PDA

View Full Version : Druid Equipment



grautry
2009-07-05, 01:30 AM
So, I'll be starting a new game as a Druid 8 - that is 27k WBL.

I'm wondering what would you recommend to purchase. ;)

The "staples" of druid equipment: Wild armor, Periapt of Wisdom, Torc of Animal Speech, Monk's Belt etc. are pretty damn expensive at this level - obviously I can't purchase all of them.

At the moment I'm pretty much decided on a Lesser Rod of Metamagic Extend or maybe Empower as well but otherwise I'm stumped.

What would you recommend?

It would be nice also if you included some suggestions for higher levels(let's say 8-12 for the moment).

Thanks in advance. :smallsmile:

Glimbur
2009-07-05, 01:32 AM
Wilding Clasps. Even if you don't have equipment to put them on yet, if you buy them now you don't have to try to find them in-game.

Cedrass
2009-07-05, 01:39 AM
Wilding Clasps. Even if you don't have equipment to put them on yet, if you buy them now you don't have to try to find them in-game.

This. Really.

If you're wondering what those are, they are in the Magic Item Compendium, they attach to any item you wear and allow the item to be worn by the new form, as long as it is reasonable. 4000 gp for each one, really worth it! (I'm not saying anything I shouldn't right? About the item and not being OGC?)

Edit: If you're wondering, to allow each magical item you are wearing to function, you would need 13 Claps, since a character has 13 slots for magical items.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-05, 01:50 AM
Say instead that they are 3,999 gp.

Coidzor
2009-07-05, 02:05 AM
6 Wilding Clasps. That'd be your max and leave you with 3K to get the rest with before treasure fills whatever it'll fill out. But really, check with the DM about being able to get them before doing something that foolhardy, maybe two or three though....

What'chu talkin'bout Pharoah's Fist?

I can see periapt definitely, belt probably, rings maybe.

Seem like for now the periapt, natural spell, and maybe the monk's belt'd be good to go, so that's four magic items between them and their clasps and then if you can get some good armor...

...What is the best armor for a druid anyway? Dragonplate?

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-07-05, 02:37 AM
A Monk's Belt with a Wilding Clasp is really the only thing you need. Remember that its AC bonus won't work with Wild armor, so you're better off going unarmored. Lesser Metamagic Rods of Extend are also good to have, attach them to your belt so they won't change when you Wild Shape and use them for buffs and offensive spells like Creeping Cold.

Monk's Belt is 13,000 gp
+Wilding Clasp is 4,000 gp
Lesser Rod of Extend is 3,000 gp
Lesser Rod of Extend is 3,000 gp

That leaves you with 4,000 gp remaining for mundane items and other stuff. I'd spend it on an extra Wilding Clasp for whenever you get another item to put it on.

I'd get Companion Spellbond (PH2) at level 1, Natural Bond (CV) at 3, Natural Spell at 6, and whatever you want after that. Get a Fleshraker dinosaur (MM3) or a Dire Eagle (RoS) animal companion, Natural Bond will negate the 'level -3' penalty for it being more powerful than a level 1 companion. Give it enough cross-class Spellcraft ranks to get Mage Slayer (CA), maybe even spend one of its ability increases every 4 HD to boost its Int high enough to be good-aligned and take Vow of Poverty, which is extremely cheesy but extremely powerful.

At around level 12+ you'll want a standard Metamagic Rod of Extend and a 6th level Pearl of Power. Every other day alternate between casting Energy Immunity x3, or on the days between cast Energy Immunity x2 and Superior Resistance. Use the Pearl of Power to recover an Energy Immunity each time so you only spend two 6th level spells/day. Use the Rod of Extend on each and they'll all last 48 hours. That will give you constant immunity to all five types of energy as well as a +6 Enhancement bonus to all of your saving throws.

Also at level 11+ you'll want a standard Metamagic Rod of Empower and maybe two 6th level Pearls of Power. Cast Fire Seeds to make the berry bombs three times, using the Pearls of Power to recover each and Empower each one. Make the command word the same for all of them and put them in a pouch. At level 11 each bomb will deal (1d8+11)x1.5 fire damage, for an average of 186 damage per spell, or 558 damage for all three. Wild Shape into a bird and drop the pouch in the center of four opponents, or summon a small Fire Elemental to deliver the pouch to the desired spot, and spend a free action to speak the command word and detonate it. Get some Ungent of Timelessness and you can cast it in advance quite a few times.

Cedrass
2009-07-05, 01:04 PM
...What is the best armor for a druid anyway? Dragonplate?

I found Dragonhide Full Plate to be quite fun, you put the Wilding property and it melds with your new form, giving you the armor bonus without the maximum Dex and the nice part (by RAW anyways) is that you don't have to be proficient with it anyways, since it melds with you!

mostlyharmful
2009-07-05, 04:34 PM
Bear in mind that magic items resize themselves to the user and if you have clearly identifiable body parts that relate to the item slot you can use it. If you turn into a Brown Bear then you clearly have a neck, distinct digits on your forepaws, a waist and a head. Your druid might look a little funky but just get your team to put your Monks Belt, Periapt of wisdom, rings of whatever and hat of disguise onto you. Then you use the hat of disguise to conceal the items.

Wildling Clasps are generally for high level druids with items for every slot and DMs with no sense of fun.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-07-05, 04:45 PM
The best armor for a Druid would be Bracers of Armor or a Mage Armor spell from the party Wizard, because a Monk's Belt AC won't work with anything else.

mostlyharmful
2009-07-05, 04:54 PM
The best armor for a Druid would be Bracers of Armor or a Mage Armor spell from the party Wizard, because a Monk's Belt AC won't work with anything else.

It'll work with a strict reading of Wild modified Armour which melds into your form, and with Barkskin which all druids should have up at all times, and with Dancing Shields since you aren't wearing or wielding them, and with deflection or dodge bonuses such as from protection from X. Just saying.

Eldariel
2009-07-05, 05:01 PM
The best armor for a Druid would be Bracers of Armor or a Mage Armor spell from the party Wizard, because a Monk's Belt AC won't work with anything else.

Depends, by RAW a Wilding armor works fine with it when Wildshaped. Of course, many DMs will nuke that.

EDIT: Ninja'd... Stupid 1 post/minute limit.

Keld Denar
2009-07-05, 05:10 PM
Dancing Shields since you aren't wearing or wielding them

Actually, Animated Shields DON'T work with a monk's unarmored bonuses, since even though your hand is free, you are still "wielding" the shield. An Animated Shield still imposes an Armor Check Penalty (if any) and Arcane Spell Failure (if applicable). It is, for all intents and purposes OTHER than occupying a hand, wielded, and thusly would interfere. All the rest of it should work well with it though!

mostlyharmful
2009-07-05, 05:17 PM
Actually, Animated Shields DON'T work with a monk's unarmored bonuses, since even though your hand is free, you are still "wielding" the shield. An Animated Shield still imposes an Armor Check Penalty (if any) and Arcane Spell Failure (if applicable). It is, for all intents and purposes OTHER than occupying a hand, wielded, and thusly would interfere. All the rest of it should work well with it though!

The Monk bonus says it doesn't apply when the Monk is armoured, encumbered and when they carry a shield. If you have a mithral large shield you have no armour check penalty, you arent carrying it and you arn't armoured. You aren't in fact 'wielding' the shield, it just specifically still has an armour check penalty and applies armour check penalties which are avoidable, you wield it in all ways except the one that counts.

Keld Denar
2009-07-05, 05:22 PM
Animated
Upon command, an animated shield floats within 2 feet of the wielder, protecting her as if she were using it herself but freeing up both her hands. Only one shield can protect a character at a time. A character with an animated shield still takes any penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, and nonproficiency.

Strong transmutation; CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, animate objects; Price +2 bonus.


Emphasis mine. Its still wielded, and a monk still can't benefit from it. Thems the RAW.

Also, the 2nd bolded area indicates that the character suffers all penalties associated with wielding a shield. Losing the benefits of your monkly abilities is a penalty you draw when you wield a shield.

