L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
No. That's not it ... at all.
You have so completely missed what is going on, it's not even funny.
There is no one that is saying that they wouldn't accommodate a player.
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..
Wait, what?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.
Wait, what?
Players are allowed to state what their character tries to do.
You are not allowed to keep casting spells until someone else calls you on your character limits.
Actually it is you who have missed what is going on, presumably due to having skipped several pages.
Yes there is:
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Now of course I shouldn't take the bait but hey, it is what it is.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".