Search results

The expectations at your table is not relevant to RAW, and nobody is implying breaking of the system rules when they say a character is free to try to break the rules. What we're saying is that just because a character doesn't possess a trait, such as lacking a fly speed, doesn't mean the...

A matter of what best suits the setting still has to match with the mechanical implications of the RAW, assuming we're talking about a RAW table, which we are. A DM is not allowed at an AL table to insist that a Druid has a metal allergy any more than they are allowed to insist that Clerics have...

Yes, I would like to reiterate that I am also in this camp. I don't personally care if my Druid can or cannot wear armor, I'm merely discussing the issues in the RAW, using extreme examples to emphasize the issues with the system's lack of clarification. I have brought up the idea of being a...

Well the issue is that there is a need for printed rules at a RAW table. Nowhere do the books even hint at a Druid suffering any ill effect from metal, even through so much as a lore statement, so that would be a house rule, and therefore not AL legal as far as I know. The Paladin has tenets...

A forum isn't comparable to a game table. I'd never pull an argument at a game. Whatever the DM says goes, so you gotta roll with it, but that doesn't mean they're right. At an AL table, I'd simply bring up my points once to the DM to get their opinion, and if they said no metal armor, I'd just...

The no PVP rule is also not equivalent, but it was not even relevant enough to address in the same manner. Spell slots are at least a RAW mechanic. The point being contested about the Druids in metal is what applies per RAW, not what applies as per past edition lore. Since the 5E system has...

Fair enough. I'll admit my mistake here. I got sidetracked in my response while reading all of the sarcastic comments and briefly thought I had clicked reply on Lowkey, when in fact it was a response from someone else quoting Lowkey. Proper response from me would have been your comprehension of...

Sure, it didn't codify exactly what it meant, but we can get a general guideline through basic deduction. Now since it didn't codify exactly what it meant, there is some room for DM interpretation, just as there is room for DM interpretation on what qualifies as a "chaotic act" or an "evil act"...

Like what GlassJaw posted, I'd advise heavily considering the power of individual feats and considering their value individually, and not just adding a blanket cost to feats if you're looking to increase the amount people can grab. I see you plan to "split the feats in two", but I'm not sure...

This is all made funnier by the irony that this is the actual level of reading comprehension you've all been displaying in your explanations of the AD&D rules thus far.

Because we're not talking about "no win scenarios". Have you never seen a situation where a villain has hostages, and the hero has to choose between pursuing the villain, or saving the hostages? If you character possesses a tenet to protect life, even this can create a moral dilemma for the...

Yes, I can. The DMG has rules about what happens when a player displays behavior that goes against the character of their class. Monks can't use oil, so a Monk that chooses to do so anyway will be punished for their deviation from their expected gameplay. Even in the example that I was...

That part of the Sage Advice has nothing to do with the RAW though. The DM has the right to veto or be final arbiter of anything, but that point has no bearing in a RAW discussion. The Sage Advice said that the Druid possesses the ability to wear the armor, and that nothing in the game system...

"So when a player playing a paladin decides that their character is going to lie or cheat or steal, you tell them that they can't?" Except the Paladin class in AD&D had penalties associated with performing such actions, and did not have anything prohibiting it. If they performed a chaotic...

That's just in the first few pages. If you want to find more names, feel free to go through the rest of the pages, but I'm not digging that much. I know it's been said at least a few more times in this thread, but two examples from the start of the thread should suffice. Just because they're...

The problem with this is that being a Paladin of Devotion means they will not willingly lie. Can they? Sure. Will they willingly do so? No, but it's acknowledged that ultimately it's up to the player to decide, and that sometimes they might, because fluff and lore do not dictate the actions the...

Yes, I have read the original AD&D PHB. The thing you're unable to do is read the passages in the entirety of their context, and instead cling to a single word to state your point. Here's how the rules were written: You cannot use A, because B reason, or because C will happen. This means that...

Yes, I will literally say they were comparatively too dumb to know what they were doing. MMORPG players were also comparatively dumb in the 90s compared to how they are now. It's not that they're dumb as people (although certainly some of them are), it's that they were dumb in regards to how to...

Not a frequent topic on message boards? Then I'm confused by the amount of "great, this discussion again." That also raises the question as to why the Sage Advice felt the need to add it to the compendium if they didn't feel it needed further clarification. It's also likely less frequented by...

Because they didn't know how to read the rules and use common sense, hence why they just tossed their arms up and said "That's just the way it is." If you read "Druids can't wear metal armor because it spoils their magic" as saying "It's physically impossible for a Druid to ever put on metal"...