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

Paul Farquhar · Jun 27, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
The RAW is 'will not'.

Therefore, following RAW a Druid 'will not' do it. They will refuse. That is all.

But it is also a rule that the DM does play the player character. Now, the DM is free to infer that a character who chooses to do it anyway (because it is against the rules for the DM to overrule a player character's actions) then they are not a druid. But the rules (as written) do not require a character to be a Druid (member of the druidic religion in good standing) in order to have the abilities of a druid. That is entirely up the DM.

And again I reiterate: NO ONE is talking about players who are deliberately being awkward. I've never seen it, I doubt anyone else has ever seen it either.

They are talking about how to handle situations that arise through play. E.g. a villain captures the PC druid and locks them into an iron suit. And... what happens?

JonnyP71 · Jun 27, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
They are talking about how to handle situations that arise through play. E.g. a villain captures the PC druid and locks them into an iron suit. And... what happens?

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)

Ohmyn · Jun 27, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
The RAW is 'will not'.

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

Try pulling this argument of yours at an AL game and see how long it takes for the storekeeper to come over and 'have a quiet word' about disruptive behaviour.

Don't be 'that guy', it's not a positive trait.

A forum isn't comparable to a game table. I'd never pull an argument at a game. Whatever the DM says goes, so you gotta roll with it, but that doesn't mean they're right. At an AL table, I'd simply bring up my points once to the DM to get their opinion, and if they said no metal armor, I'd just play my metal hammer throwing Dwarven Druid Guild Artisan, specialized in metalworking with proficiency in Smith's Tools (Dwarf) and Mason's Tools (Guild Artisan), with smiths and metal-forgers as my Guild Business. As long as I never get an armor bonus from metal, I'm golden (so long as that doesn't give me an AC bonus).

Amusing side note, since it's a taboo and not a mechanical restriction, clearly all any party needs at an AL table is an artisan in the party to paint and lacquer some metal to look like wood, and convince the 8 INT Druid that it's ironwood, or to gloss up some scale armor and tell them it's chromatic dragon scales. It's not violating a taboo if they don't know, right?

Ohmyn · 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)

Well the issue is that there is a need for printed rules at a RAW table. Nowhere do the books even hint at a Druid suffering any ill effect from metal, even through so much as a lore statement, so that would be a house rule, and therefore not AL legal as far as I know. The Paladin has tenets, but nothing forces them to follow them. The Devotion Paladin has a tenet that says they "Don't lie or cheat.", but without the excerpt that offers the optional rules for the DM to use against a Devotion Paladin that violates their oath, there'd be no mechanical implications to stop a Devotion Paladin from lying or cheating. Even with the blurb, there's still nothing stopping them, there's just now consequences. The lack of this is the issue with the Druid wording.

Ohmyn · Jun 27, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
And again I reiterate: NO ONE is talking about players who are deliberately being awkward. I've never seen it, I doubt anyone else has ever seen it either.

They are talking about how to handle situations that arise through play. E.g. a villain captures the PC druid and locks them into an iron suit. And... what happens?

Yes, I would like to reiterate that I am also in this camp. I don't personally care if my Druid can or cannot wear armor, I'm merely discussing the issues in the RAW, using extreme examples to emphasize the issues with the system's lack of clarification.

I have brought up the idea of being a Druid wearing metal willingly, but as a means of pointing out that nothing in the RAW stops it, just as nothing in the RAW stops a Devotion Paladin from lying or cheating. The issue here is that if my Druid does decide to put on metal, nothing in the game system actually stops my character from being able to make that decision, and this was confirmed in the Sage Advice, but people still assume that the only interpretation of RAW is that there is something in the game system that stops the Druid.

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. Without that optional lore box there would be no mechanic to enforce the tenets; however, if the only difference between the Paladin's tenets and the Druid's taboo is that one has an optional mechanical implication added to the PHB, then why are both not otherwise treated the same in regards to how they're able to be handled by the player?

Paul Farquhar · 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 agree completely.

However, it makes the DM's job a lot easier if they already know the mechanics of the restriction in their setting.

Is it physical? Metal block druidic magic. Is an enforceable vow? Sylvanus is cross and takes your power away. Is it psychological? Your suggestion would appear to support the later.

"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."

-I wouldn't impose this as a DM, but it wouldn't surprise me if a certain player didn't roleplay this outcome anyway, since it is what their character believes that matters.

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

I don't overrule PvP and wouldn't consider it appropriate to do so.

JonnyP71 · Jun 27, 2019

Ohmyn said:
Well the issue is that there is a need for printed rules at a RAW table.

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..

JonnyP71 · Jun 27, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
I don't overrule PvP and wouldn't consider it appropriate to do so.

Many many tables do... and it's not considered to be bad DMing or heavy handed in any way. It's just a different approach by the group as a whole.

I hate the 'me me me, I saw it first' arguments that tend to crop up when the party find loot... thus one of my own current table rules is "all treasure found while adventuring is party treasure to be shared at the end of the adventure" - in addition to 'no intentionally damaging PvP'. I find that fosters a co-operative environment from the very start. This was necessary as the group of friends I DM for most often has one person amongst them who does occasionally try to screw around with the others. 95% of the time he's fine, he's creative and entertaining - but just occasionally he crosses the line. This rule keeps him in check.

Also, after a 50 hour week at work, I refuse to DM a 6 hour session on a Friday night with them all bickering

Paul Farquhar · Jun 27, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
I hate the 'me me me, I saw it first' arguments that tend to crop up when the party find loot...

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.

Paul Farquhar · 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..

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