Controlling Druid access to spells that affect metal

[ArmoredSaint]

I don't think it is thematically appropriate for Druids to have any power over metal items. Additionally, I don't care at all for the idea that the a spellcaster should be able to just snap his fingers and take away the tools a fighter needs to be effective--unless the rules also provide for the fighter to be able to do the same to the caster, like, say, cut off his hands or something. Thus, I like to ban spells like Metal to Wood and Rusting Grasp from games that I run.

I have a game coming up, and I expect at least one (maybe two) of the players to be very interested in running Druids. Would I be unreasonable in instituting my usual ban on the aforementioned spells?

[Lathiira]

How far are you willing to go? I mean, if a druid throws a spell-any spell-at someone in metal armor, will it automatically fail? Does this mean if you firestorm my full plate-clad fighter, I'm perfectly safe?

Ok, outside the realm of sarcasm now. Druid weapons are still allowed to be metal. Most of them are things you don't need metal to make save for scimitars, which could be duplicated by animal horns I suppose. There aren't a lot of spells the druid uses against metal: you named two, add repel metal, heat/chill metal, a few others. Some of them are good, others not so good. How much difference it will make will depend on the players. If they are wildshaping all the time, then the difference will be minimal.

Also, one note about your comment: if a fighter wants to deny a druid the tools he needs, he can sunder their holy symbol (holly and mistletoe vs. a sword should equal splinters) and spell component pouches, then ready actions to attack when they spellcast. The fighter can't completely negate the druid, but these spells won't necessarily negate the fighter either.

[Quandary]

I don´t get it... If you like to do this, don´t you already know how it plays out?
Or are you saying you THINK you like to ban those spells but have never done so?
I would not do this or advise doing this, but I´m not going to argue about it, it´s your game.
I think just as Good Clerics have powers of the forces of Evil,
Druids have some similar powers over the ´twisted´ forces of Civilization. Take that how you may.
Fighter tool to take away the tools a Wizard needs to be effective? Sunder Spell Component Pouch.
Maybe after having that happen, the Wizard may start carrying back-up pouches, but same goes for the Fighter carrying back-up weapons - Ideally of different types and construction... This is nothing to do with nasty spells, plenty of creatures have DR susceptible only to certain types of weapons. You´re welcome... Take care of your golf club bag well :-)

[Sean Mahoney]

I don't personally share the opposition to the thematic power druids have over metals. They are natural... druids mess with it (making it unnatural?)... but I think that is more of a taste thing.

To your other point, a fighter DOES have the ability to take away a spellcasters ability to do his thing. I know as a fighter one of my favorite tactics is to sunder a clerics divine focus (they don't like it when you cut their holy symbol in half) or do similar things to a arcane users spell component pouch. Granted it is not a common tactic... but I am not sure why... it is a good one that pretty much shuts down the opponent.

Likewise just go and grapple a wizard. This is such an effective method of disabling them that many wizards take specific steps to combat it. It's a big deal to them.

Anyway... I think it is fair play. I think there is also a lot of other spells that shut down a fighter. It's the way the game works (hold person, etc., etc.)

Sean Mahoney

[ArmoredSaint]

Quandary wrote:

I don´t get it... If you like to do this, don´t you already know how it plays out?

Or are you saying you THINK you like to ban those spells but have never done so?

It's never really come up before, so I don't know how it plays out.

Every time I start a campaign, I go through the books and decide what I want to explicitly allow, ban, or tweak before character creation even begins. So far, nobody's yet played a Druid, even though I've resolved to ban these spells from selection if someone had decided to run a Druid.

[cranewings]

Swords to Snakes or whatever it is in Pathfinder isn't that bad compared to hold person.

The solution I like is to give the fighter class two good saves of his choice, let him take Iron Will and Improved Iron Will if the player cares about that, and anything he holds gets his saving throw.

But to answer your question, no, it wouldn't effect how I played a druid. My favorite druid is the 20 STR power attacking kind with an animal companion, the druid enlarged by the wizard and carrying a shillelagh.

[Adam Ormond]

ArmoredSaint wrote:

Quandary wrote:

I don´t get it... If you like to do this, don´t you already know how it plays out?

Or are you saying you THINK you like to ban those spells but have never done so?

It's never really come up before, so I don't know how it plays out.

Every time I start a campaign, I go through the books and decide what I want to explicitly allow, ban, or tweak before character creation even begins. So far, nobody's yet played a Druid, even though I've resolved to ban these spells from selection if someone had decided to run a Druid.

Could be no one is playing a Druid because you've implemented these restrictions. Druids already have a rather weak spell list to go with their weapon and armor restrictions (it's why most Druids focus on wildshaping). And the animal companion is often marginalized by GMs that grant PCs ridiculously high stats (the AC is designed to play with 15 PB PCs... anything over that is marginalizing ACs/Eidolons/etc.)