So your arguement is if that as long as its okay for the druid he can teach his animal to do it but if he "forces" the animal to wear metal and only metal armor it violates his oath so two questions
1.What if the party ranger feeling sorry for the poor bear getting hit by every goblin they encounter puts a chain shirt on the bear already trained to wear light armor?
2. As a NE druid i buy several children as slaves force them to wear halfling fullplate and guard me. How does this react with my oath?
3. One more if i make a monk druid and have a vow of chains and i choose not to have my animal companion wear chains do i lose the Ki from the vow.
Figured i would bump these in hope of response and also as it has been stated 24 hours is all this unthinkable evil act penalize the druid for.
|
Since this little tangent has gotten somewhat off topic:
the priest swore himself to celibacy he wouldn't be cast from favor because his very close family memeber (by this i mean someone as close to him as the animal companion to the druid so there is no confusion) got married and had sex would he?
Cast from favor? Well, you said you're a Christian. What would you and your church think if the priest/minister/pastor/whomever had a teenage girl (say she was 14) and it was known that she slept around, did drugs, drank, smoked, etc. and he (the parent) did nothing to try and stop it (just let it happen)?
the priest swore himself to celibacy he wouldn't be cast from favor because his very close family memeber (by this i mean someone as close to him as the animal companion to the druid so there is no confusion) got married and had sex would he?Cast from favor? Well, you said you're a Christian. What would you and your church think if the priest/minister/pastor/whomever had a teenage girl (say she was 14) and it was known that she slept around, did drugs, drank, smoked, etc. and he (the parent) did nothing to try and stop it (just let it happen)?
Your still making the argument of religious tenents versus oaths. Not all druids follow a deity but some do their religion the clerics of the same deity can walk around in full plate its not a tenet of a faith its an oath (though not one ever mentioned). The above priest would definatly need to do something however once again we are on an entire faith not one mans oath.
however once again we are on an entire faith not one mans oath.But without the religion, there would be no oath (and if there was, perhaps it would be much different)...
Monk vows? Oaths to a king? Do these not count as oaths with consequences to you? Samuai and there Lords? Breaking that one gets you killed thats worse than the druids but since its not religious you wouldn't count it?
|
|
Monk vows? Oaths to a king? Do these not count as oaths with consequences to you? Samuai and there Lords? Breaking that one gets you killed thats worse than the druids but since its not religious you wouldn't count it?
But we're talking about the druid. And my analogies and comparisons need only be applied to the druid...
Can we make comparisons to these other classes using the same analogy? Sure, but again, we are talking about the druid and how HIS oath affects HIM (and by extension, how he treats his animal companions)...
Then lets leave it at the druid and just the druid which says nothing about why he doesn't wear the armor it just that if he does for one day he gets non of his spells or other spell like thingys. If it was such a big moral dilemma wouldn't he need an atonement like a paladin does for the simple act of lying just for lying. He doesn't and nothing says it bars the companion from doing so it isnt even implied as to why the armor is a no no. Hell its not like their is some deep spiritual bond between them i can change companions more than most peasents bath with no repurcussions. So the way i see it if a druid actually was to devote that kind of love to an animal it shows a better bond with nature than a druid who just upgrades every chance he can.
Meaning that we tend to “extend” our beliefs, virtues, ethics, and life-styles upon those within our direct influence (i.e. pets, and children); to do something contrary to that would be unimaginable to most people...
Not to mention being unimaginable to our higher powers.
Thanks for understanding, Digitalelf!
As soon as you can show me the reason for the druid’s oath, I’ll agree that it covers his animal companion as well. Until then, all you are showing me is your own interpretation.
And as soon as you can show me a reason even remotely as reasonable as the intuitive one I just mentioned, that allows for Fluffy’s full plate without a double standard, I’ll agree that RAI might be in question. Until then, you’re just reciting RAW.
If I kidnap a druid’s wolf companion, and force it into metal barding, does he lose his powers?
I say thee, nay.
I agree. Because it’s you making the decision, not the wolf’s druid.
Near as I can tell, TS has admitted that druids are not penalized for it, but that he doesn’t like that and will change it in his games.
Not quite. We all agree that the RAW is quite clear. What I’m saying is that the RAI too is quite clear, and implies a different ruling.
Of course, his reasoning about ‘metal is banned because mining destroys nature’ falls flat for me, since druids are perfectly allowed to wield metal weapons...
Like I’ve pointed out several times, the oath isn’t terribly consistent. But consistent or not, ignoring the obvious implications of it creates a double standard. A double standard which I’m sure the devs did not intend.
I don’t run 3e anymore, but if I did, I’d probably do what Hogarth does and just drop the silly Oath.
This is an oath like one sworn when joining the military and i do know ex-military people who have taught their children that the miliatary is wrong and bad even though they swore that oath themselves years ago.
The druid is a divine class, not a military one.
2. If you want ot compare to a priest oaths his family isnt bound by those oaths and if he were to have children maybe from adoption they wouldn’t be bound to not have sex.
Of course not, because once the priest’s children grow up they’re capable of making their own decisions. Further, the priest can’t make decisions for other adults unless he’s a villainous priest. Problem is, once the kids are grown up the analogy falls apart because Fluffy never becomes capable of making wardrobe decisions.
1.What if the party ranger feeling sorry for the poor bear getting hit by every goblin they encounter puts a chain shirt on the bear already trained to wear light armor?
Assuming it’s the druid’s bear, the druid violates his oath by allowing the bear to wear the chain shirt. The only way he might get a pass is if the ranger actually commandeers the bear from the druid, but that’s a stretch and a corner case.
