Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

[quote="2nd edition Druid hand book"]Armor and Weapons Permitted. Most druids wear natural armor (leather) and use wooden shields. Other armors, especially metallic kinds, are forbidden to all druids.
Most of the weapons permitted to druids of a particular branch resemble tools used in herding, hunting, and farming, or hold symbolic meaning to the druid. For instance, the curved scimitar and khopesh represent both the sickle used in the harvest and the crescent moon, which stands for birth, death, and rebirth in the cycle of Nature.
The standard druid can use the following weapons: club, sickle, dart, spear, dagger, scimitar, sling, and staff (optional: scythe).

I know that the classes are being rearranged, so this is just something to keep in mind. Short pikes are still given as a weapon for druids but polearms(spears) aren't.(mounted pole arms for scythe too)

If and when the class get reworked could it be made that when you make a druid, since clerics get only maces when one is created, that any level in spikes gets transferred to clubs or staffs. It may not seem IC, but it is also unfare to deny someone the choice in creation and then denie that only choice later.

I have been playing a druid for the past 6 months or so and I have seen some very nice changes of things that have been added to that class recently. Druids to get the scimitar as it stands now. My druid has been using one since shortly after she was created.

Just give it time if there are any more changes to the class I am sure they will let us know about it.

Mingus, dont forget that the standard Generica/Greyhawk Druid (straight out of the players handbook) is a bit different from the Faerun Druid. In Generica/Greyhawk the Druid gains his powers straight from nature itself and venerates Dieties if he/she chooses, and the restrictions go so far as to metalworked leather, unnatural weapons such as smithed swords, arrows and such, However in Faerun the Druids powers is seen as Divine and come from the chosen Deity and/or Nature(ie House of Nature and all their Deities that make them up), and with that comes the deities perspectives and wishes on what or whatnot to use. Thats why in Faerun Druids of Mielikki have a far laxer view than Druids of Silvanus as far as what they can and cannot use, ie Mielikki allows her Druids the same restrictions as Rangers, while Druids of Silvanus will find their powers stripped if they choose to break his tenets.

Oh I don't know I still can see druids using maces and hammers, even if Mielikki is laxed about it. It just goes against their very nature. Remeber that Fighter/druid in BG, even she, as a fighter, could not use maces, hammers or morningstars. And that was set in Faerun.

I still say the short spikes and chains should be taken out. And replace them with polearms and mounted polearms. Not that you will use them while mounted but just so spear, scythes tridents/harpoons(sea druids) and javelins. As far as great chains, flails are used in grain harvesting. And long spikes, well picks and mattocks are use for farming and cultivating.

As far as the rest goes, good job Sharni...

It might take some work to change for certain quest to give a club/flail/mattock, instead of hammers or maces, to just druids. Making them equel in stats but a class/name change. And some how transfering, if possible, what the druid has learnt in short spikes/chains to clubs/great chains/long spikes.(eg if the level in clubs is lower than the short spikes.) Or no changes at all and make them tough breaks for druids... But I'd rather have a tough break than to see druids being able to use spikes/chains and not spears or scythes.[/u]

Well if you really want to get technical in the 3ePHB the weapons list states tht druids can use all simple weapons and armors and shields made from natural materials. This doesnt even include bows, long spears. Should we take those away from them also?

Druids of Mielikki are in no way any laxer than Druids of any other following its just that Mielikki sees the need for functionality and allows her Druids the same restrictions of a Ranger ( simple + martial weapons, light armors ect. ect).Correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive it even says in the Faiths and Pantheons something to the effect of the Druid restrictions being unreasonable and unpractical to her.

Also you say you dont see it in their nature to use hammers, maces, ect. ect... Tomahawks...undeniably a hammer type weapon why wouldnt a Druid use it? Or maces, the weapons have the same affect as in the end result being someones caved in head no different than a club or rock would do.

The way i see it, if a druid can make the weapon without any external influeance than he should be able to use it. I think that druids dont have the luxury of being walking armories and are forced to survive on things like improvisation and weapons of oppurtunity.

Also the BG series is coded in 2ed which is very strict with Druids Class.

I can't argue with you on 3rd ed stuff... The only things that I have are downloaded copies of old second edition material...But....

Rhytania wrote:The way i see it, if a druid can make the weapon without any external influence than he should be able to use it. I think that druids don't have the luxury of being walking armories and are forced to survive on things like improvisation and weapons of opportunity.

Well if you really want to get technical in the 3ePHB the weapons list states that druids can use all simple weapons and armors and shields made from natural materials. This doesn't even include bows, long spears. Should we take those away from them also?

I would agree then not to use bows, or spears then but also no maces or morningstars... If you're gonna get lax with the rules then just give them all the weapons and let the player follow what they feel the rules are.

