Druids always wear hide armour well, most of the time but first they have to kill a cute boar or bear first!😫 what do you think about this lore subject? Love to hear your thoughts!😁
Druids are protectors of the natural world. This often means culling invasive species, such as boars. That said, there could be a lot of ways for a druid to get leather armor, rather than killing for it. Maybe it's the hide of a beloved pet/mount that passed away.
Unlike the cleric's domain, Druids concern themselves with all the cycles in nature. The seasons, the elements, and the cycles of life both of plants and animals. Must a druid it kill a cat for hunting rats? A pack of wolves for hunting elk? Forget about your thoughts on the veganism craze. That has almost nothing to do with druidic practice.
If anything, the only problem a druid would have with hunting is whether or not or how much of the kill was wasted. That's one of the reasons that Druids are comfortable wearing leather armor and and why druidic spell focuses include totems that incorporate feathers, fur, bones, and teeth from sacred animals.
Druids are protectors of the natural world. This often means culling invasive species, such as boars. That said, there could be a lot of ways for a druid to get leather armor, rather than killing for it. Maybe it's the hide of a beloved pet/mount that passed away.
Druids are protectors of the natural world. This often means culling invasive species, such as boars. That said, there could be a lot of ways for a druid to get leather armor, rather than killing for it. Maybe it's the hide of a beloved pet/mount that passed away.
ok cool but if a animal had passes away wouldn't the hide be rotten?😵
Leather doesn't rot because it is leather. It has gone through a process meaning it can't.
Leather can absolutely rot. If you see cracks in leather, that is typically dry rot. Leather needs maintenance. Besides, he was talking about the hide of the dead animal rotting, before the process of curing it into wearable leather.
This is one of the unfortunate side effects of simplifying systems. Druids of old were always True Neutral because they did see the entirety of the scope of nature and lived accordingly. There wasn't good or evil or law or chaos, you followed the dictates of the natural world. The fury of the storm. The hunt for survival. The calm of the meadow. The peace of the brook. All of those coincided and lived together. And if you go back far enough, to become a more powerful druid, you had to "eliminate" your competition... but that's a discussion for another time. Simplistically Druids aren't Vegan nor Tree-Huggers, though they are perfectly fine doing that as well. But they are so much more. They are the Eye of the Storm... wild and wind-tossed. They are the ever-hungering flame of destruction for those that break the natural order. They are the nurturing mother to wounded animals. They are the tree tenders of the grove. They are the passionate song of the nightingale. They typically weren't very politically correct, though they can certainly be polite to most people. They are very much un-modern and non-urban.
Let me put it this way. And perhaps give a little perspective on Wildfire druids while I'm at it. nature is cycles of both life and death. Some things don't actually thrive until there is some destruction. Too many predators means too little prey and the predators have to be culled allowing the prey to survive. But to little predators and the prey go from being in harmony with nature to being destructive terrors on it. They are kept in balance because of the predators.
Wild Fires are another example of both destruction and renewal. Yes some animals die in the fires and some trees and the like are burned but there are some types of trees that their seeds don't sprout until fire has cleared the underbrush and killed a few of the trees and warmed the seeds enough that their shells crack and they are allowed to spring up into new trees. Fire in nature is and has it's own form of balance. It's not just the blast everything to death that many want to turn it into and seeing it only as destructive. It's purifying and cleansing in a way and it clears room for new things to grow. It doesn't just blast all life in an area and move on. So while Fireballs are a form of fire. They aren't necessarily a good example of fire as it works in nature which has been known to cut swathes of nature down while leaving others untouched and allowing yet others to spring up and thrive.
The idea behind this thread is that druids have to be pacifist vegetarians. I think I've ranted about this before, but the PHB does not have enough lore about druids in it. It says that they worship the 'old gods' and hardly anything else, which portrays them as mandatorily pagan(The definition of which is a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions, which IMHO makes hardly any sense in a polytheistic world where gods have a direct and visible effect) They are also indirectly(in my experience) portrayed with the attitude of the OP. This discourages people from playing a druid, which is one of my favorite classes. End of rant.
There's a running joke in my party that the reason so many monsters target the druid is because he's organic. But I don't think the druid is actually a vegetarian.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
The idea behind this thread is that druids have to be pacifist vegetarians. I think I've ranted about this before, but the PHB does not have enough lore about druids in it. It says that they worship the 'old gods' and hardly anything else, which portrays them as mandatorily pagan(The definition of which is a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions, which IMHO makes hardly any sense in a polytheistic world where gods have a direct and visible effect) They are also indirectly(in my experience) portrayed with the attitude of the OP. This discourages people from playing a druid, which is one of my favorite classes. End of rant.
pagan's even in our world are in no way necessarily pacifistic or overly driven to love all animals. Just that there are consequences for actions and balances need to be maintained. They can still eat meat. They can still harm others if they are willing to pay the price for doing so. The whole shebang.
The idea behind this thread is that druids have to be pacifist vegetarians. I think I've ranted about this before, but the PHB does not have enough lore about druids in it. It says that they worship the 'old gods' and hardly anything else, which portrays them as mandatorily pagan(The definition of which is a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions, which IMHO makes hardly any sense in a polytheistic world where gods have a direct and visible effect) They are also indirectly(in my experience) portrayed with the attitude of the OP. This discourages people from playing a druid, which is one of my favorite classes. End of rant.
pagan's even in our world are in no way necessarily pacifistic or overly driven to love all animals. Just that there are consequences for actions and balances need to be maintained. They can still eat meat. They can still harm others if they are willing to pay the price for doing so. The whole shebang.
I was trying to say that they were separate things. Those are two different problems with the portrayal of druids in 5e.
The idea behind this thread is that druids have to be pacifist vegetarians. I think I've ranted about this before, but the PHB does not have enough lore about druids in it. It says that they worship the 'old gods' and hardly anything else, which portrays them as mandatorily pagan(The definition of which is a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions, which IMHO makes hardly any sense in a polytheistic world where gods have a direct and visible effect) They are also indirectly(in my experience) portrayed with the attitude of the OP. This discourages people from playing a druid, which is one of my favorite classes. End of rant.
pagan's even in our world are in no way necessarily pacifistic or overly driven to love all animals. Just that there are consequences for actions and balances need to be maintained. They can still eat meat. They can still harm others if they are willing to pay the price for doing so. The whole shebang.
I was trying to say that they were separate things. Those are two different problems with the portrayal of druids in 5e.
I misunderstood then. i am used to having to correct some things about what pagan is sometimes. I do apologize.
The idea behind this thread is that druids have to be pacifist vegetarians. I think I've ranted about this before, but the PHB does not have enough lore about druids in it. It says that they worship the 'old gods' and hardly anything else, which portrays them as mandatorily pagan(The definition of which is a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions, which IMHO makes hardly any sense in a polytheistic world where gods have a direct and visible effect) They are also indirectly(in my experience) portrayed with the attitude of the OP. This discourages people from playing a druid, which is one of my favorite classes. End of rant.
The reason fewer people play Druids is largely due to a pop cultural vacuum depicting characters that act and think and have powers of Druids. Yes, older editions of D&D had more specific lore, but lack of official 5e lore has never impeded the popularity of Paladins or Warlocks. A lot of people underestimate the non-Moon Druid version of Wildshape, for instance, because they only think about it in terms of combat utility or assume that having Find Familiar is better. People are not used to seeing TV shows or movies where people shape-shift into animals and thereby develop a disconnect between their imaginations and how they think about Wildshaping.
The reason fewer people play Druids is largely due to a pop cultural vacuum depicting characters that act and think and have powers of Druids. Yes, older editions of D&D had more specific lore, but lack of official 5e lore has never impeded the popularity of Paladins or Warlocks.
I wouldn't put all the blame on pop culture. Thematically druids are right up my alley - my first D&D character was a druid many years ago and well over half of my characters have some level of attunement to the natural world. And yet every time I make a 5e druid I always feel just a little bit disappointed. I'd like to see Wild Shape specializations that don't require your subclass - something that goes alongside it like Warlock's pact boon. I'd like to see them get a 3rd cantrip, even if it was locked into Druidcraft or something. I'd like to see the ability to get a permanent animal companion.
I will say that I've liked the last few subclasses they've released. Making Wild Shape the defining feature of druids was a mistake, and they are patching that as best they can by offering other abilities that you can use in its place (not a fan of the Find Familiar option though - utility-wise it's great but thematically a 1-hour spirit is not the animal companion I am looking for). I will be interested to see where they go in the future.