2. As a NE druid i buy several children as slaves force them to wear halfling fullplate and guard me. How does this react with my oath?
You’ve violated your oath, unless you’re a comically villainous Rich Burlew invention.
3. One more if i make a monk druid and have a vow of chains and i choose not to have my animal companion wear chains do i lose the Ki from the vow.
I have no idea what a vow of chains is. Is this a PF thing?
Someone mentioned what you teach your children. Teaching them to be able to make tough decisions despite what your own personal preference is just as important as teaching them your core beliefs and values. Knowing when to compromise in an imperfect world and when not to is an important skill.
That’s true, but we know what Fluffy will pick every time. Because Fluffy can’t make the decision to wear metal on his own.
It's just not something that EVER would be thought of or considered (or even speculated) by the person you're asking...Obviously someone did, in this case, otherwise this thread would not exist. ;)
Originally it was a munchkin on the WotC boards who brought this up. Not my word, by the way; he was self-professed.
Vow of chains is UM Gives the druid extra KI for having to wear chains that restrict his movement
Originally it was a munchkin on the WotC boards who brought this up. Not my word, by the way; he was self-professed.It's just not something that EVER would be thought of or considered (or even speculated) by the person you're asking...Obviously someone did, in this case, otherwise this thread would not exist. ;)
Doesnt mean the idea was born or munchkinness have to pick up three feats and spend a hell of a lot of money to make his companion only somewhat better at staying alive. Not power build material to me by the time you buy a large animal full plate its 6k just for normal metal armor.
There is no mention of any oath (at least I can’t find it).Check out the Characteristics section on page 33.
[QUOTE=
that's babarian's rage powers? (Pathfinder Core?)
am I looking the wrong place?GRU
If druids have an ethical objection to metal armor, why do they spend so much time hanging out with people who wear it?
I have an ethical objection to people who share the pricing of one company with that of another company. So I don't work with them.
I have an ethical objection to people who rob banks, so I don't hang out with them.
Yet, the argument is being made that a druid would not allow Fluffy to dress up like a Battle Cat because he does not wear armor due to his so-called ethical dilemma.
I don't think druids have an ethical issue with metal armor. I think they abstain from wearing it, the same way, as someone else mentioned, that priests abstain from sex. It is not because they are diametrically opposed to it. It is because it is a sacrifice they are prepared to make. I don't think it's a fallacy to say that a person who abstains from something is not necessarily opposed to it. In fact, sacrifice demands you actually want the thing you are abstaining from, or it's not sacrifice.
How this relates to Fluffy is an iffy, gray area to me. The druid's intimate connection with the animal would seem to indicate he would arm it at risk to that connection, since the Powers That Be require his abstinence to grant him his powers. But don't let us pretend that ethics is a part of this. A requirement is a requirement. It needn't be rooted in morality, as not every rule is based on a moral choice. Some are just practical, and some are just a matter of duty.
|
|
And as soon as you can show me a reason even remotely as reasonable as the intuitive one I just mentioned, that allows for Fluffy’s full plate without a double standard, I’ll agree that RAI might be in question. Until then, you’re just reciting RAW.
I can't, because I don't believe there is a double standard.
If the devs had intended it to be played as you interpret, they would have said druids cannot use metal armor instead of wear metal armor.
There is no double standard here because the oath is the druid's, not the animal's. And the druid is not prohibited from using or touching or being around metal armor. He is prohibited from wearing it.
It's perfectly fine to say "I think druids should not use metal armor at all, in any way" but there is nothing in the rules that supports that. The only thing that supports that is your own personal feelings.
You say it goes against the spirit of the oath, I say it does not.
I reckon let the animal have the armour.
Druids CAN wear metal armour, it simply has a repercussion if they do.
Aside from that, the Animal is under no such oath. What about if the animal has 3 Int and is now capable of more rational thought, it sees the party fighter in mail and the horse in barding, connects the dots and realises that it will have greatly increased chances ofsurvival in all the combat it finds itself in... so it asks its druid companion and he/she says "no, I can't wear it, and so neither can you - please remain at a higher risk of a messy death because of my personal pet preferences"
|
The only place I would have even considered a question, is of a druid sharing a buff with a metal-armored companion, but, since a druid can cast barkskin or bull's strength on a metal-armored party member without restriction, even that doesn't hold up. Since Shiny McPlatemail can wear an amulet of natural armor without offending the druid gods (or lack thereof, in many cases), there isn't any in-game justification for a druid not being able to armor up his companion and still cast (or share) druid spells on it.
I am a vegetarian for personal reasons. My cat is not. My reasons to not eat meat do not apply to my cat. A Druid's reasons may not apply to his animal companion. If the companion is a horse, is it unreasonable to want to protect the horse with the best barding available?
I still say ask your GM. The nature of Druidic beliefs should be campaign world specific.
I am a vegetarian for personal reasons. My cat is not. My reasons to not eat meat do not apply to my cat.
Furthermore, deinol does indeed lose his superpowers when he consumes bacon.
No power without sacrifice.
deinol pretty much hit it on the mark for me. If the taboo for the druid had been that he can't eat meat, it would be silly to assume that the taboo would be the same for the animal companion. You end up with sad pathetic lion that had been raised on tofu.
There has been a lot of talk about the druid's deity feels ..., I might point out that the RAW and RAI of 3.5 is that divine casters do not need a deity to get divine spells. They can worship one if they choose (or if a particular game group decides to have houserule), but in the basic rules there is no assumption that they must have deity.
