Druids endangering animals

[Talakeal]

Years ago, when I was first learning D&D, my first serious long term character was a druid. The DM ruled that if I allowed any animal to be seriously injured, including my animal companion and summoned creatures, that I was violating my code of conduct and would lose all my class abilities and atoned (quest included). I thought it was kind of unfair at the time, but was new enough not to object.

Two questions:

First, do you think the DM was wrong by RAW or out of line to impose such limitations.

Second, if more DMs did this, do you think druids would be a more balanced class?

[jindra34]

Completely not raw, especially when you consider that a large chunk of the low level random encounters are animals. And all it would do is push the druid into not using animal companion which might make the fighter feel more useful for 5 or so levels, after which wildshape starts making its usual mess.

[OracleofWuffing]

First, do you think the DM was wrong by RAW or out of line to impose such limitations.
Yes, though it's sort of a common line around certain kinds of DMs. The line being worked off of here is that a Druid that ceases to revere nature becomes an ex-druid. Thing is, consider an Evil Druid: are you telling me an evil guy can't let something else die? There's also the quandary of, if a Butterfly is about to be eaten by a Spider, you can either leave them alone and let the Butterfly die, or free the Butterfly and let the Spider die from not eating.*

Death is a kind of nature, and while it's kinda assumed that the intention was that Druids don't go burning down forests for fun, it is sometimes inevitable and shouldn't be punished. Even in such situations, you can still allow or cause the death while still revering nature.


Second, if more DMs did this, do you think druids would be a more balanced class?
Elementals aren't animals, and I presume there's gotta be some way to get plant animal companions, so... No. Even without sidestepping the letter of the law like that, you still have the issue of being a bear that shoots lightning.

*I am of course pretending you don't introduce the spider to a vegetarian diet.

[Talakeal]

Actually I guess I worded the OP wrong, it wasn't just allowing it, it was more causing it by way of my class features, for example by taking my animal companion into a dangerous area or summoning animals to help in a battle.

I did end up abandoning my animal companion as a result.

[jindra34]

Actually I guess I worded the OP wrong, it wasn't just allowing it, it was more causing it by way of my class features, for example by taking my animal companion into a dangerous area or summoning animals to help in a battle.

I did end up abandoning my animal companion as a result.
Wait taking your animal companion into a dangerous area was more against the rules than smacking an animal to death with a stick? And what else are summons for?
Your DM was seriously wacked. And you pointed out the only long term impact of the ruling: no animal companion.

[Gavinfoxx]

Animal companions are SUPPOSED to be taken to dangerous areas. That's the whole point of an animal companion, that's WHY you give them abilities above and beyond those of normal areas... they are no longer mundane animals, but avatars of nature's wrath against things which would despoil nature at large. Just like the druid themselves.

[NOhara24]

Your DM was seriously wacked.

Yep. That level of crazy warrants walking away from the table. "Don't use your animal companion for what it's designed to do, or you lose all your class features."

[DrDeth]

Well, your DM isn’t crazy and it’s a reasonable backlash to the tactics I have seen presented by Powergamers & Munchkins here and elsewhere, where sending your companion to “check for traps” , because you can always get another one is commonly suggested. That’s bogus.

OTOH Your companion is part of the circle of life, so to speak, and although you certainly have to treat it with care- healing it, not sending it into suicidal situations, etc, it’s perfectly OK for the companion to be taking the same risks as the druid. Any decent druid should not have his companion dying much more often than PC’s do. Mind you, with some pack animals, like wolves, they would be happy to “take one foe the Alpha” of course. So, your companion should be a buddy, not cannon fodder.

Summoning is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. Pretty much they ARE cannon fodder redshirts, using them as such is not bogus. However it’s not unreasonable (but it is rare) to consider they are also living things and must be cared for. In that case, I’d ask for something else to replace spontaneous summoning.

[ericgrau]

The rule is "ceases to revere nature". Killing a wolf attacking the party no, wanton destruction of wildlife not for food or defense or anything yes. I can see falling as a fair response to being excessively careless with animals, though technically summons won't die from anything only feel some pain.

I think such things are too fuzzy to be good for balancing whether or not you think the druid needs a nerf.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Actually I guess I worded the OP wrong, it wasn't just allowing it, it was more causing it by way of my class features, for example by taking my animal companion into a dangerous area or summoning animals to help in a battle.

I did end up abandoning my animal companion as a result.

The worst part here, for me at least, is that summoned creatures don't even die when they "die", they just return to where they were summoned from.

[Coidzor]

First, do you think the DM was wrong by RAW or out of line to impose such limitations.

Second, if more DMs did this, do you think druids would be a more balanced class?

1. A. Yes.
1. B. Yes.
2. No.

[Chronos]

The DM was stretching an interpretation to the point of being effectively a houserule. Now, houseruling is fine, and toning down the power of druids a bit is fine, but if you're going to houserule-nerf a major class feature of a class, you need to make that clear before one of your players rolls up a character of that class.

[Coidzor]

The DM was stretching an interpretation to the point of being effectively a houserule. Now, houseruling is fine, and toning down the power of druids a bit is fine, but if you're going to houserule-nerf a major class feature of a class, you need to make that clear before one of your players rolls up a character of that class.

More honest to just remove it, even in that case. Or force 'em to be shapeshift variant druids. Or Spirit Shaman.

[Gavinfoxx]

If the DM is concerned about the power of Druids in general, 3.5e provides several options for nerfing them:

Shapeshift Variant (Player's Handbook II)
Deadly Hunter Variant (Unearthed Arcana, SRD)
Druidic Avenger Variant (Unearthed Arcana, SRD)
Spontaneous Divine Caster Variant (Unearthed Arcana, SRD)
Spontaneous Affliction (Exemplars of Evil)
Spontaneous Rejuvenation (Player's Handbook II)

Suggest that, if he wants to tone down the power of Druids, that some of those options be put in play.

[Calanon]

Completely not raw, especially when you consider that a large chunk of the low level random encounters are animals. And all it would do is push the druid into not using animal companion which might make the fighter feel more useful for 5 or so levels, after which wildshape starts making its usual mess.

Then he wild shapes into say a Bear and gets hit, technically an animal did just get hurt and he automatically breaks his code of conduct and is either:

1. Trapped in the form of a sentient bear

2. forced out of wild shape

[TuggyNE]

Then he wild shapes into say a Bear and gets hit, technically an animal did just get hurt

<nitpick>He still has his original type and subtype, so no.</nitpick>:smallwink: Of course... that likely wouldn't matter to a DM this restrictive.