A druids oath

[Tiefling]

Druids are not hunters. If they want to hunt, they use their spears for melee or ranged attack.

If anything, they despised hunters, because more often than not, they take more out of the ecosystem than necessary. They perceived bow as a symbolic tool of the hunter.

Shouldn't that be a personal choice of the character?

 

[Ranger REG]

Or they use their slings with the lead bullets, or they use their spells, or they use their wildshaped forms, or they use their carnivorous animal companions. Most druids in campaigns i've played in aren't vegetarians, and they're not real big on the livestock thang: they like their meat bloody.

I think the more typical druid would simply use stones for their sling ammunition, as one can find an abundance where he lives and take care of.

Certainly it's an intriguing idea that druids despise hunters, but I don't think that gibes with the core books. Druids are often the divine casters for hunter/gatherer societies; as such, they should not be despising hunters or gatherers.

Then the druid is simply one-half of that society, that of the gatherer. If he is such a hunter, then he'll use his spear to take down large boar, which is the more preferred weapon than a bow for such a large game. Otherwise, he'll simply use his spells to call forth the small games, ask the animals that it become a sustenance, and kill the animal with his dagger or sickle.

It is not humane, but it is Nature.

 

[Ranger REG]

Shouldn't that be a personal choice of the character?

True, as it would be a personal choice of the DM to decide if he wants the druid class to have more weapon proficiencies.

I simply wish to offer a plausible explanation as to why druid would not employ bow & arrows. I try not to put such stock into understanding the logic of druid and their practices.

 

[Michael Tree]

True, as it would be a personal choice of the DM to decide if he wants the druid class to have more weapon proficiencies.

I simply wish to offer a plausible explanation as to why druid would not employ bow & arrows. I try not to put such stock into understanding the logic of druid and their practices.

So basically you're trying to make a plausible in-character justification of the rule, rather than suggesting that it's a good rule that makes sense?

Tell me, if 3e clerics could only use blunt weapons (another 2e throwback), would you argue as ardently for that rule?

 

[Pielorinho]

I think the more typical druid would simply use stones for their sling ammunition, as one can find an abundance where he lives and take care of.

True -- in which case, they ought to take a minor penalty for using suboptimal ammunition in their sling. This corresponds with my suggestion of prohibiting druids from using metal weaponry.

Then the druid is simply one-half of that society, that of the gatherer. If he is such a hunter, then he'll use his spear to take down large boar, which is the more preferred weapon than a bow for such a large game. Otherwise, he'll simply use his spells to call forth the small games, ask the animals that it become a sustenance, and kill the animal with his dagger or sickle.

I can't say for 100% certain, but I suspect there are very, very few societies which hunted primarily with a spear after inventing the bow. I suspect that most hunter-gatherer societies hunted deer, birds, rabbits, squirrels, and so forth a lot more often than they hunted boar -- and since deer, rabbits, squirrels, birds, and so forth tend to run away from you (and be faster than you), unlike the aggressive boar, they used the bow to hunt them.j Ranged weapons are far, far more effective for hunters than melee weapons.

A druid in such a society is unlikely to despise the hunter and is unlikely to despise the bow as a symbol of the hunter.

Daniel

 

[Ranger REG]

So basically you're trying to make a plausible in-character justification of the rule, rather than suggesting that it's a good rule that makes sense?

Tell me, if 3e clerics could only use blunt weapons (another 2e throwback), would you argue as ardently for that rule?

Probably not. But druids already have a great arsenal of melee and ranged weapons at their disposal, moreso than a cleric of both 2e and 3e versions.

Unless you find his other class features lacking and underpowered.

 

[Pielorinho]

Probably not. But druids already have a great arsenal of melee and ranged weapons at their disposal, moreso than a cleric of both 2e and 3e versions.

Unless you find his other class features lacking and underpowered.

It's not a question of power -- I agree that the druid has a fine selection of weapons. It's a question of plausibility. Even the excellent attempt at an oath in the OP can't get around the many inconsistencies in the druidic weapon choices.

Thus my suggestion of only allowing the use of nonmetal weapons. It's perfectly consistent, perfectly sensible. I believe it actually weakens the druid, inasmuch as you'll find few magical spears, scimitars, and daggers that a druid can use. But it makes much more sense.