Thus the druid by default probably is more of a worshipper of nature itself. Well nature don't give one lick about just about anything. You got NG druids in the same circle with NE druids with LN druids with CN druids. Nature doesn't care if you help the hurt traveler out of the woods or if you lead the wolf pack to him and join in the feast.
Nature isn't loosing sleep worrying about people or critters wearing metal or not, or using metal to fight with or even cutting down an ancient tree to carve its corpse into a set of wooden armor to be enhanced with an ironwood spell.
So the restriction is probably just more of the druid order's specific guidelines. It is a taboo, something that you give up to show respect by sacrificing. But to force someone or something else to sacrifice is not respecting that oath. Some have talked about forcing children to behave in certain fashions, but let me turn that around. The oath is about a restriction. This would be like a person with an oath of celibacy went to a person in their care and castrated them so that they also had to be celibate (or maybe just put a chastity belt on them).
Now digitalelf, and probably some others, changed the discussion a little bit. He started talking about what a druid "would" do and not necessarily what a druid "could" do. I certainly can see where players may deem that their druid would not put metal armor on their companions. They would not feel it was right for whatever reason. That is great as a roleplaying decision, but when people start changing from what "would" they do to what "could" they do that hurts roleplaying in my mind. You start to remove possibilities. I would rather have a druid that wouldn't ever think of putting metal armor on his companion right next to another druid that has adamantine full-plate barding on his., than to have the second druid been forced to not play his druid true to his concept.
What is it that the Vulcans say, "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations".
Things a druid can do:
Use metal weapons.
Wear metal rings, amulets, bracers, helmets, and belts.
Wear other animal's hides(something almost uniquely human, very few other creatures wear other animals' skin on top of their own)
Associate with others who wear metal armor.
Cast spells on others who wear metal armor.
Carry metal armor.
Carry gold, platinum, silver, and copper coins.
Things a druid can't do: wear metal armor.
Seems to me they don't have much of an ethical objection to metal, since they use so much of it. And if they were supposed to be opposed to metal armor because it's unnatural, well it's not like leather armor is particularly nature friendly to make, or that mining gold, silver, copper, or platinum is something great for the environment, but they can carry as many coins as they want without breaking their oath and wear leather to their heart's content.
That's why I see it as an oath more than a moral objection, and if they had an animal that would be safer with metal barding I wouldn't penalize the druid for it. I'd be fine with a DM ruling in his world that druids object to metal, and so they don't use metal armor or metal weapons, carry coin, or accept items of gold, silver, etc, but that's not how I would interpret the druid's restrictions.
Doesnt mean the idea was born or munchkinness have to pick up three feats and spend a hell of a lot of money to make his companion only somewhat better at staying alive. Not power build material to me by the time you buy a large animal full plate its 6k just for normal metal armor.Originally it was a munchkin on the WotC boards who brought this up. Not my word, by the way; he was self-professed.It’s just not something that EVER would be thought of or considered (or even speculated) by the person you’re asking...Obviously someone did, in this case, otherwise this thread would not exist. ;)
As I recall, he wasn’t so much interested in power gaming as p!ssing his DM off with his robodino pet.
It was a WotC forum, are you really surprised?
Vow of chains is UM Gives the druid extra KI for having to wear chains that restrict his movement
I still have no clue what you’re talking about.
There is no mention of any oath (at least I can’t find it).Check out the Characteristics section on page 33.that’s babarian’s rage powers? (Pathfinder Core?)
am I looking the wrong place?GRU
Ah, I see the problem! I’m referencing the 3.5 PHB.
If druids have an ethical objection to metal armor, why do they spend so much time hanging out with people who wear it?
Because adventurers come in all stripes, and a druid can’t be too picky. More importantly, it’s rather difficult for a druid to force his beliefs on other adult humans, even if he’s a manipulative SOB. Conversely, he doesn't need to force his beliefs on Fluffy because Fluffy doesn't have the mental faculties to disagree.
If the devs had intended it to be played as you interpret, they would have said druids cannot use metal armor instead of wear metal armor.
You don’t think it’s possible, even likely, that the devs didn’t bother to detail the exact wording of the Oath simply because they never anticipated some pest of a player using RAW to aggravate his DM? (The pest being the WotC poster, not you.)
Let me ask everyone else this question: Did it ever even occur to you that a druid pet might wear metal armor, before I mentioned it? I’m sure some players notice the dev’s omission, but I suspect that most players don’t notice it for the same reason that the devs didn’t: because the RAI is such an intuitive extention of what is written. After all, this is far from the only example of the devs making RAW boo-boos.
What about if the animal has 3 Int and is now capable of more rational thought, it sees the party fighter in mail and the horse in barding, connects the dots and realises that it will have greatly increased chances ofsurvival in all the combat it finds itself in... so it asks its druid companion and he/she says “no, I can’t wear it, and so neither can you - please remain at a higher risk of a messy death because of my personal pet preferences”
You must have missed the awakened discussion, in which we all agreed that Int 3+ Fluffy might wear whatever he pleases without robbing his druid of spells, because that Fluffy is very different from Int 2 Fluffy.
Regardless, if a druid was really concerned about his pet’s safety, he wouldn’t bring it on dangerous adventures.
Since Shiny McPlatemail can wear an amulet of natural armor without offending the druid gods (or lack thereof, in many cases), there isn’t any in-game justification for a druid not being able to armor up his companion and still cast (or share) druid spells on it.
You don’t see an important mental difference between Shiny McPlatemail and Fluffy?
A Druid’s reasons may not apply to his animal companion.
If you can think of a simple and sensible reason that excludes Fluffy from the Oath, I’ll agree.
