Irhtos Sauriv's guide to front line druidism

[Spellbreaker26]

Whether or not druids can wear meal armour doesn't change the fact that they are much better suited in the second rank - same for clerics that don't have heavy armour. You have a medium hit-dice and an OK AC at best, as well as a bunch of concentration spells that are important buffs. Unless you cannot do any better, druids should be in the middle or defending the rear, not acting as point defence.

[RickAllison]

Whether or not druids can wear meal armour doesn't change the fact that they are much better suited in the second rank - same for clerics that don't have heavy armour. You have a medium hit-dice and an OK AC at best, as well as a bunch of concentration spells that are important buffs. Unless you cannot do any better, druids should be in the middle or defending the rear, not acting as point defence.

In general, yes. However you can build to cover up for the normal weaknesses and make the druid quite useful on the front lines. A single level of Arcana Cleric for the SCAG cantrips and Magic Missile (just a nice spell in general) combined with Shillelagh covers up for much of the normally low damage output without being reliant on Wild Shape. And in theory, such builds would be the entire point behind such a guide.

[The Zoat]

{scrubbed}

I don't understand how a decision can be mechanical. Druids have free will, they can make their own decisions, are mentally capable. Sure, they won't according to what the PHB says but how can it be a hard 'not proficient in X' limitation if the druid has free will? The argument is (and always has been at least for me) that it is ultimately up to the DM whether to allow a PC who doesn't for whatever IC reason (because those exist) follow this restriction, just like it's up to the DM whether or not someone with too many magic items and not enough gold exists, though neither of those things are strictly RAW.

It's not as if the guide itself even argued that metal-armour druids were RAW, it just suggested the rule was 'stupid' which is it's own argument entirely.

Your ideas about what the designers intended are of of course fair, but seeing as what the designers actually intended can't really be shown the argument can't stand.

[DivisibleByZero]

Your ideas about what the designers intended are of of course fair, but seeing as what the designers actually intended can't really be shown the argument can't stand.

That's where you'd be wrong.
The designers have stated, quite clearly, that "Druids of all races abide by the armor taboo."
Not some druids, not most druids, simply druids. As in, all of them. So the designers' intentions on this one are clear. It's a rule, and if you want to countermand that rule then you're delving into house rule territory, which is fine, but requires prior DM approval.

[The Zoat]

That's where you'd be wrong.
The designers have stated, quite clearly, that "Druids of all races abide by the armor taboo."
Not some druids, not most druids, simply druids. As in, all of them. So the designers' intentions on this one are clear. It's a rule, and if you want to countermand that rule then you're delving into house rule territory, which is fine, but requires prior DM approval.

Except the main thread of the argument, that a decision made by a character is the DM and Player's, not Mearls' and Crawford's, choice. Ultimately it doesn't matter if Crawford says "Every dwarf has drunk some kind alcohol at some point", because that's a character-related detail that isn't inherently mechanical, just like a decision made in sound mind isn't mechanical.

Anyway, "Druids of all races" is (I think) ambiguous language. If it said "ALL druids of all races" it would be clear, but the quote you're using doesn't mean that. Just like how "People from all walks of life" doesn't mean "ALL people from all walks of life.

[DivisibleByZero]

Except the main thread of the argument, that a decision made by a character is the DM and Player's, not Mearls' and Crawford's, choice. Ultimately it doesn't matter if Crawford says "Every dwarf has drunk some kind alcohol at some point", because that's a character-related detail that isn't inherently mechanical, just like a decision made in sound mind isn't mechanical.

But it would certainly matter of Crawford/Mearls said "Dwarves will not use weapons other than hammers and axes," and that's the kind of thing we're talking about here.
It's a rule. Feel free to talk your DM into allowing you to break the rules, but don't complain that the class you chose has restrictions that are clearly spelled out in multiple places. Playing that class was your choice, and you knew about the restriction when you chose it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Anyway, "Druids of all races" is (I think) ambiguous language.

It is clear enough to me that the first "all" that you demanded is embodied in the first word "Druids." I find your objection a real reach.

It's not ambiguous unless one wants to rules lawyer via semantic argument. I know that approach has been a piece of the hobby for a while, but at this point I no longer find it an attractive one.

(YMMV)

[The Zoat]

I'm actually going to copy/paste the whole thing:

"
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."

"Identity as a mystic order" based on an element that can for the most part be divorced from the mechanics of the druid.

"not going to break anything in the game system" the rules are clearly a part of the game system.

"...prefer to be protected..." what if the druid has no other option but to not wear armour?

"...might undermine the story and world being created..." so it depends on the DM's personal vision.

"your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class" see above.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm actually going to copy/paste the whole thing:

"
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."

"Identity as a mystic order" based on an element that can for the most part be divorced from the mechanics of the druid.

"not going to break anything in the game system" the rules are clearly a part of the game system.

"...prefer to be protected..." what if the druid has no other option but to not wear armour?

"...might undermine the story and world being created..." so it depends on the DM's personal vision.

"your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class" see above.

.... which all equates to:
This is the rule. This is the reason for the rule. If you want to not follow this particular rule, talk to your DM.

It does not equate to:
Druids can wear metal armor if they want to.

[The Zoat]

It is clear enough to me that the first "all" that you demanded is embodied in the first word "Druids." I find your objection a real reach.

The full context is that Crawford answered the question: "Would a mountain dwarf druid trained in dwarven armor use metal armor?", so (at least as far as I read it) the answer that "druids of any race abide" simply dismisses the idea that the PHB races as written have any excuse 'written in' for not following the taboo, rather than that there is no excuse at all.

[Dr.Samurai]

It is clear enough to me that the first "all" that you demanded is embodied in the first word "Druids." I find your objection a real reach.

It's not ambiguous unless one wants to rules lawyer via semantic argument. I know that approach has been a piece of the hobby for a while, but at this point I no longer find it an attractive one.

(YMMV)

I thoroughly enjoy how you and DBZ can't argue something without trying to appear as if nothing is ambiguous and everyone else is just grasping for straws.

If "Druids of all races" was meant to mean "all druids", there would be no reason to qualify the comment with "of all races". If "all druids" abide by the armor taboo, it doesn't matter what race they are. By adding "of all races", you actually undermine the notion that it is "all druids". This is not a reach. This is how the language works.

If I say "People of all cultures and ethnicities call New York City their home" it'd be a reach to suggest that I mean "ALL people... call New York City their home".

[The Zoat]

It does not equate to:
Druids can wear metal armor if they want to.

Wait, yes they can. By definition, you have to WANT to abide by a taboo to do it. You have to choose not to wear metal armour. If, for some reason, you don't make that choice, it is up to the DM to decide whether or not you can be considered a druid, based on the setting.

SO DO WHAT THE OP SAID AND ASK YOUR DM. (I'd rather have that in bold, but I'm on mobile.)

[DivisibleByZero]

{scrubbed}

[The Zoat]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I never said that, so HOW IS THAT EVEN RELEVANT? (again, can't do bold)

[Dr.Samurai]

{scrubbed}

[DivisibleByZero]

I never said that, so HOW IS THAT EVEN RELEVANT? (again, can't do bold)

Then please explain to me exactly what it is you're debating for here, if you'd be so kind.

[The Zoat]

That OP said nothing wrong, and there's no point arguing here, even if his language was a bit vitriolic.

[DivisibleByZero]

That OP said nothing wrong, and there's no point arguing here, even if his language was a bit vitriolic.

Thank you. Your opinion has been noted.

[The Zoat]

Thank you. Your opinion has been noted.

Also, now that I've read back, I also argue that the "taboo" against metal armour isn't a mechanical rule, since it's founded in an area of the game the DM controls by default, the setting, and that the rule is (as the OP said) 'stupid'.

[DivisibleByZero]

Also, now that I've read back, I also argue that the "taboo" against metal armour isn't a mechanical rule, since it's founded in an area of the game the DM controls by default, the setting, and that the rule is (as the OP said) 'stupid'.

And now we've come full circle.

All rules are mechanical.
The rules exist to facilitate and guide gameplay.
If it doesn't impact how the game plays mechanically, then it doesn't need a rule.
So all rules are mechanical. Even rules which are based on an RP aspect still have a mechanical side. That mechanical side is the effect, while the RP side is the cause.
All rules are mechanical rules.

[The Zoat]

I personally believe the way that rule is written clashes very strongly with the wording of the sage advice. The 'rule' is actually in in-universe restriction derived from an in-universe view. Thus, the 'rule' is actually a view forced on the character, thus ultimately a feature of that character and thus inexorably linked to the setting and experiences of that character; thus something that only applies if the DM believes that all druid-mechanical-equivalent individuals must therefore have the same taboo.

Just like how Miko in OoTS is in-setting a Samurai but mechanically a Paladin, a druid should be able to be in-setting an "unaffiliated lone-wolf self-taught nature mage" but mechanically a druid.

[DivisibleByZero]

I personally believe the way that rule is written clashes very strongly with the wording of the sage advice. The 'rule' is actually in in-universe restriction derived from an in-universe view. Thus, the 'rule' is actually a view forced on the character, thus ultimately a feature of that character and thus inexorably linked to the setting and experiences of that character; thus something that only applies if the DM believes that all druid-mechanical-equivalent individuals must therefore have the same taboo.

Just like how Miko in OoTS is in-setting a Samurai but mechanically a Paladin, a druid should be able to be in-setting an "unaffiliated lone-wolf self-taught nature mage" but mechanically a druid.

That's great.
Perfect.
Tell your DM that and ask him if you can ignore the armor taboo, which is stating that the class you want to play chooses not to adorn themselves in metal armor.

[The Zoat]

It seems the root of our dispute is that you believe an IC view should be a rule and interpret the book.as such, while I believe IC views should not be rules and interpret the book as such.

All I can do now is simply claim that your view stifles creative character ideas like the OP's to a degree, and thus argue that since that from a DM perspective is undesirable, DMs should always let the players snowflake in that way if they want, since ultimately it's a matter of flavour in terms of character and context.

[DivisibleByZero]

Your views on whether or not is should be a rule are irrelevant.
It is, indeed, a rule.
And no creativity is being stifled. All you have to do is ask your DM. It's really not that hard. "Hey, bro, can I wear metal armor?"
See? It's easy.

[Spellbreaker26]

It seems the root of our dispute is that you believe an IC view should be a rule and interpret the book.as such, while I believe IC views should not be rules and interpret the book as such.

All I can do now is simply claim that your view stifles creative character ideas like the OP's to a degree, and thus argue that since that from a DM perspective is undesirable, DMs should always let the players snowflake in that way if they want, since ultimately it's a matter of flavour in terms of character and context.

I don't disagree that GMs should allow that character concept (so long as more work went into it than "he wears metal m'kay") but the default is that Druids will not wear metal armour. Practically everybody who said "the rules say druids won't wear metal armour" agreed that players could ask the DM for some kind of workaround.

It's not just an IC thing, it is in the proficiency section (which I choose to believe means that Druids are actually non-proficient in it, but there's no clarification on that). It's given the same importance as a Paladin's Oaths with the exception that there are no standard penalties for refusing to abide by it, leaving that bit up to the DM.

[Dr.Samurai]

Also, now that I've read back, I also argue that the "taboo" against metal armour isn't a mechanical rule, since it's founded in an area of the game the DM controls by default, the setting, and that the rule is (as the OP said) 'stupid'.

It is for sure a stupid rule. By giving druids proficiency in all medium armors, and also not penalizing them for wearing metal armors, this "rule" is simply an overreach into the domain of the player. You are just saying that no druid being played in the game can break this particular taboo, when breaking taboos is typically what adventurers do. I'm in a game now in the Eberron setting, and we just realized we were talking to the prince of Breland. I was the only PC that bowed upon the realization. The other characters mentioned that they aren't the bowing types.

In our Out of the Abyss game, one of the characters is playing a cannibal.

There is no incentive to honor the taboo except for the thoughts of the character, which is why this rule is "off". It is imposing on the thoughts/attitude of the character.

[The Zoat]

(which I choose to believe means that Druids are actually non-proficient in it, but there's no clarification on that).

Sage Advice disagrees with you here: specifically:

"As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system"

Referring to playing a metal-armour druid.

[KorvinStarmast]

{scrubbed}

[The Zoat]

{scrubbed}

[tkuremento]

That OP said nothing wrong, and there's no point arguing here, even if his language was a bit vitriolic.

Correct. The only thing your GM can do without houserules (something AL forbids) is to say "I'm not allowing your character to decide he/she wants to and is willing to do that" & if your GM is telling you what your character is willing to do, you probably have a terrible GM who is going to go all cartman "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITY" in other areas that get progressively worse over time

and

With that said & so amazingly demonstrated by the very person who made the original suggestion... Dear OP as I said in my last post in different words... if the GM whips it out & starts to spray yellow water on your druid's justifications, Don't sit quietly no matter how strongly he or she tries to explain all the reasons why it's just rain.. I'd suggest finding a different gm as advised last time for the reasons advised last time because this is a subject where many GM's maintain years of lying to themselves about that particular variant of rain.

and then more characters so I can actually post this