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

Maxperson · Jun 28, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
In session 0 I tell my players not to waste my time and theirs by even trying to look for loopholes - as that approach will not be tolerated.

When I DM, I'm not so paranoid that I think they're trying to look for loopholes. If they have a valid in-game reason for breaking the taboo, I will see that.

As to the high Nature and Survival with herbalist proficiency to ignore the component cost of Find Familiar, that's actually legal as per RAW. Players are able to gather materials, and they are able to craft things, although crafting is at half cost if you were to purchase the raw materials as opposed to gathering them. Investing two skills and a tool proficiency to be able to reduce 10GP worth of material components seems like a hefty price as it is, so I don't see any imbalance there. This is after all at the expense of skills like stealth and perception, which are considered to be the two most powerful skills in the game.

So, those skills don't let him alter reality. If the proper herbs aren't available in the area, it doesn't matter how high he rolls, and incense isn't able to be foraged. These "loopholes" are generally only loopholes if the DM isn't paying attention.

5ekyu · Jun 28, 2019

Maxperson said:
Do you not understand the difference between in-character and out of character? There are game rules, and then there are rules that are completely within the game world. Game rules, such as armor class, hit points, etc. are not breakable just because the player wants try and break it. However, rules contained entirely within the game world that are dependent on PC action don't have the same force as game rules.

A PC druid can in fact put armor on and violate his taboo. There is literally nothing stopping him. A paladin can walk into an orphanage and hack all the kids into pieces, despite a rule saying he must always remain lawful good. There is literally nothing stopping him. A 1e thief can pick up and swing a two-handed sword. There is literally nothing stopping him. What there are, of course, are consequences for those actions.

Of course i understsnd the difference between in-character and out of character. That is why the flat out permission for PLAYERS to try and break rules even to casting spells with slots unless the GM has tracked it well enough to say " no" just boggles my mind.

"Players are ALLOWED to try and break rules. "

You are trying to draw a distinction between which rules the player should be required to follow and not.

I simply see it this way- the player is required to follow the rules of the game they are playing. It's not ALLOWED to try and break rules until you get caught.

That keeps it simple. We dont have to all track each other cuz we did not agree that you can break rules until you get caught, that you can keep your character casting spells until somebody asks about it.

So, for instance, somebody whose character cannot fly doesnt say out loud ** as PLAYER to the GM "my character flies across the chasm" if they do not have a character who can do that. We dont see whether or not it will slip by and get away with it.

Because at our tables it is considered and agreed to be false that "Players are ALLOWED to try and break rules. "

Meanwhile, it's also true at our table that if the rules we play by say we wont do things - like PvP - then we wont ask to do them to see if we can slip that one by either.

Instead, we do at times discuss changes and tweaks to the rules so that the rules we play by serve us, instead of keeping rules that dont and encouraging or endorsing the "dont get caught" style social contract.

But hey, each to their own.

Sacrosanct · Jun 28, 2019

Ohmyn said:
Looking for loopholes is very common practice at RAW tables, and is typically even expected. It's a major part of character optimizing at AL tables..

Maxperson said:
When I DM, I'm not so paranoid that I think they're trying to look for loopholes. .

You guys should really work harder on getting on the same page if you're gonna argue the same side. I mean, Ohmyn just gets done saying that it should be expected, and then you say only paranoid people think people will do it. Those don't jive.

Also, if you're going to keep accusing someone of being a sock, either prove it, or report them and let mods handle it.

As an aside, this thread reminds me why rules lawyers have the reputation they do. It's justified.

Maxperson · Jun 28, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
You guys should really work harder on getting on the same page if you're gonna argue the same side.

Why? We're not clones of each other. People can agree on some things, but not others.

Maxperson · Jun 28, 2019

5ekyu said:
Of course i understsnd the difference between in-character and out of character. That is why the flat out permission for PLAYERS to try and break rules even to casting spells with slots unless the GM has tracked it well enough to say " no" just boggles my mind.

"Players are ALLOWED to try and break rules. "

You are trying to draw a distinction between which rules the player should be required to follow and not.

I simply see it this way- the player is required to follow the rules of the game they are playing. It's not ALLOWED to try and break rules until you get caught.

That keeps it simple. We dont have to all track each other cuz we did not agree that you can break rules until you get caught, that you can keep your character casting spells until somebody asks about it.

