How to stop a druid from wildshaping?

[Thelion]

At the moment the party I'm currently DM'ing have killed the BBEG's girlfriend (a maniacal ranger/fighter/dervish, nearly took them out) and are currently being chased by a group of bounty hunters. The bounty hunters know about the their classes (ranger, druid, psion, rogue), so it's only logical (since they are pro's) that they have the right tools to capture the group (which is what they are ordered to do).

Is there a magic item that disables a druid to use the wildshape ability? I mean, should the PC's get captured, it would be weird if the badguys hadn't thought about a druid bursting out of bonds in a bear shape.

[Vladislav]

At the moment the party I'm currently DM'ing have killed the BBEG's girlfriend (a maniacal ranger/fighter/dervish, nearly took them out) and are currently being chased by a group of bounty hunters. The bounty hunters know about the their classes (ranger, druid, psion, rogue), so it's only logical (since they are pro's) that they have the right tools to capture the group (which is what they are ordered to do).

Is there a magic item that disables a druid to use the wildshape ability? I mean, should the PC's get captured, it would be weird if the badguys hadn't thought about a druid bursting out of bonds in a bear shape.

Beating him unconscious, and keeping him unconscious with liberal application of nonlethal damage, would work.

[Psyren]

Antimagic Shackles will do it. (Wildshape is Supernatural.)


Actually, those are probably a good idea for everyone. You'll find them in BoED I believe.

[Tokuhara]

Antimagic Shackles will do it. (Wildshape is Supernatural.)


Actually, those are probably a good idea for everyone. You'll find them in BoED I believe.

Or death. Something like a quick, painful death

[Thelion]

Antimagic Shackles will do it. (Wildshape is Supernatural.)


Actually, those are probably a good idea for everyone. You'll find them in BoED I believe.

Thanks, that's the kind of item I was looking for!


Beating him unconscious, and keeping him unconscious with liberal application of nonlethal damage, would work.

In that case I'll have to keep a Vulcan nervepincher nearby :smallwink:

[Psyren]

Watch out for that rogue - getting out of shackles isn't easy, but it's doable, especially if he has enough time to take 20. (I don't know their levels.)

Or you can give him a chance to shine by having him bust the higher-tier classes out. Wouldn't that be amusing :smallbiggrin:

[Vladislav]

If you want to give the Druid at least a small chance, it just so happens that Masterwork Manacles have a break DC of 28, and a Brown Bear has Str 27 (+8 modifier) - and therefore can break the manacles exactly on a 20.

(no, he cannot take 20, since each failure wastes a Wildshape attempt)

[marcielle]

WAIT! If you can put shackles on him then don't bother with antimagic! Plain old Iron Bracers will rob him of all his powers. Then you can just tie him up with plain old rope. SO much more insulting.

[Yuki Akuma]

If you want to give the Druid at least a small chance, it just so happens that Masterwork Manacles have a break DC of 28, and a Brown Bear has Str 27 (+8 modifier) - and therefore can break the manacles exactly on a 20.

(no, he cannot take 20, since each failure wastes a Wildshape attempt)

He can't wildshape with the shackles on. So that doesn't work.

[Rubik]

Yes, dress him in metal armor. This includes metal dastana bracers, IIRC. Strap a pair of metal bands on his arms, and he'll lose his abilities for 24 hours.

If you can use a Call Armor spell during the fight itself, all the better.

[Tokuhara]

Yes, dress him in metal armor. This includes metal dastana bracers, IIRC. Strap a pair of metal bands on his arms, and he'll lose his abilities until he atones.

If you can use a Call Armor spell during the fight itself, all the better.

Isn't there a cursed collar made of metal?

[Rubik]

Isn't there a cursed collar made of metal?But he's a furry. I thought they liked collars.

[Tokuhara]

But he's a furry. I thought they liked collars.

-shudders and forsakes this thread-

[Yuki Akuma]

But he's a furry. I thought they liked collars.

Only some of us.

[Rubik]

-shudders and forsakes this thread-'Twas a joke, Toku.

Hopefully it didn't offend anyone. I meant it in good-humored jest. I like furries, really!

[Vladislav]

He can't wildshape with the shackles on. So that doesn't work.You lost me. Please explain why.

[Mockingbird]

Shifter's Sorrow from PF Core Rulebook. If it hits an enemy with the shapechanger subtype, it deals an extra 2d6, but more importantly if it hits someone in alternate form, they need to make a will save or be returned to their natural form. I'm playing a changeling and it hurts. :p

[Novawurmson]

Druids (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm) 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.

More importantly, find a way to stop him from charging in rhino form. I suggest difficult terrain, steadfast boots, and taking away his credit card.

[Yuki Akuma]

You lost me. Please explain why.

They're antimagic shackles.

Wildshape is magic.

[Vladislav]

Ah, I see. In that case, what we had was failure to communicate. I was talking about "giving the druid a chance", which obviously involves mundane (not antimagic) masterwork shackes, which he, in bear form, can break 5% of the time.

[Jolly]

Any metal armor would work.


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.

[Curmudgeon]

Strapping the Druid into metal armor is the easiest solution. Half-plate is the best option, since that takes 1d4+1 minutes to remove.

For capturing the Druid, and as a backup capability, a character with 6 levels of Church Inquisitor (Complete Divine) has the Force Shapechange ability, which can turn the Druid back to their base form. If you force the Druid to wild shape and then undo that with Force Shapechange until they've exhausted their daily uses of wild shape, you're set for the day.

[Thelion]

Watch out for that rogue - getting out of shackles isn't easy, but it's doable, especially if he has enough time to take 20. (I don't know their levels.)

Or you can give him a chance to shine by having him bust the higher-tier classes out. Wouldn't that be amusing :smallbiggrin:

They're fifth level and the rogue has a high dexterity (20), so I guess he has at least a +13 bonus.

[Thelion]

WAIT! If you can put shackles on him then don't bother with antimagic! Plain old Iron Bracers will rob him of all his powers. Then you can just tie him up with plain old rope. SO much more insulting.

Ghehe, this actually sounds like the most fun :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

The armor option I can see (though I'm unaware of the rules for putting armor on someone else unwillingly), but does just putting manacles on him count as "wearing" them? I foresee a bitter argument with the druid's player over this.

Though more expensive, the AMF shackles are beyond reproach.

On the other hand, if your mercs can only afford one pair, the psion is definitely the guy to put those on.

[Curmudgeon]

The armor option I can see (though I'm unaware of the rules for putting armor on someone else unwillingly), but does just putting manacles on him count as "wearing" them? Why would that matter?
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.
Ordinary manacles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#manaclesandManaclesMasterwork ) provide no armor or shield bonus. Regardless of their construction, they won't have any impact on wild shape ─ except for the antimagic versions, of course. Armor, yes; manacles, no.
Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When the druid reverts to her true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on her body that they previously occupied and are once again functional. While they won't prevent wild shape, the Druid can't use wild shape to ditch the manacles, either.

[Psyren]

Why would that matter?

I was actually directing that toward marcielle's comment - that putting "plain old iron shackles" on the druid would "rob him of all his powers." Antimagic shackles definitely, but regular ones I'm not sure I agree with.

And I agree with you that the druid couldn't ditch ordinary shackles via wild shape, but they wouldn't really need to either.

