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

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 said:

No. That's not it ... at all.

You have so completely missed what is going on, it's not even funny.

Click to expand...

Actually it is you who have missed what is going on, presumably due to having skipped several pages.

Paul Farquhar said:

Agreed. When a player says "my character does X" it actually means "my character tries to do X".



I agree that the player is trying to violate the rule. Players are ALLOWED to try and break rules. They will probably fail (although not in this case). There is nothing to stop you trying to break the law. You may or may not succeed.

Click to expand...

Wait, what?

Players are allowed to state what their character tries to do.

There is no rule anywhere saying thst players are allowed to try and break rules. You are not allowed in 5e to roll you dice as a player and just tell everyone whatever result you want until you get caught. You are not allowed to keep casting spells until someone else calls you on your character limits.

"Players are ALLOWED to try and break rules. "

That is one for posterity, to be sure.

5ekyu said:

Wait, what?

Players are allowed to state what their character tries to do.

Click to expand...

Which may be something that they are not allowed to do, according to the rules.

You are not allowed to keep casting spells until someone else calls you on your character limits.

Click to expand...

A character is allowed to try and keep casting spells after they run out of spell slots. The DM narrates the outcome "your spell fails".

Paul Farquhar said:

Actually it is you who have missed what is going on, presumably due to having skipped several pages.

Yes there is:

​

Click to expand...

I won't accommodate them putting on metal armour, because (as with the no PvP) this will have been clarified in Session 0.

I will however accommodate by providing other non-metallic options - at a suitable time. In my 1E experience, as other forms of magical protection are somewhat more prevalent, there has never been a need for me to do this.

*Deleted by user*

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 said:

No- I was perfectly aware of it. That's why I sad that you completely missed it, because you chose to jump in and align yourself with the people you did

Click to expand...

Paul Farquhar said:

I wouldn't have a problem if a DM did decide it was a deathly allergy. If god exists, he could strike bacon-eating jews dead if he wanted to.

But that is a matter for the DM to decide what best suits the setting.

Click to expand...

A matter of what best suits the setting still has to match with the mechanical implications of the RAW, assuming we're talking about a RAW table, which we are. A DM is not allowed at an AL table to insist that a Druid has a metal allergy any more than they are allowed to insist that Clerics have an allergy to sharp and pointy things. The only basis for either of these would be past edition lore, and that doesn't have a place as an in-game penalty in RAW 5E. Both would be house rules, as nothing in the game system hints at either of these being the case. If the Druid says "I put on the armor", the DM has two options: 1) To deny the player character the right to decide on an action, which, as Max has stated, does not match with the RAW guidelines for "How to Play". 2) To make up a penalty for the player without any codified guideline, which would be a house rule. To put that into perspective, in AL, the DM is not allowed to throw an Ethereal Mummy at you, unless they can back its abilities with the stat block of an existing monster in the allowed material. The DM also has rules in a RAW setting.

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. 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?

Click to expand...

I mentioned this to you in my last response. A physically impossible action is not the same as a possible one, not in a game where characters have free agency to decide their actions. It's also RAW in the game that the player decides their character's actions. In terms of Imhotep, you can choose to try and move two blocks per turn, it's just not going to work. You're free to attempt it, it's just not going to happen because there's a physical limit stopping you. Without that physical limit making it impossible, or personally choosing to abide by a gentleman's agreement, you could indeed move two stones if you wanted to, so long as you were willing to deal with the consequences of your action.

lowkey13 said:

Yes, but the point that you (and others) keep missing is that you demand that every ... single ... thing ... be spelled out with a negative consequence; and if not, you argue against it.

Ex.

Rule Lawyer: "My druid swims across the ocean in his plate armor."

DM: "Um ...."

RL: "Yeah, I can do it. I read the rules, and we are only playing with PHB + DMG. I read page 182! Ima swim across the ocean! In my plate. While carrying my bag o' rats! RESPECT MAH PLAYA AGENCY! HOW U LIKE DEM APPLES!"

Again, this is why so many of us are grateful for the self-identification of these types of players, such that we don't play with them.

