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.

 

[Lost Soul]

It's a different argument. Regardless of the reasons for the rules on sneak attacks (I think longswords should work myself), player agency is maintained because the restriction is mechanical with clear rules.

Rogue Player: "I sneak attack with a longsword."
DM: "You can attack with the longsword, but your Sneak Attack feature won't provide any bonus damage because it doesn't work with longswords"

This is a different situation from the following,

Druid Player: "I put on scale mail."
DM: "Your character wouldn't do that."

To take it even further, here is negotiation that might go on over the first one.

Rogue Player: "Okay, but I'm going to really try to hit them just right, making maximum use of my Dexterity. I'm going to lay an ambush and everything."
DM: "You do all of that, and I'm granting you advantage on your attack for that perfect setup. However, Sneak Attack only functions with certain weapons, and since you aren't using one, the damage it provides doesn't happen."

Compare that to the druid,

Druid Player: "My druid doesn't give a darn about the rules anymore. He's had enough of this life. Screw nature. I'm putting on the %*&^* armor."
DM: "Your character wouldn't do that."
Druid Player: "But I just did."
DM: "When you decided to play a druid, you decided to play a character who would absolutely never betray that restriction under any circumstances, therefore your character would not do that."
Druid Player: "Are you kidding me?"

Oath Breaker Paladin Player: "Wow, harsh."

Player agency is NOT ALWAYS PARAMOUT. When you join a club, fraternity, religion, organization, etc. You agree to be bound to those rules. In the case of divine casters its even more harsh because you are being granted power. It is not inherent to you nor is it a function of training. Even if you have no patron deity you have to be faithful to an ideal, thought or cause as a divine supporter. If you are not, you are stripped of spellcasting and divine powers. Unless there is some anti druid power granting benefits for being in heavy armor similar to patrons for oath breakers and antipaladins you are out of luck, player agency be damned,

 

[Lost Soul]

It's a different argument. Regardless of the reasons for the rules on sneak attacks (I think longswords should work myself), player agency is maintained because the restriction is mechanical with clear rules.

Rogue Player: "I sneak attack with a longsword."
DM: "You can attack with the longsword, but your Sneak Attack feature won't provide any bonus damage because it doesn't work with longswords"

This is a different situation from the following,

Druid Player: "I put on scale mail."
DM: "Your character wouldn't do that."

To take it even further, here is negotiation that might go on over the first one.

Rogue Player: "Okay, but I'm going to really try to hit them just right, making maximum use of my Dexterity. I'm going to lay an ambush and everything."
DM: "You do all of that, and I'm granting you advantage on your attack for that perfect setup. However, Sneak Attack only functions with certain weapons, and since you aren't using one, the damage it provides doesn't happen."

Compare that to the druid,

Druid Player: "My druid doesn't give a darn about the rules anymore. He's had enough of this life. Screw nature. I'm putting on the %*&^* armor."
DM: "Your character wouldn't do that."
Druid Player: "But I just did."
DM: "When you decided to play a druid, you decided to play a character who would absolutely never betray that restriction under any circumstances, therefore your character would not do that."
Druid Player: "Are you kidding me?"

Oath Breaker Paladin Player: "Wow, harsh."

Your reply makes no sense. In both situations there is no justification for the item usage penalty, just a default "They won't use it because it doesn't work."

 

[Yunru]

Your reply makes no sense. In both situations there is no justification for the item usage penalty, just a default "They won't use it because it doesn't work."

What "it"? Armour can't just not work.
Even unproficient armour still works.

 

[Oofta]

What "it"? Armour can't just not work.
Even unproficient armour still works.

Or it could just be that their magic doesn't work because being encased in metal armor blocks their connection to the natural world. So sure, a druid in my world can wear metal all they want but can't cast spells while wearing it. They don't have a problem using metal implements because they don't block the flow enough to matter.

Don't like the rule? Ignore it for your game.

 

[Yunru]

Or it could just be that their magic doesn't work because being encased in metal armor blocks their connection to the natural world. So sure, a druid in my world can wear metal all they want but can't cast spells while wearing it. They don't have a problem using metal implements because they don't block the flow enough to matter.

Don't like the rule? Ignore it for your game.

But that's not the rule.
There's no rule "You can't cast druid spells in metal armor" therefore you can cast druid spells same as an other spells.

No, that rule might make sense and would be a hell of a lot more appealing. Instead, you don't have control of how your character acts.

As for "Don't like it, don't use it." a more pitiful response could not be given. Ignoring the fact that it's extremely weak in and of itself, only one person gets to decide that, and it's never going to be the person playing the druid.

 

[abirdcall]

...

 

[77IM]

If that is true then why are rogues restricted to sneak attacks with ranged or finesse weapons only? There have been complaints about rogues not being able to use clubs and longswords to gain sneak attack. By your logic rogues attacking with any weapon allow a sneak attack because players not rules decide their actions

Let me try to clarify. By my my logic, players their actions, and rules determine the OUTCOME of actions. Any player can say "my rogue attacks with the longsword," and the rules say that's not a sneak attack. Hell, the rogue player can say "I cast raise dead" or "I swim up the waterfall" or "I ascend to godhood" or whatever they want -- according to the rules, it won't happen. But the rules don't forbid attempting to do those things.

The druid armor rule is problematic because it seems to dictate what the PC will attempt, while totally giving zero guidance on outcome.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Player agency is NOT ALWAYS PARAMOUT. When you join a club, fraternity, religion, organization, etc. You agree to be bound to those rules. In the case of divine casters its even more harsh because you are being granted power. It is not inherent to you nor is it a function of training. Even if you have no patron deity you have to be faithful to an ideal, thought or cause as a divine supporter. If you are not, you are stripped of spellcasting and divine powers. Unless there is some anti druid power granting benefits for being in heavy armor similar to patrons for oath breakers and antipaladins you are out of luck, player agency be damned,

Your reply makes no sense. In both situations there is no justification for the item usage penalty, just a default "They won't use it because it doesn't work."

I think you're missing the intent of my explanation. [MENTION=12377]77IM[/MENTION] explained it perfectly. If there were a penalty such as losing spellcasting that would be fine. But there is no penalty. Just an in-character forbiddance from even attempting an action--something that even a paladin isn't restricted with.

 

[Oofta]

But that's not the rule.
There's no rule "You can't cast druid spells in metal armor" therefore you can cast druid spells same as an other spells.

No, that rule might make sense and would be a hell of a lot more appealing. Instead, you don't have control of how your character acts.

As for "Don't like it, don't use it." a more pitiful response could not be given. Ignoring the fact that it's extremely weak in and of itself, only one person gets to decide that, and it's never going to be the person playing the druid.

Dude. Don't get your grundies in a bundle. The rules say druids will not wear metal armor. I gave the in-world justification for why that is the case in my world. No need to get pissy about it.

In other worlds there may be different reasons. Or no reason at all. Either follow the rules or don't.

 

[guachi]

Vegetarians don't eat meat. They can eat meat (in the sense that they are physically capable of doing so). But if they do, they can't call themselves vegetarians.

That's basically how I see druids.

Druids don't wear metal armor. They can wear metal armor (in the sense that they are physically capable of doing so). But if they do, they can't call themselves Druids.

So if a Druid voluntarily wears metal armor I think it's up to the DM and maybe the player as to what that means.