Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 7697995" data-attributes="member: 6677017">So here's the question for you. Let's say I'm playing a druid, and I took the class &quot;in good faith&quot; 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 &quot;costume&quot; 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 &quot;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&quot; 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, &quot;you can't do that, you're a paladin.&quot; 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 &quot;won't&quot; rather than &quot;experiences consequences if they do&quot; that was, again, uniquely chosen to apply only to druids in 5e for some reason.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 7697995, member: 6677017"] 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, [I]do you let him[/I][I]? [/I]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 [I]only[/I] to druids in 5e for some reason. [/QUOTE]

Verification