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

The answer to the druid and metal armor is excellent. Not so much the ruling itself, but the clear way it explains that classes have both story and game elements, and some classes have more story elements than others.

 

[Celtavian]

That's cool. If that is your game. Play it how you want. I do have an issue with people wanting NO restrictions on their characters. If you want to homebrew that dwarven druids in your game world can wear metal armor then go for it. I do not want to see that become cannon. In my mid being a druid is MORE important than being a dwarf. It is no different than being in a monastic tradition that places emphasis on vows of chastity & celibacy. The monastic tradition and its rules are MORE important than my emphasis of being a man. If I want to be a monk of their order then I need to give up pleasures of the flesh. Same thing with druids in my opinion. They don't make exceptions for dwarves or for chatty/scholarly people who wish to share knowledge about druidic language.

It shouldn't be standard. I did like 2nd edition specialty priests. I do not prefer the generic nature of the base game. I miss unique aspects of certain classes like the paladin or ranger from very early D&D. I really liked what they did with clerics in 2E. They moved away from that in every edition since 2E.

 

[Lost Soul]

Because at no other point does a game rule dictate what a PC does or does not like, or what they will or won't do. That's for the player to decide, not the rules.

(Except, for magical domination effects. Actually, ruling that druids won't wear metal armor because they are all magically dominated not to would be an interesting take on this ability. Maybe apply the penalties of the geas spell to a druid who wears metal armor...)

I disagree. Paladins have codes, warlocks have patrons. Clerics have deities. Monks have monastic traditions. If you wish to hand wave these restrictions in your game world, that is YOUR game world but these restrictions exist. I could not imagine if my cleric of Mishakal (Healing domain Dragon Lance World setting) tried to inflict a disease upon a person or helped spread disease that he would not be punished by his goddess. I think I would be surprised and a bit disappointed if the DM did not do so. Some classes have complete free will to do what they want. Its a benefit of being a rogue, a wizard, fighter or a sorcerer for example. If you want no restrictions then play one of these classes. If not being able to wear metal armor is a deal breaker for you then DO NOT play a druid. The druids won't mind. All religions have quirks that do not make sense. This is the druid's quirk. Learn to live with it or leave it. It does not have to make sense.

 

[Lost Soul]

It shouldn't be standard. I did like 2nd edition specialty priests. I do not prefer the generic nature of the base game. I miss unique aspects of certain classes like the paladin or ranger from very early D&D. I really liked what they did with clerics in 2E. They moved away from that in every edition since 2E.

I disagree. It should be standardized because the power comes from nature & naturally occurring things. Wearing metal armor is unnatural. I heard from a Jewish friend that their holy books could not be written with a metal pen. A goose quill had to be used since metal signified death & a quill stood for life. I do not know if this was true as I am not Jewish but it was a cool thought process. I feel druids are the same way. If you want to create a nature cleric and have him in metal armor, cool. But druids do not wear metal armor and any movement always has something that members do to stand out and mark themselves as different. This IS the big thing for druids. Druids will not wear metal armor period. At best they will use superior hide armor such as from dragons, umber hulks and hook horrors that may approximate plate armors but no metal will be involved. Or they will use the spell that turns wood into steel for hardness and flexibility thus enabling them to use "plate armor" made of wood and still keep their vows. The VOWS are more important than combat survivability.

 

[Lost Soul]

It shouldn't be standard. I did like 2nd edition specialty priests. I do not prefer the generic nature of the base game. I miss unique aspects of certain classes like the paladin or ranger from very early D&D. I really liked what they did with clerics in 2E. They moved away from that in every edition since 2E.

What is it about paladins & rangers from 1rst edition that you miss? What is it about 2nd edition clerics that subsequent editions of the cleric not capture as well as 2nd edition did?

 

[Celtavian]

I disagree. It should be standardized because the power comes from nature & naturally occurring things. Wearing metal armor is unnatural. I heard from a Jewish friend that their holy books could not be written with a metal pen. A goose quill had to be used since metal signified death & a quill stood for life. I do not know if this was true as I am not Jewish but it was a cool thought process. I feel druids are the same way. If you want to create a nature cleric and have him in metal armor, cool. But druids do not wear metal armor and any movement always has something that members do to stand out and mark themselves as different. This IS the big thing for druids. Druids will not wear metal armor period. At best they will use superior hide armor such as from dragons, umber hulks and hook horrors that may approximate plate armors but no metal will be involved. Or they will use the spell that turns wood into steel for hardness and flexibility thus enabling them to use "plate armor" made of wood and still keep their vows. The VOWS are more important than combat survivability.

Dwarf druids wearing plate should not be standard. Otherwise, what's the point of the uniqueness of dwarf mountain druids? I prefer each type of druid have its own flavor. The idea that all druids or paladin orders or religions are all the same is boring. That's why I liked 2E specialty priests that took the time to flesh out each type of cleric. I wish they would do that again for each type of druid, cleric, paladin, and just about every class. The more specific and flavorful you can make something, the better. To me not wearing metal armor for all druids is boring and unoriginal. Makes them all seem the same and all druids should not be the same. A dwarf druid raised in a culture that is heavily invested in stone and metal work and resides in mountains should be different from an elven druid raised in forests or a human druid raised near the sea as far as their taboos and the specifics of their religious rites.

 

[Celtavian]

What is it about paladins & rangers from 1rst edition that you miss? What is it about 2nd edition clerics that subsequent editions of the cleric not capture as well as 2nd edition did?

Paladins in 1st edition were held to a very specific code of conduct. It was spelled out as a class requirement. If they did not act in accordance with the code, they lost their paladinhood and all their powers.

However, the character pays for these advantages with several restrictions.

He may never own more than ten magic items. Further, he is restricted to owning a single suit of armor, a single shield, four weapons, and only four items which do not fit into these categories. In counting weapons, weapons which intrinsically must work together--such as bows and batches of arrows--are counted as a single weapon.

They are required to give away excessive wealth, keeping only that which is necessary to meet personal expenses and maintain his troops and fortifications. However much he receives, he will automatically give away 10% of all wealth as it comes in. This will be given to non-player clerical institutions.

The paladin is restricted in the alignments of characters with whom he may associate. All of his henchmen must be lawful good, and his other associates must all be good. He may participate in an adventure in which he is working with non-evil neutrals only if it is limited to a single expedition, and only if it will further a lawful good cause.

In addition to the stricture that they may only associate long-term with lawful good characters, they will only form alliances with fighters, clerics, and cavaliers, of noble birth or status. Under the original rules, paladins do not attract men-at-arms or similar fighters; however, under the arcana rules, they gain retainers as a cavalier, but not the additional troops.

2E specialty priests were specific to the deity they followed. Their powers, their religious rights, their holidays, their mode of dress, some of the spells they could cast, their titles. It was all detailed for each deity and religion. It was done in two amazing books. Faiths and Avatars and Powers and Pantheons. Best job defining D&D clerics of any edition.

 

[77IM]

I disagree. Paladins have codes, warlocks have patrons. Clerics have deities. Monks have monastic traditions. If you wish to hand wave these restrictions in your game world, that is YOUR game world but these restrictions exist. I could not imagine if my cleric of Mishakal (Healing domain Dragon Lance World setting) tried to inflict a disease upon a person or helped spread disease that he would not be punished by his goddess.

None of those restrictions are game rules. There is no rule that says, "Paladins will not break their oaths." Quite the contrary, there are rules describing the consequences for breaking the oath, implying that it can happen. There is no rule that says, "Warlocks will obey their patrons." In fact, the game talks quite openly about warlocks subverting or disobeying their patrons.

The game does not have a rule that says, "followers of Mishakal will not inflict or spread disease." Nor does it have a rule that says, "Mishakal punishes any cleric of hers that spreads disease." What happens in that situation is between Mishakal and her followers -- their behavior is not governed by any defined game rules.

 

[Curmudjinn]

I wish Wotc had all of their informative articles easily-accessed and available to download in PDF form. It's hard to find some articles, even with the proper filters. I want to print out all of them (Sage, Unearthed, Legends, etc), but it's a real task just finding them all.

 

[Lost Soul]

Dwarf druids wearing plate should not be standard. Otherwise, what's the point of the uniqueness of dwarf mountain druids? I prefer each type of druid have its own flavor. The idea that all druids or paladin orders or religions are all the same is boring. That's why I liked 2E specialty priests that took the time to flesh out each type of cleric. I wish they would do that again for each type of druid, cleric, paladin, and just about every class. The more specific and flavorful you can make something, the better. To me not wearing metal armor for all druids is boring and unoriginal. Makes them all seem the same and all druids should not be the same. A dwarf druid raised in a culture that is heavily invested in stone and metal work and resides in mountains should be different from an elven druid raised in forests or a human druid raised near the sea as far as their taboos and the specifics of their religious rites.

I disagree. Adherents of a faith would be the same regardless of where they are located. A Catholic or a Buddhist will still observe tenants of their faith if they are true to them regardless of the location they are at. The neat thing is in D&D unfaithful priests are actually punished because they lose divine power unlike in the real world where unfaithful priests can still command respect & power until they are exposed. The control over priests in a fantasy world is much more potent because the divine source can block you from receiving divinity if it becomes angered by you.

 

[Celtavian]

I disagree. Adherents of a faith would be the same regardless of where they are located. A Catholic or a Buddhist will still observe tenants of their faith if they are true to them regardless of the location they are at. The neat thing is in D&D unfaithful priests are actually punished because they lose divine power unlike in the real world where unfaithful priests can still command respect & power until they are exposed. The control over priests in a fantasy world is much more potent because the divine source can block you from receiving divinity if it becomes angered by you.

This is not true. The Catholic Church has broken apart into many different denominations worshiping in different fashions. You can find differences from one country to the next as far as how Catholicism is practiced. Unified worship is very uncommon. I find it unrealistic to have it so in D&D. It makes the world less believable when dwarven druids worship nature in the same fashion as elven druids. Dwarves love stone and metal. Why would not they want to honor such parts of nature by using them? I don't agree that druids are all part of one similar religion. They all worship nature, but not in the same fashion. I prefer to flavor my druidism according to the culture that follows it.

I picture dwarven mountain druids as carefully scrutinizing mining and stonework. I believe they would teach proper metalwork and preservation of mineral resources. I see no reason why they would eschew metal armor rather than teach how to craft metal armor in a very efficient manner.

Using real world adherents to a faith is a box of worms you don't want to open because adherents of a particular faith don't worship the same way. Likely never have and never will. Culture and location always influence worship and religion.