I also think a lot of people can't believe that there are DMs that would kick out a player who wants their druid to use metal armour.Cant believe some ppl here would actually quit a game if there druid weren't allowed to prance about the woods in full plate armor. Rules lawyering players are so annoying. Good riddance then!
First it us a rule. Not sure how it can be seen otherwise.Um, so that's not even a rule. It's just one line of fluff on choices druids make. If you're going to claim that a rule was made that makes it impossible for a druid to so much as don metal armor, at least use the ones from 1st to 3rd edition. Those are at least rules.
Sure. This is clear, too. If my dad had said to me when I was a kid, "You will not go outside." and I was feeling rebellious, I would go outside anyway. It's just a choice and I can CHOOSE to go against it. See how that works?[/FONT][/COLOR]
Druids won’t wear armor, and it was explained why. Because of their ethos. That’s literally the same thing as a principal. Good lord...
And yes, a DM can tell you that you can’t, because it’s the DMs world and game.
There’s no explicit rule saying I can’t physically move a battleship 4 zones in Axis and Allies, but that doesn’t mean I can.
While obviously there can be most any type of behavior, I dont know of any GM eho would kick a player out for *wanting* their druid to wear metal armor.I also think a lot of people can't believe that there are DMs that would kick out a player who wants their druid to use metal armour.
First it us a rule. Not sure how it can be seen otherwise.
It's just like how in DnD a GM can choose for their game to not use the druid armor rule, or the cleric armor rules or the multi-class restrictions.
A player can declare that his halfling flies across the chasm, even tho they have no actual way to do so at that moment. The GM can then describe the results.
See how that works?
Cant believe some ppl here would actually quit a game if there druid weren't allowed to prance about the woods in full plate armor. Rules lawyering players are so annoying. Good riddance then!
I also think a lot of people can't believe that there are DMs that would kick out a player who wants their druid to use metal armour.
Why is that halfling incapable of flying across the chasm? Is it perhaps that there is a rule to that effect the players all play by?Because it's not an instruction. It's a choice. If it was a rule, they would say "can't." They don't, because it's not a rule.
And just like my druid can decide to put on a set of metal armor to sneak into a castle. It's my PC's choice, not the DM's.
Yep! It works completely unlike druids putting on metal armor. You see, halflings are physically incapable of flying across the chasm on their own, but druids are 100% capable of just putting on metal armor. False Equivalences are false.
Why is that halfling incapable of flying across the chasm? Is it perhaps that there is a rule to that effect the players all play by?
Why epnt that druid put on armor? Is it that there is a rule the players agreed to to that effect?
See how that works?
As for you personally deciding that including the word "wont" (or "will not") disqualifies something as being a rule, you certainly can choose that for your table play. But for the 5e PHB there does not seem to be such a definition made.