View Profile: Ohmyn - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 08:11 AM
    The point isn't even a matter of "cannot" or "will not", which I'd have hoped is obviously clear by now, but I guess it's not that easy for those with lesser reading comprehension. Even if it said "cannot", it would still be just as busted of a rule, because it still wouldn't fit into the game system. It fits as well and is just as enforceable as when being a Dwarf granted proficiency in throwing...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 10:00 PM
    First off, I don't see how saying that the rule is poorly implemented means I need to provide a fix. If they wanted it to be impossible, there's a million and one ways that the rules developer could have changed it, and they shouldn't need my help to do this. For example, saying "Druids can never be proficient in metal armor" would have worked, but the SA points out that they still have the...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 05:40 PM
    I already addressed this. I was addressing the book as providing no rhyme or reason, and how people had to ask the game rules developer what the book was referencing, because absolutely nothing was given, lore or otherwise. Many people here still even argue that Sage Advice isn't official, despite WotC saying otherwise, which to them would mean that officially there is no rhyme or reason. When...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 05:22 PM
    Nobody is providing an effective mechanism to enforce it because that's not the point. Providing a mechanism to enforce is not RAW, and the RAW is what's being discussed. Providing a mechanism in RAW requires a general guideline of enforcement for the DM to follow. If the rules developers wanted a mechanism to enforce it they would have done so like they did in 1E and 3E, which could have been...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 08:11 AM
    Because extremes are the best way to emphasize a point, and player choice is super important in this game, so long as they're not being disruptive to the table. Every class has extremes within them, and all characters should be assumed fallible, or perhaps willing to make personal sacrifices for something greater. This is exactly why "will not" is not a fully actionable rule with how the game...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 07:24 AM
    Yes, chaotic evil is a perfectly acceptable alignment for Druids, just as it is for any other class, including Clerics and Paladins. If it wasn't they wouldn't have the option. 2 out of 5 of the Nature deities available in the 5E Forgotten Realms pantheon are evil, one of which is Chaotic Evil, and both evil options are available for worship of either Druids or Clerics. Also, Druids are known to...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 01:58 AM
    Then you don't know the nature of the game in its current condition. Druids do not have an alignment restriction like they have had in past editions, just as Paladins no longer have alignment restrictions. The Feywilds are not just full of neutral or good creatures, and there are plenty sufficient evil plant creatures. If you gain your power from the divine, it need not be radiant power. You very...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 09:26 PM
    Yes, I would. Druids can be of any alignment now. The rules for performing out of alignment behavior is an alignment shift, not a class penalty. Druids are no longer alignment locked, so I could be a chaotic evil Druid, or a lawful good Druid. If I opted for lawful good, and I burned down random forests because I simply wanted to watch the world burn, then that would likely call for my alignment...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 09:12 PM
    Yes, the Sage Advice provided additional clarification, but the book itself provided no clarification, which is what I was pointing at. People had to literally ask the game system developer what the heck that meant. The game developer simply assumed people would get it based on books from 1976 and 1978, which even that he was wrong on, because neither book even clarified it to be a taboo, and the...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 07:50 PM
    Yes, it actually is true. When rules are put in without hard mechanics, they always include soft mechanics. Penalizing the Paladin for breaking their vows is a soft rule, because it doesn't state any hard mechanics, but it gives a general guideline for DMs to follow. They can maybe be told to seek penance, or if it's something terribly egregious they may get to switch to another class or become...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 07:37 PM
    Slipping up? A Paladin doesn't have to "slip up". A Paladin can denounce their beliefs at any point in time and go on a murderous rampage. Nothing stops them at all. Heck, a Cleric can denounce their deity and burn down every church or temple in their name that they come across from that point forward. Further heck, a Druid could be chaotic evil and go on a rampage burning down every forest they...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 08:48 AM
    As Max and I have both stated many times, you're still comparing a hard mechanic that a character cannot control to something a character could literally choose to do at any point in time during gameplay. On that note, it's important to remind you that we agree that the rules about what one class can and can't do are indeed straight-jackets (if you don't have multi-attack then you can't attack...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 01:16 AM
    What you're saying is actually our point. Alignment is not a straight-jacket, because player agency overrides what the alignment says they would do. If they're a good character they'll have a taboo against killing the innocent, but they're still within their right as a player to have their character kill whoever or whatever they want. They can start as Anakin and end up as Darth Vader. It's up to...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 11:03 PM
    The 1E Druid was true neutral. That means not good, nor evil. It was even written in their class description in 1E AD&D that even if they observed any creature destroying their charges, they were still unlikely to risk their lives to prevent the destruction. This is because good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, which Druids are not. Characters...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 08:17 PM
    The issue is that what one person finds to be a loophole, another might not. For example, you say it's a loophole to try and circumvent the cost of Find Familiar, but literally the purpose of foraging skills and crafting tools is to reduce or bypass costs. Crafting your own armor cuts the cost in half, and if you also spent the necessary time in a mine to gather your own raw materials, it could...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 08:19 AM
    Oh, and a side note to this: Yes, and people hate real lawyers, until they're on their side. Funny how that works, isn't it? People don't hate rules lawyers, they just hate people that disagree with them, and they especially hate it when the people that disagree with them have a point. Second side note to the first note: If something is a loophole, it's RAW by definition. If a spell is super...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 07:11 AM
    Looking for loopholes is very common practice at RAW tables, and is typically even expected. It's a major part of character optimizing at AL tables. When I DM, I'm not so paranoid that I think they're trying to look for loopholes. These actually are not contradicting statements, at least not when you look at the whole context. He's not talking about optimizers/munchkins at a pure RAW...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 06:11 AM
    The issue here is whether or not the DM can cancel their ability in the RAW, such as at an AL table. There's a difference between the DM being able to use their almighty god powers to do whatever they want at a house table, and an ability in RAW telling the DM they get final say in how effective the player's spell is going to be. This isn't a case of "a mean DM can do this", it's a case that...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 09:19 PM
    Sure, and not having that time available to them is why he couldn't do it, and the fact that he didn't talk to you prior is indeed a problem, especially when they didn't fully understand the RAW mechanics of what they were doing. However, even if allowed, it's no more imbalanced than a Druid being able to do that twice per short rest at level 2 at no charge and with no tax on skills or tool...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 08:12 PM
    Looking for loopholes is very common practice at RAW tables, and is typically even expected. It's a major part of character optimizing at AL tables. So long as it is RAW supported, whether or not it's a loophole is not a factor in a RAW game. RAW tables are how such loopholes are found and tested in real play, and the loopholes that prove too detrimental are why errata exists. As to the high...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 07:38 PM
    The expectations at your table is not relevant to RAW, and nobody is implying breaking of the system rules when they say a character is free to try to break the rules. What we're saying is that just because a character doesn't possess a trait, such as lacking a fly speed, doesn't mean the character can't put all of their might into attempting to fly. The rules exist as limitations for the player...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 06:15 PM
    A matter of what best suits the setting still has to match with the mechanical implications of the RAW, assuming we're talking about a RAW table, which we are. A DM is not allowed at an AL table to insist that a Druid has a metal allergy any more than they are allowed to insist that Clerics have an allergy to sharp and pointy things. The only basis for either of these would be past edition lore,...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 11:54 AM
    Yes, I would like to reiterate that I am also in this camp. I don't personally care if my Druid can or cannot wear armor, I'm merely discussing the issues in the RAW, using extreme examples to emphasize the issues with the system's lack of clarification. I have brought up the idea of being a Druid wearing metal willingly, but as a means of pointing out that nothing in the RAW stops it, just as...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 11:37 AM
    Well the issue is that there is a need for printed rules at a RAW table. Nowhere do the books even hint at a Druid suffering any ill effect from metal, even through so much as a lore statement, so that would be a house rule, and therefore not AL legal as far as I know. The Paladin has tenets, but nothing forces them to follow them. The Devotion Paladin has a tenet that says they "Don't lie or...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 11:31 AM
    A forum isn't comparable to a game table. I'd never pull an argument at a game. Whatever the DM says goes, so you gotta roll with it, but that doesn't mean they're right. At an AL table, I'd simply bring up my points once to the DM to get their opinion, and if they said no metal armor, I'd just play my metal hammer throwing Dwarven Druid Guild Artisan, specialized in metalworking with proficiency...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 09:18 AM
    The no PVP rule is also not equivalent, but it was not even relevant enough to address in the same manner. Spell slots are at least a RAW mechanic. The point being contested about the Druids in metal is what applies per RAW, not what applies as per past edition lore. Since the 5E system has nothing in place for what happens when the Druid dons metal armor, there is no RAW interpretation of what...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 08:07 AM
    Fair enough. I'll admit my mistake here. I got sidetracked in my response while reading all of the sarcastic comments and briefly thought I had clicked reply on Lowkey, when in fact it was a response from someone else quoting Lowkey. Proper response from me would have been your comprehension of rules correlation between an action that is physically possible for a character to perform, and an...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 07:58 AM
    Sure, it didn't codify exactly what it meant, but we can get a general guideline through basic deduction. Now since it didn't codify exactly what it meant, there is some room for DM interpretation, just as there is room for DM interpretation on what qualifies as a "chaotic act" or an "evil act" for Paladins, or the DM has to interpret when a Cleric is denied or approved 5th level spells by their...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 05:58 AM
    Like what GlassJaw posted, I'd advise heavily considering the power of individual feats and considering their value individually, and not just adding a blanket cost to feats if you're looking to increase the amount people can grab. I see you plan to "split the feats in two", but I'm not sure what you mean by that, so I'll just toss a random point to consider on that note. I haven't personally...
    17 replies | 557 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 04:53 AM
    This is all made funnier by the irony that this is the actual level of reading comprehension you've all been displaying in your explanations of the AD&D rules thus far.
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 09:22 PM
    Because we're not talking about "no win scenarios". Have you never seen a situation where a villain has hostages, and the hero has to choose between pursuing the villain, or saving the hostages? If you character possesses a tenet to protect life, even this can create a moral dilemma for the Paladin in the heat of the moment. Heck, the Book of Vile Darkness in 3.5 had an NPC that had chains...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 09:00 PM
    Yes, I can. The DMG has rules about what happens when a player displays behavior that goes against the character of their class. Monks can't use oil, so a Monk that chooses to do so anyway will be punished for their deviation from their expected gameplay. Even in the example that I was "corrected" on earlier in this thread, Clerics can be unfaithful to their deity, and that's actually another...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 02:59 AM
    That part of the Sage Advice has nothing to do with the RAW though. The DM has the right to veto or be final arbiter of anything, but that point has no bearing in a RAW discussion. The Sage Advice said that the Druid possesses the ability to wear the armor, and that nothing in the game system penalizes or stops them from doing so. That's the RAW. The fact that you should talk to your DM so that...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 12:06 AM
    "So when a player playing a paladin decides that their character is going to lie or cheat or steal, you tell them that they can't?" Except the Paladin class in AD&D had penalties associated with performing such actions, and did not have anything prohibiting it. If they performed a chaotic act, they needed to seek penance. If they performed an evil act, they lost their Paladin class forever...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 11:58 PM
    That's just in the first few pages. If you want to find more names, feel free to go through the rest of the pages, but I'm not digging that much. I know it's been said at least a few more times in this thread, but two examples from the start of the thread should suffice. Just because they're part of the design process does not mean they are mechanical rules of the game. At most the lore...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 09:46 PM
    The problem with this is that being a Paladin of Devotion means they will not willingly lie. Can they? Sure. Will they willingly do so? No, but it's acknowledged that ultimately it's up to the player to decide, and that sometimes they might, because fluff and lore do not dictate the actions the player is capable of performing. If there are consequences in the rules for their actions they can deal...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 09:37 PM
    Yes, I have read the original AD&D PHB. The thing you're unable to do is read the passages in the entirety of their context, and instead cling to a single word to state your point. Here's how the rules were written: You cannot use A, because B reason, or because C will happen. This means that if you chose to use A, the penalties for B apply, or the effect of C will happen. That's just common...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 09:23 PM
    Yes, I will literally say they were comparatively too dumb to know what they were doing. MMORPG players were also comparatively dumb in the 90s compared to how they are now. It's not that they're dumb as people (although certainly some of them are), it's that they were dumb in regards to how to properly utilize a new game system. Just because they experienced it, doesn't mean they were doing it...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 09:11 PM
    Not a frequent topic on message boards? Then I'm confused by the amount of "great, this discussion again." That also raises the question as to why the Sage Advice felt the need to add it to the compendium if they didn't feel it needed further clarification. It's also likely less frequented by the fact that Druid is hands down the least played class in 5E, according to gaming statistics, even less...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 09:01 PM
    Because they didn't know how to read the rules and use common sense, hence why they just tossed their arms up and said "That's just the way it is." If you read "Druids can't wear metal armor because it spoils their magic" as saying "It's physically impossible for a Druid to ever put on metal", as opposed to saying that if they put on metal they lose access to their magic, then you're not using...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 08:48 PM
    Yes, you are. A bias is not inherently a negative thing. A bias can be positive, or can simply be a confirmation bias, but it can lead to misguided judgement either way. You like the feel, the lore, the history, etc. Many DMs that feel this way too strongly prohibit studded leather in 5E, which would be a misguided judgement due to bias. Your preference for the original lore gives you a bias when...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 08:38 PM
    The further explanation is in the Sage Advice, which the community requested because the PHB did not provide the clarification necessary to enforce any limitations on their ability to wear metal armor. If you read the Sage Advice in its entirety, as opposed to clinging to any specific sentence, it can be summarized as this: Not wearing metal is a choice. Druids do not lack the ability to wear...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 07:32 PM
    Yes, because if you want to do anything, RAW or RAI, as any class, you need to get permission from the DM. Period. You are correct there is no reasonable dispute about that. The dispute is about whether or not their ruling is RAI, or RAW. More AL DMs will rule that Druids can't wear studded leather (despite the PHB saying it's leather and not metal) than the amount that accept there's nothing in...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 06:51 PM
    Sure, so long as you cut out the parts that contradict or clarify the snippet you added. It starts by saying that Druids do not lack the ability to wear metal armor. It then says they typically wear certain armors. As for the part that you bolded, but then didn't add the clarification for: "If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 06:36 PM
    It's because those experiences are at game tables, not a forum in a thread discussing the rules. It shows a further lack of capacity to grasp concepts when you can't separate the two in terms of expected behavior. Also, if someone played a Druid in your campaign, would you stop them from being an iron miner and blacksmith? Nothing in the rules against it. Because I do like Druids, so that's...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 06:29 PM
    Sure, a principal that guides conduct, not a principal that controls or dictates conduct. Paladins of Devotion have a rule against lying built into their design. Clerics have the worship of deities built into their class description, and Monks have a rule against being a murder hobo built into their class description. All of these can be ignored, and only the Paladin has further rules expanding...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 11:02 AM
    Yup. Both fall under the qualifications of being a rule, but one can be ignored, and the other can't. When a rule exists only as a choice, then actions can defy it. If a taboo holds no penalty for defiance then it has no weight as a taboo, and thus can safely be ignored.
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 09:28 AM
    Table rules and rules as written are not comparable discussions, so that doesn't really require addressing. As for the rule that Druids will not wear metal armor, it's a rule about character choice that has no penalty for ignoring. A rule denoting character choice, and a rule that places physical restrictions, are two different things in Dungeons and Dragons. Paladins swear an oath, but...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 07:09 AM
    I would like to point out how much it amuses me that Druids are allowed to be blacksmiths. Even if the DM restricts metal armor, your Druid can still be a metal item merchant, can still fight with any metal weapons they wish, and may cover themselves in as much metal as they wish, so long as it provides no armor bonus. I can play a Dwarven Druid that wears a vest with clips to hang 100lbs. of...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 06:54 AM
    Nothing stops the Halfling from doing so besides their physical incapability. The Halfling is still free to run and jump across the chasm and flap their arms in an attempt to fly. They'll fail to fly because they lack the physical ability to do so, and if their jump check fails to reach the other side, they fall into the chasm. Even if they lack the physical ability to succeed, they still possess...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 12:35 AM
    I get that many don't agree, but that doesn't mean their understanding is accurate. Most people are still so caught up in the old fluff that they only want one interpretation to exist period. Such bias is why it would be foolish to trust AL standards as infallible. They also seem to almost universally rule that the DM chooses what animals appear with Conjure Animals, even if RAW tells the player...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 11:06 PM
    That Gygaxian stuff doesn't really apply to out of game discussion, so I don't see the point of that. We're on an online forum, not at a D&D table. All I will say to that is that if I were at a table where I were playing a Druid, but then the party had a great plan to save the day that required me to weigh my taboo against metal versus the mission, and the DM chose for me because "it's impossible...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 10:46 PM
    No, I'm not making anything up. I'm merely pointing out that many people read the rules wrong. This was especially true during a time without such easy internet access, so people couldn't as easily openly discuss the proper interpretation of rules, and they couldn't get proper guidance from the game developers so easily. Yes, people played in all sorts of different ways, as they do in the current...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 09:49 PM
    Being able to read the books as a whole instead of focusing on one sentence indicates that the Druid just performed an action not appropriate for the class once they used a non-Druid weapon. They also of course won't gain the appropriate benefits of being proficient with the weapon, and may suffer any appropriate penalties. The DMG has a table for penalties to impose on players who perform...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 07:47 PM
