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

Paul Farquhar · Jun 27, 2019

5ekyu said:
Ok, so, to you the rule in the PHB reads as a druid chooses not to wear armor or shields made of metal?

Ok.

So a player playing a druid agrees to that.

Ok.

So, then, if in play that player decides that his character will now chooses differently is now violating the rule the player agreed to.

Right ?

Right. They can choose to do that (although I would see it as a rule the character agreed to, not the player). People change their minds all the time, particularly concerning things like religion. I wouldn't penalise it in my setting.

I have never ever seen it happen though.

5ekyu · Jun 27, 2019

Maxperson said:
The point is that eating bacon is taboo and Jews will not eat bacon, yet many do and nothing happens. In D&D the "nothing happens" portion can be changed by the DM, but it's still a personal choice whether or not to be bound by the taboo of your faith.

Yes, absolutely it is.

But, when playing a game, it's not a personal choice yo be bound by the rules of the game. It's a "group" decision or at very least in the hands of the GM ss to what happens when the players realize a player has now chosen to no longer abide hy the tules he and they agreed to.

If I decide whrn playing Imhotep I can love two blocks to a boat every turn, even though the rules say only one, that's a personal choice too, right?

Just wondering at what point a player choosing to not follow the rules he agreed to became ok by default?

Maxperson · Jun 27, 2019

5ekyu said:
Yes, absolutely it is.

But, when playing a game, it's not a personal choice yo be bound by the rules of the game.

D&D is an exception based game. You get one attack, but there are exceptions that change that. From the at the very least 1e on, D&D has been about player choice(exceptions), including violating rule restrictions, and consequences that go with it.

It's a "group" decision or at very least in the hands of the GM ss to what happens when the players realize a player has now chosen to no longer abide hy the tules he and they agreed to.

There was no such agreement with a choice like that. Is there an agreement on an impossible to break rule(by the PC) like how many spell slots? Yes. But not on character restrictions like metal armor and being bound by oaths(no less restrictive than "won't wear metal armor).

If I decide whrn playing Imhotep I can love two blocks to a boat every turn, even though the rules say only one, that's a personal choice too, right?

No. That False Equivalence is NOT a personal choice. The character isn't making a personal decision to move only one block while still having the ability to move two. At least come up with something kinda sorta equivalent.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 27, 2019

D&D is an exercise in collective storytelling, not a competitive boardgame. The rules exist to facilitate storytelling, not limit it.

I have never asked, or been asked "do you agree to abide by the rules?" in D&D.

There was an interesting article on Monopoly yesterday. Some fans have been objecting to changes made that make it impossible to cheat. They consider cheating to be an important element of the game, since it is a business simulator.

Maxperson · Jun 27, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
D&D is an exercise in collective storytelling, not a competitive boardgame. The rules exist to facilitate storytelling, not limit it.

I have never asked, or been asked "do you agree to abide by the rules?" in D&D.

Yes, but there's a base assumption that the hard coded rules like a normal suite of plate mail gives an AC of 18 will be followed by everyone. It's the soft rules like druid's wearing metal armor than have the most wiggle room.

There was an interesting article on Monopoly yesterday. Some fans have been objecting to changes made that make it impossible to cheat. They consider cheating to be an important element of the game, since it is a business simulator.

I can see that.

5ekyu · Jun 27, 2019

Maxperson said:
D&D is an exception based game. You get one attack, but there are exceptions that change that. From the at the very least 1e on, D&D has been about player choice(exceptions), including violating rule restrictions, and consequences that go with it.

There was no such agreement with a choice like that. Is there an agreement on an impossible to break rule(by the PC) like how many spell slots? Yes. But not on character restrictions like metal armor and being bound by oaths(no less restrictive than "won't wear metal armor).

No. That False Equivalence is NOT a personal choice. The character isn't making a personal decision to move only one block while still having the ability to move two. At least come up with something kinda sorta equivalent.

D&D is an exception based game, yes, with the understanding to some extent that specific beats general.

As you not, a player can choose thrir character's actions **except** they cannot do so if it violates a rule.

Well, there is a rule under druid in its proficiencies section that says they will not wear metal armor.

I get, you dont want to see thst as a rule that applies to you, fine. Its up to those at your table how they want yo deal with that.

As forv5e, there actually isnt a rule that says a character gets one attack, except maybe dome conditions or effects like slowed. They get one action plus possible bonus action etc and some get special actions that can... you get that right?

But since you bring up attacks, if there was a rule under the druid proficiencies that said "druids will not make more than one attack in a turn if using a scimitar" would you consider that equally an option the player can just decide to ignore if they felt like it?

Paul Farquhar · Jun 27, 2019

Maxperson said:
Yes, but there's a base assumption that the hard coded rules like a normal suite of plate mail gives an AC of 18 will be followed by everyone.

Apart from the DM. If the DM decides a particular suit of plate mail gives an AC of 17 and is made from ankylosaurus hide then that becomes true.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 27, 2019

5ekyu said:
As you not, a player can choose thrir character's actions **except** they cannot do so if it violates a rule.

Wrong.

A player can say "my character flies across the chasm", even though it is against the rules because their character cannot fly. The DM doesn't say "you can't do that", the DM says "you fall into the chasm". The player can try and break the rules any time they like, and the DM narrates the outcome (which is usually failure).

WaterRabbit · Jun 27, 2019

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?

You need to look up the definition of strawman -- it is not what you think it is.

What does my posting history and sock puppet have to do with each other -- clearly you have little understanding of logic and that people might have a life outside of this forum.

On the other hand, your posting history is clearly nothing but the most extreme trollish behavior.

WaterRabbit · Jun 27, 2019

Maxperson said:
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.

Well you would be wrong -- again. This is my primary account and you can see that I post in all different topics. It is more likely to be a primary account due to its age. Just wow, you really need to learn to apply real logic instead of the pseudo logic you have been displaying.