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

Sacrosanct · Jun 25, 2019

Ohmyn said:
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 of their fluff and lore, but DMs almost universally ignore the fact that the Warlock has made a pact with anything, because there's no mechanical limitations in the system for if the character ignores the pact. Not wearing metal armor is part of the fluff and lore of the Druid class, but it is also one that comes with no mechanical limitations of penalties if the Druid chooses to ignore it. I don't see why the Druid is regarded so differently in this sense than every other class with lore.

Who has said “great, this thread again”? Names.

You are totally wrong in saying lore aren’t rules. Imagine my surprise. They are rules. LITERALLY how rule is defined in the dictionary. They are part of the design process, just as important as mechanics.

You just got done saying we were too dumb to understand rules before the internet came along and we were presumably graced with intellectuals like yourself. So forgive me if I don’t take you seriously at all. I’m utterly convinced at this point you’re just trolling.

coolAlias · Jun 25, 2019

5ekyu said:
Damned good explanation - for either will not PvP or will not metal armor - "that is what all of us, including you, agreed to."

See, this avoids having to re-litigate the "will not" every f'n time we hit another case where it's a trifle inconvenient for you to actually follow what you agreed to. I mean , it's likely to rarely come up and when the few times its inconvenient just deciding to re-hash it again is, well, we know what that is.

Dont we?

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?

JonnyP71 · Jun 25, 2019

Abiding by a rule is NOT removing player agency.
[MENTION=6999115]Ohmyn[/MENTION] - 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.

Sacrosanct · Jun 25, 2019

coolAlias said:
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?

In AD&D? Yep, in most circumstances. Just because the player might be chaotic neutral, doesn’t mean the paladin isn’t lawful good. That’s what a role playing game is—you take the role. If you don’t like the lore and fluff rules behind the paladin, then play a different character. What makes the paladin isn’t just the mechanical bonuses. That’s why there is lots of text BEFORE the mechanical bits in every class entry. Designers don’t put that there because they were bored looking to fill white space, it’s there for a reason. The reason the paladin gets all of those kewl powerz is because of the lore and fluff rules.

cbwjm · Jun 25, 2019

I think the main problem with this "rule" is that it is a roleplaying one, not a mechanical one. A lot of people nowadays want the mechanics of the class laid out for them and want the roleplaying aspects left in their hands. That's why this "rule" should have been left in a sidebar as flavour for druids, that or this should have been left off completely and druids should have simply been given light armour proficiency instead of light and medium.

5ekyu · Jun 25, 2019

coolAlias said:
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?

Assuming you are talking a devotion paladin where the tenets vover thst kind of activity, no I wouldn't tell them that because thats silly.
See, the rules agreed to play by, assuming RAW, include that whole section on breaking oaths, even the bestest is fallible, hest of moment, emotion, etc etc etc.

So, that makes it clear that the rules show you the tenets as stuff you aspire to, not hard and fast prohibitions.

It would be like say, our rule on pvp was " if you pvp, your character loses a level." That's a whole different rule than "our characters will not PvP."

See the diff?

5ekyu · Jun 25, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
Abiding by a rule is NOT removing player agency.
[MENTION=6999115]Ohmyn[/MENTION] - 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.

Personally, player agency tells me a player should take this up with the GM if its gonna be a problem **at chargen**. Maybe we work sonething out, maybe we dont and you choose a different class or table but when you wait until its an inconvenirnt agreement pull your player agency fury card, that comes off as weaponizing the dispute every bit as much as yee olde jerk GM putting paladins of old in alignment traps with no way out.

In the game I run now, shell-based breastplate armor made sn appearance by like 3rd level and the genasi ranger and druid had to sort out who got it. Good roleplaying even through today.

coolAlias · Jun 25, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
In AD&D? Yep, in most circumstances. Just because the player might be chaotic neutral, doesn’t mean the paladin isn’t lawful good. That’s what a role playing game is—you take the role. If you don’t like the lore and fluff rules behind the paladin, then play a different character. What makes the paladin isn’t just the mechanical bonuses. That’s why there is lots of text BEFORE the mechanical bits in every class entry. Designers don’t put that there because they were bored looking to fill white space, it’s there for a reason

We're discussing 5e here, but even in AD&D that kind of hard-line dismissal of a player's choice was unnecessary due to mechanical backing (in most cases) of the lore-based rules, nor do I think the AD&D rules were intended to fully negate player agency in that manner (at least in this case - class/race restrictions etc., not so much).

Anyway, it's clear we have very different opinions on how to adjudicate player character decisions, in any edition. Happy gaming to you!

JonnyP71 · Jun 25, 2019

5ekyu said:
Personally, player agency tells me a player should take this up with the GM if its gonna be a problem **at chargen**. Maybe we work sonething out, maybe we dont and you choose a different class or table but when you wait until its an inconvenirnt agreement pull your player agency fury card, that comes off as weaponizing the dispute every bit as much as yee olde jerk GM putting paladins of old in alignment traps with no way out.

In the game I run now, shell-based breastplate armor made sn appearance by like 3rd level and the genasi ranger and druid had to sort out who got it. Good roleplaying even through today.

In mine it was blue dragonscale armour (essentially medium armour, protects as per scale mail, no penalty to stealth, resistance to electrical damage) - at about level 8. The party's Bard swiped it... oh well.

And yep, session 0 is when expectations are to be thrashed out.... not during play - that's very bad form.

5ekyu · Jun 25, 2019

cbwjm said:
I think the main problem with this "rule" is that it is a roleplaying one, not a mechanical one. A lot of people nowadays want the mechanics of the class laid out for them and want the roleplaying aspects left in their hands. That's why this "rule" should have been left in a sidebar as flavour for druids, that or this should have been left off completely and druids should have simply been given light armour proficiency instead of light and medium.

To me I would have:
Put hide armor as light and studded as medium. Adjust scores and values.
Give druids light armor and shields
Give wildshape restrictions if wearing medium or heavy armor or metal shields. Basically, they wont be merged into the form. Have to be left behind.