Sage Advice 3/21/16 Exploding druids and antimagic field vs zombies and cure wounds

The answer to the druid and metal armor is excellent. Not so much the ruling itself, but the clear way it explains that classes have both story and game elements, and some classes have more story elements than others.

 

[Li Shenron]

I disagree with your assessment. By removing restrictions, even if they seem like arbitrary restrictions you remove the need for the class. Why have druids at all if you can just make a nature cleric and keep the armor proficiencies that a cleric gets? Its the argument that broke out in 4rth edition with paladins & clerics. Why have a paladin as a specific holy warrior when clerics are the holy warriors of their faith? The original cleric concept was taken from Hospitlar & Templar knights from the crusades. Paladins were meant to be that one in a million warrior who actually is a true white knight that champions goodness, law and the common weal. Not a vainglorious warrior absorbed in himself. But now clerics have almost everything a paladin has with regards to weapon & armor training, especially if she takes a militant domain such as war or storms. Its when designers start making the classes all cookie cutter that they lose their flavor and become identical. Then the game breaks down because its all about combat instead of the characters.

If you are criticizing the set of classes as a whole, I'm not going to argue. I'll just point out that the 5e designers knew very well that D&D gamers absolutely wanted to have druids, paladins, rangers, warlocks and even sorcerers as classes in the game, despite the overlapping in concept with others.

But the Druid is a problem because it's an exception. It is truly the only class in the game that has one moral restriction with mechanical consequences, which also carry over in case of multiclassing. Even Paladins aren't strictly required to be good in 5e. Also see the following:

I disagree. Paladins have codes, warlocks have patrons. Clerics have deities. Monks have monastic traditions. If you wish to hand wave these restrictions in your game world, that is YOUR game world but these restrictions exist. I could not imagine if my cleric of Mishakal (Healing domain Dragon Lance World setting) tried to inflict a disease upon a person or helped spread disease that he would not be punished by his goddess. I think I would be surprised and a bit disappointed if the DM did not do so. Some classes have complete free will to do what they want. Its a benefit of being a rogue, a wizard, fighter or a sorcerer for example. If you want no restrictions then play one of these classes. If not being able to wear metal armor is a deal breaker for you then DO NOT play a druid. The druids won't mind. All religions have quirks that do not make sense. This is the druid's quirk. Learn to live with it or leave it. It does not have to make sense.

Think about what you just wrote here: "Paladins have codes, warlocks have patrons. Clerics have deities. Monks have monastic traditions." This is true but:

(1) All these restrictions are strictly defined in roleplay and narrative, and have no consequences specified in mechanical terms; clerics of Life could have had a restriction against using necromancy spells for example, but they don't. The designers correctly stayed away from hard-coding mechanical restrictions from any class, except Druids, why are Druids different?

(2) Those narrative descriptions are tied to subclasses exactly because this way you can play a Paladin, Cleric, Warlock etc. without a specific restriction. Only Druids' armor restrictions are global. Another design mistake, because it takes something extremely specific (armor material) and makes it a big deal for everyone wanting to play a Druid.

So in a nutshell my gripe with the Druid is that is actually seems to have been designed with a different policy compared to the rest of the characters, and this inconsistency bugs me to no end... to add insult to injury, the Druid's armor restrictions have never been there during the open playtest, they were just added at the last minute to the PHB! So the community had no chance to speak their opinions about it! And this is pretty much the kind of thing that the open playtest was explicitly all about i.e. to gauge the gamer's opinion on a general idea.

 

[Lost Soul]

If you are criticizing the set of classes as a whole, I'm not going to argue. I'll just point out that the 5e designers knew very well that D&D gamers absolutely wanted to have druids, paladins, rangers, warlocks and even sorcerers as classes in the game, despite the overlapping in concept with others.

But the Druid is a problem because it's an exception. It is truly the only class in the game that has one moral restriction with mechanical consequences, which also carry over in case of multiclassing. Even Paladins aren't strictly required to be good in 5e. Also see the following:



Think about what you just wrote here: "Paladins have codes, warlocks have patrons. Clerics have deities. Monks have monastic traditions." This is true but:

(1) All these restrictions are strictly defined in roleplay and narrative, and have no consequences specified in mechanical terms; clerics of Life could have had a restriction against using necromancy spells for example, but they don't. The designers correctly stayed away from hard-coding mechanical restrictions from any class, except Druids, why are Druids different?

(2) Those narrative descriptions are tied to subclasses exactly because this way you can play a Paladin, Cleric, Warlock etc. without a specific restriction. Only Druids' armor restrictions are global. Another design mistake, because it takes something extremely specific (armor material) and makes it a big deal for everyone wanting to play a Druid.

