Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ohmyn" data-source="post: 7625166" data-attributes="member: 6999115"><p>Yes, just yes. They've used that wording in every edition, as indicated by the examples that have been given in regards to 5E, and from what people are trying to claim from old editions, like "Magic Users <em>cannot</em> use armor", or "Thieves <em>cannot</em> use two-handed swords". The people quoting these are ignoring the rules that exist to explain the penalties that happen if they choose to do forbidden actions anyway, because the developers know that without penalty there's nothing stopping people from doing it in the game world. The same thing now is being claimed in this one instance for the Druid, but ignored in all other instances of the current books. And yes, nearly every class and many abilities do have an example of similar wording that can be cited in their class descriptions, but is ignored because there are no mechanical implications stated for going against them, so RAW they can safely ignore them.</p><p></p><p>The only thing stopping players from performing actions in D&D would be lacking the physical ability, such as a Human not having the ability to fly by default, or a Dwarf not having the ability to walk more than 25' in a round by default. Besides that it would be railroading by the DM. The Human that wants to fly is still free to jump off a castle and flap their arms, they're just not going to go anywhere but down. A Dwarf can choose to try and exert themselves against a faster opponent, they're just not exceeding that 25' without extra training. A Magic User in 1E AD&D can choose to put on armor if a situation called for it, even though it says they <em>can't</em> use it due to lack of martial training. The thing is that common sense and understanding of language kicks in, letting you know there was not a physical law put in place with that sentence. If it were, this would be a board game, not a tabletop RPG. Saying someone "won't" perform an action without mechanical penalties given is fluff, because as a rule they "can" perform any action within their physical capability, so long as they are willing to accept any conditions that may result.</p><p></p><p>Previous editions gave explicit penalties if the Druid chose to do so anyway, because they acknowledge it is an option available to them. This edition, along with 4E, removed those penalties.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ohmyn, post: 7625166, member: 6999115"] Yes, just yes. They've used that wording in every edition, as indicated by the examples that have been given in regards to 5E, and from what people are trying to claim from old editions, like "Magic Users [I]cannot[/I] use armor", or "Thieves [I]cannot[/I] use two-handed swords". The people quoting these are ignoring the rules that exist to explain the penalties that happen if they choose to do forbidden actions anyway, because the developers know that without penalty there's nothing stopping people from doing it in the game world. The same thing now is being claimed in this one instance for the Druid, but ignored in all other instances of the current books. And yes, nearly every class and many abilities do have an example of similar wording that can be cited in their class descriptions, but is ignored because there are no mechanical implications stated for going against them, so RAW they can safely ignore them. The only thing stopping players from performing actions in D&D would be lacking the physical ability, such as a Human not having the ability to fly by default, or a Dwarf not having the ability to walk more than 25' in a round by default. Besides that it would be railroading by the DM. The Human that wants to fly is still free to jump off a castle and flap their arms, they're just not going to go anywhere but down. A Dwarf can choose to try and exert themselves against a faster opponent, they're just not exceeding that 25' without extra training. A Magic User in 1E AD&D can choose to put on armor if a situation called for it, even though it says they [I]can't[/I] use it due to lack of martial training. The thing is that common sense and understanding of language kicks in, letting you know there was not a physical law put in place with that sentence. If it were, this would be a board game, not a tabletop RPG. Saying someone "won't" perform an action without mechanical penalties given is fluff, because as a rule they "can" perform any action within their physical capability, so long as they are willing to accept any conditions that may result. Previous editions gave explicit penalties if the Druid chose to do so anyway, because they acknowledge it is an option available to them. This edition, along with 4E, removed those penalties. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
Top