|
Any weapons that you think classes in Pathfinder should have and are not listed in their class features?
For myself handaxe for the Druid. If any weapon imo is a no brainer for the class to have it's that one. Good luck trying to cut braches let alone a tree with their current selection. Scimitar and sickle just are not useful for the job imo. A picture of the current version of one and one I used when I went to Italy on vacation: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-63692071/stock-photo-an-old-farm-hand-scyth e-on-a-white-background.html . That thing is not cutting through any thick branches let alone a tree trunk. And yes they can use it off screen so to speak yet I see no reason why it should not be part of their lsit of weapons they can use in combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks should have proficiency with 'monk' weapons.
I vote for the tube arrow shooter, poison sand tube, and tonfa for the ninja.
For myself handaxe for the Druid. If any weapon imo is a no brainer for the class to have it's that one. Good luck trying to cut braches let alone a tree with their current selection.
1. Druids would only harvest green wood in extreme circumstances. Like any good conservationist, they'll utilize dead wood first. Often times, dead wood can be used as is or broken up by hand.
2. You don't need to be combat proficient with a handaxe in order to use it to chop wood.
Samurai should have Tetsubo (traditionally used when fighting warriors unworthy of being cut down by their katanas)*.
* From a game balance perspective it makes sense not to give Samurai free Tetsubo proficiency unless the weapon is nerfed to bring it in line with the great club (reducing the crit multiplier from x4 to x2). Alternatively, I guess a Samurai could wield a great club skinned to look like a Tetsubo.
2. You don't need to be combat proficient with a handaxe in order to use it to chop wood.
True...but if you're a guy who makes his living by killing monsters (like a druid), why wouldn't you be proficient with the handy chopping tool you likely carry around anyway?
|
I never pictured druids as actually chopping wood, I figured they'd likely leave it as be or magic up some wood if they needed it. But by that logic there's no reason for them to have scythe or sickle proficiency so I guess you're right about the handaxe.
I think rogues should get whip proficiency. The idea of sneak attacking at reach from behind your concealment just seems cool to me. Rogues already like to get Weapon Finesse with their rapiers, so why not?
Paladins should get whips and nets. The class most likely to want to show mercy and do nonlethal damage (or no damage, simply restrain) should get the weapon that deals nonlethal damage all the time and the one that restrains a creature without hurting it.
Wizards should get a polearm. The only reason they get the quaterstaff is because of the trope of a wizard with a magic staff. Polearms are basically the same idea, plus a wizard doesn't actually want to get within melee range of the enemy because he's squishy. A polearm would work well for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have always thought that Druids should have access to bows. When I think of forest weapons, a bow is the first thing that pops into my head and yet the Druid can't use it.
I have also frequently thought that spell casting classes that normally get access to simple weapons should instead use light weapons. I can more easily picture a robed sorcerer using a short sword or rapier than wielding a massive mace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always seen druids chopping wood. Historically, please don't crucify me, they had not problems with it. Gamewise, druids believe in the natural order of things. They hunt animals and harvest edible plants, so why shouldn't they also harvest living wood. Animals do. (I think 'conservationists' not using live wood is silly.)
I've always thought druids should have access to more 'primitive' weapons like bows, axes, etc and lose the access to scimitar. Seems like an odd weapon for forest folk.
Also agree monks should have weapon choices that fit better with the order they are raised in. Asian ones for those from a Vudra or Tian inspired school, while warrior monks of Iomedae should have longsword as a monk weapon.
I'm with my fellow mouse-of-burden: the whole eco-warrior thing is a modern creation, it has little to do with the beliefs of real druids.
Not so much that I think every Wizard should have one, but between Gandalf and Ingold Inglorion, I have a fond spot for sword-wielding Wizards.
'Real druids' is terrifyingly difficult territory.
"What's the evidence for group X?"
"A few descriptions made by people who massacred them."
"That's it? Nothing else?"
"Nope?"
"So, reliable?"
"Ha, ha, ha, ha... good one."
Very true. But there are some things we can say for certain, and that's that the eco-warrior is a recent thing. Go back pre-industrial era and there's more wilderness than not, and the concept of preserving it were virtually unknown.
|
Very true. But there are some things we can say for certain, and that's that the eco-warrior is a recent thing. Go back pre-industrial era and there's more wilderness than not, and the concept of preserving it were virtually unknown.'Real druids' is terrifyingly difficult territory.
"What's the evidence for group X?"
"A few descriptions made by people who massacred them."
"That's it? Nothing else?"
"Nope?"
"So, reliable?"
"Ha, ha, ha, ha... good one."
Not really, when examining prehistoric religion it is incredibly difficult to say anything for certain... even in serious textbooks and research 'ritual significance' tends to be code for 'we can't figure out any practical use for this'.
With the amount of hypothetical constructions of prehistoric religion which build around earth-mothers, nature-symbols and sun-worship I think that eco-warrior religion is as likely as anything else.
I'm not trying to be contrary, nor am I trying to construct an argument for eco-warrior stuff: I'm just saying that it cannot simply be dismissed.
Thinking anthropologically, there are areas of the world which had verdant areas which it was taboo to exploit. These taboos had a long-term effect of preventing resource-stripping and providing breeding/maturing grounds for a range of species.
In especially lean times the taboo might be broken and the resources were available which might otherwise have been consumed too early and too easily.
From this pattern we could easily extrapolate eco-warrior, one-with-nature druids. I'm not claiming we should, just that in an area of such thin evidence we should not be dismissive.
I'm sure I mentioned that it was difficult territory.
If it matters, I have a BA in Archaeology and Ancient History from a reputable British university.
100% agreement with GeraintElberion.
Seconded on whips all around. I knock almost all variants down to Martial on principle - they're nice, but not nearly nice enough to be worth a feat. Rogues and Bards I give proficiency for free.
If the campaign allows them, I typically also like giving Rogues and Bards pistol proficiency. Doubly so if the setting's been advanced to the point guns are martial rather than exotic.
100% agreement with GeraintElberion.
Thinking about it, yes. There were cultures that protected the natural world as a valuable resource - for example the Maori set up reserves in the forest for the Moa. These were exceptions, but they did exist. I was focussing too much on the Celtic druids, forgetting that Druid should be a catch-word for 'shaman' in many other cultures.
|
With the amount of hypothetical constructions of prehistoric religion which build around earth-mothers, nature-symbols and sun-worship I think that eco-warrior religion is as likely as anything else.
I'm not trying to be contrary, nor am I trying to construct an argument for eco-warrior stuff: I'm just saying that it cannot simply be dismissed.
Thinking anthropologically, there are areas of the world which had verdant areas which it was taboo to exploit. These taboos had a long-term effect of preventing resource-stripping and providing breeding/maturing grounds for a range of species.
In especially lean times the taboo might be broken and the resources were available which might otherwise have been consumed too early and too easily.
From this pattern we could easily extrapolate eco-warrior, one-with-nature druids. I'm not claiming we should, just that in an area of such thin evidence we should not be dismissive.I'm sure I mentioned that it was difficult territory.
If it matters, I have a BA in Archaeology and Ancient History from a reputable British university.
You are correct that by definition anything from pre-history is uncertain and I could see a certain local cult of some kind that venerated all nature, however, I believe it would likely be a rarity.
Generally ancient people would be more likely to deify or hold sacred a specific object rather than a broad category. A cow rather than all mammals or an oak tree rather than all trees. As has been pointed out, especially in Europe, even late in the middle ages the continent was basically covered in forests that were seen as dark and dangerous not something to be preserved. Further, wood is an important resource and would be seen as something to use for fuel and building rather than something to be preserved.
That being said we are playing a fantasy game and although druids were initially based on european druids (whether or not we understand correctly what they actually were)fantasy druids have now become something all their own. If Pathfinder druids don't cut down trees so be it. I personally would go back to the no metal weapons from earlier editions, but that is just me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those arguing against druids with handaxes should remember that the druid gets two harvesting related weapons: the scythe and the sickle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 druid bow and axe
as some said: druids or nature wardens are often in charge of preventing driving species to extinction. That includes thinning out predators of that species to give the population a chance to regenerate...
Hunting with a sling in any forest seems silly to me, it would get entangles in underbrush and dense vegetation.
For temperate forests bows seem logical.
However a blowgun with poison might be a nice jungle-druid archetype weapon. (sleeping poison, like modern wardens do in wildlife parks)
Imho the scythe doesn't make any sense as that's a farmer's tool, not a forest one.
Rogues should get the net, bola or lasso imho (but not the whip). For highwaymen it makes sense to be able to trip horses and in cities it could be used to get rid of pursuers. Many rogue archetypes are flavored to be very skilled with ropes (traps, climbing, escape artist) so it would make sense for them to know how to use rope-related weapons.
Whips are more Indiana Jones flavored imho and make more sense with equally flavored classes, so you could give it to rangers?
As others have said, monks should get proficiency with all monk weapons.
Ninja should get proficiency in the Urumi and some more of the eastern weapons.
I agree druids should get proficiency with scythes. Why give them sickles but scythes? Both are agriculture-related farming tools. While we are at it, why do they get scimitars?
Ranger should get proficiency in net.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If i remember right, Machetes used to be reskinned scimitars in some versions of the rules. I guess someone wanted to give them access to machetes at some point.
Or maybe these druids hail from the middle east.
|
As others have said, monks should get proficiency with all monk weapons.
Ninja should get proficiency in the Urumi and some more of the eastern weapons.
I agree druids should get proficiency with scythes. Why give them sickles but scythes? Both are agriculture-related farming tools. While we are at it, why do they get scimitars?
Ranger should get proficiency in net.
Druids are proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, quarterstaff, scimitar, scythe, sickle, shortspear, sling, and spear. They are also proficient with all natural attacks (claw, bite, and so forth) of any form they assume with wild shape (see below).
They get Proficiency with both the Sickle and the Scythe...
If i remember right, Machetes used to be reskinned scimitars in some versions of the rules.
Exactly this :-)
Bush knives, axes, forest tools...
sickles are to harvest herbs (druids used to have herbalism skills... which is now knowledge nature)... think astrix comics ;-)
but why in blazes would a druid wield a scythe in a forest? and I don't see druids giving farmers a hand to harvest hay and crops?
|
|
You are correct that by definition anything from pre-history is uncertain and I could see a certain local cult of some kind that venerated all nature, however, I believe it would likely be a rarity.
Generally ancient people would be more likely to deify or hold sacred a specific object rather than a broad category. A cow rather than all mammals or an oak tree rather than all trees. As has been pointed out, especially in Europe, even late in the middle ages the continent was basically covered in forests that were seen as dark and dangerous not something to be preserved. Further, wood is an important resource and would be seen as something to use for fuel and building rather than something to be preserved.
See, I'm sure I said: "'Real druids' is terrifyingly difficult territory."
Whether or not you can 'see' or 'believe' something is neither here nor there.
We have incredibly limited physical evidence for religion of the period in the British Isles and our only written sources are completely unreliable inventions.
I'm not sure it is healthy to make broad generalisations about 'ancient people' but when I ponder the uncertainty attached to Greek mystery cults (or indeed, much religion outside of Athens) which are heavily attested in reliable written sources, I'm not sure we can draw too confidently from other ancient civilisations to reference prehistoric Britain and I can't begin to imagine what relevance Christian Europe over 1,000 years later might have to understanding prehistoric Britain. For all we know they might have embraced the forest as an ecosystem and regarded wood, in its abundance, with a casual neglect.
The point I was making is: we don't know, so we can't make any assumptions that eco-warrior druids are doing it wrong, or doing it right. We just don't know.
See, I'm sure I said: "'Real druids' is terrifyingly difficult territory."
Whether or not you can 'see' or 'believe' something is neither here nor there.
We have incredibly limited physical evidence for religion of the period in the British Isles and our only written sources are completely unreliable inventions.
We do have a class description however, which says druids are guardians of balance in the wilderness... it goes on rambling how they disapprove of "civilization" and especially cities.
So it's natural to assume they frown upon farming fields (ie taming nature and unbalancing it growth in favor of a single plant). Druids try to protect their forests and keep the fauna and flora there balanced... druids used to have a true neutral alignment restriction, which I really liked.
Druids are anti-city and pro-balance... that's what the description says. Now you can of course come up with your own druids that work differently and adapt their class features accordingly. I guess most people already houserule their weapons to fit the character background.
|
|
See, I'm sure I said: "'Real druids' is terrifyingly difficult territory."
Whether or not you can 'see' or 'believe' something is neither here nor there.
We have incredibly limited physical evidence for religion of the period in the British Isles and our only written sources are completely unreliable inventions.
We do have a class description however, which says druids are guardians of balance in the wilderness... it goes on rambling how they disapprove of "civilization" and especially cities.
So it's natural to assume they frown upon farming fields (ie taming nature and unbalancing it growth in favor of a single plant). Druids try to protect their forests and keep the fauna and flora there balanced... druids used to have a true neutral alignment restriction, which I really liked.
Druids are anti-city and pro-balance... that's what the description says. Now you can of course come up with your own druids that work differently and adapt their class features accordingly. I guess most people already houserule their weapons to fit the character background.
Yep, I would agree with all of that: and good job in getting this tangent back on topic.
We have to run with the class description, that's our real source for the PFRPG druid.
|
|
True...but if you're a guy who makes his living by killing monsters (like a druid), why wouldn't you be proficient with the handy chopping tool you likely carry around anyway?
Probably carry around all the time and become very good at using it. Seems kind a weird image imo. Attacked by a bunch of goblins while out chopping wood drop or put the handaxe away and dig out a class weapon. Your not going to get the opportunity to do so imo.
As for harvesting living wood I see no problem with a druid doing so except that unlike dry wood it gives off too much smoke and difficult to burn.
Oh and agree with bows. At the very least shortbows. Fits the iamge of the druid imo.