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

5ekyu · Jun 25, 2019

Maxperson said:
And again, a choice isn't a rule. You can keep repeating rule until you are blue in the face, but it's not going to magically change that one fluff line into a rule.

Again, your personal decision to not treat the whole text of the druid proficiency section as a rule is amusing but carries no weight beyond your table. You own personal feeling that using the eord's will not makes something "'not a rule" is not gonna carry the day.

JonnyP71 · Jun 25, 2019

Maxperson said:
Having trouble understanding what, "any given weapon" means? Here's a hint, it includes two-handed swords.

We've already pointed you to it in the DMG. It clearly allows engaging in behavior that is aberrational to the class. Wearing metal armor is aberrant behavior for druids, just as using a two-handed sword would be aberrant behavior for thieves. Pull your head out of the sand.

I'm still waiting for the quote I asked for? Neither of the above are applicable. Find me something that CLEARLY states they CAN.

Point 1 - you are the one misunderstanding that passage and its context, not me. You are the one adding a meaning that is neither there, nor is it even implied. The notes under the armour/weapons table on page 19 are also very clear.

Point 2 - is much more general. It can be applied to specific cases, but was generally for fighters who refused to fight, mages who charged onto the frontline frequently, or thieves who refused to put their class skills to good use.

It looks like you are trying to find meanings in statements that are simply not there. We get it, you dislike thematic restrictions on roleplay. That's fine. But it's clouding your logic. Neither the 1E PHB nor the DMG in any way back up the statements you have made.... 1E had some notoriously grey areas, difficult rules to fathom due to their wording, and poor organisation. Permitted weapons and armour however are not those cases.

Maxperson · Jun 25, 2019

Oofta said:
I'm sure that someone somewhere in some game at some point someone has had their PC put on metal armor to sneak into a castle. But there are sooo many issues with that hypothetical. Like ... does the 8 strength wizard put on full plate? Guess you aren't using the variant encumbrance rules. Hope nobody notices the dwarf in a castle run by orcs. That fighter with the +1 plate is going to swap out for the chain mail that's standard for the guard, right?

So who said the whole party was sneaking in? And if the castle has orcs, everyone in the party is having issues. None of these "examples" changes mine at all. You don't get to alter the scenario.

But let's say the druid ignores the clearly stated rule is willing to wear the armor in this one oddball niche scenario and the DM allows it. So what? That doesn't mean he will wear armor any time else. Sneaking into a castle does not justify wearing the armor at other times. A vegetarian will not eat meat ... but if he's starving to death and there's no other option they may make an exception. But if he continues to chow down on burgers after other options are available they're no longer a vegetarian.

Well, if the game is 5e, we know that there are no penalties for a vegetarian chowing down and there are no rules that cause him cease to be vegetarian, so yes he would still be vegetarian in a 5e game. Unless there's a house rule of course.

Maxperson · Jun 25, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
I'm still waiting for the quote I asked for? Neither of the above are applicable. Find me something that CLEARLY states they CAN.

I can lead a horse to water...

Point 2 - is much more general. It can be applied to specific cases, but was generally for fighters who refused to fight, mages who charged onto the frontline frequently, or thieves who refused to put their class skills to good use.

Yep. Specific cases like druids wearing metal armor and thieves using two-handed swords.

5ekyu · Jun 25, 2019

Oofta said:
I'm sure that someone somewhere in some game at some point someone has had their PC put on metal armor to sneak into a castle. But there are sooo many issues with that hypothetical. Like ... does the 8 strength wizard put on full plate? Guess you aren't using the variant encumbrance rules. Hope nobody notices the dwarf in a castle run by orcs. That fighter with the +1 plate is going to swap out for the chain mail that's standard for the guard, right?

When I've run across similar scenarios, someone polymorphed, did an illusion of some kind, hid in a bag of holding, pretended to be a prisoner, climbed a rope the others threw down, or one of a hundred other ways of dealing with it.

This scenario will never happen in any game I ever run and over decades of running and playing games with more DMs and players than I can count I've never seen it. But it still doesn't matter. The DM not giving you an option? Like I said before, they're being a **** DM. It's their game they can make something else work. Even then, we know that according to the rules a Druid will be unwilling to wear metal armor.