How many maces/hammers/morningstars have your druids made??? A druid smithy?!? What?! You're chopping down a forest or mining through mother earth for coal to stoke you forge or polluting some water source to quench the finished product?!!.... If you want that, make a priest. Mielikki/Chautnea would have plenty of clerics in their ranks that aren't druids. Sorry for the flame but it does makes a point. Metal weapons should be restricted to farming implements. That leaves flails, scimitars/sickles, scythes and picks/mattocks... But I still like the 2nd ed rule that allowed spears.. Sharni

Rhytania wrote:Druids of Mielikki are in no way any laxer than Druids of any other following its just that Mielikki sees the need for functionality and allows her Druids the same restrictions of a Ranger ( simple + martial weapons, light armors ect. ect).Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it even says in the Faiths and Pantheons something to the effect of the Druid restrictions being unreasonable and unpractical to her.

In no way can you make a druid out to be ranger. They don't even see eye to eye at times. True neutral druids only care about balance and good <what ever> rangers care for only good. Just because they may share a god or or a belief in nature does not make them out as a paladins/priests relation is. And druids live by strict codes a rangers life would not allow. They are completely different classes and as so should be treated different, no matter the god. Same as for paladins and priests. By your logic, Mielikki should allow rangers to cast all of the druids spells or have druids be able to dual wield. The druid code is all encompassing. No druid has exceptions because of whom they worship. If in fact they would have more restrictions placed on them with certain prestige kits or gods they worship.

Again just from my limited knowledge(2nd ed), I don't think Mielikki supports druids... priests yes but not druids...Fk uses her cause Silvanus is not an approved Imm god.

Rhytania wrote:Tomahawks...undeniably a hammer type weapon why wouldn't a Druid use it?

Tomahawks are crude hatchets, not hammers. And the restriction to hammers/maces/morningstars are that they reflect nothing to the druids style of life.(eg pick/shovel/flail-farming eq) As with a scimitar(not katana/sabre/cutlass) it represents the sickle and the quarter moon.

Rhytania wrote:Also the BG series is coded in 2ed which is very strict with Druids Class.

As it should be! If not, why even have a druid class.... just make them priests and be done with it. This is a chance to play something different. Yes, maybe harder as well but they aren't a run-of -the-mill priest class. If hard is the problem, get rid of drows, orcs and HM cause they are even harder that what I'm suggesting at.

So which is it, Do we have 3rd ed druids or 2nd ed druids...From what you told me, the only difference between the two is the use of spears. Easy pick... 2nd

Let me clarify what I am trying to say:

I would agree then not to use bows, or spears then but also no maces or morningstars... If you're gonna get lax with the rules then just give them all the weapons and let the player follow what they feel the rules are

Im not trying to go to the extreme, but why not allow the players to use their own discression about it. its not like the Druid quests is easy and just anyone can get it...Ive seen a lot of Twinks get discouraged and decidely let their characters go into limbo, since they see that there are really no benefits from the class as far as standard Twinkie bonuses are considered. And those that do make it through the cracks can usaually be spotted and called out for what they are. What im trying to say is why bother with something as minuscle as wether or not a druid could pick up a mace and use it versus banning it from all, especially when a certain class of Druids can use it if they so choose.

Almost all clerics of Mielikki multiclass as rangers or (to a lesser extent) druids. Her druids may use armor and weapons allowed to rangers and not be in violation of their sacred oaths.
-Faiths and Pantheons

How many maces/hammers/morningstars have your druids made??? A druid smithy?!? What?! You're chopping down a forest or mining through mother earth for coal to stoke you forge or polluting some water source to quench the finished product?!!.... If you want that, make a priest. Mielikki/Chautnea would have plenty of clerics in their ranks that aren't druids. Sorry for the flame but it does makes a point. Metal weapons should be restricted to farming implements. That leaves flails, scimitars/sickles, scythes and picks/mattocks... But I still like the 2nd ed rule that allowed spears..

Ok this is just a little too extreme... no im not talking about chomping down hordes of trees or causing mass enviromental upheaval but simply that alot of weapons can be made from natural elements. ie. Maces: basically a club with a spiked ball attached to the end. the ball could be wooden or sharpened stone...attach that ball to a vine cord and you got a crude morningstar, now would that be in violation of the Druids code? and exactly what is determing the Druids code- the weapon type or the effect of a weapon. Just some thoughts before we go to a restrict all/deny all policy.

In no way can you make a druid out to be ranger. They don't even see eye to eye at times. True neutral druids only care about balance and good <what ever> rangers care for only good. Just because they may share a god or or a belief in nature does not make them out as a paladins/priests relation is. And druids live by strict codes a rangers life would not allow. They are completely different classes and as so should be treated different, no matter the god. Same as for paladins and priests. By your logic, Mielikki should allow rangers to cast all of the druids spells or have druids be able to dual wield. The druid code is all encompassing. No druid has exceptions because of whom they worship. If in fact they would have more restrictions placed on them with certain prestige kits or gods they worship.

