Druids and Scimitar


Rules Discussion

Silver Crusade

So, in the Pathfinder playtest, Druids were allowed to use scimitars as trained weapons upfront along with simple weapons. In Pathfinder 2E, I noticed that they are only trained in simple weapons. Is this deliberate or is this an editing error?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This makes me sad if scimitars are no longer a druid thing :'(
On a related note, can you check to see if the flame blade spell made it into the CRB? It wasn't in the Playtest.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Really was just one of those random D&D heritage things, I think somehow founded on "similarity" of scimitars and medicinal herb-harvesting sickles if that makes any sense. Rationalizing it alongside no-metal requirement just descended into farce, so not going to miss it, personally. (99.9% sure it was deliberate)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Really was just one of those random D&D heritage things, I think somehow founded on "similarity" of scimitars and medicinal herb-harvesting sickles if that makes any sense. Rationalizing it alongside no-metal requirement just descended into farce, so not going to miss it, personally. (99.9% sure it was deliberate)

You're 100% correct that it's a pure D&D-ism. It wasn't really inconsistent with the metal armour prohibition though, given that scimitars aren't a form of armour. Druids are still proficient with sickles and daggers, so the metal thing is irrelevant to this discussion as far as our poor friend the scimitar goes.

Of course, the very notion that worked metal is somehow less "natural" than other worked materials—like leather, for instance—is silly, but we don't need to get into that in this thread...

I agree that it was probably intentionally removed, either for balance or flavour reasons. I'm still sad that it's gone (assuming it really is).


That's unfortunate. Looks like it's back to the big stick with shillelagh on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never understood the no metal armor restriction. Isn't metal natural?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I would imagine it's intentional. Getting only a single martial weapon is kind of weird, and sort of forces that as the weapon of choice for melee.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AnCap Dawg wrote:
I never understood the no metal armor restriction. Isn't metal natural?

It has to do with where druid's originally got their power from which was fey. As we all know fey and cold iron do not get along. So the idea was that wearing metal interfered with their spells.

Get ninja'ed

*vanishes*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnCap Dawg wrote:
I never understood the no metal armor restriction. Isn't metal natural?

I believe the problem is, it’s nature which as been heavily processed through unnatural means. An iron ore (once retrieved from the ground, which itself can be a very damaging note on nature) needs to be processed (ie get rid of the other impurities in it) heated, poured, and hammered into useable ingots, which then gets processed and shaped again when creating the armour. In essence, it has taken something natural and removing all from of nature from it.

Which is the reason why (at least in my head cannon) there is that metal armour restriction, as being clad in something so processed and unnatural blocks the Druid from connecting with the nature around it. As for the reason why they can use metal weapons, well, they are just holding it, not surrounding themselves with it. (Although whenever I RP a Druid, I like to have them shy away from using metal weapons unless absolutely necessary, and even then they dislike the touch of metal in general.)

Edit= Also Vidmaster7 point (whom rolled the higher initiative :p )


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Siro wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:
I never understood the no metal armor restriction. Isn't metal natural?

I believe the problem is, it’s nature which as been heavily processed through unnatural means. An iron ore (once retrieved from the ground, which itself can be a very damaging note on nature) needs to be processed (ie get rid of the other impurities in it) heated, poured, and hammered into useable ingots, which then gets processed and shaped again when creating the armour. In essence, it has taken something natural and removing all from of nature from it.

Which is the reason why (at least in my head cannon) there is that metal armour restriction, as being clad in something so processed and unnatural blocks the Druid from connecting with the nature around it. As for the reason why they can use metal weapons, well, they are just holding it, not surrounding themselves with it. (Although whenever I RP a Druid, I like to have them shy away from using metal weapons unless absolutely necessary, and even then they dislike the touch of metal in general.)

Edit= Also Vidmaster7 point (whom rolled the higher initiative :p )

Right, but to take an animal's skin and turn it into a leather tunic involves at least as much "unnatural processing" as turning iron ore into steel. I'd argue significantly more, actually.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's the Fey thing. I've researched it. I'm pretty sure about it.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

They can't wear deodorant either.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
It's the Fey thing. I've researched it. I'm pretty sure about it.

So why is holding a metal sickle kosher, but holding a metal shield is verboten? And why don't fey take more damage from a steel sword than a wooden staff?

