No, it's going to happen. They're not going to double down on the stupidity that they put in just so that druids can have hide armor. If it remains, they will say light armor, and hide armor. The whole "can but won't" thing will definitely be fixed.
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.
"Fixed" implies something is broken, and it isn't. We've been over this ad nauseam. When the player chooses to play a druid, they choose to abide by that text. It's called informed consent.
I suspect I'm not the only one peeved by the possibility of a class diluting its identity because of the tantrums of a loud minority.
I suspect I'm not the only one peeved by the possibility of a class diluting its identity because of the tantrums of a loud minority.
You're not. It wouldn't upset me, I'd just be disappointed.
Class identity is being eroded more and more as each new edition comes out and newer players complain about things they don't like instead of just not using the things they don't like.
"Fixed" implies something is broken, and it isn't. We've been over this ad nauseam. When the player chooses to play a druid, they choose to abide by that text. It's called informed consent.
I suspect I'm not the only one peeved by the possibility of a class diluting its identity because of the tantrums of a loud minority.
Same here. I have a much bigger issue mechanically with pact of the blade warlocks not getting medium armor/shields. Lore wise I like my druids in natural armor, and as a DM I generally make sure natural options are available at higher levels.
I also don't mind if my caster or others have AC's of 15 or 16.
"Fixed" implies something is broken, and it isn't. We've been over this ad nauseam. When the player chooses to play a druid, they choose to abide by that text. It's called informed consent.
I suspect I'm not the only one peeved by the possibility of a class diluting its identity because of the tantrums of a loud minority.
No they don't. They abide by their list of proficiencies. That includes metal armor for now. It won't moving forward, and that's ok.
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.
"Fixed" implies something is broken, and it isn't. We've been over this ad nauseam. When the player chooses to play a druid, they choose to abide by that text. It's called informed consent.
I suspect I'm not the only one peeved by the possibility of a class diluting its identity because of the tantrums of a loud minority.
No they don't. They abide by their list of proficiencies. That includes metal armor for now. It won't moving forward, and that's ok.
The players handbook disagrees.
Unless you meant it currently excludes it but won't in the future and simply mistyped, in which case you're most likely correct but things are still subject to change.
I might assume that leather armor is thick leather sewn into a chestplate and shoulder pads. Studded leather is leather is boiled to make it harder, there are more pieces on it, and metal studs are used to hold the thick pieces together.
Also, my druid's reason not to wear metal armor is that she doesn't want to scare the little forest creatures. Since studded doesn't jingle around, she can use it.
That's a choice. My druid absolutely will wear metal armor as long as it's on the proficiency list. JC has even said that it's a flavor choice and not a balance choice.
Saying a character /chooses/ to not do something is beyond WotC's purvue. That's an RP decision. If they don't want me wearing metal armor, remove it from my proficiency list. Until then, I can, and will wear it because them saying my character will choose to not do so, is incorrect.
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.
That's a choice. My druid absolutely will wear metal armor as long as it's on the proficiency list. JC has even said that it's a flavor choice and not a balance choice.
Saying a character /chooses/ to not do something is beyond WotC's purvue. That's an RP decision. If they don't want me wearing metal armor, remove it from my proficiency list. Until then, I can, and will wear it because them saying my character will choose to not do so, is incorrect.
The choice is whether your table follows what is written or house rules it out.
The book is very clear, Druids WILL NOT wear metal armour. There is no choice there, not even an implied one.
That's a choice. My druid absolutely will wear metal armor as long as it's on the proficiency list. JC has even said that it's a flavor choice and not a balance choice.
Saying a character /chooses/ to not do something is beyond WotC's purvue. That's an RP decision. If they don't want me wearing metal armor, remove it from my proficiency list. Until then, I can, and will wear it because them saying my character will choose to not do so, is incorrect.
Once again, the choice is made by the player when they choose to play as a druid.
If you want another example of an "RP decision" being forced onto players, each Sacred Oath a paladin might take has specific tenants. Is that acceptable to you, or is that yet another example of writer overreach?
That's a choice. My druid absolutely will wear metal armor as long as it's on the proficiency list. JC has even said that it's a flavor choice and not a balance choice.
Saying a character /chooses/ to not do something is beyond WotC's purvue. That's an RP decision. If they don't want me wearing metal armor, remove it from my proficiency list. Until then, I can, and will wear it because them saying my character will choose to not do so, is incorrect.
Once again, the choice is made by the player when they choose to play as a druid.
If you want another example of an "RP decision" being forced onto players, each Sacred Oath a paladin might take has specific tenants. Is that acceptable to you, or is that yet another example of writer overreach?
Edit: Disregard, I'm a doofus.
You're wrong. The DM has the right to say no and enforce the rule that Druids will not wear metal armour. It is a rule, not a player choice, otherwise it would say "Druids often choose not to wear armour or use shields made of metal" instead of "Druids will not wear armour or use shields made of metal."
And yes, the idea that a thematic oath with specific tenants is forced upon players who wish to play Paladins is completely acceptable to me. Just like Clerics being forced to worship a deity.
If you don't like it, ask your DM to waive the rule. Or, if they aren't willing to waive the rule, don't play one.
That's a choice. My druid absolutely will wear metal armor as long as it's on the proficiency list. JC has even said that it's a flavor choice and not a balance choice.
Saying a character /chooses/ to not do something is beyond WotC's purvue. That's an RP decision. If they don't want me wearing metal armor, remove it from my proficiency list. Until then, I can, and will wear it because them saying my character will choose to not do so, is incorrect.
Once again, the choice is made by the player when they choose to play as a druid.
If you want another example of an "RP decision" being forced onto players, each Sacred Oath a paladin might take has specific tenants. Is that acceptable to you, or is that yet another example of writer overreach?
You're wrong. The DM has the right to say no and enforce the rule that Druids will not wear metal armour. It is a rule, not a player choice, otherwise it would say "Druids often choose not to wear armour or use shields made of metal" instead of "Druids will not wear armour or use shields made of metal."
And yes, the idea that a thematic oath with specific tenants is forced upon players who wish to play Paladins is completely acceptable to me. Just like Clerics being forced to worship a deity.
If you don't like it, ask your DM to waive the rule. Or, if they aren't willing to waive the rule, don't play one.
Bull hockey!
Nobody is pointing a gun at a player's head and forcing them to roll a druid. Anyone who chooses to play a druid also chooses to accept that limitation imposed on the class. You can't have one without the other. It's right there in black and...whatever color the page actually is in the PH. The player knows what they're getting into. I've been saying that for flippin' forever, and the fact you're just casually blowing past that tells me you haven't actually been reading.
For crying out loud, you even responded to a rhetorical argument which wasn't even posed to you. And then you straight up affirm my own position with your final sentence.
Nobody is pointing a gun at a player's head and forcing them to roll a druid. Anyone who chooses to play a druid also chooses to accept that limitation imposed on the class. You can't have one without the other. It's right there in black and...whatever color the page actually is in the PH. The player knows what they're getting into. I've been saying that for flippin' forever, and the fact you're just casually blowing past that tells me you haven't actually been reading.
For crying out loud, you even responded to a rhetorical argument which wasn't even posed to you. And then you straight up affirm my own position with your final sentence.
What are you even doing here, guy?
There's clearly been a misunderstanding, guy.
I misquoted you - I thought your post was in response to mine (I wasn't paying attention to what had been quoted) and that it was crzyhawk who had posted it. So when I read the response I had already made an assumption that the meaning of what I was reading was contrary to what I had said in my previous post and completely missed the actual meaning of what you were saying.
That'll teach me to actually look at who posted what and who they were responding to. Total fail on my part, my bad.
It's cool. Mistakes happen, and we're all bound to make them. Heck, I'm surprised I haven't made more recently. I'm currently functioning off...three hours of sleep? Newborns, man.
That's a choice. My druid absolutely will wear metal armor as long as it's on the proficiency list. JC has even said that it's a flavor choice and not a balance choice.
Saying a character /chooses/ to not do something is beyond WotC's purvue. That's an RP decision. If they don't want me wearing metal armor, remove it from my proficiency list. Until then, I can, and will wear it because them saying my character will choose to not do so, is incorrect.
Once again, the choice is made by the player when they choose to play as a druid.
If you want another example of an "RP decision" being forced onto players, each Sacred Oath a paladin might take has specific tenants. Is that acceptable to you, or is that yet another example of writer overreach?
Once again, you are wrong.
yes, it's writer overreach. What if I want to play a paladin in the old style that's sworn to a god? That option is taken away from me because the writers tried to flavor something that's incumbent on me, the player to do. This is just like a druid being fluffed into a shaman, which would give zero cares about metal armor, yet here we are.
Also, to the other guy...it's not a rule. It's fluff. Jeremy Crawford said as much. It was added for fluff and not for balance. A rule would be "A druid cannot wear metal armor". That's nto what this says. It says a druid WILL not wear metal armor, and that's not for WotC to decide. It is for the player to decide. WotC can tell me what i CAN or CANNOT do. I choose what I WILL or WILLNOT do.
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.
That's a choice. My druid absolutely will wear metal armor as long as it's on the proficiency list. JC has even said that it's a flavor choice and not a balance choice.
Saying a character /chooses/ to not do something is beyond WotC's purvue. That's an RP decision. If they don't want me wearing metal armor, remove it from my proficiency list. Until then, I can, and will wear it because them saying my character will choose to not do so, is incorrect.
Once again, the choice is made by the player when they choose to play as a druid.
If you want another example of an "RP decision" being forced onto players, each Sacred Oath a paladin might take has specific tenants. Is that acceptable to you, or is that yet another example of writer overreach?
Once again, you are wrong.
yes, it's writer overreach. What if I want to play a paladin in the old style that's sworn to a god? That option is taken away from me because the writers tried to flavor something that's incumbent on me, the player to do. This is just like a druid being fluffed into a shaman, which would give zero cares about metal armor, yet here we are.
Also, to the other guy...it's not a rule. It's fluff. Jeremy Crawford said as much. It was added for fluff and not for balance. A rule would be "A druid cannot wear metal armor". That's nto what this says. It says a druid WILL not wear metal armor, and that's not for WotC to decide. It is for the player to decide. WotC can tell me what i CAN or CANNOT do. I choose what I WILL or WILLNOT do.
Nothing about the paladin as written precludes them from serving in the name of a deity.
Whatever their origin and their mission, paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of evil. Whether sworn before a god’s altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin’s oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion.
I know the lizardfolk shaman prepares spells from the druid spell list, and the druid is sometimes referred to as a tribal shaman. I don't see how either is germane to this discussion. We aren't talking about shamans, which used to be a cleric subtype. We're talking about the druid class and its text.
I'm sorry that informed consent is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. I'm not sure how I can be more clear in my explanation. But you aren't going to convince me or anyone else, so insisting that we're "wrong" is counterproductive. If you feel that strongly about disregarding the text of the book, I suggest you talk it over with your Dungeon Master.
That is, after all, what Jeremy Crawford suggests doing in the SAC. If you're going to invoke him, then you don't get to pick and choose what to cite. It's all or nothing.
. WotC can tell me what i CAN or CANNOT do. I choose what I WILL or WILLNOT do.
Then I guess you're not a Druid. 🤷🏼
You know, because Druids will not wear metal armour.
Point is, you're free to do what you want but don't come in here and try to tell people they're wrong because you disagree with what's written in the book.
That's a choice. My druid absolutely will wear metal armor as long as it's on the proficiency list. JC has even said that it's a flavor choice and not a balance choice.
Saying a character /chooses/ to not do something is beyond WotC's purvue. That's an RP decision. If they don't want me wearing metal armor, remove it from my proficiency list. Until then, I can, and will wear it because them saying my character will choose to not do so, is incorrect.