[Vowtz]

Church Inquisitor(Complete Divine)

"Force Shapechange (Su): A church inquisitor of 6th
level or higher can force a creature into its natural form.
The church inquisitor must make a successful melee touch
attack against the creature. If the attack is successful, the
church inquisitor makes a caster level check as if casting
dispel magic against the shapechanging effect. The church
inquisitor’s +4 bonus on dispel checks (the Inquisition
domain granted power) applies to this check. This ability
undoes the effect of alter self, polymorph, shapechange, and
alternate form abilities, whether exceptional, spell-like, or
supernatural in nature. The affected creature cannot change
its shape again for 1d6 rounds. The church inquisitor can use
this ability at will."

[noparlpf]

Feat: Disrupting Strike. From DR 355; it's a Stunning Fist feat for Shifters only. I'm not sure if it technically applies, but I would consider a Wild Shaper to be a kind of shapechanger.

[Lapak]

Depending on the makeup of this group of bounty hunters, one of the safest ways to deal with captured casters in general is to capture them, hit them with Flesh to Stone, hit the resulting statue with Shrink Item, and pack the resulting figurine for safe transport. Depending on the level of the bounty hunters, this may not be viable (though if they have substantial backing, they may have been given scrolls or one-shot items to accomplish it), but it's pretty darn effective. A druid may be a dangerous shapeshifter, but a druid-shaped chess piece is not.

[vitkiraven]

Isn't there a piece of metal armor that goes around the neck called a gorget in Van Richten's Guide to the Undead? Or did I just see that somewhere else. I think it costs a whopping 50gp. Add in some special rope (maybe Earthsilk from Eberron, or Elf-hair from A+EG), and it should be enough to keep the Druid at bay. Don't forget to hog-tie the animal companion though. :smallbiggrin:

[comicshorse]

Shifter's Sorrow from PF Core Rulebook. If it hits an enemy with the shapechanger subtype, it deals an extra 2d6, but more importantly if it hits someone in alternate form, they need to make a will save or be returned to their natural form. I'm playing a changeling and it hurts. :p

Yikes ! Nobody tell my G.M. about that or my Shifter is in deep trouble

[marcielle]

I was actually directing that toward marcielle's comment - that putting "plain old iron shackles" on the druid would "rob him of all his powers." Antimagic shackles definitely, but regular ones I'm not sure I agree with.

And I agree with you that the druid couldn't ditch ordinary shackles via wild shape, but they wouldn't really need to either.

Your granny knits you an ugly sweater and your mom forces you to wear it. It doesn't matter that you don't have a choice, the world will still point and giggle. Once they are on, not only is he powerless, he doesn't regain his powers for 24 hours, unlike antimagic shackles that wear off once they are picked. And I'm pretty sure I specified bracers, as in armor, as in the various RAW quotes from above.

[Psyren]

Your granny knits you an ugly sweater and your mom forces you to wear it. It doesn't matter that you don't have a choice, the world will still point and giggle. Once they are on, not only is he powerless, he doesn't regain his powers for 24 hours, unlike antimagic shackles that wear off once they are picked. And I'm pretty sure I specified bracers, as in armor, as in the various RAW quotes from above.

Apologies, I misread your post concerning bracers instead of manacles.

However, there are to my knowledge no rules for strapping armor onto someone (willing or unwilling), so the player can always claim that his vows are unbroken (and almost certainly will to avoid being railroaded and powerless for a whole day.) The advantage of the shackles is that they avoid this sort of OOG conflict. Manacles can specifically be applied to another character, but bracers don't have this provision.

[Curmudgeon]

And I'm pretty sure I specified bracers, as in armor, as in the various RAW quotes from above.
If you'll check the Equipment chapter of the Player's Handbook you won't find any bracers listed ─ just get this passing reference:
Armor/Shield Bonus: Each armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn’t stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus, such as the mage armor spell or bracers of armor.
Bracers of Armor, despite the name and the fact that they grant an armor bonus to AC, are not armor; they're wondrous items. Only actual metal armor or shields will impair the Druid's class abilities.
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. You can strap a Druid into pure metal bracers with a +8 armor bonus and they still won't impair the Druid's ability to wild shape.

[Psyren]

^

This is exactly the can of worms you'll have to contend with if you try stuffing a druid into iron bracers.

[Antonok]

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.

I would like to note the bolded part. Just have the bounty hunters slap a metal helmet on them and you've turned the druid into a glorified fighter for the next 24 hours. This can also work in combat. (Had it happen, and it SUCKS!)

[Ungvar]

Apologies, I misread your post concerning bracers instead of manacles.

However, there are to my knowledge no rules for strapping armor onto someone (willing or unwilling), so the player can always claim that his vows are unbroken (and almost certainly will to avoid being railroaded and powerless for a whole day.) The advantage of the shackles is that they avoid this sort of OOG conflict. Manacles can specifically be applied to another character, but bracers don't have this provision.

I'm w/ Psyren on this one. DMs are free to rule as they like, but if I'm the DM I would rule that his vow remains unbroken.

Don't think non-magical shackles would work, however, as the druid could either wildshape into a snake and slither out, or if the shackles count as "equipment that is worn", they would merely meld into the new form.

I think the best bet for the hunting party may be a metal trunk w/ breathing holes. Druid can't wildshape into something small enough to get out, and if he wildshapes into something too big to fit, he crushes himself instead of breaking out.

[marcielle]

I can just imagine:
'Hold this for me, would you?'
'Sure...O crap'

Druid carried a shield and is now powerless for 24 hours.

There was a spell in pathfinder that made people accept your gifts if they failed their save. I can see the shenanigans already...

And were the Druid restrictions a vow? I thought metal was just anathame to their way of life or something.

[Rubik]

Bracers aren't specified as an armor/shield item, but DASTANA bracers are, as I pointed out earlier. They're made of metal.

And the druid description doesn't say 'don' armor or shield, it says 'wear'. Thus, wearing anything metal will screw a druid, intentional or not. Just like breaking one's vows will screw over paladins and exalted types even if they didn't do it willingly or of their own volition.

Also, you could invest some metal armor with some nice druid enhancements, have a wizard PaO it into dragonhide, find a way to suppress the PaO for divination and Identification purposes, and leave it for the druid to find (and wear), preferably on a disposable minion, like a PaO'd tree branch or something. Then have the mage that PaO'd it Dispel it during the fight. Auto-Dispel on his own magic, and then you've taken the druid out for 24 hours.

[Zherog]

And the druid description doesn't say 'don' armor or shield, it says 'wear'. Thus, wearing anything metal will screw a druid, intentional or not.

That's just not true. Wearing any armor or shield made of metal will screw the druid, sure. Slapping a pair of normal manacles on him (certainly made of metal, certainly "wearing" them) will not.

[Rubik]

That's just not true. Wearing any armor or shield made of metal will screw the druid, sure. Slapping a pair of normal manacles on him (certainly made of metal, certainly "wearing" them) will not.Try reading my post again, sir.

[CTrees]

And the druid description doesn't say 'don' armor or shield, it says 'wear'. Thus, wearing anything metal will screw a druid, intentional or not. Just like breaking one's vows will screw over paladins and exalted types even if they didn't do it willingly or of their own volition.

