Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sneak_Blast 03-05-06, 06:20 PM	My DM says that a druid cannot use wooden things since the druid does not know how that wood was obtained. Therefore, the druid might be using a wooden item that was gotten by disrespecting nature. I say, it is unfair to rule that druids can only use items that are stone, metal (not armor of course), from an animal, or wooden AND supervised in the making to make sure it was not obtained by means that were disrespectful to nature. What do you think? Any opinions or advice would be GREAT. P.S. Also, he thinks druids are overpowered.
ehrin 03-05-06, 06:29 PM	i would say that your DM should apply all rules fairly and across the board. The same rule should also apply to stone, metal, leather, etc.. They can be taken from nature without proper respect too. So, play his stupid, petty little 6 year old child game. Be a naked druid, and wander through the village. See how he role plays that. After all, you can't be sure that the cotton in your robe wasn't "taken" from nature in the wrong way. Stupid petty DM.
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-05-06, 06:47 PM	So, play his stupid, petty little 6 year old child game. Be a naked druid, and wander through the village. That or whip out the trusty Zippo and show him how well Produce Flame works on DMGs. :mage: It sounds like this guy is a loser using a contrived reason to nerf a class he dislikes without having the cojones to just step up and say he's nerfing them out of spite.
Millennium 03-05-06, 09:45 PM	In older versions of D&D, druids were not allowed to use anything that had once been alive: wood, leather, and such. "Dead" things that have never been alive -including anything made of metal or stone- were strictly off-limits. Those restrictions were significantly relaxed in 3e, and even more in 3.5e. But never in any ruleset has the druid ever had to ensure that any wooden items he had were obtained in a manner respectful to nature. It is the DM's prerogative to houserule this if he wants, but he should be prepared to acknowledge that it is a houserule, not core. If he's unwilling to do this, then beat him upside the head with your PHB. I kind of like the naked-druid idea, too.
Archmage_Vall 03-05-06, 11:04 PM	Well, I tend to agree somewhat with your DM in that druids are somewhat overpowered. They're the only base class that can do it all themselves. If there's a druid around, the only thing he might possibly need another party member for is finding magic traps, which only rogues can do. He's got the rest covered by himself. Melee combat -- Wild shape into a bear Ranged combat -- Blast with spells from a distance Offensive Magic -- Yup Defensive/Healing Magic -- Yup Chasing things down/running away -- Wild shape into a cheetah/hawk/shark Sneaking around -- Wild shape into a mouse/butterfly/chameleon Traveling quickly -- Tree Stride
ehrin 03-05-06, 11:13 PM	Millenium, did you make a typo? You say that in older DnD, druids couldn't use things that were once alive, and couldn't use things that were never alive. druids were not allowed to use anything that had once been alive: wood, leather, and such. "Dead" things that have never been alive -including anything made of metal or stone- were strictly off-limits. Uhm, what the heck is left? :confused:
Mithridates 03-05-06, 11:18 PM	Uhm, what the heck is left? :confused: Clearly, all that's left are things that are still alive. ;)
ehrin 03-05-06, 11:22 PM	lol.. fear me and my +1 Battle Weasel!
Archmage_Vall 03-05-06, 11:24 PM	fear also the +1 beetle buckler
Suzaku455 03-05-06, 11:39 PM	In older versions of D&D, druids were not allowed to use anything that had once been alive: wood, leather, and such. "Dead" things that have never been alive -including anything made of metal or stone- were strictly off-limits. Those restrictions were significantly relaxed in 3e, and even more in 3.5e. But never in any ruleset has the druid ever had to ensure that any wooden items he had were obtained in a manner respectful to nature. It is the DM's prerogative to houserule this if he wants, but he should be prepared to acknowledge that it is a houserule, not core. If he's unwilling to do this, then beat him upside the head with your PHB. I kind of like the naked-druid idea, too. So in other words in old D&Ds your druid would have to go naked because cloth comes from cotton plant, wool from sheep etc.
