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

lowkey13 · Jun 24, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Ohmyn · Jun 24, 2019

lowkey13 said:
What happens when the Druid attempts to use a non-Druid weapon?

The Druid Explodes.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Being able to read the books as a whole instead of focusing on one sentence indicates that the Druid just performed an action not appropriate for the class once they used a non-Druid weapon. They also of course won't gain the appropriate benefits of being proficient with the weapon, and may suffer any appropriate penalties. The DMG has a table for penalties to impose on players who perform non-class appropriate actions. Any other penalty on them for doing so would be a house rule, as it's purely at DM discretion due to no further listed mechanical penalties. Anyone who thinks "forbidden" means "physically impossible under scientific law" falls into my earlier category of either not being able to read, or not being able to use common sense.

The Cleric also had the limit of "All are likewise forbidden to use edged and/orpointed weapons which shed blood." What happened if they used one? There was no penalty given, so the only penalty as per the RAW would be the penalties listed in the DMG for doing something inappropriate for your class. A Cleric still had the physical capacity to pick up a dagger and use it to cut a rope, and could still wave it around like a wand in combat if they so wished. As per the rules, it was simply up to the DM to decide if the action they had performed was against the tenets of their class, and then choose the punishment from the provided table based on the severity of their offenses.

In the case of Druids, it already said "druids are unable to use anyarmor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallicarmor spoils their magical powers)". The penalty for doing so was already explained; it spoils their magical powers. They could still opt to strap on a metal shield, but bye-bye magical powers. This means it's less explicit to be automatically considered a "non-class like behavior", since it was not stated as a taboo, and there could be times where it's appropriate to wear metal temporarily if it achieved their goal without need for their magic. The non-class behavior rules were heavily up to DM discretion, but they still very much existed as the rule to enforce for when characters acted outside of their designated feature blocks.

JonnyP71 · Jun 24, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
And on page 36 of the 1st edition PHB it lists the non-proficiency penalty that applies when you use a weapon prohibited by your class.

Also, on page 15: "thieves can not use thief abilities when using prohibited weapons or armor."

Your 1st statement is incorrect - the non proficiency penalty is for weapons the character has not chosen to be proficient with, nowhere does it state it corresponds to weapons not allowed by their class - as the assumption is that the character simply *cannot* use them. For example - a cleric chooses to be proficient with mace and staff, he gets the non-prof penalty when using other cleric weapons such as hammer, club or flail.

The 2nd statement is also inaccurate due to context, as it is *specifically* referring the case of multi-classed dwarven fighter/thieves. Possessing the fighter class allows the Dwarf to wear heavier armour and use all weapons, but that statement refers to the impact of the multiclassed F/T doing this with regards to Thief abilities. It has *no* bearing on single classed thieves whatsoever.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Sacrosanct · Jun 24, 2019

Ohmyn said:
Being able to read the books as a whole instead of focusing on one sentence indicates that the Druid just performed an action not appropriate for the class once they used a non-Druid weapon. They also of course won't gain the appropriate benefits of being proficient with the weapon, and may suffer any appropriate penalties. The DMG has a table for penalties to impose on players who perform non-class appropriate actions. Any other penalty on them for doing so would be a house rule, as it's purely at DM discretion due to no further listed mechanical penalties. Anyone who thinks "forbidden" means "physically impossible under scientific law" falls into my earlier category of either not being able to read, or not being able to use common sense.

The Cleric also had the limit of "All are likewise forbidden to use edged and/orpointed weapons which shed blood." What happened if they used one? There was no penalty given, so the only penalty as per the RAW would be the penalties listed in the DMG for doing something inappropriate for your class. A Cleric still had the physical capacity to pick up a dagger and use it to cut a rope, and could still wave it around like a wand in combat if they so wished. As per the rules, it was simply up to the DM to decide if the action they had performed was against the tenets of their class, and then choose the punishment from the provided table based on the severity of their offenses.

In the case of Druids, it already said "druids are unable to use anyarmor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallicarmor spoils their magical powers)". The penalty for doing so was already explained; it spoils their magical powers. They could still opt to strap on a metal shield, but bye-bye magical powers. This means it's less explicit to be automatically considered a "non-class like behavior", since it was not stated as a taboo, and there could be times where it's appropriate to wear metal temporarily if it achieved their goal without need for their magic. The non-class behavior rules were heavily up to DM discretion, but they still very much existed as the rule to enforce for when characters acted outside of their designated feature blocks.

