Druids and Wood Weapons

[Pielorinho]

Spiritual oaths for a divine character are silly? Neato.

Boy howdy, I love being misquoted!

Someone posted a challenge here about a year and a half ago: come up with a plausible oath a druid would take that would result in the current weapon list. For example:

"I swear by the Great Oak to forsake the axe, for it wounds His flesh. And I swear by the dappled fawn to forsake the bow, for it wounds Her flesh. And I swear by the forest sprite to forsake the sword, unless it's a curvy little sword, for it wounds His flesh. And I swear by the ogre to forsake the club, unless it's a little bitty club, because the ogre likes to use the big honking clubs. But I do not swear by Father Boar to forsake the spear, though it wounds His flesh, because Father Boar is an ornery bastard who can handle Himself quite well, thank you. And I do not swear by the Raven to forsake the sling, though it knocks Her from the sky, because sometimes Ravens steal things from druids, which is quite inconvenient. And I swear that I'll use a dagger if I feel like it, because c'mon, it's just a dagger (and this is a good point to swear that using a sickle is okay, since it's more like a farming implement than a weapon, and farming is sometimes okay, but now I should mention that a scythe isn't okay to use for some reason, nor is a kama, and even though it's silly I swear not to use them). And I swear that I'll use a quarterstaff if I feel like it too, because what, is my God going to stop me from picking up a stick? What's next, is he going to stop me from chucking a rock at someone? er-- I mean -- and I swear by the Ground Beneath My Feet not to pick up a rock and chuck it at someone, because to do so insults said GBMF. Plus I swear not to use any other weapons, because if I do, Nature is going to stop me from raining fire down on my enemies and stuff."

If you can turn the druid weapon list into a more plausible and consistent oath, I'd love to see it.

Daniel

P.S. Just to be clear, an oath which says, "I swear that I shall not use metal which has tasted the fire of the forge" is perfectly consistent, and I'd be cool with it. It makes using currency difficult, but them's the breaks.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

KaeYoss, while I agree with most of your solutions, I was just mocking the rules as they're strictly written. As strictly written, the rules are just silly.

Hm.. afaik the Ironwood stuff has been clarified so that it only works for armor.

I say that the druid can use the weapons that are listed in the class descriptions, and the favored weapon of his deity, and that's it.
And they use them the size they appear in the PHB with, unless they're nonstandard size themselves: if they're tiny or smaller, they can use weapons that are one size cathegory smaller for every sc that they themselves are smaller than small. Same with bigger weapons an bigger druids. So an ogre druid would be able to use a large scimitar.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Someone posted a challenge here about a year and a half ago: come up with a plausible oath a druid would take that would result in the current weapon list.

Sure, but I warn you, you'll just go and define "plausible" to suit your needs. Here's my oath:

"I vow to use only the following list of weapons, for all other weapons are unclean..."

There. Plausible in my book.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

plausible schmosible, they dropped a similar restriction from clerics for a good reason.

I bet the reason the druid restrictions are there is because they simply forgot to remove them And then when asked about it, said,"uhm for flavor reasons, yeah that's it for that essential druid flavor."

Silly restrictions like this don't add flavor, they just force the flavor into a little genre specific box.

 

[Tetsubo]

Sure, but I warn you, you'll just go and define "plausible" to suit your needs. Here's my oath:

"I vow to use only the following list of weapons, for all other weapons are unclean..."

There. Plausible in my book.

I find this too generic however. Many Druids don't have specific gods that they worship. They worship the fabric of Nature itself. Which is fine. But why would Nature in each campaign be the same? Or even from region to region within the same campaign world. A list of weapons tailored to a Druids specific faith and natural region makes more sense to me. I can't find an unbalancing aspect to allowing a Druid to use and weapon made from natural materials. Which explains my Rule Zero.

Sometimes game mechanics and rules balancing get in the way of enjoyable and logical gaming.

 

[Saeviomagy]

CRGreathouse
1. Any sort of written evidence? How does one gain these proficiencies in that case? Are they weapon proficiencies of the same type as the base weapon? Anyway, it doesn't matter, since the druid could still take the relevant proficiency, and the oath would allow their use.

2. No books with me here - prithee, what would the correct damages be? 1d10 for the lot? In which case the 'no greatclub' restriction really does make no sense...

KaeYoss
No. It's not in the errata or clarifications or faq. It one of those "some guy said..." clarifications. And we all know how reliable those are.

 

[Cedric]

There's obviously precendence in the rules for some deity's allowing this...so how far of a rule 0 stretch is it?