On one hand, you're right. 5e druids don't line up to what I expect a druid to be - but it has nothing to do with culture. I feel like I'm constantly butting up against the walls of the design choices for druid mechanics. They just don't work like I want them to. I expect that this is an additional reason you don't see as many in 5e.
The reason fewer people play Druids is largely due to a pop cultural vacuum depicting characters that act and think and have powers of Druids. Yes, older editions of D&D had more specific lore, but lack of official 5e lore has never impeded the popularity of Paladins or Warlocks.
I wouldn't put all the blame on pop culture. Thematically druids are right up my alley - my first D&D character was a druid many years ago and well over half of my characters have some level of attunement to the natural world. And yet every time I make a 5e druid I always feel just a little bit disappointed. I'd like to see Wild Shape specializations that don't require your subclass - something that goes alongside it like Warlock's pact boon. I'd like to see them get a 3rd cantrip, even if it was locked into Druidcraft or something. I'd like to see the ability to get a permanent animal companion.
I will say that I've liked the last few subclasses they've released. Making Wild Shape the defining feature of druids was a mistake, and they are patching that as best they can by offering other abilities that you can use in its place (not a fan of the Find Familiar option though - utility-wise it's great but thematically a 1-hour spirit is not the animal companion I am looking for). I will be interested to see where they go in the future.
On one hand, you're right. 5e druids don't line up to what I expect a druid to be - but it has nothing to do with culture. I feel like I'm constantly butting up against the walls of the design choices for druid mechanics. They just don't work like I want them to. I expect that this is an additional reason you don't see as many in 5e.
I'd say what I miss and what I would like is a Beast Master version of the Druid. That's a style they used to both share. But as problematic as BM Ranger has been and all it's troubles it's probably for the best that we haven't had that. (And this is coming from somebody who could get quite a bit of use out of BM Rangers).
By 3rd cantrip can I assume you mean at 1st level because by higher levels druids can have 4 cantrips that they know. And At least half of the Circles get bonus cantrips added into them, though one is conditional on holding a particular item I believe, and a couple more instead of cantrips get some kind of limited use special power.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Druids always wear hide armour well, most of the time but first they have to kill a cute boar or bear first!😫 what do you think about this lore subject? Love to hear your thoughts!😁
Druids are protectors of the natural world. This often means culling invasive species, such as boars. That said, there could be a lot of ways for a druid to get leather armor, rather than killing for it. Maybe it's the hide of a beloved pet/mount that passed away.
Unlike the cleric's domain, Druids concern themselves with all the cycles in nature. The seasons, the elements, and the cycles of life both of plants and animals. Must a druid it kill a cat for hunting rats? A pack of wolves for hunting elk? Forget about your thoughts on the veganism craze. That has almost nothing to do with druidic practice.
If anything, the only problem a druid would have with hunting is whether or not or how much of the kill was wasted. That's one of the reasons that Druids are comfortable wearing leather armor and and why druidic spell focuses include totems that incorporate feathers, fur, bones, and teeth from sacred animals.
Ok, cool
ok cool but if a animal had passes away wouldn't the hide be rotten?😵
....No? Things don't rot to death. Not often anyway. It would eventually rot after it's died, but so would a creature you kill with a weapon.
Leather doesn't rot because it is leather. It has gone through a process meaning it can't.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
Leather can absolutely rot. If you see cracks in leather, that is typically dry rot. Leather needs maintenance. Besides, he was talking about the hide of the dead animal rotting, before the process of curing it into wearable leather.
This is one of the unfortunate side effects of simplifying systems. Druids of old were always True Neutral because they did see the entirety of the scope of nature and lived accordingly. There wasn't good or evil or law or chaos, you followed the dictates of the natural world. The fury of the storm. The hunt for survival. The calm of the meadow. The peace of the brook. All of those coincided and lived together. And if you go back far enough, to become a more powerful druid, you had to "eliminate" your competition... but that's a discussion for another time. Simplistically Druids aren't Vegan nor Tree-Huggers, though they are perfectly fine doing that as well. But they are so much more. They are the Eye of the Storm... wild and wind-tossed. They are the ever-hungering flame of destruction for those that break the natural order. They are the nurturing mother to wounded animals. They are the tree tenders of the grove. They are the passionate song of the nightingale. They typically weren't very politically correct, though they can certainly be polite to most people. They are very much un-modern and non-urban.
