Sage Advice 3/21/16 Exploding druids and antimagic field vs zombies and cure wounds

delericho · Mar 23, 2016

RotGrub said:
I guess I just don't view D&D campaign worlds in an isolated manner by default. My understanding is that such worlds are part of the prime material plane.

It's tricky - planar travel can take you from one to another, suggesting that they're parallel Prime Material Planes, while Spelljammer also provides a transit suggesting they're the same one.

I admit that I don't remember much about Athas, but what darksun edition are you referring (2e or 4e)? Do you know what campaign book has this information? I'd like to read it.

IIRC, the bit about the Crystal Sphere is in "The Complete Spacefarer's Handbook". The bit about the gods is in the main boxed set, while the bit about planar travel is, I think, in the "Dragon Kings" hardback. All 2nd Ed - I haven't read the 4e stuff.

(More generally, I think the reason DS is so remote is a direct reaction against the interlinking of settings from Spelljammer, Ravenloft, and Planescape - I don't think the DS designers were entirely keen on that being done. FWIW, I agree with them, and actually prefer the 'linking' settings as their own distinct entities. Obviously, YMMV.

)

As for Ravenloft, the issue isn't getting domains in to the setting, it's people getting out that's the issue.

RotGrub · Mar 23, 2016

delericho said:
It's tricky - planar travel can take you from one to another, suggesting that they're parallel Prime Material Planes, while Spelljammer also provides a transit suggesting they're the same one.

IIRC, the bit about the Crystal Sphere is in "The Complete Spacefarer's Handbook". The bit about the gods is in the main boxed set, while the bit about planar travel is, I think, in the "Dragon Kings" hardback. All 2nd Ed - I haven't read the 4e stuff.

(More generally, I think the reason DS is so remote is a direct reaction against the interlinking of settings from Spelljammer, Ravenloft, and Planescape - I don't think the DS designers were entirely keen on that being done. FWIW, I agree with them, and actually prefer the 'linking' settings as their own distinct entities. Obviously, YMMV. )

As for Ravenloft, the issue isn't getting domains in to the setting, it's people getting out that's the issue.

Well.. people do escape Ravenloft. In fact, I have a RL module that allows you to randomly roll what world you escape into.

My point is that if spells like contact other plane, summon elemental, and gate worked in Dark Sun the door is open for a Bigby. I guess Wish spell is another option that allows for it to appear.

Anyway, I'll have to dig up those books and read them. Do you remember if the 2e Darksun setting went so far as to change the names of those spells?

Shasarak · Mar 23, 2016

delericho said:
Yes, and no.

For a specific setting, I'd quite enjoy having all the spells renamed in this style. For a generic game, though, where the same spell will crop up in Dark Sun, Dragonlance, and Eberron, it's problematic. Heck, even the existing 'named' spells are rather jarring - it makes no sense that casters on Athas would cite Bigby or Mordenkainen. (To say nothing of referencing Mike Nystul...)

Plus, it would be a bit of a pest having to translate from a 'flavourful' name back into a 'functional' name every time - the first time a Wizard cast Phandaal's Instantaneous Arcane Nullification would be cool, but the twentieth time, not so much. Dispel is pretty dull, it's true, but it has the great advantage of doing exactly what it says on the tin.

I always thought that there was a possibility that 'Dark Sun' was actually 'Greyhawk' in the future, which would explain both why they still have Bigby spells and why they are isolated from the other worlds.

spectacle · Mar 23, 2016

I usually just assume that every world has wizards named "Bigby", "Leomund" etc that are famous for having researched some of the classic spells. It may be a different wizard in each world, they just have the same names

FormerlyHemlock · Mar 23, 2016

delericho said:
IIRC, the bit about the Crystal Sphere is in "The Complete Spacefarer's Handbook". The bit about the gods is in the main boxed set, while the bit about planar travel is, I think, in the "Dragon Kings" hardback. All 2nd Ed - I haven't read the 4e stuff.

Here's what the Complete Spacefarer's Handbook has to say about Athas:

CSFH_pg13 said:
Other Worlds

Not all the worlds of the AD&D® game are appro-
priate for spelljamming campaigns. For various rea-
sons, some settings may not be appropriate, either
because their "feel" is not right, or because they are
too detached from the remainder of the AD&D game
environment. Of those AD&D worlds that have been
published, the following (for one reason or another)
should be avoided in SPELLJAMMER® campaigns.

Athas. The world of the DARK SCJN™ campaign is
not on the spacelanes where Realmspace, Krynn-
space, and Greyspace can be found. No spelljammer
travels its skies; no ancient tome tells of the routes to
its crystal sphere. Whether it is unreachable by
spelljammer or merely so far from these worlds that
any journey would take lifetimes is unknown.

The current inhabitants of Athas have no knowl-
edge of spelljamming. There is no way to know
whether the closely guarded library of some
sorcerer-king conceals an ancient tome revealing
the basic concepts of wildspace. Even if such a tome
were found, the defiling power of such powerful
magic would certainly wreak havoc on the fragile
balance of life on Athas.

Mirtek · Mar 24, 2016

Ristamar said:
Aside from Planescape products or stuff that popped up in Dungeon/Dragon magazine, can you cite anything specific?

