5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented - Page 36
Page 36 of 65 FirstFirst ... 262728293031323334353637383940414243444546 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 642
  1. #351
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxperson View Post
    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.
    Since I am talking about the players agreeing to the rules they chose to play with, this reply seems to make no sense. We agreed to normal shortswords doing d6 damage with noted exceptions for specific changes too, but if Joe decides that to solve problem ABC on the fly his shortsword now does 10d15 then hey, there is an issue.

    Now, of course, maybe we added to our table rules something like plot points and gave them the ability to suspend certain restrictions for short time or enabling 10d15 damage weapons - that is obviously different.

  2. #352
    Member
    A "Drizzit" Type-Thing (Lvl 28)



    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    The Stately Pleasure Dome of Xanadu.
    Posts
    7,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxperson View Post
    I can lead a horse to water...
    You are incorrect on this. I already went through this for the PHB.

    As I am guessing you missed this, I will repeat my prior post-



    What you mean is the Weapon Proficiency Table on p. 36. So go through this, assuming some knowledge of 1e:


    Let's use the Druid as an example:


    You start with a number of proficiencies, for a Druid, 2.


    That means you get to choose 2 of your allowed weapons - for a Druid, you can choose between club, dagger, dart, hammer, scimitar, sling, spear, and staff. A total of eight (8) weapons.


    Every five additional levels, you get an additional proficiency. So at eleventh level, the Druid is PROFICIENT IN FOUR OF HIS EIGHT WEAPONS.


    If the Druid attempts to use a "Druid Weapon" that the Druid is NOT PROFICIENT IN, then there is a -4 penalty. This is not a catch-all table to allow, inter alia, Clerics to use swords with a penalty.
    So, how do we know this? Let's read the rules in pari materia.

    First, the table shows that you know (are proficient in) fewer weapons than you have the ability to use.

    Second, the specific examples given with the table are for weapons that are allowed by class, not for any ol' weapon.

    Ex-
    Initial Number of Weapons shows the number which the character may select to be proficient with, i.e. a cleric could select a flail and staff, club
    and mace, or any combination of two permitted weapons.

    Non-proficiency Penalty indicates the subtraction from the characterís ďto hitď dice which applies to attacks by the character using such a weapon in missile or melee combat.

    (italics in original, bold added).


    Notice- permitted weapons! And then, "such a weapons." What is the antecedent of such a weapon? Why, it's permitted weapons. The non-proficiency penalty applies to the use of "permitted" weapons when there is no proficiency; not a a catch-all for non-permitted weapons.

    To the extent that this isn't clear, the entire section on weapon proficiency starts as follows:

    "The choice of weapons used by your character might be circumscribed bythe class of your character, but selection is otherwise a matter of yourpreferences based on various factors presented hereafter."

    That's right- the weapons you use are circumscribed by your class, but after that rule, you then follow the following proficiency rules. This was all pretty normal stuff for people playing AD&D; it was used (to the extent people used it) when, inter alia, a PC chose proficiencies in certain weapons for their class, but then found another class-allowed weapon (MAGIC!) that they were not proficient in.

    Finally, regarding the whole retconning of OD&D (which, again, no one has bothered to engage with Eldritch Wizardry) and AD&D, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy, so I started a thread-

    https://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...d-Edge-Weapons

    (Unfortunately, I posted in the wrong forum)

    As of right now, despite the huge variation in play .... not a single person who played prior to 1985 seems to agree with the modern Barracks Lawyers. I mean, you can get people to argue about every single rule in AD&D and OD&D, just about, and yet this seems to be universal.



    Which leads to the point I keep making- you know, rules and play were a lot different back then.

  3. #353
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Oofta View Post
    So a vegetarian that regularly eats meat is still a vegetarian?
    Yes, but a really bad one.
    Kind of like a politician who tells the truth, an Italian who doesn't like pasta, or a Muslim who drinks... you get the drift.
    XP Maxperson gave XP for this post

  4. #354
    Member




    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Las Cruces, NM
    Posts
    391
    The problem with this premise is that it is divorced from the setting. Without playing the druid into a setting, it just becomes a player choice. However, this sentence means something different in Dark Sun vs Forgotten Realms vs homebrew, etc. So this is a total tempest in a teapot.

  5. #355
    Member
    Time Agent (Lvl 24)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    4,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Sadras View Post
    Yes, but a really bad one.
    So we can just redefine words to mean anything we want? A vegetarian can eat all the steak they want and still be a vegetarian?

    Cool. From now on proficiency in martial weapons really means that I can shoot laser beams from my eyes. 'Cuz lasers are awesome!

  6. #356
    Member
    Pit Fiend (Lvl 26)



    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Aloha, or
    Posts
    5,683
    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    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.


    Especially odd since the definition of a rule includes ďa principal that guides conductĒ. Itís LITERALLY including a choice as what a rule is defined as, because a personís principals are choices. Iíve seen people argue some silly things in the past, but I have to admit, Iíve never seen it get this ridiculous. So far, weíve had him argue that the definition of a rule isnít a rule, how any DM that uses rules in the rule book (rule is even in that name of what those books are called lol) are tyrants, and another poster say that using that rule to make decisions is an arbitrary decision (the opposite of what arbitrary means).

    Is it opposite week and I missed it or something?

    But you know what? Go to an AL game with a Druid wearing plate mail and tell the DM you are allowed if you want based on some of the reasons given here. Let me know how that works out for you.

