5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented - Page 26
Page 26 of 65 FirstFirst ... 161718192021222324252627282930313233343536 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 642
  1. #251
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    4,068
    "Railroading is not removing choice in selecting mechanics, but rather removing options in the game world by stating the possible to be impossible without any reason given besides not wanting the player to do it, or "the rules".

    So, just to be clear, now asking your player to abide by "thevrules" of the class you chose is railroading?

    Great!!! Yet another case of a word being eroded to meaninglessness.

    By this definition, I am proudly railroading my PCs for nearly 40 years now.

  2. #252
    Member
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)

    jasper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    montgomery al
    Posts
    3,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Ohmyn View Post
    ...Considering Sage Advice is as official as the PHB, it's not a change in the rule to say Druids can wear metal. It is stated quite clearly that nothing stops them from doing it except personal choice..

    ....
    Sorry. Sage advice does tell you what happens. In the first poster he mentions the penalty.
    What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes.
    So now the rest of the party has to get a mop and bucket. Now there a good reason to sneak into the dungeon to rescue the rest of the party.
    Knock Knock
    Thief. " Hey we just had a Druid explode on us. And in the corridor. Can I get a mop and bucket.
    Guard, " Ok, come on it"
    OR
    POUND POUND POUND
    Druid, "open this beep beep beep door or I will do it."
    Guard opens the slot see a druid holding a chain shirt above his head.
    Druid, "give us all the prisons or I putting it on.!"
    Guard, "now now chap. Lets be reasonable. You don't have to do this. I can get a cleric down here to help you talk about it. You don't have to kill yourself!"
    Druid, "RELEASE THE PRISONS OR I WILL DO IT!"
    Guard, " Calm down. Calm down. Let me call my superior."
    Druid, " I am going to do it. "
    Guard, "the prisoners are not worth it. What did the paladin ever do to help you? Or the thief? Calm down!"
    Druid, "I AM DOING IT!" Dons shirt! BIG EXPLOSION!
    DM. "Ok guys I going to need 100d6. Let me count 40 squares. Um this 5E so that is 80 squares of damage!"
    Laugh Dausuul laughed with this post

  3. #253
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)



    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    9,388
    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    So, just to be clear, now asking your player to abide by "thevrules" of the class you chose is railroading?
    There are no rules, and there have never been any rules, that say a druid cannot don a suit of metal platemail in order to sneak into a castle. If a DM prevents me from taking that action, he is in fact railroading me by invalidating my decision.

  4. #254
    Member
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)

    jasper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    montgomery al
    Posts
    3,783
    @Ohmyn .. It says it right in common sense. What happens if they put on metal armor? What happens if someone else knocks them out and they wake up covered in metal armor? Do they explode? Does the universe fold into itself because the impossible has happened? Hopefully their universe has paradox protection.....
    Judge, " Mr. Druid you have found guilty of trespassing, freeing all the zoo the animals, and square dancing in triangle formation. The sentence is dead by metal armour!"
    Druid, "no. no. No. "
    The guards take the druid out and strap plate mail on the druid. And quickly run away. The universe gives the down thumb side. BOOM! The druid explodes.
    Guard 1, " Another suite of plate armour gone. It is getting expensive to get rid of evil druid lawbreakers."
    Guard 2, " The judge's brother runs the local armour shop."
    Laugh Oofta, SkidAce, mortwatcher laughed with this post

  5. #255
    @jasper what are you even going on about? Is your entire post history non sequiturs?

  6. #256
    Member
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)



    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Internet
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    "Railroading is not removing choice in selecting mechanics, but rather removing options in the game world by stating the possible to be impossible without any reason given besides not wanting the player to do it, or "the rules".

    So, just to be clear, now asking your player to abide by "thevrules" of the class you chose is railroading?

    Great!!! Yet another case of a word being eroded to meaninglessness.

