Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 02-28-07, 03:03 AM	Let's suppose you wanted to keep a druid from using any supernatural abilities: could you make a cheaper, less effective version of a chain shirt and force the druid to wear it? What would it be like? Obviously, traits desirable for real armor like a low ACP, high maximum dexterity, good armor bonus, masterwork quality, etc, are unnecessary (you can make it out of pig iron for all anyone cares), but it might be necessary for it to have a +1 AC bonus just so that it counts as armor. Maybe it would be light armor that costs 15 gp, has a +1 bonus to AC, and has -1 ACP? Thoughts?
Sakaki22 02-28-07, 03:08 AM	Why would you want to keep a Druid from using their powers?
runestar 02-28-07, 03:18 AM	By the RAW, a literal reading would mean that if you could somehow force an enemy druid to wear metal armour, he would lose all his special abilities....:P
JulesCARV 02-28-07, 04:09 AM	Why would you want to keep a Druid from using their powers? I suppose the most probable scenario is that you've taken a druid as a prisoner.
lrellok 02-28-07, 04:14 AM	yes, its called scale mail. It has twice the check penalty, costs half as much, and slows the wearer to 20 ft per round. Just out of curiosity, why are you trying to hamstring a player?
JulesCARV 02-28-07, 04:23 AM	What makes you think the druid is a player? To clarify, there actually is no real druid. I'm just thinking that forces which combat druids and regularly deal with druid prisoners might develop special devices to help contain them, such as ineffectual metal armor.
Yokomohoyo 02-28-07, 04:39 AM	Get them a scale mail and lock the gauntlets in his back. Or tie a buckler to his chest hehehehehehehe. Buckler This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. Since the druid limitations dont state that the armor/shield has to occupy the correct slot, it just says that it has to be worn. So you can tie him up and handcuff him/her with manicals then put a buckler around their chest and guess what? Bye bye spell casting. ^_^
runestar 02-28-07, 06:27 AM	Is there some sort of "wood to metal" spell? Just cast it on their armour and turn it to stone...:D
FrostWolf 02-28-07, 09:02 AM	A harness, covered in metal strips and chains.
Vegepygmy 02-28-07, 12:18 PM	Let's suppose you wanted to keep a druid from using any supernatural abilities: could you make a cheaper, less effective version of a chain shirt and force the druid to wear it?You could do so, but IMO it would have no effect on the druid's abilities. The druid class description makes it clear that the prohibition against metal armor is based on "traditional oaths," and that the suppression of druidic powers is a result of violating those oaths. A druid who is forced to wear metal armor against his will has not violated any oath. Thus, he should not suffer the consequences of violating an oath.
runestar 02-28-07, 12:26 PM	A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter. Not if you go by a literal reading of the SRD...:D
Vegepygmy 02-28-07, 12:30 PM	I don't go by a literal reading of the SRD. I go by a literal reading of the PHB.
MerlintheTuna 02-28-07, 04:24 PM	I don't go by a literal reading of the SRD. I go by a literal reading of the PHB.No, you apparently don't, given that they're exactly the same text.
DarkRhystar 02-28-07, 04:44 PM	You could do so, but IMO it would have no effect on the druid's abilities. The druid class description makes it clear that the prohibition against metal armor is based on "traditional oaths," and that the suppression of druidic powers is a result of violating those oaths. A druid who is forced to wear metal armor against his will has not violated any oath. Thus, he should not suffer the consequences of violating an oath. I very much agree with this.
Vegepygmy 02-28-07, 06:09 PM	No, you apparently don't, given that they're exactly the same text.If they are exactly the same text, then the SRD must contain the same information about "traditional oaths." In which case, I am going by a literal reading of the SRD, and Runestar is apparently taking a particular SRD quote out of context. Is that the case?