I'm pretty sure the reasoning behind the prohibition is not nearly so explicitly detailed in any of the original material. I think it mostly just boils down to "a dude in animal skins feels pretty druidy, but a dude in chainmail feels decidedly not druidy." I don't think there was any deeper rationale than that.

EDIT: I do remember reading on the RPG.net forums, that apparently the reason druids got scimitar proficiency in OD&D was that the scimitar was the closest analogue to the sickle in the weapon list—the sickle being the sacred implement of the actual historical druids. I can't actually speak to the credibility of that source however.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I figure it's because on Golarion scimitars are more of a Sarenrite/Qadiran thing than anything else. So the druid scimitar proficiency was a weird anachronism, since the whole thing stems from Gygax himself trying to figure which weapon was closest to a "mistletoe-harvesting sickle."

So dropping scimitars is mostly about "we no longer need to support every weird legacy thing."

Also this opens up design space for "a more martial druid order" which would get better weapon proiciencies, without discouraging people from taking it because they already have a decent melee weapon.


Meh, you may be right on that. This could also be my bias when I had asked about the restriction from a former DM I had back when I was noob at tabletop games, and the processed explanation was given. My one defence (one which I would not defend to a great deal) is using the parts of animals seems to be more natural then digging for ore (use every part of the animal to show respect), and the use of clothing could fall into that. Though you could be right that leather processing is a step to far, in what I had set up. ( I may not say it is, but I could see good reason why it could be.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
It's the Fey thing. I've researched it. I'm pretty sure about it.

So why is holding a metal sickle kosher, but holding a metal shield is verboten? And why don't fey take more damage from a steel sword than a wooden staff?

I'm pretty sure the reasoning behind the prohibition is not nearly so explicitly detailed in any of the original material. I think it mostly just boils down to "a dude in animal skins feels pretty druidy, but a dude in chainmail feels decidedly not druidy." I don't think there was any deeper rationale than that.

"Most of the weapons permitted to druids of a particular branch resemble tools used in herding, hunting, and farming, or hold symbolic meaning to the druid. For instance, the curved scimitar and khopesh represent both the sickle used in the harvest and the crescent moon, which stands for birth, death, and rebirth in the cycle of Nature." (2nd Edition Complete Druid's Handbook)

Fey's DR is bypassed by Cold iron weapons.

You'd have to ask the original designer on why they decided the metal weapon was OK but not a shield.

The best I got for that is its not so much touching metal as being covered by it so I guess the designer felt a shield was close enough to being covered by it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
It's the Fey thing. I've researched it. I'm pretty sure about it.

So why is holding a metal sickle kosher, but holding a metal shield is verboten? And why don't fey take more damage from a steel sword than a wooden staff?

I'm pretty sure the reasoning behind the prohibition is not nearly so explicitly detailed in any of the original material. I think it mostly just boils down to "a dude in animal skins feels pretty druidy, but a dude in chainmail feels decidedly not druidy." I don't think there was any deeper rationale than that.

"Most of the weapons permitted to druids of a particular branch resemble tools used in herding, hunting, and farming, or hold symbolic meaning to the druid. For instance, the curved scimitar and khopesh represent both the sickle used in the harvest and the crescent moon, which stands for birth, death, and rebirth in the cycle of Nature." (2nd Edition Complete Druid's Handbook)

Fey's DR is bypassed by Cold iron weapons.

You'd have to ask the original designer on why they decided the metal weapon was OK but not a shield. If that information is out their I could not find it when I researched it originally.

2nd Edition AD&D isn't exactly original source material. 2E came out in 1989. The druid was originally published as a playable character class in 1976.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
It's the Fey thing. I've researched it. I'm pretty sure about it.

So why is holding a metal sickle kosher, but holding a metal shield is verboten? And why don't fey take more damage from a steel sword than a wooden staff?

I'm pretty sure the reasoning behind the prohibition is not nearly so explicitly detailed in any of the original material. I think it mostly just boils down to "a dude in animal skins feels pretty druidy, but a dude in chainmail feels decidedly not druidy." I don't think there was any deeper rationale than that.