    By this definition, I am proudly railroading my PCs for nearly 40 years now.
    No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when you read a line in a silly way that makes the possible impossible, and use that to say that an action simply cannot be performed by the player that otherwise should be possible, then yes, it's railroading. What people are somehow not getting is that this is a roleplaying game. If I say, "My father is lactose intolerant, so he can't drink milk, because dairy gives him gas," no person in their right mind is going to interpret that there is a magical barrier in front of his mouth that prevents dairy from touching his lips, else the universe tears in two as milk entering his mouth creates a spacetime paradox because it has been stated that he cannot drink milk.

    If you actually apply the proper use of language, you'd know what the sentence is saying, but it appears common sense is no longer applicable in reading. Even with the Sage Advice clarifying the proper interpretation is that nothing in the game system prevents it, people still don't want to accept that, because they refuse to use basic reasoning.

    Saying "you can't use heavy armor because you lack the martial training to use it" does not mean you can never wear metal armor. It means that if you wear it, you gain no benefits of its use, or suffer the game system's proficiency/encumbrance penalties, because you lack the martial training to use it. Same with saying "you can't wear metal armor because you'll lose your magic while you do." The Druid can still put on the metal armor if they say they'll do so, they'll just suffer the consequence of losing their magic while they do, plus any other penalties based on the edition (none in 5E because they are proficient in its use). Suffering the consequences is their choice to make, just as with making any other decision.

    The rules say that a character not proficient in the use of tools cannot use those tools. This does not mean that the character is literally physically incapable of trying to use the smith's tools or a poisoner's kit if they're not proficient. There's no magical barrier preventing them from putting their hands onto the tools. It just means that nothing will come of their efforts to use them, because they can't perform the tasks that are listed in the rules as requiring proficiency.

    If a Druid says "I put on the glove", you as a DM are railroading them if you say "No you don't." It's their choice to make, and nothing in the game system prevents them from taking the action. If the game system has penalties for it then they can deal with the consequences of their action. It's not railroading to say, "Okay, you put on the glove, but you are now wearing metal armor, so as per the rules you lose access to your magic." It is railroading to say, "Nuh-uh. No you don't."

    This is not a video game. You don't get a red X over your character if you try to equip something you're not proficient in. I don't see Paladins getting DM blocked if they want to break their oaths; they're fully allowed to do so, it just so happens that most of the game systems put in penalties for when they do. Such penalties no longer exist for Druids. If they choose to put it on, there is nothing in the game system stopping it, or penalizing it. If it doesn't have penalties in the game system, and you create some, those are house rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by jasper View Post
    Sorry. Sage advice does tell you what happens. In the first poster he mentions the penalty.
    What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes.
    Sure, that's true, if you ignore the line after it that says "Well, not actually." and then goes on to explain that nothing happens, and that the Druid does not lack the ability to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by jasper View Post
    Judge, " Mr. Druid you have found guilty of trespassing, freeing all the zoo the animals, and square dancing in triangle formation. The sentence is dead by metal armour!"
    Druid, "no. no. No. "
    The guards take the druid out and strap plate mail on the druid. And quickly run away. The universe gives the down thumb side. BOOM! The druid explodes.
    Guard 1, " Another suite of plate armour gone. It is getting expensive to get rid of evil druid lawbreakers."
    Guard 2, " The judge's brother runs the local armour shop."
    Or, more logically, if it's universal that Druids suffer a loss of magic for 24 hours if they wear metal, then anyone that captures a Druid and wishes to hold it prisoner, will be able to lock metal armor onto it so they can't use their magic to escape. Never heard the story of the man in the iron mask? Same concept. I could only hope that the DM would have an ounce of sense and doesn't make the game end because the universe tears itself in half when the enemy puts a metal mask on the Druid.
    Last edited by Ohmyn; Monday, 24th June, 2019 at 05:34 PM.
    Laugh jasper laughed with this post

  7. #257
    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 Maxperson View Post
    There are no rules, and there have never been any rules, that say a druid cannot don a suit of metal platemail in order to sneak into a castle. If a DM prevents me from taking that action, he is in fact railroading me by invalidating my decision.
    So, there's this.

    And also, this-

    Actually, the reason for the limit in 1st edition was that druids had access to far more powerful offensive spells than clerics did.
    @Paul Farquhar


    Let's examine the history a little, first.

    Druids are probably the most poorly-understood class in terms of history. Let's start with the actual text (Eldritch Wizardry, Supp. 3, OD&D) where the Druid first crossed over from monster to PC.

    Mistletoe takes a place of importance with them as a holy symbol or item as crosses and other like items do with other types of clerics. Druids have spells which are in general peculiar to them, although some of their spells are similar to those of magic-users or clerics in general. ... Upon reaching the 5th Circle druids then gain the power to shape change (as previously mentioned in GREYHAWK with regard to the Druid-type monster), and when changing from one form to another they lose from 10% to 60% of any damage previously sustained ... Druids are able to employ the following sorts of weapons: Daggers, sickle or crescent-shaped swords, spears, slings, and oil. They may wear armor of leather, and use wooden shields. They may not use metallic armor."

    pp. 1-2, EW.

    So, it's not quite right to say that there have never been any rules. In fact, there have always been rules, and the original rules are pretty clear. No metal armor. Why? No reason needed, or given. I mean, later is says that Monks and Druids can't become psychics (psionics) for REASONS, but, whatever. This is the origin, and here we see the defining class features of what a druid "is" that have continued through- the Druid gestalt, if you will-
    A. Wilderness stuff (love the animals, love the forests, blah blah blah)
    B. Spells that are neither cleric, nor magic user, but similar to both.
    C. Shape changing.
    D. No metal armor.

    The issue is that, well, we don't really know much in terms of the "why" for the Druid. We have some quotes from Gygax, saying that Druids use scimitars because they are close to sickles (but we should know that already from Eldritch Wizardry!), and that they might have been loosely based on Roman ideas of druids ... except that these quotes came long after the creation, and Gygax is sometimes an unreliable narrator. Importantly, Gygax didn't create the druid.

    What we also know is that Gygax (unusually) has stated that the Druid wasn't created by him, but by Dennis Sustarre (creator of inter alia, Bunnies and Burrows and namesake of Chariot of Sustarre). There isn't a lot of information that can be found on the design process, but here is some:

    "Instead, I was familiar with druids from literature about early England, especially during Roman times. The most immediate inspiration, of course, was their mention as a monster in Greyhawk (but not as a character class). Initially, I was trying to make them related totally to plants and animals, but felt they needed a little more firepower (literally)."
    Interview, Grognardia, available at:
    http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/...s-sustare.html


    There's also-

    "In Wisconsin, we started playing D&D before there were even thieves (i.e., before Greyhawk was published). We were experimenting with classes other than fighters, clerics and magic-­users, though, and I thought a druid would be interesting, as a nature cleric that had some combat ability. I drew up a set of rules for us to play­test, and mimeographed them for our group (pre-­Xerox days). After some play­test, I modified them in a second version of mimeo, but only distributed them among our players. Since we did go to early sessions of GenCon, one person in our group showed them to Gary, and with my permission (and some further editing), they were published in the Eldritch Wizardry supplement, in April 1976. The Chariot of Sustarre was added by Gary (or perhaps by Tim Kask); it was not in my original rules. I believe the changed spelling of my name was deliberate. I did not get paid in cash, though Gary did give me some freebies; I was just happy to get the new class added."

    Interview, RPG Review, available at:
    http://rpgreview.net/files/rpgreview_4.pdf


    Now, I wish there was a good documented source (even Dennis on the record!) regarding this, but I don't have it. What I do know is that this wasn't "balance" thing. A lot of "balance" issues that people talk about today w/r/t OD&D and 1e are just post hoc reasoning; no, the Druid wasn't armor-restricted because of the spells, the Druid was armor-restricted BECAUSE it was a Druid. Because of the class conception; balance wasn't exactly a big issue in the early days.

