Just wondering how druids would function in a modern world setting, specifically what they are allowed and not allowed to do, or what inhibits their powers and what doesn't. Thankfully, Pathfinder isn't as restrictive about metal as some other settings (where druids need to cook with wooden or clay pots, have to use stone knives and bone needles, not to mention the repercussions of getting cut by an enemy sword), but it still begs some questions.
On one side, there's the “it's a philisophical/self-imposed restriction” argument (trusting nature to be enough protection), on the other, you have the argument that fey/the First World and druid magic are somewhat related (druids can cast fey gate but not plane shift, etc.) and since cold iron hurts fey it follows that metal in general inhibits druids. Then there's technology; as far as I'm aware, nothing in Pathfinder prohibits druids from using highly advanced technology, which could go either way: technology isn't part of the druidic vow/philosophy one way or another, or the contact with metal is minimal enough to be negligible.
From other discussions, the consensus seems to be that being surrounded by a large enough metal area either completely (i.e. wearing armor) or partially (i.e. wearing a shield) interferes with the druid's abilities, whether the contact is voluntary or not (since RAW doesn't distinguish between donning armor and being forced into it). Weapons, brooches, and the like don't interfere because they either are small enough or held away from/make minimal contact with the body (plus, weapon hilts often are bound in leather, so technically there wouldn't be any contact to begin with). What remains a bit of a point of controversy is a druid inside a room lined with metal (i.e. the next logical step up from armor): on the one hand, the druid isn't touching any metal (provided he's wearing shoes), but on the other hand, the druid is surrounded by an area of metal even more completely than most armors would.
Interestingly, whether the weakness is philosophical or inherent, modern day druids should be fine either way using mobile phones, surfing the internet, etc. (unless you update the druidic philosophy to prohibit them, but see technology above); the problem is large metal areas, of which there are many in everyday life, from the obvious elevators to the less obvious reinforced concrete (is the metal grid inside enough to qualify as a “large metal area” or not since there's holes in it?).
Assuming the metal weakness is inherent, we can extrapolate that cars, buses, trains, metal ships (possibly only below deck), and airplanes all should inhibit a druid's powers. If philosophical, that's technically an entirely new can of worms, but considering druids are fine with crashed interstellar spaceships and whatnot, cars and planes are rather primitive technology by comparison.
Also, what about plastic, synthetic fibers, and such? Would they be included as a no-go or not under the philosophy interpretation or perfectly fine since metal is the inherent problem?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Note: I have a huge bias towards metal
This is when you realize that the restrictions don't make any sense. The metal of a studded leather set is going to be a lot less intrusive than, say, holding a longsword in each of your spiked guantlet-equipped hands while wearing a dwarven boulder helmet (its a weapon, not armour) while relying on magical flight because you have sea-knives strapped to both feet. But its the armour that bars powers, not the suit of blades.
Is it because Druids need to have protection that used to be part of a living creature? No, because otherwise Stoneplate wouldn't be useable. Is it because of the amount of industrial work required? No, because half the hides take more preparation than "heat up this rock and bang it into shape." Is it because metal is fundamentally un-druidy? No, because Druids get a spell that could be used to provide an arbitrarily large amount of Cold Iron. (It's an instantaneous conjuration, so the stuff sticks around)
I can't really help extrapolate because I do not have a working model to extrapolate based on.
Your best bet would be to start by questioning the assumption that Druids must have restrictions on what they can use.
Then, if you decide that, yes, this is something you want, you disregard the D&D/Pathfinder Druid and come up with your own set of internally consistent restrictions and reasons for them.
Yeah...if you're playing a druid in a modern setting you're not really playing Pathfinder anymore, so you can reexamine those sorts of requirements. Personally if I were the GM I would probably say the player needs to have a reverence for nature, and might need to stick with "natural" items (i.e. too sophisticated modern items would probably not be allowed, like no cell phones, computers, carbon fiber, etc). But that's the beauty, you can create a new set of restrictions that make more sense for the setting.