Actually it does matter who you worship that dictates what codes you live by. If that certain deity does not feel that you are living by the code he will simply cut off your power. To get even more technical, Mielikki allows Nuetral Good Druids as well and though it may not be coded in the game can just go to show exactly how much a variety there truly is out there. Rangers and Druids not seeing eye to is something on the personal level between characters, and how the characters react to authority.

Also Im not saying that rangers should get druids spells and visa versa, im just trying to let everyone know that not all Druids are the same wether it be Generica/Greyhawk/Faerun. The Druids role and actions will be determined by what his Nature is and in turn be attracted to that certain Diety. A Druid of Silvanus is most definetly not like a Druid of Chauntea which is also nothing like a Druid of Mielikki, yes they all share same ideas and same goals yet they each have different ways of getting there and achieving them. This is where it branches to religion and the different denominations. Yes not all of them believe in the same EXACT thing but they all share basic universal truths. And to speak for the Druids as all being the same and everyone should not do this or that is not very smart. Ok maybe this can clear up a bit:

One of the most prominent changes has been the introduction of Druids into her established clergy. This is considered strange as the druids traditional ethical stance differs somewhat from Mielikki's more proactive point of view. Whereas a Mielikkian may heal an animal naturally wounded, a druid would leave it, as it's death serves the balance. Where a druid serves the balance by aiding it in its natural cycle, Mielikki's view has been one of defence and expansion, with a eye to evolution, whether natural or as a result of interference. This is simplified at best, and very generalized. A number of reasons for the introduction of druids are already evident. By introducing druids into her clergy, Mielikki has taken another step to reinforce the bonds that exist between herself, Silvanus and Eldath. A marked increased in cooperation between these clergies has been noticed since the Time of Troubles. Druids tend to have a uniform outlook, no matter what their personal deity. This has lead to a more harmonious relationship and therefore greater works of faith. There has also been the creation of mixed enclaves, such as Greenselves (Kosta'zue's enclave), and the creation of enclaves for specific purposes, such as combating the slowing expanding Anauroch. As a nature goddess, Mielikki would be aware that variety increases chances of survival through adaptability. With already a wide range of specialty priests, the many variations of the ranger, and a large number of Fey, this diversity allows for the clergy to be ready to combat a wide range of threats. The addition of the druid is therefore just a precaution. When one looks at the goddess Mielikki, the introduction of druids is simply keeping with her tendencies to "have eggs in as many baskets as possible". here is a goddess, who is not among the most powerful, but has three demipowers serving her, a prominent Chosen, and a large supporter base among the Fey. She is also on excellent terms with a wide range of other powers, great and small. In light of this it is not so strange for her to create a sect in her earthly clergy with slightly contradictory views.

-http://sunsetvale.dfxwebs.com/druids.htm

Tomahawks are crude hatchets, not hammers. And the restriction to hammers/maces/morningstars are that they reflect nothing to the druids style of life.(eg pick/shovel/flail-farming eq) As with a scimitar(not katana/sabre/cutlass) it represents the sickle and the quarter moon.

Ok take the Tomahawk and blunt it...make it more like the ones from the Indians in Dances with Wolves, thats basically a hammer. Again this goes back to the question of is it the weapon material or the weapon style that is not suppose to be used; what if you put a curve to it? technically then it should be allowed then right? This is the point that im trying to make. It should be up to the individual character which and how he follows his specific code. Not all Druids are flower wearing, tree hugging hippies(that 2ed soemtime leads you to believe in my interpetation) and theres nothing wrong with an 'aggressive type' Druid who takes no crap from anyone and can hold it down if she was forced to. If the character turns out to be a Twink then delete his character and have him start over. I think its ridiculous that we are worried about the threat of Twinkiness than the actual abuse of it. If someone abuses something warn them second time delete them. I dunno. I just feel that the normal FK player base is well beyond the point of having the Admins babysit them 24/7 and the rare cases that arent usually dont last past 50 hours anyway. I wouldnt be pushing the issue so hard if it wasnt for the fact that this could be a situation someone might want to pursue. Personally I wouldnt use a mace but someone else might want to have a Druid or Druidess wield a mace, and if its in their RP to be allowed to why would we take it away from them.

As it should be! If not, why even have a druid class.... just make them priests and be done with it. This is a chance to play something different. Yes, maybe harder as well but they aren't a run-of -the-mill priest class. If hard is the problem, get rid of drows, orcs and HM cause they are even harder that what I'm suggesting at.

I think we are somewhere in the middle of a 2.75 to 3.0ed personally but still with straddling the fence line like we are shouldnt we be accomadating to both ends of the spectrum. I think that 3ed really helped out the Druids class by banding them together somewhat and outlining how they fit into the World and giving them a bit of organization with each other. Dont get me wrong theyre some aspects I love about the 2ed Druid but generally 3ed is where its at.

