|
|
Post by maeglhachel on Aug 22, 2014 12:42:37 GMT -5
MM should be "Monster Manual" And I think I remember somebody using AE on dinosaurs in a certain swamp  Also seem to remember having met redcaps (might have been on a different server and just a renamed variant of the myconoids we have, here.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 13:19:50 GMT -5
I guess the summon Unicorn would be good for females, but they are magical creatures that are rarely ever seen and even less so if you are a male. The suggestions are just what I looked at around midnight...I am dropping ideas that seemed right at that time lol...tired time but they looked like something possible to use to replace the unicorn...does anyone know what the lvl 9 sylvan summons is??? Minor spoiler for people reading drizzt: One of the most famous FR characters in existence is a male who summons and rides a unicorn mount. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
|
|
Post by iangallowglas on Aug 22, 2014 13:21:57 GMT -5
MM stands for Monster Manual (Edition 3.5) and the numbers behind them refer to which monster manual you can find them in (1,2, or 3). I have the books, but I know you can find them in PDF form online as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysticalkas on Aug 22, 2014 13:43:27 GMT -5
Great thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Aug 23, 2014 13:12:55 GMT -5
Constructs can be seen as a natural enemy to druids, depending on point of view. fr wiki has this to say: so citing that, and that druids are not able to use "metal" armaments. Aberrations for the record are creatures of magical nature, yet twisted. Ettercap, Owl Bear, and beholders all count as aberration. also remember that druids value nature above all things. So, a construct is a act of taking what is ornate, mundane and non magical, and giving it movement through typically arcane means. of course your "summoning" these mechanical beings so druids can't get around that part. BUT druids value nature, they cannot use weapons of metal or armor, instead they use natural materials such as iron wood. So these constructs, are typically, from a druids eyes, creatures given life via magic, not nature. They are not an elemental, which is the hall-mark of nature, a creature of the elements. They are constructed to do a bidding. So I would think that most druids, especially druids weary of arcane magic, would not use the constructs summon options, especially given they are sold by an arcane vendor. also they would not polymorph into such either. Druids CAN use metal weapons. The wording in the player's handbook is commonly misunderstood by those who speed through it without reading it word for word. It clearly states that they cannot wear metal ARMOUR. It states this after it lists their weapon proficiencies. Stating that a druid cannot wear metal ARMOUR does nothing to imply that they cannot wield metal WEAPONS. Druids can lean against a metal wall or door, hold a metal dagger, drink from a metal flask, and hammer away at a steel anvil with a metal hammer. Metal is natural. Iron is a natural element and carbon is one of the most common elements in the world and it's what's combined with iron to make steel. There is nothing unnatural about steel. It doesn't grow like leather or wood, but it *is* natural. It's as much a part of nature as the rocks in which it lay. There's not a single bit of lore in original, Advanced, 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or 4th Edition that states druids cannot wield metal weapons or that they're unable to touch or use metal tools or find metal to be an unnatural material. It's just a myth because they took an oath to wear non-metallic armour. Edit: Just for fun, here's my take on why druids don't wear metal armour- with the exception of druids from the ranger goddess: Druids do so not because metal (steel) is unnatural, but because animals and plants in nature have tough skin in the form of leather and bark. The druid symbolizes his oneness with nature by clothing himself in natural (living) materials as does the living things in nature that are in his or her care. That's all. That's the entire reasoning behind it as I see it. After all, if a druid can drink water (a compound made from two elements) then he can use steel (which is also a compound of two elements). Compounds exist everywhere in nature. They're nothing for a druid to fear. |
|
|
|
Post by maeglhachel on Aug 23, 2014 15:34:04 GMT -5
Metal is natural. Iron is a natural element and carbon is one of the most common elements in the world and it's what's combined with iron to make steel. There is nothing unnatural about steel. It doesn't grow like leather or wood, but it *is* natural. It's as much a part of nature as the rocks in which it lay. This _should_ be IC, because this argument can't be won. I'd disagree, iron ore is nature, steel is culture. The point that something is built of natural components is moot, because everything in the world is _built_ from nature, but nature doesn't build everything. And a naturalist might argue that's for a reason. But again: Rules aside there is a grey area, here, and that's quite alright IMHO. If we need some rules clarification, do we need to rephrase this as a DM question? |
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Aug 23, 2014 15:54:03 GMT -5
Metal is natural. Iron is a natural element and carbon is one of the most common elements in the world and it's what's combined with iron to make steel. There is nothing unnatural about steel. It doesn't grow like leather or wood, but it *is* natural. It's as much a part of nature as the rocks in which it lay. This _should_ be IC, because this argument can't be won. I'd disagree, iron ore is nature, steel is culture. The point that something is built of natural components is moot, because everything in the world is _built_ from nature, but nature doesn't build everything. And a naturalist might argue that's for a reason. But again: Rules aside there is a grey area, here, and that's quite alright IMHO. If we need some rules clarification, do we need to rephrase this as a DM question? You can't assume that two of the most common elements found in nature become toxic when combined based on nothing at all. Culture has nothing to do with the toxicity of steel. Culture itself is what makes or breaks nature. Culture can clear cut forests destroying land, plants, and animals or it can enhance all of them promoting and protecting the land and wildlife. These two things can both be done without the existence of steel. Steel has nothing to do with culture. Steel is a lifeless material just like the components of which it's comprised. It's intent, just like with anything, that makes or breaks nature. A rock can serve as an otter's tool for breaking open food or as a home for insects. That same rock can also serve as a weapon used to destroy a mother bear and her newborn cubs. The rock's existence can't be defined as good or evil anymore than steel can. We don't need a DM question here as the books after which this game was designed clearly state that druids are not prohibited from using steel as weapons or tools. |
|
|
|
Post by maeglhachel on Aug 23, 2014 15:59:06 GMT -5
We don't need a DM question here as the books after which this game was designed clearly state that druids are not prohibited from using steel as weapons or tools. OK, I was referring to the broader aspects of the discussion that was had here as to what's proper for druids, dragon summons, etc. (Oh, and yes ... culture breaks nature ... exactly the point I was trying to make, some druids would draw the line, there.) |
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Aug 23, 2014 16:23:52 GMT -5
We don't need a DM question here as the books after which this game was designed clearly state that druids are not prohibited from using steel as weapons or tools. OK, I was referring to the broader aspects of the discussion that was had here as to what's proper for druids, dragon summons, etc. (Oh, and yes ... culture breaks nature ... exactly the point I was trying to make, some druids would draw the line, there.) Culture doesn't always break nature. That's what I said. You seem to have twisted my response into "all culture destroys nature", but that's not what I said. It couldn't be further from what I said. Druids have culture. Druids come from culture. Druids come from all races and all races have different cultures. Each race has multiple cultures and druids come from all of them. Druids themselves have multiple cultures. If culture breaks nature then all druids would be killing themselves and taking out as many other of the races with them to remove their taint. Druids can't "draw the line" at culture with "culture" simply meaning "man made". Some cultures destroy nature and some protect it and most cultures on both sides of that spectrum have steel. There's nothing about steel that can be presented as evidence of its unnaturalness or evilness (as far as a druid is concerned). |
|
Fenix
~
Sleepless Golem, aka Kenny
If you read this, send me a love note.
Posts: 2,183
|
Post by Fenix on Aug 23, 2014 19:02:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by marredwolf on Aug 23, 2014 23:37:35 GMT -5
(Oh, and yes ... culture breaks nature ... exactly the point I was trying to make, some druids would draw the line, there.) You: "You seem to have twisted my response into "all culture destroys nature", but that's not what he/she said. o explain it further: he said culture breaks nature. and he was aggreeing with you on this point. You however, wrote it as "all culture destroys nature." this is not what he/she said. so as if to say...not all culture breaks nature (ie. druidic culture) but culture can and does break nature. oh and im deeply puzzled at whatever is going on with Fenix. |
|
|
|
Post by deadbeatbert on Apr 20, 2016 20:35:32 GMT -5
Metal is natural. Iron is a natural element and carbon is one of the most common elements in the world and it's what's combined with iron to make steel. There is nothing unnatural about steel. It doesn't grow like leather or wood, but it *is* natural. It's as much a part of nature as the rocks in which it lay. This _should_ be IC, because this argument can't be won. I'd disagree, iron ore is nature, steel is culture. The point that something is built of natural components is moot, because everything in the world is _built_ from nature, but nature doesn't build everything. And a naturalist might argue that's for a reason. But again: Rules aside there is a grey area, here, and that's quite alright IMHO. If we need some rules clarification, do we need to rephrase this as a DM question? Old thread, I know, but I am playing my first Druid and am catching up on everything I can. If steel is unnatural because of culture then so is leather. Leather is cured with ammonia (urine) and heat, just like steel is made with carbon, iron and heat. I tend to think that the real reason metal armours are not worn by druids is because in the grander scale of living in the wild there is no general access to a large forge that would cater to the process, but it is easier and therefore more common to cure a hide in the wilds. Small crucible forges for smelting smaller tools and blades are more easily made in the wild with them being commonly found in archaeological digs in England and Wales, the metaphorical birth place of DnD Druids. I believe that Druids should be approached with common sense in the spirit of the class, the history of Welsh/Briton/Celtic Druidism and living off the land by the means available. Every Druid will be different with different creeds and beliefs as well which only makes things more complicated and everyone's idea of what druid believes regardless of their deity should be respected. Dragons, for example were revered and I can see Dai being happy to let a green dragon do his thing as long as what it did wasn't too expansive in breeding and broadening it's place in the food chain in comparison to the food stock beneath it. Also, unicorns, rock socks and my Druid would happily summon one. |
