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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[JonnyP71]

People are simply bias against Druids based on the lore of past editions.

Are we?

It's one of my favourite classes - always has been, versatile, with an interesting array of spells... but that's not why I like them.

I like the feel of the class, the Lore associated with it, the history, their pagan roots. I couldn't care one jot about whether the game attempts to justify the rule. It doesn't need to. Same goes for mechanical punishments, rules for penalising contravention of the rules, etc, they not matter. The Lore does. Respect it.

 

[5ekyu]

But there kind of is - isn't the whole point of this discussion that there isn't anything physically preventing a druid from donning some metal armor? Regardless of what's in the proficiency block.

It seems to me to be the main point: "Druids won't wear metal armor" - okay, but my character is putting some on (for whatever purpose), what happens in the game world at this point? Are there repercussions? Is my character literally unable to put it on?

And if the answer is there aren't any repercussions and my character can, indeed, put it on, then... do you see?

For the record, I don't think druids should be running around in metal armor, but I have to admit that I don't see any reason (RAW) why they *can't* vs. *won't* other than DM fiat.

Just like there may not be anything preventing PVP yet many games manage to run a non- PVP game without a hitch.

But here, for some, the rule being actually in print in the rules somehow makes it seem **less binding** than the table no-pvp rule would be.

To me, you agreeing to play by the printed rule is as binding as you agreeing to play by the table rule.

But apparently to some that's tyranical.

 

[JonnyP71]

Session 0... everyone agrees to a no PvP game.

Session 1, player A tries to stab player B's character
The DM tells the player he can't do that, they agreed to no PvP
Player A cries 'whaaa, stop railroading meeeee!!!'
Random people on the internet tell the DM to stop being a tyrant!

Give me strength!!!

 

[5ekyu]

Session 0... everyone agrees to a no PvP game.

Session 1, player A tries to stab player B's character
The DM tells the player he can't do that, they agreed to no PvP
Player A cries 'whaaa, stop railroading meeeee!!!'
Random people on the internet tell the DM to stop being a tyrant!

Give me strength!!!

The added level of surreal to me is that the RAW hands the GM a far, far more "power of the GM" tool of oppression specifically for Druids in the utter lack of any guidelines for how many and which beast forms a druid has "seen" at any point of a campaign.

Yet, it's the smackdown on auth-ori-tye caused by saying "no" to waiving "will not" that earns you your tyrants-r-us rewards card.

 

[coolAlias]

What you describe as "DM Fiat" is what I would say is "A Player Following the Rules."

And not only is there a printed rule in actual rulebooks, but there is a further explanation that this is the way it is, UNLESS your DM allows it.

Just like there may not be anything preventing PVP yet many games manage to run a non- PVP game without a hitch.

But here, for some, the rule being actually in print in the rules somehow makes it seem **less binding** than the table no-pvp rule would be.

To me, you agreeing to play by the printed rule is as binding as you agreeing to play by the table rule.

But apparently to some that's tyranical.

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.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

Are we?

It's one of my favourite classes - always has been, versatile, with an interesting array of spells... but that's not why I like them.

I like the feel of the class, the Lore associated with it, the history, their pagan roots. I couldn't care one jot about whether the game attempts to justify the rule. It doesn't need to. Same goes for mechanical punishments, rules for penalising contravention of the rules, etc, they not matter. The Lore does. Respect it.

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.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ohmyn]

What you describe as "DM Fiat" is what I would say is "A Player Following the Rules."

And not only is there a printed rule in actual rulebooks, but there is a further explanation that this is the way it is, UNLESS your DM allows it.

So .... yeah. I mean, I get that people love to argue, and I understand that younger gamers unused to the history of the game are unfamiliar with how rules have worked in the history of D&D, and therefore don't grok the concept of a lore rule, but there it is.

I mean, these are the same people that are arguing with me about OD&D and 1e, despite obviously having little idea of what they are talking about.*

*I have to admire anyone whose argument is, "Yeah, but no one then understood how rules worked, becase TEH INTERNETZ!" That's either chutzpah, or gaslighting, depending on your perspective.

The further explanation is in the Sage Advice, which the community requested because the PHB did not provide the clarification necessary to enforce any limitations on their ability to wear metal armor. If you read the Sage Advice in its entirety, as opposed to clinging to any specific sentence, it can be summarized as this:

Not wearing metal is a choice. Druids do not lack the ability to wear metal armor. If you wish to wear metal armor, talk to your DM, because even though nothing in the game system prevents it, you may undermine their story.


Notice how it specified in the "ask your DM" portion, that they reiterate the fact that nothing in the game system is broken if a Druid puts on metal armor? This is because in the RAW, nothing actually stops them if the player makes this decision. There isn't even a penalty for doing so. They are very, very clear on this. Again, the reason they tell you to ask the DM is NOT because it's not an option as per the rules, but because your DM simply may not like it in their story. Saying that the DM may prevent it because it doesn't fit their story is not an interpretation of the RAW. Saying that nothing in the RAW prevents it, is.

Also, yes, inherently many people did not understand how the rules worked before the internet. People were not able to get clarification on the rules, and when something can be interpreted in multiple ways, but you can't get clarification from the game designer, then many people are simply going to get it wrong. Just look at how many rule clarification questions exist today, which can be addressed by the game developers officially and almost immediately because of the internet. Heck, most AL DMs still enforce rules contrary to what the game designer says the rules say, even if we exclude this particular issue. People are more capable of learning how to cook than ever before thanks to the internet, just as people are now more capable of getting clarification of the RAW in any game system thanks to the internet. Just look at how people are able to rip through MMO game systems compared to how they could in the 90s or early 2000s before official armories, character builders and wikis existed. People simply did not know how to play MMOs then as they do now, even though they were still playing the same style of game, simply because interaction between players, communities and developers has increased.

Availability of information makes people more knowledgeable. To say people understood RAW even remotely as well as today, before they were able to easily verify and discuss the information with other members of the community, or even the developers themselves, is a ridiculously silly notion.