Daniel

 

[Steverooo]

It's not a question of power -- I agree that the druid has a fine selection of weapons. It's a question of plausibility. Even the excellent attempt at an oath in the OP can't get around the many inconsistencies in the druidic weapon choices.

Thus my suggestion of only allowing the use of nonmetal weapons. It's perfectly consistent, perfectly sensible. I believe it actually weakens the druid, inasmuch as you'll find few magical spears, scimitars, and daggers that a druid can use. But it makes much more sense.

Actually, it IS a question of power. Druids have TWO good saves, many spells (including quite a bit of healing), and a small host of special abilities... While "no metal weapons" may look good, at first, there is one obvious, very serious problem with it!

Ironwood!

Once this spell is gained, all weapons become open to the Druid, as wooden Longswords/Maces/Whatever are then usable by them. So which weapon proficiencies do you give them? Simple (and take away their scimitars)?

Yes, the flavor text needs work. Yes, the restrictions need explanations. Yes, the weapons list needs some updating; but still, restricting the Druid to non-metallic weapons is a bit TOO much, at lower levels, and no restriction above level 11. This also makes magical weapons for Druids basically a GM-only area (which I see as a bad thing).

So go ahead and add the greatclub, morningstar, net, scythe, etc. to their weapons list, in your game, if you think they fit. (Personally, I can't see adding the bow, as I, personally, see no aspect of nature which it reflects, save (perhaps) the shooting rays of the sun). The flail and trident I am iffy about (do Druids use all agriculturally-based weapons? If so, polearms based on pruninghooks, etc., must also be added! Another name for the Trident, however, is the "Tiger Spear"). The thrown rock (and sling, and staff-sling) I would allow.

So, in short, I favor the weapon restrictions, but with more explanation in the flavor-text, and some revamping in the next version.

Remember: If you really want to use a bow, you can: you just give up your Druidical powers for the next 24 hours. Might as well grab some chainmail and a two-hander, while you're at it. Calatane did...

 

[Pielorinho]

Actually, it IS a question of power. Druids have TWO good saves, many spells (including quite a bit of healing), and a small host of special abilities... While "no metal weapons" may look good, at first, there is one obvious, very serious problem with it!

Ironwood!

Once this spell is gained, all weapons become open to the Druid, as wooden Longswords/Maces/Whatever are then usable by them. So which weapon proficiencies do you give them? Simple (and take away their scimitars)?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'd probably give druids proficiency in all simple weapons, and prohibit them from using any metal weapons. That way, a druid/fighter could use a greatclub; a regular druid would have to take a feat to use a greatclub. An elven druid could use a longbow, as long as the arrows were tipped with flint or bone. And no, a fifteenth-level druid wouldn't automatically be able to use an ironwood greatsword; they'd have to gain proficiency in it first.

Yes, this limits low-level druids somewhat. However, I believe there are rules somewhere for making weapons out of substandard materials, and I'd encourage the use of these rules.

If this were too restrictive, I'd allow the druid proficiency in all the weapons they're currently proficient in, but impose the no-metal restriction. This means that a druid couldn't use most scimitars, couldn't use the longspear made by a blacksmith, and so on. However, a druid would (don't ask how) know how to use the first obsidian longsword she came across.

On the one hand, this does restrict a druid from using most found magical weapons, a significant restriction. On the other hand, there will be druids out there who create items out of other materials: frostblade scimitars carved from glacial ice, longspears tipped with obsidian from the bloodthirsty volcanic peaks of Pelanji, greatclubs hewn from the heartwood of a fallen treant warrior. I'd rule that a magical item ignores any penalties for being made from "substandard" materials: the materials they're made from are automatically superior.

Finally, as the player of a 9th-level druid played from first level, I can count the number of times I used a melee weapon on one hand. Once a druid gains the ability to wildshape, she is almost always better at fighting as an animal than she is at fighting as a humanoid. At higher levels, this restriction against using metal weapons becomes almost irrelevant: a brown bear's claws outclass a scimitar any day.

Daniel

 

[Staffan]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'd probably give druids proficiency in all simple weapons, and prohibit them from using any metal weapons. That way, a druid/fighter could use a greatclub; a regular druid would have to take a feat to use a greatclub.

Speaking of which, why is the greatclub a martial weapon in the first place? Balance-wise, it works much better as a simple weapon - bigger club/mace -> bigger damage but two-handed. Heck, it's worse than a Large mace would be (1d10 instead of 2d6).