Post/Author/DateTime	Post
felinoel 09-21-05, 07:21 PM	nube here and i have been thinkin bout adding druid levels to my rogue halfling, but some people (not my dm) are talking bout how if i add a druid level and then add a level to my rogue, i will lose my druidic ability? they say it is a rare thing like only with druids
Jack Greylock 09-21-05, 07:37 PM	Not true they do have some limitations but multiclassing is not one of them. Both the Monk and Paladin have that restriction but a druids is diffrent. Here is the Druids: "A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description). " So not a prohibition on multiclassing but on more roleplaying specific things. Oh and they also have this restriction: "A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter." So no mention of cross classing for either of those. So multiclass away (says my Druid/Scout)
felinoel 09-21-05, 07:56 PM	Not true they do have some limitations but multiclassing is not one of them. Both the Monk and Paladin have that restriction but a druids is diffrent. Here is the Druids: "A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description). " So not a prohibition on multiclassing but on more roleplaying specific things. Oh and they also have this restriction: "A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter." So no mention of cross classing for either of those. So multiclass away (says my Druid/Scout) so is this 3.5, 3.0, or something else? also i cant weild a shield and i will be wearing just leather armor (im a halfling lol) so i wont have to worry bout that. also what bout the neccesary alignments for rogues and druids because im told i need to be chaotic for a rogue and true nuetral for a druid but im good nuetral lol
DrakaraGM 09-21-05, 08:28 PM	Alignment restrictions in the rules as written: Rogue -- none whatsoever. A chaotic rogue may have more opportunities to practise some of the less savory options open to him -- but you can be a lawgul good rogue if you want. (See separate thread on LN rogues...) Druid -- any alignment that includes some Neutral -- i.e. NG, LN, CN, NE, and True Neutral are ALL valid alignments according to the 3.0 and 3.5 game. It sounds like your GM is using OLD-style D&D rules and perhaps even further limiting things. But according to the rules as written there are absolutely no prohibitions against being a rogue/druid -- provided the character's alignment is one of the five available to druids. If however the GM says that in HIS campaign all rogues must be chaotic and all druids must be True Neutral, well, then you are out of luck -- and you may want to shop for a new GM. But if the GM has a fun and exciting campaign, then you can just live with the restrictions -- and consider being a rogue/ranger (as over-done as that duality has been), which he should allow. P.S. -- Just went back and read the original post, and it sounds like the GM is not the one giving you grief, but rather other players. They need to read the PHB more closely! :-) NG is a perfectly acceptable alignement for both rogues and druids -- indeed one of the deities often worshipped by druids, for those who do worship a deity, is Ehlonna, and SHE is NG. I don't know if the campaign is using the default PHB deities, but that is just one more element that supports your desires...
felinoel 09-21-05, 08:48 PM	Alignment restrictions in the rules as written: Rogue -- none whatsoever. A chaotic rogue may have more opportunities to practise some of the less savory options open to him -- but you can be a lawgul good rogue if you want. (See separate thread on LN rogues...) Druid -- any alignment that includes some Neutral -- i.e. NG, LN, CN, NE, and True Neutral are ALL valid alignments according to the 3.0 and 3.5 game. It sounds like your GM is using OLD-style D&D rules and perhaps even further limiting things. But according to the rules as written there are absolutely no prohibitions against being a rogue/druid -- provided the character's alignment is one of the five available to druids. If however the GM says that in HIS campaign all rogues must be chaotic and all druids must be True Neutral, well, then you are out of luck -- and you may want to shop for a new GM. But if the GM has a fun and exciting campaign, then you can just live with the restrictions -- and consider being a rogue/ranger (as over-done as that duality has been), which he should allow. P.S. -- Just went back and read the original post, and it sounds like the GM is not the one giving you grief, but rather other players. They need to read the PHB more closely! :-) NG is a perfectly acceptable alignement for both rogues and druids -- indeed one of the deities often worshipped by druids, for those who do worship a deity, is Ehlonna, and SHE is NG. I don't know if the campaign is using the default PHB deities, but that is just one more element that supports your desires... ahhh so these are old rules? what version are they? oh and i worship i think it was istia, its neither male nor female and it is a water element EDIT: because my halfling is water based
DrakaraGM 09-21-05, 09:16 PM	In 2nd Edition and earlier, Druids had to be True Neutral. And in AD&D there were specific limitations on what multiclass combinations members of different races could be -- and humans pretty much couldn't be multiclassed like nonhumans. Believe me, you just don't want to go there. AD&D was a fine game in itself but 3.0 and 3.5 has a lot of improvements -- multi-classing changes being a major one in my opinion.
felinoel 09-21-05, 09:26 PM	In 2nd Edition and earlier, Druids had to be True Neutral. And in AD&D there were specific limitations on what multiclass combinations members of different races could be -- and humans pretty much couldn't be multiclassed like nonhumans. Believe me, you just don't want to go there. AD&D was a fine game in itself but 3.0 and 3.5 has a lot of improvements -- multi-classing changes being a major one in my opinion. ah i see then this guy must be thinkin in terms of 2nd d&d