So, for instance, somebody whose character cannot fly doesnt say out loud ** as PLAYER to the GM "my character flies across the chasm" if they do not have a character who can do that. We dont see whether or not it will slip by and get away with it.

Because at our tables it is considered and agreed to be false that "Players are ALLOWED to try and break rules. "

Meanwhile, it's also true at our table that if the rules we play by say we wont do things - like PvP - then we wont ask to do them to see if we can slip that one by either.

Instead, we do at times discuss changes and tweaks to the rules so that the rules we play by serve us, instead of keeping rules that dont and encouraging or endorsing the "dont get caught" style social contract.

But hey, each to their own.

I don't think they get to try and break all the rules, either. The hard rules are hard rules. Those are in place unless the DM changes them. Soft rules, the guidelines, are different. I see no good reason to say no to a druid on this issue if he has a valid in game reason to break the taboo. It's neither cheating, nor a violation of the social contract to break a guideline.

Ohmyn · Jun 28, 2019

Shadowdweller said:
Oh look, more drivel. The DM can cancel any character abilities by fiat or have rocks randomly fall on people; or merely stack things to get around character strengths (e.g. throwing a succession of fire-immune creatures at fire-focused draconic sorcerer). This has no place in a discussion about class balance, however.

The issue here is whether or not the DM can cancel their ability in the RAW, such as at an AL table. There's a difference between the DM being able to use their almighty god powers to do whatever they want at a house table, and an ability in RAW telling the DM they get final say in how effective the player's spell is going to be. This isn't a case of "a mean DM can do this", it's a case that every DM, even mean or otherwise, is told specifically to decide the power of this spell on the spot. If the Hexblade at the table is highly effective, the RAW table DM can't just tell them they have less AC or do less damage, but if the summoning Druid is highly effective at the table, the DM can just give them crap summons because they don't like it (here's a shark on land). Imagine if when you cast a damaging spell, it dealt 1d6, 2d6, or 12d6, as chosen by your DM. That's not a good RAW mechanic for a player's spell to have.

Shadowdweller said:
Only if, as Maxperson noted, the DM is always playing themselves. Different enemies have different goals, different priorities and different modi operandi. Orcs respect martial strength and might presume that warrior-types are the leaders of an enemy group; or choose to target any elves in the party as a result of long-standing hatred. Demons, devils, and undead might choose to target wielders of holy magic over others. Goblins might prioritize whoever they think is weakest or has the most valuable belongings. While even a dumb troll might connect waggling fingers and magic words with an obvious effect...like wolves appearing....the question is more whether they would recognize that in the face of other distractions. Such as an armored knight in their face, a sneaky pipsqueak poking the back of their knees with a knife, and a pimply chap throwing bolts of fire all at the same time. Notwithstanding that summoning spells usually have long durations (with many taking too long to cast in front of enemies in the first place); and the products thereof might not be distinguishable from allies instead of magical minions.

Not going to comment too hard on that as it's fully subjective based on how the DM handles combat, but I will say that the spells also require you to issue verbal commands for the creatures to follow, and if you don't issue a command, they do nothing and will only defend themselves from hostile creatures. Even if they miss you casting the spell, I'm sure you'll get their attention when you're shouting out orders.

Shadowdweller said:
It's frankly hilarious that you try to use enemies focusing on a druid because they're the greatest threat as an argument for why druids aren't the greatest threat.

I think he's more making the point that it takes just a small amount of attention to make them entirely not a threat, or to force them expend a larger amount of their limited resources to have any real effect, than other characters would have to do in similar situations. This is especially true when the Druid has a more limited selection of ways to defend themselves, even going as far as being prohibited in wearing most armors in the game, and doesn't have the defensive class/spell options that other classes have available for contingency.

Ohmyn · Jun 28, 2019

Looking for loopholes is very common practice at RAW tables, and is typically even expected. It's a major part of character optimizing at AL tables.
When I DM, I'm not so paranoid that I think they're trying to look for loopholes.

Sacrosanct said:
You guys should really work harder on getting on the same page if you're gonna argue the same side. I mean, Ohmyn just gets done saying that it should be expected, and then you say only paranoid people think people will do it. Those don't jive.

Also, if you're going to keep accusing someone of being a sock, either prove it, or report them and let mods handle it.