So in a nutshell my gripe with the Druid is that is actually seems to have been designed with a different policy compared to the rest of the characters, and this inconsistency bugs me to no end... to add insult to injury, the Druid's armor restrictions have never been there during the open playtest, they were just added at the last minute to the PHB! So the community had no chance to speak their opinions about it! And this is pretty much the kind of thing that the open playtest was explicitly all about i.e. to gauge the gamer's opinion on a general idea.

No, you want the exception, just so you can min max a character. Paladins have always had alignment restrictions. If 5E took that and disregarded it then its a HUGE failing of 5E. There is NO point in having a paladin class. Just roll the paladin into the cleric and be done with him. I am so tired of players wanting their cake and eating it too. Same goes with druids. If you don't want any restrictions on the druid then just roll her into the cleric portfolio and be done with her. As to playtest, the playtest was not supposed to cover every aspect of game play. The designers even said as much. It was to judge concepts. Not wearing metal armor is not a big deal unless you are strictly looking at it to min/max your character. Then it is a HUGE deal.

 

[Lost Soul]

This is not true. The Catholic Church has broken apart into many different denominations worshiping in different fashions. You can find differences from one country to the next as far as how Catholicism is practiced. Unified worship is very uncommon. I find it unrealistic to have it so in D&D. It makes the world less believable when dwarven druids worship nature in the same fashion as elven druids. Dwarves love stone and metal. Why would not they want to honor such parts of nature by using them? I don't agree that druids are all part of one similar religion. They all worship nature, but not in the same fashion. I prefer to flavor my druidism according to the culture that follows it.

I picture dwarven mountain druids as carefully scrutinizing mining and stonework. I believe they would teach proper metalwork and preservation of mineral resources. I see no reason why they would eschew metal armor rather than teach how to craft metal armor in a very efficient manner.

Using real world adherents to a faith is a box of worms you don't want to open because adherents of a particular faith don't worship the same way. Likely never have and never will. Culture and location always influence worship and religion.

No it is not a box of worms. Catholics have unifying principals that bind them as Catholics and you cannot be one if you do not follow the big unifying principal of the trinity. Armor restriction is a BIG principal of druidism as metal is a symbol for death and druids are all about the cycles of life whether it is cruel or kind. Encasing yourself in death (i.e. metal) would be the antithesis of being a druid. Like I mentioned earlier, D&D can punish priests for lapses & outright heresy in doctrine by removing spells and features from anyone using diving power as the power is not internal but external. You can call yourself a druid, cleric, catholic, chicken god worshipper, whatever but if you are not following the tenants of your faith in a D&D world you can absolutely be stripped of your power. So in your case of the druid in my world, he's crazy old Pete wandering around in metal armor with the acolyte background and maybe spellcasting adept as a feat using a few druid spells. He is NOT a druid. What you do in your world is completely up to you because hey, its your game.

 

[Lost Soul]

Paladins in 1st edition were held to a very specific code of conduct. It was spelled out as a class requirement. If they did not act in accordance with the code, they lost their paladinhood and all their powers.



2E specialty priests were specific to the deity they followed. Their powers, their religious rights, their holidays, their mode of dress, some of the spells they could cast, their titles. It was all detailed for each deity and religion. It was done in two amazing books. Faiths and Avatars and Powers and Pantheons. Best job defining D&D clerics of any edition.

So you liked that these priests & the paladin had defining characteristics that imposed limitations on them but you don't feel the need for druids to have a single limitation? Seems a bit odd to me.

 

[Lost Soul]

None of those restrictions are game rules. There is no rule that says, "Paladins will not break their oaths." Quite the contrary, there are rules describing the consequences for breaking the oath, implying that it can happen. There is no rule that says, "Warlocks will obey their patrons." In fact, the game talks quite openly about warlocks subverting or disobeying their patrons.

The game does not have a rule that says, "followers of Mishakal will not inflict or spread disease." Nor does it have a rule that says, "Mishakal punishes any cleric of hers that spreads disease." What happens in that situation is between Mishakal and her followers -- their behavior is not governed by any defined game rules.

I don't think that every cleric needs to have a rules lawyer book written for them like a real world religion to be role-played correctly. I would think that if you saw a cleric of the healing goddess spreading disease that 1) you would wonder why said god would be granting that power & 2) why would said cleric be using that power. Just because the cleric spell list has every spell available does not mean that some spells would not be used due to alignment or thematic reasons. I don't think that EVERY restriction needs to be spelled out for you. The game is meant for adults not 5 year olds.

