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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Seriously? There have been dozens of posts about how the DM can't dictate what the PC thinks, walls of text of how it's "just a taboo" and that people ignore taboos all the time.

Yes, seriously. Not one person has said that he wants his druid to just put on full plate and adventure away. None. All of the arguments are that a druid can break the taboo, not that he will or that the player is just trying to flaunt a rule. Those are incorrect assumptions that your side is using.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No. What "you" (plural) are saying is that it's perfectly acceptable to have CE druid riding around on motorbikes with flame throwers burning Bambi and Thumper because there are no explicit rules against that. Any DM who punishes that type of activity is a tyrant on a railroad.

Punish how?
 

Ohmyn

First Post
No. What "you" (plural) are saying is that it's perfectly acceptable to have CE druid riding around on motorbikes with flame throwers burning Bambi and Thumper because there are no explicit rules against that. Any DM who punishes that type of activity is a tyrant on a railroad.

Yes, chaotic evil is a perfectly acceptable alignment for Druids, just as it is for any other class, including Clerics and Paladins. If it wasn't they wouldn't have the option. 2 out of 5 of the Nature deities available in the 5E Forgotten Realms pantheon are evil, one of which is Chaotic Evil, and both evil options are available for worship of either Druids or Clerics. Also, Druids are known to be allowed to use any metal items they want, hence having the option of a selection of metal weapons, and the freedom to gain proficiency in any metal weapons they wish. The only prohibition is on armor, so yes, they could ride around on motorbikes, just as they could ride in a metal carriage or swing a giant metal hammer. This isn't just a "Druids should be able to do this" dialogue; the rules explicitly allow it.

For example, the Forgotten Realms Pantheon includes Auril, goddess of winter. Auril is one of the 5 nature deities, who can be the source of power for either Clerics or Druids. The dogma of this deity is to cover all land with ice, quench fire wherever it is found, and to work darkness to hide the sun so that the chill of Auril may slay. She orders to kill arctic creatures only in great need, but to slay all other life. The only taboo on the scenario you explained that a Druid of Auril would suffer would be to not use a flamethrower, but I'm sure she'd love some cold steel blades or some kind of magical frost-thrower. Bambi and Thumper? They better be wearing their coats, else Druids of Auril are fully expected to kill them on sight. If that Druid of Auril happens to be of a druidic sect similar to the Children of Winter of Eberron, who venerate death, then Bambi and Thumper better be twice as careful crossing their path.
 
Last edited:

Ohmyn

First Post
Seriously? There have been dozens of posts about how the DM can't dictate what the PC thinks, walls of text of how it's "just a taboo" and that people ignore taboos all the time.

Because extremes are the best way to emphasize a point, and player choice is super important in this game, so long as they're not being disruptive to the table. Every class has extremes within them, and all characters should be assumed fallible, or perhaps willing to make personal sacrifices for something greater. This is exactly why "will not" is not a fully actionable rule with how the game system is written where players have control over what their character does in any situation. Even if they're certain the decision will lead to death, or come with some other great cost, they can opt to do it anyway.

"Will not" and "do not" exist in a lot of places in the books, but are typically overlooked because it either does not have penalties, so ignoring it is of no significance, or penalties do exist and the player is who decides if they want to risk them. In the case of the latter it's not the presence of "will not" and "do not" in the rules that stop people from performing the actions, but rather the consequences. Given how the rules are written overall, "will not" without consequences is very flimsy wording. At this point only the Druid suffers from their "will not" being accepted as an instance that can never be encroached.
 


CapnZapp

Legend
...and we're up to six hundred posts on a decades old row with absolutely nothing to show for it!!

See you in another couple of hundred posts! *good job* *sarcasm*
 

Statistically, when a video game includes a "good" and an "evil" path the vast majority of players choose the "good" path.

But the still want the "evil" path to exist. Why? because they want to be able to CHOOSE to do the right thing. Without an evil option they cannot choose good.

Options should exist within the game, even when those options will never ever be taken up.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
(no one is asking that Druid's explode)..... excuse me. I want exploding Druids. Gamers will accept this an interesting limitation on a Druid's powers. it is there green kyptonine.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
(no one is asking that Druid's explode)..... excuse me. I want exploding Druids. Gamers will accept this an interesting limitation on a Druid's powers. it is there green kyptonine.

Hmm. I have Exploding Kittens, but no exploding druid's. Sorry man.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top