Irhtos Sauriv's guide to front line druidism

[busterswd]

Honest question: Is it a rule worth enforcing?

Not who you asked, but here's how I feel about it:

If ignoring a rule makes the game run better? Screw the rule. If you have a solid character concept that requires wriggle room for its core concept to work? Give your players that wriggle room. If there's some sort of valuable or fun idea that you could gain just from bending the rules, a little, that should be encouraged.

But it's not the rules as written. What got me to enter this thread is dismay at the sheer sort of mental gymnastics it would take for people to equate "will not" in an explicit rules section to somehow translate to "maybe". You can get DM permission to bend the rules, but you're still bending the rules.

What's worse, essentially what this "guide" inadvertantly shows is that a druid just gains AC from allowing them to wear metal. It's like a Fighter saying "I want to be able to wield a shield while swinging a great sword." It's just a power increase for no reason.

In short, if your DM gives you permission to wear metal, go for it, but this isn't something that required a guide, nor is it rules as written anymore.

[Dr.Samurai]

What got me to enter this thread is dismay at the sheer sort of mental gymnastics it would take for people to equate "will not" in an explicit rules section to somehow translate to "maybe". You can get DM permission to bend the rules, but you're still bending the rules.

But Busterswd, it isn't a rule like how most rules are. This is specifically a taboo. In a game where you can play a drow that has renounced his people and lives on the surface. Or a tiefling that fights against the very nature of his soul to try and do good in the world. Or a dwarf that shaves off his beard and fights with a longbow.

You can play to stereotypes, or you can buck them. This rule that they simply will not wear metal armor is strange because it defies that. It is telling you what your character will decide to do in game. I'm not arguing that it isn't a rule. But it's a weird rule, and it isn't mental gymnastics to say maybe. Because maybe druids in general won't wear metal armor. But druids in general also won't reach level 12. Druids in general also don't have a 20 wisdom score. But guess what? I'm a PC, and I'm different and special. Druids in general aren't adventurers. But I am.

The game is telling me that my character would never even be *interested* in wearing metal armor. I can't even think it. That's just bizarre and nonsensical. It's an overreach honestly.

And I'm not using that to argue that it should be allowed. For me, the developer saying it's ok to ask your DM because it won't break anything is enough for me. I'm just sharing that personally, this "rule" is different enough from other rules that this type of discussion is not surprising at all. Especially given that there is no penalty associated with breaking "the rule" and that it isn't even that they can't. It's that they won't. It's like saying "Druids won't shake hands with people". Um.. ok?

If we're having an honest discussion here, that language really shouldn't exist that way.

[busterswd]

But Busterswd, it isn't a rule like how most rules are. This is specifically a taboo. In a game where you can play a drow that has renounced his people and lives on the surface. Or a tiefling that fights against the very nature of his soul to try and do good in the world. Or a dwarf that shaves off his beard and fights with a longbow.

Right, but these are basically non mechanical examples.

You can play to stereotypes, or you can buck them. This rule that they simply will not wear metal armor is strange because it defies that. It is telling you what your character will decide to do in game. I'm not arguing that it isn't a rule. But it's a weird rule, and it isn't mental gymnastics to say maybe. Because maybe druids in general won't wear metal armor. But druids in general also won't reach level 12. Druids in general also don't have a 20 wisdom score. But guess what? I'm a PC, and I'm different and special. Druids in general aren't adventurers. But I am.

The funny part about this is I was just arguing in the bard thread about the flavor text, and essentially saying "the rules let you make bardic magic with a huge degree of freedom." But that was in a very different section. A section describing the mechanical rules and abilties of a race/class is there to set the rules of 5th edition, not to inspire character creation.

And I'm not using that to argue that it should be allowed. For me, the developer saying it's ok to ask your DM because it won't break anything is enough for me. I'm just sharing that personally, this "rule" is different enough from other rules that this type of discussion is not surprising at all. Especially given that there is no penalty associated with breaking "the rule" and that it isn't even that they can't. It's that they won't. It's like saying "Druids won't shake hands with people". Um.. ok?

The dev in question uses the "ask your DM" line for two reasons: #1, because that's essentially one of the two core paradigms of 5th edition. 3.5 had a glut of obscure rules and interactions that made for a constant, necessary discussion of RAI vs RAW, but essentially it should have always been up to the judgment of the guy actually running the game, not your ability to point out pages 146, 132, and 59 in one of the dozens of source books to override him.

#2, he uses it when an idea seems innocuous enough, but not quite kosher by the written rules.

The game is telling me that my character would never even be *interested* in wearing metal armor. I can't even think it. That's just bizarre and nonsensical. It's an overreach honestly.

If we're having an honest discussion here, that language really shouldn't exist that way.

We are in complete agreement here, but the intent is clear; it's people attempting to purposely twist the wording for mechanical benefit, and ironically, is the reason 5th edition was designed to be adjucation friendly in the first place. Additionally, the justification that "the rules not specifically forbidding you from something means that doing that thing is possible" is a really, really slippery slope to start on that will break apart literally any games' rules.

And while I love the 5e druid, whoever was behind the design and language was not on the same boat as the rest of the designers.

[Dr.Samurai]

{scrubbed}

[tkuremento]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Not familiar with the orc double axe in 5e, please elaborate.

Also the difference is fluff vs LISTED IN THE PROFICIENCIES. As was pointed out earlier, it is even in the SRD which forgoes the vast majority of fluff.

And as many have said before, feel free to houserule differently. DBZ might have not said that first post here but they have said it in prior discussions. However we are talking RAW.

And like I have said to the OP, I don't agree with the notion of a guide playing off expected houserules.

[War_lord]

{scrubbed}

[Dr.Samurai]

{scrubbed}

[Dr.Samurai]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

It's not. Except one was made a rule for no reason. The whole point is that they are the same thing. All of these examples should be fluff, but one was made a rule.

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Thank you for this incredible insight. The moment I begin to argue that it doesn't exist, it isn't part of the rules, or that somehow my opinion changes its status, I will try to bear this poignant response in mind.

[Coidzor]

Personally, I'd probably just port ironwood into the new edition - as a mostly-mundane material (and at the same cost as metal armor), as a spell, or both.

Yeah, that'd be nice. I've been waiting for something like that to happen since about mid-3.5.

[War_lord]

{scrubbed}

[Beelzebubba]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

If you have actual conversations like that at your gaming table, you have far, far greater problems than we can solve.

Good thing conversations like that actually never happen.

[DivisibleByZero]

Don't kid yourself DBZ, this is not what you've been saying. If you were amenable to the idea that it is up to the DM, there would never have been an issue.

As tkuremento notes below, I have been saying this since even before this particular thread existed.

And as many have said before, feel free to houserule differently. DBZ might have not said that first post here but they have said it in prior discussions.

Precisely.

[The Zoat]

The OP actually said to "go to another thread if you want to argue that point" so I think we're done here.

[DivisibleByZero]

The OP actually said to "go to another thread if you want to argue that point" so I think we're done here.

{scrubbed}

[tkuremento]

The OP actually said to "go to another thread if you want to argue that point" so I think we're done here.

Tetrasodium literally alluded to urination on players if you don't let them use metal armor.

[DivisibleByZero]

Tetrasodium literally alluded to urination on players if you don't let them use metal armor.

{scrubbed}

[Tetrasodium]

{scrubbed}

[tkuremento]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

And I am talking strictly in this one as I am talking about the guide. I'd like to quote myself just to show that:

1. Nonmetal is stated under proficiencies. This would imply that they aren't technically proficient in the metal medium armors.

2. A guide can have "ask your DM about" but should NOT be focused around that. A guide should be a little more general but mostly RAW. This of course is unless there is a majority consensus that some particular thing should be taken at RAI. Also a few optional rules could be taken into consideration like Feats and V.Human.

3. If you want extensive homebrew, here you go.

To expand on 2, a guide is something anyone might stumble upon. As such people will critique. Also getting into an argument is hardly harassment, I'd argue suggesting one urinates on others in any capacity is closer to such a thing.

[The Zoat]

The guide is based on an assumption. If you don't like that assumption, state it, but it doesn't invalidate the guide. The OP is pretty blunt about it, but that isn't what the guide is about.

[busterswd]

{scrubbed}

[Tetrasodium]

{scrubbed}

[NNescio]

The "those paralyzed guards is in reference to these guards

• Charm Person: This is not like the older charm spell from earlier versions that removed a threat & made it an instant expendable ally to help you kill his friends. The new effect of charm is that the charmed victim can't attack the "charmer"(i.e. you) or harm them with spells & the charmer gets advantage on social ability checks against the charmed target.... Unfortunately, the victim knows that you charmed them after the spell ends. Were it not for the last bit it would be quite a bit more useful. Even in a prison break type situation, it only means that the guards sound the alarms an hour after letting you out instead of before. Probably not going to be on your daily prep list.
• Hold person: This opens a lot of fun doors, need to sneak an entire village of farmers past those guards?.. This is the spell to use. The guards will know & helplessly watch the whole thing, but they won't be able to move or speak. That's all before you look at PHB291 to see that everyone attacking them has advantage & that any attack hitting counts as a crit.

Hold Person allows a save every round, and last only one minute regardless. No way you can sneak a group of farmers past those guards, much less an entire village.

Charm Person is a highly circumstantial spell that is generally useless in combat, but like most Charm spells and magical effects it carries a rider effect in addition to the charmed condition -- for Charm Person the charmed creature "regards you (the caster) as a friendly acquaintance", which may be helpful in convincing a guard to look the other way for an hour (this is highly DM dependent, but at least it has a chance in doing something that Hold Person cannot do under that circumstance).

[Tetrasodium]

Hold Person allows a save every round, and last only one minute regardless. No way you can sneak a group of farmers past those guards, much less an entire village.

Charm Person is a highly circumstantial spell that is generally useless in combat, but like most Charm spells and magical effects it carries a rider effect in addition to the charmed condition -- for Charm Person the charmed creature "regards you (the caster) as a friendly acquaintance", which may be helpful in convincing a guard to look the other way for an hour (this is highly DM dependent, but at least it has a chance in doing something that Hold Person cannot do under that circumstance).

Yea, charm is a pretty bad spell that got rated "Bad. It will be extremely rare that it's useful at all." I agree. It won't help you with the villagers that were not mentioned; but it can help you & your buds get sprung so you can go get the farmers. Hold person scales at higher level slots by adding extra targets & even at first level it could help you keep the guards from sounding the alarm & that was my intent; but I can see how the simple situation example to show a hypothetical utility in the spell could be overly simplistic in a problematic way

[DeathChallenged]

I was hoping for an actual guide. I was thinking of having my druid take sentinal, wildshape into a brown bear while having my fighter with protector mounted on my druid so we can be the ultimate team of destruction but apparently wild shape and sentinal are not even considered.

[Socratov]

I was hoping for an actual guide. I was thinking of having my druid take sentinal, wildshape into a brown bear while having my fighter with protector mounted on my druid so we can be the ultimate team of destruction but apparently wild shape and sentinal are not even considered.

{scrubbed}

[RickAllison]

Yeah, sometimes I wonder wether or not this is a veiled attempt to create a druids-totally-can-wear-metal echochamber... But then the other side of that argument showed up...

It kind of makes me want to create a separate guide. But not now, too much on my plate to consider it.

[Socratov]

It kind of makes me want to create a separate guide. But not now, too much on my plate to consider it.

and I am currently finding out who well land druid and moon druid work in melee or close quarters...

[RickAllison]

and I am currently finding out who well land druid and moon druid work in melee or close quarters...

Moon Druid would be more durable, certainly, but Land Druid may be able to eke out more damage at higher levels. With a level of Arcana Cleric to combine Shillelagh with Booming and Green-Flame Blade, the druid could get quite the damage output without having to boost Dexterity beyond 14.

Come to think of it, it would be very good to establish just which way a DM swings on whether animals' natural weapons count as unarmed strikes or not. If they are considered weapons, then you can (at level 18/19, unfortunately) use Booming Blade in animal form. If not, then rock the Monk dip! One obviously is better than the other, but they both have uses and I don't think there is a way to argue that the natural weapons fit one but don't fit the other. Frankly the idea of a flea dealing a massive amount of damage because of Booming Blade is hilarious.

[Dr.Samurai]

{scrubbed}

[Socratov]

{scrubbed the post, scrub the quote}

by then you are better off as a nature cleric tbh...