If a druid was captured and forced into, say, a chainshirt against his will, would that still sever his natural ties as if he put on the armor his or herself?
I would say no, that's dumb.
I am on the other end and would say yes. Seems a fine way to handle a druids spells and such without having to kill home or gag them and brake fingers.
That's your classes weakness ya need to accept that , just as a wizard has his weakness as well. And weaknesses can be exploited.
|
I would rule that he couldn't use his abilities while in the offending armor, but that as long as he got out of it as soon as humanly possible, he wouldn't suffer the 24 hour power loss. If he decided, after his arms were unshackled, to 'just leave it on until they got past the dudes with the spears, since I'm out of spells anyway' I'd be less generous.
I would rule that he couldn't use his abilities while in the offending armor, but that as long as he got out of it as soon as humanly possible, he wouldn't suffer the 24 hour power loss. If he decided, after his arms were unshackled, to 'just leave it on until they got past the dudes with the spears, since I'm out of spells anyway' I'd be less generous.
+1
|
I would rule that he couldn't use his abilities while in the offending armor, but that as long as he got out of it as soon as humanly possible, he wouldn't suffer the 24 hour power loss. If he decided, after his arms were unshackled, to 'just leave it on until they got past the dudes with the spears, since I'm out of spells anyway' I'd be less generous.+1
Dittoing for "standard" setting assumptions.
Willful or not, it's interfering with his signal. But if it was forced on him and he ammends it as soon as he can, his hasn't commited any violations to earn the day-long ban.
+2
First. That is a tricky question. I would say that while it is on them they are hosed. But once they take it off they could make a will save to avoid the 24 hour bit. If they failed that an Atonement spell would also be a fix.
But on a tangent you just gave me an idea how to deal with captured arcane casters. In place of the ham handed "Magic Dead Cell" you could weld them into a set of heavy armor and put a type of locked gauntlet on their hands that prevented finger movement and caused a 100% arcane spell failure chance.
(Not that this is any less ham handed then the magic dead cell... but it is something non-caster prison guards could come up with.)
|
If a druid was captured and forced into, say, a chainshirt against his will, would that still sever his natural ties as if he put on the armor his or herself?
I like this! Say you use Polymorph any object on their armor into metal armor to cut them off.
Although I would typically just PaO the druid themself into something else vile but... you get the idea.
|
|
i say it cuts them off.
*fluff* a druid attunes themselves to the natural flow of energy, and surrounded in metal cuts them off
also, as a DM, its the tactic to cut a druid off from their powers. if captured, enemies puts a druid in full plate to cut them off from their source of power and make them gimped
I would go with splint mail, less AC, no Dex, higher ACP, and cheaper to boot!
Wow, one hell of a good knowledge Nature check to know about how a druid's spell casting works.
It still seems odd that someone would purposefully put a captured foe into armor, just seems too meta for my tastes. After all, that's what rope and gags are for, not 100gp+ in worked armor.
Not all that hard. It would be pretty well known that druids don't wear metal armor. Take any 10 and none of them wear metal. Pretty easy to figure out there's a good reason for it. A little investigation (and more like a Knowledge (Religion) check, since it's a proscription from on high, not Knowledge (Nature)).
Plus, anyone who is responsible for putting people in jail and keeping them there is going to know every way to disable a spell caster.
Just like Paladins who are forced to commit evil acts, they lose their powers. The restriction isn't against willingly wearing metal armor, after all. And hey, druids only suffer for 24 hours after removal of the metal armor. A Paladin who is dominated and forced to kill a baby is a glorified Warrior until he finds a priest of his faith to grant him an atonement.
First. That is a tricky question. I would say that while it is on them they are hosed. But once they take it off they could make a will save to avoid the 24 hour bit. If they failed that an Atonement spell would also be a fix.
But on a tangent you just gave me an idea how to deal with captured arcane casters. In place of the ham handed "Magic Dead Cell" you could weld them into a set of heavy armor and put a type of locked gauntlet on their hands that prevented finger movement and caused a 100% arcane spell failure chance.
(Not that this is any less ham handed then the magic dead cell... but it is something non-caster prison guards could come up with.)
Makes a mage happy that spell mastery eschew materials, still spell and silent spell are all on his feat list.
Just like Paladins who are forced to commit evil acts, they lose their powers. The restriction isn't against willingly wearing metal armor, after all. And hey, druids only suffer for 24 hours after removal of the metal armor. A Paladin who is dominated and forced to kill a baby is a glorified Warrior until he finds a priest of his faith to grant him an atonement.
Um... not quite:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever commits an evil act.
|
Why would game mechanics be well understood by people in the game world itself? Why would this be true for all druids? You certainly wouldn't need to have class levels to be considered a "druid" or to call yourself one in many settings.
Plenty of Rangers could easily be called druids and they have no qualms about wearing metal armor. A Cleric or Adept of a nature deity or aspect could choose to be called a Druid and likewise in their sect be just fine wearing metal armor and casting spells.
Makes a mage happy that spell mastery eschew materials, still spell and silent spell are all on his feat list.
And if the mage had all those that is great. They take them just for this type of situation. That type of paranoia is why I had a character that swallowed some gems every day to avoid "Dirty Thieves". 99 times out of a hundred it was wasted effort... but that one day a thief hits you it is hard to pick pocket a lower intestine. /grin
Why would game mechanics be well understood by people in the game world itself? Why would this be true for all druids? You certainly wouldn't need to have class levels to be considered a "druid" or to call yourself one in many settings.
Plenty of Rangers could easily be called druids and they have no qualms about wearing metal armor. A Cleric or Adept of a nature deity or aspect could choose to be called a Druid and likewise in their sect be just fine wearing metal armor and casting spells.
Druids shapechange, have massive amounts of magic, and have big buff animal companions.
Ranger's don't shapechange, have puny magic, and weak companions. Yep, easy to mistake the two.
This is a strawman arguement. Game Mechanics are the worlds Physics and Reality.
If our world were made into a game, your statement would be the equivalent of saying 'Well, nobody can tell that chimp isn't a doctor, they both have a stethescope around their neck, and both are wearing white lab coats, they're superficially the same'.
Why would game mechanics be well understood by people in the game world itself? Why would this be true for all druids? You certainly wouldn't need to have class levels to be considered a "druid" or to call yourself one in many settings.
As the mechanics do indeed have an effect on the world around them, almost like naturals laws. You can call yourself what ya want but you still cast like and from the very same spell list as a druid.
Your basic casting knowledge and style is hard wired. A Spell craft will tell you what kind of spell it was..divine, and a know religion will tell you who type of divine traditions/ religions grant it.
Now there will be some over lap, sure but if they really want to know if you are a type of druid, your not gonna be able to hide it for long.
Druids shapechange, have massive amounts of magic, and have big buff animal companions.
Not all of them.
Ranger's don't shapechange, have puny magic, and weak companions.
Again, not true of all of them.
This is a strawman arguement.
Yes, you're right, your argument is a strawman.
Your basic casting knowledge and style is hard wired. A Spell craft will tell you what kind of spell it was..divine, and a know religion will tell you who type of divine traditions/ religions grant it.
There is nothing in the actual rules that supports this.
Just like Paladins who are forced to commit evil acts, they lose their powers. The restriction isn't against willingly wearing metal armor, after all. And hey, druids only suffer for 24 hours after removal of the metal armor. A Paladin who is dominated and forced to kill a baby is a glorified Warrior until he finds a priest of his faith to grant him an atonement.Um... not quite:
Hmm. You're right. I wonder which previous edition I was channeling, there. Sorry.
Hmm. You're right. I wonder which previous edition I was channeling, there. Sorry.Just like Paladins who are forced to commit evil acts, they lose their powers. The restriction isn't against willingly wearing metal armor, after all. And hey, druids only suffer for 24 hours after removal of the metal armor. A Paladin who is dominated and forced to kill a baby is a glorified Warrior until he finds a priest of his faith to grant him an atonement.Um... not quite:
Happens to us all and it was that way in previous editions so it's not like it was a large leap.
|
|
As the mechanics do indeed have an effect on the world around them, almost like naturals laws. You can call yourself what ya want but you still cast like and from the very same spell list as a druid.
