Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 387
  1. - Top - End - #211
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Apr 2019

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Fact of it is this, druids don't like metal protection. Strictly against it, probably even if it would save them. However, they still can. That has been the bases of at least to druids I knew. One was considered a weirdo by his brother druids, because he admentally preached that metal was natural, we found it in the ground, and purified it with fire, which was also natural.
    The other guy wasn't a druid in game, he just used the classes levels and abilities and played a wolf who had been polymorphed permanently into a human.

    Final word on this? Its possible to do, if the guy wants it, and has a semi decent reason, I'd go for it. You said yourself you like being lose, this breaks no rules. Its objectively no different than wearing iron wood armor or enchanted natural stuff. He's just different is all, and different characters are best.

    He wouldn't loose his levels in druid by donning plate, that's stupid. But the other druids might think he's a weirdo, he could get mocked, and the religious ones might call him blasphmistic, but it's completely mechanically fine.

    Heck, in plenty of games the druids aren't groups, and are more like singular hippy types each with their own rules to live by.
    I'm some games, that druid metal rule doesn't exist.

    Finally, just look at the ranger. It casts in "much the same way as the druid does" he wears metal armor if he wants. No one cares. That, in my mind, proves that it's a choice. I know people are gonna say that rangers aren't anything like druids or whatever. But they get magic very similarly, and people tend to assume rangers and druids get along. So then, if druids dont freak out over rangers using nature magic and casting with metal armor, I don't think theyd stop a druid. Also, multiclassing into druid doesn't give you their proficiencies right? Well guess what? Thats where the stipulation is. It might mention that it still counts in the PHB, but I'm to lazy to check.
    Last edited by moonfly7; 2019-05-25 at 06:57 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #212
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    And you base that on what? The dev commentary on the matter says it's meant to be the exact opposite.
    The dev commentary completely supports my position. Druid have a taboo regarding metalic armor. They go on to say ... "If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM." Sounds like the strict interpretation is that Druids are not meant to wear metal armor and those wishing to do so should seek DM permission to explain why they should be allowed to do so.

  3. - Top - End - #213
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by darknite View Post
    It's meant to be a restriction applied to Light and Moderate Armor and Shield proficiency for game balance, not an RP flavor thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by darknite View Post
    The dev commentary completely supports my position.
    So lemme get this straight. The devs...

    > Spend multiple paragraphs telling you their intended story and roleplaying reasons for it.
    > Say that you can already wear those armors if you find a non-metal variant (The DMG already has rules for said variants).
    > Say that removing the taboo won't break anything in the game system, but might undermine the story and the world, so ask your DM.

    And from this you conclude that it's just intended for game balance reasons and not a story or flavor thing? Well, okay then

  4. - Top - End - #214
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2017

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post
    None of this is relevant to my point.

    A player can attempt to put on armor. Even his players could, at some point in the future, try this.

    "No, you don't attempt to do that," is not a defensible response from a DM, because it violates arguably the most fundamental principle of the game: each player controls his character and the DM controls everything else. Players decide character intentions.

    In my opinion, house-ruling that druids lose all class abilities when wearing metal armor is less egregious than overriding player intentions.
    Not really. Keep in mind that if a player CHOOSES to role play a druid character then that character WILL NOT wear metal armor. It may be primarily a narrative constraint or role playing constraint or what have you but the bottom line is that druid's do NOT want to and WILL NOT choose to wear metal armor. The rules do not say WHY this is the case. The rules also do not say what the consequences of trying to do so might be .. all the rules say is that a druid will not wear metal armor.

    So, if a player chooses to role play a druid then (for whatever reasons since the dawn of D&D), druids don't wear metal armor and this is an integral part of their druid character. For whatever reason, the rule book doesn't give the druid a choice about this decision. RAW, a player running a druid character CAN NOT decide to try on metal armor because a druid would NOT do that.

    If a particular DM is willing to let a particular player playing a druid character use metal armor then that is a specific adjustment in a specific game. It is a house rule. It is perfectly ok for that game. It just isn't RAW which for a home game is perfectly ok.

  5. - Top - End - #215
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    Then why are so many people against the "Druids will not wear metal armor" thing?
    A lot of people just can't handle the very concept of a hard limitation as part of a roleplaying rule.

  6. - Top - End - #216
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    A lot of people just can't handle the very concept of a hard limitation as part of a roleplaying rule.
    Or the notion that there is a “role-playing rule” that is mechanical impact by restricting possible choices the player can make for his PC strikes us as nonsensical.

    Of course you can enforce the rule as DM. You do so by actually imposing consequences that discourage choosing it. You do not simply say, “ No, your character wouldn’t do that. “

    Not only do the rules not say that, but that’s bad DMing.

    There are ways and good justifications for making the “will not” into something enforced by the setting. From losing powers to painful allergies to any number of other things. Simply saying “your character wouldn’t,” however, is stupid. There is no taboo so universal that all who belong to the order that holds it obey it completely, unless the consequences for breaking it are immediate and literally painfully obvious.

    Enforce it if you want. Be creative and come up with cool ways to do so. But don’t die on the hill of “role playing rules” that make the character not do things he’s physically capable of doing by telling the player “no.”

  7. - Top - End - #217
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Apr 2016

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    A possible reason for not having a direct consequence to a druid donning metal is that the designers didn't want a "gotcha" that would make the druid explode if he were tricked/ mind-controlled/ dressed while unconscious/ etc, into wearing it.

  8. - Top - End - #218
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Or the notion that there is a “role-playing rule” that is mechanical impact by restricting possible choices the player can make for his PC strikes us as nonsensical.

    Of course you can enforce the rule as DM. You do so by actually imposing consequences that discourage choosing it. You do not simply say, “ No, your character wouldn’t do that. “

    Not only do the rules not say that, but that’s bad DMing.

    There are ways and good justifications for making the “will not” into something enforced by the setting. From losing powers to painful allergies to any number of other things. Simply saying “your character wouldn’t,” however, is stupid. There is no taboo so universal that all who belong to the order that holds it obey it completely, unless the consequences for breaking it are immediate and literally painfully obvious.

    Enforce it if you want. Be creative and come up with cool ways to do so. But don’t die on the hill of “role playing rules” that make the character not do things he’s physically capable of doing by telling the player “no.”
    The way I see it (agreeing with this post for the most part) is that for just about every other "roleplay rule" there are consequences for going against such a thing. Paladins who break their tenets risk becoming Oathbreakers (or at a table where the DM doesn't want that class allowed, they might simply lose their powers until they're repentant) and Clerics who don't actively further the will of the god who chose them might lose those god given powers.

    There are established consequences for those few who would do something against what they are "supposed to do because the rules say so". Druids wearing metal armor have no such established consequence.

    Are we really supposed to believe that in the entire existence of Druidic magic (correlating to 5E, where this "rule" has no consequence, as opposed to previous editions) none have ever worn metal armor because... well just because. Nothing would happen if they did, they just don't do it.

    Why has nobody done it? Why has no Druid ever in all the lands and for as far back as history goes worn metal armor.

    Do I really just have to accept that this is a roleplay rule, enforced by nothing but "because they can't"?

    tl;dr - Paladin's won't break their oath because it holds a sacred power and without it they are nothing. Druids won't wear metal armor because they won't wear metal armor. Why?

  9. - Top - End - #219
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot View Post
    tl;dr - Paladin's won't break their oath because it holds a sacred power and without it they are nothing. Druids won't wear metal armor because they won't wear metal armor. Why?
    it's anti-industrial; while leather, hide, even dragon scale are natural products.

    (For people who complain this is a too simplistic view - do realise we're in a game with alignments)

    When you ask
    Why has nobody done it? Why has no Druid ever in all the lands and for as far back as history goes worn metal armor.

    consider, how many hippies have taken up assault rifles? It's got nothing to do with "can't", or "no Druid ever in all the lands and for as far back as history" - but with a philosophy directly contradictory to what it stands for.
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.
    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods
    Math Rule of thumb: 1/X chance : There's about a 2/3 of it happening at least once in X tries
    Actually, "(e-1)/e for a limit to infinitiy", but, it's a good rule of thumb

  10. - Top - End - #220
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    it's anti-industrial; while leather, hide, even dragon scale are natural products.

    (For people who complain this is a too simplistic view - do realise we're in a game with alignments)

    When you ask
    Why has nobody done it? Why has no Druid ever in all the lands and for as far back as history goes worn metal armor.

    consider, how many hippies have taken up assault rifles? It's got nothing to do with "can't", or "no Druid ever in all the lands and for as far back as history" - but with a philosophy directly contradictory to what it stands for.
    I agree, however the argument here is that they are incapable of doing so. Many are arguing that "won't" is equivalent to "can't" and should be read as such.

