@underling: I would point out that this thread is posted in the 3.5/d20/OGL and not in the PF sections of the boards. If you wish to limit your discussion to PF, please start a similar thread in one of the appropriate sections of the boards to do so.
@Tequila Sunrise: I believe you are confusing Rules as Implied with Rules as Inferred. You are inferring a restriction, but there is no actual evidence to support an implication that such a restriction was ever meant to be placed on the class. This isn't an issue of "math", but it is an issue of logic. To point to an implication you need to have some kind of evidence to support it, not merely your own bias and assumptions.
As to the issue of armor proficiency, I would point to the passage:
Animal Type
Proficient with no armor unless trained for war.
Now this passage ambiguous in the extreme.
What does it mean to be "trained for war" (Combat tricks? feats?)?If they are, what types of armor proficiencies do they get?
@Tequila Sunrise: I believe you are confusing Rules as Implied with Rules as Inferred. You are inferring a restriction, but there is no actual evidence to support an implication that such a restriction was ever meant to be placed on the class. This isn't an issue of "math", but it is an issue of logic. To point to an implication you need to have some kind of evidence to support it, not merely your own bias and assumptions
This.
As I have been saying all along, there needs to be some kind of proof or evidence of intention for the restriction on Druids to be equally placed upon their companions. At this point the case against the Druid not wearing metal armour is clear cut, its clear RAW, but nowhere does it state (or even hint at) the restriction equally covering the Companion.
For there to be a RAI debate, there has to be an actual ruling in contention; so far there is not a single piece of RAW (or even fluff text) that we can look at, and then we can debate the intent behind it.
In a game I am in, the GM just simply said flat out 'no metal armour' for Druid pets plain and simlpe, however that was done as a power check against the 'too powerfull' Druid companion.
Now back to teh 'artwork' debate, well theers plenty of artwork done that is way out of line with RAW as well, but since when was the artwork part if the rules set of the game?
"your illustrations don’t count because you’re not a game illustrator."
Really? Last I checked a 'Game Illustrator' was someone who drew art for the hobby, if your only barrier is getting the picture published in any D&D3.5/D20/OGL publication then taht can be accomplished by just about anyone. It was a throwaway argument and doesn't hold up.
Illustrators are not Game Devs.
Fine i will post a 3.5 example vow of peace from the book of exhalted deeds. Can the druids animal companion make lethal attacks without the druid violate that vow?
|
@underling: I would point out that this thread is posted in the 3.5/d20/OGL and not in the PF sections of the boards. If you wish to limit your discussion to PF, please start a similar thread in one of the appropriate sections of the boards to do so.
Thanks for the catch, Pres. Serves me right for jumping into a discussion straight from the home page. Still, even if you excise the PFRPG portion of my argument ( as well as a degree of vehemence from my statements) I stand by the same points made earlier. Here is the logical trap I see in this thread.
Step 1: People dislike the rules as written for a specific area.
Step 2: They make up house rules that 'make more sense' to them.
Step 3: They really like their house rules and decide that this is obviously better than the RAW and must have been the designer's intention.
Step 4: they forget that this was their own houserule/interpretation/fluff and indicate that it is obviously what was intended/inferred/etc... from the RAW.
This is why you get posters who cannot believe that others don't see their point of view (We are color blind, you see. from thread above) and will repeatedly ignore the obvious lack of substantiating evidence , implied or otherwise for their house rule.
there you go in a nutshell.
|
|
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.
You didn't really admit anything. Basically you wrote that everybody who disagrees on your view of this issue lacks the capability to recognize double standarts and see it the right aka your way.
That is as insulting as it gets without namecalling.
If I misunderstood you, I will gladly apologize, but I seriously doubt I did.
@Tequila Sunrise: I believe you are confusing Rules as Implied with Rules as Inferred. You are inferring a restriction, but there is no actual evidence to support an implication that such a restriction was ever meant to be placed on the class. This isn’t an issue of “math”, but it is an issue of logic. To point to an implication you need to have some kind of evidence to support it, not merely your own bias and assumptions.
I’ve been presenting logical evidence and conclusions for two pages, and nobody has yet come up with a compelling alternative interpretation of RAI. Most of those who disagree seem to be simply falling back on RAW. I’m using the basic judgment and reasoning skills I learned to recognize double standards. If you want to call that “biased assumption,” that’s your call.
Animal Type
Proficient with no armor unless trained for war. Now this passage ambiguous in the extreme.
What does it mean to be “trained for war” (Combat tricks? feats?)?
If they are, what types of armor proficiencies do they get?
I’m not sure how this is relevant, but I take this passage to mean “Proficient with no armor unless the DM decides otherwise.” The rules about creature types appear in the MM, so the passage probably refers solely to DM-controlled animals.
As I have been saying all along, there needs to be some kind of proof or evidence of intention for the restriction on Druids to be equally placed upon their companions. At this point the case against the Druid not wearing metal armour is clear cut, its clear RAW, but nowhere does it state (or even hint at) the restriction equally covering the Companion.