Your basic casting knowledge and style is hard wired. A Spell craft will tell you what kind of spell it was..divine, and a know religion will tell you who type of divine traditions/religions grant it.
Now there will be some over lap, sure but if they really want to know if you are a type of druid, your not gonna be able to hide it for long.
That is true when it comes to identifying spells and so forth, but it's not a license to assume your characters know every detail of a class simply because you managed to make a spellcraft check. They don't have a Player's Handbook to crack open and look through and they're not very likely to know the intricacies of what kind of vows or oaths someone has taken simply because they saw them cast Faerie Fire.
It's so pervasively meta-gaming I doubt most people have even asked a fellow druid in their own party why they don't wear better armor. I know I haven't. I'm sure in a lot of people's games you can immediately discern anyone's class levels just by looking at them and it's kind of sad. You just look and go, "Oh, a druid/bard/wizard/etc," and don't think about it. It feels like that lessens the game a tiny bit too. :(
Your basic casting knowledge and style is hard wired. A Spell craft will tell you what kind of spell it was..divine, and a know religion will tell you who type of divine traditions/ religions grant it.There is nothing in the actual rules that supports this.
I disagree,Spell craft allows you to ID spells. Know religion does allow you to ID ecclesiastic tradition's which a druid is a part of.
You can disagree, but it is in rules
The druid is not doing nor wearing the armor, it is simply a metal cage...
So you do not wear cloths, they imprison you? So if ya wake up from being drugged and are in a bath robe or an outfit you did not yourself put on your officially naked? Sorry I do not buy it, if they are wearing it, no matter how it came to be on them, then they still have it on.
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.
I would like to disagree based on two words in the above
"wears"
"doing"jump out immediately being forced into armor is not "wearing" armor...
Doing is an action that is something the druid is doing, or in this case not doing......
The druid is not doing nor wearing the armor, it is simply a metal cage...
Also carries, for example glueing a prohibited shield to a druid or to the druids hand is not "carrying" a shield.....
Chief Jailer : "Ok, Lilly Green Treehugger, here's your options. You can put on this pig-iron armor, and you'll be allowed to move about the prison like a normal prisoner while you wear it. If you don't, we stick you in the hole." Shows Lilly the Druid the hole, a dank dark pit with iron walls and no light with chain manacles on the wall, along with a couple of moldy skeletons.
Lilly Druid : "My god detests your metal!" She looks into the hole, which is far from sunlight, trees, or even fresh air, surrounded by the stink of rusty metal. "But... I will don your jailhouse metal so that I will not be further parted from my god."Chief Jailer : While nodding. "Yeah, they usually do. Even the sorcerers and wizards." He fits her out for a 50 lb set of pig iron armor that clanks with each weary step.
I disagree,Spell craft allows you to ID spells.
But "Identify a spell" doesn't mean "identify whether a spell is arcane or divine". You may learn that the bad guy is casting fireball, but it could be a fireball cast by a wizard, sorcerer, oracle of fire, cleric of the fire domain, druid with the fire domain, or adept. There's nothing inherent in the spell itself that would tell you that.
I disagree,Spell craft allows you to ID spells.But "Identify a spell" doesn't mean "identify whether a spell is arcane or divine". You may learn that the bad guy is casting fireball, but it could be a fireball cast by a wizard, sorcerer, oracle of fire, cleric of the fire domain, druid with the fire domain, or adept. There's nothing inherent in the spell itself that would tell you that.
I would just like to point out that each spell is, to some extent, unique by class. If it weren't, you wouldn't have spell scrolls specific to a class.
For example, the fireball by a wizard is an arcane spell, and the fireball cast by a cleric is a divine spell. Additionally, some spells are obtained by some classes earlier than others (druid vs cleric for example in divine). Ergo, the spell itself must have some distinguishing characteristics unique to the class/etc. Otherwise, you could have Summoner's (who cast arcane) make scrolls or wands of Summon Monster at earlier levels than Sorcerers get them, and then the sorcerers could use those crolls/wands. Since that's not the case, the spell itself has unique characteristics based on the class that cast it.
