5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented - Page 40
Page 40 of 65 FirstFirst ... 303132333435363738394041424344454647484950 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 642
  1. #391
    Member
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)



    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Internet
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by lowkey13 View Post
    It's weird, isn't it, that someone can say that the people who actually experienced something had no idea what they were doing.

    So ... I guess I have to go with gaslighting at this point? Seriously, you get that you're basically saying that all of us Olds were just too stupid to understand the game we were playing, right?

    It's pretty amazing that we can even get our truckz out on these here internetz without getting flat tires! Personally, I probably lack the brainpower to complete a sentence, let alone to handle complexities of rules and stuff like that (it's sounds difficult!) but I'm sure someone back then must have been able to read, or something.

    Naw ... probably not.
    Yes, I will literally say they were comparatively too dumb to know what they were doing. MMORPG players were also comparatively dumb in the 90s compared to how they are now. It's not that they're dumb as people (although certainly some of them are), it's that they were dumb in regards to how to properly utilize a new game system. Just because they experienced it, doesn't mean they were doing it right. It doesn't matter so long as they had fun using it the way they did, because it is just a game after all, but that doesn't mean they did it correctly as per how the rules were written. Point is that if the game system said you can't do Y because X will happen, you're reading it wrong to assume that Y is impossible. What it means is that if you do Y, X will happen. Likewise, if you read that a Magic User can't use a longsword because they lack the martial training necessary, that does not mean they can never hold onto a longsword for as long as they live or else a paradox occurs. It means that even if they pick it up, they gain no benefit for using it, or suffer the indicated penalties, because they lack the martial training to utilize it in combat.

    If you read these things otherwise, you're wrong. Even if you enforce it that way at your table, which you're free to do, you're still wrong in terms of RAW.

  2. #392
    Member
    Time Agent (Lvl 24)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    4,167
    Quote Originally Posted by lowkey13 View Post
    It's weird, isn't it, that someone can say that the people who actually experienced something had no idea what they were doing.

    So ... I guess I have to go with gaslighting at this point? Seriously, you get that you're basically saying that all of us Olds were just too stupid to understand the game we were playing, right?

    It's pretty amazing that we can even get our truckz out on these here internetz without getting flat tires! Personally, I probably lack the brainpower to complete a sentence, let alone to handle complexities of rules and stuff like that (it's sounds difficult!) but I'm sure someone back then must have been able to read, or something.

    Naw ... probably not.

    It's not that they can't understand, it's that they will not. :P
    Laugh JonnyP71, lowkey13 laughed with this post

  3. #393
    Member
    Time Agent (Lvl 24)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    4,167
    Quote Originally Posted by coolAlias View Post
    I'm not saying it's tyrannical, nor am I saying it's not a rule.

    The point is that the rule says "won't" - in English, that does NOT mean "can't."

    It means they will not willingly wear metal armor. Can they? Sure. Will they willingly do so? No. That's the rule and trying to squeeze out anything else through word parsing is not "interpreting" the rules, it's twisting them to mean something they don't say.

  4. #394
    Member
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)



    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Internet
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by JonnyP71 View Post
    Have you actually read the 1E PHB, or are you relying on a certain poster's selective quoting of the rules?

    There are 3 statements regarding the Druid being limited to leather armour in the 1E PHB.

    The first is on Page 19, a table listing permitted weapon and armour types for each class. It doesn't give any reasons. Words used in describing the restrictions include 'permitted' for the lists that are allowed, and 'proscribed', 'prohibition' and 'cannot', when clarifying weapons and armour that are not allowed for certain characters.

    The other 2 mentions are on page 21. The 1st says, I quote "druids are unable to use any armour or shields other than leather armour or wooden shields (metallic armour spoils their magical powers)"... the 2nd read "In melee combat, druids fight as clerics, but they do suffer somewhat from their inability to wear protective armour of metal."

    The only clarifying 'reason' is that short statement in brackets, seemingly thrown in to give some reasoning for the rule.

    Note the use of strong words such as "inability", and "prohibition"... this is firmly worded - these are the rules, your character is NOT doing this.

