5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented - Page 16
Page 16 of 65 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314151617181920212223242526 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 642
  1. #151
    Member
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)



    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    2,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post

    Me, raised Roman Catholic...
    The best place to see something is not necessarily the inside...

  2. #152
    Member
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)

    pogre's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mahomet, Illinois
    Posts
    5,375
    Druid is not a weak class. Do you think the restriction has anything to do with game balance? Not in the sense that every PC has to be the same - we know that paradigm was ejected again with 5e - just in the sense that Druid becomes too powerful with metal armor.

    I get the sense this is just a D&D flavor thing - like Vancian magic and hit points. However, I am not a math guy and armor class seems like the second most important thing in the game during combat (hp being #1). I know I am extremely careful about giving out magic armor.

  3. #153
    Member
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)



    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Old Bridge, NJ
    Posts
    2,330
    Quote Originally Posted by lowkey13 View Post
    By RAW they are not, however, Druids. So, they can't.


    Let's see how silly this semantic game can be with rules lawyers. C'mon, it's fun for the whole table!


    It says that a Knight's retainer "will not" follow me into a dangerous area, like a Dungeon. (PHB 136). But it doesn't say that they will EXPLODE. Therefore, they follow me into the dungeon.

    It says that if a Paladin violates their oath (PHB 86), then the DM might be an oathbreaker, or might just have to abandon the class completely for another class. Lack of specificity means that there can be no penalty, therefore there is no Paladin oath.

    For pacts, it says to work with the DM to determine the role of the pact (p. 106); because working with DMs removes MUH PLAYA AGENCY it therefore doesn't exist, so the patron doesn't exist.

    Etc.

    Look, I have some easy, simple solutions:

    1. There are no Druids. They have been consigned to the place where the Paladins reside.

    2. Wearing metal causes Druids to spontaneously combust. Little known fact- 95% of all spontaneous combustion cases are caused by Druids trying to wear metal armor (the other 5% are a result of gnomes wielding rapiers).

    3. To paraphrase Bob Marley, if you wear metal, "No druid, no spell."

    See? Simple!

    Now, if you want a houserule for druids to wear metal, then knock yourself out. Sorry, " If you want to depart from your classs story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."

    Good luck! Don't explode!
    Obviously, do what you want for your game, but this seems like a strange way to read it. It seems that you (as well as others in this thread) are reading it to be prescriptive. However, by my reading as well as Crawford's clarification in Safe Advice, it is descriptive.

    Per RAW, you don't cease to be a druid just because you put on metal armor. It's simply that the average druid considers it to be taboo. PCs, being exceptional individuals, might not although there should arguably be in world consequences for breaking the taboo.

    Similarly, the Knight's retainer won't typically go into a dungeon. However, if the Tarrasque ambushes the party at the dungeon entrance and chases them inside, it's up to the DM what happens. Maybe he's so paralyzed by fear and indecision that he dies trying to decide what to do. Maybe he high tails it into the dungeon. It's descriptive, and therefore is simply there to inform the DM of how this NPC is typically intended to be run. That's my read on it anyway.

  4. #154
    Member
    Time Agent (Lvl 24)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    4,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Fanaelialae View Post
    Obviously, do what you want for your game, but this seems like a strange way to read it. It seems that you (as well as others in this thread) are reading it to be prescriptive. However, by my reading as well as Crawford's clarification in Safe Advice, it is descriptive.

    Per RAW, you don't cease to be a druid just because you put on metal armor. It's simply that the average druid considers it to be taboo. PCs, being exceptional individuals, might not although there should arguably be in world consequences for breaking the taboo.

    Similarly, the Knight's retainer won't typically go into a dungeon. However, if the Tarrasque ambushes the party at the dungeon entrance and chases them inside, it's up to the DM what happens. Maybe he's so paralyzed by fear and indecision that he dies trying to decide what to do. Maybe he high tails it into the dungeon. It's descriptive, and therefore is simply there to inform the DM of how this NPC is typically intended to be run. That's my read on it anyway.

    You mean where he says "If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM." which is followed by"your DM has the final say"?

    Which, honestly, is true of every rule in the book. Heck, I considered and discussed coming up with a completely custom class because my vision of the PC didn't match an existing one. Ultimately I decided to play a standard set of classes but there is nothing wrong with customizing the game. Which is what everyone keeps saying.

    Of course if you just accepted that this wouldn't be the thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends ...
    XP Parmandur gave XP for this post

  5. #155
    Member
    Pit Fiend (Lvl 26)



    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Aloha, or
    Posts
    5,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Farquhar View Post
    The best place to see something is not necessarily the inside...


