NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6493914" data-attributes="member: 1465">But doesn't this sound out of place, when it's practically the only instance of such roleplay restriction in the game?It is at the same time minor from the roleplay point of view, and annoying in some circumstances. It's minor because it doesn't represent a strong ethos like "you must not ally with evil people" (Paladin), not wearing wooden armor sounds more like a petty restriction like don't eat this, don't drink that. It's annoying because it does have in-game consequences such being unable to use some common or magic items. And yet on the long term, it's easy to trick yourself out of the annoyance, by figuring out some alternative materials as you suggest... so then it's pointless. I don't want a trick out of a bad rule, I want a good rule in the first place.You summarized it 1000 times better than I could, thank you! I do believe it was just a goof, after 2 years of asking playtesters if they liked various characters restrictions or not, and never ever having this one show up in the playtest, some lousy editor just suddenly remembered there was something like this before and slipped it into the final book. But now if you ask WotC designers they will back it up as it was intended, just because it's much easier than admitting it was a mistake.And that's another reason why it sucks!We have many Circles of the Land, and a Circle of the Moon, but they are all equal from the roleplay/ethical/flavor point of view? Why does the Druid need to be such a homogeneous class, while the Paladins have multiple (very different!) versions of their ethos (and this is independent from their choice of Deity)? Legacy is a feeble explanation, when similar legacies were dropped from all other classes. The Warlock might have been originally just a Witch, but it's quickly growing into an archetype with plenty of room for variants, why should the Druid remain a narrow concept? Why can't there be many druidic religions or ethos or at least variants? There are already different possible existing focuses or themes: any specific land you can think about, wildshape, beastmasters, plants & vegetation, weather, the elements, cycle of life... There's plenty of room here for each one to have its own different ethical restrictions other than "just don't use metal armor and you're fine".Not to pimp our own homebrew, but in the course of our 3e years we had a few different Druids PCs, one player wanted a stereotypical treehugger, another was primarily intrigued by the idea of a religion that predated all others, and the third had an evil Druid but just couldn't stand the idea of "Anti-Druid" (he wanted a Druid that hated civilization, not nature!). So we made up the Druids of the Moss ("want to get one with nature"), the Druids of the Standing Stones ("scholars and preserver of ancient knowledge") and the Druids of the Crescent ("kidnaps and sacrifices to please the wild forces of nature"). Each got their own do's and don'ts, but IIRC no armor restrictions made any sense to any of them.</blockquote>

Verification