"Most of the weapons permitted to druids of a particular branch resemble tools used in herding, hunting, and farming, or hold symbolic meaning to the druid. For instance, the curved scimitar and khopesh represent both the sickle used in the harvest and the crescent moon, which stands for birth, death, and rebirth in the cycle of Nature." (2nd Edition Complete Druid's Handbook)

Fey's DR is bypassed by Cold iron weapons.

You'd have to ask the original designer on why they decided the metal weapon was OK but not a shield. If that information is out their I could not find it when I researched it originally.

2nd Edition AD&D isn't exactly original source material. 2E came out in 1989. The druid was originally published as a playable character class in 1976.

Yes I am aware that was the first reference I found are you asking for my sources then or just trying your best to be a pain?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I figure it's because on Golarion scimitars are more of a Sarenrite/Qadiran thing than anything else. So the druid scimitar proficiency was a weird anachronism, since the whole thing stems from Gygax himself trying to figure which weapon was closest to a "mistletoe-harvesting sickle."

So dropping scimitars is mostly about "we no longer need to support every weird legacy thing."

Also this opens up design space for "a more martial druid order" which would get better weapon proiciencies, without discouraging people from taking it because they already have a decent melee weapon.

I think you're probably on to something here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I, for one, would like a "metal" or "stone" druid order, which views digging up the rocks and making things out of them as every bit as natural as "cutting down the trees, and making things from them." Certainly some druids will oppose the validity of the former, but other druids will oppose the validity of the latter too.

But if the sky and the water is sacred, then why not the land? Not just the things that live on the land or grow up from it, but the land itself- not for its potential value to other things, just for itself.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I, for one, would like a "metal" or "stone" druid order, which views digging up the rocks and making things out of them as every bit as natural as "cutting down the trees, and making things from them." Certainly some druids will oppose the validity of the former, but other druids will oppose the validity of the latter too.

But if the sky and the water is sacred, then why not the land? Not just the things that live on the land or grow up from it, but the land itself- not for its potential value to other things, just for itself.

Seems VERY appropriate for dwarves, actually. Dwarves make excellent druids mechanically but not culturally. (Though PF2 promises to have them be less mono-cultured in the World Guides and such.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fey are only hurt more by Cold Iron which is less processed iron than steel. So druids should have no problem with steel armor - only with cast iron armor.

After reading the new "Mastering PF2" blog and the "Gremlin Bells" sidebar of the Bestiary, I think it's superstition. Steel armor probably causes no problem but neither druids nor fey are willing to risk interference by metal. And since druids get their magic via faith in nature, they can't let those doubts creep in their minds.

Only the potential metal order druids know that it's all stupid misinformation and have made their peace with the fact.


Oh yeah its defiantly tied closer to their druid vows then for practical reasons. Although D&D steel is probably not as pure as our steel today. Refining was not as thorough.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I figure it's because on Golarion scimitars are more of a Sarenrite/Qadiran thing than anything else. So the druid scimitar proficiency was a weird anachronism, since the whole thing stems from Gygax himself trying to figure which weapon was closest to a "mistletoe-harvesting sickle."

So dropping scimitars is mostly about "we no longer need to support every weird legacy thing."

Also this opens up design space for "a more martial druid order" which would get better weapon proiciencies, without discouraging people from taking it because they already have a decent melee weapon.

I suspect it's partially this.

But I suspect it also is related to the fact that the way most basic Druid builds have a lot of potential to mislead players into a trap when it comes to the scimitar. A new player might think they're supposed to use the one martial weapon they get access to. But it turns MAD and bad really fast, mediocre at pretty much all aspects of the class (and especially if they've gone with any of the ancestries that are theoretically Druid inclined).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I always assumed the metal restrictions were part of whatever ancient pacts the orders made with nature. Just like teaching Druidic to nondruids causes them to lose their magic.
If the fey were involved, it makes sense that it doesn't make sense. Fey-logic and the price paid when bargaining with them often seems nonsensical.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess the problem with Metal Armor is that the person is 'encased' in something that does interfere with their magic

if you turn this around: if you wear a full body rubber suit you are isolated vs electricity but wielding a rubber club wont help you a bit

(I know weird example but I think it paints a good picture)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I tried looking up ADnD druids for a different reason, and I believe they had a no metal weapons restrictions.