This. Heck, tie a iron light shield to the druid's hand; it should work without the potential arguments that "armored bracers aren't armor." Tossing a chain shirt over the druid is probably the second easiest option on that track. The rules as written say nothing about it breaking vows - just that physically doing these things removes powers. I actually always thought the prohibition against metal armor was because it interfered with the druid's connection to nature - they can use metal weapons, so it's obviously not a moral issue with using metal in combat.


There was a spell in pathfinder that made people accept your gifts if they failed their save. I can see the shenanigans already...

Beguiling gift. As I said in the card-related thread, my game preemptively banned it as soon as the book came out. There are just way too many potentially hilarious, abusive uses... "here's a glass of wine! oops, forgot to tell you about the poison before you drank it." "Here, druid, take this steel shield." "Here's a note! (target reads; sepia snake sigil ensues)." "here, take this delightful hat and wear it proudly! Oh, it had a deadly trap hidden in it? My bad!" "Have some incriminating evidence, free of charge! Hey, guards!"

[Zherog]

Try reading my post again, sir.

Elaborate, please. I'm not seeing anything different.

[Mooncrow]

Try reading my post again, sir.

I realize what you mean, but your; "Thus, wearing anything metal will screw a druid" phrase is still wrong. Unless it's armor or a shield, it doesn't matter.

[Zherog]

I realize what you mean, but your; "Thus, wearing anything metal will screw a druid" phrase is still wrong. Unless it's armor or a shield, it doesn't matter.

Yes, exactly.

[Rubik]

I realize what you mean, but your; "Thus, wearing anything metal will screw a druid" phrase is still wrong. Unless it's armor or a shield, it doesn't matter.Dastana bracers are listed under shields in the Arms and Equipment Guide.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I think the no-metal-armor restriction is desccribed as a vow in the fluff in the Player's Handbook but the fluff isn't in the SRD and I'm away from my books so I can't say for sure.

[Mooncrow]

Dastana bracers are listed under shields in the Arms and Equipment Guide.

"wearing anything metal" - is what you said, and as such, it is wrong.

[CTrees]

I think he just didn't emphasize the dastana bracers (which should work) in the right place, and needed slightly better wording. There are metal bracers which should work to hit the "no metal" rule; one just needs to be specific.

Also, thinking about this, it doesn't say "wear properly," "carry defensively" or "equip." Technically... "A druid who [...] carries a prohibited shield" might mean that an enterprising rogue could sleight-of-hand a heavy metal shield, made for a fine-sized creature into a druid's pocket or backpack, making the druid "carry" the shield (grammatically true, even if not RAI) and cause a loss of powers. Huh.

EDIT: Way, way, way slow on the first paragraph.

[Rubik]

"wearing anything metal" - is what you said, and as such, it is wrong.Ah. My apologies. I didn't catch it. "Anything" meant "armors and shields."

Sorry.

[Mooncrow]

Ah. My apologies. I didn't catch it. "Anything" meant "armors and shields."

Sorry.

I figured - still, it's always better to be precise when talking about rules^^

[Jolly]

If a player told me that because there are no rules for strapping armor onto an unwilling participant it couldn't happen to their character, I'd apply a DMG upside their rule lawyering head. Ditto with an integral component of plate mail not being armor. That being said, a helmet would probably be easier.

[CTrees]

If a player told me that because there are no rules for strapping armor onto an unwilling participant it couldn't happen to their character, I'd apply a DMG upside their rule lawyering head. Ditto with an integral component of plate mail not being armor. That being said, a helmet would probably be easier.

That's the same line of reasoning that leads to "the rules on death don't restrict you from taking purely mental actions, no matter how long you've been dead, so my psion will never stop operating at peak efficiency!"

[Jolly]

That's the same line of reasoning that leads to "the rules on death don't restrict you from taking purely mental actions, no matter how long you've been dead, so my psion will never stop operating at peak efficiency!"

Or drown healing. "Well the rules say it so..."

[Psyren]

If a player told me that because there are no rules for strapping armor onto an unwilling participant it couldn't happen to their character, I'd apply a DMG upside their rule lawyering head. Ditto with an integral component of plate mail not being armor. That being said, a helmet would probably be easier.

And if a DM had an NPC cram me into a tin can and then tried to tell me my class features were turned off for 24 hours because of that, I'd throw my xbox controller upside his head. Before retrieving it and playing it, of course.

[Curmudgeon]

Dastana bracers are listed under shields in the Arms and Equipment Guide.
That's a 3.0 book, with no Wizards of the Coast 3.5 update for the items. As such, it's up to each individual DM to decide what "minor adjustments" are needed to use them in a 3.5 game, as per page 4 of the Dungeon Master's Guide:
This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments. Some possible minor adjustments would be:

Dastana bracers don't exist in 3.5.
Dastana bracers don't count as armor or shields for Druids.

[CactusAir]

Beguiling gift. As I said in the card-related thread, my game preemptively banned it as soon as the book came out. There are just way too many potentially hilarious, abusive uses... "here's a glass of wine! oops, forgot to tell you about the poison before you drank it." "Here, druid, take this steel shield." "Here's a note! (target reads; sepia snake sigil ensues)." "here, take this delightful hat and wear it proudly! Oh, it had a deadly trap hidden in it? My bad!" "Have some incriminating evidence, free of charge! Hey, guards!"

That sounds hilarious. You've totally convinced me to put that *into* my games.

[Jolly]

And if a DM had an NPC cram me into a tin can and then tried to tell me my class features were turned off for 24 hours because of that, I'd throw my xbox controller upside his head. Before retrieving it and playing it, of course.

You're arguing that it's impossible to put a hat onto a subdued character? Really? Based on... plot armor? And if a DM took your plot armor away you'd stop playing?

Huh...

[Lord Il Palazzo]

And if a DM had an NPC cram me into a tin can and then tried to tell me my class features were turned off for 24 hours because of that, I'd throw my xbox controller upside his head. Before retrieving it and playing it, of course.So having your enemies use strategy and planning to target your weaknesses is worthy of attacking the DM. An interesting philosophy...

[Psyren]

Beguiling gift. As I said in the card-related thread, my game preemptively banned it as soon as the book came out. There are just way too many potentially hilarious, abusive uses... "here's a glass of wine! oops, forgot to tell you about the poison before you drank it." "Here, druid, take this steel shield." "Here's a note! (target reads; sepia snake sigil ensues)." "here, take this delightful hat and wear it proudly! Oh, it had a deadly trap hidden in it? My bad!" "Have some incriminating evidence, free of charge! Hey, guards!"

If you can get someone to fail a DC 11 [MA][C] will save, there are much simpler ways to get rid of them.

I love that Witch gets it though. All you need to do now is find a moon elf with pearly skin living in a cottage with 7 shield dwarves...

[Deophaun]

If a player told me that because there are no rules for strapping armor onto an unwilling participant it couldn't happen to their character, I'd apply a DMG upside their rule lawyering head. Ditto with an integral component of plate mail not being armor. That being said, a helmet would probably be easier.
It's funny that someone who is rules lawyering to relieve a druid of his powers would object to someone rules lawyering a defense for said druid.

