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: 7627224" data-attributes="member: 6999115"><p><span style="color: #333333"><em>Looking for loopholes is very common practice at RAW tables, and is typically even expected. It's a major part of character optimizing at AL tables.</em></span><span style="color: #333333"><em></em></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333"><em>When I DM, I'm not so paranoid that I think they're trying to look for loopholes.</em></span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>These actually are not contradicting statements, at least not when you look at the whole context. He's not talking about optimizers/munchkins at a pure RAW table, like for AL min/maxers. I was. For the RAW optimizers, it's all about finding as far as you can push the RAW and putting that into play, so long as the RAW is not broken. It is expected these people will show up at RAW tables, and if playing AL, they have to be accommodated. Standard gameplay at a house table is typically far less about that, and will enforce more RAI for things that are clearly in need of an errata to patch up, such as when multiclassed spellcasters didn't specify that the spells selected had to be from their own class. The RAW optimizer, however, will utilize such mechanics at a pure RAW table, and it should be expected that they will look for such RAW loopholes, because the table by nature must follow the RAW. It's like how it's an accepted expectation that a business owner is going to utilize any legal loophole to maximize their profit; it's expected because it's an element of their game table that everyone else is adhering by.</p><p></p><p>Per RAW, if the RAW says a class by nature will not do something in the game world, but it's possible for the character to do so, they can still do it. This is not a loophole, but rather by design. This is due to how the RAW structure of the gameplay systems work. This is why lore elements can use absolute language but not enforce mandatory character behavior, and is why Paladin oaths don't need to add any remark stating they're able to violate the oaths; it's always assumed possible, so long as the character fulfills the mechanical requirements to perform the action. The Paladin is the prime example of this, due to how many tenets they can have, which is why they're often brought up in this discussion. The class has tenets built into it, but there's nothing in the game system that forces the player to abide by these tenets, despite there being nothing in the class explicitly excluding the character from having to follow them. This is, I repeat, because the player chooses the actions for their character to attempt, and class lore or fluff does not bypass this core aspect of the gameplay. A Paladin of Devotion that chooses to lie is not exploiting the system, they're just doing what they want their character to do, and the core game system supports that entirely. To Max and I, if this is correct interpretation of the Paladin's tenets, then the same must be true of the Druid's taboo, and thus it's not a loophole for both the Paladin and Druid to request the same treatment.</p><p></p><p>A hardcore RAI lore player would maybe look at both of these as a loophole to intended play, but a RAW player recognizes that the lore is just a guideline, and can be bypassed by player choice if the action is possible to be performed by the character, so long as they accept the RAW mechanical implications. What stops a Paladin of Devotion from lying at a roleplaying table is the player choosing to play in character. What stops the optimizer from lying at a RAW table is not that the class has a tenet saying they don't do it, but that there is a lore box that provides the DM with optional consequences that they can apply to the Paladin that ignores their tenets. Regardless of a consequence being present, the player is who makes the choice of following the tenet, or choosing to violate it. Once actionable penalties are put into the rules, even as an optional rule at DM discretion, they become RAW penalties. Without these penalties, a player making the choice to bypass the tenets has no actionable consequences without a house rule, which house rules don't apply to RAW.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ohmyn, post: 7627224, member: 6999115"] [COLOR=#333333][I]Looking for loopholes is very common practice at RAW tables, and is typically even expected. It's a major part of character optimizing at AL tables.[/I][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][I] When I DM, I'm not so paranoid that I think they're trying to look for loopholes.[/I][/COLOR] These actually are not contradicting statements, at least not when you look at the whole context. He's not talking about optimizers/munchkins at a pure RAW table, like for AL min/maxers. I was. For the RAW optimizers, it's all about finding as far as you can push the RAW and putting that into play, so long as the RAW is not broken. It is expected these people will show up at RAW tables, and if playing AL, they have to be accommodated. Standard gameplay at a house table is typically far less about that, and will enforce more RAI for things that are clearly in need of an errata to patch up, such as when multiclassed spellcasters didn't specify that the spells selected had to be from their own class. The RAW optimizer, however, will utilize such mechanics at a pure RAW table, and it should be expected that they will look for such RAW loopholes, because the table by nature must follow the RAW. It's like how it's an accepted expectation that a business owner is going to utilize any legal loophole to maximize their profit; it's expected because it's an element of their game table that everyone else is adhering by. Per RAW, if the RAW says a class by nature will not do something in the game world, but it's possible for the character to do so, they can still do it. This is not a loophole, but rather by design. This is due to how the RAW structure of the gameplay systems work. This is why lore elements can use absolute language but not enforce mandatory character behavior, and is why Paladin oaths don't need to add any remark stating they're able to violate the oaths; it's always assumed possible, so long as the character fulfills the mechanical requirements to perform the action. The Paladin is the prime example of this, due to how many tenets they can have, which is why they're often brought up in this discussion. The class has tenets built into it, but there's nothing in the game system that forces the player to abide by these tenets, despite there being nothing in the class explicitly excluding the character from having to follow them. This is, I repeat, because the player chooses the actions for their character to attempt, and class lore or fluff does not bypass this core aspect of the gameplay. A Paladin of Devotion that chooses to lie is not exploiting the system, they're just doing what they want their character to do, and the core game system supports that entirely. To Max and I, if this is correct interpretation of the Paladin's tenets, then the same must be true of the Druid's taboo, and thus it's not a loophole for both the Paladin and Druid to request the same treatment. A hardcore RAI lore player would maybe look at both of these as a loophole to intended play, but a RAW player recognizes that the lore is just a guideline, and can be bypassed by player choice if the action is possible to be performed by the character, so long as they accept the RAW mechanical implications. What stops a Paladin of Devotion from lying at a roleplaying table is the player choosing to play in character. What stops the optimizer from lying at a RAW table is not that the class has a tenet saying they don't do it, but that there is a lore box that provides the DM with optional consequences that they can apply to the Paladin that ignores their tenets. Regardless of a consequence being present, the player is who makes the choice of following the tenet, or choosing to violate it. Once actionable penalties are put into the rules, even as an optional rule at DM discretion, they become RAW penalties. Without these penalties, a player making the choice to bypass the tenets has no actionable consequences without a house rule, which house rules don't apply to RAW. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
Top