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

WaterRabbit said:

You may not like false equivalencies but you love your strawmen.

Click to expand...

There was no Strawman there buddy. I didn't falsely attribute an argument to anyone. The above is an Argument from Fallacy, though.

The gaslighting going on between you and the guy that created the account just to argue this one issue is amazing. Your argument style is just one step short of his calling everyone who played old school D&D stupid.

Click to expand...

Says the guy with 354 posts over the last 17 years. Are you that sock puppet, too?

Maxperson said:

There was no Strawman there buddy. I didn't falsely attribute an argument to anyone. The above is an Argument from Fallacy, though.



Says the guy with 354 posts over the last 17 years. Are you that sock puppet, too?

Click to expand...

Lol, did you really just argue about fallacies, and immediately follow that up with an ad hominem? And not even see the irony there?

Ohmyn said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!!!

Sacrosanct said:

Lol, did you really just argue about fallacies, and immediately follow that up with an ad hominem? And not even see the irony there?

Click to expand...

It was a simple question. It's highly unlikely that a primary account has only 354 posts over 17 years, and it's not an attack to call something what it is. I'm well aware that both accounts are sock puppet accounts. I just didn't really care until he brought it up.

Exchange from last night's game:

Druid: "I join the dice game."
Rogue: "You can't do that, you're a druid!"
Druid: "Are the dice metal?"
DM: "No, they are bone."
Druid: "That's okay then."

ccs said:

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 have this internet thing & all and can properly discuss rules with each other.

Click to expand...

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 deity. The codified guideline is that it has a negative impact on their magic, as per "spoil". To spoil as a verb means to rob something from, or to diminish or destroy the quality or value of. It has some other meanings as a verb, but none of them can actually apply to this sentence, since we're not talking about food, or ballot boxes, or events. It doesn't just say it spoils their spells, but rather their magic, so the DM would simply have to decide which abilities are magical and apply their interpretation of spoil. If they identified animals via magic, then it most certainly would be a spoiled ability, because it's magic, and their magic is spoiled.

The DM would have to codify this either way if there were a Druid at the table, or the party were to capture a Druid. Heck, the party may have Assassins in it and they get a job to capture a Druid alive. An enemy (or player) that captures a Druid and understands that their magic is spoiled by metal armor would likely want to lock metal armor onto that Druid to ensure they don't escape from a cage with their magic, which is an example I pointed out before in this thread. An ideally captured Druid would be like The Man in the Iron Mask, and as per the RAW, this metal armor would impose a penalty on the captured Druid.

The issue with the 5E rule is that there's not even a codified guideline to be used for DM interpretation, unlike what the 5E Paladin has, or the 1E Paladin has, and even the 1E Druid has. There's nothing except they won't do it, which is incorrect as soon as they do it, but there's no listed guidelines for something actually happening if they do. Just like any other class that has taboo, taboo can be violated by player choice. This is the only instance where there's nothing listed as a guideline for when it's violated, intentionally or otherwise, as there's no mechanical implication on the action, nor any explanation as to the taboo itself. As per RAW, if it's violated, it requires a 100% total house rule to impose a penalty.

5ekyu said:

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!!!

Click to expand...

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.

Ohmyn said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

5ekyu said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 happens to a Druid that violates their taboo. RAW tables exist. AL events are supposed to be played RAW, and they prohibit house rules. Just as the system has no penalty for a Cleric that denounces their deity, or a Warlock that ignores their pact, or a Monk that plays as a money grubbing murder hobo thief, there is no penalty listed for a Druid that ignores their class lore. Without any codified RAW mechanics about this, it would have to be a house rule to impose a penalty, which are supposed to be avoided at RAW tables.

A gentleman's agreement at the table is completely irrelevant to that point. We can agree to remove Druids from the table completely, or the DM can choose to implement their own RAI as opposed to the RAW on anything they want, or the DM can remove any mechanics they don't like, but that has nothing to do with a discussion about the RAW mechanics of the game.

The RAW is 'will not'.

Therefore, following RAW a Druid 'will not' do it. They will refuse. That is all. A player insisting on pulling this stunt (which, as with others in this thread, I've NEVER seen anyone at my tables argue they can do in my 36 years of playing D&D) would be going against RAW and RAI, and being more than a bit of an ass.

Try pulling this argument of yours at an AL game and see how long it takes for the storekeeper to come over and 'have a quiet word' about disruptive behaviour.

Don't be 'that guy', it's not a positive trait.