I love this forum, but you guys get really too hung up on the rules sometimes.

And as for the Ironwood Bow not working...it's magic.

Cedric

 

[Pielorinho]

Sure, but I warn you, you'll just go and define "plausible" to suit your needs. Here's my oath:

"I vow to use only the following list of weapons, for all other weapons are unclean..."

There. Plausible in my book.

Your book is very different from my book .

Wouldja explain to me why a nature religion would find a scimitar to be a "clean" weapon but find a greatclub to be an "unclean" weapon? Why a rock thrown by sling is clean, but a rock thrown by hand is unclean?

*That's* what a plausible oath would have to explain to be plausible in my book.

Daniel

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Boy howdy, I love being misquoted!

If you can turn the druid weapon list into a more plausible and consistent oath, I'd love to see it.
.
.
.
Wouldja explain to me why a nature religion would find a scimitar to be a "clean" weapon but find a greatclub to be an "unclean" weapon? Why a rock thrown by sling is clean, but a rock thrown by hand is unclean?

*That's* what a plausible oath would have to explain to be plausible in my book.


Daniel

Three things:

1) My original post was a joke. Sorry if you didn't find it funny.


2) I think we are using the word "plausible" in different ways.

Example: I find it plausable that a druid could use a scimitar but not a greatclub in the same way that I find it plausable that Catholics eat fish on Fridays or that they revere a statue of a guy on a stick.

It may not be very rational, but that is what dogma is all about, isn't it? Your earlier attempt at an explanation was a silly attempt to justify the oath, and therefore make the rules seem stupid.

That doesn't work in my book, because you could just as easily say that Christians are silly for believing the Son of God was some dumb schmuck who randomly happened to get stuck to a tree, and therefore debunk Christian dogma as being unplausable.

Just to make things clear: I am interpreting your use of the word "plausable" to be equivalent to the word "rational", and this is not always the case. Oftentimes irrational things are just as equally plausable.

(And those irrational, yet plausable, beliefs are oftentimes difficult to explain to those outside of the culture, just as you are outside the culture of DnD druids. Unless you were raised on magic berries and regularly happen to summon wild badgers to do your bidding...)


3) If you have a problem with the specific weapons selections for the druid in DnD, that does not mean that it is a problem for everyone who plays DnD. Trying to convince us that the druid flavor is lame is like trying to convince us that chocolate ice cream is far superior to vanilla. Hence rule zero for your game.

I happen to like the silly flavor that the druid has. Of course, even I tweak it a bit to fit the dogma in my world. But since the PHB is not a world, but a rulebook, the authors had to make the druid (and all of the classes and races) as generic as possible without being bland and lifeless.

Every setting has the option of rule zeroing this issue, and most of them already do. This is not a weakness in the system, but a strength. So rule zero to your heart's content.

Cedric---

I love this forum, but you guys get really too hung up on the rules sometimes.

Unorganized debate is the best way to keep your brain alive. Of course, we could instead watch TV and let somebody else do our thinking for us. It's far safer that way, with less tar and pitchforks and all that...

 

[Pielorinho]

Concrete Buddha, sorry for my overreaction before -- can you chalk it up to text not conveying body language? I meant my response to be humorous, but it came across as snarky. Sorry.

That said, I'm well aware that DMS can rule 0 anything in the game. I don't really consider that to be a strength of the game, however, since players of any game can change rules they don't like. D&D is not special in that regard.

Now, I do think the druid weapon rules are silly. Prior to reading the Oath Challenge a year and a half ago, I hadn't thought about them much; the Oath Challenge got me thinking about them, though, and the more I thought, the sillier they got. I posted the Oath Challenge, as well as my other thoughts on druidic weapon rules, because I thought other folks might find it interesting or useful to them. If it's not useful to you, please feel free to ignore it. My feelings won't be hurt.

You compare it to Catholics who eat fish on Fridays, who believe that God was (your words) "some dumb schmuck who randomly happened to get stuck to a tree." Again, not buying it. All religions have powerful stories, powerful symbols at their centers. Fish on Fridays is bound up in the Catholic metaphor in a way that I used to understand. It seems a little weird on the outside, but not terribly weird.

The precise point of the Oath Challenge is to see if someone can link these weapon rules to a powerful story or symbol. If someone can do it, not only will I be mightily impressed, not only will I cheerfully concede the argument to them, but I'll also probably use their story/symbol in my campaign.

I try to make sure things in my game have consistency and plausibility. Of all the core rules, I find the druidic weapon rules hardest to reconcile with that aim.

Daniel