In one of the Drizzt novels there are some wizards discussing Bigby's achievments, the second novel from the Lost Gods Trilogy has a Kender from Krynn teaming up with the protagonists from Toril and in one the harper supplements it's noted that both Elminster and Khelben use to spend time on Oerth and Krynn. There are many more such small tidbits scattered around, those are just three I remember right now.

CapnZapp · Mar 24, 2016

Sword of Spirit said:
While I have no problem with the lore of druids not wearing metal armor, I have a serious problem with the lack of even a suggested concrete penalty for violating it. It singles them out as the sole class in such a condition. Paladins come in second, but at least the books provide guidance as to what might happen if they violate their code, and imply that a DM could choose to allow for an imperfect paladin who struggles with his code but is working at it.

I'd like to see druids treated the same way. I hate design inconsistency. The analogy with a vegetarian is a poor analogy, because it is the simplest thing in the world for a vegetarian to eat meat. They lose the right to be called "vegetarian", but there are no special powers attached to it, and one could argue that they could still call themselves a "struggling vegetarian". The religious examples are better, and the consequence could then be exactly the same as for a cleric. They incur divine displeasure, with consequences up the DM--but they are still a cleric (or insert real world religious examples).

To say a druid that wears metal armor isn't a member of the druid class is like saying that a fighter that stops fighting isn't a member of the fighter class. It's actually worse than that example, because fighting is literally the name and core definition of the fight-er class, while not-wearing-metal-armor-er is neither the name nor definition of the druid class. It's absurd. They might be a bad druid, they might be unable to gain further levels in the class, they might lose powers, and they might be ejected from druidic hierarchy. But unless we go old-school and mimic the paladin turning into a fighter rule (but what class would a druid turn into?) they are most definitely still a member of the druid class.

Of course older editions did this stuff, and it was accepted as how things were. But most of the restrictions went away (clerics can wield whatever they want now) or were converted to concrete mechanical consequences (rogues suffer penalties to certain skills/features in heavier armor, wizards have trouble with spells in armor, etc) throughout the editions. The druid restriction is out of harmony with the rest of 5e. It is a wacky holdover that has no place in the 5e PHB, at least as it is stated. Honestly, I'd really like to hear at least one of the designers say something like, "yeah, if we had thought it through we probably would have phrased it more like the paladin's code".

You're welcome to change it in your game, but as the game is written, there's value in holding to your beliefs because that's what you BELIEVE IN, not because somebody's holding a gun to your head.

The point *is* that Druids choose not to wear metal armor.

If doing so carried some kind of penalty, you would remove or lessen that free choice.

Do whatever feels good for your campaign, but that's why the rules are the way they are.

CapnZapp · Mar 24, 2016

Jiggawatts said:
I enjoyed the bit of history and the explanation of class/story elements, but it was essentially a well worded non-answer. I would have much preferred if he had just come out and said something to the effect of "a druid wearing metal armor is unable to shapeshift or cast spells", which is fitting and conducive to everything we've seen regarding D&D druids for the last 40 years.

No, it wasn't a non-answer. It was just not the kind of concrete answer you want.

It's like trying to rationalize a fashion choice. People dress poorly even if they freeze because personal choices. People wear shoes that kill their feet.

Stop trying to make the druid's choice an obvious one.

Or rather, go ahead in your own campaign. Stop trying to paint the default explanation as being objectively worse than an explanation that explains (and removes) the choice from druids.

If druids did explode in metal armor, that sure would explain why they're not wearing any.

But it would also make the choice into a non-choice.

C-F-K · Mar 24, 2016

It is indeed not a RAW, but one could argue it's bad RP...

For me it would be clear, as a DM. A druid would want to shapeshift only with non-metal armour. Because the magic can polymorph non-metal armour into a part of the creature.

"Yeah C-F-K, thats all nice, but what if I chose to leave my personal belongings out of the shapeshifting? The metal armour would then be excluded from the polymorph."

This would only work if the druid shifts into something smaller than it's original state. If a druid polymorphs into a black bear, it would become very messy indeed!

"And what about me shifting into a mouse?"
No problem, but when you shift back you'll be armourless/naked. Taken into account that it could take 10 rounds to put an armour on you'll be a sitting duck (Badum-tisssch).

Don't get me started on the possibilities of a lightning spell being cast by something that itself is one giant lightningrod...

FormerlyHemlock · Mar 24, 2016

C-F-K said:
No problem, but when you shift back you'll be armourless/naked. Taken into account that it could take 10 rounds to put an armour on you'll be a sitting duck (Badum-tisssch).

Light armor = 1 minute/10 rounds
Medium armor = 5 minutes/50 rounds
Heavy armor = 10 minutes/100 rounds
Shield = 1 action

Sage Advice 3/21/16 Exploding druids and antimagic field vs zombies and cure wounds

delericho

Legend

RotGrub

First Post

Shasarak

Banned

spectacle

First Post

FormerlyHemlock

Hero

Mirtek

Hero

CapnZapp

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

C-F-K

First Post

FormerlyHemlock

Hero

Similar Threads

Related Articles