Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ohmyn" data-source="post: 7626608" data-attributes="member: 6999115">The no PVP rule is also not equivalent, but it was not even relevant enough to address in the same manner. Spell slots are at least a RAW mechanic. The point being contested about the Druids in metal is what applies per RAW, not what applies as per past edition lore. Since the 5E system has nothing in place for what happens when the Druid dons metal armor, there is no RAW interpretation of what happens to a Druid that violates their taboo. RAW tables exist. AL events are supposed to be played RAW, and they prohibit house rules. Just as the system has no penalty for a Cleric that denounces their deity, or a Warlock that ignores their pact, or a Monk that plays as a money grubbing murder hobo thief, there is no penalty listed for a Druid that ignores their class lore. Without any codified RAW mechanics about this, it would have to be a house rule to impose a penalty, which are supposed to be avoided at RAW tables. A gentleman's agreement at the table is completely irrelevant to that point. We can agree to remove Druids from the table completely, or the DM can choose to implement their own RAI as opposed to the RAW on anything they want, or the DM can remove any mechanics they don't like, but that has nothing to do with a discussion about the RAW mechanics of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ohmyn, post: 7626608, member: 6999115"] The no PVP rule is also not equivalent, but it was not even relevant enough to address in the same manner. Spell slots are at least a RAW mechanic. The point being contested about the Druids in metal is what applies per RAW, not what applies as per past edition lore. Since the 5E system has nothing in place for what happens when the Druid dons metal armor, there is no RAW interpretation of what happens to a Druid that violates their taboo. RAW tables exist. AL events are supposed to be played RAW, and they prohibit house rules. Just as the system has no penalty for a Cleric that denounces their deity, or a Warlock that ignores their pact, or a Monk that plays as a money grubbing murder hobo thief, there is no penalty listed for a Druid that ignores their class lore. Without any codified RAW mechanics about this, it would have to be a house rule to impose a penalty, which are supposed to be avoided at RAW tables. A gentleman's agreement at the table is completely irrelevant to that point. We can agree to remove Druids from the table completely, or the DM can choose to implement their own RAI as opposed to the RAW on anything they want, or the DM can remove any mechanics they don't like, but that has nothing to do with a discussion about the RAW mechanics of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification