I am playing in a new game soon 5E and I am envisioning a pacifist Tortle Druid that wanders the land healing the sick and injured and spreading the truth. Kind of a tortle version of the TV show Kung Fu. But when he is threatened he usually casts fog and slips away. Though he does carry a quarter staff and has shillelagh handy in case he does need to bonk someone.
Just wondering what peoples thoughts were on the idea.
Please just make sure that there is buy-in from the entire table before playing a pacifist character. Combat is one of the major pillars of DnD and creating a character that mostly tries to avoid it can frustrate other players who may enjoy that side of the game a little more. I have heard way too many stories about conflicts between pacifists and the rest of their party-members that could have probably been avoided if the player buy-in at the table had been assessed beforehand.
He sounds like he'd be a very interesting character otherwise.
I appreciate that reminder. Thanks. I will discuss it with the group. I was hoping that my healing and using entangles and things like that would help make up the difference.
I appreciate that reminder. Thanks. I will discuss it with the group. I was hoping that my healing and using entangles and things like that would help make up the difference.
That should be fine as long as you are effective in helping the party win in combat you don't need ot do any of the actual damage.
It reminds me of Treantmonk's "God Wizard". He joined a group that was struggling to survive and had weak characters, the first session he overshadowed the other fighter types but the party sorcer still died. He agreed with the DM to retire the character and created a wizard that solely buffed / debuffed and controlled the battlefield. After that there wer no more character deaths but his wizard was thought to be useless and the success was attributed to the campaign getting easier. This does however raise the question of whether the group will be happy with what you are doing, even if you are effective in combat because they don't see the benefit of entangle because it doesn't do any damage.
I appreciate that reminder. Thanks. I will discuss it with the group. I was hoping that my healing and using entangles and things like that would help make up the difference.
That should be fine as long as you are effective in helping the party win in combat you don't need ot do any of the actual damage.
It reminds me of Treantmonk's "God Wizard". He joined a group that was struggling to survive and had weak characters, the first session he overshadowed the other fighter types but the party sorcer still died. He agreed with the DM to retire the character and created a wizard that solely buffed / debuffed and controlled the battlefield. After that there wer no more character deaths but his wizard was thought to be useless and the success was attributed to the campaign getting easier. This does however raise the question of whether the group will be happy with what you are doing, even if you are effective in combat because they don't see the benefit of entangle because it doesn't do any damage.
Agreed. Speaking from experience, though, it's important for a non-damaging character to still have at least some way to deal damage (shillelagh is a good option in this case, as OP mentioned). I found my former "god wizard" enchanter often had moments where the enemies only had a couple hit points left but I had no way at all of finishing the job, which felt bad.
Also from experience, make sure to point out when the DM's on-the-fly ruling unintentionally nerfs your abilities. It happened to my enchanter a couple times, and while it was never malicious it definitely didn't feel great that the thing I was doing suddenly wasn't nearly as effective as it should have been. For example, I cast web with the intention of essentially taking a weak enemy out of the fight so we could focus on the big enemy and the DM had the enemy use a sword to cut away the webs and free himself as an action without making a check, rather than reflavoring the strength check (which he most likely would have failed, which was the goal) as attempting to do so. That sort of thing. Just be sure to watch for things like that and call them out when they happen so you can still feel cool doing your cool stuff.
Thanks so much for the tips. I am hoping that between decent roleplaying and out of game communication I can make sure the rest of the party understands my intentions.
Playing a pacifist can be as simple as deciding that your CHARACTER won't actively harm another living being... So, your druid controls the battlefield, keeps the party healthy, and looks for ways to end conflict without unnecessary death... The key word is unnecessary - Since druids are studied in the ways of nature and life, they also can see how natural order is maintained in control/elimination of uncontrolled threats to nature.
A pacifist will attempt to do no harm as long as the threat can be neutralized before lasting harm can happen to the group, the area, or nature itself. Just as a druid might see a fire in a forest as a GOOD thing to clear dead areas to allow new growth, they also can see the destruction of letting the flames go unchecked. If the PLAYER can find a way to justify the CHARACTER recognizing the threat as too great to allow to go unchecked, they can assist other more capable characters in eliminating the threat. This can ALSO open up roleplay opportunities by putting the pacifist in a position that, against it's beliefs, the party ends up triggering a threat as a way of forcing their hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am playing in a new game soon 5E and I am envisioning a pacifist Tortle Druid that wanders the land healing the sick and injured and spreading the truth. Kind of a tortle version of the TV show Kung Fu. But when he is threatened he usually casts fog and slips away. Though he does carry a quarter staff and has shillelagh handy in case he does need to bonk someone.
Just wondering what peoples thoughts were on the idea.
Please just make sure that there is buy-in from the entire table before playing a pacifist character. Combat is one of the major pillars of DnD and creating a character that mostly tries to avoid it can frustrate other players who may enjoy that side of the game a little more. I have heard way too many stories about conflicts between pacifists and the rest of their party-members that could have probably been avoided if the player buy-in at the table had been assessed beforehand.
He sounds like he'd be a very interesting character otherwise.
I appreciate that reminder. Thanks. I will discuss it with the group. I was hoping that my healing and using entangles and things like that would help make up the difference.
That should be fine as long as you are effective in helping the party win in combat you don't need ot do any of the actual damage.
It reminds me of Treantmonk's "God Wizard". He joined a group that was struggling to survive and had weak characters, the first session he overshadowed the other fighter types but the party sorcer still died. He agreed with the DM to retire the character and created a wizard that solely buffed / debuffed and controlled the battlefield. After that there wer no more character deaths but his wizard was thought to be useless and the success was attributed to the campaign getting easier. This does however raise the question of whether the group will be happy with what you are doing, even if you are effective in combat because they don't see the benefit of entangle because it doesn't do any damage.
Agreed. Speaking from experience, though, it's important for a non-damaging character to still have at least some way to deal damage (shillelagh is a good option in this case, as OP mentioned). I found my former "god wizard" enchanter often had moments where the enemies only had a couple hit points left but I had no way at all of finishing the job, which felt bad.
Also from experience, make sure to point out when the DM's on-the-fly ruling unintentionally nerfs your abilities. It happened to my enchanter a couple times, and while it was never malicious it definitely didn't feel great that the thing I was doing suddenly wasn't nearly as effective as it should have been. For example, I cast web with the intention of essentially taking a weak enemy out of the fight so we could focus on the big enemy and the DM had the enemy use a sword to cut away the webs and free himself as an action without making a check, rather than reflavoring the strength check (which he most likely would have failed, which was the goal) as attempting to do so. That sort of thing. Just be sure to watch for things like that and call them out when they happen so you can still feel cool doing your cool stuff.
Thanks so much for the tips. I am hoping that between decent roleplaying and out of game communication I can make sure the rest of the party understands my intentions.
Playing a pacifist can be as simple as deciding that your CHARACTER won't actively harm another living being... So, your druid controls the battlefield, keeps the party healthy, and looks for ways to end conflict without unnecessary death... The key word is unnecessary - Since druids are studied in the ways of nature and life, they also can see how natural order is maintained in control/elimination of uncontrolled threats to nature.
A pacifist will attempt to do no harm as long as the threat can be neutralized before lasting harm can happen to the group, the area, or nature itself. Just as a druid might see a fire in a forest as a GOOD thing to clear dead areas to allow new growth, they also can see the destruction of letting the flames go unchecked. If the PLAYER can find a way to justify the CHARACTER recognizing the threat as too great to allow to go unchecked, they can assist other more capable characters in eliminating the threat. This can ALSO open up roleplay opportunities by putting the pacifist in a position that, against it's beliefs, the party ends up triggering a threat as a way of forcing their hand.