    As for the rest, it's also pretty nonsensical; yes, the restrictions were there. Saying that a throwaway line (that it soils their magical powers) is dispositive is missing the point; all Druid abilities are "magical powers." Their spells. Their innate powers gained at level three. Their shapeshifting. Their immunities. Their bonuses to saving throws. Their essential "druid-ness."

    To understand this is to understand an essential distinction between OD&D/1e and more modern editions; the tight fit between lore and rules, such that there was no real distinction. A Paladin is a CERTAIN TYPE of Paladin, not just a collection of rules, just as a Druid is a certain conception of Druid- not just the ability to shapechange. No one would say that the monk's prohibition on the use of oil, for example, can't work in 1e because it only states that Monks can't use flaming oil- the rules were understood differently back then.

    So, why all of this?

    The original lament is that the rule is "poorly implemented," but that's not really it, as I pointed out to another poster. No one who is criticizing the rule want is more strongly implemented (no one is asking that Druid's explode). Nor is anyone viewing the proficiency, and simply applying the non-proficient armor penalty to metallic armor. Finally, arguments regarding logic don't really make much sense either- sure, it doesn't make a lot of sense for Druids to not wear metallic armor, but only in the same non-sense that when a Wizard puts on Armor, the Wizard can't case spells. (PHB p. 144).

    So what it really boils down to is, IMO, a dislike of the rule- and that I can appreciate; unlike most of the 5e rules, it is much more of a legacy rule. So how a person views it will, most likely, depend a great deal on how they view rules holistically. A lot of the old "class/lore" integration is largely gone. Now, all that is left for people that do not like it at all is to argue against a few remainders (pacts, oaths, and this), whereas people who do appreciate that lore/class integration do understand the rule perfectly.

    But no, it's a sore thumb in terms of 5e- the type of rule there used to be a lot more of in OD&D and 1e and B/X; your enjoyment of it will clearly vary depending on your enjoyment of class/lore integration.

    Woot. That's a lot. Be careful out there, and watch out for exploding Druids.
    XP Oofta, Sacrosanct, JonnyP71, SkidAce gave XP for this post

  8. #258
    Member
    Pit Fiend (Lvl 26)



    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Aloha, or
    Posts
    5,716
    I don’t know why this is still going on. Look at the definition of a rule.
    1.
    one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

    Look at the txt “druids won’t wear metal armor”

    It literally fits the definition of what a rule is. It’s a principal that governs conduct of druids. Just like paladin behavior, or any other number of examples. This shouldn’t be up for debate if you’re speaking English.

    A person might not LIKE the rule. Or AGREE with the rule, and that’s fine. Change it. Ignore it. D&D provides good support for that. But don’t argue it isn’t or hasn’t been a rule.
    XP JonnyP71, DM Dave1, Oofta, ad_hoc, Yardiff gave XP for this post

  9. #259
    Member
    Superhero (Lvl 15)



    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    1,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxperson View Post
    And throughout D&D druids have had the ability to don metal platemail in order to sneak into a castle. Nothing you have said has so far been able to counter that fact.
    There are 3 specific places in the 1E PHB (1 on page 19, 2 on page 21) that state a Druid cannot wear metal armour, 1 place uses the word 'unable', another uses the word 'inability', another specific states that only leather is 'permitted'.

    Please find me one reference which categorically states that they CAN...

  10. #260
    Member
    Superhero (Lvl 15)



    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    1,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Farquhar View Post
    I hadn't actually noticed this categorically false remark before. A 1st edition thief could use a two handed sword - they had a non-proficiency penalty and couldn't backstab with it, but they could use it.
    Page 19 of the 1E PHB specifically states this is not the case.

    I quote:

    **** A thief may use a short sword, broad sword or long sword but not a bastard sword or a two handed sword

    That is quite clear, nothing about non-proficiency penalty.

Posting Permissions

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