Well, my personal opinion is that it's a little bit of both philosophical and inherent weakness, actually: any metal inherently would inhibit a druid's powers, but the philosophy can make concessions for metal weapons as man's claws, so to speak (the dwarven boulder helmet being a weird RAW vs RAI/flavor hiccup, I'd wager; or it's considered a horn/antlers). If you mix in deific philosophy, it gets even crazier: druids of Gorum can wear metal armor and maintain their wild shape while doing so, they just can't use it or cast spells, and they don't have to wait 24 hours after removing the armor.
In fact, between undead creating druids (archetypes with the Death domain, the Uskwood Circle, less moral members/renegades of the Halcyon Circle*), undead druids (such as the siabrae), and blight druids, even the “revere nature” aspect of the philosophy can sustain a lot of bending without breaking. Possibly more, since it's purely philosophical, instead of inherent like metal.
As for the iron stake spell: if you're going to deal with fey on at least a semi-regular basis (implied by certain druid spells), you better have a way of dealing with the less friendly fey, hence why it appeared in a book about the First World.
Also, you can have druids under Pathfinder rules in a “modern” setting: if I'm not mistaken, Reign of Winter takes the characters to the Pathfinder version of WW I Russia at some point.
*The flavor and abilities all scream “good-aligned”, but the archetype doesn't actually refer to alignment in any way.
If metal were (IMO paradoxically) the opposition of Druids, I would have expected the Ex-Druid archetype to be focused in it (it leans toward the outer planes of prohibited alignments). I honestly would have preferred it even though the Planar Extremist is interesting: what is there for a follower of the laws of nature as interpreted by Brigh?
To me, metal is inherently natural, and that the supposed guardians of nature avoid it as much as the PF Druids do break my immersion like only a direct contradiction can.
But what did you expect from the guy who chose "master of iron" for his username?
A druid should abhor all manifestations of industrialization, for the medieval setting that pathfinder is a part of (yes I know, medieval-ish) Metal was/is that manifestation. It requires smelting which is a high level of technology ( for the time period). A modern day druid would be crawling out of their skin in almost any populated area.
The metal in metal armour is not the problem, the _technology_ to create metal armour is the problem for druids. ( Weapons require far less technology to produce which is why a druid tolerates a metal sword)
*Thelith wrote: ( Weapons require far less technology to produce which is why a druid tolerates a metal sword) This is unfortunately untrue. Yes, a mace may be distinctly easier to make than full-plate armour, but a finely crafted crucible steel longsword requires a far higher level of technology to produce than a bronze breastplate. It depends entirely on the weapon or armour in question, due to the fundamental property of warfare that weapons and armour always compete to be the most advanced: armour also tends not to win that conflict.
So it may be some other factor that stops a Druid from being able to wear metal armour. My guess would be that having that much modern tech close to one's heart or core is bad for the nature magic, while having the technology wielded as far away as a hand is not such a problem.
*Thelith wrote: A druid should abhor all manifestations of industrialization, for the medieval setting that pathfinder is a part of (yes I know, medieval-ish) Metal was/is that manifestation. It requires smelting which is a high level of technology ( for the time period). A modern day druid would be crawling out of their skin in almost any populated area.
The metal in metal armour is not the problem, the _technology_ to create metal armour is the problem for druids. ( Weapons require far less technology to produce which is why a druid tolerates a metal sword)
I'm not buying it. Stoneplate is "alchemically treated" and that works fine. If firearms aren't manifestations of industrialization, I don't know what is. And yet I once played a PC dwarven druid who used both stoneplate and a blunderbuss.
Oh, as an addendum to my above point, "technologically advanced" is a very weird term that doesn't really mean anything specific. Damascus steel is made of incredibly advanced materials we only just learned about, but we've been making it for centuries, while we had the basic concepts and materials needed for a handgun long before someone worked out how to build one. Which is more advanced, the one that contains carbon nanotubes or the one which makes lead go really fast?
That was a very rambly tangent, I apologise.
