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

lowkey13 said:

So, again, without prying, I think at least part (but not all) of the divide is when you were exposed to the rules.

Click to expand...

2nd AD&D is when I first started playing.

lowkey13 said:

I did a separate thread checking other people and their experience with "lore" rules (clerics can't/won't use edged weapons, monks can't/won't use oil, druids can't/won't use metal armor) from OD&D/1e, and the experience was the same-

that's just the way it was.

To the extent these lore rules are increasingly odd in 5e, I can understand that, and I appreciate that.

But to me, the weird thing is people who argue that rules without penalties ... aren't rules.

Click to expand...

I understand that viewpoint, and I agree with it except for when it comes to forcing player decisions.

Compare, for example, to the Paladin oaths. Yes, they swear to uphold these and "won't" break them, except that they might - what if the player wants a redemption arc, or what if it's a dilemma where at least one oath is getting broken no matter what?

In general, absolutely the druid should not be wearing armor because that's the rule. But because it says won't instead of can't, if an exceptional case similar to the above paladin's ever came up, as a player I'd want to know WHY my druid won't wear armor. Then and only then am I able to make a rational in-character decision of "is it worth {x} to wear this metal armor for a bit?"

It's a lore rule with no real flavor or explanation in the 5e PHB. They will happily wield metal weapons, but not shields, and not armor. Okay. That's fine. But when those in-game decision points come up and a player is considering whether they should "break" that rule, just as a Paladin might break their oath rules, they deserve to know why they shouldn't, and should be allowed to do so if they choose. Again, just like the Paladin.

lowkey13 said:

I would add that my first post here stressed that if a player came to me with a particular concern, of course I would work with them. But there is nothing in the world worse than a rules lawyer that grinds the game to a halt; luckily, these players usually quickly self-identify for rapid, and TYRANNICAL, removal.

Click to expand...

I can whole-heartedly agree with that, even though I sometimes fall into the rules-lawyery category. I've been trying to break the habit.

JonnyP71 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 in a game system that has a different lore. 4E did not have the metal limitation, they were simply not proficient by default, and I'm sure you wouldn't like that. That's your bias from past editions speaking up.

5E says in the PHB that a Druid can get their power from the worship of a nature deity, which has nothing to do with the lore you're mentioning. Clerics can choose the Nature domain and get access to some Druid powers while not giving one damn about the preservation of nature. 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.

For the last time

Fluff and lore ARE rules. They are part of the design just as much as a mechanical bit. The Sage Advice response also backs this up. It also fits under the definition of what a rule is. And as a game designer, I can attest how it’s true when designing things in your game.

I have no idea why you keep saying the community is so confused they asked for clarification. In almost 40 years, I’ve never seen it. It’s not a frequent topic on message boards. Of the thousands of threads created when the game came out around clarification of things, this was not one. 5e was out years before that question was ever in SA—hardly a pressing issue. What you think is a community is more likely a handful of people who are actually a tiny % of gamers.

If you don’t like the rule, and clearly you don’t, talk to your DM. End of story.

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 said:

So, again, without prying, I think at least part (but not all) of the divide is when you were exposed to the rules.

I did a separate thread checking other people and their experience with "lore" rules (clerics can't/won't use edged weapons, monks can't/won't use oil, druids can't/won't use metal armor) from OD&D/1e, and the experience was the same-

that's just the way it was.

Click to expand...

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 very good reading comprehension. This is fine, as tabletop games were new, and people didn't have easy access to large communities or the developers to try and discuss what these things actually meant, so a large percentage of people simply got it wrong. But personally, when I read that passage on Druid, I'm reading that they can wear metal armor but it has penalties. Likewise, when I read that Magic Users can't use armor because they lack the martial training, I don't assume it's physically impossible for them to put it on, but rather they gain no benefit if they do, because they lack the martial training to utilize it.

Likewise, when a class had a taboo, or an action that was forbidden to it, without giving a detailed explanation as to what happened if they did it, I'd assume that the table with penalties for actions outside of the class restrictions would apply, and not that the DM would say "Nope, that's impossible, because your class says so." If there's penalties for performing forbidden actions, then that simply further clarifies that the action can be performed. Just because many people played at tables where they could not piece this together does not mean that's not how it was written.

Ohmyn said:

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.

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but you are letting your bias against old lore cause you to misinterpret the RAW of 5E.

*Deleted by user*

Sacrosanct said:

For the last time

Fluff and lore ARE rules. They are part of the design just as much as a mechanical bit. The Sage Advice response also backs this up. It also fits under the definition of what a rule is. And as a game designer, I can attest how it’s true when designing things in your game.

I have no idea why you keep saying the community is so confused they asked for clarification. In almost 40 years, I’ve never seen it. It’s not a frequent topic on message boards. Of the thousands of threads created when the game came out around clarification of things, this was not one. 5e was out years before that question was ever in SA—hardly a pressing issue. What you think is a community is more likely a handful of people who are actually a tiny % of gamers.

If you don’t like the rule, and clearly you don’t, talk to your DM. End of story.

Click to expand...

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.

lowkey13 said:

Well, the thing is, it's a lot closer to all the other "lore" rules in OD&D/1e.

Why can't monks use flaming oil?
Why can't clerics use edged weapons?
Why do Druids use scimitars?????

Why do any three classes have an armor type between NONE and ANY - Thief, Assassin, and Druid (leather)?
Why do thieves get swords, so long as they aren't bastard of two-handed?
Why can assassins use any weapon, and thieves can't even use a short bow?
Why do monks (KUNG FU FIGHTER) use crossbows?
Why is there a poison table, and for almost every class it's a question mark, except assassins it's a YES! What, is it mandatory? And why can only evil clerics use poison, what about the neutral ones?
And why are so many classes alignment-gated? Why can't a Cleric be (true) Neutral? I mean, c'mon! True Neutral doesn't mean you love nature!

I could keep going, but you get the idea- LORE. RULES.

Click to expand...

Agreed - in older editions, that's how it was, but even then, at least in my experience, they were ignored far more frequently than non-lore-based rules. How many non-human Paladins were roaming around in 2e? I saw many.

Each edition has become more and more lenient with regards to lore-based rules, and 5e has for the most part done away with all of that (rightly, imo).

Obviously there are a few exceptions, but without knowing the history of rules in D&D, if you were reading the rules for the first time, taking everything as written in its natural English meaning, would you honestly come to the conclusion that there would never be a Druid character rocking some metal armor?

It's a lore-based rule in an edition that basically got rid of every lore-based rule, and so sticks out as being out of place.

Ohmyn said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 their magical powers)"... the 2nd read "In melee combat, druids fight as clerics, but they do suffer somewhat from their inability to wear protective armour of metal."

The only clarifying 'reason' is that short statement in brackets, seemingly thrown in to give some reasoning for the rule.

Note the use of strong words such as "inability", and "prohibition"... this is firmly worded - these are the rules, your character is NOT doing this.

There's no statement anywhere in 1E to hint that they CAN wear metallic armour at any time.