Search results

Yes, you are. A bias is not inherently a negative thing. A bias can be positive, or can simply be a confirmation bias, but it can lead to misguided judgement either way. You like the feel, the lore, the history, etc. Many DMs that feel this way too strongly prohibit studded leather in 5E, which...

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...

Yes, because if you want to do anything, RAW or RAI, as any class, you need to get permission from the DM. Period. You are correct there is no reasonable dispute about that. The dispute is about whether or not their ruling is RAI, or RAW. More AL DMs will rule that Druids can't wear studded...

Sure, so long as you cut out the parts that contradict or clarify the snippet you added. It starts by saying that Druids do not lack the ability to wear metal armor. It then says they typically wear certain armors. As for the part that you bolded, but then didn't add the clarification for: "If...

It's because those experiences are at game tables, not a forum in a thread discussing the rules. It shows a further lack of capacity to grasp concepts when you can't separate the two in terms of expected behavior. Also, if someone played a Druid in your campaign, would you stop them from being...

Sure, a principal that guides conduct, not a principal that controls or dictates conduct. Paladins of Devotion have a rule against lying built into their design. Clerics have the worship of deities built into their class description, and Monks have a rule against being a murder hobo built into...

Yup. Both fall under the qualifications of being a rule, but one can be ignored, and the other can't. When a rule exists only as a choice, then actions can defy it. If a taboo holds no penalty for defiance then it has no weight as a taboo, and thus can safely be ignored.

Table rules and rules as written are not comparable discussions, so that doesn't really require addressing. As for the rule that Druids will not wear metal armor, it's a rule about character choice that has no penalty for ignoring. A rule denoting character choice, and a rule that places...

I would like to point out how much it amuses me that Druids are allowed to be blacksmiths. Even if the DM restricts metal armor, your Druid can still be a metal item merchant, can still fight with any metal weapons they wish, and may cover themselves in as much metal as they wish, so long as it...

Nothing stops the Halfling from doing so besides their physical incapability. The Halfling is still free to run and jump across the chasm and flap their arms in an attempt to fly. They'll fail to fly because they lack the physical ability to do so, and if their jump check fails to reach the...

I get that many don't agree, but that doesn't mean their understanding is accurate. Most people are still so caught up in the old fluff that they only want one interpretation to exist period. Such bias is why it would be foolish to trust AL standards as infallible. They also seem to almost...

That Gygaxian stuff doesn't really apply to out of game discussion, so I don't see the point of that. We're on an online forum, not at a D&D table. All I will say to that is that if I were at a table where I were playing a Druid, but then the party had a great plan to save the day that required...

No, I'm not making anything up. I'm merely pointing out that many people read the rules wrong. This was especially true during a time without such easy internet access, so people couldn't as easily openly discuss the proper interpretation of rules, and they couldn't get proper guidance from the...

Being able to read the books as a whole instead of focusing on one sentence indicates that the Druid just performed an action not appropriate for the class once they used a non-Druid weapon. They also of course won't gain the appropriate benefits of being proficient with the weapon, and may...

Yes, just yes. They've used that wording in every edition, as indicated by the examples that have been given in regards to 5E, and from what people are trying to claim from old editions, like "Magic Users cannot use armor", or "Thieves cannot use two-handed swords". The people quoting these are...

The issue is that as written it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The developer of the game clarified the official interpretation of the rule, and you disagree with the official interpretation based on the lore that existed in past editions that are now outdated by two editions over the last...

If we understand the English language, if I say "I can't drink milk because it gives me gas", that does not mean I literally cannot drink milk. It means that if I do drink milk I will get gas. If I say "I won't eat your pizza", that does not free me from suspicion if your pizza suddenly...

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when you read a line in a silly way that makes the possible impossible, and use that to say that an action simply cannot be performed by the player that otherwise should be possible, then yes, it's railroading. What people are somehow not getting...

Railroading is not removing choice in selecting mechanics, but rather removing options in the game world by stating the possible to be impossible without any reason given besides not wanting the player to do it, or "the rules". Saying a Magic User cannot effectively use a shield due to their...

Amusingly it is possible to exceed the speed of light using the mechanics, but these same people would not allow it because using the rules in that way doesn't make sense. It's a neat little double standard.