A druids oath

[Ranger REG]

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.

I thought it is already stated in the rules. Besides, druids tend to have spells that empowers the stone to inflict greater damage. The sling as a projectile weapon allow greater for it.

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.

In that case, their circle may include rangers to handle the threats to their natural preserve.

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

I learned long ago, never to mix (or even to attempt to apply) logic and faith (regardless of religion, including druidic) together.

 

[Sejs]

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.

Gonna disagree with you, but mainly just because of different personal viewpoint. I personally have always seen druids as a class as bigtime hunters.. or more accuratly predators. That if a druid were to say to himself ... hmm, I'm hungry. I want some meat..., that he would much rather hunt down and kill his own meal, than buy some beef that was raised on a ranch, or chickens that were brought up in a coop just so they could produce eggs or be eatten.

Animals eat other animals. It's nature; always has been always will be. And a big part of the druidic faith is that you're not above and beyond nature. You're very much a part of it. So go ahead - run down and nosh on that rabbit. Just don't feel terribly put out when some dire panther thinks that you'd be a tasty snack yourself.

^_^

 

[Daedrova]

I learned long ago, never to mix (or even to attempt to apply) logic and faith (regardless of religion, including druidic) together.

fides quaerens intellectum "Faith seeking understanding"; credo ut intelligam: "I believe in order that I may understand." Many philosophers and I would disagree with your statement Ranger REG. Faith does begin where logic must end. Some things can not be known, and for that, faith exists. We all have faith, wheather regarding religion or not. (Do you believe you have the ability to reason?- you must believe it, therefore you have faith) Logic will tell us if it can be true. A belief, faith, or system that does not follow reason/is self-contradictory can not be true (violation of the law of non-contradiction identifies any such "thing" or idea as not true), and belieif in such a thing is faith misplaced. There are many things that Can be true (logically), but can not be known in certainty to be true, and so we place faith in them. (I would recomend reading of Aquinas or Pascal, or more recently Kreeft or Tacelli for more on this.)
For a druids belief system, the weapon restrictions as presented do seem a bit inconsistant, but could be explained, with reason (as was done at the start of this thread [by the way, good job Ferret, but as we see, there are still a few things there that would need altered or better explained]) as to why they existed in such a manner.
And I must agree that we need to see some revision to the Druid weapon restiriction list and some more logically consistant explinations as to why those restrictions exist as they do.

fides quaerens intellectum; credo ut intelligam
-Daedrova

 

[Pielorinho]

I learned long ago, never to mix (or even to attempt to apply) logic and faith (regardless of religion, including druidic) together.

Me, I learned long ago that games systems with at least a passing familiarity with logic are a lot easier to swallow .

Daniel

 

[Zhure]

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.

Daniel

From the SRD:
"A character can hurl ordinary stones with a sling, but stones are not as dense or as round as bullets, so they deal only 1d3 points of damage and suffer a -1 penalty on attack rolls."

As a complete aside, a sling makes a wonderful weapon for hunting small game. A lost stone doesn't take hours of trained labor to replace like a lost arrow does.

Greg

 

[krunchyfrogg]

Kewl oath. I like it.

BTW, you've got to add "Greatclub" along with the Falchion entry. Oh yeah, and change "see" to "sea."

 

[Sanackranib]

You'd think this would be so, but the javelin isn't a druid weapon.

And I just looked at the description of sling bullets: according to the PhB, they're "lead spheres." Not, IMO, more natural than arrows .

Daniel

You always had the option of sling stones as well. I never understood why sling bullets couldn't be re used? its just a hunk of lead.

 

[Pielorinho]

From the SRD:
"A character can hurl ordinary stones with a sling, but stones are not as dense or as round as bullets, so they deal only 1d3 points of damage and suffer a -1 penalty on attack rolls." [/B]

(emphasis added)

True -- but note that the druid's oath doesn't prevent him from using sling bullets, and that most players won't even know that this is an option: most players will just look at the sling's stats in the weapon chart and use those. Pointing out that this is an option in no way makes the druid's restrictions as written more reasonable. As it is, the druid is allowed to use polished lead spheres as weapons, but not stone-tipped arrows.

Daniel

 

[paulewaug]

Now you Could argue that a bow is just technically a way of throwing the equivalent to smaller spears further and harder?

The same style of material construction is used, if not the same construction process itself...

Also you Could argue that a Druid is not proficient in the use of a bow because of the (real life ) problem of how long it can take to train a competent archer.
Although in a Native American style culture the process of making a bow and arrows with all natural materials and their style of use in hunting and warfare could still be as drudic as fighting with a spear or scimitar.

ooohhh...or how about that war club from "The Last of the Mohican's" movie?! Cool Druid weapon!?


What about a Shield Bash with a wooden shield? Technically it is a Martial weapon, but so are some of the Druid's other weapons...
and then take it further...What about Spiking the Shield?