With rather good reason as I'm a bit pressed to find the nature connection to arcane constructs. Why did you this along a druid theme as opposed to other classes that would be more thematically appropriate, such as alchemist, wizard, summoner?
Arcane magic is perfectly natural, plus Druids already have the wild shape mechanic that can be easily adapted to Construct Shape.
(I'm not even going to go into the nonsense about the language, though ...)
|
With rather good reason as I'm a bit pressed to find the nature connection to arcane constructs. Why did you this along a druid theme as opposed to other classes that would be more thematically appropriate, such as alchemist, wizard, summoner?I was working on a "construct druid" archetype a few months back. They didn't have the metal restriction, had a few spells added to/removed from their list, and took on construct characteristics instead of having wild shape. There was also an "undead shaman" but it was a separate archetype.
Both lost the druidic language because other druids consider them heretical.
1) I was on a thread about nonlawful paladins and someone said "it's a contrary concept, like a construct-themed robo-druid" and I decided to make a robo-druid to prove that it works. And it does.
2) The idea is an elemental theme, but slanted. The construct druid exchanges a biological body for one made of a material present in nature - wood, clay, stone, or, as Zhayne pointed out, metallic ore.
3) Constructs aren't arcane, they're animated by magic - any magic. Divine casters can make constructs, too. I find it weird that a lot of magical things are branded as "unnatural" when magic is a natural part of the world and druids, the nature class, are full spellcasters with supernatural abilities.
4) A summoner specializing in constructs is no more appropriate than a druid, since summoners specialize in outsiders. And alchemists can't make constructs by RAW - they're not true spellcasters so they don't qualify for Craft Construct.
5) As Zhayne pointed out, Wild Shape is the best shapeshifting mechanic out there. Best mechanical fit is why we get things like the Urban Barbarian's controlled rage.
(I'm not even going to go into the nonsense about the language, though ...)
Not sure whether you're saying it's nonsense that a construct druid wouldn't learn the language, but the idea was that since they're a sect removed from and at odds with the mainstream druidic community (partly due to superstitions about metal) the mainstream community wouldn't consider them druids and wouldn't teach them the language. (EDIT: as an analogy, some protestant Christians don't consider Catholics or Mormons to be Christian due to differences in belief eg veneration of saints.) Though I suppose if they broke off at some point the original construct druids would still have spoken it... mostly it was a nod to the fact that the concept is unusual and a construct druid should expect conflict with mainstream druids.
Well, a lot of it is that I don't see classes as inherently being tied to organizations. I don't see all druids as being part of some brotherhood or something, and even beyond that, I don't see why these guys would be considered 'heretics', since their stuff is still natural.
Too much forced flavor, I suppose, for my tastes.
Of course, I can say the same about the very existence of a 'druidic language'.
Hm.
Aren't you deviating from RAW already by allowing the druid to wear dragonhide breastplates and such?
Is the text from the CRB giving specific armors from the equipment table (as padded armor having +1 to AC, max Dex of +8 to AC, leather armor giving +2 to AC, max Dex of +6 to AC and hide armor giving +4 to AC and max Dex of +4 to AC ando so on) and I have to look for specific armor calling out specifically that druids are allowed to wear it?
Or is the text more generally naming types of armor were studded leather is just another type of leater armor making dragonhide a special type of hide and therefore allows for wearing another type of armor (a breastplate or full plate)?
Ruyan.
|
As already said:
1) The text of the druid prohibition is: "Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor." so it give a prohibition "are prohibited from wearing metal armor" and a consequence to that prohibition "thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor." but that consequence is only limited to what is in the CRB. As the developer have often specified the CRB will not reference what is in other books to avoid confusions.
When checking the armors in other books you should check them against the prohibitions, not against a consequence that is related only to the CRB.
2) the text in the druid description continue saying: "A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel", so it already give us a first exception to the consequence in that section of the rules.
3) The description of draghonhide say: "Because dragonhide armor isn't made of metal, druids can wear it without penalty.", so it give a second exception directly in the CRB.