I disagree,Spell craft allows you to ID spells.But "Identify a spell" doesn't mean "identify whether a spell is arcane or divine". You may learn that the bad guy is casting fireball, but it could be a fireball cast by a wizard, sorcerer, oracle of fire, cleric of the fire domain, druid with the fire domain, or adept. There's nothing inherent in the spell itself that would tell you that.
Your kinda wrong here
A fireball cast by a wizard or sorcerer is arcane and will be ID as such, one cast by a oracle, cleric or druid is divine in nature and shows up as such, they are not cast the same.
Once ya know which it is, then you know where to start to look and what skills to use to uncover which class the person belongs to
It really is not that hard as each class has baggage that are part of that casting tradition and so no caster classes can not really hide what they are if someone has the correct skills.
I would just like to point out that each spell is, to some extent, unique by class. If it weren't, you wouldn't have spell scrolls specific to a class.
You don't have spell scrolls specific to classes. You have scrolls specific to arcane, divine, or neither (in the case of artificers and warlocks making scrolls). A Summoner might be able to make a CL4 haste scroll, but any arcane caster can then read that scroll and cast that CL4 haste, even though they wouldn't normally be able to do so. This is actually evidence that it is not unique, because otherwise only Summoners would be able to cast from a CL4 haste scroll. It's just some trick inherent to how Summoners cast spells that allow them to "under-power" certain spells.
Otherwise, you could have Summoner's (who cast arcane) make scrolls or wands of Summon Monster at earlier levels than Sorcerers get them, and then the sorcerers could use those crolls/wands. Since that's not the case, the spell itself has unique characteristics based on the class that cast it.
Uhh, that actually ... is the case. For wands, anyone with the spell on their class list (arcane or divine, doesn't matter) can use them. For scrolls, anyone with the same arcane/divine power source and the spell on their class list can cast from them. You don't have to be the same class as the creator.
I disagree,Spell craft allows you to ID spells.But "Identify a spell" doesn't mean "identify whether a spell is arcane or divine". You may learn that the bad guy is casting fireball, but it could be a fireball cast by a wizard, sorcerer, oracle of fire, cleric of the fire domain, druid with the fire domain, or adept. There's nothing inherent in the spell itself that would tell you that.Your kinda wrong here
A fireball cast by a wizard or sorcerer is arcane and will be ID as such, one cast by a oracle, cleric or druid is divine in nature and shows up as such, they are not cast the same.
You're using circular logic here.
You say that they are not cast the same because they show up as arcane or divine, and that they show up as arcane or divine because they aren't cast the same.
No clue what your talking about, They are not cast the same. If they were then they would not be ID as arcane or divine.
Now that you know which type they are you use know arcane or know religion to see what else the caster has in common with each tradition.
It really is not hard, a druid would be an easy one, limited weapons allowed to use, limited armor, druidic powers and such. It would be easy to spot and not all that hard to ID one if your looking and have the correct skills.
No clue what your talking about, They are not cast the same. If they were then they would not be ID as arcane or divine.
I'm sorry, this made me laugh out loud, for real. EDIT: And I don't mean that in any kind of mocking or superior sense. It was more wonderment than anything else, really.
<pedant mode>
Circular Reasoning is when you assume what you are trying to prove. For example, saying, "President Reagan was a great communicator because he had the knack of talking effectively to the people" is circular reasoning because "great communicator" and "the knack of talking effectively" mean essentially the same thing. It is saying "President Reagan is A because he is A".
In your statement above, you're actually using a slightly more advanced form of circular reasoning, where you have two independent clauses where each is true only if the other is true, and each "proves" the other is true. In other words, you're saying, "A is true because B. B is true because A.".
</pedant mode>
I still have no clue with what that has to do with anything I have said.
The fact is each class has a set spell list. This is known, each class has built in limits and ways of doing thing, this is also known
You can use skill checks to confirm if x or y ability fits x or Y tradition.
It is not hard, by the rules it's one skill check to find out what type of casting he is using, after that it's just a few to narrow it down.
Not at all, the fact is each class has a set spell list.
Actually, no class has a set spell list. They have default spell lists, but anyone can add to their spell list by researching new spells or researching ways to cast existing spells in their own tradition.
