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

[Maxperson]

Would u consider a DM punsihing a druid that burns down a forest a tyrant?

You need to be more specific. Punish how?

And this is not buring down a forest to dtop some blight from spreading. This would be pure arson.

Only if the forest is in a country that has laws against burning down forests. Arson is a legal term. In the wilds that no country claims, it would just be starting a fire.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Personally, I don't know any DMs (though they likely exist) that would take away player agency and outright prohibit a druid character to wear metal armor. A fire is a bad place to put my hand, but a DM wouldn't stop me from having my character do it.

I had a GM that did. He also felt that applied to weapons even though it didn't say so when I multi-classed rogue so I had find wood from a D&D Quebracho tree (aka Axe Breaker Tree) to make daggers that wouldn't NORMALLY break in combat and use mending to fix them when they did. Add to that my old GM would take my agency away and prevent me from putting my hand in fire and burning myself if it meant that the his story telling went the way he wanted or I would some how benefit from doing so by saving that burning clue in time to solve a puzzle extra. If I would just get burned he would have allowed it and laughed at me for the "stupid attempt".

I only mention this to say I understand the OPs points and agree. Your statement that its not a big deal as you said is based on your experience. However, seeing it go bad even once you can see how the removal or official errata clarifying it mechanically would improve those debates. I did stop playing under my controlling GM but GMs trying to control players or doubling down on a rule that's getting in the way instead aiming for fun is not a new thing to roleplaying and it pops up even with better GMs.

 

[lingual]

Seems silly for any druid to be allowed to mercilessly upset the balance of nature without any repurcussions. Any player who does that and then comes back with "there's nothing in the rules..." seems like a classic "rules lawyer" to me. I'm glad such types would voluntarily leave. Props to the op for that. He or she would have the decency to go away in that case.

 

[Maxperson]

Seems silly for any druid to be allowed to mercilessly upset the balance of nature without any repurcussions. Any player who does that and then comes back with "there's nothing in the rules..." seems like a classic "rules lawyer" to me. I'm glad such types would voluntarily leave. Props to the op for that. He or she would have the decency to go away in that case.

You didn't answer my question. Punish how?

P.S. That's not being a rules lawyer, classic or otherwise.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Heh... I'm failing to see what the point of all of this is, especially now with all these hundreds of posts.

The book has already been written and printed. The "rule" is already in black and white. Arguing is not able to change the ink. So at this point what difference does it make whether it was a good rule or a bad rule, or a changeable rule or an ignorable rule?

The book says a thing. You can now either follow it or ignore it. What further argument is required at this point that warrants this many posts?

 

[Ohmyn]

Seems silly for any druid to be allowed to mercilessly upset the balance of nature without any repurcussions. Any player who does that and then comes back with "there's nothing in the rules..." seems like a classic "rules lawyer" to me. I'm glad such types would voluntarily leave. Props to the op for that. He or she would have the decency to go away in that case.

Then you don't know the nature of the game in its current condition. Druids do not have an alignment restriction like they have had in past editions, just as Paladins no longer have alignment restrictions. The Feywilds are not just full of neutral or good creatures, and there are plenty sufficient evil plant creatures. If you gain your power from the divine, it need not be radiant power. You very well could make a Chaotic Evil Druid, just as you could make a Chaotic Evil Paladin, or a Chaotic Evil Cleric.

Currently there are 5 deities in the Forgotten Realms setting of 5E that could offer Clerics the Nature Domain, and only one of them is neutral, two are good, and two are evil. All 5 of them grant Clerics proficiency in the heaviest of metal armors. Druids can gain their power from a deity just as a Cleric can. They could likewise gain power from the darker powers in nature. Whereas a good Druid may earn the favor of Dryads and Treants, the evil Druid may earn the favor of Hags and Blights. There's also the character that doesn't try to appease the spirits to gain their favor, but rather takes power for themselves. Hags, despite their evil nature, are fey creatures, just as Dryads are, but still also exert control over nature despite their proclivity for death. Just by living in an area they change the very state of nature around them, causing trees to attack living creatures, the air to become poisonous, etc.

The very point of the argument is not an argument of "there's nothing in the rules", but the fact that the game system in 5E is built very contrary to what you're stating. You're implying it's still heavily one-dimensional, where a deviation from the class must have consequences on the class, but that's outdated standards. The game has been changed from that idea for nearly 20 years now since 3E came out . Druids could become good or evil, and Paladins had Blackguard in the core DMG for them to continue having corrupted Paladin powers after falling from grace. In 4E such restrictions went away for good, and it has continued that way into 5E. If a DM can't figure out a way to handle situations without simply taking away player agency or threatening to take their class away, then they simply haven't adapted with the times.

EDIT: Just to note, I'm not saying any one player should be deviating from the play that everyone at their table agrees to ahead of time. What I'm pointing out is that the game system has equal player agency built in for players playing as any class, including Druid, as per the core rules of the game. That's what makes the metal armor taboo a busted "rule". If every player wants to play a certain way, I totally agree with removal of the player that wants to deviate from what the rest of the group wants in a way that's disruptive. However, I do not agree with the removal of player agency from a single player at the table simply because the DM believes their class must always make certain decisions, even going so far as to rule possible actions that any character could perform to be impossible.

 

[Oofta]

Heh... I'm failing to see what the point of all of this is, especially now with all these hundreds of posts.

The book has already been written and printed. The "rule" is already in black and white. Arguing is not able to change the ink. So at this point what difference does it make whether it was a good rule or a bad rule, or a changeable rule or an ignorable rule?

The book says a thing. You can now either follow it or ignore it. What further argument is required at this point that warrants this many posts?

Basically it boils down to some people want their druid to wear metal armor. It's "justified" because ... I dunno. I'm sure we'll get yet another wall of text soon. It's not a real rule because it only shows up as a proficiency restriction and there is no penalty if the rule is broken. Will not doesn't really mean they won't. The rules aren't the boss of the player. Take your pick.

Apparently I'm a "tyrant" DM because I personally follow the rules unless I have a significant reason not to do so, including this one. I'll work with a PC that wants better armor but I don't see a reason to lift it. It's easy enough to ignore of course if you're the DM. However, that's not good enough unless we all agree that druids should be able to wear plate mail.

I've given up arguing because there's no point, and one of those arguments I really don't understand. Accept the rule, don't accept the rule it doesn't really matter to me. If I'm the DM and you don't want to accept the rules of the game, find a different DM, I won't take offense.

 

[Maxperson]

Basically it boils down to some people want their druid to wear metal armor. It's "justified" because ... I dunno. I'm sure we'll get yet another wall of text soon. It's not a real rule because it only shows up as a proficiency restriction and there is no penalty if the rule is broken. Will not doesn't really mean they won't. The rules aren't the boss of the player. Take your pick.

Literally nobody has said that, though. We're just saying exceptions can be made if there are in game reasons for an exception to be made, not that we are trying to stick our druids into metal armor to use on a regular basis.

 

[Oofta]

Literally nobody has said that, though. We're just saying exceptions can be made if there are in game reasons for an exception to be made, not that we are trying to stick our druids into metal armor to use on a regular basis.

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.

In any case, in all my years of playing I've never seen a scenario where a druid would be forced to put on metal armor no matter how many hypothetical castles we're trying to infiltrate. If a DM puts your druid into a situation where they have to put on metal armor, the DM is being a ****. But I'm not going to argue about this any more, have a good one.

 

[lingual]

Literally nobody has said that, though. We're just saying exceptions can be made if there are in game reasons for an exception to be made, not that we are trying to stick our druids into metal armor to use on a regular basis.

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.