Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6493731" data-attributes="member: 6677017">I'm not going to rehash the debate from the WotC forums that happened on this a while ago, but I will bring up some points.1) I think it was a mistake for this to be in the book. It's the kind of goof that the designers would likely have done differently had that thought about it.2) It is a mistake because it singles out druids as the only class where players do not have the option to play against type and suffer the consequences.3) Rather than listing consequences, it eliminates player choice by dictating that you may not choose to do something if you take this class. This is the sole place in the entire ruleset that does this. Paladins can break their oaths and may or may not suffer consequences at the DMs discretion. But it doesn't say "a paladin won't break their oath."4) This is in direct violation of the meta-rules of the game which state: "1. The DM describes the environment...2. The players describe what they want to do...3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions..."Anything would be better than this. Even if it were, "A druid who attempts to don metal armor must make a Wisdom check or suffer intense apprehension causing them to take disadvantage to all attacks, checks, and saves for as long as they consider the action. If they do don metal armor, in addition to the former penalty, they take 1d6 psychic damage per day."My dwarf wizard can choose to be an elf-loving hippy vegetarian. A paladin can choose to abandon his oath.I can't, however, be a druid who abandons his oath. Druids lack free will. Choosing to be a druid means you lose the capacity to choose to wear metal armor.Some people have a problem with that.</blockquote>

Verification