Pointed out by whom, because you've admitted your unfamiliarity.
If you're seriously going to suggest that an Adventurer's League DM would permit a druid to wear metal armor, then you're saying all have to. And that's...not happening.
Another poster here... in this thread... directed at you specifically. It was stated that unless there are official rulings, there will be inconsistent play in DDAL. Fortunately, there is an official ruling; the SA is used in DDAL (again, emphasis DDAL's), irrespective of my play experience with it.
I am not suggesting that all DMs have to permit metal-wearing druids. I am saying outright that the rules used in DDAL allow a DM to make the final decision. It is table specific and therefore, as pointed out by another user here, there will be inconsistencies between tables.
... 4. Your associations between people who are "druids" and people who "will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" is faulty, overly complicated, and unnecessarily verbose. ....
My associations are clear and work according to a clear and direct reading of the English language. If anything your criticism might be that my argument is overly simplistic, but I often find that simplicity is a good starting point.
Thank you for your reference back to Crawford and Mearls' sage advice:
A history is mentioned that presents that: "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." Then comes a suggestion to, "Think of it in these terms: a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to."
We are left potentially to ask questions about what happens to a druid should they make choices that aren't "part of their identity as a mystical order".
"... a vegetarian can eat meat, but chooses not to" but, by doing so, they cease to be a vegetarian. "...if a druid wears metal armor.. The druid explodes. Well, not actually" while understanding that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
So where does the baseline druid stand as a "druid" if they do something that a druid will not do. All we know for sure is that they won't explode.
The rest is down to DM interpretation. Back on the identity issues we read that, "Druids ... 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."
The player is told that, "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."
It will then be up to a DM to decide on potential consequences of what may happen in regard to a druid who wears armor or use shields made of metal within a context in which it is clear that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal".
I don't really understand what you are arguing. If you want druids in your world to wear metal armor, then have them wear metal armor. You are the GM. If you aren't the GM, then ask him, not us. Even if we agreed with you (which isn't going to happen), it is still up to your GM.
Pointed out by whom, because you've admitted your unfamiliarity.
If you're seriously going to suggest that an Adventurer's League DM would permit a druid to wear metal armor, then you're saying all have to. And that's...not happening.
Another poster here... in this thread... directed at you specifically. It was stated that unless there are official rulings, there will be inconsistent play in DDAL. Fortunately, there is an official ruling; the SA is used in DDAL (again, emphasis DDAL's), irrespective of my play experience with it.
I am not suggesting that all DMs have to permit metal-wearing druids. I am saying outright that the rules used in DDAL allow a DM to make the final decision. It is table specific and therefore, as pointed out by another user here, there will be inconsistencies between tables.
Are you, by chance, referring to this?
Unless an official ruling has been made for organized play, I expect inconsistent results, the same as you get anywhere else.
That doesn't mean what you say it means. First, they dodged a simple yes/no question entirely. Second, their expectations needn't reflect reality because the expectation is consistency. You'll probably get some variation, like whether flanking or other optional combat rules from the DMG are in effect, but nothing which goes against the norm. Alignments are restricted; no NE or CE characters. You couldn't legally have an Oathbreaker paladin until Season 8 because the DMG was not a valid book for the PH + 1 rule. Heck, that rule alone limited options considerably. If you wanted to play a tabaxi rogue, you were stuck with the three subclasses in the PH: arcane trickster, assassin, and thief. You had to play as a race and subrace from the PH if you wanted a different subclass. The most notable exception to that rule was if both the race/subrace came from the same book as the subclass, like the SCAG. The other was backgrounds. Some of them were campaign dependent, for story reasons, but generally speaking they could come from any source because the PH has rules for creating and customizing backgrounds.
To wit, the parenthetical, "(druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)," is treated as Gospel. D&D is a game of exceptions, but only when they're expressed. For organized play, this isn't one of them. I don't care if y'all don't like it. It's the truth. A druid simply won't do it, and that character is partially governed by a log sheet of their adventures. If it isn't written down, then it didn't happen, and no DM can be forced to uphold the decision of another. It's a drop-in, drop-out style of cooperative play; not unlike some online games. All of them maintain some base assumptions.
Let's try this in a way you might understand: Thursday's DM isn't bound by what Tuesday's DM allows if it deviates from the expected norm. If a character's log sheet shows a Holy Avenger Greatsword when they haven't played an adventure where they can have one, then it's not a legal magic item for them to have. It doesn't matter if the player cheated by adding it to their sheet or if the other DM changed the module to give it to them. It's beyond the base assumption, so it isn't legal. And if it didn't matter, then DDEX3-11 The Quest for Sporedom wouldn't include an expressly non-metal Half-Plate of Poison Resistance "constructed from petrified giant mushrooms." This particular magic item was made specifically so that druids could wear it, not so they wouldn't have to feel guilty.
As I've said in at least one previous post, there is something of an honor system in effect. If your response to that is to say "screw it" and do whatever you want, then you're just plain untrustworthy. And I have zero time for that.
If you don’t care that I don’t like it, I certainly am under no obligation to care that you don’t like the reality that the rules permit metal-wearing druids in organized play. If you don’t like it, too bad, the rules of organized play explicitly state that it is permitted.
A druid traditionally doesn’t do it, granted. But druids are not a hive mind, philosophy and religion are not univocal, individuals have agency, and the rules that are used in DDAL allow it.
All that mess you wrote is just a rejection of the rules of the game, which is pretty amusing for someone who plays in DDAL.
Bottom line: Sage Advice permits metal-wearing druids if the DM gives the thumbs up. DDAL uses Sage Advice per their own Twitter (X) page. Case closed.
But, again, how the other side chooses to play shouldn’t be an issue to you.
Many DMs don’t like the idea of being harassed by players who have been told it is okay to go off RAW. I think they’ve got just as much a point as you do.
Again, you are missing my point and I already agreed with you on yours. I don't care if he wants to ignore the rules. I have seen many reject rules that they find inconvenient. The point is to inform others reading this thread that it is WITHIN the rules to allow metal-wearing druids. Correcting misinformation is important, I'm sure you know.
Again, you are missing my point and I already agreed with you on yours. I don't care if he wants to ignore the rules. I have seen many reject rules that they find inconvenient. The point is to inform others reading this thread that it is WITHIN the rules to allow metal-wearing druids. Correcting misinformation is important, I'm sure you know.
That is your opinion.
Everyone I have played with is of the opinion the ""Druids will not wear metal armor" means that metal wearing druids is not within the rules. Of course if a player wants to play a metal wearing druid they can ask their DM but they should not be a presumption that it is within the rules.
Even if the rules do not say a druid can not wear armor. The rules are silent on what happens if they do. This does not mean there is no consequences it is up to the DM.
There are a lot of things that the rules are silent on but everyone understands what is intended. The rules say of the Visage of the Astral self "The spectral visage covers your face like a helmet or mask. You determine its appearance." Can you make it appear like a medusa's head, sure, does that mean the monk can petrify people by looking at them? The rules are silent but most DMs would say no. A player wanting their Astral monk to do so and demanding it is within the rules is likely to be unpopular with the rest of the table.
Other area where the rules are silent will have DMs decide what happens in different ways. Lets say a fighter with rules on jumping says they can cover a distance of up to 60ft and that each fot covers costs a foot of movement. The fighter however only has 15ft of movement left. Do they fall if they end the turn in the middle of a jump over a canyon? Are they "frozen" there as the camera moves to a different character with them continueing the jump at the start of their next turn? Does something else happen entirely? Similalry if they make a high jump do they take fall damage if they jump over a 15ft fence?
D&D relies on a level of trust between the layers and the DM (and between the players for that matter). The DM is the arbitor of the rules and while some rules (like a 2nd level fighter can take an additional action on their turn once per short rest) are very clear and unless the DM specifically says "fighters can not action surge" the players can expect that they can. The fact that many people on this thread say the rules say / imply that metal wearing druids are not allowed means at least that the issue is up for debate and the player would needs to ask the DM their interpretation of the rules.
The idea that it is within the rules for druids to wear metal armor in one possible interpretation. No one here is likely to stop you from choosing that interpretation.