Feor 03-05-06, 11:53 PM	Hehe Protester: "Fur is Murder!" Druid: "Not mine, I never killed it." *Cloak growls* Seriously though, whether it was gotten from nature in a respectful way or not shouldn't keep the druid from using it. If he find out it was he can use it in combat, and if he finds out it wasn't he can use it to punish those who disrespected nature to get it. Either way, not using it accomplishes exactly nothing, since it won't make the tree regrow, and is an act disrespectful of nature in itself, since the wood goes to waste, meaning the tree died in vain. And if your DM is still going to be whiny about it, it's DC15 to make a martial weapons (DC12 if you're content with simple weapons) and DC13 to make Hide armor, put 5 points into craft(weaponsmithing) and 3 points into craft(armorsmithing) and take 10 making your own weapons and armor. And if he tell you you can't find components, tell him to go to hell, cause if he thinks a druid wouldn't be able to track and hunt an animal, or find a tree willing to sacrifice a branch to the druidic cause, he needs to start beating himself on the head with all three core books duct taped together.
sneak_Blast 03-06-06, 12:21 AM	Okay. He said that it was only because whenever an item is made from wood, there is an "overwhelming possiblity" it was probably made by a lumberjack who desecrated nature by chopping down a forest. I don't want to have to make my own items because if I found an item in a treasure horde made out of wood, I couldn't use it no matter how good it is.
mirconium 03-06-06, 12:39 AM	Buy from elves. Elves are hippies, and would not "Disrespect Nature"
Mithridates 03-06-06, 02:16 AM	Okay. He said that it was only because whenever an item is made from wood, there is an "overwhelming possiblity" it was probably made by a lumberjack who desecrated nature by chopping down a forest. I don't want to have to make my own items because if I found an item in a treasure horde made out of wood, I couldn't use it no matter how good it is. It strikes me as odd that cutting down a tree counts as "desecrating nature." For most societies, cutting wood is like harvesting grain - it must be done. Only in excess (clear cutting, slash and burn, and so on) are these activities actually "desecration," as far as I'm concerned. Tell your DM that most lumberjacks, weaponsmiths, etc. are careful to not go overboard, because if they destroy their local forest they're out of a job. Additionally, as far as treasure goes, I don't see how it's a problem - a bow made out of yew sitting in a dragon's lair has already been cut. If it was made in questionable ways, it seems largely irrelevant, because the deed has been done and your use of it won't hurt any more trees anyway. I think the big point here is that you can't be held responsible, in an alignment sense, for the consequences of actions that you can't see, and the histories of items you don't know. What if a paladin buys a sword that, in reality, was made in a mine where orcs used various cute demihumans as slave laborers to dig up iron? If the paladin finds this out, they may be impelled to throw away the sword - but the paladin can't assume that everything they don't know is by default evil. In the same way, if a druid knows that an item was made from the destruction of a forest, he will surely not buy it - but he can't be forced to assume that everything he doesn't know the complete history of - which is just about every item ever - is "desecrated" by default. You simply can't be held morally responsible for what you don't know.
Morwen 03-06-06, 02:23 AM	Okay. He said that it was only because whenever an item is made from wood, there is an "overwhelming possiblity" it was probably made by a lumberjack who desecrated nature by chopping down a forest. I don't want to have to make my own items because if I found an item in a treasure horde made out of wood, I couldn't use it no matter how good it is. So.. Why does the PHB bother to list that the Druid may wear padded, leather, and hide armor, as well as any wooden armor and shields? If he can't use wooden items because someone chopped down a tree, then how would he get to use wooden armor and shields? :)
Steel91101 03-06-06, 04:22 AM	>>Okay. He said that it was only because whenever an item is made from wood, there is an "overwhelming possiblity" it was probably made by a lumberjack who desecrated nature by chopping down a forest.<< Gah!!! I have news for your DM, and it isn't good. Druids lived in the northern hemisphere where winters were bitter cold. They chopped down trees to make fires in order to survive -- for warmth and for cooking. It was, and is, part of the natural cycle of life -- which a druid would understand. Maybe he'd be ok if your PC planted a tree for every item he used that was made of wood?