If the companion is a horse, is it unreasonable to want to protect the horse with the best barding available?
If you were really concerned for its safety, you wouldn’t ride it into all kinds of dangerous adventures.
deinol pretty much hit it on the mark for me. If the taboo for the druid had been that he can’t eat meat, it would be silly to assume that the taboo would be the same for the animal companion. You end up with sad pathetic lion that had been raised on tofu.
That’s a rather faulty analogy. First, predatory animals require meat to survive. (Or high amounts of protein, of which meat is the easiest source in a typical D&D world.) Nobody needs metal armor to survive. Second, eating meat comes naturally to predators; so even if you’re a vegetarian you’re not training your pet to do something which you won’t do. You’re just living and letting live. Do you really not see a difference between this situation and a druid actively training Fluffy to do something that neither would ever do on their own?
Nature isn’t loosing sleep worrying about people or critters wearing metal or not, or using metal to fight with or even cutting down an ancient tree to carve its corpse into a set of wooden armor to be enhanced with an ironwood spell.
Regardless of whether a druid is worshipping the philosophy of tree hugging, or worshipping a god of tree hugging, that higher power clearly does care what the druid does. Because if he violates his tree hugger Oath, he loses his powers for a day.
So the restriction is probably just more of the druid order’s specific guidelines.
This is a guideline; the druid’s Oath is a divinely enforced rule.
|
|
You don’t think it’s possible, even likely, that the devs didn’t bother to detail the exact wording of the Oath simply because they never anticipated some pest of a player using RAW to aggravate his DM? (The pest being the WotC poster, not you.)
Anything is possible. I disagree that it is likely that is the case.
Can Fluffy Wear Full Plate?
Yes, It's called barding.
There is no mention of any oath (at least I can’t find it).Check out the Characteristics section on page 33.that’s babarian’s rage powers? (Pathfinder Core?)
am I looking the wrong place?GRU
Ah, I see the problem! I’m referencing the 3.5 PHB.
Thanks, Tequila!
GRU
That’s a rather faulty analogy. First, predatory animals require meat to survive. (Or high amounts of protein, of which meat is the easiest source in a typical D&D world.) Nobody needs metal armor to survive.
Have you played any adventuring games? Nobody needs metal armor to survive? Really? So why is the paladin wearing it? The cleric? Why does the barbarian have his mithral breastplate? Metal armor makes the likelihood of survival much greater in many cases (swimming would be one where it may actually be more harmful than good). As for predatory animals eating meat, as you point out meat may be the easiest way, but then if things were easy we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your whole point is that the druid is making life hard for himself, thus it must be hard for his companion as well. So go tofu lion!
Second, eating meat comes naturally to predators; so even if you’re a vegetarian you’re not training your pet to do something which you won’t do. You’re just living and letting live. Do you really not see a difference between this situation and a druid actively training Fluffy to do something that neither would ever do on their own?
Again as many have already pointed out, this argument is not very convincing because the animal companion is already doing things it wouldn't normally do. If your claim that the animal companion wouldn't wear metal armor without training (being forced to by its master), then what about leather armor? You seem to indicate that presents no problem, but the animal isn't going to want to naturally wear leather armor any more than it is metal armor. So if your argument is "it is not natural" to do something, then I guess druids don't get animal companions because adventuring isn't natural in the least.
Or as part of his training he gets a "mental block" where he is mentally not capable of casting magic when he wears metal armor. The restriction doesn't have to be from an outside source.
As others have pointed out, the druid can use literally tons of metal without any problem. Metal is not a problem for druids or their "sources". Druids have restriction, no where does it say that their animal companion has a restriction on armor. The easiest reason then is that only druids were suppose to have the restriction or that the writers only gave a damn about the druid being restricted and didn't care one way or the other about the animal companion wearing metal armor or not. Your position requires that the writers had to care equally about the animal companion being restricted but failed to refer to any such restriction in any way.
Oh and about the capture of the animal companion and forcing armor on it, the druid's restriction on armor makes no mention that if he "voluntarily" wears metal armor (for example, if the druid was dominated into wearing it, he would still lose his powers). Thus why would it apply to the companion? Obviously if the companion wearing metal armor makes the druid lose his abilities, then forcing metal armor on it is going to do that. Easy way to keep a druid prisoner, keep the animal companion in metal armor.
At the end of the day, show me where in RAW it says the animal can't wear metal armour.
PPOR.
Thx :)
The stance of the Yes/Maybe camp seems to be “If I refuse to make any judgments about the flavor text whatsoever, I can assume that RAW is RAI.”
Well, at least now I know how people are coming up with these opinions.
Have you played any adventuring games? Nobody needs metal armor to survive? Really?
Yeah, really. Have you played D&D, in which many creatures manage to survive without wearing metal armor?
Your whole point is that the druid is making life hard for himself, thus it must be hard for his companion as well.
He’s not “making life hard for his companion.” He’s simply not putting his pet through armor training and then forcing it to wear an uncomfortable outfit. There’s a big difference.
Again as many have already pointed out, this argument is not very convincing because the animal companion is already doing things it wouldn’t normally do.
And as I’ve pointed out many times, it’s not just about making Fluffy do something he wouldn’t normally do. It’s about making Fluffy do something he wouldn’t normally do that also violates his druid’s ethics.
Or as part of his training he gets a “mental block” where he is mentally not capable of casting magic when he wears metal armor. The restriction doesn’t have to be from an outside source.
Seeing as how the druid is a divine class, a mere “mental block” is unlikely.
Your position requires that the writers had to care equally about the animal companion being restricted but failed to refer to any such restriction in any way.
I notice that nobody has yet answered my question: Did it ever even occur to you that a druid pet might wear metal armor, before I mentioned it?
Oh and about the capture of the animal companion and forcing armor on it, the druid’s restriction on armor makes no mention that if he “voluntarily” wears metal armor (for example, if the druid was dominated into wearing it, he would still lose his powers).
The devs didn’t write a proviso about druids involuntarily wearing metal armor because it’s such a corner case. I mean, really, getting dominated into wearing metal? First you’ve got to beat that high will save, then you’re got to have some bizarre reason to want a non-proficient user to wear it. Then he's got to have the time to put it on. As Caption Jack would say, “To what point and purpose?”
I agree that such a corner case would be a gray area, and exactly the reason D&D has DMs. But using a corner case to infer that the devs considered that corner case is rather far-fetched. Devs not thinking about corner cases really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who posts regularly on a 3e forum.
At the end of the day, show me where in RAW it says the animal can’t wear metal armour.
PPOR.
Thx :)
This discussion is about RAI. You’re welcome.
I notice that nobody has yet answered my question: Did it ever even occur to you that a druid pet might wear metal armor, before I mentioned it?
Frequently, to the point where I've never seen it considered that they couldn't until this thread. It's always been considered a perfectly legitimate tactic to protect the animal companion in every game I've played that has had a druid, which is most of them, since I tend to play druids a lot.
This discussion is about RAI. You’re welcome.
So failing any statement in RAW, can you show me a line referring to the Companions taht even suggests they cannot wear metal armour. If we are talking about rules as intended, the show me where it suggests that it is the intent that the animal cannot wear metal armour.
There's about as much evidence of intent for such a notion as there is that the Druid would intend none of the other party members should wear metal armour either.
This comes down to the intent of players and GM's who seek to simply force a restriction on a class out of their own biases and opinions, a position not supported by RAW, and not something where we can point to in any rulebook in almost thirty years of Druids running about that would even show clear intention for anyone other than the Druid him/herself to be so restricted.
And as above, have seen metal armour + pets done over and over, it is not a new concept by any stretch. It was happening in 2nd ed as a common practice, I found it bizarre to hear of people DISallowing it.
|
|
What Shifty said.
Your bias that anyone taking such an oath would naturally abhor his companion using the subject of his oath is making you see design intent that is not actually there.
Your statement about the nature of a druid is certainly logical. Your statement that the designers obviously intended that to be the case is a much less logical leap. That a druid who puts metal barding on his companion must lose his spellcasting based on your second statement is a huge leap that I cannot find justified.
As to your question, I admit I don't recall thinking about it. However, I think the fact I have only seen one druid with a companion, who never put any equipment on said companion let alone metal barding, renders that a useless point of data.
|
|
Never seen a druid who *didn't* try to keep his companion alive by equipping it in the best armor available. Before the animal companion even existed, in 2nd edition, the druid player in my game was asking for house-ruled 'animal barding' for the bear he'd used Animal Friendship on. As of 3.5, the first feat every bear, cat or wolf companion has taken has been Light Armor Proficiency (with a chain shirt barding being the armor chosen). Even the one guy who choose a roc as his animal companion asked if he could have some sort of leather breastplate crafted for it (and he only picked leather over mithril because he couldn't afford mithril yet, and anything heavier would have made the roc unable to fly with his halfling self on its back)...
I mean, sure, technically there's nothing in the rules as written to suggest that a CN or NE druid couldn't go through companions like Kleenex, sending something with AC 15 ish up against CR 5 and 6 encounters, but, in my experience, anyone who wanted to play a druid, wanted to role-play a character that liked their animal companion and wanted it to last more than one session.
I'd be inclined to warn a druid player who *didn't* try to keep his companion alive, and treated it as expendable, through visions, at first, or his companion acting uncooperative, and, if it gets egregious (on companion three, and still unwilling to protect them) with some sort of atonement-necessary quest. Since the druid has an empathic link of sorts with his companion, he may even suffer some PTSD type symptoms from experiencing all of the painful deaths of the companions he sent into combat without bothering to protect them.
The druid ethos may not be spelled out quite like the paladin ethos, but I'd darn well expect that it should mean *something.* Refusing to protect your animal companion because it's easier to replace it than buy it some barding, would be a no-no for most druids, particularly the NG ones.
Quite true Set, quite true.
This conversation has been around since 2nd ed graced our gaming tables; armour was fine then, and it's fine now.
|
The stance of the Yes/Maybe camp seems to be “If I refuse to make any judgments about the flavor text whatsoever, I can assume that RAW is RAI.”
Well, at least now I know how people are coming up with these opinions.
As I was one of the early poters in the Yes/Maybe camp, as you call it, I find this generalization wron and a bit insulting. My whole answer was based on the respect of the druid toward his animal companions, about not treating them as pets or property.
You may agree or disagree, but reducing the arguments of a "side" in this discussion to those you can dismiss the way you do is a rather low form of argumentation.
I don't see intention of the rules to prohibit animal companions from wearing metal armor, that doesn't mean I assume about RAI any more then you do, by thinking it is "obvious" that the rules intend to forbid the armoring of animal companions.
The least you could do is acknowledge, that your assumption about RAI is not as obvious at it seemed to you - instead of falsely condensing any arguments that don't belong to "your side" to the quoted statement.
To answer your question: Yes, it did occur to me. Bardings (including metal bardings) were quite common for animals on the battlefield (mostly dogs and horses). Druids do know this and will have to make up their mind wheather to use it or not - I just don't think that the game rules out a "yes" for an answer.
Druids do know this and will have to make up their mind wheather to use it or not - I just don't think that the game rules out a "yes" for an answer.
Not only does the game not rule it out, at no point in any of the plethora of materials ever written for Druids does it even suggest or hint that the restriction would apply.
This is not a 'corner case', it is a mainstream issue.
I think your points are very valid.
Have you played any adventuring games? Nobody needs metal armor to survive? Really? So why is the paladin wearing it? The cleric? Why does the barbarian have his mithral breastplate? Metal armor makes the likelihood of survival much greater in many cases (swimming would be one where it may actually be more harmful than good). As for predatory animals eating meat, as you point out meat may be the easiest way, but then if things were easy we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your whole point is that the druid is making life hard for himself, thus it must be hard for his companion as well. So go tofu lion!
I have to agree with Tequila on this. We are discussing a divine class; whether they adhere to the teachings of a specific deity or a general philosophy, they are making an oath based on spiritual and ethical beliefs about the world. Practicality does not enter into the discussion. All kinds of beliefs dictate all kinds of oaths and actions which are very inconvenient for their adherents, but they do them anyway because the world view of the adherents is at stake. Now, it would be possible for those restrictions to change: the Vatican has reversed many long-standing elements of doctrine. So there is the possibility for a bunch of arch-druids to get together and pow-wow with the tree gods and say "Not wearing armor is a pain in our often-furry behinds. Can we, pretty please with cherries on top?" But that is irrelevant to the current state of the rules, which says that the oath exists. I can think of no reasonable account for why that oath exists in this game other than reflection of personal ethical commitments not to wear metal armor. In which case, training the animal to do so, yes, enters into the realm of a double standard.
I find the argument against letting Fluffy haz full-plate more convincing than the argument for.
|
|
The druid ethos may not be spelled out quite like the paladin ethos, but I'd darn well expect that it should mean *something.* Refusing to protect your animal companion because it's easier to replace it than buy it some barding, would be a no-no for most druids, particularly the NG ones.
You clearly see a RAI in this, with clearly no RAW (a "no brainer" for you if you will)...
Yet you use the "no RAW" prohibiting metal armor for an animal companion to allow him to do so. It's the SAME thing! If there is no RAW for either, than you cannot cite RAI on one and not the other (even for something you clearly see as a "no brainer!")...
A double standard is a double standard! It's either in the RAW or it's not!
*EDIT*
I'm only trying to illustrate a point here, not advocating using Fluffy as a meat shield (and make accusations of using a double standard)...
But with your argument for use of RAI, you've managed to illustrate our side of the issue concerning metal armor on an animal companion (at least my view anyway) in that it is clearly an issue of RAI with no RAW to support it...
|
|
Have you played any adventuring games? Nobody needs metal armor to survive? Really? So why is the paladin wearing it? The cleric? Why does the barbarian have his mithral breastplate? Metal armor makes the likelihood of survival much greater in many cases (swimming would be one where it may actually be more harmful than good). As for predatory animals eating meat, as you point out meat may be the easiest way, but then if things were easy we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your whole point is that the druid is making life hard for himself, thus it must be hard for his companion as well. So go tofu lion!
I have to agree with Tequila on this. We are discussing a divine class; whether they adhere to the teachings of a specific deity or a general philosophy, they are making an oath based on spiritual and ethical beliefs about the world. Practicality does not enter into the discussion. All kinds of beliefs dictate all kinds of oaths and actions which are very inconvenient for their adherents, but they do them anyway because the world view of the adherents is at stake. Now, it would be possible for those restrictions to change: the Vatican has reversed many long-standing elements of doctrine. So there is the possibility for a bunch of arch-druids to get together and pow-wow with the tree gods and say "Not wearing armor is a pain in our often-furry behinds. Can we, pretty please with cherries on top?" But that is irrelevant to the current state of the rules, which says that the oath exists. I can think of no reasonable account for why that oath exists in this game other than reflection of personal ethical commitments not to wear metal armor. In which case, training the animal to do so, yes, enters into the realm of a double standard.
I find the argument against letting Fluffy haz full-plate more convincing than the argument for.
That is fine for you, however, that implys, the druid views his animal comanions as property or at least subordinates.
That doesn't fit my take on the druid.That doesn't mean I couldn't agree with your view were I to play in your game.
Alll I really say is: The RAI isn't obviously anti armored animal.
|
|
What is with the boards lately with people trying to gimp classes because of their favored fluff? Is there a single rule prohibiting animal companions from wearing metal armor? No. In fact, the rules support it, as they can take heavy armor proficiency (all metal armors). What you are advocating is essentially punishing a character for using the mechanics the game intends them to use. If a player wants to invest THREE of his companions limited feat choices into getting heavy armor barding, they should be allowed to do so. How in any possible way could this damage versimilitude? Your Druid follows his code, the animal does not. There are ZERO references RAW to suggest otherwise.
I swear, sometimes it seems people go looking for ways to make classes less attractive to play in a quixotic quest for "more realism". If I wanted realism, I'd get out of the basement and go outside. If I'm playing D&D, I expect some degree of fantasy, and a wolf wearing platemail is no harder to believe than a wizard's talking raven familiar, a halfling ninja, or any of a hundred other fantastic elements.
Won't you all just leave the druid alone? (apologies to leave Brittney alone guy)
Wow, clearly I was wrong about RAI being clear. I had thought that the ability to recognize double standards was common knowledge, but obviously quite a few gamers lack it. Understand, this isn’t me getting on my high horse.
