Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I do not allow Animal Friendship to be used to create an animal army. The DMG adds "The spell will only function if the druid actually wishes to be the animals' friend. If the druid has ulterior motives, the animals will always sense it." Using the animals as fodder strikes me as an ulterior motive. Also, I wouldn't allow animal friendship, a 1st level spell, to grant more control than Charm Person Or Mammal, a 2nd level spell, and the spell is pretty clear in stating that the spell does not create mindless automatons, it just changes the disposition of the subject in regards to the caster. I think the animals would defend the druid if he were to be attacked, but I wouldn't have them following him into dungeons, etc. as adventuring companions or fodder. Even call woodland beings, a 4th level spell, requires a loyalty check if the druid asks them to engage in combat.
Animal Summoning spells are the only spells I would consider as legit options for added combat muscle.

Odd, as an adventuring druid's other friends brave dangers & combat, and they aren't just mindless automatons or cannon fodder. They are PC's & NPC's.

Sure, one can make a judgement call, but automatically discounting the spell, or automatically being suspect of motives, is bullshit/a crock.

Falconer wrote:Right, the spell simply speaks of tricks.

I guess that's why later editions spelled it out in gory detail what is what...for grognards that go to nerf mode as a reflex

Comparing simple animals to player characters in terms of what they will do, or even non-player characters, is weak sauce. Literally apples and oranges.

Later editions bumped up power on some things, nerfed others. Fireball and lightning bolt, for example. I don't really depend on later edition interpretation for anything. That's just what Zeb thought was "better".

Note that I don't think anyone here is saying that the way you interpret the spell is out of bounds. You're the one saying the druid is borked, far outshining other classes in power, and offering up Animal Friendship as an example of low-level druid spells that are extremely flexible and powerful.

We're just providing you with defensible interpretations that address a problem you perceive, but most of us don't consider an issue.

Grognard indeed.

genghisdon wrote:I guess that's why later editions spelled it out in gory detail what is what...for grognards that go to nerf mode as a reflex

Alright, pal, the late Jerry Mapes set up this board so as to avoid EXACTLY that sort of post, so since you seem to have trouble playing by the rules, I’ll keep it simple: One more post on Knights & Knaves mentioning 2e or B/X, and you’re banned.

EOTB wrote:Comparing simple animals to player characters in terms of what they will do, or even non-player characters, is weak sauce. Literally apples and oranges.

Just saying that one can adventure with friends, a bear or wolf can be valued as a human fighter or ranger could be, they aren't automatically assumed to be tools/used in machiavellian fashion by default.

Comparing simple (wild) animals would be weak sauce, but we are talking about magic/spells, and not just mundane/RW animal taming/training. Do people view the spell as essentially a skill only?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_animal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_training

the same limits as above, but an expanded range of potential targets (ie tame/train a komodo dragon or zebra)?

At any rate, per the DMG, yes, ulterior motives can be argued for in 100% of all game interactions ("if you have an ulterior motive for doing something, you do it partly because you think you will get some advantage from doing it"), and thus a DM can just rule the spell NEVER, EVER, works. I'd call that weak sauce, as it's even LESS than ordinary/mundane people can do.

If that's the case, speak with animals can certainly get greater results, I'd expect. Will NOT be attacked, can ask for favors/aid (reaction rolls?). Cast charm liberally on creatures (later, add summoning spells) & forget animal friendship even exists (as it essentially doesn't, as can be the case for a variety of spells under various DMs).

Falconer wrote:

genghisdon wrote:I guess that's why later editions spelled it out in gory detail what is what...for grognards that go to nerf mode as a reflex

Alright, pal, the late Jerry Mapes set up this board so as to avoid EXACTLY that sort of post, so since you seem to have trouble playing by the rules, I’ll keep it simple: One more post on Knights & Knaves mentioning 2e or B/X, and you’re banned.

I didn't discuss either edition, but it's your call to make.

I haven't really been following this thread (IMO for "BTB" purposes the conversation ended when it was established that, per the official PH errata in The Dragon, druids explicitly do get bonus spells for high Wisdom) but looking at it now it seems ironic and silly that genghisdon is insisting on very permissive interpretations of the effectiveness of druids' spells (pretty clearly outside of the original intent) and then, on that basis, insisting that the class is overpowered and then, on that basis, that the BTB rule giving them bonus spells was wrong or dumb and should be changed.

