Bow-wielding Druids

[sdt]

My wife is complaining that her new druid PC won't be proficient with the bow without blowing a feat on it, and since I can't really see why the bow should be prohibited to druids based on concept alone, I will probably house-rule the druid class to include proficiency with bows.

You're kidding, right? Give your wife whatever she wants; it's not like it costs you anything. Stand up to her on the important things like a big screen TV or a new boat.

 

[Jack Simth]

It's probably more of a balance issue. Though I think Scimitars are there more as homage to 1st Ed than anything else.

Or so they are proficient with the Flame Blade they can cast.

 

[werk]

DUH! Her character is an Elf - wild elf I think. And I say again, DUH! I can't believe I missed that. Thank you, Shayuri. I'm going to go double check that Wild Elves get the same bonus proficiencies that High Elves do, and then I can take some more time to mull over the bow-wielding druid question.

DUH! I feel silly. I've obviously spent too much time on silly things like romantic era poetry, literature of the child, child psychology, secondary school pedagogy, and original linguistic research...

and not enough time on D&D. Thank you, ENWorld, for reminding me of my priorities.

DUH...

 

[UltimaGabe]

My presumption is that the druid concept only includes "primitive" weapons. I understand that the sling is more primitive than the sling, but I would also argue that the bow (non-composite) is more pirmative than the scimitar.

I don't think that the Druid's weapons are supposed to be "primitive" weapons- I think they're supposed to be "natural" weapons. Meaning, it's much easier to imagine a creature's claw as being a sickle or a scimitar, whereas no animal uses any sort of natural weapon that resembles a bow.

 

[diaglo]

...whereas no animal uses any sort of natural weapon that resembles a bow.

i don't know about that. i think the Homo sapiens is rather prof in the bow.

 

[RigaMortus2]

The reason they have Scimitar in there is because the blade of the Scimitar is curved and resembles the crescent moon...

Also, just because you are proficient w/ a weapon doesn't mean the Druid is "allowed" to use it. A Human can be Lawful Evil, but a Human Paladin can not. It is a call restriction, like the Druid.

 

[Raflar]

With all the new weapons coming out in books other than the Player's Handbook (Complete Series and 3rd party supplements) We house-ruled that Druids can use any weapons than can be made naturally (pseudo-primitive), plus anything that resembles the curve of the cresent moon.

So our Druids can use the short & long bow, but not crossbows. It also allows newer exotic weapons to be used (but not proficiency with them). Never seen any balance issues, and it still keeps the flavour to them...

 

[rowport]

I cannot remember the details off-hand, but Unearthed Arcana had alternate rules for weapon proficiency that allowed you to better select what your character could use but still keep game balance.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Also, just because you are proficient w/ a weapon doesn't mean the Druid is "allowed" to use it.

Yes, he is. In 3.5, the spiritual oaths only relate to armor, not weapons.

-Hyp.

 

[Bront]

I don't think that the Druid's weapons are supposed to be "primitive" weapons- I think they're supposed to be "natural" weapons. Meaning, it's much easier to imagine a creature's claw as being a sickle or a scimitar, whereas no animal uses any sort of natural weapon that resembles a bow.

I see a lot of sling wielding rabits running around my yard though

That's not the reason for the limit. Honestly, their limit is more game balance than anything else. But they can learn to use anything, just like almost any other class.