[Jolly]

It's funny that someone who is rules lawyering to relieve a druid of his powers would object to someone rules lawyering a defense for said druid.

??? How is using the way the world works rules lawyering? If druids existed the fact that they lose their powers if they wear metal armor would most likely be available information, assuming druids are not virtually unknown. Using a characters weaknesses against them is hardly rules lawyering. Drown healing, commoner rail guns, and "well there's no explicit rule for doing X so it's not possible" are rules lawyering aka abuse of RAW over RAI and logic.

[Lapak]

??? How is using the way the world works rules lawyering? If druids existed the fact that they lose their powers if they wear metal armor would most likely be available information, assuming druids are not virtually unknown. Using a characters weaknesses against them is hardly rules lawyering. Drown healing, commoner rail guns, and "well there's no explicit rule for doing X so it's not possible" are rules lawyering aka abuse of RAW over RAI and logic.The implication of the druid rule is that it is along the same lines as a cleric violating their god's ethos or a paladin breaking their vows and every other 'loss of powers' rule for a divine-based class; that the druid made a choice that disconnects them from their supernatural source of power. Strapping a druid into a metal suit isn't the druid violating his ethos; it's somebody else strapping him into a metal suit. If you knocked a paladin out, strapped a sword into his hand and waved his arm around to kill an innocent being, the paladin wouldn't fall. It wasn't him doing the deed, it was you. Same could very reasonably apply to the druid.

RAW, locking down a druid by shoving a metal helmet on their head might work, but it's edging around what a lot of people see as the RAI of the situation.

[Ungvar]

??? How is using the way the world works rules lawyering? If druids existed the fact that they lose their powers if they wear metal armor would most likely be available information, assuming druids are not virtually unknown. Using a characters weaknesses against them is hardly rules lawyering. Drown healing, commoner rail guns, and "well there's no explicit rule for doing X so it's not possible" are rules lawyering aka abuse of RAW over RAI and logic.

It may be common knowledge to an extent, but what probably WOULDN'T be common knowledge is whether the druid has to put the armor on himself for his powers to disappear, or anyone can nerf him by slapping a metal helmet on him.

As a party thinking about catching a druid, and also as a DM thinking about the fact that the game is supposed to be fun, not annoying, I think the hunters would just use a cage/box he can't get out of.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I'd note that the consequences for a druid wearing metal armor are much less severe than for a cleric or paladin going against their god and/or vows what with the simple 24 hour timer. As such, it kind of makes sense that it's easier to force a druid into it than a cleric or paladin (or than using the more long-term "ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid" clause against the druid).

[flumphy]

I'd say it all hinges on why a druid can't wear metal. Is it because of some environmentally-friendly oath they take? Then I'm inclined to think that being forced into armor against their will wouldn't violate that. If, however, the prohibition is based on the old tales of fey powers being hindered by iron, then I would say forcing them to wear metal does shut them down.

It all depends on your particular setting, I suppose. The default fluff doesn't specify either way.

[Mooncrow]

I'd say it all hinges on why a druid can't wear metal. Is it because of some environmentally-friendly oath they take? Then I'm inclined to think that being forced into armor against their will wouldn't violate that. If, however, the prohibition is based on the old tales of fey powers being hindered by iron, then I would say forcing them to wear metal does shut them down.

It all depends on your particular setting, I suppose. The default fluff doesn't specify either way.

Well, the fact that they can have and use any amount of metal that's not armor or shield would kind of lean to the first, I would say :p

[CTrees]

If you can get someone to fail a DC 11 [MA][C] will save, there are much simpler ways to get rid of them.

Huh? The only way it could be DC11 is if cast with an item or by a character with an 11 in their casting stat, and no other boosters. At level one, with an 18 in the casting stat, that's a DC 15 - better than average odds of success against most comparably leveled enemies. Also, Beguiling Gift has more options than simply "getting rid" of enemies. In fact, it seems to me it's more useful/fun for roleplaying/out of combat than in, similar to spells like Glibness - sure, that spell slot can be used to end a combat, but combat isn't all the game is about.

Regardless, this is a touch off-topic. *shrug*

[Deophaun]

I'd note that the consequences for a druid wearing metal armor are much less severe than for a cleric or paladin going against their god and/or vows what with the simple 24 hour timer. As such, it kind of makes sense that it's easier to force a druid into it than a cleric or paladin (or than using the more long-term "ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid" clause against the druid).
This is where 4e excels over 3.5, as these all or nothing penalties to balance classes are poorly written, ridiculous and, in practice, vindictive. If the player wanted to play a fighter, he would play a fighter. But, the player wanted to play a druid, or a wizard, or (for some unknown reason) a paladin. So, naturally, we need rules to let DMs make them play something else.

What you are talking about is a penalty that makes the Druid sit in a corner for the next group of encounters (maybe multiple sessions) for something that many people here would make ridiculously easy to accomplish. "Ok, the orcs assist each other and grapple you, allowing one of them to put a rusty buckler in your hands/claw/around your neck with a rope. Aren't you having fun?"

So, now the adventure grinds to a halt as the party picks its nose for 24 hours for the druid player to get his character back. Queue the complaints about a 5-minute workday.

I have an idea: instead of trying to find a loophole where you can take a dump all over your players' characters, why not build interesting and creative encounters instead? Why not exercise the abilities your players have already expressed an interest in, instead of making them be something they avoided? Or, here's a radical thought, if the druid really is destabilizing your campaign enough that you need to pull this excrement to reel him in, try talking to the player about it first.

[flumphy]

Well, the fact that they can have and use any amount of metal that's not armor or shield would kind of lean to the first, I would say :p

Actually, I'd say it leans toward the second. After all, the process for forging it is all basically the same. The fact that weapons and jewelry are fine suggests that the interference is a matter of quantity.

But again, it's not like either explanation is clearly right.

[Psyren]

Huh? The only way it could be DC11 is if cast with an item or by a character with an 11 in their casting stat, and no other boosters. At level one, with an 18 in the casting stat, that's a DC 15 - better than average odds of success against most comparably leveled enemies. Also, Beguiling Gift has more options than simply "getting rid" of enemies. In fact, it seems to me it's more useful/fun for roleplaying/out of combat than in, similar to spells like Glibness - sure, that spell slot can be used to end a combat, but combat isn't all the game is about.

Regardless, this is a touch off-topic. *shrug*

11+mod, then. You may as well charm them and give them a "present," or dominate them and just tell them to pick it up. I'm not sure how much "roleplaying" you expect to get out of a mind-affecting compulsion anyway; by definition you are forcing them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do, so the only role being played here is the one you dictate.

[Andion Isurand]

Involuntary Shapeshifting (sor/wiz 5, transmutation 4) from Races of Eberron might be a spell worth looking at for helping to disable a wildshaping druid. Don't have the spell text in front of me atm though.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I'd say it all hinges on why a druid can't wear metal. Is it because of some environmentally-friendly oath they take? Then I'm inclined to think that being forced into armor against their will wouldn't violate that. If, however, the prohibition is based on the old tales of fey powers being hindered by iron, then I would say forcing them to wear metal does shut them down.