Willie the Duck 02-28-07, 07:14 PM	Neither the SRD nor the PHB sufficiently define the term "wear", so they are ambiguous. To many (Vegepygmy and DarkRhystar for instance), a druid who is forced into a metal garment isn't "wearing" it, anymore than s/he would "wear" a metal cage in which they were imprisoned. Does "wear" mean 'have occupy the armor slot on your body' or "choose to put on this peice of armor for the purpose of taking on its protective poperties. The SRD does not take on such moral concerns such as autonomy of action or what the technical cause of the termination of spellcasting abilities. The PHB lists the druid's oath as the reasoning behind the situation. So I would interpret it thus: if the druid were rendered unconcious, and woke up in a suit of scale mail, they did not violate their oath, and could turn into a sparrow to escape their metal prison. If they were instead faced with twenty guards with crossbows and told, "you are now out prisoner. put on this scale mail and then we will put you in manacles." It would be a murkier situation, depending on whether whomever arbitrated the oath (some nature deity perhaps) is a deontologist or a utilitarian.
Vegepygmy 02-28-07, 07:33 PM	Neither the SRD nor the PHB sufficiently define the term "wear", so they are ambiguous. To many (Vegepygmy and DarkRhystar for instance), a druid who is forced into a metal garment isn't "wearing" it, anymore than s/he would "wear" a metal cage in which they were imprisoned.That's not my argument at all. A druid forced into a metal garment is certainly "wearing" it, IMO. But he hasn't violated his oath, because that can only be done willfully. So I would interpret it thus: if the druid were rendered unconcious, and woke up in a suit of scale mail, they did not violate their oath, and could turn into a sparrow to escape their metal prison. If they were instead faced with twenty guards with crossbows and told, "you are now out prisoner. put on this scale mail and then we will put you in manacles." It would be a murkier situation, depending on whether whomever arbitrated the oath (some nature deity perhaps) is a deontologist or a utilitarian.I disagree. Putting on scale mail to avoid some undesirable consequence is a willful violation of the druid's oath; it's really no different than the druid choosing to wear scale mail to avoid the undesirable consequence of getting wounded in combat. But having someone dress your unconscious body in scale mail, or grappling you and forcing a chain shirt over your head...those are things done to you, not by you, and thus you cannot be held responsible for them.
Jaxgaret 02-28-07, 08:04 PM	Putting on scale mail to avoid some undesirable consequence is a willful violation of the druid's oath; it's really no different than the druid choosing to wear scale mail to avoid the undesirable consequence of getting wounded in combat. But having someone dress your unconscious body in scale mail, or grappling you and forcing a chain shirt over your head...those are things done to you, not by you, and thus you cannot be held responsible for them. I would rule the same as the above. However, I would also rule that the Druid would need to actively attempt to remove the infringing metal as soon as they could, or they would lose the magical abilities. IIRC, there is precedent for the last sentence being incorrect by the RAW, though. Don't Paladins who violate their oath while Dominated face some sort of penalty, or need to Atone?
Rulebook 02-28-07, 08:10 PM	yep. they lose thier powers, but can Atone or do some uber quest to regain thier powers, since it wasnt thier fault. and the PHB says wears. it dosent say willingly or unwillingly. if a suit of metal armor is covering the druid in a manner anybody else would use for protection, the druid loses powers. congrats, youve found a way to transport druidic prisoners!
NerdNumber1 02-28-07, 08:23 PM	I'd make it out of lead. It is heavier, cheaper, easier to mold, and softer. Breaking an oath accidentally still is breaking it, but it would be easier to atone. How about a heavy vest of solid lead, shaped so movement is difficult, with intigrated manicles.
Rulebook 02-28-07, 08:25 PM	a druid wouldnt have to atone. he'd just have to lay low for 24 hours after taking off the armor.