Once again, the choice is made by the player when they choose to play as a druid.
If you want another example of an "RP decision" being forced onto players, each Sacred Oath a paladin might take has specific tenants. Is that acceptable to you, or is that yet another example of writer overreach?
This is a dumb argument. "Will not" does not imply prohibition. It implies personal choice, and given the way it is framed, it is most definetly a flavor option that can be ignored, as there is no explicit prohibition from metal armor, and it does not say that Druids do not have profiency in metal armor, just that they won't wear it, meaning that they are choosing not to wear it instead of the rules explicitly prohibiting you from wearing them. If what you say is RAI, then they should have made druids not proficient in metal armor RAW. But they absolutely are proficent in metal armor, but they just choose to not wear it, which once again comes down to Player choice, and Roleplay. It isn't a rule that druids have to wear metal armor, and anyone claiming otherwise is just outright wrong and misinterpreting the language of that single statement and the corresponding SAC.
Also, "the choice is made by the player when they choose to play as a druid.", literally all examples of situations like this have almost been completely stripped from 5e already, Tasha's made where Race's no longer have fixed stat increases, so if that is now the design philosophy, then it stands to reason that the same logic can be applied to this single phrase. That it is stating what most druids do, not that you the player are restricted from metal armor. I
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Maybe.
No, it's going to happen. They're not going to double down on the stupidity that they put in just so that druids can have hide armor. If it remains, they will say light armor, and hide armor. The whole "can but won't" thing will definitely be fixed.
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
"Fixed" implies something is broken, and it isn't. We've been over this ad nauseam. When the player chooses to play a druid, they choose to abide by that text. It's called informed consent.
I suspect I'm not the only one peeved by the possibility of a class diluting its identity because of the tantrums of a loud minority.
You're not. It wouldn't upset me, I'd just be disappointed.
Class identity is being eroded more and more as each new edition comes out and newer players complain about things they don't like instead of just not using the things they don't like.
Same here. I have a much bigger issue mechanically with pact of the blade warlocks not getting medium armor/shields. Lore wise I like my druids in natural armor, and as a DM I generally make sure natural options are available at higher levels.
I also don't mind if my caster or others have AC's of 15 or 16.
No they don't. They abide by their list of proficiencies. That includes metal armor for now. It won't moving forward, and that's ok.
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
The players handbook disagrees.
Unless you meant it currently excludes it but won't in the future and simply mistyped, in which case you're most likely correct but things are still subject to change.
I might assume that leather armor is thick leather sewn into a chestplate and shoulder pads. Studded leather is leather is boiled to make it harder, there are more pieces on it, and metal studs are used to hold the thick pieces together.
Also, my druid's reason not to wear metal armor is that she doesn't want to scare the little forest creatures. Since studded doesn't jingle around, she can use it.
That's a choice. My druid absolutely will wear metal armor as long as it's on the proficiency list. JC has even said that it's a flavor choice and not a balance choice.
Saying a character /chooses/ to not do something is beyond WotC's purvue. That's an RP decision. If they don't want me wearing metal armor, remove it from my proficiency list. Until then, I can, and will wear it because them saying my character will choose to not do so, is incorrect.
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
The choice is whether your table follows what is written or house rules it out.
The book is very clear, Druids WILL NOT wear metal armour. There is no choice there, not even an implied one.
Once again, the choice is made by the player when they choose to play as a druid.
If you want another example of an "RP decision" being forced onto players, each Sacred Oath a paladin might take has specific tenants. Is that acceptable to you, or is that yet another example of writer overreach?
Edit: Disregard, I'm a doofus.
You're wrong. The DM has the right to say no and enforce the rule that Druids will not wear metal armour. It is a rule, not a player choice, otherwise it would say "Druids often choose not to wear armour or use shields made of metal" instead of "Druids will not wear armour or use shields made of metal."And yes, the idea that a thematic oath with specific tenants is forced upon players who wish to play Paladins is completely acceptable to me. Just like Clerics being forced to worship a deity.If you don't like it, ask your DM to waive the rule. Or, if they aren't willing to waive the rule, don't play one.Bull hockey!