T. Foster wrote:I haven't really been following this thread (IMO for "BTB" purposes the conversation ended when it was established that, per the official PH errata in The Dragon, druids explicitly do get bonus spells for high Wisdom) but looking at it now it seems ironic and silly that genghisdon is insisting on very permissive interpretations of the effectiveness of druids' spells (pretty clearly outside of the original intent) and then, on that basis, insisting that the class is overpowered and then, on that basis, that the BTB rule giving them bonus spells was wrong or dumb and should be changed.

Actually, it's more like: letting the spells actually be used, clearly within the original intent (example: T1 village of Homlet has a druid, Jaroo, who "has a huge black bear which is always nearby but out of sight 95% of the time" pg 6) Actually, I've no idea about Dave Sustare's intent, but Gygax seemed to think animals & druids "pal around".

I'm not saying the class is overpowered (or not much , but rather that it is quite potent, and certainly needs no additional aid (such as bonus spells).

On to whether it's settled "BTB", that's not as pat as saying a dragon magazine errata answers it; 95% pf gamers (at least pre 2000 or so) will have never seen such, not had access to it. It is curious that no effort to "correct" the issue was ever made in hardcover, not in subsequent releases of the player's hand book, not even in later rule expansions/changes (1.5e, unearthed arcana, wilderness survival guide, dungeoneer's survival guide, OA, manual of the planes, etc). A similar issue exists for UA errata (dragon 96?). Gygax even visits the druid class himself specifically (in dragon, then the UA), but in his UA druid notes, nothing about wisdom bonus spells is even hinted at:

"The Grand Druid knows 6 spells of each level and is also able to cast up to six spell levels as one or more additional spells (one 6th-level spell, six 1st-level spells, or any other combination that adds up to six levels)." UA pg 16

"Spell abilities: For druids of 16th level and above, all spell-casting abilities remain at 15th-level maximums (6 spells of each level, 1st through 7th). No bonus spell levels are awarded, as noted above for the Grand Druid and his special agents, but casting level rises according to experience level." UA pg 17

While the above is NOT definitive proof, it's certainly suspicious that no attempt to address a "needed" ruling was made or mentioned.

Furthermore, BTB AD&D often becomes a self contradictory thing; changes may be "BTB", but are by no means binding (or even wise). One can play AD&D "BTB" without cavaliers, comeliness, non weapon proficiencies, etc. If K&KA official policy is that all such changes & add ons MUST be used or that they constitute the only BTB AD&D, then I couldn't care less about being banned from here...I'll do it myself.

genghisdon wrote:Actually, it's more like: letting the spells actually be used, clearly within the original intent (example: T1 village of Homlet has a druid, Jaroo, who "has a huge black bear which is always nearby but out of sight 95% of the time" pg 6)

Jaroo, who has bonus spells due to his high wisdom? Anyway, it doesn’t state what spell he used to bring the bear into his service. I’m going to guess it was a 4th-level spell, since he has only 2 left and he should have 3 total.

genghisdon wrote:Furthermore, BTB AD&D often becomes a self contradictory thing; changes may be "BTB", but are by no means binding (or even wise). One can play AD&D "BTB" without cavaliers, comeliness, non weapon proficiencies, etc. If K&KA official policy is that all such changes & add ons MUST be used or that they constitute the only BTB AD&D, then I couldn't care less about being banned from here...I'll do it myself.

Sometimes there could be multiple BTB answers; what’s not BTB is appeals to later editions.

Falconer wrote:

genghisdon wrote:Actually, it's more like: letting the spells actually be used, clearly within the original intent (example: T1 village of Homlet has a druid, Jaroo, who "has a huge black bear which is always nearby but out of sight 95% of the time" pg 6)

Jaroo, who has bonus spells due to his high wisdom? Anyway, it doesn’t state what spell he used to bring the bear into his service. I’m going to guess it was a 4th-level spell, since he has only 2 left and he should have 3 total.

genghisdon wrote:Furthermore, BTB AD&D often becomes a self contradictory thing; changes may be "BTB", but are by no means binding (or even wise). One can play AD&D "BTB" without cavaliers, comeliness, non weapon proficiencies, etc. If K&KA official policy is that all such changes & add ons MUST be used or that they constitute the only BTB AD&D, then I couldn't care less about being banned from here...I'll do it myself.

Sometimes there could be multiple BTB answers; what’s not BTB is appeals to later editions.

Also don't forget Geng, this Jaroo is a NPC. He could be a fucking ditch digger, merchant, assassin or whatever the module writer wants (ever see Grizzly Adams), and have that relationship. It so happens he's a druid (obviously this helps a great deal). He may have raised the animal from birth, it may be a special "once in a blue moon" relationship, specially trained the animal for many years, cast some powerful spell on it, used a wish, trained it with some forgotten know how involving drugs, had a higher level druid help him, found an exceptionally loyal animal....who the hell knows or cares (not unlike saying "Smurg the orc has the ability to track, or Vold the goblin backstabs as a thief...why? Because the DM says so. This is a NPC and potential monster).