And you’re still not following the hints in the text that I’ve pointed out, so let’s just leave a dead horse be, eh? I’m under no obligation to keep showing you something you can't, or don’t want to see.
”your illustrations don’t count because you’re not a game illustrator.”
Really? Last I checked a ‘Game Illustrator’ was someone who drew art for the hobby, if your only barrier is getting the picture published in any D&D3.5/D20/OGL publication then taht can be accomplished by just about anyone. It was a throwaway argument and doesn’t hold up.
Illustrators are not Game Devs.
No, but they do talk to each other. And they’re paid by the same people.
Anyway, I was trying to help you support your argument with some solid published evidence. But all you can come up with is “Well, I could draw it.” Well congrats; I could draw Captain Picard and claim he’s my D&D character. That doesn’t mean RAI includes the Enterprise and Klingons.
Fine i will post a 3.5 example vow of peace from the book of exhalted deeds. Can the druids animal companion make lethal attacks without the druid violate that vow?
Ah, something I’m familiar with! And an interesting question. It’s a tough call, but here’s how I’d rule it: the druid can’t actively command his pet to attack, unless he finds some way to ensure it deals subdual damage. But if the pet kills something as a result of being attacked, or in order to feed itself, the druid is good to go.
Thanks for the catch, Pres. Serves me right for jumping into a discussion straight from the home page. Still, even if you excise the PFRPG portion of my argument ( as well as a degree of vehemence from my statements) I stand by the same points made earlier. Here is the logical trap I see in this thread.Step 1: People dislike the rules as written for a specific area.
Your theory no doubt applies to many threads, but I personally have no feelings about what’s being discussed here. I don’t like or dislike the druid RAW, because I hardly play 3.x anymore. I certainly don’t DM it, so I don’t care what RAW is or whether others follow it.
You didn't really admit anything.
I admitted that the RAI isn't clear. Enough people don't see it that clearly, it isn't clear.
I’ve been presenting logical evidence and conclusions for two pages, and nobody has yet come up with a compelling alternative interpretation of RAI. Most of those who disagree seem to be simply falling back on RAW. I’m using the basic judgment and reasoning skills I learned to recognize double standards. If you want to call that “biased assumption,” that’s your call.
Sorry, but I disagree. You are making assumptions and then making conclusions from them. You are assuming that the reason that druids are not allowed to cast spells or use spell-like abilities while wearing metal armor is because druids and their divine sources have a moral objection to wearing metal armor. With that assumption, you then draw the conclusion that this moral objection applies to the animal companion as well.
I don't disagree that if that assumption is correct, that your conclusion would be correct. But you have yet to give any proof that your assumption is the assumption of the creators of the game.
For "evidence" that the assumption is not necessarily correct, here is a passage from Masters of the Wild, a 3.0 source book for Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers. Since PF is based on 3.5 and 3.5 is based on 3.0, if we are looking for indications as to what the original authors intentions were at the time of writing, we should look for older sources, wouldn't you agree.
Barding: Horses, ponies, riding lizards, and riding dogs typically accept armor in the form of barding, but wild creatures simply refuse the burden. With the armor trick (see Chapter 2), a character can adapt any animal to the use of armor. Barding is available in all armor types (including masterwork and magical versions), but it always costs more than comparable human armor. See Chapter 7 of the Player's Handbook for additional rules on barding.
*Note: the armor trick is a trick that can be taught to animals, it is in this book.
Now, given that this passage comes from the book about Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers, you'd think that if the intention had been that a druid's companion shouldn't wear metal armor, that this would be an excellent place to drop some hint of it. Except there is nothing, except for a comment about how wild animals don't want to normally wear ANY armor, metal or otherwise, that remotely implies this restriction that is so fundamental to your position. And yes, I realize the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That is why I say it may be an indication that the writers weren't making the same assumption that you are, not absolute proof that they weren't.
If anything, this would indicated that the original assumption was that animal companions wouldn't wear any armor of any kind and that a new trick was created to allow for players who wished to have their companions to do so. So I guess that assumption itself wasn't too sacrosanct.
To the question of, "Did you ever think about this before", I have to admit that most druids in my games probably follow the above assumption that their companions don't wear armor. Maybe that is due to verisimilitude or maybe they are just too greed about getting their druid the best gear.
I’m not sure how this is relevant, but I take this passage to mean “Proficient with no armor unless the DM decides otherwise.” The rules about creature types appear in the MM, so the passage probably refers solely to DM-controlled animals.
Animal Type
Proficient with no armor unless trained for war. Now this passage ambiguous in the extreme.
What does it mean to be “trained for war” (Combat tricks? feats?)?
If they are, what types of armor proficiencies do they get?
Now that I look at that passage from Masters of the Wild, this issue may be more important than I first thought. There is no armor trick in 3.5 as far as I know. So either they assumed that another trick (I'd suggest "attack") or purpose (or "combat riding", "fighting", or "guarding") was good enough to suggest this.