Though, it doesn't particularly bother me that much. It makes as much sense as any other anathema. (Though Storm Druid's play-test anathema annoys me because it feels like one of the few that gets in the way of actually playing that character)

If you need a logical reason why armor is banned, by weapons are not, then it could just be a matter of scale. Plate requires more mining and so more disruption than a dagger or a sword. It is also possibly just a principle thing, the whole "nature protects, so I don't need a metal exoskeleton."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:

I tried looking up ADnD druids for a different reason, and I believe they had a no metal weapons restrictions.

Though, it doesn't particularly bother me that much. It makes as much sense as any other anathema. (Though Storm Druid's play-test anathema annoys me because it feels like one of the few that gets in the way of actually playing that character)

If you need a logical reason why armor is banned, by weapons are not, then it could just be a matter of scale. Plate requires more mining and so more disruption than a dagger or a sword. It is also possibly just a principle thing, the whole "nature protects, so I don't need a metal exoskeleton."

I just looked it up too and here's how it breaks down:

OD&D, Eldritch Wizardry Supplement (1976):
OD&D wrote:
Druids are able to employ the following sorts of weapons: Daggers, sickle or crescent-shaped swords, spears, slings, and oil. They may wear armor of leather, and use wooden shields. They may not use metallic armor.

No rationale is given.

AD&D, 1st edition Player's Handbook (1978):
AD&D wrote:
...[D]ruids are unable to use any armor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallic armor spoils their magical powers).
and
AD&D wrote:
Weapons: club, dagger, dart, hammer, scimitar, sling, spear, staff

EDIT: I had to make numerous edits to get all the details right.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It was the Rules Cyclopedia druid who couldn't use metal, full stop.

Rules Cyclopedia wrote:
Druid items and equipment are all made of items that were once alive (leather, wood, etc.). "Dead" things that have never been alive are repulsive to the druid; the character simply won't want to use or touch them.
Rules Cyclopedia wrote:
Druids, like clerics, may not use piercing or cutting weapons; and even of the weapon types they can use, they may not have weapons with metal parts. He can commission craftsmen to make all-wooden versions of appropriate weapons; they cost 50% more than their counterparts, but otherwise behave identically.

No word in the text as to how that effects basic adventuring gear, coins, potion bottles, et cetera.


Having only skimmed this thread, is it save to assume that the no metal armor/shields restriction is still in effect in PF2?


Charlie Brooks wrote:

It was the Rules Cyclopedia druid who couldn't use metal, full stop.

Rules Cyclopedia wrote:
Druid items and equipment are all made of items that were once alive (leather, wood, etc.). "Dead" things that have never been alive are repulsive to the druid; the character simply won't want to use or touch them.
Rules Cyclopedia wrote:
Druids, like clerics, may not use piercing or cutting weapons; and even of the weapon types they can use, they may not have weapons with metal parts. He can commission craftsmen to make all-wooden versions of appropriate weapons; they cost 50% more than their counterparts, but otherwise behave identically.
No word in the text as to how that effects basic adventuring gear, coins, potion bottles, et cetera.

Cool! I never knew about this! Thanks for the interesting historical information.

I guess Rules Cyclopedia druids have to use seashells for currency and must carry all their potions in water skins? :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Blave wrote:
Having only skimmed this thread, is it save to assume that the no metal armor/shields restriction is still in effect in PF2?

Yes, it's still under the Druid anathema.

Also, along with scimitar proficiency, they dropped the Savage Slice class feat that seemed so weirdly alone and a little out of place on the playtest Druid.

Some other notes:
- Wild shape pool is gone; it's integrated into focus spells. There's no weird strength requirement for extra castings, but there's a bonus to attacks if you're using your own modifiers instead of the ones the various "x" form spells give.
- Druids have a 2nd level class feat to take another order (and get almost all the benefits).
- There are no longer different "rider" benefits of being a specific order on individual class feats (like how it would say "Special: if you are a druid of the animal order, your companion is blah blah blah).
- Those orders are now just prerequisites, so the playtest's extra benefits are largely just part of the feats now (varies a little by feat).
- There appears to be a typo in the Druid spell table or the class description on the number of cantrip slots they get. The table lists 4, the text says 5, the class-specific character sheets in the character sheet pack says 5, and all other casters get 5 (and got 4 in the playtest). It's probably supposed to be 5.
- There were some other changes that happened with pretty much every class around getting more increases to proficiencies, and the aforementioned spellcaster class feat parity with martials, but these aren't particularly notable for Druids specifically

Overall, I think the final version of the 2e Druid is in a better place than the playtest, primarily due to the class feat parity (compared to martials) all spellcasters got. They're not as pressed to pick between concepts at the higher levels.

