Need super strict ruling [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-22, 01:44 PM

Here's the Word of God:

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

According the Sage Advice article from March 2016:
What happens if a druid wears metal armor? The druid explodes.

Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but the vegetarian chooses not to.

A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.

So, balance-wise, it doesn't matter. Narrative-wise, it's up to the DM. So, DM, what's the call?

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. The Druid doesn't get enough attention as a melee gish, despite having lots of support. I think it opens up a lot of diversity. It's definitely a lot more interesting than another Shield-spamming Eldritch Knight.

darknite

2019-05-22, 02:04 PM

Given that the proficiency notes for Druid says they 'will not use metal armor or shields' I would rule as a DM that even multiclassed Druids are restricted by this tradition.

Segev

2019-05-22, 02:15 PM

The strictly RAW reading is that they "don't," not that they "can't." So if your druid "does," then he's not breaking the rules.

That said, the vegetarian eating meat analogy is a good one. Think of a Druid wearing metal armor like, say, an Antifa protester showing up at a rally wearing a MAGA hat, or an Imam showing up at the Mosque wearing a Gay Pride shirt, or a Trekkie showing up at a Star Trek convention dressed like Darth Vader, or a German drinking American beer.

Sure, they can all do it, but even if that individual druid has gotten over the taboo, his fellows are going to be treating him like he has an unpleasant odor, at best.

Hail Tempus

2019-05-22, 02:28 PM

The strictly RAW reading is that they "don't," not that they "can't." So if your druid "does," then he's not breaking the rules. Let's not go down this tangent. In this context, there's no real difference between "don't" and "can't". Regardless of whether you have the physical ability to do something, the fact that you aren't willing to do so means that thing won't happen.

A vegetarian who starts eating meat is no longer a vegetarian. A Druid who starts wearing metal armor is no longer a Druid.

As a DM, if a player wanted his Druid to start wearing metal armor, I'd rule that he had to give up his Druid levels and start as a level one of some other class, like a nature cleric.

darknite

2019-05-22, 02:35 PM

The strictly RAW reading is that they "don't," not that they "can't." So if your druid "does," then he's not breaking the rules.

Actually it says they WILL NOT use metal armor or shields. It's a part of their class proficiency rule, included in the proficiency rule stated under multiclassing. Therefore they will not use it. It's not a choice, it's a proficiency stricture. Some games will vary, of course.

Rukelnikov

2019-05-22, 02:39 PM

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-22, 02:40 PM

Let's not go down this tangent. In this context, there's no real difference between "don't" and "can't". Regardless of whether you have the physical ability to do something, the fact that you aren't willing to do so means that thing won't happen.

A vegetarian who starts eating meat is no longer a vegetarian. A Druid who starts wearing metal armor is no longer a Druid.

As a DM, if a player wanted his Druid to start wearing metal armor, I'd rule that he had to give up his Druid levels and start as a level one of some other class, like a nature cleric.

But at that point...you're making stuff up. Is that really a safer ruling than perceiving an ambiguous statement towards one side than another?

The fact is, it doesn't matter what the "rules" are. What's the alternative? Does he lose his levels? Does he just cease to have Druid powers (Then what DOES he have, proficiencies?)? Does he change his class into some arbitrary choice that the DM shoehorned?

You could rule that Druids are allowed to wear metal armor (when Wizards can, too!), but is that worse than just creating a bunch of arbitrary rules with major consequences from an ambiguous statement in the book?

I say, follow the heart of 5e and do what's simplest. And in that regard, it's pretty clear.

Rukelnikov

2019-05-22, 02:44 PM

darknite

2019-05-22, 02:45 PM

It shouldn't have any mechanical impediment, but serious roleplaying ones, like a Cleric constantly going against his faith's tenets or a Pally constantly acting contrary to his Oath.

If it went on for a full level, I'd rule that said character cannot advance in Druid anymore until he spends at least an entire level without wearing metal armor.

Perhaps. But in my game if a Druid wore metal armor they would lose their druidic abilities right away - no beast forms, no spells, etc until they ceased doing so and atoned in a serious manner. It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature just because you want to wear Efreeti Chain. In my experience players who exercise sophistry to get a game advantage aren't doing it for role playing reasons. Again, YMMV.

Rukelnikov

2019-05-22, 02:47 PM

Perhaps. But in my game if a Druid wore metal armor they would lose their druidic abilities right away - no beast forms, no spells, etc until they ceased doing so and atoned in a serious manner. It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature just because you want to wear Efreeti Chain. In my experience players who exercise sophistry to get a game advantage aren't doing it for role playing reasons. Again, YMMV.

Yeah, I guess if it went on for longer than a level, and the character showed no sign of intending to change, then yeah, I'd cut access to spells in the same manner I'd do for a Cleric who repeatedly acts out of his faith.

nickl_2000

2019-05-22, 02:48 PM

Hail Tempus

2019-05-22, 02:48 PM

But at that point...you're making stuff up. Is that really a safer ruling than perceiving an ambiguous statement towards one side than another?

The fact is, it doesn't matter what the "rules" are. What's the alternative? Does he lose his levels? Does he just cease to have Druid powers (Then what DOES he have, proficiencies?)? Does he change his class into some arbitrary choice that the DM shoehorned?

You could rule that Druids are allowed to wear metal armor (when Wizards can, too!), but is that worse than just creating a bunch of arbitrary rules with major consequences from an ambiguous statement in the book?

I say, follow the heart of 5e and do what's simplest. And in that regard, it's pretty clear. I'm not really making anything up here. A player comes to me and asks for my ruling- "

"What happens if my Druid wants to start wearing metal armor?"

The rule in the PHB is pretty simple- Druids won't wear metal armor, so the player either needs to abandon the idea, or he needs to stop playing a Druid.

I haven't seen any real argument as to why a DM should allow a player to increase a Druid's potential AC from around 16 (which is good for a full caster) to 19 (which is good for a martial). Druids have a lot going for them already, between Wildshaping and full casting, that I don't see any reason to let them get an AC that the party Fighter would be happy with.

Every time this comes up, people have tortured reasons why their particular Druid doesn't mind wearing metal armor, but really the reason is that they want their character to have a higher armor class.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-22, 02:51 PM

What happens when a Paladin stop abiding his vows? What happens when a Cleric of Lathander spends half his time casting Darkness and snuffing lights out?

Those are a bit different, as those are subclass specific. Changing a subclass is a smaller endeavor than changing a specific class. In fact, the proficiencies you gain are generally things that are supposed to stick with you.

But what happens if...you take Druid after level 1? Generally, you ignore the proficiency portion of the class. To me, resolving that seems a lot more complicated than just saying "Well, based on your actions, you're Oath has been stripped from you, and you're now a Vengeance Paladin". For Druids...Ranger? Cleric? Monk? A Paladin without powers could be a Fighter, I suppose, but what's a Druid without powers?

I haven't seen any real argument as to why a DM should allow a player to increase a Druid's potential AC from around 16 (which is good for a full caster) to 19 (which is good for a martial). Druids have a lot going for them already, between Wildshaping and full casting, that I don't see any reason to let them get an AC that the party Fighter would be happy with.

Every time this comes up, people have tortured reasons why their particular Druid doesn't mind wearing metal armor, but really the reason is that they want their character to have a higher armor class.

On the other hand, though, Clerics have access to better AC, and have more support for melee combat (to utilize the higher AC). I don't really see any example of why heavy armor would support a Druid more than it would a Cleric.

Rukelnikov

2019-05-22, 02:56 PM

I'm not really making anything up here. A player comes to me and asks for my ruling- "

"What happens if my Druid wants to start wearing metal armor?"

The rule in the PHB is pretty simple- Druids won't wear metal armor, so the player either needs to abandon the idea, or he needs to stop playing a Druid.

I haven't seen any real argument as to why a DM should allow a player to increase a Druid's potential AC from around 16 (which is good for a full caster) to 19 (which is good for a martial). Druids have a lot going for them already, between Wildshaping and full casting, that I don't see any reason to let them get an AC that the party Fighter would be happy with.

Every time this comes up, people have tortured reasons why their particular Druid doesn't mind wearing metal armor, but really the reason is that they want their character to have a higher armor class.

Which they can get, as long as its not metal, dragonscale, as nick said above, is a classic example of heavier armor that Druids can wear.

darknite

2019-05-22, 02:57 PM

Seriously, just offer dragonscale, ironwood, shell chiton, or the like for 1.25x - 1.5x the cost. Your Druid can wear heavy armor and they are following the tenants and history of the D&D druid. It's the easiest possible solution to the problem.

This is a good option. There are viable non-metal yet effective medium/heavy armor materials out there if you are lucky enough to get them.

Hail Tempus

2019-05-22, 02:58 PM

Those are a bit different, as those are subclass specific. Changing a subclass is a smaller endeavor than changing a specific class. In fact, the proficiencies you gain are generally things that are supposed to stick with you.

But what happens if...you take Druid after level 1? Generally, you ignore the proficiency portion of the class. To me, resolving that seems a lot more complicated than just saying "Well, based on your actions, you're Oath has been stripped from you, and you're now a Vengeance Paladin".A player who multi-classes into Druid is voluntarily deciding for his character to adopt the rules governing Druids. No one is forced to take a Vow of Druidity (or whatever).

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-22, 03:01 PM

This is a good option. There are viable non-metal yet effective medium/heavy armor materials out there if you are lucky enough to get them.

But then you're getting into a question as to why the druid isn't allowed to utilize heavy metal armor.

If Dragonscale is an option, then it's clearly not a balance choice. The only reason beyond that would be a DM's opinion for the narrative. Sage Advice agrees with this.

Either it's arbitrary, or it's for some mechanical reason.

[Edit] Dang, got a conga line of responses to my typo.

darknite

2019-05-22, 03:06 PM

But then you're getting into a question as to why the druid isn't allowed to utilize heavy armor.

If Dragonscale is an option, then it's clearly not a balance choice. The only reason beyond that would be a DM's opinion for the narrative. Sage Advice agrees with this.

Either it's arbitrary, or it's for some mechanical reason.

It may very well be arbitrary. But the RAW do not explicitly say that a Druid can not wear heavy armor. They just don't get that proficiency as part of their class, like many other classes. They can gain it by spending a feat if they want to, but would still be bound by the no-metal clause.

Hail Tempus

2019-05-22, 03:07 PM

But then you're getting into a question as to why the druid isn't allowed to utilize heavy armor.

If Dragonscale is an option, then it's clearly not a balance choice. The only reason beyond that would be a DM's opinion for the narrative. Sage Advice agrees with this.

Either it's arbitrary, or it's for some mechanical reason. I think you mean to ask why Druids aren't allowed to utilize metal armor, rather than heavy armor. They're not proficient with heavy armor.

There are magic items that are exceptions to the rule of what a character can wear/use. An elven chain shirt can be worn by someone who is only proficient with light armor, for example. But, the existence of a specific exception doesn't mean the general limitation should be ignored.

BloodOgre

2019-05-22, 03:09 PM

Actually it says they WILL NOT use metal armor or shields. It's a part of their class proficiency rule, included in the proficiency rule stated under multiclassing. Therefore they will not use it. It's not a choice, it's a proficiency stricture. Some games will vary, of course.

Totally agree here. And to go along with the vegetarian analogy, if a vegetarian chooses to eat meat, they are NOT a vegetarian, just ask another vegetarian. If your druid gets over the "taboo", they aren't a druid. You asked for a strictly conservative ruling, and that would be it. Now, a druid can wear armor not made of metal, like tortoise shell plate. Now, your tempest cleric could take the Magical Adept feat and take druid cantrips and spells and still wear metal armor. Or MC into a class that allows you to take spells from the Druid class once you get high enough, i.e. Bard's 10th level Magical Secrets, Lore Bard's 6th level Additional Magical Secrets, Rogue Arcane Trickster's Spell Thief ability (17th level).

Rukelnikov

2019-05-22, 03:09 PM

But then you're getting into a question as to why the druid isn't allowed to utilize heavy armor.

If Dragonscale is an option, then it's clearly not a balance choice. The only reason beyond that would be a DM's opinion for the narrative. Sage Advice agrees with this.

The Druid can utilize heavier armor, what he cant utilize is metal armor. And no, that's not "just for narrative", in a roleplaying game, roleplaying impediments can be used a balancing mechanic, in 2e Bladesingers had a somewhat strict code to follow in exchange for the goodies of the kit (Colin McComb himself explained this in a video where he talked about the kit), similarly in 5e the Paladin is a strong class, but it has to follow his Oaths in order to keep that power. RP requirements are not always "just for fluff".

Laserlight

2019-05-22, 03:16 PM

Multiclassing doesn't guarantee you all the benefits of both classes. Barbarian/druids can't cast while raging, for instance. I would say "no metal armor".

Garfunion

2019-05-22, 03:26 PM

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-22, 03:29 PM

The Druid can utilize heavier armor, what he cant utilize is metal armor. And no, that's not "just for narrative", in a roleplaying game, roleplaying impediments can be used a balancing mechanic, in 2e Bladesingers had a somewhat strict code to follow in exchange for the goodies of the kit (Colin McComb himself explained this in a video where he talked about the kit), similarly in 5e the Paladin is a strong class, but it has to follow his Oaths in order to keep that power. RP requirements are not always "just for fluff".

That's fair.

But is that the case, now? The developers said they didn't think so.

Additionally, the Cleric seems to get a lot more out of metal armor than the Druid does. In fact, most people would say that the Cleric is a better overall class.

When would a Druid in metal armor be better than a Cleric in metal armor?

**************

I'm not saying that it's better to have Druids be allowed to wear metal armor, I certainly don't care for it, but I don't see any compelling evidence as to why it's more than just DM choice.

Because the book kinda said so?

Because that's how it's always been?

It really just boils down to being an opinion. And DMs, more than anyone, can make those, but....that also implies that there's no real right answer. Just whoever's in charge.

Tvtyrant

2019-05-22, 03:35 PM

Who says my campaign has metal, much less metal armor? Darksun is a major campaign setting that this wouldn't matter in, but if they said "heavy armor" then it would be more universal.

In short, if it is a fluff and not a mechanical reason for having the rules then it can be discarded based on campaign. If it was meant to be mechanical it was written badly and the DM needs to fix the rule.

Rukelnikov

2019-05-22, 03:41 PM

That's fair.

But is that the case, now? The developers said they didn't think so.

Additionally, the Cleric seems to get a lot more out of metal armor than the Druid does. In fact, most people would say that the Cleric is a better overall class.

When would a Druid in metal armor be better than a Cleric in metal armor?

I see it primarily as a multiclass discouragement. For instance, taking a couple levels in Paladin would net you Heavy armor and Smites, this would make dumping Dex pretty viable, freeing up points to distribute in other stats, and allowing you to have great AC for when your wildhsape form ends. They could still do that, but would require a very rare armor (Dragon Scale) that requires attunement, so access to such an item is uncertain if or when it would come, and even then cost an attunement slot.

I'm not saying that it's better to have Druids be allowed to wear metal armor, I certainly don't care for it, but I don't see any compelling evidence as to why it's more than just DM choice.

Because the book kinda said so?

Because that's how it's always been?

It really just boils down to being an opinion. And DMs, more than anyone, can make those, but....that also implies that there's no real right answer. Just whoever's in charge.

But then, in the same vein, we could ask, why do Paladins need to follow an Oath? And all your questions would apply equally to that.

Kyutaru

2019-05-22, 03:46 PM

A vegetarian who starts eating meat is no longer a vegetarian. A Druid who starts wearing metal armor is no longer a Druid.
This made more sense when classes had extremely strict fall conditions. Barbarian can't be Lawful, Monk can't be non-Lawful, Paladin can't be non-Lawful-Good, Ranger can't be non-Good, Fighter can't be caster without being branded a gish heretic, that sort of thing.

If you want to adhere to falling for not conforming with the roleplay then sure make him no longer a Druid. Now he's a Hobo. Or a Hermit. Or a Swamp Witch. Or Ben Kenobi. Old druids were priest/magicians and professionals of the Celtic religion. Getting kicked out of Animal Club means you're just a guy who knows secrets he probably shouldn't.

The only power you might want to let them keep is the ability to talk to squirrels and other animals. That's a skill, isn't it?

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-22, 03:54 PM

I see it primarily as a multiclass discouragement. For instance, taking a couple levels in Paladin would net you Heavy armor and Smites, this would make dumping Dex pretty viable, freeing up points to distribute in other stats, and allowing you to have great AC for when your wildhsape form ends. They could still do that, but would require a very rare armor (Dragon Scale) that requires attunement, so access to such an item is uncertain if or when it would come, and even then cost an attunement slot.

But then, in the same vein, we could ask, why do Paladins need to follow an Oath? And all your questions would apply equally to that.

On the Moon Druid aspect, that's a valid example, but probably the only one that comes to mind. It seems very niche, and I doubt the limitation was put there for that one example of Moon Druids + Paladins + Multiclass Restrictions (as Paladins require 13 Strength). Especially when you consider that your particular combo is available at level 4, but spending spell slots as a full Moon Druid (as well as upgraded Wild Shape forms and more Druid spells) would normally occur at level 6.

You're absolutely right on the Oaths. I guess, my point is, don't add restrictions unless you know why you're doing it. You could follow the narrative that the book makes for you, or you could set your own. I've seen very few Paladins match the exact Oaths that they're supposed to follow perfectly. I sincerely doubt as many Ancients Paladins worship passion and beauty as much as they're "supposed to", despite being so common.

As a community, we're pretty liberal on the "requirements" of being a Paladin, so...why are Druids held to so much higher of a standard, despite being so much more uncommon?

Unoriginal

2019-05-22, 03:59 PM

So I know this is a little weird, but it's also way outside my wheelhouse. I'm very liberal when it comes to DMing, and I typically play that way as well.

But I need a the most conservative, strict ruling on a multiclass interaction:

Would you allow a tempest cleric 1/druid 1 to be able to cast druid spells while wearing heavy (metal) armor?

I can totally see not allowing any other druid abilities to operate while wearing heavy armor - but should spells also be restricted?

This is with the one caveat that the armor restriction is cultural rather than divinely influenced...

A druid will not wear metal armor, so that question would never come up.

So, balance-wise, it doesn't matter. Narrative-wise, it's up to the DM. So, DM, what's the call?

This is also correct.

patchyman

2019-05-22, 04:26 PM

Because the book kinda said so?

Because that's how it's always been?

Because the book said so is enough. Look, I always play in home-brewed worlds and I am open to changing rules so that players get to play the characters they want to play...but if you change something, own it! Don’t pretend that the PHB allows a druid to wear metal armor because it doesn’t spell out a consequence for not doing so.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-22, 04:32 PM

Look, I always play in home-brewed worlds and I am open to changing rules so that players get to play the characters they want to play...but if you change something, own it!

I think, on that regard, we're on the same page. But I think you should own it, even if you don't change something. You're the DM. If it's going to be arbitrary, make it YOUR arbitrary. Don't let something else make your decisions for you just because it's easier to say "well, the book told me to", because that's what the developers have been trying to avoid people doing since they started 5e.

In the famous words of Geddy Lee: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

Rukelnikov

2019-05-22, 04:32 PM

On the Moon Druid aspect, that's a valid example, but probably the only one that comes to mind. It seems very niche, and I doubt the limitation was put there for that one example of Moon Druids + Paladins + Multiclass Restrictions (as Paladins require 13 Strength). Especially when you consider that your particular combo is available at level 4, but spending spell slots as a full Moon Druid (as well as upgraded Wild Shape forms and more Druid spells) would normally occur at level 6.

Maybe there aren't many other combos that would emerge from lifting the restriction, but it still is an MC discourager.

You're absolutely right on the Oaths. I guess, my point is, don't add restrictions unless you know why you're doing it. You could follow the narrative that the book makes for you, or you could set your own. I've seen very few Paladins match the exact Oaths that they're supposed to follow perfectly. I sincerely doubt as many Ancients Paladins worship passion and beauty as much as they're "supposed to", despite being so common.

As a community, we're pretty liberal on the "requirements" of being a Paladin, so...why are Druids held to so much higher of a standard, despite being so much more uncommon?

