I am arguing against this being a necessity to use part of a class.
Because what if everyone at the table is NOT okay with doing a side quest for the sole benefit of the Druid? Then either that player is having less fun being dragged along to do something they don't want to, or the Druid is having less fun because they can't use that magical Medium armor that was just looted by the party (unless the DM just hand-waves it as exotic).
You're assuming the druid player is having less fun being dragged around when they (A) agreed to play a druid in the first place, restrictions and all, and (B) can simply get up from the table and leave the group whenever they like.
Because no D&D is better than bad D&D.
I'll say it again, because it bears repeating. You have never played a druid. You don't honestly care because this doesn't impact you in the slightest. So why are you arguing so fervently? This isn't about justice for players or giving them agency you think they lack. They're choosing to play with these restrictions. They're exercising agency when they play as a druid.
Is this druid-envy? Do you just want to play one without the "silly" restriction? Because, if so, go talk to your DM.
Why do you think I've never played a Druid?? I have, but that doesn't even have any relevance to the conversation. I've even played a Warforged Druid before, which makes the "NO METAL ARMOR!!" even more inane.
Or do I have to meet some sort of requirement in your book to have an opinion? Maybe some people get turned off to the class due to the restriction. Are they not allowed to have an opinion? You're basically saying that if I think some of the rules or restrictions are poorly designed/unnecessary that my opinions are bad and I should feel bad.
But really, thank you for telling me about my life and how I feel and think. I'm so glad some stranger on the internet knows my innermost thoughts and can tell me I'm hot garbage.
Sorry, I confused you for someone else who seemingly shares your opinion. You did like one of their posts, if it helps.
So what if people are turned off to the class? There are 12 in the PHB. You don't have to like every class. Likewise, you don't have to like every subclass, race, or background. There are tens of thousands of possible combinations you can use to make characters in that one book. The idea is there's supposed to be something for everyone. It doesn't mean everyone has to like everything. Oh, no, this one spellcasting class doesn't appeal to every player. It will appeal to some, and that some is enough. Baskin Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream for a reason. You don't need to try or like them all to keep coming back.
Purity tests serve no one, so something not being for you does not make that something bad. Sure, everyone's entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid. I don't care one whit about the opinions of someone who thinks the Earth is flat and climate change isn't a problem. Both are opinions, and both are objectively wrong.
The people who play druids as they are don't have a problem with them. You even played a druid, so unless your DM made an exception you played one with that restriction in tact. Did it actually harm your enjoyment? And if so, how?
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
*chuckle* Really? :) "Will" is a choice. "Can(not)" is the lack of ability to chose either way.
You cannot reach a 10 ft shelf without assistance. You will not get a step ladder to reach said shelf. You are welcome to change your mind on the later (no pun intended).
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
*chuckle* Really? :) "Will" is a choice. "Can(not)" is the lack of ability to chose either way.
You cannot reach a 10 ft shelf without assistance. You will not get a step ladder to reach said shelf. You are welcome to change your mind on the later (no pun intended).
Yes, really. The context is from a player's perspective.
Situation 1: Druids will not wear metal armor.
Situation 2: Druids cannot wear metal armor.
As a player, if you change 1 to 2, you go from not being able to have your character wear metal armor, to not being able to have your character wear metal armor.
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
*chuckle* Really? :) "Will" is a choice. "Can(not)" is the lack of ability to chose either way.
You cannot reach a 10 ft shelf without assistance. You will not get a step ladder to reach said shelf. You are welcome to change your mind on the later (no pun intended).
Yes, really. The context is from a player's perspective.
Situation 1: Druids will not wear metal armor.
Situation 2: Druids cannot wear metal armor.
As a player, if you change 1 to 2, you go from not being able to have your character wear metal armor, to not being able to have your character wear metal armor.
Let's revisit the earlier examples of John and Steven.
John chooses not to eat peanut butter while Steven cannot, or he will die. But these aren't people. These are characters on sheets of paper. The player, an actual person, can choose which character to play as. No one is forcing their hand. But, functionally, the difference to the player is irrelevant. Either way, these characters aren't dealing with peanut butter.
The player can choose to play as one of the above. They might also choose Michael, who has no such aversion to peanut butter, or to not play at all.
