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="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 7624777" data-attributes="member: 53980">The dryad wouldn't know just by walking into the bar, but she would sense the druid's connection to the primal if they interacted. She wouldn't consider him trustworthy because it would be like seeing a priest wearing the vestments of a good deity, but wearing the holy symbol of Asmodeus around his neck. It screams something isn't right.If the druid knew in advance of his interaction he could indeed remove the armor and suffer no consequences. However, unless this druid is impossibly careful, word will get around eventually. And if the druid has a reputation in the natural circles for being a heretic, taking off his armor isn't necessarily going to help him. But sure, if he somehow is so careful that he never gets found out, there will never be any consequences of wearing metal armor. Although, having to go through the precautions of never getting caught is effectively a consequence in itself.Hunting down a creature for it's hide is only as undruidic as you make it. Sure, if you have the druid whack some poor rhino who was just minding his own business eating grass, that's not a very druidic act. On the other hand, if you have the druid hunt down the bulette that's been single handedly depopulating large swaths of the wilderness because it's an insatiable and unnatural creature, that is (IMO) proper druid behavior. If you have the druid hunt down a dragon whose poison has been seeping into and twisting the forest around it, again an appropriate act. There are plenty of monsters in D&D with thick hides that can act contrary to a druid's interests.</blockquote>

Verification