• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.

5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented

5ekyu

Explorer
There are no rules, and there have never been any rules, that say a druid cannot don a suit of metal platemail in order to sneak into a castle. If a DM prevents me from taking that action, he is in fact railroading me by invalidating my decision.
"Druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal." 5e PHB.

There is no reference to the circumstances of the thing - is it to sneak into a castle, win cosplay, mock the paladin etc. But then they dont list or try to list all the various reasons one may use things.

So, for 5e, if you chose druid, knowing this rule and did not work out the details with your GM, then to me it's not railroading for the GM to hold this rule as applicable.

Do you see an exception in that rule that says "except to sneak"?
 

5ekyu

Explorer
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when you read a line in a silly way that makes the possible impossible, and use that to say that an action simply cannot be performed by the player that otherwise should be possible, then yes, it's railroading. What people are somehow not getting is that this is a roleplaying game. If I say, "My father is lactose intolerant, so he can't drink milk, because dairy gives him gas," no person in their right mind is going to interpret that there is a magical barrier in front of his mouth that prevents dairy from touching his lips, else the universe tears in two as milk entering his mouth creates a spacetime paradox because it has been stated that he cannot drink milk.

If you actually apply the proper use of language, you'd know what the sentence is saying, but it appears common sense is no longer applicable in reading. Even with the Sage Advice clarifying the proper interpretation is that nothing in the game system prevents it, people still don't want to accept that, because they refuse to use basic reasoning.

Saying "you can't use heavy armor because you lack the martial training to use it" does not mean you can never wear metal armor. It means that if you wear it, you gain no benefits of its use, or suffer the game system's proficiency/encumbrance penalties, because you lack the martial training to use it. Same with saying "you can't wear metal armor because you'll lose your magic while you do." The Druid can still put on the metal armor if they say they'll do so, they'll just suffer the consequence of losing their magic while they do, plus any other penalties based on the edition (none in 5E because they are proficient in its use). Suffering the consequences is their choice to make, just as with making any other decision.

The rules say that a character not proficient in the use of tools cannot use those tools. This does not mean that the character is literally physically incapable of trying to use the smith's tools or a poisoner's kit if they're not proficient. There's no magical barrier preventing them from putting their hands onto the tools. It just means that nothing will come of their efforts to use them, because they can't perform the tasks that are listed in the rules as requiring proficiency.

If a Druid says "I put on the glove", you as a DM are railroading them if you say "No you don't." It's their choice to make, and nothing in the game system prevents them from taking the action. If the game system has penalties for it then they can deal with the consequences of their action. It's not railroading to say, "Okay, you put on the glove, but you are now wearing metal armor, so as per the rules you lose access to your magic." It is railroading to say, "Nuh-uh. No you don't."

This is not a video game. You don't get a red X over your character if you try to equip something you're not proficient in. I don't see Paladins getting DM blocked if they want to break their oaths; they're fully allowed to do so, it just so happens that most of the game systems put in penalties for when they do. Such penalties no longer exist for Druids. If they choose to put it on, there is nothing in the game system stopping it, or penalizing it. If it doesn't have penalties in the game system, and you create some, those are house rules.



Sure, that's true, if you ignore the line after it that says "Well, not actually." and then goes on to explain that nothing happens, and that the Druid does not lack the ability to do so.



Or, more logically, if it's universal that Druids suffer a loss of magic for 24 hours if they wear metal, then anyone that captures a Druid and wishes to hold it prisoner, will be able to lock metal armor onto it so they can't use their magic to escape. Never heard the story of the man in the iron mask? Same concept. I could only hope that the DM would have an ounce of sense and doesn't make the game end because the universe tears itself in half when the enemy puts a metal mask on the Druid.
"If you actually apply the proper use of language, you'd know what the sentence is saying, but it appears common sense is no longer applicable in reading."

No, it appears common sense is no longer required by griping.

See, here is the thing.