It all depends on your particular setting, I suppose. The default fluff doesn't specify either way.I don't think that having broken the oath (if that's what it is) unintentionally should exempt the druid from the punishment (especially short-term). There's plenty of mythological/religious basis for such things. The two that come to mind at the moment are Cú Chulainn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%BA_Chulainn#C.C3.BA_Chulainn.27s_death) of Irish mythology (he was placed in a position where he had to break one of two oaths (as they were directly opposed in the situation) and breaking either would weaken him) and Samson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson) from the Judeo-Christian book of Judges (who would lose his strength if his hair was ever cut. It was cut without his knowledge while he slept and he lost his strength.) Taking these (and probably others I can't think of) as precedent, it doesn't seem to bad for a druid to lose their powers for a day when someone else forces them to break their vow.

Honestly, I feel like it could set up a pretty cool scenario where the druid has to escape without wildshape or spells (or where the party's rogue gets the spotlight a little while the higher power character is temporarily weakened.)


What you are talking about is a penalty that makes the Druid sit in a corner for the next group of encounters (maybe multiple sessions) for something that many people here would make ridiculously easy to accomplish. "Ok, the orcs assist each other and grapple you, allowing one of them to put a rusty buckler in your hands/claw/around your neck with a rope. Aren't you having fun?"

So, now the adventure grinds to a halt as the party picks its nose for 24 hours for the druid player to get his character back. Queue the complaints about a 5-minute workday.Right, because players never have fun except when everything's going exactly as they'd hoped and dreamed and every adventure is a completely non-challenging stroll through a field of daisies with a liberal smattering of entirely non-threatening enemies to beat up.

Again, we're only talking about 24 hours. I've both played and DMed in campaigns that have played through stretches of time like that without it taking multiple sessions (especially if the party's lying low and trying to strategize about what needs to be done next.) Unless the DM decides to be really vindictive, there's no reason it should force the Druid to sit out for multiple sessions like you seem to think.


I have an idea: instead of trying to find a loophole where you can take a dump all over your players' characters, why not build interesting and creative encounters instead? Why not exercise the abilities your players have already expressed an interest in, instead of making them be something they avoided? Or, here's a radical thought, if the druid really is destabilizing your campaign enough that you need to pull this excrement to reel him in, try talking to the player about it first.If someone takes a class with drawbacks and restrictions, how is it "dumping all over" the character to use that weakness? That's like complaining that antimagic fields are "dumping all over" casters or that enemies with high AC, a miss chance or damage reduction "dump all over" the party's melee fighters. If you'll look that the thread's first post, the plot in question is that a group of competent enemies are trying to counteract the PCs. Is it really so horrible that they might have a reasonable idea of how to do it?

[Jolly]

This is where 4e excels over 3.5, as these all or nothing penalties to balance classes are poorly written, ridiculous and, in practice, vindictive. If the player wanted to play a fighter, he would play a fighter. But, the player wanted to play a druid, or a wizard, or (for some unknown reason) a paladin. So, naturally, we need rules to let DMs make them play something else.

What you are talking about is a penalty that makes the Druid sit in a corner for the next group of encounters (maybe multiple sessions) for something that many people here would make ridiculously easy to accomplish. "Ok, the orcs assist each other and grapple you, allowing one of them to put a rusty buckler in your hands/claw/around your neck with a rope. Aren't you having fun?"

So, now the adventure grinds to a halt as the party picks its nose for 24 hours for the druid player to get his character back. Queue the complaints about a 5-minute workday.

I have an idea: instead of trying to find a loophole where you can take a dump all over your players' characters, why not build interesting and creative encounters instead? Why not exercise the abilities your players have already expressed an interest in, instead of making them be something they avoided? Or, here's a radical thought, if the druid really is destabilizing your campaign enough that you need to pull this excrement to reel him in, try talking to the player about it first.

Wow... you're taking this realllllllly personally. Your zeal is neither appropriate nor justified. Temporary suppression of abilities is not the emotionally abusive power trip you're describing here. "PC's get captured and have to do without their shinies for a bit" is an accepted adventure hook.

Your little rant seems to me an over reaction based on (real or perceived) abuse you've suffered, rather than any inherent objection to the situation at hand.

[Deophaun]

Right, because players never have fun except when everything's going exactly as they'd hoped and dreamed and every adventure is a completely non-challenging stroll through a field of daisies with a liberal smattering of entirely non-threatening enemies to beat up.
Wow, that is so strikingly familiar to what I said. I mean, you're not building an obvious straw man at all! With such a display of intellectual integrity, I am honor bound to not tell you to jump off a cliff.

[Mooncrow]

Wow... you're taking this realllllllly personally. Your zeal is neither appropriate nor justified. Temporary suppression of abilities is not the emotionally abusive power trip you're describing here. "PC's get captured and have to do without their shinies for a bit" is an accepted adventure hook.

Your little rant seems to me an over reaction based on (real or perceived) abuse you've suffered, rather than any inherent objection to the situation at hand.

As a one-time adventure hook, it's not that bad. As a constant threat, especially one where there aren't rules laid out for it; that's a serious downer for the PC.

[Deophaun]

Wow... you're taking this realllllllly personally. Your zeal is neither appropriate nor justified. Temporary suppression of abilities is not the emotionally abusive power trip you're describing here. "PC's get captured and have to do without their shinies for a bit" is an accepted adventure hook.

Your little rant seems to me an over reaction based on (real or perceived) abuse you've suffered, rather than any inherent objection to the situation at hand.
If you want a plot device to temporarily strip a player of his powers, then use a plot device, and know what you are doing. Do not hide a tortured interpretation of game rules to do it.

[Jolly]

Also, this scenario is about bounty hunters. Let's assume this world is real. Wizards and druids, magic and supernatural abilities are common place and well understood. These are people who make their living by capturing such people. If they didn't have effective countermeasures of one kind or another it would utterly break suspension of disbelief for me.

Would it be better if the druid lost his abilities due to being hit with an AMF barbed arrow designed to break off under the skin? If they sprung an ambush and used an ability or spell to render him unconscious?

[Jolly]

{{scrubbed}}

[Jolly]

As a one-time adventure hook, it's not that bad. As a constant threat, especially one where there aren't rules laid out for it; that's a serious downer for the PC.

Stealing a wizards spellbook. Stealing a fighter's equipment. AMF barbed arrows.

Lots of characters have lots of existential threats to their powers. And I'd argue that while the rules don't explicitly spell out exactly the process, it's not exactly a crazy unfathomable event.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

If you want a plot device to temporarily strip a player of his powers, then use a plot device, and know what you are doing. Do not hide a tortured interpretation of game rules to do it.I see. By "tortured" you mean "exactly as they're written with no changes, twists or reinterpretations whatsoever".

[Mooncrow]

I see. By "tortured" you mean "exactly as they're written with no changes, twists or reinterpretations whatsoever".

What written rules are you using to forcibly put armor on someone?

[Psyren]

What written rules are you using to forcibly put armor on someone?

Well, you could Use Rope to tie their belt, provided they have a higher hemline. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0764.html)

Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine :smallwink:

[Lord Il Palazzo]

What written rules are you using to forcibly put armor on someone?I had assumed that by "tortured interpretation" he was referring to the "wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield" passage.

[Deophaun]

I see. By "tortured" you mean "exactly as they're written with no changes, twists or reinterpretations whatsoever".
Yes, because obviously, in a game where metal helmets are considered clothing, we can call them "armor" if it gets us what we want.

