Irhtos Sauriv's guide to front line druidism

[The Zoat]

I should have clarified, I meant OP not as in original poster but as in original post, my B.

[KorvinStarmast]

If it is your belief that we are arguing in bad faith, do not argue with us. It seems me and Dr. Samurai are in agreement in that Crawford's statement there does not mean or at least does not necessarily mean what you believe it means. Do you disagree with our examples?

"Druids of all races" does not need the word all before the word druid to encompass all druids.

That's some basic English, 101, having to do with statements about a class of things.

"Dogs of all breeds will gain weight when eating this dog food" is a similar general statement. It suffices, and it is clear.

It takes willful rules lawyering, as an approach, to assert confusion about a general and clearly stated sentence like that. As I pointed out earlier, I am aware that in this hobby, the rules lawyering and trying to shoehorn meaning into and out of a term or sentence is part of the hobby. I have been known to engage in it. I simply don't find it of any value.

[The Zoat]

"Dogs of all breeds will gain weight when eating this dog food" is a similar general statement. It suffices, and it is clear.

"People of all races" serves as a counterexample. Similarly, "children of all ages".

[DivisibleByZero]

"Druids of all races" does not need the word all before the word druid to encompass all druids.

That's some basic English, 101, having to do with statements about a class of things.

"Dogs of all breeds will gain weight when eating this dog food" is a similar general statement. It suffices, and it is clear.

This.
And if you don't want your dog to gain weight, you can either feed him a different dog food or ask your DM to waive the weight gain.

[KorvinStarmast]

{scrubbed}

[Tetrasodium]

This is a Warning for Flaming/Trolling, Inappropriate Topics, Vigilante Modding, and Double Posting.

[Dr.Samurai]

"Druids of all races" does not need the word all before the word druid to encompass all druids.

It doesn't need it, no. But I don't think that's what we're saying. It doesn't necessarily mean what you're claiming it does, and that's not "torturing" the language. Despite your rebuttal to my last post, you and DBZ seem to attack motive and intent when others are simply arguing what the rules are saying and/or how they work. It's irritating because you approach this on a high horse of clarity and common sense, when things aren't as clear as you claim they are. As before, I don't have a dog in this fight, because at the end of the day it is up to my DM to stick to the line under proficiencies or not. There is no incentive for me to "spin" the wording, or "torture" the language.

[KorvinStarmast]

It doesn't need it, no. But I don't think that's what we're saying. It doesn't necessarily mean what you're claiming it does, and that's not "torturing" the language.

OK, on that score I'll mea culpa to some hyperbole.

May you always make your saving throw.

[tkuremento]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Please tell me the context of peeing on someone then

[Tetrasodium]

Please tell me the context of peeing on someone then

Again, that is different from what was said. the addition of the bit about the gm telling you it's rain is a dramatically different meaning that you are trying to tewist it into.

It's a figure of speech.
http://english.stackexchange.com/que...me-its-raining

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...0its%20raining

Furthermore, It's really old, I'd be surprised if it didn't predate the 80'swithout enough documentation to prove& there is no excuse for continuing. Now you know better.

[tkuremento]

Again, that is different from what was said. the addition of the bit about the gm telling you it's rain is a dramatically different meaning that you are trying to tewist it into.

It's a figure of speech.
http://english.stackexchange.com/que...me-its-raining

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...0its%20raining

Furthermore, It's really old, I'd be surprised if it didn't predate the 80'swithout enough documentation to prove& there is no excuse for continuing. Now you know better.

So don't create a problem and blame it on external factors? Don't create the problem of having a druid want to have metal armor when by RAW they shouldn't and blame it on the DM.

[Dr.Samurai]

May you always make your saving throw.

And may you always confirm your critical hits . *accidentally starts edition war*

It's a figure of speech.

That's really what tkuremento was referring to when he was harping on about you mentioning "peeing on someone"? I thought the OP contained something akin to advising that if the DM didn't let you wear metal armor you should... well, you get it. He's going on and on about a figure of speech??? It's incredible how perfectly useless all of this debate is. I mean... I enjoy pointless debating as much as the next person, but typically people are on different sides.

