Can Druids use "Great Clubs"?

[Li Shenron]

I mean, a GreatClub is basically a large club, so why not, right?

Strangely enough, the Great Club was not even added with the errata into the Druid's weapon list. Somehow, the sage has tried to avoid explanations on why some weapons are forbidden and some other not by saying that it is mainly at DM's discretion, or a campaign issue.

Effectively, the way to allow/disallow an armor for a Druid simply if it contains metal doesn't work at all with weapons (see Scimitar, Sickle and spears). Another common way is to decide if the weapon is too much handcrafted, such as crossbows, but definitely the greatclub is simple enough.

I think that a Large Club or Large Scimitar are different weapons than Club or Scimitar for the purposes of proficiency, but not for the purposes of spiritual oaths; so, if your DM doesn't let you use the Greatclub (let's wait for the revised PHB for possible news), ask him about those other two.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The scimitar (a curved blade) is similarly shaped to many of natures weapons. The curve of a predators tooth and claws, for example, or a thorn.

No its not, it curves the wrong way!

The sickle certainly mimics the curve of a tooth or claw, but a scimitar certainly doesn't.

The scimitar was originally in there because of a mix-up when the Eldritch Wizardry supplement was being written and the sickle was in mind. It has been perpetuated through the years and is a sacred cow (unfortunately)

 

[Mark Chance]

This and That....

Plane Sailing wrote:

The scimitar was originally in there because of a mix-up when the Eldritch Wizardry supplement was being written and the sickle was in mind. It has been perpetuated through the years and is a sacred cow (unfortunately).

To err is human; to moo, bovine.

Apok wrote:

they can't use bows or arrows because of the metal in the arrowheads but they can use a scimitar or spear, they can use a sling but they can't throw rocks, etc.

There's nothing in the core rules that says a druid cannot use bow because there's metal in the arrowheads.

mooby wrote:

According to the rules, what is a scimitar, or a regular club made for a size Large creature (more damage, two handed) legal?

I'd certainly allow it. What would the point be in, say, a fire giant druid wielding a Medium-size scimitar? Seems kind of silly to me.

I ask b/c I'm planning on playing a Barbarian/Druid, and I think it'd be a great weapon for the character.

I'd have problem with a barbarian/druid using a greatclub. I'd have no problem with a druid using a greatclub, providing the appropriate martial feat were taken to get proficiency.

Of course, I'm not your GM....

 

[jlhorner1974]

Although the druid restricted weapon list does have some connection to druidic/nature traditions, there are too many inconsistencies to simply accept the logic.

The PHB sort of implies that weapons having metal in them are prohibitied (just like armor) but there are too many exceptions (scimitar and sickle, for instance). Of course, the designers couldn't make things this simple, or there would be druids running around with ironwood orc double-axes and sap-filled ironwood "mercurial" greatswords.

If you argue that scimitar is allowed because it is connected to nature, then I would argue that scythe be allowed also (but it is not).

With the exception of the shortspear/longspear, all other druid weapons are 1d6 or lower.

IMHO, I think the druidic weapon selections were more or less intentionally chosen as a balancing factor by limiting druids to lower damage weapons.

Frankly, considering they don't allow bows, I'm surprised they allowed spears. Bows would seem to me to be more acceptable than spears.

 

[hammymchamham]

its just a spiritual oath, and these are the weapons that the atypical druid has in their spiritual oath. Don't like it, change it. I have for the druid I DM, but my DM for my druid has not.

just remember, a Druid can use a great club. They just have a -4 to hit and lose access to their spells. Baring a DM change, thats what the rules say.

 

[Morose]

It's been stated multiple times by the designers that the weapon restrictions on a druid are for flavor only... not balance. So a DM should feel free to rule zero them without much fear of causing unbalance.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Of course, the designers couldn't make things this simple, or there would be druids running around with ironwood orc double-axes and sap-filled ironwood "mercurial" greatswords.

Actually, if you read the description of the Ironwood spell, an axe or a greatsword made of Ironwood is "freely usable by druids".

-Hyp.

 

[jlhorner1974]

Actually, the SRD says:

"A druid who wears prohibited armor or wields a prohibited weapon is unable to use any of her magical powers while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter. "


Wouldn't that mean she loses all Supernatural and Spell-like abilities also? This would include Wild Shape (a spell like ability), right?.

 

[jlhorner1974]

Hmmm. Isn't there just a little bit of contradiction here?

According to the SRD, the reason druids are prohibited from wearing certain kinds of armor is because it is made of metal. So it logically follows that ironwood chainmail is okay because ironwood does not count as metal.

The reason druids can only use certain weapons is that they take "spiritual oaths" to that effect. It has nothing to do with what material the weapon is made of. A 1st level druid can freely use a scimitar made entirely of metal.

The Ironwood spell does say that items made with it are freely usable by druids, but going by the description of the druid class, a scimitar is legal for druids to use, whether it is made of metal or not. A greatsword is not legal to use, regardless of whether it is made of metal or not. So why is an ironwood greatsword legal? IMHO, it just doesn't fit logically for me... "I promise to never use weapons other than X, Y, Z... except if they're made of ironwood."

I can see how it can be interpreted both ways though, and for a 6th level druid spell, one expects some bang for their buck, but I just suspect the designers were careless in their wording and did not intend for ironwood to remove the normal druidic weapon restrictions.

I guess I would have liked a stronger wording in the ironwood spell. Something like: "Ironwood items are freely usable by druids. This is true even for ironwood weapons that would normally violate druidic spiritual oaths, such as a mace."

I wouldn't have a problem with someone ruling according to Hypersmurf's interpretation.

It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for two knowledgable people to read a 3E rule and each come up with completely different (even contradictory) interpretations that are equally plausible.

Jason.

 

[Dr. NRG]

It's not just the 3E rules. Ever hear two devotees of similar religious persuasion but different sects debate their holy books? Ever hear Trekkers interpret the meanings of, well, pretty much anything in the Trek universe?

It has a lot more to do with human nature than it does with 3E rules, IMHO.

NRG