• 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.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented

5ekyu

Explorer
And again, a choice isn't a rule. You can keep repeating rule until you are blue in the face, but it's not going to magically change that one fluff line into a rule.
Again, your personal decision to not treat the whole text of the druid proficiency section as a rule is amusing but carries no weight beyond your table. You own personal feeling that using the eord's will not makes something "'not a rule" is not gonna carry the day.
 

JonnyP71

Explorer
Having trouble understanding what, "any given weapon" means? Here's a hint, it includes two-handed swords.

We've already pointed you to it in the DMG. It clearly allows engaging in behavior that is aberrational to the class. Wearing metal armor is aberrant behavior for druids, just as using a two-handed sword would be aberrant behavior for thieves. Pull your head out of the sand.
I'm still waiting for the quote I asked for? Neither of the above are applicable. Find me something that CLEARLY states they CAN.

Point 1 - you are the one misunderstanding that passage and its context, not me. You are the one adding a meaning that is neither there, nor is it even implied. The notes under the armour/weapons table on page 19 are also very clear.

Point 2 - is much more general. It can be applied to specific cases, but was generally for fighters who refused to fight, mages who charged onto the frontline frequently, or thieves who refused to put their class skills to good use.

It looks like you are trying to find meanings in statements that are simply not there. We get it, you dislike thematic restrictions on roleplay. That's fine. But it's clouding your logic. Neither the 1E PHB nor the DMG in any way back up the statements you have made.... 1E had some notoriously grey areas, difficult rules to fathom due to their wording, and poor organisation. Permitted weapons and armour however are not those cases.
 

Maxperson

Orcus on an on Day
I'm sure that someone somewhere in some game at some point someone has had their PC put on metal armor to sneak into a castle. But there are sooo many issues with that hypothetical. Like ... does the 8 strength wizard put on full plate? Guess you aren't using the variant encumbrance rules. Hope nobody notices the dwarf in a castle run by orcs. That fighter with the +1 plate is going to swap out for the chain mail that's standard for the guard, right?
So who said the whole party was sneaking in? And if the castle has orcs, everyone in the party is having issues. None of these "examples" changes mine at all. You don't get to alter the scenario.

But let's say the druid ignores the clearly stated rule is willing to wear the armor in this one oddball niche scenario and the DM allows it. So what? That doesn't mean he will wear armor any time else. Sneaking into a castle does not justify wearing the armor at other times. A vegetarian will not eat meat ... but if he's starving to death and there's no other option they may make an exception. But if he continues to chow down on burgers after other options are available they're no longer a vegetarian.
Well, if the game is 5e, we know that there are no penalties for a vegetarian chowing down and there are no rules that cause him cease to be vegetarian, so yes he would still be vegetarian in a 5e game. Unless there's a house rule of course.
 

Maxperson

Orcus on an on Day
I'm still waiting for the quote I asked for? Neither of the above are applicable. Find me something that CLEARLY states they CAN.
I can lead a horse to water...

Point 2 - is much more general. It can be applied to specific cases, but was generally for fighters who refused to fight, mages who charged onto the frontline frequently, or thieves who refused to put their class skills to good use.
Yep. Specific cases like druids wearing metal armor and thieves using two-handed swords.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
I'm sure that someone somewhere in some game at some point someone has had their PC put on metal armor to sneak into a castle. But there are sooo many issues with that hypothetical. Like ... does the 8 strength wizard put on full plate? Guess you aren't using the variant encumbrance rules. Hope nobody notices the dwarf in a castle run by orcs. That fighter with the +1 plate is going to swap out for the chain mail that's standard for the guard, right?

When I've run across similar scenarios, someone polymorphed, did an illusion of some kind, hid in a bag of holding, pretended to be a prisoner, climbed a rope the others threw down, or one of a hundred other ways of dealing with it.

This scenario will never happen in any game I ever run and over decades of running and playing games with more DMs and players than I can count I've never seen it. But it still doesn't matter. The DM not giving you an option? Like I said before, they're being a **** DM. It's their game they can make something else work. Even then, we know that according to the rules a Druid will be unwilling to wear metal armor.

But let's say the druid ignores the clearly stated rule is willing to wear the armor in this one oddball niche scenario and the DM allows it. So what? That doesn't mean he will wear armor any time else. Sneaking into a castle does not justify wearing the armor at other times. A vegetarian will not eat meat ... but if he's starving to death and there's no other option they may make an exception. But if he continues to chow down on burgers after other options are available they're no longer a vegetarian.

Like I've said before, I wouldn't allow it because in all but a couple of cases I follow the rules. I don't see a justification for it, if someone playing a druid wants better armor we'll work on an alternative. I wouldn't have a metal armor wearing druid in my game any more than I'd have a 7 ft tall halfling. If someone tells me I'm not the boss of them and I can't enforce the rules of the game I will let them know that not only am I not their boss, I am not their DM.
Exactly. The issue I have been raising and having dodged for pages after pages now is that if you agree to play with this or that rule in play, then in game decide that rule no longer applies to you the person violating the rules is **not** the character but the player. Now we cue the dismissals of the druid armor even bring a rule or any agreed rules at the table not counting etc etc dodgey etc.

As I said in my games, I added several non-metal medium armors. I would allow a player to even work in metal armor if they created compelling story behind it do it added to the game. I would even myself allow a druid character who was "true to their crefo" and against metal armor to fon it for emergencies with appropriate atonement and role-playing added after.

But apparently we are tyrants and railroaded if we dont allow players to unilaterally waive the rules agreed to entirely mid-game on demand.

As you observe, player in games of most every class find ways to resolve challenges and do so **within the rules agreed to play** all the time. But apparently, some players of druids want to just solve challenges by on-the-fly rules rewrites instead.

Funny, I always saw thec5e druid as one of the most versatile classes to play as far as scope of challenges thry have sbilities to deal with, myself. Guess for some players tho, more is needed.
 

Maxperson

Orcus on an on Day
Exactly. The issue I have been raising and having dodged for pages after pages now is that if you agree to play with this or that rule in play, then in game decide that rule no longer applies to you the person violating the rules is **not** the character but the player. Now we cue the dismissals of the druid armor even bring a rule or any agreed rules at the table not counting etc etc dodgey etc.
And you seem to fail to understand is that the rules are subservient to those playing the game, not the other way around. Especially in a rulings over rules edition.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I remember a 1st edition game when the MU had to use a magic sword because it was the only weapon that could harm the enemy and the fighter was dead.
I don't remember ever reading that magic users would not use a sword in any edition. Nope. Proficient? No. Will not use? Not there.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
I think I said that.

But there is also a destinction to be made between a player who doesn't want to play a class any more, and a character who for role playing reasons looses thier faith.
There are a lot of distinctions that can be made but their relevance to the druid metal discussion and whether player who play druids ha ve to abide hy the rules in play at the table is not yet established.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
And again, a choice isn't a rule. You can keep repeating rule until you are blue in the face, but it's not going to magically change that one fluff line into a rule.
And you can keep repeating that "will not" doesn't really mean they will not wear metal armor an it's still not a rule. Some random person on the internet does not get to decide what is a rule and what isn't.

I don't see why a proficiency that restricts access is any less of a rule that allows access.


Well, if the game is 5e, we know that there are no penalties for a vegetarian chowing down and there are no rules that cause him cease to be vegetarian, so yes he would still be vegetarian in a 5e game. Unless there's a house rule of course.

So a vegetarian that regularly eats meat is still a vegetarian? Can't argue with logic like that. Literally. There's no point because it defies all logic and definitions.

And you seem to fail to understand is that the rules are subservient to those playing the game, not the other way around. Especially in a rulings over rules edition.
Huh. Last time I checked, the DM was the arbiter of the rules. Did they change that when I wasn't looking? Hmm.

Nope, intro of the DMG: "as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."
 

JonnyP71

Explorer
I can lead a horse to water...



Yep. Specific cases like druids wearing metal armor and thieves using two-handed swords.
Still waiting.....

Probably best to just walk away now. Let me know if you find something relevant, even a snippet of evidence...
 

5ekyu

Explorer
And you seem to fail to understand is that the rules are subservient to those playing the game, not the other way around. Especially in a rulings over rules edition.
Since I am talking about the players agreeing to the rules they chose to play with, this reply seems to make no sense. We agreed to normal shortswords doing d6 damage with noted exceptions for specific changes too, but if Joe decides that to solve problem ABC on the fly his shortsword now does 10d15 then hey, there is an issue.

Now, of course, maybe we added to our table rules something like plot points and gave them the ability to suspend certain restrictions for short time or enabling 10d15 damage weapons - that is obviously different.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
I can lead a horse to water...
You are incorrect on this. I already went through this for the PHB.

As I am guessing you missed this, I will repeat my prior post-



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.
So, how do we know this? Let's read the rules in pari materia.

First, the table shows that you know (are proficient in) fewer weapons than you have the ability to use.

Second, the specific examples given with the table are for weapons that are allowed by class, not for any ol' weapon.

Ex-
Initial Number of Weapons shows the number which the character may select to be proficient with, i.e. a cleric could select a flail and staff, club
and mace, or any combination of two permitted weapons.

Non-proficiency Penalty indicates the subtraction from the character’s “to hit“ dice which applies to attacks by the character using such a weapon in missile or melee combat.

(italics in original, bold added).


Notice- permitted weapons! And then, "such a weapons." What is the antecedent of such a weapon? Why, it's permitted weapons. The non-proficiency penalty applies to the use of "permitted" weapons when there is no proficiency; not a a catch-all for non-permitted weapons.

To the extent that this isn't clear, the entire section on weapon proficiency starts as follows:

"The choice of weapons used by your character might be circumscribed bythe class of your character, but selection is otherwise a matter of yourpreferences based on various factors presented hereafter."

That's right- the weapons you use are circumscribed by your class, but after that rule, you then follow the following proficiency rules. This was all pretty normal stuff for people playing AD&D; it was used (to the extent people used it) when, inter alia, a PC chose proficiencies in certain weapons for their class, but then found another class-allowed weapon (MAGIC!) that they were not proficient in.

Finally, regarding the whole retconning of OD&D (which, again, no one has bothered to engage with Eldritch Wizardry) and AD&D, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy, so I started a thread-

https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?660258-1e-and-OD-amp-D-How-did-you-handle-Druids-and-Armor-Clerics-and-Edge-Weapons

(Unfortunately, I posted in the wrong forum)

As of right now, despite the huge variation in play .... not a single person who played prior to 1985 seems to agree with the modern Barracks Lawyers. I mean, you can get people to argue about every single rule in AD&D and OD&D, just about, and yet this seems to be universal.



Which leads to the point I keep making- you know, rules and play were a lot different back then.
 

Sadras

Explorer
So a vegetarian that regularly eats meat is still a vegetarian?
Yes, but a really bad one. :p
Kind of like a politician who tells the truth, an Italian who doesn't like pasta, or a Muslim who drinks... you get the drift.
 

WaterRabbit

Villager
The problem with this premise is that it is divorced from the setting. Without playing the druid into a setting, it just becomes a player choice. However, this sentence means something different in Dark Sun vs Forgotten Realms vs homebrew, etc. So this is a total tempest in a teapot.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Yes, but a really bad one. :p
So we can just redefine words to mean anything we want? A vegetarian can eat all the steak they want and still be a vegetarian?

Cool. From now on proficiency in martial weapons really means that I can shoot laser beams from my eyes. 'Cuz lasers are awesome!
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Again, your personal decision to not treat the whole text of the druid proficiency section as a rule is amusing but carries no weight beyond your table. You own personal feeling that using the eord's will not makes something "'not a rule" is not gonna carry the day.


Especially odd since the definition of a rule includes “a principal that guides conduct”. It’s LITERALLY including a choice as what a rule is defined as, because a person’s principals are choices. I’ve seen people argue some silly things in the past, but I have to admit, I’ve never seen it get this ridiculous. So far, we’ve had him argue that the definition of a rule isn’t a rule, how any DM that uses rules in the rule book (rule is even in that name of what those books are called lol) are tyrants, and another poster say that using that rule to make decisions is an arbitrary decision (the opposite of what arbitrary means).

Is it opposite week and I missed it or something?

But you know what? Go to an AL game with a Druid wearing plate mail and tell the DM you are allowed if you want based on some of the reasons given here. Let me know how that works out for you.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
Especially odd since the definition of a rule includes “a principal that guides conduct”. It’s LITERALLY including a choice as what a rule is defined as, because a person’s principals are choices. I’ve seen people argue some silly things in the past, but I have to admit, I’ve never seen it get this ridiculous. So far, we’ve had him argue that the definition of a rule isn’t a rule, how any DM that uses rules in the rule book (rule is even in that name of what those books are called lol) are tyrants, and another poster say that using that rule to make decisions is an arbitrary decision (the opposite of what arbitrary means).

Is it opposite week and I missed it or something?

But you know what? Go to an AL game with a Druid wearing plate mail and tell the DM you are allowed if you want based on some of the reasons given here. Let me know how that works out for you.
Moreover, go to pretty much any table, agree to the rules in play, then decide unilaterally during play when inconvenient your charscter can ignore the rule and if told no start spouting off about tyrants and railroading... see how far that gets you.

Even the current SAC makes it clear the DM decides whether to use the official rulings in play and for the druid metal thingy they emphasize the GM decision and final say again, not the player's right to insist it be that way or the tyranny of GMs who choose to not change the rule. It's not "permitted" just identified as not gonna break the game if the GM expands it to follow proficiencies in their campaign.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
Especially odd since the definition of a rule includes “a principal that guides conduct”. It’s LITERALLY including a choice as what a rule is defined as, because a person’s principals are choices. I’ve seen people argue some silly things in the past, but I have to admit, I’ve never seen it get this ridiculous. So far, we’ve had him argue that the definition of a rule isn’t a rule, how any DM that uses rules in the rule book (rule is even in that name of what those books are called lol) are tyrants, and another poster say that using that rule to make decisions is an arbitrary decision (the opposite of what arbitrary means).

Is it opposite week and I missed it or something?

But you know what? Go to an AL game with a Druid wearing plate mail and tell the DM you are allowed if you want based on some of the reasons given here. Let me know how that works out for you.
None of that was quite as weird as the tangent on RAILROADING ... but that was so bizarre that I couldn't even.

Player: I want to play a Wizard.

DM: Great!

Player: And my spellcasting stat will be Dexterity.

DM: Um, so ... can we talk about ...

Player: NO! IT'S DEXTERITY! STOP RAILROADING ME! YOU'RE NOT A DM, YOU'RE SNIDELY WHIPLASH!
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Threads like this make me realize how lucky I have been. I’ve gamed with hundreds of people all over the world over the past almost four decades. There have been disagreements, and the odd rules lawyer here and there, but not once did I ever have a player demand to change a rule, and if I didn’t, I was a tyrant or railroading them. Not once. And not to toot my own horn, but the overwhelming feedback I’ve gotten as a DM has been largely positive (after every session with new players, like at an AL game, I always ask for feedback).

If a player came to my table and said they could wear plate mail as a Druid, and gave me the reasons why that were given in this thread, I would say that it’s not allowed because it is in fact a rule, and if they wanted plate mail, there are other ways to achieve that. The second they called me a tyrant or accused me of railroading, id thank them because they let me know I dodged a bullet, then send them on their way.

And people wonder why DMs are in high demand and hard to find. It’s because most of us don’t want to deal with troublesome players who disrupt the table. The game is for everyone*, but the DM does a lot more work. It’s why they get to make the rulings. I have never forced anyone to play at my table. I guess I’m lucky because I’ve always had more than enough willing players to play in my games.

*IME, when a player says they should be able to do whatever they want because “the game is for me too”, what they usually mean is “the game is for me, cater to me, and I don’t care what any other player wants”
 

coolAlias

Explorer
If a player came to my table and said they could wear plate mail as a Druid, and gave me the reasons why that were given in this thread, I would say that it’s not allowed because it is in fact a rule, and if they wanted plate mail, there are other ways to achieve that.
Now now, this is about medium armors that are metal, not heavy. ;)

I find myself on both sides of the argument here.

On the one hand, I agree with the OP in that the way the "rule" is portrayed in the PHB is less than ideal, and I'd prefer that if they want it to be a hard "can not wear metal" they should have worded it that way and provided some actual mechanical drawbacks to doing so. A druid is certainly physically capable of putting on metal armor, after all, whether they are proficient or not.

On the other hand, players must abide by the DM's rulings. If the DM says that "won't" means "can't", then that's that. I'd certainly hope the DM would expand on their reasoning if asked politely, and perhaps discuss what the consequences of putting metal armor on would be - it is still physically possible, after all, unless some magic inherent in the world literally prevents it.

Also on the other hand, a player that chooses this hill to die on is probably not one you want in your game. It's one thing to discuss with the DM and say "hey, it says won't but not can't, and I AM proficient, so is it cool if my character is a Druid of the Circle of Nature Is Metal and wears a breastplate he crafted himself?" It's another matter entirely to make demands or continue to argue after a ruling has been made.
 

Advertisement

Top