Land Druid and it's AC problems

[Addaran]

The AL isn't some homebrew setting, it's based in the FR and in the FR, Druids don't wear metal armor.

Mielikki druids do wear metal armor. =P

Generally, druids of Mielikki took on the abilities of rangers and unlike other druids, who were not allowed to wear metal armor, could use all kinds of armor usable by rangers.


But overall, you did say you'd be open to discussion with your players about his concept, so i'm fine with your way of DMing.

[Naanomi]

Mielikki druids do wear metal armor. =P

Generally, druids of Mielikki took on the abilities of rangers and unlike other druids, who were not allowed to wear metal armor, could use all kinds of armor usable by rangers.

I'm frequently told around here that the fluff of 2-3 editions ago doesn't transfer to the mechanics of this edition... does SCAG mention this somewhere? In any case, I wouldn't consider one setting specific counter example sufficient to justify a blanket lifting on a ban; anymore than a human battlerager in a novel would immediately incline me to allow human battlerager character (even though I fully understand it is a fluff and not mechanical balance issue)

[DivisibleByZero]

Mielikki druids do wear metal armor. =P

Generally, druids of Mielikki took on the abilities of rangers and unlike other druids, who were not allowed to wear metal armor, could use all kinds of armor usable by rangers..

...which meant that a traditional 3e Druid of Mielikki could wear a chain shirt. Because Rangers only got light armor, and the only metal one on that list is a chain shirt.

[Hrugner]

Clearly the best option is to have the a party member trick the druid into thinking the metal breastplate is actually made of dragon scales.

That's what I've been saying. A good lie, or a decently powerful illusion would both do the trick.

[Tetrasodium]

I will give you a natural form of scale mail.

Why not?

Its not OP, its the same AC as in the end as chainmail. 14+2=16 good enough call it a day.

It also has the same AC & dex cap as a breastplate but punishes the druid by adding disadvantage to stealth

Perhaps it only lasts for a week and then you have to re-gather supplies. It can only take so much damage before it degrades.

there is no armor in the game that works this way. Be honest, your suggestions are all about how to punish the druid.

Be creative and think out of the box.

Yea by speaking out loudly against the cartmanesque punish the druid advice like this nonsense.

Base it off you survival skill, you roll a certain number you can make tortoise shell armor

Again, no other class needs a particularly good roll on a given skill that they may or may not be proficient with in order to obtain base rmors they have proficiency in.... so we go back to punish the druid.

Fair enough. I bigger problems, my team-mates thought it was a good idea for my fighter with winged boots to try and capture a dragon turtle with a mirror of life-stealing. IT DID NOT WORK AT ALL. WHY THEY CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA I WILL NEVER KNOW. AND WHY I SAID YES? IT COST 75HP, INITIALLY, broken mirror and everything came out into the ocean.

Not every party has a a fighter or someone else even capable of saying "I have medium armor proficiency" without also adding something like "but my plus 6 dex mod means it would hurt me bad, so I'm not interested in it" expecting a druid with a thematically appropriate reason for trivially justifying its use like the kobold/underdark (half?)orc/dwarf/etc ones already mentioned to say "oh no I will not wear it because... um just because... it doesn't actually say why, let me fight with the rogue(s) & caster type light armor squishies for light armor instead" if a bit of magical medium armor drops. Even in parties with fighter types that have medium armor proficiency, there very well be no desire for it there on account of having equal or better heavy armor already. Another possibility is that those fighter types might be feeling that having the druid being more confident about charging forward with them immediately & casting spells up closer is in the best interests of those fighter types for whatever reason.

The metal armor & using the other 4 medium armor options above hide isn't always about taking the spotlight from the fighters, the bizarre "punish the druid" mentality that so often rises to greet it is little more than an obscene attempt to punish druids over memories of them being "too good" in 3.5. Don't act like you are being magnanimous & doing them a favor while thinking up ways to punish them for that.

[Astofel]

I'm not sure why you're so dead set on your druid wearing metal armour, it sounds like you're just upset because your DM told you 'no, that's against the rules' once. And there's nothing 'cartmanesque' about that, no more than there would be if they told you your barbarian/wizard can't cast his spell while raging, or if he told you your lizardfolk monk has to pick between his natural armour or his unarmoured defense class feature. Because those are rules. It's the DM's job to enforce those rules, and while they're allowed to change them as they see fit, they are doing nothing wrong by following them as written.

And I fail to see how anyone is 'punishing the druid'. The way I see things, the DM is being generous by allowing the druid to find a way to circumvent the rules. Of course the nonmetal armour they find would have some kind of drawback, if it were easy to make and wear everyone would do it. And as I said earlier, all this is for a few points of AC the land druid doesn't even need. They shouldn't be on the front lines, the only 'benefit' they'll give the party there is to draw fire away from the dedicated melee fighters, and thus go down quicker and deprive the team of support. They spellcast just as well, if not better, 30 feet away from the enemy as they do right next to it.

[Tetrasodium]

I'm not sure why you're so dead set on your druid wearing metal armour, it sounds like you're just upset because your DM told you 'no, that's against the rules' once. And there's nothing 'cartmanesque' about that, no more than there would be if they told you your barbarian/wizard can't cast his spell while raging, or if he told you your lizardfolk monk has to pick between his natural armour or his unarmoured defense class feature. Because those are rules. It's the DM's job to enforce those rules, and while they're allowed to change them as they see fit, they are doing nothing wrong by following them as written.

Actually he said "yea the metal armor thing is a stupid holdover & I'm always surprised when a druid asks & don't care"... I tend to say similar when I gm other folks.... But I have seen enthusiastic newbie players driven away from RPGs with crushed enthusiasm by the style of gm so many here are devils advocating in support of & there's no reason for it.

And I fail to see how anyone is 'punishing the druid'. The way I see things, the DM is being generous by allowing the druid to find a way to circumvent the rules. Of course the nonmetal armour they find would have some kind of drawback, if it were easy to make and wear everyone would do it. And as I said earlier, all this is for a few points of AC the land druid doesn't even need. They shouldn't be on the front lines, the only 'benefit' they'll give the party there is to draw fire away from the dedicated melee fighters, and thus go down quicker and deprive the team of support. They spellcast just as well, if not better, 30 feet away from the enemy as they do right next to it.

People were seriously suggesting ridiculous nonsense like how a druid should multiclass into cleric to pickup the medium armor proficiency they already had if they wanted to wear any of the other 4/5 medium armor options. At that point any arguments made about how wizard/sorc/etc only have such & such AC with mage armor/light armor are rendered irrelivant by virtue of the fact that they could do the same & not need to worry about arcane spell failure while wearing full plate heavy armor.... sure it's ridiculous to suggest a wizard/sorc/etc multiclass cleric or fighter just to pickup armor proficiencies they don't have, but if people are suggesting a druid do it to pickup armor proficiency that they already had since character creation it most certainly is more than reasonable.

[Chaosmancer]

I'll admit, any point where someone says that the DM can tell the player what they can and can't do because of their characters beliefs feels wrong to me.

The phrase "invalid character choice" or the idea that someone else can tell you what your character would do just seems wrong.

Example:

"As a paladin of devotion you need to donate that 200 gold tp charity"

"What? Why we need that gold for- (reason)."

"Your oath says compassion, you aid others, so you need to donate that money. Its what your character would do and its RAW so you have to or you'll suffer consequences"


And i think that sort of head scratching thought proccess is what leads to this being an issue. We know what RAW says, but RAW telling us what decisions we make is crappy and we've been removing those sort of rules for the last two editions. Because you decide what your character does, not the DM.

In addition, the alternative materials argument is also a houserule. I have never seen listed in the phb or dmg things like ironwood armor or ankheg armor. You have to make them up.

Making it worse? Let us assume for a moment that the designers intended this you can only wear light armor and hide armor. Anybody check the stats recently?

Studded Leather 12+dex mod
Hide 12+dex mod (max 2)

So... Hide is objectively worse than studded leather. So, just going off what i can find by RAW in the core books, the only medium armor druids could gain access to is Dragon Scale Mail. That is the only non-metal medium armor in the game by RAW that is better than Studded leather.

It seems then very wierd to have a proficiency you can only use with access to a specific very rare magic item, which is an optional rule anyways.

Sure, the rule says they won't, the player chose to be a druid, but it seems weird to have a rule that negates your proficiency, when it'd be easier to just give them light armor (and who cares about shields, no one has ever specified wooden over metal shields in my games) and then just have dragon scale say it is usable by druids.

[War_lord]

Actually he said "yea the metal armor thing is a stupid holdover & I'm always surprised when a druid asks & don't care"... I tend to say similar when I gm other folks.... But I have seen enthusiastic newbie players driven away from RPGs with crushed enthusiasm by the style of gm so many here are devils advocating in support of & there's no reason for it.