 

[Li Shenron]

No, you want the exception, just so you can min max a character. Paladins have always had alignment restrictions. If 5E took that and disregarded it then its a HUGE failing of 5E. There is NO point in having a paladin class. Just roll the paladin into the cleric and be done with him. I am so tired of players wanting their cake and eating it too. Same goes with druids. If you don't want any restrictions on the druid then just roll her into the cleric portfolio and be done with her. As to playtest, the playtest was not supposed to cover every aspect of game play. The designers even said as much. It was to judge concepts. Not wearing metal armor is not a big deal unless you are strictly looking at it to min/max your character. Then it is a HUGE deal.

Now you are largely overreacting.

I told you, if you criticize the whole class system, and you would like more classes with restrictions similar to the Druid, I can't blame you. A game system like you are advocating for makes a lot of sense, as does a system like 5e. What doesn't make sense is to have one restriction for one class not follow the rest of the game.

As for min-maxing, don't make assumption on what I want because you don't know me, and those few on the forums who do, know that my hat for powergamers is second only for my hat for rules laywers. I want the Druid armor restriction gone because it's inconsistent with the rest of the characters, and because it breaks my suspension of disbelief to have the explanation "no metal rings or plaques around you because technology is evil, but you're fine using crossbows, metal swords or even ride an apparatus of kwalish". That's plain stupid.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I disagree. Paladins have codes, warlocks have patrons. Clerics have deities. Monks have monastic traditions. If you wish to hand wave these restrictions in your game world, that is YOUR game world but these restrictions exist. I could not imagine if my cleric of Mishakal (Healing domain Dragon Lance World setting) tried to inflict a disease upon a person or helped spread disease that he would not be punished by his goddess. I think I would be surprised and a bit disappointed if the DM did not do so. Some classes have complete free will to do what they want. Its a benefit of being a rogue, a wizard, fighter or a sorcerer for example. If you want no restrictions then play one of these classes. If not being able to wear metal armor is a deal breaker for you then DO NOT play a druid. The druids won't mind. All religions have quirks that do not make sense. This is the druid's quirk. Learn to live with it or leave it. It does not have to make sense.

So here's the question for you. Let's say I'm playing a druid, and I took the class "in good faith" with no intention of wearing metal armor, etc. For some reason, after much play, something comes up where the character feels strong pressure to put on a suit of full plate (let's say for purposes of the whole party infiltrating someplace with no time to prepare alternative techniques--it's do or die and the rest of the group tells him they need him to bite the bullet and put on this "costume" for a few minutes for the sake of everyone). The druid struggles, but decides, whether right or wrong, that he's going to do it. As a player, I tell you that my druid puts on a set of full plate. As a DM, do you let him? The punishment for the character isn't at issue for me, you can declare "as you put on the armor, you feel the wrath of Gaia upon thee--take 12d10 damage from a bolt of lightning, and lose all class abilities" if you want to--the right for me to declare that my character breaks his code is what matters to me. If I were a paladin, I'd assume you'd make me fall for being evil, rather than saying, "you can't do that, you're a paladin." What would you do in the case of the druid?

The reason this is an issue in context of 5e, is that the language for druid armor restriction doesn't say anything about punishment, it instead implies that I as a player am not free to make the choice and take the consequences--I just literally can't put on the armor, regardless of anything. Nowhere else in the rules is any such thing spelled out except for magical compulsions.

So in a nutshell my gripe with the Druid is that is actually seems to have been designed with a different policy compared to the rest of the characters, and this inconsistency bugs me to no end...

This, absolutely this. It isn't about whether the restriction makes sense for druids or not. It is whether it makes sense for 5e in context of other previously but no longer restricted classes like paladins.

And furthermore, I have a visceral hatred of the language of "won't" rather than "experiences consequences if they do" that was, again, uniquely chosen to apply only to druids in 5e for some reason.

 

[Lost Soul]

Now you are largely overreacting.

I told you, if you criticize the whole class system, and you would like more classes with restrictions similar to the Druid, I can't blame you. A game system like you are advocating for makes a lot of sense, as does a system like 5e. What doesn't make sense is to have one restriction for one class not follow the rest of the game.

As for min-maxing, don't make assumption on what I want because you don't know me, and those few on the forums who do, know that my hat for powergamers is second only for my hat for rules laywers. I want the Druid armor restriction gone because it's inconsistent with the rest of the characters, and because it breaks my suspension of disbelief to have the explanation "no metal rings or plaques around you because technology is evil, but you're fine using crossbows, metal swords or even ride an apparatus of kwalish". That's plain stupid.

Trying to keep alive some D&D traditions is worth fighting for. I do not want the druid to be a cleric. I want her to be different. If you are complaining about arbitrary restrictions on classes then where is your beef with the rogue? The rogue gets weapon proficiency in longswords which have been an iconic rogue weapon from Basic D&D all the way up until 4E. I take longsword because I think it is cool and I can't sneak attack with it. Really? That's completely arbitrary and goes against D&D tradition but I don't see a single person advocating that rogues favoring longswords are being screwed over by poor game design.
Druids get one choice in light and one choice in medium armor. That is good enough. They do not need the best of everything. Their abhorrence of metal armor has nothing to do with technological inferiority IMO. Its a conscious decision to embrace life over death. Druids want to feel like they are part of the natural cycle. When they wear leather or hide armor I envision them feeling the spirit of the beasts and drawing strength from it. It helps them work their magic and manage their shape shifting. Metal has no spirit or soul. Nor does it have a primitive life force like a plant. It is an inanimate object. Its a part of nature yes but it is not part of the natural cycle. It does nothing to facilitate life. It just is. Now using metal to cause death seems natural to a druid and therefore they will use metal weapons to cause death as that is what metal represents. But they will not shelter themselves in death. They will rely on the spirits of nature and ask for blessing of animal & plant in the form of leather & hide armor plus wooden shields to protect them. Thus they keep the cycle of life going.

 

[Lost Soul]

So here's the question for you. Let's say I'm playing a druid, and I took the class "in good faith" with no intention of wearing metal armor, etc. For some reason, after much play, something comes up where the character feels strong pressure to put on a suit of full plate (let's say for purposes of the whole party infiltrating someplace with no time to prepare alternative techniques--it's do or die and the rest of the group tells him they need him to bite the bullet and put on this "costume" for a few minutes for the sake of everyone). The druid struggles, but decides, whether right or wrong, that he's going to do it. As a player, I tell you that my druid puts on a set of full plate. As a DM, do you let him? The punishment for the character isn't at issue for me, you can declare "as you put on the armor, you feel the wrath of Gaia upon thee--take 12d10 damage from a bolt of lightning, and lose all class abilities" if you want to--the right for me to declare that my character breaks his code is what matters to me. If I were a paladin, I'd assume you'd make me fall for being evil, rather than saying, "you can't do that, you're a paladin." What would you do in the case of the druid?

The reason this is an issue in context of 5e, is that the language for druid armor restriction doesn't say anything about punishment, it instead implies that I as a player am not free to make the choice and take the consequences--I just literally can't put on the armor, regardless of anything. Nowhere else in the rules is any such thing spelled out except for magical compulsions.



This, absolutely this. It isn't about whether the restriction makes sense for druids or not. It is whether it makes sense for 5e in context of other previously but no longer restricted classes like paladins.

And furthermore, I have a visceral hatred of the language of "won't" rather than "experiences consequences if they do" that was, again, uniquely chosen to apply only to druids in 5e for some reason.

Why does there have to be a punishment in order for you to feel a rule is validated? Is it not enough that you ask the arch druid "Why great sir do we not wear metal armor. It offers far better protection and makes practical sense?" The old druid raises a bushy eyebrow and replies, " We just don't." End of story. There is no rhyme or reason for it. I look at druids as I do a pacifist as far as their code goes. You could push a pacifist into fighting when there is a situation of absolutely no choice. If the pacifist breaks his vow and fights back he will suffer wracking guilt for a long time. It will gnaw at his soul if he truly believed in his vows. In my games lightning wouldn't strike you down for being a druid in metal armor. I would just rule that any spellcasting or class features that rely on druidic power that simply could not be duplicated with martial abilities would be lost and you would have to seek atonement. So you are basically a warrior until you return. I also wouldn't as a DM force you into situations where you are regularly forced to break your druidic vows.
Besides you would be easily identified as an imposter in metal armor because you would not be trained in heavy armor and any soldier worth his salt would know you are not a professional since you wouldn't be moving around in it correctly since you lack heavy armor training. Your cover would be blown very quickly.

 

[CapnZapp]

Why does there have to be a punishment in order for you to feel a rule is validated?

That's what we have been trying to say all along.

The rules don't have Druids in metal.
The rules don't give any reason.

Nothing is broken or needs fixing. If an individual player feels a need for more details, he or she can make them up.

But most people don't. And many even like how no particular reason is elevated above others.