Mystra wrote:I personally do not understand why there is the ruling that druids cannot use bows myself. If its all about their weapons being made of non metals etc, then why can my druid that I play in tabletop use a metal scimitar but has to not use a wooden bow? Its not something I understand, but I stick to the rules with her.

However, when it comes to how weapons that are offered to druids on FK. Well we have coded things slightly different. They are grouped into categories and we have given druids the categories we think best. If we give them the ability to use a short spear, they can then go ahead and use halbreds etc. So they do not get that category.

As for the first. I think that rule hearkens back to all the priest not being allowed blood letting. Silly, rule that stuck since the first edition. Especially since they were allowed to use spears and more so since druid are not traditional priests.

Speaking of weapon catalogs, What weapons are in short spikes or chains that they allowed by the rules? Also allowing single-edged blades gave the use of Katanas, sabres, cutlass and falchions. So how is polearms(mounted) any different? The druid PC would still be trusted not to use a halbred/lance/polearm as he is now with katanas/sabres/cutlass. Also that category allows the use of javelins tridents and harpoons that are other worthy weapons for druids; sea druids would no doubt use tridents and harpoons; polar druids would use harpoons and spears.

wrote:Maces: basically a club with a spiked ball attached to the end. the ball could be wooden or sharpened stone

Maces are just that, clubs with METAL heads. Morning stars are flails with round METAL head(s).

wrote:Ok take the Tomahawk and blunt it.

Than you have a club. Native Americans used tomahawks like you would a hatchet and to chop and cut. They also had hand knives but they did not work well for chopping, through bone or wood. Any other form and its a club.
Maybe to lay down some ground rules... all maces/hammers/morningstars are made of metal. And anything not made of metal else is a club or flail.(exception mallet) If your going to argue the fact differently than what the rules state, then why not allow the use of wooden long swords or bone topped halbreds?
Mallet on the other hand are hammers and usually made of just wood so not to mare the struck surface.(ie wood workers mallet) Even though they are made of wood, still a druids philosophy would not be allowed the use of it. Fact: a hammer/mace is not a traditional druid weapon. All the rule books state that in some way or another. So why have "short spikes"? Even though a morning star is a type of flail, it has deviated enough not to be used by druids in the flails traditional form and so "chains" should not be given either.

Rhytania wrote:Not all Druids are flower wearing, tree hugging hippies(that 2ed sometime leads you to believe in my interpretation) and there's nothing wrong with an 'aggressive type' Druid who takes no crap from anyone and can hold it down if she was forced to.

2nd edition Druid hand book wrote:The Shadow Circle
The druidic order tolerates a wide range of philosophies under the umbrella of its loosely organized structure. The variety of different branches demonstrates this scope. So does the existence of the Shadow Circle.
A secret society of druids within the larger druidic order, the Shadow Circle accepts members who see Nature as a hostile, cleansing force that ensures the survival of the fittest. According to their philosophy, civilization--especially the building of towns and cities--has weakened humankind and many demihuman races.

Are known to for aiding barbarian/orc/goblinkin hordes raiding towns and villages in hopes that they will completely level they town and its people decide to go back to a more primitive way of life closer to nature. This out of 2nd, you must not have looked very hard. Even in the BG games they were present.

Rhytania wrote:... im just trying to let everyone know that not all Druids are the same wether it be Generica/Greyhawk/Faerun. The Druids role and actions will be determined by what his Nature is and in turn be attracted to that certain Diety.

Right. But what I'm getting at is a distinction between druids and priest of the same faith. If they're going to be the same, why have druids at all. They are not the same and should not be treated the same in all respects.

Rhytania wrote: Personally I wouldnt use a mace but someone else might want to have a Druid or Druidess wield a mace, and if its in their RP to be allowed to why would we take it away from them.

What if my druids RP was to use a two handed claymore or If my druid hailed fro Kara-tur and since no scimitars were available there I decided to use a katana or a sai instead? Should this be allowed, even if I say it's my rp? No! Absolutely positively NO! If you start deviating drastically from one rule then what's the point in have any rules? Individual RP be damned, that's why we have applications, so if you want to deviate form the standard rules. Let the owners and Imm staff decide.

As far as your quote form "http://sunsetvale.dfxwebs.com/druids.htm " goes. I try not to use third party supplements since their views are sometimes skewed from the rule books. TRS/wizards/Hasbro doesn't publish rule books for nothing. If people were to go out on their own and not be set by the standards given, then the first edition would not have gotten out of some bodies garage and made into what we know today. Yes, rules can bend but not too much. And since this is a completely different setting that the one quoted, I see that it would be best to start from the published rule books and then tweak them to fit. Not start with already tweaked versions of the rules.
Figure a table top game. There are games you play with your friends that are closed to other joining. In those you can have druids wielding sub-machinguns and mages flying jumbo jets and any other rule you deem. But with open games, where any shmo off the street can play in, you have to stick to the standard set rules provided in the books, so to make sense for all that join and so they can have a reference to fall back on.