As an aside, this thread reminds me why rules lawyers have the reputation they do. It's justified.

These actually are not contradicting statements, at least not when you look at the whole context. He's not talking about optimizers/munchkins at a pure RAW table, like for AL min/maxers. I was. For the RAW optimizers, it's all about finding as far as you can push the RAW and putting that into play, so long as the RAW is not broken. It is expected these people will show up at RAW tables, and if playing AL, they have to be accommodated. Standard gameplay at a house table is typically far less about that, and will enforce more RAI for things that are clearly in need of an errata to patch up, such as when multiclassed spellcasters didn't specify that the spells selected had to be from their own class. The RAW optimizer, however, will utilize such mechanics at a pure RAW table, and it should be expected that they will look for such RAW loopholes, because the table by nature must follow the RAW. It's like how it's an accepted expectation that a business owner is going to utilize any legal loophole to maximize their profit; it's expected because it's an element of their game table that everyone else is adhering by.

Per RAW, if the RAW says a class by nature will not do something in the game world, but it's possible for the character to do so, they can still do it. This is not a loophole, but rather by design. This is due to how the RAW structure of the gameplay systems work. This is why lore elements can use absolute language but not enforce mandatory character behavior, and is why Paladin oaths don't need to add any remark stating they're able to violate the oaths; it's always assumed possible, so long as the character fulfills the mechanical requirements to perform the action. The Paladin is the prime example of this, due to how many tenets they can have, which is why they're often brought up in this discussion. The class has tenets built into it, but there's nothing in the game system that forces the player to abide by these tenets, despite there being nothing in the class explicitly excluding the character from having to follow them. This is, I repeat, because the player chooses the actions for their character to attempt, and class lore or fluff does not bypass this core aspect of the gameplay. A Paladin of Devotion that chooses to lie is not exploiting the system, they're just doing what they want their character to do, and the core game system supports that entirely. To Max and I, if this is correct interpretation of the Paladin's tenets, then the same must be true of the Druid's taboo, and thus it's not a loophole for both the Paladin and Druid to request the same treatment.

A hardcore RAI lore player would maybe look at both of these as a loophole to intended play, but a RAW player recognizes that the lore is just a guideline, and can be bypassed by player choice if the action is possible to be performed by the character, so long as they accept the RAW mechanical implications. What stops a Paladin of Devotion from lying at a roleplaying table is the player choosing to play in character. What stops the optimizer from lying at a RAW table is not that the class has a tenet saying they don't do it, but that there is a lore box that provides the DM with optional consequences that they can apply to the Paladin that ignores their tenets. Regardless of a consequence being present, the player is who makes the choice of following the tenet, or choosing to violate it. Once actionable penalties are put into the rules, even as an optional rule at DM discretion, they become RAW penalties. Without these penalties, a player making the choice to bypass the tenets has no actionable consequences without a house rule, which house rules don't apply to RAW.

Ohmyn · Jun 28, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
As an aside, this thread reminds me why rules lawyers have the reputation they do. It's justified.

Oh, and a side note to this: Yes, and people hate real lawyers, until they're on their side. Funny how that works, isn't it? People don't hate rules lawyers, they just hate people that disagree with them, and they especially hate it when the people that disagree with them have a point.

Second side note to the first note: If something is a loophole, it's RAW by definition. If a spell is super powerful, but it has a high component cost, someone that wants to utilize that spell to its maximum will likely find a way to circumvent that cost. If they find a way in the RAW to bypass the cost completely, then that would be considered a loophole. Being a loophole doesn't make it illegal, and in fact loopholes serve to make otherwise illegal things legal. This is why utilizing a tax loophole is not a federal offense. If the way it was done were a federal offense, it wouldn't be a loophole, but rather it would just be fraud. So sure, let's go ahead and call a Druid in metal armor a loophole, which by definition would make the point that it's RAW anyway.

Shadowdweller · Jun 28, 2019

Ohmyn said:
The issue here is whether or not the DM can cancel their ability in the RAW, such as at an AL table. There's a difference between the DM being able to use their almighty god powers to do whatever they want at a house table, and an ability in RAW telling the DM they get final say in how effective the player's spell is going to be. This isn't a case of "a mean DM can do this", it's a case that every DM, even mean or otherwise, is told specifically to decide the power of this spell on the spot. If the Hexblade at the table is highly effective, the RAW table DM can't just tell them they have less AC or do less damage, but if the summoning Druid is highly effective at the table, the DM can just give them crap summons because they don't like it (here's a shark on land). Imagine if when you cast a damaging spell, it dealt 1d6, 2d6, or 12d6, as chosen by your DM. That's not a good RAW mechanic for a player's spell to have.

