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

[JonnyP71]

In session 0 I tell my players not to waste my time and theirs by even trying to look for loopholes - as that approach will not be tolerated.

The last player who ignored this instruction tried to make a Wizard with high Nature/Survival skills and proficiency with the herbalist kit, so he could ignore the component cost of Find Familiar and spam cast it as a ritual. He wanted to be able to change his Familiar at will depending on the environment (at 1st level!!!) so he could scout any area effectively without being noticed. When picked up on the fact that this would not be allowed he argued the point both during sessions (to the point of derailing them) and online afterwards. Daft thing is, I'd been generous by allowing him access to one casting of the spell before the campaign began so he could begin with a Familiar at no cost.

... he is no longer part of our group.

 

[Ohmyn]

Now of course I shouldn't take the bait but hey, it is what it is.

At our table a player who keeps trying to do things that are illegal under the belief that its everyone rlse's job to call him when its illegal is not here long.

Our table rules are not "cheat until you get caught".

But it's good to see that kind of support is in line with the other side here.

The expectations at your table is not relevant to RAW, and nobody is implying breaking of the system rules when they say a character is free to try to break the rules. What we're saying is that just because a character doesn't possess a trait, such as lacking a fly speed, doesn't mean the character can't put all of their might into attempting to fly. The rules exist as limitations for the player to try to overcome (such as succeeding on a jump check as they attempt to "fly" over a chasm), or to penalize the character when they fail to overcome them (the character failing to succeed on the jump check, and thus falling into the chasm because they possess no ability to fly). My Dwarven Druid may not possess the ability to fly, but he does possess the ability to put on metal armor. If he puts it on, it's up to the DM to say what happens. If it's a purely RAW table, there is no RAW guideline to impose a penalty, therefore there is no penalty.

The major point, again, is that a Paladin swears an oath with tenets, and the book says that Paladins abide by them; however, this does not change the RAW rules of the game, so these tenets don't control the actions the player is allowed to have their character perform. The player can still choose to have their character break them at any time they want. This is true of Clerics, this is true of Paladins, and as such it has to be true for Druids, because no one class is removed from the RAW gameplay system. The game system does not restrict the actions the player can have their character perform, it merely determines their rate of success or failure, and the consequences of success or failure. This is why it's automatically assumed by players at RAW tables that the Paladin can break their oaths, even though the rules say that all Paladins abide by the listed tenets. If every other class is allowed to abandon their lore in RAW due to the RAW having no mechanical penalties for deterrence, then so should be the case for Druids. A RAW table does not pick and choose when RAW is applied.

 

[Ohmyn]

In session 0 I tell my players not to waste my time and theirs by even trying to look for loopholes - as that approach will not be tolerated.

The last player who ignored this instruction tried to make a Wizard with high Nature/Survival skills and proficiency with the herbalist kit, so he could ignore the component cost of Find Familiar and spam cast it as a ritual. He wanted to be able to change his Familiar at will depending on the environment (at 1st level!!!) so he could scout any area effectively without being noticed. When picked up on the fact that this would not be allowed he argued the point both during sessions (to the point of derailing them) and online afterwards. Daft thing is, I'd been generous by allowing him access to one casting of the spell before the campaign began so he could begin with a Familiar at no cost.

... he is no longer part of our group.

Looking for loopholes is very common practice at RAW tables, and is typically even expected. It's a major part of character optimizing at AL tables. So long as it is RAW supported, whether or not it's a loophole is not a factor in a RAW game. RAW tables are how such loopholes are found and tested in real play, and the loopholes that prove too detrimental are why errata exists.

As to the high Nature and Survival with herbalist proficiency to ignore the component cost of Find Familiar, that's actually legal as per RAW. Players are able to gather materials, and they are able to craft things, although crafting is at half cost if you were to purchase the raw materials as opposed to gathering them. Investing two skills and a tool proficiency to be able to reduce 10GP worth of material components seems like a hefty price as it is, so I don't see any imbalance there. This is after all at the expense of skills like stealth and perception, which are considered to be the two most powerful skills in the game.

The limitation on doing what he wants "at will" is that A) it takes a full hour to summon a familiar, and B) you can only craft 5GP worth of items per day of downtime. This means he'd need two crafting days to make 10GP worth of charcoal and incense from raw materials. As silly as some may want to say that is, 10GP is actually a lot of money for common goods. I imagine that's a heck of a lot of raw materials being gathered, since the amount of charcoal and incense you'd have to produce for 10GP market value must be quite a lot when you consider a one pound whetstone can be purchased from a merchant for a single copper. You could even further restrict his access by saying that the crafting rule assumes the player already has raw materials totaling half the market value of the item, so you could add another day of gathering wood if you really wanted to hinder him. However, that's a bit more DM discretion, because the crafting is a downtime activity, which means it takes 8 hours, so the player still has 8 hours each day for another downtime activity, which could be when they perform the gathering of raw materials. However, on that note, party members can combine efforts towards crafting to double the amount that can be made per day of downtime, so willing allies that have nothing better to do with their downtime may aid in this process to reduce two day's worth of crafting to one.

Point is, there are rules to handle this, and the only thing the player did wrong was derail the sessions by arguing the point as opposed to arguing them prior to the game. As far as changing out your familiar any time you want so long as you have the raw materials, that is fully legal and I see nothing that can be construed as violating either the RAW or RAI of the spell.

 

[JonnyP71]

They *didn't* have that amount of time available to them...

He *didn't* ask me 1st, he waited until he was picked up on in and then threw a strop.

He wanted to be able to forage for herbs *and* change his familiar whenever the party took a short rest.

It's imbalanced because he effectively wanted to have something at his disposal that was close to the power of Wizard Eye at 1st level, thereby also treading on the toes of the party's stealthy characters.

 

[Ohmyn]

They *didn't* have that amount of time available to them...

He *didn't* ask me 1st, he waited until he was picked up on in and then threw a strop.

He wanted to be able to forage for herbs *and* change his familiar whenever the party took a short rest.

It's imbalanced because he effectively wanted to have something at his disposal that was close to the power of Wizard Eye at 1st level, thereby also treading on the toes of the party's stealthy characters.

Sure, and not having that time available to them is why he couldn't do it, and the fact that he didn't talk to you prior is indeed a problem, especially when they didn't fully understand the RAW mechanics of what they were doing.

However, even if allowed, it's no more imbalanced than a Druid being able to do that twice per short rest at level 2 at no charge and with no tax on skills or tool proficiencies, or the level 3 Beast Master Ranger, who although it takes 8 hours to bond with a beast, it also has no costs, and I can't imagine the party is venturing into different regions so fast that the wildlife is changing more than every 8 hours. It's very likely that the same species of squirrel will be found within an 8 hour radius. Then there's the champion of them all at this tactic in the Pact of the Chain Warlock at level 3. They have a permanently invisible familiar if they pick Imp or Sprite, who is immune to even certain DM shenanigans, such as if they want to put a cat into a dungeon that automatically finds and attacks small critters. Even this is bypassed because they're fully invisible, and even if there's an animal that can find them by scent or sound, they actually possess the ability to both fly and attack. This can be full Warlock, or a 3 level dip to get a fully powered Eldritch Blast and a powerful familiar.

There's tons of other things that can be done with familiars, especially since it's a 1st level Wizard spell, so anyone can grab it with Magic Initiate at level 4, or level 1 if Variant Human. What that player was doing was just a case of trying to integrate that spell as a focus on the character class that actually gets it by default, as opposed to tacking it onto classes that can use it better than the Wizard, either via a feat or a one level dip.

EDIT: Oh, and on the note of switching the familiar every short rest, as I mentioned for Beast Masters, I doubt they're consistently moving far enough between each short rest that it necessitates that at all. That seems more like flavor than anything, and likely has minor impact on the balance of the spell itself, and still keeps it significantly weaker than what a level 3 Chain Warlock can do with their familiars.

 

[Shadowdweller]

No, but if the DM is disinclined to be co-operative they can have sharks appear in the desert. Subjective: an uncooperative DM can make the spell completely useless.

Oh look, more drivel. The DM can cancel any character abilities by fiat or have rocks randomly fall on people; or merely stack things to get around character strengths (e.g. throwing a succession of fire-immune creatures at fire-focused draconic sorcerer). This has no place in a discussion about class balance, however.

You must change DMs very frequently then! 100 DMs in 6 years, I make that a new DM every 3 weeks. Are you waking away or getting thrown out? If you change games so frequently I don't see how you can get high enough level to cast Conjure Elemental (which, with it's 10 minute cast time, is useless in the average dungeon scrap).

And that's the low side of his claim. The high side, hundreds, means an even more frequent changeover.

Apart from games I DM, I play in at least 3 games per week. Some of those with seasoned old-timers like myself in long-running campaigns, some with random people on line, some in organized play (formerly AL) with rotating DMs and a shifting player base in a college city. Usually the latter two are either one-shots, modular adventures, or short adventure arcs. Sometimes I go to cons. I'll admit I don't keep a strict count, but feel free to actually run the numbers instead of talking out of your hindquarters. They're not what you imagine them to be.

Oh yeah, and we all know that games must ALWAYS begin at first level, right?

Subjective: requires a generous or tactically naïve DM.
Situational: Some are, some aren't. Also depends on the DM since some favour intelligent enemies almost exclusively.
Subjective: requires the DM to play monsters as exceptionally stupid and ignorant.
Unless it's a very low magic setting, even the dumbest troll can figure out that if someone waves their hands in the air and a pack of wolves appear then a spell has been cast.

Only if, as Maxperson noted, the DM is always playing themselves. Different enemies have different goals, different priorities and different modi operandi. Orcs respect martial strength and might presume that warrior-types are the leaders of an enemy group; or choose to target any elves in the party as a result of long-standing hatred. Demons, devils, and undead might choose to target wielders of holy magic over others. Goblins might prioritize whoever they think is weakest or has the most valuable belongings. While even a dumb troll might connect waggling fingers and magic words with an obvious effect...like wolves appearing....the question is more whether they would recognize that in the face of other distractions. Such as an armored knight in their face, a sneaky pipsqueak poking the back of their knees with a knife, and a pimply chap throwing bolts of fire all at the same time. Notwithstanding that summoning spells usually have long durations (with many taking too long to cast in front of enemies in the first place); and the products thereof might not be distinguishable from allies instead of magical minions.

It's frankly hilarious that you try to use enemies focusing on a druid because they're the greatest threat as an argument for why druids aren't the greatest threat.

If they didn't prepare for eventualities then they wouldn't be very intelligent. Even the dumbest goblin carries a shortbow.

Guess there must be a lot of highly intelligent creatures the MM, assorted adventure paths and modules that are incredibly stupid then. Like jackalweres, grell, ghouls, ghosts, xorn, vampire spawn...Not to mention innumerable historical cases where soldiers found themselves in battles there were unprepared for...or couldn't afford / weren't outfitted with the best equipment. On top of this, the reality is that even amongst intelligent creatures with ranged attacks there are many who have ranged options that either too short in reasonable range or so much weaker than melee options that many times even a tactically skilled DM will choose not to target a druid hanging far enough back.

Or the dragon could breath weapon all your wolves without even bothering with the druid.

If a dragon ever wastes its breath on summons, that's a win for the druid. And half the benefit of summoning spells to begin with.

Which is the problem. In 5e the (non-moon) druid has very few possible countermeasures, with Barkskin and Stoneskin having been nerfed into oblivion. Wizards, Sorcerers and warlocks get countermeasures aplenty.

Wrong. And discussed elsewhere.

And it was never my intent to suggest that summoning spells where useless, just that they where situational, and far from being the 100% overwhelming juggernauts that certain people are suggesting (and where in some previous editions). Basically, that they are not better than the spells on the cleric spell list.

No single tool is best for every possible circumstance. Clerics have their own unique set of strengths ...such as buffs like Bless; or warding spells like Sanctuary and Shield of Faith. Which is why my original post focused on particular ways in which druids were better at the combat pillar. Conjure animals, though, puts everything the cleric has of comparable level to shame offensively speaking.

 

[Maxperson]

Apart from the DM. If the DM decides a particular suit of plate mail gives an AC of 17 and is made from ankylosaurus hide then that becomes true.

That's why I specifically said, "..like a NORMAL SUIT of plate mail..."

Of course there isn't the same expectation for abnormal suits.

 

[Maxperson]

You need to look up the definition of strawman -- it is not what you think it is.

What does my posting history and sock puppet have to do with each other -- clearly you have little understanding of logic and that people might have a life outside of this forum.

On the other hand, your posting history is clearly nothing but the most extreme trollish behavior.

Dude. You wandered into this thread for the sole purpose of attacking me. The only trolls here are you, and perhaps your other sock puppet. Go troll someone else.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no one that is saying that they wouldn't accommodate a player.

Other than the guy(Johnie something) who said that the rule made it physically impossible for the druid to put on metal armor and the social contract required the player not to ever try. He was very adamant that the player could never do it.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait, what?

Players are allowed to state what their character tries to do.

There is no rule anywhere saying thst players are allowed to try and break rules. You are not allowed in 5e to roll you dice as a player and just tell everyone whatever result you want until you get caught. You are not allowed to keep casting spells until someone else calls you on your character limits.

"Players are ALLOWED to try and break rules. "

That is one for posterity, to be sure.

Do you not understand the difference between in-character and out of character? There are game rules, and then there are rules that are completely within the game world. Game rules, such as armor class, hit points, etc. are not breakable just because the player wants try and break it. However, rules contained entirely within the game world that are dependent on PC action don't have the same force as game rules.

A PC druid can in fact put armor on and violate his taboo. There is literally nothing stopping him. A paladin can walk into an orphanage and hack all the kids into pieces, despite a rule saying he must always remain lawful good. There is literally nothing stopping him. A 1e thief can pick up and swing a two-handed sword. There is literally nothing stopping him. What there are, of course, are consequences for those actions.