D&D 5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented

5ekyu · Jun 25, 2019

Maxperson said:
And you seem to fail to understand is that the rules are subservient to those playing the game, not the other way around. Especially in a rulings over rules edition.

Since I am talking about the players agreeing to the rules they chose to play with, this reply seems to make no sense. We agreed to normal shortswords doing d6 damage with noted exceptions for specific changes too, but if Joe decides that to solve problem ABC on the fly his shortsword now does 10d15 then hey, there is an issue.

Now, of course, maybe we added to our table rules something like plot points and gave them the ability to suspend certain restrictions for short time or enabling 10d15 damage weapons - that is obviously different.

lowkey13 · Jun 25, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Sadras · Jun 25, 2019

Oofta said:
So a vegetarian that regularly eats meat is still a vegetarian?

Yes, but a really bad one.

Kind of like a politician who tells the truth, an Italian who doesn't like pasta, or a Muslim who drinks... you get the drift.

WaterRabbit · Jun 25, 2019

The problem with this premise is that it is divorced from the setting. Without playing the druid into a setting, it just becomes a player choice. However, this sentence means something different in Dark Sun vs Forgotten Realms vs homebrew, etc. So this is a total tempest in a teapot.

Oofta · Jun 25, 2019

Sadras said:
Yes, but a really bad one.

So we can just redefine words to mean anything we want? A vegetarian can eat all the steak they want and still be a vegetarian?

Cool. From now on proficiency in martial weapons really means that I can shoot laser beams from my eyes. 'Cuz lasers are awesome!

Sacrosanct · Jun 25, 2019

5ekyu said:
Again, your personal decision to not treat the whole text of the druid proficiency section as a rule is amusing but carries no weight beyond your table. You own personal feeling that using the eord's will not makes something "'not a rule" is not gonna carry the day.

Especially odd since the definition of a rule includes “a principal that guides conduct”. It’s LITERALLY including a choice as what a rule is defined as, because a person’s principals are choices. I’ve seen people argue some silly things in the past, but I have to admit, I’ve never seen it get this ridiculous. So far, we’ve had him argue that the definition of a rule isn’t a rule, how any DM that uses rules in the rule book (rule is even in that name of what those books are called lol) are tyrants, and another poster say that using that rule to make decisions is an arbitrary decision (the opposite of what arbitrary means).

Is it opposite week and I missed it or something?

But you know what? Go to an AL game with a Druid wearing plate mail and tell the DM you are allowed if you want based on some of the reasons given here. Let me know how that works out for you.

5ekyu · Jun 25, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
Especially odd since the definition of a rule includes “a principal that guides conduct”. It’s LITERALLY including a choice as what a rule is defined as, because a person’s principals are choices. I’ve seen people argue some silly things in the past, but I have to admit, I’ve never seen it get this ridiculous. So far, we’ve had him argue that the definition of a rule isn’t a rule, how any DM that uses rules in the rule book (rule is even in that name of what those books are called lol) are tyrants, and another poster say that using that rule to make decisions is an arbitrary decision (the opposite of what arbitrary means).

Is it opposite week and I missed it or something?

But you know what? Go to an AL game with a Druid wearing plate mail and tell the DM you are allowed if you want based on some of the reasons given here. Let me know how that works out for you.

Moreover, go to pretty much any table, agree to the rules in play, then decide unilaterally during play when inconvenient your charscter can ignore the rule and if told no start spouting off about tyrants and railroading... see how far that gets you.

Even the current SAC makes it clear the DM decides whether to use the official rulings in play and for the druid metal thingy they emphasize the GM decision and final say again, not the player's right to insist it be that way or the tyranny of GMs who choose to not change the rule. It's not "permitted" just identified as not gonna break the game if the GM expands it to follow proficiencies in their campaign.

lowkey13 · Jun 25, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Sacrosanct · Jun 25, 2019

Threads like this make me realize how lucky I have been. I’ve gamed with hundreds of people all over the world over the past almost four decades. There have been disagreements, and the odd rules lawyer here and there, but not once did I ever have a player demand to change a rule, and if I didn’t, I was a tyrant or railroading them. Not once. And not to toot my own horn, but the overwhelming feedback I’ve gotten as a DM has been largely positive (after every session with new players, like at an AL game, I always ask for feedback).

If a player came to my table and said they could wear plate mail as a Druid, and gave me the reasons why that were given in this thread, I would say that it’s not allowed because it is in fact a rule, and if they wanted plate mail, there are other ways to achieve that. The second they called me a tyrant or accused me of railroading, id thank them because they let me know I dodged a bullet, then send them on their way.

And people wonder why DMs are in high demand and hard to find. It’s because most of us don’t want to deal with troublesome players who disrupt the table. The game is for everyone*, but the DM does a lot more work. It’s why they get to make the rulings. I have never forced anyone to play at my table. I guess I’m lucky because I’ve always had more than enough willing players to play in my games.

*IME, when a player says they should be able to do whatever they want because “the game is for me too”, what they usually mean is “the game is for me, cater to me, and I don’t care what any other player wants”

coolAlias · Jun 25, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
If a player came to my table and said they could wear plate mail as a Druid, and gave me the reasons why that were given in this thread, I would say that it’s not allowed because it is in fact a rule, and if they wanted plate mail, there are other ways to achieve that.

Now now, this is about medium armors that are metal, not heavy.

I find myself on both sides of the argument here.

On the one hand, I agree with the OP in that the way the "rule" is portrayed in the PHB is less than ideal, and I'd prefer that if they want it to be a hard "can not wear metal" they should have worded it that way and provided some actual mechanical drawbacks to doing so. A druid is certainly physically capable of putting on metal armor, after all, whether they are proficient or not.

On the other hand, players must abide by the DM's rulings. If the DM says that "won't" means "can't", then that's that. I'd certainly hope the DM would expand on their reasoning if asked politely, and perhaps discuss what the consequences of putting metal armor on would be - it is still physically possible, after all, unless some magic inherent in the world literally prevents it.

Also on the other hand, a player that chooses this hill to die on is probably not one you want in your game. It's one thing to discuss with the DM and say "hey, it says won't but not can't, and I AM proficient, so is it cool if my character is a Druid of the Circle of Nature Is Metal and wears a breastplate he crafted himself?" It's another matter entirely to make demands or continue to argue after a ruling has been made.