    Yes, just yes. They've used that wording in every edition, as indicated by the examples that have been given in regards to 5E, and from what people are trying to claim from old editions, like "Magic Users cannot use armor", or "Thieves cannot use two-handed swords". The people quoting these are ignoring the rules that exist to explain the penalties that happen if they choose to do forbidden...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 07:17 PM
    The issue is that as written it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The developer of the game clarified the official interpretation of the rule, and you disagree with the official interpretation based on the lore that existed in past editions that are now outdated by two editions over the last decade. That's fine, but don't claim the official clarification, as stated by the game's rules designer...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 06:56 PM
    If we understand the English language, if I say "I can't drink milk because it gives me gas", that does not mean I literally cannot drink milk. It means that if I do drink milk I will get gas. If I say "I won't eat your pizza", that does not free me from suspicion if your pizza suddenly disappears, because I very well have the ability to eat that pizza. That's where the clarification was needed...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 05:30 PM
    No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when you read a line in a silly way that makes the possible impossible, and use that to say that an action simply cannot be performed by the player that otherwise should be possible, then yes, it's railroading. What people are somehow not getting is that this is a roleplaying game. If I say, "My father is lactose intolerant, so he can't drink milk,...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 01:59 AM
    Railroading is not removing choice in selecting mechanics, but rather removing options in the game world by stating the possible to be impossible without any reason given besides not wanting the player to do it, or "the rules". Saying a Magic User cannot effectively use a shield due to their lack of martial training is not railroading, but saying they can't pick it up and strap it to their arm...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 01:01 AM
    Amusingly it is possible to exceed the speed of light using the mechanics, but these same people would not allow it because using the rules in that way doesn't make sense. It's a neat little double standard.
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 12:41 AM
    The point I was making is that the PHB specifies that belief and worship vary between the Druids, so Druids are inherently already not all in agreement. There is no taboo or faith system that remains uncontested indefinitely, and when the idea is full of holes, that is when it is at highest risk of being contested. Even the wording in the Sage Advice continues to use words like "typically",...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 10:01 PM
    I'd still argue the possibility that the dryad thinks the Druid is possibly doing something right, as opposed to something wrong. Something like "These people all claim to be defenders of nature, but I sense a strong proclivity in this one." If the Druid does not present himself as a Druid, and merely makes claim of being a member of his Fey Knight crew, they'd maybe be suspicious, but the only...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 07:33 PM
    I'm totally fine with someone having that interpretation, but I'm sort of just pointing at the fact that each Druid is an individual, so it would be silly for "no metal" to be a universal concept in a world where it has no penalties. "No metal" means no gold or silver armor, even though you can literally grab it right from nature. Considering the fact that it can even be shaped with magic, and...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 11:43 AM
    The themes have drastically changed between editions. Clerics used to only use blunt weapons whereas Druid had a wider selection of weapons. Druids are now limited, Clerics now have all simple weapons, and through domains can get all martial weapons as well. Dwarves used to be completely incapable of magic, now their WIS variant is a trademark divine caster. Paladins used to be only lawful good,...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 10:39 AM
    This reminded me of a point that's always bugged me about the explanation of Druids not liking metal because they prefer more "natural" options. Gold forms in nature without any human intervention. So does silver, copper, and platinum. You'll never find leather in nature. It has to be created artificially. Shouldn't they be fine with armor made from silver? Sounds like Druids are super dumb about...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 10:24 AM
    I'd say the fact that there is a section that explains penalties for non-class-like behavior further shows that characters can act outside the behavior designated for their class. It says it right in common sense. What happens if they put on metal armor? What happens if someone else knocks them out and they wake up covered in metal armor? Do they explode? Does the universe fold into itself...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 06:20 AM
    I wasn't trying to be hostile, and I apologize if it seemed that way. I was simply adding further points that I felt appropriate to add. For example, I wasn't certain of what was being implied with the parenthesis. I thought maybe the bracket was because there is more than one way to interpret what the PHB says, so I felt like clarifying that the Sage Advice confirms which interpretation...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 05:19 AM
    To be a bit more accurate, it's not just "apparently" about their beliefs, but RAW it's 100% about their beliefs. That is clarified in the Sage Advice. It is inaccurate to interpret it any other way because the developer confirmed it so. While true, I would like to add a note for all the naysayers that studded leather is 100% confirmed by the Sage Advice to qualify as not metal armor for...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 02:02 AM
    "The more powerful druidic spells, as well as their wider range of weaponry, make up for the fact that druids are unable to use any armor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallic armor spoils their magical powers)." You're omitting the important part where it specifies why they can't use it. They could still put it on, there was just preset conditions as to what would...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 01:41 AM
    That's fair. I never assume campaign conditions, and in general discussion only go based on what the rules say as written unless given further context. On that note, I go by the options listed for players in the PHB, which for Druids says: "Druids revere nature above all, gaining their spells and other magical powers either from the force of nature itself or from a nature deity. Many druids...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Saturday, 22nd June, 2019, 11:53 PM
    The point is that the player characters are the exception, not the rule. While the typical elf is remaining isolated in their little grove, the player character has ventured out into the world to seek adventure, to ward off the evils of the world, or perform whatever other task it is they set out to do. The world itself does not have to be a melting pot, but there's no reason the player character...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Saturday, 22nd June, 2019, 11:26 PM
    I was more going off of the typical core mechanics in 5E. Sure, I know Elves aren't actual Fey, but that's why I said they had a natural proclivity for the Feywild and not that they were Fey themselves. Elvish and Sylvan share an alphabet, and almost every non-evil Fey in the Monster Manual, from Sprites to Satyrs to Treants and Dryads, have Elvish as a default language on top of their normal...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Saturday, 22nd June, 2019, 10:46 PM