    "Won't" leaves it open to the possibility that at least one Druid has worn metal armor at some point, for any reason (to see what it was like, to test its effect on their magic, any reason at all here) but "can't" would mean that if you are a Druid, you are utterly incapable of wearing metal armor. No matter what Druid's and metal armor cannot ever be on the same page.

  11. - Top - End - #221
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    ...Enforce it if you want. Be creative and come up with cool ways to do so. But don’t die on the hill of “role playing rules” that make the character not do things he’s physically capable of doing by telling the player “no.”
    If I decided to enforce this rule (and I will point out it is 100% fine in my mind for a DM to ignore it) it wouldn't exactly be hard to have mechanical consequences for roleplaying choices, and not having such in the book isn't exclusive to Druids.

    Forgive me if I'm wrong, but IIRC there's nowhere (at least the Player's Handbook?) that says there are any mechanical consequences for Clerics disregarding their gods or committing sacrilege; but couldn't one reasonably assume that anyone dedicated enough to their god to be bestowed Divine Power would never voluntarily do such a thing without a massive change in character or world-tilting revelation? Also, most gods (and thus most DMs RPing gods) could probably be expected to revoke their blessings or even conjure a Righteous Slap of Smiting.

    Thus, one could pretty easily extrapolate from the Cleric example, and I think some have already done so. A druid that sufficiently displeases the Primeval Forces of Nature by, say, burning and salting old-growth forests, or wearing garments of unnatural metal, would probably start to feel a little disconnected from those forces. Flowers might shy away from their touch, Their conjured wonders wilt away or fail to manifest entirely, animals flee before them where before they would bow.

    I'm not saying that the book handles the issue very well, but it's main problem imo is not properly explaining the fact that it does have an impact on gameplay (the aforementioned AC boost) and thematics to DMs so that they can make an informed decision as to whether they'll enforce it, be it through RP or mechanical consequences. Allowing druids to wear metal armor won't break the game, but that doesn't mean it won't matter at all. It does mean that if you think it makes the game better, with full understanding of its effects on your game, you can and probably should do it.
    Last edited by AdAstra; 2019-05-26 at 01:59 AM.

  12. - Top - End - #222
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot View Post
    "Won't" leaves it open to the possibility that at least one Druid has worn metal armor at some point, for any reason (to see what it was like, to test its effect on their magic, any reason at all here) but "can't" would mean that if you are a Druid, you are utterly incapable of wearing metal armor. No matter what Druid's and metal armor cannot ever be on the same page.
    And I pretty much think you outlined why can't is the right word to use.

    "Won't" leaves it open to the possibility that at least one Druid ...

    ... wanna bet there'll be players arguing they play that druid?

    edit: also that "can't" inherently means that, is obviously wrong. That's only one interpretation of what "can't" means.
    appendum to the edit: consider the phrase: I can't lift that ! . this is a normal, true, statement, but is pestered with all types of assumptions (I don't use external help, I don't spend years building up my strength, etc...). "can't " and " utterly incapable of" aren't the same thing
    Last edited by qube; 2019-05-26 at 02:37 AM.
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.
    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods
    Math Rule of thumb: 1/X chance : There's about a 2/3 of it happening at least once in X tries
    Actually, "(e-1)/e for a limit to infinitiy", but, it's a good rule of thumb

  13. - Top - End - #223
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    It's amusing how many people believe that "can't" instead of "won't" would solve the problem.

    To begin with, people would point out that it is a restriction without narrative justification. Then the argument would proceed to "druids are proficient in armor made of metal. They are a creature with the proper anatomy to wear them. What does it even mean to say that they can't wear it?" Finally, someone would proceed to "fine, my Druid was knocked out and people put metal armor on him. What happens? Do I explode?"


    (All while stating that all this lawyering has nothing to do with the bonus to AC that wearing metal armor gives to the druid)

    "Can" implies physical capability, and it makes absolutely no sense to claim that druids are physically incapable of wearing metal armor they are proficient with. They just won't (yes, all of them, subject to a DM houseruling it away, which does not break the game).
    Last edited by diplomancer; 2019-05-26 at 04:07 AM.