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Apr 21, 2016 2:28:45 GMT -5
This _should_ be IC, because this argument can't be won. I'd disagree, iron ore is nature, steel is culture. The point that something is built of natural components is moot, because everything in the world is _built_ from nature, but nature doesn't build everything. And a naturalist might argue that's for a reason. But again: Rules aside there is a grey area, here, and that's quite alright IMHO. If we need some rules clarification, do we need to rephrase this as a DM question? Old thread, I know, but I am playing my first Druid and am catching up on everything I can. If steel is unnatural because of culture then so is leather. Leather is cured with ammonia (urine) and heat, just like steel is made with carbon, iron and heat. I tend to think that the real reason metal armours are not worn by druids is because in the grander scale of living in the wild there is no general access to a large forge that would cater to the process, but it is easier and therefore more common to cure a hide in the wilds. Small crucible forges for smelting smaller tools and blades are more easily made in the wild with them being commonly found in archaeological digs in England and Wales, the metaphorical birth place of DnD Druids. I believe that Druids should be approached with common sense in the spirit of the class, the history of Welsh/Briton/Celtic Druidism and living off the land by the means available. Every Druid will be different with different creeds and beliefs as well which only makes things more complicated and everyone's idea of what druid believes regardless of their deity should be respected. Dragons, for example were revered and I can see Dai being happy to let a green dragon do his thing as long as what it did wasn't too expansive in breeding and broadening it's place in the food chain in comparison to the food stock beneath it. Also, unicorns, rock socks and my Druid would happily summon one. I think those are remnants of some combination of old/new beliefs of those who made the game. Possibly a look on how old world druids are thought to have been together with what they have created as a D&D view of "natural/unnatural". Like with everything, there's possibly an explanation, though not as easy one to as why they believe clerics should use bludgeoning weapons like maces and flails. Which is simply because they believe that the Dark/middle Ages monks/clerics were sworn not never draw blood (hence no slashing/piercing weapons), but it was OK to whack someone over the head to defend yourself. And somehow the monk staffs/clubs have become cleric maces/flails. In a way D&D druids mirror the attitude of elves vs. dwarves. For example it's unusual for dwarves to be druids, not that unusual for elves. Elves are connected to tree hugging and preserving nature, and thus often (but not always, 'cause druids are on the nature's side, not elves') cooperate with each other. An interesting, hypocritical, aspect of elves is that they don't mine. While it is possible that some elves might come up with the idea - as a race elves never mine. They are however not averse of buying the ore and working it, and they are quite good crafters. Why do they refuse to mine? In D&D worlds (mirroring some of our world's views) - mining is considered environment-unfriendly. And by nature friends in D&D it's considered to change the environment too much, and you basically gut and wound the earth herself. Which also explains the dwarves and druids not being very friendly. Though it doesn't explain gnomes (that are considered nature-friends, but also quite good miners). So, the explanation for the druids would be that the metal is not OK, because mining is not OK. I'm pretty sure that if a leather armor was cured by unhealthy, environmentally-wrong chemicals rather than peeing on it, the druids would refuse to use it too. And yes, this is a simplistic explanation (and one that mirrors that the creators of D&D didn't do their homework), because ores haven't always been mined for. For example, Vikings and their predecessors searched for iron ore lying on the ground in swamps/marshes around the lake Mälaren. It didn't come in great quantities - hence most men used axes and not swords - which were expensive, and thus a mark of high status. |
|
Templar
Old School
A female dwarf?! No really! What do you play?
Posts: 585
|
Post by Templar on Apr 21, 2016 8:50:14 GMT -5
Don't see why even constructs would be prohibited. if you are allowed to "enslave" an animal by summoning it with your spell for a time period, why can't you "enslave" an elemental, or a construct. the only ones that are specifically pointed out as reproachable and would not be summoned by a druid are aberrants and undead SPECIFICALLY. all others are fair game. People are picking into the wording way to deep here. it doesn't say druids are against constructs anywhere. Heck they aren't even against metal armor, THEY just wont wear it. don't dig to deep into it from a rules perspective and try to make things more complicated then they already are. The blunt way to put it is stop begging for more rules. a + b doesn't = banana.
If IC you want to push your views on others, go for it, but that won't stop my nature based characters from disagreeing with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Apr 21, 2016 11:24:08 GMT -5
Druids just prefer things above ground. I have played druids and at times have worn metal as unlike other classes druids are not penalized in spell casting as those of the arcane. In general it is a matter of rp and your character's personal preference.
As for constructs from what I have seen they are usually with the arcane class as mages can shift into them or create them from materials.
As for elementals, druids of a certain level can summon them or shift into them. Elementals in my opinion I could see using empathy mechanic wise but personally as a druid I would rather focus on animals.
|
|
Fenix
~
Sleepless Golem, aka Kenny
If you read this, send me a love note.