    The issue I have here is what exactly could be the possible role play ramifications of that outside of pissing off other Druids? It's pretty darn rare that I see a campaign where players encounter other Druids at all, let alone regularly, and they're literally the only people that give a darn if your Druid wears metal. It's specified in the PHB that Druids hold different views, and opposing...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Saturday, 22nd June, 2019, 08:02 PM
    Touching on this, in original AD&D, the Druid was a subclass of Cleric, and just like the Cleric, was a front-line melee combatant, both second only to the Fighter in terms of melee prowess. The Cleric had access to metal armors, but the Druid had access to more weapons, and intentionally more powerful spells to make up for the reduced defense. The issue we stand at now is that the Cleric has...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Saturday, 22nd June, 2019, 10:39 AM
    The issue I personally have with this kind of thinking is that player characters are typically exceptions, and not cookie-cutter paragons of their class/race. Most humans don't act like Marvel's Captain America, but that's what makes him stand out. The players are usually the heroes that transcend the typical mold, risking their lives in combat for the greater good. The hero that looks past the...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Saturday, 22nd June, 2019, 12:44 AM
    Glad to hear it. Hearing that makes me feel slightly less like I'm wasting my time. Argue rules at a table? Definitely not. Argue rules online? Most definitely. You should never "fight" over rules at a table, because DM gets final say regardless; however, players should not be afraid to discuss rule concerns at their table. Sure, maybe many people will read the rules differently, but...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 10:46 PM
    But they didn't do this. They actually did the opposite of this, which says a lot about what you're saying versus what they have stated. The original wording in the PHB was flimsy because it said they will not wear metal armor, and people wanted clarification as to what that means. This is why it appeared so quickly in the Sage Advice Compendium. Some people interpreted it as meaning it's a...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 09:47 PM
    No, RAI = Rules as Intended. RAW = Rules as Written. Intention != Interpretation. That's not even just semantics, they are literally definitively different. Rules as Interpreted would be synonymous to Rules as Written. Rules As Intended means bypassing the Rules As Written in favor of enforcing what is perceived by the DM as the heart of the rules, not the mechanical interpretation of the rules....
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 09:06 PM
    Sage Advice is official documentation that goes alongside the errata. Errata changes rules, Sage Advice further clarifies them. The official documentation from WotC says this: "Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter).The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 08:07 PM
    Clerics? Valor Bards? Any other caster that puts in the effort to get a shield and light or medium armor? Heck, it's just as easy, and often easier, for full casters to get AC of their tank, than it is for martial classes like the Monk or the Rogue to do the same. And that rule has been further clarified in the Sage Advice as to what it means. It is made clear that there is nothing...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 02:50 AM
    And what if an NPC, or a trickster player, decides to cast Suggestion on the Druid and tell them to put on a metal breastplate? Do they explode? No, because the Sage Advice says nothing happens if they do, and that nothing stops them from doing it. Want to know what happens if that Champion Fighter shapeshifts into a bear? Cast Polymorph on them. Barring that, it's not a comparable argument,...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 02:43 AM
    The wiggle room is because "will not" is not the same as "can't". Sage Advice is official. It was asked of them what happens when a Druid wears metal armor, because there was no mention of them being unable to, merely that it's a personal choice. They said nothing prevents them from doing so. Since the official rule is that nothing in the game system that prevents them from wearing metal armor,...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 02:38 AM
    Not necessarily. The Champion Fighter can still aspire to cast magic, can still take Magic Initiate, and can even jump into battle and try to replicate their Wizard's casting. They'll fail, but it's fully up to the character if they want to try. They're not going to explode (unless the DM wants to rule that their failed emulation leads to the casting of a failed Fireball and blow themselves up)....
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 12:39 AM
    No, even if it just said "they can't", I'd still not be okay with it. Every time it's said that someone can't do something, a reason is given. If they had said, "Druids don't wear metal armor because it cuts off access to their spells", that's a good mechanical explanation that also covers the narrative. If they simply said "Druids can't wear metal armor", that still raises the question of why...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 12:04 AM
    See, the thing is, if you don't remove player agency, it's never a "no-win situation". They fully have the option to go against their own values if they feel it appropriate. I wouldn't call infiltrating the enemy, learning their plan, and saving hundreds of lives at the expense of having to set your personal values aside to be a "no-win". If there are mechanical penalties for going against their...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 11:45 PM
    There's a big difference between a player picking a mechanical option, and forcing a decision on a character. The problem is that your examples are not "will not", they are "cannot". A human cannot see in the dark because they lack the physical ability. A Cleric does not use Extra Attack because they are physically incapable of doing so due to lack of martial training. Heck, they can still make...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 11:17 PM
    I've also been DMing for a long time, but it's never come up for me solely because there's been no decision making limitations on characters until 5E. If a character had issues with a plan of action they could choose to contest the decision, and give their reasons for doing so, and the party could try to work something out. They also have the option of accepting any penalties associated with a...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 10:57 PM
    Well the purpose of having a list of grievances is being prepared to address why something is problematic. I don't just walk in with a list and say "read this". In the case of something poorly written in the PHB, it's best to be able to present why it's poorly written as opposed to just saying it is. If the DM says no, being able to bring up every possibly grievance addresses potential story or...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 10:43 PM
    What? You've never had a situation where a party has had to infiltrate by disguising themselves as the enemy? Never had a situation where a type of armor was provided to grant the players the ability to fight a specific otherwise overpowering enemy? Never had someone take reference from Legend of Zelda and have something like magnetic boots and metal walls, or metal boots and magnetic walls, for...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ohmyn's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 10:31 PM
    Well in AD&D it was just a dungeon crawl, but even then they always gave reasons, despite how poorly defined the edition was for anything outside of combat. For example, they didn't actually have "Wizard", but had "Magic-User". It specified, "they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use, for martial training is so foreign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive." It...
    641 replies | 18184 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About Ohmyn

Basic Information

About Ohmyn
Introduction:
Not a rules lawyer, but can be when necessary.
Location:
Internet
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
31-40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Online

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
104
Posts Per Day
3.44
Last Post
Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019 08:11 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Tuesday, 16th July, 2019 02:32 AM
Join Date
Thursday, 20th June, 2019
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
My Game Details
Town:
Online
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Monday, 1st July, 2019


Sunday, 30th June, 2019


Saturday, 29th June, 2019


Thursday, 27th June, 2019


Wednesday, 26th June, 2019


Tuesday, 25th June, 2019



Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019

  • 02:05 PM - Umbran mentioned Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    ...but I guess it's not that easy for those with lesser reading comprehension. That's really ironic, given how The Rules have a pretty obvious "Keep it civil" clause which forbids insulting people. Practice what you preach, and all that. In any case, Ohmyn, don't post in this thread again. Go find something to talk about that doesn't inspire you to snarky insults.

Tuesday, 25th June, 2019

  • 09:57 PM - JonnyP71 mentioned Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Abiding by a rule is NOT removing player agency. Ohmyn - that's not how the 1E rules were written, you're trying to apply the modern approach to D&D rulebook writing to a 40+ year old game in which was still very much evolving up until the release of each rulebook (which were spread over a number of years).. the DMG in particular is very much stream of consciousness in its lack of organisation. Lowkey described the way the rules were written much better in I ever can several pages back. The reason a Druid could not wear metal armour in 1E was because, in 3 places, the rules said they cannot... without ever giving any instances in which they can. ... plus the DMG training costs were not for PCs who broke the rules, they were for character who acted outside their general roles - there is a difference.

Monday, 24th June, 2019

  • 02:32 PM - jasper mentioned Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Ohmyn .. It says it right in common sense. What happens if they put on metal armor? What happens if someone else knocks them out and they wake up covered in metal armor? Do they explode? Does the universe fold into itself because the impossible has happened? Hopefully their universe has paradox protection..... Judge, " Mr. Druid you have found guilty of trespassing, freeing all the zoo the animals, and square dancing in triangle formation. The sentence is dead by metal armour!" Druid, "no. no. No. " The guards take the druid out and strap plate mail on the druid. And quickly run away. The universe gives the down thumb side. BOOM! The druid explodes. Guard 1, " Another suite of plate armour gone. It is getting expensive to get rid of evil druid lawbreakers." Guard 2, " The judge's brother runs the local armour shop."

Saturday, 22nd June, 2019

  • 03:03 PM - Maxperson mentioned Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    ...r supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter. 4e: I have no idea. I didn't really play it much and druids aren't in the PHB. 5e: Makes wearing metal armor a personal choice by deliberately and repeatedly stepping back from prior language like "can't, "forbidden" and "restricted," using "will not" instead. It also removes all mechanical penalty, further reinforcing that it's just a fluff choice not to wear armor, which any PC can of course change. However I'm somewhat old school in my approach to other classes and races, I use the racial preference table from 1E for example - sorry, if you want to play a Half Orc then the Elf in the party is NOT going to be a lifelong best friend. In fact your characters are not going to get along, at least not initially, so please work together and decide which of you is going to play a different race that is more suitable, or be prepared to roleplay significant conflict between them. As was noted by Ohmyn, PCs are exceptions to the general rules. They are free to pick and choose their personalities, including have compassion or understanding for races that had animosity for one another in the books. This is a common trope in fantasy writing, and is backed up by D&D itself. Official products have had good demons and other exceptions to the general behavior rules, because individuals are.......individuals. They can decide for themselves if as an elf, they hate orcs. Maybe this one elf over here wants to heal the divide and thinks orcs can be redeemed. If you as the DM are forbidding players from doing that sort of thing, not only are you stepping over the line with regard to playing their PCs, but you are missing out on tons of great roleplaying opportunities.

No results to display...
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019

  • 02:05 PM - Umbran quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    ...but I guess it's not that easy for those with lesser reading comprehension. That's really ironic, given how The Rules have a pretty obvious "Keep it civil" clause which forbids insulting people. Practice what you preach, and all that. In any case, Ohmyn, don't post in this thread again. Go find something to talk about that doesn't inspire you to snarky insults.

Monday, 1st July, 2019

  • 05:31 PM - lowkey13 quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Nobody is providing an effective mechanism to enforce it because that's not the point. I'm sorry, I thought you were the OP. You know, the whole, "Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented" Implement it better. If you want to play the RAW, then Druids don't wear metal armor. If you want the Druids to wear metal armor, allow me to quote Sage Advice: "If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. ... If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class." See? If you don't like the rule, ask your DM change it. And if you think it isn't a rule, as has already been pointed out to you as well, then just try doing this at an AL-standard table, or at a convention. Good luck with your rules lawyering!

Saturday, 29th June, 2019

  • 05:04 AM - 5ekyu quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    What you're saying is actually our point. Alignment is not a straight-jacket, because player agency overrides what the alignment says they would do. If they're a good character they'll have a taboo against killing the innocent, but they're still within their right as a player to have their character kill whoever or whatever they want. They can start as Anakin and end up as Darth Vader. It's up to them as the player, not their alignment nor the class lore, to decide what they're going to do. All the player has to consider is whether or not they're willing to deal with the consequence of their actions. The primary thing we've been saying is that lore is exactly as you just explained. Every class has lore, and the lore varies to great degrees even within that class. When a class has a taboo, or an alignment has a taboo, it is intrinsically known that the game system allows the player to have their character violate that taboo, unless there is something put in place that makes it an impossible ...

Friday, 28th June, 2019

  • 11:54 PM - 5ekyu quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    The 1E Druid was true neutral. That means not good, nor evil. It was even written in their class description in 1E AD&D that even if they observed any creature destroying their charges, they were still unlikely to risk their lives to prevent the destruction. This is because good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, which Druids are not. Characters who are neutral by definition don't have any desire to kill the innocent, as that would be evil, but they lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. They're more like animals, who are the epitome of true neutral, where they'll kill to survive, and they'll protect their own pack, but they don't give a damn about anyone else. Some animals are willing to do more than others to protect their own, and are thus less likely to flee when the pack is threatened, but it was made pretty clear that AD&D Druids typically did not have this level of commitment to others. Why is a thief headi...
  • 11:28 PM - Maxperson quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    The 1E Druid was true neutral. That means not good, nor evil. It was even written in their class description in 1E AD&D that even if they observed any creature destroying their charges, they were still unlikely to risk their lives to prevent the destruction. This is because good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, which Druids are not. Characters who are neutral by definition don't have any desire to kill the innocent, as that would be evil, but they lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. They're more like animals, who are the epitome of true neutral, where they'll kill to survive, and they'll protect their own pack, but they don't give a damn about anyone else. Some animals are willing to do more than others to protect their own, and are thus less likely to flee when the pack is threatened, but it was made pretty clear that AD&D Druids typically did not have this level of commitment to others. Why is a thief headi...
  • 09:14 PM - 5ekyu quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    The issue is that what one person finds to be a loophole, another might not. For example, you say it's a loophole to try and circumvent the cost of Find Familiar, but literally the purpose of foraging skills and crafting tools is to reduce or bypass costs. Crafting your own armor cuts the cost in half, and if you also spent the necessary time in a mine to gather your own raw materials, it could reduce the cost to zero. Foraging reduces the cost of eating to zero because you don't need rations. A Healer's Kit costs 5GP, so should be craftable in a day, and it shouldn't be unexpected that a player taking a background to gain Nature, Survival, and proficiency in Herbalism, then spend a feat to gain Healer, would expect they can spend 8 hours crafting it in town for 2.5GP, or to be able to spend a bit more time out of town gathering their own ingredients to cut that cost to 0GP, so long as they had sufficient time to both craft it and gather the materials. If all of the above is true, there's n...
  • 11:21 AM - JonnyP71 quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Oh, and a side note to this: Yes, and people hate real lawyers, until they're on their side. Funny how that works, isn't it? People don't hate rules lawyers, they just hate people that disagree with them, and they especially hate it when the people that disagree with them have a point. Second side note to the first note: If something is a loophole, it's RAW by definition. If a spell is super powerful, but it has a high component cost, someone that wants to utilize that spell to its maximum will likely find a way to circumvent that cost. If they find a way in the RAW to bypass the cost completely, then that would be considered a loophole. Being a loophole doesn't make it illegal, and in fact loopholes serve to make otherwise illegal things legal. This is why utilizing a tax loophole is not a federal offense. If the way it was done were a federal offense, it wouldn't be a loophole, but rather it would just be fraud. So sure, let's go ahead and call a Druid in metal armor a loophole, which by ...
  • 08:52 AM - Shadowdweller quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    The issue here is whether or not the DM can cancel their ability in the RAW, such as at an AL table. There's a difference between the DM being able to use their almighty god powers to do whatever they want at a house table, and an ability in RAW telling the DM they get final say in how effective the player's spell is going to be. This isn't a case of "a mean DM can do this", it's a case that every DM, even mean or otherwise, is told specifically to decide the power of this spell on the spot. If the Hexblade at the table is highly effective, the RAW table DM can't just tell them they have less AC or do less damage, but if the summoning Druid is highly effective at the table, the DM can just give them crap summons because they don't like it (here's a shark on land). Imagine if when you cast a damaging spell, it dealt 1d6, 2d6, or 12d6, as chosen by your DM. That's not a good RAW mechanic for a player's spell to have.No, there actually isn't any difference. What you're failing to realize is th...
  • 05:07 AM - Sacrosanct quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Looking for loopholes is very common practice at RAW tables, and is typically even expected. It's a major part of character optimizing at AL tables.. When I DM, I'm not so paranoid that I think they're trying to look for loopholes. . You guys should really work harder on getting on the same page if you're gonna argue the same side. I mean, Ohmyn just gets done saying that it should be expected, and then you say only paranoid people think people will do it. Those don't jive. Also, if you're going to keep accusing someone of being a sock, either prove it, or report them and let mods handle it. As an aside, this thread reminds me why rules lawyers have the reputation they do. It's justified.