The Glyphstone
2009-07-05, 05:40 PM
If you've got access to Wilding Clasps, a Clasp attached to your armor will save a great deal of money over actual Wild Armor.

Eldariel
2009-07-05, 05:47 PM
If you've got access to Wilding Clasps, a Clasp attached to your armor will save a great deal of money over actual Wild Armor.

But lacks the awesome of Wild armor like lack of ACP, no need for proficiency, and no Max Dex.

Also, Ring of Force Shield with Clasp for shield-bonus to AC if you feel so inclined.

awa
2009-07-05, 07:41 PM
"Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional" From d20srd

Wild shape works differently from other shape shifting powers you cant select items that your new form can wear and keep them while transformed

From a meta gaming perspective if its going to be a long game try and spend as much of your cash on one item as you can becuase it's less likely to become obsolete as quickly as numerous weaker items. i personally like wild dragon hide full plate becuase of its raw defense although i take the heavy armor proficiency so im not quite as helpless in normal form.

P.s. i believe wild works with shields as well

Berserk Monk
2009-07-05, 07:46 PM
You could just go Vow of Poverty. Druids one of the few classes that can pull it off.

tyckspoon
2009-07-05, 07:59 PM
"Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional" From d20srd

Wild shape works differently from other shape shifting powers you cant select items that your new form can wear and keep them while transformed


The traditional method is to take off everything you intend to wear, wildshape, and have your party members/hired servant/unusually intelligent and prehensile-limb-bearing animal companion re-dress you. Most of the basic slots (head/neck/belt/cloak) can go on just about any shape. Only really practical for the kinds of druids that live in bear/giant eagle/whatever form; characters that prefer to hang out in their 'normal' shape or who change a lot are better off investing in wilding clasps or non-worn gear like ioun stones.

Claudius Maximus
2009-07-05, 08:29 PM
I'd get Companion Spellbond (PH2) at level 1, Natural Bond (CV) at 3, Natural Spell at 6, and whatever you want after that. Get a Fleshraker dinosaur (MM3) or a Dire Eagle (RoS) animal companion, Natural Bond will negate the 'level -3' penalty for it being more powerful than a level 1 companion. Give it enough cross-class Spellcraft ranks to get Mage Slayer (CA), maybe even spend one of its ability increases every 4 HD to boost its Int high enough to be good-aligned and take Vow of Poverty, which is extremely cheesy but extremely powerful.

I sincerely doubt that an animal can raise its int to 3 with an ability increase. If this were the case, wouldn't there be a certain proportion of advanced animals that are sapient? Besides, the SRD entry for the animal type states that "no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal," So I think it's impossible.

awa
2009-07-06, 08:02 PM
true you could have an ally equip you but that does limit your versatility you cant switch forms on the fly

Coidzor
2009-07-06, 09:09 PM
I found Dragonhide Full Plate to be quite fun, you put the Wilding property and it melds with your new form, giving you the armor bonus without the maximum Dex and the nice part (by RAW anyways) is that you don't have to be proficient with it anyways, since it melds with you!

I thought it counted as medium armor which druids have proficiency in? :smallconfused:

<_< >_> What color of dragon makes the best armor, generally speaking?

Gorbash
2009-07-06, 09:33 PM
I thought it counted as medium armor which druids have proficiency in?

It doesn't. Read the description in DMG.


<_< >_> What color of dragon makes the best armor, generally speaking?

Whichever color matches your eyes, since it doesn't make any difference.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-06, 10:48 PM
I sincerely doubt that an animal can raise its int to 3 with an ability increase. If this were the case, wouldn't there be a certain proportion of advanced animals that are sapient? Besides, the SRD entry for the animal type states that "no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal," So I think it's impossible.True, which is why you instead take Celestial Companion from the BoED. That gets you a Good-aligned companion with enough Int(through the template and the new Magical Beast type) to take VoP.

olentu
2009-07-07, 12:30 AM
I can not seem to figure out why is it often suggested that druids give a fleshraker vow of poverty without fully fleshing out the possible problem of repeated use of their claw attacks or tail attack likely making the companion loose the benefit of the feat due to the stat damaging poison that comes with these attacks. It seems that if one is going to suggest this tactic one would at least make a note of this problem or perhaps even give ways to get around the limitation such as possibly keeping a neutralize poison spell on the companion at all times.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-07, 12:35 AM
I can not seem to figure out why is it often suggested that druids give a fleshraker vow of poverty without fully fleshing out the possible problem of repeated use of their claw attacks or tail attack likely making the companion loose the benefit of the feat due to the stat damaging poison that comes with these attacks. It seems that if one is going to suggest this tactic one would at least make a note of this problem or perhaps even give ways to get around the limitation such as possibly keeping a neutralize poison spell on the companion at all times.Poison from natural weapon attacks is specifically exempted from the already confusing and idiotic 'poison is EEEEVIL' rules.

olentu
2009-07-07, 12:40 AM
Poison from natural weapon attacks is specifically exempted from the already confusing and idiotic 'poison is EEEEVIL' rules.

Interesting. I have no memory of such a rule and as such would you provide me direction to the passage that states such a thing since it appears that I am completely missing that statement.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-07-07, 01:19 AM
From the BoED:

Poison and disease are generally the tools of evil monsters and
characters, implements of corruption and destruction. If snakes
and vermin are associated with evil, as they are in many cultures,
it is usually because of their venom that they are viewed in
such a negative light despite their neutral alignment. Using
poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes
undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an
opponent. Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Master’s
Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of
taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness.
Ironically, the poison favored by the evil drow, which causes
unconsciousness as its initial damage, is also not inherently evil
to use.
Their reasoning behind this is inherently flawed and contradictory. They begin by saying that creatures who have a natural ability to deliver poison are neutral aligned despite that ability, then go on to say that use of poison is an evil act. Luckily, this is taken from Chapter 3: Exalted Equipment, therefore everything in this chapter, including the above paragraph, can be taken as a reference to equipment and items in the game. In that sense, "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act..." only refers to the use of poison as equipment which must be obtained, not the use of a poison that is naturally created by the creature using it. Any type of non-equipment poison is exempt from this rule, otherwise the above paragraph contradicts several core books and can be completely disregarded. For example, if a Neutral Good Druid worships a good aligned deity, that character can cast Poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/poison.htm) as often as she wants without angering her deity or compromising her good alignment, because it is not an evil act. Luckily, the above paragraph does not contradict this because it only refers to equipment, not spells.

olentu
2009-07-07, 01:49 AM
From the BoED:

Their reasoning behind this is inherently flawed and contradictory. They begin by saying that creatures who have a natural ability to deliver poison are neutral aligned despite that ability, then go on to say that use of poison is an evil act. Luckily, this is taken from Chapter 3: Exalted Equipment, therefore everything in this chapter, including the above paragraph, can be taken as a reference to equipment and items in the game. In that sense, "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act..." only refers to the use of poison as equipment which must be obtained, not the use of a poison that is naturally created by the creature using it. Any type of non-equipment poison is exempt from this rule, otherwise the above paragraph contradicts several core books and can be completely disregarded. For example, if a Neutral Good Druid worships a good aligned deity, that character can cast Poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/poison.htm) as often as she wants without angering her deity or compromising her good alignment, because it is not an evil act. Luckily, the above paragraph does not contradict this because it only refers to equipment, not spells.

So first animals would be a listed specific exception from the general alignment rules due to their being incapable of moral action and as such there would be no conflict. However by using similar logic the statement on poison is in the ravages and afflictions section. Therefor everything in this section can be taken as a reference to ravages and afflictions. In that sense "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act..." only refers to the use of poison as a ravage or affliction, not the use of poison that is not a ravage or affliction. Any type of non ravage or affliction poison is exempt from this rule.

Now then I see no contradiction between the core rules and this statement. The only restriction on divine spellcasters and spells is spells with alignment subtypes. For example take a Neutral Good Druid that worships a good aligned deity, said druid takes flame blade. The druid can then use the spell to anger the deity by killing innocents or can use it to protect them. So the fact that a druid can get a spell that can be used to anger the deity the druid worships is not evidence for anything.

So I would say that your argument about placement in the book either makes the rule have basically zero effect or does not apply while your argument that there is some contradiction with the core rules about druids and spells does not seem like it works.

Coidzor
2009-07-07, 01:57 AM
Now then I see no contradiction between the core rules and this statement. The only restriction on divine spellcasters and spells is spells with alignment subtypes. For example take a Neutral Good Druid that worships a good aligned deity, said druid takes flame blade. The druid can then use the spell to anger the deity by killing innocents or can use it to protect them. So the fact that a druid can get a spell that can be used to anger the deity the druid worships is not evidence for anything.

Actually, it is. It means that the spell is acceptable for the character to use against legitimate targets in that deity's eyes if said deity is providing the spells. Otherwise it would have alignment tags to prevent one from using it if it violated the ethos of the alignment to use it, ever.

Droodle
2009-07-07, 02:02 AM
Vow of poverty. Seriously, you're playing a druid, so it's not like you actually need to optimize it. You might as well keep things simple. When you decide not to do that, though, I'd go with the clasps.

olentu
2009-07-07, 02:03 AM
Actually, it is. It means that the spell is acceptable for the character to use against legitimate targets in that deity's eyes if said deity is providing the spells. Otherwise it would have alignment tags to prevent one from using it if it violated the ethos of the alignment to use it, ever.

Can you provide a quotation of this as I can not remember seeing this.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-07-07, 02:33 AM
Now then I see no contradiction between the core rules and this statement. The only restriction on divine spellcasters and spells is spells with alignment subtypes. For example take a Neutral Good Druid that worships a good aligned deity, said druid takes flame blade. The druid can then use the spell to anger the deity by killing innocents or can use it to protect them. So the fact that a druid can get a spell that can be used to anger the deity the druid worships is not evidence for anything.

According to your interpretation of BoED, the act of casting the spell Poison would be an evil act, regardless of how it is used. In that case, a good aligned druid would risk compromising their own alignment and angering their good aligned deity, who would likely never even grant such a spell in the first place. This is clearly not the case, because Poison is not an evil spell and casting it is not inherently evil. Therefore, your interpretation of the poison-is-evil rule applying indiscriminately to any type of poison that deals ability damage is incorrect, since it would contradict the core rules in this case. According to the core rules, a good aligned Druid who worships a good aligned deity would be granted the spell Poison, and would be able to cast it without automatically angering her deity or compromising her alignment regardless of how it is used, because it is not automatically an evil act as this rule would suggest.

Furthermore, the logic behind it applying indiscriminately to all poison that deals ability damage is flawed. An unmodified Fleshraker is a neutral-aligned animal with Int 2 and a natural poison attack. It is incapable of moral action, therefore its use of that poison is not an evil act, even though the same paragraph goes on to state that it absolutely is. That animal does not know right from wrong, it has only its natural instincts, which happen to cause it to commit the act of using its natural poison on its attacks. Even if it could turn that poison off, which it can't, it would have no reason to do so. But what if a Druid takes Celestial Companion and gains a Celestial Fleshraker as her animal companion? A Celestial Fleshraker has Int 3 and is good aligned, but it still has a natural poison attack. It still retains the same instincts it had before, including those which compel it to deliver poison on its attacks. Is that exact same act, via the exact same natural instinct, now an evil act because it is committed by a creature capable of discerning right from wrong?

What if a party is fighting several Fleshrakers, and the party Wizard casts Mass Fox's Cunning on them. After they all attack again and deliver their poison, the party Cleric casts Holy Smite on them. Would they be considered evil aligned and thus risk being blinded by the spell due to being intelligent enough to recognize that delivering their poison is an evil act? What if a few survive the ordeal and their Int scores return to normal, would they still be evil aligned? What if during the duration of the Fox's Cunning one of the Fleshrakers killed an unarmed commoner and carried him away to be eaten, would that be considered an evil act? I'd say no in any of those cases, because there is a difference between following your natural instincts and choosing to act maliciously. If a Celestial Fleshraker's attack on a creature would not be considered an evil act, then delivering its natural poison on that same attack does not make it an evil act.

olentu
2009-07-07, 02:51 AM
I see no problem with casting the spell so long as one does not use the poison provided by the spell.