  7. #357
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post
    Especially odd since the definition of a rule includes ďa principal that guides conductĒ. Itís LITERALLY including a choice as what a rule is defined as, because a personís principals are choices. Iíve seen people argue some silly things in the past, but I have to admit, Iíve never seen it get this ridiculous. So far, weíve had him argue that the definition of a rule isnít a rule, how any DM that uses rules in the rule book (rule is even in that name of what those books are called lol) are tyrants, and another poster say that using that rule to make decisions is an arbitrary decision (the opposite of what arbitrary means).

    Is it opposite week and I missed it or something?

    But you know what? Go to an AL game with a Druid wearing plate mail and tell the DM you are allowed if you want based on some of the reasons given here. Let me know how that works out for you.
    Moreover, go to pretty much any table, agree to the rules in play, then decide unilaterally during play when inconvenient your charscter can ignore the rule and if told no start spouting off about tyrants and railroading... see how far that gets you.

    Even the current SAC makes it clear the DM decides whether to use the official rulings in play and for the druid metal thingy they emphasize the GM decision and final say again, not the player's right to insist it be that way or the tyranny of GMs who choose to not change the rule. It's not "permitted" just identified as not gonna break the game if the GM expands it to follow proficiencies in their campaign.

  8. #358
    Member
    A "Drizzit" Type-Thing (Lvl 28)



    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    The Stately Pleasure Dome of Xanadu.
    Posts
    7,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post
    Especially odd since the definition of a rule includes ďa principal that guides conductĒ. Itís LITERALLY including a choice as what a rule is defined as, because a personís principals are choices. Iíve seen people argue some silly things in the past, but I have to admit, Iíve never seen it get this ridiculous. So far, weíve had him argue that the definition of a rule isnít a rule, how any DM that uses rules in the rule book (rule is even in that name of what those books are called lol) are tyrants, and another poster say that using that rule to make decisions is an arbitrary decision (the opposite of what arbitrary means).

    Is it opposite week and I missed it or something?

    But you know what? Go to an AL game with a Druid wearing plate mail and tell the DM you are allowed if you want based on some of the reasons given here. Let me know how that works out for you.
    None of that was quite as weird as the tangent on RAILROADING ... but that was so bizarre that I couldn't even.

    Player: I want to play a Wizard.

    DM: Great!

    Player: And my spellcasting stat will be Dexterity.

    DM: Um, so ... can we talk about ...

    Player: NO! IT'S DEXTERITY! STOP RAILROADING ME! YOU'RE NOT A DM, YOU'RE SNIDELY WHIPLASH!
    XP Yardiff gave XP for this post
    Laugh Oofta laughed with this post

  9. #359
    Member
    Pit Fiend (Lvl 26)



    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Aloha, or
    Posts
    5,683
    Threads like this make me realize how lucky I have been. Iíve gamed with hundreds of people all over the world over the past almost four decades. There have been disagreements, and the odd rules lawyer here and there, but not once did I ever have a player demand to change a rule, and if I didnít, I was a tyrant or railroading them. Not once. And not to toot my own horn, but the overwhelming feedback Iíve gotten as a DM has been largely positive (after every session with new players, like at an AL game, I always ask for feedback).

    If a player came to my table and said they could wear plate mail as a Druid, and gave me the reasons why that were given in this thread, I would say that itís not allowed because it is in fact a rule, and if they wanted plate mail, there are other ways to achieve that. The second they called me a tyrant or accused me of railroading, id thank them because they let me know I dodged a bullet, then send them on their way.

    And people wonder why DMs are in high demand and hard to find. Itís because most of us donít want to deal with troublesome players who disrupt the table. The game is for everyone*, but the DM does a lot more work. Itís why they get to make the rulings. I have never forced anyone to play at my table. I guess Iím lucky because Iíve always had more than enough willing players to play in my games.

    *IME, when a player says they should be able to do whatever they want because ďthe game is for me tooĒ, what they usually mean is ďthe game is for me, cater to me, and I donít care what any other player wantsĒ
    XP Yardiff, Oofta gave XP for this post

  10. #360
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post
    If a player came to my table and said they could wear plate mail as a Druid, and gave me the reasons why that were given in this thread, I would say that itís not allowed because it is in fact a rule, and if they wanted plate mail, there are other ways to achieve that.
    Now now, this is about medium armors that are metal, not heavy.

    I find myself on both sides of the argument here.

    On the one hand, I agree with the OP in that the way the "rule" is portrayed in the PHB is less than ideal, and I'd prefer that if they want it to be a hard "can not wear metal" they should have worded it that way and provided some actual mechanical drawbacks to doing so. A druid is certainly physically capable of putting on metal armor, after all, whether they are proficient or not.

    On the other hand, players must abide by the DM's rulings. If the DM says that "won't" means "can't", then that's that. I'd certainly hope the DM would expand on their reasoning if asked politely, and perhaps discuss what the consequences of putting metal armor on would be - it is still physically possible, after all, unless some magic inherent in the world literally prevents it.

    Also on the other hand, a player that chooses this hill to die on is probably not one you want in your game. It's one thing to discuss with the DM and say "hey, it says won't but not can't, and I AM proficient, so is it cool if my character is a Druid of the Circle of Nature Is Metal and wears a breastplate he crafted himself?" It's another matter entirely to make demands or continue to argue after a ruling has been made.

Posting Permissions

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