Posts: 2,183
|
Post by Fenix on Apr 21, 2016 13:26:54 GMT -5
Druids just prefer things above ground. I have played druids and at times have worn metal as unlike other classes druids are not penalized in spell casting as those of the arcane. In general it is a matter of rp and your character's personal preference. As for constructs from what I have seen they are usually with the arcane class as mages can shift into them or create them from materials. As for elementals, druids of a certain level can summon them or shift into them. Elementals in my opinion I could see using empathy mechanic wise but personally as a druid I would rather focus on animals. Quoting here for ease. Druids dont typically wear metal armor except those of Mielikki because of deital rule usually, which is most often explained by the gods as it interferes with their connection to nature and the land around them. Now, some druids can wear it because of different views by the godhood, but its not really to do entirely with it being forged or anything like that. If a druid wants to forge armor, they could manage. Even in that era, a forge to make armor plating could be made very easily and without much room needed. A friend of mine does forgework om a self built one out of his garage in a smapp workspace. Its just customary to use more "natural" elements easily found in nature. Hides, wood, etc. However they dont notnuse it because of culture or forging or anything...many druidic weapons, ie the scimitar and sickle and dagger, are all metal most often. Those are forged. Aa for what druids hate...nowhere is it actually listed they are against anything besides undead. Aberrations, constructs, elementals, planars from upper and lower...these are all intentional gray area and something ive loved to look into and read discussions on. The ultimate of it is more or less that the view is up to the druid. Undead are direct abominations of yhe world. They exist due to the capture of a soul and the forced negative energy that takes a life that was ended and bringing it back to animation, most often against its will. That soul is being tortured, thus why its always an evil action to create undead. But a construct is far from the same. They are created and can be animated purely by the weave itself. Some are pact creatures that are powered by the abilities of an elemental. Aberrations are just that...aberrant. They are freaks. Outliers of what exists in the plane with no real explanation of why theyre there. Planars are not native to the plane, but it also doesnt entirely define them unnatural either. Easiest way to think of ot is to treat it like someone from another country! But that also varies by a druids belief. As far as empathy...that works on any magical or mundane beast that has an int of 3 or less. Elementals are usualky a bit smarter. |
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Apr 21, 2016 15:23:17 GMT -5
Druids just prefer things above ground. I have played druids and at times have worn metal as unlike other classes druids are not penalized in spell casting as those of the arcane. In general it is a matter of rp and your character's personal preference. As for constructs from what I have seen they are usually with the arcane class as mages can shift into them or create them from materials. As for elementals, druids of a certain level can summon them or shift into them. Elementals in my opinion I could see using empathy mechanic wise but personally as a druid I would rather focus on animals. Quoting here for ease. Druids dont typically wear metal armor except those of Mielikki because of deital rule usually, which is most often explained by the gods as it interferes with their connection to nature and the land around them. Now, some druids can wear it because of different views by the godhood, but its not really to do entirely with it being forged or anything like that. If a druid wants to forge armor, they could manage. Even in that era, a forge to make armor plating could be made very easily and without much room needed. A friend of mine does forgework om a self built one out of his garage in a smapp workspace. Its just customary to use more "natural" elements easily found in nature. Hides, wood, etc. However they dont notnuse it because of culture or forging or anything...many druidic weapons, ie the scimitar and sickle and dagger, are all metal most often. Those are forged. Aa for what druids hate...nowhere is it actually listed they are against anything besides undead. Aberrations, constructs, elementals, planars from upper and lower...these are all intentional gray area and something ive loved to look into and read discussions on. The ultimate of it is more or less that the view is up to the druid. Undead are direct abominations of yhe world. They exist due to the capture of a soul and the forced negative energy that takes a life that was ended and bringing it back to animation, most often against its will. That soul is being tortured, thus why its always an evil action to create undead. But a construct is far from the same. They are created and can be animated purely by the weave itself. Some are pact creatures that are powered by the abilities of an elemental. Aberrations are just that...aberrant. They are freaks. Outliers of what exists in the plane with no real explanation of why theyre there. Planars are not native to the plane, but it also doesnt entirely define them unnatural either. Easiest way to think of ot is to treat it like someone from another country! But that also varies by a druids belief. As far as empathy...that works on any magical or mundane beast that has an int of 3 or less. Elementals are usualky a bit smarter. I am aware empathy has its restrictions. My remarks were based on how I have played druids. The type of creature one wishes to control is a matter of rp. Yes the undead are considered unnatural and an offense to nature. Yes planars are from a different plane or country (in simplistic terms), a different life form.
However, though rare (not sure if he is permitted here) but there are Druids known as Blighters who mainly follow Moander who are anti-nature in that like their god. They live to speed up Natures' decaying process.
