D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Druid: No weapon restrictions?

[sinmissing]

WoTC just posted the revision of the druid here:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rs/20030610a

Under weapons and armor proficiencies, there is no mention that using weapons besides those initially gained as a druid results in losing access to spell-casting for 24 hours.

I wonder if druids can now use other weapons if they get them as proficiencies?

 

[Caliban]

Thats what it looks like.

 

[sinmissing]

that seems to be the same consensus found here on Andy Collins' message board:

http://pub36.ezboard.com/fgameschat19968frm10.showMessage?topicID=369.topic

I like that change.

 

[Darklone]

Greatswordwielding druids. Kewl.

 

[Apok]

Very good change, though the fact that Druids can use metal weapons but not metal armor doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I guess they needed to have some kind of restriction and that was what they went with.

 

[ForceUser]

Very good change, though the fact that Druids can use metal weapons but not metal armor doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I'm not displeased with the change, but I agree, it makes no sense whatsoever. All they are doing is satisfying a small but vocal portion of the playerbase that wanted druids with greatswords. That's fine I guess, but at some point you have to stop bestowing mechanical enhancements at the expense of class integrity.

To wit, even though I play a druid, I find this particular change absurd. If you want to play a fighter/druid, use a scimitar. Barbarian/druid? Try a longspear. Both fine weapons, both on the druid list, and both highly underrated.

 

[Li Shenron]

Very good change, though the fact that Druids can use metal weapons but not metal armor doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I guess they needed to have some kind of restriction and that was what they went with.

Yes, I was not expecting them to be willing to remove the druidic oaths completely, but they had to come up with something that was simple, clear to adjudicate in case of equipment from accessory books, and backwards-compatible.

The restriction on armors was already clear enough: no metal, point. The same restriction on weapons would have posed some difficulties (no backwards-comp. and possible discussions on some ambiguous weapons). I think this was the only way to get out of the problems without introducing new ones or without hard-dropping all the oaths.

BTW, it doesn't make the Druid much more powerful. It just puts him in the same position of any other class, who can learn a new weapon by spending a feat. I suppose nobody had problems before with Greataxe wielding Wizard, and it costed 1 feat only as well.

 

[Caliban]

I don't believe it was the "Greatsword wielding druid" faction that they listened to, but rather the "Elven Bow wielding druid" faction.

The druids had crappy ranged weapons, now Elven Druids can use bows for free.

 

[Ranger REG]

OR a druid/ranger for that matter. It's a multiclassing dilemma for the druid class, which does not have the same restriction as Ex-Paladin and Ex-Monk, but trying to get around his druidic oath.

 

[Li Shenron]

The druids had crappy ranged weapons, now Elven Druids can use bows for free.

That was the most painful limitation of the class, IME. And at the same time it happens to me with at least 4 players at different times coming out surpried "What? Your Elven Druid can't use bows? Aren't bows the most wilderness weapons?".