Tyler Do'Urden 03-06-06, 08:19 AM	Sorry, but your DM's an idiot. This is a dumb rule that doesn't add anything to the game except problems. I'm not sure where he got it from, but I think it's pretty obvious that he should put it back.
Feor 03-06-06, 08:40 AM	Chopping down a tree, or even a dozen trees, =/= desecrating nature. It's part of the natural cycle. People always seem to assume that humans are outside said cycle, when really we're an integral part of it. If the lumberjack had gone in with a clockwork or construct of some kind and clearcut an entire forest to get the wood, then yes, that would be desecrating nature, but I doubt that often happens. If the DM is really so **** about nature being "disrespected" by a lumberjack Just tell him you're going to take the weapon aside for a few days during rest time and try to identify and remove any taint that may have been placed upon the wood during its harvesting. If you find any taint, well, you're a druid, let the wood avenge itself and go hunt down the transgressors.
LCD2YOU 03-06-06, 09:01 AM	Yes, Druids can use wooden things. Most start with their personalities.
Millennium 03-06-06, 10:13 AM	So in other words in old D&Ds your druid would have to go naked because cloth comes from cotton plant, wool from sheep etc. Quite the contrary; those things were once alive, and so druids could use them. Indeed, they'd have to use them. I put "Dead" in quotes because that was the old druidic term for things that had never been alive. If you think about it, the old term means the opposite of the usual use of the word. When we speak of dead things, we mean things that were once alive. When the old-edition druids spoke of "dead" things, they meant things that were never alive. Perhaps another way to put it is, to borrow a term from The Lion King, "the circle of life". To an old-edition druid, things which are currently or previously alive are still part of that cycle of death and rebirth, and so old-edition druids could use them freely. But things made of stone and metal are not part of that cycle: they are not born, and they do not die. That is why the older druids could not use them. This is all mostly academic now, since the restrictions were softened significantly even as early as 2e. The only real vestige of it left in 3.5e is the restriction that druids may only use armor and shields made of wood and/or leather. I'm just trying to point out that while druids did have severe restrictions on what they could use in older editions, they were what the OP's DM is saying.
OctoberRaven 03-06-06, 10:20 AM	Buy from elves. Elves are hippies, and would not "Disrespect Nature" But they'll all smell like an art teacher's office.
The White Sorcerer 03-06-06, 10:37 AM	Quite the contrary; those things were once alive, and so druids could use them. But earlier you said they couldn't use things that had once been alive. :confused: I'm just trying to point out that while druids did have severe restrictions on what they could use in older editions, they were what the OP's DM is saying. So they couldn't use wood items? But you just said they could.
tsuyoshikentsu 03-06-06, 11:23 AM	First off, this is unarguably the funniest thread I've seen in a long time. Second off, your DM does have a precedent in the real world in the laws of kashroot. According to the Jewish faith, if you don't kno if an animal was killed in a kosher manner, assume it wasn't. Needless to say, this makes eating out a bit difficult. However, ask him: why are you imposing this restriction? To me, it doesn't seem to follow the DMG's requirement for a houserule -- making things more fun. The class is certainly overpowered, but never being able to use any magic item you find is a bit much.
zlatko 03-06-06, 01:27 PM	just pick up a dead/fallen by itself/knocked down by a beaver tree branch and cast spikes on it. That'll teach your DM. Besides how are humans who cut down trees to make their homes/tools different from beavers?
