D&D 5E On meaningless restrictions

[Monayuris]

That's just your perceived balance, and even then its for Moon Druids only. What about the caster druids? They got no Mage armor/Shield, no Shield of Faith, and they can't cast spells in wild shape.
Then there's the stupidity of having proficiency in Medium armour, but can't use any of them bar Hide because they are all metal. Why not just remove it all and leave Light armour?

Caster druids can still wild shape as many times as Moon Druids.

At second level, if they turn into wolves, they get two sets of 11 hit points. Which means total hit points (assuming Con 14), 17+11+11= 39 hit points. Which is equivalent to a 3rd or 4th level fighter. Which is pretty good for a non-tank character.

I'd say if you want druids to have AC equivalent to metal armors, they should be given the option to quest for scales of certain creatures (dragons or wyverns or such).

Give a role-playing or in campaign incentive that creates more adventure.

 

[Immoralkickass]

Caster druids can still wild shape as many times as Moon Druids.

At second level, if they turn into wolves, they get two sets of 11 hit points. Which means total hit points (assuming Con 14), 17+11+11= 39 hit points. Which is equivalent to a 3rd or 4th level fighter. Which is pretty good for a non-tank character.

I'd say if you want druids to have AC equivalent to metal armors, they should be given the option to quest for scales of certain creatures (dragons or wyverns or such).

Give a role-playing or in campaign incentive that creates more adventure.

You're kidding right? No way those measly extra HP is comparable to real defensive abilities. Besides, you're straying from the real argument whether they are meaningless restrictions or not.

My point on why they are 'meaningless':

• Its not an actual rule. Its more like a parent telling their kid to not do something.
• They clarified that armour materials can be refluffed, for example, you can wear a breastplate that is made of Tortoise shell. Meaning, the restriction wasn't meant to stop you from getting high AC anyway.

 

[Monayuris]

You're kidding right? No way those measly extra HP is comparable to real defensive abilities. Besides, you're straying from the real argument whether they are meaningless restrictions or not.

My point on why they are 'meaningless':

• Its not an actual rule. Its more like a parent telling their kid to not do something.
• They clarified that armour materials can be refluffed, for example, you can wear a breastplate that is made of Tortoise shell. Meaning, the restriction wasn't meant to stop you from getting high AC anyway.

Getting more than double your hit points is pretty strong. Not to mention the other advantages of access to senses and abilities.

Not being able to wear metal armor was a restriction to Druids since the beginning. It is definitely an actual rule. It literally states as much in the class description.

Where do the rules state that armor materials can be refluffed? Why would tortoise shell armor be as readily available as metal? This is something that will vary from campaign to campaign and as such is not an official rule.

Like I said, high AC armor of natural materials can be obtained as a part of an adventure. I would not allow a Druid player to just buy plate mail and say it was dragon scale. But they can go and slay a dragon, strip it’s scales, and commission a smith to craft a set.

 

[Mistwell]

Or ignore the advice and dig in on your side of the behavior. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

By the way, I've noticed a trend in this thread and you are guilty of it as well - where you argue against removing "meaningless restrictions" by bringing up what happens when "all restrictions, both meaningful and meaningless" are removed. I guess I just find it odd to see so many people arguing against a position that was never taken by me or anyone else in this thread.

Non, you are guilty of misrepresentation or misunderstanding.

The point is, you are starting from an invalid assumption*: meaningless restrictions exist.

Just because you can't see/understand the meaning doesn't make it meaningless.

Just because it's not relevant to the way play at your table does not mean it's irrelevant to everyone.

And thus, it follows: any restriction could be labelled "meaningless" and therefore any restriction could be removed.


*NB, this appears to stem from another a priori invalid assumption: the only reason for restrictions is to limit powergaming and enforce class balance.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So now to play the concept I want, I must choose a particular race or get DM approval?

I don't know how things work at your table, but this is how it always works at our table. All characters are run past the DM for approval before they are allowed to join the game.

 

[FrogReaver]

Non, you are guilty of misrepresentation or misunderstanding.

The point is, you are starting from an invalid assumption*: meaningless restrictions exist.

Just because you can't see/understand the meaning doesn't make it meaningless.

Just because it's not relevant to the way play at your table does not mean it's irrelevant to everyone.

And thus, it follows: any restriction could be labelled "meaningless" and therefore any restriction could be removed.


*NB, this appears to stem from another a priori invalid assumption: the only reason for restrictions is to limit powergaming and enforce class balance.

Would it help your sensibilities if we called them "near meaningless restrictions"?

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know how things work at your table, but this is how it always works at our table. All characters are run past the DM for approval before they are allowed to join the game.

I'm not sure why that would ever be necessary.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm not sure why that would ever be necessary.

Mostly to make sure the character fits within the setting.

But it also allows flexibility. Rather than the DM come up with a long list of things that are and are not allowed, the player can say "can I have X", the DM then checks out X, weighs up the pros and cons and says "yay" or "neigh".

 

[FrogReaver]

Mostly to make sure the character fits within the setting.

But it also allows flexibility. Rather than the DM come up with a long list of things that are and are not allowed, the player can say "can I have X", the DM then checks out X, weighs up the pros and cons and says "yay" or "neigh".

absolutely hate it. Lay out what is acceptable and isn’t upfront. That gives me the information I need in order to pick what to play.