    Well, it lends me a little bit more credibility than someone whose never been exposed to the subject they are talking about. Especially since youre wrong on your assumptions, as I explained and gave you what that process is. So rather than dismiss what I wrote by going after me personally, Id prefer if youd be able to provide supporting evidence to youre argument. I have to say though, Im guessing you wont be able to because its objectively provable that priests can choose to lose their priesthood, and those infractions are, rules as written, justification to remove them from priesthood. Google Laicization.
    Last edited by Sacrosanct; Friday, 21st June, 2019 at 06:25 PM.

  6. #156
    Member
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)



    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Old Bridge, NJ
    Posts
    2,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Oofta View Post
    You mean where he says "If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM." which is followed by"your DM has the final say"?

    Which, honestly, is true of every rule in the book. Heck, I considered and discussed coming up with a completely custom class because my vision of the PC didn't match an existing one. Ultimately I decided to play a standard set of classes but there is nothing wrong with customizing the game. Which is what everyone keeps saying.

    Of course if you just accepted that this wouldn't be the thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends ...
    Actually, I was referring to the druid armor section in the PHB where it says "won't". Crawford's clarification simply makes it clear that there is no RAW mechanical consequence for doing so unless the DM rules otherwise, and that it isn't even unbalanced to allow it.

    As I've said more than once in this thread, the DM is free to rule as they please for their own game.

    I was simply pointing out that (IMO) a descriptive interpretation of the aforementioned text makes significantly more sense than a prescriptive reading.

  7. #157
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)



    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    5,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Farquhar View Post
    The best place to see something is not necessarily the inside...
    I don't want to go too far down this track, but to lend credence to your point, even laicization is about bureaucratic permissions for engaging in ritual activities, not what in D&D might be termed as "Class." It would be more liek the Acolyte Background losing the feature, not a Druid losing their mojo.

  8. #158
    Member
    A "Drizzit" Type-Thing (Lvl 28)



    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    The Stately Pleasure Dome of Xanadu.
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Fanaelialae View Post
    Obviously, do what you want for your game, but this seems like a strange way to read it. It seems that you (as well as others in this thread) are reading it to be prescriptive. However, by my reading as well as Crawford's clarification in Safe Advice, it is descriptive.
    Let's see-
    Druid:Class Features:Proficiencies:
    "Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids willnot wear armor or use shields made of metal)"

    P. 65, PHB

    Seem like a not rule to me!

    Wait, let's look at the MULTICLASSING PROFICIENCIES GAINED!

    Druid:
    "Light armor, medium armor, shields (druidswill not wear armor or use shields made ofmetal)"

    p. 164, PHB

    Seems like a not rule to me! I mean ... a muticlassing not rule.

    In fact, this "not rule" is also in the SRD. You know- the standard reference document for, um, not rules!


    Wait, let's keep going because this is ... fun?


    So, your best argument for the non-enforcement of the, um "not-rule" is Sage Advice.

    Now, first off, Sage Advice is not official rules, it is official rulings. There is a difference (official rules are in the errata). So you can't, and shouldn't, refer to them as RAW- just as RAI. Good?

    But more importantly, your best support states explicitly the following:

    "If youfeel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. ... If you want todepart from your classs story, your DM has the final say onhow far you can go and still be considered a member of theclass."

    You understand what this means, yes?

    "Hey, DM! I wanna be a Cleric that uses only MU spells, because I like the Cleric mechanics but don't believe in divinities yada yada yada."

    "Hey, DM! I wanna be a Paladin with all the cool Paladin powers but no oath yada yada yada."

    "Hey, DM! I wanna be a Warlock, but without a patron, because that's annoying, something something Ima eldritch blast everything."

    "Hey DM! Alighnment is stupid, so Ima not even write it down on my character sheet."

    "Hey DM! Did you know that Hit Points aren't meat... let me explain it to you like I would a slightly dumb golden retriever ..."

    Look, run want you want. That's what Crawford is saying. But don't play silly word games to try to make rules, not rules.

    It's your table, but don't try to bag of rats me at my table, or tell me that the very clear wording isn't there.


    Per RAW, you don't cease to be a druid just because you put on metal armor.
    You're right. You don't cease to be a druid, because per RAW, you will not put on the armor.

    See. Easy.

    Done
    Last edited by lowkey13; Friday, 21st June, 2019 at 07:17 PM.