Nobody is pointing a gun at a player's head and forcing them to roll a druid. Anyone who chooses to play a druid also chooses to accept that limitation imposed on the class. You can't have one without the other. It's right there in black and...whatever color the page actually is in the PH. The player knows what they're getting into. I've been saying that for flippin' forever, and the fact you're just casually blowing past that tells me you haven't actually been reading.
For crying out loud, you even responded to a rhetorical argument which wasn't even posed to you. And then you straight up affirm my own position with your final sentence.
What are you even doing here, guy?
There's clearly been a misunderstanding, guy.
I misquoted you - I thought your post was in response to mine (I wasn't paying attention to what had been quoted) and that it was crzyhawk who had posted it. So when I read the response I had already made an assumption that the meaning of what I was reading was contrary to what I had said in my previous post and completely missed the actual meaning of what you were saying.
That'll teach me to actually look at who posted what and who they were responding to. Total fail on my part, my bad.
It's cool. Mistakes happen, and we're all bound to make them. Heck, I'm surprised I haven't made more recently. I'm currently functioning off...three hours of sleep? Newborns, man.
Once again, you are wrong.
yes, it's writer overreach. What if I want to play a paladin in the old style that's sworn to a god? That option is taken away from me because the writers tried to flavor something that's incumbent on me, the player to do. This is just like a druid being fluffed into a shaman, which would give zero cares about metal armor, yet here we are.
Also, to the other guy...it's not a rule. It's fluff. Jeremy Crawford said as much. It was added for fluff and not for balance. A rule would be "A druid cannot wear metal armor". That's nto what this says. It says a druid WILL not wear metal armor, and that's not for WotC to decide. It is for the player to decide. WotC can tell me what i CAN or CANNOT do. I choose what I WILL or WILLNOT do.
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
Nothing about the paladin as written precludes them from serving in the name of a deity.
I know the lizardfolk shaman prepares spells from the druid spell list, and the druid is sometimes referred to as a tribal shaman. I don't see how either is germane to this discussion. We aren't talking about shamans, which used to be a cleric subtype. We're talking about the druid class and its text.
I'm sorry that informed consent is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. I'm not sure how I can be more clear in my explanation. But you aren't going to convince me or anyone else, so insisting that we're "wrong" is counterproductive. If you feel that strongly about disregarding the text of the book, I suggest you talk it over with your Dungeon Master.
That is, after all, what Jeremy Crawford suggests doing in the SAC. If you're going to invoke him, then you don't get to pick and choose what to cite. It's all or nothing.
Give me consequences, or give me agency!
Then I guess you're not a Druid. 🤷🏼
You know, because Druids will not wear metal armour.
Point is, you're free to do what you want but don't come in here and try to tell people they're wrong because you disagree with what's written in the book.
This is a dumb argument. "Will not" does not imply prohibition. It implies personal choice, and given the way it is framed, it is most definetly a flavor option that can be ignored, as there is no explicit prohibition from metal armor, and it does not say that Druids do not have profiency in metal armor, just that they won't wear it, meaning that they are choosing not to wear it instead of the rules explicitly prohibiting you from wearing them. If what you say is RAI, then they should have made druids not proficient in metal armor RAW. But they absolutely are proficent in metal armor, but they just choose to not wear it, which once again comes down to Player choice, and Roleplay. It isn't a rule that druids have to wear metal armor, and anyone claiming otherwise is just outright wrong and misinterpreting the language of that single statement and the corresponding SAC.
Also, "the choice is made by the player when they choose to play as a druid.", literally all examples of situations like this have almost been completely stripped from 5e already, Tasha's made where Race's no longer have fixed stat increases, so if that is now the design philosophy, then it stands to reason that the same logic can be applied to this single phrase. That it is stating what most druids do, not that you the player are restricted from metal armor. I