As a fan of Druids, I'm pretty happy with where they ended up.


RicoTheBold wrote:
some excellent stuff

Thanks for this. Does the anathema attach to the multiclass druid dedication feat as well?

RicoTheBold wrote:
but there's a bonus to attacks if you're using your own modifiers instead of the ones the various "x" form spells give.

So can you morph into a tiny fly with a +5 strength modifier? :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bardic Dave wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
some excellent stuff

Thanks for this. Does the anathema attach to the multiclass druid dedication feat as well?

RicoTheBold wrote:
but there's a bonus to attacks if you're using your own modifiers instead of the ones the various "x" form spells give.
So can you morph into a tiny fly with a +5 strength modifier? :D

Yes and yes, mostly. Pest form gives you a flat Athletics modifier of -4 (most forms have a lot of statistics that include "unless your own modifier is higher" but that's not the case for Athletics for pest form, but is for Stealth and Acrobatics). You'll also get Weakness 5 to physical damage and an AC of 15 + your level, so it's not exactly ideal for reenacting Ant-Man sequences. But you can!

...Assuming I didn't misunderstand anything here.


RicoTheBold wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
some excellent stuff

Thanks for this. Does the anathema attach to the multiclass druid dedication feat as well?

RicoTheBold wrote:
but there's a bonus to attacks if you're using your own modifiers instead of the ones the various "x" form spells give.
So can you morph into a tiny fly with a +5 strength modifier? :D

Yes and yes, mostly. Pest form gives you a flat Athletics modifier of -4 (most forms have a lot of statistics that include "unless your own modifier is higher" but that's not the case for Athletics for pest form, but is for Stealth and Acrobatics). You'll also get Weakness 5 to physical damage and an AC of 15 + your level, so it's not exactly ideal for reenacting Ant-Man sequences. But you can!

...Assuming I didn't misunderstand anything here.

So if I've understood correctly, you can turn into a fly that can hit like a truck* but can't lift one? I like it :)

*"hit like a truck" relative to your average fly. Actually, do flies even get an attack action? If they don't, I assume spiders or scorpions do, so the same thing would apply to them I suppose?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bardic Dave wrote:

So if I've understood correctly, you can turn into a fly that can hit like a truck* but can't lift one? I like it :)

*"hit like a truck" relative to your average fly. Actually, do flies even get an attack action? If they don't, I assume spiders or scorpions do, so the same thing would apply to them I suppose?

Technically the GM decides what unlisted actions your form is capable of doing. It would be very reasonable to rule that you don't have an attack, because the spell pest form does not grant one. That's certainly how I'd do it...Unless you're potentially fighting some random thing near your size, of course, in which case I'd sure let you whomp 'em.

That'll show those nosy familiars.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The scimitar thing really never made much sense. But really the entire idea of the D&D druid didn't really make much sense when you think about it. Scimitars are nothing like sickles other than both have curved blades, but that was enough to make it the iconic weapon for them. The absurdity of the no metal armor, even though all other metal is fine, just not if it gives an armor bonus has already been discussed. The fey cold iron thing doesn't hold up considering cold iron is a different material than standard iron in Pathfinder, and there is no exception for things like copper where they have no issues at all. The no metal at all version is even more absurd. But even the concept of them being fantasy environmentalists was more or less invented out of whole cloth with some highly romanticized ideas of historical druids for inspiration. Historically they revered nature, as they were animists, but there was none of the "I need to protect the forest from being cut down, even though I use wood all the time." that has come in through D&D. I suspect that came from the times, and the new-age revival that was going on with ties to the growing environmentalism movement. Basically, I blame hippies. So with a mixed up origin like that, it's no surprise that they don't really hold up to scrutiny. But also because it really has little connection to it's inspiration, the grandfathered ideas about what a druid is, are basically all it has.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
The scimitar thing really never made much sense. But really the entire idea of the D&D druid didn't really make much sense when you think about it. Scimitars are nothing like sickles other than both have curved blades, but that was enough to make it the iconic weapon for them. The absurdity of the no metal armor, even though all other metal is fine, just not if it gives an armor bonus has already been discussed. The fey cold iron thing doesn't hold up considering cold iron is a different material than standard iron in Pathfinder, and there is no exception for things like copper where they have no issues at all. The no metal at all version is even more absurd. But even the concept of them being fantasy environmentalists was more or less invented out of whole cloth with some highly romanticized ideas of historical druids for inspiration. Historically they revered nature, as they were animists, but there was none of the "I need to protect the forest from being cut down, even though I use wood all the time." that has come in through D&D. I suspect that came from the times, and the new-age revival that was going on with ties to the growing environmentalism movement. Basically, I blame hippies. So with a mixed up origin like that, it's no surprise that they don't really hold up to scrutiny. But also because it really has little connection to it's inspiration, the grandfathered ideas about what a druid is, are basically all it has.

