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!
How about this, push them that the gauntlets may not be enough, if they want to take these druids alive and shut down their powers, force them to really encase them in metal, make it the man in the iron mask, but worse. If the want to be sure, they have to seal the druids inside. Allow it to work, it makes sense, allow it to be a solution.
Of course, if word of this heinous deed gets out, have there be consequences. Maybe some fence sitters join the evil druids and others more prone to diplomatic solutions meet the pcs and explain how abhorrent what they are doing is. Go with it, be the gm, make their actions have consequences in the world. If they go to the trouble of encasing a druid in metal, don't be cheap and still let them cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At what point in the discussion would some impatient player character say, "To heck with this!" and coup de grace the druid prisoners? I know the idea occurred to me less than halweay down page 1.
Metal Buckler?
Yes.
Also, look into Cursed Magic Armor.
*Druid wakes up, and looks down*
"Oh no, I've been bucklered!"
I'd say it would interrupt their powers.
They wouldn't fall because it was against their will, but it would stop the flow of magic through their hands. So no somatic components. Like when they put those things on Elsa's hands in Frozen.
I'd limit them to verbal component spells only.
Buckle up, they are entering the no casting tunnel of the metal sarcophagus.
Probably a war crime amongst the druids.
I disagree with you Raelynn. I would not have druids effected this way but if paladin does evil even at gunpoint, then he falls.
And I disagree with that. Coercion changes everything.
Of course, I think 'falling' mechanics are lame bullplop in general.
Doesn't really change much, being encased in metal or using metal shields shoots out their spellcasting ability.
It temporarily shuts down the link to nature. Seems pretty clear, but it would need to be armour or shields, not manacles or gauntlets.
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.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 he's playing on Golarion, they do. Harrowstone proves that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't really change much, being encased in metal or using metal shields shoots out their spellcasting ability.
It temporarily shuts down the link to nature. Seems pretty clear, but it would need to be armour or shields, not manacles or gauntlets.
As ridiculous as that is, since metal is perfectly natural.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I checked the PRD on druids and it says:
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.
It says nothing about being forced to do so.
So an armored coat or a Buckler (which is strapped to the arm) will indeed take a druid out of commision (spell-wise and wildshape-wise). And even if they remove the item(s) it will take 24 hours untill they regain control of their powers.
So a buckler fastened to a druids arm and shackles will very effectively remove his/her combat capabilities.
The same goes for a armored coat + shackles.
This is the weak spot of a druid and although the cure is pretty simple remove armor and wait 24 hours (druids do not fall from grace) their active connection to their source of power is temporarily severed.
Needless to say no atonement is needed as a druids source of power will sever the druid permanently if it feels this as a neccasary measure (just like a cleric).
As ridiculous as that is, since metal is perfectly natural.Doesn't really change much, being encased in metal or using metal shields shoots out their spellcasting ability.
It temporarily shuts down the link to nature. Seems pretty clear, but it would need to be armour or shields, not manacles or gauntlets.
Well metal in nature is rarely found in plates or even disks and needs to be processed heavily before it becomes workable. Maybe the druids consider this a twisting or corruption of nature?
As ridiculous as that is, since metal is perfectly natural.Doesn't really change much, being encased in metal or using metal shields shoots out their spellcasting ability.
It temporarily shuts down the link to nature. Seems pretty clear, but it would need to be armour or shields, not manacles or gauntlets.
I agree, but worked and manufactured metal isn't, so it messes with druids.
How good would a natural vein of helmets be? Yep, these helmets run deep.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've ruled that the metal armor rule is because druidic magic is drawn from the Fey/First world, and Cold Iron is disruptive to the fey. With normal metal armor isn't enough to harm fey, it is enough to disrupt the link to the First World that powers druidic abilities.
I think I would rule that no, the gauntlets aren't armor (per above).
If they put the druids in metal armor, I would rule that it would not do anything to prohibit them from using their abilities provided they got out of the armor before doing so. In other words if they tried to use a spell while wearing the metal armor, it would negate their powers for 24 hours. If they get to a position where they can use their abilities and first remove the offending metal, then they should be free use whatever abilities still remain for that day.
With this ruling, you'd be giving the PCs their method to nullify and capture the druid, but also not making the druid useless, provided someone was able to grant them freedom to remove the armor.
The cheap version of disabling a spellcaster: Scale Mail, 2 Tower Shields, 50 feet of rope. Strap on the armor and both shields and tie them up and gag them with the rope.
The questions is what do the terms 'wears armor' and 'uses a shield' mean?
My interpretation is that wearing armor or using a shield in Pathfinder terminology is not just having an item strapped to you, it is consciously using the item to defend against an attack (or potential attack.) A Druid could, in my opinion, use a metal shield as a platter with no ill effects, it is when they rely on the metal as a defensive tool that they encounter mystic mojo problems. Similarly, just being stuffed into plate mail while unconscious or bound doesn't effect them (although I might house-rule that their powers would be quelled as long as they were in the metal) but being stuffed into plate mail certainly shouldn't give them 24 hour problems any more than being stuffed into an iron box would.
Now, exactly why druids have this weakness isn't really clear. It isn't just being near metal, a druid can function just fine in a metal walled dungeon. It isn't just using metal tools, as they have several weapons that are metal. But for some reason, using metal to defend themselves with messes them right up. Other than it being a mystic mojo rule, I don't think one can logically explain it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cheap version of disabling a spellcaster: Scale Mail, 2 Tower Shields, 50 feet of rope. Strap on the armor and both shields and tie them up and gag them with the rope.
That seems a lot more expensive than just removing their hands and tongue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have a pc with the disguise skill change a metal shield to look like a wooden one. Clever use of paints or whatever. Make it obviously magical. Throw it at him but intentionally miss and make it land in his square. "Oh no you got my +4 heavy wooden shield of light fortification. Please give it back" .... "oh did I say wooden... my bad..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cheap version of disabling a spellcaster: Scale Mail, 2 Tower Shields, 50 feet of rope. Strap on the armor and both shields and tie them up and gag them with the rope.
It's a metal sandwich!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The questions is what do the terms 'wears armor' and 'uses a shield' mean?
My interpretation is that wearing armor or using a shield in Pathfinder terminology is not just having an item strapped to you, it is consciously using the item to defend against an attack (or potential attack.) A Druid could, in my opinion, use a metal shield as a platter with no ill effects, it is when they rely on the metal as a defensive tool that they encounter mystic mojo problems. Similarly, just being stuffed into plate mail while unconscious or bound doesn't effect them (although I might house-rule that their powers would be quelled as long as they were in the metal) but being stuffed into plate mail certainly shouldn't give them 24 hour problems any more than being stuffed into an iron box would.
Now, exactly why druids have this weakness isn't really clear. It isn't just being near metal, a druid can function just fine in a metal walled dungeon. It isn't just using metal tools, as they have several weapons that are metal. But for some reason, using metal to defend themselves with messes them right up. Other than it being a mystic mojo rule, I don't think one can logically explain it.
As a small child, when your mother dressed you, were you then wearing your clothes?
Yes, being dressed would effect them, because they are then wearing the armour or shields. Affixing the shields to their arms with locking gauntlets is also forcibly equipping it. You can ruin a wizard's day by pulling the same trick with high spell chance failure half-plate, but it is more effective on a druid. This is an old trick from 3.5.
"Time to get dressed druid!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't too mean to do to a PC, is it?
Lol, give the party druid some +3 leather armour, that is actually a glamoured breastplate.
|
If forcing a druid to wear armor or forcing a shield on their arm results in their in ability to use their abilities is up to you. It also means dominated paladins fall committing evil acts and you can dominate barbarians into a lawful alignment and lose their ability to rage and so on.
It all comes to the same point, it is a choice that causes the loss of the ability or the action itself. If it a deliberate choice on their part then you can never force someone to lose their abilities unless you make them make the choice, i.e. look we have two choices, we can either kill you or you can choose to put on this metal armor, in which case it is their choice (even if its under duress).
You could do the same to paladin with the either steal that trinket or I kill your friend, at that point she makes the choice and the consequences of their actions.
On the other hand if simply the action is important than tricking, forcibly equipping or any activity that puts metal on the druid results in loss of their abilities for 24 hours than it has nothing to do with vows, choices decisions or players playing their character. It's only about the physical action that is important.
Its up to you as a GM to decide. Personally I think the key word in the description is use. It also aligns with my feelings that falling and losing abilities should be about choices you make and not arbitrary methods of screwing you over because everyone knows that druids aren't allowed to wear metal armor, cause that's not metagamy at all.
Well metal in nature is rarely found in plates or even disks and needs to be processed heavily before it becomes workable. Maybe the druids consider this a twisting or corruption of nature?As ridiculous as that is, since metal is perfectly natural.Doesn't really change much, being encased in metal or using metal shields shoots out their spellcasting ability.
It temporarily shuts down the link to nature. Seems pretty clear, but it would need to be armour or shields, not manacles or gauntlets.
They have to work and tan hides for armor, too, and they can use metal weapons just fine. Doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
The cheap version of disabling a spellcaster: Scale Mail, 2 Tower Shields, 50 feet of rope. Strap on the armor and both shields and tie them up and gag them with the rope.That seems a lot more expensive than just removing their hands and tongue.
It's also removable, not painful, and not evil. Worth it.
It's also removable
Regenerate.
not painful
So?
and not evil.
Pfft.
Worth it.
Nah. I might need that 110 gp for something, you know?
Good-aligned societies may have problems with recalcitrant spellcasters as well, and are likely to balk at a "solution" which is painful and evil.
Their loss. Silly morals getting in the way of effectiveness.
Moreover, by RAW, a single casting of regeneration, even assuming 13th-level NPC clerics/oracles/witches are readily available in the setting, costs 910 gp.
No, it costs 910 gp to hire SPELLCASTING SERVICES to cast it.
If the caster is an ally, or you simply force the person to cast it under pain of death/their own dismemberment it's completely free.
The class restriction is clearly about the violation of an oath. A druid only suffers the loss of powers by volountary violation. If it's a case of gauntlets being forced on, all the druid needs to do is to make sure discarding them is the first action done. I would bar their powers but only as long as the item is worn.
IF the druid wears the item BY CHOICE and in full knowledge of what is, the penalties are applied full force.
Can you show me voluntary violation in the rules?
It's also removable
Regenerate.
not painfulSo?
and not evil.Pfft.
Worth it.Nah. I might need that 110 gp for something, you know?
Druid hands would at least sell for 110gp.
I'd buy that for a dollar.