This entire thread devolved into an exercise of expanding the definition of armor beyond what anything in the game mechanics suggests in order to pull off a cheap trick. So yes, I'd say it's very tortured.

[Jolly]

{{scrubbed}}

[Zherog]

Yes, because obviously, in a game where metal helmets are considered clothing, we can call them "armor" if it gets us what we want.


Not really.


Breastplate: It comes with a helmet and greaves.
...
Full Plate: The suit includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor. Each suit of full plate must be individually fitted to its owner by a master armorsmith, although a captured suit can be resized to fit a new owner at a cost of 200 to 800 (2d4x100) gold pieces.


Sorry, but helmets are part of both a breastplate and full plate armor. Nobody is stretching or bending any rules at all to say so.

[Mooncrow]

I had assumed that by "tortured interpretation" he was referring to the "wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield" passage.

I assumed the "tortured" was more a combination of the somewhat questionable rules interpretation (but within reason, I'll admit) and the complete lack of rules about forcibly putting armor on someone.

For me, if I was going to allow it in my games, it would be under the same rules as Coup de Grace - what I wouldn't want to see is every encounter we run into having a five guys with metal bracers gunning for the druid (or, every time I have a druid NPC, the PCs grabbing their metal bracers :).

[Deophaun]

Sorry, but helmets are part of both a breastplate and full plate armor. Nobody is stretching or bending any rules at all to say so.
Emphasized the relevant qualifier for you. They are part of, but they are not, in and of themselves, armor. It's like saying a brick is a part of a house, therefore a brick must be a house.

[Psyren]

There are no published rules for cutting a steak up to eat it either. OMG what shall we do?!?! Do I need to make an attack roll? What if I nat 1? What if I nat 20? Do I need ranks in Profession: Food Taster? Can it be used untrained? /weeps quietly

Seriously now, this conversation was about how to keep a captured druid from wildshaping. If you need an explicit set of rules to adjudicate an attempt at putting a hat on an unconscious or bound person you shouldn't be DMing.

I have no problem even if the druid is trussed up like a thanksgiving turkey. What I do have a problem with is the cosmos deciding it is the druid's fault. The druid's player is likely to be pissed off too.

[Jolly]

Yes, because obviously, in a game where metal helmets are considered clothing, we can call them "armor" if it gets us what we want.

This entire thread devolved into an exercise of expanding the definition of armor beyond what anything in the game mechanics suggests in order to pull off a cheap trick. So yes, I'd say it's very tortured.

First, it's a piece of armor even if by itself it is not enough to grant an AC bonus, or even if the rules only speak of it as part of a set. That is an example of rules lawyering and tortorous interpretations. "But that's not an entire set of armour, so it doesn't count! That set of full plate doesn't include a codpiece, it isn't really armour!"

Second, shields. And "carry a shield" is pretty plain. Do you need the rules for strapping a shield to an unconscious persons arm spelled out?

Third, gorgets. Specifically listed by themselves as a type of armour in a secondary book. Are rules for putting a collar on a bound person needed?

And you'd be similarly outraged at a captured druid being put into a set of AMF manacles right?

[Mooncrow]

There are no published rules for cutting a steak up to eat it either. OMG what shall we do?!?! Do I need to make an attack roll? What if I nat 1? What if I nat 20? Do I need ranks in Profession: Food Taster? Can it be used untrained? /weeps quietly

Seriously now, this conversation was about how to keep a captured druid from wildshaping. If you need an explicit set of rules to adjudicate an attempt at putting a hat on an unconscious or bound person you shouldn't be DMing.


So, what rules would you use then? I'm not saying it can't be done, but if you're going to take away all of a PC's class abilities, it needs to be clearly defined - and then expect it to be used any time a druid NPC shows up.

And if you want to only talk about "an unconscious or bound person", then that's what you should be making clear in all of your posts.

[Jolly]

I have no problem even if the druid is trussed up like a thanksgiving turkey. What I do have a problem with is the cosmos deciding it is the druid's fault. The druid's player is likely to be pissed off too.

That's one interpretation of that restriction. But hardly the only or even the most logical one.

If you put a set of full plate on a wizard against his will, should he get to ignore the spell failure % because "the cosmos" decided to punish him for something he didn't want to do?

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Yes, because obviously, in a game where metal helmets are considered clothing, we can call them "armor" if it gets us what we want.Please look up "helmet" in a dictionary; you'll find something very much like this:

1: a covering or enclosing headpiece of ancient or medieval armor
What rule are you looking at that calls a helmet clothing?


For me, if I was going to allow it in my games, it would be under the same rules as Coup de Grace - what I wouldn't want to see is every encounter we run into having a five guys with metal bracers gunning for the druid (or, every time I have a druid NPC, the PCs grabbing their metal bracers :).That's pretty much how I'd handle it. I imagine that druids aren't likely to publicize their weakness so only a group of pretty smart enemies who've really done their homework would even try it and even then they'd need the druid to be either helpless or under some kind of compulsion to put it on.

[Jolly]

So, what rules would you use then? I'm not saying it can't be done, but if you're going to take away all of a PC's class abilities, it needs to be clearly defined - and then expect it to be used any time a druid NPC shows up.

And if you want to only talk about "an unconscious or bound person", then that's what you should be making clear in all of your posts.

The OP made it clear in his post, and I stated it in one of mine. This entire discussion is about how to prevent a captured druid from escaping by breaking his bonds with wildshape. How many times do we have to restate the question under discussion?

As for the first part, I would expect it to be applied fairly and consistently, did I really need to specify that too? "This is how you adjudicate that situation, and oh by the way don't just use it to screw over your PC's!" I rather think it's implied, but then again I am having a discussion with people who want a specific rule set for putting a hat or collar on someone who's tied up so...

And again, shields and gorgets. You need putting on a collar or strapping a shield to an arm explained?

[Psyren]

That's one interpretation of that restriction. But hardly the only or even the most logical one.

If you put a set of full plate on a wizard against his will, should he get to ignore the spell failure % because "the cosmos" decided to punish him for something he didn't want to do?

How on earth is that relevant? ASF is due to a physical restriction, not a spiritual vow. Druids can wear armor every bit as heavy as plate and cast/wildshape just fine (see Ironwood.)



And you'd be similarly outraged at a captured druid being put into a set of AMF manacles right?

AMF manacles are (a) specifically designed to shut off magical powers and (b) don't penalize you for an entire day after you remove them. Furthermore, manacles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#manaclesandManaclesMasterwork ) explicitly state you can use them to restrain others; armor doesn't.

[Deophaun]

First, it's a piece of armor even if by itself it is not enough to grant an AC bonus, or even if the rules only speak of it as part of a set. That is an example of rules lawyering and tortorous interpretations. "But that's not an entire set of armour, so it doesn't count! That set of full plate doesn't include a codpiece, it isn't really armour!"
If it is not listed as armor, then it is not armor. What you are doing is saying that the definition for "armor" under the druid's entry is a fluff entry, while the definition for "armor" under the equipment section is a crunch one. That is highly unfair.

