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

5ekyu · Jun 26, 2019

Maxperson said:
Things change during gameplay, though. A druid might be willing to put on metal armor in order to save a forest or something else important to the character. When choosing druid, the player does not agree to let the character's character die in order to maintain no armor. If the only option to stay true to the character is to don metal armor briefly, the player can have his druid do that. A DM who says no doesn't deserve the job.

Nope.

**if** the gm setup a druid trap situation so that the only way to survive was for the dtuidnplayer to violate the rule they agreed to play, then thats on the GM. His failing was sgreringbthst druids in this campaign will not wear nrtsl armor and then setting up an "'only way" trap against that. Thsts the GM violating the rule.

On the other hand, if there were/are multiple options and due to failure or choices the players have driven thfmsrlve to " no opyionsvthry like better than violating the rules" then thsts on them and they cannot break the rule, any more than if it was a case of PvP or die.

So, hey, it noilscfoen to very simple, you cannot violate the rules you agree to play by. So if the GM forces you to a no-win its z no-win. If you work yourself into a no-win, its a no-win.

"Hey, we cannot win this fight unless I have zanother fireball but I used sll my slots already?"

What a tyrant.

5ekyu · Jun 26, 2019

Maxperson said:
This is a False Equivalence. There is no such agreement when choosing to play a druid. Aberrant class behavior is a common happening. Paladins fall. Clerics used to lose their powers from straying from the faith. Druids used to lose their powers when they donned metal armor. There is nothing inherent in a class that says that I can never, ever, under any circumstance, deviate from the class norms. Here's another example from 1e that shows it.

"Monks are monastic aesthetics who practice rigorous mental and physical training and discipline in order to become superior. Therefore they must always be lawful in alignment, although they can be evil, good, or neutral with respect to their approach to lawfulness. A monk who for any reason loses this lawful alignment loses all monk abilities and must begin again as a first level character."

"Must always be lawful" is no less a restriction than "can't wear metal armor" or "won't wear metal armor." Yet the monk can in fact choose to go against that absolute restriction. He just faces the in game consequence, like the druid's loss of magical abilities while in metal armor.

"This is a False Equivalence. There is no such agreement when choosing to play a druid. "

Uh huh...

GM sny quedtions?
Player - So what about PvP?
GM Pvp isnt allowed. Try it and get NPCed.
Player OK
GM Got charscter idea.
Player- Thinking druid.
GM - I add in various forms of shell snd natural axle but the will not wear metal is there.
Player - Got it.

Now, maybe the FM expressed this by just saying RAW but hey, it is what it is.

Maxperson · Jun 26, 2019

5ekyu said:
Nope.

**if** the gm setup a druid trap situation so that the only way to survive was for the dtuidnplayer to violate the rule they agreed to play, then thats on the GM. His failing was sgreringbthst druids in this campaign will not wear nrtsl armor and then setting up an "'only way" trap against that. Thsts the GM violating the rule.

On the other hand, if there were/are multiple options and due to failure or choices the players have driven thfmsrlve to " no opyionsvthry like better than violating the rules" then thsts on them and they cannot break the rule, any more than if it was a case of PvP or die.

So, hey, it noilscfoen to very simple, you cannot violate the rules you agree to play by. So if the GM forces you to a no-win its z no-win. If you work yourself into a no-win, its a no-win.

"Hey, we cannot win this fight unless I have zanother fireball but I used sll my slots already?"

What a tyrant.

So, apparently you're unfamiliar with sandbox play. Encounters are not build with the druid in mind, or the paladin, or the fighter, or anyone in the party. They are just built. Solutions are not pre-planned by me. It's up to the players to come up with solutions. If the only solution they can think of, and there may be others, is for the druid to put on metal armor and do something, that's not a trap or any kind of DM violation.

What's more, if the druid is willing to compromise his morals to save the forest from destruction, that's freaking awesome roleplay. Druids are people, too, and people very often compromise their beliefs and morals to accomplish what they view as a greater good. A DM who stops that from happening doesn't deserve the job.

PS. Spellcheck is your friend.

Maxperson · Jun 26, 2019

5ekyu said:
"This is a False Equivalence. There is no such agreement when choosing to play a druid. "

Uh huh...

GM sny quedtions?
Player - So what about PvP?
GM Pvp isnt allowed. Try it and get NPCed.
Player OK
GM Got charscter idea.
Player- Thinking druid.
GM - I add in various forms of shell snd natural axle but the will not wear metal is there.
Player - Got it.

Now, maybe the FM expressed this by just saying RAW but hey, it is what it is.

I've been playing since 1983 and never have I heard a DM at the outset iron out an agreement not to wear metal under any circumstances. I mean, I suppose the corner case has happened somewhere, but I haven't seen it.

5ekyu · Jun 26, 2019

Maxperson said:
So, apparently you're unfamiliar with sandbox play. Encounters are not build with the druid in mind, or the paladin, or the fighter, or anyone in the party. They are just built. Solutions are not pre-planned by me. It's up to the players to come up with solutions. If the only solution they can think of, and there may be others, is for the druid to put on metal armor and do something, that's not a trap or any kind of DM violation.

What's more, if the druid is willing to compromise his morals to save the forest from destruction, that's freaking awesome roleplay. Druids are people, too, and people very often compromise their beliefs and morals to accomplish what they view as a greater good. A DM who stops that from happening doesn't deserve the job.

And if the solution they players decided they needed was to cast invisibility on all four PCs but they only had three slots left, do they get to cast three or four invisibility?

If you are familiar with sandbox play, at all even a smidge or a tad, then you might be aware that that means sometimes you encounter challenges you cannot get thru as is and might have to pull back and regroup until you find another option.

Right? Dkmetjmescthere might not be a way thru it within the rules. Does your defijiyionnof sandbox then ssy the GM should just change the rules for them? That's like the opposite of sandbox.

"What's more, if the druid is willing to compromise his morals to save the forest from destruction, that's freaking awesome roleplay. "

Uhh... if the GM and the group thought that, why didnt they choose the rules they play with to allow druids to violate it and so on blah blah. Why didnt they change the rule so that this so-called "freskin' awesome" was legal instead of expecting the sandbox GM to alter rules on the fly whren they need new rules for their plans to succeed?

But hey, we have already seen rule undefined, tyrant and railroad undefined do why not undefined sandbox to set rncojhters but the GM redefines rules on the fly to let the PCs get thru encounters whern they get stuck.

5ekyu · Jun 26, 2019

Maxperson said:
I've been playing since 1983 and never have I heard a DM at the outset iron out an agreement not to wear metal under any circumstances. I mean, I suppose the corner case has happened somewhere, but I haven't seen it.

I generally assumed that if a rule is important for controversial, then the one who wants it to be clear that it's not used as RAW should bring it up.

I mean, if you dont want to play with s given tule as is, by RAW, specific yo the class you choose, doesnt it seem like z good thing to do ?

I mean, a lot of the discussions about sorcerer and wild magic start with "talk to your GM about how they run the "can call for" rule.

Maxperson · Jun 26, 2019

5ekyu said:
And if the solution they players decided they needed was to cast invisibility on all four PCs but they only had three slots left, do they get to cast three or four invisibility?

LOL

If you are familiar with sandbox play, at all even a smidge or a tad, then you might be aware that that means sometimes you encounter challenges you cannot get thru as is and might have to pull back and regroup until you find another option.

Happily, this was not one of those times. The druid could put on armor and they can get through it.

Right? Dkmetjmescthere might not be a way thru it within the rules. Does your defijiyionnof sandbox then ssy the GM should just change the rules for them? That's like the opposite of sandbox.

Putting on armor is within the rules. Taboo is not binding. The rules specify(at least in 1e and 3e) what the consequence of putting on armor is. It's losing access to the druids magical abilities. That line is no different, other than size, than the descriptions in the monk and paladin sections about what happens when you break the "rule." Both monk and paladin use language that's even stronger than can't.

The paladin "fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment (q.v.) and always remain awful good..." Always. Not sometimes. Not here and there and then I can break it. Always. As in every single time. The portion after that can never possibly come into effect under your interpretation of the 1e rules. Since the paladin has to always be LG, he cannot ever get to the "or" section and lose his powers.

The monk is similarly stuck with being lawful. He MUST be lawful, which precludes him from ever possibly taking a chaotic action and hitting the penalty spelled out.

OR, you can understand that all three, druid, paladin and monk, despite the absolute language being used, can in fact choose to break those restrictions and suffer the in game penalties.

Maxperson · Jun 26, 2019

5ekyu said:
I generally assumed that if a rule is important for controversial, then the one who wants it to be clear that it's not used as RAW should bring it up.

It's not that important of a rule. The penalties for breaking it are spelled out. No need to hash out something that already fixed.

5ekyu · Jun 26, 2019

Maxperson said:
LOL

Happily, this was not one of those times. The druid could put on armor and they can get through it.

Putting on armor is within the rules. Taboo is not binding. The rules specify(at least in 1e and 3e) what the consequence of putting on armor is. It's losing access to the druids magical abilities. That line is no different, other than size, than the descriptions in the monk and paladin sections about what happens when you break the "rule." Both monk and paladin use language that's even stronger than can't.

The paladin "fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment (q.v.) and always remain awful good..." Always. Not sometimes. Not here and there and then I can break it. Always. As in every single time. The portion after that can never possibly come into effect under your interpretation of the 1e rules. Since the paladin has to always be LG, he cannot ever get to the "or" section and lose his powers.

The monk is similarly stuck with being lawful. He MUST be lawful, which precludes him from ever possibly taking a chaotic action and hitting the penalty spelled out.

OR, you can understand that all three, druid, paladin and monk, despite the absolute language being used, can in fact choose to break those restrictions and suffer the in game penalties.

In editions where druids had rules that established they could wear metal armor but doing do imposed penalties, this issue is not present. No rule of play is being violated.

In games/tables where the GM sets up rules that allow druids to wear metal armor and suffer penalties, there are again no game rules bring violated.

In games/tables where the rule is left as is in 5e, and the players abide by that tule, no rule is violated. If the players reach challenges they find ways to deal with them that font require on-the-fly changes to the rules (especially if they want to pretend sandboxing.)

But amazingly, in games/tables where they leave the rule as is in 5e and then decide that if they have backed themselves into a corner somehow they can just change the rules, well, that's just not a style of play that will appeal to dveryone.

Since 5e monks are not required to be lawful, not gonnaxwrigh in on that.

oreofox · Jun 26, 2019

Maxperson said:
I've been playing since 1983 and never have I heard a DM at the outset iron out an agreement not to wear metal under any circumstances. I mean, I suppose the corner case has happened somewhere, but I haven't seen it.

Most people assume a druid wouldn't put on metal armor because it is explicitly stated in the class that it is against the druid's ethos to do so. In all my experiences (I know, anecdotal, the horror), I have never come across a no-win situation for a druid and metal armor, unlike the myriad of such situations for a paladin. Because for some idiotic reason, forcing a paladin to make a decision that no matter what, would make him fall, was all the rage during the 3rd edition (and Pathfinder) years. The whole orc baby situation. I never came across any sort of discussion about how to force a druid to wear metal armor, mainly because the penalties weren't as severe (the entire time worn + 24 hours, as opposed to "permanent" until attoned as a paladin).

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

5ekyu

Hero

5ekyu

Hero

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

5ekyu

Hero

5ekyu

Hero

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

5ekyu

Hero

oreofox

Explorer

Similar Threads