Well, I think that's pretty arbitrary tbh, when I DM, Pallys have to follow their codes, in 3e I've had 2 paladins fall (neither was permanent), and another DM of my group had a third one fall. So we are not very liberal of it. Here though, I think the "handwaving" comes from most of the builds done here being optimization excercises, and since you can't theorycraft the RP constraints of Paladins Oath's into DPR or AC, those are ignored.

Clerics and Warlocks are in the same wagon, where in actual play there may be an RP element tied to class that may force your character to act in a certain way or face uncertainty, it cannot be put to numbers either. However, Druid's constraint can be put to numbers, and that's why it pisses of a lot of people.

To me though, its the least serious of the constraints when compared to following an Oath, the tenets of a Faith, or having done a Pact with some entity.

Sigreid

2019-05-22, 04:33 PM

Kane0

2019-05-22, 04:47 PM

He can cast those spells while wearing armor, but he won't.

Theodoxus

2019-05-22, 05:04 PM

Kane0

2019-05-22, 05:10 PM

Rukelnikov

2019-05-22, 05:14 PM

Ok, so this is how I see it. Tempest cleric's going around smiting for his god, all chill. And boom! Gains a level. He's contemplating what to do next, and decides, 'hey, I'd really like access to shillelagh and maybe some good berries, and my god's a meanie and won't let me swap over to nature, so I'll just grab a level of druid for the lulz (and spells!).'

And then he's a tempest cleric 1/druid 1 and standing around in his metal magic underwear and what, gets super itchy and decides to gtfo of it?

I get that the meta of the game is that you adventure, and while smiting orcs and bunnies, you're also studying for your next level - but I've never seen it actually enacted in that way - it's always "you've got enough XP (or made a milestone) congrats, you're second level. Take 5 to level up (or bring a second level character to the next session, depending).

Well, we do require some explanation of how your character changed. If your character has been training at a temple for years, but your first lvl is rogue we wouldn't have a problem with later gaining a lvl of Monk. If you character never trained unarmed or fought in general, I'd ask for some explanation as to how he got those Monk skills.

In your example I would allow it if the character changed from plate to hide or non metal armor, since it reflects the inner change of the character and his now stronger bond with nature, otherwise I'd tell the player he can't take that lvl in druid.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-05-22, 05:28 PM

Have the nature spirits bless the cleric with Feather Token. Instead of sprouting a tree, it creates a beautiful set of Ironwood Armor in the likeness of the Clerics current armor.

There are many solutions to the problem, but the most strict RAW is that mechanically there is no punishment for a druid to wear Metal Armor. Whether or not they will doesn't really have any mechanical backing, it's strictly against the flavor of the base class however. It's up to the DM to decide if there should be any consequences.

Sigreid

2019-05-22, 05:34 PM

The player has to make the call on how seriously he's taking his druidic path. If it's literally a dip for the sweet powers that's like selling your soul for a neat cantrip. You as DM enforce the in game consequences for that action.

Just make sure the player is aware of all this before you start. No point surprising him with it.

If I were to decide I wanted to be super strict about the classes what I would do is inform the player that by making the choice to be a druid he would be choosing to decide that his character will not wear metal armor going forward. Making that character decision is part of making the decision to be a druid.

That said, it hasn't come up at my table and I'd talk over with the rest of the group if we wanted to hold to that idea or not. I'd also certainly be open to them seeking and acquiring metal equivalent armors that have no metal in them.

Hail Tempus

2019-05-22, 06:14 PM

This made more sense when classes had extremely strict fall conditions. Barbarian can't be Lawful, Monk can't be non-Lawful, Paladin can't be non-Lawful-Good, Ranger can't be non-Good, Fighter can't be caster without being branded a gish heretic, that sort of thing.

If you want to adhere to falling for not conforming with the roleplay then sure make him no longer a Druid. Now he's a Hobo. Or a Hermit. Or a Swamp Witch. Or Ben Kenobi. Old druids were priest/magicians and professionals of the Celtic religion. Getting kicked out of Animal Club means you're just a guy who knows secrets he probably shouldn't.
I’m not a big fan of the old school DM desire to make Paladins fall for screwing up. The Paladin tenets aren’t one strike and you’re out. But, if someone decides their Paladin is going to start kidnapping vagrants and wearing their face like a mask, to me that signifies that they no longer want their character to be a Paladin.

And all of the characters concepts you described are perfectly playable as a Druid, they just can’t wear metal armor.

Kyutaru

2019-05-22, 08:08 PM

And all of the characters concepts you described are perfectly playable as a Druid, they just can’t wear metal armor.
Aw but Vader proved a Jedi can totally wear metal armor! Did they ever mention a downside for that?

Falling as a druid is fine and dandy. But what are you now? Something Something Not Druid. Is there even a class for that? Or can we just assume you're an Ex-Druid who now wears metal armor? Maybe an ex-Druid is a Ranger and that's why there's so damn many of those guys. They both had animal companions in the past. One just fell to the metal Dark Side and now only gets a fragment of the old druid magic. Maybe as a result of the fall he now reaaaaaaaaally hates animals and specializes in hunting them.

Kane0

2019-05-22, 08:25 PM

Aw but Vader proved a Jedi can totally wear metal armor! Did they ever mention a downside for that?

Can't force jump?

Cybren

2019-05-22, 08:29 PM

Unoriginal

2019-05-22, 09:00 PM

Aw but Vader proved a Jedi can totally wear metal armor! Did they ever mention a downside for that?

Constant pain, highly reduced mobility and speed, vulnerability to anything messing up with electronic parts, ...

Vader's armor was an outdated piece of junk, and it was so deliberately.

Cikomyr

2019-05-22, 09:09 PM

Does it break the game? Like, do you feel the party is unbalanced because of the Druid wearing metal armor?

If not, well it's not a big deal mechanically. Find some interesting reason in story. Or maybe have the character go through a quick story arc where he gets permission. Or whatnot.

If the party can be unbalanced, then explain that to the player.

Being a GM is about making a good judgement call about when to break the rules. It's fine to make up stuff, as long as you try to make it interesting.

I dunnow, maybe he is some sort of radical Druid that are part of a new branch (pun intended) of worship, where its less about Nature as a whole and more about the Natural Laws in a way. Kind of a Druid of Science.

Naanomi

2019-05-22, 09:36 PM

I don’t allow multiclass Druids to wear metal armor; but I also have options for non-metal armor be... not as available as metal armor options, but not arduous to obtain

mythmonster2

2019-05-22, 09:45 PM

Eh, the metal armor restriction's never made sense for druids in the first place. Wearing metal mined out of the earth that's been melted down and refined is bad, but wearing animal hides that have been put through all sorts of chemicals, not to mention all the metal bits that will be in the armor anyway, is totally fine. And 5e also lifted the restriction on metal weapons, making the restriction even more arbitrary. There's nothing in the archetype of "nature caster" that makes metal armor inherently forbidden, while at least for paladin, the oath IS the class.

Keravath

2019-05-22, 10:04 PM

This is 100% a DM call.

The PHB states the following:

"Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)"

Druids are proficient with all medium armor and shields, however, they WILL not use the implements if made out of metal.

From the current sage advice compendium which contains official rules clarifications.

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

"Druid
What happens if a druid wears metal armor?
The druid explodes.
Well, not actually. Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry (1976) and the original Player’s Hand-book (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to. A druid typically wears leather, studded leather, or hide armor, and if a druid comes across scale mail made of a material other than metal, the druid might wear it. If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM. Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign."

The bottom line is if a Druid character can justify to the DM why they should be allowed to wear metal armor then it is up to the DM to decide it on a case by case basis since the druid is mechanically proficient with medium armor.

As an example, if a dwarven druid who worshipped nature including stone and metals felt that the working of metal was simply an extension of the nature of the material, just as the shaping of wood into staves or bows then this particular druid might find it totally natural to wear armor that incorporates some metal, especially given their cultural background. However, their training as a druid might have included elements where wearing metal armor was frowned upon. Perhaps other druids might find the dwarven druid wearing metal armor to be breaking a taboo, perhaps it would cause some social conflicts or perhaps not. The entire situation is a DM call based on how this works in their game world.

To the OP, there is no other super strict ruling other than the statement that "Druids will not wear metal armor or use metal shields." Allowing the use of these items is at the DM discretion otherwise it is simply not allowed because a druid WILL NOT wear it.

intregus

2019-05-22, 11:17 PM

This is one of those sacred cows that needs to die. It's 100% fluff.

Let a druid use metal gear. That's my opinion.

BurgerBeast

2019-05-22, 11:42 PM

This is one of those sacred cows that needs to die. It's 100% fluff.

Let a druid use metal gear. That's my opinion.

I have to say that I agree.

Narratively, what is supposed to happen? The Druid straps on metal armor... and then... what? He can’t?

The fact is that a vegetarian can eat meat. If someone has been a vegetarian for twenty years, but once - ten years ago - he ate meat... then guess what? He’s a vegetarian. He’s a vegetarian who ate meat once. He’s not a non-vegetarian. So where’s the one line? Twice? Ten times? Within the last year? Month?

How long does a non-vegetarian have to go vegetarian to “become a vegetarian”? A week? Month? Year?

It seems to me that the designers could have made this a “hard” rule if, as they did with many Barbarian abilities by specifying that they only work under certain armor restrictions, they introduced the “when not wearing metal armor” condition to some of the Druid abilities.

But they didn’t. The rule is not clear. No consequences are ever written. The balance argument doesn’t move me because clerics are heavily-armoured full casters so allowing Druid to wear metal can’t be that bad...

These invented punitive measures are just jerk moves in my opinion. But I would just do as someone already suggested and have natural versions of each of the metal armours available to Druids.

Naanomi

2019-05-22, 11:47 PM

I wish they had some minor mechanical penalty... probably inability to wildshape and/or subclass features... while wearing metal armor instead of the ‘won’t’ language we have now... maintain the flavor/history, but without the weirdness of a purely behavior restriction

Ghost Nappa

2019-05-23, 12:03 AM

So I know this is a little weird, but it's also way outside my wheelhouse. I'm very liberal when it comes to DMing, and I typically play that way as well.

But I need a the most conservative, strict ruling on a multiclass interaction:

Would you allow a tempest cleric 1/druid 1 to be able to cast druid spells while wearing heavy (metal) armor?

I can totally see not allowing any other druid abilities to operate while wearing heavy armor - but should spells also be restricted?

This is with the one caveat that the armor restriction is cultural rather than divinely influenced...

Druids do not receive proficiency with metal armors due to the way that their proficiencies are worded.

However, Clerics do.

Armor proficiencies do not interact with Spellcasting proficiencies in 5E.

Therefore, the multi-class is not restricted mechanically. However, there should be some sort of roleplay trade-off if they encounter another druid wearing metal armor.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-05-23, 12:18 AM

Druids do not receive proficiency with metal armors due to the way that their proficiencies are worded.

However, Clerics do.

Armor proficiencies do not interact with Spellcasting proficiencies in 5E.

Therefore, the multi-class is not restricted mechanically. However, there should be some sort of roleplay trade-off if they encounter another druid wearing metal armor.

Bolded is not true. They are proficient in all Light and Medium Armor, as well as with shields. It does not say "unless it is made of metal". The implication is that they won't wear it, nowhere does it say or imply that they are unable to or are not proficient.

Armor Proficiencies DO interact with your spellcasting in 5E. You are unable to cast in armor you are not proficient in. A Druid would not lose their ability to cast in metal armor (if they happened to wear any) as long as they were proficient with it.

On the second bolded note, while I tend to believe that the flavor of classes should be respected, it is not RAW to at all compromise a Druid who chooses to wear metal armor.

Yora

2019-05-23, 05:00 AM

Druids don't wear metal armor because some decades ago some writer decided that metal is unnatural. Swords are also unnatural, unless they are curved. If the sword has a curved blade, it becomes natural again.

I think this is silly and as GM I rule that in my campaign druids can wear metal armor and use all weapons.

Doesn't match the words in the PHB, but the spirit of RPGs is to have GMs make rulings of what fits their campaign.

Unoriginal

2019-05-23, 05:28 AM

Narratively, what is supposed to happen? The Druid straps on metal armor... and then... what? He can’t?

Narratively, the Druid does not strap on metal armor.

Digimike

2019-05-23, 06:58 AM

If it were my table here's how I'd come down on this one.

It's the order that they appear in the character back story.

Is this an ex druid who went on to take cleric training. Or is it an ex cleric who gave up the cloth (ER plate) and devoted themselves to nature.

If this is an ex druid then sure. If this is an ex cleric then no.

Either way they know how to use it. They have the proficiency. But depending on their new outlook on life is how I'd roll with this.

Sigreid

2019-05-23, 07:09 AM

Segev

2019-05-23, 07:39 AM

We've gone pretty far from the OP request. The direct book wording is they can, but they will not. It's the same as I live in an area where I can smoke pot without any risk of getting in trouble, but i won't because of my personal choices.

Right. So they can, but (most) don’t. It doesn’t say they lose their powers if they do. But other druids will be disgusted by it in the same way a straight-laced evangelical community would be by the youth leader wearing midriff-bearing cutoff shorts when she works with their teenagers.

Sigreid

2019-05-23, 07:42 AM

Right. So they can, but (most) don’t. It doesn’t say they lose their powers if they do. But other druids will be disgusted by it in the same way a straight-laced evangelical community would be by the youth leader wearing midriff-bearing cutoff shorts when she works with their teenagers.

Actually, it doesn't say that most won't, it says that none will. It doesn't matter to me if a particular table allows it or doesn't, but the language in the book leaves no room for for exceptions.

diplomancer

2019-05-23, 07:47 AM

Naanomi

2019-05-23, 08:32 AM

While, as a DM, I am definitely on the side of NO, as I believe that WILL not is actually stronger than CANNOT, I do find it amusing that Druids have proficiency in armors that they will not wear. I always wonder "How did they learn it?" ;)
There are medium armors they can wear... heck, there are heavy armors they can wear if they get proficiency somehow

A fighter with a religious taboo against bladed weapons still understands weapon use enough to know how, even if she refuses to do so

Kyutaru

2019-05-23, 08:33 AM

Actually, it doesn't say that most won't, it says that none will. It doesn't matter to me if a particular table allows it or doesn't, but the language in the book leaves no room for for exceptions.

Though it's not any particular table that permits the exceptions, it's official Wizards content. The books have updates and rule clarifications online, one of which suggests Druids aren't literally banned from metal armor.

diplomancer

2019-05-23, 08:35 AM

Now I'm imagining Druidic Schools having a bunch of Dragonscale armor stashed somewhere just for training new pupils.

Though it's not any particular table that permits the exceptions, it's official Wizards content. The books have updates and rule clarifications online, one of which suggests Druids aren't literally banned from metal armor.

Actually, what the official Wizards content says is that it is not going to "break anything in the game system", and that it is up to the DM. But basically everything is up to the DM anyway, so the only relevant thing is that it does not break the game, which we already know. It remains a houserule though (not that there is anything wrong with that :smallwink:)

nickl_2000

2019-05-23, 08:39 AM

Now I'm imagining Druidic Schools having a bunch of Dragonscale armor stashed somewhere just for training new pupils.

Why not? Fighter schools would have all weapons there, even something like blowdarts. This would be pretty logical.

allthingslich

2019-05-23, 08:40 AM

They just won't wear it. I suggest knocking the druid unconscious and put him in cursed armor so he can't take it off afterwards.

This may not relate to the same situation in the OP, but I'm using this in my next game in some fashion. Brilliant.

diplomancer

2019-05-23, 08:42 AM

Why not? Fighter schools would have all weapons there, even something like blowdarts. This would be pretty logical.

Well, Dragon Scale Mail is a very rare magic item, to begin with (unlike blowdarts). Keeping it stashed away in Druidic schools just to train new pupils is weird.

But that is not my original point anyway. By RAW, Druids are proficient in Half-Plate. But they will not wear it. How did they learn how to use it? (always assuming that Armor Proficiency is something gained by training, which I think does not make much sense, but people who have tried wearing armor in real life are free to correct me about it if they want to).

nickl_2000

2019-05-23, 08:47 AM

Well, Dragon Scale Mail is a very rare magic item, to begin with (unlike blowdarts). Keeping it stashed away in Druidic schools just to train new pupils is weird.

Non magical armor made of dragonscale would be fine. Also there is spiked armor (with wooden spikes power RAW possibility) from SCAG is a thing. That certainly would be available to any druid school.

Segev

2019-05-23, 09:00 AM

Actually, it doesn't say that most won't, it says that none will. It doesn't matter to me if a particular table allows it or doesn't, but the language in the book leaves no room for for exceptions.

And when the books say "always chaotic evil," we have precedent clarifying they mean "the number who aren't are such a vanishingly small exception that they don't bear mentioning in a monster manual entry."

Exceptions exist to nearly everything.

Though this conversation now has me imagining druids who have illicit stashes of metal armor they wear in private, shamefully salacious enjoyment. "Oh, you're so civilized, you bad boy. Look at that polish on those metal pauldrons. That cold, cold steel. That clean-shaven, well-groomed, freshly-bathed and manicured you, you."

"Archdruid, sir! The treants want an emergency meeting! They're about to declare war on the beaverfolk!" "I TOLD YOU TO KNOCK BEFORE ENTERING MY SANCTUM!" "Oh, Sir..." turns away in shameful judgment.

darknite

2019-05-23, 09:05 AM

Um, I think the OP asked for a super strict ruling?

Are there outliers and DM exceptions and exceptions for All-SpintMail's-Eve? Sure. That could happen. But RAW, no metal.

Segev

2019-05-23, 09:09 AM

Um, I think the OP asked for a super strict ruling?

Are there outliers and DM exceptions and exceptions for All-SpintMail's-Eve? Sure. That could happen. But RAW, no metal.

No, the super-strict ruling is that they absolutely can, with no consequences save social. They don't, but they can, wear metal armor, and no rules say otherwise nor spell out consequences to them, mechanically, for doing so.

Note that a Charmed creature can't attack the one who Charmed him. Not "won't" or "doesn't," but "can't." And it's all but certain the inability stems from a "can't bring himself to," not a physical inability or a horrible consequence should he do so.

Druids are not compelled by their class not to. They do not suffer any mechanical effects for doing so. They "don't" wear metal armor. But they absolutely can. So if the player says his does...he does.

diplomancer

2019-05-23, 09:11 AM

Non magical armor made of dragonscale would be fine. Also there is spiked armor (with wooden spikes power RAW possibility) from SCAG is a thing. That certainly would be available to any druid school.

Are half-plates-made-from-special-materials-but-still-easy-to-get available at Druid schools? If there aren't, how did Druids learn to wear them? If there are, why don't the Druids just let adventuring druids buy those?

No, the super-strict ruling is that they absolutely can, with no consequences save social. They don't, but they can, wear metal armor, and no rules say otherwise nor spell out consequences to them, mechanically, for doing so.

Note that a Charmed creature can't attack the one who Charmed him. Not "won't" or "doesn't," but "can't." And it's all but certain the inability stems from a "can't bring himself to," not a physical inability or a horrible consequence should he do so.

Druids are not compelled by their class not to. They do not suffer any mechanical effects for doing so. They "don't" wear metal armor. But they absolutely can. So if the player says his does...he does.

A ruling that does not allow a Druid to use metal armor is more strict than a ruling that allows him to, whatever the RAW is. Therefore, a super strict ruling means that the character will not be allowed by the DM to wear metal armor.

Hail Tempus

2019-05-23, 09:18 AM

Hail Tempus

2019-05-23, 09:21 AM

Are half-plates-made-from-special-materials-but-still-easy-to-get available at Druid schools? If there aren't, how did Druids learn to wear them? If there are, why don't the Druids just let adventuring druids buy those? Druids are proficient with half-plate because there's a possibility of finding half-plate that isn't made of metal.

They're also proficient with half-plate because the PHB says they are.

Let's not overthink this.

nickl_2000

2019-05-23, 09:21 AM

Are special materials but easily available half-plates available at Druid schools? If there aren't, how did Druids learn to wear them? If there are, why don't the Druids just let adventuring druids buy those?

