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

5ekyu · Jun 26, 2019

Maxperson said:
It's not that important of a rule. The penalties for breaking it are spelled out. No need to hash out something that already fixed.

So, well, yeah, if the players and GM are on the same page about the rules, then you dont get these issues. That much kinda goes without sayin'.

cbwjm · Jun 26, 2019

5ekyu said:
To me I would have:
Put hide armor as light and studded as medium. Adjust scores and values.
Give druids light armor and shields
Give wildshape restrictions if wearing medium or heavy armor or metal shields. Basically, they wont be merged into the form. Have to be left behind.

I think if there was some kind of mechanical restriction like that then there would be far less people questioning the current restriction on druid armour.

Shadowdweller · Jun 26, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
That's all very subjective and DM dependant. Especially summoning spells, even the ones that are too high level to appear in actual play. All of which require concentration, and summon what the DM says, not what the player wants. What's the first thing that happens whenever summons appear on the battlefield? Every intelligent enemy targets the druid with everything they have (and they are easy to pick out since they are the one who isn't wearing metal armour). Hiding behind allies might count as soft cover if the DM is feeling generous, and +2 AC might help stop you getting shot full of arrows if your AC didn't suck in the first place.

I've got to hand it to you - just about every SINGLE claim made in that passage is nothing less than complete hogwash; aside from your personal experience which I obviously can't speak for. Having the DM choose which monsters appear does not suddenly make summoning less than overwhelmingly powerful. Conjure Elemental specifically states that the caster has (some) control over elemental type in its description. I've personally played under well over a hundred, if not hundreds, of DMs since 5e came out. Of those - the overwhelming majority don't bother focusing fire on a druid or summoner even with intelligent enemies. Of those that do, it's still rarely much of an issue because 1) not all foes are intelligent, 2) not all DMs handwave the fact that even intelligent foes may not be well versed in magic, 3) not all DMs handwave the fact that druids may not be easily distinguishable from the MANY other classes that tend not to wear metal armor (like rogues, rangers, warlocks, bards) or even those that tend not to wear any armor (like monks, wizards, sorcerers, and even some barbarians), 4) many intelligent foes still do not have ranged attacks or attacks with sufficient range to hit those staying far back (or the ability to teleport), 5) many intelligent foes with ranged attacks do not function well when melee combatants or, say, a swarm of animals are directly in their faces, 6) intelligent foes that focus fire on summoners often telegraph their intent by talking amongst themselves in languages the PCs can understand, allowing the caster to take appropriate countermeasures. The fact that you claim summoners become prime targets is itself a measure of their power. In MY experience, even where DMs doggedly target druid-summoners, those druids find ways to defend themselves.

Hiding round the corner? Even assuming there is a convenient corner available, how are you going to command your summons if you can't see what is going on? In my actual gameplay experience summons rarely last longer than a round.

By giving commands and THEN running around the corner. And/or peeking around the corner when it comes time to re-appraise. Like anyone with any significant tactical experience in 5e - or even basic understanding of how historical defenses like crenellations on parapets worked. Foes can ready/hold attacks, of course, but as often as not end up wasting their actions by doing so.

As for out of combat healing, that also depends on the DM, and how frequently they allow long and short rests between fights. I can't think of any occasion when I have felt our healing wasn't sufficiently efficient.

Not having access to occasional short rests tends to be rare. 5e makes it easy to go without ANY particular class; and the druid certainly isn't the only healer. But having to only spend one spell slot for healing instead of two has concrete, discernible benefits in game.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 26, 2019

Shadowdweller said:
I've got to hand it to you - just about every SINGLE claim made in that passage is nothing less than complete hogwash; aside from your personal experience which I obviously can't speak for. Having the DM choose which monsters appear does not suddenly make summoning less than overwhelmingly powerful.

No, but if the DM is disinclined to be co-operative they can have sharks appear in the desert.

Subjective: an uncooperative DM can make the spell completely useless.

I've personally played under well over a hundred, if not hundreds, of DMs since 5e came out.

You must change DMs very frequently then! 100 DMs in 6 years, I make that a new DM every 3 weeks. Are you waking away or getting thrown out? If you change games so frequently I don't see how you can get high enough level to cast Conjure Elemental (which, with it's 10 minute cast time, is useless in the average dungeon scrap).

Of those - the overwhelming majority don't bother focusing fire on a druid or summoner even with intelligent enemies.

Subjective: requires a generous or tactically naïve DM.

Of those that do, it's still rarely much of an issue because 1) not all foes are intelligent,

Situational: Some are, some aren't. Also depends on the DM since some favour intelligent enemies almost exclusively.

2) not all DMs handwave the fact that even intelligent foes may not be well versed in magic,

Unless it's a very low magic setting, even the dumbest troll can figure out that if someone waves their hands in the air and a pack of wolves appear then a spell has been cast.

Subjective: requires the DM to play monsters as exceptionally stupid and ignorant.

3) not all DMs handwave the fact that druids may not be easily distinguishable from the MANY other classes that tend not to wear metal armor (like rogues, rangers, warlocks, bards) or even those that tend not to wear any armor (like monks, wizards, sorcerers, and even some barbarians)

Even if the druid takes steps to disguise themselves (maybe by taking the flowers out of their hair), it's generally still obvious who just cast a spell.

4) many intelligent foes still do not have ranged attacks or attacks with sufficient range to hit those staying far back (or the ability to teleport),

If they didn't prepare for eventualities then they wouldn't be very intelligent. Even the dumbest goblin carries a shortbow.

5) many intelligent foes with ranged attacks do not function well when melee combatants or, say, a swarm of animals are directly in their faces,

True, but saving throw spells work just fine. And a pack of goblins could hold off a pack of wolves plenty long enough for the archers to shoot the druid. Or the dragon could breath weapon all your wolves without even bothering with the druid.

Situational: depends on what you are fighting

6) intelligent foes that focus fire on summoners often telegraph their intent by talking amongst themselves in languages the PCs can understand, allowing the caster to take appropriate countermeasures.

Which is the problem. In 5e the (non-moon) druid has very few possible countermeasures, with Barkskin and Stoneskin having been nerfed into oblivion. Wizards, Sorcerers and warlocks get countermeasures aplenty.

Maxperson · Jun 26, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
No, but if the DM is disinclined to be co-operative they can have sharks appear in the desert.

Subjective: an uncooperative DM can make the spell completely useless.

That's not an uncooperative DM. That's a bad one. The game is not adversarial. The DM is controlling the monsters and world, but he's not trying to win the game against the players.

If the DM is personally picking which creatures appear, sharks should never appear in a desert. If he's got some random chart he made up, then it's possible, but highly unlikely sharks will show up. If he's deliberately making the spell useless, he's being a jerk.

You must change DMs very frequently then! 100 DMs in 6 years, I make that a new DM every 3 weeks. Are you waking away or getting thrown out? If you change games so frequently I don't see how you can get high enough level to cast Conjure Elemental (which, with it's 10 minute cast time, is useless in the average dungeon scrap).

And that's the low side of his claim. The high side, hundreds, means an even more frequent changeover.

Subjective: requires a generous or tactically naïve DM.

Situational: Some are, some aren't. Also depends on the DM since some favour intelligent enemies almost exclusively.

Not all intelligent enemies know everything there is to know about every kind of spellcaster. If the DM is playing the creature and not himself, the intelligent enemies are going to know to go after the druid vs. the wizard vs. the bard vs. the sorcerer and so on. If the DM is always playing himself and not the intelligent creature, then he's doing a disservice to the game.

Unless it's a very low magic setting, even the dumbest troll can figure out that if someone waves their hands in the air and a pack of wolves appear then a spell has been cast.

Subjective: requires the DM to play monsters as exceptionally stupid and ignorant.

Even if the druid takes steps to disguise themselves (maybe by taking the flowers out of their hair), it's generally still obvious who just cast a spell.

Not if the druid has cover, by saying being behind another party member or a tree. In a combat situation it's not always obvious.

If they didn't prepare for eventualities then they wouldn't be very intelligent. Even the dumbest goblin carries a shortbow.

This is ridiculous. Not every intelligent creature has access to a bow or would know how to use one effectively. You've just basically claimed that in an army, everyone has a bow, rather than just the archers. That's absurd.

True, but saving throw spells work just fine. And a pack of goblins could hold off a pack of wolves plenty long enough for the archers to shoot the druid. Or the dragon could breath weapon all your wolves without even bothering with the druid.

Situational: depends on what you are fighting

It can sometimes work out like this, yes. If this is your argument, though, then you must think that all spellcasters who don't use instant spells are useless, because this applies to all of them.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 26, 2019

I generally assume that spells are acompanied by visual effects (twinkly lights or whatever) that make it obvious who is casting it (unless they are using a special ability like subtle spell). That's pretty much the way spellcasting is always portrayed in the media, and I don't recall ever playing D&D when that wasn't the case.

And it was never my intent to suggest that summoning spells where useless, just that they where situational, and far from being the 100% overwhelming juggernauts that certain people are suggesting (and where in some previous editions). Basically, that they are not better than the spells on the cleric spell list.

lowkey13 · Jun 26, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Maxperson · Jun 26, 2019

lowkey13 said:
FYI- uh, what?

I posted another thread seeking input from the old who had played in the 70s and 80s, and not a single one of us stupid olds who don't understand rules agrees with you.

Wait. Seriously? Every last one of them sat down at session 0 and hashed out that druids have to be played X way with no deviation? Because that's what I just said I never saw.

When we were young, back during 1e, we superficially stopped at the word "can't" and didn't go any further, so we never tried to put on metal armor. Now that I'm older and I understand that the portion of druids that says "(metallic armor spoils their magical powers)" means that the must be able to physically put on the armor, I get that it's not an absolute restriction like we thought it was back in the day. People get older and wiser(not saying you're stupid

)

A. Fighters get d10 hp. Clerics don't use edged weapons (they use the weapons specified in Character Class Table II).

B. Item saving throws, character training for levels.

C. Grappling, weapon speed and ac modifiers.

Yeah. We picked and chose which things we used and which we ignored like there was no tomorrow. It was very common for each table to be different in what rules were used.

I think reasonable arguments can be made for some things- how many people played with the racial class limits in early AD&D? Is that an (A) or a (B)? How many people played with the "Elves can't be resurrected?" or "System Shock and loss of Con Point?"

We played with all of those. The racial class limits mostly because the main DM at the time didn't do the gold for xp thing, coupled with draining undead. It just never came into play, because we didn't get high enough.

lowkey13 · Jun 26, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Maxperson · Jun 26, 2019

lowkey13 said:
So your experience is the same as all of the other dumb olds. Good. I mean- that's why DMs didn't have to iron out an agreement, no more than they would have to with Fighter and the hit points.

Were I running 1e now, though, I would allow it and just have it spoil their magical powers like the rules indicate.