  14. - Top - End - #224
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
    "Can" implies physical capability
    Except, ... no?

    transitive verb
    1 obsolete : know, understand
    2 archaic : to be able to do, make, or accomplish

    intransitive verb
    archaic : to have knowledge or skill


    auxiliary verb

    1a : know how to
    She can read.

    b : be physically or mentally able to
    He can lift 200 pounds.

    c —used to indicate possibility
    Do you think he can still be alive?
    Those things can happen.
    -- Sometimes used interchangeably with may

    d : be permitted by conscience or feeling to
    can hardly blame her

    e : be made possible or probable by circumstances to he
    can hardly have meant that

    f : be inherently able or designed to
    everything that money can buy

    g : be logically or axiologically able to
    2 + 2 can also be written 3 + 1.

    h : be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to
    Congress can declare war.

    2 : have permission to —used interchangeably with may
    You can go now if you like.

    ~~ Merriam-webster.com

    "you can't blame someone for something', that doesn't imply I say you got a brain tumor.
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.
    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods
    Math Rule of thumb: 1/X chance : There's about a 2/3 of it happening at least once in X tries
    Actually, "(e-1)/e for a limit to infinitiy", but, it's a good rule of thumb

  15. - Top - End - #225
    Troll in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Naanomi View Post
    The old ‘Druid of Meilikki’ mapped very closely conceptually to Ancients Paladins; a custom background that taught you the Druid secret language or something and you’d be golden
    Sounds like a job for a Hermit.

  16. - Top - End - #226
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Still, somewhere underlying all of this is the fundamental principle that the player controls/decides the character’s will.

    A large part of the satisfaction of role playing a character hinges on the ability of the character to undergo change. In this context, it is precisely the sort of change that forces a character to start to do those things, that he previously would not, which provide the most satisfaction.

    Ignoring the specifics of the particular Druid-armour restriction, it is generally and fundamentally counterproductive to strip the game of this potential. Characters in fiction are defined by their ability to change. Ebenezer Scrooge would not (could not?) acknowledge the spirit of Christmas - until he did. Disney’s Moanna longed to defy her father and answer the call of the sea but she would not. The discovery that her ancestors were sea explorers, and that it was her fathers decree that stopped them, caused her to change.

    Back to D&D: Players can make vegetarians or pacifists if they so choose. If these players are put in situations where the motivation/temptation/necessity to eat meat or inflict violence (respectively) is strong, it can only be interesting if the possibility to change actually exists. If the rules/DM simply force the player’s hand, then there is nothing interesting going on. Note that even if the character does not change - this tells us something interesting about the character because he could have changed - again, if he couldn’t, then it’s not telling us anything because the character is flat is this respect anyway. This is an incredible waste of the narrative potential of the medium.

    Obviously real mechanical consequences enhance this, because the character’s narrative sacrifice is paralleled by the player’s sacrifice of hard-earned power in a game. (The fallen Paladin trope appeals to many players, and made for a cool story in the case of Lancelot du Lac.)

    Those arguing the other side by using the claim that we are just seeking a mechanical AC advantage would do well to note that we have repeatedly claimed that we would accept and prefer a more severe mechanical consequence, such as no spells for 24 hours or no wild shaping while in metal armour.

    The problem is, and remains, that the precedent of arbitrary narrative straight-jackets are antithetical to role-playing, however infrequent they may be. They should not be tolerated.

  17. - Top - End - #227
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Or the notion that there is a “role-playing rule” that is mechanical impact by restricting possible choices the player can make for his PC strikes us as nonsensical.
    It's not nonsensical. Almost every RPG has roleplaying rules without associated mechanical effects, that tell the player how to make decisions for various aspects of their character (aka roleplaying), from hard limitations to basic guidelines. What's perfectly valid to debate where the line should be drawn between acceptable and not acceptable to individual tables, and even what you enjoy in a designed RPG. What's nonsensical is drawing that line at "no rules that affect decision making unless it is through mechanical effects", then insisting the line is a universal truth in the face of evidence it is not true, and clearly stated preferences by others that drawing the line elsewhere is acceptable to them.

    Of course you can enforce the rule as DM. You do so by actually imposing consequences that discourage choosing it. You do not simply say, “ No, your character wouldn’t do that. “

    Not only do the rules not say that, but that’s bad DMing.
    I've never said the DM must enforce roleplaying rules. Roleplaying rules are typically there for the players, not the DM. If they choose to flagrantly violate roleplaying rules with no built in mechanical effect or "enforcement" mechanism, that's up to the other players and DM to decide how to handle it, just as any other flagrantly violated rule. But generally speaking my assumption is players will self-enforce abiding by the rules.

