Sacrosanct
Legend
Video game interpretations of the rules aren’t the best example to cite what the rules of the game are. Video games often change the rules to fit the nature of a video game.
D&D 5E (2014) Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
- Thread starter Ohmyn
- Start date
Video game interpretations of the rules aren’t the best example to cite what the rules of the game are. Video games often change the rules to fit the nature of a video game.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Nobody is providing an effective mechanism to enforce it because that's not the point. Providing a mechanism to enforce is not RAW, and the RAW is what's being discussed. Providing a mechanism in RAW requires a general guideline of enforcement for the DM to follow. If the rules developers wanted a mechanism to enforce it they would have done so like they did in 1E and 3E, which could have been done either in the PHB or in the errata after it was pointed out to them that no such mechanism existed in 5E. If they simply ruled "Druids can never gain proficiency in metal armor", that would have been a mechanism to enforce it, but the Sage Advice seemed pretty clear that they did not intend for anything like that.
The issue is that it is 100% possible for rules to be written in ways that are busted, as in doesn't work as written or otherwise conflict with mechanics in the overall game system. That's what makes a "badly written" rule. Think of it like when Dwarves had proficiency in throwing hammers, even though that weapon did not exist in any of the books; it was a busted rule (that one has at least been errata'd). Players could RAI it and give them light hammers, but RAW it did nothing.
In this case, the rule is written in a way that all other player decision based "rules" are written, which all other examples assume they can be broken by player decision. We have provided many examples of this already. The only difference in this case versus many of the other examples of similar wording is there's nothing written for what happens when the player has their character goes with a contrary decision, which as per the game system is inherently possible. The rule is busted as written because it is not enforceable within the rules of the game system as written, which is even clarified by the Sage Advice when they stated that nothing in the game system is broken if the Druid ignores the taboo (so long as they adhere to their proficiencies).
It's clarified in the Sage Advice that Druids do not lack the ability to wear it, they are proficient in it, and that nothing in the game system stops them from doing so. Most people seem to rule it to be contrary to the official clarification, which is totally acceptable if a DM doesn't like it in their story, which is their right with literally anything in the game, but to say that ruling is RAW is entirely inaccurate.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
I already addressed this. I was addressing the book as providing no rhyme or reason, and how people had to ask the game rules developer what the book was referencing, because absolutely nothing was given, lore or otherwise. Many people here still even argue that Sage Advice isn't official, despite WotC saying otherwise, which to them would mean that officially there is no rhyme or reason.
When it comes to the Sage Advice, they also clarified that Druids do not lack the ability to wear metal, that it's a choice, that they are still proficient in its use, and that nothing in the game system prevents them from putting it on. That's the RAW. Reminding that DMs can still say otherwise if it doesn't mesh well with their story is the RAI. The issue here is people saying the RAI portion of the clarification is the RAW portion, and then ignoring the actual RAW clarifications that exist in the answer.
Sacrosanct
Legend
*edit
You know what, not worth it citing the material, because you probably won’t acknowledge it anyway.
You know what, not worth it citing the material, because you probably won’t acknowledge it anyway.
Last edited:
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Actually it was an error in the rules implementation (although possibly a deliberate one), according to 2nd edition rules, multiclassed druids should abide by the armour restrictions.
And Jalhera is wearing studded leather when you first meet her, so you are free to abide by "will" not wear metal armour if you wish.
Her race permits her select that multiclass option, but has no other effect.
Humans are even weirder. In 2nd edition a human can start out as a druid, with the metal armour restriction, then dual class to fighter, and can wear metal armour. But when their fighter level becomes higher than their druid level they get their druid power and restrictions back again.
But I only mentioned Jalhera to throw another log on the fire...
Oofta
Legend
Meh. I don't see how a computer game implementation of 2nd edition has anything to do with it. They chose to ignore a rule, just like DMs are free to ignore or alter rules of the current edition.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
The human thing is core 2nd edition rules. The computer game goes with something that makes more sense (The dual classed fighter druid can wear any armour). It jumps the other way with cleric weapons though. Your dual classed cleric fighter is merrily choping things up with a sword, then suddenly wham, you level up and you can't hold your sword any more.
The relevance should be obvious.
I mentioned many pages ago that such would be fine for my games - all player has to provide compelling story tie-in to get to it.
That said, I would also grtbhuy-in that the metal srmor's they csn wesp ste ones made from specpcial sanctified metals, prepared such snd duch a way etc- basuvpcslly "kosher" and worthy of his "divine's notice. So, just run of the mill armor tskrn off corpses or found in typical smiths would not be considered "good enough".
That way we keep the "special" in the druid's special case
Which of course is likely fine since **nobody** is after just open access to metal armor for their druid, right?
Similar Threads