Let's pretend you font like that druid armor rule.
It's a stretch, I know.
Let's assume you play D&D 5e and choose a druid.
Common sense would suggest that you, before or during chargen, talk to the GM about that rule to see if they are gonna de facto change it for you to something you like.
But if you dont and you get into the gameplay and he does enforce it as written, suddenly its railroading?
Nah, suddenly it's a player who knew of the issue, chose the class and also chose not to get this dearth with up-front.

That's not a problem GMing. That's not a railroad.

In my experience many GMs work with players and explain rules as needed.
 

Ohmyn

Villager
I don’t know why this is still going on. Look at the definition of a rule.
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

Look at the txt “druids won’t wear metal armor”

It literally fits the definition of what a rule is. It’s a principal that governs conduct of druids. Just like paladin behavior, or any other number of examples. This shouldn’t be up for debate if you’re speaking English.

A person might not LIKE the rule. Or AGREE with the rule, and that’s fine. Change it. Ignore it. D&D provides good support for that. But don’t argue it isn’t or hasn’t been a rule.
If we understand the English language, if I say "I can't drink milk because it gives me gas", that does not mean I literally cannot drink milk. It means that if I do drink milk I will get gas. If I say "I won't eat your pizza", that does not free me from suspicion if your pizza suddenly disappears, because I very well have the ability to eat that pizza. That's where the clarification was needed as to what the "rule" meant, and the Sage Advice clarified it, explicitly stating there is nothing in the game system that prevents the Druid from doing it, and that there are no penalties so long as they don't exceed their proficiency.

Jut like a Paladin can go against their oath if they so choose, the Druid can go against their order's taboo against metal. An Oath of Devotion Paladin can tell a lie, just as a Druid can strap on a metal shield. Nothing in the game system stops either action unless the DM railroads their decision making. The only difference between the two is that the PHB lists potential penalties for a Paladin that breaks their oath; unlike 3E and below, Druids no longer suffer such penalties. If that was the intent, and the developers just missed it, they would have added it to errata instead of clarifying otherwise in Sage Advice.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
If we understand the English language, if I say "I can't drink milk because it gives me gas", that does not mean I literally cannot drink milk. It means that if I do drink milk I will get gas. If I say "I won't eat your pizza", that does not free me from suspicion if your pizza suddenly disappears, because I very well have the ability to eat that pizza. That's where the clarification was needed as to what the "rule" meant, and the Sage Advice clarified it, explicitly stating there is nothing in the game system that prevents the Druid from doing it, and that there are no penalties so long as they don't exceed their proficiency.

Jut like a Paladin can go against their oath if they so choose, the Druid can go against their order's taboo against metal. An Oath of Devotion Paladin can tell a lie, just as a Druid can strap on a metal shield. Nothing in the game system stops either action unless the DM railroads their decision making. The only difference between the two is that the PHB lists potential penalties for a Paladin that breaks their oath; unlike 3E and below, Druids no longer suffer such penalties. If that was the intent, and the developers just missed it, they would have added it to errata instead of clarifying otherwise in Sage Advice.


Read the definition of rule I provided. Clearly you don’t have an understanding of it.

I have no idea where this position that it’s not a rule unless it’s physically impossible to do so comes from, but that’s not what rules mean. It quite clearly talks about principals that govern behavior. I mean, it’s literally in the definition.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
If we understand the English language, if I say "I can't drink milk because it gives me gas", that does not mean I literally cannot drink milk. It means that if I do drink milk I will get gas. If I say "I won't eat your pizza", that does not free me from suspicion if your pizza suddenly disappears, because I very well have the ability to eat that pizza. That's where the clarification was needed as to what the "rule" meant, and the Sage Advice clarified it, explicitly stating there is nothing in the game system that prevents the Druid from doing it, and that there are no penalties so long as they don't exceed their proficiency.

Jut like a Paladin can go against their oath if they so choose, the Druid can go against their order's taboo against metal. An Oath of Devotion Paladin can tell a lie, just as a Druid can strap on a metal shield. Nothing in the game system stops either action unless the DM railroads their decision making. The only difference between the two is that the PHB lists potential penalties for a Paladin that breaks their oath; unlike 3E and below, Druids no longer suffer such penalties. If that was the intent, and the developers just missed it, they would have added it to errata instead of clarifying otherwise in Sage Advice.
Actually no, just no.

If someone says they cant drink milk cuz gas, they are using the wrong words. It may be done but it's wrong. It may be not called out but the word should be wont, not cant.

But the key is, in 5e rules they dont use "cant" ambiguously for druid armor.

They font use "cant" at all forcdruid armor.

They say "will not".

So, you know, if you the player wsnt to play a druid who "will" do this thing listed under druid clas feastures, instead of waiting yolo mid-gsme with your "rsiltoading" blow horn ready to blare its victimization wail, you should have spoke to your GM about it in chargen - just in case they fo something silly like expect you to play by the rule.

"Will not" seems clear enough.
 

Paul Farquhar

Explorer
Page 19 of the 1E PHB specifically states this is not the case.

I quote:

**** A thief may use a short sword, broad sword or long sword but not a bastard sword or a two handed sword

That is quite clear, nothing about non-proficiency penalty.
And on page 36 of the 1st edition PHB it lists the non-proficiency penalty that applies when you use a weapon prohibited by your class.

Also, on page 15: "thieves can not use thief abilities when using prohibited weapons or armor."
 

Ohmyn

Villager
But if you dont and you get into the gameplay and he does enforce it as written, suddenly its railroading?
Nah, suddenly it's a player who knew of the issue, chose the class and also chose not to get this dearth with up-front.
The issue is that as written it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The developer of the game clarified the official interpretation of the rule, and you disagree with the official interpretation based on the lore that existed in past editions that are now outdated by two editions over the last decade. That's fine, but don't claim the official clarification, as stated by the game's rules designer and then published by WotC on their site, is less RAW than your RAI.

The developer says nothing in the game system stops them. The developer says they do not lack the ability to do so. It is a choice, not a physical limitation. This is exactly how many people read the rule as printed in the PHB, which is why it was controversial enough that the Sage Advice addressed it. If a Druid says they're going to do so, and you say they can't, that's not the game system stopping them; that's you arbitrarily stopping them. It's no different than if an Oath of Devotion Paladin felt it appropriate to lie in a given situation, and you as a DM said, "No. You can't use Deception in this case because it goes against your tenet of honesty." It's also no different than if a Monk player at the table played like a murder hobo, and got greedy with treasure, suddenly had their levels stripped away because the character creation lore says that as a rule they will not be a murder hobo. That's not a game limitation, that's the DM choosing to enforce something outside of the RAW, which is fine, but it's still not RAW.

In my experience many GMs work with players and explain rules as needed.
Sure, and in my experience, many GMs apparently don't know how to properly read a sentence, or utilize much common sense. If you assume, "I can't drink milk because it gives me gas," means that it is a scientific law that milk can never enter my body, instead of assuming it means I have the ability to drink milk, but that as a result I will have gas, you fall into one or both of those categories.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
The issue is that as written it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The developer of the game clarified the official interpretation of the rule, and you disagree with the official interpretation based on the lore that existed in past editions that are now outdated by two editions over the last decade. That's fine, but don't claim the official clarification, as stated by the game's rules designer and then published by WotC on their site, is less RAW than your RAI.

The developer says nothing in the game system stops them. The developer says they do not lack the ability to do so. It is a choice, not a physical limitation. This is exactly how many people read the rule as printed in the PHB, which is why it was controversial enough that the Sage Advice addressed it. If a Druid says they're going to do so, and you say they can't, that's not the game system stopping them; that's you arbitrarily stopping them. It's no different than if an Oath of Devotion Paladin felt it appropriate to lie in a given situation, and you as a DM said, "No. You can't use Deception in this case because it goes against your tenet of honesty." It's also no different than if a Monk player at the table played like a murder hobo, and got greedy with treasure, suddenly had their levels stripped away because the character creation lore says that as a rule they will not be a murder hobo. That's not a game limitation, that's the DM choosing to enforce something outside of the RAW, which is fine, but it's still not RAW.


Sure, and in my experience, many GMs apparently don't know how to properly read a sentence, or utilize much common sense. If you assume, "I can't drink milk because it gives me gas," means that it is a scientific law that milk can never enter my body, instead of assuming it means I have the ability to drink milk, but that as a result I will have gas, you fall into one or both of those categories.


No. This is not right. It’s not me stopping them from wearing metal armor, it’s the text that says they won’t. A literal defined principal that guides the behavior of the Druid. Gee, if there was only a word in the English language that literally has that as part of its definition...also, a DM doing that and basing that response off of the rules in the books, that’s the opposite of what “arbitrary” means. SMH...

Speaking of definitions, “won’t” means “will not”. That is not only a conscious choice in how it’s used in language.

It won’t rain
The car won’t start

It’s a word used to describe something that isn’t happening. Nothing to do with just intentional choice.
 
Last edited:

Ohmyn

Villager
Actually no, just no.

If someone says they cant drink milk cuz gas, they are using the wrong words. It may be done but it's wrong. It may be not called out but the word should be wont, not cant.

But the key is, in 5e rules they dont use "cant" ambiguously for druid armor.

They font use "cant" at all forcdruid armor.

They say "will not".

So, you know, if you the player wsnt to play a druid who "will" do this thing listed under druid clas feastures, instead of waiting yolo mid-gsme with your "rsiltoading" blow horn ready to blare its victimization wail, you should have spoke to your GM about it in chargen - just in case they fo something silly like expect you to play by the rule.

"Will not" seems clear enough.
Yes, just yes. They've used that wording in every edition, as indicated by the examples that have been given in regards to 5E, and from what people are trying to claim from old editions, like "Magic Users cannot use armor", or "Thieves cannot use two-handed swords". The people quoting these are ignoring the rules that exist to explain the penalties that happen if they choose to do forbidden actions anyway, because the developers know that without penalty there's nothing stopping people from doing it in the game world. The same thing now is being claimed in this one instance for the Druid, but ignored in all other instances of the current books. And yes, nearly every class and many abilities do have an example of similar wording that can be cited in their class descriptions, but is ignored because there are no mechanical implications stated for going against them, so RAW they can safely ignore them.

The only thing stopping players from performing actions in D&D would be lacking the physical ability, such as a Human not having the ability to fly by default, or a Dwarf not having the ability to walk more than 25' in a round by default. Besides that it would be railroading by the DM. The Human that wants to fly is still free to jump off a castle and flap their arms, they're just not going to go anywhere but down. A Dwarf can choose to try and exert themselves against a faster opponent, they're just not exceeding that 25' without extra training. A Magic User in 1E AD&D can choose to put on armor if a situation called for it, even though it says they can't use it due to lack of martial training. The thing is that common sense and understanding of language kicks in, letting you know there was not a physical law put in place with that sentence. If it were, this would be a board game, not a tabletop RPG. Saying someone "won't" perform an action without mechanical penalties given is fluff, because as a rule they "can" perform any action within their physical capability, so long as they are willing to accept any conditions that may result.

Previous editions gave explicit penalties if the Druid chose to do so anyway, because they acknowledge it is an option available to them. This edition, along with 4E, removed those penalties.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
The issue is that as written it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The developer of the game clarified the official interpretation of the rule, and you disagree with the official interpretation based on the lore that existed in past editions that are now outdated by two editions over the last decade. That's fine, but don't claim the official clarification, as stated by the game's rules designer and then published by WotC on their site, is less RAW than your RAI.

The developer says nothing in the game system stops them. The developer says they do not lack the ability to do so. It is a choice, not a physical limitation. This is exactly how many people read the rule as printed in the PHB, which is why it was controversial enough that the Sage Advice addressed it. If a Druid says they're going to do so, and you say they can't, that's not the game system stopping them; that's you arbitrarily stopping them. It's no different than if an Oath of Devotion Paladin felt it appropriate to lie in a given situation, and you as a DM said, "No. You can't use Deception in this case because it goes against your tenet of honesty." It's also no different than if a Monk player at the table played like a murder hobo, and got greedy with treasure, suddenly had their levels stripped away because the character creation lore says that as a rule they will not be a murder hobo. That's not a game limitation, that's the DM choosing to enforce something outside of the RAW, which is fine, but it's still not RAW.


Sure, and in my experience, many GMs apparently don't know how to properly read a sentence, or utilize much common sense. If you assume, "I can't drink milk because it gives me gas," means that it is a scientific law that milk can never enter my body, instead of assuming it means I have the ability to drink milk, but that as a result I will have gas, you fall into one or both of those categories.
"The issue is that as written it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The developer of the game clarified the official interpretation of the rule, and you disagree with the official interpretation based on the lore that existed in past editions that are now outdated by two editions over the last decade. That's fine, but don't claim the official clarification, as stated by the game's rules designer and then published by WotC on their site, is less RAW than your RAI."

Point if order - I dont disagree with the clarification or make my decision based on lore from past editions. You are making that up.

I am disagreeing that its railroading for the gm to enforce the rule as written.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
And on page 36 of the 1st edition PHB it lists the non-proficiency penalty that applies when you use a weapon prohibited by your class.
No.

What you mean is the Weapon Proficiency Table on p. 36. So go through this, assuming some knowledge of 1e:

Let's use the Druid as an example:

You start with a number of proficiencies, for a Druid, 2.

That means you get to choose 2 of your allowed weapons - for a Druid, you can choose between club, dagger, dart, hammer, scimitar, sling, spear, and staff. A total of eight (8) weapons.

Every five additional levels, you get an additional proficiency. So at eleventh level, the Druid is PROFICIENT IN FOUR OF HIS EIGHT WEAPONS.

If the Druid attempts to use a "Druid Weapon" that the Druid is NOT PROFICIENT IN, then there is a -4 penalty. This is not a catch-all table to allow, inter alia, Clerics to use swords with a penalty.

What happens when the Druid attempts to use a non-Druid weapon?

The Druid Explodes.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Last edited:

Ohmyn

Villager
What happens when the Druid attempts to use a non-Druid weapon?

The Druid Explodes.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Being able to read the books as a whole instead of focusing on one sentence indicates that the Druid just performed an action not appropriate for the class once they used a non-Druid weapon. They also of course won't gain the appropriate benefits of being proficient with the weapon, and may suffer any appropriate penalties. The DMG has a table for penalties to impose on players who perform non-class appropriate actions. Any other penalty on them for doing so would be a house rule, as it's purely at DM discretion due to no further listed mechanical penalties. Anyone who thinks "forbidden" means "physically impossible under scientific law" falls into my earlier category of either not being able to read, or not being able to use common sense.

The Cleric also had the limit of "All are likewise forbidden to use edged and/orpointed weapons which shed blood." What happened if they used one? There was no penalty given, so the only penalty as per the RAW would be the penalties listed in the DMG for doing something inappropriate for your class. A Cleric still had the physical capacity to pick up a dagger and use it to cut a rope, and could still wave it around like a wand in combat if they so wished. As per the rules, it was simply up to the DM to decide if the action they had performed was against the tenets of their class, and then choose the punishment from the provided table based on the severity of their offenses.

In the case of Druids, it already said "druids are unable to use anyarmor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallicarmor spoils their magical powers)". The penalty for doing so was already explained; it spoils their magical powers. They could still opt to strap on a metal shield, but bye-bye magical powers. This means it's less explicit to be automatically considered a "non-class like behavior", since it was not stated as a taboo, and there could be times where it's appropriate to wear metal temporarily if it achieved their goal without need for their magic. The non-class behavior rules were heavily up to DM discretion, but they still very much existed as the rule to enforce for when characters acted outside of their designated feature blocks.
 

JonnyP71

Explorer
And on page 36 of the 1st edition PHB it lists the non-proficiency penalty that applies when you use a weapon prohibited by your class.

Also, on page 15: "thieves can not use thief abilities when using prohibited weapons or armor."
Your 1st statement is incorrect - the non proficiency penalty is for weapons the character has not chosen to be proficient with, nowhere does it state it corresponds to weapons not allowed by their class - as the assumption is that the character simply *cannot* use them. For example - a cleric chooses to be proficient with mace and staff, he gets the non-prof penalty when using other cleric weapons such as hammer, club or flail.

The 2nd statement is also inaccurate due to context, as it is *specifically* referring the case of multi-classed dwarven fighter/thieves. Possessing the fighter class allows the Dwarf to wear heavier armour and use all weapons, but that statement refers to the impact of the multiclassed F/T doing this with regards to Thief abilities. It has *no* bearing on single classed thieves whatsoever.

Nice try, but no cigar.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Being able to read the books as a whole instead of focusing on one sentence indicates that the Druid just performed an action not appropriate for the class once they used a non-Druid weapon. They also of course won't gain the appropriate benefits of being proficient with the weapon, and may suffer any appropriate penalties. The DMG has a table for penalties to impose on players who perform non-class appropriate actions. Any other penalty on them for doing so would be a house rule, as it's purely at DM discretion due to no further listed mechanical penalties. Anyone who thinks "forbidden" means "physically impossible under scientific law" falls into my earlier category of either not being able to read, or not being able to use common sense.

The Cleric also had the limit of "All are likewise forbidden to use edged and/orpointed weapons which shed blood." What happened if they used one? There was no penalty given, so the only penalty as per the RAW would be the penalties listed in the DMG for doing something inappropriate for your class. A Cleric still had the physical capacity to pick up a dagger and use it to cut a rope, and could still wave it around like a wand in combat if they so wished. As per the rules, it was simply up to the DM to decide if the action they had performed was against the tenets of their class, and then choose the punishment from the provided table based on the severity of their offenses.

In the case of Druids, it already said "druids are unable to use anyarmor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallicarmor spoils their magical powers)". The penalty for doing so was already explained; it spoils their magical powers. They could still opt to strap on a metal shield, but bye-bye magical powers. This means it's less explicit to be automatically considered a "non-class like behavior", since it was not stated as a taboo, and there could be times where it's appropriate to wear metal temporarily if it achieved their goal without need for their magic. The non-class behavior rules were heavily up to DM discretion, but they still very much existed as the rule to enforce for when characters acted outside of their designated feature blocks.


Clerics who didn’t follow their god’s wishes and rules lost their ability to cast spells. So...swing and a miss. I don’t know what your big deal is with rules, but pretty much all games have them, and for reasons. Am I physically prohibited from moving my battleship in Axis and Allies 4 zones? No, I can easily do that. But what happens when I do? Other players will probably say “you can’t do that. The rules state this.”

If you get buy in at your table to change that rule, more power to you. But the rules clearly state an expectation. Just like the rules clearly state druids don’t wear metal armor.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
Being able to read the books as a whole instead of focusing on one sentence indicates that the Druid just performed an action not appropriate for the class once they used a non-Druid weapon. They also of course won't gain the appropriate benefits of being proficient with the weapon, and may suffer any appropriate penalties. The DMG has a table for penalties to impose on players who perform non-class appropriate actions. Any other penalty on them for doing so would be a house rule, as it's purely at DM discretion due to no further listed mechanical penalties. Anyone who thinks "forbidden" means "physically impossible under scientific law" falls into my earlier category of either not being able to read, or not being able to use common sense.

The Cleric also had the limit of "All are likewise forbidden to use edged and/orpointed weapons which shed blood." What happened if they used one? There was no penalty given, so the only penalty as per the RAW would be the penalties listed in the DMG for doing something inappropriate for your class. A Cleric still had the physical capacity to pick up a dagger and use it to cut a rope, and could still wave it around like a wand in combat if they so wished. As per the rules, it was simply up to the DM to decide if the action they had performed was against the tenets of their class, and then choose the punishment from the provided table based on the severity of their offenses.

In the case of Druids, it already said "druids are unable to use anyarmor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallicarmor spoils their magical powers)". The penalty for doing so was already explained; it spoils their magical powers. They could still opt to strap on a metal shield, but bye-bye magical powers. This means it's less explicit to be automatically considered a "non-class like behavior", since it was not stated as a taboo, and there could be times where it's appropriate to wear metal temporarily if it achieved their goal without need for their magic. The non-class behavior rules were heavily up to DM discretion, but they still very much existed as the rule to enforce for when characters acted outside of their designated feature blocks.

You are just making stuff up now.

I assume you played OD&D and 1e, correct?

So you understand that while people played in all sorts of different ways, the mindset was completely different back then?

I understand you have repeatedly ignored the whole class/lore issue, but ... c'mon. Are you going to be seriously arguing that you understand how Clerics used edged weapons in OD&D and 1e so well because of you common sense, and the rest of us were just playing it wrong?

I mean, you could argue that, but that would be kind of silly, right? Don't be that guy.

PS- Quoting only the ending joke of a post, and eliding the rest of it, isn't ... a great way to engage people.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
By the way, the actual Gygaxian method of handling the Plate-wearing druid, or the two-handed sword-weilding cleric, is DMG p. 110. Here-

Some players will find more enjoyment in spoiling a game than in playing it, and this ruins the fun for the rest of the participants, so it must be prevented. Those who enjoy being loud and argumentative, those who pout or act in a childish manner when things go against them, those who use the books as a defense when you rule them out of line should be excluded from the campaign. Simply put, ask them to leave, or do not invite them to participate again.

...


Strong steps short of expulsion can be an extra random monster die, obviously rolled, the attack of an ethereal mummy (which always strikes by surprise, naturally), points of damage from "blue bolts from the heavens" striking the offender's head, or the permanent loss of a point of charisma (appropriately) from the character belonging to the offender. If these have to be enacted regularly, then they are not effective and stronger measures must be taken. Again, the ultimate answer to such a problem is simply to exclude the disruptive person from further gatherings.



To the extent this wasn't clear, this was also provided as the SOLE AFTERWORD (ALL-CAPS IN ORIGINAL) on p, 230-

IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!



Keep trying to point out the OD&D and AD&D were ... different.*

But maybe it takes an ethereal mummy?


*EDIT- in case this wasn't clear from my first post of the day, re: history of druids, your argument is weird and misplaced. Here-

A. 5e's text about druids and armor doesn't work because it's not a rule, and never has been, ever. Or something.

B. 5e's rule about druids and armor doesn't work very well because it's similar to the other class/lore rules from OD&D and 1e that, for the most part, 5e has completely abandoned; given that 5e has completely abandoned almost all vestiges of these rules (including but not limited to clerics and edged weapons, racial level limits, monks and oil, and various alignment restrictions) re-introducing this single 1e legacy rule seems misplaced and confusing, and should be, at most, an optional campaign-variant, not a core 5e class rule for druids.

See the difference? I could understand B, but I don't get A at all.
 
Last edited:

Ohmyn

Villager
You are just making stuff up now.

I assume you played OD&D and 1e, correct?

So you understand that while people played in all sorts of different ways, the mindset was completely different back then?

I understand you have repeatedly ignored the whole class/lore issue, but ... c'mon. Are you going to be seriously arguing that you understand how Clerics used edged weapons in OD&D and 1e so well because of you common sense, and the rest of us were just playing it wrong?

I mean, you could argue that, but that would be kind of silly, right? Don't be that guy.

PS- Quoting only the ending joke of a post, and eliding the rest of it, isn't ... a great way to engage people.
No, I'm not making anything up. I'm merely pointing out that many people read the rules wrong. This was especially true during a time without such easy internet access, so people couldn't as easily openly discuss the proper interpretation of rules, and they couldn't get proper guidance from the game developers so easily. Yes, people played in all sorts of different ways, as they do in the current edition, but that doesn't change what the rules say.

I'm not saying that Clerics used edged weapons. I'm saying that they had the capacity, but would try not to. A Cleric could still have a dagger on them for the purpose of cutting ropes, and they could still use a knife to cut meat. I doubt they had to bludgeon their food into portions, but if you read the rules as physical law, they'd have to.

They did not go out of their way to use sharp weapons. There were penalties built into the system for Clerics that did so, which is what deterred them from making the choice in-game. However, if a person was about to die, and the only weapon they had available to save them was a nearby dagger, they'd have the option to choose their tenet against sharp objects versus their desire to protect lives. Any DM that thinks "You can't pick up that dagger because it's forbidden", doesn't quite understand the proper application of the game's rules.

PS: The joke part was all that was necessary, because it summed up the point that was being addressed, as it seemed to be indicating that you accepted that Druids simply could not hold another weapon simply because it wasn't listed in their class block. The whole point of my post was to address that, and did not have anything to do with the rest of it, which was merely explaining weapon proficiency selection for classes.
 

ad_hoc

Explorer
I am glad that D&D is a genre of fantasy rather than a generic fantasy game.

I think the rule is both important and clear.

Like all rules it is easy to play without it. I think you're losing something in your game, but you can do what you want in your game.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought

Ohmyn

Villager
By the way, the actual Gygaxian method of handling the Plate-wearing druid, or the two-handed sword-weilding cleric, is DMG p. 110. Here-

[SNIP]

*EDIT- in case this wasn't clear from my first post of the day, re: history of druids, your argument is weird and misplaced. Here-

A. 5e's text about druids and armor doesn't work because it's not a rule, and never has been, ever. Or something.

B. 5e's rule about druids and armor doesn't work very well because it's similar to the other class/lore rules from OD&D and 1e that, for the most part, 5e has completely abandoned; given that 5e has completely abandoned almost all vestiges of these rules (including but not limited to clerics and edged weapons, racial level limits, monks and oil, and various alignment restrictions) re-introducing this single 1e legacy rule seems misplaced and confusing, and should be, at most, an optional campaign-variant, not a core 5e class rule for druids.

See the difference? I could understand B, but I don't get A at all.
That Gygaxian stuff doesn't really apply to out of game discussion, so I don't see the point of that. We're on an online forum, not at a D&D table. All I will say to that is that if I were at a table where I were playing a Druid, but then the party had a great plan to save the day that required me to weigh my taboo against metal versus the mission, and the DM chose for me because "it's impossible for your character to make that decision because your taboo is infallible", I'd not come back to that table. If my character is allowed to risk its life for others, I'd expect he can set aside a taboo.

As for the A and B, you're showing you don't understand the argument at all. The point is, that even if it's a rule, it doesn't impose any penalty, and there's nothing in the game system preventing the action. The developer of the game even addressed the discussion and agreed on this, and did not errata it, meaning it was clearly intended. The argument is not that it doesn't fit within the edition, it's that it imposes no penalty. A Paladin can defy their oaths, but if they do so there's an excerpt with consequences. The Druid has no such penalties, so if a player does so at the table, it's only the DM's discretion, and not the written rules, to stop or penalize them.
 

Advertisement

Top