|
So we all know that a druid who put on metal armor loses his spells and abilities for 24 hours
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.
Now what if the druid is put into a metal box or cage, completely surrounded by metal. does he lose spell and abilities then?
Similarly what if the druid enters a room that is completely encased with metal walls. would the druid lose his powers?
I'm leaning towards yes on a few reasons. Not from any rules i have found stating so but from lore within the game world
The metal interferes with the druids connection to the natural world, thus he loses his powers. this is why druids do not wear metal armor, not because of some belief that forging armor is unnatural other wise all metal weapons would also be unusable.
so being placed in a metal box would also sever that connection to nature. Now the extent of the metal surroundings would be up to debate, would a simple cage with metal bars and floor completely cut him off or would the box have to be solid, no gaps or holes anywhere.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An additional thought:
Someone fashions a really big suit of (metal) full plate armor. They magically shrink it to the druid's size, and the druid wears it. Clearly, the druid loses his magic. Later, the druid runs afoul of an antimagic field, ending the shrinking magic on the armor, making it so big that it collapses around him, leaving him basically sitting in the center of a pile of metallic junk, rather than wearing armor. The source of the AMF leaves, and the druid lies there napping for more than 24 hours. When he wakes up, naked under a pile of metal, does he have magical powers?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An additional thought:
Someone fashions a really big suit of (metal) full plate armor. They magically shrink it to the druid's size, and the druid wears it. Clearly, the druid loses his magic. Later, the druid runs afoul of an antimagic field, ending the shrinking magic on the armor, making it so big that it collapses around him, leaving him basically sitting in the center of a pile of metallic junk, rather than wearing armor. The source of the AMF leaves, and the druid lies there napping for more than 24 hours. When he wakes up, naked under a pile of metal, does he have magical powers?
Whoa. I think that's a koan.
As far as RAW/RAI the druid has to be a willing participant, aka chose to wear metal armor and/or wield a metal shield, in order to violate the prohibition. Being placed in a metal box against his or her will should not violate the oath. Think of it like a paladin, do they fall for being dragged bodily into a evil temple of a god opposed to their own, really, the answer should be no. Same deal here. Player agency should be the trigger for issues like this, if the cause is beyond their control, then it really is not a violation.
Also, as noted, unless the cage counts as armor or a shield, it does not qualify as per RAW regarding druids and their prohibitions.
But really, just my two coppers on the subject.
Gahh, ninja'd by Jiggy ;)
I'd say no.
But this does bring up some interesting Lex Luthor style villainy ideas.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say no.
But this does bring up some interesting Lex Luthor style villainy ideas.
Or other, less competent villains.
I feel you may be trying to force too much real world logic into how and why magic works. Perhaps intent is an important part of the restriction? If the Druid takes an action to knowingly severe their connection to the natural world then the natural world likewise recoils from them. Perhaps when a druid is put in a metal cage the "world spirit" surges out to them to comfort and provide aid?
Your questions are more about fluff. Are you a GM trying to strip away a PC druid's power? Is it part of the story? Are you trying to trap and imprison an NPC druid, if so have you talked about your plan to the GM?
The class flavor refers only to the breaking of Druidic vows if the druid willingly chooses to wear metal armor. Putting a druid in a metal box or cage does not venture into this area.
Interesting side note... back in the days of First Edition when wearing armor absolutely prohibited arcane spellcasting (for humans at least), it was traditional in the Great Kingdom [in the Greyhawk setting] when a wizard was on trial to place him in a locked suit of plate mail. It's part of the back story of the infamous Mage Of The Valley who rules the Valley Of The Mage.
|
|
The Class flavor though i am linking back to previous editions and novels where it was not a vow or a druidic code that prohibited druids from wearing armor. It was "metallic protections such as armor interfere with the druids connection to their magics from the natural world"
Also the RaW do not specify weather the druid has to willingly put the armor on, Just that if he wears the armor he loses his powers. So if you put a druid in a suite of full plate and lock him it in, he is unable to use his powers even though he didn't want to wear it in the first place.
Now after looking over it, i realize the metal cage would not be a rules call but more a fluff call.
I am a GM, but none of my players are druids, i just like looking at corner cases like this. Druids are my favorite class and im not trying to limit them or punish them in any way. But i do like to come up with interesting scenarios to put my players in.
The Class flavor though i am linking back to previous editions and novels where it was not a vow or a druidic code that prohibited druids from wearing armor. It was "metallic protections such as armor interfere with the druids connection to their magics from the natural world"
Also the RaW do not specify weather the druid has to willingly put the armor on, Just that if he wears the armor he loses his powers. So if you put a druid in a suite of full plate and lock him it in, he is unable to use his powers even though he didn't want to wear it in the first place.
Now after looking over it, i realize the metal cage would not be a rules call but more a fluff call.
I am a GM, but none of my players are druids, i just like looking at corner cases like this. Druids are my favorite class and im not trying to limit them or punish them in any way. But i do like to come up with interesting scenarios to put my players in.
You can spend the rest of your life trying to catch corner cases before they happen, there are simply possible in a rules system this complex. I've learned to simply not worry about them until they come up.
|
|
I am not really worrying about it. I just thought about it after reading over some druid stuff and thought, oh it would be cool if the party stumbles into a house but the house is completely Lined with metal and the druid starts to slowly lose his powers because of the metal and must find a way out, blah blah blah, adventure start add plot and reason to be in the house and why they cant just turn around and leave. But it adds a timer as the druid is getting weaker the longer they are inside.
I am not actively seeking out corner cases but when they come up they interest me and i like to think about them. I create the stories for my party so things like this help me create interesting story lines.
The party needs to go save druid npc #5, druid npc has been captured but is kept in a metal cage and can not use his powers. this druid npc is the only one who knows the proper ritual to stop the storm the wizard sent to the heart of the forest we must save him.
just making this stuff up as i go but i think the metal box thing used against druids adds a bit a fluff and more flavor then they can not use it because they vowed not to. there is a good tangible reason as to why they cant instead of "just because they cant"
Similarly to wizards previously not being able to wear armor just because we say we don't want them to wear armor. it is now, they cant wear armor because it restricts precise movement and they need to make the proper gestures for the spells to work.
|
|
It does get weird a little though. Is a brass buckle out of the question for their leather armor? What about an iron belt buckle? If it is a Texas sized buckle does it count as armor all of a sudden?
It does get a little weird, and this is were the metal shield thing breaks down, for the druid to lose their powers in this case they would have to be covered or surrounded by metal.
This would enable them to still have and use metal buttons, buckles, zippers, and weapons.
The druid prohibition against metal armor is similar to a paladin's code.
They lose their power because they have taken an oath to nature to be, well, natural. Metal armor is unnatural in that it has been heavily worked to the point it is no longer recognizable as the material it came from. It is a symbol of domination over nature.
That is why a Druid that willfully puts it on loses their power, not because it blocks natural magic or anything like that.
They can still wear worked metal, they can still use worked metal (they're not forbidden from using metal weapons, for example), it is just the symbology of wrapping themselves in the unnatural and trusting in the workings of civilization to protect them instead of the gifts of the wild that cause them to lose their connection.
|
|
The druid prohibition against metal armor is similar to a paladin's code.
They lose their power because they have taken an oath to nature to be, well, natural. Metal armor is unnatural in that it has been heavily worked to the point it is no longer recognizable as the material it came from. It is a symbol of domination over nature.
That is why a Druid that willfully puts it on loses their power, not because it blocks natural magic or anything like that.
They can still wear worked metal, they can still use worked metal (they're not forbidden from using metal weapons, for example), it is just the symbology of wrapping themselves in the unnatural and trusting in the workings of civilization to protect them instead of the gifts of the wild that cause them to lose their connection.
Were is this stated, i do not recall reading this anywhere.
The only reason i would disagree with this is and do not understand this is that druids are not prohibited from using metal weapons which have also been equally worked.
Did we ever settle the debate over whether or not being strapped unwillingly into metal armor constitutes the druid "wearing or using" the armor in question?
I recall that thread went on for some time. I do not recall a resolution...
There is no such thing as a settled debate in this venue. Any apparent consensus is merely a pause until the next thread is started on the same subject.
|
|
Willing or unwilling is not really the point of this thread, but more down to why they lose their powers.
In all the druid lore from pathfinder, 3.5, 2nd and Ad&d, i do not recall reading
The druid prohibition against metal armor is similar to a paladin's code.
They lose their power because they have taken an oath to nature to be, well, natural. Metal armor is unnatural in that it has been heavily worked to the point it is no longer recognizable as the material it came from. It is a symbol of domination over nature.
That is why a Druid that willfully puts it on loses their power, not because it blocks natural magic or anything like that.
They can still wear worked metal, they can still use worked metal (they're not forbidden from using metal weapons, for example), it is just the symbology of wrapping themselves in the unnatural and trusting in the workings of civilization to protect them instead of the gifts of the wild that cause them to lose their connection.
I would love to see were it says that and read the entire section more on my curiosity on lore then on a rules debate on the matter.
But the notion of druids losing their powers because of a symbolic relation with something else does not sit well with me.
Clerics gain and lose their powers on the whim of their god. If their god feels like they no longer live up to their ideal the god takes away their powers. No symbolic relationship, just pure tangible cause and effects.
Paladins gain in lose their powers from the force of good and law(some gods as well so see cleric above). Good and law are while obscure and abstract are still tangible and real forces in the pathfinder world and a paladin who ceases to be a force for good or willingly commits and evil act will lose their powers.
Druids gain their power from nature, the natural world, the elemental plains, the fey wild, ley lines and a few other plains. (From the Green Faith section in wrath of the Righteous adventure path).
I have not found the tangible reason for why druids lose their powers because of metal armor, just the statement that they are prohibited from wearing metal armor and doing so they lose powers.
What i have found is from 2nd edition, clearly not pathfinder and not saying you must use this in your game but as something to fill in the gaps for the lore in my story in the pathfinder setting. It is that metallic [armor] interferes with the druids ability to call upon the magic of the world and wearing such metallic protections will cause the druid to lose their magic.
Now what makes more sense, the druid losing their magic because of a symbolic gesture or that metal actually interferes with nature magic.
Either way druids still are not useing metal armor.
Its not like they even need an atonement for wearing metal so clearly not a big deal against the druid "code" it just cut off their connection to magic for a little while...
It does not say if the druid is surrounded by metal. It says if the druid is WEARING or WIELDING metal.
Is the druid wearing that metal room/box/cage? No? Then he does not lose his powers.
To interfere with the druids powers the metal has to have a more intimate connection to his personal aura, like being WORN to make his powers disrupted.
Can you lock an iron mask over a druids head and disrupt his powers, to that I would say YES. It is being WORN, even against his will.
But near proximity to metal is not enough, no matter the quantity.
WEARING something in Pathfinder means it is part of you in a way. There is a conceptual region that covers you and things you hold/wield/wear that interfaces with reality and magic in a different way than when those items are alone. Hence why items get your saves while worn but not when unattended.
|
|
The problem with this thread is it takes the first statement as truth and tries to extrapolate to a second statement.
A classic if, then scenario.
But the truth of the first statement can and must be questioned before one takes it as a given to use to try and create a logical argument.
Your original statement Druid in metal armor loses spells.
Draw a ven diagram and see if all druids in metal armor lose powers....then see if any exclusions apply.....Thus if you can't prove the first statement extrapolation is meaningless.
I lost what you were trying to get at in your post.
My first statement: Druid in Metal Armor loses spells.
This is a written fact in all books and we all agree on it. not much room for debate.
Second Statement: (More of a question) Druid in metal Box loses spells?
The second statement regards back to the first statement but we need more information.
Such as why does the druid lose spells because of metal armor. My original thought was cause it interferes with the druid drawing his magic from nature. which is how 2nd edition did it. with this being the case the druid would lose spells in a metal box
pathfinder i guess does it differently, although i have yet to see it written anywhere other then people telling me above but still, its because of a vow of not wearing metal and breaking that vow they lose spells for a little while. so in this case the druid would not lose spells in a metal box, or if he was forced into metal armor against his will.
now the pathfinder way draws questions about the forcing druids into armor and them losing spells or not because of the unwillingness and vows not actually broken but kind of broken cause you are in metal etc etc...
