What obvious thing took the longest to click for you?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

For me there are two. The exact timing of when an opponent gets to save out of a spell and how great a spell Suggestion is.

Make me feel good, what didn't you realize about 5e as quickly as you think you should have?

[LordNibbler]

Action economy. A character can have a lot of great options but many cannot be used simultaneously because they use the same action.
“What do you mean my monk can’t use flurry of blows and shadow step in the same round?”

[Tanarii]

The idea that ability checks aren't an inherent thing underlying the physics of the world, but a method for resolving a question of resolution for adventurers doing adventuring things.

[Kane0]

You don't have to stand still to cast a ritual spell.

The Lucky feat stacks with advantage/disadvantage.

Being knocked to 0 in a fight means attacks auto-crit you, which are worth 2 death saves each.

[KorvinStarmast]

Action economy. A character can have a lot of great options but many cannot be used simultaneously because they use the same action.
“What do you mean my monk can’t use flurry of blows and shadow step in the same round?” The whole benefit of reaction and bonus action and when it might be best to use a dodge action. Took a while for that to sink in.

[2D8HP]

That the easiest way to get to do Sneak Attack wasn't to try and get advantage (hiding, et cetera) but to instead just put an arrow into whatever foe the Barbarian was next to took mr way too long to realize.

[RazorChain]

That D&D doesn't use stats from 3 to 18 anymore...but -5 to +10

[Malifice]

That slaughtering and torturing orphan children and nuns at the machinations of a Demon is something a goodly Paladin does.

I thought it was pretty clearly evil, but thankfully I was corrected by several posters in this forum.

Ditto galactic genocide, enslaving an entire planet to power my car, planting neutron bombs against my own party killing several, mind wiping my own grandson after using him to smuggle stuff, orchestrating the deaths of billions to break up my daughter and her husband (who I dont like) multiple murders, and sleeping with the inhabitants of a mind controlled planet.

I learnt this was Chaotic Good.

[krugaan]

That slaughtering and torturing orphan children and nuns at the machinations of a Demon is something a goodly Paladin does.

I thought it was pretty clearly evil, but thankfully I was corrected by several posters in this forum.

Ditto galactic genocide, enslaving an entire planet to power my car, planting neutron bombs against my own party killing several, mind wiping my own grandson after using him to smuggle stuff, orchestrating the deaths of billions to break up my daughter and her husband (who I dont like) multiple murders, and sleeping with the inhabitants of a mind controlled planet.

I learnt this was Chaotic Good.

/snicker

Sarcasm is the poor man's wit!

[Asmotherion]

In 5e Specifically?

-Metamagic is a Sorcerer only Thing now.

-Bounded Accuracy means a lot less net bonuses/minuses to Rolls, and a lot more of the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic. A good AC actually being relevant 'till the end game. This one took a whole wile.

-Sorcerers have a separate, more limited Spell List from Wizards. Still not thrilled about that one.

-The wonders of Pact Magic when your DM allows a Short Rest every so often.

-How everyone is kinda of "Taking a Prestige Class" in their core class as a Build-in mechanic. That one is my favorite.

[RustyArmor]

My group still don't seem to grasp that grapple only sets move speed to 0. They still think if they grapple something, or get grappled, it is utterly helpless and unable to do anything.

[sithlordnergal]

- The fact that spell casters, particularly Wizards, can wear heavy armor if they started with a single level of Fighter and have no detriments besides a potential loss of speed.

- The fact that, since it is a thing added for fluff and nothing else, you can 100% make a back story for a Druid that wears metal armor, and nothing in the game mechanics will punish you for being a front-line, high AC Fighter/Druid in metal armor. Face it everyone who likes to claim I'm wrong, it is a fluff rule that has no effect on the character mechanically. The only thing that would prevent it is a DM saying so, and I'd question a DM's capability if they stepped in at character creation and said "No, your character has to choose not to wear metal armor". Just like I'd question a DM if they said "No, your Warlock has to flavor their pact in this specific way".

[BeefGood]

Simply rolling initiative is the best way to handle “pre-combat” machinations

[BeefGood]

My group still don't seem to grasp that grapple only sets move speed to 0. They still think if they grapple something, or get grappled, it is utterly helpless and unable to do anything.

Good one! It could be generalized: “Words used in rules have specific meanings that may not match out-of-game usage”

[Corran]

Action economy but even more the importance of concentration. I was whining so much about how the game is unfair and poorly designed for melee characters that want to use concetration spells, that we had to houserule away with the concentration checks for some time. When I realized that I was simply bad at character building I proposed we add it back in.

[NecessaryWeevil]

My group still don't seem to grasp that grapple only sets move speed to 0. They still think if they grapple something, or get grappled, it is utterly helpless and unable to do anything.

And then try to nerf grappling by changing other rules.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

You all are creating a thread of must reads!

Thanks for making me feel better also.

Oh, I wonder how many D4's I've left "in the bag" forgetting that Vicious Mockery scales. If Bards had more attack Cantrips my party mates would be really mad at me.

[Segev]

1) That the Charmed condition doesn't actually make them like you, which was a "wth?" for me until I realized
2) that Advantage on all Charisma checks against the target means you can probably get them there with enough effort. This was important for realizing that
3) the Great Old One Warlock's 14th-level power to perma-Charm somebody and have a permanent telepathic link isn't worthless due to (1), when (2) and the telepathic link mean you're always in their head, always able to make checks, until you essentially brainwash them into submission.


Not in 5e...
It wasn't until seeing a picture of the iconic monk in the 3.0 book that I finally realized that "monk" meant "shaolin," not "Friar Tuck." For years, I'd wondered why they had such a central "fighting" theme, and in 1e had the hierarchy they had to fight their way up to gain higher levels, with titles like "Grand Master of Flowers." Let alone why they could reach out and punch somebody for so much damage. I kept picturing portly men with tonsures in roughspun brown robes doing a straight punch for 2d20 damage and wondering what inspired this silly madness. I felt kind of silly for never having the epiphany until I saw the picture.

[Tanarii]

1) That the Charmed condition doesn't actually make them like you, which was a "wth?" for me until I realizedUnless the specific effect says it does. That's important for Charm Person, because it makes them friendly AND gives you advantage. Which is an effective +10 vs indifferent and +20 against hostile, before advantage.

[GlenSmash!]

The idea that ability checks aren't an inherent thing underlying the physics of the world, but a method for resolving a question of resolution for adventurers doing adventuring things.

Big time, this.

[Willie the Duck]

Like a lot of people (I think), I missed the 'no bonus action spell and non-cantrip other spell' clause until it was pointed out on these boards.

After decades of D&D terminology, it took us a long time to realize that 5e used the term 'turn' as in 'your characters allotted moment to act in the initiative queue,' as opposed to a 10 minute block.



Face it everyone who likes to claim I'm wrong, it is a fluff rule that has no effect on the character mechanically.

Without addressing the truth or falsity of your position, I'm just going to point out that placing this here on this list isn't like pressing a magic "I win the argument" button.

[Waterdeep Merch]

A paladin's Lay on Hands is an action, not a bonus action.

I let my players do this for ages before someone here pointed out that I'd been allowing some seriously busted healing prowess. Especially since the paladin players were handing out those heals one at a time like pez dispensers.

And I'd be more annoyed at them if I had caught it before I ended up playing one in one of their campaigns and benefitting from the same.

I feel dirty just thinking about it.

[manyslayer]

Being knocked to 0 in a fight means attacks auto-crit you, which are worth 2 death saves each.

Where does it say attacks auto crit you? On page 197 (under Death Saving Throws) it says any damage causes a death save failure and if the damage was from a critical then it causes 2 death save fails.

[GlenSmash!]

Where does it say attacks auto crit you? On page 197 (under Death Saving Throws) it says any damage causes a death save failure and if the damage was from a critical then it causes 2 death save fails.

Under the rules for the unconscious condition I think.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Where does it say attacks auto crit you? On page 197 (under Death Saving Throws) it says any damage causes a death save failure and if the damage was from a critical then it causes 2 death save fails.
Read the Unconscious condition. Though it's only the attacks within 5 feet that count as auto-crits. The rest "merely" get advantage.