This is like me visiting a new place, garishly decorated with all kinds of clashing colors, and then finally realizing “The people who live here don’t have bad taste, they’re just color blind!” So I’ll never take RAI for granted again. In fact, I should use this new knowledge to my advantage. One of my DMs is a RAW guy, I’m sure I can get away with all kind of murder by confusing RAI for him.
Seriously, you folks have opened my eyes. Thank you!
I mean, sure, technically there’s nothing in the rules as written to suggest that a CN or NE druid couldn’t go through companions like Kleenex, sending something with AC 15 ish up against CR 5 and 6 encounters, but, in my experience, anyone who wanted to play a druid, wanted to role-play a character that liked their animal companion and wanted it to last more than one session.
You make it sound as if a druid’s only two options are 1) outfit my pet with the best metal armor I can find, or 2) be a heartless SOB. But that’s a false dilemma; druids have plenty of ways to protect their pets without metal armor including 1) don’t use him as a meat shield, 2) non-metal armor, and 3) spells.
The druid ethos may not be spelled out quite like the paladin ethos, but I’d darn well expect that it should mean *something.* Refusing to protect your animal companion because it’s easier to replace it than buy it some barding, would be a no-no for most druids, particularly the NG ones.You clearly see a RAI in this, with clearly no RAW (a “no brainer” for you if you will)...
Yet you use the “no RAW” prohibiting metal armor for an animal companion to allow him to do so. It’s the SAME thing! If there is no RAW for either, than you cannot cite RAI on one and not the other (even for something you clearly see as a “no brainer!”)...
A double standard is a double standard! It’s either in the RAW or it’s not!
Good call, Digitalelf! It’s no wonder Set can’t recognize a double standard in RAW, when he uses one himself.
This discussion is about RAI. You’re welcome.So failing any statement in RAW, can you show me a line referring to the Companions taht even suggests they cannot wear metal armour. If we are talking about rules as intended, the show me where it suggests that it is the intent that the animal cannot wear metal armour.
I’ve been explaining what the PHB implies for two pages. If you don’t see it, that’s cool. Will you be my DM?
This comes down to the intent of players and GM’s who seek to simply force a restriction on a class out of their own biases and opinions, a position not supported by RAW, and not something where we can point to in any rulebook in almost thirty years of Druids running about that would even show clear intention for anyone other than the Druid him/herself to be so restricted.
In almost 30 years of druids running about, has there ever been a published illustration of their pets wearing metal armor?
As I was one of the early poters in the Yes/Maybe camp, as you call it, I find this generalization wron and a bit insulting. My whole answer was based on the respect of the druid toward his animal companions, about not treating them as pets or property.The stance of the Yes/Maybe camp seems to be “If I refuse to make any judgments about the flavor text whatsoever, I can assume that RAW is RAI.”
Well, at least now I know how people are coming up with these opinions.
If anything, training and then dressing an animal in heavy metals is indicative of a paternal or proprietary mindset. What do modern pet-owners often do? “Oh, doesn’t Fluffy look cute in his little jacket?” “Aw, Fido loves his nice warm winter sweater!”
Leaving an animal companion as it is, on the other, speaks of respect. Understand, I use ‘pet’ and ‘Fluffy’ only because they’re funnier and shorter than ‘animal companion.’
Won’t you all just leave the druid alone? (apologies to leave Brittney alone guy)
You seem to realize the irony of protecting the poor defenseless druid from minor nerfs, and yet you seem to be serious. Should I be loling?
I’ve been explaining what the PHB implies for two pages. If you don’t see it, that’s cool. Will you be my DM?
No, all that has been done is talk about the restictions placed upon the druid.
So far there has not been a single line of text, not one, not even a vague comment that can be cited referring to their companions.
Not one.
Not even a snippet.
Not even the suggestion.
All you have a restriction on the Druid, which you are applying ipso facto to the companion, without any basis in any written text.
I couldn't care a toss about the 'illustrations', if I go draw one now then your point would vanish. I'll go one further on that - there are PLENTY of pictures of Druids (and Rangers) with SIZE LARGE BEARS - yet these are NOT in the RAW and therefore disallowed.
Stop clutching straws, stop denouncing and insulting people because they don't agree with you, stop trying to simply avoid the argument by labelling it as a 'corner case' as though that would be any different -
POST PROOF.
What i have been asking about and will repost is the Monks vow of chains from the ultimate magic book.
By your reasoning my monk/druid has taken a vow of chains now while the chains are not metal armor persay and thus by my reasoning would not affect my druid oath does my wolf have to wear the chains for me to keep my bonus ki pool i gain from wearing them?
By your reasoning my monk/druid has taken a vow of chains now while the chains are not metal armor persay and thus by my reasoning would not affect my druid oath does my wolf have to wear the chains for me to keep my bonus ki pool i gain from wearing them?
So in short, if someone has a personal vow as a games mechanic, and they have a companion, does the vow also need to apply to the companion for the player to retain the benefits of that mechanic? o.O
By your reasoning my monk/druid has taken a vow of chains now while the chains are not metal armor persay and thus by my reasoning would not affect my druid oath does my wolf have to wear the chains for me to keep my bonus ki pool i gain from wearing them?So in short, if someone has a personal vow as a games mechanic, and they have a companion, does the vow also need to apply to the companion for the player to retain the benefits of that mechanic? o.O
Exactly my point on the whole thing. And please dont disregard my arguemnt with any of the following
1 were talking about druids not monk/druids
2 when would you ever actually see a monk druid
3 its the druid half not the monk half that has the companion.
|
|
Wow, clearly I was wrong about RAI being clear. I had thought that the ability to recognize double standards was common knowledge, but obviously quite a few gamers lack it. Understand, this isn’t me getting on my high horse.