Rhytania wrote:Mielikki allows Neutral Good Druids as well and though it may not be coded in the game can just go to show exactly how much a variety there truly is out there.

If that's the case, then the 3rd edition has really gone off to left field. If you're telling me you're play a neutral good druid then I should be able to have a neutral evil druid of Malar, playing him/her like the old shadow circle druids. All I can do is shake my head at this, druids strive for balance, hence the true neutrality, a good alignment goes against all that. If that's your goal then, make a priest, then you can use maces and hammers. I'd rather live with 2nd edition rules if 3rd is as radical as that. What would be the point to having druids if they would be exactly like a priest.

Rhytania wrote:...If the character turns out to be a Twink then delete his character and have him start over. I think its ridiculous that we are worried about the threat of Twinkiness than the actual abuse of it. If someone abuses something warn them second time delete them. I dunno. I just feel that the normal FK player base is well beyond the point of having the Admins babysit them 24/7...

If we worry first on on the possible abuse and then set up rules and standards, the Imms won't worry about the abuse later. It takes more time and effort to police individuals than to allow the code and rules police the masses. Once decided and set, it is easier to see and enforce individuals that go against the grain or take advantages of loopholes. This is not a closed game for just a few lucky individuals new people arrive daily. So it takes preparation and forward thinking to stay one step ahead of cheats. This is also not a MUSH, so if you want to be a tweak you are more than welcome to be. What ever enjoyment you get out of the game is yours to behold, be that a tweak treasure/power hunter, a pure RP socialite or somewhere in between. The code and rules are set, not for our(player) benefit but for those(imms/coders/owners) that actually put time and effort into making this game. The rules and code are made in order to baby sit us(players) so they(Imms/coders/owners) can enjoy the game as well. Why have Strikes, site banes, and a newbie counsel if not to alleviate the the the pressure and headache of controlling an unruly mob.(players) If someone wants to twink a druid, that's fine. Chances are when they get to 50 they'll get bored and twink some other class. So if you're main concern is twinkers playing druids, then by all means make the class like any other priest so the challenge is gone and they'll get bored from level 1. If you want to dictate an all RP or nothing rule, then go play a MUSH, cause there's nothing to do in a MUSH but RP. Some people like to twink and until the owners make this into a MUSH, then so be it. They can enjoy the mud their way and you can enjoy it your way. What I am getting at is not to stop Twinkers/twinkerets from playing but to respect the rules given by TSR/Wizards for all to follow.

Maybe I should apply for polearms(spears/harpoons/tridents/javelins) and mounted polarms(scythe) instead....As I last recall this is not Forgotten Realms but its Forgotten kingdoms instead. And promise upon deletion of character and strike that I won't use halbreds.

There already is a mechanism for learning weapon styles outside of your class, the weapon proficiency feat. If you feel your character would use a weapon from a style they do not have in their standard class set, you can use a feat point to get the weapon style. If you think that ALL members of a class should have access to a particular weapon style, then you could try stating your arguments clearly and concisely. But you should note that the classes were all fairly recently checked with regard to what skills were available, and if your reasoning for including a weapon style is that 'some of this kind of person might use it' then I would not think that is a valid reason for adding it to the entire class.

Tempus wrote:If you think that ALL members of a class should have access to a particular weapon style, then you could try stating your arguments clearly and concisely.

That is what I have been stating all along. If you see what I first wrote, it states my arguments clearly and if you look carefully at what I wrote while trying to change Rhytania mind, the same points hold true. And they are NO to Short Spikes, NO to Chains and YES to Polearms and Mounted Polearms. Not because of my own whims but because the rule books state as such. They way weapons are grouped will no doubtedly leave some weapons open to abuse, but if that's the case take Single-Edged Blades out or Short Blades cause sai or main-gauche as well can be misused. But you don't, cause that is just silly logic. But what about Short Spikes Or Chains? What weapons in those groups are allowed by the rules stated in the books? Fine, if you don't want to give Polearms but at least take out Short Spikes and Chains. And if you want to be nice about the process, transfer what ever skill level from Short Spikes to Long Spikes and Chains to Great Chains perspectively. If a certain quest gives a Short Spike or a Chain as a reward, then just like any other rename, spend the few QP. Yes, its not just the name but a class change too. So if the Imms/coders don't feel the need, tough for those individuals but this should not allow a breakage of the rules.

The only point I was trying to make was Druids of Mielikki are granted the ability to use Martial Class Weapons and becuase its not deemed fit by someone else, to take it out wouldnt be fair to those that wish to pursue it.
I wasnt trying to add anything, but keep what was already there.

It should be up to the player wether or not the character decides to use them or not, not someone else limiting them because of what they think is appropiate or inappropiate.

Mingus wrote:

If we worry first on on the possible abuse and then set up rules and standards, the Imms won't worry about the abuse later. It takes more time and effort to police individuals than to allow the code and rules police the masses. Once decided and set, it is easier to see and enforce individuals that go against the grain or take advantages of loopholes. This is not a closed game for just a few lucky individuals new people arrive daily. So it takes preparation and forward thinking to stay one step ahead of cheats. This is also not a MUSH, so if you want to be a tweak you are more than welcome to be. What ever enjoyment you get out of the game is yours to behold, be that a tweak treasure/power hunter, a pure RP socialite or somewhere in between. The code and rules are set, not for our(player) benefit but for those(imms/coders/owners) that actually put time and effort into making this game. The rules and code are made in order to baby sit us(players) so they(Imms/coders/owners) can enjoy the game as well. Why have Strikes, site banes, and a newbie counsel if not to alleviate the the the pressure and headache of controlling an unruly mob.(players)

I think it is for the IMMs to decide whether it is easier for the IMMs to consider possible abuse ahead of time or to deal with it when it occurs. Some types of abuse are indeed worthy of pre-consideration, others may be so minor as to merit little to no consideration at all.

Rules are not made to 'babysit'. They are your guidelines for playing. Also, rules are not made to benefit the IMMs, coders, and owners. If you believe that, then you truly do not understand why there are rules to games. Rules benefit the players by helping to ensure that all have the same even playing field. Babysitting comes in when we have to deal with those who break the rules.

Once again strikes, sitebans, and the newbie council are an attempt to help the players. Yes, the NC takes some pressure off the IMMs, but mostly they are there to help YOU, the player. Strikes give those players who have made a mistake a chance to learn from it. Sitebans give those players who have done nothing a relief from those who have shown they cannot follow the rules.

~Selune~

Rhytania wrote:The only point I was trying to make was Druids of Mielikki are granted the ability to use Martial Class Weapons and becuase its not deemed fit by someone else, to take it out wouldnt be fair to those that wish to pursue it.

What? Long spikes are not martial weapons? Or clubs? How about staves, are they too not martial weapons? Are great chains are neither? We even get scimitars, wow a sword not being a martial weapon, I can't believe it.... I am not saying they should be Kung-Fu monks. They have a whole field of weapons to choose from. If the are granted polearms, they can add spears/tridents/harpoons/javelins to the line up too. (mounted - scythes) All druids, are allowed certain weapons. But certain kits or gods do not add but restrict even more to what is allowed. I am not suggesting to restrict to what silvanus or any god sets down as the rule but to acknowledge that certain weapons(hammer/maces/morningstars) are not used by all druids and other weapons(spears) are allowed. to some according to their god and kit/prestige class.

Is it fair that orc witchdoctor don't have many spells or trainers to choose from? No. Is it fair that rangers don't get 5th attack even though they are warriors/fighters? No. There are many aspects of life that isn't fair, but you live with it or move one to something else. If you and others start breaking rules just because, sooner or later you'll get anarchy. And that's not fair to anyone.

Rhytania wrote:It should be up to the player wether or not the character decides to use them or not, not someone else limiting them because of what they think is appropiate or inappropiate.

Why even follow the rule in the books then. Open up all the weapon classes and let the Players decide. Open up all the spells, cause someone might decide that tuning/controlling the undead is just fine with their druid. Give all the skills cause some kick-ass druid might decide he/she should have 4th and 5th attack. Rules are set for a reason. Its not my decision or judgment that set the rules but I am following what the official rule books state. There are muds with classless level less systems. This is not one of them. If Someone want to pursue mace wielding they can have a priest. All druid follow a code of conduct, no matter the god. That's what makes them druids and not priest. Deviate and you go from being a druid to being priest. Take a paladin for example, the rules state he should be lawful good. If I decided my paladin should start being lawful evil/neutral, should I still be able stay a paladin. By your definition, its is my decision so of course I'm allowed to stay a paladin. NOT! Same holds true for druids, leave the defined path all druids follow and you can bet yourself you will be call by an arch druid, a grand druid or the Great druid him/her self and be made to explain yourself... or just booted out with out argument. Then you are recognizes you as a priest and you can keep doing what ever you did to get booted out. Like tempus stated, if they want to pursue wielding a mace/hammer/morningstar then they can spend a feat point and hope they don't get caught using it and risk discipline. When you follow the rule books, you are letting the autor of the book tell you what to do with a PC, and thats from they think is "appropriate or inappropriate". When you play this mud, you are told by the owners what they think is "appropriate or inappropriate" with your PC in the mud. I am not tellinf nothing thats not in the the TSR/wizards/D&D rule books. You, having the 3rd edition player handbook, quote me what it says on the subject. If quote says that druids can use maces/hammers/morningstars, I'll drop the subject. Quote word for word cause I would like to know if and why they cannot use spears now too. And bows while you are at it.