If a new player is driven away from the hobby by something as trivial as "the rules being followed", that's on them. As a DM I'd rather not have a bunch of players running around who are accustomed to the rules being constantly bent just to suit them, and will quit if they don't get their way. The DM is not a babysitter, they're under no obligation to let you have your own way if they don't think it's appropriate.

People were seriously suggesting ridiculous nonsense like how a druid should multiclass into cleric to pickup the medium armor proficiency they already had if they wanted to wear any of the other 4/5 medium armor options. At that point any arguments made about how wizard/sorc/etc only have such & such AC with mage armor/light armor are rendered irrelivant by virtue of the fact that they could do the same & not need to worry about arcane spell failure while wearing full plate heavy armor.... sure it's ridiculous to suggest a wizard/sorc/etc multiclass cleric or fighter just to pickup armor proficiencies they don't have, but if people are suggesting a druid do it to pickup armor proficiency that they already had since character creation it most certainly is more than reasonable.

Yes, that is dumb, because the text explicitly says that Druids will not wear Metal Armour, that's a definitive statement, not a vague taboo that they mostly follow but could totally ignore. You have no wiggle room unless you want to Homebrew.

I'll admit, any point where someone says that the DM can tell the player what they can and can't do because of their characters beliefs feels wrong to me.

It's not the DM telling you that you will not wear metal armour, it's the rules. What's next, the DM is a big meany because he won't let your level 1 Wizard wear plate mail?

The phrase "invalid character choice" or the idea that someone else can tell you what your character would do just seems wrong.

Building a Dwarf Rogue centering around grappling is an atypical build and character choice, that's totally legitimate, because it works within the rules. If you make a character that can do stuff that the rules say they can't, that is wrong, because you're outside the rules and homebrewing, and the DM has final say over any Homebrew.

Example: *snip*

Emm no, that's a terrible example, because that's the DM literally taking control of a character. This is just you not liking part of the rules, and demanding that every DM ignore that rule in a way that benefits you.

And i think that sort of head scratching thought proccess is what leads to this being an issue. We know what RAW says, but RAW telling us what decisions we make is crappy and we've been removing those sort of rules for the last two editions. Because you decide what your character does, not the DM.

Nope, you decide what your character does, that's all. Your DM decides what the outcome is, and that includes telling you when something you want to do either fails or is impossible. You choose to try to jump a chasm, the DM decides what the outcome of the action is. This is D&D 101 people. Setting the rules is between the DM and the rulebooks, the player has no business in that space.

[tkuremento]

I'll admit, any point where someone says that the DM can tell the player what they can and can't do because of their characters beliefs feels wrong to me.

The phrase "invalid character choice" or the idea that someone else can tell you what your character would do just seems wrong.

Example:

"As a paladin of devotion you need to donate that 200 gold tp charity"

"What? Why we need that gold for- (reason)."

"Your oath says compassion, you aid others, so you need to donate that money. Its what your character would do and its RAW so you have to or you'll suffer consequences"


And i think that sort of head scratching thought proccess is what leads to this being an issue. We know what RAW says, but RAW telling us what decisions we make is crappy and we've been removing those sort of rules for the last two editions. Because you decide what your character does, not the DM.

In addition, the alternative materials argument is also a houserule. I have never seen listed in the phb or dmg things like ironwood armor or ankheg armor. You have to make them up.

Making it worse? Let us assume for a moment that the designers intended this you can only wear light armor and hide armor. Anybody check the stats recently?

Studded Leather 12+dex mod
Hide 12+dex mod (max 2)

So... Hide is objectively worse than studded leather. So, just going off what i can find by RAW in the core books, the only medium armor druids could gain access to is Dragon Scale Mail. That is the only non-metal medium armor in the game by RAW that is better than Studded leather.

It seems then very wierd to have a proficiency you can only use with access to a specific very rare magic item, which is an optional rule anyways.

Sure, the rule says they won't, the player chose to be a druid, but it seems weird to have a rule that negates your proficiency, when it'd be easier to just give them light armor (and who cares about shields, no one has ever specified wooden over metal shields in my games) and then just have dragon scale say it is usable by druids.

In a game setting with low gold, hide is 10gp whilst studded is 45gp. In a game setting with emphasis on encumbrance, hide is 12lbs and studded is 13lbs. Sure this likely won't matter too much, but still some minor differences. And yes I know hide only gets +2 from dex at max, that is one thing against it and as a class likely to put something into dex, yea, sucks. At least it isn't like Halberd vs Glaive which have NO differences statistically speaking, both even work with PAM. Of course both are martial and to be an equivalent argument one would probably have to be simple.

Regardless, there ARE options for a land druid, even if they aren't considered the most optimal. Personally I quite like Lizardfolk Druid. Of course Volo's might not always be allowed or Lizardfolk might not make sense to the setting.

If a new player is driven away from the hobby by something as trivial as "the rules being followed", that's on them. As a DM I'd rather not have a bunch of players running around who are accustomed to the rules being constantly bent just to suit them, and will quit if they don't get their way. The DM is not a babysitter, they're under no obligation to let you have your own way if they don't think it's appropriate.

This. This times an unfathomable amount.

[Tetrasodium]

If a new player is driven away from the hobby by something as trivial as "the rules being followed", that's on them. As a DM I'd rather not have a bunch of players running around who are accustomed to the rules being constantly bent just to suit them, and will quit if they don't get their way. The DM is not a babysitter, they're under no obligation to let you have your own way if they don't think it's appropriate.

Don't be obtuse. It's even more common because the module gave options A & B as a way to accomplish something, but because the creative & unexpected but entirely plausible C was shut down on account of the module not accounting for things like putting out the fire quickly in the burning church with ice storm & such rather than forming a bucket brigade to the undead infested graveyard one too many times until a realization like "Yea I wanted to like it, but I really got tired of feeling like an unnamed extra listed as man #3 in someone else's story instead of being one of the main characters".

[War_lord]

Don't be obtuse. It's even more common because the module gave options A & B as a way to accomplish something, but because the creative & unexpected but entirely plausible C was shut down on account of the module not accounting for things like putting out the fire quickly in the burning church with ice storm & such rather than forming a bucket brigade

Using Ice Storm to put out a fire isn't actually plausible, because Ice Storm doesn't create water, magical cold isn't actually ice, it's a form of energy. Your hypothetical DM would tell you the same thing, not because they're trying to sabotage you, but because your "solution" doesn't actually solve the problem.

to the undead infested graveyard one too many times until a realization like "Yea I wanted to like it, but I really got tired of feeling like an unnamed extra listed as man #3 in someone else's story where I was expected to follow an invisible set of rails & never deviate even slightly in methods/routeused to accomplish a goal" set in.

Except that's not what's happening in your example. What's happening in your example is that you've came up with a solution that sounds great in your head, but doesn't actually work in practice. And instead of accepting that your understanding was flawed, you're attacking the Referee. You seem to have a real problem with hearing the word "no". The DM is not a behavioral psychologist.

[Tetrasodium]

Using Ice Storm to put out a fire isn't actually plausible, because Ice Storm doesn't create water, magical cold isn't actually ice, it's a form of energy. Your hypothetical DM would tell you the same thing, not because they're trying to sabotage you, but because your "solution" doesn't actually solve the problem.



Except that's not what's happening in your example. What's happening in your example is that you've came up with a solution that sounds great in your head, but doesn't actually work in practice. And instead of accepting that your understanding was flawed, you're attacking the Referee. You seem to have a real problem with hearing the word "no". The DM is not a behavioral psychologist.

Yes they would need to use a conjuration/maybe transmutation spell for it to create actual water instead of an evocation spell. But my point is even more clear with your pedantic "I SHALL GM RAW" style dismissal, an excited newbie tries doing something that seems logical & instead of the gm saying something like "well you cast the spell & it helps a little (and newguy I''ll talk to you about the differences betweenevocation vrs conjuration & such later), maybe even enough that the main village well will be enough for the villagers to save it, but the undead from the graveyard are starting to react to all the commotion & you need to get your but in gear guys or the local bucket brigade is going to get eaten". You instead said "That won't/didn't work, sorry newguy ice storm is magical cold rather than anything water based, quit being creative new guy". I'm aware of the differences between evocation & conjuration; but chose ice storm explicitly because someone made the same mistake here while rattling off useful things you could probably do with it over fireball where it spawned a rather interesting discussion not unlike the metal armor one without all the devils advocates pedantically howling "they won't" or any of the ridiculous "I'd allow it but [punish them]".

[War_lord]

Yes they would need to use a conjuration/maybe transmutation spell for it to create actual water instead of an evocation spell.

Okay, so you admit that your "solution" wouldn't actually work?

But my point is even more clear with your pedantic "I SHALL GM RAW" style dismissal, an excited newbie tries doing something that seems logical & instead of the gm saying something like "well you cast the spell & it helps a little (and newguy I''ll talk to you about the differences betweenevocation vrs conjuration & such later), maybe even enough that the main village well will be enough for the villagers to save it, but the undead from the graveyard are starting to react to all the commotion & you need to get your but in gear guys or the local bucket brigade is going to get eaten". You instead said "That won't/didn't work, sorry newguy ice storm is magical cold rather than anything water based, quit being creative new guy".

What would be wrong would be to allow the player to burn a 4th level spell slot, then turn around and explain why it didn't work. But I wouldn't do that, I'd explain to the new player that Ice Storm is magical energy rather then physical ice, and that there are other spells that do actually control the elements. Creative thinking in D&D is a great thing, but it's not creative thinking if the "solution" isn't actually a solution. And I'm not going to have it work for no reason just this once as a participation award. That sort of "oh well, you tried your best, have an award anyway" is how you treat pre-teens, I'd expect the grown-up players at my grown-up table to have enough emotional maturity not to need constant positive reinforcement just to keep them participating. If they can't handle a spell not doing something it's not meant to do without a tantrum, how are they going to react to the possibility of their character dying?

I'm aware of the differences between evocation & conjuration; but chose ice storm explicitly because someone made the same mistake here while rattling off useful things you could probably do with it over fireball where it spawned a rather interesting discussion not unlike the metal armor one without all the devils advocates pedantically howling "they won't" or any of the ridiculous "I'd allow it but [punish them]".

Following the rules isn't pedantic. If you want to DM and take D&D's rules and play super fast and loose with them to the point it no longer really resembles D&D, I support that 100%, you run your table however you like. The bone I have to pick here, is that you're trying to say that that's how the game should be played, and that any DM that tries to enforce the rules is not only doing it wrong but is actually a malicious actor who is actively trying to make life difficult for his players. That's quite frankly insulting to the entire community.

[tkuremento]

Following the rules isn't pedantic. If you want to DM and take D&D's rules and play super fast and loose with them to the point it no longer really resembles D&D, I support that 100%, you run your table however you like. The bone I have to pick here, is that you're trying to say that that's how the game should be played, and that any DM that tries to enforce the rules is not only doing it wrong but is actually a malicious actor who is actively trying to make life difficult for his players. That's quite frankly insulting to the entire community.

+1
This
I don't even see why all of this is still a problem at this point. Rules are rules are rules are rules. If you don't want rules, don't play with rules. Do your own RPG with freeform everything, no need for dice even! If you want D&D though, you will probably want to adhere to the rules set within D&D, just like you'd adhere to Shadowrun's rules for Shadowrun and Pathfinder's Rules for Pathfinder. There might be table variance, but when answering questions you can't just assume on that and have to go with the rules, which are the rules, which are the rules.

[War_lord]

I think there's a lot of space for Homebrew and loose rules within D&D if the Table likes that. But if you're at the extreme point where you're saying that the players decide what happens and the DM just describes it, you're not playing anything that could be recognized as D&D anymore, you're playing a gritty version of Monte Cooke games' No Thank You, Evil!.

[Tetrasodium]

What would be wrong would be to allow the player to burn a 4th level spell slot, then turn around and explain why it didn't work. But I wouldn't do that, I'd explain to the new player that Ice Storm is magical energy rather then physical ice, and that there are other spells that do actually control the elements. Creative thinking in D&D is a great thing, but it's not creative thinking if the "solution" isn't actually a solution. And I'm not going to have it work for no reason just this once as a participation award. That sort of "oh well, you tried your best, have an award anyway" is how you treat pre-teens, I'd expect the grown-up players at my grown-up table to have enough emotional maturity not to need constant positive reinforcement just to keep them participating. If they can't handle a spell not doing something it's not meant to do without a tantrum, how are they going to react to the possibility of their character dying?

Read my example closer. it worked almost exactly like the newbie wanted it to, they kept the townspeople from needing to form a bucket brigade into the zombie infested graveyard to save the church because it's a 4th level slot & everyone at the table cheered on their cool idea letting them ride the wave if awesome even though the group still needs to deal with the zombies that are still going to be a potential risk to the villagers fighting the fire. Some unstated number of villagers will probably still wind up injured or dead, & the group will still need to head off to the graveyard and deal with the reason it's full of zombies.... but all of that will happen while the players walk through feeling like their hands are able to firmly on the reins used to drive the story as any group of main characters should be able to because this time the villagers saved the church without the graveyard well thanks to NewGuy's quick thinking to slow the blaze enough for the village well to do the trick.

[War_lord]

Read my example closer. it worked almost exactly like the newbie wanted it to, they kept the townspeople from needing to form a bucket brigade into the zombie infested graveyard to save the church because it's a 4th level slot & everyone at the table cheered on their cool idea letting them ride the wave if awesome even though the group still needs to deal with the zombies that are still going to be a potential risk to the villagers fighting the fire. Some unstated number of villagers will probably still wind up injured or dead, & the group will still need to head off to the graveyard and deal with the reason it's full of zombies.... but all of that will happen while the players walk through feeling like their hands are able to firmly on the reins used to drive the story as any group of main characters should be able to because this time the villagers saved the church without the graveyard well thanks to NewGuy's quick thinking to slow the blaze enough for the village well to do the trick.

But it didn't slow the blaze. Best case scenario, the bludgeoning damage from the Ice Storm collapsed the building before the fire could spread into the town proper. You're still demanding that I treat my players like they're kids, handing them a meaningless "victory" that has no effect on the story (you're still suggesting I push them into the imaginary graveyard) so that they can feel awesome without actually doing anything. I have more respect for my players then to try and pull that kind of stunt on them. When my players actually do something to solve a problem in a way I didn't expect, I'll reward them, even to the point of skipping areas, but I'm not going to manufacture solutions that shouldn't work to hand them a cheap victory.

If you hand the party cheap victory after cheap victory, eventually victory loses all meaning.

[Citan]

Using Ice Storm to put out a fire isn't actually plausible, because Ice Storm doesn't create water, magical cold isn't actually ice, it's a form of energy. Your hypothetical DM would tell you the same thing, not because they're trying to sabotage you, but because your "solution" doesn't actually solve the problem.

Quoted from PHB: "A hail of rock-hard ice pounds to the ground".
Ice is solidified water. Ice changes state to liquid when heated.

Totally fair, totally RAW (if you don't care about destroying the things burning: big blocks of falling ice do have enough impact to damage/break things after all ^^).

[War_lord]

Quoted from PHB: "A hail of rock-hard ice pounds to the ground".
Ice is solidified water. Ice changes state to liquid when heated.

Totally fair, totally RAW (if you don't care about destroying the things burning: big blocks of falling ice do have enough impact to damage/break things after all ^^).

It has a duration of instantaneous, there's no water produced. Please stop trying to apply chemistry to magic.

Fireball explicitly lights flammable items that aren't worn or carried on fire. Freezing Sphere explicitly Freezes water. If Ice Storm was meant to quench fires, they'd have listed that.

[Citan]

It has a duration of instantaneous, there's no water produced.

Ah, true that, forgot about that.
So your reasoning is, I guess, because it's instantaneous you cannot consider it is "present" long enough to undergo any transformation?

Or that it's not true ice in the first place because it's an "evocation" spell and not a "conjuration" spell?

Interesting.
But it reveals a very different understanding between us of the magic works.
Imo, the "instantaneity" is not necessarily incompatible with any "persistence".
Ice Storm does transform the terrain after all.

So, you can consider that Ice Storm is just a magical thing that happen to have two different magical effects, which both vaguely resemble ice blocks... And instantaneity refers to, not only the ice block fall itself, but the "lifespan" of blocks themselves.
Or you can consider that Ice Storm actually creates ice, which creates icy surface when crashing on the ground, and "instantaneous" only refers to the speed at which ice blocks fall and implode on ground (and is used to prevent any crafty idea to otherwise exploit the falling ice).

Unless you can quote a line in the PHB that would "hardcode" something like "apart from conjuration, any effect is only a magical illusion and cannot mimick any natural phenomenom", both seem as viable to me. :)

[Sigreid]

I had a DM that let me use my silver dragonborn's breath weapon to try to put out a fire we accidentally started. It had a chance not because it's RAW or overly logical but because the group thought it was a cool thing to try.

[War_lord]

Ah, true that, forgot about that.
So your reasoning is, I guess, because it's instantaneous you cannot consider it is "present" long enough to undergo any transformation?

Or that it's not true ice in the first place because it's an "evocation" spell and not a "conjuration" spell?)

Thanks to the (free) Elemental Evil players companion, we have several spells that explicitly manipulate the elements. Creating a bonfire is Conjuration, Controlling flame is Transmutation. Shaping Water is also transmutation.

Control Weather from the PHB is also transmutation, and it can only be done in stages, and by a high level caster.

Interesting.
But it reveals a very different understanding between us of the magic works.
Imo, the "instantaneity" is not necessarily incompatible with any "persistence".
Ice Storm does transform the terrain after all.

But it doesn't, it's a magical effect that takes the physical form of hail, not actual hail.

So, you can consider that Ice Storm is just a magical thing that happen to have two different magical effects, which both vaguely resemble ice blocks... And instantaneity refers to, not only the ice block fall itself, but the "lifespan" of blocks themselves.

Exactly.

Or you can consider that Ice Storm actually creates ice, which creates icy surface when crashing on the ground, and "instantaneous" only refers to the speed at which ice blocks fall and implode on ground (and is used to prevent any crafty idea to otherwise exploit the falling ice).

Which it doesn't, we have spells in 5e that actually work by transmuting heat, moisture and wind into actual attacks, and they're not Evocations. Evocations are magical.

Unless you can quote a line in the PHB that would "hardcode" something like "apart from conjuration, any effect is only a magical illusion and cannot mimick any natural phenomenom", both seem as viable to me. :)

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downl...sCompanion.pdf

Read Watery Sphere for example, that actually creates water.

[Vaz]

How many snowflakes are in this thread?

1; I want my Druid to wear metal armour.
2; No, you cannot.
1; Why?
2; The rules say so.
1; where?
2; here... "druids will not wear armour"
1; so the homogenous druid will have it arbitrarily decided despite it not fitting backstory
2; sure, you can houserule it if you wish
1; but is it houseruling if you're being told what your character thinks and behaves? No other class has RP limitations built into their character features? Or even why in general are there RP limitations on mechanic bags? Why are you so insistent on olaying a Druid, rather than a character whose abilities are best represented by the Druid class? Is Gandalf a Paladin? Course he is, look at his abilities. Is he a wizard? God no. In setting yes, mechanics wise? Nope.
2; fine have it your way, but lets be honest you're NOT really playing D&D if you houserule, you might as well play Munchkin or some game that's not D&D because Druids MUST NOT WEAR Metal Armour, but can wear metal jewellery, use metal weaponry, use pickaxes and other spells to move earth to get to seams of ore which they can then manipulate into suits of armour as a blacksmith and literally bath in the gold they earn while adventuring but no, they cannot wear metal armour because I must follow the rules OBEY the master rulesmiths for they are all knowing and perfect.

didn't realise that gatekeeping was overflowing again.

[War_lord]

fine have it your way, but lets be honest you're NOT really playing D&D if you houserule, you might as well play Munchkin or some game that's not D&D because Druids MUST NOT WEAR Metal Armour, but can wear metal jewellery, use metal weaponry, use pickaxes and other spells to move earth to get to seams of ore which they can then manipulate into suits of armour as a blacksmith and literally bath in the gold they earn while adventuring but no, they cannot wear metal armour because I must follow the rules OBEY the master rulesmiths for they are all knowing and perfect.

Which isn't what I actually said, but screw nuance right?

[Naanomi]

No one is saying it isn't a perfectly valid houserule to allow metal armor; and it is arguable that this was a 'sacred cow' that should have been let go (I disagree, but it is a defensible position)...people are just upset at the implication that if you decide not to allow it (for whatever reason; take your pick of preferring to leave rules unmodified unless very compelling reasons present themselves, setting specific reasons, or just appeals to image/tradition) instantly implies you are an obviously incapable GM and no one should enjoy themselves at your table because of your clear 'power-tripping'

[Chaosmancer]

Building a Dwarf Rogue centering around grappling is an atypical build and character choice, that's totally legitimate, because it works within the rules. If you make a character that can do stuff that the rules say they can't, that is wrong, because you're outside the rules and homebrewing, and the DM has final say over any Homebrew.


Emm no, that's a terrible example, because that's the DM literally taking control of a character. This is just you not liking part of the rules, and demanding that every DM ignore that rule in a way that benefits you.


Nope, you decide what your character does, that's all. Your DM decides what the outcome is, and that includes telling you when something you want to do either fails or is impossible. You choose to try to jump a chasm, the DM decides what the outcome of the action is. This is D&D 101 people. Setting the rules is between the DM and the rulebooks, the player has no business in that space.

See, you say it is a terrible example, but earlier in the thread someone said that if their druid player said they would put on metal armor their response would be "no you don't, your character wouldn't do that"

That's fine because the rules say they won't make that decision, but the rules say Paladins have to help those less fortunate which includes giving gold to the poor.

Both are player decisions that the rules dictate, because of class. Is the difference that it is okay to tell players what they cannot do but not what they have to do?

That's what this argument boils down to. The difference between cannot and will not.

A druid will not wear metal armor
A human cannot breathe fire

One is a choice the other is a physical limitation.

Druids have no physical limitation on wearing metal, in fact we don't know what the limitation is, they can't use metal sheilds either after all, so it isn't about encasing themselves in metal, they've got no problem standing in a metal room, so it isn't the amount of metal. It seems entirely cultural, yet it is treated as an iron-clad rule the druid physically cannot break.

Following a rule like that, that is tied to the culture and fluff, that feels like something the player needs to have the majority of input on, just like the exact nature of a Paladin's oath or if a cleric worships a diety

[War_lord]

See, you say it is a terrible example, but earlier in the thread someone said that if their druid player said they would put on metal armor their response would be "no you don't, your character wouldn't do that"

Because the rule says that Druids will not wear metal armour. That's a definitive statement. Just like if you ask someone out on a date and they say that they will not go out with you. That's not strictly the same as "can not", but it's effectively the same outcome, unless compliance is induced through force. For example, I don't drink alcohol, if you offered me Beer, I'd turn it down. If you tricked me into drinking beer, I'd be very angry. If you forced me to drink beer, that would be a criminal act. Does that mean I cannot drink beer? No, but the outcome is the same.

That's fine because the rules say they won't make that decision, but the rules say Paladins have to help those less fortunate which includes giving gold to the poor.

It doesn't say that. Each Paladin oath has a code they must follow. None of them say "you must give Gold to the poor". The Devotion Tenet "Compassion" is the closest it gets, but even then "Aid others and protect the weak" can be achieved through non-monetary assistance. Unless you're actively refusing to feed starving orphans, you're probably not failing to protect the weak.

Both are player decisions that the rules dictate, because of class. Is the difference that it is okay to tell players what they cannot do but not what they have to do?

That's generally what rules are meant to do, yes. Give everyone a framework to operate within.

That's what this argument boils down to. The difference between cannot and will not.

No, the argument boils down to some people strongly disliking a certain rule, which is fine. Not wanting to enforce that rule in their game, which is fine. And then trying to pretend it's not actually in the rules, and that anyone who uses the rule is a bad DM, which is not fine.

Following a rule like that, that is tied to the culture and fluff, that feels like something the player needs to have the majority of input on, just like the exact nature of a Paladin's oath or if a cleric worships a diety

No, the DM has the majority of input on that, the player can argue for a certain house rule, but the DM is the final arbitrator. If the player doesn't like a certain rule and the DM wants to enforce it, the player has two options. Like it, or leave.

If a player comes to me and says "okay, I'm a cleric, but I'm an Atheist cleric" and I say, "well actually those don't exist in my campaign setting, or even in the rulebook" and their reaction is "STOP OPPRESSING MY PLAYER AGENCY", I'm probably not inviting that guy back after session 1.

[Tetrasodium]

No, the argument boils down to some people strongly disliking a certain rule, which is fine. Not wanting to enforce that rule in their game, which is fine. And then trying to pretend it's not actually in the rules, and that anyone who uses the rule is a bad DM, which is not fine.

Some of the ones who are defending the rule the loudest are ]actually the ones who said what you called out as being a terrible example and/or jumped in defending that stance of what any sane person is argumentum ad absurdum until a clposer insoection reveals both it & its subsequent vigorous defense to have been presented astraight faced example of good gm'ing. Your disdain is directed at the wrong folks.

[War_lord]

Some of the ones who are defending the rule the loudest are ]actually the ones who said what you called out as being a terrible example and/or jumped in defending that stance of what any sane person is argumentum ad absurdum until a clposer insoection reveals both it & its subsequent vigorous defense to have been presented astraight faced example of good gm'ing. Your disdain is directed at the wrong folks.

No, my disdain is directed at entitled players who think their personal Homebrew is more important then both PHB RAW and the DMG in general. Here's the thing, you're allowed to think the rule is a stupid holdover, you're allowed say that you think that it's inconsistent with how equipment works for every other class. You're allowed to houserule it out of existence in your own game that you're DMing.

What you're not allowed do is try to erase the rule from the game entirely, or to insult DMs who maintain the rule for any reason. The rule exists, it's a part of the game as sold, and removing it is a houserule, not a requirement. Until you accept that, you're going to be held in disdain as a problem player.