Search results

And what if an NPC, or a trickster player, decides to cast Suggestion on the Druid and tell them to put on a metal breastplate? Do they explode? No, because the Sage Advice says nothing happens if they do, and that nothing stops them from doing it. Want to know what happens if that Champion...

The wiggle room is because "will not" is not the same as "can't". Sage Advice is official. It was asked of them what happens when a Druid wears metal armor, because there was no mention of them being unable to, merely that it's a personal choice. They said nothing prevents them from doing so...

Not necessarily. The Champion Fighter can still aspire to cast magic, can still take Magic Initiate, and can even jump into battle and try to replicate their Wizard's casting. They'll fail, but it's fully up to the character if they want to try. They're not going to explode (unless the DM wants...

No, even if it just said "they can't", I'd still not be okay with it. Every time it's said that someone can't do something, a reason is given. If they had said, "Druids don't wear metal armor because it cuts off access to their spells", that's a good mechanical explanation that also covers the...

See, the thing is, if you don't remove player agency, it's never a "no-win situation". They fully have the option to go against their own values if they feel it appropriate. I wouldn't call infiltrating the enemy, learning their plan, and saving hundreds of lives at the expense of having to set...

There's a big difference between a player picking a mechanical option, and forcing a decision on a character. The problem is that your examples are not "will not", they are "cannot". A human cannot see in the dark because they lack the physical ability. A Cleric does not use Extra Attack because...

I've also been DMing for a long time, but it's never come up for me solely because there's been no decision making limitations on characters until 5E. If a character had issues with a plan of action they could choose to contest the decision, and give their reasons for doing so, and the party...

Well the purpose of having a list of grievances is being prepared to address why something is problematic. I don't just walk in with a list and say "read this". In the case of something poorly written in the PHB, it's best to be able to present why it's poorly written as opposed to just saying...

What? You've never had a situation where a party has had to infiltrate by disguising themselves as the enemy? Never had a situation where a type of armor was provided to grant the players the ability to fight a specific otherwise overpowering enemy? Never had someone take reference from Legend...

Well in AD&D it was just a dungeon crawl, but even then they always gave reasons, despite how poorly defined the edition was for anything outside of combat. For example, they didn't actually have "Wizard", but had "Magic-User". It specified, "they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can...

I actually do, although typically not general grievances and more when something seems inconsistent with design, and thus breaks immersion of the character. I like to try and utilize non-standard tactics with my characters. For example, one thing my current character does is use Druidcraft...

Sure, and it's clearly spelled out under the Paladin of Devotion's tenants that they don't lie or cheat, but they can learn or use the Deception skill and they're still a Paladin. It clearly says under Creating A Monk that those who leave their cloisters take their work seriously, but there's...

Nah, the scientific term is Evangetarian.

I'm using them definitively. A character only "won't" do something until they do it. There's been mechanical penalties for certain actions, but never a removal of player agency to perform said actions. Wizards in every edition of the game have been able to don any armor they wish, there'd just...

That's exactly what the lore sections are for. The Class Features are for mechanics. The lore is for role playing and GM consideration for story options. It's not about formatting. When something is placed into the core Class Features section it is a mechanical rule. The problem falls on...

I'm not demanding anything. The point is that the Sage Advice says that it's a story feature of the class, but core 5E does not provide any new story for the class, and then throws in a random line in the Druid's proficiencies without any further expansion on either narrative or mechanics. Also...

If they wanted to leave it flexible to cover a variety of lore, it shouldn't go into the Class Features, but rather go into the lore sections of the class, like they do for every other class, and then actually add some narrative to said lore. The Sage's response was problematic because it didn't...

Sure, it would be fine if they introduced some lore as to why they don't wear it, addressed some things that may happen as a result of ignoring that lore, or even addressed anything at all in terms of narrative or mechanics, but they don't. They don't even say they "can't" wear it, just that...

Yes, it is, but it seems to be in the medium armor section solely because it's poorly made and unwieldy, not because it's as effective as traditional medium armors. It's actually weaker than studded leather, as it provides the same base AC but has a more limited maximum dexterity, while also...

It also raises a conundrum if the DM says no, because it brings up the question of how the Druid is proficient with all of the medium armors if there exists no version of them they could have worn to train in. How does a Druid become proficient in half plate if it essentially does not exist for...