Millennium 03-06-06, 03:30 PM	But earlier you said they couldn't use things that had once been alive. :confused: So they couldn't use wood items? But you just said they could. Eep; it seems I haven't been getting enough sleep lately. I'm sorry about the inconsistencies; those were typos on my part. Misplaced negators, if you will. In some of the older editions, druids could only use things which were either still alive or had been alive in the past. They could not use things which had never been alive, such as stone and metal, and they called those items "dead" things.
Isomer 03-06-06, 04:05 PM	Druids are only overpowered if you have a player that really works to find all of the little twinks (things from expanded/noncore books). It's true that as they are written in the players manual they can do it all on their own. But they aren't overpowered because they are more a generalist class, they can't hold a rotten apple when compared to the specialist class at their areas of expertise. A druid can heal himself or ally's, but his healing would never compare to the instintaneous(sp?) healing of a cleric. A druid can kick some heads in while in animal shape, but and equal level fighter could go blow for blow with the druid with ease. Yes they have offensive/defensive magic but how does that compare with the range and power of spells open to a wizard? Fireball (level 3, 1d6 per level) versus...umm... call lighting(also 3rd level if i remeber right). The druid can even do sneaky things like hiding while wildshaped as a mouse or scouting over enemy lands while in bird form, but think oh how poorly they lag behind the rogue in all those other skills (particularly people skills like lieing). I personally enjoy druids because they have such a nice mix up, but while they can "do it all" the aren't broken because they still don't do it quite as well as the rest. And yes it appears your DM is applying stupid house rules which appear to only be in place to kill the effectiveness of a class he doesn't like.
sneak_Blast 03-07-06, 12:48 AM	These ideas are all great. Any more suggestions on how to convince my DM to change his mind (I will need all I can get :rolleyes: stupid stubborn as hell DM). Still, any other ideas supporting either argument are welcome
tsuyoshikentsu 03-07-06, 01:25 AM	<snip>You're so wong it's unbelievable. Ask the CharOp boards of what they think of Core-only Druids.
pres_man 03-07-06, 10:28 AM	These ideas are all great. Any more suggestions on how to convince my DM to change his mind (I will need all I can get :rolleyes: stupid stubborn as hell DM). Still, any other ideas supporting either argument are welcome Open up your PHB and show him: Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Druids are proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, quarterstaff, scimitar, sickle, shortspear, sling, and spear. They are also proficient with all natural attacks (claw, bite, and so forth) of any form they assume with wild shape (see below). Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor. (A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel. See the ironwood spell description) Druids are proficient with shields (except tower shields) but must use only wooden ones. 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. Then explain to your DM that druids have no problem with people using nature, as long as they don't abuse nature. Chopping down a tree to build a house to protect your family is ok, chopping down a tree just to do it is bad, mmmkay.
sneak_Blast 03-07-06, 12:05 PM	Open up your PHB and show him: Originally Posted by SRD Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Druids are proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, quarterstaff, scimitar, sickle, shortspear, sling, and spear. They are also proficient with all natural attacks (claw, bite, and so forth) of any form they assume with wild shape (see below). Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor. (A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel. See the ironwood spell description) Druids are proficient with shields (except tower shields) but must use only wooden ones. 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 To this he says, "yes, you can use those items, however only if they are especially made by druids or supervised by you." He is a frakking (official word of BSG) retard. As I said before, I technically CAN use any wooden stuff that is supervised in the making by me or made especially for druids (or by druids). Ne more ideas? Everything is welcome.
The White Sorcerer 03-07-06, 12:49 PM	Go au naturel. Seriously. Just in case.
Vestigial_Thumb 03-07-06, 12:52 PM	Make your DM read the following: Look at it this way: Everything is natural. By natural I mean naturally occurring. Yes even undead. If they were unnatural they couldn't exist, as the nature is the universe. You can't own it, and it can't own you. Nature is tough. Chop down a tree and you're not disrespecting nature. You're taking something that you have more use for than nature does (not that nature is an entity). And if nature were actually bitter, like you are, it would without a doubt smite you, or change the nature of itself to hate you (animals growling and mauling you). Now stop whacking your player with stupid, idiotic, petty, stupid house rules, nay, just stupid, idiotic, petty, stupid whimsical nerfing, let him do whatever the hell he wants with his equipment (*whiny sarcastic voice* yes, even if he chops down a tree), drag the reality stick out of your ass, and shove the fantasy stick in it before you start playing. Make him read this, or you can make him let you wear metal armor, you know, since worked metal is just as worked as leather (that is unnatural by druids' standards).
Krelios 03-07-06, 01:12 PM	To this he says, "yes, you can use those items, however only if they are especially made by druids or supervised by you." He is a frakking (official word of BSG) retard. As I said before, I technically CAN use any wooden stuff that is supervised in the making by me or made especially for druids (or by druids). Ne more ideas? Everything is welcome. Yes. Quit. Your DM is a moron.
pres_man 03-07-06, 01:51 PM	Club, quarterstaff, and sling are all "free" (no cost). So using the craft skill rules, you can make these instanteously. So you should be able to make some even if you never get any down time. Don't waste your time with masterwork versions as you can cast magic stone and shilleghi (sp?) which are often better.
DevilJimmy 03-07-06, 02:17 PM	The easiest solution to appeasing the DM is simple: Chia Armor and a +4 Banana.
Feor 03-07-06, 03:18 PM	To this he says, "yes, you can use those items, however only if they are especially made by druids or supervised by you." He is a frakking (official word of BSG) retard. As I said before, I technically CAN use any wooden stuff that is supervised in the making by me or made especially for druids (or by druids). Ne more ideas? Everything is welcome. Yes, one more suggestion, make your way up to level 5 using his restrictions, and stuff like free quarterstaffs or shopping at the local Druid's Ring to stay viable up till then, then after level 5, the first time he gives you a wooden magical item in loot grab it and take to using it. If he takes away your Druidic Powers, no problem, (especially if what you gained the loot from gave you enough XP to level) just announce that the pettyiness of nature, taking your powers away for something you didn't know has caused you to lose faith and take your first level of Blighter (Complete Divine, pg. 23). Then set this ---- on FIRE! :D
storm1402 03-08-06, 01:32 PM	Driuds can use anything natural perioud. Its in there ethos, they are not allowed metal armors etc so if a player asked me about anything natural then I would let them.
blackjackg 03-08-06, 01:59 PM	Well, as has been stated several times, your DM is being arbitrarily stupid. The best choice in that case is either to live with the arbitrary stupidity or to leave the game. Or just not play a druid. The rules as written state with pretty reasonable clarity that druids can use wooden implements. Furthermore, in ancient times, the idea of deforestation was thoroughly laughable because they lacked the means to chop down trees as efficiently as we do now. It would take an entire village several lifetimes to make a significant dent in the kind of old-growth forests that druids inhabit. Now, if they were setting fire to it in order to make room to expand their village, that would be a serious desecration of nature. Other than that, the only real snafu a lumberjack can make in this world is trying to cut down a dryad oak. But, it's clear that your DM isn't prepared to listen to rational arguments against his ruling, so how about this as a comprimise: whenever your druid encounters a piece of wooden equipment he wants but doesn't know the origin of, he can undertake a 24-hour ritual of cleansing, communing, atoning and sensual massage in which he gets to know the wood, learns how it was harvested, and apologizes to the forest for any and all transgressions. That's in-theme, acknowledges the DM's silly rule, and it definitely reduces the nerf factor.
Vestigial_Thumb 03-08-06, 02:26 PM	sensual massage in which he gets to know the wood :rofl: This is an incredibly funny sentence when taken out of context!
Stafir Ortnev 03-08-06, 02:42 PM	Actually have your druid try his best to get ahold of any wooden weapons, or natural armor he can use, that he sees as either being used badly, or not being put to good use at all. His purpose..to find these items that are being put to such a horrible use against nature..and redeem them. How? By letting them be used in a good cause. He can allow items that someone he believe is friendly to nature..to go on and be used by said person.
Guroth the Forsaken 03-08-06, 03:45 PM	Your DM is quite the FRIGGIN' IDIOT, simply put. What he's saying is ridiculous and shows that he can't DM well enough to balance out a proper adventure. Offer prayers to the Nature Spirits to appease them, take only what quantity of wood you need from a larger tree (thus not killing it), and use that same wood in defense of nature. How the HELL is that a problem?! If you require the use of a younger tree or plant, mulch whatever is not used, and use it to fertilize when you plant 2 or more to take it's place. Sorry, but I have no patience for stupid people who try to DM. :ahem:
On_the_wings_of_TPK 03-08-06, 04:18 PM	Show him just how retarded he is being. Play your druid as extreem as his ruling is. For this you will need take ranks in craft: armoursithing, and arms. (Having at least some equipment, never hurts.) Next have plenty of material to light fires. Fire is natures janitor, and is used to clear out dead wood , and clear the way to new growth. Yes forest fires are actually healthy for the forests, just not the cabins in the forest. Now everytime you see soemthing that is not a natural occurance you must destroy it, as it is a front to nature. What do i mean been by things that are not a natural occarances? Here is a list: Buildings of any kind, Planted corps (Farms) Domesticated animals, (You could set those free, but burn the barns) Books, and paper of any kind (they burn really well) Roads must be torn up, and nature planted, and spells used to make is over grown. Arcane casters are abominations and must die Non druid, ranger devine clerics should also die. Any kind of worked metal or stone must be destroyed. Kill whomever you find Wearing something like that. Mines should be colasped. Potion viles are to be smashed, and the liquid within drained etc, Then if that does not get his attention, whenever you see someone hunting for sport, kill them, and eat them. Also eat anything you kill that you are able to to. have the other party members to the same. If they refuse, kill them and eat their corpses. If asked why, explain that to not eat what you kill is disrespecting nature, and anything that does not respect nature is an affront to nature and must be destroyed. When he askes what your doing, explain that you are just being as zealiouse as his stupid drunken house rule dictates. When he asks you to stop, tell you will when he will. He drops the house rule, and you'll return to sanity as well. Alternatively you could just tell you him that you do not wish to play with a power tripping prick, that is over comensating for his small ****.
20goingon1232 03-08-06, 07:17 PM	To this he says, "yes, you can use those items, however only if they are especially made by druids or supervised by you." He is a frakking (official word of BSG) retard. As I said before, I technically CAN use any wooden stuff that is supervised in the making by me or made especially for druids (or by druids). Ne more ideas? Everything is welcome. Dude, seriously, do you need this headache? Be a Cleric and then get DM Persistent and Domains up the wazoo. Either that or be a Warmage/Rainbow Servant and go to town on him. Also, if he is such a frakking idiot, why are you playing with him? Kick his Cylon butt to the curb and tell him to stop mistaking the Centurion for Number Six.
rockondon 03-08-06, 09:38 PM	I wouldn't focus on the wood thing, it sounds like that's just a by-product of his feeling that druids are overpowered. I would start by asking him what he doesn't like about druids. If he says they're overpowered then ask him in what way. Perhaps you could illuminate him on the druid's weaknesses and how to exploit them. Another reason he might not like druids is because they're often time-consuming. Where I play, druids often summon pet after pet that are often enchanted with enlarge and other magics. Each pet tends to have multiple attacks and other factors such as tripping have to calculated. If he feels the same way you could promise him that you'll have pre-made cards that detail the attributes of any pet you summon so you won't take time away from the other players. Of course a druid would use wood items. If a druid comes across a lost and beaten puppy, does the druid shun the animal because of its troubled past? No, that's all the more reason to embrace it. To not use the wood would be wasteful. That wood shield brings meaning to the death of the tree that provided it, as well as gives that tree a kind of continuity as a part of it is still being used to do good in the world.
Grace_Jones 03-09-06, 01:59 AM	Yes, one more suggestion, make your way up to level 5 using his restrictions, and stuff like free quarterstaffs or shopping at the local Druid's Ring to stay viable up till then, then after level 5, the first time he gives you a wooden magical item in loot grab it and take to using it. If he takes away your Druidic Powers, no problem, (especially if what you gained the loot from gave you enough XP to level) just announce that the pettyiness of nature, taking your powers away for something you didn't know has caused you to lose faith and take your first level of Blighter (Complete Divine, pg. 23). Then set this ---- on FIRE! :D HAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!! Okay, that was brilliant. You should be allowed to play whatever class you want without having petty DM prejudices ruining your game. Seriously, my advice to you is to either take the Blighter PrC (which is pretty sweet) to ruffle his feathers, or just pack up your PHB and whathaveyou and leave. Find a DM who doesn't stunt a PC's growth because he doesn't like the class ... he should have disallowed the class from the beginning then. And you know what? I bet he doesn't like Monks either. PS - I have found, and I can find no other convincing argument to the contrary, that the Druid's main "selling point" of Wild Shape just ends up becoming work after 10th level. After 10th level, you can no longer advance a Bear in Hit Dice, and Dire Wild Shape is an Epic Feat (I think) ... and the pre-provided stats in the MM3.5 cease to be an easy-out at about the same time ... in fact from level 12 to level 25, my Druid never Wild Shaped unless it was beneficial for scouting or getting to where she couldn't be seen (or avoiding making a swim check or something - purely utilitarian). At level 25, I actually spent four hours sitting down and leveling six different "animals" to 25 Hit Dice ... and I think I used one once.
Corinthians 03-09-06, 07:17 AM	Ask him if you're allowed to enter wooden buildings, because obviously you don't know if the wood was taken in a respectful manner. Personally, I wouldn't even bother asking, first think i'd do is inconspicuously burn down any wooden building because they're obviously abhorrent to your beliefs.
Andrew_980 03-09-06, 02:33 PM	The truely stupid part is that druids prefer to use things made of plants and animals, not aviod them. They prefer things that were once alive, not 'dead' things like metal. The DM in this case is an idiot that hasn't read a damn thing on druids and is making a tree-hugger assumption about the druid. Druids revere nature and seek to be part of it and that includes killing.
rockondon 03-09-06, 03:05 PM	You should direct him to this thread. When he sees that we impartial people agree that his anti-druid rule is completely idiotic, maybe he'll relent. Mr. DM Dad sir, if you're reading this, your rule is stupid. Feel free to bombard your son with your warped interpretations if you like, but he knows as well as everyone here how completely idiotic and unfair that rule is. Please quit reading between the lines - because you suck at it.
Kresalak 03-09-06, 03:24 PM	PS - I have found, and I can find no other convincing argument to the contrary, that the Druid's main "selling point" of Wild Shape just ends up becoming work after 10th level. After 10th level, you can no longer advance a Bear in Hit Dice, and Dire Wild Shape is an Epic Feat (I think) ... and the pre-provided stats in the MM3.5 cease to be an easy-out at about the same time ... in fact from level 12 to level 25, my Druid never Wild Shaped unless it was beneficial for scouting or getting to where she couldn't be seen (or avoiding making a swim check or something - purely utilitarian). At level 25, I actually spent four hours sitting down and leveling six different "animals" to 25 Hit Dice ... and I think I used one once. I hope you're still playing that druid, because if so, you'll be happy to know that in 3.5 a druid can wildshape into Dire animals, since they're still animals. Also, advancing animals does nothing-you gain the physical ability scores, natural armor, natural attacks, and Ex attacks of the creature. Advancing it through HD does nothing for that. So just grab yourself a dire bear for combat, and some other things for other stuff.
sneak_Blast 03-09-06, 05:16 PM	Dude, seriously, do you need this headache? Be a Cleric and then get DM Persistent and Domains up the wazoo. Either that or be a Warmage/Rainbow Servant and go to town on him. Also, if he is such a frakking idiot, why are you playing with him? Kick his Cylon butt to the curb and tell him to stop mistaking the Centurion for Number Six. Hooray! I knew there were BSG watchers other than me! :D About changing classes or skills. I can't. He is continuing another DM's campaign and he wants to keep continuity to a maximum. :-/
equilibrium17 03-09-06, 07:30 PM	The restriction your DM is putting on Druids is absolutely non-core and therefore a house rule. For the record, I think it's a dumb-ass idea. He's absolutely entitled to his opinon that Druids are overpowered. He's also entitled to run his campaign any way he wants, including adding house rules to reduce "overpowered" Druids, if he so chooses. But IMHO, the way he's restricting Druids is a poor choice. It's unnecssarily complicated and arbitrary, and difficult to adjudicate. Frankly, if I were you, I would find someone else's campaign to play in. But if his is the only game in town, I would (politely) point out the difficulty his house rule presents, and try to come to some sort of compromise. You could suggest alternative restrictions on the Druid class, or suggest a system to make his house rule more workable. For example, maybe druids could be required to take any "improper" wood items to a higher level druid, and pay to have them "cleansed" before using them. In this way, equipment and materials would be more expensive for your druid, but still useable.
20goingon1232 03-09-06, 07:52 PM	Hooray! I knew there were BSG watchers other than me! :D About changing classes or skills. I can't. He is continuing another DM's campaign and he wants to keep continuity to a maximum. :-/ BSG 2003. The old one was just... terrible. The storyline was good at first in the old one (for like half a season), and then they went really really stupid. Did the other DM restrict Druids like that? If not, point it out to him. Otherwise, retire the Druid and make a new character. Point out the part in the DMG where it says you can (just after the Character Death bit, IIRC). If he still doesn't allow it, you got two choices: 1. Play Leroy Jenkins style (be sure to tell your fellow players FIRST before doing that so they can get the frak off Caprica before the nukes go off), get yourself killed, refuse all attempts to Raise Dead and then roll up a new character. 2. Quit playing the game. And if you really want to punish him, I suggest Warmage6/Cleric1/Rainbow Servant 10/Warmage2/Heirophant1. Cast all Cleric and Warmage spells spontaneously with all the added fun of Divine Metamagic.
green_yawgmoth 03-09-06, 08:28 PM	In older versions of D&D, druids were not allowed to use anything that had once been alive: wood, leather, and such. "Dead" things that have never been alive -including anything made of metal or stone- were strictly off-limits. Those restrictions were significantly relaxed in 3e, and even more in 3.5e. But never in any ruleset has the druid ever had to ensure that any wooden items he had were obtained in a manner respectful to nature.:confused: So... druids all took a VoP? If I can't have anything that was once alive, and I can't have anything that was never living, that reduces to what, my living squirrel underpants? As for this DM, I'd just roll my eyes, tell him that his rule has no point other than to hose my character, and say that unless he has a serious attitude adjustment, he's going to be minus one player. http://www.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Millennium 03-09-06, 09:08 PM	:confused: So... druids all took a VoP? If I can't have anything that was once alive, and I can't have anything that was never living, that reduces to what, my living squirrel underpants? There were some rather bad typos in my previous posts. To reiterate what's really going on, it may be better to think of it this way: druids could only use items made from materials which were part of the cycle of life, death, and rebirth: things which either were alive or had once been. Stone and metal are not born, nor do they die, and for that reason they were prohibited to druids.
Aki Warren 03-10-06, 12:57 PM	MAy I suggest the Vow of Poverty? Make him regret his actions