Quote from the Forgotten Realms Wiki:
"Blighter"
In general the Druid class like any class is interpretive on how the player views their character. Unless one goes to extreme(things too far out of lore), there is really no limitation to how to play a class.
|
|
|
|
Post by Viridian Knight on Apr 21, 2016 17:41:41 GMT -5
Don't see why even constructs would be prohibited. if you are allowed to "enslave" an animal by summoning it with your spell for a time period, why can't you "enslave" an elemental, or a construct. the only ones that are specifically pointed out as reproachable and would not be summoned by a druid are aberrants and undead SPECIFICALLY. all others are fair game. People are picking into the wording way to deep here. it doesn't say druids are against constructs anywhere. Heck they aren't even against metal armor, THEY just wont wear it. don't dig to deep into it from a rules perspective and try to make things more complicated then they already are. The blunt way to put it is stop begging for more rules. a + b doesn't = banana. If IC you want to push your views on others, go for it, but that won't stop my nature based characters from disagreeing with you. Something to remember, druids don't use summon monster, rather they use Summon Natures Ally, they are essentially requesting an ally of nature to come to their aid from their god, this is very much different then enslaving an animal to do whatever they please not to mention that summons are essentially a recreation of the actual being on another plane, they do not die, they simply return home they haven't be called to the material plane and bound to the casters service. As for animal emphasy they aren't really enslaving the animal either, they encourage it to be helpful and listen to the druid through their understanding of animal and the presence they exclude (charisma based skill). I've attached a quote from the MM 3rd edition regarding Golems below, These are elemental spirits being enslaved against their will within essentially a magical item, often times well and truly beyond the time of their creators have died. An elemental spirit. . . something that is often believed to be sacred to druids (more so druids that deal with balance of the planes themselves, but also to druids that just deal in the balance of the material plane, Toril or just a subsection of Toril). They're . . . spirits of their particular element, beings who's very existence is a natural element. I wasn't going to look for another quote regarding this, but I already had my books out and ended up grabbing one for you anyway. The below is a quote from 3.5 edition MM This isn't a matter of being just "IC" views, these are views which should actually come with risk of breaking a druids Oaths if they push such to far possibly with the chance of loosing their magic. While they aren't against metal armour, by wearing it though (unless they're a follower of Meilikki who can wear shields and medium metal armours as the druidic oaths to her are more relaxed as she allows her druids to use what her rangers can) they break their oaths and become unbalanced because they're unable to feel living nature as clearly around them, IIRCly it's because the metal was something that never lived (but that's a quote I'm not going to go digging around for as I can't recall which book to look through). This actually comes with the cost of being unable to cast spells for 24 hours (something which isn't represented in NWN or on FRC). Druids just prefer things above ground. I have played druids and at times have worn metal as unlike other classes druids are not penalized in spell casting as those of the arcane. In general it is a matter of rp and your character's personal preference. As for constructs from what I have seen they are usually with the arcane class as mages can shift into them or create them from materials. As for elementals, druids of a certain level can summon them or shift into them. Elementals in my opinion I could see using empathy mechanic wise but personally as a druid I would rather focus on animals. See above, it's not that they prefer things above ground, it's that by encasing themselves in something that was never living to begin with, they have a difficult time feeling the balance and loose all access to their spell casting for 24 hours if they do such. Constructs are also again see as above. In truth there are some druids that actually live entirely in the Underdark and many make their homes in small, medium or even colossally large caves. For golems, you can see above. As for elementals, they're actually sentient and intelligent beings, that rules out animal empathy, however elementals are essentially spirits of nature which make them more likely to listen to a druid if they aren't enraged, more so if it was sent to aid them by the druids deity. Quoting here for ease. Aa for what druids hate...nowhere is it actually listed they are against anything besides undead. Aberrations, constructs, elementals, planars from upper and lower...these are all intentional gray area and something ive loved to look into and read discussions on. The ultimate of it is more or less that the view is up to the druid. Undead are direct abominations of yhe world. They exist due to the capture of a soul and the forced negative energy that takes a life that was ended and bringing it back to animation, most often against its will. That soul is being tortured, thus why its always an evil action to create undead. But a construct is far from the same. They are created and can be animated purely by the weave itself. Some are pact creatures that are powered by the abilities of an elemental. Aberrations are just that...aberrant. They are freaks. Outliers of what exists in the plane with no real explanation of why theyre there. Planars are not native to the plane, but it also doesnt entirely define them unnatural either. Easiest way to think of ot is to treat it like someone from another country! But that also varies by a druids belief. Abberations are disliked by druids as they aren't even creature's from the planes, they're beings twisted and warped by the Far Realms, they do not belong, they aren't right, their very existence is something that should be purged and it is likely something a druid should sense (this comment was more in place because someone claimed they were essentially magical beasts earlier in the thread. . . . examples of Abberations include Aboleths, Beholders, Mind Flayers, Phasms and Hook Horrors + a whole host of others). These are essentially enemies of all druids, regardless of which deity they follow, they're on par with undead if not worse as the creation of undead are at the very least using power from a plane in their own universe. Constructs, you can scroll up for. Elementals are more sacred then anything else as a spirit of a natural element, they aren't really offensive to druids and not really a grey area, they're allies at worst (unless bound to another using them for destruction in which case it isn't the elmentals fault rather the one controlling it) and and respected and sacred beings at best. Planar beings . . . they have their place, generally it's on their own plane as when a being of pure good, evil or chaos appears on Toril, they throw things out of wack in that area (and often times on a far larger scale. . . because when a celestial shows up on the material plane, odds are a demon or devil will show up nearby or somewhere else like a domino effect). They aren't so much hated, but they are preferred to be kept off the Prime Material Plane. If they're to be employed on the Material Plane, a druid would likely see it as a last resort and try and speed their return to their own plane along. There are Prestige classes for druids that deal in the balance of the Planes, but that's alittle far for this tread. VK. |
|
|
|
Post by appleseedy on Apr 22, 2016 1:53:20 GMT -5
there is more than one explanation on how a golem can be created, sorry going to say i think this is -still- up to IC interpretation not OOC lore
also on druidic oaths...your oath is not my oath is not his oath. unless there is standardised oath all druids take? somehow i am guessing not.
