Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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: 7626361" data-attributes="member: 6999115"><p>Yes, I can. The DMG has rules about what happens when a player displays behavior that goes against the character of their class. Monks can't use oil, so a Monk that chooses to do so anyway will be punished for their deviation from their expected gameplay. Even in the example that I was "corrected" on earlier in this thread, Clerics <em>can</em> be unfaithful to their deity, and that's actually another explicit example listed in that section of the DMG. Being unfaithful to a deity in AD&D does NOT automatically remove their spellcasting, as I was also "corrected" on. They prepare all level 1-4 spells without the need of a deity, as the magic comes from personal prayer and meditation. It's only 5th level and higher spells that the Cleric need to request from their deity, and that's still on a case by case basis. There's no rule that says a single deviation from the deity automatically cuts off the Cleric from their magic forever. Say the Fighter is tied up and the Cleric is the only person who can free him. The only sharp item nearby is a dagger, which was obtained from the bounty hunter that nabbed the Fighter. Does the Cleric stare blindly at the dagger, or can they at least pick it up and cut a rope? If you argue that the Cleric <em>can't</em> pick up the dagger because their deity says no pokey things, then you're not reading the rules properly.</p><p></p><p>Maybe the high level Cleric does something the deity doesn't like, and the deity considers it so egregious that they deny them spells of higher than 4th level forever (much like a Paladin knowingly performing an evil action). Maybe it's something minor, or a lesser of two evils situation so the deity can understand the Cleric's choice, so they offer them the ability to seek penance. Either way, the point is that these things are written into the game system, so to say it can't be done, simply because the word "can't" appears once, despite the fact that the book lists examples and penalties that can be incurred for these actions, then you are not taking in the whole context.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And you're still reading it like a board game and not an RPG game. They're only allowed to wear leather and wood. Why? Because they lose their magic if they put on metal. What happens if they put on metal? They lose access to their magic. Simple. Being not allowed to do something does not mean you can't do it, it just means there are consequences for the behavior. The problem with old players is they read it as a board game, and like Max said before, they simply stopped reading at "can't", and ignored everything else, both where it says what happens when it's done, as well as when it explains the penalties for doing so. That's not how the rules were written, that's just how they were read.</p><p></p><p>If your Rogue is at a gambling table with a Fighter, and that Fighter catches the Rogue cheating, is that Fighter unable to flip the table on him because "he's not proficient in tables"? If that's how you rule it, you don't know how the game works.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's literally not true. They explain the Assassin alignment restriction in detail. "Assassins are evil in alignment (perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for thepurpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal)." If you weren't killing intelligent creatures for profit then you weren't an assassin. If you were killing intelligent creatures for profit, then you were not good. If you made an Assassin but acted good, including a refusal to kill people for profit, which you could do, the DMG had a table for punishing you for either acting outside of your class or acting outside of your alignment (in this case, both).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The parenthesis is not an afterthought, it's an explanation, and yes, it does help. It helps just as much as the mention as to why Magic Users can't use armor.</p><p></p><p>Simplifying the sentence, "Druids can't wear metal because it spoils their magic." What does this mean? It means Druids are prohibited from wearing metal, because if they do so, it spoils their magic. What happens if the Druid chooses to wear it anyway? That's right, it spoils their magic.</p><p></p><p>Simplifying the sentence about Magic Users: "Magic users can't wear armor because they lack the martial training necessary." What does this mean? No benefits from armor under any circumstance because they lack the training to utilize it. Armor still has rules such as encumbrance, and even if they multiclass to gain training in armor, it's then listed that they can't use their spells in anything heavier than leather. Also, because they don't use armor due to lack of training, if they decided to impede their arm with a shield they can't even properly utilize, again, there's rules in the DMG for behavior outside of their class.</p><p></p><p>If I say I can't use the restroom because I'm not a paying customer, that just means I have to buy something and I can use the restroom. Alternatively, I could sneak into the restroom. As a Paladin I'd be punished, as I intentionally committed a chaotic act, but as a Thief I'd be right in my element. These class rules did not define the laws of the universe; they defined the positives and negatives of the actions players performed. What stopped a Paladin from performing evil acts was not that the book said they can't do anything evil, but that the book said they would irrevocably lose all of their abilities if they performed an evil act. What stopped a Thief from using a polearm was lack of proficiency, and out-of-class penalization.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You clearly didn't read your quote properly. You do realize it says "<em>and not be penalized in respect to experience as a magic user</em>", right? You know what that means? It means that if they performed that action without being multiclassed, they would be penalized in respect to experience as a Magic User. This literally states that it's not impossible for them to do so either way, it's just that now they won't be penalized for it. You aren't literally gaining the capacity to do something, you're gaining the ability to do it <em>without penalty</em>. I don't get how this is so difficult to understand, especially when the books repeat time and time and time again that you can perform behaviors outside of what's outlined in your class, there will just likely be consequences.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, the issue is not that we haven't read the books, it's that you aren't reading the books properly, because you can't see the entire context of a statement. You learned to treat tabletop RPGs as a board game and not as an expansive universe where the players perform options, and then may be penalized or rewarded based on the mechanics of the system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ohmyn, post: 7626361, member: 6999115"] Yes, I can. The DMG has rules about what happens when a player displays behavior that goes against the character of their class. Monks can't use oil, so a Monk that chooses to do so anyway will be punished for their deviation from their expected gameplay. Even in the example that I was "corrected" on earlier in this thread, Clerics [I]can[/I] be unfaithful to their deity, and that's actually another explicit example listed in that section of the DMG. Being unfaithful to a deity in AD&D does NOT automatically remove their spellcasting, as I was also "corrected" on. They prepare all level 1-4 spells without the need of a deity, as the magic comes from personal prayer and meditation. It's only 5th level and higher spells that the Cleric need to request from their deity, and that's still on a case by case basis. There's no rule that says a single deviation from the deity automatically cuts off the Cleric from their magic forever. Say the Fighter is tied up and the Cleric is the only person who can free him. The only sharp item nearby is a dagger, which was obtained from the bounty hunter that nabbed the Fighter. Does the Cleric stare blindly at the dagger, or can they at least pick it up and cut a rope? If you argue that the Cleric [I]can't[/I] pick up the dagger because their deity says no pokey things, then you're not reading the rules properly. Maybe the high level Cleric does something the deity doesn't like, and the deity considers it so egregious that they deny them spells of higher than 4th level forever (much like a Paladin knowingly performing an evil action). Maybe it's something minor, or a lesser of two evils situation so the deity can understand the Cleric's choice, so they offer them the ability to seek penance. Either way, the point is that these things are written into the game system, so to say it can't be done, simply because the word "can't" appears once, despite the fact that the book lists examples and penalties that can be incurred for these actions, then you are not taking in the whole context. And you're still reading it like a board game and not an RPG game. They're only allowed to wear leather and wood. Why? Because they lose their magic if they put on metal. What happens if they put on metal? They lose access to their magic. Simple. Being not allowed to do something does not mean you can't do it, it just means there are consequences for the behavior. The problem with old players is they read it as a board game, and like Max said before, they simply stopped reading at "can't", and ignored everything else, both where it says what happens when it's done, as well as when it explains the penalties for doing so. That's not how the rules were written, that's just how they were read. If your Rogue is at a gambling table with a Fighter, and that Fighter catches the Rogue cheating, is that Fighter unable to flip the table on him because "he's not proficient in tables"? If that's how you rule it, you don't know how the game works. That's literally not true. They explain the Assassin alignment restriction in detail. "Assassins are evil in alignment (perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for thepurpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal)." If you weren't killing intelligent creatures for profit then you weren't an assassin. If you were killing intelligent creatures for profit, then you were not good. If you made an Assassin but acted good, including a refusal to kill people for profit, which you could do, the DMG had a table for punishing you for either acting outside of your class or acting outside of your alignment (in this case, both). The parenthesis is not an afterthought, it's an explanation, and yes, it does help. It helps just as much as the mention as to why Magic Users can't use armor. Simplifying the sentence, "Druids can't wear metal because it spoils their magic." What does this mean? It means Druids are prohibited from wearing metal, because if they do so, it spoils their magic. What happens if the Druid chooses to wear it anyway? That's right, it spoils their magic. Simplifying the sentence about Magic Users: "Magic users can't wear armor because they lack the martial training necessary." What does this mean? No benefits from armor under any circumstance because they lack the training to utilize it. Armor still has rules such as encumbrance, and even if they multiclass to gain training in armor, it's then listed that they can't use their spells in anything heavier than leather. Also, because they don't use armor due to lack of training, if they decided to impede their arm with a shield they can't even properly utilize, again, there's rules in the DMG for behavior outside of their class. If I say I can't use the restroom because I'm not a paying customer, that just means I have to buy something and I can use the restroom. Alternatively, I could sneak into the restroom. As a Paladin I'd be punished, as I intentionally committed a chaotic act, but as a Thief I'd be right in my element. These class rules did not define the laws of the universe; they defined the positives and negatives of the actions players performed. What stopped a Paladin from performing evil acts was not that the book said they can't do anything evil, but that the book said they would irrevocably lose all of their abilities if they performed an evil act. What stopped a Thief from using a polearm was lack of proficiency, and out-of-class penalization. You clearly didn't read your quote properly. You do realize it says "[I]and not be penalized in respect to experience as a magic user[/I]", right? You know what that means? It means that if they performed that action without being multiclassed, they would be penalized in respect to experience as a Magic User. This literally states that it's not impossible for them to do so either way, it's just that now they won't be penalized for it. You aren't literally gaining the capacity to do something, you're gaining the ability to do it [I]without penalty[/I]. I don't get how this is so difficult to understand, especially when the books repeat time and time and time again that you can perform behaviors outside of what's outlined in your class, there will just likely be consequences. No, the issue is not that we haven't read the books, it's that you aren't reading the books properly, because you can't see the entire context of a statement. You learned to treat tabletop RPGs as a board game and not as an expansive universe where the players perform options, and then may be penalized or rewarded based on the mechanics of the system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
Top