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: 7626874" data-attributes="member: 6999115"><p>A matter of what best suits the setting still has to match with the mechanical implications of the RAW, assuming we're talking about a RAW table, which we are. A DM is not allowed at an AL table to insist that a Druid has a metal allergy any more than they are allowed to insist that Clerics have an allergy to sharp and pointy things. The only basis for either of these would be past edition lore, and that doesn't have a place as an in-game penalty in RAW 5E. Both would be house rules, as nothing in the game system hints at either of these being the case. If the Druid says "I put on the armor", the DM has two options: 1) To deny the player character the right to decide on an action, which, as Max has stated, does not match with the RAW guidelines for "How to Play". 2) To make up a penalty for the player without any codified guideline, which would be a house rule. To put that into perspective, in AL, the DM is <em>not</em> allowed to throw an Ethereal Mummy at you, unless they can back its abilities with the stat block of an existing monster in the allowed material. The DM also has rules in a RAW setting.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I mentioned this to you in my last response. A physically impossible action is not the same as a possible one, not in a game where characters have free agency to decide their actions. It's also RAW in the game that the player decides their character's actions. In terms of Imhotep, you can choose to try and move two blocks per turn, it's just not going to work. You're free to attempt it, it's just not going to happen because there's a physical limit stopping you. Without that physical limit making it impossible, or personally <em>choosing</em> to abide by a gentleman's agreement, you could indeed move two stones if you wanted to, so long as you were willing to deal with the consequences of your action.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, again, there's a difference between something that is or is not possible for the character. At a RAW table, the negative consequence does need a general guideline to base a decision off of. If the player says they're going to swim across the ocean, well there are rules on distance that can be traveled, or rest that is needed to avoid increasing levels of exhaustion during physical exertion, etc. If the Druid has a sufficient swim speed to make it across the ocean in a short enough time to not suffer too badly from the limits of exhaustion while exerting themselves the entire time, and the Druid has sufficient STR to not be over their encumbrance with their equipment, they very well can swim across the ocean. Even if they don't possess the physical characteristics mentioned, they can still try, but they will fail and drown.</p><p></p><p>If the DM doesn't want the player to swim across the ocean at a RAW table, such as AL, they're free to throw a Kraken in the mix that attacks them, or they're allowed to use the rules for exertion to fail their effort, but the DM cannot tell them they absolutely cannot swim across that ocean. Even if the DM wants to throw a Kraken at them, if the player escapes the Kraken, the DM is not allowed to give it more movement speed to catch the Druid, because RAW is limited to monster stat blocks within the allowed material.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, and that is corrected by the RAW explaining how to play the game. "My character flies across the cavern." The rules state that the player decides <em>what they want to do</em>, and the DM decides the result. "I fly across the cavern" means "I want to fly across the cavern", as indicated by the RAW that the player does not get to decide the result of the action, merely getting to decide what action they would like to attempt. If the character can fly, they make it without need for a check. If the character possesses the ability to fly, and the DM tells them they do not possess the ability to fly, then that DM has violated the RAW, and therefore the rules if they are at an AL table (yes, DMs do have rules to abide by in AL). If the character cannot fly, and their jump check does not reach or exceed the other end of the chasm as per jumping rules, they fall in and take damage as per rules on fall damage. Just because their character lacks the ability to fly does not mean they cannot jump, flap their arms and try to fly across a chasm; they're just not going in any direction but down, because those are the consequences of their action as written in the game rules.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, they literally are allowed to <em>try</em> and break rules. A character without a fly is allowed to try to fly, they're just not going to succeed. A character with a move speed of 0 is still allowed to try to move, they're just not going to get anywhere. A character that does not have a swim speed to make it across the ocean without dying from exhaustion is still allowed to try, they're just going to die. A Paladin that has sworn an oath to not lie or cheat is still allowed to try to lie and/or cheat, it's just that whether they succeed or fail will be based on the appropriate skill check. The rules are there to impose the effect of what happens when the player tries to perform an action with their character, not to regulate what they are allowed to try to do. You're free to take away player agency at your own home tables, but at a pure RAW table, that doesn't fly. It seems odd that the Druid is the only class that RAW advocates agree otherwise.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ohmyn, post: 7626874, member: 6999115"] A matter of what best suits the setting still has to match with the mechanical implications of the RAW, assuming we're talking about a RAW table, which we are. A DM is not allowed at an AL table to insist that a Druid has a metal allergy any more than they are allowed to insist that Clerics have an allergy to sharp and pointy things. The only basis for either of these would be past edition lore, and that doesn't have a place as an in-game penalty in RAW 5E. Both would be house rules, as nothing in the game system hints at either of these being the case. If the Druid says "I put on the armor", the DM has two options: 1) To deny the player character the right to decide on an action, which, as Max has stated, does not match with the RAW guidelines for "How to Play". 2) To make up a penalty for the player without any codified guideline, which would be a house rule. To put that into perspective, in AL, the DM is [I]not[/I] allowed to throw an Ethereal Mummy at you, unless they can back its abilities with the stat block of an existing monster in the allowed material. The DM also has rules in a RAW setting. I mentioned this to you in my last response. A physically impossible action is not the same as a possible one, not in a game where characters have free agency to decide their actions. It's also RAW in the game that the player decides their character's actions. In terms of Imhotep, you can choose to try and move two blocks per turn, it's just not going to work. You're free to attempt it, it's just not going to happen because there's a physical limit stopping you. Without that physical limit making it impossible, or personally [I]choosing[/I] to abide by a gentleman's agreement, you could indeed move two stones if you wanted to, so long as you were willing to deal with the consequences of your action. Yes, again, there's a difference between something that is or is not possible for the character. At a RAW table, the negative consequence does need a general guideline to base a decision off of. If the player says they're going to swim across the ocean, well there are rules on distance that can be traveled, or rest that is needed to avoid increasing levels of exhaustion during physical exertion, etc. If the Druid has a sufficient swim speed to make it across the ocean in a short enough time to not suffer too badly from the limits of exhaustion while exerting themselves the entire time, and the Druid has sufficient STR to not be over their encumbrance with their equipment, they very well can swim across the ocean. Even if they don't possess the physical characteristics mentioned, they can still try, but they will fail and drown. If the DM doesn't want the player to swim across the ocean at a RAW table, such as AL, they're free to throw a Kraken in the mix that attacks them, or they're allowed to use the rules for exertion to fail their effort, but the DM cannot tell them they absolutely cannot swim across that ocean. Even if the DM wants to throw a Kraken at them, if the player escapes the Kraken, the DM is not allowed to give it more movement speed to catch the Druid, because RAW is limited to monster stat blocks within the allowed material. Sure, and that is corrected by the RAW explaining how to play the game. "My character flies across the cavern." The rules state that the player decides [I]what they want to do[/I], and the DM decides the result. "I fly across the cavern" means "I want to fly across the cavern", as indicated by the RAW that the player does not get to decide the result of the action, merely getting to decide what action they would like to attempt. If the character can fly, they make it without need for a check. If the character possesses the ability to fly, and the DM tells them they do not possess the ability to fly, then that DM has violated the RAW, and therefore the rules if they are at an AL table (yes, DMs do have rules to abide by in AL). If the character cannot fly, and their jump check does not reach or exceed the other end of the chasm as per jumping rules, they fall in and take damage as per rules on fall damage. Just because their character lacks the ability to fly does not mean they cannot jump, flap their arms and try to fly across a chasm; they're just not going in any direction but down, because those are the consequences of their action as written in the game rules. Yes, they literally are allowed to [I]try[/I] and break rules. A character without a fly is allowed to try to fly, they're just not going to succeed. A character with a move speed of 0 is still allowed to try to move, they're just not going to get anywhere. A character that does not have a swim speed to make it across the ocean without dying from exhaustion is still allowed to try, they're just going to die. A Paladin that has sworn an oath to not lie or cheat is still allowed to try to lie and/or cheat, it's just that whether they succeed or fail will be based on the appropriate skill check. The rules are there to impose the effect of what happens when the player tries to perform an action with their character, not to regulate what they are allowed to try to do. You're free to take away player agency at your own home tables, but at a pure RAW table, that doesn't fly. It seems odd that the Druid is the only class that RAW advocates agree otherwise. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
Top