[JNAProductions]

Where does it say attacks auto crit you? On page 197 (under Death Saving Throws) it says any damage causes a death save failure and if the damage was from a critical then it causes 2 death save fails.

Check what the unconscious condition does. Though that's only for attacks within 5'.

Edit: Shadowmonk'd.

[Willie the Duck]

Where does it say attacks auto crit you? On page 197 (under Death Saving Throws) it says any damage causes a death save failure and if the damage was from a critical then it causes 2 death save fails.
From 5e SRD:
Condition: Unconscious
•An unconscious creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can’t move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings
•The creature drops whatever it’s holding and falls prone.
•The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
•Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
•Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.


Kane0 didn't mention the within-5' clause, but otherwise, he is correct.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Man, we all jumped on that fast!

[Willie the Duck]

Man, we all jumped on that fast!

I'd like to think we were trying to be helpful, but it does remind me of a time at college where I was having trouble pouring ketchup and several fellow students (who apparently had just take a chem 101 class or the like) all literally fell over each other trying to be the one to come explain non-newtonian fluids to me, since they had each just learned about it earlier in the day.

[Vorpalchicken]

- The fact that, since it is a thing added for fluff and nothing else, you can 100% make a back story for a Druid that wears metal armor, and nothing in the game mechanics will punish you for being a front-line, high AC Fighter/Druid in metal armor. Face it everyone who likes to claim I'm wrong, it is a fluff rule that has no effect on the character mechanically. The only thing that would prevent it is a DM saying so, and I'd question a DM's capability if they stepped in at character creation and said "No, your character has to choose not to wear metal armor". Just like I'd question a DM if they said "No, your Warlock has to flavor their pact in this specific way".

Maybe it will finally click If you actually read the multi classing rules where it says multi classed druids won't wear metal armor. Like right in the multi classing table. Not hidden in a fluffy paragraph...
If your DM let's you do it that's fine. But that is house ruling.

[solidork]

I still sometimes say reflex saving throw.

[GlenSmash!]

I'd like to think we were trying to be helpful, but it does remind me of a time at college where I was having trouble pouring ketchup and several fellow students (who apparently had just take a chem 101 class or the like) all literally fell over each other trying to be the one to come explain non-newtonian fluids to me, since they had each just learned about it earlier in the day.

Ah, the over helpfulness of the nerd.

[DMThac0]

I still sometimes say reflex saving throw.

I do this all the time, "roll a listen check", "roll a will save", etc., that terminology is burnt into my DMing brain.

---

Learning that sneak attack simply requires a buddy standing next to your foe.

Learning directionality has no effect on many things in combat.

Flanking isn't a thing unless you're using "alternate" rules.

[jaappleton]

Preventing damage is superior to healing after taking damage.

[Theodoxus]

In no particular order of length in taking to 'click':

Diagonal movement costs 5'; not 5' then 10' as in 3.PF

Using Spiritual Weapon rounds after it was first cast, doesn't count as a spell, and you can cast other spells (provided they don't have a Bonus Action for a casting time) and attack with SW.

Spells and Cantrips are not the same thing. Outside of metamagic or Action Surge, you can't cast two spells or two cantrips. But you can cast a Spell and Cantrip provided one is a Bonus Action to do so.

Building a campaign world from scratch is a slog of a process.

Exhaustion is a horrible mechanic that doesn't fit in the scheme of book standard D&D, but is an amazing addition to the grittier variant in the DMG.

A halfling (or gnome, goblin, kobold) etc using a longsword two-handed is doing only 1 point of damage less than his medium sized buddy with a greatsword (everything else (like strenth) being equal. Still not an optimal choice for say, a barbarian, but their other abilities make up for the lack of synergy something like a half-orc gets.

Ranger's suck. Sorcerer's suck. A game with neither as an option isn't noticeably worse than a game with them.

[Umbranar]

Well maybe not Obvious but often overlooked:

Darkvision isn't the "I can see all in darkness just fine" anymore.
For non-darkvision creatures, they are blinded, for darkvision creatures, its Dim aka lightly obscured.

Everyone can do actions during their movement. Spellcasting, attacking, shooting all of it. Often forget about this one.

[DragonBaneDM]

You don’t give your players the adjusted XP for fighting lotsa monsters.

All of my campaigns used to be famous for leveling quickly.

[Ignimortis]

Make me feel good, what didn't you realize about 5e as quickly as you think you should have?

That it's not 3.5 and will never be anywhere similar to it. So I said my goodbyes in one party, and am currently finishing up a plot with another, and after I'm done, I don't plan on playing 5e anytime soon again. Maybe later, if there's anything that actually grabs my interest mechanically.

[Spore]

Wizards can be OP if you allow them to have every spell printed ever and your DM does not interfered with RAI instead of RAW. Usually they are good to average support characters. Also any character class or race can be op depending on the circumstances and group composition.

Also most power in-story lies in a well defined backstory, not the best stats or the coolest gear. It doesn't matter if your fighter can instagib anything below CR 10 if his cleric buddy has a completely worked out organization behind him that can provide shelter, information, spell casting services and transportation.

Even if your numbers basically triple that of the second best character in combat, people are extremely fine with it if these numbers are expressed in support. Basically if the bard generates enough utility and DPR to kill half the encounter every time, it is still welcomed because he actually didnt kill anyone. :smallbiggrin:

[mgshamster]

Maybe it will finally click If you actually read the multi classing rules where it says multi classed druids won't wear metal armor. Like right in the multi classing table. Not hidden in a fluffy paragraph...
If your DM let's you do it that's fine. But that is house ruling.

He's saying that since the rules don't punish you for ignoring it, it is therefore fluff.

If the rules said something like, "Druids are unable to cast magic while wearing metal armor," then his answer would be different.

He's simply choosing to see the "Druids will refuse to wear metal armor" as fluff and not a rule. Similar to saying "my PC refuses to cast magic." There's nothing in the rules to stop me, therefore it's fluff.

(I don't agree or disagree either way, I'm just explaining that particular viewpoint).

[Thorgrim]

The fact that, since it is a thing added for fluff and nothing else, you can 100% make a back story for a Druid that wears metal armor, and nothing in the game mechanics will punish you for being a front-line, high AC Fighter/Druid in metal armor. Face it everyone who likes to claim I'm wrong, it is a fluff rule that has no effect on the character mechanically. The only thing that would prevent it is a DM saying so, and I'd question a DM's capability if they stepped in at character creation and said "No, your character has to choose not to wear metal armor". Just like I'd question a DM if they said "No, your Warlock has to flavor their pact in this specific way".

But it IS a rule and it DOES affect a character mechanically, in that it prevents druids from wearing the best armor that would otherwise be available to them. Finding non-metal armor (dragonhide?) that carries a high AC is both difficult and expensive. It's a very real restriction and it's very clearly articulated in the druid rules.

From the PHB:

Armor: Light Armor, Medium Armor, Shields (druids will not wear armor or use Shields made of metal)

[Willie the Duck]

The designers certainly set up this fight to happen. They could have done any kind of setup they wanted -- can't cast spells in metal armor, can cast in metal armor but merely don't start out with metal armor proficiencies, remove rule entirely and just have them start with light armor only (maybe moving hide armor into the light category) -- instead, they went with 'no penalty, but they won't.' Completely unsurprised that it becomes a bone of contention with some, and not upset with any interpretation. Do not agree that it is clearly one way or the other though (fluff, for instance, is not a concrete term with a technical definition, nor the idea that fluff is ignorable RAW, those are all declared statements another rules-interpreter does not have to agree with).

[Thorgrim]

The designers certainly set up this fight to happen. They could have done any kind of setup they wanted -- can't cast spells in metal armor, can cast in metal armor but merely don't start out with metal armor proficiencies, remove rule entirely and just have them start with light armor only (maybe moving hide armor into the light category) -- instead, they went with 'no penalty, but they won't.' Completely unsurprised that it becomes a bone of contention with some, and not upset with any interpretation. Do not agree that it is clearly one way or the other though (fluff, for instance, is not a concrete term with a technical definition, nor the idea that fluff is ignorable RAW, those are all declared statements another rules-interpreter does not have to agree with).

But the fact that they won't IS the penalty. Instead of restricting them to armor tiers (light, medium, heavy) they have a different restriction.

In some ways, it's better (instead of being restricted to light armor, you can wear anything in medium that isn't metal) and in some ways it's worse (we found an amazing magical medium armor piece that would be perfect for me, but I can't wear it because it's metal).

[Tanarii]

You don’t give your players the adjusted XP for fighting lotsa monsters.

All of my campaigns used to be famous for leveling quickly.
Oh gad yes. That one only just clicked for me recently.

[DMThac0]

From the PHB: Armor: Light Armor, Medium Armor, Shields (druids will not wear armor or use Shields made of metal)

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and probably continue the argument using something that may be seen as trite, but I feel is important:

Will/Won't are words indicating choice in the majority of usages.

Can/Can't are words indicating ability in the majority of usages.

Due to the differences in how the language is applied during common conversation, one could consider that a druid makes a choice to wear metallic armors rather than is incapable of doing so.

[Willie the Duck]

But the fact that they won't IS the penalty.

I'm not sure where you think this conflicts with what I'm saying. "Won't" instead of "Can't" (or "can't while doing the things you selected the class for," or the equivalent) was a deliberate decision on the designers' parts that invites these kind of arguments. It is singular (so far as I can tell) in that it enforces a constraint my making declarations about a Player's Character's decisions.

There's actually no real rule or design principle that says that you shouldn't do this--if you wanted to anthropomorphize your chess game and declare that the bishops only move diagonally because it's 'a tradition,' there's no reason why that's a bad idea-- or heck, it took a long time in the early days of D&D to actually have any kind of declaration as to why the magic user couldn't use a sword (or what would happen if they did)-- but this being the one time it happens in this particular game (and virtually every other time there's a limiter on things, like what happens when a wizard puts on plate w/o proficiency) invites this kind of argument.


Instead of restricting them to armor tiers (light, medium, heavy) they have a different restriction.
In some ways, it's better (instead of being restricted to light armor, you can wear anything in medium that isn't metal) and in some ways it's worse (we found an amazing magical medium armor piece that would be perfect for me, but I can't wear it because it's metal).

Again, that is a true statement but I do not understand the relevance. Yes, they created a separate, secondary tiering (or perhaps just categorization) structure for armor: metal vs. non-metal. That's true, but doesn't really effect the fact that the method by which druid's are excluded from certain armors outside of their ascribed tier/category is systematically different, which seems to be the crux of sithlordnergal's attempt to declare his preferred interpretation true beyond dispute.

Mind you, I personally consider the whole thing a tempest in a teapot inside a tiny little forum outside of the mainstream of the players WotC is speaking to. 99.9% of the people who game with 5e but don't spend their free time arguing on internet forums have looked at the PHB, said, "Rulings over Rules, DM can house rule regardless, got it!" and moved on with their lives.

[Segev]

Well maybe not Obvious but often overlooked:

Darkvision isn't the "I can see all in darkness just fine" anymore.
For non-darkvision creatures, they are blinded, for darkvision creatures, its Dim aka lightly obscured.

Huh. I had not known that one. That makes Devil’s Sight even more potent in comparison.

[DMThac0]

Huh. I had not known that one. That makes Devil’s Sight even more potent in comparison.

In that same vein:

No Darkvison = blinded
Darkvision = grey scale
Devils sight = Now in technicolor!

It's that last one that took me a while to figure out.

[Thorgrim]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and probably continue the argument using something that may be seen as trite, but I feel is important:

Will/Won't are words indicating choice in the majority of usages.

Can/Can't are words indicating ability in the majority of usages.

Due to the differences in how the language is applied during common conversation, one could consider that a druid makes a choice to wear metallic armors rather than is incapable of doing so.

You're totally right here but it seems to me that the wording is clearly by design.

In real world terms, your ability to wear different armors comes down to a lot of different factors: your training to fight and maneuver while wearing them, your strength to lift them, etc. In this case, it's not that druids CAN'T wear medium armor, it's that in the case of metal armor, they WON'T. If you find an identical piece of armor - same weight, bulk, etc - that is made of hide instead of metal, a druid is free to wear it, because they have the ability or training.

We're quibbling over small semantic choices here but I think the larger point that I'm making is that the metal armor thing is NOT fluff, as the original poster wrote. It's a deliberate design choice with actual mechanical implications.

[MagneticKitty]

You don't have to stand still to cast a ritual spell.

The Lucky feat stacks with advantage/disadvantage.

Being knocked to 0 in a fight means attacks auto-crit you, which are worth 2 death saves each.

Finding out this is only melee attacks.

Anyway probably movement in a 3d space. But if a character is 60 ft away and 30 ft up you use the farthest distance for a diagonal.
60 ft.

Also one I was looking at sushi and there was this one called tunacado that had tuna and avocado and i did not connect the dots that that was what it's name meant. I felt silly after

Oh... Just dnd... oh well.

[Pharaon]

You don’t give your players the adjusted XP for fighting lotsa monsters.

All of my campaigns used to be famous for leveling quickly.

Oh my.

*Rushes to Google* "How do I take levels back from my PCs?"

[Segev]

In that same vein:

No Darkvison = blinded
Darkvision = grey scale
Devils sight = Now in technicolor!

It's that last one that took me a while to figure out.
Hah! That's the one I picked up on in 3e, actually, and was the first thing I double-checked in noting Devil's Sight was in 5e. So for me, it was the fact that it's not just "color darkvision" that I didn't realize. (Devil's Sight also works in magical darkness, which darkvision explicitly does not.)

I still am disappointed that it's got a range, now. In 3e, Devil's Sight was not only color, but I think it was just "you see in darkness and magical darkness." No range limit. (I could be misremembering, though.) Still, 120 ft. isn't small, and will cover most combat ranges.

[Theodoxus]

You're totally right here but it seems to me that the wording is clearly by design.

In real world terms, your ability to wear different armors comes down to a lot of different factors: your training to fight and maneuver while wearing them, your strength to lift them, etc. In this case, it's not that druids CAN'T wear medium armor, it's that in the case of metal armor, they WON'T. If you find an identical piece of armor - same weight, bulk, etc - that is made of hide instead of metal, a druid is free to wear it, because they have the ability or training.

We're quibbling over small semantic choices here but I think the larger point that I'm making is that the metal armor thing is NOT fluff, as the original poster wrote. It's a deliberate design choice with actual mechanical implications.

So, what's your consensus if a druid is knocked out by a joker, stuffed into a breastplate and forced into a gladiatorial ring?

Do they scream and shout, weep and gnash their teeth and cry that they're suddenly (and irrevocably) powerless?

Or do they use all their powers to defeat their opponent, completely unhampered by the metal, and then at their first opportunity remove the offending breastplate, beg forgiveness for their faux pas and go about their way?

I contend that the second option is correct. In which case I have to ask, what's the mechanical implication you're talking about?

[Segev]

So, what's your consensus if a druid is knocked out by a joker, stuffed into a breastplate and forced into a gladiatorial ring?

Do they scream and shout, weep and gnash their teeth and cry that they're suddenly (and irrevocably) powerless?

Or do they use all their powers to defeat their opponent, completely unhampered by the metal, and then at their first opportunity remove the offending breastplate, beg forgiveness for their faux pas and go about their way?

I contend that the second option is correct. In which case I have to ask, what's the mechanical implication you're talking about?

The clear answer is that all druids are secretly rust monsters, and the metal armor rusts right off of him.

[Willie the Duck]

I contend that the second option is correct. In which case I have to ask, what's the mechanical implication you're talking about?

I think the difference is in what a mechanical implication is. Outside of farfetched edge cases, the druid won't be wearing metal armor. Thus you will not be making your high-AC tank druid the same way you might make your nature cleric. Your fighter will not be dipping druid for a level to pick up some cantrips, like you might with another spellcaster class (or M.I.). Those are (by a certain definition of the term) mechanical implications.

Yes, another definition of mechanical implication would be 'the druid won't wear metal armor, because what will happen is ______ <some specific game effect>.'

The two are not using the terminology the same, but individually each is valid.

At least that's how I read the argument. I've already presented my opinion on the matter.

[Arcangel4774]

The whole druid and metal armour is an intersting argument, likely split down the line between old and new players. The issue to me largely comes down to an issue if self perception: do i see myself as a druid? Maybe im a barbarian who trained with druidic sage to unleash my inner beast. I dont necessarily identify as a druid, but mechanically i have a few levels so i can turn into a bear.

If looks like a duck but growls like a tiger what the hell kind of animal are we looking at lol

[DMThac0]

If looks like a duck but growls like a tiger what the hell kind of animal are we looking at lol

The aflack duck with strep

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Outside of farfetched edge cases,

I'm not sure a druid that wears metal armor or uses metal objects is a particularly farfetched idea, to be honest. It requires some expansion of the conception of 'druid'. Nature is more than forests and glades, after all. Metal armor for a dwarven druid watching over a mining community could very easily be more in keeping with their identity than hide or padded, to name two.

[Mortis_Elrod]

-shoving someone prone doesn’t require a grapple

-spells are precious, use them wisely.

-sleep is in fact not overrated

-Jacklewears are in fact, not pushovers.

-Prone is a very good condition and not something to sneeze at.

Opportunity attacks happen when they leave reach. Not when they enter.

-just how big 20 feet radius sphere is.

-establishing an in combat language should be something to at least discuss with party before combat stats

-making plans in common is not a good idea

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm not sure a druid that wears metal armor or uses metal objects is a particularly farfetched idea, to be honest. It requires some expansion of the conception of 'druid'. Nature is more than forests and glades, after all. Metal armor for a dwarven druid watching over a mining community could very easily be more in keeping with their identity than hide or padded, to name two.
It looks out of place because it's an old school thing, connected to the days when paladins and even thieves had strict constraints. By today's standards, anyway.

There was a time when there were roleplaying expectations baked into almost every class. We've mostly moved on from it, because it's fun to invent unusual circumstances for oddball combos, like your miner druid.

It certainly doesn't break anything to shun it and just allow druids to wear whatever they want. I can see why that might be frustrating for AL, though. It cuts off a lot of possible character types.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It looks out of place because it's an old school thing, connected to the days when paladins and even thieves had strict constraints. By today's standards, anyway.

There was a time when there were roleplaying expectations baked into almost every class. We've mostly moved on from it, because it's fun to invent unusual circumstances for oddball combos, like your miner druid.

It certainly doesn't break anything to shun it and just allow druids to wear whatever they want. I can see why that might be frustrating for AL, though. It cuts off a lot of possible character types.

And when 'dwarf' and 'elf' were classes, and after that when race/class restrictions were an integral part of the game. But those rules, I think, have always been made to be bent in service to roleplaying. It's a richer world that has space for a dwarven ranger who patrols the caverns, mining pick in each hand, alongside the elven ranger doing the same in the woods above. Stories are usually better told about exceptions than rules. Frodo and Bilbo defied expectations; how many hobbits didn't?

[Willie the Duck]

I'm not sure a druid that wears metal armor or uses metal objects is a particularly farfetched idea, to be honest. It requires some expansion of the conception of 'druid'. Nature is more than forests and glades, after all. Metal armor for a dwarven druid watching over a mining community could very easily be more in keeping with their identity than hide or padded, to name two.

I meant the one forced into metal armor and thrown into the gladiator ring. If one actively chooses to have metal-wearing druids in your campaign-great, but it is really kinda avoiding the issue altogether.

[Theodoxus]

In 3.5 there was a mechanical effect, and at least one god, Mielikki, allowed her druids to wear metal armor with no qualms.

It's a ribbon. it's always been a ribbon - because it can be hand-waved away! I suppose, if you're wanting to be super strict, and have a player that wants to be a plate wearing druid of tankiness, remove the taboo with whatever god you want the character to worship.

"You can be a metal encased druid, but only Grethfarb, LG God of Ores allows it... How do you feel about being LG?"