The answer to the druid and metal armor is excellent. Not so much the ruling itself, but the clear way it explains that classes have both story and game elements, and some classes have more story elements than others.
Sage Advice 3/21/16 Exploding druids and antimagic field vs zombies and cure wounds
The answer to the druid and metal armor is excellent. Not so much the ruling itself, but the clear way it explains that classes have both story and game elements, and some classes have more story elements than others.
Jiggawatts
Adventurer
Is this the whole "don't try to define me, bro!" mentality that seems everpresent anymore? Will there be an attempt to argue that "Middle-Earth orcs are just misunderstood"? There's nothing wrong with ME orcs being capital E evil, and there's nothing wrong with druids having set faith tenant restrictions they must adhere to in order to gain their divine gifts.
As for your argument about choice, free will, everyone has it, a 1E paladin is free to commit an evil act because it would be a faster or easier way to achieve his goal, you are free to go on a shoplifting spree, everyone has free will, that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for said actions. A druid who violates one of the basic tenants of their faith should face consequences.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
You are correct that it doesn't mention negative energy--that's something from other editions. However, "hateful undead spirit" is an exact quote from the 5e MM.
What concerns me is that, as written, the character's very existence, whether on a character sheet or in the world, is apparently dependent on an ongoing invariable commitment to a particular choice. A paladin to chooses to commit an evil act (depending on the edition) might lose his powers and become a different character class. A druid who chooses to wear metal armor apparently ceases to exist. Tear up the character sheet, make the PC go *poof* and disappear.
There is no free will without actual consequences, with 5e utterly fails to even acknowledge in the case of druids. (By contrast, they *do* acknowledge it for paladins, simply leaving the details up to the DM, with a subclass change as a provided option.)
Exactly! That's how free will works. You can choose to act, but you have to accept the consequences. In 5e druids lack free will because they are incapable of choosing to wear metal armor.
Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Yup, however many older player (like myself) probably default to that explanation because that pretty much how it was in AD&D—undead creatures were imbued with negative energy (from the negative energy plane), and that's what sustained them. That's also why healing magic (that channeled energy from the positive energy plane) used to harm undead. Unfortunately (for my tastes), 5e foregoes that explanation, so you're pretty much entitled to explain how it works in your campaign.
Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Why does it have to have a mechanical effect, though? Why can't it just be a matter of wearing armor is just considered taboo, and a druid that does wear metal armor starts feeling Catholic-level guilt about it?
CapnZapp
Legend
YOU choose to look at it that way.
You could as easily have said "all druids have chosen, out of their free will, to abhor metal armor", which would mean the problem you talk about cease to exist.
Look, I understand. YOU want to play a druid with AC 17 half plate, fine. Go ask your DM if that's okay in your campaign.
But stop trying to make it like druids in general abstain from superior metal armor only because they don't like the consequences of doing so.
It's not meant to be a rational decision. There are no "consequences", at least none you can put on paper. It's meant to be a question of faith.
Druids will not wear armor or use shields made out of metal for intangible reasons best left up to each druid character. Make your own personal choice. Or leave it undefined, that works well too.
I'm not saying you have to like this design decision, or even that it's a good design decision. This post is only trying to explain to you that it is a viable decision and my speculation as to why it could have been made.
CapnZapp
Legend
Exactly.
Jiggawatts
Adventurer
Because otherwise roleplaying drawbacks have a tendency to be ignored. I submit into evidence the 2nd Edition Bladesinger, your honor.
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
That is a player issue, not actually a universal fact.
In fact, some folks have never even considered ignoring a role-playing drawback since those are as much a part of whatever is being role-played as anything else is (the idea of ignoring a Paladin's code of honor, for example, seeming as strange to them as ignoring the Paladin's proficiency with weapons and armor - not just not choosing the "best" weapons and armor from a mechanical stand-point, but entirely refusing to acknowledge that using weapons and armor is even possible).
The Crimson Binome
Hero
They do. It's just not written with those words. Flaws are specifically the label they use for the negative-ish character trait that comes from your background, as compared to all of the other negative-ish character traits you might have which are just part of roleplaying the character.
That one negative trait isn't any more real or meaningful just because it happens to have a label.
Similar Threads
Related Articles
-
D&D General And the Druid Explodes: Understanding the AD&D Design Space's Legacy
- Started by Snarf Zagyg
- Replies: 54
-
-
D&D General How to Read a Rule: Dueling Canons in D&D
- Started by Snarf Zagyg
- Replies: 46
-
-
