Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JonnyP71" data-source="post: 7624635" data-attributes="member: 6788862">Read the bit in the DMG about training times and costs for the added penalty of non-class-like behaviour.The Druid part in the PHB twice says they cannot wear metal.&nbsp; On one occasion they say it is because it ruins their magic.&nbsp; Where does it say &quot;They can put metal armour on, just not cast spells in it?&quot;.&nbsp; Nowhere.In 2E AD&amp;D it says metal armour is 'forbidden' - it never clarifies by whom, to me that doesn't matter.&nbsp; Forbidden simply means 'no', 'cannot', 'never'.The RAI is very very clear to me, I'm not a rules lawyer who pores over every word trying to find a loophole.&nbsp; If something says 'no metal armour' twice the reason does not matter, the statement does not need to be clarified.&nbsp; One of my first rules at the table is 'no player is allowed to even look for a loophole, no RAW arguments, none whatsoever'.&nbsp; If something is unclear mention to me out of session, I make a decision, player does not argue.&nbsp; But this 'Druid - metal' issue is not unclear.Muddy the water with Bards and Rangers, both can wear metal armour, both cast Druidic spells in 1E.&nbsp; If you are using implied meanings for your arguments, this fact hints that it is MORE than just 'metal armour ruining Druidic spells'.We can argue forever on the implied meaning of sentences, but find me something that clearly and positively states, in 1e, 2e, or 5e that a Druid CAN CHOOSE to put on metal armour if they wish, but it will just adversely affect spellcasting, and I'll change my mind...&nbsp; every statement says 'cannot, forbidden, will not'</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JonnyP71, post: 7624635, member: 6788862"] Read the bit in the DMG about training times and costs for the added penalty of non-class-like behaviour. The Druid part in the PHB twice says they cannot wear metal. On one occasion they say it is because it ruins their magic. Where does it say "They can put metal armour on, just not cast spells in it?". Nowhere. In 2E AD&D it says metal armour is 'forbidden' - it never clarifies by whom, to me that doesn't matter. Forbidden simply means 'no', 'cannot', 'never'. The RAI is very very clear to me, I'm not a rules lawyer who pores over every word trying to find a loophole. If something says 'no metal armour' twice the reason does not matter, the statement does not need to be clarified. One of my first rules at the table is 'no player is allowed to even look for a loophole, no RAW arguments, none whatsoever'. If something is unclear mention to me out of session, I make a decision, player does not argue. But this 'Druid - metal' issue is not unclear. Muddy the water with Bards and Rangers, both can wear metal armour, both cast Druidic spells in 1E. If you are using implied meanings for your arguments, this fact hints that it is MORE than just 'metal armour ruining Druidic spells'. We can argue forever on the implied meaning of sentences, but find me something that clearly and positively states, in 1e, 2e, or 5e that a Druid CAN CHOOSE to put on metal armour if they wish, but it will just adversely affect spellcasting, and I'll change my mind... every statement says 'cannot, forbidden, will not' [/QUOTE]

Verification