But let's say the druid ignores the clearly stated rule is willing to wear the armor in this one oddball niche scenario and the DM allows it. So what? That doesn't mean he will wear armor any time else. Sneaking into a castle does not justify wearing the armor at other times. A vegetarian will not eat meat ... but if he's starving to death and there's no other option they may make an exception. But if he continues to chow down on burgers after other options are available they're no longer a vegetarian.

Like I've said before, I wouldn't allow it because in all but a couple of cases I follow the rules. I don't see a justification for it, if someone playing a druid wants better armor we'll work on an alternative. I wouldn't have a metal armor wearing druid in my game any more than I'd have a 7 ft tall halfling. If someone tells me I'm not the boss of them and I can't enforce the rules of the game I will let them know that not only am I not their boss, I am not their DM.

Exactly. The issue I have been raising and having dodged for pages after pages now is that if you agree to play with this or that rule in play, then in game decide that rule no longer applies to you the person violating the rules is **not** the character but the player. Now we cue the dismissals of the druid armor even bring a rule or any agreed rules at the table not counting etc etc dodgey etc.

As I said in my games, I added several non-metal medium armors. I would allow a player to even work in metal armor if they created compelling story behind it do it added to the game. I would even myself allow a druid character who was "true to their crefo" and against metal armor to fon it for emergencies with appropriate atonement and role-playing added after.

But apparently we are tyrants and railroaded if we dont allow players to unilaterally waive the rules agreed to entirely mid-game on demand.

As you observe, player in games of most every class find ways to resolve challenges and do so **within the rules agreed to play** all the time. But apparently, some players of druids want to just solve challenges by on-the-fly rules rewrites instead.

Funny, I always saw thec5e druid as one of the most versatile classes to play as far as scope of challenges thry have sbilities to deal with, myself. Guess for some players tho, more is needed.

Maxperson · Jun 25, 2019

5ekyu said:
Exactly. The issue I have been raising and having dodged for pages after pages now is that if you agree to play with this or that rule in play, then in game decide that rule no longer applies to you the person violating the rules is **not** the character but the player. Now we cue the dismissals of the druid armor even bring a rule or any agreed rules at the table not counting etc etc dodgey etc.

And you seem to fail to understand is that the rules are subservient to those playing the game, not the other way around. Especially in a rulings over rules edition.

Oofta · Jun 25, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
I remember a 1st edition game when the MU had to use a magic sword because it was the only weapon that could harm the enemy and the fighter was dead.

I don't remember ever reading that magic users would not use a sword in any edition. Nope. Proficient? No. Will not use? Not there.

5ekyu · Jun 25, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
I think I said that.

But there is also a destinction to be made between a player who doesn't want to play a class any more, and a character who for role playing reasons looses thier faith.

There are a lot of distinctions that can be made but their relevance to the druid metal discussion and whether player who play druids ha ve to abide hy the rules in play at the table is not yet established.

Oofta · Jun 25, 2019

Maxperson said:
And again, a choice isn't a rule. You can keep repeating rule until you are blue in the face, but it's not going to magically change that one fluff line into a rule.

And you can keep repeating that "will not" doesn't really mean they will not wear metal armor an it's still not a rule. Some random person on the internet does not get to decide what is a rule and what isn't.

I don't see why a proficiency that restricts access is any less of a rule that allows access.

Maxperson said:
Well, if the game is 5e, we know that there are no penalties for a vegetarian chowing down and there are no rules that cause him cease to be vegetarian, so yes he would still be vegetarian in a 5e game. Unless there's a house rule of course.

So a vegetarian that regularly eats meat is still a vegetarian? Can't argue with logic like that. Literally. There's no point because it defies all logic and definitions.

Maxperson said:
And you seem to fail to understand is that the rules are subservient to those playing the game, not the other way around. Especially in a rulings over rules edition.

Huh. Last time I checked, the DM was the arbiter of the rules. Did they change that when I wasn't looking? Hmm.

Nope, intro of the DMG: "as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."