I would like to say that metals being a symbol of industrial labour shouldn't be in the more setting-neutral CRB. It's not inconceivable to have a world with an abundance of meteoric iron or native gold, making the effort required to produce (not amazing quality) armour consist of "hit it with a hammer."
Now that I think on it, fired clay should also be a barred material since you can smelt copper at the temperature required (not that the setup is complicated: make a structure out of non-flammable material, insert charcoal and substance to be used, light charcoal. Access to the Druid spell list could cut both the requirements of a charcoal source and the bellows used for full iron bloomeries while also reducing construction time). Glass, not that you should be making armour out of it, also requires similar temperatures to iron smelting. Man, ceramics have been getting off too easy. Druids should clearly be banned from using potion vials.
There's a setting I created and played a few games in. In it, humanity was a scattered assortment of wandering nomads stuck in the bronze age until the Cyclops conquered and enslaved them. Over the hundreds of years that the Cyclops ruled the humans, they taught the more compliant wizardry, worship of the gods, and middle ages level tech, such as steel armor and stone buildings. But despite the Cyclops' best effort, they couldn't stamp out the druidic cults, who waged guerrilla warfare against the empire and refused to use the Cyclops' technology.
Eventually the humans inevitably revolted, and created their own kingdoms over the ruins of the empire. But the druids, no longer repressed, still refuse to use what they deem to be Cyclopean technology, even if it was invented by the elves or dwarves separately. It's a matter of pride, tradition, and religion; the Cyclops did not elevate humanity or accelerate their advancement, the Cyclops just ruled unjustly for a half century. The druids refuse to sleep indoors (in most circumstances) (violent storms not being one of the exceptions), refuse to wear metal armor, and tend to follow their best imitation of their ancestors' nomadic lifestyle, drifting from city to settlement.
But the setting is steam/diesel punk with advanced firearms that everyone gets proficiency with, including druids. (Firearms are human inventions, so it's all well and good.)
In a setting neutral rules system though? Druids probably should probably be able to use whatever gear they want. Though, in a modern setting, I'd add this compunction: it has to be ethically manufactured in a sustainable manner.
*Thelith wrote: The metal in metal armour is not the problem, the _technology_ to create metal armour is the problem for druids. An alternative justification for the restriction is that if you surround your body with that much metal so close to your skin, it blocks out the leyline energies that grant you your powers.
In which case, high-tech polymer armour would be fine, or not fine, depending on what the GM found to be conducive to game balance.
Matthew Downie wrote: *Thelith wrote: The metal in metal armour is not the problem, the _technology_ to create metal armour is the problem for druids. An alternative justification for the restriction is that if you surround your body with that much metal so close to your skin, it blocks out the leyline energies that grant you your powers.
In which case, high-tech polymer armour would be fine, or not fine, depending on what the GM found to be conducive to game balance. Firstly, I don't think it's a balance problem. Dragonhide armour is a gp expenditure that happens to be less than other "class-specific must-picks" like the gloves of duelling, and it's not really holding the class back any in power level.
Secondly, a counterexample. There exists a spellcaster known to be powered by ley lines, but it receives no extra penalty for metal armour over any other armour of similar ASF. Comparing spellcasting methods gets even more paradoxical when Druids that gain power from a deity are included.
Tl;DR, either all divine casters should be barred from metal armour, druids restriction should be removed, or druids will need UMD to use cleric scrolls and vice versa.
It's just about nudity. They either need to be showing skin (not necessarily their own) or just vegetation (for which textiles technically count). @#$%ing hippies.
Nitro~Nina wrote: *Thelith wrote: ( Weapons require far less technology to produce which is why a druid tolerates a metal sword) This is unfortunately untrue. Yes, a mace may be distinctly easier to make than full-plate armour, but a finely crafted crucible steel longsword requires a far higher level of technology to produce than a bronze breastplate. It depends entirely on the weapon or armour in question, due to the fundamental property of warfare that weapons and armour always compete to be the most advanced: armour also tends not to win that conflict.
