In my group right now (I'm GM), my players are basically combating an evil druidic organization hell-bent on killing off the civilized races. The party is planning to assault a stronghold of theirs, and one of the players had the idea buying several pairs of gauntlets for the purpose of slipping onto the hands of any druids they encounter to negate their powers.
At the time, I thought about it some, looked at both the Druid code, gauntlets in the equipment section, and considered game balance. I ruled against him during the game. Nor he or anyone else has brought it up sense (though to be fair, we haven't played another session since then).
It should be noted that they have done this tactic before, but with a breastplate (which is definitely armor), as opposed to the gauntlets (which is a little ambiguous in my opinion).
But now I'm re-thinking that decision. Since the party hasn't actually left Riddleport yet, they could still buy the gauntlets before leaving.
On the one hand, it makes sense - Druids are natural by choice, and so avoid worked metal. But they can use worked metal weapons just fine. And any tool or the like that's worked metal as well. And a gauntlet could also be used as a weapon - a druid wearing hide armor and metal gauntlets, does he fall?
While a RAW ruling would be helpful in this decision, I'm more looking for the RAI here. There are no druids in the party, and I don't think anyone is interested in playing one for this campaign.
So opinions would be helpful here. Thanks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't consider gauntlets as armor by themselves. First, gauntlets don't provide an AC bonus. Second, they're listed under weapons, not armor (although they're included with certain sets of armor).
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't think a class should fall for something done under duress.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would personally say that the druid would have to willingly wear metal armor in order to lose their powers (at least the 24 hour part). Being forced to do so shouldn't be sufficient, although the shock of wearing metal armor might impose a penalty even if you don't take away their powers completely (like a 50% chance to fail).
Regardless: Gauntlets don't qualify as armor or shields, so they should be fair game for druids.
I heard someone discuss a similar tactic with Beguiling Gift and a steel shield.
Since a shield actually provides an armor bonus and specifically says druids can only use wooden ones, I think I'd have to give that point to the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it depends on what reasoning you employ to explain loss of druidic powers.
Scenario 1: Druids are restricted by the rules of the order; breaking their vows makes them "fall from grace" with powers that be. In that case, being forced to wear gauntlets would not cause loss of powers, in my book.
Scenario 2: Worked metal, especially worn close to skin in quantities - i.e. armor or gauntlets - interferes with druid's ability to tap into natural forces that grant him the powers he wields. In that case, intent would have nothing to do with it - gauntlets act as a "lightning rod" and powers cease to function.
I personally favor Scenario 2; however, players should be cautioned, as that bat swings both ways (PC druids would be likewise susceptible).
|
It's a dilemma for the druid. Wearing any form of metal armor directly conflicts with their beliefs as a druid and their faith in the natural world. If they put it on, they lose their powers, just like a paladin committing an evil act would. Now, that said, if the PCs place the gauntlets on the druid's arms, he has not made the choice to wear the gauntlets, any more than a Dominated paladin forced to commit an evil act would. The power (and loss thereof) is in the choice. If the druid chooses to put on the gauntlets, rather than be [imprisoned/killed/beaten up], then he loses his powers.
Maybe I think about this differently, but Evil Druids? Really? Bent on the destruction of civilization? Neo Nazi Naturalists?
"A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter."
If you want RAW, I suppose a literal interpretation, yes.
That said, I don't think that clapping druids in irons, whether its manacles or gauntlets, satisfies the intent. Its not something they are proficient in, RAW. I think the penalty if for a druid who decides he wants to look like Sir Gawain.
Either way, make a ruling and stick with it. The same could be said for clapping a mage into a suit of plate armor. That DIMEMSION DOOR won't work . . . .
The idea is probably to have the druid's be knocked out (sleep spell or just plain combat), and then slapping the gauntlets on before tying them up. that way they can't wild shape into something else and break the bindings before escaping (or whatever they do)
I guess it depends on what reasoning you employ to explain loss of druidic powers.
Scenario 1: Druids are restricted by the rules of the order; breaking their vows makes them "fall from grace" with powers that be. In that case, being forced to wear gauntlets would not cause loss of powers, in my book.
Scenario 2: Worked metal, especially worn close to skin in quantities - i.e. armor or gauntlets - interferes with druid's ability to tap into natural forces that grant him the powers he wields. In that case, intent would have nothing to do with it - gauntlets act as a "lightning rod" and powers cease to function.
I personally favor Scenario 2; however, players should be cautioned, as that bat swings both ways (PC druids would be likewise susceptible).
Traditionally, scenario 2 has been the case throughout the editions of D&D. I guess that bit of fluff was excluded from PF.
In any case, the RAW doesn't make exceptions for armour worn under duress or any form of atonement the Druid can make. If She wears armour she loses her powers for the day, period.
It's also a matter of precedent. I don't suddenly want to party to carry around a dozen pairs of gauntlets "in case" they run into a druid. Which they will totally do. It seems like something normal adventurers wouldn't do.
I don't really like this ruling, but I would have to go with Quantum Steve on this. I guess the lesson if you are a druid is don't get captured and be forced to wear armor or gauntlets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my group right now (I'm GM), my players are basically combating an evil druidic organization hell-bent on killing off the civilized races. The party is planning to assault a stronghold of theirs, and one of the players had the idea buying several pairs of gauntlets for the purpose of slipping onto the hands of any druids they encounter to negate their powers.
At the time, I thought about it some, looked at both the Druid code, gauntlets in the equipment section, and considered game balance. I ruled against him during the game. Nor he or anyone else has brought it up sense (though to be fair, we haven't played another session since then).
It should be noted that they have done this tactic before, but with a breastplate (which is definitely armor), as opposed to the gauntlets (which is a little ambiguous in my opinion).
But now I'm re-thinking that decision. Since the party hasn't actually left Riddleport yet, they could still buy the gauntlets before leaving.
On the one hand, it makes sense - Druids are natural by choice, and so avoid worked metal. But they can use worked metal weapons just fine. And any tool or the like that's worked metal as well. And a gauntlet could also be used as a weapon - a druid wearing hide armor and metal gauntlets, does he fall?
While a RAW ruling would be helpful in this decision, I'm more looking for the RAI here. There are no druids in the party, and I don't think anyone is interested in playing one for this campaign.
So opinions would be helpful here. Thanks!
Use scale mail or splint mail instead. Druids have no trouble wearing gauntlets. They are not armor, merely included with armors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use scale mail or splint mail instead. Druids have no trouble wearing gauntlets. They are not armor, merely included with armors.
Actually, I had thought a message above mentioning gauntlets affecting druids was a quote from the rules. After Ashiel's comment I went and checked the rules and gauntlets are not mentioned.
And I concur with Ashiel that gauntlets are not armor. So I will change my tune and agree now with Ashiel. :)
Since gauntlets not counting as armour due to their position on equipment lists is a no-go, how about helmets with blinders on them? Come to think of it, my PC may start carrying some around.
The metal negates their magical powers, and blinders debuff them, then bound the hands, and shazam, you have yourself a pretty nullified druid without magic AND penalties to anything based on sight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think maybe super strict RAW may be yes, but I think RAI is no.
And here's why.
"uses a prohibited shield".
Now, are you using a shield by holding it? Even holding it in one hand? I don't think so- especially not if it was put there magically by someone else.
I personally think that 'wearing armor' has that same implication in this instance.
If you dominate a druid and have them climb into steel full plate- have they done anything wrong?
IMO? Not if they do everything in their power to resist and when ever possible (literally possible- not "when its convenient) gets the heck back out of it again.
Remember what the prohibition is about. Its about their beliefs and their actions. If someone is forcing them to do it, then they haven't acted against their beliefs.
One definition of "wear" is "to use". This implies a willingness to put the item to the purpose for which it was intended. (thats not the only definition- there is also just "to have something on your body").
The purpose though of this prohibition isn't to make druids easy to keep in captivity. "Well, he was a terrible druid. Then we stuck that iron Skull Cap onto him with Sovreign Glue and he can't do a thing".
I'm just not sure they intended the prohibition on metal armor to be some grand achilles heel for the class.
Tl'Dr:
I think its about willingly breaking vows, not about pin the metal on the druid.
-S
If it doesn't require armor proficiency and provides no armor bonus it's not armor. Helmets are cosmetic, as are headbands, crowns, and circlets. Either you're wearing armor and carrying a shield or you are not. Adding a helmet to leather armor has no effect on your armor class, check penalty, spell failure, speed, or otherwise. Dems the breaks.
I think maybe super strict RAW may be yes, but I think RAI is no.
And here's why.
"uses a prohibited shield".
Now, are you using a shield by holding it? Even holding it in one hand? I don't think so- especially not if it was put there magically by someone else.
I personally think that 'wearing armor' has that same implication in this instance.
If you dominate a druid and have them climb into steel full plate- have they done anything wrong?
IMO? Not if they do everything in their power to resist and when ever possible (literally possible- not "when its convenient) gets the heck back out of it again.Remember what the prohibition is about. Its about their beliefs and their actions. If someone is forcing them to do it, then they haven't acted against their beliefs.
One definition of "wear" is "to use". This implies a willingness to put the item to the purpose for which it was intended. (thats not the only definition- there is also just "to have something on your body").
The purpose though of this prohibition isn't to make druids easy to keep in captivity. "Well, he was a terrible druid. Then we stuck that iron Skull Cap onto him with Sovreign Glue and he can't do a thing".
I'm just not sure they intended the prohibition on metal armor to be some grand achilles heel for the class.
Tl'Dr:
I think its about willingly breaking vows, not about pin the metal on the druid.
-S
Right. Must "use" it-being forced to wear it doesn't count.
I would say that the real intent of the question should be:
What mundane steps should authority figures (such as PCs or local militia) take to reasonably prevent spellcasting by the standard classes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that the real intent of the question should be:
What mundane steps should authority figures (such as PCs or local militia) take to reasonably prevent spellcasting by the standard classes?
** spoiler omitted **
If they wanted to be douchbags they make the caster wear splint mail and tower shields with locked gauntlets. :P
|
|
Don't forget the gag. You don't want to find out that mister sorcerer knows Suggestion or Mass Suggestion. Especially not if he also has the heighten or persistent metamagic feat.
Or that a wizard who knows how you deal with casters hasn't learned to eschew materials and keep a persistent suggestion prepared as insurance.
"Let me out of this ridiculous get up so I can sleep properly" is pretty hard to construe as an unreasonable suggestion for a prisoner to make to a guard and it has no somatic component.
I don't know of any spells, though, that have neither a somatic nor verbal component.
Other than the Arcane Trickster's 'Tricky Spell' ability to spontaneously add Still Spell *and* Silent Spell several times a day.
Seppuku and Andro make the most pertinent points, I think. Namely, what is the nature of Druidic magic and how it relates to their code, and what steps can be taken, without magic, to suppress it. Which seems to be more of a fluff issue than anything, though RAW has a place in the discussion, too.
At this point, I'm not really comfortable with a unilateral decision one way or the other. I'll probably outline the most likely options with my group and we'll jointly decide how we want this aspect of the world works.
If anyone wants to delve into this aspect of Golarion with me, that would be great. Either way, thanks to everyone for their time and effort.
|
My opinion: Unless binding a druid with iron chains steals their magic, why should forcing any other piece of metal on their person do it? Whether you see the metal prohibition as a mater of druid philosophy and vows or a nuance of how their magic works, there is no absolute limit on how much metal they can have on them as by RAW. So, unless they are intentionally breaking the code it seems unnecessarily punitive to the class. Also, to me it seems to be a kind of metagaming. Really, lets depower the guy with metal gloves? Who would come up with that without reading a rule book?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
What's wrong with the burning the practitioners at the stake method? (hint:Historically it's been shown to work very well.) If you're suppressing Druidic magic, the only reason you wwould be is that you've declared holy (or unholy) war on druidic faiths. In that case, you're only option is to eradicate the followers if they won't abandon their faith.Seppuku and Andro make the most pertinent points, I think. Namely, what is the nature of Druidic magic and how it relates to their code, and what steps can be taken, without magic, to suppress it. Which seems to be more of a fluff issue than anything, though RAW has a place in the discussion, too.
I can think of several reasons why one might want to disable an opponent's magic without killing him. For example, maybe the PCs are working for a lawful authority who wants to put the druids on trial.
Just because someone wants to keep a druid from spellcasting or wildshaping does not mean she necessarily wants the druid dead!
My two cents.
As stated Gauntlets are not armor and provide no Ac bonus, but they are still metal and would interfere with spell casting.
I would meet my players halfway and say while not perfect. it does give the chance of spell failure to a Druid like an arcane caster wearing a chain shirt.
My opinion is that :
1) likely the players are involved in metagaming
2) it wouldn't work since it is not technically armor, though they are metal weapons
3) combine 1 and 2 to have it bite them in the ass
My players are not trying to kill off all druids in the world. They're also not interested in killing off this sect if it can be helped. Diplomacy was the first thing they tried.
I'm fairly certain they want a way to ensure a Druid can't just wild shape out of bindings and the like.
I would say that the real intent of the question should be:
What mundane steps should authority figures (such as PCs or local militia) take to reasonably prevent spellcasting by the standard classes?
** spoiler omitted **
That answer is very simple. They didn’t have prisons much back then, except for political prisoners. Criminals were executed. Being hung will cramp the style of most spellcasters.
My players are not trying to kill off all druids in the world. They're also not interested in killing off this sect if it can be helped. Diplomacy was the first thing they tried.
I'm fairly certain they want a way to ensure a Druid can't just wild shape out of bindings and the like.
When this came up in my campaign I suggested that cold iron crafted chains would prevent a druid from using his shapeshifting powers and spells. Cold iron being regarded as having anti-magical and anti-fey properties it seemed fitting, putting a druid in metal armor seems too meta.
* I do houserule alot though, druids can wear metal armor for instance but they always suffer non-proficiency penalties and a penalty to concentration checks equal to the armor check penalty for instance.
Why not just use manacles? They would be easier to put on the druid and would prevent him from casting spells with somatic components.
But not wildshaping, which is a legitimate concern.
I know this is an old thread, but is relevant to the campaign I'm running. Specifically skull and shackles. I'm fairly certain I've of my players intends to try to break my game every chance he gets. Given that he's been captured by pays, I feel it likely he'll try to burn the ship down, being he's a fire druid. To stop the captain from outright killing him, I was thinking of locking a buckler onto his arm. It won't be tough to get off unless he continues to mess with stuff to the point of burning the ship down. But I need to make sure it works first
I would say that the real intent of the question should be:
What mundane steps should authority figures (such as PCs or local militia) take to reasonably prevent spellcasting by the standard classes?
** spoiler omitted **
Drugs work well in my experience. Load them up with mental stat drugs or poisons until all they can do is drool. Use physical stat drugs or poisons (other than Con) to hamper their ability to escape bindings in a mundane fashion.
I have no idea how much brain damage my party's captive cleric took whilst being transported from Ravenmoor to Magnimar, but she wouldn't have escaped if they'd kept administering those poisons.