Can you provide a quotation that supports this "and would be able to cast it without automatically angering her deity or compromising her alignment regardless of how it is used"

Well while the using poison is still an evil act for a creature incapable of moral action but as a specific exception to the general alignment rules the alignment of a creature incapable of moral action is set at neutral.

So assuming that raising int to greater then 3 make a creature capable of moral action which I find reasonable. First one evil act does not change alignment but if the spell lasted long enough committing many evil acts should change alignment if that is all that is done. Second when the int returns to normal they are again incapable of moral action and as such their alignment is set to neutral. Third it depends on why they are carrying the commoner away to be eaten.

Edit: I meant int 3 or greater.

Asheram
2009-07-07, 04:36 AM
If you're going for the shapeshange route.

Beastclaws from savage species. +1 Spiked gauntlets. +2 if you've already got a claw attack. (9,610gp)
Add Sizing (5000gp)
now.. since it's in somewhat of a grey zone between armor and weapon, ask if you can get Called on it (2000gp)

Now, whenever you're under attack, throw away your gauntlets, morph, then use the called function on the gauntlets to quickly don them.

And so you have a pair of +2 weapons that'll always fit and do an extra d6 damage (Adjustable to size. (And ever wanted to do acid damage with your natural weapons? Get a crystal of energy assault, or just encant them normally))

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-07-07, 05:36 AM
I see no problem with casting the spell so long as one does not use the poison provided by the spell.

Can you provide a quotation that supports this "and would be able to cast it without automatically angering her deity or compromising her alignment regardless of how it is used"

Well while the using poison is still an evil act for a creature incapable of moral action but as a specific exception to the general alignment rules the alignment of a creature incapable of moral action is set at neutral.

So assuming that raising int to greater then 3 make a creature capable of moral action which I find reasonable. First one evil act does not change alignment but if the spell lasted long enough committing many evil acts should change alignment if that is all that is done. Second when the int returns to normal they are again incapable of moral action and as such their alignment is set to neutral. Third it depends on why they are carrying the commoner away to be eaten.

Edit: I meant int 3 or greater.

A predator's natural instinct is to seek out the weakest and most vulnerable prey. The sick and weak are thus culled from the herd, and in nature there is nothing wrong with that. However, if a group of predators gets into a humanoid community, what they perceive as the weakest and most vulnerable prey would likely be the young, the elderly, and the unarmed commoners rather than the local guards or the adventurers who show up to drive them off. In that case, their natural instinct would be to kill and devour the unarmed commoners rather than the adventurers. Even if they get hit with a Mass Fox's Cunning, their natural instinct is still to seek out the weakest prey. They view that community as food just like any other herd of creatures, so one kills and drags away an unarmed commoner while the others occupy the adventurers defending the town. If its Int score is boosted high enough to know right from wrong, would following its natural instincts be considered an evil act?

The fact that in a Core-only game, in a group of players who have never even heard of the BoED, any good aligned Druid who worships a good aligned deity can cast Poison and deliver it without it being considered an evil act. That the spell would be granted to that character by that deity implies that this is the case, and any reasonable group of players would come to that conclusion. Poison is a tool of nature, and nature is neutral, therefore poison is neutral, that's why the spell does not have an evil subtype.

Here's a bit from the Book of Vile Darkness:

A maniac puts poison in a town’s water supply, believing
(wrongly) that all of the people in the town are demons. Is
that evil? Yes. A glabrezu convinces a good character that the
townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so the character
pours poison into the town’s water supply. Is that evil?
Probably not—at least, not in the context of the rest of the
character’s actions and the circumstances involved.
The definitive source on what is evil says that the act of using poison is "probably not" evil so long as it is used with good intentions. I find it hilariously ironic that he would choose to use poison when the types of creatures he thinks they are would be immune to poison anyway. Regardless, it clearly sets the stage for determining what is evil: the poison itself is not evil, but using it with malicious intent is evil.