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Druids are proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, quarterstaff, scimitar, scythe, sickle, shortspear, sling, and spear. They are also proficient with all natural attacks (claw, bite, and so forth) of any form they assume with wild shape (see below).
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. A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel. Druids are proficient with shields (except tower shields) but must use only those crafted from wood.
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.
This is what is the basis of Druids wearing metal armor loses their powers.
Anything from another edition or a piece of fiction does not matter. Why you ask? Because this is the rules forum! (Insert obligatory Sparta reference here.)
Now it only says that a druid that "wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield" loses their powers for 24 hours.
It says nothing about how or why they have the armor or shield on. So this means that it is a binary check at each step which is performed every time the druid puts on a new armor to wear or uses a new shield.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Function=Druid Armor+shield check
Define "Prohibited armor" = Metal Armor
Define "Prohibited shield" = Not made of wood.
1.) Druid wearing armor = Yes/No
Yes=go to 2
No=go to 3
2.) Is Armor Prohibited armor = Yes/No
Yes=go to 4
No=go to 3
3.) Armor is good go to 5.
4.) Lose powers while wearing and for 24 hours after.
5.) Druid using a shield = Yes/No
Yes=go to 6
No=go to 7
6.) Is shield prohibited shield = Yes/No
Yes=go to 8
No=go to 7
7.) Shield is good, complete.
8.) Lose powers while using and for 24 hours after.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
So what does this mean?
a.) Metal cages/boxes have no effect on druids as they are not armor or shields.
b.) Carrying/ sleeping on/ under, armor has no effect on a druid as only wearing armor effects a druids powers.
c.) Arguments could be made that simply picking up a non-wooden shield could cost a druid his powers for 24 hours depending on how you define "using".
d.) A druid using a bone or hide shield loses his powers for 24 hours.
Now if you want to go on about how crazy this is please go over to advice or general discussion.
If you want to "fix" it go to homebrew.
Under RAW, the above is true.
|
|
We found the programmer. And yes i agree with you completely on the rules as written and how they work. My original rules question on the box has been answered, no they would not lose their powers. And i agree that is correct with the rules on hand.
That said, my questions and posts have ventured to home-brew / advice material. The logic behind the Metal armor and druid rules as they stand now, i feel, are fundamentally flawed and incomplete, and do not function well on a lore and story board format, which is were i like to play with my games. I base a lot of my lore i use on novels around the game. R.A Salvatore being a primary one. and many of the pathfinder tales, dragon lance, older editions that mentioned lore more instead of rules like 1st and second.
|
|
We still have to determine is a druid who is unconscious and then donned in armor actually wearing the armor.
Like I said before second edition had the metal disrupting druid magic.
No where does the rules state "Druid in metal armor loses spells"
What it says is "A druid who wears prohibited armor..." The new question is prohibited by whom. And it being a prohibition is it still something the druid has to willingly violate?Further if it is a prohibition made by some unidentified agent, who keeps track of 24 hours, then the same agent/tracker could refuse to take away (is punish) the druid for violating the prohibition.
These are my same questions, which ironically are not an issue if you use the older edition ruling.
I have found that cases like this where rules or lore is incomplete, inconsistent, or contradictory, and there are a quite a few, if you back track the rules to an older edition you will find amazing similarities and things that make sense in the greater view of it, use that to come to a better conclusion.
A lot of people do not like this method even on the most unclear issues that when looked at the with the context of when they were created and how they functioned then answered all their questions and clears up the issue. They still fight it because it is "not pathfinder rules". which is understandable but if you absolutely need to make a ruling an a unclear ruling that no one can agree on why not use the rules that clear up the issue from an older edition.
Granted for this rule its not so much an incomplete rule but incomplete lore behind it. the rule as written is pretty straight forward and is how i would rule it in a non home game, Druid has armor on, it does not matter how druid came to be in the armor, druid loses powers. if x = y type deal, to wear the armor whether willingly or not you are still wearing the armor.