Bhaal006 02-28-07, 08:41 PM	A paladin get jacked for accidentally breaking thier oath, so i would say same goes for druid.
tiercel 02-28-07, 09:31 PM	congrats, youve found a way to transport druidic prisoners!Well.... if they were helpless enough for you to force them into some garbage metal armor, they were probably helpless enough to just bludgeon into unconsciousness (nonlethal damage). Then you just have some guy go whomp on the unconscious druid once or twice an hour with a sap to keep him from waking up. No, it ain't pretty, but it works.
runestar 02-28-07, 10:18 PM	Say while being transported, the group was attacked by bandits, and his metal armour protected him from stray arrows? Does this mean that a druid can benefit from wearing fullplate if he claims that he was wearing it unwillingly?:P
Nephlite 02-28-07, 10:22 PM	A paladin get jacked for accidentally breaking thier oath, so i would say same goes for druid. But the PHB says they don't. You just lose spellcasting/powers for 24 hrs after taking it off.
Eikre 02-28-07, 10:27 PM	Does this mean that a druid can benefit from wearing fullplate if he claims that he was wearing it unwillingly?:P He can benefit from it regardless. Anyone in the world can wear fullplate and glean benefit from it. :P
JulesCARV 02-28-07, 10:38 PM	Personally, my view is that the metallic armor restriction isn't truly so much a matter druidic philosophy or oaths, but just an innate feature of druidic magic: in short, like a wizard having trouble casting in full plate, not like a paladin falling for committing an evil act. My (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10011749&postcount=18) views (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10015254&postcount=25) on the "Forced flavor? -- druids can't wear metal" thread. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=697805)
Willie the Duck 02-28-07, 10:50 PM	That's not my argument at all. A druid forced into a metal garment is certainly "wearing" it, IMO. But he hasn't violated his oath, because that can only be done willfully. I disagree. Putting on scale mail to avoid some undesirable consequence is a willful violation of the druid's oath; it's really no different than the druid choosing to wear scale mail to avoid the undesirable consequence of getting wounded in combat. But having someone dress your unconscious body in scale mail, or grappling you and forcing a chain shirt over your head...those are things done to you, not by you, and thus you cannot be held responsible for them. That's not disagreeing. That's exactly what I said.
runestar 02-28-07, 10:53 PM	He can benefit from it regardless. Anyone in the world can wear fullplate and glean benefit from it. You know what I mean - does this imply that a druid can wear metallic armour and still retain his spellcasting capabilities if he claims that he was wearing said armour against his will?;) For purposes of this argument, whether such a rationalization can be made or not shall not be considered, we will assume that such an elaborate rationale does in fact exist and has already been made.:)
Willie the Duck 02-28-07, 10:53 PM	yep. they lose thier powers, but can Atone or do some uber quest to regain thier powers, since it wasnt thier fault. More evidence that WotC has never had anyone with som much as a minor in ethics.
Yokomohoyo 03-01-07, 02:38 AM	. A druid who is forced to wear metal armor against his will has not violated any oath. Thus, he should not suffer the consequences of violating an oath. Im sorry but unlike a pollymorph spell or other spells that allow a will save to do something against that persons will, the druid dosent recive that option. Also say for example that a paladin is forced in a perdicament into violating his code by saying that he rejects his god or they kill all the innocent people in a village. What would he do? If he dosent save the weak then he is shunned by his god, if he rejects his god then his god rejects him... Same thing here. The Druid that wares metal armor will loose his powers like it or not. So if you do put a buckler/metal armor on a Druid the said Druid will loose his ability to cast spells.
Vegepygmy 03-01-07, 12:10 PM	Don't Paladins who violate their oath while Dominated face some sort of penalty, or need to Atone?No. Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Im sorry but unlike a pollymorph spell or other spells that allow a will save to do something against that persons will, the druid dosent recive that option.That's not the point. The point is, you don't "violate your oath" when someone else does something to you against your will. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Also say for example that a paladin is forced in a perdicament into violating his code by saying that he rejects his god or they kill all the innocent people in a village. What would he do?The paladin can respond in any number of ways, but regardless of what decision he makes, he is in no way responsible for what someone else chooses to do. If "they" kill all the innocent people in a village, "they" have done evil...not the paladin. But let's not threadjack. The issue is druids and metal armor, not paladins and their codes.
Willie the Duck 03-02-07, 03:41 AM	Look, it's not that hard. If the druid or paladin has to choose between violating his oath and some horror unleashed upon this world (commit this minor evil or I'll sl;aughter a village, wear metal or I'll release agent orange over the whole of the rainforest), then the character has made their choice. They lose their abilities, and their only recompense is standing in line for the 'my DM is a douchebag who thought he could spring a formulaic moral quandry on my character would obfuscate his complete lack of imagination in storyline and character progression for no particular reason other than to hamstring me for choosing a class that actually has a code of conduct.' If, on the other hand, something occurs that makes the player 'violate their oath' without any actual choice being involved (wake up from unconciousness wearing metal armor, being dominated into comitting evil), then they didn't do any wrong. Whomever forced them into such an act is the one that committed the sin, and it is they who would lose their druidic/paladin class features.
cog_n_taz 03-02-07, 04:13 AM	I'm curious, so please answer my question and I'll stop bothering you guys: How is metal unnatural? It comes from the earth/is part of the earth, so I don't see what's wrong with it.
runestar 03-02-07, 04:47 AM	I am guessing that it is deemed unnatural because of the complex process used in refining the ore and smelting it into usable metal(comparatively). Basically, it is not "natural" enough for purposes of adhering to a druid's oath.
JulesCARV 03-02-07, 11:24 AM	I'm curious, so please answer my question and I'll stop bothering you guys: How is metal unnatural? It comes from the earth/is part of the earth, so I don't see what's wrong with it. My answers: Druids are a specialist type of mage. They use a type of magic that is interfered with by metals. Just as a compass isn't going to work well right next to magnets, a druid's magic isn't going to work well if the druid's encased in metal. If you try to navigate with a compass with a big magnet nearby, it doesn't matter what your philosophy is -- it just won't work. Metals have a number of properties -- such as being very good conductors of heat and electricity, and often being ferromagnetic to boot -- that interfere with the element-based magic which druids command. Druid sometimes try to cover this up with philosophical mumbo-jumbo about being philosophically or theologically opposed to wearing metal armor. Don't listen to them: they're just making up rationalizations for not wanting to do what they can't do anyway. It's the fox calling the grapes sour. (this answer is copy-and-pasted from a previous thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10015254) on this topic.
Sunblast 03-02-07, 03:04 PM	Umm, yeah, I'd have to say that druids would be losing their powers if they wore metal armor, intentionally or not. No one's actually put the SRD quote in here, so I will. A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter. It never says anything about willingly wearing the armor or not. It just says if you put it on. Personally, I get the feeling that it has nothing to do with any special oaths. After all, this doesn't make one an ex-druid, it just suppresses a druids spiffy powers for a day. I don't know the reason for this rule, but I could hazard a guess. I'll bet they can't wear the metal simply because it's unnatural. It's not against an oath, it just interferes with their powers and it takes a day to reset those powers. JulesCARV, I love your explanation. ;)
Vegepygmy 03-02-07, 04:50 PM	Umm, yeah, I'd have to say that druids would be losing their powers if they wore metal armor, intentionally or not. No one's actually put the SRD quote in here, so I will. It never says anything about willingly wearing the armor or not. It just says if you put it on.If you read that quote in a vacuum, out of context...you're right, it doesn't say anything about "willingly wearing" the armor. Personally, I get the feeling that it has nothing to do with any special oaths.You might want to read what the PHB has to say on the subject, then: The armor of a druid are restricted by traditional oaths to the items noted in Weapon and Armor proficiency (below). All other armor is prohibited. Though a druid could learn to wear full plate, putting it on would violate her oath and suppress her druidic powers.
Moon-Lancer 03-02-07, 05:31 PM	"It just says if you put it on" Speaking of taking things out of context. the druid in this case wouldn’t be putting on any armor, some one else would be putting it on for them. Taking things out of context is fun :D Ah the story of Galahad. well it turns out some babe really really wanted to bone Galahad, but he had a oath never to have sex. Well she said if he didn’t have sex with her, she would kill herself. He still refused and she killed herself. The moral of the story is actually that an oath to god (or gods) has an importance greater then any other. If someone said to Galahad that he must have sex or the rest of the world would be destroyed, the good action is still to uphold that oath. Breaking the oath is worse then killing, no matter how many die. It’s hard to understand this but that’s the importance of an oath to a god or greater power, that’s what these stories tell us. The boed agrees with this. An oath under no circumstance must be willfully broken An oath is something that must be willfully broken. Putting on metal armor willfully breaks the oath of the druid and thus they loose their power. Having armor put on them unwillfully is not breaking the oath. Forcing them through adverse consequence, gives them a semblance of choice, but their should never be a choice of what action is right or wrong because in the case of oaths, the oath is always is for the greater good and takes precedence over any other, so really there is no choice. The druid can not put on the armor and shouldn’t suffer any conscience to moral or ethical alignment as breaking an oath is more evil deed then sacrificing rest of the world for that oath. Its not a selfish act, though breaking the oath is selfish in regard to the one who the oath was made to. Ah altruism fun. In old literature any time a character breaks a promise or oath it always has greater and darker impact on the world and story then if they would just keep that oath. This is also why it is so honorable to die for an oath or promise or unwavering belief. This can be seen in Socrates, Jesus, or just about any martyr. Now this would all be true playing a medieval game with its bells and whistles, but sometimes a game with more grey and ambiguous good and evil this may not be the case. But in this type of game, heroes are hard to find (and play)
Lakaniss 03-02-07, 05:48 PM	My answers: Druids are a specialist type of mage. They use a type of magic that is interfered with by metals. Just as a compass isn't going to work well right next to magnets, a druid's magic isn't going to work well if the druid's encased in metal. If you try to navigate with a compass with a big magnet nearby, it doesn't matter what your philosophy is -- it just won't work. Metals have a number of properties -- such as being very good conductors of heat and electricity, and often being ferromagnetic to boot -- that interfere with the element-based magic which druids command. Druid sometimes try to cover this up with philosophical mumbo-jumbo about being philosophically or theologically opposed to wearing metal armor. Don't listen to them: they're just making up rationalizations for not wanting to do what they can't do anyway. It's the fox calling the grapes sour. (this answer is copy-and-pasted from a previous thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10015254) on this topic. This is wrong, if you keep that logic, a druid in a metal chamber, wearing metal manacles, metal weapons and metal gear on all his body except shield and armors couldnt cast spell because they cant ''bind'' whit theyr magic, which is obviously not true! They loose theyr spellcasting if they broke they Oath, end of the story!
JulesCARV 03-02-07, 09:23 PM	It doesn't follow that less extensive contact with metal, such as having metal weapons, or being in a metal chamber without actually wearing metal armor, would have the same effects. A wizard in splint mail has 40% arcane spell failure. A wizard who just have a longsword in a scabbard doesn't even have 1% arcane spell failure -- a sword just doesn't interfere with somatic components like armor does, and non-armor metal items similarly don't interfere with druid magic the way metal armor does.
Jaxgaret 03-03-07, 01:22 AM	It doesn't follow that less extensive contact with metal, such as having metal weapons, or being in a metal chamber without actually wearing metal armor, would have the same effects. A wizard in splint mail has 40% arcane spell failure. A wizard who just have a longsword in a scabbard doesn't even have 1% arcane spell failure -- a sword just doesn't interfere with somatic components like armor does, and non-armor metal items similarly don't interfere with druid magic the way metal armor does. ASF is an indicator of an armor restricting its wearer's movements, potentially disrupting the somatic component of the spell. ASF has nothing to do with arcanists wearing too much metal. One could say that a Wizard with a sword in each hand has 100% ASF. :)