In a world I created or ran? The answer is yes. They are common enough for adventurers to get and can be sold and bought in a larger city.

I think the lack of unique materials for flavor of armor and druids is ridiculous.

diplomancer

2019-05-23, 09:29 AM

Druids are proficient with half-plate because there's a possibility of finding half-plate that isn't made of metal.

They're also proficient with half-plate because the PHB says they are.

Let's not overthink this.

Hey, I agree. I just find it amusing to think about how they acquired that proficiency.

In a world I created or ran? The answer is yes. They are common enough for adventurers to get and can be sold and bought in a larger city.

I think the lack of unique materials for flavor of armor and druids is ridiculous.

Which is fine for your home game, but is not the assumption of the PHB, which is from where I'm reasoning.

darknite

2019-05-23, 09:29 AM

No, the super-strict ruling is that they absolutely can, with no consequences save social. They don't, but they can, wear metal armor, and no rules say otherwise nor spell out consequences to them, mechanically, for doing so.

Note that a Charmed creature can't attack the one who Charmed him. Not "won't" or "doesn't," but "can't." And it's all but certain the inability stems from a "can't bring himself to," not a physical inability or a horrible consequence should he do so.

Druids are not compelled by their class not to. They do not suffer any mechanical effects for doing so. They "don't" wear metal armor. But they absolutely can. So if the player says his does...he does.

Then we differ in opinion. To me "won't" means that in the base case a Druid won't wear metal armor because it would violate their beliefs. Druids take their beliefs seriously and when a player elects to play a certain type of character one of the elements of 'roleplaying' is that they attempt to portray important elements of their character's beliefs. If a druid were tied down and forced to don metal armor and coerced into walking around in it with at dagger-point, then they could probably still cast spells and otherwise behave normally (ie no mechanical restrictions). But it's not something they would want to do.

Can there be games where the DM and players have agreed that Druids are hunky dory with all proficient armors regardless of their ferrous content? Sure. But that's not the base case.

nickl_2000

2019-05-23, 09:35 AM

Which is fine for your home game, but is not the assumption of the PHB, which is from where I'm reasoning.

So then they have magical armor made of unique materials to learn on (allowed per dmg). How does a wizard learn how to use a magical wand? Or a cleric a magical staff? I would assume a school would have access, it's not like magical armor would go bad over the years .

Also they can learn on spiked armor which according to SCAG can have wooden spikes.

darknite

2019-05-23, 09:39 AM

So then they have magical armor made of unique materials to learn on (allowed per dmg). How does a wizard learn how to use a magical wand? Or a cleric a magical staff? I would assume a school would have access, it's not like magical armor would go bad over the years .

Also they can learn on spiked armor which according to SCAG can have wooden spikes.

Hide is a Medium Armor. Leather is a Light Armor.

Unoriginal

2019-05-23, 09:42 AM

Note that 5e does not make any distinction for weapons made out of bone/ivory/other substances. Aside for effects and spells such as Heat Metal, which only work on metal, or the rule for breaking items, which make it so more fragile materials are easier to break.

The same would apply for shields and armors, logically. I think the shields in Chult are described as non-metalic, but I might be wrong.

Segev

2019-05-23, 09:48 AM

Are half-plates-made-from-special-materials-but-still-easy-to-get available at Druid schools? If there aren't, how did Druids learn to wear them? If there are, why don't the Druids just let adventuring druids buy those?

A ruling that does not allow a Druid to use metal armor is more strict than a ruling that allows him to, whatever the RAW is. Therefore, a super strict ruling means that the character will not be allowed by the DM to wear metal armor.

No, this is not a super-strict ruling. This is a super-permissive ruling, where the DM allows the player to do whatever he wants. That's a perfectly fine ruling, if the DM wants to be permissive.

But, a super-strict ruling is-"Your Druid isn't willing to put on the metal armor. Let's move on."

You're confusing "strict" for "restrictive." It's not surprising, as they're related words, but they mean different things. A "strict reading of the rules" means you take exactly what they say, and embellish as little as possible. That doesn't mean you take the most restrictive reading you can, especially if you have to change a word in the RAW to make the meaning accurate.

A restrictive reading says, "They don't, which means you can't." A strict reading says that "they don't" means that it's just not done. Just like drow don't live on the surface. But nothing says they can't, so if YOUR drow does, or YOUR druid does, that's up to you.

If the OP were asking for a restrictive ruling, he wouldn't have to ask. The most restrictive ruling is always to deny options. There's no question. What he's asking for is the strictest, most accurate ruling on what the RAW are actually saying.

Naanomi

2019-05-23, 09:49 AM

Are half-plates-made-from-special-materials-but-still-easy-to-get available at Druid schools? If there aren't, how did Druids learn to wear them? If there are, why don't the Druids just let adventuring druids buy those
Presumably the same way my Fighter-Folk-Hero farmer who never had more than two copper to his name knows how to use Full Plate that costs more than his entire province combined, or my noble holy knight only trained in courtly combat can use a whip or exotic eastern Polearm... I was never specifically trained in their use, but I’m good enough at stuff like them that I can adapt quickly

Kyutaru

2019-05-23, 09:56 AM

No, this is not a super-strict ruling. This is a super-permissive ruling, where the DM allows the player to do whatever he wants. That's a perfectly fine ruling, if the DM wants to be permissive.

But, a super-strict ruling is-"Your Druid isn't willing to put on the metal armor. Let's move on."
Super strict rulings can go either way, they're not always about denial. Warhammer 40k has plenty of rules lawyers adhering to the strict interpretations of the RAW that permit things that clearly aren't meant to be.

If they didn't wear metal armor because of connections with the Fey, it may make sense to avoid Iron out of respect or tradition. Instead, they don't wear metal armor because it's "too civilized". So what happens when they multi-class and start becoming super civilized? Is an Alchemist/Druid contradicting itself? It makes use of all the chemicals and bombs of a more scientific age limited to civilized society.

Rukelnikov

2019-05-23, 10:09 AM

You're confusing "strict" for "restrictive." It's not surprising, as they're related words, but they mean different things. A "strict reading of the rules" means you take exactly what they say, and embellish as little as possible. That doesn't mean you take the most restrictive reading you can, especially if you have to change a word in the RAW to make the meaning accurate.

A restrictive reading says, "They don't, which means you can't." A strict reading says that "they don't" means that it's just not done. Just like drow don't live on the surface. But nothing says they can't, so if YOUR drow does, or YOUR druid does, that's up to you.

If the OP were asking for a restrictive ruling, he wouldn't have to ask. The most restrictive ruling is always to deny options. There's no question. What he's asking for is the strictest, most accurate ruling on what the RAW are actually saying.

But the book doesn't say "Druids don't wear armor made of metal" it says "Druids will not wear armor made of metal"

A strict reading would be:

"Druids will not wear armor made of metal"

"X character wears armor made of metal"

Thus X character is not a Druid

Therefore, it cannot use Druid powers

darknite

2019-05-23, 10:16 AM

Strict means adhering to the letter of the rule, ie a strict interpretation. The letter of the rule is that Druids will not wear metal armor or use metal shields. The application of the rule, as we know, does not have to be strict as long as players agree to play that way.

Kyutaru

2019-05-23, 10:16 AM

But the book doesn't say "Druids don't wear armor made of metal" it says "Druids will not wear armor made of metal"

A strict reading would be:

"Druids will not wear armor made of metal"

"X character wears armor made of metal"

Thus X character is not a Druid

Therefore, it cannot use Druid powers
I cast Dominate and order you to equip metal armor. You stop being a Druid.

:smallconfused:

Hail Tempus

2019-05-23, 10:17 AM

YouA restrictive reading says, "They don't, which means you can't." A strict reading says that "they don't" means that it's just not done. Just like drow don't live on the surface. But nothing says they can't, so if YOUR drow does, or YOUR druid does, that's up to you. This is not a good analogy. There's nothing in the rules or in the fluff stating that Drow don't live on the surface. In the official game materials, there are plenty of examples of Drow living on the surface (such as in Dragon Heist).

The rules for the Druid is pretty straightforward- Druids won't wear metal. A strict interpretation of that statement is that no Druid will put on metal armor.

Unoriginal

2019-05-23, 10:18 AM

I cast Dominate and order you to equip metal armor. You stop being a Druid.

:smallconfused:

Doing something against someone's will does not affect a "will not" condition.

Kyutaru

2019-05-23, 10:20 AM

Doing something against someone's will does not affect a "will not" condition.
Which means exceptions exist to such a claim that if someone is wearing metal armor they can't use druid powers. If I dominate you into wearing metal armor, you are STILL USING DRUID POWERS.

Rukelnikov

2019-05-23, 10:23 AM

I cast Dominate and order you to equip metal armor. You stop being a Druid.

:smallconfused:

No, because that was not your will, you did against your will, so no problem there.

Which means exceptions exist to such a claim that if someone is wearing metal armor they can't use druid powers. If I dominate you into wearing metal armor, you are STILL USING DRUID POWERS.

Exactly, the clause is not "don't use" is "will not use", and that was against your will, so no problem there.

Kyutaru

2019-05-23, 10:24 AM

No, because that was not your will, you did against your will, so no problem there.
Right, which cements the point I'm getting at. Exceptions exist, confirmed. So if you suddenly awaken from your Dominated state still in your metal armor, are you claiming your druid powers are turned off? I think we need to revisit the idea that metal armor won't allow a druid to do anything he normally can.

Rukelnikov

2019-05-23, 10:25 AM

Right, which cements the point I'm getting at. Exceptions exist, confirmed. So if you suddenly awaken from your Dominated state still in your metal armor, are you claiming your druid powers are turned off? I think we need to revisit the idea that metal armor won't allow a druid to do anything he normally can.

Its not an exception, the clause has not been broken, that druid will not wear metal armor, it is wearing it right now, but given a choice, he would not wear it. If he suddenly woke up, he'd likely wildshape to get out of it asap.

Kyutaru

2019-05-23, 10:29 AM

Its not an exception, the clause has not been broken, that druid will not wear metal armor, it is wearing it right now, but given a choice, he would not wear it.
I'm merely going by your strict reading.

X character wears armor made of metal
Therefore, it cannot use Druid powers

This is not a connection I'd like to see made as there are valid reasons why a Druid might be wearing metal. Including, apparently, because he's just dominated, crazy, or doesn't care for tradition. The act of wearing metal armor needs to be separated from the idea of Druid powers ceasing to function.

Segev

2019-05-23, 10:31 AM

Rukelnikov

2019-05-23, 10:32 AM

I'm merely going by your strict reading.

X character wears armor made of metal
Therefore, it cannot use Druid powers

This is not a connection I'd like to see made as there are valid reasons why a Druid might be wearing metal. Including, apparently, because he's just dominated, crazy, or doesn't care for tradition. The act of wearing metal armor needs to be separated from the idea of Druid powers ceasing to function.

Those are different scenarios and with a very important difference. The crazy and the doesn't care for tradition one are willingly using it, the other one isn't.

If it makes things simpler to understand change "X character wears armor made of metal" to "X character willingly wears armor made of metal"

Phoenix042

2019-05-23, 10:33 AM

I like to look at classes as basic mechanics when creating a playable character. But much of the history and a lore is added to the classes to give them more life for players/DMs who need it.
The classes exist to help a player design a character not control how to role-play a character.

The idea of having a Knight in shining armor transforming into a beast every once in a while seems OK to me. There are even books, TV shows, movies, cartoons, and more where one or more characters who wear metal armor transform into beasts.

It all depends on the DM and player wants it in their world.

This.

I can't believe how many of you are totally on board with elements of the game design that restrict how a player is allowed to play their character.

We're honestly not talking about a balance consideration here, there's no especially strong mechanical reason why a druid can't have a good AC.

But everyone is adding even more restrictions here; my light cleric can't cast too many darkness spells or he loses his power?! My paladin can't be "Devoted" to an evil cause?

All this crap about class themes and fluff "rules" being enforced by arbitrary nerfs targeting individual player character makes me a little sick.

It's like you guys have no imagination, no capacity to see what this game COULD be, that instead of having like, a few dozen possible characters (every paladin is the SAME paladin at MY table!!!!) you could have literally endless, unlimited possibilities if you just, like, allow people to play against type.

The image of a magic knight transforming into beasts or calling on the power of nature to defend him should not so violently offend you all and your sacred cows.

The designers explicitly said this is a DM call because, mechanically, there's nothing wrong with it. They just threw it in there because in their idea of a setting, that's what it means to be a druid.

Y'all may be surprised to hear this, but your setting doesn't actually need to be identical to theirs.

Sigreid

2019-05-23, 10:41 AM

When I have more time, I'll hunt down entries that describe behavior of creatures in the monster manual which are phrased similarly. I assume you'll agree that there are never exceptions to such creatures; they always behave that way all the time.

Facetiousness aside, if the RAW were meant to be that druids cannot wear metal armor, the RAW would say that they lose their powers either while doing so, or until they get an atonement after having done so. The strict reading of the RAW notes the word "will" as opposed to "can," and interprets accordingly. Anything else is not a strict reading of the RAW, but rather an inventive interpretation thereof.

Look, I've even said they can wear metal armor. That there is no mechanical penalty in this edition for them doing so. I've gone so far as to say there is no reason for a particular table not to decide that it's fine. But when asked what the strict reading of what is written in the book is the clear answer is anyone who is a druid simply will not do it.

I've never been trying to convince anyone it's bad wrong fun to ignore that at their table.

Kyutaru

2019-05-23, 10:41 AM

Those are different scenarios and with a very important difference. The crazy and the doesn't care for tradition one are willingly using it, the other one isn't.

If it makes things simpler to understand change "X character wears armor made of metal" to "X character willingly wears armor made of metal"

Not sold on that. There's no mechanical difference between the three. They all put on metal armor. It's not like they abandoned some sacred oath never to do a thing. That would be Paladins and the rules explicitly says what happens when they break that oath. I think it's heavily reaching to presume a Druid loses his powers for abandoning this concept. Even more so to say that Druids will not do something as though Evil characters will not save the lives of the innocent or Good characters will not commit murder. Players ultimately have control of their characters and if they do something against the class description it doesn't mean they've stopped being that class unless explicitly ordered such as with Paladins.

Segev

2019-05-23, 10:45 AM

Look, I've even said they can wear metal armor. That there is no mechanical penalty in this edition for them doing so. I've gone so far as to say there is no reason for a particular table not to decide that it's fine. But when asked what the strict reading of what is written in the book is the clear answer is anyone who is a druid simply will not do it.

I've never been trying to convince anyone it's bad wrong fun to ignore that at their table.

Likewise, I'm only arguing that the strictest reading of the RAW are that they absolutely can wear metal armor, but that so few do that it's to be expected that any given one will not.

The thing you expressly quoted from my post was pointing out why the strictest reading does permit them to wear metal armor: if the RAW were meant to forbid it, they would. The "will not" word choice is not accidental.

darknite

2019-05-23, 10:51 AM

Here's the World Medical Association's Physician's Oath...

I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;

I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;

I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;

The health of my patient will be my first consideration;

I will respect the secrets which are confided in me;

I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;

My colleagues will be my brothers and sisters;

I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, gender, politics, socioeconomic standing, or sexual orientation to intervene between my duty and my patient;

I will maintain the utmost respect for human life; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;

I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

Lots of "I will" and "I will not" in there. Does taking this oath mean that a doctor can't do the things they've pledged not to do? Of course not. However does violating that oath carry grave consequences? Sure does.

MaXenzie

2019-05-23, 10:52 AM

The most RAW interpretation I can think of is that when you create your Druid character, it is a prerequisite that they will not wear metal armor, and thus would never consider it in the first place. They would be disgusted if they were forced to wear it, and would try to get out of it as soon as they could, if able.

Effectively, you would mark it down on your character's personality traits, and follow it as best as you can. As there is no RAW consequence for wearing the armor, it's simply roleplay fluff. You do not lose your Druid levels for wearing it, your character simply becomes uncomfortable, because you're unwillingly wearing metal armor. "Will not wear it" does not turn the Druid into a positive magnet and the armor another positive magnet, where they just repel each other the moment they come in contact.

Kyutaru

2019-05-23, 10:55 AM

Likewise, I'm only arguing that the strictest reading of the RAW are that they absolutely can wear metal armor, but that so few do that it's to be expected that any given one will not.
Yeah, the strict reading doesn't exactly disable them from doing so, it only tries to put limits on player actions according to predefined setting nonsense.

The monster manual claims that Orcs are "Always Chaotic Evil". Exceptions exist.
The alignment section states things that a particular side does. Exceptions exist.
The druid class descriptions says they won't wear metal armor. Exceptions exist.

Absolutes tend to be labelled as such, like with Barbarian abilities or Paladin codes. Sometimes they're implied, like Devils being literally unable to be anything other than Lawful Evil because they are composed of raw alignment and couldn't exist in any other state.

Lots of "I will" and "I will not" in there. Does taking this oath mean that a doctor can't do the things they've pledged not to do? Of course not. However does violating that oath carry grave consequences? Sure does.
Though in the Doctors and Paladins case, the consequences are spelled out. The Druid consequences are suspiciously absent.

Sigreid

2019-05-23, 11:02 AM

Likewise, I'm only arguing that the strictest reading of the RAW are that they absolutely can wear metal armor, but that so few do that it's to be expected that any given one will not.

The thing you expressly quoted from my post was pointing out why the strictest reading does permit them to wear metal armor: if the RAW were meant to forbid it, they would. The "will not" word choice is not accidental.

We are going to have to agree to disagree I guess. This argument comes up about once a month and always goes in the same circle.

OP while I still maintaintain the strict reading is they won't, there's another factor in your post. If you let the tempest cleric wear metal armor after taking a level in druid you've pretty much already given the ok to ignore that won't. Once you've done that there is no penalty to the druid powers.

Segev

2019-05-23, 11:04 AM

We are going to have to agree to disagree I guess. This argument comes up about once a month and always goes in the same circle.

OP while I still maintaintain the strict reading is they won't, there's another factor in your post. If you let the tempest cleric wear metal armor after taking a level in druid you've pretty much already given the ok to ignore that won't. Once you've done that there is no penalty to the druid powers.

There remains, however, potential social implications. Going to the high school reunion wearing a rival school's letter jacket is probably at least seen as a bit gauche.

Hail Tempus

2019-05-23, 11:04 AM

This.

I can't believe how many of you are totally on board with elements of the game design that restrict how a player is allowed to play their character.

We're honestly not talking about a balance consideration here, there's no especially strong mechanical reason why a druid can't have a good AC.

But everyone is adding even more restrictions here; my light cleric can't cast too many darkness spells or he loses his power?! My paladin can't be "Devoted" to an evil cause?

All this crap about class themes and fluff "rules" being enforced by arbitrary nerfs targeting individual player character makes me a little sick.

It's like you guys have no imagination, no capacity to see what this game COULD be, that instead of having like, a few dozen possible characters (every paladin is the SAME paladin at MY table!!!!) you could have literally endless, unlimited possibilities if you just, like, allow people to play against type.

The image of a magic knight transforming into beasts or calling on the power of nature to defend him should not so violently offend you all and your sacred cows.

The designers explicitly said this is a DM call because, mechanically, there's nothing wrong with it. They just threw it in there because in their idea of a setting, that's what it means to be a druid.

Y'all may be surprised to hear this, but your setting doesn't actually need to be identical to theirs. I think everyone on this thread agrees that this is all subject to DM call. I'm a DM, and I'd make the call that, based on the rules in the PHB and the general fluff associated with Druids, a Druid character will not put on metal armor. YMMV.

And, yes, I think it's perfectly appropriate for DMs to limit certain character concepts if they go far away from the base archetypes of the various classes and subclases. That means, for example, that a Oath of Devotion Paladin can't be an evil psychopath or champion the cause of enslaving goblins or halflings or whatever. That means a good character can't constantly engage in necromancy. There's nothing wrong with putting limitations on player decisions in order to maintain some verisimilitude in a setting.

Sigreid

2019-05-23, 11:06 AM

There remains, however, potential social implications. Going to the high school reunion wearing a rival school's letter jacket is probably at least seen as a bit gauche.

Yeah, but the average player character, even a good one, would be seen as a dangerous sociopath by a normal person so...

diplomancer

2019-05-23, 11:15 AM

Likewise, I'm only arguing that the strictest reading of the RAW are that they absolutely can wear metal armor, but that so few do that it's to be expected that any given one will not.

The thing you expressly quoted from my post was pointing out why the strictest reading does permit them to wear metal armor: if the RAW were meant to forbid it, they would. The "will not" word choice is not accidental.

If we are going by "the writers chose their words very carefully here, so that nothing is accidental", I would point out that, had they wanted druid PCs to wear metal armor, and still keep the fluff, they would have said "Most druids will not wear metal armor" or "the vast majority of druids will not wear metal armor."

Unless they get a kick out of reading rules arguments on the Internet

(And if they said "cannot", there would be people pointing out, correctly, that this does not make any sense, as they are a creatture with the correct anatomy for wearing metal armor. What would happen if someone knocked a Druid unconscious and put armor on him? Would he lose his druidic powers if the rules did not spell it out? Perhaps he would explode;) )

Unoriginal

2019-05-23, 11:21 AM

Which means exceptions exist to such a claim that if someone is wearing metal armor they can't use druid powers. If I dominate you into wearing metal armor, you are STILL USING DRUID POWERS.

It's not an exception. A "X will not do Y" condition does not apply in "X has Y done to them against their will".

Also, it is not that the Druid can't use their power while wearing metal armor. They just *will not* wear metal armor.

Same way as Superman will not kill.

Theodoxus

2019-05-23, 12:14 PM

Excellent discussion, thank you all for your participation. In this particular case, I'm the player, heading into an open table game with a DM I've never met. I'm contemplating playing something along these lines - so was just curious about what I might need to expect; to adjust my expectations, if necessary. Obviously, I'll talk to the DM about his specific take on the interaction. It's possible he'll be ok with it.

But my biggest take away is there's really no argument or loophole if he's adamant that Will Not is akin to "if you ever find yourself wearing metal, you'll immediately do your utmost to remove it posthaste."

I wonder why WotC never brought back Ehlonna's "its ok to use metal" philosophy into 5E... I suppose that'd be my sole argument against the restriction. I'd be ok with wearing a rampant unicorn on my chest :smallwink:

Rukelnikov

2019-05-23, 12:35 PM

BurgerBeast

2019-05-23, 01:47 PM

Narratively, the Druid does not strap on metal armor.

Player of Druid: “I strap on the metal armor.”
DM: “No, you don’t.”

...

That’s your solution?

BurgerBeast

2019-05-23, 01:58 PM

No, this is not a super-strict ruling. This is a super-permissive ruling, where the DM allows the player to do whatever he wants.

Well, ignoring the straw-man herein...

It appears that there’s a semantic disagreement over what “strict” means. I take super-strict to mean discriminating, diligent, incisive, etc.

You seem to be taking strict to mean restrictive or harsh.

So there’s that. I think it’s rather obvious that the OP is not using “super-strict” in this way. If he were, there would be no discussion because obviously “no” is harsher than “yes.” End of story.

darknite

2019-05-23, 02:09 PM

Player of Druid: “I strap on the metal armor.”
DM: “No, you don’t.”

...

That’s your solution?

Player: "I strap on the metal armor."
DM: "Okay. Although you feel proficient in this armor you immediately feel a deadening of your connection to nature. You can't precisely fix the sensation but it just feels ... wrong. Like a lightning bolt that's been grounded, your oneness with nature feels muted and remote."
Player: "Am I still a Druid?"
DM: "As far as you can tell at this time."

The next day.
Player: "I prepare Tree Stride as my 5th level spell."
DM: "An emptiness overtakes you as you try to fix this power in your mind. It's like you can no longer remember how to do that, the green fullness of your power has withered the tops of your mighty tree."
Player: "Huh?"
DM: "You lost your 9th level Druid abilities."
Player: "WHY!?"
DM: "You're pretty sure you know why your connection to nature has been eroding."

Something like that is appropriate. Or not. Depends on the players and the game being run.

darknite

2019-05-23, 02:17 PM

Well, ignoring the straw-man herein...

It appears that there’s a semantic disagreement over what “strict” means. I take super-strict to mean discriminating, diligent, incisive, etc.

You seem to be taking strict to mean restrictive or harsh.

So there’s that. I think it’s rather obvious that the OP is not using “super-strict” in this way. If he were, there would be no discussion because obviously “no” is harsher than “yes.” End of story.

According to TransLegal.com the definition of 'strict interpretation' is:
understanding and explaining the meaning of something based only on what the reader believes the author must have been thinking at the time the text was written

So if you actually believe the author intended for druids to wear metal armor when they wrote "Druids will not wear metal armor" then you would be correct that a strict interpretation would allow it. However it's very hard to defend that position, given that the author states exactly the opposite.

Sigreid

2019-05-23, 02:18 PM

Well, ignoring the straw-man herein...

It appears that there’s a semantic disagreement over what “strict” means. I take super-strict to mean discriminating, diligent, incisive, etc.

You seem to be taking strict to mean restrictive or harsh.

So there’s that. I think it’s rather obvious that the OP is not using “super-strict” in this way. If he were, there would be no discussion because obviously “no” is harsher than “yes.” End of story.

Alternately:

Player "I'm going to make a druid".
DM "very cool. You're aware that it says druids will not wear metal armor? At this table that means that no one who can become a druid will ever wear metal armor. Taking the druid class means committing that character permanently to that position.

JackPhoenix

2019-05-23, 02:21 PM

The image of a magic knight transforming into beasts or calling on the power of nature to defend him should not so violently offend you all and your sacred cows.

Of course not. Polymorph spell, nature clerics and OotA paladins exist, after all.

I wonder why WotC never brought back Ehlonna's "its ok to use metal" philosophy into 5E... I suppose that'd be my sole argument against the restriction. I'd be ok with wearing a rampant unicorn on my chest :smallwink:

Of course they did. Nature domain is in the PHB, and grants proficiency with heavy armor, on top of medium armor (and shields) all clerics get.

darknite

2019-05-23, 02:26 PM

...
The image of a magic knight transforming into beasts or calling on the power of nature to defend him should not so violently offend you all and your sacred cows. ...

It doesn't offend me. It's just not a RAW 5e Druid. It could be a druid ability found in someones game, though, and that wouldn't bother me at all as long as everyone was happy with it.

Unoriginal

2019-05-23, 02:38 PM

Player of Druid: “I strap on the metal armor.”
DM: “No, you don’t.”

...

That’s your solution?

No, my solution is:

Player of Druid: "I do not strap on the metal armor."

Assuming the DM hasn't modifid the lore to fit their setting before the player chose the Druid class.

MaXenzie

2019-05-23, 03:22 PM

No, my solution is:

Player of Druid: "I do not strap on the metal armor."

Assuming the DM hasn't modifid the lore to fit their setting before the player chose the Druid class.

This is the ruling I'd make.

As said on the previous page from me, the wording suggests that druids not wearing metal armor is a character trait that is mandatory, and thus no druid character would ever want to wear metal armor, or else they're breaking character.

As always, exceptions exist, but the DM makes that call.

Segev

2019-05-23, 04:16 PM

We're essentially debating No True Scottsman, here.

Garfunion

2019-05-23, 04:41 PM

Segev

2019-05-23, 04:49 PM

Another thread brought something up that I thought should be mentioned in this thread. What if the Druid had the Hermit background and the hermit’s discovery was the unrestricted ability to wear metal armor. Would you allow it?

I wouldn't, simply because it wouldn't fit the setting. But then, if he wanted to wear metal armor, I wouldn't do anything to stop him aside from the disdain of his fellow druids.

If your setting has a mystical reason for it that actually has consequences, though, that sounds like a valid Discovery.

patchyman

2019-05-23, 05:15 PM

Another thread brought something up that I thought should be mentioned in this thread. What if the Druid had the Hermit background and the hermit’s discovery was the unrestricted ability to wear metal armor. Would you allow it?

This is a pretty circular argument. If the DM would tend to allow druids to wear metal armor, he would probably allow that to be the hermit’s discovery. Conversely, if the DM would tend to refuse metal armor, he would probably not allow the hermit to “discover” the contrary.

darknite

2019-05-23, 05:25 PM

Another thread brought something up that I thought should be mentioned in this thread. What if the Druid had the Hermit background and the hermit’s discovery was the unrestricted ability to wear metal armor. Would you allow it?

There would have to be one hell of a story backing that up if I were DMing. Otherwise someone who dropped that steaming excuse of a rules exploit in my Wheaties would be quickly reconsidering their approach. I mean, what would you say to a player that said their Paladin's background was Hermit and their discovery was how to forge a Holy Avenger using a bag of charcoal and a bent spoon? In my book Hermit discoveries are pure RP or story advancement concepts, not methods for PCs to backdoor play advantages.

Segev

2019-05-23, 05:26 PM

There would have to be one hell of a story backing that up if I were DMing. Otherwise someone who dropped that steaming excuse of a rules exploit in my Wheaties would be quickly reconsidering their approach. I mean, what would you say to a player that said their Paladin's background was Hermit and their discovery was how to forge a Holy Avenger using a bag of charcoal and a bent spoon? In my book Hermit discoveries are pure RP or story advancement concepts, not methods for PCs to backdoor play advantages.

I think you are demonstrating a gross overestimation of the OPness of metal armor. c_c

Garfunion

2019-05-23, 05:37 PM

There would have to be one hell of a story backing that up if I were DMing. Otherwise someone who dropped that steaming excuse of a rules exploit in my Wheaties would be quickly reconsidering their approach. I mean, what would you say to a player that said their Paladin's background was Hermit and their discovery was how to forge a Holy Avenger using a bag of charcoal and a bent spoon? In my book Hermit discoveries are pure RP or story advancement concepts, not methods for PCs to backdoor play advantages.
Um there is no difference between a suit of half-plate armor being made out of metal or turtle shells, except a druid won’t wear metal. The metal part is purely RP, so having a hermit discovery allow a druid to wear metal is also RP.

Naanomi

2019-05-23, 05:43 PM

Another thread brought something up that I thought should be mentioned in this thread. What if the Druid had the Hermit background and the hermit’s discovery was the unrestricted ability to wear metal armor. Would you allow it?
I wouldn’t, but I would allow a hermit discovery of a secret method to craft crystal/wood/fungus/whatever non-metal armor

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-23, 05:49 PM

We're essentially debating No True Scottsman, here.

Hah, yeah, we are.

For those who aren't familiar, it's a fallacy that basically revolves around stating a generalization, then when that generalization is proven false, the generalization simply states the evidence isn't applicable because it's not "pure" enough. The problem is that the side stating the generalization isn't providing evidence or an argument, it's simply saying "it's not good enough because I said so", and it, being a fallacy, makes this appear "good enough" as an argument.

Wikipedia summarizes it pretty well:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

A: "No Druid wears metal armor"
B: "But I like the idea of my Druid wearing metal armor"
A: "But no true Druid wears metal armor. Clearly, you must not be a real Druid then, right?"

Now, there is some evidence supporting Person A, as the books clearly state that "A Druid will not wear metal armor", but that simply means that the book is Person A, and players are simply quoting a fallacy instead of making it themselves.

Personally, I think it's fine.

I kinda like the idea of a Druid who believes that, as primates use tools and shelter, humanoids should be allowed to refine their methods of hunting, survival, and dominance. Adapting is the natural way of things, and humanoids have perfected it. In a way, Druids who fail to adapt are neglecting the first rule of the wilds - "Survival of the Fittest" - and those are the true heretics. Druids who follow this belief support beasts and plants, not out of necessity, but out of support for the underdogs; to even the odds, as well to encourage more competition and adaptation.

Vorpalchicken

2019-05-23, 06:19 PM

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-23, 06:23 PM

To me it's clearly RAW that metal armour is not permitted on a Druid. If your DM wants to make an exception that is is the DM's call but don't count on it.

This isn't "No true Scotsman." It's black and white, in the rules.

Devs said that it's not a balance reason that Druids can't. It's just a narrative one. So...why care about a narrative rule that doesn't have balance concerns?

On a similar topic, does Burning Hands require touching thumbs? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/46603/does-burning-hands-really-require-touching-thumbs)

Just because the book said so doesn't necessarily means it makes the game any more fun. And at that point, what is your decision helping, unless it's a narrative that was your decision?

Rukelnikov

2019-05-23, 06:35 PM

Devs said that it's not a balance reason that Druids can't. It's just a narrative one. So...why care about a narrative rule that doesn't have balance concerns?

On a similar topic, does Burning Hands require touching thumbs? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/46603/does-burning-hands-really-require-touching-thumbs)

Just because the book said so doesn't necessarily means it makes the game any more fun. And at that point, what is your decision helping, unless it's a narrative that was your decision?

Why is carrying capacity 15 lb per point of strength, would it break anything to have it be 20 lb per point?

Just because the book said so doesn't necessarily means it makes the game any more fun. And at that point, what is your decision helping, unless it's a narrative that was your decision?

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-23, 06:38 PM

Why is carrying capacity 15 lb per point of strength, would it break anything to have it be 20 lb per point?

Just because the book said so doesn't necessarily means it makes the game any more fun. And at that point, what is your decision helping, unless it's a narrative that was your decision?

We naturally move towards the mechanics that seem the most fun. No, increasing carrying capacity wouldn't break anything, because...well...hardly few people pay attention to carrying capacity in the first place. It doesn't matter if you make it 5 lbs or 50, it'll never be relevant in a way that's fun.

But the narrative of a Druid? That could.

But where rules should be universal to encourage balance, and fun, for everyone, the only people who'd care about the equipment requirements of a Druid are the Druid and the DM. That change isn't going to impact skills, spells, or balance in any meaningful way to the rest of the party. Who does it impact? Who'd care?

It just boils down to the narrative between the DM and the Druid.

Garfunion

2019-05-23, 06:45 PM

On a similar topic, does Burning Hands require touching thumbs? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/46603/does-burning-hands-really-require-touching-thumbs)

This is the only thing I do not like about 5e. They incorporated the fluff with the crunch making it almost impossible to separate unless you know the system. This makes it difficult for a player to try and fluff how an ability or spell looks like, when the DM is so determined to keep it as crunch.

Rukelnikov

2019-05-23, 06:49 PM

We naturally move towards the mechanics that seem the most fun. No, increasing carrying capacity wouldn't break anything, because...well...hardly few people pay attention to carrying capacity in the first place. It doesn't matter if you make it 5 lbs or 50, it'll never be relevant in a way that's fun.

But the narrative of a Druid? That could.

I'd say 5 would change a lot, the non strength based medium armor users wouldn't be able to leave Str at 8 if they wanna use half plates, which would mean having to take points from somewhere else and devote them to Str.

Rukelnikov

2019-05-23, 06:53 PM

But the narrative of a Druid? That could.

But where rules should be universal to encourage balance, and fun, for everyone, the only people who'd care about the equipment requirements of a Druid are the Druid and the DM. That change isn't going to impact skills, spells, or balance in any meaningful way to the rest of the party. Who does it impact? Who'd care?

It just boils down to the narrative between the DM and the Druid.

No it's not. The narrative is for everyone at the table, if there suddenly a Jedi in my party that's not something that affects only the DM and the player of the Jedi. It changes the story for everyone involved in it.

Same as if there are gunpowder guns in the world or not, even if no one in the party uses them, changes the world my character is living in, and in which the story is unfolding.

JNAProductions

2019-05-23, 06:57 PM

No it's not. The narrative is for everyone at the table, if there suddenly a Jedi in my party that's not something that affects only the DM and the player of the Jedi. It changes the story for everyone involved in it.

So, tell me-what's the difference between the narrative of "Sir Boris Strong, clad in full plate and carrying a mighty maul; Lady Astrid, Priest of many faiths, clad in half-plate and wielding a scimitar; Warren the Powerful, clad in nought but simple travelers' clothes, but carrying a staff of great power; and Nerissa the Nimble, clad in studded leather and bearing a dozen daggers hidden throughout her armor!" and the narrative of "Sir Boris Strong, clad in full plate and carrying a mighty maul; Lady Astrid, Priest of many faiths, clad in half-plate made of dragonscale and wielding a scimitar; Warren the Powerful, clad in nought but simple travelers' clothes, but carrying a staff of great power; and Nerissa the Nimble, clad in studded leather and bearing a dozen daggers hidden throughout her armor!"

Rukelnikov

2019-05-23, 07:06 PM

Hail Tempus

2019-05-23, 08:20 PM

We're essentially debating No True Scottsman, here.Not exactly. We’re disagreeing on whether not wearing metal armor is one of the qualities that makes a character a Druid.

Theodoxus

2019-05-23, 08:24 PM

So, tell me-what's the difference between the narrative of "Sir Boris Strong, clad in full plate and carrying a mighty maul; Lady Astrid, Priest of many faiths, clad in half-plate and wielding a scimitar; Warren the Powerful, clad in nought but simple travelers' clothes, but carrying a staff of great power; and Nerissa the Nimble, clad in studded leather and bearing a dozen daggers hidden throughout her armor!" and the narrative of "Sir Boris Strong, clad in full plate and carrying a mighty maul; Lady Astrid, Priest of many faiths, clad in half-plate made of dragonscale and wielding a scimitar; Warren the Powerful, clad in nought but simple travelers' clothes, but carrying a staff of great power; and Nerissa the Nimble, clad in studded leather and bearing a dozen daggers hidden throughout her armor!"

Narrative wise it changes as much as if wizards normally wore plate.

You're making assumptions.

What if Boris IS the wizard, and Astrid is a paladin, and Warren is a barbarian, and Nerissa is a ranger?

Or Boris is the druid?

This is where my liberalism comes to play - It doesn't bother me in the least if a player wants to play fast and loose with stereotypes. Given the limited modularity of classes, especially when coupled with multiclassing, you're going to be making some pretty severe choices, even more so if using an array or point buy.

But this skews away from my OP.

@JackPhoenix, a nature cleric only goes so far in "impersonating" a druid and the ways of druidism. It's impossible without DM fiat to play a druid of Ehlonna with all the bells and whistles they had in 3.5. Nature is a close approximation, but being unable to wildshape is a huge knock if you're really wanting to BE a druid.

So, now that we're 5 pages deep... thoughts on the actual build? I'm willing to give up druidism for the sake of metal armor. Should I go Dwarf [Nature domain], grabbing shillelagh to nuke strength, using dwarven encumbrance rules to stay at 25. Or perhaps go vhuman, grabbing Magic Initiate (Druid), which would open up Forge, Life, Tempest or War as optional domains - but would require 13,14 or 15 Strength depending on variety of heavy armor... or other thoughts? Firbolg seems like a decent option as well, though he'd probably need to be Tempest or War for the martial proficiencies...

The concept is the backbone of the party; the healing off-tank who supports other melee types (or even ranged rogues).

Unoriginal

2019-05-23, 08:31 PM

Devs said that it's not a balance reason that Druids can't. It's just a narrative one. So...why care about a narrative rule that doesn't have balance concerns?

Because narrative rules are important independently of mechanical concerns?

Tanarii

2019-05-23, 09:18 PM

The strict ruling is the Druid will not wear metal armor. The super strict ruling is that also means they aren't actually proficient in metal armor.

Either way, whether or not the can cast spells in it is typically a moot point.

Kyutaru

2019-05-23, 10:11 PM

So, now that we're 5 pages deep... thoughts on the actual build? I'm willing to give up druidism for the sake of metal armor. Should I go Dwarf [Nature domain], grabbing shillelagh to nuke strength, using dwarven encumbrance rules to stay at 25. Or perhaps go vhuman, grabbing Magic Initiate (Druid), which would open up Forge, Life, Tempest or War as optional domains - but would require 13,14 or 15 Strength depending on variety of heavy armor... or other thoughts? Firbolg seems like a decent option as well, though he'd probably need to be Tempest or War for the martial proficiencies...

The concept is the backbone of the party; the healing off-tank who supports other melee types (or even ranged rogues).
I'd definitely go Dwarf. It fits your avatar, the metal armor obsession, and explains why his idea of "nature" involves shiny rocks.

DanDare2050

2019-05-23, 10:42 PM

This is a problem of dissociated mechanics.

The rules do not explain why a druid does not wear metal armour. The rules do require character class restrictions to be enforced in order to avoid characters with greater advantages than other choices. However a character does not think "I do this for play balance". They should know, in game setting terms, why they do things. A strict rules interpretation won't save you under these circumstances in any nice way. Doing a full "supreme court" ruling on the intent of the games rules would come down to "they cannot wear metal armour, its a game play thing".

To make that a mechanic that fits some narrative from the character's point of view I would remind you that druidical power comes from nature, and that nature may rescind those powers if the druid begins wearing metal armour or happily chopping down trees etc.

BurgerBeast

2019-05-23, 10:51 PM

No, my solution is:

Player of Druid: "I do not strap on the metal armor."

Assuming the DM hasn't modifid the lore to fit their setting before the player chose the Druid class.

So your solution is to be the player. Okay then.

Hail Tempus

2019-05-23, 10:56 PM

So your solution is to be the player. Okay then.
He’s probably fortunate enough to DM a group of players who read the restriction on Druids wearing metal armor, and decide not to whine and throw a tantrum about it.

Kyutaru

2019-05-23, 11:08 PM

To make that a mechanic that fits some narrative from the character's point of view I would remind you that druidical power comes from nature, and that nature may rescind those powers if the druid begins wearing metal armour or happily chopping down trees etc.

Why isn't this already a thing?? Druids can summon natural disasters and storms of acid. Like when does nature get pissed off and decides you killed enough trees? Or is Armageddon also considered part of nature?! Survival of the Fittest must mean the druid can just do whatever the heck he wants as long as he's strong enough to kill whoever tries to stop him.

BurgerBeast

2019-05-23, 11:41 PM

He’s probably fortunate enough to DM a group of players who read the restriction on Druids wearing metal armor, and decide not to whine and throw a tantrum about it.

None of this is relevant to my point.

A player can attempt to put on armor. Even his players could, at some point in the future, try this.

"No, you don't attempt to do that," is not a defensible response from a DM, because it violates arguably the most fundamental principle of the game: each player controls his character and the DM controls everything else. Players decide character intentions.

In my opinion, house-ruling that druids lose all class abilities when wearing metal armor is less egregious than overriding player intentions.

LudicSavant

2019-05-24, 12:04 AM

I wonder why WotC never brought back Ehlonna's "its ok to use metal" philosophy into 5E...

Where can I find sources on this in previous editions?

Theodoxus

2019-05-24, 12:25 AM

Where can I find sources on this in previous editions?

Sorry - got my nature goddesses mixed up... it's FR's Mielikki, not Ehlonna who allowed her druids to use metal.

[from Wiki]

Clergy[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mielikki_(Forgotten_Realms)&action=edit&section=7)]The clergy of Mielikki include clerics, druids, rangers, and druid/rangers. They may be lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, or true neutral.
Generally, druids of Mielikki take on the abilities of rangers. Unlike other druids, who are not allowed to wear metal armor, or use weapons restricted by their oaths, they may use all kinds of armor and weapons rangers normally use.
"Mielikki, who is famous for the number of druid/rangers who worship her, has more lenient spiritual oaths than most deities that druids worship in the Realms. Druids of Mielikki can use any of the standard armor or weapons that rangers normally use (all simple and martial weapons, all light and medium armor and all shields) without violating their spiritual oaths. (FRCS p. 23)[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

Strategos

2019-05-24, 01:25 AM

If you want the strictest ruling of all, Druids can only use shields made of things other than metal and not wear armour at all! :smalltongue:

The exact wording in my book is "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" If we are arguing that druids gain proficiencies in equipment they cannot use you have to admit that it becomes possible to read that aside as two separate clauses. One banning druids from wearing armour and one preventing them from using metal shields. That's the absolute strictest I can be on the subject of druids and armour. Not that I agree with it but it must be acknowledged for completeness' sake.

Also, an interesting not is that RAW if a druid has proficiency in heavy armour they can wear ring mail without penalty. To Quote the item description for Ring Mail "This armor is is leather armor with heavy rings sewn into it. The rings help reinforce the armor against blows from swords and axes. Ring mail is inferior to chain mail and it's usually worn only by those who can't afford better armor." Compare that to any other type of armour they all clearly specify whether they are made from metal, hide furs and/or leather Ring Mail only specifies leather armour so is fair game for druids. :smalltongue:

This has been tonight's episode of semantics theatre~!

Kyutaru

2019-05-24, 01:29 AM

Strategos, you win the thread. I'm so used to druids in stories being old men in robes and old hermits in rags. The fact that they can't slay animals to make leather hides or dragonscale makes perfect sense. Banning all druids from armor makes more semantic sense than turning off their nature powers.

DanDare2050

2019-05-24, 02:24 AM

Why isn't this already a thing?? Druids can summon natural disasters and storms of acid. Like when does nature get pissed off and decides you killed enough trees? Or is Armageddon also considered part of nature?! Survival of the Fittest must mean the druid can just do whatever the heck he wants as long as he's strong enough to kill whoever tries to stop him.

If you start worrying about "what is nature really?" then the whole druid thing becomes silly. The conceit is something made by people, from materials that do not grow, is unnatural.

darknite

2019-05-24, 07:54 AM

This thread has made me glad that some of you folks aren't interpreting the Constitution on the Supreme Court. :smallamused:

Or are you? :smallsmile:

Segev

2019-05-24, 08:20 AM

Um there is no difference between a suit of half-plate armor being made out of metal or turtle shells, except a druid won’t wear metal. The metal part is purely RP, so having a hermit discovery allow a druid to wear metal is also RP.
There is a difference in a couple of rare cases: heat metal, for instance, won’t work on turtle-shell half-plate, and rust monsters are no threat to dragon hide shields.

So druids are snobs who won’t wear inferior, more vulnerable gear!

This thread has made me glad that some of you folks are interpreting the Constitution on the Supreme Court. :smallamused:
Let’s not get started down his tangent. It will inevitably descend into the nine circles of justices.

Tanarii

2019-05-24, 08:21 AM

He’s probably fortunate enough to DM a group of players who read the restriction on Druids wearing metal armor, and decide not to whine and throw a tantrum about it.Right. It's not a question of DM enforcement any more than the rule that Wizards aren't proficient in Longswords is a question of DM enforcement. Druids will not wear metal armor. If you play a Druid, that's a rule that you, as the player, have selected as part of the entire package.

If you, as a player, decide to declare that you're going to wear metal armor, then you've already missed the point. Just like if you declare your Wizard is proficient in Longswords.

darknite

2019-05-24, 08:25 AM

Segev

2019-05-24, 08:41 AM

Right. It's not a question of DM enforcement any more than the rule that Wizards aren't proficient in Longswords is a question of DM enforcement. Druids will not wear metal armor. If you play a Druid, that's a rule that you, as the player, have selected as part of the entire package.

If you, as a player, decide to declare that you're going to wear metal armor, then you've already missed the point. Just like if you declare your Wizard is proficient in Longswords.

Invalid argument. “Doctor Dan won’t treat that tiefling’s injuries,” is a very different statement than, “Doctor Dan doesn’t know how to treat that tiefling’s injuries.”

It is generally assumed that the player has control over the character’s voluntary actions, barring various forms of compulsion or conditions dictating actions. Doctor Dan’s player declaring that Dan will, after all, treat the tiefling (despite his hatred of tiefling’s in general) is not something that would be forbidden, because Dan can do it; it just is odd for him to be willing to. Doctor Dan’s player declaring that Doctor Dan is proficient in the Healer’s Kit when he isn’t (because he’s a doctor of physics, not medicine) would be cheating, because players don’t get to declare capabilities that their characters don’t have.

But if nothing save volition prevents an act, the player is free to say his character does it.

LudicSavant

2019-05-24, 09:13 AM

It's meant to be a restriction applied to Light and Moderate Armor and Shield proficiency for game balance, not an RP flavor thing.

And you base that on what? The dev commentary on the matter says it's meant to be the exact opposite. (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016)

Tanarii

2019-05-24, 09:23 AM

Invalid argument. “Doctor Dan won’t treat that tiefling’s injuries,” is a very different statement than, “Doctor Dan doesn’t know how to treat that tiefling’s injuries.”

It is generally assumed that the player has control over the character’s voluntary actions, barring various forms of compulsion or conditions dictating actions. Doctor Dan’s player declaring that Dan will, after all, treat the tiefling (despite his hatred of tiefling’s in general) is not something that would be forbidden, because Dan can do it; it just is odd for him to be willing to. Doctor Dan’s player declaring that Doctor Dan is proficient in the Healer’s Kit when he isn’t (because he’s a doctor of physics, not medicine) would be cheating, because players don’t get to declare capabilities that their characters don’t have.

But if nothing save volition prevents an act, the player is free to say his character does it.
Invalid argument. Roleplaying rules are still rules. There is something that prevents such an act. There is a rule that says the character will not do it.

You don't get to ignore roleplaying rules just because.

Segev

2019-05-24, 09:31 AM

Invalid argument. Roleplaying rules are still rules. There is something that prevents such an act. There is a rule that says the character will not do it.

You don't get to ignore roleplaying rules just because.

There are no such thing as "roleplaying rules." Not in D&D, at least. Maybe some systems have them; I haven't encountered them. Rules tell you what your character knows and CAN do. Rules say that your human fighter can't fly without magic (or a flying mount). Rules do not say your human fighter can't run off of the edge of that building and flap his arms; they just say the consequences are that he falls and takes damage, rather than flying off like he wants to.

Rules do not say that a druid who knows perfectly well how to put on that armor can't. The text says "druids will not" do such things, but there's no rule that stops the player from saying his character does.

Rules dictate consequences of actions players state their characters take. Rules do not say their players can't even have their characters try.

This isn't even a "your character wouldn't know to mix that exact combination of reagents to make gunpowder; I don't care that you know it OOC and dictate that they specifically take those actions, because your character failed the Intelligence check to successfully mix them in the right proportions," thing. The Druid is specifically proficient in the armor. There is no dice roll to fail. He knows how to put it on. He is physically capable of putting it on. If the player says he puts it on...the rules don't say, "you're compelled not to."

"Your character wouldn't do that" is exactly the kind of thing that games like 5e avoid.

diplomancer

2019-05-24, 09:33 AM

And you base that on what? The dev commentary on the matter says it's meant to be the exact opposite. (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016)

Does "breaking the game system" (the developers words) equal "affects game balance"?

Anyway, the developers words clearly state that the decision is up to the DM and not the player (unlike say, whether a Bard can learn Fireball with his Magical Secrets. That decision is not up to the DM, unless he houserules fireball- or bards- away from the game entirely).

In other words: "Players, if you want your Druid to wear metal armor, make your case to the DM, (preferably away from the table) but either respect his decision or leave the game. Don't ambush your DM by stating mid-session 'my druid dons the half-plate'. DMs, if you feel ok with letting Druids wear metal armor in your setting, the slight upgrade to the Druid's AC will not break the game, so feel free to do it"

Tanarii

2019-05-24, 09:35 AM

There are no such thing as "roleplaying rules. Not in D&D, at least." There absolutely are. 5e has several. Every edition has had them. If you truly believe that statement, you need to go do some research back through the history of D&D rules and the current edition.

Segev

2019-05-24, 11:06 AM

There absolutely are. 5e has several. Every edition has had them. If you truly believe that statement, you need to go do some research back through the history of D&D rules and the current edition.

You would make a more convincing case if you actually listed some examples (beyond the obvious one under contention, here).

"There's totally some counterpoints to your assertion. You should go look them up," is unlikely to convince somebody to go look them up, let alone convince them that, if they don't find them, they just looked in the wrong place(s).

If you mean things like paladin oaths: Paladins lose powers if they break them. They're not somehow unable to break them because their players are forbidden from having them make choices that would.

If you mean things like "thieves steal," nothing compelled thieves to steal anything; they just got XP for doing so.

If you mean "clerics don't wield edged weapons," then you're still looking at a combination of lack of proficiency and a potential hit to their spellcasting. It still never prevented a cleric from picking up a longsword and swinging it at somebody; he just wouldn't do it very well and potentially would have additional consequences.

That covers the things I think the most obvious possible "roleplaying rules" you could have meant; if you have others in mind, you'll have to enlighten me. None of them actually say, "Your character wouldn't do that, so you cannot have him even try."

LudicSavant

2019-05-24, 11:30 AM

Sorry - got my nature goddesses mixed up... it's FR's Mielikki, not Ehlonna who allowed her druids to use metal.

[from Wiki]

Clergy[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mielikki_(Forgotten_Realms)&action=edit&section=7)]The clergy of Mielikki include clerics, druids, rangers, and druid/rangers. They may be lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, or true neutral.
Generally, druids of Mielikki take on the abilities of rangers. Unlike other druids, who are not allowed to wear metal armor, or use weapons restricted by their oaths, they may use all kinds of armor and weapons rangers normally use.
"Mielikki, who is famous for the number of druid/rangers who worship her, has more lenient spiritual oaths than most deities that druids worship in the Realms. Druids of Mielikki can use any of the standard armor or weapons that rangers normally use (all simple and martial weapons, all light and medium armor and all shields) without violating their spiritual oaths. (FRCS p. 23)[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

Thanks for clearing that up. :redcloak:

Theodoxus

2019-05-24, 11:38 AM

The only other examples I can think up off the top of my head are alignment restrictions for Paladin, Barbarian, Bard, Monk, etc.

It could be expressed as "A barbarian will not be lawful". "A monk will not be chaotic."

What were the consequences of a barbarian following a lawful inclination or a monk doing something completely at random?

[This is why I HATE alignment so much, and was quite happy when 4E tossed it out and 5E only marginally brought it back.]

The devs reply regarding druid metal armor seems to imply that "As a whole, druids will not wear metal armor or use metal shields. They feel they lose their connection to nature by using implements that denote the epitome of civilization rather than nature. However, there's no mechanical reason an individual - a specific druid - couldn't wear metal armor if they had proficiency and access."

But that could be wishful thinking on my part.

As for me and my games, I'm going to add a mechanical detriment - "If a druid wears metal armor or uses a metal shield, they lose access to all supernatural druid abilities except for spellcasting." So the player knows there's a legit consequence and can make the decision for themselves. It'll basically come down to Moon druids wear hide, Land druids wear half-plate... but I'm ok with that.

Naanomi

2019-05-24, 11:40 AM

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-24, 11:52 AM

Reading all of this makes me think there are a lot of players on this thread who try to get changed into vampire or werewolves and then don’t change how they play their characters at all; and ignore when monsters Charm them; because ‘I get to decide how my character acts’

The difference there is that there are very specific mechanical changes with becoming a Vampire/werewolf.

A Druid, in this example, mostly gets the potential to wear armor...that he doesn't have proficiency in, but could gain by going through literally the same options as anyone else. Beyond having slightly higher AC on a Concentration-based caster, there are hardly any synergies between a Druid and having higher armor AC (when there are plenty of synergies for Clerics, for instance).

A Druid wearing metal armor would mostly be a narrative choice more than a mechanical one. It'd likely revolve around having armor as part of their character. Or even if it wasn't, the ramifications of it are insignificant.

It almost seems like the DMs against the concept are relying on the ruling of the book in order to avoid being that guy that tells their players what they can or cannot do. I think it's fine to add restrictions to fit a narrative, I don't think it's fine to use the book as an excuse. This isn't like older editions, where the restrictions actually mattered all that much for balance concerns. Sage Advice was pretty clear that it isn't really a balance issue.

If someone's gonna be that guy, and define what your players can or cannot do for arbitrary/narrative reasons, own it. Because that's what it is. Make it your decision rather than someone making it for you.

Even if your choice was "I want all of the lore of the PHB and SCAG to be strict and canon in this universe", that could be a perfectly apt description of your universe. But that's not always the case, is it?

Hail Tempus

2019-05-24, 11:59 AM

It almost seems like the DMs against the concept are relying on the ruling of the book in order to avoid being that guy that tells their players what they can or cannot do. I think it's fine to add restrictions to fit a narrative, I don't think it's fine to use the book as an excuse. This isn't like older editions, where the restrictions actually mattered all that much for balance concerns. Sage Advice was pretty clear that it isn't really a balance issue.

If someone's gonna be that guy, and define what your players can or cannot do for arbitrary/narrative reasons, own it. Because that's what it is. Make it your decision rather than someone making it for you. If reading the plain text in the PHB to conclude that "a Druid won't wear metal armor" means that a Druid character won't, in fact, wear metal armor makes me "that guy" so be it.

I'm just not seeing any real reason, whether from a balance perspective or a role playing or fluff perspective, to homebrew this restriction away. Druids are already pretty darn tough to kill, so they don't need a 15% or so boost to their potential armor class. If a player is interested in a more "civilized" nature priest, the Nature Cleric is a good compromise.

Naanomi

2019-05-24, 12:01 PM

The difference there is that there are very specific mechanical changes with becoming a Vampire/werewolf
Except for pretty clear power boosts (especially as a lycanthrope); alignment change is the big drawback of the transformation... alignment changes players who refuse to accept setting limitations on roleplay would likely ignore (in my experience)

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-24, 12:03 PM

If reading the plain text in the PHB to conclude that "a Druid won't wear metal armor" means that a Druid character won't, in fact, wear metal armor makes me "that guy" so be it.

I'm just not seeing any real reason, whether from a balance perspective or a role playing or fluff perspective, to homebrew this restriction away. Druids are already pretty darn tough to kill, so they don't need a 15% or so boost to their potential armor class. If a player is interested in a more "civilized" nature priest, the Nature Cleric is a good compromise.

I guess my question is, why say "No"? That's what I ask myself whenever a player wants to do something a bit off course.

And maybe it's to keep Druids a bit less generic. Or maybe allowing a medium armored 1d8 caster with exploration spells to wear metal armor is too much of a balance concern when compared to comparable classes of a similar weight class (like Clerics or Warlocks).

But the point I'm trying to make is: actively making a choice is infinitely better than just shrugging and just saying "well, just 'cuz".

Rukelnikov

2019-05-24, 12:55 PM

You would make a more convincing case if you actually listed some examples (beyond the obvious one under contention, here).

"There's totally some counterpoints to your assertion. You should go look them up," is unlikely to convince somebody to go look them up, let alone convince them that, if they don't find them, they just looked in the wrong place(s).

If you mean things like paladin oaths: Paladins lose powers if they break them. They're not somehow unable to break them because their players are forbidden from having them make choices that would.

If you mean things like "thieves steal," nothing compelled thieves to steal anything; they just got XP for doing so.

If you mean "clerics don't wield edged weapons," then you're still looking at a combination of lack of proficiency and a potential hit to their spellcasting. It still never prevented a cleric from picking up a longsword and swinging it at somebody; he just wouldn't do it very well and potentially would have additional consequences.

That covers the things I think the most obvious possible "roleplaying rules" you could have meant; if you have others in mind, you'll have to enlighten me. None of them actually say, "Your character wouldn't do that, so you cannot have him even try."

If you're referring to 2e cleric not using edged weapons, that has nothing to do with proficiency, a dwarven cleric/fighter is still limited by the restriction even when he is proficient in longsword.

In 5e there are also roleplaying restriction that tell you "your character can't willingly do X", the simplest one is being frightened. If you're frightened you can't willingly move closer to the source of your fear.

This is no different.

Segev

2019-05-24, 01:26 PM

If you're referring to 2e cleric not using edged weapons, that has nothing to do with proficiency, a dwarven cleric/fighter is still limited by the restriction even when he is proficient in longsword.

In 5e there are also roleplaying restriction that tell you "your character can't willingly do X", the simplest one is being frightened. If you're frightened you can't willingly move closer to the source of your fear.

This is no different.

Note the language, though: "can't willingly do," vs. "will not."

The difference between "can" and "will" is enormous.

Note, too, that clerics in 1e and 2e were FORBIDDEN from using edged weapons, and had consequences if they broke that taboo. Nothing says druids are forbidden from wearing metal armor; only that they "will not." Certainly nothing even hints that they lose their powers or have other consequences related to class abilities.

Sigreid

2019-05-24, 01:32 PM

Segev, from where I'm sitting your entire argument still revolves around the idea of not taking the words used in the book at face value.

Segev

2019-05-24, 01:39 PM

Segev, from where I'm sitting your entire argument still revolves around the idea of not taking the words used in the book at face value.

I'm taking them at exactly face value. Druids "will not" do X. Not "can't," "won't." Therefore, they can. And if one druid chooses to, that is within his power.

I'm taking them at exactly face value. No rules spell out any mechanical consequences for doing this thing the book says they will not do, but doesn't say they cannot do. Therefore, if one does it, he suffers no mechanical consequences (save the ones the book does spell out: namely, what anybody gets out of wearing that particular kind of metal armor).

From where I'm sitting, you're rewriting the words to "cannot," and inventing new mechanics that are trying to create a compulsion effect where there is none. You're not taking the words at face value; you're claiming they mean something other than what they say. That "will not" really means "cannot." Or that the Druid class creates a compulsion on its members that prevents them from making certain choices at all, much the way Charmed prevents you from attacking the Charmer.

If it were a prohibition, it would either state that they're actively unable to do so, or what the consequences for doing so are. We know the consequences to a wizard who dons armor: unless he gained proficiency somehow, he can't cast spells while wearing it. Wizards will not wear armor, but if one chooses to, he loses his spellcasting.

Sigreid

2019-05-24, 01:45 PM

Druids won't is pretty clear to me. If you're a druid, you won't. It doesn't say most wont or few will.

Segev

2019-05-24, 01:53 PM

Druids won't is pretty clear to me. If you're a druid, you won't. It doesn't say most wont or few will.

Then all goblins behave the same way, and all orcs behave the same way, and all elves behave the same way, etc. etc.

If that's what "taking the words at face value" means to you, then you must have very homogenous races in your settings.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-05-24, 01:55 PM

Druids won't is pretty clear to me. If you're a druid, you won't. It doesn't say most wont or few will.

At the very least, even if you say that it doesn't allow them to wear the armor, they would still be proficient in it. Your choice not to use the armor doesn't make you incapable of doing so. Many adventurers won't wear different tiers of armor in their career. A dex fighter, for example, might not ever wear plate armor, he is still proficient in it.

I personally think that "can" and "will" make a world of difference, like Segev says. If it were intended to be a hard restriction it would say as much, like Fear (you can't willingly move closer) or Bladesigning (only elves and half-elves can choose the bladesinger arcane tradition).

Sigreid

2019-05-24, 02:15 PM

Then all goblins behave the same way, and all orcs behave the same way, and all elves behave the same way, etc. etc.

If that's what "taking the words at face value" means to you, then you must have very homogenous races in your settings.

As I said earlier in the thread, I took the OP at face value when he said he was looking at strictest reading. Turns out he was, in fact, looking for how it would be read by a DM who allowed no wiggle room. He said as much in a later post.

Theodoxus

2019-05-24, 02:18 PM

Will vs Can is an interesting argument. Will is active. It requires willpower to do (or not do). Can is passive, it doesn't require anything to enforce.

If a druid can wear metal armor, but will not, that's a choice.
If a druid can't wear metal armor, but would if they could, that's not a choice.

Since there is no mechanical, and very limited social detriment to wearing metal armor, it must needs play to the individual choice.

Which brings with it, the underlying reason for the taboo. We know there's not a mechanical reason for it. Druids don't explode when they don a breastplate. There's a tax in getting heavy armor proficiency, so there is a drawback.

Currently, best evidence is that it's simply tradition. And doing something (or forbidding something) solely for the sake of tradition is the worst possible reason to do (or disallow) something.

I blame laziness on WotC's part. Maybe there was a mechanical reason, that was stripped away (maybe D&D Next feedback, maybe just Druid developer fiat); maybe they had contemplated it, and never got around to it, and the blurb was left in post production - since the whole PHB appears to be done piecemeal by different developers anyway, this would be the most logical conclusion, to me anyway.

So, what do with that? As I noted previously, I'm making a conscious decision to add a mechanical detriment to wearing metal armor. It's not super harsh, but gives the player knowledge as to what happens with that stupid little blurb, while keeping the traditional spirit of the class alive (without being tradition for tradition's sake).

Doesn't help me as a player, but at least it makes my own games I run internally consistent with how I see the class as a whole.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-24, 02:32 PM

Sigreid

2019-05-24, 02:38 PM

I agree with everything you've said.

Although I might waver on the metal aspect, if there was a narrative reason for it. I'm not sure if there's enough narrative reasoning in 5e's Faerun to disallow Druids from wearing metal armor, which means that the reasoning behind it falls on to me. And since I don't really have a reason why...well, let's just say it wouldn't take much of a debate to sway me.

Why DO Druids hate metal? In 5e lore terms, not from prior editions. Is there any justification or natural magic mumbo jumbo that would give some reasoning behind it? Or is it just one of those "Because that's how we've always done it!" kinda things?

Well, in some magic philosophies natural materials are considered more conducive to the flow of magic while man made items block the flow.

You could also go with the one with the living earth angel. Or even limiting themselves to things that are easily made and maintained in the deepest wilds

But, other than flavor there's really not a terrific reason to care.

LudicSavant

2019-05-24, 02:39 PM

Why DO Druids hate metal? In 5e lore terms, not from prior editions. Is there any justification or natural magic mumbo jumbo that would give some reasoning behind it? Or is it just one of those "Because that's how we've always done it!" kinda things?

As far as I can tell it's just slapped on from older editions, even though the original context isn't really there anymore.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-24, 02:50 PM

Well, in some magic philosophies natural materials are considered more conducive to the flow of magic while man made items block the flow.

You could also go with the one with the living earth angel. Or even limiting themselves to things that are easily made and maintained in the deepest wilds

But, other than flavor there's really not a terrific reason to care.

I'd agree if that were true for certain materials. But a lot of simple metals don't really need a chemical reaction to be smelted or used. The impurities need to be removed, sure, but unless those impurities are required for "magical flow" (or some sh**), I'm not sure why collected rocks are less magical than scattered rocks, unless nature magic relies on some weird chaos theory concept (where it doesn't work when things are "perfect").

But Shocking Grasp seems to work well against metal, and Heat Metal is a Druid spell. Lead is still effective against Divination magic, so....I dunno. There's not a lot of consistency that justifies the whole "Druids hate metal" concept from 5e alone. And using past justifications is a massive can of worms that impacts Paladins much deeper than Druids. If 3.5 or 2e or ADND lore is canon, then you're gonna blow a lot of stuff up.

Segev

2019-05-24, 02:52 PM

As I said earlier in the thread, I took the OP at face value when he said he was looking at strictest reading. Turns out he was, in fact, looking for how it would be read by a DM who allowed no wiggle room. He said as much in a later post.

If that's all he was looking for - if by "strict," he meant "whatever is the least permissive," - then there's no need for this thread. By definition, the least permissive thing to do is to say "no" in answer to any question that asks permission to do something.

diplomancer

2019-05-24, 03:20 PM

Developers state clearly in the big rulebook: "druids will not wear metal armor"
People ask them "what happens if a druid wears metal armor"
Developers respond: "Druids have a taboo against it. If you feel strongly about it and want your druid to wear metal armor nonetheless, ask your DM. He has the final say about it. Oh, DMs, allowing it won't break the game, so if you want to, go right ahead"

Takeaway from many people in this thread. "I can have my druid wearing metal armor and there is nothing the DM can do about it. Bwahahaha"

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-24, 03:21 PM

Takeaway from many people in this thread. "I can have my druid wearing metal armor and there is nothing the DM can do about it. Bwahahaha"

What was the closest example of someone giving that impression, or saying anything similar to that? I don't see anything like that, and I'm probably the most passionate person on the Druid+Metal side.

Just seems like a Straw Man to me:

Google: "An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."

I don't necessarily mean that as sass, but nobody really cares about the +2 AC. Or if they did, there's a lot better things they could be than a Druid.

Rukelnikov

2019-05-24, 03:28 PM

As far as I can tell it's just slapped on from older editions, even though the original context isn't really there anymore.

What was the original context of the restriction?

diplomancer

2019-05-24, 03:31 PM

What was the closest example of someone giving that impression, or saying anything similar to that? I don't see anything like that, and I'm probably the most passionate person on the Druid+Metal side.

Just seems like a Straw Man to me:

Google: "An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."

I don't necessarily mean that as sass, but nobody really cares about the +2 AC. Or if they did, there's a lot better things they could be than a Druid.

Someone said upthread (paraphrasing) "so, DMs, whats your response to this?"
-Player: I put on the metal armor
Dm- ?

Other people are arguing that the RAW (and even the RAI, according to the argument "will and not can is a deliberate design decision") is that druids wearing metal armor is allowed by the rules (which means that a DM who disallows it is deliberately nerfing the class for no good reason)

Theodoxus

2019-05-24, 03:33 PM

What was the original context of the restriction?

You mean beyond: Druids have a taboo against wearing metal armor and wielding a metal shield. The taboo has been part of the class’s story since the class first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry(1976) and the original Player’s Handbook (1978). The idea is that druids prefer to be protected by animal skins, wood, and other natural materials that aren’t the worked metal that is associated with civilization. Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it. This choice is part of their identity as a mystical order. Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but the vegetarian chooses not to.

Going deeper into the roots of the original restriction, I suspect it allies itself with real world druidism, which eschews manufactured items - kind of an ancient take on the Luddite restrictions of the Amish.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-24, 03:34 PM

What was the original context of the restriction?

From Grayhawk Adventures, AD&D 1e, P. 125:

"Cleric and Druid Skills: All characters who use divine abilities must obey the gods. The DM should deny clerical magic to characters who violate their alignments or fail to behave piously. Clerics and druids themselves may never use forbidden weapons or other items, even by retaining a proficiency from some other class. Members of other classes cannot use clerical abilities on the same day that they wield edged weapons or, in the case of druid spells, wear metal armor."

You could say that Druids not wearing metal is as important as Clerics not wielding edged weapons.

Other people are arguing that the RAW (and even the RAI, according to the argument "will and not can is a deliberate design decision") is that druids wearing metal armor is allowed by the rules (which means that a DM who disallows it is deliberately nerfing the class for no good reason)

My bad, must have missed that. I wouldn't say that's the trend of the thread, though. I'm fine with nerfing a class, I just think you should for a good reason. Tradition, when the DM is the one the players are supposed to trust with sense and justice, doesn't seem like a good enough justification.

Nerf the Druid because you chose to. Or when they ask, at least come up with a better answer than "the book told me to".

Sigreid

2019-05-24, 03:37 PM

What was the original context of the restriction?

Originally if they put on metal armor or used a banned weapon they would lose their connection to their powers for while they were wearing it and a full 24 hours after they took it off.

On the way home from work I thought a bit more about this all. I could see the ban on metal weapons and armor being due to getting the metal to make these things requires pretty extensive mining operations. Mining operations have never really been a healthy thing for the surrounding environment.

If I had to guess why it's still there, I'd say two things.

First is to give a quick and obvious to distinction between the druid and the nature cleric.

Second is tradition. Especially since as I understand it one of their goals with 5e was to lure back players of the much older editions with something that they would recognize as "legitimate" D&D.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-24, 03:50 PM

Second is tradition. Especially since as I understand it one of their goals with 5e was to lure back players of the much older editions with something that they would recognize as "legitimate" D&D.

I think this is bigger than a lot of people realize. I came to the same exact conclusion on the Alignment thread:

After reading some of the responses, it'd probably could be summarized to:

No, a TTRPG doesn't need an alignment system, unless alignment has mechanical value.
Yes, DnD needs alignment, if only because DnD would become generic without it.

As a result, 5e's alignment system feels really generic and tacked on, because you HAVE to have it, and yet it isn't there for any reason any other TTRPG should have it.

Kinda like why we say "Bless You". It doesn't matter if it doesn't matter. You still do it, because it's wrong to do otherwise. We've gotten to the point where Alignment really doesn't matter, and yet, doing anything else would face a lot of backlash for being too different (See: 4th Edition DnD).

This is Traditionalism hard at work, folks.

Normally, I'd say that it comes from the inherent narrative world of DnD across all of the editions, but...that hasn't exactly been consistent, has it? We can't even agree on what the single best/core narrative of DnD is, nonetheless what DnD is when you include all of the worlds.

So...we have to, because DnD has old players who like habits, and without it, they'll get mad. With the massive popularity of 5e with a newer generation, I'm not sure WotC will hold on to old traditions that don't hold mechanical value when the players who started with the traditions are such a small majority.

They're already doing it with Paladins.

LudicSavant

2019-05-24, 03:52 PM

What was the original context of the restriction?

Druids were members of an order with a worldwide structure and hierarchy, right down to "there can only be X druids of X level in a given geographic region" and the like. They were expected to follow certain codes and practices of their order, and violating certain procedures would interfere with their connection to the supernatural forces that empowered them. You were totally expected to do things like harvest your mistletoe the right way or your spells would get severely nerfed in specific mechanical ways.

They spent a great deal of space on fluff that just... isn't a thing in newer editions, or their associated settings. Somehow the armor taboo carried over even when the global organization and things like "your mistletoe must be harvested during the full moon with a golden sickle you specifically made for the purpose" didn't.

patchyman

2019-05-24, 04:37 PM

I agree with everything you've said.

Although I might waver on the metal aspect, if there was a narrative reason for it. I'm not sure if there's enough narrative reasoning in 5e's Faerun to disallow Druids from wearing metal armor, which means that the reasoning behind it falls on to me. And since I don't really have a reason why...well, let's just say it wouldn't take much of a debate to sway me.

This may not be universal, but D&D druids are inspired by a weird mishmash of Celtic myths, and Celtic myths (and myths more generally) are chock full of outwardly arbitrary restrictions.

You lose your power if you ever eat dog meat; or refuse hospitality; or cut your hair; if you ever leave the underworld, make sure never to look back until *after* you’ve reached the surface.

A restriction based in lore is still a restriction.

To extend it to real life (please don’t!) lots of real world religions have real life restrictions in their diets and their lifestyles. Obviously in real life you don’t increase in power from being a particularly observant Jain, but there is a point at which if you are choosing not to observe the tenets of a faith, you can’t really call yourself a member of that faith.

Being a Druid in D&D does not require you to follow a large number of tenets, so I do not consider it unreasonable to follow the “do not wear metal armor” tenet.

Segev

2019-05-24, 04:42 PM

This may not be universal, but D&D druids are inspired by a weird mishmash of Celtic myths, and Celtic myths (and myths more generally) are chock full of outwardly arbitrary restrictions.

You lose your power if you ever eat dog meat; or refuse hospitality; or cut your hair; if you ever leave the underworld, make sure never to look back until *after* you’ve reached the surface.

A restriction based in lore is still a restriction.

To extend it to real life (please don’t!) lots of real world religions have real life restrictions in their diets and their lifestyles. Obviously in real life you don’t increase in power from being a particularly observant Jain, but there is a point at which if you are choosing not to observe the tenets of a faith, you can’t really call yourself a member of that faith.

Being a Druid in D&D does not require you to follow a large number of tenets, so I do not consider it unreasonable to follow the “do not wear metal armor” tenet.
The religious analogy is the right one. Wearing metal probably isn't an excommunicable offense (given that it doesn't say you lose powers), but it makes the other guys at Druid Sunday School look at you reaaaaaaaally funny, like the guy showing up to his Traditional American Judeo-Christian Church Service in his '80s-style-that-they-thought-cyberpunk-would-look-like outfit. Wildly inappropriate and probably a bit offensive.

But not excommunicable, so he doesn't lose his powers (admittedly, "lose his powers" really only has meaning when it gives you measurable powers, so the analogy breaks down there, as few claim active and empirically demonstrable miraculous powers IRL).

Tanarii

2019-05-24, 05:39 PM

You would make a more convincing case if you actually listed some examples (beyond the obvious one under contention, here). Paladin Oaths, Warlock Patrons, and Necromancy are three others. Alignment is another. Backgrounds and traits.

Your statement was so absurd I assumed it was in either in jest and didn't need a serious response other than, in effect, you're kidding right? Or you're just so deluded, possible to the degree of the believers in that false dichotomy of "mechanics vs fluff", that there would be no persuading you of reality.

Man_Over_Game

2019-05-24, 05:42 PM

Being a Druid in D&D does not require you to follow a large number of tenets, so I do not consider it unreasonable to follow the “do not wear metal armor” tenet.

I can agree to that, but considering there's no reasoning as to why the "do not wear armor" clause is justified as a narrative or mechanical rule, and the book basically assumes the DM makes their own justification, it's just as reasonable that the player just asks to use metal armor.

Either side is equally reasonable. In those circumstances, I think it's best to err on the side of the player.

Tanarii

2019-05-24, 05:54 PM

I can agree to that, but considering there's no reasoning as to why the "do not wear armor" clause is justified as a narrative or mechanical rule, and the book basically assumes the DM makes their own justification, it's just as reasonable that the player just asks to use metal armor.As far as I can see, the book just as much assumes the players will make up their own justification. That's pretty standard for roleplaying rules. The book tells you the what, it's up to you the players to decide the why.

Segev

2019-05-25, 01:05 AM

Paladin Oaths, Warlock Patrons, and Necromancy are three others. Alignment is another. Backgrounds and traits.

Your statement was so absurd I assumed it was in either in jest and didn't need a serious response other than, in effect, you're kidding right? Or you're just so deluded, possible to the degree of the believers in that false dichotomy of "mechanics vs fluff", that there would be no persuading you of reality.

Paladin Oaths have mechanical enforcement: they do say what paladins will do...but paladins are perfectly capable of violating those "will do" statements. And then they lose their powers (or go Oathbreaker).

Druids don't lose their powers if they do what the text says they "will not" do.

Warlock Patrons don't say anything at all like what you're suggesting; if they are, please quote specific text. Given that you're asserting I'm so blatantly wrong, providing actual textual support beyond incredulity that I would disagree with your unsupported assertions should be pretty easy. "I mean, geeze, of course Clerics all wear tutus. I would have thought that so obvious that anybody saying otherwise was joking, or so deluded that there's no persuading you of reality!" See how this kind of "argument" swings both ways?

Necromancy just says that good aligned necromancers will try to keep the evil animation of dead to a minimum. This is so fuzzy as to be undefinable, but even if we play this game as you want to lay it out, there are mechanical consequences to behaving as something other than your proclaimed alignment: you become the alignment you're portraying. There are no mechanics that make you cease being a member of a class in which you have levels. The rules cannot leave unstated a unique circumstance like that and have it be assumed. Assuming it must be there but unspoken is inventing a slew of mechanics, not "strictly reading" the RAW.

So, again, spell out the specifics - with quotes, if the rules are so plain that I'm delusional for denying them - that make your case. Backhandedly implying that disagreeing with you is stupid, malicious, or insane is still ad hominem, and does nothing to actually demonstrate that what you say is true.

diplomancer

2019-05-25, 04:06 AM

"At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin "

"If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class"

So, the DM is as free to strip the Paladin of his powers for violating his oath as he is to strip the Druid of his powers for violating the taboo of his order.

DM A:
-"Oh, but I, as a DM, think Paladin's oaths and druidic taboos are silly"

Developers-"Knock yourself out. It's your game. You are not breaking anything in the game system"

DM B:
--"Oh, but I, as a DM, think Paladin's oaths are silly and druidic taboos are not " (or vice versa, or none are silly)

Developers: "as DM, you have final say on how far a PC can go and still be considered a member of his class.

Player 1- "well, Im going to have my Druid put on metal armor anyway, as he has free will"

Developers- "the DM has final say whether you can still be considered to be a Druid" (implied- and therefore, whether you have access to your class features)

AdAstra

2019-05-25, 04:18 AM

So I think that while we've pretty well established that the actual text doesn't lay out exactly why druids don't wear metal armor (though previous edition do have reasons for it), nor the mechanical consequences of doing so, there hasn't really been a discussion on the actual consequences in-game other than MOG mentioning it. As stated by JC it won't break the game, and I'm inclined to agree, but that doesn't mean it won't change the balance at all.

In most cases (i.e. druids with less than +4 Dex) a druid going from hide/leather armor + shield to breastplate+shield is at least a +2 bonus to AC, +3 if they use half-plate. Assuming a +2 Dex, that's going from 16, less than the maxed-out rogue, to 19, more than the Greatsword Fighter in full plate. Plus the fact that if your DM doesn't tailor magic items to the party then a metal-shunning druid'll most likely lack magic armor unless they can grab some dragon scale mail.

So from a mechanical perspective, it seems like it comes down to whether you think that druids should get the boost or not, or whether it matters at all. I think Moon and Shepherd hardly need it, and that Land could really use it, but since it doesn't make much sense to only lift the requirement for one subclass I find myself disinclined to allow it.

Constructman

2019-05-25, 04:35 AM

So from a mechanical perspective, it seems like it comes down to whether you think that druids should get the boost or not, or whether it matters at all. I think Moon and Shepherd hardly need it, and that Land could really use it, but since it doesn't make much sense to only lift the requirement for one subclass I find myself disinclined to allow it.

Spores could really appreciate the AC boost too

Unoriginal

2019-05-25, 06:19 AM

I don't necessarily mean that as sass, but nobody really cares about the +2 AC. Or if they did, there's a lot better things they could be than a Druid.

Then why are so many people against the "Druids will not wear metal armor" thing?

diplomancer

2019-05-25, 07:08 AM

Then why are so many people against the "Druids will not wear metal armor" thing?

Ask how many of those would be fine with the DM ruling "sure, you can wear metal armor. You wont lose your Druidic powers. But your AC will be calculated as if you were wearing studded leather"

Rukelnikov

2019-05-25, 02:23 PM

AdAstra

2019-05-25, 06:17 PM

I think a Circle of Mielikki subclass that is allowed to wear metal would be ok, as it would be something defining of the circle.

I don't know, having a Druid circle centered around gods, especially one specific god, kinda creates unnecessary overlap with Nature Clerics. Plus coming up with interesting mechanics other than "Cleric-y Druid" might be difficult.

Naanomi

2019-05-25, 06:31 PM

The old ‘Druid of Meilikki’ mapped very closely conceptually to Ancients Paladins; a custom background that taught you the Druid secret language or something and you’d be golden

moonfly7

2019-05-25, 06:55 PM

Fact of it is this, druids don't like metal protection. Strictly against it, probably even if it would save them. However, they still can. That has been the bases of at least to druids I knew. One was considered a weirdo by his brother druids, because he admentally preached that metal was natural, we found it in the ground, and purified it with fire, which was also natural.
The other guy wasn't a druid in game, he just used the classes levels and abilities and played a wolf who had been polymorphed permanently into a human.

Final word on this? Its possible to do, if the guy wants it, and has a semi decent reason, I'd go for it. You said yourself you like being lose, this breaks no rules. Its objectively no different than wearing iron wood armor or enchanted natural stuff. He's just different is all, and different characters are best.

He wouldn't loose his levels in druid by donning plate, that's stupid. But the other druids might think he's a weirdo, he could get mocked, and the religious ones might call him blasphmistic, but it's completely mechanically fine.

Heck, in plenty of games the druids aren't groups, and are more like singular hippy types each with their own rules to live by.
I'm some games, that druid metal rule doesn't exist.

Finally, just look at the ranger. It casts in "much the same way as the druid does" he wears metal armor if he wants. No one cares. That, in my mind, proves that it's a choice. I know people are gonna say that rangers aren't anything like druids or whatever. But they get magic very similarly, and people tend to assume rangers and druids get along. So then, if druids dont freak out over rangers using nature magic and casting with metal armor, I don't think theyd stop a druid. Also, multiclassing into druid doesn't give you their proficiencies right? Well guess what? Thats where the stipulation is. It might mention that it still counts in the PHB, but I'm to lazy to check.

darknite

2019-05-25, 09:43 PM

And you base that on what? The dev commentary on the matter says it's meant to be the exact opposite. (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016)

The dev commentary completely supports my position. Druid have a taboo regarding metalic armor. They go on to say ... "If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM." Sounds like the strict interpretation is that Druids are not meant to wear metal armor and those wishing to do so should seek DM permission to explain why they should be allowed to do so.

LudicSavant

2019-05-25, 11:03 PM

It's meant to be a restriction applied to Light and Moderate Armor and Shield proficiency for game balance, not an RP flavor thing.

The dev commentary completely supports my position.

So lemme get this straight. The devs...

> Spend multiple paragraphs telling you their intended story and roleplaying reasons for it.
> Say that you can already wear those armors if you find a non-metal variant (The DMG already has rules for said variants).
> Say that removing the taboo won't break anything in the game system, but might undermine the story and the world, so ask your DM.

And from this you conclude that it's just intended for game balance reasons and not a story or flavor thing? Well, okay then :smalltongue:

Keravath

2019-05-25, 11:50 PM

None of this is relevant to my point.

A player can attempt to put on armor. Even his players could, at some point in the future, try this.

"No, you don't attempt to do that," is not a defensible response from a DM, because it violates arguably the most fundamental principle of the game: each player controls his character and the DM controls everything else. Players decide character intentions.

In my opinion, house-ruling that druids lose all class abilities when wearing metal armor is less egregious than overriding player intentions.

Not really. Keep in mind that if a player CHOOSES to role play a druid character then that character WILL NOT wear metal armor. It may be primarily a narrative constraint or role playing constraint or what have you but the bottom line is that druid's do NOT want to and WILL NOT choose to wear metal armor. The rules do not say WHY this is the case. The rules also do not say what the consequences of trying to do so might be .. all the rules say is that a druid will not wear metal armor.

So, if a player chooses to role play a druid then (for whatever reasons since the dawn of D&D), druids don't wear metal armor and this is an integral part of their druid character. For whatever reason, the rule book doesn't give the druid a choice about this decision. RAW, a player running a druid character CAN NOT decide to try on metal armor because a druid would NOT do that.

If a particular DM is willing to let a particular player playing a druid character use metal armor then that is a specific adjustment in a specific game. It is a house rule. It is perfectly ok for that game. It just isn't RAW which for a home game is perfectly ok.

Tanarii

2019-05-26, 12:30 AM

Then why are so many people against the "Druids will not wear metal armor" thing?
A lot of people just can't handle the very concept of a hard limitation as part of a roleplaying rule.

Segev

2019-05-26, 01:19 AM

A lot of people just can't handle the very concept of a hard limitation as part of a roleplaying rule.
Or the notion that there is a “role-playing rule” that is mechanical impact by restricting possible choices the player can make for his PC strikes us as nonsensical.

Of course you can enforce the rule as DM. You do so by actually imposing consequences that discourage choosing it. You do not simply say, “ No, your character wouldn’t do that. “

Not only do the rules not say that, but that’s bad DMing.

There are ways and good justifications for making the “will not” into something enforced by the setting. From losing powers to painful allergies to any number of other things. Simply saying “your character wouldn’t,” however, is stupid. There is no taboo so universal that all who belong to the order that holds it obey it completely, unless the consequences for breaking it are immediate and literally painfully obvious.

Enforce it if you want. Be creative and come up with cool ways to do so. But don’t die on the hill of “role playing rules” that make the character not do things he’s physically capable of doing by telling the player “no.”

Vorpalchicken

2019-05-26, 01:28 AM

A possible reason for not having a direct consequence to a druid donning metal is that the designers didn't want a "gotcha" that would make the druid explode if he were tricked/ mind-controlled/ dressed while unconscious/ etc, into wearing it.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-05-26, 01:30 AM

Or the notion that there is a “role-playing rule” that is mechanical impact by restricting possible choices the player can make for his PC strikes us as nonsensical.

Of course you can enforce the rule as DM. You do so by actually imposing consequences that discourage choosing it. You do not simply say, “ No, your character wouldn’t do that. “

Not only do the rules not say that, but that’s bad DMing.

There are ways and good justifications for making the “will not” into something enforced by the setting. From losing powers to painful allergies to any number of other things. Simply saying “your character wouldn’t,” however, is stupid. There is no taboo so universal that all who belong to the order that holds it obey it completely, unless the consequences for breaking it are immediate and literally painfully obvious.

Enforce it if you want. Be creative and come up with cool ways to do so. But don’t die on the hill of “role playing rules” that make the character not do things he’s physically capable of doing by telling the player “no.”

The way I see it (agreeing with this post for the most part) is that for just about every other "roleplay rule" there are consequences for going against such a thing. Paladins who break their tenets risk becoming Oathbreakers (or at a table where the DM doesn't want that class allowed, they might simply lose their powers until they're repentant) and Clerics who don't actively further the will of the god who chose them might lose those god given powers.

There are established consequences for those few who would do something against what they are "supposed to do because the rules say so". Druids wearing metal armor have no such established consequence.

Are we really supposed to believe that in the entire existence of Druidic magic (correlating to 5E, where this "rule" has no consequence, as opposed to previous editions) none have ever worn metal armor because... well just because. Nothing would happen if they did, they just don't do it.

Why has nobody done it? Why has no Druid ever in all the lands and for as far back as history goes worn metal armor.

Do I really just have to accept that this is a roleplay rule, enforced by nothing but "because they can't"?

tl;dr - Paladin's won't break their oath because it holds a sacred power and without it they are nothing. Druids won't wear metal armor because they won't wear metal armor. Why?

qube

2019-05-26, 01:45 AM

tl;dr - Paladin's won't break their oath because it holds a sacred power and without it they are nothing. Druids won't wear metal armor because they won't wear metal armor. Why?
it's anti-industrial; while leather, hide, even dragon scale are natural products.

(For people who complain this is a too simplistic view - do realise we're in a game with alignments)

When you ask

Why has nobody done it? Why has no Druid ever in all the lands and for as far back as history goes worn metal armor.

consider, how many hippies have taken up assault rifles? It's got nothing to do with "can't", or "no Druid ever in all the lands and for as far back as history" - but with a philosophy directly contradictory to what it stands for.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-05-26, 01:53 AM

it's anti-industrial; while leather, hide, even dragon scale are natural products.

(For people who complain this is a too simplistic view - do realise we're in a game with alignments)

When you ask

Why has nobody done it? Why has no Druid ever in all the lands and for as far back as history goes worn metal armor.

consider, how many hippies have taken up assault rifles? It's got nothing to do with "can't", or "no Druid ever in all the lands and for as far back as history" - but with a philosophy directly contradictory to what it stands for.

I agree, however the argument here is that they are incapable of doing so. Many are arguing that "won't" is equivalent to "can't" and should be read as such.

"Won't" leaves it open to the possibility that at least one Druid has worn metal armor at some point, for any reason (to see what it was like, to test its effect on their magic, any reason at all here) but "can't" would mean that if you are a Druid, you are utterly incapable of wearing metal armor. No matter what Druid's and metal armor cannot ever be on the same page.

AdAstra

2019-05-26, 01:58 AM

...Enforce it if you want. Be creative and come up with cool ways to do so. But don’t die on the hill of “role playing rules” that make the character not do things he’s physically capable of doing by telling the player “no.”

If I decided to enforce this rule (and I will point out it is 100% fine in my mind for a DM to ignore it) it wouldn't exactly be hard to have mechanical consequences for roleplaying choices, and not having such in the book isn't exclusive to Druids.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but IIRC there's nowhere (at least the Player's Handbook?) that says there are any mechanical consequences for Clerics disregarding their gods or committing sacrilege; but couldn't one reasonably assume that anyone dedicated enough to their god to be bestowed Divine Power would never voluntarily do such a thing without a massive change in character or world-tilting revelation? Also, most gods (and thus most DMs RPing gods) could probably be expected to revoke their blessings or even conjure a Righteous Slap of Smiting.

Thus, one could pretty easily extrapolate from the Cleric example, and I think some have already done so. A druid that sufficiently displeases the Primeval Forces of Nature by, say, burning and salting old-growth forests, or wearing garments of unnatural metal, would probably start to feel a little disconnected from those forces. Flowers might shy away from their touch, Their conjured wonders wilt away or fail to manifest entirely, animals flee before them where before they would bow.

I'm not saying that the book handles the issue very well, but it's main problem imo is not properly explaining the fact that it does have an impact on gameplay (the aforementioned AC boost) and thematics to DMs so that they can make an informed decision as to whether they'll enforce it, be it through RP or mechanical consequences. Allowing druids to wear metal armor won't break the game, but that doesn't mean it won't matter at all. It does mean that if you think it makes the game better, with full understanding of its effects on your game, you can and probably should do it.

qube

2019-05-26, 02:33 AM

"Won't" leaves it open to the possibility that at least one Druid has worn metal armor at some point, for any reason (to see what it was like, to test its effect on their magic, any reason at all here) but "can't" would mean that if you are a Druid, you are utterly incapable of wearing metal armor. No matter what Druid's and metal armor cannot ever be on the same page.And I pretty much think you outlined why can't is the right word to use.

"Won't" leaves it open to the possibility that at least one Druid ...

... wanna bet there'll be players arguing they play that druid?

edit: also that "can't" inherently means that, is obviously wrong. That's only one interpretation of what "can't" means.
appendum to the edit: consider the phrase: I can't lift that ! . this is a normal, true, statement, but is pestered with all types of assumptions (I don't use external help, I don't spend years building up my strength, etc...). "can't " and " utterly incapable of" aren't the same thing

diplomancer

2019-05-26, 04:03 AM

It's amusing how many people believe that "can't" instead of "won't" would solve the problem.

To begin with, people would point out that it is a restriction without narrative justification. Then the argument would proceed to "druids are proficient in armor made of metal. They are a creature with the proper anatomy to wear them. What does it even mean to say that they can't wear it?" Finally, someone would proceed to "fine, my Druid was knocked out and people put metal armor on him. What happens? Do I explode?"

(All while stating that all this lawyering has nothing to do with the bonus to AC that wearing metal armor gives to the druid)

"Can" implies physical capability, and it makes absolutely no sense to claim that druids are physically incapable of wearing metal armor they are proficient with. They just won't (yes, all of them, subject to a DM houseruling it away, which does not break the game).

qube

2019-05-26, 04:53 AM

"Can" implies physical capabilityExcept, ... no?

transitive verb
1 obsolete : know, understand
2 archaic : to be able to do, make, or accomplish

intransitive verb
archaic : to have knowledge or skill

auxiliary verb

1a : know how to
She can read.

b : be physically or mentally able to
He can lift 200 pounds.

c —used to indicate possibility
Do you think he can still be alive?
Those things can happen.
-- Sometimes used interchangeably with may

d : be permitted by conscience or feeling to
can hardly blame her

e : be made possible or probable by circumstances to he
can hardly have meant that

f : be inherently able or designed to
everything that money can buy

g : be logically or axiologically able to
2 + 2 can also be written 3 + 1.

h : be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to
Congress can declare war.

2 : have permission to —used interchangeably with may
You can go now if you like.

~~ Merriam-webster.com

"you can't blame someone for something', that doesn't imply I say you got a brain tumor.

JackPhoenix

2019-05-26, 08:10 AM

The old ‘Druid of Meilikki’ mapped very closely conceptually to Ancients Paladins; a custom background that taught you the Druid secret language or something and you’d be golden

Sounds like a job for a Hermit.

BurgerBeast

2019-05-26, 09:32 AM

Still, somewhere underlying all of this is the fundamental principle that the player controls/decides the character’s will.

A large part of the satisfaction of role playing a character hinges on the ability of the character to undergo change. In this context, it is precisely the sort of change that forces a character to start to do those things, that he previously would not, which provide the most satisfaction.

Ignoring the specifics of the particular Druid-armour restriction, it is generally and fundamentally counterproductive to strip the game of this potential. Characters in fiction are defined by their ability to change. Ebenezer Scrooge would not (could not?) acknowledge the spirit of Christmas - until he did. Disney’s Moanna longed to defy her father and answer the call of the sea but she would not. The discovery that her ancestors were sea explorers, and that it was her fathers decree that stopped them, caused her to change.

Back to D&D: Players can make vegetarians or pacifists if they so choose. If these players are put in situations where the motivation/temptation/necessity to eat meat or inflict violence (respectively) is strong, it can only be interesting if the possibility to change actually exists. If the rules/DM simply force the player’s hand, then there is nothing interesting going on. Note that even if the character does not change - this tells us something interesting about the character because he could have changed - again, if he couldn’t, then it’s not telling us anything because the character is flat is this respect anyway. This is an incredible waste of the narrative potential of the medium.

Obviously real mechanical consequences enhance this, because the character’s narrative sacrifice is paralleled by the player’s sacrifice of hard-earned power in a game. (The fallen Paladin trope appeals to many players, and made for a cool story in the case of Lancelot du Lac.)

Those arguing the other side by using the claim that we are just seeking a mechanical AC advantage would do well to note that we have repeatedly claimed that we would accept and prefer a more severe mechanical consequence, such as no spells for 24 hours or no wild shaping while in metal armour.

The problem is, and remains, that the precedent of arbitrary narrative straight-jackets are antithetical to role-playing, however infrequent they may be. They should not be tolerated.

Tanarii

2019-05-26, 09:57 AM

Or the notion that there is a “role-playing rule” that is mechanical impact by restricting possible choices the player can make for his PC strikes us as nonsensical. It's not nonsensical. Almost every RPG has roleplaying rules without associated mechanical effects, that tell the player how to make decisions for various aspects of their character (aka roleplaying), from hard limitations to basic guidelines. What's perfectly valid to debate where the line should be drawn between acceptable and not acceptable to individual tables, and even what you enjoy in a designed RPG. What's nonsensical is drawing that line at "no rules that affect decision making unless it is through mechanical effects", then insisting the line is a universal truth in the face of evidence it is not true, and clearly stated preferences by others that drawing the line elsewhere is acceptable to them.

Of course you can enforce the rule as DM. You do so by actually imposing consequences that discourage choosing it. You do not simply say, “ No, your character wouldn’t do that. “

Not only do the rules not say that, but that’s bad DMing. I've never said the DM must enforce roleplaying rules. Roleplaying rules are typically there for the players, not the DM. If they choose to flagrantly violate roleplaying rules with no built in mechanical effect or "enforcement" mechanism, that's up to the other players and DM to decide how to handle it, just as any other flagrantly violated rule. But generally speaking my assumption is players will self-enforce abiding by the rules.

qube

2019-05-26, 10:13 AM

The problem is, and remains, that the precedent of arbitrary narrative straight-jackets are antithetical to role-playing, however infrequent they may be. They should not be tolerated.Sorry, but I disagree.
Solving something that isn't a problem solves nothing.

You can't put a hypothetical senario that already will cause problems* for the wizard, the monk and the rogue (as there are no light metal armors**), ... and then turn around and argue that and try to argue that the lack of specification of what happens to the druid if he does it - creates some sort of "waste of the narrative potential". I'm not seeing anything narrative potential wise, only DM-tries-to-be-a-****.

*: or ... do they have to don armor and then not fight? this thing gets more hypothetical by the minute.

** I hear you ask "what about mythril?" mythril doesn't make the armor light, and even if it did, the druid can still wear dragonscale. But for some "odd" reason, mythirl would be fine but dragonscale wouldn't?

Segev

2019-05-26, 10:22 AM

It's not nonsensical. Almost every RPG has roleplaying rules without associated mechanical effects, that tell the player how to make decisions for various aspects of their character (aka roleplaying), from hard limitations to basic guidelines. What's perfectly valid to debate where the line should be drawn between acceptable and not acceptable to individual tables, and even what you enjoy in a designed RPG. What's nonsensical is drawing that line at "no rules that affect decision making unless it is through mechanical effects", then insisting the line is a universal truth in the face of evidence it is not true, and clearly stated preferences by others that drawing the line elsewhere is acceptable to them.

I've never said the DM must enforce roleplaying rules. Roleplaying rules are typically there for the players, not the DM. If they choose to flagrantly violate roleplaying rules with no built in mechanical effect or "enforcement" mechanism, that's up to the other players and DM to decide how to handle it, just as any other flagrantly violated rule. But generally speaking my assumption is players will self-enforce abiding by the rules.

Violating a rule is cheating. Cheating is prevented by other players and/or the DM saying “you can’t do that.” This is why “role playing rules” of the sort you outing are nonsensical: there is no actual rule explaining that Druid characters can’t do it. It says druids “will not” do it. It doesn’t even say this overrides the rules regarding making choices in character, which permit plasters to state what their characters do.

There is no point in the system that says it’s cheating for a cleric’s player to decide his character engages in sacrilege. There is no point in the rules trust says it is cheating for the paladin’s player to declare his Paladin flagrantly violates his Oath. There is no point in the rules that says it is heating for a single-class wizard’s player to declare that his wizard dons Adamantine full plate.

There are consequences for doing so. But if it were cheating for those “role playing rules” to be violated, the DM would be saying, “no, you don’t,” when the player declares the action. “You’re character would not do that.”

Claiming the no metal armor thing for Druids is a role playing rule that can be violated without being considered cheating but that the players have to figure out how to handle it is acknowledging that it’s not a rule, and house ruling consequences in. Claiming it is cheating makes it the most unique rule in the game unless it is considered a compulsion on par with the Charmed condition. Despite he text never referring to it as such.

This is why the claim is nonsensical. It requires either backing down from it immediately to acknowledge that the GM needs to rule in consequences for breaking it, or it makes that one little sentence into the strangest and most restrictive class mechanic in the game with no attention whatsoever called out to its highly exceptional nature.

qube

2019-05-26, 11:05 AM

Violating a rule is cheating. Cheating is prevented by other players and/or the DM saying “you can’t do that.” This is why “role playing rules” of the sort you outing are nonsensicalI shall take that into account the next time the DM fudges the dice.

(only to note how your black-and-white view on rules make no sense in the context of D&D)

JackPhoenix

2019-05-26, 11:31 AM

I shall take that into account the next time the DM fudges the dice.

I actually unironically support that, and stand firmly against any fudging on either side of the (proverbial or literal) DM screen. Cheating is cheating, if the GM ignores the result of the die roll, why is he rolling in the first place?

n00b

2019-05-26, 12:07 PM

Full disclosure: I'm in the camp that believes won't means they won't, no argument around it.

But my question is... Is there any other class in D&D that has a similar prohibition? I know almost any other class can do other things not granted by their class through multi-class or feats. But is there anywhere else that says they can't do something and there's not an alternative way to get it?

qube

2019-05-26, 12:14 PM

I actually unironically support that, and stand firmly against any fudging on either side of the (proverbial or literal) DM screen. Cheating is cheating, if the GM ignores the result of the die roll, why is he rolling in the first place?Perhaps realising too late that the damage he rolled was waaay to much for a player to handle.
Perhaps the DM considered some description very well and thus decided, that despite the player's attack comming up one too low, it would be better narritivly for it to be a hit?
Perhaps you feel the first-timer at the table shouldn't get 3 consecutive crits and accidently go from full health to death in one round during his very first D&D combat?
Perhaps (shocking realisation ... maybe DMs aren't perfect beings???) the DM accidently used a monster that was way to strong for the party?

You're up for a though sell to argue RAW beats narration/story flow/... That Cheating is Cheating. that

Violating a rule is cheating. Cheating is prevented by other players and/or the DM saying “you can’t do that.”

"you can’t do that.?"
the DM very much can do that.
And even if we're being syntactic about the meaning of can - is allowed to do that.
And, while I'm to laisy to look it up in the DMG, probbably is encouraged to do so (if the situation calls for it).

In D&D, it's simply not true that "Cheating is cheating". Only in theorycrafting.

Constructman

2019-05-26, 12:18 PM

I said it before, but more specifically: from a purely gamist concern, most Druids can get by with light armor, but what about Spore Druids?

They need to be in the melee for their subclass features to work, but that also means they end up super MAD, with Dexterity and Constitution competing for their secondary stats. And they also pretty much need War Caster so they don't have to play the "juggle your shield, weapon, and focus" game, so that's one less ASI to shore up their stats with. Medium armor would make them less tissue paper in close combat, and also means they can settle for leaving their Dex at 14 and focus on pumping Con.

n00b

2019-05-26, 12:25 PM

Perhaps realising too late that the damage he rolled was waaay to much for a player to handle.
Perhaps the DM considered some description very well and thus decided, that despite the player's attack comming up one too low, it would be better narritivly for it to be a hit?
Perhaps you feel the first-timer at the table shouldn't get 3 consecutive crits and accidently go from full health to death in one round during his very first D&D combat?
Perhaps (shocking realisation ... maybe DMs aren't perfect beings???) the DM accidently used a monster that was way to strong for the party?

You're up for a though sell to argue RAW beats narration/story flow/... That Cheating is Cheating. that

Violating a rule is cheating. Cheating is prevented by other players and/or the DM saying “you can’t do that.”

"you can’t do that.?"
the DM very much can do that.
And even if we're being syntactic about the meaning of can - is allowed to do that.
And, while I'm to laisy to look it up in the DMG, probbably is encouraged to do so (if the situation calls for it).

In D&D, it's simply not true that "Cheating is cheating". Only in theorycrafting.

I disagree with all of those, completely and totally. What the die rolls is what it is. One DM I play for doesn't even use a screen and makes all of his rolls where we can see them. And I respect and appreciate that.

moonfly7

2019-05-26, 12:48 PM

Except, ... no?

transitive verb
1 obsolete : know, understand
2 archaic : to be able to do, make, or accomplish

intransitive verb
archaic : to have knowledge or skill

auxiliary verb

1a : know how to
She can read.

b : be physically or mentally able to
He can lift 200 pounds.

c —used to indicate possibility
Do you think he can still be alive?
Those things can happen.
-- Sometimes used interchangeably with may

d : be permitted by conscience or feeling to
can hardly blame her

e : be made possible or probable by circumstances to he
can hardly have meant that

f : be inherently able or designed to
everything that money can buy

g : be logically or axiologically able to
2 + 2 can also be written 3 + 1.

h : be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to
Congress can declare war.

2 : have permission to —used interchangeably with may
You can go now if you like.

~~ Merriam-webster.com

"you can't blame someone for something', that doesn't imply I say you got a brain tumor.
When people start to pull out dictionaries to argue about a games exact wording, you know that we all need to take a step back and look at ourselves. I'm not saying this to anyone in particular but to everyone, this is kinda ridiculous.
First off, dnd is a game big on character choice. Its important to consider the players first, and why they want to do something. I've seen chaotic evil devotion paladins of gods whose portfolios centered on peace and life. Let me tell you something, it worked.

I'm not saying anyone here is right Or wrong, everyone has made amazing points. But here's the thing, this has devolved into the "hard or fast" rules argument. And I just want to say, not everything thrown around has been too civil.

So heres what I think needs to be said to the guy who asked the question to begin with:

Talk to the player. If he's got an idea for why his druid sorcerer should where metal, go ahead and let him. Remember, every rule in dnd is more of a suggestion than a rule. The wizards have us the game system, but tweeking it to for your table is part of the fun, and part of the dms job. You said you normally believe in fun first and all that, stick with that, that's the sign of a good dm. Following all rules like they're poured from concrete will make the game feel static and artificial, your players will start to have less fun. I've seen it happen. The title of this chat is hard by the book ruling, that's not actually what you need.

Sit down with the party. Ask everyone else if they don't mind. If they dont, let him. Its all about fun. The moment you get hung up on wordings or opinions or nitty gritty picky issues that everyone has a thousand opinions on, issues where no one can give you the right answer because there isn't one, that's when the game stops being fun.

Just talk to your players. Remember that this may be your world, but they live in it and it's their story, and try your best to make sure they are having fun, and you will too. Only your and their opinions matter here, good communication solves your issue right there, just ask them.

BurgerBeast

2019-05-26, 01:02 PM

Sorry, but I disagree.
Solving something that isn't a problem solves nothing.

It’s an infrequent problem. Infrequent in the sense that it comes up under one condition: Druids wearing metal armor. So it is a problem. Hence this thread.

You can't put a hypothetical senario that already will cause problems* for the wizard, the monk and the rogue (as there are no light metal armors**), ... and then turn around and argue that and try to argue that the lack of specification of what happens to the druid if he does it - creates some sort of "waste of the narrative potential". I'm not seeing anything narrative potential wise, only DM-tries-to-be-a-****.

*: or ... do they have to don armor and then not fight? this thing gets more hypothetical by the minute.

** I hear you ask "what about mythril?" mythril doesn't make the armor light, and even if it did, the druid can still wear dragonscale. But for some "odd" reason, mythirl would be fine but dragonscale wouldn't?

I really don’t know what you’re on about, here. You seem to misunderstand my point, entirely. It might also be the case that you think I’m arguing the opposite of what I’m arguing, based on your footnotes

Segev

2019-05-26, 01:16 PM

I shall take that into account the next time the DM fudges the dice.

(only to note how your black-and-white view on rules make no sense in the context of D&D)How so? I don't see anything in your post to back up your assertion. Breaking the rules is cheating.

ARe you trying to claim that the DM fudging dice proves that this makes no sense in D&D? I find that unpersuasive. DMs have near absolute power over the game world and what is permitted. Their limit in power is primarily over the specific choices of PCs, dictated by players. They can and should say, "You try, but it doesn't work," to things that the PC literally can't do (e.g. a level 1 fighter declaring he grows to gargantuan size and teleports on top of a dragon to crush it beneath his foot, none of which are things the fighter has mechanics to support him doing). It does not extend to things the PC absolutely has the capacity to do.

"No, your rogue doesn't try to escape; the boss has her by the upper arm, and she just wouldn't try to escape so awesome a bad guy."
"Your rogue tries to pick the bartender's pocket." "What? No she doesn't!" "Yes, she does; she's a rogue, and rogues rob people."
"Your paladin does not refuse to turn over the innocent orphans to the lawfully-appointed orphan torturer and executioner. He would never break the law." "WHat? Yes he would, even if he would fall for it!" "Nope, he wouldn't."

This is the level to which, "Your druid won't put on that armor; it's made of metal," sinks. It's not refusing an impossibility. It's interfering with player-character volition.

You're up for a though sell to argue RAW beats narration/story flow/... That Cheating is Cheating. that

Violating a rule is cheating. Cheating is prevented by other players and/or the DM saying “you can’t do that.”

"you can’t do that.?"
the DM very much can do that.
And even if we're being syntactic about the meaning of can - is allowed to do that.
And, while I'm to laisy to look it up in the DMG, probbably is encouraged to do so (if the situation calls for it).

In D&D, it's simply not true that "Cheating is cheating". Only in theorycrafting.

It is true that cheating is cheating in D&D, at the table. A player who consistently claims to roll natural 20s and maximum damage while either hiding his dice or blatantly lying about their results is, in fact, cheating, and the other players aren't likely to let him get away with it.

DMs do have leeway in this, as they're the referee, and their job is more to ensure fun than strict adherence to the rules. So they can PERMIT some cheating, especially with the other players' agreement. Fudging rolls is often a way they do this surreptitiously, and whether this is kosher or not depends strongly on the table's social contract and is another dozen threads' worth of discussion, not on topic for here.

If it is an actual rule that druid players may not ever declare their druid to wear metal armor, then it is cheating if they do so, and it's "okay" for the DM to say, "No, you don't." Which makes this a unique situation where the DM dictating PC action - absent mechanical compulsions from spells or the like - is "okay." Which raises the question: why not just have DMs refuse to allow Paladins to take actions that would make them fall? Or dictate that the party makes the choices required to keep the plot on the rails?

ProsecutorGodot

2019-05-26, 03:02 PM

If it is an actual rule that druid players may not ever declare their druid to wear metal armor, then it is cheating if they do so, and it's "okay" for the DM to say, "No, you don't." Which makes this a unique situation where the DM dictating PC action - absent mechanical compulsions from spells or the like - is "okay." Which raises the question: why not just have DMs refuse to allow Paladins to take actions that would make them fall? Or dictate that the party makes the choices required to keep the plot on the rails?

That's kind of why I'm on the boat of "roleplay rules are suggestions." Very deliberate and important suggestions, but suggestions nonetheless.

If we take even the most straighforward "roleplay rule" as true beyond a shadow of a doubt, Devotion Paladins can cross out Intimidation and Deception from their character sheet. Being dishonest, lying and threatening the weak (no reason that wouldn't extend to those weaker than you) are strictly against their tenets.

Can an Oath of Crown Paladin break the law? "The Law is Paramount and it must be respected" is pretty straighforward to me. Your Oath of Crown Paladin wouldn't do that because breaking the law would mean he wasn't this type of Paladin to begin with.

And then Oath of Ancients Paladin "Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art." You wouldn't be a proper Ancients Paladin if you didn't enjoy Songs and Art.

That's why I just don't buy the argument "Druid's won't wear metal armor because they won't, if you do you aren't a Druid."

qube

2019-05-26, 04:14 PM

How so? I don't see anything in your post to back up your assertion. Breaking the rules is cheating.fudging the dice is quite litterly violating the rules. if you roll a 5 on your d20, you're not supposed to take 15. This invalidates your basic premise of

Violating a rule is cheating. Cheating is prevented by other players and/or the DM saying “you can’t do that.”

DMS can, are allowed to, and possible, are encouraged to do so in certain situations.

In DnD, there are the rules. And then, there's the DM who decides when & where & if those rules apply. This is not cheating. This is by deisgn.

That is why it is not nonsensical to acknowledge that not all rules are equal.

------------
Oh, and both saying "cheating is cheating" and "they can PERMIT some cheating, ", is extremely confusing, because if it's permitted, then cheating is not cheating anymore.

==================
And BTW, how all of this is differnt from a DM who doesn't allow evil at his table, having to say "no, you don't stab the helpless orphans", is beyond me.

intregus

2019-05-26, 10:09 PM

I can't believe people are still arguing about this. That's very interesting.

I'm in the, druids don't have to abstain from metal, camp.

This is role playing, what makes a druid a druid? Can't I as a player role play a druid that doesn't actually have any levels in the druid class? Of course I can.

The point is all players have 2 obligations in d&d.
1. Have fun with everyone at the table.
2. Immerse yourself in whatever world you as a player are in.

Can druids wear metal, can paladin break oaths, do clerics need a diety and must all barbarians be from uncivilized or unurban areas are all a part of world immersion and become DM questions.

The druids don't wear metal schtic is a sacred cow. Nothing about, being just fine with using curved METAL swords but not ok with wearing it because it's unnatural makes no sense.

Slaughter the golden cow and come join me in playing druids who can wear chainmail!

We've gotten away from paladins must be lawful and other sacred cows. This one should go too.

Constructman

2019-05-26, 10:12 PM

Naanomi

2019-05-26, 10:33 PM

No answer... guess I'm just gonna bite the bullet and make my next Druid a Tortle. No need for metal armour when there's no need for armour at all lol.
Loxodon works as well

Theodoxus

2019-05-26, 11:33 PM

I shall take that into account the next time the DM fudges the dice.

(only to note how your black-and-white view on rules make no sense in the context of D&D)

Considering Gygax was quite open with the fact that he felt, for a DM, dice was a distraction, and he rolled them because they sound neat, but narrated what happened, because he was the game MASTER, not Dice Adjudicator.

I mean, it's certainly not BadWrongFun to always follow the dictates of the die roll - but I don't play that way, because I prefer drama over dice adjudication. YMOV.

ETA: I think what bugs me most about the whole "will not wear armor... made of metal" thing (beyond the missing comma after shield, implying that they won't wear any armor. And they won't use shields made of metal) - is the fact that there's no justification or explanation in the 5E universe for it. It's a random bit of fluff with nothing tying it to a 'why' description.

Apart from lacking a mechanical drawback, which is just dumb - every DM has to also create a reason why their druids don't wear metal. And it'll be a different answer for every DM - and there's no consistency. Sure, it's a small thing, but it just rubs me the wrong way. Either one harkens back to older editions to suss out an answer, or reaches into real history/mythology for an explanation... it's so annoying.

Sigreid

2019-05-26, 11:45 PM

Considering Gygax was quite open with the fact that he felt, for a DM, dice was a distraction, and he rolled them because they sound neat, but narrated what happened, because he was the game MASTER, not Dice Adjudicator.

I mean, it's certainly not BadWrongFun to always follow the dictates of the die roll - but I don't play that way, because I prefer drama over dice adjudication. YMOV.

ETA: I think what bugs me most about the whole "will not wear armor... made of metal" thing (beyond the missing comma after shield, implying that they won't wear any armor. And they won't use shields made of metal) - is the fact that there's no justification or explanation in the 5E universe for it. It's a random bit of fluff with nothing tying it to a 'why' description.

Apart from lacking a mechanical drawback, which is just dumb - every DM has to also create a reason why their druids don't wear metal. And it'll be a different answer for every DM - and there's no consistency. Sure, it's a small thing, but it just rubs me the wrong way. Either one harkens back to older editions to suss out an answer, or reaches into real history/mythology for an explanation... it's so annoying.

Meaning no offense, but I'm glad I'm not at your table. D&D to me first and foremost is a game. And that, to me requires an element of chance and an element of strategy. I'd not appreciate a DM who just decided what happened.

Still, I can't believe this debate is still going. But it seems the pro metal armor faction seems to be arguing that a DM more or less has to allow it if the player wants. That's also a weird argument to me.

Corran

2019-05-27, 12:41 AM

Telok

2019-05-27, 01:12 AM

Great. Now I want to play a teenaged emo druid in full rebellion mode who wears metal armor to annoy his parents.

Theodoxus

2019-05-27, 06:44 AM

As long as I didn't know or suspect it, I wouldn't mind that as a player. But if I knew it, why would I want to play? You could just narrate to me how the story ends. With no possibility to fail or to affect the outcome (change the script), the characters are just extras and the players are just an audience.

Well, for me anyway, it's not 100% of the time (or even probably 10%). Though I did go back to 4E style defenses to allow for every attack to be rolled, rather than saved against - it allows the players to know they hit or not - and allows me to 'fudge' on ending save effects. Sometimes you want those status or bleed effects to linger a little longer than that 11 on the die would otherwise negate...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq6zdf2iQJs explains my take on it pretty well (starting at 5:29)

Tanarii

2019-05-27, 09:12 AM

There's a group of people that don't see anything wrong with a hard limitation roleplaying rule in games (a 'what'), since the player chooses the class in the first place for their PC, and it's up to the player to decide 'why' for their particular PC.

There's a group of people that see everything wrong with any hard limit roleplaying rule that completely prevents free choice by the players for determine 'whats'. They usually find the entire concept offensive. They usually believe in 'mechanics' vs 'fluff'. They almost never have a problem with 'what' roleplaying rules that instead give a mechanical consequence for not doing the thing. They sometimes have problems with roleplaying rules with in-universe consequences, and tend to dismiss those as 'not real' rules, merely 'fluff' that players and DMs can easily ignore.

I'm not surprised at all this is still going. :smallamused:

There are of course players that want a mechanical advantage and DMs adverse to that. But IMX since that's not a philosophical debate, it doesn't tend to go on so long.

Segev

2019-05-27, 11:26 AM

But it seems the pro metal armor faction seems to be arguing that a DM more or less has to allow it if the player wants. That's also a weird argument to me.Not at all! DMs can allow or disallow whatever they want. They’d should have consequences for the choices players have their characters make rather than just dictating the choices they can and cannot make, but DMs absolutely can make whatever drawbacks or explanations they desire to keep druids out of metal armor.

It’s just that the text in the PHB lacks that drawback. It doesn’t actually prevent a Druid from putting on metal armor nor give consequences for doing so. At most, it implies a stigma that other druids would impose. Like a Mormon showing up drunk to church activities.

There are of course players that want a mechanical advantage and DMs adverse to that. But IMX since that's not a philosophical debate, it doesn't tend to go on so long.

Well, the lack of mechanical advantage to metal armor is a part of it; you can get nonmetal equivalents. And they’re actually mechanically superior, since they lack the vulnerabilities to heat metal and rust monsters and “magnetic traps” that metal armor would have.