D&D 5E Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Seriously? There have been dozens of posts about how the DM can't dictate what the PC thinks, walls of text of how it's "just a taboo" and that people ignore taboos all the time.

Yes, seriously. Not one person has said that he wants his druid to just put on full plate and adventure away. None. All of the arguments are that a druid can break the taboo, not that he will or that the player is just trying to flaunt a rule. Those are incorrect assumptions that your side is using.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No. What "you" (plural) are saying is that it's perfectly acceptable to have CE druid riding around on motorbikes with flame throwers burning Bambi and Thumper because there are no explicit rules against that. Any DM who punishes that type of activity is a tyrant on a railroad.

Punish how?
 

Ohmyn

First Post
No. What "you" (plural) are saying is that it's perfectly acceptable to have CE druid riding around on motorbikes with flame throwers burning Bambi and Thumper because there are no explicit rules against that. Any DM who punishes that type of activity is a tyrant on a railroad.

Yes, chaotic evil is a perfectly acceptable alignment for Druids, just as it is for any other class, including Clerics and Paladins. If it wasn't they wouldn't have the option. 2 out of 5 of the Nature deities available in the 5E Forgotten Realms pantheon are evil, one of which is Chaotic Evil, and both evil options are available for worship of either Druids or Clerics. Also, Druids are known to be allowed to use any metal items they want, hence having the option of a selection of metal weapons, and the freedom to gain proficiency in any metal weapons they wish. The only prohibition is on armor, so yes, they could ride around on motorbikes, just as they could ride in a metal carriage or swing a giant metal hammer. This isn't just a "Druids should be able to do this" dialogue; the rules explicitly allow it.

For example, the Forgotten Realms Pantheon includes Auril, goddess of winter. Auril is one of the 5 nature deities, who can be the source of power for either Clerics or Druids. The dogma of this deity is to cover all land with ice, quench fire wherever it is found, and to work darkness to hide the sun so that the chill of Auril may slay. She orders to kill arctic creatures only in great need, but to slay all other life. The only taboo on the scenario you explained that a Druid of Auril would suffer would be to not use a flamethrower, but I'm sure she'd love some cold steel blades or some kind of magical frost-thrower. Bambi and Thumper? They better be wearing their coats, else Druids of Auril are fully expected to kill them on sight. If that Druid of Auril happens to be of a druidic sect similar to the Children of Winter of Eberron, who venerate death, then Bambi and Thumper better be twice as careful crossing their path.
 
Last edited:

Ohmyn

First Post
Seriously? There have been dozens of posts about how the DM can't dictate what the PC thinks, walls of text of how it's "just a taboo" and that people ignore taboos all the time.

Because extremes are the best way to emphasize a point, and player choice is super important in this game, so long as they're not being disruptive to the table. Every class has extremes within them, and all characters should be assumed fallible, or perhaps willing to make personal sacrifices for something greater. This is exactly why "will not" is not a fully actionable rule with how the game system is written where players have control over what their character does in any situation. Even if they're certain the decision will lead to death, or come with some other great cost, they can opt to do it anyway.

"Will not" and "do not" exist in a lot of places in the books, but are typically overlooked because it either does not have penalties, so ignoring it is of no significance, or penalties do exist and the player is who decides if they want to risk them. In the case of the latter it's not the presence of "will not" and "do not" in the rules that stop people from performing the actions, but rather the consequences. Given how the rules are written overall, "will not" without consequences is very flimsy wording. At this point only the Druid suffers from their "will not" being accepted as an instance that can never be encroached.
 


CapnZapp

Legend
...and we're up to six hundred posts on a decades old row with absolutely nothing to show for it!!

See you in another couple of hundred posts! *good job* *sarcasm*
 

Statistically, when a video game includes a "good" and an "evil" path the vast majority of players choose the "good" path.

But the still want the "evil" path to exist. Why? because they want to be able to CHOOSE to do the right thing. Without an evil option they cannot choose good.

Options should exist within the game, even when those options will never ever be taken up.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
(no one is asking that Druid's explode)..... excuse me. I want exploding Druids. Gamers will accept this an interesting limitation on a Druid's powers. it is there green kyptonine.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
(no one is asking that Druid's explode)..... excuse me. I want exploding Druids. Gamers will accept this an interesting limitation on a Druid's powers. it is there green kyptonine.

Hmm. I have Exploding Kittens, but no exploding druid's. Sorry man.
 


jgsugden

Legend
Out of curiosity: If there were a dwarven druid in your game that focused on Earth Element magics (Move Earth, Magic Stone, Earth Tremor, Spike Growth), and was Circle of the Land (Mountain): Wouldn't the no-metal restriction feel a bit odd for that PC?
 

Out of curiosity: If there were a dwarven druid in your game that focused on Earth Element magics (Move Earth, Magic Stone, Earth Tremor, Spike Growth), and was Circle of the Land (Mountain): Wouldn't the no-metal restriction feel a bit odd for that PC?
I mentioned that earlier. If a player came to me with that concept I would allow the druid to replace the restriction with will only wear metal or stone armor (or similar vow).

As addressed earlier, and supported by sage advice, it isn't a balance issue, just theme/flavour.
 


I would say there is nothing wrong with the way the rule in the druid section is written. However, the equipment section of the PHB does not make it sufficently clear that non-metallic alternatives are possible (apart from for shields). This can significantly disadvantage non-moon druids.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I would say there is nothing wrong with the way the rule in the druid section is written. However, the equipment section of the PHB does not make it sufficently clear that non-metallic alternatives are possible (apart from for shields). This can significantly disadvantage non-moon druids.

That's why Druids have Barkskin.

Another wonderfully written rule by the way. ;)
 


Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
What basis? Taboo? That was only brought up in the Sage Advice. It's not in the 1e PHB, 2e PHB, 3e PHB or 5e PHB. There is no mention of why it exists other than the part in 1e and 3e that say that it messes up their magical abilities. 4e I don't know about.

If it's as the 1e and 3e PHB say it is and the only reason for not being able to wear metal armor is loss of magical abilities, nothing stop a PC from wearing it anyway. If it's as the 5e Sage Advice says and it's just a taboo like being kosher, then nothing stops a PC druid from wearing it anyway. It's no different than paladin and monk taboos, and there is no rules basis for a druid being more unable to wear metal armor if the PC is willing to put it on, than a paladin or monk.



He cited sage advice, and then proceeded to say no rhyme or reason. His own citation provided the reason, he’s just choosing to ignore anything not convenient to him. Just like you’re doing now.

I have no time to debate with people who aren’t going to argue honestly.

“It’s not a rule”
“Yes it is, here’s the definition of a rule and it fits the definition literally”
“Rules are only mechanical”
“No they are not, reread that definition again”

.....

“Here’s sage advice saying there is no mechanical penalty. That rule has no rhyme or reason.”
“The sage advice paragraph you just quoted tells you the rhyme or reason literally right there.”

It’s exasperating when not only do you ignore what everyone has cited for you out of the books, but you’re ignoring your own material you’re citing. What’s the point in continuing?
 

Oofta

Legend
As I noted at the beginning, no one complaining about the supposed "badly written" rule is providing an effective mechanism to enforce it. You know, anything from "Druid Explodes" to stating that the PHB rules on non-proficient armor should be enforced (PHB, p. 144).

It's the usual rules lawyering- trying to find a loophole (it's not CAN NOT, IT'S WILL NOT, SEE?) and instead of fixing it, arguing that it therefore is meaningless.

Words, man. What do they even mean?

Right. Remember though people have never said anywhere on this thread that a druid would ever wear metal armor, such as plate. Just that they could, if they wanted to and if you think it's not really a rule. Even though it is a rule. And people want their druids in metal armor. But they don't. It's badly implemented because there's not a paragraph justifying it unlike every other rule in the book except for the ones that don't. We can't just leave any consequence up to the DM because that means it's not really a rule. Except when it is. Or not.

Wait, what's being argued again? :confused:

[SBLOCK]
Queue the "You're misrepresenting what's being said because obviously you don't see what the issue is and you would agree if you actually took the time to read what we say." All because I happen to disagree with the very premise of the thread and think the rule is fine as is.
[/SBLOCK]
 

Have you come across Jalhera in Baldur's Gate? She is a multiclassed Fighter/Druid and I have seen her stomping about in full plate despite being a faithful druid in good standing.
 


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top