I would say that only the most obtuse and short-sighted interpretation of RAW would limit a druid only to "padded, leather, or hide armor" when checking armors in the the other rulebooks, while it very clear that of types of armor made of normal materials found in the CRB only those three are allowed to druids.
Wish Paizo would weigh in directly here. I don't see how studded leather armor suddenly becomes something other than leather. The armor itself is made of leather; studs, whether metal, bone, wood (or Peppermint Candy; love that!) are attached to it, not an integral part of it. If the metal being attached somehow alters the armor, what about buckles?I disagree, I would say the metal studs are absolutely integral part of studded leather armor. Without them it would just be leather armor.
Not at all. Traditionally, leather armour was made from coir bouilli (boiled leather), a process that hardened leather by impregnating it with wax. It was then shaped into semi-rigid armour pieces and assembled into suits of various styles. Studded leather, on the other hand, was usually stitched and padded soft leather with (you guessed it) metal studs to deflect and spread impact.
The traditional fantasy black leather rogue "cat suit" would be leather clothing, and count as no armour at all.
How would that work though, if it was just a metal stud, i.e. a rivet, when struck it would just act to focus the force of impact into a tiny nail that is already penetrating the leather layers and make some weapon strikes even more effective against you (in effect turning a club or a mace into a spiked morning star) Studded Leather armor is a fantasy invention based off of Brigandine armor which has a much higher metal content in it. For conversation of Pathfinder rules the "real world" functioning of armors shouldnt be considered, just the intent of the class restriction and the actual rule printed.Wish Paizo would weigh in directly here. I don't see how studded leather armor suddenly becomes something other than leather. The armor itself is made of leather; studs, whether metal, bone, wood (or Peppermint Candy; love that!) are attached to it, not an integral part of it. If the metal being attached somehow alters the armor, what about buckles?I disagree, I would say the metal studs are absolutely integral part of studded leather armor. Without them it would just be leather armor.Not at all. Traditionally, leather armour was made from coir bouilli (boiled leather), a process that hardened leather by impregnating it with wax. It was then shaped into semi-rigid armour pieces and assembled into suits of various styles. Studded leather, on the other hand, was usually stitched and padded soft leather with (you guessed it) metal studs to deflect and spread impact.
The traditional fantasy black leather rogue "cat suit" would be leather clothing, and count as no armour at all.
I do agree with the basic premise that RL armoury seems, by and large, irrelevant to PF rules. In the end, we play by rules aiming for game balance more than verisimilitude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For some reason I read this thread as asking if driders were allowed to wear studded leather.
Now that's the REAL question.
As long as they make it from flayed drow skins and high elf fingerbone studs they can. It's all the rage in the Underdark.
How would that work though, if it was just a metal stud, i.e. a rivet, when struck it would just act to focus the force of impact into a tiny nail that is already penetrating the leather layers and make some weapon strikes even more effective against you (in effect turning a club or a mace into a spiked morning star)
The rivets involved in armor-making have very wide, flat heads (on both sides), and they're also attached to very firm/hard leather (e.g. cuir boulli) that does a very good job of distributing the impact.
|
|
To avoid a derail:
As for why the construct druid would be considered heretical - whether you believe the metal taboo makes sense or not, for mainstream druids it's a taboo so strong that they lose all connection to their divine magic for 24 hours if they break it. And the construct druid not only violates that taboo, but incorporates it into their religious practice (by using wild shape to assume metallic forms). This is like celebrating passover with a pork BBQ.
Historically, religions have split over similar or lesser disagreements. Early Christians were a Jewish sect until they were kicked out of the synagogue for not enforcing circumcision and dietary laws. Shiite and Suni muslims split over a disagreement regarding succession of religious leadership. The English Protestant (Anglican) church split from Catholicism because a king wanted to get divorced. All three of these splits resulted in long-lasting animosity and bloodshed.
Or is the text more generally naming types of armor were studded leather is just another type of leater armor making dragonhide a special type of hide and therefore allows for wearing another type of armor (a breastplate or full plate)?
