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

JonnyP71 · Jun 28, 2019

Ohmyn said:
Oh, and a side note to this: Yes, and people hate real lawyers, until they're on their side. Funny how that works, isn't it? People don't hate rules lawyers, they just hate people that disagree with them, and they especially hate it when the people that disagree with them have a point.

Second side note to the first note: If something is a loophole, it's RAW by definition. If a spell is super powerful, but it has a high component cost, someone that wants to utilize that spell to its maximum will likely find a way to circumvent that cost. If they find a way in the RAW to bypass the cost completely, then that would be considered a loophole. Being a loophole doesn't make it illegal, and in fact loopholes serve to make otherwise illegal things legal. This is why utilizing a tax loophole is not a federal offense. If the way it was done were a federal offense, it wouldn't be a loophole, but rather it would just be fraud. So sure, let's go ahead and call a Druid in metal armor a loophole, which by definition would make the point that it's RAW anyway.

I think this post sums up that we simply think differently. Here in the UK we have a saying 'it's just not cricket' - referring to the 'spirit' of a contest. The idea being that traditionally you are meant to play honestly and not try to push your luck, it's why we get annoyed here in the UK when sportsmen try to fool an official, eg a soccer player diving to win a penalty, or an American footballer claiming a catch when the ball is clearly not under control... we generally consider such behaviour to be unacceptable. It might be judgmental of us, or old-fashioned, but it's a general part of the British psyche.

It's the approach I use when playing D&D, I'm a firm but fair DM who tries to work within the spirit of the game with my players, and I expect the same in return. I have the same approach when playing a character, work with the DM, not against him. Work with the setting. Try not to push the boundaries.

Thus in the case of lawyer-style arguments regarding precise RAW language, for me it's the spirit of the rule that matters, NOT technicalities over preciseness of wording.

Trying to get around component costs of Find Familiar, trying to get around the 'no metal armour' restriction for Druids (along with other issues such as players trying to get around Drow sunlight sensitivity, etc) all come under this 'spirit of the game' heading. And thus my robust response when people have the approach advocated by yourself (and Maxperson). It's an unpleasant style of play, it derails sessions, it's disrespectful to Dm and fellow players, and the game is simply better for the group as a whole if it is avoided... so don't do it. And if you see this approach in AL games - I've played a couple, and I never saw this happen - then it's another reason to avoid them.

(my problem player I mentioned above was not British)

Sadras · Jun 28, 2019

Personally, I view roleplaying restrictions like will not wear x clothing, must not use x weapon, or must be of x alignment, or must do or must not do x/y as part of that class'/order's ethos, code and thus realistically the character can do those things but will likely suffer consequences, whether they be mechanical or in-game storywise.
I do think it is silly to say a character cannot do it just because.

If it hasn't been established in-game why such x is prohibited, I'd make one on the spot should the player want their character to go against their code/class restrictions. It would nice if this druid thing was addressed in more detail as they have done with some other classes (paladins or warlocks I believe), but it is, what it is.
I have been DMing a long time so I'm not as perturbed by it.

Maxperson · Jun 28, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
When it came to arguing, he made you look like a shrinking violet... He wouldn't accept any outcome that resulted in 'no, you character cannot spam cast Find Familiar as a ritual at 1st level'. He'd had a few unpleasant moments before the series of events listed below, but this was when it really came to a head....

Session 0 - "OK, this is a short campaign for us to play for the next few months while our regular DM is away, each of you needs to make a 1st level 5E PC based on core classes/races in the PHB. The storyline favours a helpful, mostly good aligned party, so please bear that in mind - all roll 4d6 drop 1 6 times on our group forum dice roller".
Players are informed that I won't tolerate a rules lawyery/looking for loopholes style of play - we pay £10 to hire a room for 3 hours - arguing wastes everyone's precious time.
EVERYBODY AGREES!

2 days later awkward player messages me "He wants to play a Chaotic Evil Paladin. Sends me a few details."
He rolls his stats multiple times and tries to hide the fact (spotted by our forum admin)
I tell him that his choice of character is not ideal, can he adjust it to fit the basis of the outline he agreed to in session 0?
He changes from the Paladin to a NG Wizard - then tries to cheese his way around the component costs of Find Familiar - derails a session, argues online constantly for a week afterwards (description doesn't specify herb type, doesn't specify size of brazier. blah blah blah - on and on and on)

I inform him that I will not be DMing for him again if this behaviour continues.

Next session his Wizard becomes a 'reluctant edgelord', tries to torture an innocent girl for information, derails the session arguing it's fine as his character has low Wisdom and Charisma. Then refuses to go adventuring to help the people they are supposed to help.

Group level up, he derails another session arguing that another player chose the 'wrong' spells. Also moans when he finds a spell scroll that it's "not a spell he wants"

Gets kicked from the group.

Being a rules lawyer and/or persistently argumentative gets you nowhere.

Okay, so none of that was "rules lawyer" or "finding loopholes." It was entirely jerkish behavior mixed with some cheating. I've never behaved like that and never will.

JonnyP71 · Jun 28, 2019

The Find Familiar bit was very much 'looking for a loophole'.

Maxperson · Jun 28, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
I think this post sums up that we simply think differently. Here in the UK we have a saying 'it's just not cricket' - referring to the 'spirit' of a contest. The idea being that traditionally you are meant to play honestly and not try to push your luck, it's why we get annoyed here in the UK when sportsmen try to fool an official, eg a soccer player diving to win a penalty, or an American footballer claiming a catch when the ball is clearly not under control... we generally consider such behaviour to be unacceptable. It might be judgmental of us, or old-fashioned, but it's a general part of the British psyche.

No, that sort of behavior is generally frowned upon here as well. I don't particularly care for soccer, but a buddy whose home we play at has a son who loves it. During one of our games I walked into the living room and his son was watching a soccer game. One of the players barely touched a player from the opposing team who fake flew like 3 feet and then fell to the ground. I laughed at the absurdity and was told that it was common behavior. I walked back to my game in disgust, glad that I don't watch soccer. I do like American football, but dislike when players try to cheat.

It's the approach I use when playing D&D, I'm a firm but fair DM who tries to work within the spirit of the game with my players, and I expect the same in return. I have the same approach when playing a character, work with the DM, not against him. Work with the setting. Try not to push the boundaries.

I think our fundamental disagreement is where those boundaries lie. I disagree that the soft rules(guidelines) that involve in-game behavior are immutable. If a druid had a valid reason for putting on metal armor, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest as a DM, and as a player I'd be pissed if a DM was so inflexible as to deny what is a reasonable(not rules lawyer or find loophole) action.

Thus in the case of lawyer-style arguments regarding precise RAW language, for me it's the spirit of the rule that matters, NOT technicalities over preciseness of wording.

So, you're in the wrong place for that.

As was pointed out to you in this thread, these sorts of discussions happen in the forum environment all the time. We are after all discussing what RAW means, so of course the meaning of the wording is going to come up. We all have different takes on what rules mean, even to the the point of going opposite of clearly worded instruction. In the thread that [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] referred to yesterday about druids and disintegrate, I had people swearing that druids never hit 0 hit points in wildshape so as to avoid being wrong about the wildshaped druid triggering the dusting effect. This was despite very, VERY clear language that said that the wildshaped druid turns back to normal form when he hits 0 hit points. At least this conversation is about language that's more vague or optional.

Maxperson · Jun 28, 2019

JonnyP71 said:
The Find Familiar bit was very much 'looking for a loophole'.

No, it was an attempt to force the game to do something it doesn't do. I.e. cheating. There is no loophole that allows what he wanted. Herbs don't grow everywhere and no amount of foraging will find him incense. The rules are also very clear. The players describe the action and the DM narrates the response, as well as you only roll when the outcome is in doubt. If there are no herbs of the sort around, there is no roll. The outcome, in this case failure, is not in doubt.

lowkey13 · Jun 28, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Maxperson · Jun 28, 2019

lowkey13 said:
That people are still arguing this is, quite frankly, insane.

Do not summon me again.

At this point we're discussing behavior, not the rule. And you could at least say please. It's not as if you asked me not to do that before and I did so again.

WaterRabbit · Jun 28, 2019

Maxperson said:
Dude. You wandered into this thread for the sole purpose of attacking me. The only trolls here are you, and perhaps your other sock puppet. Go troll someone else.

Yes the whole world revolves around you, some anonymous person on a forum. Get over yourself. I attacked your silly argument not you in particular. It was you that went ad hominem. Try a little perspective. Also you are using troll incorrectly as well. Just because someone disagrees with your position doesn't make them a troll. So again you are wrong. Perhaps you should quit while you are behind.

JonnyP71 · Jun 28, 2019

Maxperson said:
No, it was an attempt to force the game to do something it doesn't do. I.e. cheating. There is no loophole that allows what he wanted. Herbs don't grow everywhere and no amount of foraging will find him incense. The rules are also very clear. The players describe the action and the DM narrates the response, as well as you only roll when the outcome is in doubt. If there are no herbs of the sort around, there is no roll. The outcome, in this case failure, is not in doubt.

I agree there is no loophole there, however he was looking for a loophole, that is enough - especially when I was quite clear about my stance on that style of play during session 0.

I'm quite picky about the type of player I will DM for, and the type of game I'll run.