And you'd be similarly outraged at a captured druid being put into a set of AMF manacles right?
AMF is nothing but a patch to correct a design flaw in D&D. As I said, this is where 4e excels, and 3.5 fails.

[Jolly]

How on earth is that relevant? ASF is due to a physical restriction, not a spiritual vow. Druids can wear armor every bit as heavy as plate and cast/wildshape just fine (see Ironwood.)

It depends on how you interpret the nature of the restriction (and of the vow).

Let's say you had a character who vowed to never sleep with anyone but their spouse. If they were tricked into sleeping with a non-spouse (hat of disguise, doppelganger, spell etc) should that then not "count" as breaking their vow, even though they did in fact break it?

Secondly, I was approaching it as a physical limitation. Wearing armor or carrying a metal shield either interferes with their ability to draw on their holy powers, or so incenses their god(s) that they are cut off.

You could I suppose rule either way on whether or not the violation must be intentional. But it's hardly a stretch to say that the rules work as written.

[Deophaun]

Please look up "helmet" in a dictionary
Too bad the dictionary isn't a core rulebook, as you might have had a point.


What rule are you looking at that calls a helmet clothing?
MiC page 111-112. Strangely, all those helmets are not listed under the armor section.

[Jolly]

If it is not listed as armor, then it is not armor. What you are doing is saying that the definition for "armor" under the druid's entry is a fluff entry, while the definition for "armor" under the equipment section is a crunch one. That is highly unfair.

AMF is nothing but a patch to correct a design flaw in D&D. As I said, this is where 4e excels, and 3.5 fails.

You conveniently ignore shields and gorgets. Care to address that?

And really, if you prefer 4e then good for you but it hardly makes anyone who uses the clearly written rules of 3.5 a horrid monster.

[Skaven]

How much money do they have?

Got enough to give them enough to hire an archer with a bunch of shifters sorrow (as the sword) arrows? That'll force him out of wildshape on a failed save.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Too bad the dictionary isn't a core rulebook, as you might have had a point.And Lord forbid we let logic anywhere near this argument.

[Zherog]

How much money do they have?

Got enough to give them enough to hire an archer with a bunch of shifters sorrow (as the sword) arrows? That'll force him out of wildshape on a failed save.

Right, but that doesn't stop the druid from using wild shape after he's captured.

Step1: capture the party, including the druid.
Step2: safely "escort" them back (which includes, obviously, trying to prevent a jail break.)
Step3: ...
Step4: Profit!

[Deophaun]

And Lord forbid we let logic anywhere near this argument.
When the game defines a term, seeking an outside definition for the same term is nothing but an exercise in equivocation.

Funny thing about logic; one should be familiar with it before one invokes it.

[Mooncrow]

The OP made it clear in his post, and I stated it in one of mine. This entire discussion is about how to prevent a captured druid from escaping by breaking his bonds with wildshape. How many times do we have to restate the question under discussion?

As for the first part, I would expect it to be applied fairly and consistently, did I really need to specify that too? "This is how you adjudicate that situation, and oh by the way don't just use it to screw over your PC's!" I rather think it's implied, but then again I am having a discussion with people who want a specific rule set for putting a hat or collar on someone who's tied up so...

And again, shields and gorgets. You need putting on a collar or strapping a shield to an arm explained?

The only wording I see is "unwilling participant" in your posts, and we had already gone far afield from the OP when you started posting. A druid in a grapple is an "unwilling participant" - what rules would you use for slapping a dastana on his arm? That would be the specific situation we were discussing when you said:


If a player told me that because there are no rules for strapping armor onto an unwilling participant it couldn't happen to their character, I'd apply a DMG upside their rule lawyering head. Ditto with an integral component of plate mail not being armor. That being said, a helmet would probably be easier.

edit: ah, I see, you did change your wording to "subdued character" later on.

[Jolly]

So you've no objections to my actual arguments then? Glad we could reach consensus. :)

[Psyren]

It depends on how you interpret the nature of the restriction (and of the vow).

Your analogy wasn't relevant at all, as wizards take no vows.


Let's say you had a character who vowed to never sleep with anyone but their spouse. If they were tricked into sleeping with a non-spouse (hat of disguise, doppelganger, spell etc) should that then not "count" as breaking their vow, even though they did in fact break it?

No, it shouldn't. You see, I would rather assume that a universal force that has access to both the knowledge and power druids rely on would be able to read intent. Because if it doesn't, it's extremely childish/dangerous and shouldn't be venerated by anyone, never mind followed.


And Lord forbid we let logic anywhere near this argument.

RAW and logic seldom go together.

Then again, we're talking about how to stop a person in chains from breaking said chains by turning into a bear. So yeah.

[Jolly]

Also, given the wording I think Sovreign Glue, a shield, and a touch attack could lead to hilarity here. :)

[Mooncrow]

So you've no objections to my actual arguments then? Glad we could reach consensus. :)

Aside from your argument that you would throw books at someone for objecting to a DM fiat loss of powers, no. I think the situation in general is vague enough to be a DM's call, certainly not clear enough to scream about either way. Granted, I would never actually use it in my games, but that's irrelevant.

[Jolly]

Your analogy wasn't relevant at all, as wizards take no vows.

Let's say you had a character who vowed to never sleep with anyone but their spouse. If they were tricked into sleeping with a non-spouse (hat of disguise, doppelganger, spell etc) should that then not "count" as breaking their vow, even though they did in fact break it?

No, it shouldn't. You see, I would rather assume that a universal force that has access to both the knowledge and power druids rely on would be able to read intent. Because if it doesn't, it's extremely childish/dangerous and shouldn't be venerated by anyone, never mind followed.


RAW and logic seldom go together.

Then again, we're talking about how to stop a person in chains from breaking said chains by turning into a bear. So yeah.

Perhaps wearing iron prevents the access to magic, regardless of intent. Perhaps it's a physical limitation. Hardly be egregious to rule that way.

As for the bold, that is an entirely setting specific call. Assuming the uncaring gods of nature will care that the druid didn't really mean to break his vow is silly. The forces of nature can be good or evil, the cat torturing a mouse is just as natural and wonderful as a mother cat protecting her kittens. Assuming they would care about intent is one way to view things, but hardly the only one.

Let look at it this way. You make a deal, a contract. I will do X, in exchange for Y. You don't do X, but because of circumstances beyond your control. Would it therefor be childish and dangerous for the being you made the deal with to not do Y?

If you agree to pay someone 1000 gold for a magic item, but someone steals it from them before they can deliver it to you do you still owe them the gold? The breach of contract was involuntary, right?

[Jolly]

Aside from your argument that you would throw books at someone for objecting to a DM fiat loss of powers, no. I think the situation in general is vague enough to be a DM's call, certainly not clear enough to scream about either way. Granted, I would never actually use it in my games, but that's irrelevant.

DMG to the head is a longstanding joke about those sort of situations, not a serious proposal of violence. Which I thought was implied but given the situation I should probably spell it out...

And the RAW is crystal clear. Ruling the RAW is not RAI would be the DM fiat, ehich is perfectly acceptable too.

[Deophaun]

You conveniently ignore shields and gorgets. Care to address that?
Gorgets are 3.0, and 3.0 is 3.0. I don't play it, so don't much care.