As for your comment about the fact that it shows up in the MM and thus it is the purview of the DM, I disagree to some extent. Many classes have animal companions, familiars, mounts, not to mention entries in the equipment section for purchasing guard dogs, horses, riding dogs, and such. As I said, the passage is extremely ambiguous and yes, ultimately it will be for each DM/group to decide how to exactly to deal with it.
No, but they do talk to each other. And they’re paid by the same people.
Anyway, I was trying to help you support your argument with some solid published evidence. But all you can come up with is “Well, I could draw it.” Well congrats; I could draw Captain Picard and claim he’s my D&D character. That doesn’t mean RAI includes the Enterprise and Klingons.
Actually, you weren't.
You brought up the lack of a drawing as somehow citing that this supported YOUR argument, and I rightly put holes in it.
There is no argument that I have to present in favour of Druid companions wearing metal armour. There is nothing written anywhere that says they can't, if they COULDN'T then there would be something indicating this (like there is for anyone so restricted, like the Druid) as you say otherwise, the burden of proof is on YOU.
I accept your retraction on the artwork debatethough, and I accept your 'giving up' as the surrender it represents.
I am glad to have helped correct your erroneous viewpoint.
|
I’ve been presenting logical evidence and conclusions for two pages, and nobody has yet come up with a compelling alternative interpretation of RAI.
Alright, completely off the cuff.
Druids cannot wear metal armor because encasing themselves in worked metal cuts them off from the primal powers they draw from. It requires 24 hours to establish the link with enough strength to use their abilities again. Non-metal armor does not interfere with the link, and thus can be worn without penalty. The metal weapons they are allowed to use do not have enough metal to sever the primal ties.
Thoughts?
The feel of natural material on the skin of the druid better prepares them for the day when they can take the shape of animals and plants. Giving them a physical reminder of the natural world encompassing them.
Wearing natural materials is form of combat vestments for druids, which metal armor does not play as good of a role of. It is a sign of respect and humility. It also helps different members of the order to recognize each other.
Alright, completely off the cuff.
Druids cannot wear metal armor because encasing themselves in worked metal cuts them off from the primal powers they draw from. It requires 24 hours to establish the link with enough strength to use their abilities again. Non-metal armor does not interfere with the link, and thus can be worn without penalty. The metal weapons they are allowed to use do not have enough metal to sever the primal ties.
Thoughts?
isn't that pretty much the text from both 1st and 2nd ed?
:p
I’ve been presenting logical evidence and conclusions for two pages, and nobody has yet come up with a compelling alternative interpretation of RAI.Alright, completely off the cuff.
Druids cannot wear metal armor because encasing themselves in worked metal cuts them off from the primal powers they draw from. It requires 24 hours to establish the link with enough strength to use their abilities again. Non-metal armor does not interfere with the link, and thus can be worn without penalty. The metal weapons they are allowed to use do not have enough metal to sever the primal ties.
Thoughts?
+1
I wouldn't know, 3.5 was my first game.
Indeed, this was the rationale behind the 1st and 2nd ed stuff. IIRC, in 2nd ed Druids could only use certain metal weapons such as sickles, scythes and falchions due to spiritual reasons.
Indeed, this was the rationale behind the 1st and 2nd ed stuff. IIRC, in 2nd ed Druids could only use certain metal weapons such as sickles, scythes and falchions due to spiritual reasons.
Correct.
Wooden shields, natural armour, and wooden & leather weapons (staff, sling, etc).
Weapons like Sickle and Scimitar had special religious uses, and were thus allowed.
Still trying to wrap my head around the fact that even though the companion gains no benifit from the oath or from a sacred vow (which the animal couldn't even take on its own) and yet still has to adhere to it for the druid to keep it.
Still trying to wrap my head around the fact that even though the companion gains no benifit from the oath or from a sacred vow (which the animal couldn't even take on its own) and yet still has to adhere to it for the druid to keep it.
Because it doesn't make sense :p
I may be out of the "fluff" discussion, but the price for a custom made barding (and much more for a magical one) for say, a tiger, seems a correct balancing factor. That WPL won't be spend on other things, so it seems ok from a purely "crunchy" point of view.
As for the fluff, well, DM's call, I would say. He gets to play the gods and interpret the faith, after all.
Just keep in mind you don't loose much if the DM says NI! Just spend that money elsewhere.
Indeed, this was the rationale behind the 1st and 2nd ed stuff. IIRC, in 2nd ed Druids could only use certain metal weapons such as sickles, scythes and falchions due to spiritual reasons.Correct.
Wooden shields, natural armour, and wooden & leather weapons (staff, sling, etc).
Weapons like Sickle and Scimitar had special religious uses, and were thus allowed.
I have done my best to carry this over into my homebrew, with limited success.
|
I may be out of the "fluff" discussion, but the price for a custom made barding (and much more for a magical one) for say, a tiger, seems a correct balancing factor. That WPL won't be spend on other things, so it seems ok from a purely "crunchy" point of view.
Plus the eating of one to three feats, depending on what level of 'armored bear' you are going for. There are definite costs incurred to armor up a companion.