  18. - Top - End - #228
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by BurgerBeast View Post
    The problem is, and remains, that the precedent of arbitrary narrative straight-jackets are antithetical to role-playing, however infrequent they may be. They should not be tolerated.
    Sorry, but I disagree.
    Solving something that isn't a problem solves nothing.

    You can't put a hypothetical senario that already will cause problems* for the wizard, the monk and the rogue (as there are no light metal armors**), ... and then turn around and argue that and try to argue that the lack of specification of what happens to the druid if he does it - creates some sort of "waste of the narrative potential". I'm not seeing anything narrative potential wise, only DM-tries-to-be-a-****.


    *: or ... do they have to don armor and then not fight? this thing gets more hypothetical by the minute.

    ** I hear you ask "what about mythril?" mythril doesn't make the armor light, and even if it did, the druid can still wear dragonscale. But for some "odd" reason, mythirl would be fine but dragonscale wouldn't?
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.
    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods
    Math Rule of thumb: 1/X chance : There's about a 2/3 of it happening at least once in X tries
    Actually, "(e-1)/e for a limit to infinitiy", but, it's a good rule of thumb

  19. - Top - End - #229
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    It's not nonsensical. Almost every RPG has roleplaying rules without associated mechanical effects, that tell the player how to make decisions for various aspects of their character (aka roleplaying), from hard limitations to basic guidelines. What's perfectly valid to debate where the line should be drawn between acceptable and not acceptable to individual tables, and even what you enjoy in a designed RPG. What's nonsensical is drawing that line at "no rules that affect decision making unless it is through mechanical effects", then insisting the line is a universal truth in the face of evidence it is not true, and clearly stated preferences by others that drawing the line elsewhere is acceptable to them.

    I've never said the DM must enforce roleplaying rules. Roleplaying rules are typically there for the players, not the DM. If they choose to flagrantly violate roleplaying rules with no built in mechanical effect or "enforcement" mechanism, that's up to the other players and DM to decide how to handle it, just as any other flagrantly violated rule. But generally speaking my assumption is players will self-enforce abiding by the rules.
    Violating a rule is cheating. Cheating is prevented by other players and/or the DM saying “you can’t do that.” This is why “role playing rules” of the sort you outing are nonsensical: there is no actual rule explaining that Druid characters can’t do it. It says druids “will not” do it. It doesn’t even say this overrides the rules regarding making choices in character, which permit plasters to state what their characters do.

    There is no point in the system that says it’s cheating for a cleric’s player to decide his character engages in sacrilege. There is no point in the rules trust says it is cheating for the paladin’s player to declare his Paladin flagrantly violates his Oath. There is no point in the rules that says it is heating for a single-class wizard’s player to declare that his wizard dons Adamantine full plate.

    There are consequences for doing so. But if it were cheating for those “role playing rules” to be violated, the DM would be saying, “no, you don’t,” when the player declares the action. “You’re character would not do that.”

    Claiming the no metal armor thing for Druids is a role playing rule that can be violated without being considered cheating but that the players have to figure out how to handle it is acknowledging that it’s not a rule, and house ruling consequences in. Claiming it is cheating makes it the most unique rule in the game unless it is considered a compulsion on par with the Charmed condition. Despite he text never referring to it as such.

    This is why the claim is nonsensical. It requires either backing down from it immediately to acknowledge that the GM needs to rule in consequences for breaking it, or it makes that one little sentence into the strangest and most restrictive class mechanic in the game with no attention whatsoever called out to its highly exceptional nature.

  20. - Top - End - #230
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Violating a rule is cheating. Cheating is prevented by other players and/or the DM saying “you can’t do that.” This is why “role playing rules” of the sort you outing are nonsensical
    I shall take that into account the next time the DM fudges the dice.

    (only to note how your black-and-white view on rules make no sense in the context of D&D)
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.
    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods
    Math Rule of thumb: 1/X chance : There's about a 2/3 of it happening at least once in X tries
    Actually, "(e-1)/e for a limit to infinitiy", but, it's a good rule of thumb

  21. - Top - End - #231
    Troll in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    I shall take that into account the next time the DM fudges the dice.
    I actually unironically support that, and stand firmly against any fudging on either side of the (proverbial or literal) DM screen. Cheating is cheating, if the GM ignores the result of the die roll, why is he rolling in the first place?

  22. - Top - End - #232
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2017

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Full disclosure: I'm in the camp that believes won't means they won't, no argument around it.

    But my question is... Is there any other class in D&D that has a similar prohibition? I know almost any other class can do other things not granted by their class through multi-class or feats. But is there anywhere else that says they can't do something and there's not an alternative way to get it?

  23. - Top - End - #233
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    I actually unironically support that, and stand firmly against any fudging on either side of the (proverbial or literal) DM screen. Cheating is cheating, if the GM ignores the result of the die roll, why is he rolling in the first place?
    Perhaps realising too late that the damage he rolled was waaay to much for a player to handle.
    Perhaps the DM considered some description very well and thus decided, that despite the player's attack comming up one too low, it would be better narritivly for it to be a hit?
    Perhaps you feel the first-timer at the table shouldn't get 3 consecutive crits and accidently go from full health to death in one round during his very first D&D combat?
    Perhaps (shocking realisation ... maybe DMs aren't perfect beings???) the DM accidently used a monster that was way to strong for the party?

    You're up for a though sell to argue RAW beats narration/story flow/... That Cheating is Cheating. that

    Violating a rule is cheating. Cheating is prevented by other players and/or the DM saying “you can’t do that.”

    "you can’t do that.?"
    • the DM very much can do that.
    • And even if we're being syntactic about the meaning of can - is allowed to do that.
    • And, while I'm to laisy to look it up in the DMG, probbably is encouraged to do so (if the situation calls for it).


    In D&D, it's simply not true that "Cheating is cheating". Only in theorycrafting.
    Last edited by qube; 2019-05-26 at 12:15 PM.
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.
    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods
    Math Rule of thumb: 1/X chance : There's about a 2/3 of it happening at least once in X tries
    Actually, "(e-1)/e for a limit to infinitiy", but, it's a good rule of thumb

  24. - Top - End - #234

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    I said it before, but more specifically: from a purely gamist concern, most Druids can get by with light armor, but what about Spore Druids?

    They need to be in the melee for their subclass features to work, but that also means they end up super MAD, with Dexterity and Constitution competing for their secondary stats. And they also pretty much need War Caster so they don't have to play the "juggle your shield, weapon, and focus" game, so that's one less ASI to shore up their stats with. Medium armor would make them less tissue paper in close combat, and also means they can settle for leaving their Dex at 14 and focus on pumping Con.
    Last edited by Constructman; 2019-05-26 at 12:19 PM.

  25. - Top - End - #235
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2017

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    Perhaps realising too late that the damage he rolled was waaay to much for a player to handle.
    Perhaps the DM considered some description very well and thus decided, that despite the player's attack comming up one too low, it would be better narritivly for it to be a hit?
    Perhaps you feel the first-timer at the table shouldn't get 3 consecutive crits and accidently go from full health to death in one round during his very first D&D combat?
    Perhaps (shocking realisation ... maybe DMs aren't perfect beings???) the DM accidently used a monster that was way to strong for the party?

    You're up for a though sell to argue RAW beats narration/story flow/... That Cheating is Cheating. that

    Violating a rule is cheating. Cheating is prevented by other players and/or the DM saying “you can’t do that.”

    "you can’t do that.?"
    • the DM very much can do that.
    • And even if we're being syntactic about the meaning of can - is allowed to do that.
    • And, while I'm to laisy to look it up in the DMG, probbably is encouraged to do so (if the situation calls for it).


    In D&D, it's simply not true that "Cheating is cheating". Only in theorycrafting.
    I disagree with all of those, completely and totally. What the die rolls is what it is. One DM I play for doesn't even use a screen and makes all of his rolls where we can see them. And I respect and appreciate that.

  26. - Top - End - #236
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Apr 2019

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    Except, ... no?

    transitive verb
    1 obsolete : know, understand
    2 archaic : to be able to do, make, or accomplish

    intransitive verb
    archaic : to have knowledge or skill


    auxiliary verb

    1a : know how to
    She can read.

    b : be physically or mentally able to
    He can lift 200 pounds.

    c —used to indicate possibility
    Do you think he can still be alive?
    Those things can happen.
    -- Sometimes used interchangeably with may

    d : be permitted by conscience or feeling to
    can hardly blame her

    e : be made possible or probable by circumstances to he
    can hardly have meant that

    f : be inherently able or designed to
    everything that money can buy

    g : be logically or axiologically able to
    2 + 2 can also be written 3 + 1.

    h : be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to
    Congress can declare war.

    2 : have permission to —used interchangeably with may
    You can go now if you like.

    ~~ Merriam-webster.com

    "you can't blame someone for something', that doesn't imply I say you got a brain tumor.
    When people start to pull out dictionaries to argue about a games exact wording, you know that we all need to take a step back and look at ourselves. I'm not saying this to anyone in particular but to everyone, this is kinda ridiculous.
    First off, dnd is a game big on character choice. Its important to consider the players first, and why they want to do something. I've seen chaotic evil devotion paladins of gods whose portfolios centered on peace and life. Let me tell you something, it worked.

    I'm not saying anyone here is right Or wrong, everyone has made amazing points. But here's the thing, this has devolved into the "hard or fast" rules argument. And I just want to say, not everything thrown around has been too civil.

    So heres what I think needs to be said to the guy who asked the question to begin with:

    Talk to the player. If he's got an idea for why his druid sorcerer should where metal, go ahead and let him. Remember, every rule in dnd is more of a suggestion than a rule. The wizards have us the game system, but tweeking it to for your table is part of the fun, and part of the dms job. You said you normally believe in fun first and all that, stick with that, that's the sign of a good dm. Following all rules like they're poured from concrete will make the game feel static and artificial, your players will start to have less fun. I've seen it happen. The title of this chat is hard by the book ruling, that's not actually what you need.

    Sit down with the party. Ask everyone else if they don't mind. If they dont, let him. Its all about fun. The moment you get hung up on wordings or opinions or nitty gritty picky issues that everyone has a thousand opinions on, issues where no one can give you the right answer because there isn't one, that's when the game stops being fun.

    Just talk to your players. Remember that this may be your world, but they live in it and it's their story, and try your best to make sure they are having fun, and you will too. Only your and their opinions matter here, good communication solves your issue right there, just ask them.
    Last edited by moonfly7; 2019-05-26 at 12:50 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #237
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    Sorry, but I disagree.
    Solving something that isn't a problem solves nothing.
    It’s an infrequent problem. Infrequent in the sense that it comes up under one condition: Druids wearing metal armor. So it is a problem. Hence this thread.

    You can't put a hypothetical senario that already will cause problems* for the wizard, the monk and the rogue (as there are no light metal armors**), ... and then turn around and argue that and try to argue that the lack of specification of what happens to the druid if he does it - creates some sort of "waste of the narrative potential". I'm not seeing anything narrative potential wise, only DM-tries-to-be-a-****.


    *: or ... do they have to don armor and then not fight? this thing gets more hypothetical by the minute.

    ** I hear you ask "what about mythril?" mythril doesn't make the armor light, and even if it did, the druid can still wear dragonscale. But for some "odd" reason, mythirl would be fine but dragonscale wouldn't?
    I really don’t know what you’re on about, here. You seem to misunderstand my point, entirely. It might also be the case that you think I’m arguing the opposite of what I’m arguing, based on your footnotes

  28. - Top - End - #238
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    I shall take that into account the next time the DM fudges the dice.

    (only to note how your black-and-white view on rules make no sense in the context of D&D)
    How so? I don't see anything in your post to back up your assertion. Breaking the rules is cheating.

    ARe you trying to claim that the DM fudging dice proves that this makes no sense in D&D? I find that unpersuasive. DMs have near absolute power over the game world and what is permitted. Their limit in power is primarily over the specific choices of PCs, dictated by players. They can and should say, "You try, but it doesn't work," to things that the PC literally can't do (e.g. a level 1 fighter declaring he grows to gargantuan size and teleports on top of a dragon to crush it beneath his foot, none of which are things the fighter has mechanics to support him doing). It does not extend to things the PC absolutely has the capacity to do.

    • "No, your rogue doesn't try to escape; the boss has her by the upper arm, and she just wouldn't try to escape so awesome a bad guy."
    • "Your rogue tries to pick the bartender's pocket." "What? No she doesn't!" "Yes, she does; she's a rogue, and rogues rob people."
    • "Your paladin does not refuse to turn over the innocent orphans to the lawfully-appointed orphan torturer and executioner. He would never break the law." "WHat? Yes he would, even if he would fall for it!" "Nope, he wouldn't."


