough strength to get out of CI (which isn't much if you go for an unarmoured kensai), and sort out your strength problems when you get out.

[Gimli]

Hey ister - well it has to be a human first of all (the kensai -> druid that is, I also made a dwarven berserker whose Con is 19 but that character is waaay easier to roll up), and if my Str were to be less than 15 naturally I would not be allowed to dual over from kensai to druid in the first place. So say I did lower my Str to 15, that only gives me 3 points for Con which won't give me any bonuses (I'd go from 9 to 12). I guess if I were more of a power-gamer and less of a role-player I could just drop Int to a 3 but to me that is cheesy. I could re-roll I guess, but the stats I got already had a 90 point roll which is not too shabby at all (and the 80 for exceptional Str is good as well), and I would need at least 6 more points to get Con up to where I would get any meaningful bonuses from it. Is a 96 point roll even possible?

[ 06-29-2005, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: Gimli ]

[mad=dog]

------- some spoilers below -
-
-
-

I didn't catch the follow up on the druid/drizzt ordeal. I am not attempting to capture the thread, but allow me to revitalize this issue.

In BG1 you would fight him because he is clearly at an unfair advantage and slaughtering the gnolls needlessly. He could simply leave them be as he could clearly outrun them. Remember that a druids ambition is not to vanquish all those nasty evil gnolls. According to a druid gnolls are also part of natures balance.

This does not mean that a druid would refrain from fighting in ToB. The giants are clearly overpowering the Saradush defenses so it is a natural thing for a druid to side with the citizens. Also a druid will not refrain from defending him-/herself if attacked unless there are special considerations. E.g. in the ToB grove you would fight the undead (druids ALWAYS fight undead), but later on after you return with the heart a druid would probably choose a subdue and retreat strategy to avoid killing even more woodland spirits in an allready deprived grove.

This is only a personal opinion on how druids can be roleplayed.

[ 06-29-2005, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]

[ZFR]

Originally posted by mad=dog: This is only a personal opinion on how druids can be roleplayed.

I'm glad you wrote can.

What many people forget when roleplaying is that you should not focus on your class/race/alignement/sex when making a decision. Sure these are what could guide you but ultimately it is your person that matters. While class/race/alignement/sex is fundamental, it is your experience (and I dont mean XP) that creates your personality. What you saw, how were you brought up, your tiny prejudices, and your general feelings, tendencies and habits and also spontaneous feeling of the moment is the basis of your decision-making.

That's why one male half-elf neutral-good fighter could react in a completely opposite way to a particular situation than another male half-elf neutral-good fighter.

When roleplaying a male half-elf neutral-good fighter called Bob and facing a decision dont ask " what would male half-elf neutral-good fighter do?" but "what would Bob do?"

Just like in real life. It's stupid to assume that John who is a medic/lawyer/student/unemployed would react in this way to that particular situation because all medic/lawyer/student/unemployed's would react that way.

When a druid is faced with a Drizzt/gnoll situation (s)he would not base his/her actions on being a druid or not but rather on does (s)he like gnolls in general? has (s)he seen a drow before? Has (s)he heard of drow? Has (s)he heard of Drizzt? Does (s)he like Drizzt? Does (s)he have to protect wood from drow/gnoll on a regular basis? Did his/her parents' scare him/her with drow/gnolls when (s)he was young? Does (s)he think furry creatures are cute? Is (s)he in a good mood today because his/her paycheck arrived? does (s)he generally resort to killing? Is (s)he just mad about soemthing and wants to realese his/her anger at someone? Is she having her periods?... etc etc etc

Edit-
and sorry Gimli for using up your thread for this

[ 06-29-2005, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: ZFR ]

[mad=dog]

The harm is done! I cannot resist replying!
The list of suggested actions is a mindset of a druid who would fight Drizzt. Like you say class archetypes are not a very good foundation for roleplaying. The trigger was that someone could not see that a druid could choose to fight Drizzt and that is the basis of my reply. Something I did not clarify and my pardons for that.
I would go even further than you. Classes do not compare to medic, lawyer etc. They would compare to scientist, labourer and so on. A class should not be confused with a vocation. To use your NG ranger from before there is a great difference between one who is captain of the Kings bowmen and one who is a hunter in the mountains. Ranger is the class, not the job so to speak.