And, even the GM has a thing against metal-armored companions, doubling that cost again allows one to equip fluffy in *dragonhide* fullplate (and, at higher levels, ironwood becomes an option).
There's no shortage of ways to get an armored bear, as long as the RAW allows a bear companion to take Heavy Armor Proficiency.
I may be out of the "fluff" discussion, but the price for a custom made barding (and much more for a magical one) for say, a tiger, seems a correct balancing factor. That WPL won't be spend on other things, so it seems ok from a purely "crunchy" point of view.Plus the eating of one to three feats, depending on what level of 'armored bear' you are going for. There are definite costs incurred to armor up a companion.
And, even the GM has a thing against metal-armored companions, doubling that cost again allows one to equip fluffy in *dragonhide* fullplate (and, at higher levels, ironwood becomes an option).
There's no shortage of ways to get an armored bear, as long as the RAW allows a bear companion to take Heavy Armor Proficiency.
Well, as I have indicated above, I am not entirely convinced that the armor proficiency feats are entirely needed for an animal to wear barding without penalty. As I pointed out in the Animal Type entry it indicates that if an animal is not trained for war, then it is not proficient which seems to indicate to me that if they were, then it is likely they would be. I believe that warhorses can wear barding without any problem and they don't have the feats.
The really question in my mind is how does an animal become "trained for war" (this is also an issue with the riding dog due to its possible trip attack).
|
|
Well, as I have indicated above, I am not entirely convinced that the armor proficiency feats are entirely needed for an animal to wear barding without penalty. As I pointed out in the Animal Type entry it indicates that if an animal is not trained for war, then it is not proficient which seems to indicate to me that if they were, then it is likely they would be. I believe that warhorses can wear barding without any problem and they don't have the feats.
The really question in my mind is how does an animal become "trained for war" (this is also an issue with the riding dog due to its possible trip attack).
Good point, and one that, as someone who played (and GMed for) a fair number of druids in the day, I've bumped into (and mostly skirted around) for quite some time.
This really should be addressed in the FAQ. The Combat Training 'general purpose' might come with the ability to wear barding without suffering an attack penalty (which, more or less, is what you get from proficiency anyway), but there's never been, AFAIK, an actual ruling on that.
Well, as I have indicated above, I am not entirely convinced that the armor proficiency feats are entirely needed for an animal to wear barding without penalty.
Actually this was covered in a long thread on that very topic (Trained for war) and JJ was kind enough to come in and detail it all. Right down to swapping feats about and the like.
Interesting reading.
I agree with Tequila here. Swearing a spiritual oath to not wear metal, then turning around and dressing your best furry friend in metal is definitely double standard territory.
Except that the oath is being made by the druid, not the animal companion. If you follow your logic to a quickly reached extreme, than the druid can't assocaite with anyone who wears metal armor, including that paladin that just saved the druid's ass. The animal companion is voluntarily helping the druid, just like the other PCs are; there is nothing to say that any of them have to accept every single tenet of the druid's faith.
If you can think of a simple and sensible reason that excludes Fluffy from the Oath, I’ll agree.Fluffy can't talk, therefore he can't take the oath. Seems simple and sensible enough to me.
I can't eat catfood without being unable to do...well...pretty much anything but vomit for 24 hours. I'm socially, ethically, and physically opposed to me eating catfood. I don't place my cat under any such restrictions, because he seems to handle it just fine.
|
|
I'm socially, ethically, and physically opposed to me eating catfood. I don't place my cat under any such restrictions, because he seems to handle it just fine.
Ah, but if you were opposed to killing dolphins (TRUELY opposed), you would more than likely find the brand of cat food that is "dolphin friendly". And if every brand somehow was responsible for killing dolphins, you'd probably feed him the same food you ate...
Because that is human nature...
I'm socially, ethically, and physically opposed to me eating catfood. I don't place my cat under any such restrictions, because he seems to handle it just fine.Ah, but if you were opposed to killing dolphins (TRUELY opposed), you would more than likely find the brand of cat food that is "dolphin friendly". And if every brand somehow was responsible for killing dolphins, you'd probably feed him the same food you ate...
Because that is human nature...
At least until you realized that the "dolphin friendly" food, if available at all, is 10 times the price as normal catfood and beyond your budget, and that you couldn't feed him what you eat because his dietary needs were completely different. Compromise is something that everyone, especially a druid, has to learn to embrace at some point in their life.
In the case of metal armor, if your friend is routinely on the front line of battle, you would likely eventually accept that your oath could unnecessarily be endangering the life of a friend who has not sworn the same oath because his abilities/needs/wants/desires are different. You may not like it, and you would probably look for and suggest suitable alternatives whenever possible, but most successful druids would rather see their friend and ally live than be so blinded by their personal oath that they refuse to let that ally wear metal armor, whether that ally be the paladin, fighter, or their animal companion.
I agree with Tequila here. Swearing a spiritual oath to not wear metal, then turning around and dressing your best furry friend in metal is definitely double standard territory.Except that the oath is being made by the druid, not the animal companion. If you follow your logic to a quickly reached extreme, than the druid can't assocaite with anyone who wears metal armor, including that paladin that just saved the druid's ass. The animal companion is voluntarily helping the druid, just like the other PCs are; there is nothing to say that any of them have to accept every single tenet of the druid's faith.
And by druid's ass, we mean of course his donkey animal companion. ;D
But yes, if there is a spiritual obligation not to use metal armor because it doesn't revere nature, then the animal companion can't wear it, but neither can the druid use his abilities to aid those that do wear metal armor. In fact, if a druid does, then he is not revering nature and thus becomes an ex-druid, not just have his abilities suppressed for 24 hours.
Ex-Druids
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
I think the crux of this argument boils down to two interpretations of the druid's code:
1. Nobody should wear metal armor. Therefore a druid does not wear metal armor, neither would he let his animal wear metal armor.
2. A druid should not wear metal armor. This preference has no bearing on anyone else, animal companion or otherwise.
Tequila and his supporters obviously subscribe to the first interpretation, and the rest of us the second. Neither is right or wrong, as long as everyone at your game table agrees on a single interpretation.
Honestly, I don't see why both can't exist in the same setting. I would have no problem with adventuring druids adhering to a looser interpretation of the oath out of occupational necessity, while more stationary druids adhere to the stricter interpretation. Real-world religions are rife with examples of this sort of ideological diversity.
This whole thing stinks of the alignment debates, where sides go back and forth over the rigid, unwavering definitions of alignment while ignoring the simple fact that human beings are anything but predictable. No real human being can be defined by a single alignment, and neither can they be expected to adhere unwaveringly to any oath or creed. Humans are universally fallible.
No real human being can be defined by a single alignment, and neither can they be expected to adhere unwaveringly to any oath or creed. Humans are universally fallible.
So, your judeo-christian creed of human fallibility is universal? Interresting ;-)
But, I think you nailed it.
1. Nobody should wear metal armor. Therefore a druid does not wear metal armor, neither would he let his animal wear metal armor.
2. A druid should not wear metal armor. This preference has no bearing on anyone else, animal companion or otherwise.
Tequila and his supporters obviously subscribe to the first interpretation, and the rest of us the second. Neither is right or wrong, as long as everyone at your game table agrees on a single interpretation.
Agreed. If I’ve come off as “This is the right way to play,” I apologize.
All I’m saying is “This is RAI, but there’s nothing wrong with ignoring it." Gods know I ignore RAI when it pleases me.
Now, given that this passage comes from the book about Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers, you’d think that if the intention had been that a druid’s companion shouldn’t wear metal armor, that this would be an excellent place to drop some hint of it.
It would indeed have been a good place to spell out the RAI for those who don’t recognize double standards. But spelling RAI out wasn't necessary, because the oath implies it right in the PHB.
I’ve been presenting logical evidence and conclusions for two pages, and nobody has yet come up with a compelling alternative interpretation of RAI.Alright, completely off the cuff.
Druids cannot wear metal armor because encasing themselves in worked metal cuts them off from the primal powers they draw from. It requires 24 hours to establish the link with enough strength to use their abilities again. Non-metal armor does not interfere with the link, and thus can be worn without penalty. The metal weapons they are allowed to use do not have enough metal to sever the primal ties.
Thoughts?
That’s a very creative explanation for the 24-hour spell loss rule. As an alternative to RAI, I totally dig it.
But the RAI involves a religious oath, which strongly implies that the druid’s aversion to metal armor is ideological rather than practical. After all, the purpose of an oath is to restrict an individual from doing something that is in their practical best interest -- not many people swear oaths to avoid an action that they wouldn’t want to do anyway.
I wouldn’t know, 3.5 was my first game.Indeed, this was the rationale behind the 1st and 2nd ed stuff. IIRC, in 2nd ed Druids could only use certain metal weapons such as sickles, scythes and falchions due to spiritual reasons.
Did you read that in 1e, or a splat, or a Dragon mag? ‘Cause I’m looking in the 2e PHB now, and I don’t see a specific explanation of the druid’s restrictions. Just curious. ;)
Still trying to wrap my head around the fact that even though the companion gains no benifit from the oath or from a sacred vow (which the animal couldn’t even take on its own) and yet still has to adhere to it for the druid to keep it.
So you recognize that the companion doesn’t take the druid’s oath; because it can’t. Excellent. Now consider that the companion likewise can’t put on armor. So, if the companion ends up wearing armor, who made that decision?
The really question in my mind is how does an animal become “trained for war” (this is also an issue with the riding dog due to its possible trip attack).
If it’s a DM-controlled animal, the DM simply decides it’s trained for war and BAM! It has armor prof. If the DM’s a stickler for rules, he’ll swap out preexisting feats for the armor profs. Or the animal can simply take whatever penalties come along with its armor.
If it’s a player-controlled animal, the player runs this question by his DM.
In the case of metal armor, if your friend is routinely on the front line of battle, you would likely eventually accept that your oath could unnecessarily be endangering the life of a friend who has not sworn the same oath because his abilities/needs/wants/desires are different. You may not like it, and you would probably look for and suggest suitable alternatives whenever possible, but most successful druids would rather see their friend and ally live than be so blinded by their personal oath that they refuse to let that ally wear metal armor, whether that ally be the paladin, fighter, or their animal companion.
If an animal is really your friend, you wouldn’t send it to the front lines.
If you do send an animal to the front lines, you do have options besides “Dress it in the heaviest metal I can find.” Hide armor, for example. Protective spells. I’m sure there are other options. “Dress Fluffy in full plate, or you’re a heartless SOB” is a false dilemma.
I agree with Tequila here. Swearing a spiritual oath to not wear metal, then turning around and dressing your best furry friend in metal is definitely double standard territory.Except that the oath is being made by the druid, not the animal companion. If you follow your logic to a quickly reached extreme, than the druid can’t assocaite with anyone who wears metal armor, including that paladin that just saved the druid’s ass. The animal companion is voluntarily helping the druid, just like the other PCs are; there is nothing to say that any of them have to accept every single tenet of the druid’s faith.
I’m sure that druids don’t like their paladin friends wearing full plate. But the higher powers of druidism can’t hold a druid responsible for his paladin ally wearing plate, because the druid doesn’t get to decide what the paladin wears. Conversely, druids do decide what their pets wear, and are therefore held responsible for their pets’ wardrobe.
....
Shifty, you’re still focussed on RAW, which was never under debate. You’ve become increasingly rude and vitriolic; you’re now putting words in my mouth and actively baiting me. You clearly aren’t able to discuss this topic rationally, so consider yourself and your views ignored.
You definitely have a much sterner view on the druid's oath than anybody I've ever played with. That's not bad, but I don't think that RAI is quite as clear as you make it out to be. As for not sending it to the front line, for most of the animal companions, that is kind of their job, and sometimes metal armor is the best you can get afford. I disagree that spells are always a good substitute or that the animal would be any less comfortable in metal than in another creature's skin, but if that's how you want to run it, feel free. I just don't think that strict of an interpretation is as common or as obvious as you make it out to be. Adventuring druids, which as a PC, you are, simply have to make too many other compromises to get hung up over metal vs non metal barding. I think a more realistic sticking point is whether to give them barding at all. If you can get past that point, you are already into "unnatural" territory, no matter what kind of barding you give them, so metal vs nonmetal is pretty moot.
If I’ve come off as “This is the right way to play,” I apologize.
All I’m saying is “This is RAI, but there’s nothing wrong with ignoring it." Gods know I ignore RAI when it pleases me.
Then what's left to discuss?
Things seem to have gotten a little adversarial in this thread. Why don't we all just smurf on to something worth smurfing over before someone gets smurfed in the smurf and real trouble starts.
|
|
That’s a very creative explanation for the 24-hour spell loss rule. As an alternative to RAI, I totally dig it.But the RAI involves a religious oath, which strongly implies that the druid’s aversion to metal armor is ideological rather than practical. After all, the purpose of an oath is to restrict an individual from doing something that is in their practical best interest -- not many people swear oaths to avoid an action that they wouldn’t want to do anyway.
Unless said religious oath was enacted because of the practical reason, such as the suggested reason for certain meats like pork and shellfish being taboo arising from illness-causing bacteria. Thus, the druids may have this oath because the metal has such an effect, instead of the other way around. I just don't think you can state that your interpretation is RAI when the rules do not say a druid loses his powers if his animal companion wears metal barding.
Now, given that this passage comes from the book about Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers, you’d think that if the intention had been that a druid’s companion shouldn’t wear metal armor, that this would be an excellent place to drop some hint of it.It would indeed have been a good place to spell out the RAI for those who don’t recognize double standards. But spelling RAI out wasn't necessary, because the oath implies it right in the PHB.
I didn't say it should have spelled it out, I said it should have dropped a hint. Was there a hint of it there? Nope, none, nada, zip, zero, nothing.
Again, the only thing that remotely hinted at is that wild animals shouldn't be wearing any armor, metal or otherwise, at all. There was hints for that RAI. If you wanted to argue that position, I'd say the passage gives you some back up for that.
As for not being able to see double standards, I might suggest something about planks and splinters and eyes. You seem to totally ignore the double standard of the druid using his abilities to aid others who wear armor. You are doing mental gymnastics by saying that it is offense for the companion to wear metal armor, but the paladin the druid heals isn't a problem because the druid doesn't get to dress the paladin. But the druid does get to choose to aid the paladin. Let me ask you this. If a person was truly a horrible person (child molester, rapist, whatever), would you help that person with other things in their life? Or would you avoid them if you knew about their history and if you knew they were continuing to do that?
And yet, you think that the druid, who has this great need to refrain from metal armor based on a moral obligation is just fine and dandy running around with those that are affronts to it. That is hypocrisy my friend, that is a double standard. You can't have it both ways, that the oath is a moral obligation and that he can just look the other way when he aids others.
Now if you don't work from the assumption that the reason that the druid can't wear metal armor is based on a moral opposition to it, then there is no double standard with the animal companion wearing metal armor, or with the allies of the druid wearing metal armor.
|
|
If a person was truly a horrible person (child molester, rapist, whatever), would you help that person with other things in their life? Or would you avoid them if you knew about their history and if you knew they were continuing to do that?
That's not an apropos analogy my friend...
A closer one would be:
Say you are opposed to drinking/smoking/doing drugs, and you knew this one dude that does. Would you help that person with other things in their life? Or would you avoid them if you knew about their history and if you knew they were continuing to do that?
THAT IMHO, is a much closer analogy to what we are talking about...
A paladin wearing metal armor is a FAR cry from pillaging the women and raping the land!
If a person was truly a horrible person (child molester, rapist, whatever), would you help that person with other things in their life? Or would you avoid them if you knew about their history and if you knew they were continuing to do that?That's not an apropos analogy my friend...
A closer one would be: say you are opposed to drinking/smoking/doing drugs, and you knew this one dude that does. Would you help this person if you knew what they did?
THAT IMHO, is a much closer analogy to what we are talking about...
A paladin wearing metal armor is a FAR cry from pillaging the women and raping the land!
Oh, I agree, there is a big difference. My concern with your analogy is that it may not be a moral issue. Basically, mine is too strong and your's may be too weak.
|
|
Basically, mine is too strong and your's may be too weak.
Okay, how about pre-marital sex?
That is usually morally driven, and in this day and age, having that view places one in the minority, much like an adventurer that has issues with metal armor (i.e. all the cool kids are doing it)...
Is that a tad closer?
"Why for you let Fluffy get shot at? Fluffy no meat-shield! You buy Fluffy +1 tower shield or partnership OVER!!"
You, sir, win the internet.
Shifty, you’re still focussed on RAW, which was never under debate. You’ve become increasingly rude and vitriolic; you’re now putting words in my mouth and actively baiting me. You clearly aren’t able to discuss this topic rationally, so consider yourself and your views ignored.
I'm not 'focused on RAW', I have simply asked you to substantiate where the rule is even intended.
Where this falls over is:
1: The oath is not actually DETAILED in any edition.
2: The times it is noted, it refers to the DRUIDS Oath.
3: All text relating to armour prohibition referes to the Druid, with no other references.
4: At no point in any publication does it suggest that the Druid believes his/her oath should extend to third parties.
I have asked you over and over to provide anything that suggests the Druids oath would apply to his/her companion. Anything.
You have the 1st ed PHB (Nothing) 2nd ed PHB (nothing) 2nd Ed Druids Handbook - A WHOLE BOOK ON DRUIDS! (nothing) 3rd Ed (nothing) innumerable splatbooks and 3PP (nothing).
So how is intended if if is not even mentionined ever in hundreds of pages of text, not once.
Then you sidetrack and say there's no art.
Now you are just trying the 'you were mean to me' line as a throw off to avoid dealing with the issue at hand.
Rather disingenious, and a little less than honest.
Rude? coming from a person who started the thread by insulting anyone with a contra view and then persistsing in attacking and belittling posters the whole time.
Would you like a mirror?
@all, the 2nd Ed Druids handbook is actually an excellent resource for Druids, and there is some interesting ideas around Druid customs, practices, interaction with other Sylvan agents - Rangers/Elves etc, as well as demihumans such as Orcs. There are a lot of details on rites, rights, and responsibilities, and politics of Druids...
And all from an age when Druids were arbitrarily N and MUCH stricter in views than 3rd ed.
Another point that hasn't been considered is that the druid's link to nature goes beyond spells. Wild shape is also a very strong reason why a druid would not care to wrap himself in metal, as that could interfere with his assumption of another animal's skin. For the druid, the skin of another animal is their main armor, both literally in the wild shape and in the form of hide and leather armor. For them, a prohibition of metal armor therefore makes sense as it really just formalizes the role that wild shape plays in their ability suite. An animal companion definitely does not have that concern, even if the spiritual connection the druid requires for spells could extend to the animal companion in some druids' minds. To them, barding is barding, and they aren't likely to be as concerned about the material selected as the amount of training required to a)convince them to wear it, and b)be able to move around in it.
Then what’s left to discuss?If I’ve come off as “This is the right way to play,” I apologize.
All I’m saying is “This is RAI, but there’s nothing wrong with ignoring it.” Gods know I ignore RAI when it pleases me.
Probably nothing. I guess I’m still holding out a [probably vain] hope that I can help others understand RAI.
I think a more realistic sticking point is whether to give them barding at all. If you can get past that point, you are already into “unnatural” territory, no matter what kind of barding you give them, so metal vs nonmetal is pretty moot.
Giving Fluffy non-metal barding isn’t a sticking point, because the Oath doesn’t prohibit it.
I probably confused this issue earlier when I pointed out that barding is unnatural. I wasn’t saying that the unnatural-ness creates the double standard. It doesn’t.
Pointing out the unnatural-ness of barding was my way of pointing out that an animal will never voluntarily wear it. Therefore, Fluffy’s barding is the druid’s decision and repsonsibility. And that’s why metal barding creates a double standard.
Unless said religious oath was enacted because of the practical reason, such as the suggested reason for certain meats like pork and shellfish being taboo arising from illness-causing bacteria. Thus, the druids may have this oath because the metal has such an effect, instead of the other way around.
That’s a very creative explanation for the 24-hour spell loss rule. As an alternative to RAI, I totally dig it.But the RAI involves a religious oath, which strongly implies that the druid’s aversion to metal armor is ideological rather than practical. After all, the purpose of an oath is to restrict an individual from doing something that is in their practical best interest -- not many people swear oaths to avoid an action that they wouldn’t want to do anyway.
Pork and shellfish cause illness randomly. An ancient Hebrew might eat the stuff every day of his life, and not get sick if he’s lucky. So if druids were randomly afflicted by metal armor, you’d have a good point. But a druid wearing metal armor knows he will lose his spells for a day, guaranteed. If it were a matter of practicality, druids wouldn’t need an oath to restrain them from doing something so clearly self-destructive.
After all, Wisdom is a druid’s prime stat. ;)
I didn’t say it should have spelled it out, I said it should have dropped a hint.Now, given that this passage comes from the book about Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers, you’d think that if the intention had been that a druid’s companion shouldn’t wear metal armor, that this would be an excellent place to drop some hint of it.It would indeed have been a good place to spell out the RAI for those who don’t recognize double standards. But spelling RAI out wasn’t necessary, because the oath implies it right in the PHB.
Why should a splatbook have to drop a hint that already appeared right in the PHB?
Basically, mine is too strong and your’s may be too weak.Okay, how about pre-marital sex?
Funny how the best analogies for this topic always end up being about sex. :)
The RAI in this case is that the armor restriction on the druid is an attempt at class balance and has absolutely nothing to do with "nature's love of non-metal armor." The RAI also is, nobody gives a crap if you put armor on your companion or not. Do it, great, you just wasted some of your wealth, don't do it great, you still have to waste 24 hours to call a new companion.
Anything inferred beyond that is based solely on the bias of the reader.
Unless said religious oath was enacted because of the practical reason, such as the suggested reason for certain meats like pork and shellfish being taboo arising from illness-causing bacteria. Thus, the druids may have this oath because the metal has such an effect, instead of the other way around. I just don't think you can state that your interpretation is RAI when the rules do not say a druid loses his powers if his animal companion wears metal barding.
That’s a very creative explanation for the 24-hour spell loss rule. As an alternative to RAI, I totally dig it.But the RAI involves a religious oath, which strongly implies that the druid’s aversion to metal armor is ideological rather than practical. After all, the purpose of an oath is to restrict an individual from doing something that is in their practical best interest -- not many people swear oaths to avoid an action that they wouldn’t want to do anyway.
I think Tri has it here. If we look at the characteristics section from 3.5 it says "Druids avoid carrying much worked metal with them because it interferes with the pure and primal nature that they attempt to
embody." However, Durids *can* carry metal (even metal weapons) just not a lot of it. The "oath" portion of it is the druids' form of codifying a pragmatic issue.That being said, the strictest Jews wouldn't feed a pet pork or shellfish. So really we are looking at the difference between Orthodox Druids and Reform Druids.
So really we are looking at the difference between Orthodox Druids and Reform Druids.
Actually, come to think of it, does that make Rangers non-practicing Druids?
"Just because I wear metal armor every once in a while doesn't make me any less Druish!"
Funnily enough, when going back to the original AD&D text there is no mention of any Oath. None. Nil. Nada. Great rules for casting based on who's Mistletoe you are holding, and whether you cut it with the right sort of sickle on the right phase of the moon (True story!)
It is only then cryptically suggested in 2nd ed that they can't wear metal armour because of their 'oath', but nowhere in the PHB or the rather (otherwise) comprehensive Druids handbook. They do talk a lot about flexibility and being practical though, with significant depth in dealing with others such as hunters, trappers, forest loggers, farmers... and its actually very down to earth, not Greenpeace terrorbombing loonbats.
So here we have PF, which once again makes the suggestion of there being 'an oath', but nowhere does it say what it is.
Probably nothing. I guess I’m still holding out a [probably vain] hope that I can help others understand RAI.
Based on how the developers have said they approached similar things with other classes, I would say that their intent was to leave it open to DM interpretation. I don't see this crew setting up such a strict interpretation on something as personal as a druid's oath.
I'm with TOZ here if the devs were so intent on this issue i could have been better spelled out and while i understand where your coming from as well your argument that only metal barding is an issue even though you agree with any barding being an unnatural thing for an animal it comes down to 2 different RAI views. We are standing on one of many lines that come from a gaming system that isn't locked in rules. I like many DM's err on the side of the players when it isn't unreasonable.