Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 358403" data-attributes="member: 259">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</blockquote>

Verification