Well, I mean the scimitar *does* still have a crescent-shaped blade which gives the moon symbolism that's appropriate to both versions of the druid.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest if I wanted to try my best to imitate a 'historical' druid (at least insofar as as much as we know about them) I'd probably start with a Bard, rather than a Druid.


That's actually quite reasonable


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
To be honest if I wanted to try my best to imitate a 'historical' druid (at least insofar as as much as we know about them) I'd probably start with a Bard, rather than a Druid.

That actually makes a lot of sense. They were leaders, not hermits. But at this point, the D&D 'druid' has become such an iconic thing of it's own, that it's pointless to change much. Although some change to make it more rational has been a long-time coming. I'd have rather gotten rid of the metal armor restriction than the scimitar proficiency. Divorsed from the historical inspiration, scimitars make as much sense as anything, but the metal armor restriction is still arbitrary and nonsensical. It should have gone the way of clerics not being allowed to play with sharp objects a long time ago. I suspect this was probably a decision based on balance as well as tradition, but considering arcane armor penalties are gone completely (as far as I know, that's still the case), neither really holds up as well.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Gygax acknowledges the fictional roots of the game's druids right up front in the AD&D PHB:

"Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."

The class was never meant to closely model historical druids.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe Wells wrote:

Gygax acknowledges the fictional roots of the game's druids right up front in the AD&D PHB:

"Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."

The class was never meant to closely model historical druids.

Nice quote! Thanks for sharing! I enjoy learning more about the roots of the game.


Joe Wells wrote:

Gygax acknowledges the fictional roots of the game's druids right up front in the AD&D PHB:

"Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."

The class was never meant to closely model historical druids.

Yeah, but jumping from loremasters and judges to tree-hugging (which isn't a medieval belief at all) and skinchangers is quite a leap for what medieval druids 'would have' become. Especially since its explain, the usual Gygaxian absolutism as would have, not could/might.

You can see bits of things shining through here and there, including transformation magic, but that's usually of others as punishment, not themselves.

But that still doesn't give the scimitar any relevance, because its from a completely different region (and centuries later), and no moon symbolism, mostly just practicality as a mounted weapon.


Not directly relevant to the scimitar thing, but the D&D druid owes quite a bit to the relatively modern fraternal order of Druids.


Any clarification if Shillelagh works with Great Club (easy enough to get proficiency). The spell explicitly describes any non-magical club or staff. I could see it being more potent in that case so maybe not?


I wouldn't think so, any more than it would work on a mace, morningstar, bo staff, nunchaku, sap or aklys.

What I mean is it works specifically on the two weapons 'club' and 'staff,' Greatclub is a separate weapon (unspecified by the spell text) that happens to be in the same weapon group


Voss wrote:

I wouldn't think so, any more than it would work on a mace, morningstar, bo staff, nunchaku, sap or aklys.

What I mean is it works specifically on the two weapons 'club' and 'staff,' Greatclub is a separate weapon (unspecified by the spell text) that happens to be in the same weapon group

I read the rules again, and I agree. The "staff" is actually in the "club" group, not a "staff" group like I first thought there might be. So it must refer to the exact weapon name, not a group.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Druids and Scimitar All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.