    There's no statement anywhere in 1E to hint that they CAN wear metallic armour at any time.
    Yes, I have read the original AD&D PHB. The thing you're unable to do is read the passages in the entirety of their context, and instead cling to a single word to state your point. Here's how the rules were written:

    You cannot use A, because B reason, or because C will happen. This means that if you chose to use A, the penalties for B apply, or the effect of C will happen. That's just common reading comprehension. If no penalty was given for using A, but your class said it was forbidden without giving a reason, the DMG had a table to use to punish players for behaviors that went against what was listed for the class. If they were literally unable to perform prohibited actions, the DMG table to punish people for performing these actions served no purpose.

    The problem is you're reading an individual word as opposed to comprehending how the game system in its entirety works. The rules in the book are interlinked. When it says you can't use metal armor because it will spoil your magic powers, when it says you are unable to use metal armor in the next sentence it is referring back to that. They don't need to explain the reason every time, just once in the initial mentioning.

    You have to relate the entry into the game's system. Dungeons and Dragons is a role playing system where the play tells the DM what they want to do, and then utilizing the rules of the system, tells the player what happens as a result of their actions. Many people originally read it as a board game, where if it said something can't be done for X reason, they assumed it a physical impossibility as opposed to an action with consequences. If my class says I am unable to use metallic armor because it will spoil my magical powers, and I tell the DM I put on metallic armor, then the obvious result is that I'm going to suffer the consequence of not being able to use my magical powers. If the DM says, "No, you can't do that, because the universe prevents it," then yes, I will say time and time again that the DM does not know how to apply the rules of the game, because instead of imposing the game's mechanics, they're simply tossing their arms up and saying "No. The universe denies you because I don't know how to enforce the consequences for your action."

  5. #395
    Member
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)



    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by JonnyP71 View Post
    If the state of the game lore regarding Druids is clear from the beginning, and the player agrees to that lore (by choosing to play a Druid), then no, it is not poor DMing for the DM to veto the action (I would take the player to one side and reiterate the lore and the fact that they agreed to by choosing the class). If they refused to change their chosen course of action then yes, one option would be leaving the game. The other would be to start a new character, as they would not be playing a Druid any more.... but it would be a red flag hanging over their level of respect for the game.
    I’m coming from a position where I don’t care what armor druids can benefit from. If its only leather, that’s fine. What I care about is player agency.

    So what I’m not getting is why you would go to that much trouble to remove player agency when you could preserve player agency with a simple in-character consequence. It could even be, “You find yourself lying on the ground writhing in agony. You begin taking 1d6 necrotic damage each turn, have a movement of 0’, and the only action you can take is to remove your armor.” Now you have preserved the fact that druids don’t wear metal armor in the setting, without removing player agency. They receive an effect similar to what a hostile high level spell might impose on them.

    The point here is that in 5E D&D “The players describe what they want to do,” and “The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions” (D&D Basic Rules p. 4). The DM describes consequences of the attempt, they don’t decide whether the character can or cannot try something. This has been the implied rule of what an RPG is and how it works from the beginning.

    Of course there are social contracts. If you are playing a pre-defined game of honorable knights in shining armor, and one player decides to have their character start going around murdering orphans, its just common sense that you say, “Dude, really?” and the whole group tells them to get with the program. And one might reasonably do that with Druid taboos if it was understood that was a thing. But there should still be in-world consequences for what would happen in-world if that taboo were broken. It’s not about getting around the mechanical restrictions, it’s about the fact that somewhere in the history of druidism a Druid has found themselves in metal armor for one reason or another, and what happened? If they “ceased to be a Druid” great! What does that mean? Do they become a dead former Druid, do they change to a commoner statblock, do they lose all supernatural abilities, or something else?

    Regardless of the exact nature of in-world consequences, the presence of them supports player agency, even if the social contract for that campaign is that druid players won’t be testing them because y’all just don’t want to deal with it.

    But the 5e PHB has a major fail (which is the point I’m making), in that it ***in this one place, and only this one place in the entire product line*** forbids player choice to describe an action (in this case, for a Druid to put on metal armor) rather than suggesting consequences. It flagrantly violates its own rule byforbidding players to describe that their character is attempting to do something the character is completely capable of doing according to what passes as physics in D&D Landia.

    I think half of us involved in this debate would have nothing more to debate if our opposition would acknowledge that the PHB presented the Druid armor taboo/restriction in a uniquely poor manner.
    XP coolAlias, Ohmyn gave XP for this post

  6. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by Oofta View Post
    It means they will not willingly wear metal armor. Can they? Sure. Will they willingly do so? No. That's the rule and trying to squeeze out anything else through word parsing is not "interpreting" the rules, it's twisting them to mean something they don't say.
    That's exactly right. That is RAW.

    However, we both know that as written, it will not actually prevent a player from playing a druid that decides to wear metal armor, just as a Paladin might break their oath or a Cleric turn away from their deity.

    The failing of this particular rule is not that it exists, but that it doesn't offer any explanation at all for what happens if it is broken, again because a druid *can* wear metal armor, they just choose not to (until they don't - players are great that way).

    Of course this is a decision for the DM to make at that point, and the player had better be willing to suffer the consequences of their choice, which may even mean giving up their class as described in the Paladin oath-breaking blurb.

    For me it boils down to this: we're in 5e now, with more lenient rules than ever before. There are lots of new players who don't know or don't care about the old lore, and there are bound to be some who read that and say "well, MY druid WILL wear metal because that's the character concept I have in mind" - wouldn't it be nice if there was a sentence or two of explanation somewhere that says that doing so will warrant a discussion with the DM and could have mechanical consequences such as not being able to be a druid?

  7. #397
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by coolAlias View Post
    I'm not saying it's tyrannical, nor am I saying it's not a rule.

    The point is that the rule says "won't" - in English, that does NOT mean "can't."

    Would a player that refuses to abide by this rule be out of line, assuming that the DM did not explicitly exempt them from it? Absolutely.

    Would a DM that tells a player their druid character absolutely cannot put on metal armor ever, even briefly as a disguise, be equally out of line? Without a damned good explanation, in my opinion, they certainly would be.
    Damned good explanation - for either will not PvP or will not metal armor - "that is what all of us, including you, agreed to."

    See, this avoids having to re-litigate the "will not" every f'n time we hit another case where it's a trifle inconvenient for you to actually follow what you agreed to. I mean , it's likely to rarely come up and when the few times its inconvenient just deciding to re-hash it again is, well, we know what that is.

    Dont we?

  8. #398
    Member
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)



    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Internet
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Oofta View Post
    It means they will not willingly wear metal armor. Can they? Sure. Will they willingly do so? No. That's the rule and trying to squeeze out anything else through word parsing is not "interpreting" the rules, it's twisting them to mean something they don't say.
    The problem with this is that being a Paladin of Devotion means they will not willingly lie. Can they? Sure. Will they willingly do so? No, but it's acknowledged that ultimately it's up to the player to decide, and that sometimes they might, because fluff and lore do not dictate the actions the player is capable of performing. If there are consequences in the rules for their actions they can deal with those when they oppose their taboo, but if the system has no consequences, then nothing in the game actually stops them unless the DM rules otherwise. It's silly that the Druid be the only class people feel this concept need not apply to.

  9. #399
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post
    The Druid IS my favorite class. The shapeshifting has the greatest appeal to me. Along with the versatility as you mention. Even going back to 1e days. Way more appeal than a cleric. But the rules or the Sage advice don’t say what he thinks they say. Disagreeing with them doesn’t make us “haters” or anything.
    Agreed. What draws me to druid and has for ages is the fact it has a lot of limited tools - no one able to carry the day over and over but easily a couple that can be useful in very different ways.

    Of course, I am also drawn to Bard and Cleric so, maybe I have a type and they are never the "moar DPR max AC" number-hunters.

  10. #400
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by lowkey13 View Post
    I very much would like that card!
    Double points for purchases on very non-politically correct anniversaries!!!!

Posting Permissions

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