They might not WANT to kill, but it is part of the life cycle, and sometimes they have to.
Let me put it this way. And perhaps give a little perspective on Wildfire druids while I'm at it. nature is cycles of both life and death. Some things don't actually thrive until there is some destruction. Too many predators means too little prey and the predators have to be culled allowing the prey to survive. But to little predators and the prey go from being in harmony with nature to being destructive terrors on it. They are kept in balance because of the predators.
Wild Fires are another example of both destruction and renewal. Yes some animals die in the fires and some trees and the like are burned but there are some types of trees that their seeds don't sprout until fire has cleared the underbrush and killed a few of the trees and warmed the seeds enough that their shells crack and they are allowed to spring up into new trees. Fire in nature is and has it's own form of balance. It's not just the blast everything to death that many want to turn it into and seeing it only as destructive. It's purifying and cleansing in a way and it clears room for new things to grow. It doesn't just blast all life in an area and move on. So while Fireballs are a form of fire. They aren't necessarily a good example of fire as it works in nature which has been known to cut swathes of nature down while leaving others untouched and allowing yet others to spring up and thrive.
The idea behind this thread is that druids have to be pacifist vegetarians. I think I've ranted about this before, but the PHB does not have enough lore about druids in it. It says that they worship the 'old gods' and hardly anything else, which portrays them as mandatorily pagan(The definition of which is a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions, which IMHO makes hardly any sense in a polytheistic world where gods have a direct and visible effect) They are also indirectly(in my experience) portrayed with the attitude of the OP. This discourages people from playing a druid, which is one of my favorite classes. End of rant.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
There's a running joke in my party that the reason so many monsters target the druid is because he's organic. But I don't think the druid is actually a vegetarian.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
pagan's even in our world are in no way necessarily pacifistic or overly driven to love all animals. Just that there are consequences for actions and balances need to be maintained. They can still eat meat. They can still harm others if they are willing to pay the price for doing so. The whole shebang.
I was trying to say that they were separate things. Those are two different problems with the portrayal of druids in 5e.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
I misunderstood then. i am used to having to correct some things about what pagan is sometimes. I do apologize.
The reason fewer people play Druids is largely due to a pop cultural vacuum depicting characters that act and think and have powers of Druids. Yes, older editions of D&D had more specific lore, but lack of official 5e lore has never impeded the popularity of Paladins or Warlocks. A lot of people underestimate the non-Moon Druid version of Wildshape, for instance, because they only think about it in terms of combat utility or assume that having Find Familiar is better. People are not used to seeing TV shows or movies where people shape-shift into animals and thereby develop a disconnect between their imaginations and how they think about Wildshaping.
I wouldn't put all the blame on pop culture. Thematically druids are right up my alley - my first D&D character was a druid many years ago and well over half of my characters have some level of attunement to the natural world. And yet every time I make a 5e druid I always feel just a little bit disappointed. I'd like to see Wild Shape specializations that don't require your subclass - something that goes alongside it like Warlock's pact boon. I'd like to see them get a 3rd cantrip, even if it was locked into Druidcraft or something. I'd like to see the ability to get a permanent animal companion.
I will say that I've liked the last few subclasses they've released. Making Wild Shape the defining feature of druids was a mistake, and they are patching that as best they can by offering other abilities that you can use in its place (not a fan of the Find Familiar option though - utility-wise it's great but thematically a 1-hour spirit is not the animal companion I am looking for). I will be interested to see where they go in the future.
On one hand, you're right. 5e druids don't line up to what I expect a druid to be - but it has nothing to do with culture. I feel like I'm constantly butting up against the walls of the design choices for druid mechanics. They just don't work like I want them to. I expect that this is an additional reason you don't see as many in 5e.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I'd say what I miss and what I would like is a Beast Master version of the Druid. That's a style they used to both share. But as problematic as BM Ranger has been and all it's troubles it's probably for the best that we haven't had that. (And this is coming from somebody who could get quite a bit of use out of BM Rangers).
By 3rd cantrip can I assume you mean at 1st level because by higher levels druids can have 4 cantrips that they know. And At least half of the Circles get bonus cantrips added into them, though one is conditional on holding a particular item I believe, and a couple more instead of cantrips get some kind of limited use special power.