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
*chuckle* Really? :) "Will" is a choice. "Can(not)" is the lack of ability to chose either way.
You cannot reach a 10 ft shelf without assistance. You will not get a step ladder to reach said shelf. You are welcome to change your mind on the later (no pun intended).
Yes, really. The context is from a player's perspective.
Context doesn't change the definition.
Channel Divinity: Turn Undead
A turned creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can, and it can’t willingly move to a space within 30 feet of you. It also can’t take reactions.
It doesn't state that it can't move. It is not frozen like an immovable rod. It states it can't CHOSE to move. It can still be moved by other forces. It goes on to state CAN'T take reactions, not choses/will not take them.
BREAKING YOUR OATH
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance,
It doesn't state a Paladin CANT violate their oath, it states if a paladin CHOSES to break their oath.
If your deity intervenes, you can’t use this feature again for 7 days.
It does not state WILL NOT use.
Channel Divinity: Preserve Life
You can’t use this feature on an undead or a construct.
It doesn't state WILL NOT. You lack the capability to use that feature on undead or constructs.
The PHB is full of various will/can't conditions. All of them are rather clear - except this one. In ALL OTHER CASES, will clearly implies a choice where as can't clear indication a condition where the capability simply does not exist.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Exactly. Hawkwin, Why did you cut off the rest of my post?
Situation 1: Druids will not wear metal armor.
Situation 2: Druids cannot wear metal armor.
As a player, if you change 1 to 2, you go from not being able to have your character wear metal armor, to not being able to have your character wear metal armor. The net affect to the player is the same, is it not?
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Yeah I would just let them wear metal armor and be done with it.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Yeah I would just let them wear metal armor and be done with it.
I'd let them wear metal armor if they got the proficiency from a different source, and otherwise treat them as nonproficient. That would be consistent with how it works for everything else.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Yeah I would just let them wear metal armor and be done with it.
I'd let them wear metal armor if they got the proficiency from a different source, and otherwise treat them as nonproficient. That would be consistent with how it works for everything else.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Yeah I would just let them wear metal armor and be done with it.
I'd let them wear metal armor if they got the proficiency from a different source, and otherwise treat them as nonproficient. That would be consistent with how it works for everything else.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Yeah I would just let them wear metal armor and be done with it.
I'd let them wear metal armor if they got the proficiency from a different source, and otherwise treat them as nonproficient. That would be consistent with how it works for everything else.
Yeah fair enough.
And still a house rule. You are still a Druid.
OH yeah for sure its a house rule...for what I consider a silly rule to begin with.
Same for smiting with your fist...not RAW but come on...thats just lame.
I can respect that. I'm never one to argue with a DM if they want to house rule something, unless it's something egregious. But if they insist something is RAW when it's clearly not, I don't know why, it just bugs me. It shouldn't, but I can't help it.
Not a single person here is saying that Druids wearing metal armor is RAW/RAI. They (myself included) are just questioning why the restriction is in place to begin with.
RAW, you would not play a Druid / Forge Cleric Mutliclass because some of the best FC features rely on wearing heavy armor (all metal). RAW/RAI it doesn't make sense why metal weapons/jewelry are allowed but metal armor is not. It just seems like it's some attempt at keeping a relic alive that does not fit within 5E.
I guess I’m weird and that I like that it is still very much balanced, in fact druids are a still powerful class. Yet, it’s an interesting and unique wrinkle that must be considered, especially for things like multiclassing.
My guess as to the reason is not just for the sake of legacy, WoTC wanted to keep a very natural, earthy feel to to Druids. Sure iron ore is natural, but a character decked out in full metal armor and shield has kind of a contemporary industrial vibe to it.
Not a single person here is saying that Druids wearing metal armor is RAW/RAI. They (myself included) are just questioning why the restriction is in place to begin with.
RAW, you would not play a Druid / Forge Cleric Mutliclass because some of the best FC features rely on wearing heavy armor (all metal). RAW/RAI it doesn't make sense why metal weapons/jewelry are allowed but metal armor is not. It just seems like it's some attempt at keeping a relic alive that does not fit within 5E.
I guess I’m weird and that I like that it is still very much balanced, in fact druids are a still powerful class. Yet, it’s an interesting and unique wrinkle that must be considered, especially for things like multiclassing.
My guess as to the reason is not just for the sake of legacy, WoTC wanted to keep a very natural, earthy feel to to Druids. Sure iron ore is natural, but a character decked out in full metal armor and shield has kind of a contemporary industrial vibe to it.
I agree on the vibe if the armor is smooth, shiny plate or a full set of chain mail. I always envisioned Druid in metal armor as a hand-hammered breastplate (maybe what was once a cauldron?) or scale mail made of mismatched metal pieces sewn to the leather/cloth underneath.
I feel like any armor that you come across in gameplay would be dented/a little worn, so it wouldn't fit the industrial vibe.
That's fair, flavor wise. But then players of course are going to want half plate and such. And like I said, to me it's an interesting and unique wrinkle. I like to navigate things like this when I'm optimizing. It fosters creativity. It also potentially opens up interesting plots or hooks in game if you're Druid. For example, you can take smith's tools and leather working tools. Then whenever the party kills something large with really tough hide, talk to your DM about harvesting the hide to make medium armor. The DM can decide stats and if it has any special properties and such. That's just one possible scenario.
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
Here is an example:
John does not like how peanut butter tastes; John will/chooses not to eat a peanut butter sandwich. Steven has a sever peanut allergy; Steven cannot eat a peanut butter sandwich or he will die.
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
Here is an example:
John does not like how peanut butter tastes; John will/chooses not to eat a peanut butter sandwich. Steven has a sever peanut allergy; Steven cannot eat a peanut butter sandwich or he will die.
This is a GREAT example!!!
Not really. As a player, whether you play John or Steven as a PC, either way your PC is not getting a peanut butter sandwich. As a player they're functionally the same.
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
Here is an example:
John does not like how peanut butter tastes; John will/chooses not to eat a peanut butter sandwich. Steven has a sever peanut allergy; Steven cannot eat a peanut butter sandwich or he will die.
This is a GREAT example!!!
Not really. As a player, whether you play John or Steven as a PC, either way your PC is not getting a peanut butter sandwich. As a player they're functionally the same.
As a child, my son did not like peanut butter and would not eat it. He then changed his mind, yet he is still my son. He functions just the same regardless of his choice.
How is will not functionally different from cannot?
Here is an example:
John does not like how peanut butter tastes; John will/chooses not to eat a peanut butter sandwich. Steven has a sever peanut allergy; Steven cannot eat a peanut butter sandwich or he will die.
This is a GREAT example!!!
Not really. As a player, whether you play John or Steven as a PC, either way your PC is not getting a peanut butter sandwich. As a player they're functionally the same.
As a child, my son did not like peanut butter and would not eat it. He then changed his mind, yet he is still my son. He functions just the same regardless of his choice.
Is your son a fictional character written into a book, requiring an errata from the author in order to change his mind?
In reference to you as a player, how is it functionally different if the book said "cannot" instead of "will not"? In either case, your character is not wearing metal armor. Correct?
Sorry, I confused you for someone else who seemingly shares your opinion. You did like one of their posts, if it helps.
So what if people are turned off to the class? There are 12 in the PHB. You don't have to like every class. Likewise, you don't have to like every subclass, race, or background. There are tens of thousands of possible combinations you can use to make characters in that one book. The idea is there's supposed to be something for everyone. It doesn't mean everyone has to like everything. Oh, no, this one spellcasting class doesn't appeal to every player. It will appeal to some, and that some is enough. Baskin Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream for a reason. You don't need to try or like them all to keep coming back.
Purity tests serve no one, so something not being for you does not make that something bad. Sure, everyone's entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid. I don't care one whit about the opinions of someone who thinks the Earth is flat and climate change isn't a problem. Both are opinions, and both are objectively wrong.
The people who play druids as they are don't have a problem with them. You even played a druid, so unless your DM made an exception you played one with that restriction in tact. Did it actually harm your enjoyment? And if so, how?
*chuckle* Really? :) "Will" is a choice. "Can(not)" is the lack of ability to chose either way.
You cannot reach a 10 ft shelf without assistance. You will not get a step ladder to reach said shelf. You are welcome to change your mind on the later (no pun intended).
Yes, really. The context is from a player's perspective.
Situation 1: Druids will not wear metal armor.
Situation 2: Druids cannot wear metal armor.
As a player, if you change 1 to 2, you go from not being able to have your character wear metal armor, to not being able to have your character wear metal armor.
Let's revisit the earlier examples of John and Steven.
John chooses not to eat peanut butter while Steven cannot, or he will die. But these aren't people. These are characters on sheets of paper. The player, an actual person, can choose which character to play as. No one is forcing their hand. But, functionally, the difference to the player is irrelevant. Either way, these characters aren't dealing with peanut butter.
The player can choose to play as one of the above. They might also choose Michael, who has no such aversion to peanut butter, or to not play at all.
Context doesn't change the definition.
Channel Divinity: Turn Undead
A turned creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can, and it can’t willingly move to a space within 30 feet of you. It also can’t take reactions.
It doesn't state that it can't move. It is not frozen like an immovable rod. It states it can't CHOSE to move. It can still be moved by other forces. It goes on to state CAN'T take reactions, not choses/will not take them.
BREAKING YOUR OATH
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance,
It doesn't state a Paladin CANT violate their oath, it states if a paladin CHOSES to break their oath.
Eldritch Sight
You can cast detect magic at will
When you chose.
Divine Intervention
If your deity intervenes, you can’t use this feature again for 7 days.
It does not state WILL NOT use.
Channel Divinity: Preserve Life
You can’t use this feature on an undead or a construct.
It doesn't state WILL NOT. You lack the capability to use that feature on undead or constructs.
The PHB is full of various will/can't conditions. All of them are rather clear - except this one. In ALL OTHER CASES, will clearly implies a choice where as can't clear indication a condition where the capability simply does not exist.
They aren't arguing over the definitions, they're arguing context. For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if the druid cannot or will not wear metal armor. Either way, they aren't wearing metal armor.
Exactly. Hawkwin, Why did you cut off the rest of my post?
Situation 1: Druids will not wear metal armor.
Situation 2: Druids cannot wear metal armor.
As a player, if you change 1 to 2, you go from not being able to have your character wear metal armor, to not being able to have your character wear metal armor. The net affect to the player is the same, is it not?
👆
I will say that they should have written this is "light armor, non-metallic medium armor" instead of how they actually worded it.
Yeah I would just let them wear metal armor and be done with it.
I'd let them wear metal armor if they got the proficiency from a different source, and otherwise treat them as nonproficient. That would be consistent with how it works for everything else.
Yeah fair enough.
And still a house rule. You are still a Druid.
OH yeah for sure its a house rule...for what I consider a silly rule to begin with.
Same for smiting with your fist...not RAW but come on...thats just lame.
I can respect that. I'm never one to argue with a DM if they want to house rule something, unless it's something egregious. But if they insist something is RAW when it's clearly not, I don't know why, it just bugs me. It shouldn't, but I can't help it.
I guess I’m weird and that I like that it is still very much balanced, in fact druids are a still powerful class. Yet, it’s an interesting and unique wrinkle that must be considered, especially for things like multiclassing.
My guess as to the reason is not just for the sake of legacy, WoTC wanted to keep a very natural, earthy feel to to Druids. Sure iron ore is natural, but a character decked out in full metal armor and shield has kind of a contemporary industrial vibe to it.
That's fair, flavor wise. But then players of course are going to want half plate and such. And like I said, to me it's an interesting and unique wrinkle. I like to navigate things like this when I'm optimizing. It fosters creativity. It also potentially opens up interesting plots or hooks in game if you're Druid. For example, you can take smith's tools and leather working tools. Then whenever the party kills something large with really tough hide, talk to your DM about harvesting the hide to make medium armor. The DM can decide stats and if it has any special properties and such. That's just one possible scenario.
This is a GREAT example!!!
Not really. As a player, whether you play John or Steven as a PC, either way your PC is not getting a peanut butter sandwich. As a player they're functionally the same.
As a child, my son did not like peanut butter and would not eat it. He then changed his mind, yet he is still my son. He functions just the same regardless of his choice.
Is your son a fictional character written into a book, requiring an errata from the author in order to change his mind?
In reference to you as a player, how is it functionally different if the book said "cannot" instead of "will not"? In either case, your character is not wearing metal armor. Correct?