Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7623075" data-attributes="member: 59848">I see that you're venting, and maybe it's the way I'm reading this, but I am having trouble understanding the part you disagree with. Is it the restriction? The lore? Or specifically how it is implemented in 5e.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. Though my choice would also come with the consequence of some fire damage. I see the druid armor restriction in 5e as akin to paladin oaths or the warlock patron. Yes, they offer role play opportunities, and going against your oath or defying your patron may carry consequences, but those consequences may not be immediately clear or well understood. And it may be mechanical (paladin must go oathbreaker, warlock loses its powers), but the consequences don't have to be. That's one of the cool things about 5e. It doesn't always clearly spell out what will happen, and that is intentional and awesome. Because that means the DM can figure out interesting consequences that work with the narative of the story and the flow of the game. It also means a player can't contest a DM ruling by pointing out the rule, because the rule doesn't technically exist. It's more of a suggestion with a vague sense that something could happen. And in the end, that thing that could happen may be nothing. Because maybe for the druid, it really is just a taboo. And you might anger other druids if you show up wearing metal armor, but that won't in itself stop you from being a druid or using your abilities.At least, that's my perspective and experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hawk Diesel, post: 7623075, member: 59848"] I see that you're venting, and maybe it's the way I'm reading this, but I am having trouble understanding the part you disagree with. Is it the restriction? The lore? Or specifically how it is implemented in 5e. 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. Though my choice would also come with the consequence of some fire damage. I see the druid armor restriction in 5e as akin to paladin oaths or the warlock patron. Yes, they offer role play opportunities, and going against your oath or defying your patron may carry consequences, but those consequences may not be immediately clear or well understood. And it may be mechanical (paladin must go oathbreaker, warlock loses its powers), but the consequences don't have to be. That's one of the cool things about 5e. It doesn't always clearly spell out what will happen, and that is intentional and awesome. Because that means the DM can figure out interesting consequences that work with the narative of the story and the flow of the game. It also means a player can't contest a DM ruling by pointing out the rule, because the rule doesn't technically exist. It's more of a suggestion with a vague sense that something [I]could[/I] happen. And in the end, that thing that [I]could[/I] happen may be nothing. Because maybe for the druid, it really is just a taboo. And you might anger other druids if you show up wearing metal armor, but that won't in itself stop you from being a druid or using your abilities. At least, that's my perspective and experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification