But your last argument is that without a consequence, no rules matter. Your double standard is terrible rules analysis.
by the way, if can and do are significantly different, then can offers permission to make a choice. Do offers no such choice; it is a strict limitation.
But your last argument is that without a consequence, no rules matter. Your double standard is terrible rules analysis.
by the way, if can and do are significantly different, then can offers permission to make a choice. Do offers no such choice; it is a strict limitation.
Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
If you're going be a stickler about RAW, you gotta stick to RAW. Do does not appear in the rule.
Look, as I clearly stated, I agree with your position and would not have a druid in metal armour myself. The difference is that I'm able to recognize that there was a mechanical consequence in previous editions; in this one there is not. It's like a person who commits murder and is not punished for it versus someone who does not commit murder. Functionally, they are the same people, equally free. I don't agree with the position that there is nothing stopping a druid from wearing metal armour but, mechanically speaking, it's a valid position as there is no functional consequence when they do. You are right and they are wrong but their druids are still druids who can do all the druid things.
Nah, my analogy is fine. You are told not to do something (whether because you can't, won't, or just don't). Whether you break that rule is irrespective of whether you are punished for it.
So, without consequence, what is the difference between breaking the rule and following the rule? Nothing. In practicality, meaningful consequence is what separates obedience from intransigence. All you have to show for obedience when there is no consequence for breaking a rule is the moral high ground.
Friends had a campaign when I was young where a player turned up and was told that their character was pulled powerfully to the ground. The party made various checks as to what was going on and finally worked out that it was all down to the several chests loads of treasure etc. that were stuffed in the character's backpack or scattered around their person. The truth is that the problem was that there was a bullshitting, cheating player not following the rules.
edit: in context of other responses, let's change this next bit to general, non-pointed advice, Honestly, if you are in a game where the DM doesn't want a culture where druid's don't wear armour and you decide that your druid is going to wear metal armour, then that's just excrement to their worldbuilding - all because you wanted to insist on mechanical advantage. The main potential consequence may be a lack of respect - though this may not preclude other potential consequences to follow - but honestly, that should already have been enough. If a DM puts the time and effort in running a game for you, please respect what they say.
Nah, my analogy is fine. You are told not to do something (whether because you can't, won't, or just don't). Whether you break that rule is irrespective of whether you are punished for it.
So, without consequence, what is the difference between breaking the rule and following the rule? Nothing. In practicality, meaningful consequence is what separates obedience from intransigence. All you have to show for obedience when there is no consequence for breaking a rule is the moral high ground.
Friends had a campaign when I was young where a player turned up and was told that their character was pulled powerfully to the ground. The party made various checks as to what was going on and finally worked out that it was all down to the several chests loads of treasure etc. that were stuffed in the character's backpack or scattered around their person. The truth is that the problem was that there was a bullshitting, cheating player not following the rules.
Honestly, if you are in a game where the DM doesn't want a culture where druid's don't wear armour and you decide that your druid is going to wear metal armour, then that's just excrement to their worldbuilding - all because you wanted to insist on mechanical advantage. The main potential consequence may be a lack of respect - though this may not preclude other potential consequences to follow - but honestly, that should already have been enough. If a DM puts the time and effort in running a game for you, please respect what they say.
Of course if you are in a game where the DM doesn’t want druids in metal armour, then your druid ought not be in metal armour. This, however, does not preclude the existence of a game where druids wearing metal armour are still druids because the DM notes there is no mechanical consequence when they do so. At no point have I advocated contravention of individual DM’s rulings. It is WolfOfTheBees declaring that DM’s may not, under any circumstance, allow druids to wear metal armour and if a druid wears metal armour, they are no longer a druid, regardless of what culture the DM wants.
I guess I’ll take this opportunity to state, yet again, that I would not have a druid in metal armour myself for legacy reasons. I have no horse in this race, I just think WolfOfTheBees makes terrible analogies and injects language and mechanics that are not present in this edition’s rules on the matter.
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
They "will not" and that's all there is too it. If you agree to play a druid, you're agreeing to these terms. Whether the armor in question contains metal is up to the DM. They might let you acquire something made with exotic material (e.g. alchemically-treated stone, chitin, glassteel, or ironwood), or they might not. But this is something to talk with the DM about. It may even lead to a quest for a meaningful, possibly magical, upgrade.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Players clearly read in their handbook that, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"
WotC make the rules. If you don't want to follow them, that's something you'd to bring up with your DM. We can't help. We don't get to make decisions for them.
I think you missed the part where Jeremy Crawford said: " 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."
That's not sneaking any buffs in. Them making a BS call saying what my character will and will not do, is absolutely them determining my RP for me. If they didn't want me to wear metal armor, they shouldn't have given me proficiency in it. If they only wanted me to wear light armor and hide, that's what my proficiencies would state.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think you missed the part where Jeremy Crawford said: " 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."
That's not sneaking any buffs in. Them making a BS call saying what my character will and will not do, is absolutely them determining my RP for me. If they didn't want me to wear metal armor, they shouldn't have given me proficiency in it. If they only wanted me to wear light armor and hide, that's what my proficiencies would state.
Except they don't want you to only wear light armor and hide. Hell, it isn't even clear if it's intended for them to wear studded leather. That's for the DM to decide because it likely still incorporates metal.
The full proficiency with medium armor is there so other rewards are possible. Maybe it's a suit of white dragon scale mail, a stone breastplate, or some half plate of poison resistance made from petrified mushrooms. All are perfectly valid options for a druid.
You may as well complain about paladins needing to take an oath. I guess that entire subclass doesn't matter, does it? You could be a forest-razing, endangered animal poaching Oath of the Ancients paladin, right? How dare WotC try to impose a story into their game mechanics.
I think you missed the part where Jeremy Crawford said: " 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."
That's not sneaking any buffs in. Them making a BS call saying what my character will and will not do, is absolutely them determining my RP for me. If they didn't want me to wear metal armor, they shouldn't have given me proficiency in it. If they only wanted me to wear light armor and hide, that's what my proficiencies would state.
Sorry, I didn't realise that Jeremy Crawford was your DM.
(Of course, if Jeremy Crawford is not your DM then the basic rule is that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" until your DM decides otherwise).
I think you missed the part where Jeremy Crawford said: " 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."
That's not sneaking any buffs in. Them making a BS call saying what my character will and will not do, is absolutely them determining my RP for me. If they didn't want me to wear metal armor, they shouldn't have given me proficiency in it. If they only wanted me to wear light armor and hide, that's what my proficiencies would state.
Sorry, I didn't realise that Jeremy Crawford was your DM.
(Of course, if Jeremy Crawford is not your DM then the basic rule is that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" until your DM decides otherwise).
To be clear, we're not talking about JC's twitter feed. We're talking about a formal SAC entry from WOTC officially designated as an official ruling. And if you don't take the SAC as RAW, you're going to have rules problems - for example, the only RAW definition of "melee weapon attack" is in the SAC. Without the SAC, "melee weapon attack" could well mean "any attack which is made with a melee weapon" (the SAC is our only RAW source for believing this to be false).
I think you missed the part where Jeremy Crawford said: " 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."
That's not sneaking any buffs in. Them making a BS call saying what my character will and will not do, is absolutely them determining my RP for me. If they didn't want me to wear metal armor, they shouldn't have given me proficiency in it. If they only wanted me to wear light armor and hide, that's what my proficiencies would state.
Except they don't want you to only wear light armor and hide. Hell, it isn't even clear if it's intended for them to wear studded leather. That's for the DM to decide because it likely still incorporates metal.
The full proficiency with medium armor is there so other rewards are possible. Maybe it's a suit of white dragon scale mail, a stone breastplate, or some half plate of poison resistance made from petrified mushrooms. All are perfectly valid options for a druid.
You may as well complain about paladins needing to take an oath. I guess that entire subclass doesn't matter, does it? You could be a forest-razing, endangered animal poaching Oath of the Ancients paladin, right? How dare WotC try to impose a story into their game mechanics.
Just adding Living Armor to the list, if you're willing to pay the piper.
I think you missed the part where Jeremy Crawford said: " 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."
That's not sneaking any buffs in. Them making a BS call saying what my character will and will not do, is absolutely them determining my RP for me. If they didn't want me to wear metal armor, they shouldn't have given me proficiency in it. If they only wanted me to wear light armor and hide, that's what my proficiencies would state.
Sorry, I didn't realise that Jeremy Crawford was your DM.
(Of course, if Jeremy Crawford is not your DM then the basic rule is that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" until your DM decides otherwise).
To be clear, we're not talking about JC's twitter feed. We're talking about a formal SAC entry from WOTC officially designated as an official ruling. And if you don't take the SAC as RAW, you're going to have rules problems - for example, the only RAW definition of "melee weapon attack" is in the SAC. Without the SAC, "melee weapon attack" could well mean "any attack which is made with a melee weapon" (the SAC is our only RAW source for believing this to be false).
To be clear: Players have a handbook of rules which, so long as they fit in with any houserules sanctioned by their DM, they follow. DMs have a guide and advice that they can opt into if they so choose.
Players do take the rules as given in their handbook and which are customised by their DM. DMs can take anything from anywhere in any way that they want.
I think you missed the part where Jeremy Crawford said: " 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."
That's not sneaking any buffs in. Them making a BS call saying what my character will and will not do, is absolutely them determining my RP for me. If they didn't want me to wear metal armor, they shouldn't have given me proficiency in it. If they only wanted me to wear light armor and hide, that's what my proficiencies would state.
Sorry, I didn't realise that Jeremy Crawford was your DM.
(Of course, if Jeremy Crawford is not your DM then the basic rule is that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" until your DM decides otherwise).
To be clear, we're not talking about JC's twitter feed. We're talking about a formal SAC entry from WOTC officially designated as an official ruling. And if you don't take the SAC as RAW, you're going to have rules problems - for example, the only RAW definition of "melee weapon attack" is in the SAC. Without the SAC, "melee weapon attack" could well mean "any attack which is made with a melee weapon" (the SAC is our only RAW source for believing this to be false).
To be clear, even if you take the SAC entry on druid armor as RAW, you are changing the game to allow druids to wear metal and explicitly need DM permission to deviate from your class. Just like with changing any rule.
Advice : "... 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. ..."
If I were the DM my basic response would be "no".
If a player asked about a connection to Mielikki as per: "druids of Mielikki took on the abilities of rangers, including the ability to wear all kinds of armor usable by rangers," my personal response would be to ask the player for a nerf to balance with the buff. Taking a level in ranger could be part of this as might foregoing an ability to turn into a beast wildshape while wearing metal.
If a player was genuinely looking for a roleplay development in the taking on of the metal armour then they'd be happy with the mixture of buff accompanied by nerf. In other situations, it would just be a player wasting time through their fishing to get something for nothing. In another situation, perhaps with a bit of warning, the armour wearing, Mielikki worshipping druid might wake up with abilities changed to those of a Nature Cleric. One way or another we could come to a mutually agreed homebrew with my alternate offer being "no".
Mielikki, who is famous for the number of druid/rangers who worship her, has more lenient spiritual oaths than most deities that druids worship in the Realms. Druids of Mielikki can use any of the standard armor or weapons that rangers normally use (all simple and martial weapons, all light and medium armor, and all shields) without violating their spiritual oaths. ─Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd Edition, page 23
I say if they want to wear metal armor, have them multiclass at least one level as a ranger. That seems like a suitable roleplay reason to do it. And it should be easy enough. They just need Dexterity and Wisdom to be 13 or higher.
I'll say whatever I want (that doesn't violate the forum rules) because I can, and I'm usually the DM anyway. I'm just offering my 2¢ for people looking for a solution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But your last argument is that without a consequence, no rules matter. Your double standard is terrible rules analysis.
by the way, if can and do are significantly different, then can offers permission to make a choice. Do offers no such choice; it is a strict limitation.
Not without say so by the DM.
Players clearly read in their handbook that, "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal"
Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)
If you're going be a stickler about RAW, you gotta stick to RAW. Do does not appear in the rule.
Look, as I clearly stated, I agree with your position and would not have a druid in metal armour myself. The difference is that I'm able to recognize that there was a mechanical consequence in previous editions; in this one there is not. It's like a person who commits murder and is not punished for it versus someone who does not commit murder. Functionally, they are the same people, equally free. I don't agree with the position that there is nothing stopping a druid from wearing metal armour but, mechanically speaking, it's a valid position as there is no functional consequence when they do. You are right and they are wrong but their druids are still druids who can do all the druid things.
Friends had a campaign when I was young where a player turned up and was told that their character was pulled powerfully to the ground. The party made various checks as to what was going on and finally worked out that it was all down to the several chests loads of treasure etc. that were stuffed in the character's backpack or scattered around their person. The truth is that the problem was that there was a bullshitting, cheating player not following the rules.
edit: in context of other responses, let's change this next bit to general, non-pointed advice,
Honestly, if you are in a game where the DM doesn't want a culture where druid's don't wear armour and you decide that your druid is going to wear metal armour, then that's just excrement to their worldbuilding - all because you wanted to insist on mechanical advantage. The main potential consequence may be a lack of respect - though this may not preclude other potential consequences to follow - but honestly, that should already have been enough. If a DM puts the time and effort in running a game for you, please respect what they say.
Of course if you are in a game where the DM doesn’t want druids in metal armour, then your druid ought not be in metal armour. This, however, does not preclude the existence of a game where druids wearing metal armour are still druids because the DM notes there is no mechanical consequence when they do so. At no point have I advocated contravention of individual DM’s rulings. It is WolfOfTheBees declaring that DM’s may not, under any circumstance, allow druids to wear metal armour and if a druid wears metal armour, they are no longer a druid, regardless of what culture the DM wants.
I guess I’ll take this opportunity to state, yet again, that I would not have a druid in metal armour myself for legacy reasons. I have no horse in this race, I just think WolfOfTheBees makes terrible analogies and injects language and mechanics that are not present in this edition’s rules on the matter.
The words "can" and "do" are immaterial, here.
They "will not" and that's all there is too it. If you agree to play a druid, you're agreeing to these terms. Whether the armor in question contains metal is up to the DM. They might let you acquire something made with exotic material (e.g. alchemically-treated stone, chitin, glassteel, or ironwood), or they might not. But this is something to talk with the DM about. It may even lead to a quest for a meaningful, possibly magical, upgrade.
No, it's not. WotC doesn't get to RP for me.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
lol
I think you may be confusing the terms:
"RP"
with
"trying to sneak extra buffs against the rules"
And as far as the PHb is concerned, RP is just an interpretation. Advice to DMs, even from self-proclaimed sages, is just advice.
As a player you have rules and:
WotC make the rules. If you don't want to follow them, that's something you'd to bring up with your DM. We can't help. We don't get to make decisions for them.
I think you missed the part where Jeremy Crawford said: " 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."
That's not sneaking any buffs in. Them making a BS call saying what my character will and will not do, is absolutely them determining my RP for me. If they didn't want me to wear metal armor, they shouldn't have given me proficiency in it. If they only wanted me to wear light armor and hide, that's what my proficiencies would state.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Except they don't want you to only wear light armor and hide. Hell, it isn't even clear if it's intended for them to wear studded leather. That's for the DM to decide because it likely still incorporates metal.
The full proficiency with medium armor is there so other rewards are possible. Maybe it's a suit of white dragon scale mail, a stone breastplate, or some half plate of poison resistance made from petrified mushrooms. All are perfectly valid options for a druid.
You may as well complain about paladins needing to take an oath. I guess that entire subclass doesn't matter, does it? You could be a forest-razing, endangered animal poaching Oath of the Ancients paladin, right? How dare WotC try to impose a story into their game mechanics.
Sorry, I didn't realise that Jeremy Crawford was your DM.
(Of course, if Jeremy Crawford is not your DM then the basic rule is that "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal" until your DM decides otherwise).
To be clear, we're not talking about JC's twitter feed. We're talking about a formal SAC entry from WOTC officially designated as an official ruling. And if you don't take the SAC as RAW, you're going to have rules problems - for example, the only RAW definition of "melee weapon attack" is in the SAC. Without the SAC, "melee weapon attack" could well mean "any attack which is made with a melee weapon" (the SAC is our only RAW source for believing this to be false).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding
In short, bikeshedding is when people spend way too much time debating trivial details.
Just adding Living Armor to the list, if you're willing to pay the piper.
To be clear:
Players have a handbook of rules which, so long as they fit in with any houserules sanctioned by their DM, they follow.
DMs have a guide and advice that they can opt into if they so choose.
Players do take the rules as given in their handbook and which are customised by their DM.
DMs can take anything from anywhere in any way that they want.
To be clear, even if you take the SAC entry on druid armor as RAW, you are changing the game to allow druids to wear metal and explicitly need DM permission to deviate from your class. Just like with changing any rule.
Advice : "... 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. ..."
If I were the DM my basic response would be "no".
If a player asked about a connection to Mielikki as per:
"druids of Mielikki took on the abilities of rangers, including the ability to wear all kinds of armor usable by rangers," my personal response would be to ask the player for a nerf to balance with the buff. Taking a level in ranger could be part of this as might foregoing an ability to turn into a beast wildshape while wearing metal.
If a player was genuinely looking for a roleplay development in the taking on of the metal armour then they'd be happy with the mixture of buff accompanied by nerf. In other situations, it would just be a player wasting time through their fishing to get something for nothing. In another situation, perhaps with a bit of warning, the armour wearing, Mielikki worshipping druid might wake up with abilities changed to those of a Nature Cleric. One way or another we could come to a mutually agreed homebrew with my alternate offer being "no".
I say if they want to wear metal armor, have them multiclass at least one level as a ranger. That seems like a suitable roleplay reason to do it. And it should be easy enough. They just need Dexterity and Wisdom to be 13 or higher.
IF you are the DM you can say anything you want.
I'll say whatever I want (that doesn't violate the forum rules) because I can, and I'm usually the DM anyway. I'm just offering my 2¢ for people looking for a solution.