I wonder if it’s possible to change the Druid class description to include druids who worship Ruornil. I can’t do that unless all the BR developers agree.
As in change the BRCS description? Or just to add a link to the Moon Druid on the BRCS druid wiki page (which there already is, as well as links to various other alternative non-BRCS types of druids)?
If you want the first, I think you’ll need to demonstrate that it was an alternate that was part of the original design of Birthright or that the game is severely lacking without it. Personally, I don’t think that it fits in the BRCS but it is a good “unofficial” alternate. I have always been more worried about the source of magic for BRCS rangers, than the source for druids.
My advice is to think of Cerilian druids as clerics of Erik who do things a bit differently to other Gods’ clerics, hence they get a new class. I say this because I fear that some people are taking the class then trying to change the backstory rather than the other way round.
Sorontar
Player of Brokk Beokson, Druid 13, Regent of Spiderfell (AD&D II)
I always felt that the designers made an error in using the name ‘druid’ - it hit too many pre-conceptions about tree-huggers and seriously undermined the faith of Erik in the highlands.
Personally I’d allow Ruornil’s clerics to be druids, and also Kriesha’s - both of them have strong ‘nature’ links to their portfolio via the mebhaighl=life perception or the ‘winter is part of nature’ argument.
At 01:06 PM 2/10/2011, AndrewTall wrote:
>I always felt that the designers made an error in using the name
>druid - it hit too many pre-conceptions about tree-huggers and
>seriously undermined the faith of Erik in the highlands.
Agreed. Its understandable given the materials, but most folks forget that druids were "specialty priests" in 2e and associate the worship of Erik too closely with what was a more general, pantheistic/nature emphasis of druids. It probably makes more sense to think of Eriks priesthood as being specialty druids to start with
and then think about how such an approach might influence Ruornil`s.
Personally I
d allow Ruornils clerics to be druids, and also
Krieshas - both of them have strongnaturelinks to their >portfolio via the mebhaighl=life perception or thewinter is part
of nature` argument.
Agreed again. The big deal with the priesthood is really the class
features. Druids are, in some ways, too generalized for Erik,
Ruornil or (as you point out, even) Kreishas. The others are a bit of a stretch to make really "druidic" but "nature" fits here and there, though. One could even make an argument that certain aspects of Avanis priesthood could justify some sort of “nature” power that
is normally associated only with druids in D&D.
Further, I think even Eriks priesthood should get a few more tweaks to make them more specialized. Their power to change shape should be limited to animals associated with their god. (ie. not a dolphin or a lizard....) Its probably worth going over their spell list to
make sure nothing really inappropriate is in there.
Gary
Yes, perhaps the case can be made that Eric’s Priests “Druids” should be specialized more. Perhaps giving him clerics with certain domains.
edit: Actually, that’s already been done. Sorry.
What I mean is it would probably make more sense if we defined Erik’s druids to be able to do certain things. Make them more specialized, like Gary suggested.
The AD&DII Birthright added specialities depending on what temple the druid was associated with. Hence, the Oaken Grove had different NWP preferences to the Emerald Spiral. But both had the animalistic form aspect and the same spelllist. Since I presume you are both are talking D&D3e, would you make a similar distinction between the churches of Erik, or just between druids of different gods?
Also, how would all this fit into the concept of a ranger? Should they too be flexible? Should there be a moon ranger and a dark ranger? Should the ranger be changed so it is particular to a god?
I’m not saying that this isn’t something to discuss. I am just trying to point out that there are lots of ways this can be extended, and you may end up with something that doesn’t resemble AD&DII Birthright at all. Hence, I am tentative to discuss whether it should be “canon” until the discussion ends.
Sorontar
At 05:44 PM 2/10/2011, Sorontar wrote:
>The AD&DII Birthright added specialities depending on what temple
>the druid was associated with. Hence, the Oaken Grove had different
>NWP preferences to the Emerald Spiral. But both had the animalistic
>form aspect and the same spelllist. Since I presume you are both are
>talking D&D3e, would you make a similar distinction between the
>churches of Erik, or just between druids of different gods?
Personally, I wouldn`t NECESSARILY make a definitive break between OG
and ES druids, because I think differentiating the priesthoods for
each god is enough, but I can certainly see the argument that they
should have some differences, so if someone had a sensible
suggestion… In 3e, I would make that relatively simple. Access
to a special feat, or an additional class skill here and there.
Also, how would all this fit into the concept of a ranger? Should
they too be flexible? Should there be a moon ranger and a dark
ranger? Should the ranger be changed so it is particular to a god?
I`ve long argued that there should a be a paladin of Rournil. Such a
character class would have a ranger quality or three. Similarly, an
“anti-paladin” who follows one of the evil gods (maybe even Azrai…)
would be sensible, and such a class might have a ranger power.
However, I dont think that means rangers need necessarily be specialized in the way that clerics are. Unlike clerics and paladins, rangers arent necessarily dedicated to a particular god in
the canon. 2e had a generalized cleric class that didnt need to have any particular deity, and then specialized priests who were more specifically oriented, and Id argue taht because all the BR priest
are specialty priests, we can see that as a thematic basis for the
setting. Since they already had a 2e druid specialty priest that
more or less worked for their “most natural” nature god, it follows
that they would just go with that character class to save a little
time and brain juice. They didnt go with it EXACTLY, though. Theres none of that druidical hierarchy and internal combat
system that existed in the old rules (though they did cap the
character levels NPCs at appropriate points leaving that option
open.) So, on the whole, I`d argue that they already did specialize
that class away from the 2e version a bit…
Gary
Well, this is precisely what we have the wiki for. :^) Why don’t you put your ideas of what these class variants are on the wiki, then we can discuss them. Even if not everyone likes them then they will be available for others.
Sorontar
Hi everybody it’s been a while.
Druids are cool as priests of Erik, or druids of Ruonil (Lirorn in Hjorig, or Lirovka in Vosgaard), Kriesha (female, evil, man and civilization hating ice witches), or as those slightly more atheistic a druid worshiping nature it self. In some of the source books we have many things suggesting that. We have temple named Seras perfect symmetry(HotGB), rangers in Ruornils silver guard(HotGB), Nomadic rjurick clans leaving in realm of the witch dominated by the witches of Kriestal(RH), Tor of Lirrorn in Hjorig and Wolfgaard(HotGB, ToHW) not mention the priests in halfling realm of burows, or some powerful awn/ersh-eghliens granting spells.
My opinion is that, we can call it as we want and consider its source of power, but ranger while still be a ranger, he will have same class abilities, may be with some custom made spells, or custom made feats…