Shields are actually an odd case, as I'm still not entirely sure by what the game means by "carries," as in some cases it seems to indicate that it is being appropriately used, versus simply in hand or on merely their person (this comes up a lot with weapons). If the used definition is correct, then it would take a conscious action by the druid in order for him to violate the "vow." Of course, I could also go the dictionary route and say that carrying requires moving the object around from place to place (and I'd be more prone to this interpretation, as it would prevent a druid from totting a shield around without losing his powers while still applying if he actually used it). Other interpretations, while valid, move into the cheap category, as the druid could theoretically violate his vow if he bull rushed an enemy with a metal tower shield, in addition to whatever schemes the DM comes up with.

Basically, I'd go with the guilty mind standard, so that whatever definition gives the player the best opportunity to understand the consequences of his actions will apply. To me, the reasoning displayed in forcing a shield into a character's hands does not satisfy that standard.

But, again, this is where the rules are muddled.

The helmet thing, however, crystal clear, as helmets do not appear under armor entries all by themselves, but clothing and wondrous items, so they do not violate a druid's taboo.

[Jolly]

I lol'ed. I feel like I'm arguing with Bill Clinton. Would you like me to clarify the definition of "is" for you while I'm at it?

In any case, I feel like we've reached the 386 (www.xkcd.com/386) part of this discussion, so have fun insisting a plain and clear reading of unambiguous RAW is tortorous machinations by the Snidely Whiplash-like DM to damage the poor poor druid. Since I'll (hopefully) never have to play in a game with you, my interest in your personal issues manifesting as rage have reached an end. Have fun!

[Deophaun]

Let me also state that there is nothing wrong with actually tricking a character into violating his taboos, namely because tricking actually requires effort and cleverness on the part of the DM and can be avoided by the player.

Tricking a man who has vowed to lay only with his wife by having a doppelganger pose as her is fine. Having the man get raped in an alley is not.

Tricking a druid into carrying a metal shield by presenting the shield as a serving tray, complete with a pitcher and mugs, is fine. Pinning him and forcing his hand to grasp the shield despite his struggling is not.

The former is actually a game, in that the outcome is open and the player can emerge triumphant. The latter is simply a lesser form of "rocks fall, everyone dies."

[Deophaun]

I lol'ed. I feel like I'm arguing with Bill Clinton. Would you like me to clarify the definition of "is" for you while I'm at it?
I am glad you found it amusing, and that you've never had to wonder if a player can leave his hand on top of a sheathed Warning weapon to hold it, or if it actually had to be drawn. I'm sure such discussions have never actually occurred on these forums, and have had no game impact whatsoever.

[Eldest]

Let me also state that there is nothing wrong with actually tricking a character into violating his taboos, namely because tricking actually requires effort and cleverness on the part of the DM and can be avoided by the player.

Tricking a man who has vowed to lay only with his wife by having a doppelganger pose as her is fine. Having the man get raped in an alley is not.

Tricking a druid into carrying a metal shield by presenting the shield as a serving tray, complete with a pitcher and mugs, is fine. Pinning him and forcing his hand to grasp the shield despite his struggling is not.

The former is actually a game, in that the outcome is open and the player can emerge triumphant. The latter is simply a lesser form of "rocks fall, everyone dies."

But to force somebody to hold a shield, you would need to...
A)grapple (somebody who can turn into a bear)
B)pin (somebody who can turn into a bear)
C) whatever the DM would make to have the pinned bear hold a shield
I would likely base the improv. ruling be based somewhat off of this...

If You’re Pinning an Opponent
You can attempt to damage your opponent with an opposed grapple check, you can attempt to use your opponent’s weapon against him, or you can attempt to move the grapple (all described above). At your option, you can prevent a pinned opponent from speaking.

You can use a disarm action to remove or grab away a well secured object worn by a pinned opponent, but he gets a +4 bonus on his roll to resist your attempt.

You may voluntarily release a pinned character as a free action; if you do so, you are no longer considered to be grappling that character (and vice versa).

You can’t draw or use a weapon (against the pinned character or any other character), escape another’s grapple, retrieve a spell component, pin another character, or break another’s pin while you are pinning an opponent.

[vitkiraven]

Huh I thought the dastana was updated to 3.5 in an Oriental Adventures thing. I guess not. If not that, then why not just use a chain shirt. I mean, it is after the fact of being unconscious, so it won't matter too much. All I was trying to do was drop the price some.
As for the whole not intentional thing, I side with the loss of powers, but then again, I've played Changeling the lost, so my experience with Nature and geasa type stuff would be that. And it balances the class a bit more, and it is very thematic for the class. Something that druids would actually fear.

[Antonok]

Honestly, this has devolved into a rather straining arguement.

First, if an unconcious druid gets metal armor put on them, they wake up, they're still wearing it wether they intended to or not. I say its still a violation. It's simply one of those things that makes the druid say %$@ and go into a murderous rampage or flee.

Secondly, people are acting like your permantly stripping a wizard of spell slots. Its still a DRUID. Its not like hes dropped to commoner lvl here. He still makes a decent melee fighter and *important note here* STILL HAS AN ANIMAL COMPANION THATS BETTER THEN A FIGHTER! Hell, damn near worth a barbarian if the druid took the Natural Bond feat.

Thirdly, as far as the rules go, pinning. For example, a bully pins a kid to the ground, sits on his chest with his knees on his shoulders, and starts drawing/spitting/whatever on his face. Not much of a stretch to say you can't slip a helmet on someone the same way. If you can take something off someone while thier pinned, why can't you reverse it and put something on someone?
As for being unconcious; well, in that state your a Raggedy Anne doll at the mercy of whoever knocked you out.

[Deophaun]

But to force somebody to hold a shield, you would need to...
A)grapple (somebody who can turn into a bear)
B)pin (somebody who can turn into a bear)
C) whatever the DM would make to have the pinned bear hold a shield

You wouldn't even have to pin the druid under this conception. Tie a piece of rope to a shield and lasso the druid with it, or strap it to a net and throw the net on the druid with a touch attack. Now he's carrying it, and he loses his powers for 24 hours. Ridiculously easy.

And to those who say that a helmet is armor, if I was in your game, could I wear a +5 mithral chain shirt, and have a +1 greater blurring helmet for 9,000 gp? A +1 acidic helmet for 4k, or a dragondodger for the same price? Can I socket an armor crystal into the helmet? Would I get the DR if it was made of adamantium (what's the armor check penalty or SFC for an adamantium helmet anyway?).

[Templarkommando]

??? How is using the way the world works rules lawyering? If druids existed the fact that they lose their powers if they wear metal armor would most likely be available information, assuming druids are not virtually unknown. Using a characters weaknesses against them is hardly rules lawyering. Drown healing, commoner rail guns, and "well there's no explicit rule for doing X so it's not possible" are rules lawyering aka abuse of RAW over RAI and logic.

It occurs to me that knowing that a druid gets his powers turned off by wearing metal armor might not be common knowledge. It might be technically available knowledge, but I would say that likely requires a gather information/knowledge (religion)/ or something in order to discover it. Druids are supposedly fairly uncommon - at least moreso than fighters, barbarians, rogues and other more mundane characters. Druids have managed to keep an entire language secret, it occurs to me that this would likely be another well-kept secret.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Locked for Review.