[Gimli]

Heh, no harm done, discussing roleplaying instead of powergaming is a nice change. I still can't see a Druid wanting to kill Drizzt unless there was no other choice, to me it would be a "use the flat of the blade" situation where the Druid might try to incapacitate him, but to kill him seems excessive (especially over some Gnolls). And to kill him to get 2 cool scimitars is definitely over the top

[Dundee Slaytern]

"It's a Drow! Kill it!"

[SixOfSpades]

Originally posted by mad=dog: I believe the original idea is "any weapon with sickle shaped blade" since this is a sacred thing for druids. In the most fundamental rules this would be sickles and scimitars, but since the weapon list have expanded it would also include the aforementioned weapons and katanas for that matter. In short terms the druid restriction on swords is based on the shape of the blade and not on a cultural name.

Since the 'sickle' comparison only works if one disregards which edge of the blade is sharp, I must say that it feels rather hollow. Especially when one considers Daggers. You seem to be very versed in PnP D&D lore, mad=dog, so could you share with us the exact lowdown on precisely what the Druid ethos has to say about weapons?

Personally, I prefer to look to ancient English history, to the actual Druids themselves, and the fair folk who came before them. The fair folk abhorred the touch, presence, and even sight of iron--which goes a long way to support Baldur's Gate Druids (and Beast Masters) being unwilling to use things like warhammers, plate armor, crossbows, etc. Daggers and spears, however, are allowed, as the edge itself need not be metal at all: It can be made of such things as flint, obsidian, bone, or antler. So, this restriction would argue that Druids shouldn't even be using Scimitars, but that they should be allowed to use Bows & Arrows.
There is also the rule mentioned in C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength: Druids are not allowed to use any edged tool to cut any living thing. So a Druid could work as a butcher, using all the hooks, cleavers and meat-axes he wants, but he can't dig with a shovel for fear of cutting any worms or roots. This restriction would also rule out Scimitars (but allow all types of armor, as well as all Cleric weapons), but since Daggers and Spears do Piercing damage rather than Slashing, I don't know if they would strictly be allowed or not.

[mad=dog]

In basic D&D the rule is as simple as you put it - no metal allowed at all.

Before me move on we have to remember that the names put on things are names of convinience. They do not speak English in Amn and would most likely not use the word "scimitar" at all. We have simply adopted some real life names of familiarity to assist us in description. So druid does not mean British druid, but "anyone who worships and draws power from nature".

Sadly the rules are not explicit on this point. They hardly ever are in AD&D. You have to figure out the reasoning yourself. The weapons allowed are Club, Dart, Spear, Sickle, Dagger, Scimitar, Sling and Staff. However there is no mention as to why these weapons are chosen over others. The Complete Druids Handbook does not provide any clarification either.

My reasoning is that a sickle is a sacred blade to AD&D druids. I quote from the Ethos paragraph
"Mistletoe is an important holy symbol to druids and it is a necessary part of some spells (those requiring a holy symbol). To be fully effective, the mistletoe must be gathered by light of the full moon using a golden or silver sickle specially made for the purpose."

However this does not account for scimitars. Thus I have always thought it to be reasonable to adopt the "any crescent blade is allowed, but any straight blade is forbidden" rule. When you add a new weapon to the list you have to decide if each class dependant subset should include or exclude the weapon in question.

(If you say that a druid could just use a curved longsword, I'd say that any curved longsword would be termed a scimitar)

[el_kalkylus]

I was playing around with my Totemic druid (mostly because I never did the druid quests. Romancing Jaheira with druid is nice, and having a leader with high charisma). After a while, I wished I had a fighter/druid class instead. However, I do like those spiritual helpers. If I would have gone the fighter --> druid route, I'd like him to use a quarterstaff.

[ 06-30-2005, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: el_kalkylus ]