L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Last edited by a moderator:
What happens when the Druid attempts to use a non-Druid weapon?
The Druid Explodes.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And on page 36 of the 1st edition PHB it lists the non-proficiency penalty that applies when you use a weapon prohibited by your class.
Also, on page 15: "thieves can not use thief abilities when using prohibited weapons or armor."
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 non-class appropriate actions. Any other penalty on them for doing so would be a house rule, as it's purely at DM discretion due to no further listed mechanical penalties. Anyone who thinks "forbidden" means "physically impossible under scientific law" falls into my earlier category of either not being able to read, or not being able to use common sense.
The Cleric also had the limit of "All are likewise forbidden to use edged and/orpointed weapons which shed blood." What happened if they used one? There was no penalty given, so the only penalty as per the RAW would be the penalties listed in the DMG for doing something inappropriate for your class. A Cleric still had the physical capacity to pick up a dagger and use it to cut a rope, and could still wave it around like a wand in combat if they so wished. As per the rules, it was simply up to the DM to decide if the action they had performed was against the tenets of their class, and then choose the punishment from the provided table based on the severity of their offenses.
In the case of Druids, it already said "druids are unable to use anyarmor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallicarmor spoils their magical powers)". The penalty for doing so was already explained; it spoils their magical powers. They could still opt to strap on a metal shield, but bye-bye magical powers. This means it's less explicit to be automatically considered a "non-class like behavior", since it was not stated as a taboo, and there could be times where it's appropriate to wear metal temporarily if it achieved their goal without need for their magic. The non-class behavior rules were heavily up to DM discretion, but they still very much existed as the rule to enforce for when characters acted outside of their designated feature blocks.
You are just making stuff up now.
I assume you played OD&D and 1e, correct?
So you understand that while people played in all sorts of different ways, the mindset was completely different back then?
I understand you have repeatedly ignored the whole class/lore issue, but ... c'mon. Are you going to be seriously arguing that you understand how Clerics used edged weapons in OD&D and 1e so well because of you common sense, and the rest of us were just playing it wrong?
I mean, you could argue that, but that would be kind of silly, right? Don't be that guy.
PS- Quoting only the ending joke of a post, and eliding the rest of it, isn't ... a great way to engage people.
By the way, the actual Gygaxian method of handling the Plate-wearing druid, or the two-handed sword-weilding cleric, is DMG p. 110. Here-
[SNIP]
*EDIT- in case this wasn't clear from my first post of the day, re: history of druids, your argument is weird and misplaced. Here-
A. 5e's text about druids and armor doesn't work because it's not a rule, and never has been, ever. Or something.
B. 5e's rule about druids and armor doesn't work very well because it's similar to the other class/lore rules from OD&D and 1e that, for the most part, 5e has completely abandoned; given that 5e has completely abandoned almost all vestiges of these rules (including but not limited to clerics and edged weapons, racial level limits, monks and oil, and various alignment restrictions) re-introducing this single 1e legacy rule seems misplaced and confusing, and should be, at most, an optional campaign-variant, not a core 5e class rule for druids.
See the difference? I could understand B, but I don't get A at all.