Studded Leather is an armour type, distinct from leather in the same way chainmail is distinct from a chain shirt. Dragonhide is a special material, which modifies a type of armour.
I do agree with the basic premise that RL armoury seems, by and large, irrelevant to PF rules. In the end, we play by rules aiming for game balance more than verisimilitude.
How would that work though, if it was just a metal stud, i.e. a rivet, when struck it would just act to focus the force of impact into a tiny nail that is already penetrating the leather layers and make some weapon strikes even more effective against you (in effect turning a club or a mace into a spiked morning star) Studded Leather armor is a fantasy invention based off of Brigandine armor which has a much higher metal content in it. For conversation of Pathfinder rules the "real world" functioning of armors shouldnt be considered, just the intent of the class restriction and the actual rule printed.
Indeed. Chainmail shouldn't provide much protection against bludgeoning weapons or the pointier piercing weapons (daggers and arrows, but not spears). Really, most flexible armors have that problem.
In any case, the idea behind studded leather would have been rather like the idea of chainmail: It is meant to turn a sword blow aside, and drastically reduce penetration of missile weapons.
Leaf armorexists pretty much to be an expensive studded leather armor for druids.
Back in AD&D there was a table that described how well each and every specific weapon worked against specific base armor types, and then there were adjustments to hit or damage (I forget which) based on that. Sort of like a thrusting item works better on chain mail than plate, etc. Of course, those were the days of THAC0 as well.Indeed. Chainmail shouldn't provide much protection against bludgeoning weapons or the pointier piercing weapons (daggers and arrows, but not spears). Really, most flexible armors have that problem.
In any case, the idea behind studded leather would have been rather like the idea of chainmail: It is meant to turn a sword blow aside, and drastically reduce penetration of missile weapons.
I didn't mean to imply it was worth the headache to keep track of. In fact, I meant to say the opposite, but apparently neglected to actually put it in my post.
Is this from a game description or a comment on history? The rivets i'ev seen in armor usually are no more than ~1/4 inch wide at best 1/2 inch, still plenty small enough to make them worse than just using extra padding.
Comment on history. And 1/2 inch wide is easily enough to make them substantially better than extra padding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards have been called a lot of things to their faces, but "Nature Boy" isn't one of them.
If it wasn't natural, it couldn't happen. That's what physics is. If I hit a tree with an axe and chop it down, that's a natural process. Since every wizard can make the same gestures, say the same words, and fling the same stuff into the air, and get the same result, it's obviously natural because otherwise, it wouldn't work. It's happening in accordance with the physical laws of the universe.
Unless you're saying that a druid calling down lightning out of a clear blue sky, or suddenly turning a medium wolf into a large one that can still walk, in clear violation of the square/cube law, is unnatural as well ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic isn't Physics. Magic is what happens when Physics is told to go sit in the corner, and shut up while it's nose is being bent out of joint. In case you haven't noticed, Unless physics and a fair amount of biology is told to shut up, things like Pegasi couldn't fly, Dragons would collapse from their own weight, and destroy themselves from the effects of their own breath weapons.Wizards have been called a lot of things to their faces, but "Nature Boy" isn't one of them.If it wasn't natural, it couldn't happen. That's what physics is. If I hit a tree with an axe and chop it down, that's a natural process. Since every wizard can make the same gestures, say the same words, and fling the same stuff into the air, and get the same result, it's obviously natural because otherwise, it wouldn't work. It's happening in accordance with the physical laws of the universe.
Unless you're saying that a druid calling down lightning out of a clear blue sky, or suddenly turning a medium wolf into a large one that can still walk, in clear violation of the square/cube law, is unnatural as well ...
Real world physics, yes. RPGs take place in alternate universes where the laws of physics are different. Magic is an application of the natural laws of the universe ... well, arcane magic is, anyway. Divine magic is an extradimensional contaminant, adding to the closed system that is the Prime Material Universe.
Of course, by your definition, druids are COMPLETELY un-natural, because calling lightning out of a clear blue sky, growing animals to sizes that violate the square-cube law, incredibly rapid plant growth, making fire into a solid blade, or just the ability to shapechange are also clear violations of the RL laws of physics and biology.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh for what it is worth here is how I work with the issue.
Can you make mythril studded leather?
If Yes Then druids cannot wear it.
If No Then druids can wear it.
My two cents -- for whatever they are worth.
|
|
Magic isn't Physics. Magic is what happens when Physics is told to go sit in the corner, and shut up while it's nose is being bent out of joint. In case you haven't noticed, Unless physics and a fair amount of biology is told to shut up, things like Pegasi couldn't fly, Dragons would collapse from their own weight, and destroy themselves from the effects of their own breath weapons.If it wasn't natural, it couldn't happen. That's what physics is. If I hit a tree with an axe and chop it down, that's a natural process. Since every wizard can make the same gestures, say the same words, and fling the same stuff into the air, and get the same result, it's obviously natural because otherwise, it wouldn't work. It's happening in accordance with the physical laws of the universe.
Unless you're saying that a druid calling down lightning out of a clear blue sky, or suddenly turning a medium wolf into a large one that can still walk, in clear violation of the square/cube law, is unnatural as well ...
Imagine a world that exists entirely at absolute zero. Heat energy does not exist. As far as we know this is impossible, but for the sake of analogy let's pretend. An entity from that world observing ours would find things like combustion or melting ridiculous, clearly against the laws of physics. But they are completely natural and in accordance with the laws of physics in a world where heat energy exists. Absolute Zero World simply is not aware of the laws of physics that apply in a world with heat energy.
Similarly, magic in a good fantasy works by a set of rules. For example, the ease with which a person can be brought back from the dead depends both on the length of time they have been dead and the condition of the body. These rules are "magic physics." They allow things that would be impossible in our world, without magic energy, but that doesn't make them unnatural.
Wizards boasting about making (nonmagical) physics go sit in the corner are like quantum physics experts talking about how quantum physics breaks newtonian physics. They're not saying quantum is unnatural, just that a different set of rules apply than the ones most people are familiar with.
Similarly, magic in a good fantasy works by a set of rules. For example, the ease with which a person can be brought back from the dead depends both on the length of time they have been dead and the condition of the body. These rules are "magic physics." They allow things that would be impossible in our world, without magic energy, but that doesn't make them unnatural.
Magic doesn't have to work by a set of rules. You're projecting modern physics onto a fantasy universe. The simple fact that magic is not reproducible -- the first five times you wiggle your fingers like that, something happens, but the sixth, nothing happens (because you only have five slots of that level) -- indicates something strange is happening.
Magic comes from some source outside of our normal, mundane universe. In some cases, the source is explicitly intelligent and self-willed. We don't have any idea what the source for arcane magic is, but it might well be Azathoth, gibbering to itself outside the bounds of what wizards consider to be reality.
There's no reason to assume that magic obeys physics-like rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic doesn't have to work by a set of rules. You're projecting modern physics onto a fantasy universe. The simple fact that magic is not reproducible -- the first five times you wiggle your fingers like that, something happens, but the sixth, nothing happens (because you only have five slots of that level) -- indicates something strange is happening.
...
There's no reason to assume that magic obeys physics-like rules.
There's less reason to assume it doesn't. The game structure enforces a lot of predictable rules about how magic behaves. Wiggling your fingers won't work every single time, but a given caster has a reliable number of times per day they can wriggle their fingers and get a result: five, at least until they gain a level, at which point they will have a new number (and a few other spellcasting-related variables will predictably go up). "This works 5 times a day, every day" is just as reproducible as "This works every time." It's just not the kind of reproduciblility we expect in our physics.
Magic is more reproducible than some lab experiments.
Even outside of a game system, world creators are often encouraged to create rules of magic because it makes the magic more believable and creates tension. For example, in Harry Potter most wizards need wands to use magic. So when a character is disarmed, we know that they are very vulnerable.
Magic comes from some source outside of our normal, mundane universe. In some cases, the source is explicitly intelligent and self-willed. We don't have any idea what the source for arcane magic is, but it might well be Azathoth, gibbering to itself outside the bounds of what wizards consider to be reality.
Given that "natural" is usually defined as "not created by humans" I'd say Azathoth qualifies as a natural source. (Note that Godzilla is often described as a force of nature).
In any case, that would be defined by the setting. It's unfair to say that arcane magic is always unnatural when the source is setting-dependent.
There's no reason to assume that magic obeys physics-like rules.
Except the observation that it does, of course, but hey, what do facts have to do with Internet arguments?
Where magic 'comes from' is purely a flavor issue, varies by setting and game table (as you say, 'in some cases'). For me, arcane magic is kind of like cosmic energy or background radiation. It's perfectly natural, and it's everywhere. As said, the universe is a closed system; if something occurs within the natural universe with no extradimensional influence, then it is, by definition, natural; otherwise, it couldn't happen.
It's the clerics who F everything up by tapping extradimensional energies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Similarly, magic in a good fantasy works by a set of rules. For example, the ease with which a person can be brought back from the dead depends both on the length of time they have been dead and the condition of the body. These rules are "magic physics." They allow things that would be impossible in our world, without magic energy, but that doesn't make them unnatural.Magic doesn't have to work by a set of rules. You're projecting modern physics onto a fantasy universe. The simple fact that magic is not reproducible -- the first five times you wiggle your fingers like that, something happens, but the sixth, nothing happens (because you only have five slots of that level) -- indicates something strange is happening.
Magic comes from some source outside of our normal, mundane universe. In some cases, the source is explicitly intelligent and self-willed. We don't have any idea what the source for arcane magic is, but it might well be Azathoth, gibbering to itself outside the bounds of what wizards consider to be reality.
There's no reason to assume that magic obeys physics-like rules.
Take your smartphone, wiggle your fingers a few times: you can speak with a friend.
Do it again and again until the the screen become dark. suddenly you are unable to speak with your friend.That "indicates something strange is happening." or it indicate that your battery is out of power?
If you are a man from the middle ages you will take the first reply as the valid answer, if you are someone that know how the smartphone work you take the second.
Magic in most game systems work the same way. It has its set of rules that work consistently (unless some author make a serious mistake).
Some stuff.
You can't make an argument about the magic being inconsistent based on the progression of d20 as a whole across many decades as you have done here, because the context of the conversation is confined to the world of Golarion, specifically. Golarion's rules about magic are generally consistent -- magic of certain "levels" are generally the same power and can be used the same amount of times per day. Your argument about how identify used to drain the user of his constitution (and other similar arguments) is irrelevant because that's not how magic has ever worked in Pathfinder/Golarion. The consistency (or lack there) of which you speak has no relevance in this context.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bizbag - I don't mind what's "natural" being defined tautologically or arbitrarily. I just think we ought to realize that it is arbitrary and that elementals as extraplanar creatures could just as easily be unnatural as any other extraplanar creatures, or that vermin could easily be unnatural if we consider that their great size is impossible by the rules of nonmagical biology, or humanoids could be unnatural if we consider the distinguishing feature to be sentience or ability to use certain kinds of magic.
On the metal issue, we can justify it by saying that metal somehow has its essential nature changed more by the smithing process than leather or wood does, or that once-living materials retain more natural power (which would mean disallowing stone armour, too), or high-density materials block natural magic like they block divination, or that it's simply a psychological taboo that attached to the religion back when smithing was new and strange.
But that's working from a conclusion backwards - which is fine from a storytelling POV, it just doesn't make the conclusion logically sound/required/inevitable.
Why is a spell that translates language the same level as one you can use to burn down a house? And why do they take the same amount of energy?
Translating language is tricky. It involves a lot of very rapid computation. There's also the fact that one of the rules of magic (as was pointed out in a more on-topic part of the thread) is that it's easier to manipulate "unworked" materials that have not been affected by sentient creatures than "worked" materials. Language is a highly "worked" material and should take more magic to handle than just putting in the energy required to perform the computations. In contrast a spell that directly produces heat does so efficiently.
And speaking of energy where does all the energy to power psionic effects come from? The human body can't generate it, under any paradigm of science.
Same place as other magic comes from.
Spell slots don't make any inherent sense, neither does spontaneous casting, nor power points, they're all simply different gaming constructs.
...
The only way the magic of Pathfinder makes sense is the base assumption of a wargame.
They're gaming constructs made to represent the way that the amount of magic a particular person can access is limited, and different ways of accessing it. It's somewhat artificial, but so are hit points. You wouldn't say that injury as a concept doesn't make inherent sense, so don't argue that Pathfinder magic doesn't.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some stuff.You can't make an argument about the magic being inconsistent based on the progression of d20 as a whole across many decades as you have done here, because the context of the conversation is confined to the world of Golarion, specifically. Golarion's rules about magic are generally consistent -- magic of certain "levels" are generally the same power and can be used the same amount of times per day. Your argument about how identify used to drain the user of his constitution (and other similar arguments) is irrelevant because that's not how magic has ever worked in Pathfinder/Golarion. The consistency (or lack there) of which you speak has no relevance in this context.
Beside that the level of the spell is not necessarily linked to the energy emitted by the spell. It is meant to reflect the difficulty of using a spell, not how many joules it output.
To make another modern day example, a electrical motor use way more energy than a computer and its "work" output, when measured only as the physical work it do, is way greater, but while even I, with a good workshop, can make a electrical motor from its basic components (copper wire, magnets and so on), making a computer from a set of transistors, microcircuits and other basic components is way harder and require way more specialized tools and laboratories.
In a magical world Tongues can be as difficult as Fireball to master, but that don't mean it should have the same energy output.
In fantasy settings like D&D and PRG, "nature" is tautological. It's whatever (in this case) Druids are permitted to use, and things they aren't are not "natural".
In the case of their spells, "nature" is a source of magic that is divine, but not from an extraplanar (or native outsider) source. Note that clerics of no deity are still described as drawing magic from other planes. Elementals are on the cusp but are usually included, depending on the Druid.
Arguments about what makes more or less sense concerning this definition are interesting, but the game broadly defines what entails "natural" tautologically.
Yeah, that strikes me as being completely backwards. The idea that druids creating energy and mass out of nothing is 'natural' when other characters doing so is 'unnatural' ... yeah, no.
Thinking about it more, I'm probably going to make druids into an arcane class. They never made sense to me as divine (or primal) anyway.
|
|
Thinking about it more, I'm probably going to make druids into an arcane class. They never made sense to me as divine (or primal) anyway.
I don't agree - I think druids are associated with spirituality in the same way as philosophy clerics are, and those are still divine. But I don't think it would be a terrible change. Merlin, a wizard, is pretty druid-like in his magic, and witches, alchemists, and bards already get some traditionally divine spells like Cure. Just keep in mind the mechanical implications for druids:
1) They would be subject to Arcane Spell Failure (unless you give them arcane armour training as a class feature).
2) They would require 8 hours of sleep for spell preparation (divine casters don't).
3) They would require inexpensive material components (unless you give them Eschew Materials) and wouldn't require divine foci.
4) They would qualify for feats and prestige classes requiring arcane spellcasting (like Arcane Strike or Arcane Trickster) but not those requiring divine spellcasting (like Divine Intervention).
They would also be the only arcane class to have access to their entire spell list, and to Domains. This may or may not be a problem for you.
Yeah ... I don't do 'spirituality'; that should be a purely roleplaying thing, IMHO.
Honestly, if there was a good way to simply get rid of divine casting, I'd do it in a heartbeat. This was one of the things I loved about 4e; you wanted to be a support/heal character without being a cleric? You had options that were all just as viable. Heck, you could play a game with no magic whatsoever and not need to fiddle much with the system.