3rd Edition Players Handbook on Druids:
Alignments permitted: Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral Evil

Weapons and armour: Club, dagger, dart, longspear, quarterstaff, scimitar, sickle, shortspear, and sling. Proficient with light or medium armours but are prohibited from wearing metal armour. They are skilled with shields but may only use wooden ones. A druid who wears prohibited armour or wields a prohibited weapon is unable to use any of her magical powers while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.




The two coded gods for druids on FK (Chauntea and Meilikki) both include clerics and druids in their clergy with regards to 2nd and 3rd edition faith resources. For simplicity sake they are limited to just druids on FK rather than code a seperate cleric class for the two.


From watching this thread it seems like it is degenerating into a flame and things are being said that can be easily considered personal attacks on other posters views. These forums are for intelligent discussion of various viewpoints and not one-upmanship or purposeful sarcasm directed at a specific persons views.

Well, I admit I let the sarcasm loose. But when I have to repeat the same thing over and over and I start getting cranky. I apologize for any thing I said that was improper.

I wonder, what does it say how the druids keep the balance when they are of another alignment than a true neutral? The shadow circle wasn't evil, though their actions could be seen as such, their intentions were just to make people go back to to a more primitive life style. How could a good druid not want exterminate the goblinkin in the area, if his good side would blind him to think that the vacuum would not attract the goodies and nature would still loose. Ah oh well, TSR/wizards/hasbro had to do something, and this was just one of the things they rewrote to give new life to D&D and a profit in their pockets...

Mielikki with druids now.... Hmmm my knowledge is cut short before the times of troubles but I did not think things changed that much along the lines of nature gods... I think you can make a priest as long as it is not true neutral.

I wonder now that evil and good are allowed, if we will see that here. It would be nice to see some priests of Malar/Talos/Umberlee as druids too.

You(at least one person) got to agree that Maces/Hammers/morningstars are not present in any way on that list. But if you allow their use, why not allow all the other classes. The 24 hour prohibition would be a bit hard to code. But the alternative, you are asking people to be on the honor system if you don't limit those weapon classes. We do have a strike system for a reason, people will cheat. This would not merit a strike but it still does not make it fair to those that follow the rules and to have someone that doesn't care not to keep to the letter of the rule. And we all have out limit, if your PC was to face life or death, if you needed wielded a hammer and cast a spell, would you? And can you say the same for everyone else? Limiting the weapon classes would decide for all.

I am sorry Selune, if what I said offended you or belittled you in anyway. Maybe my use of the word Babysit was used out of context. Police would be a better choice. But just like the a physical policeman , the rules or laws police out actions. Her the code and rules police use till enforcement from you the physical police step in and take action. How much enjoyment would you get out of the game if the rules and code did not police the players actions and you had to physical enforce every one. Not much and that is why I said the rules are here for the you, so you can enjoy the game and not mind us so much. Or can you be at every room at once? With small games like a session of PnP or a board game the rules are are easily governed by the low number of players. But with this game, with more players on at time that you would have in a PNP session or pieces in the monopoly game, the rules are there for your benefit cause you cannot be everywhere at once. Its quite logical. Also this is game is in real-time. Something you can't say of PnP, where the DM can stop the game at any time to check the rules, enforce them or end it. Here players come and go If a rule gets broken, sometimes the logs don't even catch it and new laws and code are made to police us when you cannot.

Selune wrote:I think it is for the IMMs to decide whether it is easier for the IMMs to consider possible abuse ahead of time or to deal with it when it occurs. Some types of abuse are indeed worthy of pre-consideration, others may be so minor as to merit little to no consideration at all.

Ooh I am sorry I did use WE and not the IMMS. I won't state that the players are entitled to see the mud improve and prosper anymore. So in future post I'll try not to think thing through so much. I thought I was helping when I suggested stuff on this board and tried to fill in the details, I guess not.

Selune wrote:Once again strikes, sitebans, and the newbie council are an attempt to help the players. Yes, the NC takes some pressure off the IMMs, but mostly they are there to help YOU, the player. Strikes give those players who have made a mistake a chance to learn from it. Sitebans give those players who have done nothing a relief from those who have shown they cannot follow the rules.

They are there to help YOU too. If all the sitebanned players were back how much RPing would you get in trying to enforce the rules that they break. People have been given the third strike, how much backing would your word have with them if you didn't have the strike system or even those with one or two. How would you like it if every 5 minute you had to stop your RP in order to help a newbie or answer a question. You would not be playing here if 80% of the time was spent working. I did not, or at least did not try to, say anything to the contrary that the players don't benefit from the rules. Of what I did stated, it was to my best effort not to offend you but to hint to Rhytania the babysitting, or rather policing, is best done prior and with the code/rules that later and the the headache of finding any potential loop holes. And that policing/babysitting code wise is better for the Imms in the short and long run. Apparently it was not my best effort as it did offend you.

Let me just point out, board game rules do not help Milton Bradley or Parker Brothers or whoever. They help the people playing Monopoly and Life and Candyland(don't mock it, that game rocks. :P). These rules help makes things fair, ie: in Nascar, where all gas tanks have to be the same size, everyone has an even chance. In board games, players CAN cheat. Much like in FK. Players can always cheat. And the 'police' depend on us not to. Just like the real life police depend on us not to run around and rob banks causing mutiny.

'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

IE: Freedom means taking responsibility for your actions. If you do not want responsibility, if you want to give up your essential liberty(rp freedom of choice of judgement) for temporary safety(coding against abuse, which could always be abused, too.), then in my opinion, you deserve neither.

I, as a mortal, not a NC, not an IMM, I am just a player, am offended by what you say, and how you say it. Your sarcasm, is oozing. In response to an immortal. It's great that your concerned about the code all druids can abuse. Good for you. But how about you let the druids, be responsible for the druids? And the staff be responsible for what they have on their todo lists?

Our 'police' staff. I think perhaps you are not remembering how much the police do for society and their communities. Because I know, on a daily basis, every time an immortal player takes the selfless choice of not rping for their own fun, but logging an immortal for ours, and that is a big deal to me. To speak in the manor you do to one of them, to me, is absolutely absurd. Perhaps to be fully listened to, and to have your ideas seen, you should take the time to calm down before you make each post, and to think your idea through simply. If your concern was the game, you would become less aggitated by responses and become more understanding of other peoples' input rather than becoming angry and sarcastic of having to repeat yourself because someone went of the subject you'd made.

Always, in order to be respected, you must respect.

~Danica

Well, I think I opened a can of worms that, atleast for this benefit of this post, did not need to be opened.

But with a brief response... Mele, Form what you've stated, its apperant to me, that you have not gone out of your house in the last 200 years. We give up A whole lot of freedoms and liberties for safty. You give up a little freedom with every law that is passed. How much freedom was lost when Waterdeep was made "A nice rp zone" just for the benefit of newbies? Also if you've read any of my past post, here, at EZ or on ol'yahoo, you would know I am Mr. Sarcastic. To you, to imms to whom ever, its in my nature and I cannot curve it. I have a druid. And I voiced my opinion with them having turn undead, bows and with mace/hammer/morningstar. And also the lack of spears from their regular weapon list. As far as I see, these forums are a form of debate. And as long as I'm not cursing at you, telling you to go to warm places or stating something your not, I think I have the FREEDOM to voice my opinion the way I see fit. To pass my on my thoughts and ideas, and to counter a responce against them. I do not to write out of anger and if you think I do, that is your opinion. When I used sarcasm when I repeated myself, it was not to jeer or jest but to prove a point. Did you read everything I wrote and everything that my responces were towards?

Argue all you want now on this law/freedom subject. I will not debate about it anymore,(hopefully ) for it holds no purpose for the original post.

As for the original posting, any other arguement against the what has been said?
Facts:
Hammers/maces/morningstars - made of metal and no obvious use for a druid. Also proven that they are not listed in the rule books for usage.
Spears - proven that the 2nd and 3rd edition druids are allowed to use them.

Ok, maybe I’m wrong, and if I am I apologized I let this go so far. I just felt like I had to voice the opinion more out of principle than my own actual need of it. Anyway if someone could check these since I don’t have access to my hardcopy books and relying solely on the Internet and my Net Book versions

1. Druids are allowed only the simple weapons class and light armors – 3ed PHB

2. Druids of Mielikki are allowed the same restrictions to weapons and armor as are Rangers. – 3ed Faiths and Pantheons (and also in the 3ed Forgotten Realms campaign Setting I believe but not sure….I remember it being in a blurb section at the bottom of a page but not sure where)

3. Mielikki is a bit unorthodox in her views and has lifted the restrictions on her Druids to those of the ranger class and accepts Druids of Nuetral Good alignment. – 3ed Faiths and Pantheons

4. Rangers are allowed All simple and All Martial weapons and light armors – 3ed PHB
There are a couple more sources that I can quote that led me to my views but wont state them because they are not WOTC based.

Like I said before If I am wrong I am sorry and if there’s something that I am missing that led to my misinterpretation please let me know because I don’t want to be left out in the dark, and hate feeling like the kid who got left back by the bus.

You know, I keep thinking about AD&D and what it is.. it is a Roleplaying game done on paper with a pen.... A DM aka Dungeon Master runs the game.. they interpret the rules and how YOU play them in THEIR world.

Rule #1 Don't argue with the DM or have terrible things happen to your character to teach you a lesson or just get thrown out of the group.

Rule #2 Arguing about the rules stated in the, quote, "REFERENCE BOOKS!" See rule #1.

I see Mystra <SHARNI> and TYR <don't remember name, don't turn me into a frog for forgetting, please> are the DM's of this game. I think that should end this once and for all.

P.S. Mingus, your ARE getting a bit sarcastic and it seems on the verge of nasty, but if the above doesn't take care of it... it was good seeing most of your opinions in other posts.. heh....