Sage Advice 3/21/16 Exploding druids and antimagic field vs zombies and cure wounds

CapnZapp said:

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.

Click to expand...

I believe you're mistaking my position here. I personally prefer druids in robes with staves casting spells.

The point I'm making is that there is a design inconsistency that uniquely punishes druid free will by failing to acknowlede the possibility that a druid might violate his/her belief. It is extremely unrealistic to believe that a person with a strong belief system will never violate those beliefs. That's just not how it happens. That's why concepts like transgression and repentance, atonement, or impurity and purification, etc, are integral aspects of many religions around the world. Having a religious taboo virtually guarantees that some sincere believers are going to violate it at sometime.

So what I'm hearing the opposing position as is saying that all druids have a unique ability and the power to act on it, to make a one time decision never to violate a taboo, and remain 100% faithful to that to the end of their life. If that were not true about this particular character, they would never have been able to become a druid in the first place.

I don't find that believable at all, especially since it is explicitly not true regarding other characters with strong belief systems like clerics and paladins. I suppose one could spin the druid's situation as an incredible extraordinary special ability to remain faithful under absolutely any situation, but I think it is more believably interpreted as a lack of free will.

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.

Click to expand...

And that's fine, it doesn't necessarily need to have mechanical consequences, just as clerics have no listed mechanical consequences. It should, however, then be treated just like a cleric's adherence to their own belief systems, rather than described in a way that requires it to be either an extraordinary capability or a lack of free will.

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.

Click to expand...

And thanks for explaining some more of your thoughts on it. I guess what it comes down to to me is that if a (currently listed as lawful good) paladin says, "I decapitate that dastardly duke because of how he cheated on his income taxes," it is assumed the DM allows it, maybe with a warning to the player that that is going to violate his oath, while if a druid says, "I grit my teeth and put on the Breastplate of Saving the Party from Certain Doom," the DM appears to be assumed to say, "You actually can't do that." Telling a player that their character can't do something (regardless of whether that can't is derived from a won't) violates the social contract of D&D in my opinion. DM's shouldn't violate that contract, but of course they are free to.

Jiggawatts said:

Because otherwise roleplaying drawbacks have a tendency to be ignored. I submit into evidence the 2nd Edition Bladesinger, your honor.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that there is any such tendency.

Sword of Spirit said:

I believe you're mistaking my position here. I personally prefer druids in robes with staves casting spells.

The point I'm making is that there is a design inconsistency that uniquely punishes druid free will by failing to acknowlede the possibility that a druid might violate his/her belief. It is extremely unrealistic to believe that a person with a strong belief system will never violate those beliefs. That's just not how it happens. That's why concepts like transgression and repentance, atonement, or impurity and purification, etc, are integral aspects of many religions around the world. Having a religious taboo virtually guarantees that some sincere believers are going to violate it at sometime.

So what I'm hearing the opposing position as is saying that all druids have a unique ability and the power to act on it, to make a one time decision never to violate a taboo, and remain 100% faithful to that to the end of their life. If that were not true about this particular character, they would never have been able to become a druid in the first place.

I don't find that believable at all, especially since it is explicitly not true regarding other characters with strong belief systems like clerics and paladins. I suppose one could spin the druid's situation as an incredible extraordinary special ability to remain faithful under absolutely any situation, but I think it is more believably interpreted as a lack of free will.



And that's fine, it doesn't necessarily need to have mechanical consequences, just as clerics have no listed mechanical consequences. It should, however, then be treated just like a cleric's adherence to their own belief systems, rather than described in a way that requires it to be either an extraordinary capability or a lack of free will.



And thanks for explaining some more of your thoughts on it. I guess what it comes down to to me is that if a (currently listed as lawful good) paladin says, "I decapitate that dastardly duke because of how he cheated on his income taxes," it is assumed the DM allows it, maybe with a warning to the player that that is going to violate his oath, while if a druid says, "I grit my teeth and put on the Breastplate of Saving the Party from Certain Doom," the DM appears to be assumed to say, "You actually can't do that." Telling a player that their character can't do something (regardless of whether that can't is derived from a won't) violates the social contract of D&D in my opinion. DM's shouldn't violate that contract, but of course they are free to.

Click to expand...

Well, no, not really.

The DM is not supposed to say anything, because you the player aren't supposed to try.

If you do try, it's on you to come up with what happens.

What do you want to happen, Sword?

No, don't tell me, just use your answer in your campaign.

Azzy said:

I don't believe that there is any such tendency.

Click to expand...

I agree. There is no such tendency, but there are people who will do it.

Azzy said:

I don't believe that there is any such tendency.

Click to expand...

Believe what you will, there was enough of a tendency and it was a big enough thing that this was eventually created.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwDWx1cAqP4

Jiggawatts said:

Believe what you will, there was enough of a tendency and it was a big enough thing that this was eventually created.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwDWx1cAqP4

Click to expand...

Jiggawatts said:

Believe what you will, there was enough of a tendency and it was a big enough thing that this was eventually created.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwDWx1cAqP4

Click to expand...

You give a non-apology apology about the CBoE as evidence that there is a tendency among players to ignore role-playing restrictions? Sorry, that's pretty silly.

Like Maxperson said, there are some players that will ignore such things, but that does not a tendency make. Heck, there are players that impose additional role-playing restrictions on their characters beyond any that exist (assuming any exist). Not sure I'd say that there's a tendency for that, either, but is does serve as a nice counterpoint.

Given that many (most?) RPGs don't have role-playing restrictions backed by mechanical punishment, it must not be a problem with players in general, but only those players that don't care fore the RP in their RPGs. Believe it or not, most players don't need to be punished in order to play the "right" way.

RotGrub said:

My point is that if spells like contact other plane, summon elemental, and gate worked in Dark Sun the door is open for a Bigby.

Click to expand...

The supplement "Defilers and Preservers: Wizards of Athas" give the full set of details on p. 10, sidebar "You Can't Get There from Here". The crystal sphere is impenetrable, making spelljamming impossible. A spell trying to connect to Athas from the Astral or outer planes (or vice-versa) requires a 96 or higher on a roll of 1d100+caster level. Except for a priest reaching out to his home element, a spell trying to connect to Athas from the Ethereal or inner planes (or vice-versa) requires a 66 or higher on a roll of 1d100+caster level.

So, it can be done, but even a 25th-level wizard starting from the Plane of Air, who somehow knows Athas exists and for some insane reason wants to go there, is going to fail 40% of his casting attempts to reach it. And then 40% of his castings to go back will fail, assuming he lives long enough.

77IM said:

They should have just made the no-metal-armor restriction a Flaw: You gain an additional Flaw: "I refuse to wear metal armor or use a metal shield." Or something like that.

Click to expand...

We actually have a mechanical effect in our campaign. It came into play because of one of my pet peeves - how do you have dungeons or imprison somebody in a world with magic. In most cases it's just that you're outmatched numerically. Also you can bind and gag a spell caster to prevent the use of somatic and verbal components, and without a focus you can force the requirement for material components.

But the druid presented a specific challenge. So in our campaign, a druid wearing metal armor, or bound by metal, cannot shape change.

Ilbranteloth

Ilbranteloth said:

We actually have a mechanical effect in our campaign. It came into play because of one of my pet peeves - how do you have dungeons or imprison somebody in a world with magic. In most cases it's just that you're outmatched numerically. Also you can bind and gag a spell caster to prevent the use of somatic and verbal components, and without a focus you can force the requirement for material components.

But the druid presented a specific challenge. So in our campaign, a druid wearing metal armor, or bound by metal, cannot shape change.

Ilbranteloth

Click to expand...

This is exactly what we have done in our campaign as well. Since shapechange is the major druid shtick, that seemed to be the most appropriate thing to take away for this unique restriction.

I was impressed with Open Grave b/c it gave me the insight into undead/unlife I didn't have before it.

There are 3 pieces to a living being-body soul and animus. The animus is what pumps blood and makes limbs move, the soul is consciousness.

Necromancy reanimates animus into a body; The soul is departed. The body just is what it is. Binding souls isn't easy. Claims are on souls, so watch your back if you want something that doesn't belong to you.

Souless undead like ghouls are unlife, which isn't the same a straight up dead.

The transition of animus from positive into negative arrests decomposition. Memory of life is like a fading dream to unlife. Hatred of the living and seeing the living as food are what drive unlife.

Remember there's always somebody like Orcus looking into these matters.
blah blah blah