Click to expand...

Yes, again, there's a difference between something that is or is not possible for the character. At a RAW table, the negative consequence does need a general guideline to base a decision off of. If the player says they're going to swim across the ocean, well there are rules on distance that can be traveled, or rest that is needed to avoid increasing levels of exhaustion during physical exertion, etc. If the Druid has a sufficient swim speed to make it across the ocean in a short enough time to not suffer too badly from the limits of exhaustion while exerting themselves the entire time, and the Druid has sufficient STR to not be over their encumbrance with their equipment, they very well can swim across the ocean. Even if they don't possess the physical characteristics mentioned, they can still try, but they will fail and drown.

If the DM doesn't want the player to swim across the ocean at a RAW table, such as AL, they're free to throw a Kraken in the mix that attacks them, or they're allowed to use the rules for exertion to fail their effort, but the DM cannot tell them they absolutely cannot swim across that ocean. Even if the DM wants to throw a Kraken at them, if the player escapes the Kraken, the DM is not allowed to give it more movement speed to catch the Druid, because RAW is limited to monster stat blocks within the allowed material.

5ekyu said:

Actually, the player saying their character "flies across the cavern" is describing the **result** of their actions. The GM determines the results of actions, not the player.

Now, it's pretty common for players to Express actions by ssying what they want to fo, like "I run across the room" but that's only a kind of shorthand to avoid adding "my character will try to..." to every statement.

But here for druids the rule was that druids will not wear metal armor. I would think it obvious that a player who declares his druid is gonna wear metal armor is violating thst rule, but guess not.

Click to expand...

Sure, and that is corrected by the RAW explaining how to play the game. "My character flies across the cavern." The rules state that the player decides what they want to do, and the DM decides the result. "I fly across the cavern" means "I want to fly across the cavern", as indicated by the RAW that the player does not get to decide the result of the action, merely getting to decide what action they would like to attempt. If the character can fly, they make it without need for a check. If the character possesses the ability to fly, and the DM tells them they do not possess the ability to fly, then that DM has violated the RAW, and therefore the rules if they are at an AL table (yes, DMs do have rules to abide by in AL). If the character cannot fly, and their jump check does not reach or exceed the other end of the chasm as per jumping rules, they fall in and take damage as per rules on fall damage. Just because their character lacks the ability to fly does not mean they cannot jump, flap their arms and try to fly across a chasm; they're just not going in any direction but down, because those are the consequences of their action as written in the game rules.

5ekyu said:

Wait, what?

Players are allowed to state what their character tries to do.

There is no rule anywhere saying thst players are allowed to try and break rules. You are not allowed in 5e to roll you dice as a player and just tell everyone whatever result you want until you get caught. You are not allowed to keep casting spells until someone else calls you on your character limits.

"Players are ALLOWED to try and break rules. "

That is one for posterity, to be sure.

Click to expand...

Yes, they literally are allowed to try and break rules. A character without a fly is allowed to try to fly, they're just not going to succeed. A character with a move speed of 0 is still allowed to try to move, they're just not going to get anywhere. A character that does not have a swim speed to make it across the ocean without dying from exhaustion is still allowed to try, they're just going to die. A Paladin that has sworn an oath to not lie or cheat is still allowed to try to lie and/or cheat, it's just that whether they succeed or fail will be based on the appropriate skill check. The rules are there to impose the effect of what happens when the player tries to perform an action with their character, not to regulate what they are allowed to try to do. You're free to take away player agency at your own home tables, but at a pure RAW table, that doesn't fly. It seems odd that the Druid is the only class that RAW advocates agree otherwise.

Paul Farquhar said:

Which may be something that they are not allowed to do, according to the rules.



A character is allowed to try and keep casting spells after they run out of spell slots. The DM narrates the outcome "your spell fails".

Click to expand...

Now of course I shouldn't take the bait but hey, it is what it is.

At our table a player who keeps trying to do things that are illegal under the belief that its everyone rlse's job to call him when its illegal is not here long.

Our table rules are not "cheat until you get caught".

But it's good to see that kind of support is in line with the other side here.