So it may be some other factor that stops a Druid from being able to wear metal armour. My guess would be that having that much modern tech close to one's heart or core is bad for the nature magic, while having the technology wielded as far away as a hand is not such a problem. Using bronze armour and crucible steel weaponry isn't really a fair comparison for determining technology level... A bronze sword is easier to make than bronze breastplate... And weapons have always been developed long before the armour to protect oneself from said weapon was.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote: *Thelith wrote: A druid should abhor all manifestations of industrialization, for the medieval setting that pathfinder is a part of (yes I know, medieval-ish) Metal was/is that manifestation. It requires smelting which is a high level of technology ( for the time period). A modern day druid would be crawling out of their skin in almost any populated area.
The metal in metal armour is not the problem, the _technology_ to create metal armour is the problem for druids. ( Weapons require far less technology to produce which is why a druid tolerates a metal sword)
I'm not buying it. Stoneplate is "alchemically treated" and that works fine. If firearms aren't manifestations of industrialization, I don't know what is. And yet I once played a PC dwarven druid who used both stoneplate and a blunderbuss. Druids shouldn't really be using guns either...guns came after druids we're designed--eons ago-- they wouldn't be able to otherwise.
Stoneplate shouldn't exist at all so there really is no defending that.
I can't buy a technology-based argument for some armours but not others. It expressly takes more skill to make dragonhide armour than steel (dragonhide is always masterwork). If you're going to claim chronology of armour vs. weapons, you should be dropping all armour. Armour postdates weapons because it is tied to conflicts between civilizations. Hunters never used armour because the extra sight and mobility is useful and armour won't save you from a moose attack. It only becomes relevant when the comparatively low strength of a human(oid) is the offensive threat.
As to guns, why? It's a tube with a dense thing and a mixture of charcoal and two minerals in it. Heck, certain philosophies had salt and sulpher as elements, making gunpowder an element, an element derivative (thematically, though it is a chemical salt as well), and a wood derivative. Druids should be all over it! early firearms in PF also require a significant amount of self-sufficency to operate for any length of time, so if you're going to reject armour as something for society's wars, a weapon that can ignore it while being (currently) highly inconvenient for military purposes is a great choice.
It really seems like your ideas rest on earth chronology, which doesn't apply to any given fantasy setting.
*Thelith wrote: Nitro~Nina wrote: *Thelith wrote: ( Weapons require far less technology to produce which is why a druid tolerates a metal sword) This is unfortunately untrue. Yes, a mace may be distinctly easier to make than full-plate armour, but a finely crafted crucible steel longsword requires a far higher level of technology to produce than a bronze breastplate. It depends entirely on the weapon or armour in question, due to the fundamental property of warfare that weapons and armour always compete to be the most advanced: armour also tends not to win that conflict.
So it may be some other factor that stops a Druid from being able to wear metal armour. My guess would be that having that much modern tech close to one's heart or core is bad for the nature magic, while having the technology wielded as far away as a hand is not such a problem. Using bronze armour and crucible steel weaponry isn't really a fair comparison for determining technology level... A bronze sword is easier to make than bronze breastplate... And weapons have always been developed long before the armour to protect oneself from said weapon was. That's exactly my point! A druid would still be more restricted by that bronze armour than they would by that steel longsword, as far as the rules are concerned, so it cannot be a restriction by technological advancement. That's why I chose such an unfair comparison in the first place.
(Also weapons do not always predate armour. Weapons are just as much invented to deal with armour as armour is invented to deal with weapons; it's an endless cycle that only ends when we create either a weapon that can destroy any armour or an armour which can withstand any weapon.)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Nitro~Nina wrote: (Also weapons do not always predate armour. Weapons are just as much invented to deal with armour as armour is invented to deal with weapons; it's an endless cycle that only ends when we create either a weapon that can destroy any armour or an armour which can withstand any weapon.) Happened. Offense officially won that arms race on the sixteenth of July, 1945.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