Does the guy who is forced into a straitjacket not actually wearing the jacket because he was not a willing participant while the 4 people forced him into it. I still think he is wearing it.
If you're making a ruling for your game, make your ruling. At your table, your justification is the only one that matters (assuming you're not running PFS). I'm not sure how it benefits your game whether or not people on the forum agree with you. If you feel better having an official source for that ruling, cool. I get that. But not every case can be definitively answered with a page number, and even many that can are still considered up for debate by someone out there. Sometimes you gotta tell players "It works like this because that's my decision. It's a gray area, I've considered the options, this is my ruling. And now we move on."
Just some food for thought:
Druid of Gorum. See bottom of page.
Followers are forbidden from casting the rusting grasp spell. Druids are permitted to wear metal armor, though they do not automatically gain proficiency in any other categories of armor. They cannot cast spells while wearing metal armor, nor does it meld with them when they use wild shape; druids interested in metal armor acquire a set for a specific beast form and have allies or slaves put it on them when it is time to fight.
Is the metal thing equipped?
If yes, then he loses his powers.
If no, then no.
Prison manacles are equipped and thus block a druid's powers.
Cursed metal items equip themselves and need a remove curse to unequip.
The druid prohibition against metal armor is similar to a paladin's code.
They lose their power because they have taken an oath to nature to be, well, natural. Metal armor is unnatural in that it has been heavily worked to the point it is no longer recognizable as the material it came from. It is a symbol of domination over nature.
That is why a Druid that willfully puts it on loses their power, not because it blocks natural magic or anything like that.
They can still wear worked metal, they can still use worked metal (they're not forbidden from using metal weapons, for example), it is just the symbology of wrapping themselves in the unnatural and trusting in the workings of civilization to protect them instead of the gifts of the wild that cause them to lose their connection.
Were is this stated, i do not recall reading this anywhere.
The only reason i would disagree with this is and do not understand this is that druids are not prohibited from using metal weapons which have also been equally worked.
Nowhere in Pathfinder, thats very old D&D fluff, 2e or earlier I believe.
Pathfinder doesn't say anything about it one way or another. The reasoning given for the limitation in PF is "Because I said so, shut up."
I don't find it unreasonable at all in this area to go back to the origins of the class that PF copy/pasted from to find the original meanings though.
If a druid is in a metal box, he or she is unlikely to be able to perform somatic components, and line of sight issues are going to be a problem. Hopefully he or she uses the 'shout' cantrip, with verbal component of 'yell really loudly' and somatic of 'pound on the walls until someone lets you out of the damn box'.
By the way, hopefully that druid's helpless for the FOUR MINUTES it takes to prank her into that full plate. And I would say that player agency comes in ... although that d4+1 minutes it takes to strip OFF that full plate could be awkward in the middle of a battle.
Honestly, I'd lean towards 'You're a druid, don't cheese the system or I'll make your AC eat you. And if you sleep in that metal armour or box the kitty gets a can opener. Got it?'.
That Druids should have a good will save.
Also, anybody who tries that just tipped their hand.
|
Beguiling Gift, and a standard buckler. What more needs to be said?
Honestly, never understood why this was a first level spell, except that maybe they thought keeping it low level would mean high level characters couldn't possibly fail on anything but a 1. Still having 5 first level casters cast this on a high level druid means he has a 25% chance of being useless for the day. Probably the best use of a CR 4 encounter against an APL 10+ party. Well, second best, right after a pixie vs. a party without see invisibility.
|
|
Beguiling Gift, and a standard buckler. What more needs to be said?Honestly, never understood why this was a first level spell, except that maybe they thought keeping it low level would mean high level characters couldn't possibly fail on anything but a 1. Still having 5 first level casters cast this on a high level druid means he has a 25% chance of being useless for the day. Probably the best use of a CR 4 encounter against an APL 10+ party. Well, second best, right after a pixie vs. a party without see invisibility.
Invisible pugwampi gremlins.