Thursday, 27th June, 2019

  • 01:29 PM - Maxperson quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Nowhere in the Paladin's class does it say the tenets of their oath are optional, but the only thing stopping Paladins from breaking their tenets is an optional blurb about punishments that the DM can use at their discretion if the Paladin breaks their oaths. They are in fact not optional. From the The Cause of Righteousness section, "Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work." All of them are bound by their oaths. That's not optional wording and is every bit as much of a rule as the druid blurb, so like druids, they literally cannot break those oaths I guess.
  • 11:59 AM - JonnyP71 quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Well the issue is that there is a need for printed rules at a RAW table. The RAW is 'will not'. It's simple. It won't happen. Therefore there's no need. Playing RAW no Druid can put on metal willingly. It's not an option..
  • 08:34 AM - 5ekyu quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Fair enough. I'll admit my mistake here. I got sidetracked in my response while reading all of the sarcastic comments and briefly thought I had clicked reply on Lowkey, when in fact it was a response from someone else quoting Lowkey. Proper response from me would have been your comprehension of rules correlation between an action that is physically possible for a character to perform, and an action that is not physically possible for that character to perform. For example, trying to cast a spell from a slot I do not have is not comparable to putting on armor that was handed to me.Both of which may be legal or illegal depending on the rules of a game. I for one recognize that some rules agreed to by players do not have to have in-game world causality - such as the no-pvp rule you left out when you limited your response. But, thats ok. Its expected.
  • 06:41 AM - 5ekyu quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    This is all made funnier by the irony that this is the actual level of reading comprehension you've all been displaying in your explanations of the AD&D rules thus far.The hilarious bit here is that I have not been jumping into the AD&D rules issues from previous editions etc and have been focusing on 5e D&D so, yeah, nice choice of claims to quotes matching there!!! :-)
  • 05:45 AM - ccs quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    This is all made funnier by the irony that this is the actual level of reading comprehension you've all been displaying in your explanations of the AD&D rules thus far. What I find funny is that you apparently created an EnWorld account just to argue about druids wearing metal armor. 74 of your 75 posts to date have been in this thread. I suppose that's a blessing though as you aren't going on elsewhere about something or other.... Btw, if you're going to keep on about 1e druids? Then I think you should apply your talents to the fact that 1e never codified what exactly was meant by "Metallic armor spoils their magical powers". Does it mean they just can't cast their spells? Do they lose their ability to shapeshift? Can they still pass through overgrown areas freely? How about IDing animals, plants, & pure water? These are seriously deep concerns for us 1e players. You should thoroughly examine each one for us and make sure that we've read the rules properly. You know, now that we ...

Wednesday, 26th June, 2019

  • 12:44 AM - JonnyP71 quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    As for the DMG training costs chart, yes, using a weapon not belonging to your class is indeed acting outside of the character of your class. A thief swinging a sword, and a Cleric peeing on their party members, are both actions. Thieves can't effectively use two handed swords, so a thief swinging around a two handed sword is acting outside the character of their class, just as a Lawful Good Cleric pissing on random people is acting outside their alignment. That's not something either character would do as defined by their lore, but the player could do it, they'd just be penalized for it. If you read otherwise, you were reading it wrong. Look, we're all going round in circles. "Will not" is quite sufficient, it is clear, and backed up by Sage advice - 'it's up to the DM, not the player'. The DM is the final arbiter, has right of veto, defines the setting and the rules to be used. You don't comprehend the meaning of the word 'rules' 'Taboo' DOES limit the character actions if the group a...

Tuesday, 25th June, 2019

  • 09:50 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Not a frequent topic on message boards? Then I'm confused by the amount of "great, this discussion again." That also raises the question as to why the Sage Advice felt the need to add it to the compendium if they didn't feel it needed further clarification. It's also likely less frequented by the fact that Druid is hands down the least played class in 5E, according to gaming statistics, even less so than the Ranger class with all of its problems. The Druid class is simply filled with too much ambiguity in their wording. Also, no, fluff and lore are not rules, at least not mechanical ones. Paladin oaths are now part of their fluff and lore, but they can ignore them, it just so happens the system puts in potential penalties for ignoring them. Deities are a part of a Clerics fluff and lore, but there is no system in place for punishing them if they don't want anything to do with that, so they don't need a deity unless the DM says otherwise. Warlocks form a pact with a greater being as part o...
  • 09:17 PM - JonnyP71 quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    If you read "Druids can't wear metal armor because it spoils their magic" as saying "It's physically impossible for a Druid to ever put on metal", as opposed to saying that if they put on metal they lose access to their magic, then you're not using very good reading comprehension. Have you actually read the 1E PHB, or are you relying on a certain poster's selective quoting of the rules? There are 3 statements regarding the Druid being limited to leather armour in the 1E PHB. The first is on Page 19, a table listing permitted weapon and armour types for each class. It doesn't give any reasons. Words used in describing the restrictions include 'permitted' for the lists that are allowed, and 'proscribed', 'prohibition' and 'cannot', when clarifying weapons and armour that are not allowed for certain characters. The other 2 mentions are on page 21. The 1st says, I quote "druids are unable to use any armour or shields other than leather armour or wooden shields (metallic armour spoils thei...
  • 09:09 PM - lowkey13 quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Because they didn't know how to read the rules and use common sense, hence why they just tossed their arms up and said "That's just the way it is." It's weird, isn't it, that someone can say that the people who actually experienced something had no idea what they were doing. So ... I guess I have to go with gaslighting at this point? Seriously, you get that you're basically saying that all of us Olds were just too stupid to understand the game we were playing, right? It's pretty amazing that we can even get our truckz out on these here internetz without getting flat tires! Personally, I probably lack the brainpower to complete a sentence, let alone to handle complexities of rules and stuff like that (it's sounds difficult!) but I'm sure someone back then must have been able to read, or something. Naw ... probably not.
  • 09:04 PM - JonnyP71 quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I respect that people may prefer old lore, but I don't let the limits or lore of past editions cloud my judgement when interpreting the RAW in a new game system. Maybe not, but you are letting your bias against old lore cause you to misinterpret the RAW of 5E.
  • 07:46 PM - JonnyP71 quoted Ohmyn in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    People are simply bias against Druids based on the lore of past editions. Are we? It's one of my favourite classes - always has been, versatile, with an interesting array of spells... but that's not why I like them. I like the feel of the class, the Lore associated with it, the history, their pagan roots. I couldn't care one jot about whether the game attempts to justify the rule. It doesn't need to. Same goes for mechanical punishments, rules for penalising contravention of the rules, etc, they not matter. The Lore does. Respect it.


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Ohmyn's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites