*Deleted by user*
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.
Really? It would appear that you don’t understand the argument made by anyone else. I mean- how many posts, and you still don’t seem to grok that people don’t agree with you.
That said, if you’re correct then it is completely legal in all AL games.
Is it? Should be simple enough to find out. Instead of continually asserting something others disagree with.
There are 3 specific places in the 1E PHB (1 on page 19, 2 on page 21) that state a Druid cannot wear metal armour, 1 place uses the word 'unable', another uses the word 'inability', another specific states that only leather is 'permitted'.
Please find me one reference which categorically states that they CAN...
Page 19 of the 1E PHB specifically states this is not the case.
**** 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.
"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"?
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.
Read the definition of rule I provided. Clearly you don’t have an understanding of it.
I don’t know why this is still going on. Look at the definition of a rule.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
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.
Clerics who didn’t follow their god’s wishes and rules lost their ability to cast spells. So...swing and a miss.
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.
You're the one failing to understand. Here's your definition again.
"Won't wear metal armor" is not a regulation or a principle governing conduct. Nobody is coercing them through such a regulation or principle. It's nothing but a personal choice made by druids, and that means that 1) it's not a rule, and 2) PCs can opt to wear the armor.
If it's not physically impossible, then my druid can break the "rule" and wear metal armor. The DM has no right to stop me if it's not a physical impossibility.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Yes! There was a penalty for breaking the rule, but the cleric did have the choice to break it. The same goes for druids and metal armor and thieves and two-handed swords. So long as they accepted the penalties(not being able to use magical abilities and non-proficient penalties), they could engage in aberrant behavior. This is backed up by the experience section which explicitly says via the penalties that classes can engage in aberrant class behaviors.
I also think a lot of people can't believe that there are DMs that would kick out a player who wants their druid to use metal armour.Cant believe some ppl here would actually quit a game if there druid weren't allowed to prance about the woods in full plate armor. Rules lawyering players are so annoying. Good riddance then!
First it us a rule. Not sure how it can be seen otherwise.Um, so that's not even a rule. It's just one line of fluff on choices druids make. If you're going to claim that a rule was made that makes it impossible for a druid to so much as don metal armor, at least use the ones from 1st to 3rd edition. Those are at least rules.
Sure. This is clear, too. If my dad had said to me when I was a kid, "You will not go outside." and I was feeling rebellious, I would go outside anyway. It's just a choice and I can CHOOSE to go against it. See how that works?[/FONT][/COLOR]
Druids won’t wear armor, and it was explained why. Because of their ethos. That’s literally the same thing as a principal. Good lord...
And yes, a DM can tell you that you can’t, because it’s the DMs world and game.
There’s no explicit rule saying I can’t physically move a battleship 4 zones in Axis and Allies, but that doesn’t mean I can.
While obviously there can be most any type of behavior, I dont know of any GM eho would kick a player out for *wanting* their druid to wear metal armor.I also think a lot of people can't believe that there are DMs that would kick out a player who wants their druid to use metal armour.
First it us a rule. Not sure how it can be seen otherwise.
It's just like how in DnD a GM can choose for their game to not use the druid armor rule, or the cleric armor rules or the multi-class restrictions.
A player can declare that his halfling flies across the chasm, even tho they have no actual way to do so at that moment. The GM can then describe the results.
See how that works?
Cant believe some ppl here would actually quit a game if there druid weren't allowed to prance about the woods in full plate armor. Rules lawyering players are so annoying. Good riddance then!
I also think a lot of people can't believe that there are DMs that would kick out a player who wants their druid to use metal armour.
Why is that halfling incapable of flying across the chasm? Is it perhaps that there is a rule to that effect the players all play by?Because it's not an instruction. It's a choice. If it was a rule, they would say "can't." They don't, because it's not a rule.
And just like my druid can decide to put on a set of metal armor to sneak into a castle. It's my PC's choice, not the DM's.
Yep! It works completely unlike druids putting on metal armor. You see, halflings are physically incapable of flying across the chasm on their own, but druids are 100% capable of just putting on metal armor. False Equivalences are false.
Why is that halfling incapable of flying across the chasm? Is it perhaps that there is a rule to that effect the players all play by?
Why epnt that druid put on armor? Is it that there is a rule the players agreed to to that effect?
See how that works?
As for you personally deciding that including the word "wont" (or "will not") disqualifies something as being a rule, you certainly can choose that for your table play. But for the 5e PHB there does not seem to be such a definition made.