Clerics who didn’t follow their god’s wishes and rules lost their ability to cast spells. So...swing and a miss. I don’t know what your big deal is with rules, but pretty much all games have them, and for reasons. Am I physically prohibited from moving my battleship in Axis and Allies 4 zones? No, I can easily do that. But what happens when I do? Other players will probably say “you can’t do that. The rules state this.”

If you get buy in at your table to change that rule, more power to you. But the rules clearly state an expectation. Just like the rules clearly state druids don’t wear metal armor.

lowkey13 · Jun 24, 2019

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 · Jun 24, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Ohmyn · Jun 24, 2019

lowkey13 said:
You are just making stuff up now.

I assume you played OD&D and 1e, correct?

So you understand that while people played in all sorts of different ways, the mindset was completely different back then?

I understand you have repeatedly ignored the whole class/lore issue, but ... c'mon. Are you going to be seriously arguing that you understand how Clerics used edged weapons in OD&D and 1e so well because of you common sense, and the rest of us were just playing it wrong?

I mean, you could argue that, but that would be kind of silly, right? Don't be that guy.

PS- Quoting only the ending joke of a post, and eliding the rest of it, isn't ... a great way to engage people.

No, I'm not making anything up. I'm merely pointing out that many people read the rules wrong. This was especially true during a time without such easy internet access, so people couldn't as easily openly discuss the proper interpretation of rules, and they couldn't get proper guidance from the game developers so easily. Yes, people played in all sorts of different ways, as they do in the current edition, but that doesn't change what the rules say.

I'm not saying that Clerics used edged weapons. I'm saying that they had the capacity, but would try not to. A Cleric could still have a dagger on them for the purpose of cutting ropes, and they could still use a knife to cut meat. I doubt they had to bludgeon their food into portions, but if you read the rules as physical law, they'd have to.

They did not go out of their way to use sharp weapons. There were penalties built into the system for Clerics that did so, which is what deterred them from making the choice in-game. However, if a person was about to die, and the only weapon they had available to save them was a nearby dagger, they'd have the option to choose their tenet against sharp objects versus their desire to protect lives. Any DM that thinks "You can't pick up that dagger because it's forbidden", doesn't quite understand the proper application of the game's rules.

PS: The joke part was all that was necessary, because it summed up the point that was being addressed, as it seemed to be indicating that you accepted that Druids simply could not hold another weapon simply because it wasn't listed in their class block. The whole point of my post was to address that, and did not have anything to do with the rest of it, which was merely explaining weapon proficiency selection for classes.

ad_hoc · Jun 24, 2019

I am glad that D&D is a genre of fantasy rather than a generic fantasy game.

I think the rule is both important and clear.

Like all rules it is easy to play without it. I think you're losing something in your game, but you can do what you want in your game.

lowkey13 · Jun 24, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Ohmyn · Jun 24, 2019

lowkey13 said:
By the way, the actual Gygaxian method of handling the Plate-wearing druid, or the two-handed sword-weilding cleric, is DMG p. 110. Here-

[SNIP]

*EDIT- in case this wasn't clear from my first post of the day, re: history of druids, your argument is weird and misplaced. Here-

A. 5e's text about druids and armor doesn't work because it's not a rule, and never has been, ever. Or something.

B. 5e's rule about druids and armor doesn't work very well because it's similar to the other class/lore rules from OD&D and 1e that, for the most part, 5e has completely abandoned; given that 5e has completely abandoned almost all vestiges of these rules (including but not limited to clerics and edged weapons, racial level limits, monks and oil, and various alignment restrictions) re-introducing this single 1e legacy rule seems misplaced and confusing, and should be, at most, an optional campaign-variant, not a core 5e class rule for druids.

See the difference? I could understand B, but I don't get A at all.

That Gygaxian stuff doesn't really apply to out of game discussion, so I don't see the point of that. We're on an online forum, not at a D&D table. All I will say to that is that if I were at a table where I were playing a Druid, but then the party had a great plan to save the day that required me to weigh my taboo against metal versus the mission, and the DM chose for me because "it's impossible for your character to make that decision because your taboo is infallible", I'd not come back to that table. If my character is allowed to risk its life for others, I'd expect he can set aside a taboo.

As for the A and B, you're showing you don't understand the argument at all. The point is, that even if it's a rule, it doesn't impose any penalty, and there's nothing in the game system preventing the action. The developer of the game even addressed the discussion and agreed on this, and did not errata it, meaning it was clearly intended. The argument is not that it doesn't fit within the edition, it's that it imposes no penalty. A Paladin can defy their oaths, but if they do so there's an excerpt with consequences. The Druid has no such penalties, so if a player does so at the table, it's only the DM's discretion, and not the written rules, to stop or penalize them.