Here, DBZ and Zoat have multiple exchanges before one asks "Hey um... what's your actual opinion? Thanks!" and tkuremento is complaining about a figure of speech that was used. Lmao, I think I should go read the previous thread to see what's driving this behavior. Seems like it will be interesting.

[Tetrasodium]

And may you always confirm your critical hits . *accidentally starts edition war*

That's really what tkuremento was referring to when he was harping on about you mentioning "peeing on someone"? I thought the OP contained something akin to advising that if the DM didn't let you wear metal armor you should... well, you get it. He's going on and on about a figure of speech??? It's incredible how perfectly useless all of this debate is. I mean... I enjoy pointless debating as much as the next person, but typically people are on different sides.

Here, DBZ and Zoat have multiple exchanges before one asks "Hey um... what's your actual opinion? Thanks!" and tkuremento is complaining about a figure of speech that was used. Lmao, I think I should go read the previous thread to see what's driving this behavior. Seems like it will be interesting.

Sadly, yea... It's even better than that though. the figure of speech post was in regards to nonmetal armor availability in a discussion with someone else. In the other one it was because I posted a quote of the sage advice saying ask your gm and I did not state gain outside the quote that you should ask your gm when I suggested making up a reason to start doing it & in the process triggered some people suggesting they would respond to a player in wildly inappropriate ways they tried to defend as perfectly reasonable ways of speaking to a player. Over the course of 20 pages, the figure of speech was misquoted out of context & paraphrased over & over again by different people until I had clearly suggested involving watersports in a game of d&d if you can't do something I wasn't arguing for.

[KorvinStarmast]

Lmao, I think I should go read the previous thread to see what's driving this behavior. Seems like it will be interesting.

For selected definitions of the word "interesting" perhaps it is.

[tkuremento]

And may you always confirm your critical hits . *accidentally starts edition war*

That's really what tkuremento was referring to when he was harping on about you mentioning "peeing on someone"? I thought the OP contained something akin to advising that if the DM didn't let you wear metal armor you should... well, you get it. He's going on and on about a figure of speech??? It's incredible how perfectly useless all of this debate is. I mean... I enjoy pointless debating as much as the next person, but typically people are on different sides.

Here, DBZ and Zoat have multiple exchanges before one asks "Hey um... what's your actual opinion? Thanks!" and tkuremento is complaining about a figure of speech that was used. Lmao, I think I should go read the previous thread to see what's driving this behavior. Seems like it will be interesting.

To be fair I wasn't aware that it was a figure of speech until now. I will apologize because of that. Not everyone is aware of all knowledge ever, unless of course I am mistaken on that as well.

[Dr.Samurai]

To be fair I wasn't aware that it was a figure of speech until now. I will apologize because of that. Not everyone is aware of all knowledge ever, unless of course I am mistaken on that as well.

Oh, well that's more than fair. If you didn't know, you didn't know. Sorry for assuming otherwise!

[tkuremento]

Oh, well that's more than fair. If you didn't know, you didn't know. Sorry for assuming otherwise!

It's fine. I assume it is a relatively common one based on my Googling of it now. I just guess Mainers don't use it often enough. Now that I know about it I'm sure I'll hear it all over the place, same thing happens when I first learn the definition of a new word I never knew before. Sometimes it is so coincidental that I almost start to believe in the concept of Solipsism.

Anyway my point is still that:

• RAW they can't wear the metal armor
• Guides generally stay as close to RAW as they can because they can't assume houserules are allowed
• In a guide you can mention houserules when touching upon a topic but just mention it
• And at the end of the day if your DM allows the houserule then that is fine by me
• (Or make it more extensive with some homebrew and post in homebrew)

[tkuremento]

Heck if you wanted a frontline Druid and had a DM work with you, you could probably make a homebrew subclass that at 2 allows metal armors and at 6 allows extra attack. There would probably be another thing at level 2 cause JUST metal armors seems like barely anything and then the other levels--10 and 14--I have no idea because I've never really been able to understand balance well.

[busterswd]

Heck if you wanted a frontline Druid and had a DM work with you, you could probably make a homebrew subclass that at 2 allows metal armors and at 6 allows extra attack. There would probably be another thing at level 2 cause JUST metal armors seems like barely anything and then the other levels--10 and 14--I have no idea because I've never really been able to understand balance well.

I'm actually mathing out some builds out, but to do what you want, just start as fighter, switch to Druid at level 2. You have to raise a dump stat to qualify for multiclassing, but you get the armor proficiency, baked in Resilient Constitution, and an extra attack at 6.

[tkuremento]

I'm actually mathing out some builds out, but to do what you want, just start as fighter, switch to Druid at level 2. You have to raise a dump stat to qualify for multiclassing, but you get the armor proficiency, baked in Resilient Constitution, and an extra attack at 6.

The idea behind this homebrew would be without it druid wouldn't be allowed metal armor. If a DM were to allow metal armor regardless, it would make this homebrew not needed. Thus multiclassing wouldn't fix the issue.

[Sabeta]

Why not? Ignoring the RAW on whether or not Druids alone can equip metal, any multiclass should be able to no problem.

Even if you argue that Druids aren't proficient in Metal Armor (despite SA saying otherwise, stating it's a personal choice not a restriction), a multiclass that grants Medium or Heavy Armor proficiency should enable a Druid to wear Metal Armor. At the very least, by RAW. Or do you mean to tell me that being a Druid is automatically an "off" switch for any and all metals, even though there is zero mechanical or RAW for that precedent.

I still think the most damnable thing about this so-called "choice" of the Druids, is the fact that they're willing to use metal weapons. Like, it's totally okay to use human tools like a sickle as an instrument of hate and war, but I totes can't wear that breastplate because it's not "natural" enough. Oh hang on, better toss that leather armor out too, it's got metal clasps being used for a better fit. Studded armor? Oh heavens no, do you even know where those studs come from!? Hang on, let me break out my stone knife to carve the leather for my armor, no metal implements for me.

Ever since their introduction I've thought that the anti-metal rule was dumb. I'm glad 5E ditched it.

[tkuremento]

Why not? Ignoring the RAW on whether or not Druids alone can equip metal, any multiclass should be able to no problem.

Even if you argue that Druids aren't proficient in Metal Armor (despite SA saying otherwise, stating it's a personal choice not a restriction), a multiclass that grants Medium or Heavy Armor proficiency should enable a Druid to wear Metal Armor. At the very least, by RAW. Or do you mean to tell me that being a Druid is automatically an "off" switch for any and all metals, even though there is zero mechanical or RAW for that precedent.

I still think the most damnable thing about this so-called "choice" of the Druids, is the fact that they're willing to use metal weapons. Like, it's totally okay to use human tools like a sickle as an instrument of hate and war, but I totes can't wear that breastplate because it's not "natural" enough. Oh hang on, better toss that leather armor out too, it's got metal clasps being used for a better fit. Studded armor? Oh heavens no, do you even know where those studs come from!? Hang on, let me break out my stone knife to carve the leather for my armor, no metal implements for me.

Ever since their introduction I've thought that the anti-metal rule was dumb. I'm glad 5E ditched it.

Because I am still talking about RAW here before homebrew or houserule are applied. And I'm talking beyond my past perception, as the SRD makes it clear that they will not wear metal armor regardless of proficiency or not. This is why I'm making a compromise of trying to figure out a cool homebrew subclass that incorporates the metal armor. It makes even more flavourful sense because the subclass for Druid are their Circles. The idea is then that this Circle either goes beyond the taboo or if like previous editions are to key off of in any way, they have figured out how to use druidic powers with metal armor on.

I am trying to compromise here, can you see that or...?

[busterswd]

Because I am still talking about RAW here before homebrew or houserule are applied. And I'm talking beyond my past perception, as the SRD makes it clear that they will not wear metal armor regardless of proficiency or not. This is why I'm making a compromise of trying to figure out a cool homebrew subclass that incorporates the metal armor. It makes even more flavourful sense because the subclass for Druid are their Circles. The idea is then that this Circle either goes beyond the taboo or if like previous editions are to key off of in any way, they have figured out how to use druidic powers with metal armor on.

I am trying to compromise here, can you see that or...?

Gotcha. At the same time, I don't think there's a need to re-invent the wheel mechanically if you're drifting away from RAW, anyway.

The potential flavor for a homebrew class could actually be really interesting, though.

[Sabeta]

No, it's not a compromise at all. It's you saying "alright guys listen. Let's all just assume I'm right, you're all wrong. Here's a homebrew to fix your problems."

If your argument is "They don't wear metal because they don't like to" then your argument is already broken. People, by their very nature are diverse. Adventureres, by definition are exceptional. If you say "Druids don't wear armor because they don't feel like it." then I can say "Well mine felt like it." and there's no counterclaim on this planet that you can make that would ever make sense. Double Down because I've pointed out several times in this thread that it's already hypocritical given that they're okay with using metal to inflict murder, but not to protect themselves.

For some reason, the taboo against metal ONLY applies to protecting themselves. Like, a Chaotic Evil Druid is allowed to use a sword, dagger, or sickle made of metal to mow down innocent children because "humans are a plague to nature that must be purged" but "oh wait I can't wear metal. That's human too. Nevermind this metal sword dripping the gore of children."

If your argument is that they aren't proficient, by RAW, then that's fine. I don't see the interpretation that way, and neither does the SA, but I can understand why people might have differing interpretations on the RAW hear. The best thing to do is just ask your DM. However, if being a Plate wearing Druid was important to your character, and your DM said druids can't wear metal because they aren't proficient, then fine just Multiclass and the problem goes away.

[Dr.Samurai]

{scrubbed}

[tkuremento]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I'm not saying they are saying it isn't a rule. Personally I am saying that I disagree with the notion of a guide being based off a houserule. A LOT of this guide is assuming such a thing.

[Sabeta]

snip

Unless you're like me, who both think that it is not a rule given the SA makes clear that it's a choice not a rule, and that even if it were it's a stupid one because there's no reason you should be allowed a sword to murder children with but not armor to protect yourself from the guards that come for you afterwords.

[busterswd]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

There's a Group C that's explicitly stating it's not a rule by virtue of its being stupid. That's about 50% of this thread's back and forth, and just because you are one of the few people that is able to come to terms with the fact that a RAW system rule can, in fact, be completely illogical, that doesn't mean the other posters suddenly magically do. I mean, just on this page alone, there's someone arguing it.

[Dr.Samurai]

Unless you're like me, who both think that it is not a rule given the SA makes clear that it's a choice not a rule, and that even if it were it's a stupid one because there's no reason you should be allowed a sword to murder children with but not armor to protect yourself from the guards that come for you afterwords.

I totally get where you're coming from Sabeta, but I think it is a rule. It's under the proficiencies and is pretty declarative.

I think the problem most of us are having is precisely with the fact that it is a choice, as you say. It doesn't make sense that there is a "rule" telling us what our character will choose to do for the entirety of their adventuring career. I can't square that in my head. It would make sense to me if there was a paragraph that said "Druids think metal armor is evilbad because reasons, and it interferes with their connection to nature. So they can't cast druid spells while wearing metal armor."

Ok, then my druid can be fine with metal armor but doesn't wear it because it interferes with his spellcasting. Hmm... kind of like arcane spell failure.

Instead, we just get this blanket "ruling" on every druid's character (as in moral and mental qualities).

[Sabeta]

I totally get where you're coming from Sabeta, but I think it is a rule. It's under the proficiencies and is pretty declarative.

I think that's a fine. It doesn't really matter if we reach a consensus, because the consensus that has to be met is your DM. Even if you and I were on the same page, our hypothetical DMs might not be. 5E is all about its rulings, not rules after all, so that's fine.

I might have said contrary to that earlier in the thread, but this is my stance now. That being said, since your on the side that it's a rule, but it's a rule because it's a choice that has already been made for you, then how do you reconcile multi-classing? Do you assume some imaginary rule exists that prevents a multi-classed Druid from wearing metal armor, as if just being a druid functions as an off switch?