Well, it looks like this thread is just about wrapped up. Everyone’s made their decisions, so there’s not much more to discuss.
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.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.
If pragmatism needed to be codified, wouldn’t sorcerers and wizards be swearing oaths not to wear any armor? Heck, if it’s about pragmatism, druids should be swearing oaths to dress their pets in full plate to protect them, as some players here seem to think is necessary!
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!”
I always did find it strange that different nature-y classes had different tree-hugging standards. Just as I find it strange that paladins have to be a very specific kind of LG, while clerics get to worship any ol’ god and be any alignment. But considering D&D as a whole, this strangeness is just a drop in the bucket. :)
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.
Since you’re falling back on the strict RAW in a discussion about the RAI, you must have run out of arguments, so I’ll take this as your own personal bias.
|
If pragmatism needed to be codified, wouldn’t sorcerers and wizards be swearing oaths not to wear any armor? Heck, if it’s about pragmatism, druids should be swearing oaths to dress their pets in full plate to protect them, as some players here seem to think is necessary!
Which players are you referring to?
And it's not that pragmatism needs to be codified, just that sometimes it does get codified.
There must be something WRITTEN for us to debate INTENTION.
There is nothing WRITTEN that we can point to and debate.
The fatal flaw in TS argument from the outset.
Can't point to the oath.
Can't explain why the restiction exists.
Can't point to anything outlining the Druids attitude to others in Metal
Can't actually point to anything anywhere that links the whole Druid>Oath>Companion cycle.
No wonder no one else sees it.
This should be intead referred to as:
"Rules As Tequila Sunrise Intended".
No wonder no one else sees it.
This should be intead referred to as:
"Rules As Tequila Sunrise Intended".
To be fair, even though I wouldn't place the restriction in my game, I don't completely disagree with Tequila. I see his point as being a valid interpretation of the Druid's fluff and if I were in his campaign I'd abide by it (if I ever bothered to roll a druid that is). I think that the oath is one of those things that is left open for players and GMs to discuss, just like a Palidin's code of honor. Never really outlined beyond "be lawful good and do what your god says." Gives a lot of flexibility for different play styles.
To be fair, even though I wouldn't place the restriction in my game, I don't completely disagree with Tequila. I see his point as being a valid interpretation of the Druid's fluff and if I were in his campaign I'd abide by it (if I ever bothered to roll a druid that is). I think that the oath is one of those things that is left open for players and GMs to discuss, just like a Palidin's code of honor. Never really outlined beyond "be lawful good and do what your god says." Gives a lot of flexibility for different play styles.
No wonder no one else sees it.
This should be intead referred to as:
"Rules As Tequila Sunrise Intended".
Except I can tell you what happens if the paladin starts teaching his divine companion all kinds of evil things.
Except I can tell you what happens if the paladin starts teaching his divine companion all kinds of evil things.
Precisely.
It is clearly articulated, and explicitly stated as to who what where when and why said restriction applies.
Not so with the Druid.
Except I can tell you what happens if the paladin starts teaching his divine companion all kinds of evil things.To be fair, even though I wouldn't place the restriction in my game, I don't completely disagree with Tequila. I see his point as being a valid interpretation of the Druid's fluff and if I were in his campaign I'd abide by it (if I ever bothered to roll a druid that is). I think that the oath is one of those things that is left open for players and GMs to discuss, just like a Palidin's code of honor. Never really outlined beyond "be lawful good and do what your god says." Gives a lot of flexibility for different play styles.
No wonder no one else sees it.
This should be intead referred to as:
"Rules As Tequila Sunrise Intended".
I will say this, the Paladin is given stricter requirements than the Druid. However, there are still plenty of things that could potentially fall into a Paladin's code that are not clearly laid out. All I'm saying here is that Tequila is not 100% right in saying that his interpretation is RAI, but he is not wrong for using his interpretation either. And not just because of rule zero, but because I can actually see this being an issue that could arise between GM's and players and he has a valid (not necessarily always true) point.
Hey : DM's call.
I mean, their is nothing in RAW or RAI making it a clear choice. It's not broken as far as I know and the WPL is a balancing factor if it's allowed or not (if you don't pay for barding, you can pay for a wand giving almost the same effect.)
So, why so much discussion? As a player, just give the DM the privilege to interpret the tenets of the faith, and wathever his decision, you won't loose anything.
If the DM rules the druidic oath prohibits metal, spend your money on defensive wands (stoneskin, etc.) else, spend it on barding.
I fail to see the issue. I'ts a question of flavor, not of power level.
I for one agree with RATSI.
Since you’re falling back on the strict RAW in a discussion about the RAI, you must have run out of arguments, so I’ll take this as your own personal bias.
Actually I was giving the intentions behind the RAW and that was what we were discussing.
The armor issue was intended to help limit the druid, one of the most powerful classes in the game (hence the term CoDzilla). They intentionally left its reasons and application beyond the immediate druid character vague so that different DMs and groups could play the game as they wish around the rule. Some groups could expand the restriction as you would apparently do, while other groups would limit it specifically around the druid character itself. The intention of 3.x was to open possibilities not to limit them to a single mindset.
As for the companion, the intention (though I would suggest it was more of the expectation not intention) was that the animal wouldn't wear barding at all (see the passage earlier I posted about how wild animals wouldn't want to wear barding of any type, metal or otherwise). So whether or not animal companions could wear metal armor wasn't even considered by the original designers because their expectation was that the animal companion wouldn't wear any armor.
I feel that druids weren't intended to be able to put metal barding on their animal companions without violating their oath, and if playing a druid I wouldn't. However as a DM, if someone wanted to put metal armor on their animal companion, I wouldn't make a big deal out of it; the worst that would happen is that they'd get a curious glance here or there from other druids. I just don't think that it is a meaningful enough thing to argue about and if it will make a play experience more fun for a player without making it worse experience for anyone else...
I feel that druids weren't intended to be able to put metal barding on their animal companions without violating their oath,
Could you kindly link me the 'Oath' so I can see what the restriction/oath says that brings you to the conclusion it would be violated?
I feel that druids weren't intended to be able to put metal barding on their animal companions without violating their oath,Could you kindly link me the 'Oath' so I can see what the restriction/oath says that brings you to the conclusion it would be violated?
HOLY FLERKING SHNIT MAN! You just can't get over this! There is no text for the oath. That is established. Ringtail said "I feel." A matter of opinion. I think we've all realized that this thread has gotten to the point of directly competing interpretations. Go with what you feel like, but don't bring up the same point repeatedly.
Except some of us don't feel its differing interpatations but a simple rule period. The Druid doesn't wear metal armor period. I find it funny that its only an issue until the animal hits a high enough HD to have a 3 intellect then its all good but until then no dice.
Except some of us don't feel its differing interpatations but a simple rule period.
Except that the only rule listed is that the druid has an oath. What the oath consists of beyond a few very specific items and who it applies to are, probably quite deliberately, never mentioned, so it is down to differing interpretations.
Or was meant to apply to the person taking the oath. Just the person taking the oath. And noone but the person taking the oath.
You just can't get over this! There is no text for the oath. That is established. Ringtail said "I feel."
HEY YOU FINALLY GET IT! HAVE A COOKIE!
If no one can tell us what the Oath says, how are they telling us with conviction what the Oath is INTENDING, and more than that, WHO IS BOUND BY IT.
Other than being told the Druid cannot wear metal armour because of it (one of the ONLY specific things mentioned) the Oath itself is a complete mystery.
No Oath to cite, no RAW to INFER an INTENTION from = NO WAY someone can claim the oath in any way shape of form restricts teh Druids animal from wearing metal armour.
Simply put, the RATSI camp can't substantiate ANYTHING on the matter, nor can they point to any text in three editions to back up the claim.
Hey where's my cookie Shifty?
If pragmatism needed to be codified, wouldn’t sorcerers and wizards be swearing oaths not to wear any armor? Heck, if it’s about pragmatism, druids should be swearing oaths to dress their pets in full plate to protect them, as some players here seem to think is necessary!
Which players are you referring to?
And it’s not that pragmatism needs to be codified, just that sometimes it does get codified.
Oh, there have been a few comments to the effect of “If you don’t get your pet the best armor possible you’re a heartless bastard,” “If you don’t protect Fluffy with metal, you’ll go through companions like tissue paper,” and so on.
I have considered TS’s interpretation to be valid and logical the entire time. I merely disagree that it is obviously what the designers have in mind. And before I forget again, thank you TS for your kind words about my explaination of the oath.
You’re welcome. To be honest with you though, I’ve heard that explanation before. ;)
I fail to see the issue. I’ts a question of flavor, not of power level.
I agree. It’s definitely not about balance, because the druid is a game-shaker whether or not his pet wears metal.
It’s a DM call to go by RAI or ignore it. (Or just not think about it.) If I were still DMing 3e, I’d probably ignore RAI myself and just drop the Oath.
I for one agree with RATSI.
Haha, that’s my new favorite anagram!
As for the companion, the intention (though I would suggest it was more of the expectation not intention) was that the animal wouldn’t wear barding at all (see the passage earlier I posted about how wild animals wouldn’t want to wear barding of any type, metal or otherwise). So whether or not animal companions could wear metal armor wasn’t even considered by the original designers because their expectation was that the animal companion wouldn’t wear any armor.
I think you’re on the right track here.
But your reasoning here is flawed:
The armor issue was intended to help limit the druid, one of the most powerful classes in the game (hence the term CoDzilla). They intentionally left its reasons and application beyond the immediate druid character vague so that different DMs and groups could play the game as they wish around the rule. Some groups could expand the restriction as you would apparently do, while other groups would limit it specifically around the druid character itself. The intention of 3.x was to open possibilities not to limit them to a single mindset.
First, you’re using a double standard. You’re telling me that I can’t know RAI, then you’re turning around and saying “They intentionally...” as if you do.
Second, saying that 3.x is about possibilities requires a lot of provisos. Not to be snarky, but you have heard of the paladin class, yes? I could fill pages with the weird restrictions that’re purely the result of designer bias.
I feel that druids weren’t intended to be able to put metal barding on their animal companions without violating their oath, and if playing a druid I wouldn’t. However as a DM, if someone wanted to put metal armor on their animal companion, I wouldn’t make a big deal out of it; the worst that would happen is that they’d get a curious glance here or there from other druids. I just don’t think that it is a meaningful enough thing to argue about and if it will make a play experience more fun for a player without making it worse experience for anyone else...
Totally agree!
Except some of us don’t feel its differing interpatations but a simple rule period. The Druid doesn’t wear metal armor period. I find it funny that its only an issue until the animal hits a high enough HD to have a 3 intellect then its all good but until then no dice.
Yeah, it’s odd how D&D’s Intelligence scale leaps from ‘animal’ to ‘human’ with one number.
You just can't get over this! There is no text for the oath. That is established. Ringtail said "I feel."HEY YOU FINALLY GET IT! HAVE A COOKIE!
If no one can tell us what the Oath says, how are they telling us with conviction what the Oath is INTENDING, and more than that, WHO IS BOUND BY IT.
Other than being told the Druid cannot wear metal armour because of it (one of the ONLY specific things mentioned) the Oath itself is a complete mystery.
No Oath to cite, no RAW to INFER an INTENTION from = NO WAY someone can claim the oath in any way shape of form restricts teh Druids animal from wearing metal armour.
Simply put, the RATSI camp can't substantiate ANYTHING on the matter, nor can they point to any text in three editions to back up the claim.
You've got a white foam on your lips there, Shifty...just a little.
You've got a white foam on your lips there, Shifty...just a little.
Oh no, I was just replying with the same level of animation as the person to whom the response was aimed. Oh and well done on the selective edit :)
Haha, that’s my new favorite anagram!
Glad you enjoy my invention.
And a 3 Int animal is still an Animal, they only get the extra feat opportunities etc. They don't become more 'aware' or anything good like that. Long thread about it which I'm sure you know about.
Just to clarify, the whole Int 3 animal is a PF thing. In 3ed and 3.5, animals couldn't have an Int of more than 2, otherwise they became magical beasts and thus couldn't be animal companions. Likewise, awakened animals become magical beasts and can't be companions as well.
To TS:
1) I don't think it is any great stretch to assume that game designers put at least some thought into class balance. Whether they were effective in their efforts is another thing altogether. Yet, if we can not even agree on the assumption that at least part of the restriction on druid's armor was meant as a game balance issue, I think we are just working from such a totally different set of assumptions that there isn't much point in discussing the issues.
2) I have provided evidence (see my earlier post concerning MotW) that the original designers of 3.x didn't expect to have wild animals wear any kind of armor, that is why they added a new trick into a 3ed druid expansion book.
So one of these I have provided evidence for and the other is so fundamental to game design that to assume it wasn't a goal would be mind-boggling.
1) I don't think it is any great stretch to assume that game designers put at least some thought into class balance. Whether they were effective in their efforts is another thing altogether. Yet, if we can not even agree on the assumption that at least part of the restriction on druid's armor was meant as a game balance issue, I think we are just working from such a totally different set of assumptions that there isn't much point in discussing the issues.
Oh, I don't mean to imply that the devs didn't try to balance the druid. Only that, if balance were the impetus for the metal armor restriction, there would've been no reason to add in the Oath. Since the 2e druid had no Oath, someone or some group on the 3e team must have decided to make it more than just a balance issue.
2) I have provided evidence (see my earlier post concerning MotW) that the original designers of 3.x didn't expect to have wild animals wear any kind of armor, that is why they added a new trick into a 3ed druid expansion book.
Unless there's a druid-only trick that allows metal armor specifically, your evidence is beside the point. The idea that the devs never expected animals to wear any armor is actually in agreement with what I've been saying from the beginning -- that the devs simply didn't anticipate that tree-hugging characters would want to give their pets armor.
Obviously it did occur to them at some point; hence the new tricks. I'm not clear on what exactly these tricks allow, but again, unless there's a druid-only trick involving metal armor...?
I'm not clear on what exactly these tricks allow, but again, unless there's a druid-only trick involving metal armor...?
This is still assuming your right about lack of metal armor. I love the arguement that we need a specific trick to let them but only a very obsucre reference to an oath to ban it.
Our druid/mage(diviner)/Arcane Heirophant bypasses this entirely by just casting mage armor and shield on his animal companion Gertrude which bumps her AC to 29 at a lvl 6 party. Then we just watch the Fleshracker dinosaur clean house. save vs poison with every hit except bite and she gets a tail attack. Our DM is targeting her specifically making it easier on the rest of the party.
Eventually gertie will go the way of our druids first animal companion Brinne the climb dog,
Player- My animal companion attacks!
DM "what do you do"
Player- I cast invisibility on myself and run away, I'll have to get a new companion but at least I'll be alive
Does anyone else use their companion as foder or is it just Our druid that has no respect for animals other than how they can serve him.
My take on it is this, if the animal has been trained for combat and trained twice for combat so that he can attack unnatural creatures or creatures two sizes larger than itself, then armor should be part of the package.
+5 mithral full plate may seem a little extreme for an animal but what else is a druid gonna spend money on.