This is known
It is? So everyone in your worlds knows exactly which spells every spellcaster, no matter how obscure, may and may not cast?
by the rules it's one skill check to find out what type of casting he is using
You continue to state this without actually supporting it with independent evidence.
Read the skill chapter, feel free to rule knowledge skills do not work if ya wish. Not my game so I really do not care how you use the rules at yours.
Read the skill chapter, feel free to rule knowledge skills do not work if ya wish. Not my game so I really do not care how you use the rules at yours.
Neither of us were discussing Knowledge skills in the my post above. The quotes I took from your posts were from the parts referring to Spellcraft, if anything at all.
In short, please don't throw up straw men. I'm not debating that you can use Knowledge skills to identify magical traditions. I'm debating whether you can identify whether a spell is arcane or divine just by making a Spellcraft check. Knowledge checks are 110% irrelevant to that.
He was saying use spellcraft and Knowledge in combination from the beginning.
He was saying use spellcraft and Knowledge in combination from the beginning.
He knows full well what I was talking about. He likes to just use part of it then cry straw man or fallacy this or that if ya do not agree.
By the book it does work, how choose to use the rules in his games are nothing to me.
He was saying use spellcraft and Knowledge in combination from the beginning.
Actually, from the beginning, he said this:
A fireball cast by a wizard or sorcerer is arcane and will be ID as such, one cast by a oracle, cleric or druid is divine in nature and shows up as such
This was said in response to my post which was talking solely about Spellcraft. Thus, he's logically talking solely about Spellcraft in that post. Especially since Knowledges don't let you identify spells as they're being cast.
However, he has provided literally zero support from the rules towards his position that arcane-ness or divine-ness are, by the rules, provided as part of the identification of a spell, and the rest of his arguments are anchored on that point. He keeps saying "By the book it works", but that's the only support he's given his statement. I can say, "The book says the moon is blue", but that doesn't make it true. I need to provide an actual reference to the book saying that the moon is blue in order to provide support for my statement. Similarly, seeker needs to provide an actual reference to the book saying that you can identify whether a given spellcaster is casting arcane or divine spells using Spellcraft.
Once again, say your character watches somebody cast fireball. He made the Spellcraft check and knows that the spell is fireball. However, fireball isn't restricted to just arcane or divine spellcasters. All of the full spellcasting classes can cast fireball, as can Adepts. There are actually twice as many divine classes that can cast fireball as arcane ones (sorcerer and wizard vs cleric, druid, oracle, and adept)! There is absolutely no way for a character to know that this particular fireball is arcane or divine using just Spellcraft.
Now, it's possible he can use other methods to deduce that fact, such as a Knowledge: Religion check to recognize the guy's raiments as belonging to the church of Sarenrae and thus making a guess that he's a priest (although even then, there's nothing preventing a wizard from wearing priestly vestments, so it is just a guess). That isn't seeker's claim, however. He claimed it could be done with just Spellcraft, and that the book says it can be done with just Spellcraft.
Until he actually provides text that states this, I say he's wrong.
You left out a part:
Once ya know which it is, then you know where to start to look and what skills to use to uncover which class the person belongs to
I read this to mean Knowledge skills. If you are going to quote, quote all of it.
You left out a part:
Once ya know which it is, then you know where to start to look and what skills to use to uncover which class the person belongs toI read this to mean Knowledge skills. If you are going to quote, quote all of it.
That would negate the whole point of only quoting selected bits though.
Touche
Ignore him, his tactic is to derail if he can't "win". Just let it go and ignore him.
You left out a part:
Once ya know which it is, then you know where to start to look and what skills to use to uncover which class the person belongs toI read this to mean Knowledge skills. If you are going to quote, quote all of it.
Except, of course, that I do not take issue with the second part of his statement. It's irrelevant to the point I'm making. I'm perfectly fine with using a Knowledge check to identify which type of tradition the spell was cast in once you know whether the spell was arcane or divine. Thus, I didn't quote that -- because there was no point to it. It's not in question. What IS in question is seeker's bald, direct, explicit assertion that Spellcraft checks alone can determine whether a spell is arcane or divine.