NPCs typically do stick close to what PCs are limited to, but not always (thats what makes the game less predictable and fun, for instance, your going to see elves that are higher level then the limits allow...they are NPCs).

You want that special power as a PC, too bad. That is, unless you can figure out a way to do what your trying to do in game (and convince the DM its something possible (when it goes outside the spell description). The idea of the game is to give players a static defined rules system (and general world) in which to do glorious, cowardice, smart, stupid etc. things (based on actions). If a DM feels comfortable reading into the spell to make it more powerful then it should be, thats fine (though he should be aware that he may be making the game less fun or challenging for effected players). I think your reading alot into what Gygax wanted to be typical for players versus what he wanted the players to encounter (the NPC, monster, or what have you). Much is left up to the DMs discretion. But the trend in the game per its author is to air on the side of not giving away too much.

And for many DMs, a druid training an animal to fight beside them is well within the purpose, intent, and definition of the spell.

“Odd, as an adventuring druid's other friends brave dangers & combat, and they aren't just mindless automatons or cannon fodder. They are PC's & NPC's.”

The charm spells are pretty clear in stating that the spells won’t affect a major change on the target’s personality. The adventuring druid’s other friends are humans or demi-humans, where ‘adventuring’ isn’t out of character for them. A human will do something like try to jump Snake Canyon in a Skycycle for fame and fortune. That’s not something you’ll see in your average wolf or bear. Running them like it is would be bullshit/a crock IMO.

I’m not sure what Jaroo’s ‘friends’ have to do with anything, since having them dwelling peacefully in his grove is a far cry from a fearless vampire killing menagerie.

BlackBat242 wrote:And for many DMs, a druid training an animal to fight beside them is well within the purpose, intent, and definition of the spell.

Thats fine, train it from a cub (the way a war dog is trained). But that would be all about breaking the animals natural will, teaching it to do things against its nature (something not domesticated). I could more easily see a fighter raise a bear from a cub to act like this then a druid, who would be opposed to such a cruel action. So, what might the spell be for if not combat? Well, the bear might be asked to show the group water or food. He might act as a scout (if he's heading that way anyway) but avoid combat (he's friendly, not a slave). And if the druid is attacked it might help (depending on the bears personality) but I don't think the intent is for the druid to be using them like war dogs (which are bread and trained for generations for this sort of thing). And certainly its unlikely animals would feel safe going underground into dungeons. War horses, elephants and war dogs are the exception (as these are known in RL to have gone into battle with men).

AxeMental wrote:

BlackBat242 wrote:And for many DMs, a druid training an animal to fight beside them is well within the purpose, intent, and definition of the spell.

Thats fine, train it from a cub (the way a war dog is trained). But that would about breaking the animals natural will, teaching it to do things against its nature (something not domesticated). I could more easily see a fighter raise a bear from a cub to act like this then a druid, who would be opposed to such a cruel action. So, what might the spell be for if not combat? Well, the bear might be asked to show the group water or food. He might act as a scout (if he's heading that way anyway) but avoid combat (he's friendly, not a slave). And if the druid is attacked it might help (depending on the bears personality) but I don't think the intent is for the druid to be using them like war dogs (which are bread and trained for generations for this sort of thing). And certainly its unlikely animals would feel safe going underground into dungeons. War horses, elephants and war dogs are the exception (as these are known in RL to have gone into battle with men).

Bingo

Benoist wrote:Per AD&D PH, by the book, do druids get extra-spells from Wisdom?

I would allow it. It doesn't seem like it explicitly, however Druids are a subclass of Cleric which do. In the same way that Rangers and Paladins get perks by proxy of being a Fighter subclass, I would see a similar situation being insinuated with the Druid/Cleric relationship.

Apologies if I'm re-hashing what other people have said already! I haven't read through every response.

YES, Druids get extra spells for Wisdom.

Prespos

Ps1.
Quote from Gary Gygax:

DMPrata,

Well amigo...

I have to say that the case you use to support your argument isn't germane to the broad class of Druids.
As Wisdom is their principal measure, they are to receve bonus spells.

Specialized spells for sects is another matter entirely, those being taken in place of the general list.
The general mention of bonus spells for the Druids of Elonna was included to reinforce the broad grant,
to indicate that they too got those as did other Druids.

Sorry not to be able to concur with your position, but...

Cheers,
Gary

Ps2.
Not sure about Bards. I'd rule NO here.