  9. #159
    Member
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)



    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Internet
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Aebir-Toril View Post
    Maybe you and I have different standards of balance. I don't think any full caster should ave an AC over 16-17 without magic items, i just doesn't balance well.
    Clerics? Valor Bards? Any other caster that puts in the effort to get a shield and light or medium armor? Heck, it's just as easy, and often easier, for full casters to get AC of their tank, than it is for martial classes like the Monk or the Rogue to do the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oofta View Post
    "Druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" is about as clear a rule as I've seen in the book. Feel free to run it differently in your game.
    And that rule has been further clarified in the Sage Advice as to what it means. It is made clear that there is nothing preventing them from doing so, and that there is no penalty if they do. It's only a choice, and players are free to ignore the typical choices of their class. Of course the DM can deny people ignoring a story aspect of their class, but that's true of anything, so it's kind of lazy to point to in a question of official rulings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oofta View Post
    Vegetarians will not eat meat. If my vegetarian nephew eats steak he is not a vegetarian. If a PC wears metal armor they are not a druid.
    A vegetarian is defined as someone that doesn't eat meat. A Druid is not defined as someone that doesn't wear metal. Not wearing metal is simply a choice that some or most Druids make, but just not wearing metal is not what makes them a Druid. Monks will not wear armor because they lose the monastic abilities they have trained, but they don't stop being a Monk when they put on armor. That's just one element of the class's story that's typical in the game world, but PCs are special cases, and choosing not to abide by it does not make the character explode.

    DMs are free to punish Druid players that wear armor if that's what they wish, but that's true of anything. The point is that there is no mechanical restriction if they choose to do so, as per the official rules, so penalizing them for doing so is a house rule of the DM.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowkey13 View Post
    By RAW they are not, however, Druids. So, they can't.
    Nothing in the rules state that, and the response in Sage Advice clarifies it as a preference in the lore and not a requirement. You can rule it that way, but it does not say that anywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowkey13 View Post
    Sorry, " If you want to depart from your classs story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class."
    That's not really a line for rules clarification as it's true of literally anything. The clarification in the Sage Advice was that there is nothing that prevents a Druid from wearing metal armor besides personal choice, and there is no penalty in the game system for Druids that do so. Just because they stated that the DM can decide otherwise does not mean that is not the rule as written. Your DM can rule that if you have an INT of 18 that you're too intellectual to be a Half-Orc Barbarian, or that by wearing armor you abandon all of your monastic training as a Monk and must abandon the class. The DM is in their right to do this, but that doesn't make it a core rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowkey13 View Post
    Why is it that there are, largely, two groups of people in this debate.

    The first sees the druid restriction, understands it for what it is, and are like, "Okay, cool, if other people disagree with it, then they can just houserule it."

    The second attempts to make various arguments that UNLESS the rule is perfect, then THE RULE DOESN'T APPLY.
    The issue is that the first camp doesn't understand it for what it is. The first camp says that because it says they will not, they can not. The Sage Advice stated that they can, because there's nothing in the game system that stops them. It's a typical preference of Druids, but not a mandatory one, because unlike previous editions, there's not a penalty for it. They were very clear on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowkey13 View Post
    You should propose this to WoTC as errata.


    It doesn't have to be proposed to the errata because it is already covered in the Sage Advice, which is just as official as the errata.

    Quote Originally Posted by pogre View Post
    Druid is not a weak class. Do you think the restriction has anything to do with game balance? Not in the sense that every PC has to be the same - we know that paradigm was ejected again with 5e - just in the sense that Druid becomes too powerful with metal armor.
    But it's not a strong class. Few tables have a Druid. In fact, I'm pretty sure the numbers show it's by far the least played class in the game. If it was mechanically powerful, people would play it. The Moon Druid is quite powerful through levels 2 and 4 when many other classes have yet to really develop, but that's about all the Druid has going for it. Sure, it's not terribly unplayable, as 5E is mostly balanced in the sense that you're never useless (unless you take strides to be), but whatever purpose you're looking to fill as a Druid, other classes do it better. In fact, if you just want to role play the Druid, you'll be better off as a Nature Cleric of the Old Faith, unless you solely want to shapeshift as a Moon Druid.

  10. #160
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)



    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    5,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Ohmyn View Post
    It doesn't have to be proposed to the errata because it is already covered in the Sage Advice, which is just as official as the errata.
    That's not true: Sage Advise is a set of advise to Dungeon Masters, and not binding in any fashion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •