Search results

The point isn't even a matter of "cannot" or "will not", which I'd have hoped is obviously clear by now, but I guess it's not that easy for those with lesser reading comprehension. Even if it said "cannot", it would still be just as busted of a rule, because it still wouldn't fit into the game...

First off, I don't see how saying that the rule is poorly implemented means I need to provide a fix. If they wanted it to be impossible, there's a million and one ways that the rules developer could have changed it, and they shouldn't need my help to do this. For example, saying "Druids can...

I already addressed this. I was addressing the book as providing no rhyme or reason, and how people had to ask the game rules developer what the book was referencing, because absolutely nothing was given, lore or otherwise. Many people here still even argue that Sage Advice isn't official...

Nobody is providing an effective mechanism to enforce it because that's not the point. Providing a mechanism to enforce is not RAW, and the RAW is what's being discussed. Providing a mechanism in RAW requires a general guideline of enforcement for the DM to follow. If the rules developers wanted...

Because extremes are the best way to emphasize a point, and player choice is super important in this game, so long as they're not being disruptive to the table. Every class has extremes within them, and all characters should be assumed fallible, or perhaps willing to make personal sacrifices for...

Yes, chaotic evil is a perfectly acceptable alignment for Druids, just as it is for any other class, including Clerics and Paladins. If it wasn't they wouldn't have the option. 2 out of 5 of the Nature deities available in the 5E Forgotten Realms pantheon are evil, one of which is Chaotic Evil...

Then you don't know the nature of the game in its current condition. Druids do not have an alignment restriction like they have had in past editions, just as Paladins no longer have alignment restrictions. The Feywilds are not just full of neutral or good creatures, and there are plenty...

Yes, I would. Druids can be of any alignment now. The rules for performing out of alignment behavior is an alignment shift, not a class penalty. Druids are no longer alignment locked, so I could be a chaotic evil Druid, or a lawful good Druid. If I opted for lawful good, and I burned down random...

Yes, the Sage Advice provided additional clarification, but the book itself provided no clarification, which is what I was pointing at. People had to literally ask the game system developer what the heck that meant. The game developer simply assumed people would get it based on books from 1976...

Yes, it actually is true. When rules are put in without hard mechanics, they always include soft mechanics. Penalizing the Paladin for breaking their vows is a soft rule, because it doesn't state any hard mechanics, but it gives a general guideline for DMs to follow. They can maybe be told to...

Slipping up? A Paladin doesn't have to "slip up". A Paladin can denounce their beliefs at any point in time and go on a murderous rampage. Nothing stops them at all. Heck, a Cleric can denounce their deity and burn down every church or temple in their name that they come across from that point...

As Max and I have both stated many times, you're still comparing a hard mechanic that a character cannot control to something a character could literally choose to do at any point in time during gameplay. On that note, it's important to remind you that we agree that the rules about what one...

What you're saying is actually our point. Alignment is not a straight-jacket, because player agency overrides what the alignment says they would do. If they're a good character they'll have a taboo against killing the innocent, but they're still within their right as a player to have their...

The 1E Druid was true neutral. That means not good, nor evil. It was even written in their class description in 1E AD&D that even if they observed any creature destroying their charges, they were still unlikely to risk their lives to prevent the destruction. This is because good implies...

The issue is that what one person finds to be a loophole, another might not. For example, you say it's a loophole to try and circumvent the cost of Find Familiar, but literally the purpose of foraging skills and crafting tools is to reduce or bypass costs. Crafting your own armor cuts the cost...

Oh, and a side note to this: Yes, and people hate real lawyers, until they're on their side. Funny how that works, isn't it? People don't hate rules lawyers, they just hate people that disagree with them, and they especially hate it when the people that disagree with them have a point. Second...

Looking for loopholes is very common practice at RAW tables, and is typically even expected. It's a major part of character optimizing at AL tables. When I DM, I'm not so paranoid that I think they're trying to look for loopholes. These actually are not contradicting statements, at least not...

The issue here is whether or not the DM can cancel their ability in the RAW, such as at an AL table. There's a difference between the DM being able to use their almighty god powers to do whatever they want at a house table, and an ability in RAW telling the DM they get final say in how effective...

Sure, and not having that time available to them is why he couldn't do it, and the fact that he didn't talk to you prior is indeed a problem, especially when they didn't fully understand the RAW mechanics of what they were doing. However, even if allowed, it's no more imbalanced than a Druid...

Looking for loopholes is very common practice at RAW tables, and is typically even expected. It's a major part of character optimizing at AL tables. So long as it is RAW supported, whether or not it's a loophole is not a factor in a RAW game. RAW tables are how such loopholes are found and...