I get the sense that you have not been tracking this thread very well. I will summarize for you so you can make arguments directed at me that are appropriate.
It was stated that druids wearing metal was homebrew and against the rules of the game.
It was pointed out that the PHB states that druids do not wear metal armor, not that they cannot, which logically implies a decision. A decision means that there is an alternative option than what is listed in the PHB.
This point was argued against on philosophical grounds, which was countered as a self-defeating argument, as no philosophy is univocal or universally accepted. It was also noted that Sage Advice specifically acknowledges this choice (i.e. not an interpretation).
It was then argued that this permitted use of metal armor, would not be allowed in organized play.
This was countered with the observed fact that DDAL uses Sage Advice, which again, states very plainly that a druid can wear metal armor. In game, only druidic taboo prevents it, so the decision is placed in the DM's hands to make the final call.
In conclusion, DMs would be empowered with the knowledge that they can allow metal wearing druids and still be within the rules, be it in a private game or organized play. If a DM wishes to deny a player the option, they would be supported by the rules with this decision, but they would also be supported by the rules if they permit it.
Now that you are caught up, I hope this will help you engage my actual arguments, if your goal is to debate me on this issue. So far, you have absolutely not been.
Again, you are missing my point and I already agreed with you on yours. I don't care if he wants to ignore the rules. I have seen many reject rules that they find inconvenient. The point is to inform others reading this thread that it is WITHIN the rules to allow metal-wearing druids. Correcting misinformation is important, I'm sure you know.
That is your opinion.
[screed]
Sage Advice being official rulings of the game is not an opinion, but a fact. It outright says so in the text here, in case you missed it.
I haven’t looked into Sage Advice in many years and, so, I may be way out of date, but it is my understanding that Sage Advice is a Q&A website. Sage Advice Compendium draws from those Q&A. SAC is a subset of SA.
That's alright. I can hardly judge someone for not knowing a particular thing about 5e. I can fill a book with what I don't know.
These are official rulings of questions regarding D&D 5e. DDAL has stated that Sage Advice is used in DDAL, though it is not required.
Regardless, my argument this entire time (and why I am most baffled that you are trying to take a position against me) is that a DM can permit metal wearing druids if they wish and still be within the rules of the game. My argument is also that a DM can deny a player metal and still be within the rules. My argument has never been that DMs have to allow it. You will not find a single post from me that states that DMs must allow it, here or anywhere else in all the forums.
Again, you are missing my point and I already agreed with you on yours. I don't care if he wants to ignore the rules. I have seen many reject rules that they find inconvenient. The point is to inform others reading this thread that it is WITHIN the rules to allow metal-wearing druids. Correcting misinformation is important, I'm sure you know.
That is your opinion.
[screed]
Sage Advice being official rulings of the game is not an opinion, but a fact. It outright says so in the text here, in case you missed it.
This is the actual relevent test in Sage advice, I did actually reread it before I replied.
"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."
Again, you are missing my point and I already agreed with you on yours. I don't care if he wants to ignore the rules. I have seen many reject rules that they find inconvenient. The point is to inform others reading this thread that it is WITHIN the rules to allow metal-wearing druids. Correcting misinformation is important, I'm sure you know.
That is your opinion.
[screed]
Sage Advice being official rulings of the game is not an opinion, but a fact. It outright says so in the text here, in case you missed it.
This is the actual relevent test in Sage advice, I did actually reread it before I replied.
"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."
I think it agrees with what I said.
You stated that it is my opinion that a DM would be within the rules to permit metal-wearing druids. By the text you chose to bold, this proves that you are absolutely wrong in that assertion.
You stated that it is my opinion that a DM would be within the rules to permit metal-wearing druids. By the text you chose to bold, this proves that you are absolutely wrong in that assertion.
It is only my opinion that a DM would be within the rules to permit metal-wearing druids in the sense that it is within the rules for the DM to interpret the rules as they see fit, and that fits with the sage advice..
At the start of the thread I was saying that my interpretation of "druids will not wear metal armor" is that someone who will wear armor is not a druid, however if a player wants to play a metal wearing druid it is up to the DM whether to allow it and if so f their are any consequences.
The OP was insistent that "will not" does not mean "can not" and a few other reasons I didn't really get that meant metal wearing druids were completely within the rules and a DM that bans metal wearing druids is going against RAW.
I then pointed out that there are some area where the rules are silent. They often say what you can do, they sometimes say what you can not do but what if you want to do something that is neither. Some of these almost every table would agree on. My example was from 2nd level fighter can take an additional action on their turn once per short rest, the rules do not say the fighter can take an additional action on someone else's turn but it doesn't say they can't (but everyone assumes they can't), some of these gaps in the rules different DMs will treat different ways.
The rules are silent on what happens if a druid wears metal armor, I along with many people on this thread believe that is becasue it can not happen. The OP believes that means druids can wear metal armor without consequence. As the rules are silent on the issue it is the decision of the DM whether a PC wilingly wearing metal armor is still a druid and that is backed up by Sage Advice.
You stated that it is my opinion that a DM would be within the rules to permit metal-wearing druids. By the text you chose to bold, this proves that you are absolutely wrong in that assertion.
It is only my opinion that a DM would be within the rules to permit metal-wearing druids in the sense that it is within the rules for the DM to interpret the rules as they see fit, and that fits with the sage advice..
At the start of the thread I was saying that my interpretation of "druids will not wear metal armor" is that someone who will wear armor is not a druid, however if a player wants to play a metal wearing druid it is up to the DM whether to allow it and if so f their are any consequences.
The OP was insistent that "will not" does not mean "can not" and a few other reasons I didn't really get that meant metal wearing druids were completely within the rules and a DM that bans metal wearing druids is going against RAW.
I then pointed out that there are some area where the rules are silent. They often say what you can do, they sometimes say what you can not do but what if you want to do something that is neither. Some of these almost every table would agree on. My example was from 2nd level fighter can take an additional action on their turn once per short rest, the rules do not say the fighter can take an additional action on someone else's turn but it doesn't say they can't (but everyone assumes they can't), some of these gaps in the rules different DMs will treat different ways.
The rules are silent on what happens if a druid wears metal armor, I along with many people on this thread believe that is becasue it can not happen. The OP believes that means druids can wear metal armor without consequence. As the rules are silent on the issue it is the decision of the DM whether a PC wilingly wearing metal armor is still a druid and that is backed up by Sage Advice.
It seems to me then, that your argument should not be directed at me, for I have never said or implied a lack of consequence. I am open to there being a 'cause and effect' to a druid donning metal, such as other druids being unwilling to work with the druid PC or whatever. My entire position, and the one which you have been arguing against, is only that it is up to the DM and the rules support the DM's decision either way on whether the player can have a metal-wearing druid.
If you don’t care that I don’t like it, I certainly am under no obligation to care that you don’t like the reality that the rules permit metal-wearing druids in organized play. If you don’t like it, too bad, the rules of organized play explicitly state that it is permitted.
A druid traditionally doesn’t do it, granted. But druids are not a hive mind, philosophy and religion are not univocal, individuals have agency, and the rules that are used in DDAL allow it.
All that mess you wrote is just a rejection of the rules of the game, which is pretty amusing for someone who plays in DDAL.
Bottom line: Sage Advice permits metal-wearing druids if the DM gives the thumbs up. DDAL uses Sage Advice per their own Twitter (X) page. Case closed.
Show us where it's permitted in the rules for organized play.
If you don’t care that I don’t like it, I certainly am under no obligation to care that you don’t like the reality that the rules permit metal-wearing druids in organized play. If you don’t like it, too bad, the rules of organized play explicitly state that it is permitted.
A druid traditionally doesn’t do it, granted. But druids are not a hive mind, philosophy and religion are not univocal, individuals have agency, and the rules that are used in DDAL allow it.
All that mess you wrote is just a rejection of the rules of the game, which is pretty amusing for someone who plays in DDAL.
Bottom line: Sage Advice permits metal-wearing druids if the DM gives the thumbs up. DDAL uses Sage Advice per their own Twitter (X) page. Case closed.
Show us where it's permitted in the rules for organized play.
I haven’t looked into Sage Advice in many years and, so, I may be way out of date, but it is my understanding that Sage Advice is a Q&A website. Sage Advice Compendium draws from those Q&A. SAC is a subset of SA.
That's alright. I can hardly judge someone for not knowing a particular thing about 5e. I can fill a book with what I don't know.
These are official rulings of questions regarding D&D 5e. DDAL has stated that Sage Advice is used in DDAL, though it is not required.
Regardless, my argument this entire time (and why I am most baffled that you are trying to take a position against me) is that a DM can permit metal wearing druids if they wish and still be within the rules of the game. My argument is also that a DM can deny a player metal and still be within the rules. My argument has never been that DMs have to allow it. You will not find a single post from me that states that DMs must allow it, here or anywhere else in all the forums.
I’m not trying to take a point against you.
I’m saying that we can all just each other be.
As for DDAL, it is a specific subset of the game and RAW isn’t very important in it compared to what the administrators of the subset say.
I agree. I am a firm believer that it is bad form to tell others how to have fun with D&D. That said, I also believe that there are some DMs who strive to be as close to RAW as possible and they might be saying no to druid players when they would want to actually say yes. My purpose here is to empower those DMs with knowledge.
Drawing a line here. If you want to have a debate. Do so respectfully. I will be cleaning up the thread now. Continued accusations and arguing will result in the thread being locked.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
If you don’t care that I don’t like it, I certainly am under no obligation to care that you don’t like the reality that the rules permit metal-wearing druids in organized play. If you don’t like it, too bad, the rules of organized play explicitly state that it is permitted.
A druid traditionally doesn’t do it, granted. But druids are not a hive mind, philosophy and religion are not univocal, individuals have agency, and the rules that are used in DDAL allow it.
All that mess you wrote is just a rejection of the rules of the game, which is pretty amusing for someone who plays in DDAL.
Bottom line: Sage Advice permits metal-wearing druids if the DM gives the thumbs up. DDAL uses Sage Advice per their own Twitter (X) page. Case closed.
Show us where it's permitted in the rules for organized play.
Another poster here... in this thread... directed at you specifically. It was stated that unless there are official rulings, there will be inconsistent play in DDAL. Fortunately, there is an official ruling; the SA is used in DDAL (again, emphasis DDAL's), irrespective of my play experience with it.
I am not suggesting that all DMs have to permit metal-wearing druids. I am saying outright that the rules used in DDAL allow a DM to make the final decision. It is table specific and therefore, as pointed out by another user here, there will be inconsistencies between tables.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Agreed.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
Are you, by chance, referring to this?
That doesn't mean what you say it means. First, they dodged a simple yes/no question entirely. Second, their expectations needn't reflect reality because the expectation is consistency. You'll probably get some variation, like whether flanking or other optional combat rules from the DMG are in effect, but nothing which goes against the norm. Alignments are restricted; no NE or CE characters. You couldn't legally have an Oathbreaker paladin until Season 8 because the DMG was not a valid book for the PH + 1 rule. Heck, that rule alone limited options considerably. If you wanted to play a tabaxi rogue, you were stuck with the three subclasses in the PH: arcane trickster, assassin, and thief. You had to play as a race and subrace from the PH if you wanted a different subclass. The most notable exception to that rule was if both the race/subrace came from the same book as the subclass, like the SCAG. The other was backgrounds. Some of them were campaign dependent, for story reasons, but generally speaking they could come from any source because the PH has rules for creating and customizing backgrounds.
To wit, the parenthetical, "(druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)," is treated as Gospel. D&D is a game of exceptions, but only when they're expressed. For organized play, this isn't one of them. I don't care if y'all don't like it. It's the truth. A druid simply won't do it, and that character is partially governed by a log sheet of their adventures. If it isn't written down, then it didn't happen, and no DM can be forced to uphold the decision of another. It's a drop-in, drop-out style of cooperative play; not unlike some online games. All of them maintain some base assumptions.
Let's try this in a way you might understand: Thursday's DM isn't bound by what Tuesday's DM allows if it deviates from the expected norm. If a character's log sheet shows a Holy Avenger Greatsword when they haven't played an adventure where they can have one, then it's not a legal magic item for them to have. It doesn't matter if the player cheated by adding it to their sheet or if the other DM changed the module to give it to them. It's beyond the base assumption, so it isn't legal. And if it didn't matter, then DDEX3-11 The Quest for Sporedom wouldn't include an expressly non-metal Half-Plate of Poison Resistance "constructed from petrified giant mushrooms." This particular magic item was made specifically so that druids could wear it, not so they wouldn't have to feel guilty.
As I've said in at least one previous post, there is something of an honor system in effect. If your response to that is to say "screw it" and do whatever you want, then you're just plain untrustworthy. And I have zero time for that.
If you don’t care that I don’t like it, I certainly am under no obligation to care that you don’t like the reality that the rules permit metal-wearing druids in organized play. If you don’t like it, too bad, the rules of organized play explicitly state that it is permitted.
A druid traditionally doesn’t do it, granted. But druids are not a hive mind, philosophy and religion are not univocal, individuals have agency, and the rules that are used in DDAL allow it.
All that mess you wrote is just a rejection of the rules of the game, which is pretty amusing for someone who plays in DDAL.
Bottom line: Sage Advice permits metal-wearing druids if the DM gives the thumbs up. DDAL uses Sage Advice per their own Twitter (X) page. Case closed.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Again, you are missing my point and I already agreed with you on yours. I don't care if he wants to ignore the rules. I have seen many reject rules that they find inconvenient. The point is to inform others reading this thread that it is WITHIN the rules to allow metal-wearing druids. Correcting misinformation is important, I'm sure you know.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
That is your opinion.
Everyone I have played with is of the opinion the ""Druids will not wear metal armor" means that metal wearing druids is not within the rules. Of course if a player wants to play a metal wearing druid they can ask their DM but they should not be a presumption that it is within the rules.
Even if the rules do not say a druid can not wear armor. The rules are silent on what happens if they do. This does not mean there is no consequences it is up to the DM.
There are a lot of things that the rules are silent on but everyone understands what is intended. The rules say of the Visage of the Astral self "The spectral visage covers your face like a helmet or mask. You determine its appearance." Can you make it appear like a medusa's head, sure, does that mean the monk can petrify people by looking at them? The rules are silent but most DMs would say no. A player wanting their Astral monk to do so and demanding it is within the rules is likely to be unpopular with the rest of the table.
Other area where the rules are silent will have DMs decide what happens in different ways. Lets say a fighter with rules on jumping says they can cover a distance of up to 60ft and that each fot covers costs a foot of movement. The fighter however only has 15ft of movement left. Do they fall if they end the turn in the middle of a jump over a canyon? Are they "frozen" there as the camera moves to a different character with them continueing the jump at the start of their next turn? Does something else happen entirely? Similalry if they make a high jump do they take fall damage if they jump over a 15ft fence?
D&D relies on a level of trust between the layers and the DM (and between the players for that matter). The DM is the arbitor of the rules and while some rules (like a 2nd level fighter can take an additional action on their turn once per short rest) are very clear and unless the DM specifically says "fighters can not action surge" the players can expect that they can. The fact that many people on this thread say the rules say / imply that metal wearing druids are not allowed means at least that the issue is up for debate and the player would needs to ask the DM their interpretation of the rules.
I get the sense that you have not been tracking this thread very well. I will summarize for you so you can make arguments directed at me that are appropriate.
It was stated that druids wearing metal was homebrew and against the rules of the game.
It was pointed out that the PHB states that druids do not wear metal armor, not that they cannot, which logically implies a decision. A decision means that there is an alternative option than what is listed in the PHB.
This point was argued against on philosophical grounds, which was countered as a self-defeating argument, as no philosophy is univocal or universally accepted. It was also noted that Sage Advice specifically acknowledges this choice (i.e. not an interpretation).
It was then argued that this permitted use of metal armor, would not be allowed in organized play.
This was countered with the observed fact that DDAL uses Sage Advice, which again, states very plainly that a druid can wear metal armor. In game, only druidic taboo prevents it, so the decision is placed in the DM's hands to make the final call.
In conclusion, DMs would be empowered with the knowledge that they can allow metal wearing druids and still be within the rules, be it in a private game or organized play. If a DM wishes to deny a player the option, they would be supported by the rules with this decision, but they would also be supported by the rules if they permit it.
Now that you are caught up, I hope this will help you engage my actual arguments, if your goal is to debate me on this issue. So far, you have absolutely not been.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Sage Advice being official rulings of the game is not an opinion, but a fact. It outright says so in the text here, in case you missed it.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
That's alright. I can hardly judge someone for not knowing a particular thing about 5e. I can fill a book with what I don't know.
These are official rulings of questions regarding D&D 5e. DDAL has stated that Sage Advice is used in DDAL, though it is not required.
Regardless, my argument this entire time (and why I am most baffled that you are trying to take a position against me) is that a DM can permit metal wearing druids if they wish and still be within the rules of the game. My argument is also that a DM can deny a player metal and still be within the rules. My argument has never been that DMs have to allow it. You will not find a single post from me that states that DMs must allow it, here or anywhere else in all the forums.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
This is the actual relevent test in Sage advice, I did actually reread it before I replied.
"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."
I think it agrees with what I said.
You stated that it is my opinion that a DM would be within the rules to permit metal-wearing druids. By the text you chose to bold, this proves that you are absolutely wrong in that assertion.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
It is only my opinion that a DM would be within the rules to permit metal-wearing druids in the sense that it is within the rules for the DM to interpret the rules as they see fit, and that fits with the sage advice..
At the start of the thread I was saying that my interpretation of "druids will not wear metal armor" is that someone who will wear armor is not a druid, however if a player wants to play a metal wearing druid it is up to the DM whether to allow it and if so f their are any consequences.
The OP was insistent that "will not" does not mean "can not" and a few other reasons I didn't really get that meant metal wearing druids were completely within the rules and a DM that bans metal wearing druids is going against RAW.
I then pointed out that there are some area where the rules are silent. They often say what you can do, they sometimes say what you can not do but what if you want to do something that is neither. Some of these almost every table would agree on. My example was from 2nd level fighter can take an additional action on their turn once per short rest, the rules do not say the fighter can take an additional action on someone else's turn but it doesn't say they can't (but everyone assumes they can't), some of these gaps in the rules different DMs will treat different ways.
The rules are silent on what happens if a druid wears metal armor, I along with many people on this thread believe that is becasue it can not happen. The OP believes that means druids can wear metal armor without consequence. As the rules are silent on the issue it is the decision of the DM whether a PC wilingly wearing metal armor is still a druid and that is backed up by Sage Advice.
Sooooo, can't want until the new rules come out to finally put all this metal rule nonsense in the trash bin of history where it belongs.
I think I will create a druid that wears light metal armor in celebration.
It seems to me then, that your argument should not be directed at me, for I have never said or implied a lack of consequence. I am open to there being a 'cause and effect' to a druid donning metal, such as other druids being unwilling to work with the druid PC or whatever. My entire position, and the one which you have been arguing against, is only that it is up to the DM and the rules support the DM's decision either way on whether the player can have a metal-wearing druid.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Agreed and way ahead of you. Roughly half a year ago, I gave one of my players a warforged druid to play and he was over the moon. :P
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Show us where it's permitted in the rules for organized play.
Sure.
How it applies generally here
and for Forgotten Realms specifically: here.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I agree. I am a firm believer that it is bad form to tell others how to have fun with D&D. That said, I also believe that there are some DMs who strive to be as close to RAW as possible and they might be saying no to druid players when they would want to actually say yes. My purpose here is to empower those DMs with knowledge.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorDrawing a line here. If you want to have a debate. Do so respectfully. I will be cleaning up the thread now. Continued accusations and arguing will result in the thread being locked.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
Can you point to specific passages? A quote of the relevant section, with page citation? Anything at all to shed light on the parenthetical in the PH?