As long as you have given consideration to how and what your druid summons and RP it game on
|
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Apr 22, 2016 4:28:57 GMT -5
also on druidic oaths...your oath is not my oath is not his oath. unless there is standardised oath all druids take? somehow i am guessing not. It depends... This is the same type of discussion as Paladin discussion. Like Paladins, D&D Druids are ONE type of thing. Nature trumps deities (you don't even have to follow one). There's only ONE world-encompassing druid organization, and all druids follow the same oath. (compare with Paladins! where D&D paladins follow ONE set of paladin vows and you don't even have to follow a diety, where Forgotten Realms paladins follow deity dogma first and foremost, and have some kind of paladin ideals second). This is not so in Forgotten Realms. I would actually like to have a DM ruling about this, because they have ruled that Paladins on FRC are kind of like the Paladin in core D&D (more so than Paladins in Forgotten Realms), why would it be a stretch that Druids here are seen in similar fashion? [edit]changes that paladins don't have to follow a diet (though who's seen a fat paladin) to paladins & deity.[/edit] |
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Apr 22, 2016 7:15:40 GMT -5
Another tidbit of information...
Just because NWN doesn't penalize you for wearing metallic armor (note: metallic, not just heavy), doesn't mean that it's OK. Simply put, BioWare screw this up, or just simply didn't care enough. If my memory serves me right (I'm too lazy to look it up). In D&D wearing an armor made out of metal, makes the Druid loose his/her connection with Nature, and thus makes him/her loose all his powers for at least 24h. In Forgotten Realms this is pretty much the same, unless you follow Mielikki - she doesn't care. I only remember Mielikki being the exception to the rule.
Secondly (this is also just based on what I can dig out of memory) usage of metallic items/weapons is mostly based on the amount of metal involved. Daggers and spears are OK, since there's not that much metal. Swords usually are a no, though I don't remember scimitars (and I don't know why they are popping up in my head as something specific). Scythes are though an exception. They have quite a big blade, but them being OK could be because they have a connection to agriculture.
|
|
|
|
Post by appleseedy on Apr 22, 2016 8:22:28 GMT -5
druids have five different possible alignments, if this doesn't suggest a hugely diverse set of oaths...i don't think this requires a DM decision really, leave it up to IC RP. if the DM team wants to specify druid behaviors to any extent then i don't mind i just don't think its needed. it would be pretty cool though for divines classes to have their powers removed for twenty four hours as a gentle reminder that (off the cuff example and isn't intended to be about anyone ) a cleric of Liira inst likely to use a prayer to raise a loviatran. |
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Apr 22, 2016 15:34:05 GMT -5
Another tidbit of information... Just because NWN doesn't penalize you for wearing metallic armor (note: metallic, not just heavy), doesn't mean that it's OK. Simply put, BioWare screw this up, or just simply didn't care enough. If my memory serves me right (I'm too lazy to look it up). In D&D wearing an armor made out of metal, makes the Druid loose his/her connection with Nature, and thus makes him/her loose all his powers for at least 24h. In Forgotten Realms this is pretty much the same, unless you follow Mielikki - she doesn't care. I only remember Mielikki being the exception to the rule. Secondly (this is also just based on what I can dig out of memory) usage of metallic items/weapons is mostly based on the amount of metal involved. Daggers and spears are OK, since there's not that much metal. Swords usually are a no, though I don't remember scimitars (and I don't know why they are popping up in my head as something specific). Scythes are though an exception. They have quite a big blade, but them being OK could be because they have a connection to agriculture. I have never seen this rule anywhere in any place I have played. If Druids were penalized for armor then they would have the spell failure that arcanists suffer from. They do not. Rangers are penalized in losing the dual wield ability if they were medium or heavy armor. Some rangers may has they prefer other weapons or maybe weapon shields.
A Druid's powers are connected from the divine and not what they wear. I have seen and experienced druids penalized from straying from their gods path and losing their powers for a limited time.
Scimitars are for a human who wishes to use a sword. Many druids are Elves and are allowed to keep their weapon proficiencies like the short bow, longbow and long sword.
Personally I found it odd that druids unless Elves could not use bows as they are more natural.
Druids must maintain Neutral Alignments. Like clerics they must stay the alignment their chosen deity.
TN, CN, LN, NE
Scythes are the exotic weapon class so Druids can not wield them.
|
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Apr 22, 2016 16:03:04 GMT -5
Another tidbit of information... Just because NWN doesn't penalize you for wearing metallic armor (note: metallic, not just heavy), doesn't mean that it's OK. Simply put, BioWare screw this up, or just simply didn't care enough. If my memory serves me right (I'm too lazy to look it up). In D&D wearing an armor made out of metal, makes the Druid loose his/her connection with Nature, and thus makes him/her loose all his powers for at least 24h. In Forgotten Realms this is pretty much the same, unless you follow Mielikki - she doesn't care. I only remember Mielikki being the exception to the rule. Secondly (this is also just based on what I can dig out of memory) usage of metallic items/weapons is mostly based on the amount of metal involved. Daggers and spears are OK, since there's not that much metal. Swords usually are a no, though I don't remember scimitars (and I don't know why they are popping up in my head as something specific). Scythes are though an exception. They have quite a big blade, but them being OK could be because they have a connection to agriculture. I have never seen this rule anywhere in any place I have played. If Druids were penalized for armor then they would have the spell failure that arcanists suffer from. They do not. Rangers are penalized in losing the dual wield ability if they were medium or heavy armor. Some rangers may has they prefer other weapons or maybe weapon shields.
A Druid's powers are connected from the divine and not what they wear. I have seen and experienced druids penalized from straying from their gods path and losing their powers for a limited time.
Scimitars are for a human who wishes to use a sword. Many druids are Elves and are allowed to keep their weapon proficiencies like the short bow, longbow and long sword.
Personally I found it odd that druids unless Elves could not use bows as they are more natural.
Druids must maintain Neutral Alignments. Like clerics they must stay the alignment their chosen deity.
TN, CN, LN, NE
Scythes are the exotic weapon class so Druids can not wield them.
As I said, Bioware screwed this up, by not implementing this in NWN. This is a standard D&D PnP rule per 3.0 edition presented in the Player's Handbook. And while you might not have seen it enforced, I have seen it enforced. Both by builder scripting, and by DMs policing the players. This is directly quoted from the Player's Handbook: So, I was wrong about the scythe (I possibly confused it with a sickle), but the scimitar was there. |
|
|
|
Post by Viridian Knight on Apr 22, 2016 16:41:23 GMT -5
So, I was wrong about the scythe (I possibly confused it with a sickle), but the scimitar was there. I was originally going to make the point below that Munroe does as I was aware of the change, but then remembered that I'd also read Munroe comment on it in a DM Q&A alittle while back. . . . so I'm just going to quote it. I decided to check the Player's Handbook 3.0 to compare the restrictions there. The 3.0 version (also on page 34 of the 3.0 PHB) is even more restricted, and contains the rules on weapon restrictions that were omitted in 3.5e. The weapons restriction has never been enforced on FRC. We have used the 3.5e version as a baseline rather than the 3.0 version, but the 3.0 version is as follows: I'm not going to grab a 3.5 edition quote, I've looked at my books for the forum already this week. . . so instead I'll just list the changes that were made. Druids were allowed to use any weapon they were proficient with but could not gain such from druid levels (they had to multiclass, gain it from a race such as elf or find some other means for the proficiency). That said, druids were also still allowed to use wooden shields, however they were limited in 3.5 to not be able to use Tower Shields (this is also a restriction that I've never seen enforced or mentioned as having to follow in a DM Q&A so I've always treated it as a custom ruling on the matter. . . . otherwise they'd have to change a few DM items, refund a bunch of items that druids have been using for gods knows how long and change that one druid restricted Ironwood tower shield on the server for sale) [slashed out as Munroe corrected me on this small detail.] VK. Edited for completeness I also just remembered Munroe actually listed the 3.5e rule in that same DM Q&A. . . my forgetfulness today. . . I haven't had coffee yet  could someone point me to the stated lore/rules about this? I've not heard of this metal restriction before and I've played D&D since 1st Ed. The metal restriction is from the 3.x rules for druids. I have reproduced it for you here. The significant parts are underlined for emphasis. As it appears in the Player's Handbook 3.5e, page 34: |
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Apr 22, 2016 17:33:45 GMT -5
I gather it is a matter of PW's interpretations. This is my fifth world I have played on and the first time I have heard about the armor and shield restrictions. These were left open to the players and how they envisioned their characters.
To me I think it more important for a druid to stand by the actual tenants of the faith. To me what one wears or wields is not really a game breaker.
I think we can all find and pick about every class and race.
|
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Apr 22, 2016 17:47:35 GMT -5
That said, druids were also still allowed to use wooden shields, however they were limited in 3.5 to not be able to use Tower Shields (this is also a restriction that I've never seen enforced or mentioned as having to follow in a DM Q&A so I've always treated it as a custom ruling on the matter. . . . otherwise they'd have to change a few DM items, refund a bunch of items that druids have been using for gods knows how long and change that one druid restricted Ironwood tower shield on the server for sale) The Player's Handbook 3.5e wording on shields is not a prohibition of druidic use of tower shields. It's a listed proficiency with all shields except tower shields. In D&D 3.x, most characters with shield proficiency are not automatically proficient with tower shields. Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers all have the "(except tower shields)" wording in their proficiency list. This is all base classes with shield proficiency except fighter. The only core base class that is automatically proficient with tower shields is the fighter. I've listed the barbarian and fighter proficiency lists for comparison. In order to use a tower shields in 3.5e, a character without a class that grants proficiency must take the Tower Shield Proficiency feat. Player's Handbook 3.5e (page 101) describes this feat as follows: The druid entry quoted below is worded the same as the other classes granted proficiency with shields above, except with the added caveat that the shields a druid uses must be wooden. In 3.5e, a druid could, like other characters, select the Tower Shield Proficiency feat to use tower shields. Such a druid would be limited to wooden tower shields. Neverwinter Nights makes no distinction between tower shields and other kinds of shields as far as proficiency is concerned, and all characters proficient with shields can use tower shields. Tower shields also function differently in NWN than they do in D&D 3.x. In D&D, a tower shield grants +4 shield AC and can instead be positioned to provide cover on one side of a character's square. This capability is not included in Neverwinter Nights, and the tower shield's AC bonus was decreased to +3. As it appears in the Player's Handbook 3.5e, page 34: |
|
|
|
Post by Viridian Knight on Apr 22, 2016 17:58:22 GMT -5
That said, druids were also still allowed to use wooden shields, however they were limited in 3.5 to not be able to use Tower Shields (this is also a restriction that I've never seen enforced or mentioned as having to follow in a DM Q&A so I've always treated it as a custom ruling on the matter. . . . otherwise they'd have to change a few DM items, refund a bunch of items that druids have been using for gods knows how long and change that one druid restricted Ironwood tower shield on the server for sale) The Player's Handbook 3.5e wording on shields is not a prohibition of druidic use of tower shields. It's a listed proficiency with all shields except tower shields. In D&D 3.x, most characters with shield proficiency are not automatically proficient with tower shields. Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers all have the "(except tower shields)" wording in their proficiency list. This is all base classes with shield proficiency except fighter. The only core base class that is automatically proficient with tower shields is the fighter. I've listed the barbarian and fighter proficiency lists for comparison. The thing about D&D I love the most, is for all I know about it, there's always more to learn and you sir are very much right. Thanks for pointing that out to me, I've always played druids that weren't of the Forest Queen as not being able to use Tower Shields because of the wording. Thanks for the reply mate, I always love reading your messages when it comes to lore as it's almost always insightful even if it's something I was already aware of. VK. |
|
|
|
Post by Syd's Blue Sky on Apr 23, 2016 0:39:17 GMT -5
An interesting, hypocritical, aspect of elves is that they don't mine. While it is possible that some elves might come up with the idea - as a race elves never mine. They are however not averse of buying the ore and working it, and they are quite good crafters. Why do they refuse to mine? In D&D worlds (mirroring some of our world's views) - mining is considered environment-unfriendly. And by nature friends in D&D it's considered to change the environment too much, and you basically gut and wound the earth herself. Which also explains the dwarves and druids not being very friendly. Though it doesn't explain gnomes (that are considered nature-friends, but also quite good miners). Disclaimer: Not FR lore. This is 2e source. Elves don't mine (And also don't tend to focus on mundane crafts - AKA they're not very inventive) or invent, but there was a mining and inventing segment of the elven community at one time; they were among those who became the drow during however that happens in Greyhawk. As such these activities are frowned upon. I've never seen an explanation for why elves aren't very technologically inventive in FR in source, but given how much of the Base lore on elves ( particularly elves) was imported into FR wholesale this explanation seems reasonable to me. I'm sure Munroe will disagree, but I find it compelling. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As for golems, I'm aware of only one way golems are made according to source - They are constructs animated by an elemental spirit of Earth bound into servitude. This comes from the 3e Monster Manual. I've seen instances where specific golems (for all those PC aboleths on FRC) utilize water elemental spirits. I'm sure additional exceptions exist elsewhere. The theme here is that all golems of which I am aware utilize the binding of an elemental spirit into mindless servitude. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As for metal, the rulebook is pretty clear about what they can and can not wear, and the reasons for it. If you're in violation you're in violation. Period. Will it get you pulled over? Prolly not by itself, but if you do get pulled over it might land you an additional citation. Though... unless it's really egregious we do tend to just let people play here... these days. Trying to talk to players about poor play and rule violations as a DM is as likely to land the DM in hot water as the player. |
|
Templar
Old School
A female dwarf?! No really! What do you play?
Posts: 585
|
Post by Templar on Apr 23, 2016 6:11:39 GMT -5
Trying to talk to players about poor play and rule violations as a DM is as likely to land the DM in hot water as the player. ? Why ? |
|