This is like me visiting a new place, garishly decorated with all kinds of clashing colors, and then finally realizing “The people who live here don’t have bad taste, they’re just color blind!” So I’ll never take RAI for granted again. In fact, I should use this new knowledge to my advantage. One of my DMs is a RAW guy, I’m sure I can get away with all kind of murder by confusing RAI for him.
Seriously, you folks have opened my eyes. Thank you!
Flagged.
As for your dog...
If because of your religion, you only ate food that was Kosher, then Fluffy would certainly NOT be getting fed pork! In fact, you'd more than likely being spending the extra money to buy the fancy Kosher dog food...
Actually, cats and dogs are unclean, so it really doesn't matter. Now, if the pet food was cooked with meat and milk, that's another prohibition entirely, as you'd be "gaining a benefit" from such behavior.
But pet food doesn't even enter into the Kashrut - in fact, the Torah actually explicitly tells one to give the meat of animals rendered unkosher (such as those that were injured and died) to dogs. Study of the Torah indicates that it's a reward for the dog's service in guarding the animals or their masters.
That's not to say that kosher pet food doesn't exist, but that's also because some people are far more devout than others (and some people will buy anything).
|
|
Wow, clearly I was wrong about RAI being clear. I had thought that the ability to recognize double standards was common knowledge, but obviously quite a few gamers lack it. Understand, this isn’t me getting on my high horse.
This is like me visiting a new place, garishly decorated with all kinds of clashing colors, and then finally realizing “The people who live here don’t have bad taste, they’re just color blind!” So I’ll never take RAI for granted again. In fact, I should use this new knowledge to my advantage. One of my DMs is a RAW guy, I’m sure I can get away with all kind of murder by confusing RAI for him.
Seriously, you folks have opened my eyes. Thank you!
NO, your view of RAI is your personal interpretation. It is not a majority view, as far as I can tell it is not a minority view, rather it seems to be a singular view - yours. Now, I am sure that there are people on the boards and in the community that think your view would make a good house rule for their table. Its thematic, and full of fluff, blah blah. But is is clearly NOT how the designers intended this to work, and to argue otherwise is confusing your personal tastes and interests as the norm.
You know, this confusion between personal house rules and the RAW core concepts just keeps creeping up on the boards lately. We had threads arguing that brass knuckles don't let you do unarmed damage, or that they are only on one hand, both wrong. We had threads devoted to how having a dinosaur companion was cheezy gamesmanship and that anyone who used an animal companion other than two or three of the most mundane (and weakest) were munchkins. Evidently rangers can't take favored enemy human because some people have decided that the RAI imply a hatred of the F E never actually mentioned once in the classr write up. Heck in the arcane trickster thread someone actually argued that since there house rule was supported by the 3.5 FAQ, that even though PFRPG contradicted the ruling, they considered the 3.5 FAQ to be RAW and overrule PFRPG core rules while playing PFRPG. Don't even get me started on the ridiculous boatlaod of prior edition baggage and house rules people think are RAW with the paladin. SHUDDER.
Folks, the rules are clear.
They are in some books.
They are always near,
if one but looks.
Older editions are nice
they had their day
but when I roll dice
Pathfinder is what I play.
Your house rules bore me
I just don't care
its the RAW with which I'm smitten
the rest is just hot air.
lets keep a clear view of the difference between house rules and the rules as written, ok?
I couldn’t care a toss about the ‘illustrations’, if I go draw one now then your point would vanish. I’ll go one further on that - there are PLENTY of pictures of Druids (and Rangers) with SIZE LARGE BEARS - yet these are NOT in the RAW and therefore disallowed.
If there had been any book illustrations of druid pets wearing metal armor, it would have supported the “druids should protect their pets as best as practically possible” theory of RAI. Surely if the devs had intended druids to have even the option of dressing Fluffy in metal, we’d have a pic or two of a pet bear in full plate or a pet tiger in chain somewhere. And no, your illustrations don’t count because you’re not a game illustrator.
I’m not telling you what to think, I’m just pointing out interesting ideas.
POST PROOF.
You seem to be approaching RAI as a mathematical problem to solve, and then getting upset that I can’t explain this to you mathematically. But obviously this isn’t math. Oh wait, I’m assuming that things are obvious again...my mistake.
Well, like I said, if you don’t see the double standard, it’s no skin off my back.
What i have been asking about and will repost is the Monks vow of chains from the ultimate magic book.
Again, I have no idea what a vow of chains is. I’m guessing it’s a PF thing, which would explain why I don’t know it. What does VoC do? Does the PF druid text mention the Oath? I don’t know, so I really can’t answer your question.
I find it amusing that TS says that the RAI of the druid oath is clear while admitting that the oath itself is not very consistent.
Heh, well oaths aren’t always consistent. Pretend D&D oaths probably even less so than real world oaths. Nevertheless, oath-takers tend to be rather serious about their oaths regardless of how consistent they are. And when there’s a higher power pumping magical might into its followers for following their oath, that higher power’s going to get mighty upset if its followers look for loopholes in their oath.
NO, your view of RAI is your personal interpretation...But is is clearly NOT how the designers intended this to work...
Whoa, whoa! My ideas are just personal interpretations, but you get to decide what the devs intended? And you get to ignore the people who have agreed with me, so you can say that I’m all alone in my ideas? Double standards are falling from the sky!
Also, if all you're smitten with is RAW, why are you posting in a discussion about RAI?
Flagged.
I admit that I was wrong, and you flag me? Classy man, real classy. Next time I discuss anything with you, I won't give an inch.