    This is the level to which, "Your druid won't put on that armor; it's made of metal," sinks. It's not refusing an impossibility. It's interfering with player-character volition.
    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    You're up for a though sell to argue RAW beats narration/story flow/... That Cheating is Cheating. that

    Violating a rule is cheating. Cheating is prevented by other players and/or the DM saying “you can’t do that.”

    "you can’t do that.?"
    • the DM very much can do that.
    • And even if we're being syntactic about the meaning of can - is allowed to do that.
    • And, while I'm to laisy to look it up in the DMG, probbably is encouraged to do so (if the situation calls for it).


    In D&D, it's simply not true that "Cheating is cheating". Only in theorycrafting.
    It is true that cheating is cheating in D&D, at the table. A player who consistently claims to roll natural 20s and maximum damage while either hiding his dice or blatantly lying about their results is, in fact, cheating, and the other players aren't likely to let him get away with it.

    DMs do have leeway in this, as they're the referee, and their job is more to ensure fun than strict adherence to the rules. So they can PERMIT some cheating, especially with the other players' agreement. Fudging rolls is often a way they do this surreptitiously, and whether this is kosher or not depends strongly on the table's social contract and is another dozen threads' worth of discussion, not on topic for here.

    If it is an actual rule that druid players may not ever declare their druid to wear metal armor, then it is cheating if they do so, and it's "okay" for the DM to say, "No, you don't." Which makes this a unique situation where the DM dictating PC action - absent mechanical compulsions from spells or the like - is "okay." Which raises the question: why not just have DMs refuse to allow Paladins to take actions that would make them fall? Or dictate that the party makes the choices required to keep the plot on the rails?

  29. - Top - End - #239
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    If it is an actual rule that druid players may not ever declare their druid to wear metal armor, then it is cheating if they do so, and it's "okay" for the DM to say, "No, you don't." Which makes this a unique situation where the DM dictating PC action - absent mechanical compulsions from spells or the like - is "okay." Which raises the question: why not just have DMs refuse to allow Paladins to take actions that would make them fall? Or dictate that the party makes the choices required to keep the plot on the rails?
    That's kind of why I'm on the boat of "roleplay rules are suggestions." Very deliberate and important suggestions, but suggestions nonetheless.

    If we take even the most straighforward "roleplay rule" as true beyond a shadow of a doubt, Devotion Paladins can cross out Intimidation and Deception from their character sheet. Being dishonest, lying and threatening the weak (no reason that wouldn't extend to those weaker than you) are strictly against their tenets.

    Can an Oath of Crown Paladin break the law? "The Law is Paramount and it must be respected" is pretty straighforward to me. Your Oath of Crown Paladin wouldn't do that because breaking the law would mean he wasn't this type of Paladin to begin with.

    And then Oath of Ancients Paladin "Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art." You wouldn't be a proper Ancients Paladin if you didn't enjoy Songs and Art.

    That's why I just don't buy the argument "Druid's won't wear metal armor because they won't, if you do you aren't a Druid."

  30. - Top - End - #240
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Need super strict ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    How so? I don't see anything in your post to back up your assertion. Breaking the rules is cheating.
    fudging the dice is quite litterly violating the rules. if you roll a 5 on your d20, you're not supposed to take 15. This invalidates your basic premise of

    Violating a rule is cheating. Cheating is prevented by other players and/or the DM saying “you can’t do that.”

    DMS can, are allowed to, and possible, are encouraged to do so in certain situations.

    In DnD, there are the rules. And then, there's the DM who decides when & where & if those rules apply. This is not cheating. This is by deisgn.

    That is why it is not nonsensical to acknowledge that not all rules are equal.

    ------------
    Oh, and both saying "cheating is cheating" and "they can PERMIT some cheating, ", is extremely confusing, because if it's permitted, then cheating is not cheating anymore.

    ==================
    And BTW, how all of this is differnt from a DM who doesn't allow evil at his table, having to say "no, you don't stab the helpless orphans", is beyond me.
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.
    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods
    Math Rule of thumb: 1/X chance : There's about a 2/3 of it happening at least once in X tries
    Actually, "(e-1)/e for a limit to infinitiy", but, it's a good rule of thumb

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •