Disregarding the rules, this is what I feel makes undead druids a bad idea: Druids mainly gain their power directly from their connection to nature, just like a paladin gets it's power from it's holiness. It's not that I can't see an undead creature revering nature, and a ghost gardener sounds cool, I just think that the specific _druid_ isn't very fitting for it, just like paladin wouldn't be fitting for a vampire that want to rise above it's base urges.
I also think that limitations can create more story opportunity in some cases, and this is one of them; a druid being infected with vampirism couldn't (in a game world like mine, obviously in golarion they can) just say "hokey dokey" and continue on like nothing's happened; she would lose her connection to nature, potentially (at least in the long run) shunning away her companion and thus have motivation to seek a cure or a different path in how to serve nature (for example, by serving a deity of nature as her cleric).
As said, I could see exceptions for PC's under special circumstances, but it also gives more opportunity to create plot hooks for NPC's.
When you say abomination, do you mean aberration? If so, I totally agree. I touched on this in my post above, but I don't see anywhere that this sort of thing translated into pathfinder. In fact, I only see examples of how it's been ignored.I'm still firmly in the undead are unnatural camp.
Sting gears slightly could you have an abomination Druid? In my mind they are equally unnatural,
Yes. I meant aberration.
So basically "because the rule doesn't say" we totally ignore the concept and fluff of the class?
Vampires are not a part of the natural order.
Holy crap! We agree on something! Wonders never cease.
Ok, I get that there are fringe cases and a vampire blight Druid who steals power from nature makes sense sort of. However, a vampire who reveres nature doesn't. To me anyway.
I don't see any problem with a Vampire Druid. In my option such a person would probably have a very predatory take on nature. Very Red Tooth and Claw. He could very well view himself as the ultimate predator. Though there are definitely other viewpoints.
You also have to remember, Mother Nature is a b%*&*. Say what you will, nature is NOT nice. Predators don't go after strong health prey. They go after the young, the old, the injured, the sick. From a modern human standpoint this is horrific. Nature is only concerned about the survival of the fittest. The simple fact is, by predators going after the weakest prey, this also makes the prey stronger. Only the prey best suited to avoid the predators survive. Nature is only concerned about survival. Survival of the individual, survival of the species.
Now from a fantasy standpoint things get a bit trickier. You have things like gods and spirits and fey and stranger things. Nature takes on many personas. There are driving Forces in and around it. Nature is going to have even more Meaning so to speak. However, having said all of this it's still nature. You may be bing pulled in different directions by different forces, but in the end it is what it is. For every "Good" being pulling it in a "good" direction, there's an "Evil" being pulling it in an "Evil" direction. Then there's "Neutral" beings trying to balance things. So I can easily see beings who support the darker side of Nature empowering a Vampire Druid.
Then you have the idea that maybe Nature doesn't have a choice in the matter. It's possible that Druids are tapping into the power of Nature whether Nature likes it or not. Or maybe Nature doesn't care at all. I mean does it really care that this undead creature is "unnatural" if it's so well adapted to survive?
Anyway, that's my 3 cents. Each individual and each person's setting is going to have a different view on things. And if you want to say that in your world nature wouldn't support a Vampire Druid, I don't really see a big problem with it.
It's that arbitrary silly inconsistency of this ruling that galls me. The rationale for it seems to be "it's sorta cool to think of an undead druid, eh?"
Well, it's sorta cool to think of an undead paladin too. Or a chaotic good druid.
Anyway, all this does is reinforce that arbitrary nature of the rules which seem to sway back and forth with fashion with no logical internal consistency whatsoever.
Fine. In my games at least druids won't be allowed to be undead. I find myself more and more contemplating going back to the concept of creating my own rule set as I did back in the 80s when I found the AD&D and 2e rules to be falling into the same pattern of arbitrary silliness.
It's that arbitrary silly inconsistency of this ruling that galls me. The rationale for it seems to be "it's sorta cool to think of an undead druid, eh?"
Well, it's sorta cool to think of an undead paladin too. Or a chaotic good druid.
Anyway, all this does is reinforce that arbitrary nature of the rules which seem to sway back and forth with fashion with no logical internal consistency whatsoever.
Fine. In my games at least druids won't be allowed to be undead. I find myself more and more contemplating going back to the concept of creating my own rule set as I did back in the 80s when I found the AD&D and 2e rules to be falling into the same pattern of arbitrary silliness.
If you do I'd be interested to read them.
This weekend my full plate wearing, chaotic good vampire druid will be joining one buddy's lawful good ghast assassin and my other buddy's chaotic evil lich paladin on a quest to kidnap, torture and eventually kill the 10 year old princess so that they can extort the king to grant the undead full voting rights.Who needs any Paladin code anyway? It just gets in the way of awesomeness.Agreed.
Well, CE Lich Paladins are RAW legal in 3.5; You'll need Practiced Spellcaster.
Level 14 Paladin was caster 7 +4 =11 caster, qualifies for Lich.Now you fall once you acquire the Lich template (since that is evil), but you can be one.
full plate wearing, chaotic good vampire druid: Eorks witrh dragonhide or in FR.
lawful good ghast assassin: you keep everything when you become good as an assassin, you just can't advanced when you become good in 3.5.
You can explain that 2 + 2 = 6 all day long but that doesn't mean it makes sense.
Vector math. You are thinking one dimensional math. You need to add the angles.
2 --> + 2 /> = 6 easily.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, every single time I see someone make an argument for a mind-boggling PF ruling with "Well, 3.5 allowed it" I just shake my head and ponder the infinite mysteries of a universe ruled by pun-pun...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, every single time I see someone make an argument for a mind-boggling PF ruling with "Well, 3.5 allowed it" I just shake my head and ponder the infinite mysteries of a universe ruled by pun-pun...I know what you mean. It's much like how every time I hear someone reference Pun-Pun as a way to disparage 3.5, I just shake my head and ponder the infinite mysteries of a game ruled by the CharOp boards...
Pun-pun and other absurd nonsense that arose from an ever-escalating series of poor rules updates, crazy splat books and total disregard to synergies between powers is precisely the reason Pathfinder exists Alzrius.
It may escape your notice, but saying that the game is ruled by charop boards is just silly nonsense, while the 3.5 game designers themselves had to admit that pun-pun, and other god-like creations, were completely rules legal in 3.5. The difference between your comment and mine is that mine is actually true.
So your snark here may be an attempt to be clever, but all it really does is give me a chance to expand on how the very thing that is happening to Pathfinder today is why 3.5 is now in the trash heap of history.
So nice try.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pun-pun and other absurd nonsense that arose from an ever-escalating series of poor rules updates, crazy splat books and total disregard to synergies between powers is precisely the reason Pathfinder exists Alzrius.Man, every single time I see someone make an argument for a mind-boggling PF ruling with "Well, 3.5 allowed it" I just shake my head and ponder the infinite mysteries of a universe ruled by pun-pun...I know what you mean. It's much like how every time I hear someone reference Pun-Pun as a way to disparage 3.5, I just shake my head and ponder the infinite mysteries of a game ruled by the CharOp boards...
Pun-Punb arose because they gave a monster the ability to do anything in the Book Serpent Kingdoms.
Why they gave the creature the ability to do anything? They weren't great at balance back in 3.0.So one shapechange away to do it yourself.
Pun-pun and other absurd nonsense that arose from an ever-escalating series of poor rules updates, crazy splat books and total disregard to synergies between powers is precisely the reason Pathfinder exists Alzrius.Man, every single time I see someone make an argument for a mind-boggling PF ruling with "Well, 3.5 allowed it" I just shake my head and ponder the infinite mysteries of a universe ruled by pun-pun...I know what you mean. It's much like how every time I hear someone reference Pun-Pun as a way to disparage 3.5, I just shake my head and ponder the infinite mysteries of a game ruled by the CharOp boards...Pun-Punb arose because they gave a monster the ability to do anything in the Book Serpent Kingdoms.
Why they gave the creature the ability to do anything? They weren't great at balance back in 3.0.
So one shapechange away to do it yourself.
Pun-pun was just the most egregious example Starbuck, not the only example of power bloat and insane synergistic results from designers who clearly were not contemplating the consequences of their design decisions.
I am seeing the same thing happening today with PF. It's not as bad as 3.5 yet. But it doesn't need to get nearly as bad as "pun-pun" before the game slides far enough down the slope of silliness for me and others like me to start looking, yet again, for a new game that isn't a slave to fashion and the marketing team's hunger for income.
So your rebuttal here may be an attempt to be clever, but all it really does is give me a chance to expand on why your original point is still silly.So nice try.
LOL, "Snark Wars 3.0"
I definitely feel that PF is heading down the same path that 3.5 dug Alzrius, so if you are saying that too, then we should probably just agree to agree. :)
I thought it was originally added as an ecological thing - as mining and the refining of ores damages the natural environment.On the subject of druids and metal, I always figured it was probably centered around the same mysticism or lore about worked metal being disruptive. Kind of how fey are vulnerable to cold iron. Based on the description of the mechanics, druids seem to have no prohibitions against wearing metal armor. Merely that it interferes with their magics in some way (wearing it cuts the druid off from their magic for a period of time but doesn't even require they atone for it). It seems strange, and perhaps arbitrary, and honestly I wouldn't miss it if it were gone (it's not a balancing feature 'cause druids can already wear alternatives for reasonable costs, such as dragonscale).
That never occurred to me since there are perfectly harmless ways to mine iron and other minerals (including the viking method which involved digging up some dirty in iron-rich soil inside swamps and burning out chunks of iron from them). It also seems a bizarre thing since druids apparently have no qualms about other mined metals or gemstones such as copper, silver, gold, platinum, and diamonds.
Well your Druids are all tree-hugging bigots so nyeeeh.
HEHEhehe. Thread winner.
I could DEFINITELY see a ghost druid, if the druid died before completing some important task to save/preserve nature. So I don't think being undead itself nyxes it. I think some undead types definitely would, though, such as say Devourer or Shadow.
Vampire is an interesting case, and it comes down to how the character's alignment handles the transition. If all Vamps are CE then no Druid. If you have NE vamps, maybe. I don't think any druid would seek it out, but if forced to become a Vamp then I think a NE Druid could make the transition pretty easily - just suck the blood of the industrialists who want to tear down the trees and spread urban sprawl into the kingdom, then siege their city with all your awesome druid siege spells. Atone for the horrible unnatural abomination you've become by imparting excessive harm on the civilized.
|
It's that arbitrary silly inconsistency of this ruling that galls me. The rationale for it seems to be "it's sorta cool to think of an undead druid, eh?"
Well, it's sorta cool to think of an undead paladin too. Or a chaotic good druid.
Anyway, all this does is reinforce that arbitrary nature of the rules which seem to sway back and forth with fashion with no logical internal consistency whatsoever.
Fine. In my games at least druids won't be allowed to be undead. I find myself more and more contemplating going back to the concept of creating my own rule set as I did back in the 80s when I found the AD&D and 2e rules to be falling into the same pattern of arbitrary silliness.
I agree with you there AD and what gets me is the fact that the more rulings like this we get, the more diluted the fluff of classes becomes. Might as well go down 4th editions route where it's a little fluff and mostly mechanics.
If I'm not mistaken, don't vampires cause animals to become frightened and skitish?
I've never seen or viewed druids as tree hugging hippies (not that there is anything wrong with tree hugging hippies). They are a clearly an order of individuals who are prepared for battle (they have medium armor proficiency and proficiency in a fairly broad variety of weaponry, and many of them can transform into dangerous predatory animals). They have the means to inflict diseases upon people (including consorting with disease-carrying beasts), and can destroy or whiter plant life should they deem it necessary (druids can cast spells like contagion, diminish plants, and blight).
Druids can freely manipulate the world into ways that are by definition unnatural, such as shaping stone, causing plants to become sharp blades, or covering stone surfaces in spikes. They can tap into the planes to call forth creatures not native to the material, such as elementals, to do as they wish (elemental planes are just as much a natural part of the cosmos as the positive and negative energy plane, both of which are likely tapped by spells like cure light wounds).
In a world where "natural" includes the state of being that can occur within nature involves a nigh infinite layer of planes and their exotic beings, it is hard to argue that most things are "unnatural". In fact, most things are by their nature natural. Elementals are natural. Fiends are natural. Celestials are natural. Even undead are natural (and can even spontaneously arise under predetermined circumstances). They have natural laws that must traditionally be followed.
Even aberrations, often cited as the most unnatural and conflicting against druids are also commonly cited as being of alien nature (in fact many of them have lore suggesting they are from outer space, such as much of the aberrant lore in 3.x would imply), but that still doesn't make them particularly unnatural. In fact it is difficult to find things that are really unnatural in a world where the supernatural is just a natural part of life. Druids clearly have no beef with the supernatural or else druids would be slaughtering druids for being supernatural themselves (along with pretty much any spellcaster).
However...
What I do see when I look at druids are balance. I see druids as the sort who do things in moderation. The sort that would give back and restore to the land what they take. That would hunt and feast and take what nature gave, with the wisdom to stay their hand to avoid depopulation. I would see them finding offense with anything that took more than it would give back. To me, this is where I see druids having the most problems with things like vampires. Not because they are vampires but because most vampires are depicted as being ravenous.
But for as many faults as a druid could find in a vampire, they could likely find as many virtues. Vampires are powerful and cunning hunters who have a connection to the earth, a connection with animals like wolves and bats, and even possess a limited shapeshifting capability as druids do innately. Heck, vampires practically scream druid. In fact, I bet unless they were being obvious about it, a coven of vampires could easily pose as a circle of druids for untold amounts of time and none would be the wiser (they keep wolves, rats, and bats, transform into wolves or giant bats, etc).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow...so undead druids = DEATH OF PATHFINDER
That's quite a leap. How often is this issue going to ever even come up in the average game?
If I'm not mistaken, don't vampires cause animals to become frightened and skitish?
Well animals won't attack them if that's what you mean (an animal needs special training before it will attack an undead creature). There's actually nothing else in the vampire's entry that suggests animals innately fear anything more than attacking them. In fact, vampires take the form of animals and can even call rats, bats, and wolves to their aid, or even other creatures if those animals aren't appropriate for the vampire's environment (a merfolk vampire might instead summon swarms of crabs, fish, or sharks to their aid).
On a side note, unless animals are domesticated (an unnatural thing one might say - further illustrating the foolishness of arguing unnatural about most anything) then animals are frightened and skittish of humans as well (you try to get a squirrel to come to you, or to pick up a rabbit in the wild, or expect a deer to not flee should you approach).
I agree with you there AD and what gets me is the fact that the more rulings like this we get, the more diluted the fluff of classes becomes. Might as well go down 4th editions route where it's a little fluff and mostly mechanics.
4th edition, IMHO, failed because not merely because of the fluff but because the mechanics were poor for representing anything except a very narrow set of conditions. They didn't even have the option to dual-wield in the core rules unless you were a ranger. They didn't have a decent multi-classing system (you were essentially stuck with that class). If anything you were too married to your fluff (once a fighter always a fighter and nothing else). They lacked mechanics for most anything non-combat related (with few exceptions).
Some of the 4E mechanics were good, but the problem is they cut out lots of stuff that is integral for a RPing game. If 4E presented fluff while being fluff-neutral while having good mechanics, I think it would have done a lot better. It was not Paladins being able to be other alignments that turned my group off from 4E, it was the limits of those mechanics for creating characters and stories. Which are the same problems with many of the fluff-based mechanics in 3.x/Pathfinder. Same problem but from a different direction.
Wow...so undead druids = DEATH OF PATHFINDER
That's quite a leap. How often is this issue going to ever even come up in the average game?
I know, right? Sheesh. :P
If anything this thread has just given me some more ideas for my GM toolkit. The idea of a coven of vampires posing as a druid order to escape the attention of their enemies is near priceless and I'm going to have to use that one sometime at the very least. So that was a cool idea spawned from this thread.
Likewise, the idea of vampire druids alone is so amusing and fitting I'm going to have to use that at some point. The real question is how I want to spin it. It has some strong potential as villain-fuel, but it also has a great possibility of a shades of gray story (not in the fifty sort of shades of course :P).
Likewise, the amusing idea of a group of evil druids who have taken to stalking and hunting humanoids while wildshaped is also too amusing of an idea to pass up.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good thing you get to change the rules that you don't like then!Yet another developer ruling that I find utterly incomprehensible.
Metal causes druids to lose their powers. Turning undead just lets them be all kinds of awesome.
This is seriously the sort of thing that makes the rules a joke.
Nothing quite like the Creative Director of the game company I play pulling the "Rule Zero Fallacy" on me to justify arbitrary nonsense in the rules.
Nice to see that your idea of a good game design is that anyone can just ignore whatever they like James. Of course anyone can ignore any rules for any game if they aren't playing in some sort of sanctioned tournament or organized play.
Like, oh, I dunno, PFS for example...
Whether or not I agree that metal makes druids lose their powers is irrelevant (and by the way, the theory there is that it's not the metal that makes the druids lose their powers—it's the fact that they're covering their bodies with armor crafted by greater technology than it takes to make hide or leather armor—and for the record, I agree that it's somewhat of a sketchy limitation anyway... I value the limitation more as an "branding" thing than anything else, because the image of a druid dressed in plate mail is jarring and disconcerting to me...).
The undead druids I mentioned in an earlier post have a LOT more to them than "OMG THEY ARE UNDEAD!" There's a strong element of tragedy and the like involved with these specific undead druids, and they do NOT make the transition from living druid to undead blasphemy without having some changes to their personalities, capabilities, and druidic powers.
If, once "The Worldwound" is out and you've had a chance to read the whole deal with the siabraes and you still disagree, that's fine. But don't assume that they're merely druids with bonus powers and no flavor to talk about the tragic side of things.
There are reasons why their druidic magic still works even though they are now undead.
Whether or not I agree that metal makes druids lose their powers is irrelevant (and by the way, the theory there is that it's not the metal that makes the druids lose their powers—it's the fact that they're covering their bodies with armor crafted by greater technology than it takes to make hide or leather armor—and for the record, I agree that it's somewhat of a sketchy limitation anyway... I value the limitation more as an "branding" thing than anything else, because the image of a druid dressed in plate mail is jarring and disconcerting to me...).The undead druids I mentioned in an earlier post have a LOT more to them than "OMG THEY ARE UNDEAD!" There's a strong element of tragedy and the like involved with these specific undead druids, and they do NOT make the transition from living druid to undead blasphemy without having some changes to their personalities, capabilities, and druidic powers.
If, once "The Worldwound" is out and you've had a chance to read the whole deal with the siabraes and you still disagree, that's fine. But don't assume that they're merely druids with bonus powers and no flavor to talk about the tragic side of things.
There are reasons why their druidic magic still works even though they are now undead.
OK James, you've earned the benefit of the doubt with me through other exchanges so I will retract comments on undead druids until I read through Worldwound and then if I feel differently, I'll admit my error.
In case it hasn't been clear, it has not been the concept of undead druids that I fundamentally find objectionable, although I do find it very, very hard to justify. It's been the sense that class restrictions and limitations in general are arbitrary, inconsistent and poorly justified, and this is just another example.
But I'll wait.
Whether or not I agree that metal makes druids lose their powers is irrelevant (and by the way, the theory there is that it's not the metal that makes the druids lose their powers—it's the fact that they're covering their bodies with armor crafted by greater technology than it takes to make hide or leather armor—and for the record, I agree that it's somewhat of a sketchy limitation anyway... I value the limitation more as an "branding" thing than anything else, because the image of a druid dressed in plate mail is jarring and disconcerting to me...).
What's actually pretty funny about this is that in Baldur's Gate I & II, fighter/druids did wear metal armor. I'm not sure about pen & paper D&D, but I do know that they could wear plate armor and it never seemed particularly strange or made me do a double-take (they were still finicky about the types of weapons they used though).
There's actually, IMHO, more technology that goes into making proper hide and leather - or at least as much - as their is metal. I've done some blacksmithing myself and all you really do to acquire raw iron is to melt the iron into a chunk, heat it up, and then beat the hell out of it. You can adjust the qualities of the iron by adding in carbon (which is a natural byproduct of burning the wood or coals you use to fuel your fire) and heating or cooling it (if you hammer carbon into the metal and then quickly cool it, you get steel, because the molecules of the metal tighten around the carbon molecules).
While it took people longer to figure out how to forge metal, the process is actually very primitive. You can begin to experiment with it in your back yard if you wanted to with little more than a method for getting some ventilation, a couple of cinderblocks, and a fire source.
Now making leather? As in curing, tanning, and hardening leather? That stuff is way more complicated IMHO. You have to first kill the animal (at least I sure as hell up so :P), skin the animal, then boil the would-be leather to remove impurities, then remove the hair (which is usually done with a calcium carbonate solution), then you have to pull the bits of remaining flesh off, run it through another calcium carbonate bath, and then you have to use some form of tannin to prevent it from rotting which is usually a vegetable mixture derived from certain tree barks (alternatively you could use tawing which was alum, egg yolks and salt in place of a tannin, which results in a lighter white leather but it's less resistant to rotting).
It blows my mind - as someone who has had an interest in such things to study them - to hear that armors made of metal are somehow more technologically complex or advanced than armors made from leathers. The only real difference in complexity and advancement over the centuries is that the properties of leather were discovered earlier than the properties of metals. Making metal armor for druids would be as simple as making small metal strips (no more complex than a spearhead and easier since you wouldn't need it to be sharp), punching holes in them, and then lining them across a back surface (be it light leather or a cloth coat) in scaled patterns like a fish (voila, metal scale mail). Which is no different than making armor from dragonhide (scales, bones, etc) which allows druids to prance about in plate armor. :P
Likewise, should a druid lose their powers if they are wearing cloth clothing made from a sewing machine (Golarion has printing presses). Should their powers suddenly turn off because they're wearing a vest, or shirt, which was dyed with a synthesized dye made by an alchemist?
Just things to ponder on.
The chinese made armor out of paper that was effectively immune to crossbow bolts and arrows (it was paper that was folded repeatedly and then coated in a resin, then made into scale mail). Would a druid lose their powers by wrapping themselves in a paper bag? Paper is definitely more technologically advanced than heating and pounding minerals.
The chinese made armor out of paper that was effectively immune to crossbow bolts and arrows (it was paper that was folded repeatedly and then coated in a resin, then made into scale mail). Would a druid lose their powers by wrapping themselves in a paper bag? Paper is definitely more technologically advanced than heating and pounding minerals.
Heh, you seem to have a similar affinity for some sorts of trivia that I do Ashiel... I could have written the same thing you mentioned above and have had many similar thoughts about metal vs leather or hide armor.
Now, about that wonderful paper armor you are referring to. I watch way too much history channel stuff and they had a really good show tracing the history of arms and armor. They put that reputation to the test and their conclusion was that the paper armor was good against one or a few crossbow shots, but that once its integrity was disrupted, it became almost useless against crossbows. Metal armor, on the other hand, tended to remain nearly as effective overall after a lot more hits.
But your basic point here is valid. Making armor out of metal is really pretty simple compared to making it from hide, leather or paper (or combinations of all three).
It's been the sense that class restrictions and limitations in general are arbitrary, inconsistent and poorly justified, and this is just another example.
I can agree with this 100%. It's very hard to respect or take the rules seriously when it looks like the writers themselves didn't even bother to. This isn't a crack at the current writers either. This is an observation that stretches as far back as OD&D where clerics can't use edged weapons because christian warpriests didn't due to problems with spilling blood (a cruel irony given that the internal hemmoraging and bleeding would cause a much more pain and suffering filled death than just letting the poor sods bleed to death).
There have been many arbitrary and pointless restrictions, and people have clung to them like they were sacred right up until...they didn't exist anymore. Rangers used to have to be good, just like Paladins. Clerics couldn't use any piercing or slashing weapon. Paladins had to give away like 90% of their treasures and if you ever committed an evil act then no more Paladin for you EVER (this was the case in 3.0). Gnomes couldn't be wizards unless they were illusionists. Halflings couldn't be anything except fighters, thieves, and clerics. Elves couldn't be bards. The list of restrictions is miles long. The game has done nothing but improve due to whittling and shaving all these silly things away and giving more freedom to the groups as to what is or is not kosher within the rules. Making the system more and more setting neutral has only done wonders for the game.
I would be more than happy to see the arbitrariness go the way of the dodo and leave roleplaying in the hands of the roleplayer. I believe that roleplaying suggestions and opportunities are good. I think a material for advising interesting characters is actually more needed in the game (I'd like to see a book that focused less on archetypes and a word or two about the intended flavor to instead focus around talking about archetypal characters, thoughts, motivations, and building a good persona).
Now, about that wonderful paper armor you are referring to. I watch way too much history channel stuff and they had a really good show tracing the history of arms and armor. They put that reputation to the test and their conclusion was that the paper armor was good against one or a few crossbow shots, but that once its integrity was disrupted, it became almost useless against crossbows. Metal armor, on the other hand, tended to remain nearly as effective overall after a lot more hits.
What's pretty funny is I watch the history channel constantly (honestly it's about the only thing I watch on tv :P) and they also remade the armor and commented that the armor was 100% effective at what it did and was quite sturdy. You'd probably need to replace it, but for its purpose it was brilliant. It allowed for a relatively cheap way of immunizing your troops against crossbow and bow fire. Written accounts of soldiers who continued fighting while literally riddled with arrows and bolts existed. The stuff was pretty cool! :D
Metal armor was of course pretty superior in general though. Now, this is just a hunch, but I think a truly superior form of defense would be metal armor with a paper-mail covering or underlay (similar to the concept of layered armor we see regularly in the combination of padding, chain, and plate to provide the most protection against blunt, cutting, and stabbing weapons).
But your basic point here is valid. Making armor out of metal is really pretty simple compared to making it from hide, leather or paper (or combinations of all three).
Thanks. I get the feeling we could probably chatter on like this for a while with great big grins on our faces. :D
Thanks. I get the feeling we could probably chatter on like this for a while with great big grins on our faces. :D
Heh, no doubt. I wonder if we watched the same show but took away different interpretations. If you assume that the average soldier is going to get nailed by one or two crossbows, I completely agree with your interpretation. If you assume that a soldier would be targeted multiple times, then not.
In the context of that show I believe they were talking about massive armies and in that context the paper armor was indeed determined to be quite effective against incoming crossbow volleys, long enough for the armies to engage in more direct combat anyway.
|
My guess was ever that the spirits of nature made up laws for the primitive druids to follow so they could lend them the druidic power. The druids followed it and when they learnt to do the druidic thing by themselves they keep following the rules just for tradition, so deeply that their magic can't work without following those rules. Very close how governments work nowdays.
My guess was ever that the spirits of nature made up laws for the primitive druids to follow so they could lend them the druidic power. The druids followed it and when they learnt to do the druidic thing by themselves they keep following the rules just for tradition, so deeply that their magic can't work without following those rules. Very close how governments work nowdays.
That's a cute idea. The problem is that there are no examples of such a thing anywhere in the source material. There are no nature spirits other than fey and elementals, neither of which are spirits in the sense I imagine you're describing (nor do either have problems with metal beyond an allergy to cold iron in the case of many fey). This seems very much like the kind of reverse-justification that has traditionally occurred in past iterations of the game. People will try to come up with justifications for rules that are nonsensical.
Just as an example, in 3.0 and earlier editions, mindless undead were Neutral aligned (because they are mindless; and in Pathfinder they are technically Neutral aligned as well, because the alignment rules declare their statblocks to be in error). In 3.5, people tried to come up with justifications for why skeletons and zombies were suddenly "evil". These justifications were suppositions that if uncontrolled they would go on murderous rampages, or that the act of animating trapped the soul of the creature inside the shell, and so forth. Yet by actually examining these things we see that...well, no, it's none of those things (it's literally possible to prove such things wrong).
It's an example of backwards thinking. See, you have mechanics which represent something that is logical. Falling damage is representative of gravity. What is happening in the other case is we're trying to invent gravity to represent falling damage, except there is no case of gravity functioning anywhere else. Except replace "gravity" and "falling damage" with any other example of arbitrary mechanics in the rules.
That's a cute idea. The problem is that there are no examples of such a thing anywhere in the source material. There are no nature spirits other than fey and elementals, neither of which are spirits in the sense I imagine you're describing (nor do either have problems with metal beyond an allergy to cold iron in the case of many fey). This seems very much like the kind of reverse-justification that has traditionally occurred in past iterations of the game. People will try to come up with justifications for rules that are nonsensical.What next? Why not have druids clear-felling forests to make way for agriculture and cattle grazing, since corn and cows are also things of nature.
A druid is a priest of the natural world. As soon as you start giving him all of the accoutrements of civilization like metal armor, or a castle (stone is natural), or powers over the undead (corpses are part of nature), he's not longer an iconic druid.
Stripping all the classes of everything which makes them unique aside from a list of abilities just makes all of the classes bland and flavorless.
By your position you must accept that using metal weaponry is just as much a problem with that standpoint. Which returns us to the problem. Metal weapons are a civilized convenience.
I imagine druids would be against the idea of clear-cutting everything because druids are about balance. While cows and farmlands are not made of unnatural things, the world and its ecosystem would quickly fall out of balance if you were to begin eradicating forests, which would be harmful to the natural world. Not because those things are "unnatural" but because they are not being moderated wisely. In moderation forest fires are good for a forest, but that doesn't mean a druid wants to burn all the forests down. Rain is good for growth, but flooding is not so much.
But I'm a firm believer that classes being capable of filling countless roles and variations on those roles does not at all hinder the ability to roleplay but encourages it, and opens up pathways and freedoms. It doesn't lead to bland anything. It doesn't take you aside and say "Okay, you can't play druids like this; only play them as faceless manaquinns that turn into animals". Quite the contrary. It opens up more easy access to do things like have different traditions and druid orders, perhaps each with their own favored weapons and traditions.
Then you would be left up to decide how you wanted to do things.
What next? Why not have druids clear-felling forests to make way for agriculture and cattle grazing, since corn and cows are also things of nature.
A druid is a priest of the natural world. As soon as you start giving him all of the accoutrements of civilization like metal armor, or a castle (stone is natural), or powers over the undead (corpses are part of nature), he's not longer an iconic druid.
Here's a fun question: ...Why do we need an "iconic" anything? What does it add to the game in the long run? What does the Paladin's Code, or the Druid's alignment and weird-ass armor restrictions add to the game at all?
My opinion is that it adds the exact same thing as war (huh!), but that's just me.
Stripping all the classes of everything which makes them unique aside from a list of abilities just makes all of the classes bland and flavorless.
It's up to the player to add flavor anyway. All of the character classes are pretty generic in their description and fluff anyway. Druids like nature. Neat. Wizards learn spells from books and are smart. Yay. Fighters fight things. Yes indeed oh so non-bland and flavorful mmmhmm.
No, all the flavor generally comes form the player character's personality and quirks itself rather than anything.
When was the last time you remembered Generic Tree Hugging Druid #6 over the actual character's personality?
It's up to the player to add flavor anyway. All of the character classes are pretty generic in their description and fluff anyway. Druids like nature. Neat. Wizards learn spells from books and are smart. Yay. Fighters fight things. Yes indeed oh so non-bland and flavorful mmmhmm.
No, all the flavor generally comes form the player character's personality and quirks itself rather than anything.
When was the last time you remembered Generic Tree Hugging Druid #6 over the actual character's personality?
That may be true when it comes to experienced, mature roleplayers, but those aren't the only ones. And even when it comes to those, having a flavorful description of a class can inspire people. I know many times a good piece of character art or a class description has given me ideas on what NPC's to do out of those etc...
In D20 Modern they did this. They subbed the class names for Strong Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, etc etc. When a 13-year old picks up the book at the store and glosses over the pages, which book will she be more likely to buy? The one that promises her to be "a druid, a member of a semi-secret order with the mission to protect nature from men's folly" or the one that promises her to be "the wise guy"?
And you can have a flavorful description of the class without having random restrictions that don't add anything to the game.
If the current class descriptions are enough, most classes manage to do it. Wizards aren't arbitrarily restricted to "any neutral" alignment because their search for knowledge takes precedence over all else or anything silly like that. So fixing the other classes that just have leftover bits and bobs from previous games can't be that difficult.
Nothing wrong with undead druids. To all those naysayers I suggest to take a look at some of the Paizo published AP's there are at least two published undead Druids.
One of them is Merrick Sais a vampire druid in carrion crown.
And I believe there was some ghost druid too somewhere.
That may be true when it comes to experienced, mature roleplayers, but those aren't the only ones. And even when it comes to those, having a flavorful description of a class can inspire people. I know many times a good piece of character art or a class description has given me ideas on what NPC's to do out of those etc...
In D20 Modern they did this. They subbed the class names for Strong Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, etc etc. When a 13-year old picks up the book at the store and glosses over the pages, which book will she be more likely to buy? The one that promises her to be "a druid, a member of a semi-secret order with the mission to protect nature from men's folly" or the one that promises her to be "the wise guy"?
It depends. I actually did buy D20 Modern as a middling teenager. It came out not long after 3.0 D&D and I purchased it after paging through the book and checking out the iconics. The book does a decent job of setting up the flavor of the game with its art and iconics like Moondog.
There is a huge difference from presenting a game devoid of fluff and a game that doesn't possess forced-fluff. For lack of a better analogy, most of us would like sex, but dislike sex forced on us. Having a nice bit of fluff to stir the imagination is a boon. Having only one fluff driven into the mechanics stifles the imagination and is a curse.
The problem is that there is no literary or cultural basis for Druids using a reincarnation spell. Clerical magic has at least a Biblical foundation for bringing folks back from the dead and a total disdain for natural order. But Druids doing the reincarnation thing is totally a Gygax construction, mainly because he wanted a reason to have a reincarnation table in the game so that characters might come back as gnolls, centaurs, or badgers. It's an even double whammy that Druids would believe in life extension. If a job needs to be done over generations, you train young replacements. The problem with immortal creatures is that they take up space that's needed by younger generations. Druids see death as a neccessary thing in order to make room for new life.Since druids are all over supernatural stuff (including extending people's lives via reincarnation, transforming into supernatural beings like outsiders, etc). I was basically noting that they were no more unnatural than anything else that is "natural" in a fantasy world with magic, positive and negative energy planes, and transforming creatures, immortal alchemists, and so forth.
It's difficult to hate undead because they're natural while Merlin is turning people to stone, and the druid is transforming into 12 ft. creatures made of planar fire. :P
Why should I care about literary basis for reincarnate anymore or any less than I should care about raise dead and Christian theology? Last I checked the god of the Jews is not a prominent figure in D&D/Pathfinder, nor is Satan, or Ahura Mazda. Why should I care?
|
Creative Director
|
I respect you a lot, Mr. Jacobs, but you're going to have to do no less than an absolutely smashing job to sell this concept to me. You'll either totally wow me or make me turn away from the tome in embarrassment.While undead are very much NOT a part of the natural world (they are part of the SUPERnatural world, and many of them have specific abilities that cause creatures of nature to balk or flee or the like, such as the wraith's unnatural aura)...
...druids can still be undead. Unless they're ghosts, they'll be neutral evil druids 99.9999994% of the time. A druid can certainly become a lich or a vampire. It's far more uncommon for an undead creature to start taking levels of druid AFTER it becomes a druid. Druids that are undead generally do not keep animal companions, and most have archetypes like blight druid that are more thematic fits for their undead state.
In addition, later this year, the Worldwound 64 page campaign setting book will present stats for the siabrae, an undead druid template somewhat akin in power to the lich template; siabraes are the result of the powerful druids of Sarkoris sacrificing themselves to try to prevent the demons of the Worldwound from completely destroying one of the most sacred sites of the Green Faith. More info on them later this year!
Well then! I look forward to seeing if what we do with them in "The Worldwound" works for you or not.
I can't build things that are perfect for anyone but me, and my tolerance for stuff that's embarrassing is pretty low.
The problem is that there is no literary or cultural basis for Druids using a reincarnation spell. Clerical magic has at least a Biblical foundation for bringing folks back from the dead and a total disdain for natural order. But Druids doing the reincarnation thing is totally a Gygax construction, mainly because he wanted a reason to have a reincarnation table in the game so that characters might come back as gnolls, centaurs, or badgers. It's an even double whammy that Druids would believe in life extension. If a job needs to be done over generations, you train young replacements. The problem with immortal creatures is that they take up space that's needed by younger generations. Druids see death as a neccessary thing in order to make room for new life.Since druids are all over supernatural stuff (including extending people's lives via reincarnation, transforming into supernatural beings like outsiders, etc). I was basically noting that they were no more unnatural than anything else that is "natural" in a fantasy world with magic, positive and negative energy planes, and transforming creatures, immortal alchemists, and so forth.
It's difficult to hate undead because they're natural while Merlin is turning people to stone, and the druid is transforming into 12 ft. creatures made of planar fire. :P
I think Druids in DnD owe more to the new age movement, especially reincarnation and being protectors of nature and balance. Historical druids were really just priests of Celtic gods, and not a whole lot has survived on them.
|
|
What next? Why not have druids clear-felling forests to make way for agriculture and cattle grazing, since corn and cows are also things of nature.
A druid is a priest of the natural world. As soon as you start giving him all of the accoutrements of civilization like metal armor, or a castle (stone is natural), or powers over the undead (corpses are part of nature), he's not longer an iconic druid.
Here's a fun question: ...Why do we need an "iconic" anything? What does it add to the game in the long run? What does the Paladin's Code, or the Druid's alignment and weird-ass armor restrictions add to the game at all?
My opinion is that it adds the exact same thing as war (huh!), but that's just me.
Stripping all the classes of everything which makes them unique aside from a list of abilities just makes all of the classes bland and flavorless.It's up to the player to add flavor anyway. All of the character classes are pretty generic in their description and fluff anyway. Druids like nature. Neat. Wizards learn spells from books and are smart. Yay. Fighters fight things. Yes indeed oh so non-bland and flavorful mmmhmm.
No, all the flavor generally comes form the player character's personality and quirks itself rather than anything.
When was the last time you remembered Generic Tree Hugging Druid #6 over the actual character's personality?
Are people forgetting more and more that this is a role playing game?
Fluff, flavor, and concept are what truly separate the classes and give them life, not just the mechanics. If this is your attitude then you truly are playing the wrong game, video games would be more to your liking.
Actually, 4th edition would probably be better suited for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are people forgetting more and more that this is a role playing game?
Fluff, flavor, and concept are what truly separate the classes and give them life, not just the mechanics. If this is your attitude then you truly are playing the wrong game, video games would be more to your liking.
Actually, 4th edition would probably be better suited for you.
This is a role playing game. So you should do your own role playing rather than just coloring inside the lines. ;)