No, there actually isn't any difference. What you're failing to realize is that the DM already sets how much damage ALL attacks deal, whether you're aware of it or not, by choosing which enemies appear and which abilities they have. A foe with high AC reduces damage from all PCs that rely on attack rolls. Fire resistant and/or high Dex enemies change fireball damage quite significantly. Flying foes with ranged or flyby attacks can effectively negate melee damage. Enemies with save-based attacks bypass PC armor. In practice - vanishingly few DMs deliberately choose weak summons for the purpose of nerfing or screwing over druids. (Purely random and/or setting-appropriate summons are by far the most common). There actually isn't even time or concentration to look for weaker summons while trying to keep track of combat as a DM. And the difference between optimal and not-quite optimal summons is rarely as great as one might think.

Ohmyn said:
Not going to comment too hard on that as it's fully subjective based on how the DM handles combat, but I will say that the spells also require you to issue verbal commands for the creatures to follow, and if you don't issue a command, they do nothing and will only defend themselves from hostile creatures. Even if they miss you casting the spell, I'm sure you'll get their attention when you're shouting out orders.

Convenient then that druids receive this special language with which to issue commands - that is never taught to outsiders (c.f. merely shouting vs shouting orders). Also runs afoul of the Summons vs Allies presumption.

I think he's more making the point that it takes just a small amount of attention to make them entirely not a threat, or to force them expend a larger amount of their limited resources to have any real effect, than other characters would have to do in similar situations. This is especially true when the Druid has a more limited selection of ways to defend themselves, even going as far as being prohibited in wearing most armors in the game, and doesn't have the defensive class/spell options that other classes have available for contingency.

Too bad the claim is patently false, as has been explained over the chain of preceding posts. The druid isn't lacking ways to defend themselves relative to other classes; though druidic defenses usually don't enhance or directly rely on AC.

JonnyP71 · Jun 28, 2019

Maxperson said:
So, those skills don't let him alter reality. If the proper herbs aren't available in the area, it doesn't matter how high he rolls, and incense isn't able to be foraged. These "loopholes" are generally only loopholes if the DM isn't paying attention.

When it came to arguing, he made you look like a shrinking violet... He wouldn't accept any outcome that resulted in 'no, you character cannot spam cast Find Familiar as a ritual at 1st level'. He'd had a few unpleasant moments before the series of events listed below, but this was when it really came to a head....

Session 0 - "OK, this is a short campaign for us to play for the next few months while our regular DM is away, each of you needs to make a 1st level 5E PC based on core classes/races in the PHB. The storyline favours a helpful, mostly good aligned party, so please bear that in mind - all roll 4d6 drop 1 6 times on our group forum dice roller".
Players are informed that I won't tolerate a rules lawyery/looking for loopholes style of play - we pay £10 to hire a room for 3 hours - arguing wastes everyone's precious time.
EVERYBODY AGREES!

2 days later awkward player messages me "He wants to play a Chaotic Evil Paladin. Sends me a few details."
He rolls his stats multiple times and tries to hide the fact (spotted by our forum admin)
I tell him that his choice of character is not ideal, can he adjust it to fit the basis of the outline he agreed to in session 0?
He changes from the Paladin to a NG Wizard - then tries to cheese his way around the component costs of Find Familiar - derails a session, argues online constantly for a week afterwards (description doesn't specify herb type, doesn't specify size of brazier. blah blah blah - on and on and on)

I inform him that I will not be DMing for him again if this behaviour continues.

Next session his Wizard becomes a 'reluctant edgelord', tries to torture an innocent girl for information, derails the session arguing it's fine as his character has low Wisdom and Charisma. Then refuses to go adventuring to help the people they are supposed to help.

Group level up, he derails another session arguing that another player chose the 'wrong' spells. Also moans when he finds a spell scroll that it's "not a spell he wants"

Gets kicked from the group.

Being a rules lawyer and/or persistently argumentative gets you nowhere.