I think what the BoED is trying to say about poison is that "willfully resorting to using poison is an evil act, so here's an alternative, they're called Ravages and Afflictions." It states that a creature using its own natural poison is often viewed in a negative light for doing so, but is not evil because of it. It goes on to state what poisons in the equipment lists are ok for a good character to use, thus the entire paragraph is about equipment and obtaining poison, not about naturally occurring poison being used as it was intended by nature.

olentu
2009-07-07, 06:48 PM
A predator's natural instinct is to seek out the weakest and most vulnerable prey. The sick and weak are thus culled from the herd, and in nature there is nothing wrong with that. However, if a group of predators gets into a humanoid community, what they perceive as the weakest and most vulnerable prey would likely be the young, the elderly, and the unarmed commoners rather than the local guards or the adventurers who show up to drive them off. In that case, their natural instinct would be to kill and devour the unarmed commoners rather than the adventurers. Even if they get hit with a Mass Fox's Cunning, their natural instinct is still to seek out the weakest prey. They view that community as food just like any other herd of creatures, so one kills and drags away an unarmed commoner while the others occupy the adventurers defending the town. If its Int score is boosted high enough to know right from wrong, would following its natural instincts be considered an evil act?

The fact that in a Core-only game, in a group of players who have never even heard of the BoED, any good aligned Druid who worships a good aligned deity can cast Poison and deliver it without it being considered an evil act. That the spell would be granted to that character by that deity implies that this is the case, and any reasonable group of players would come to that conclusion. Poison is a tool of nature, and nature is neutral, therefore poison is neutral, that's why the spell does not have an evil subtype.

Here's a bit from the Book of Vile Darkness:

The definitive source on what is evil says that the act of using poison is "probably not" evil so long as it is used with good intentions. I find it hilariously ironic that he would choose to use poison when the types of creatures he thinks they are would be immune to poison anyway. Regardless, it clearly sets the stage for determining what is evil: the poison itself is not evil, but using it with malicious intent is evil.

I think what the BoED is trying to say about poison is that "willfully resorting to using poison is an evil act, so here's an alternative, they're called Ravages and Afflictions." It states that a creature using its own natural poison is often viewed in a negative light for doing so, but is not evil because of it. It goes on to state what poisons in the equipment lists are ok for a good character to use, thus the entire paragraph is about equipment and obtaining poison, not about naturally occurring poison being used as it was intended by nature.

I do not really see any evidence that following natural instincts would be an excuse.

Well in a core only game the book of exalted deeds would not be used and so none of the rules would be used including the ones dealing with alignment but that is not the situation that is being discussed.

As for the book of vile darkness. Well I do not remember an update for the book to 3.5 and unless that can be provided I must assume that the book of vile darkness is the older source and as such would be superseded by the book of exalted deeds as it is the newer source.

Second even assuming that the quote was not being superseded the type of poison was not listed so it could be one of the poisons that are not inherently evil to use such as Oil of taggit. And so the quote does not have enough information for me to find a contradiction.

So I must conclude that the rule that "using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act" still stands in the case of creatures with natural poison as there has been no contradiction presented in this post I am responding to and I have already stated my stance on the relevance of the rule being located in the ravages and afflictions section of the equipment chapter.

Paul H
2009-07-07, 07:56 PM
Hi

There's a set of magic kit from the MIC that auto changes so can be used in your current form.

Rod Lssr Extend & Extend are really good, as are the Wilding Clasps.

Don't forget your funky spells like Heart of Earth (CM) - bonus HP & 'free' stoneskin. Then there's the 'Bite...' series of spells from SpC.

Don't think multiple Energy Immunity spells stack, though.

Lastly, check out Master Many Forms PrC. 2nd lvl you can change into a Troll, with 4th level spell from SpC you even get the Extraordinary Abilities like Regen & Rend.

Always thought Cleric (with DMM Persist Spell)/Druid/MMF is powerful.

Cheers
Paul H