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

JonnyP71 · Jun 27, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
I've never seen that kind of dispute over loot. I have seen "I try and grapple PC X" in order to stop them doing something stupid several times though.

I've seen it often enough to feel the need to nip it in the bud before it starts.

JonnyP71 · Jun 27, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
And there you go with "if you don't interpret the game my way you are playing it wrong" again.

The phrase 'will not' is not ambiguous, especially when playing RAW, as the OP is referring to. The use of the English is very plain. It's not 'usually chooses not to', or 'dislikes', or 'is mildly irked by'... it's 'will not'.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 27, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
The phrase 'will not' is not ambiguous, especially when playing RAW, as the OP is referring to. The use of the English is very plain. It's not 'usually chooses not to', or 'dislikes', or 'is mildly irked by'... it's 'will not'.

The existance of this thread proves it is ambigous. If it where clear everyone would agree with you and the thread would have been over after the first page.

I personally, can see no difference whatsoever between "chooses not to" and "will not".

On page 5 of the DMG it says "A player tells the DM what he or she wants to do, and the DM determines whether it is successful or not". I would say that unambiguously limits the role of the DM to determining outcomes, not actions. The fact that you don't agree with me proves it is not sufficiently unambiguous.

Maxperson · Jun 27, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
The RAW is 'will not'.

Therefore, following RAW a Druid 'will not' do it.

Correct(other than it not really being a rule). "Will not" is not the same as "cannot." The former makes it a personal choice, one which a player can change. "Cannot" is the one you are mistaking it for.

They will refuse. That is all. A player insisting on pulling this stunt (which, as with others in this thread, I've NEVER seen anyone at my tables argue they can do in my 36 years of playing D&D) would be going against RAW and RAI, and being more than a bit of an ass.

No less of an ass than a DM who refuses to let him put the armor on if he has a valid in game reason for overcoming the nebulous, unspecified taboo and donning the armor.

Maxperson · Jun 27, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
What happens..... is up to the DM, that's RAW too. There's no need for a 'printed rules for everything' approach - let the DM decide.

I'd rule that while locked in the iron suit the Druid loses all class powers, and is slowly driven insane, as he cannot cope with being surrounded by so much metal.

(plus, it's not against the rules for a DM to overrule a player's actions - the example of PvP has already been discussed)

It's taboo, not a deathly allergy. It's taboo for a Jewish person to eat pork. Do you know how many Jewish people I know that like bacon? A lot. Do you know how many of them cease to be Jewish when they break that taboo? Zero.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 27, 2019

Maxperson said:
It's taboo, not a deathly allergy. It's taboo for a Jewish person to eat pork. Do you know how many Jewish people I know that like bacon? A lot. Do you know how many of them cease to be Jewish when they break that taboo? Zero.

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.

Maxperson · Jun 27, 2019

Ohmyn said:
Nowhere in the Paladin's class does it say the tenets of their oath are optional, but the only thing stopping Paladins from breaking their tenets is an optional blurb about punishments that the DM can use at their discretion if the Paladin breaks their oaths.

They are in fact not optional. From the The Cause of Righteousness section, "Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work."

All of them are bound by their oaths. That's not optional wording and is every bit as much of a rule as the druid blurb, so like druids, they literally cannot break those oaths I guess.

Maxperson · Jun 27, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
The RAW is 'will not'.

It's simple. It won't happen. Therefore there's no need.

Playing RAW no Druid can put on metal willingly. It's not an option..

Playing RAW no paladin can violate an oath. They are bound by that oath per RAW.

Maxperson · Jun 27, 2019

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.

The point is that eating bacon is taboo and Jews will not eat bacon, yet many do and nothing happens. In D&D the "nothing happens" portion can be changed by the DM, but it's still a personal choice whether or not to be bound by the taboo of your faith.

5ekyu · Jun 27, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
The existance of this thread proves it is ambigous. If it where clear everyone would agree with you and the thread would have been over after the first page.

I personally, can see no difference whatsoever between "chooses not to" and "will not".

On page 5 of the DMG it says "A player tells the DM what he or she wants to do, and the DM determines whether it is successful or not". I would say that unambiguously limits the role of the DM to determining outcomes, not actions. The fact that you don't agree with me proves it is not sufficiently unambiguous.

Ok, so, to you the rule in the PHB reads as a druid chooses not to wear armor or shields made of metal?

Ok.

So a player playing a druid agrees to that.

Ok.

So, then, if in play that player decides that his character will now chooses differently is now violating the rule the player agreed to.

Right ?

Or are you really seeing "will not" as "sometimes might maybe kinda on occasion choose not to but only when convenient"?